We have the quarterfinals. Player AAA won against player BBB. And he (AAA) is in the semifinals. Player CCC did not play against player DDD; if both have zero points, then NO ONE advances. They are to blame because they DID NOT PLAY. Both have zero. Therefore, player AAA has no opponent in the semifinals, and he automatically advances to the final. He is not to blame at all; he simply had no opponent. But CCC and DDD are to blame because they could not agree, or one of them should have conceded (according to the rule of two zeros). This is exactly what happened with the pair of opponents, Tolikandro.
Well, since I was mentioned... The phrase that bothers me the most is:
I was saying how a COLLUSION is POSSIBLE in a situation with these rules, when three friends knock out two world champions from the tournament.
Is this a subtle hint about your skill level? It's easy to talk, but first, play a couple of games and write a couple of reports, and then try to prove something to someone! I already understand that you are good at talking nonsense...:rolleyes: You lost to a player who also lost completely at the start of the playoffs; what is there to talk about? It's better to train for the next tournament... If, of course, you intend to win in battles, not in debates...:smile17:
