Game 22676 towards a new rule

  
Free Internet Chess Games Server

Install FICGS apps
play chess online


Game result  (poker)


H. Lehnhoff, 2056
S. Martinez, 2022

1-0

See game 99359




 Hot news
 Discussions
 Files search
 Social network



Tsumego

                                          
Forum



Back to forum


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-02)
Game 22676, towards a new rule ?

Once again, an unusual case that may lead to an enforcement of FICGS rules. In our match, Marius lost 3 games on time and continues to play the other ones : FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000005

Games 22676, 22678 and 22679 have been lost in an equal position.

Currently, the rules specify : 11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases against the same opponent, ie. 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."

Of course, it is up to the referee to estimate an 'advantage' which is quite hard to define accurately, but the real problem is there's no real silent withdrawal in this case, as Marius had about 1 day only to play his last move. It is fair to cancel my wins in these games IMO but the question is how to make the rules fair enough in all cases.

My suggestion : "...or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context, in at least 2 games in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."

What do you think ? Also does anyone see another unusual case that this rule wouldn't envisage ?

Thanks in advance.


Marcus Miranda    (2008-10-02 21:33:27)
time limit is part of the game

I believe that time is part of the game, if you let your time run out then that's it. In my opinion you should not cancel your wins in these games because you think that the position would lead to a draw, just ask yourself: what would be the position if your opponent did not have used more time than permitted? When a game lost on time is adjudicated to a draw or not rated, it says that time is not that important.


Don Groves    (2008-10-02 23:42:29)
Time is part of the game

I agree with Marcus.


Michael Aigner    (2008-10-03 02:48:34)
Time limit is part of the game

I agree with Marcus and Don. Loosing because of time should be treated the same way as loosing because of poor play - without exeptions (makes the rule very simple to apply ;-).


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-03 09:06:04)
Rules

I think you are right Thibault ie amend the rule as you suggest. However maybe change the wording put EXCEPT instead of BUT ("except games where an advantage is obvious")otherwise the english is difficult to understand (but so much better than my french!!)In this case though perhaps Marius is not going to play anymore moves at all in which case it could be classified as silent withdrawal?? At the level he is at it he surely does not need the time to get the positions the fact is that Marius (probably because he has got lot of games/commitments elsewhere) is not playing much at all in FICGS - looks like he will forfeit in the Round Robin final for example.... The existing rules make a distinction between matches and other tournaments. if you follow the other posters then it seems that they are saying that you should not have the rule for silent withdrawals or even losses under 10 moves?? So I vote for the extension proposed by Thibault it seems logical to me for matches - they are not primarily about rating. The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent when they just stopped playing and it has nothing much to do with relative playing strength. On the other hand Thibault it will give you a cool rating!! :) Both view points are valid - its true time is a part of the game - but rules involve compromise and the proposed amendment just extends the principle already there........


Michael Aigner    (2008-10-03 13:28:09)
Makes sense!

I agree with you that Thibaults suggestions makes sense in the context of matches where many games are played against the same opponent. For normal tournaments a loss on time should just be a loss (after 10 moves played) - even when the player is loosing all his games in this tourny because of time. Maybe there is some space for exeptions in case of illness or somethink like that - but on the other hand how is the player going to proof such things?


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2008-10-03 13:41:21)
Time limit is part of the game

I agree with Marcus, Don and Michael. I think, there is neither a reason to change the results in your games, Thibault, nor to change the rules.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-03 21:18:33)
Divided...

Thanks all for your help... It makes sense in both cases, I'm divided. let's try to gather more opinions.


Don Groves    (2008-10-04 04:27:29)
Silent withdrawals

Silent withdrawals could be taken care of by having a 10-day-per-move rule. If a player does not make a move in a game within 10 days and is not on vacation, the game should be forfeited to the opponent and the forfeit rules should apply as to whether the game is rated or not. Maybe a 7 day limit would be even better.

We all dislike silent withdrawals. This rule would end those games sooner and also may eventually stop players from starting more games than they can handle.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2008-10-04 09:03:00)
In response to Don

That is nosense you have a time limit being 30 days for the whole game or 40 days for 10 moves, if a players forfeits by time let it be. Why create more time time controls or impose faster timings controls . I have made moves after more than 10 days of analysis why should I be penalized?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-04 19:35:26)
re : In response to Don

You wouldn't be penalized in that case. All this is about 8 games match, as Andrew said "The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent". The whole problem is just to know where to put the limit.

Well, as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too, but 8 wins this way shouldn't be taken in consideration.

Consequently, I propose a new rule, quite reasonable, that could satisfy everyone (finally even my rating :)), here is :

"11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, except games where an advantage is obvious, in this case at most 2 of these games will be rated."


Don Groves    (2008-10-04 22:43:54)
I withdraw my suggestion

Had I known this was about 8 game matches only, I would not have responded.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-05 18:30:52)
Rule change

Ok, so unless someone has a better idea, I'll change rule 11.6 this way, thanks all for your help :)


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-05 20:04:28)
Slight amendment

Thibault thinking about your point that "as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too" I suggest the follwoing "Rating changes will occur, in 2 player matches, for losses on time (whatever the reason) within the following constraints: the game(s) is at least 10 moves, only 1 time loss game will be rated unless there is a game where the winner is clearly better in which case a maximum of 2 games may be rated" My idea is that if someone forefeits all their games on move 11 in a match there should be 1 game rated (as in a tournament) so there is a price to pay but not too distorting. If in the 8 games say 5 are level and 3 (or 2 or 1) are clearly advantageous then 2 games could be rated. Alternatively just give 1 rated game as a max irrespective of advantage or not (ie just the first loss) provided it at least 10 moves. I am thinking of 2 situations a 6-0 result over 10 moves dead equal positions there should be some rating penalty (like tournaments) On the other hand soemone could let the clock run out in 6 games just before being mated in each game to avoid heavy rating penalty they should take a 2 game hit.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-05 20:22:01)
Re: Slight amendment

I'm not sure to see the point, all games are rated for who forfeits or loses games on time, in 8 games matches just like any rated tournament. So what "price" do you mean ? The rule is about the winner's rating only.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-05 21:50:02)
Sorry

..I must have misunderstood I thought if games were forfeit on time in matches even after 10 moves they were not rated only rated if the games were better ie the foreited party was clearly worse?? So in the case of a an 8 games match 11 moves completed all lost on time in dead equal positions there would be no rating effect ie no price paid?? In a tournament game they would be these losses would be rated. I thought your proposal was to rate the losses in matches up to a max of 2 games ONLY if it was 10+ moves AND the position was clearly better.









 

Message




Chat



 

December 12, 2018

FICGS is also a social network including seo forums, a hot news & buzz blog, a free web directory and discussion forums to meet people from all over the world. Discuss the last events, improve your search engines optimization, submit your website, share your interests...


Feel free to link to FICGS chess server, register & win Epoints :






FICGS Go server, weiqi baduk banner facebook      
Correspondence chess

World championship

Play chess games

Go (weiqi, baduk)

Advanced chess

Play big chess

Chess trainer apk

Rated tournaments

Poker texas hold'em

Fischer random chess

      FICGS correspondence chess banner facebook