|
|
|
Topic: please comment on 50 game rule
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
MadScot - I dont understand your reluctance to claim a win based on time. Do you play over the board chess? All the tournament playes I know will claim a win the moment they are aware that thier opponents flag fell. I am playing about 100 games at 10d/a. I expect that more than 25% of my wins will be on time. If there is an etiquette issue here I think the player who loses on time is rude. I think that my opponent and I have made a contract to finish the game in 20 days (plus vacation if any). If one oversteps the agreed time control than one has breeched the contract. I however acknowledge that there situations were I wont make a time claim. When playing a master I might prefer to learn from his play than ending the game. I also fear that the master might be offended and might avoid playing me.
|
|
|
| phystutordotcom wrote: The "prize" in the first round is advancing to the next. If there are 5 groups of 4 in round one and round 2 is also in groups of 4 than some of the second place finishers will advance. |
No. If there are five groups of four in the first round, there will be a group of three and a group of two in the second round. The only case in which more than one person advances from the same group is if there is a tie for first place in one of the groups, in which case, all the tied players go through.
I grant that there is a slight disadvantage of being in the same group as Mr Auto-Resign. However, his rating was (before he lost all of his several hundred games in progress on time after quitting the site) under 1700. He was resigning against people rated over 1900, who would beat him most times, anyway. So the disadvantage is minimal.
But this is all beside the point. The claim was that merely playing lots of games somehow causes "distortions".
| Ties are decided by rating. an unscrupulous player could target the tournaments of mr. auto-resign to pad his rating. |
Tenuous. Rating is the second-level tie-break: it's only used if, in the final round, two or more players have the same score and have the same total score through the rounds of the tournament. As I said, the person who wins the tournament would most likely have beaten the player in question in a fair game, anyway.
I don't dispute that Mr Auto-resign was abusing the system. But I still don't see any distortions caused just by playing a lot of games simultaneously.
|
|
|
| phystutordotcom wrote MadScot - I dont understand your reluctance to claim a win based on time. |
I am reluctant to claim a game on time, especially 'quickly', because I don't know whether my opponent has (a) abandoned the game or (b) has PC or internet problems and will be back 'soon'. I've been in situation (b) myself once - lost internet over the weekend, lost a couple of games on time as a result - and while its of course perfectly legal, I would have preferred my opponent be a little less quick to pull the trigger.
OTB, I can see my opponent is there, so if he runs out time, sure, claim the game. But, suppose your OTB opponent collapsed, and paramedics take him away. It's still LEGAL to claim the win (and in a club match you'd have to) but would it be SPORTING to claim it where you didn't need to?
As I said, its perfectly fair to claim the game; I just don't like to.
|
|
|
Despite I am starting on correspondence chess, I observed that in Queen Alice people who plays more than 50 games simultaneously usually last to make his/her move. Some times this is frustrating for the beginer. I think that if you create a 3 days per move game you should play frequently. But if you have 167 games, you won't be able to do it. My opinion is that this rule could lower the games played and will increase the velocity of the games. And will be great for beginers.
|
|
|
i still believe asking an opponent to resign even if you are way up in pieces is RUDE.
you don't do that even in any tournament. that is DISRESPECTFUL as well.
why don't you just go on and play your game and mate him the shortest moves possible.
the other end of the board may want to learn how to finish a game or learn from his opponent. it is not a matter of you thinking that you already won the game but how the other person is looking at his own game...
as to the 50 games rule, MIGUEL Please increase it to at least 100!
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next |
|
|
|
