FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
of course it's fair, the top players worked their way up there and once they got their leading margin they should be allowed to do whatever they wish with it.
if you didn't want to depend on them, you could try winning the previous rounds too like they did.
except I did not get the option to get a draw from either one of them....
so you lost to them instead? or were you making your way to the top while they were already there?
I meant from one of them. imagine if the second player was a played victory. and the player coming second won a lot other games. and we were very close and a victory and lose for him would get me second. and the best in the tournament just gave him a draw in last round so he would get second and he would secure his first place.
that's how things work.
you know, if you don't want to depend on others, you should do the best regarding what's under your control, ie getting amazing results yourself.
would it also be the same if I was faced with one from my friends in the last round and usually I can win against him but if he wins he wins the tournament. so I just play a3 and resign.
I think it is exactly the same. I would never do that but it is the same.
Here is what I think. If you have played well enough to be in a position to accept a draw either for clear first place [I have done this] or for a tie for first place it is entirely your perogrative what you will do as you have EARNED [by your good play] the right to make a decission which may only benefit you. [rare I am in agreement with Reb! ]
another person may have been in the same place in the last round. so how you are paired decides whether or not you earned the second place?
maybe the tournament doesn't even pair you with the same players.
if there is 9 people in a tournament and 7 rounds not everybody can meet eachother.
if the winner of the tournament meet you in the first round he may have just won but because you meet him in last round he gives you are draw because he already won.
bobby what is your point? I have never been in a 7 round tournament with only 9 players. How about talking about real situations?
it is very real I have been to a lot of tournaments and in the tournament there may be 25 players but they are split into sections.
the players are devided into 3 sections. 2 sections with 8 players and one group with 9 people. each play to win. all sorted by rating.
before I took a break from chess I had a lot of otb games tournaments
there is not many people showing up to a tournament. sometimes only 10 and sometimes 25 if we are lucky. if you play the switz system you can have them all in one big group but if you play monrad what we do most you are only a limited amount of people in a 7 round tournament.
my point it is unfair that a player can get a 2. place by agreeing to draw of course. tournaments should be decided by play and not by mastering tournaments.
So your theory is tournaments should not be decided by mastering tournaments? But to master tournaments one thing you have to do is to play very well...
I guess, I disagree. If someone plays well enough to get 2nd place with a draw--more power to him.
I think you are saying if you have played as well as this guy who can get 2nd place with a draw then that is unfair. Actually it is probably luck and sometime the situation will be the same but you may be the person who can get 2nd place with a draw?
This is only mildly "unfair" and there is no solution as you cannot expect the first place guy to not accept a draw just so you have a chance for 2nd place.
If you want to know "unfair" just see sometime what happened to me in a couple of tournaments.