How would you differentiate the cause of the timeout? How can you tell when someone gives up, takes a trip, toasts their computer, etc? Why would you reward someone who has lost a game by giving them a full point? They lost the game, they lose the point. They may not have played quicker, just worse and lost in fewer moves. A timeout is a decisive game for good or ill otherwise why have a timelimit? If I'm doing bad in a section why not just timeout if the results don't count?
Timeout = win?
Sort:
Feb 16, 2010
0
#3
In a tournament a win is a win no matter if the opponent forfeits on time or gets checkmated. Each time you will get the full point in the tournament standings. However, if we used this idea it would be unfair for people who have not finished their games against the opponent who withdrew while other players already beat them in the game.
Feb 16, 2010
0
#4
Hi Carl, I'm not sure that you need to differentiate the cause of the timeout? If someone takes a trip then they have vacation mode. If their computer dies, well that is rather bad luck it can't be helped (assuming you don't get it up and running in time and have no access to another computer). But that emphasises my point that others lucky enough not to have completed their game yet will get a free point from the misfortune.
As for rewarding someone with a point who has already lost, that's not quite what I meant. Consider a situation where a good player has lost to a very good player... the very good player then disappears... the average player he was in the middle of a game with wins on time... the good player gets a win and a draw against the average player... the average player still wins the group even though the best he managed through his own efforts was one draw. It doesn't seem right, or at best it seems a stroke of good luck for the average player, who has in fact been rewarded for something he didn't do. After all, he did not pressure the very good plater into running out of time like an OTB player could do...
Hi Patzer, I'm not quite sure if you understood my point there. It is actually the question of fairness that I am interested in. I was wondering whether, if a player withdraws, would it not be more equitable if the results of all his games were disregarded? You can perhaps see from the example above that the good player is going to feel rather hard done by. :) There's only 2 people left in the group and he is clearly the better player, yet he is out of the competition because the weaker player played so slowly the best player got bored and quit. :)
Perhaps it is a pecularity of chess, but I can't really think of another example of a competition that would work this way? Sure there are sports with group stages that could theoretically lead to the same situation, but their matches are resolved in a couple of hours or less, so participants are not known for getting bored and leaving half-way through. :)
And no, I'm not an aggrieved party with an axe to grind - I'm just in a few tourneys and this possibility occurred to me.
I've seen this actually happen, Jon. It a bit unfortunate, but life ain't fair in any walk - u need a bit of luck 
I've timed out twice in a one-day no vacation tournament that I'm playing in - once due to a hurricane knocking out the internet for the area for 36 hrs and the other due to losing me electric for about the same period. - It has affected the outcome of the groups, but that just the rub of the green - nothin' to be done about it - it sheer luck
Feb 16, 2010
0
#6
So your proposal is for all games against a player who times out in a section to be voided regardless of the reason they timed out? That seems wrong and unfair. What is unfair with a player who loses a game abiding by the result? The outcome of other games, whatever they may be or the cause, should have no effect on an already completed game.
Feb 16, 2010
0
#7
>So your proposal is for all games against a player who times out in a section to be voided regardless of the reason they timed out?
Carl, it's not so much a proposal for change as an observation on the potential 'unfairness' of the current situation, and wondering if the reasoning was sound? I'm not sure why you keep referring to losers getting a point or not abiding by results? If you lose, you get 0, I have no problem with that.
In competitions in other sports, if you don't turn up for your games you will be disqualified and the people/teams behind you all move up a place. If you have done enough to win, you still have to turn up and knock the ball around or whatever. You can lose the game because you can't be bothered, but you still have to turn up. These chess tournaments have an equivalent 'Resign' button.
Alternatively, if there is an important match but the team bus breaks down on the way, then the match can be rescheduled. There is an equivalent vacation mode in these tourneys. If the team cannot find a way to notify the organisers within a reasonable period of time, they're out of the cup. If they were to say, "Nah, can't be bothered anyway, we already won the group", that would be considered disrespectful to the other team and they would be disqualified. You certainly wouldn't be allowed to qualify out of your group if you didn't finish all your games, particularly because this could strongly affect which 2nd place team would go through with you. Next thing you know you have match-fixing allegations. :)
It occurred to me that, in those situations, it would be fairer to say, "Right, well forget about that team, they've been disqualified - let's see who's the best out of who's left". Instead we seem to be saying, "Right, well forget about that team, they've been disqualified - team A lost to them so they get nothing... team B didn't play them yet so we'll say they won and just put them through, even though Team A beat team B and are clearly better than them".
I'm not sure that this could happen in any other competition? Remember, losing on time OTB is a very real and important part of the game, but losing on time in CC is not. The only reason for a timeout in CC is to prevent the game continuing eternally when the party whose turn it is does not show up to the game for some reason. There is no tactical ruse you can employ to make the other person run out of time. If they run out of time, you didn't do anything to beat them. There's a difference.
It is I that is objecting to players being given points for nothing, yet you seem to think I am advocating it. :) Of course, if someone were to be denied a potential win because the other side failed to appear, and others had played them and scored points, then they would be understandably upset. So the idea of removing all points associated with the defaulting player levels the playing field once more - and makes the competition about who is the best among the remaining players in the group. Since that was the intention from the start, I'm not sure how it can now be viewed as unfair?
Conrad, your answer I can associate with - that's life, s**t happens, go figure! :) And if that is the answer then so be it. I was just curious how much people were interested in the fair/unfair question, and how much thought had gone into it. :)
Yes
I agree with the OP, this has actually happened to me on various occasions, (perhaps because I'm a fast player).
Probably one or two time outs is not enough to take action, but it really sucks if you are the only one to lose 2 games against the top rated player, then he disappears and everybody else gets 2 free points.
Maybe the solution is to require a player to complete 2/3 or 3/4 of the games, else the others become void.
Feb 17, 2010
0
#10
And I don't see why you don't understand my position on rewarding a loser. Consider: A section of 7 players, player 1 beats player 2, who is now -2 in the section and has little chance to win. Player 1 drops out. You propose voiding the games, giving him an = score and suddenly he has a chance to win the section again.
In addition there is the rating nightmare. If the games are voided then the rating result should be voided. Now if player 2 has finished any games after his losses those games were calculated based on his losses to player 1. Once the games are voided they would have to be rerated with the orginal rating. And if his opponents had any finished games after player 2 then they would all have to be rerated etc. Unless you are saying someone can lose rating points for a game(s) that no longer exist or count?
What happens if Player 1 beat player 2 but lost to player 3? Player 2 is 4 points behind player 3. Now, by voiding the games player 2 is tied with player 3. Where is the fairness?
A loss is a loss, a win is a win, a draw is a draw and that is fair. How do you know the player who withdrew did not do so because he was losing or at a disadvantage in his games and can't stand to resign or be mated? Perhaps the remaining players would have won anyway. Why are they (players3-7) punished and put back at the same level as player 2 who LOST his games?
Feb 17, 2010
0
#11
Hi Carl,
>And I don't see why you don't understand my position on rewarding a loser. Consider: A section of 7 players, player 1 beats player 2, who is now -2 in the section and has little chance to win. Player 1 drops out. You propose voiding the games, giving him an = score and suddenly he has a chance to win the section again.
He only has a chance to win the section again if he is the strongest remaining player in the group. I already pointed out that the original intention is for the strongest players to progress anyway, so I still can’t quite place the source of your confusion. You are the one advocating that potentially weaker players should progress, yet continue to repeat the charge that I propose to reward losers? You can tell me that things are the way they are, and that’s how most people would like them to be, and I will be fine with that. But so far you seem to be arguing that the current system is more equitable, and I am yet to see a reasonable explanation for that conclusion.
As for the ratings – that’s a good point. I hadn’t considered that, but it’s not without precedent. In a tournament, if a player doesn’t even make an initial move then the game will time out and neither party’s ratings are affected. So it is already possible for games to be won and lost with no impact on ratings. Recalculating ratings would be trivial (not by hand of course), although it might cause confusion. Personally I prefer the idea that the ratings are left unmolested – if you lost the game then your rating should be lower, nothing wrong with that. If the game times out, however, I don’t really see why your rating should increase.
>What happens if Player 1 beat player 2 but lost to player 3? Player 2 is 4 points behind player 3. Now, by voiding the games player 2 is tied with player 3. Where is the fairness?
This question is not very clear... which player withdraws here? Player 1 from your opening paragraph? How did player 2 get 4 points behind player 3? How does voiding one player’s results cancel 4 points? I think if you provide a clearer example then I can work through it and perhaps understand your objection.
>How do you know the player who withdrew did not do so because he was losing or at a disadvantage in his games and can't stand to resign or be mated? Perhaps the remaining players would have won anyway. Why are they (players3-7) punished and put back at the same level as player 2 who LOST his games?
I’ve already addressed the ‘reason for the timeout’ question. Moving on, you have such a high rating I’m not sure why your logic is unable to follow this: If player 2 lost to player 1, but all the remaining players would have beaten player 1, then players 3-7 will beat player 2 as well. How are they being punished? They are not! What is untenable, at least in terms of fairness as opposed to simply “them’s the rules mate”, is the automatic conferral of a win. The other players may in fact have all lost as well, so why give them points for nothing? They are not being “put back” anywhere – they never finished their games so they never had the points.
If someone else had already beaten player 1, then yes, their points would be lost – but it doesn’t matter! Ok, so they beat player 1 and some others didn’t have the opportunity to do the same, but if player 1 is not in the competition any more then whether or not you may have been able to beat him should no longer be relevant – in theory, it should be the strongest remaining player that wins the group, not the one lucky enough to have played slowest. You could even wind up with someone winning a few games then quitting – but still winning the group and moving on to the next round and losing all his next round of games on timeout as well. It would make a mockery of the whole thing. J
Well, that clears that up!
It would be nice if the tournament organizer had the descretion to withdraw a player. It certainly does create a stain on the tournament if someone signs up, beats one guy and then abandons his games against the rest. The one guy he beat is not competing on a level playing field with everyone else.
I don't think chess.com will ever regulate this directly because there are too many nuances. But it could be handled on a case by case basis by the tournament organizer.
Hi guys, I have a question/observation about what happens in a tournament if someone gives up and their matches time out. From what I gather, their opponents in those matches are credited with a win... is this correct?
The reason I ask is that it occurs to me that a player can win a couple of games then give up. Someone who has played quicker than average and lost to him would be at a disadvantage to those who played slower, and were given automatic wins. It seems an easy solution would be simply to cancel any points gained from the person who quit (ie. remove them and their influence entirely)... is there a reason why this doesn't happen?
Cheers.