Why I Think Tournament Tie-Breakers Are Not Accurate.

I played a swiss, and I ended up with 2 draws, one with the top player. all top 3 got 6 points out of 7 and i got 2nd. The reaseon was that 4 players i played with withdrew. the top guy, 1. i didnt see 3rd place guy.

See for yourself: https://www.chess.com/tournament/live/50-blitz-1494453

Do you think this is correct?

They use a traditional tie-breaker- the sum of opponents points. His opponents got 22.25 points while yours only got 15.25.  I suppose it's true that it's not in your control who plays through and who withdraws but those are the breaks.

yes thats the point! Its not kind of fair..... I think they can solve this by armaggedon rounds

0.75*(opponents points)

It's completely fair.

Your opponent scored 3 points out of the 4 games he played. That's a 75% win ratio.

You scored 2 points out of the 3 games you played. That's a 67% win ratio.

Since your opponent had a higher win ratio than you, and a higher performance rating than you, it's only fair that he gets to come first in the event of a tie-break.

uhh i didnt understand . its a 7 round tourney and me and top guy played all 7 games and both lost 1 point by making 2 draws. The third guy joined at 2nd round and won all games.(poor guy)

i MADE 2 DRAWS. TOP GUY ALSO MADE 2 DRAWS. BUT WE GOT OUR PLACES BECUASE OF OUR OPPONENTS WITHDREW. HOW IS IT IN OUR CONTROL?

hello? I guess this forum is dead already....

Forum topics often get revived when someone else with the same thought comes along. Don't be impatient.

They also often get side-tracked by people asking random questions.

This is why I prefer the idea of knockout tournaments. That and when you get knocked out you can just do something else instead

so i think the solution would be armaggedon games or something like that.