Posts from Forum

The fact that undeserved penalties shouldn't be given and players shouldn't be disqualified from tournaments.

if the game hasn't been played and it's unclear whose fault it is, both players get a technical loss; if one of the players confirms their unwillingness or inability to play, they get a technical loss, and the other player gets a technical win.

This is truly fair.

Sergey, unfortunately, I don't have time right now to delve into the tournament topic, the logs, and try to prove or justify anything. This was the decision of the organizer, who is responsible for all his actions and carefully considers each decision before making it. Perhaps, after the tournament (if there is time), I will explain all the controversial points in one post. For now, I will say briefly: in order for a person to advance to the next round, earn points, gain recognition, and receive general respect, they need in-game victories. No games => no victories => no recognition. That's it. I don't evaluate who among you is the better diplomat, who is more honest, who is busier in real life, whose computer breaks down less often, etc. - I need victories to determine who is stronger. P.S. When registering for a tournament, read its rules.

Kash, I have nothing against any system. I was just asked why I didn't play, so I started answering, and it all snowballed. Next time, I'll read the tournament rules carefully and decide whether or not to play. I have nothing against your rules; I just gave ADVICE on how it would be fairer in the case of a DIRECT and clear refusal to play by one of the players, rather than during the clarification of disputed circumstances (for example, with Marazhan, I had no alternative). But don't think that by giving this advice, I did something wrong.

I still recommend introducing such a system in future Tournaments: if a game is not played and it is unclear whose fault it is, both players get 0 points; if one of the opponents confirms their unwillingness or inability to play, they get a technical defeat, and the other player gets a technical win.

Thank you for the advice, but of course, I won't use it. :)

I remember that the last time the public advised me to do something similar was when the user maxlewis appeared and also demanded a technical win against Yenik. I had to then review the logs and discuss it all on the forum. I repeat once again, if you don't trust the organizer, just withdraw from the Tournament; no one is forcing you to participate.

It will be much fairer, and there will be fewer complaints and questions directed at you.

When you say that there is injustice somewhere, specify where. Otherwise, it's just empty slander.
SergeyY believes that he unfairly didn't make it to the playoffs.
I respond: no games - no wins, so he didn't make it, and that's fair.
Question and answer.
Wlk, what are your complaints? :)

SergeyY believes that he didn't deserve to be excluded from the playoffs.
I respond: no games - no wins, that's why he didn't make it, it's fair.

Fair - according to your rules - yes. Unfair - if I really "deserved" to be played against, but they didn't want to play with me - then no. :)

I'll repeat once again, if you don't trust the organizer, then don't participate in the tournament, no one forced you to join.

That's all clear, no complaints. I wasn't making complaints, I was just giving advice.

When you say that there is injustice somewhere, specify where. Otherwise, it's just empty slander.

It is UNFAIR that when one of the opponents REFUSES to play in a tournament, the innocent opponent (who has already suffered from not getting the opportunity for an interesting match) is also punished on par with the culprit. It's strange, Viktor, that you don't understand such simple and obvious things :confused:

It's understandable, especially when it happens with just ONE match!
In my case, the situation reached the point of absurdity. THREE matches in the tournament (all except one against Rimple) were lost, and I couldn't play – I messaged two of them on ICQ, but they disappeared. Then, one offered to play on December 31st, the other on December 30th, and later, on the night of the 29th. That's it, all within these strict timeframes. The third match was with Marazhan; there were no alternatives, he had no connection, and it was clear that the game wouldn't be finished. He clearly stated that he couldn't play.

And I received three zeros in the table. :) Although it's undeserved, it's fair (according to your rules), so I don't blame anyone.

It's a simple thing. How can you have rules where refusing to play results in both players getting zero points, and how does that affect getting out of the group? In the group, there are 5 people, three of whom are friends, and the other two are outsiders, but they are CHAMPIONS. If all the games are played, each person has only a 40% chance of getting out, i.e., two out of five. More precisely, the friends have a 1% chance because the champions are stronger. But the friends think that the champions won't be an obstacle. One pair of friends plays against each other, and one wins. The one who lost says, "Okay, I've already lost anyway, and it will be difficult for me to get out, so you two can now 100% get out of the group." Already after the first game! How is this done?

The one who said that loses the second match to the other friend. The other also has 1 point. Between themselves, the two winning friends play to a draw. So, a pair of friends with 1.5 points emerges. Then, since the friends support each other, they "throw" the remaining two "outsiders" in the group, i.e., they agree not to play against them. None of the friends play against them, and they are given 3 zeros each. Between themselves, they only have one game left, and a maximum of 1 point, which means that the two outsiders will not get out of the group under any circumstances, even if they are champions three times over.

That's how friendship triumphs over strong players. :)

Krosh
Read, read!
Sensation! A global conspiracy against newcomers on HeroesWord!
Dirty Player recorded a replay of how to take a mini-conquest with 7 Imps!
Avern made a prize tiger with polka dots instead of stripes!
Can we not save the tiger!
Yozhik
As well as crosswords and a humor column.
:D :D :D

Kash, I have some questions. Purely technical ones. Which of these reports will be accepted with a 1-0 score, and in which case will both players receive a 0-0 score? And what is the difference in these cases? (This is IMPORTANT) 1st case:

BA/IEHOK (Blue, Swamp, Tazar, Tazar) def RiMpel2 (Red, Inferno, Marusya, Marusya) 2cm4d3 111. The rest time ran out, and the game ended abruptly. The opponent offered a rematch, but I declined.

2nd case:

AAA (Blue, Swamp, Tazar, Tazar) def BBB (Red, Inferno, Marusya, Marusya) 2cm4d3 111. BBB: I decided to forfeit because I think player AAA will win against me.

3rd case:

AAA (Blue, Swamp, Tazar, Tazar) def BBB (Red, Inferno, Marusya, Marusya) 2cm4d3 111. BBB: I decided to forfeit because I don't want to waste time. (Actually, they always forfeit because they don't want to waste time!)

4th case:

BBB: I decided to forfeit because I don't want to waste time. Since I decided to forfeit, I didn't want to waste time on map generation either.

5th case:

marajan: I can't play because I have computer and connection problems. I agree to a loss.

Finally, the 6th case:

marajan (Red, Dungeon, Shakti, Shakti) lose SergeyY (Blue, Rampart, Kirr, Kirr) 2cm4d3 115. marajan: I can't play anymore because I have computer and connection problems. I agree to a loss.

Just don't tell me that the "hat" placed by marajan means anything significant to you. (These are not quotes; I highlighted them in a different color for easier perception). I have the feeling that if an opponent doesn't want to play and wants to forfeit, according to your rules, the quick map generation plays a role. (maxlewis says to Enik: "Let's generate a map in 1 minute so that Kash doesn't give both of us a 0-0 score," or even "let's just add a 'hat'"). For the FIRST TIME in my life, I see a situation where an opponent receives a 0-0 score for a VOLUNTARY FORFEIT. This is an unprecedented case that has no analogues in the world!

to SergeyY
They didn't give you zero, and they didn't give you one. Do you feel the difference?
Kash made it a rule not to award victories for games that weren't played. He made this decision before the start of the tournament and applied it to all participants.

No, I was given THREE ZEROS. I saw not empty cells, but actual zeros. But that's not important. It's irrelevant. Look at my 6 cases – in the previous post. I want Kash to answer where the games were PLAYED and where they weren't. I thought that the 5th and 6th cases, which are NO DIFFERENT, were MORE played than the 1st and 2nd... The 1st, by the way, was counted as a win.

In my opinion, the judging system is inadequate: I suggest voting.

toSergeyY
Question: If you made it to the playoffs thanks to such "0-0" results, would you raise the issue of the fairness of this approach, as you are doing now?
People only like to talk about fairness when it's beneficial to them, but when they get through, it's okay, and they don't care anymore...

The organizer doesn't owe anyone anything. They do a lot of useful things for free. And all I, as a participant, can do is participate in the tournament and play all my matches on time – that's the least I can do, and it's not comparable to the organizer's work and contribution. Therefore, if I don't like the rules, I don't participate. If I participate, it means I agree with the rules.
How do you like this approach?

P.S. Before you start bothering the organizer, imagine for a couple of minutes that you are doing their job...

In my opinion, the judging system is inadequate: I suggest voting.

It's perfect for a beginner tournament.

And, as I've said before, beginners shouldn't be put in the same group; they won't learn anything from each other.
We should organize tournaments with mixed teams: experienced players + beginners.
It will be easier to maintain discipline and teach them.

I can understand not awarding a tech-win if both players are at fault, for example, if they couldn't agree on something. But this is a different situation. It is explicitly stated that a player does not receive 1 point for voluntarily forfeiting a match. No one should care how the match was played – whether someone forfeits on the first turn, the second turn, or decides not to generate a map and just enters a report in the header, or any other way... It's the same as if Kasparov, in a chess match, needed to avoid losing the final game, and because he's afraid of losing, he says, "I forfeit," and the judge records both scores as zero, which is what Kasparov wanted. Here's how three friends can prevent two world champions from advancing from the group stage under any circumstances.