20 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by John of ReadingAt least this has some relation to chess skill, as opposed to a coin flip.
So middle-game attacking skills are worth more than endgame skills? Not keen!
Without playing any extra games, picking a tiebreak system is a matter of choosing the lesser evil.
20 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitEncouraging the dragging out of tourneys is a much greater evil than breaking a tie break by random means. Due to rule changes on RHP, they now drag out interminably. An average 3/7 which used to finish in approximately 9 months when I first started playing here is now virtually certain to take about 2 years.
This still encourages some game dragging...people will play out their lost games until the 'capped' move number, then resign.
However, it would also motivate players to look for forced mates and not just be content to ride their material advantage into an endgame.
It's better than a random determination.
I see no merit in rewarding certain styles over others.
Flip the coin! Since you didn't win your section, you don't have any particularly strong moral claim to advance. A random choice between two (or more) equally undeserving players seems fair to me.
20 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderFlip a coin?
Encouraging the dragging out of tourneys is a much greater evil than breaking a tie break by random means. Due to rule changes on RHP, they now drag out interminably. An average 3/7 which used to finish in approximately 9 months when I first started playing here is now virtually certain to take about 2 years.
I see no merit in rewardin ...[text shortened]... o advance. A random choice between two (or more) equally undeserving players seems fair to me.
This is a wind up.
When does the coin get flipped and who flips the coin.
Are witness's allowed to see the flipping on the coin.
What happens if both players asked for heads?
They flip a coin to see who gets heads or tails?
Why bother playing the tournament at all - flip a coin for every game?
You are not scraping the bottom of the barrel for a solution,
you have moved the barrel aside and are digging underneath it.
Play Off(s): No time bank, game last's 24 hours (literally)
White's clock starts ticking 7 days after last game ends.
If this game is drawn Black player goes through.
(else the wise guys will keep drawing with each other).
It's a naff solution (Black has draw odds) but it's better than a
random method.
(I do know you do not mean we actually flip a coin. Just having a piece
of fun with the thought ot it).
20 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I want to enter a competition where results are determined randomly, I'll go in for Risk or Monopoly, not Chess.
Encouraging the dragging out of tourneys is a much greater evil than breaking a tie break by random means. Due to rule changes on RHP, they now drag out interminably. An average 3/7 which used to finish in approximately 9 months when I first started playing here is now virtually certain to take about 2 years.
I see no merit in rewardin ...[text shortened]... o advance. A random choice between two (or more) equally undeserving players seems fair to me.
So, if two players both go 15-1 in a group, they are "undeserving" and "have [no] particularly strong moral claim to advance"? How bizarre - as if racking up 15 wins and crushing the rest of the field counts for nothing!
Frankly, I'd rather let them both go through than throw one out at random. As Larry Evans often says, "Will we destroy chess to save it?"
21 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by zakkwylderOh, you mean this post, the one I didn't respond to?
Try reading a post before responding to it. Turd.
I suggest that the amount of points attainable from draws be limited.I oppose this on grounds that a draw should never be scored the same as a loss.
1 point limit from draws in groups of 4.
2 point limit from draws in groups of 8
3 point limit from draws in groups of 16.
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitMy point stands and you haven't refuted it by acting morally outraged.
If I want to enter a competition where results are determined randomly, I'll go in for Risk or Monopoly, not Chess.
So, if two players both go 15-1 in a group, they are "undeserving" and "have [no] particularly strong moral claim to advance"? How bizarre - as if racking up 15 wins and crushing the rest of the field counts for nothing!
Frankly, I'd ...[text shortened]... throw one out at random. As Larry Evans often says, "Will we destroy chess to save it?"
Randomness already plays a large factor in tournaments here as it decides who is in the sections. Maybe you should play Monopoly or Risk if this bothers you soooooooooooooooo much.
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderYour 'point' was essentially that some of the chess-related tiebreakers proposed lead to players winning groups without fully meriting it, so instead, we should adopt a system that guarantees that the winner does not merit his victory. Yeah, go ahead, let that stand; see how much traction it gets.
My point stands and you haven't refuted it by acting morally outraged.
Randomness already plays a large factor in tournaments here as it decides who is in the sections. Maybe you should play Monopoly or Risk if this bothers you soooooooooooooooo much.
And no amount of randomness is going to knock that 2200 player out of the tournament; he still has to be beaten at some point...well, that is, unless we adopt your proposal.
21 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo, that wasn't my point and you have a serious reading comprehension disorder if you think that was my point.
Your 'point' was essentially that some of the chess-related tiebreakers proposed lead to players winning groups without fully meriting it, so instead, we should adopt a system that [b]guarantees that the winner does not merit his victory. Yeah, go ahead, let that stand; see how much traction it gets.
And no amount of randomness is going to knock t ...[text shortened]... ament; he still has to be beaten at some point...well, that is, unless we adopt your proposal.[/b]
Either one (or any one) of the tied players equally deserve (or don't deserve) to advance. All the non-random proposals have serious defects. Thus, the random proposal is still the best. It solves the original problem quite nicely, makes sandbagging irrelevant and doesn't delay the tournament further.
Understand my point now?
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasTry actually reading the thread. It sometimes helps.
I have to ask - Do anyone actually propose that we use a coin to flip, to determine who wins a group in a tournament? Seriously? 😕
So chess is suddenly a game of chance? What will the next step be?
"Dice chess"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_chess)
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThe random proposal has the most serious defect of them all: it takes a game of skill and makes it into a game of chance.
No, that wasn't my point and you have a serious reading comprehension disorder if you think that was my point.
Either one (or any one) of the tied players equally deserve (or don't deserve) to advance. All the non-random proposals have serious defects. Thus, the random proposal is still the best. It solves the original problem quite nicel ...[text shortened]... irrelevant and doesn't delay the tournament further.
Understand my point now?
Thus, my evaluation of your proposal remains accurate.
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitThat's a ridiculous statement considering that random factors already heavily influence who advances in tournaments here. Thus, your evaluation is idiotic.
The random proposal has the most serious defect of them all: it takes a game of skill and makes it into a game of chance.
Thus, my evaluation of your proposal remains accurate.
The present system, where everybody in a group can advance and which encourages the fixing of games, is a mess.