Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Tournaments Forum

Tournaments Forum

  1. Standard member dsmfire
    happy
    13 Dec '07 19:16
    In, f.inst. Tour de France, if the winner is later disqualified for any kind of cheating, the runner up; i.e. no.2 is later claimed as winner.
    In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.In the tournament overwiew page, User 363314 is still named as winner, but at Tournament 2290 he stays with zero points.
    Isn't it fair that the player/s with most points is declared as winner/s in a tournament where the (first) "winner" later is disqualified, and that the disqualifies player loses the win?
  2. Standard member rhb
    Ginger Scum
    13 Dec '07 21:30
    Originally posted by dsmfire
    In, f.inst. Tour de France, if the winner is later disqualified for any kind of cheating, the runner up; i.e. no.2 is later claimed as winner.
    In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.In the tournament overwiew page, User 363314 is still named as winner, but at Tournament 2290 he stay ...[text shortened]... e the (first) "winner" later is disqualified, and that the disqualifies player loses the win?
    You're right, but it's not that important in the scheme of things.

    As for Le Tour, I think Floyd has one final appeal, but yes Oscar is the official winner (although he didn't get to celebrate in Paris, which is what it's all about).
  3. 14 Dec '07 15:49
    Originally posted by dsmfire
    In, f.inst. Tour de France, if the winner is later disqualified for any kind of cheating, the runner up; i.e. no.2 is later claimed as winner.
    In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.In the tournament overwiew page, User 363314 is still named as winner, but at Tournament 2290 he stay ...[text shortened]... e the (first) "winner" later is disqualified, and that the disqualifies player loses the win?
    The tournament in question has joint 2nd places, so that means they would need to re-open the tournament and play additional games.

    However one of the players tied in 2nd place has not moved on the site for 41 days. Reopening would mean that if they didn't come back the games would timeout. The other player then gets a "cheap" win.

    What would happen if at a later someone else got banned and as a result a third player now managed to become equal on points?

    Do you re-open tourney again?

    There are probably too many whatifs to do this.
  4. 14 Dec '07 21:08
    Originally posted by adramforall
    The tournament in question has joint 2nd places, so that means they would need to re-open the tournament and play additional games.

    However one of the players tied in 2nd place has not moved on the site for 41 days. Reopening would mean that if they didn't come back the games would timeout. The other player then gets a "cheap" win.

    What would ha ...[text shortened]... points?

    Do you re-open tourney again?

    There are probably too many whatifs to do this.
    I agree. Too many what if's. When this question came up before someone pointed out that players losing to the banned player in earlier rounds would have to be considered also.

    I had one situation where I lost to a player who was banned but someone else in my group who played slower still had their game in progress at the time the player was banned. They got the 3 points on move timeout and I had to keep my loss. That was disappointing.

    It stinks to be in a tournament involving a banned player but I don't think there is a way to go back and make changes that would be fair to everyone.
  5. Standard member dsmfire
    happy
    14 Dec '07 21:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by adramforall
    The tournament in question has joint 2nd places, so that means they would need to re-open the tournament and play additional games.

    However one of the players tied in 2nd place has not moved on the site for 41 days. Reopening would mean that if they didn't come back the games would timeout. The other player then gets a "cheap" win.

    What would ha ...[text shortened]... points?

    Do you re-open tourney again?

    There are probably too many whatifs to do this.
    No, I do not agree. The players in 2. place have their points. It is not a question about individual games. The points are already settled, the games are over and are not in question.

    And if one of the fair players get a "cheap" win, as you call it, due to an opponent not moving, that is to me a fair win, within timelimits. Happens often, also in finals. It is anyhow far much better than a cheater-win. To me, the best player, with no cheating, is the proper winner. I dont see the many what-ifs: Reopen the tournament in question, with the timelimits, and get a fair winner.
  6. 15 Dec '07 08:14
    Originally posted by dsmfire
    In, f.inst. Tour de France, if the winner is later disqualified for any kind of cheating, the runner up; i.e. no.2 is later claimed as winner.
    In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.In the tournament overwiew page, User 363314 is still named as winner, but at Tournament 2290 he stay ...[text shortened]... e the (first) "winner" later is disqualified, and that the disqualifies player loses the win?
    In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.

    I'm curious. How would anyone know if he consulted with anyone else or not??? I mean I think most chessplayers are honest and would not intentionally cheat, so, how is it known he violated this rule???
  7. Subscriber Ponderableonline
    chemist
    15 Dec '07 10:52
    Originally posted by Gary Thomas
    In this tournament Tournament 2290, player User 363314 won, but was later banned from site, due to 3b.

    I'm curious. How would anyone know if he consulted with anyone else or not??? I mean I think most chessplayers are honest and would not intentionally cheat, so, how is it known he violated this rule???
    There are several threads around in which the discussion on 3b has been considered from all angles:

    * It's not only consulting, but also using of chess machines.

    The use you refer to has a very interesting graph which made him suspicious. He lost against 1200's and then suddenly he rises up to 2200 in month. Not very probable.

    A lot of players would ban him on that alone, but the committee which is responsible foir banning is looking at each case and only bans after a verdict "without the shadow of a doubt".
    Thus computer users can play long and win trounaments but it is comparatively sure that no one is banned without reason.
  8. 15 Dec '07 14:17
    Gee, I guess I'm glad I lose all the time then๐Ÿ™‚ Thank you for the considerate answer.
  9. 15 Dec '07 19:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by dsmfire
    No, I do not agree. The players in 2. place have their points. It is not a question about individual games. The points are already settled, the games are over and are not in question.

    And if one of the fair players get a "cheap" win, as you call it, due to an opponent not moving, that is to me a fair win, within timelimits. Happens often, also in finals ...[text shortened]... many what-ifs: Reopen the tournament in question, with the timelimits, and get a fair winner.
    The question is how far back do you then go?

    Tournament 294 from September 2004, was won by a now banned player.

    I can imagine the hassle this would be for admins bearing in mind the number of completed tournments won by users now banned such as

    User 68295

    User 72293

    User 85257
  10. Standard member dsmfire
    happy
    17 Dec '07 17:41
    I agree with that. And that is a good point, and it probably settles this thread. It is to many cheaters to make it worth for the admins, unless it is made a script for that. And that is possible.
    However; I think my idea is fair, and therefore; good.๐Ÿ™‚