Personally I see this as a bit of a slippery slope. You're talking about a forced resignation, while I understand why you would like a feature like this it goes against the rules of the game. It is a game between 2 people - not between two people and the rest of the tournament participants. If I am in a position that was a theoretical loss but a difficult win and at my opponent's level of play a practical draw - I would be very angry if other players decided I should resign and ended the game for me. The problem is the term "obvious" loss is in many cases subjective. A 1400 player might not understand that a position that a 1700 player is continuing in is in fact drawn and it is the guy with more material who is forcing the continuation. I see far too many complications with this type of rule as it is far too subjective. If you are winning, you should be obliged to prove the fact that you can win the won game. Granted in 90% of the cases the other player should resign out of respect. But allowing a TD to declare a winner is over reaching, IMO.
Vote to drop feature when holding up tournament
Sort:
Good points, I hadn't thought about how some players might think a drawn position is lost, or a difficult win is more obvious than it is.
You know what I mean though, the guy that's behind 12 points of material with nothing to hope for. I would like to see something like this implemented but... I guess there's too many problems with it.
Oh well.
Move this here because it was ignored and could be it's own topic.
What do you think about adding a vote system to tournaments (and possibly even create a "TD" slot in tournaments where you would enter as a non-player only)
After a tournament is 90% complete, and in tournaments with at least x number of players, either opponent in the 10% active games are allowed to place their game up for a vote. If, say, 80% of total players vote that this game is obviously won and the opponent is holding the tourney up, then the game is automatically ended in victory for the winning player.
The high % required tries to insure players don't unduly manipulate results of important games, and for the same reason this may not be available for tournaments with under 20-30 players. Also this dimension would be clearly advertised at the start of the tourney, so it would be hard to complain when you knowingly joined. This has the added benefit of letting the vote option's popularity determine it's success. If it's effective and fair, players will undoubtedly prefer to create and join such tournaments.
And of course the purpose is that when a tournament is being held up for months that the players themselves are able to force it to move it along provided enough of the tournament players are upset enough about it to vote.
What do you think?