2012 Round 2 Section A
Sort:
May 25, 2012
0
#3
OK I get it now ... 3 days late they should have been locking but instead cancelled the match? Marija personally I would cancel that new challenge you sent and claim the win.
The normal time frame would be 2 days to accept and 5 to lock. So new dates would be May 27 and June 1. The teams may prefer a quicker lock -- just agree on a time frame.
I saw in the group notes that COA cancelled the match "because it was 1 game". That type of thing should be noticed and brought up at the time of the challenge. Not after the team is late locking.
SFRJ (Once Brothers) have proven willingness to play -- let's hope COA is willing too.
I sent messages to two of COA's contacts.
May 25, 2012
0
#6
I have also posted onto Trevcats profile asking him to check this forum for discussions thank you Dave :)
yes we want to play. don't know how it got cancelled or who did it. i will hit the new challenge now and thanks for the opportunity.
we have accepted the challenge. you can cancel the one i sent to you. also in the future if the registration for this match was not so long it would be better. when registering is 2 months or more the teams have to much time to expand! many of these teams would not be able to join if they had so many members. not fair to the smaller teams.
that is true but some teams don't wish to have 500 players. it should be 2 weeks to register and then start. again i make the point that next year your team will not be able to enter the championship.i have some teams that i don't want over 300 members so we can compete year after year. also the smaller teams are more personable to me. just my thoughts on the subject. 
we only got a good break last year. i am sa in many teams over 500 to 1000 members also. they are fine but not the same. also with all the teams i am in it wouldn't be good if all my teams had the same members. it would be the same as having one team. i invite different members to different teams. of course we would like to win 2 times in a row. it will not happen because of the size teams we are facing. also our team participation doesn't seem to be quite what it was last year. lots of teams here aren't exactly sporting. i have cut our team many times to give the other team a fair match. there aren't alot of teams that will do the same. i would not want the win every time if all our players were 2 or 3 hundred rating points over their opponent. empty victory to me. i cut players last year in this championship against other admins advice. we still won the match.
So for next year, we could look at asking for teams which do not plan to grow. If 16-32 teams sign up and make that pledge then it would be enough to run a tournament with.
I don't see much value in continuing to talk about it for this year -- what's done is done. Many teams play in leagues of all kinds the world over knowing they have little chance to win. The FIFA World Cup, Chess Olympiad, Olympic Games, and countless other amateur and professional leagues would be nothing without the teams who are destined to lose but choose to play anyway for the joy of sport. 
i wouldn't ask for teams pledge. i would just make the registration well know to all teams who would be elligible. then they have 2 weeks to decide and register. that way they only have 2 weeks to gain the members. you can't gain 200 members in 2 weeks. i have seen a few of these teams grow that much during registration. also can't a tournament be managed with less than 16 teams? just asking. we joined last year for the sport and started with less than 100 players. this year we were trying to defend the well earned trophy. little more at stake this year for our team. hope that makes sense and you understand. peace TC 
May 28, 2012
0
#13
The teams who registered WERE less than 250 when the tournament started. Its once the tournament starts that is the problem. I would agree that a pledge should be signed that teams are not allowed to go over say a maximum of 300 members during the tournament or face being removed mid tournament?
May 29, 2012
0
#14
I just think it makes sense. This tournament was created for small teams (<250) to have some fun competitive matches and it no longer is competitive if a team uses bad sportsmanship to gain an advantage
I don't think it's fair to call it bad sportsmanship. An admin might not know if their team is going to grow that much. I doubt they intentionally join a small team league knowing their team will be huge before the year is out, just to give them an advantage in the league.
May 29, 2012
0
#16
OK maybe not Dave but it would be nice to have something in place if this does actually happen. They may not knowingly do it on purpose but we have all the other teams in the tourney to consider too?
Very interesting. The match that Coat of Arms was "certain" to win ended up being a win for SFRJ. And there are many upsets of lower rated over higher.
 SFRJ (Once Brothers - Nekad braća)  |  Coat of Arms | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WINNER! | = 21 | = 13 | ||||
 miki962nis (2097) |
0.5 | View | View | 1.5 |  viragochess(2224) |
||
 zlatko_68 (2182) |
2 | View | View | 0 |  adrian_taylor(1818) |
||
 velemaher (1895) |
2 | View | View | 0 |  phoenixtears(1930) |
||
 MarkoPop84 (1998) |
2 | View | View | 0 |  Pawell (2070) |
||
 desavic (2055) |
0.5 | View | View | 1.5 |  IronMax (2157) |
||
 gorjank (1983) |
0.5 | View | View | 1.5 |  tonyorr (2042) |
||
 Bloodpack (2066) |
2 | View | View | 0 |  macabra (1884) |
||
 Suljibaba (1813) |
2 | View | View | 0 |  blackdog317(1876) |
||
 SashaLatinovic (1847) |
2 | View | View | 0 |  electricpawn(1785) |
||
 u_prolazu (1868) |
1 | View | View | 1 |  davrosFTM(1742) |
||
 GornoRodivo-314527PK (1683) |
0 | View | View | 2 |  Xanamana(1958) |
||
 makarije1999 (1867) |
1 | View | View | 1 |  TheSandman(1861) |
||
 rastko20 (1728) |
2 | View | View | 0 |  cormac_zoso(1618) |
||
 RasaSrbija (1691) |
1 | View | View | 1 |  Smoke_cC(1644) |
||
 pochetnik (1787) |
1.5 | View | View | 0.5 |  ChefBruce (1991) |
||
 srki-kg (1763) |
1 | View | View | 1 |  patK74 (1703) |
||
 katar1960 (1793) |
0 | View | View | 2 |  heap3d (1831) |
||
I can't find a match between Coat of Arms and Chess Etiquette, was one played? Or is it a double forfeit since neither claimed against the other?
Results, pending confirmation on the missing match:
| Team Name | W | L | T | Pts | GW | GL | TB |
| Chess Etiquette | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 19 | 36 | -17 |
| Coat of Arms | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 31 | 33 | -2 |
| SFRJ (Once Brothers) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 63 | 34 | 29 |
| The Architects | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 26 | 36 | -10 |
SFRJ (Once Brothers) and Coat of Arms advance. (CoA advances on tiebreaks, and also won head to head vs The Architects)
No, it's not a problem. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
In the past I have been criticized for saying that the team with a ratings disadvantage can still win the match. I was just pointing out that I was right, and the team with lower ratings can indeed win. 
coa and chess ettiquette have to play now? sorry the admin in the coa was taking care of these matches and has been offline for a while. i am sa in both those groups. who sends the challenge to the other? i am not sure. someone will have to lead me throught this. we don't want any forfiets. thanks TC
A description will go here. Refer to round 1 if you're impatient and can't remember the match parameters.