Best of HeroesWorld - final of the strongest (autumn 2009)

The most logical solution in this case is to give both players a loss.

Well, if both players are unable to play, then such a decision can be accepted, but then there arises a motivation to, at worst, make a fictitious draw or somehow cheat – which is not entirely good. And if one player cannot play physically, and the other simply doesn't want to, then giving 0.5 points to each is more acceptable, although not entirely fair. Giving both players a "0" is logical only if both are unwilling to play, and even then, it's better to try to change the opponent, etc. But if one side is unwilling to play or it's simply impossible to come to an agreement, then other approaches are needed to solve the problem. The worst option is 0.5; even in this scenario, in 50% of cases, the more interested player will miss out on 0.5 possible points, and the less interested player will receive 0.5 possible points. But in such a situation, giving both the less interested players a loss, we completely punish them, while the interested player loses 1 possible point. I have often encountered such difficult negotiations, and I can almost 100% tell what the opponent wants. If we immediately agreed (although this was more of a last resort, as you made a compromise and now it's clear that you won't do it anymore), then, for example, in the situation with Vigo, he made it clear that he doesn't want to play against me – that is, he agrees to his "0" or to changing the opponent, but the organizer decided that he simply doesn't want to give me a "1" point and won't change the opponent... and began to put pressure on us in every possible way, saying that if you don't agree, you'll both get a loss... in principle, Vigo shouldn't have become more interested, which means this is blackmail against me – you want points, play at an inconvenient time. When it came to the point that the organizer picked a time for Vigo to play with other players at a time that was convenient for me, he naturally started using this as leverage, and his blackmail seemed to gain official rights, but I personally want to note that this was not right on Pete's part, because it is a personal matter for everyone to schedule tournament games at the same time – and sometimes they may even play at a different time. As far as I understand, Vigo was not avoiding the game – he simply cannot play serious tournament games at night, and he plays fun games or in a league with a weaker opponent, and no one has the right to force him to do so – it's just a matter of stating that if he doesn't want to agree, then it's "0". But Vigo did everything to help the organizer and immediately offered himself a "0," which showed his adequacy and honesty. But I still don't understand why the organizer's head started to hurt, when everything was done for him, and Pete will confirm that I repeatedly tried to tell him this, to which he eventually replied that he doesn't have very strong grounds for a technical loss – that I need to get 3 rejections from Vigo, and then he will give me 1 point. I immediately said that this is idiotic – to bother a person who refused himself, but in the end, I gathered, it seems, 2 rejections. I sent the logs to Pete and, just in case, to our judge, vbn. I don't know if all this information reached the AC when Pete submitted the request (he was obliged to pass on the information)... but after that, a representative of the AC (LeBron) tells me that it was decided to give both players a "0," and "what other decision could be made?". So, excuse me, players of the trio – I'm in shock. There is, of course, the option that Pete, due to his enormous workload, etc., did not pay close attention to this issue, did not receive my messages or information... did not pass all this on to the AC... or simply got overheated, but I don't really believe that. Pete does a lot, he may make minor mistakes, although he denies this, but here there was a clear blunder that went unnoticed by everyone, because everyone saw his fanatical attitude towards this, which means the problem lies in the actions of the AC.