Well, I'm totally against quick draws however, it doesn't count on lichess. Lichess would score zero for draws accepted before a certain move number.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well, I'm totally against quick draws however, it doesn't count on lichess. Lichess would score zero for draws accepted before a certain move number.
Indeed, those draws resulted in 0 points. Then I guess we don´t have to do any actions 😄.
I am pretty sure players at their level are aware of the rule. If they feel this move improves their chances in the tournament (I think they are right that it does), you need to blame the organisers for creating a tournament structure that encourages such play. Not the players who are vaguely requested to try hard to win without specifying if they should go for winning the current game or the entire tournament. Asking them to win the games could be compared to asking them not to give up their Queen on move 45. I know it is mate in four if opponent takes but deliberately losing major pieces is a clear manipulation, right?
BTW, I got a questionable draw as well. I was a Pawn down with no compensation but there was 10 seconds on the tournament clock so my opponent offered draw. Does it make any sense not to count games that finish late? I cannot see any, tbh.
I think Arena is a dumb format that is intended to be played for laughs. If you want a serious competition, you should go Swiss.
That being said, I blame the guy who turned Arena streaks off because that is the exact mechanics that encourages people at the top of the rankings to play each other (as opposed to quick-drawing). Yeah, that would be you.
Good points, indeed all measures have some unintended consequences. I will change the rules to dis-encourage some of the discussed behavior, but to offer a draw so that a game still counts I will leave unpunished, because it is also unfair that a player spent time and nerves on a game and would be then not rewarded because of a few seconds. I know, not an ideal situation.
The streaks may have the negative effects you described, but to have them is even worse, as it adds a huge element of luck, given the sometimes random pairing in arenas with few players. Why should someone get 2 points for free, if he had only a lucky streak of lower ranked opponents? Why should generally stronger players for which most of the players are easy to beat, get many extra points by the streaks? They have already a huge advantage by playing in the same league as the others. So in future I plan 2 separate skill leagues. Just need to work out the details.
Thanks, I happen to know more about running gaming tournaments than about moving chess pieces around the board.
Adding luck is the sole purpose of Arena.
Why not disallowing Berserk under the some logic?
This is terrible idea. I assume the lower bracket still has cash prizes, begging strong players to maintain low-ranked alts. Weak players have still no shot at winning prizes meeting tough opposition - just on different accounts - crushing their confidence, ratings and plain out discouraging attendance in the long term. I would rather have it at no prizes.
BTW, giving a 1200 player a rare opportunity to play a titled opposition is just another feature (selling point if you wish) of Arenas. You do not even get that in the first round of a Swiss with all the bullshit bloodbath-seeding (you need to be in the middle of the field to get the star opponent in either first or second round).
Berserk allows more fun by handicapping uneven games. Streaks allow more fun by giving more people a shot at winning the tournament. If this series is supposed to find the champion rather than attracting large fields, you should - I repeat - avoid the Arena format in the first place.