Originally posted by no1marauder
http://www.timeforchess.com/tournament/view.php?tid=2705

I realize this idea would ruin the unethical strategy that you have used in the past. Tough titty.

You have not made a move in 47 days! You have not re-subscribed, but yet you feel that you must change the rules for the rest of us who are subs & playing? You would punish the ones who tie by actually working hard to advance, because of a few who may have pre-plan their draws, and that would be hard to prove, unless there are only a few moves made of course.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
You have not made a move in 47 days! You have not re-subscribed, but yet you feel that you must change the rules for the rest of us who are subs & playing? You would punish the ones who tie by actually working hard to advance, because of a few who may have pre-plan their draws, and that would be hard to prove, unless there are only a few moves made of course.

Some people never learn .................................

Please read the last few pages of the 2009 Championship thread in Tournaments. There is an instance of players doing exactly what I have said; agreeing to two draws in 6 moves. One of the players involved admitted to doing so as a "tournament strategy". Another poster admitted to doing the same thing and even posted games where he did so.

Players are being punished already by such disgraceful and unethical behavior. If you have a better suggestion than the one offered to end this practice, please share.

EDIT: Future posts containing the fallacious "argument" that "you aren't a subscriber so blah blah blah" will be ignored. There is no requirement that only people who are presently subscribers can post in Site Ideas.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I also strongly dislike pre-arranged draws; however, this proposal, if adopted, would unjustly punish players who fight hard in every game, and yet end up tied for first in a tourney section.

What proposal do you have to stop this unethical practice?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What proposal do you have to stop this unethical practice?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Originally posted by jb70
If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Game 5827102 and Game 5827062 show that it is broke.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What proposal do you have to stop this unethical practice?

I'm not sure there is a good way to stop it.

I have heard of some tournaments not allowing draw offers until move 30 or 40. However, this doesn't do anything to stop draws by stalemate or repetition of position. Still, this is the only type of proposal I would support - it is imperative that players who fight hard not be punished just because they happen to split a set of two games, or end up in a drawn position or two.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Game 5827102 and Game 5827062 show that it is broke.

Game 5827102
Game 5827062

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm not sure there is a good way to stop it.

I have heard of some tournaments not allowing draw offers until move 30 or 40. However, this doesn't do anything to stop draws by stalemate or repetition of position. Still, this is the only type of proposal I would support - it is imperative that players who fight hard not be punished just because they happen to split a set of two games, or end up in a drawn position or two.

I previously stated this:

Why should players who can't outright win their section be treated equally as those who have? In most competitions, ties are NOT rewarded equally as wins.

It seems to me the players you are talking about are being unfairly rewarded now. Changing the system isn't "punishing" them; it's putting the system where it should be while at the same time protecting players from the type of unfair chicanery some people are engaging in as a "good tournament strategy".

Originally posted by no1marauder
What proposal do you have to stop this unethical practice?

How about this rule?

In the case of draws or ties in any round, the player with the lower rating (in last 100 days) will advance.

People deciding to draw or tie to both advance is a problem that often can't be proven (unless they say as much in the forums). This would be a way to make players try harder, and the underdog only would advance.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
How about this rule?

In the case of draws or ties in any round, the player with the lower rating (in last 100 days) will advance.

People deciding to draw or tie to both advance is a problem that often can't be proven (unless they say as much in the forums). This would be a way to make players try harder, and the underdog only would advance.

P-

That is a perfectly reasonable rule that I would totally support.

Originally posted by no1marauder
http://www.timeforchess.com/tournament/view.php?tid=2705

I realize this idea would ruin the unethical strategy that you have used in the past. Tough titty.

Do I care?

If I have so many games I want to cut down my game load I don't mind not going through to the next round in a few tournaments.

Perhaps we should have a withdraw from tournament option that allows exactly this and then we could allow the 2nd placed player to go through.

😀

Originally posted by Phlabibit
How about this rule?

In the case of draws or ties in any round, the player with the lower rating (in last 100 days) will advance.

People deciding to draw or tie to both advance is a problem that often can't be proven (unless they say as much in the forums). This would be a way to make players try harder, and the underdog only would advance.

P-

I'd prefer a random determination since otherwise the lower rated player (even if he was only a few points lower rated) would have, in effect, draw odds.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'd prefer a random determination since otherwise the lower rated player (even if he was only a few points lower rated) would have, in effect, draw odds.

The higher rated player always has an advantage, as minute as it might be in the instance of closely rated players.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
The higher rated player always has an advantage, as minute as it might be in the instance of closely rated players.

P-

Giving the lower player draw odds skews it too much in his favor, IMO.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I previously stated this:

Why should players who can't outright win their section be treated equally as those who have? In most competitions, ties are NOT rewarded equally as wins.

It seems to me the players you are talking about are being unfairly rewarded now. Changing the system isn't "punishing" them; it's putting the s ...[text shortened]... the type of unfair chicanery some people are engaging in as a "good tournament strategy".

Why should players who can't outright win their section be treated equally as those who have? In most competitions, ties are NOT rewarded equally as wins.

The tournament groups are chosen randomly here - so one group could have 1500s, 1400s etc. and the next could have two 2200 players. Now, let's say the two 2200s crush all other opposition, yet, in the two head-to-head games, both win with White.

Under your proposal, one or both of them would get knocked out of the tournament, even though they have not made any draws at all, and only lost once. Meanwhile, some 1500 is advancing in the first group after winning outright against a much less impressive field.