Yes.
Why not publicly announce who the idiots are?
Sort:
2.Nf3 is clearly the best response to the Sicilian. So tell me again...who are the idiots? 
cigoL wrote:
Here's the initial text of the tournament:
"This tournament is for everyone who wants to toy with various replies to 1. e4 c5, except 2. Nf3. Every game begins at the second White move, and White can play any move he or she wants, just not 2. Nf3.
As long as White doesn't play 2. Nf3 it's okay. So everything from Closed Sicilian (2. Nc6), to the wicked Myers Attack (2. a4) is just dandy.
Let's have fun, and see how we can smash Black's Sicilian Defense with White, or brush off White's offbeat second move with a solid Black reply.
Please do not enter this tournament, if you insist on playing 2. Nf3."
I would be far angrier if somebody played 2.Nc6.
I'd be delighted; free knight.
Nov 28, 2011
0
#46
Arctor wrote:
2.Nf3 is clearly the best response to the Sicilian. So tell me again...who are the idiots?
Not necessarily lol
Good news: It turns out they tend to announce themselves.
IMDeviate wrote:
2. Nf3, 2. f4, 2. c3 are some of my favorites.
Chess.com's tournament set up allows for thematic tournaments...though it does not allow you to specifically forbid a particular 2nd move. Currently that is the responsibility of the TD to pick a line which avoids 2. Nf3.
If the TD fails to do that properly and tries to kludge something through the tournament announcement, this is what happens. Someone who hasn't read the announcement or doesn't care will play 2. Nf3.
If the TD is unable to boot the player for reasons of technology/website permissions, the TD should contact staff. Staff is very good at booting people at any time during a game. Again that's the TD's responsibility to intiate. Why there's an entire forum devoted to this issue is beyond me.
First, the TD didn't fail to do that. He set up the tournament in the only way possible to toy with various replies to 1. e4 e5, except for 2. Nf3.
And of course the TD did contact support, who said they couldn't do anything.
I suggest you look into things, instead of making wrong assumptions. 
Eager..., you seemingly don't get it. How old are you, if I may ask?
cigoL wrote:
It's weird. In the game I mentioned earlier, I've just hanged a Rook, and still my opponent keeps playing. I really wonder what he gains from this? Yes, he will win the game for sure, but where's the fun? Where's the challenge? People are weird.
believe it or not if i hang a piece, depending on the situation, the fun and the challenge as i see it is with ME to try to figure out if there's a way to equalize despite the setback. it makes me want to think harder and more unconventionally--what is really at stake? after all, it's just an online game for a virtual rating that means next to nothing. this is a great proving ground to test ideas, take chances, be fearless, fight for a comeback, etc... it rarely happens that i win in these instances, but when i do, it's euphoric. i see all these games that i play on here as good exercises in solving a puzzle of my own creation which i prefer to do rather than solving some of the puzzles that are posted on here that are either contrived or bits of someone else's game. i guess i'm weird that way.
Well, I hanged the Rook on purpose. I'm not playing this game.
cigoL wrote:
Well, I hung the Rook on purpose. I'm not playing this game.
Fixed. Was that on purpose too?
Nov 28, 2011
0
#54
The point/reason of my first post in this thread was that I couldn't/wouldn't ever resign or throw a game. Okay maybe if my life depended on it, but the decision would still be tough. Couldn't you ask him to withdraw rather than resign? I don't know if chess.com offers this, but it should.
--a wrote:
I believe hanged is ok, as it is the proper past tense of execution by hanging.
Hmm, I suppose it does work. Does anyone acutally know which "hang" the chess term is?
Can't the tournament director (you) just remove players, who don't follow the rules? Naming and shaming is just going to get nasty. We don't need to increase the hostility.
Nov 28, 2011
0
#57
1pawndown wrote:
Can't the tournament director (you) just remove players, who don't follow the rules? Naming and shaming is just going to get nasty. We don't need to increase the hostility.
too late probably, but can remove them after the 1st round.
Nov 28, 2011
0
#58
I would be for 'Idiot Trials'. I think the alleged "idiot" should have the right to counsel. The accuser should also stand trial, just to make sure he or she is not an "idiot".
mrguy888 wrote:
--a wrote:
I believe hanged is ok, as it is the proper past tense of execution by hanging.
Hmm, I suppose it does work. Does anyone acutally know which "hang" the chess term is?
I can't say for certain, but I'll be dissapointed if I have to stop telling people that their Queens are well-hung after a blunder.
I think there needs to be a solution in place to make the site a nicer place in general.
Have you considered genocide?