The results of completed games are not excluded. The closed accounts won't move forward but whatever scores are at the end of the round will determine who moves forward.
Who advances in this case?
Sort:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
The results of completed games are not excluded. The closed accounts won't move forward but whatever scores are at the end of the round will determine who moves forward.
This is kind of strange. It's like if a skater lost to a doped adversary - and was excluded from the competions on the basis of the fact that he lost; while the second skater, who in fact lost to the first one, was advanced to the finals just because he chose to run later...
I won't say much, since the overall discussion is not allowed in the general forums but it is possible that the reason for the closure had nothing to do with any of the games in that event. I'm not going to speculate if that is the case in this instance but that is one reason why it doesn't make sense to retroactively change game outcomes for closed accounts.
The scores are not amended, however the closed account cannot progress to the next round. The group table has your row shaded in yellow, which indicates that you have qualified for the next round...
Guess I should have looked at the event. 
I was making an assumption that only 1 player moved on and those lost games made the difference.
gambit-man wrote:
The scores are not amended, however the closed account cannot progress to the next round. The group table has your row shaded in yellow, which indicates that you have qualified for the next round...
I understand that; however, I'll be seeded second, not first. And this, I believe, puts me at a disadvantage...
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Guess I should have looked at the event.
I was making an assumption that only 1 player moved on and those lost games made the difference.
Yeah, I agree, it could have been even worse...
Martin_Stahl wrote:
I won't say much, since the overall discussion is not allowed in the general forums but it is possible that the reason for the closure had nothing to do with any of the games in that event. I'm not going to speculate if that is the case in this instance but that is one reason why it doesn't make sense to retroactively change game outcomes for closed accounts.
Possible; but in doping cases - to draw an analogy - a sportsman is disqualified from all of his competitions, both current and past. Shouldn't it be the same here? I totally agree, it would be extremely difficult to reverse all (potential) wrong in case of second or third round of a tournament; but here, we only have one group, where - before the round ends - it is very easy to correct the results.
MIPTSen wrote:
gambit-man wrote:
The scores are not amended, however the closed account cannot progress to the next round. The group table has your row shaded in yellow, which indicates that you have qualified for the next round...
I understand that; however, I'll be seeded second, not first. And this, I believe, puts me at a disadvantage...
forgive me... why would you be seeded first?
MIPTSen wrote:
gambit-man wrote:
The scores are not amended, however the closed account cannot progress to the next round. The group table has your row shaded in yellow, which indicates that you have qualified for the next round...
I understand that; however, I'll be seeded second, not first. And this, I believe, puts me at a disadvantage...
Seeding has nothing to do with scores. It is all rating based and in a round robin knockout format, it doesn't make too much of a difference in general, and absolutely none if you move into the final group.
So, if the next round will be multiple groups, which group you fall into comes completely down to rating. The only thing that might have changed is if you had additional points from those games (and no later games modified that downward) then you might end up in a different group, which actually may be beneficial.
gambit-man wrote:
forgive me... why would you be seeded first?
I see your point; sorry, I was not precisely correct. Actually, I thought that groups are formed like in other sports - a bin of 1st places and a bin of 2nd places. And you right, what I should have said was "seeded from the 1st bin". However, as this is not the case - I do not care.
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Seeding has nothing to do with scores. It is all rating based and in a round robin knockout format, it doesn't make too much of a difference in general, and absolutely none if you move into the final group.
So, if the next round will be multiple groups, which group you fall into comes completely down to rating. The only thing that might have changed is if you had additional points from those games (and no later games modified that downward) then you might end up in a different group, which actually may be beneficial."
Good to know; thank you! But what if only one player advanced? Apart from the existing rules - does it seem fair to you? This is more of a philosophical question; after all, we are playing recreational chess - even if we sometimes get too serious...
I try not to worry too much about placement in online events. As it isn't really easy to see if the closure reason was due to games in your tourneys, or something else, I don't find it any different than someone playing fast and losing their games to a player that later times out for any other reason in some other games. You'll almost always have instances where you lose games to a player in such a situation and other players in the your group get wins on time.
In the long run, it won't make much of a difference if you continue to play games.
Martin_Stahl wrote:
1. As it isn't really easy to see if the closure reason was due to games in your tourneys, or something else, I don't find it any different than someone playing fast and losing their games to a player that later times out for any other reason in some other games.
2. In the long run, it won't make much of a difference if you continue to play games.
1. But what if the closure reason WAS due to these games? Shouldn't it be corrected?
2. True, but this is a. seems a bit unfair to me and b. is very easy to correct. Besides, current situation favors slower players - which, again, seems both unfair and inconvenient.
Slow players often take so long to move because they have experience of playing in tournament groups where cheating has affected their group places, and know that they are less likely to lose to a cheat by playing slow.
It's also often the case that they partake in many tournaments because they have no intention of playing fast.
It's not their fault, the fault lies entirely with the cheats...
In one of the tournaments I am taking part in, in our group of five, two players have been disqualified on basis of Fair play violation and one more lost all of his games by time. Should not be the results in games with them be totally excluded from the final table? Otherwise, it looks ridiculous - the player taking first place only won the games with them by time, losing both games with me. I, on the other hand, lost three of the four games to those disqualified for using computers - and thus am seeded as second - which, I believe, is disadvatageous. Shouldn't the matter be resolved akin to numerous cases where doping is involved?