| From | Message |
artaserse
9/01/2008
16:07:29
[ report abuse ] |
 Subject: The new tournament rule
Message:
Hi,
did you see the new tournament rule? I mean this one:
"The first 3 rounds will be considered finished when 99% of all games in the corresponding tournament section have been completed. The remaining 1% of games that are still in progress at the time will be recorded as draws in the tournament table, but they still can be finished as regular rated games (their actual results will not retroactively affect the tournament table). Starting with the 4th round on, all games have to be completed in all groups in the same tournament section before the next round can be started."
What do you think about it?
I think that the problem actually exists: it takes a lot of time from one round to the next one, sometimes 5 or 6 months. I usually finish my round in 2 months, and, when I win I don't like to wait so much for the next round.
Anyway I don't think this method to speed up things is good, for three reasons:
1) I don't like the idea that some morally won game are counted as draws.
2) This discourages people from abandoning lost games, as they know that they can take a draw if the game stays long enough, so why resigning?
3) Somebody, as soon as he is behind in a game, wait as much as possible before moving, stalling the game. Whit this rule even more people will be encouraged to do this, and the consequence can be that the round takes even more time to complete.
I think other methods can be better. Two suggestions:
1) The organizers of a tournament fix a dead-line, such as four month from the start, to finish the round. After this dead-line is reached, the remaining games are adjudicated, i.e. an arbiter decides if one of the two player is winning, in which case he gives a win to one of them, or if they are nearly even, in which case they get a draw.
2) A completely different way to handle the tournament can be the following. New rounds starts every first monday of the month. Players who have earned a qualification for a certain round can start playing the new round as soon as the new month comes, without waiting for all the other rounds to finish. For example, now on september 8th a new round starts. People who finishes their first round in one month will start their second round in october. People finishing their first round in two month will start their second round in november, togheter with people who have started their first round in november and have finished it in one month. And so on.
What do you think about this? I'm curious to know other's opinions...
|
nathanman22
9/01/2008
16:32:06
[ report abuse ] | just saw it
Message:
and I don't like it one bit....they should not punish players who have a life away from chess....it's not fair to us who play slower.
-Nathan
|
heinzkat
9/01/2008
16:54:37
[ report abuse ] | New tournament rule...
Message:
Encourages stalling/postponing for players who are competing for first place but are losing a game against their peers. That's all I can see now. Time will give us examples of "unfair" tournament advances by players. Let's wait for such cases first, before judging - remember, neither players' rating is affected, only the tournament result (which may lead to the unjustified advance of the one player vs. the unjustified disqualification of the other). Also note that this new rule only affects the outcome of about 30 games in the first round of a section. If a time limit is set (as proposed above), I would expect this number to "skyrocket" - I mean, it is easy to play slow and take a few postponements in order to get to the required time. It is less easy to get to the last 30 remaining games of 3000.
I can definitely see it can come to frustration where one player stalls a lost King + Rook vs. King ending in order to get the desired extra half to progress at the cost of the other. Sort of an official review is required, but then the limit has been lossened and technically lost endgames with a tiny pawn more should be adjudicated as well, and I can see GK doesn't want to go that far. So the rules as they have been introduced stand; now let's see what comes from it.
|
nathanman22
9/01/2008
17:04:21
[ report abuse ] | I have already sent in a petition
Message:
I am hoping to get it changed back to the way it was. There was nothing wrong with the way it was. I think it is reasonable that if the games do not affect the results to move on to round 2 as many tournaments are stalled due to meaningless games. Doing this is probably a better alternative rather than altering the actual tournament scores due to not finishing within a set time guideline.
This would prevent the stalling of games by people who know that if they can make it to the last 99% they can get draws rather than losses. Just move on when all the games deciding the tournament are finished. Why not do it this way? Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea?
-Nathan
|
wschmidt
9/01/2008
17:05:42
[ report abuse ] | I'm astonished!
Message:
I'm very rarely critical of GK's decisions but this is a mistake. Talk about invoking the law of unintended consequences! The likely result of this change will actually be to make the rfirst three rounds last longer. Here's why....
*
Players with losing games who are in the last 5% or so of unfinished games in a round will drag the games out as long as possible in the hope that they'll fall into the 1% that is awarded a draw result in the tournament standings. So where you once had a handful of slow players or bad sports dragging things out for their own reasons, now you've built in a scoring convention that actually encourages slow play!
*
There are plenty of workable ways to speed up the tournaments but this idea wasn't properly vetted. I think we should call it the Sarah Palin rule.
|
thegreatchampino
9/01/2008
17:10:36
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I don't play many tourneys anymore, but this new rule is stupid. it ranks up there on the stupidity level with the closing of the social forum
|
nathanman22
9/01/2008
17:11:30
[ report abuse ] | wschmidt
Message:
did you like my idea about starting a new round once all the crucial games have been finished? This will leave other games to be finished, but a round 2 can start right away speeding up the process.
-Nathan
|
heinzkat
9/01/2008
17:17:00
[ report abuse ] | WSchmidt
Message:
I wonder if it is based on those awfully bad thought-out proposes that I have read in these forums; if so, then it's a bad thing (but I don't think it is based on those - more based on a practical view of speeding up the starting of next rounds).
And now I think of it more, it IS a bad thing. Most likely there will be lots of undeserved results - about 30 of 30, if these games were really "DEAD DRAWN" the players would have agreed to it a long time before the game reaches the last 1% of the tournament.
Perhaps that is not as one can observe it now (the last 1% might well be draws), but sure it will be with this new regulation implemented!
Hmm... probably too late to turn back, but you give correct reasons to find this extra system "suspicious".
|
heinzkat
9/01/2008
17:21:33
[ report abuse ] | Oh, one MUST remember this detail though...
Message:
That the outcome of the games will not change. So one who loses, will still lose rating points and one who wins will still win them.
|
mfeeney93
9/01/2008
17:48:22
[ report abuse ] | Let's leave Politics out of GameKnot please
Message:
wschmidt, I'm just say I'm very disappointed by your Sarah Palin remark. You have been a class act in these forums (for example, staring Novice Nook) and I'm sure you will continue to be so. Thank you.
Regards,
Matt
|
wschmidt
9/01/2008
19:14:43
[ report abuse ] | You're right, mfeeney.
Message:
I knew I shouldn't have put that in, but it was just such a softball sitting there waiting to be hit, I couldn't resist. My apologies. Won't happen again.
*
nathanman, I do agree with you that the best way to speed up the tourneys is to start the next round when the decisive games have finished. It's silly to hold up the folks who are moving to the next round while one or more meaningless games are being played. I don't understand why that simple fix hasn't been implemented first.
|
sittingduckling
9/01/2008
22:00:17
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I'm really disappointed by this rule: it's simply unfair.
|
nima_tal
9/01/2008
22:38:28
[ report abuse ] | .
Message:
I have been playing on Gameknot for almost five years.
I have noticed a pattern. Even though most decisions taken regarding the website are rational and make sense, every now and then it seems the moderators try to explore new horizons of stupidity,as if it is a challenge for them to find out what is the most idiotic they can do. A few years ago they came up with team ELO rating and now this.
|
gt2win
9/01/2008
23:42:40
[ report abuse ] | ???
Message:
This is a poor idea, for the reasons stated above. Why not just play with a shorter time control??? The time control of 3d+1d<5d is a bit quicker and acceptable in mini-t's, so why not here??? Much simplier and less controversal than the idea of an 'arbiter' deciding the outcome of matches after X number of months.
Nathanman22, your idea already exists (except in round 1.)
|
levellerlevvie
9/02/2008
01:06:04
[ report abuse ] | I was surprised but I think I can live with it ...
Message:
Tournament-Rounds do take too long ... and I might be one of those persons who seem to play very slow ... Mostly one of my games during a tournament round end up in those last 1% left (although I was never the last game playing I think).
I was surprised to see Gameknot introduce this system since indeed it opens the door for people dragging out that extra half point. But I also wonder how many times that extra half point will lead to unfair advancing of one player over another. Maybe it will result in some players together with someone else (both ending on 5 points or so) but not often as the only advancing player.
But as some say ... let's see how it goes ... although the potential threat is there, maybe everything will go just fine. If it's not working they will probably remove the rule without much protest, wouldn't they?
I will not be one of those trying to steal that half point, that's for sure ...
Ives
|
artaserse
9/02/2008
02:11:43
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I'm happy to see that many people agree with me on the fact that this rule risks to make tournament round longer instead of shorter, because it encourages players who is losing to stall the game.
I think that the rule should be stated saying that after 99% of games are completed the remaining games are adjudicated (meaning that an arbiter decides the outcome). This requires more effort from the organizers (finding the arbiters) but it would avoid the nasty consequences of the new rule, as there would be no point in stalling a lost game. The method of adjudication is the one used in official correspondence chess tournaments.
I think Gameknot should search for volunteers for making the arbiters, giving them something in return (as a month of premium membership for free every 20 games you arbiter, or something like that). Of course the arbiter of a game should have a rating higher than the rating of the two playing players.
nathanman22: your idea of starting new rounds after all the crucial games are finished is already implemented, but only from round 2 on, because in round 1 there are the rating enforcement rules that makes everything more complicated.
|
farhadexists
9/02/2008
08:15:37
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Adjudication would have been the most rational option. Wouldn't take that much work, 1% of games = 30 games?
The new rule would encourage people to hang on and delay lost positions, hoping for the extra 1/2 point they need to get through to the next round. This is probably the first GK decision that I'm totally against.
|
robert256
9/02/2008
09:49:49
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I don't think this new system is at all fair. On top of all the points above, the system means that 1% of games will always be drawn automatically. There isn't even a way the last percent can simply agree that one of them has lost to avoid an unfair draw. I believe most players on the site would have the decency to give up undeserved points in a group if they could.
At the very least the final 1% should be adjudicated, this could be done by very good chess computers, accurately and quickly, cheaply and without people wasting time looking at games. however just because a player has an advantage doesn't mean they would have won.
I'd be happiest with gameknot reversing they're decision, and returning to the old system.
|
nathanman22
9/02/2008
12:24:23
[ report abuse ] | Agreed Robert256
Message:
I think they should return to the old system. There was nothing wrong with it. It was well designed and it didn't take all that long for tournaments to end. I do think that one thing they should do is allow everyone to play in as many GK tournaments as they want. This was the only thing that was unfair to faster players--they could only play in one tournament at a time...and were rushed to finish. I think it should be that everyone can play in as many tournaments as they want just as you find in other sites. If they have other games to play, then they can't complain about slower players. It's us slower players who are being punished by the newer system.
The other idea I don't like--there is such a thing as a comeback and I'm pretty good at them. I may be behind at the time the game is adjudicated and be planning a comeback. Why should I be penalized? No game should end just because fast people complain--the very POINT of correspondence chess is to play longer games and think out your moves. I am appalled that people would approve the idea of having someone decide my games....I should be able to play each game out to it's final checkmate!!! I am a comeback believer...and I should not have my games ended prior to that comeback!
-Nathan
|
nathanman22
9/02/2008
12:27:07
[ report abuse ] | Ask yourself
Message:
Would you want one of your games to end when a comeback is possible? I'm not talking about games that are already decided....but games where you may be 3 or 5 points down. Think about those great comebacks that you have made--and think about the fact that they would have ended before you could even finish!!! Do you really want that? Who's with me? Let's have the old system back!
-Nathan
|
gameknot_com
9/02/2008
13:16:23
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Thank you everyone for your feedback (both positive and negative).
Yes, counting the last 1% of the games as draws without waiting for them to end is not absolutely perfect. However, after considering many alternatives, it is the best solution by far. Please think about it before dismissing it as "poor decision" -- there are no better alternatives.
It solves one of the most common complaints we receive about tournaments as being too slow -- according to our calculations, it should cut down the time it takes for a round to be completed by a third. Of course, if somehow it doesn't work, we would revert everything back.
Right now there are 22 rounds that are 99% complete. 7 out of which are held back by a single game each!
Yes, we already don't wait for all games to be completed in the tournament group for it to be considered as completed. If the remaining games in progress cannot affect the top position in the group regardless of their final outcome, that group is marked as finished early. (Except for the 1st round, where all positions need to be established in case the top player(s) in the group exceeds the rating limit for the section and is moved to the next higher section). It helps speed up the progression, but unfortunately not by much...
Adjudicating games, either by arbiters or via chess engine analysis, unfortunately would create even more problems. Most of the long running games are too close to call, so we would simply be swamped by complaints and appeals by upset players, who would likely disagree when their games are decided against them. Not to mention that hiring someone with enough authority and expertise to review hundreds of games each month would simply be too expensive, and no one would trust an unknown player or a volunteer to be objective, or knowledgeable enough to handle all possible cases.
And don't forget, the last 1% of the games wouldn't be forced to end on the spot, players would still be able to finish them normally. The games just won't be counted any more in the tournament table, or rather, they will be counted as draws.
And if you are still upset about this change, all we are asking for, please give it a chance. If in a few months time this change turns out to only slow down the tournament rounds (as some of you suggest), we'll of course change everything back. Thank you for your understanding.
|
nathanman22
9/02/2008
16:27:13
[ report abuse ] | thank you
Message:
Thank you gameknot for you response on this thread. I only ask one more question and that is--is it necessary to do this past the first round. The rounds generally move faster the less people involved plus all tournament games starting in the 2nd round do not have to be completed to move on. I think that that would be sufficient to speed up the process. I don't see the necessity to enforce the draw rule past the first round.
-Nathan
|
perro_feo
9/02/2008
18:22:51
[ report abuse ] | New tournament rule...
Message:
A poor idea. Why not just play with a shorter time control?
JL
|
nima_tal
9/02/2008
19:04:06
[ report abuse ] | One example:
Message:
One example why the new change is absolutely wrong:
 gameknot.com
There are 2 people on top of the group with 4 points.
One of them has 2 games left, the other one has 1 game
left. All the person who has 2 games left has to do is wait
one week and then he will be the winner of the group with
5 points but in reallity, one of his games is lost and he is
just dragging it, and why shouldnt he? He can get a undeserved
half point by not resigning. The other person with 4 points
and one game left though gets punished because:
HE RESIGNED HIS GAME IN A LOSING POSITION!
New rule just makes the problem worse:
Before it took a long time to complete 100% of a round of a tournoment
from now on it will take even longer to get to 99% complete, much much longer.
Why? Nobody would resign, and why should they?
|
artaserse
9/03/2008
01:23:27
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Applying this new rule to rounds already in progress is definitely unfair. In the above example the person who resigned its game in a lost position didn't know about the rule. And now he is going to lose his round because of a rule introduced after he has made his choice.
With the new rule, while you have some hope of winning a round, you should never resign a lost game. This is the drawback of the rule.
|
nathanman22
9/03/2008
04:18:44
[ report abuse ] | another concern
Message:
Another concern that I have is the false accusations I am going to face because of this new rule. See, I'm a slow player throughout the entire match because of the way I work. I work 60+ hours a week and so I am usually only able to move 1x a day if I'm lucky. Some days, I'm not even able to move because I work from like 7:45-11 pm and when I get home I'm so tired that I will not move. I do not move when I'm tired--I learned that the hard way. However, to people who see my games lasting until the 99th percentile, I am going to be a staller and a cheater. I'm neither--I'm just a slow player--and all us slow players are soon going to be put in the "cheaters" bracket because we don't play fast enough for people who have nothing better to do but sit by there computer and play chess all day. I personally have a very busy life and I love to play chess on the side--so I move when I can. I do not want to be accused as a cheater when I am not one...I am just a slow player and that is perfectly fine on this site....unless you are playing a tournament game now!
-Nathan
|
david_axelsson
9/03/2008
06:20:55
[ report abuse ] | never...
Message:
...been writing on this forum before, but I have not seen such a bad idea from GK before either. GK says
"And if you are still upset about this change, all we are asking for, please give it a chance. If in a few months time this change turns out to only slow down the tournament rounds (as some of you suggest), we'll of course change everything back. Thank you for your understanding."
Yes but that's not what problem is about! It doesn't mather if it turns out to slow the tournaments down or if it spedds'em up. The problem is that the rule is unfair and the reasons for that has been stated many times above.
|
claukonen
9/03/2008
14:03:46
[ report abuse ] | New tourney rule/tourney sections
Message:
I am playing in GK's 44th tournament, which is my happens to be my first one. My grouping in the expert section finished about two months ago. There are still twelve games left to complete in the expert section and three of them are only at move seventeen. So the expert section could easily take two more months to complete. GK's new idea might be abused by a few people that hold out for the .5 point that should not get, so they can advance into the next round. But all of us that advance into the next round(s) should not have to wait as long.
Then there are the GK tournament sections. All seem fine except the expert section. I know I have read threads on this issue before. The 1700+ rating for the expert section virtually guaranties that I will never make it past round two, a bummer. I am a solid 1800-1900 rated player. It would be so nice to break the expert section into two sections. Maybe a 1700-1999 'expert' and a 2000+ 'master' section.
Gameknot, I did see you posted a message in this thread. So can you tell us if you are indeed thinking of breaking up the current expert section? Would be nice to know...
Chris
|
cyberknight999
9/03/2008
17:27:07
[ report abuse ] | The New Tournament Rule...
Message:
As most of the GK players agree that the GK Tournaments take to long to finish, I offer these suggestions.
#1: Create a block of tournaments with a shorter time control. Shorter time controls will finish quicker.
a) 1 day per move
b) 3+1<5
#2 Increase the number of tournament sections with smaller ratings ranges using the players average rating over the last (90/180) days for qualifications. Use 100 ratings points increments for the groupings. A player's average rating will be more stable than his current rating making this possible. I suggest: brackets from under 1100 up to 2100+. These smaller sections will finish quicker.
|
nathanman22
9/03/2008
18:55:57
[ report abuse ] | False assumption that...
Message:
most people do not agree GK tournaments take too long. Many of us could care less how long they take because we just play other games while we are waiting. The only thing that needs to be changed from the old system is the fact that players such as cyberknight (who are not paying for a membership) should be able to play as many tournaments as he/she wants...so he/she doesn't feel the push to finish so quickly. I totally think he/she should be able to join as many as he wishes whether he pays or not! Then he/she will always have games to play and won't worry as much about the slower games which are due to the fact that people have life outside of chess and don't want to spend every waking minute in front of the computer playing chess. That is my concession--keep the tournaments the way they are, but allow for people like cyberknight and other non-paying members to be in as many tournaments as they want. This satisfies everyone.
-Nathan
|
heinzkat
9/04/2008
08:53:29
[ report abuse ] | ...
Message:
nathanman22: ...it's a false assumption that you are speaking on behalf of "many of us"... also it's a false assumption cyberknight999 is not a premium member... "get your facts straight!" :-)
I am speaking on behalf of myself (as always), if I say that I think that this new rule will...
1) Hurry up "slower" players who want to get a full point for a game (assuming they're still in the race for the first place).
2) Slow down "quicker" players who want to get a half point for a game (assuming they're still in the race for the first place).
3) Extremely slow down the "slower" players who want to get a half point for a game (assuming they're still in the race for the first place).
4) This rule will most likely not affect any of my tournament results as I'm a relatively "quick" player (although some of my opponents might disagree), so it's OK for me - I think this new rule will most probably improve MY (not everyone's - my) "tournament experience". (to get to the last 1% with a won game takes a slow winning player and a slow losing player)
cyberknight999: #1 a) Only one day per move is just a bit too demanding. b) maybe, but for me the two days per move format is one of the main reasons that makes me enter the tournaments. Otherwise I would just join mini-tournaments.
#2 I think the tournament sections as they are now, except for the omission of the 1700-2000 group (claukonen's proposal), are good.
A suggestion by me from a while ago is creating a new big tournament format, "knock-out tournaments", in which players who advance will get a new round match quickly (at least faster than it is now):
gameknot.com
I've sent this to gameknot_com too, but I don't think they've taken this into consideration. Perhaps worth a relook?
|
cyberknight999
9/05/2008
07:07:48
[ report abuse ] | The New Tournament Rule...
Message:
I don't like the idea of arbitrarily calling a game a draw. I agree that the effects of the new rule probably will me minimal as HeinzKat indicated, but I still don't think its the right way to "fix the problem." A player with a superior position won't be happy when he is stuck with draw because his opponent dragged the game out for the automatic draw. I'm sure there will be a few players that will try to use the new rules to this advantage. Perhaps there should be a warning to the players involved when 2% of the games are still being played: "98% of the games in this Tournament have been completed. The Remaining games are subject to being declared an automatic draw. Please try to finish your remaining game(s) as soon as possible to avoid this." While this still wouldn't prevent some players from stalling, it might prompt the players who have superior positions to finish the game as quickly as possible to avoid the automatic draw.
Heinz - I agree that one move per day is probably too demanding for CC. This is why I like the Fisher time control the best. How about 3+1<5, 3+1<9, 1+1<9 or even 3+(12 hours)<9 etc...
CK999
|
heinzkat
9/05/2008
07:23:34
[ report abuse ] | 1+1<2 Fischer incremental
Message:
Ideal for GK tournaments! (short message, but I don't have more to say)
|
artaserse
9/08/2008
02:12:28
[ report abuse ] | Some questions
Message:
Did you notice that the new rule has been changed? Now it applies only to the 1st and 2nd round.
Did you notice that they cancelled the message they sent to everybody with the new rule, old version?
Do the new rule still apply to the tournaments in progress ? The past tournament rounds that reached 99% have not been declared finished yet.
|
brynner
9/08/2008
11:12:07
[ report abuse ] | I like the rule
Message:
I like the rule change.
I'm a slow player, but I'm not sympathetic towards those who find themselves in the last 1%.
Maybe there can be an additional stipulation that the 1% rule is only applied after a round reaches a certain age. For instance, it's only enforced once a round has been ongoing for six months. That way, you not only have to be in the last 1%, you have to also have taken over six months to complete your round. If you're in the last 1%, but you're making a good effort at completing your games, then it won't get applied to you.
Or maybe there can be a separate limit on postponement days that can be used in tournaments. Because really, the problem isn't slow players. What you have is players stringing together slow play with postponements. I don't think it's offensive to say that if you want to play in a tournament, you have to be available to play in the tournament.
But I think the negative effect is very small. In a round where maybe 160 people are moving on, I don't see this affecting more than 1 or 2 people, in terms of its effect on who moves on.
|
heinzkat
9/09/2008
00:36:01
[ report abuse ] | Is the 99% rule...
Message:
already enforced in GK tournaments that already started before, or not?
|
bobgazais
9/09/2008
08:06:22
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Where does all this testosterone come from people want to win win win ? I just want to play and I don't care what the rules are as they apply to myself and my opponent.
I just have 2 suggestions: don't base level changes on rating change, base them on last
50 or 100 games average please.
-and-
In the mini-tournaments remove the player removal due to rating change - it's not true!
best regards,
Thank you GameKnot God for this site
|
willikizz
9/09/2008
15:41:42
[ report abuse ] | New Rule
Message:
First of all can i ask what is happening about the new rule as i have tournaments that are 99% and 100% complete which have yet to be given a start date.
We have to acknowledge there is a problem with tournament slow progression. Slow players may like the old format but i have noticed the 9th Gk tournament started in November 2002 (nearly six years). I can accept tournaments may take time but this is ridiculous.
Tournaments must be fair. To advance over another player by obtaining unfair draws is wrong but also we must remember no game is won until a Checkmate or resignation is made (an advantage is not guaranteed to win). Adjudicators and forced draws would both make a mockery of the tournament and will always bring in complaints.
To speed up the tournaments and to keep fairness gameknot must only look at adjusting time controls or entry requirements.
With time controls reducing the 2 day time limit would create too many problems and too many timeouts. One idea that may work might be to give a time-limit on the whole game such as 100 Days per person. You start with 100 days you make a move after 8 hours, time passes to the opponent, You have 99 days 16 hours in which to complete your game and your opponent has 100 days. This would make each round a maximum of 200 days. The 2 days per move must still stay in place to stop bad sportsmanship and the next round should still start as soon as possible if completed before the 200 days.
Entry requirements could possibly be restricted to paying members to keep in serious players only. It could also be restricted to fast players only. This may cause complaints off the legitimate slow players but there are many other options of game play more suited to their style such as league and mini tournaments where slow play isn't a major issue.
The final thought must go to Gameknot who has the final decision to make. Whatever is decided will still cause complaints. You cant please everyone.
Gareth
|
wuzzie
9/11/2008
03:45:04
[ report abuse ] | top GK players as referees
Message:
as been said before it makes no sense. There should be some referees lets say 10 of the the top 50 GK players who decide the outcome of the remaining games (don't fix on the numbers). I don't understand those people who would stretch a game for that half point. They are only lying to themselves!
|
claukonen
9/11/2008
20:37:12
[ report abuse ] | GK Tournament time
Message:
I have no idea how this idea might work and I am guessing idea has been brought forward before..
---
In a faster OTB tournament time controls can be 30 moves in the first 30 minutes and the 30 minutes for the rest of the game.
---
So the first 30 moves in 30 days and the rest of the moves in 30 days. Of course Gameknot's extra days for Saturdays, holidays and vacation time extends the time.
---
This basically means two months maximum of playing time for each game excluding Gameknot's extra days mentioned above. If one player does not make 30 moves in 30 days he loses the game, again extra time added for Gameknot's extra days.
---
Gameknot allocates 60 days for each player to complete their game and the clock ticks down. Never increasing, but pausing for Gameknot's Saturday's, holidays and personal time off.
---
Comments?
|
claukonen
9/11/2008
20:48:54
[ report abuse ] | GK Tournament time
Message:
I meant, four months of playing time for the entire game.
|
artaserse
9/15/2008
02:40:40
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
It seems the new tournament rule actually applies to rounds started before it was announced. They just took some time to apply it. Today SOME rounds that reached 99% of the games completed have been declared finished. Anyway some have not. Probably they have to do this manually.
|
levellerlevvie
9/15/2008
03:40:17
[ report abuse ] | Yep .. Activation is probably manually
Message:
Probably they have a process that does the job but without automation meaning they have to trigger it manually. I can imagine they have some sort of property-file where they manually put the id's of the rounds to be finished and then hit the run button ... or they launch a specific query that gives them those id's ... doesn't matter really ...
This is the message you get when a game gets drawn before completion:
15-Sep-08, 02:27
tournament One or more of your games in 43rd GK tournament have been recorded in the tournament table as draws because they are among the last 1% of still unfinished games in your tournament section (as per the GK tournament rules), so that the current tournament round can finish sooner and a new one started. Please note that the games themselves remain in progress and are now considered as regular rated games, so that they can be finished normally. Each game's actual result will no longer affect the tournament table when it is finished.
|
heinzkat
9/16/2008
02:04:43
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
U-2000 tournament section was added:
gameknot.com
|
artaserse
9/16/2008
05:36:38
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
The Under-2000 section! Finally they have done it! That is really great news!
Anyway... there are very few people subscribed for the No-Limit section. I hope more people will subscribe there, or we risk that they remove the under-2000 section in the future.
|
heinzkat
9/16/2008
06:42:50
[ report abuse ] | That's just...
Message:
Because it has been introduced a few hours ago. I was signed up for the Expert section but "all of a sudden" it said I wasn't signed up for any. Let's hope the others who signed up already do not miss this change.
|
cyberknight999
9/16/2008
14:25:28
[ report abuse ] | Steps in the right direction!
Message:
The new section is a welcome change. It doesn't affect me directly, but I'm sure there's more than a handful of 1700 - 1999 players who will be happy.
Artaserse - looks like the number sign-ups in the new section will justify its creation. When I last checked, there were 127 players in the U-2000 and only 15 in the top section.
I also noticed that the lowest section you can enter is now determined by your top rating attained within the last 90 days. I suppose this is designed to prevent players from dropping a few games to get into a lower section.
Now they just need to tweak the time-controls and we're in good shape.
Good Job GK.
|
heinzkat
9/16/2008
14:59:38
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
"Looks like the number sign-ups in the new section will justify its creation. When I last checked, there were 127 players in the U-2000 and only 15 in the top section."
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the previous post about this. I think this is because all players with a top rating in the last 90 days exceeding 2000, who signed up for the Expert section, have been withdrawn automatically from the tournament. All players who signed up for the Expert section that have not had their rating over 2000 in the past 90 days, still are in the Expert section (including lower-rated players who want to play in the highest group for some experience playing stronger players). All 2000+ players have to sign up again (look at GK tournament 49 - about ninety 2000+ players are participating), and possibly sub-2000 players have to change their section enrollment. But it's still early in the month, probably most will notice the change soon enough. Otherwise GK-50 might be a very small tournament!!
|
tyrin
9/17/2008
01:40:08
[ report abuse ] | About new rules
Message:
I liked the idea of 30 days to finish the game after some moves already made f.e. 30. But i think is better if we play two day per move until we reach 40st move and then 60 days to finish the game. If it is possible for the designers of course. What do you think?
|
gt2win
9/17/2008
07:17:03
[ report abuse ] | I think
Message:
This extra section is a good way of shortening the length of time the tournament takes (by lowering the numbers participating in each section) without having to put in the silly '99% games completed' rule.
|
lighttotheright
9/17/2008
09:25:23
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
The new section is a good development.
I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me on the following, but.... In my opinion, the criticisms of the 99% rule so far seem to be unfounded to me. Here is why.
1) We are talking about only 1 % of the games. That is hardly a game changer.
2) People on GK already stall their games as long as possible. Players can only stall so much, given the time limits involved.
3) Given how slow some people play on GK, most of the those 1% games will not even get started before they are decided by the rule.
4) It is people like me that will play as fast as possible without hurting quality of game...actually shortening the tournament. There is no way I'm going to get hurt by this rule. Many of the slow players tend to be good ones. I don't believe they want to be caught either.
5) Who wants to play slow only to get a game result decided against you? That's the other side of the coin that nobody else has pointed out. It often takes both players to stall in order to get the lengthy games observed in those finally 1%. It would be stupid to stall the game longer than necessary, unless you were going to do the same thing under the previous rules anyway.
6) The extremely slow games are basically the only ones that are going to be affected. And if they are going to be that slow, perhaps they should be draws anyway!
I could be wrong in my prediction, but I'm pretty confident. These rules have made it a lot more likely that I will actually enter a GK tournament. We will see how things progress. And I will decide from there.
|
| | Maximum number of reply messages has been reached |
|
