On rules amp players who lost 300 pts


Back to forum

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-01)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts


I've been told about a recurrent problem: is it fair to play against a stronger player who just lost 200 or 300 elo points because of many games lost on time (or whatever)?

IMO it is. Because as usual correspondence chess is not a matter of chess only. Of course such games may be harder for his opponents but there are good chances to see those games lost on time again (by experience).

Losing points is the only way to keep those games serious and protect players against this repeated again and again. So I don't think that rules should be changed, but any opinions & arguments are welcome here.

Don Groves    (2012-01-02 00:12:02)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

The rules allow a player who has entered a tournament to play in that tournament even if his/her rating drops below the minimum due to losing one or more games before the tournament begins. I agree that this is a good rule. However, if a player loses many games and drops more than 150 ELO (for example), maybe this rule should no longer apply to that player and he/her would be removed from that waiting list. This might prevent the situation described above.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-02 00:30:38)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Ah. This is actually another problem :) I think there shouldn't be a change there, but the problem was actually e.g. if a chess player rated 2400+ loses 300 points, so he is now 2100 and enters a class A waiting list. Is it fair for the other 2100 players in that waiting list...

Don Groves    (2012-01-02 00:45:12)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

That seems fairer than letting him continue to play in SM or M. The same problem occurs when a player leaves FICGS with games running and comes back a year or so later. Is there any good solution to this?

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-02 01:30:16)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Here it is... Any idea anyone?

Garvin Gray    (2012-01-02 02:05:43)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

I do not agree at all. I think there needs to be consequences for a person's actions, not just let off with no consequences, perhaps even get an advantage.

If there are mass time-outs, their rating should be returned to where it was (that is their correct playing standard), which means they can not enter the lower waiting list.

The idea that losing on time is part of the game only applies if the game was about 100 moves long and the game was short of time and someone used too much time on one or more moves.

But mass timing out of games is not a general part of the game at all. It is poor form and disrespectful to the site and the other opponents in the tournament and should be punished as such.

If they remain on the same rating, then they should certainly not be allowed to play in the event where they previously entered.

If a player has a legitimate reason for timing out so many games, they can take it up with the site administrator. That option always exists.

Don Groves    (2012-01-02 07:16:19)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Who said anything about letting them off with no consequences?

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-02 14:08:37)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Statistically playing 1 game in a tournament against an underrated player is not so much while losing 200 or 300 pts means a lot... And once again, quite often underrated players because of a mass forfeit will forfeit again! There are well known examples (very strong players rated 1900-2000) here. IMO it's the only way to prevent mass time outs!

I played at IECG and I was very disappointed to see games with an advantage simply cancelled after 30 moves or so, because of a time loss or just "forfeit". That is a non-sense to me. Rated games have to be rated!

So you suggest to simply punish players by not allowing them to play tournaments anymore (during 1 year or so)!? On the other hand, if players do not lose rating points what to do if a player has recurrent problems and has to resign his games once every year. Then many ratings will be hustled.

At last what will be a legitimate reason? It is so... so complex.

Don Groves    (2012-01-03 07:29:49)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Thib wrote: "So you suggest to simply punish players by not allowing them to play tournaments anymore (during 1 year or so)!?"

Who suggested this? Certainly not me!

Garvin Gray    (2012-01-03 15:12:44)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

I do intend to reply to this, just trying to think of a decent solution to propose :)

Scott Nichols    (2012-01-03 17:51:12)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

I think the way you have it right now is the only way to go Thib.

Philip Roe    (2012-01-04 00:02:21)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

There are players (who I could name if asked) who are capable of strong play but who start many more games than they finish. Whatever the outcome, there is little satisfaction to playing them. The problem with trying to impose any penalty is to identify them without closely policing the sytem.

A possible solution might be that players who have recently lost many short games could be restricted in the number of new entries that they can make.

Garvin Gray    (2012-01-08 16:55:23)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Looks like the player in question has been punted, or decided to leave ficgs as I can not find his name anymore and he longer appears in one of the waiting lists.