Vote Chess 2024

There's a game missing in the 4th VOTE section.
I found it for you.
Chess Abrogators vs EGYPT CHESS CLUB
Final results should be Abrogators at 4 pts, Mateisci & Mexico 3.5 pts each. (There's a miscount in Mexico's points, you're only showing them with 2.5).

2nd Division

The Team England Club completed all matches, 4.5/6.

A quick correction for 4th VOTE: Mexico should be in second place, they have better tiebreaks than Mateisci.

@Bramblyspam: Thanks. Rectified now.

The Chess Warlords should have 6 points if I'm not mistaken.

@DavidGaming08 is correct. In 6th VOTE G2, Warlords won against FUAMICC. 
Warlords only timed out in one game, not two. Thus, they should not be disqualified.
This means they also won against Catholic Chess Club.

"6 points" isn't quite right, since points against disqualified teams shouldn't count. But Warlords won all their games against non-disqualified teams.

@Tournamentix: Please check the 3rd VOTE spreadsheet. I think the Chess Team Holland points are not correct.

@Tournamentix: Why don't you answer this question of mine? You answer it for other people here in this forum, but not for me! What is your problem?

Patience is a virtue. Vieira58 maybe he has been busy running other competitions and just hadn't got round to it. Remember when you posted your comment he may have been asleep so a large junk of the time he was unavailable. He would have got round to it I'm sure.

I already made this same post more than 15 days ago, on this same forum, and he didn't answer me. So I deleted my previous posts, because they were forgotten. As I am outraged, that he doesn't answer me at any time, and I know that he is online and responding normally on several other forums of the league, during all this time, I made these new posts above. Patience is a virtue, yes, but indifference is not!!

League directors are amateurs spending their free time graciously to provide a competitive environment to teams. I don't think it's fair to be outraged against someone providing a free service. Eventually the table will be fixed, I don't think there's any kind of urgency here.

I was outraged because I know he has always done and does a good job, and always responds to everyone. But curiously in my case there was no response. If he is overwhelmed, perhaps it would be better for some of us to stop participating in the championships and take some of the burden off him. He is my friend on Chess.com, and my club and I have been participating in this league since 2021. We started in the fifth division and are now in the second division of the Vote Chess Championship, for 4 seasons in a row. We have never lost a game on time, and we respect all clubs and all opponents. My club is serious, and plays seriously. And we intend to be the champion of the first division of Vote Chess, soon. This is our goal here. That is why you are not addressing just any club. I believe that this is the principle of the league's existence, to offer opportunities for excellent championships and their developments, to the members of the league, even if free of charge. I pay an annual fee to Chess.com, and if participating in leagues were a paid service, I wouldn't refuse to pay.

Regarding the Holland situation: Yes, one of Holland's games hasn't finished yet. When he opened up registration for next season, Tournamentix needed to figure out advancement & relegation. Since Holland is up an exchange and a pawn in that game, he probably just counted it as a likely win for Holland. If Holland draws or loses, he'll revise the standings accordingly before the results are finalized. This sort of thing happens every season, there's no reason to worry about it.

Yes, it may be frustrating that he hasn't responded to you, but please cut him some slack. He's a busy guy, providing us all a valuable service for free. It's best to recognize that, be understanding and appreciative. Giving volunteers headaches makes them likely to stop their volunteering, and none of us want that.

BTW it's not just you: he's overlooked messages from others before, including me. I just don't make a big fuss about it in public.

As the super-administrator of my club, I do my duty by constantly following the league tables to check strategies to be adopted and to support my club. When I look at the table and see that our main opponent in our division is being considered with 4 points, and not 3 points as it should be currently, and with a game still in progress, is already being "considered won" by them, I do not think this information is right, even if it is temporary. The league table should reflect to everyone who consults it the real values ​​updated at the moment, and not future prospects. This can confuse people, in my opinion.

.

@Ximoon and @Bramblyspam: Thanks for your help and precise explications.

@Vieira58: Sorry for the delay. Spreadsheet in question has been particularly adapted and used for provisional placements for open registrations to our upcoming vote chess season. Now provisional results in the spreadsheet are shown the usual way.

@Tournamentix: Thanks for the spreadsheet correction.

Now fix the situation in 6th VOTE G2!

If you look at the Chess Warlords' three zeroes in the crosstable, 
- They won one by resignation. 
- They lost one on time. 
- They won one on time. (You probably mistakenly credited this as a loss on time). 
Since they only lost one game on time, they should not be disqualified. Two of their losses should be changed to wins. This results in them winning their section.

I was under the impression, that all games in the gray area will not be counted. Otherwise, the Knights of the Realm have more than one point. Several of the games, did finish without timeouts.

6th vote G3...

.R1-win/checkmate, R2-loss/resignation, R3-win/resignation, R4-win/timeout, R5-win/checkmate, R6-bye, R7-win/resignation.

Only one game where the opponent timedout.

@Bramblyspam: Thanks for your attention and your detailed comment. This shouldn't have happened at all. Spreadsheet is rectified now. Sorry for the inconvenience.

@thee_black_knight: Just checked it once more: Results for your group are correct.

Thank you!