2014 League Results are incorrect

This message is mainly meant for Yuri Neves and Johann. We have a real problem with the results this year because chess.com has finally agreed to distinguish between (1) accounts that have been closed for cheating and (2) accounts which have been closed becuase the user no longer wants them. In the past, the same icon (which we mostly think of as the cheater icon) was used for both types of accounts. However that has now changed and accounts which have been closed by the user no longer have the closed 'cheater' icon.

This means that a lot of the results so far this year are incorrect. Take for example Estonia v Georgia in round 1 (link = http://www.chess.com/groups/team_match?id=357207&ref_id=7893730). Yuri's league table shows this as a win for Estonia becuase Georgia were deducted two and a half points because of closed accounts. The closed accounts belong to Tornike1987 and juvesofos. Previously these accounts would have had a 'cheater' icon marked against them and hence their points would have been deducted and awarded to Estonia. Now, however, if you look at Tornike197 and juvesofos, they don't have that cheater icon. In other words, they didn't cheat, they just closed their own accounts. So, really Georgia are the rightful winners of the match not Estonia. I'm sure there are lots of other examples of this having happened. My own team Northern Ireland are showing as having lost to Denmark but if you look at the match card we are really the winners.

Yuri, I think you need to recalculate all the results this year not just in the European League but in the World League too.

It was decided that there might be some closures which reason is multiple accounts or presumably cheating. We faced in the nearest past some cheater's icons appearing and disappering from time to time. The best way to avoid losing points for nothing is to let all your teammates know that there should be no reason to close their account as their Team losses points in such case. This is the only decision which could be done to prevent losing points

So, adriano, the results are wrong but nobody cares because it's too much effort to correct them.

Why they are wrong. It was decided before start of the season that every closed account will be recalculated. To avoid unfair "by your words" attitude to trusty members you need to let your teammates know that there is no need to close their accounts cause their Team lose scored points

Hi. I will have a look at this during November. 

It shows clearly that Georgia is winning this match after recalculation  http://chessleagues.com/2014/el/4/

@morimento - closures without the cheat icon may still be closures due to multiple accounts, inappropriate behavoiur and a multitude of other reasons.

If a team mate closes their account before completing matches then why should that team be rewarded for flaky team mates - they should show dedication and loyalty and play on.

The whole league is for partipation and match play - not points awarded for account closure. No adjustment should be made and all closures penalised.

Well, we already talk about this so many times. And the deal was until recently   chess.com didnt want to disclose any information about how account was closed, was it closed by chess.com or by member. And  like we said   before 95% of the time accounts closed by chess.com for abusing or cheating and world league and euro league decide to recalculate ALL closed accunts for 2014 year. Now, if anything change, we can change  for 2015 year. Which mean, if chess.com going to tell us who closed accout then we can make the adjustmnet. If they are still not going to tell us anything then we should do the same thing like we doing now by recalculating all closed account. If the group administrators have evidence from support which shows that accunt closed by member itself then let Yneves, Johan and Daws to adjust . But that should be done for 2015 ,because there   are   RULES for this year to recalculate ALL closed accouts and lets keep that.

apologies - mori! I think we are both agreed. Probably my comment is more appropriate to mrdenetop