CHALLENGE The_ CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, The_'s CHALLENGE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE

I won't break down the post into quotes; I'll describe the situation from my perspective. For clarity, I'll try to avoid preambles and introductions and outline a few facts that can be used to draw conclusions. 1. If we draw an analogy with chess, it is considered absolutely normal to offer a draw after the first move, and accepting such a draw is not considered something out of the ordinary. It is assumed that since this draw suits both opponents, they have already done the work that ensures the possibility and viability of this outcome. For example, when I was 13, I went to a chess tournament in Kostroma to qualify for the next rank. I needed my two main competitors in the final round to play to any result other than a draw – they agreed to a draw after the first move. Even then, I understood that they weren't the bad guys; I was the one who had put my fate in the hands of others, and they decided it not in my favor (which would have been strange), but turned it in their favor (which is logical). I think the moral is clear. Or here's another recent example: after three losses in one day (in the Champions League), I decided that I had 0 chance of qualifying. I won't say that I played the fifth game against Namvan half-heartedly – quite the opposite (I only tilted towards the end); I tried to win with all my might, but in the end, Namvan lost two games to the lawyer, and if I had won then, I would still have had a chance to fight for qualification. Again, who is to blame for my decision that the fight was over? Probably the unscrupulous lawyer who didn't beat Namvan before our game. 2. First of all, you need to look at the situation from your own side. If you win against everyone, are you not ready to win? Isn't that motivation enough? And who cares if all the matches between them end in a draw. You yourself write that you played the first two games half-heartedly; who is to blame for that? And now, after winning against Lebron, which you apparently didn't believe you could do, you suddenly realized that you were deceived and deprived of motivation. 3. The fact that you tried to play the games faster is great in my opinion, but if you think that you miscalculated tactically and now you need to solve strategic problems not only within the game but also outside of it, then that's up to each individual – there is no single moral code, and you can't fit it into the regulations. 4. On the other hand, the fact that the draws were presented to me in this way did not please me at all. I don't know what mood everyone was in when these messages were written and why they were in such a hurry, but the fact remains that everything was handled very incorrectly (in my opinion). 5. On the other hand, I perfectly understand that nothing prevents them from playing for a couple of days (weeks) and agreeing to a draw; the result would be the same. The only difference from this situation is that it would be like the result of a Denmark-Sweden match: it's clear what the result should be, but it can't be achieved immediately, so they have to go out on the field to play. Here, people openly wrote that they agree to a draw, without any additional schemes. Conclusion: I don't approve of the fact, but there is nothing to punish them for, it is absolutely the legal right of anyone to agree to a draw (or a technical result, whatever you want to call it), whether it's on 225 or 111 – there is no difference. I understand that it's unpleasant, but first of all, you need to look for the reasons for failure in yourself, and not complain about the negligent opponents and organizers who allow such "arbitrariness." P.S. Most likely, in the next Champions League, 3 points will be awarded for a win and 1 for a draw, as in football. But that's for the next one. You can't find and eliminate all the rough edges at once.