Posts from Forum

SergeY, what does the "Newcomer Tournament 2009 Winter" mean to you – a possible medal under your avatar (but that's not what matters)? You lost in the tournament, and so did my good friend, although he played two games and was sure to win the remaining two (I played against them and know how he plays), and he accepted it as it was, without any unnecessary complaints! What's the point of this argument with Kesh? Do you want to prove that you were deprived of the opportunity to win the tournament (play against the tournament winner later and beat him – then I'll respect you)? Are you trying to accuse everyone in your group (except one) of an unfair conspiracy against you? I try not to get involved in such conversations (there's ICQ for that), sorry, but I couldn't resist!!!

In this tournament, the matchups were specifically chosen to instill discipline.

Discipline is very well instilled in a player who has scored enough points and no longer needs more. But the opponent needs points. The solution is simple – to forfeit or refuse to play, so that both players have zero points, but he has achieved his goal.

of course! The whole world is against SergeyY!!!! How could we, such fools, not have figured it out ourselves???
P.S. If you don't like it, don't play anymore.
P.S.S. I'm tired of this.

SergeyY deserves to advance to the playoffs. Since I have been in a similar situation myself, I have already expressed these thoughts: in this post. In short: Situation 1... The player admits defeat and officially informs about it in the tournament thread. The organizer is not happy with this; he demands that they come to an agreement and play, or at least collect three refusals from one of the sides. Three refusals were collected (despite how humiliating this activity was). BUT since the organizer noticed that the players sometimes overlap in time with other games, he called them cheaters and gave both of them "0." Situation 2... Due to mutual technical (valid) reasons, the players did not manage to play within the deadline. The organizer gives them an additional couple of days, but since coordinating schedules and the gameplay itself is very problematic, the players manage to restart twice within those two days, but promise the organizer that they will finish the match after a couple more attempts. As a result, in subsequent days, the players play up to turn 116, after which one of the opponents starts clearly avoiding playing... logs with 3-4 refusals are sent to the organizer, but he has already given both of them "0" again, calling them cheaters. 2Dirty

Please don't confuse the beginners' tournament with a regular tournament. In a regular tournament, discipline really plays an important role.

Personally, I find your phrase unpleasant because YOU, together with Pete, made the decision about giving "0"... the tournament was definitely not for beginners, and disciplinary moments, including the rules, were observed! 2Kash, I am not surprised by your position. this has happened before. But deluding yourself into thinking that no one will complain is not suitable for organizing tournaments, especially "beginners'" ones. Now there are people who disagree, and what do you do? You cut off the person completely... if I had been treated like this when I first came to ХВ, I would have told everyone to go away.

Why does Kesh need to answer this question repeatedly? He has more important things to do. What is your goal in continuing this topic?

No... SergeyY is behaving normally; everyone has their own perspective, and that's okay. Good luck in your future games and tournaments!

1. I am not blaming anyone. The history shows that I was the first one to be accused... Cagliostro writes to me, "Should I remind you how many games you've played?" That's where it all started. 2. I didn't say a word about any unfair collusion within OUR group. I only told Cagliostro the facts about how many games I didn't play and why. 3. I said that collusion is POSSIBLE in a situation with these rules, where three friends knock out two world champions from the tournament. 4. "And he accepted everything as it was, without any complaints." And I accepted everything without any complaints. The group stage ended on December 31st, and it wasn't until February 4th that I found out that, apparently, both players were given losses in the group stage, but in the playoffs, Cash was still giving technical wins. What's the difference between the playoffs and the group stage? Nothing! It's the same as the group stage, but with only 2 people in the group! Cash writes, "A winner is needed in the playoffs." But isn't a winner needed in the group stage either? 5. He keeps emphasizing "read the rules!" But there is NOT a SINGLE WORD in the rules (we're looking at the first page of the tournament) that says that both players will be given losses in the group stage, but in the playoffs, there will be technical wins.

Until I saw the message that it turns out, in the group stage, both teams were given a draw, but in the playoffs, Cash still gives technical wins. And what is the difference between the playoffs and the group stage? Nothing! It's just like the group stage, but with 2 people in each group! Cash writes, "a winner is needed in the playoffs." But isn't a winner needed in the group stage either?

They decided to give draws initially, but this won't work in the playoffs because where will they get another player (if someone can't play)? Will they replace them with someone else? How do you see this situation?

We have the quarterfinals. Player AAA won against player BBB. And he (AAA) is in the semifinals. But player CCC didn't play against player DDD; if both have zero scores, then NO ONE advances. They are to blame because they DIDN'T 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 didn't even have an opponent. But CCC and DDD are to blame for not being able to agree, or one of them should have forfeited (according to the rule of two zeros). This is exactly what happened with the pair of opponents, Tolikandro. By the way, there haven't been any technical wins yet. We hope that KillerVampire will play. That's it; I don't want to write anything more about this. At least not in the next few days. I just gave some advice for the future regarding the rules, and many people jumped on me, as if I was to blame for something. It's important to understand. I DON'T THINK that with these rules and this outcome, I should have to play in the playoffs. So, don't blame me for anything. But maybe, if the rules were such that there were technical wins instead of two zeros, there might be fewer avoidances of matches and more wins. And fewer dissatisfied people. This was just a SUGGESTION from me. I apologize if I was wrong about anything. I always try to be fair... :)

OMG... I'm speechless...

This happened in the playoffs. It seems he didn't get an opponent in the quarterfinals. And in the semifinals, they decided to give him a technical win. That's how it all started when I asked why there were double standards, even if we don't consider the group stage and only look at the playoffs.

If 2 people don't want to play and won't (in the playoffs), how can you force them? Should someone be given a 1-0 score, but what if they want to play in the next round?

What double standards are you talking about? There was a violation – and that's a technical (we're following the rules).

P.S. Friend, is your wife not letting you? Loosen up a bit...
P.P.S. The road to hell is paved with good intentions....

quote 2.2.10 from Kesh In the playoffs, the situation is different – a winner is needed who moves on. BUT: maxlewis and Kaliostr played for 2 weeks instead of one and still couldn't finish or come to an agreement. I was never warned that the match would be postponed. When I contacted them myself and asked, they replied, "next Wednesday. So what?" When I suggested to maxlewis to determine the winner based on saves, he flatly refused, and there was no more time to wait. Therefore, I decided not to give the victory to anyone since there were no contenders.

KillerVampire himself decided to withdraw from the tournament due to lack of time.
It is logical to assume that his opponent automatically advances further. Everything is fair.

January 24, 2010 Kesh I would like to hear Maxim’s opinion because Tolikandro is unhappy; he says he doesn’t want to advance without a fight...
Try to finish it after all; maxlewis said that there wasn’t much left.

January 24, 2010 Kaliostr The last of maxlewis’ additional days is over, and it will clearly not be possible to finish our match by Monday. And adding more days also makes no sense. Tolikandro deserves to win. Thank you, Kashy, for organizing the tournament, and good luck to everyone in the tournament!

January 19, 2010 Kesh Tolikandro agreed yesterday to wait a little longer for the result of the game.
maxlewis - Kaliostr
If so, then I don't mind. Just make sure you can finish it this week, and the winner plays against him. You have until Monday. Tolikandro can play almost every day, but if you delay the first one, I will give him the victory without question.

January 18, 2010 Kesh Guys, I understand that some people have exams, others have other things going on, but we cannot give more than a week for the round, and you need to understand me. We can't stretch "Novichok-Zima" until summer! A huge request: as soon as any delays appear, please inform me immediately. Then some concessions are possible. But if I contact you myself on the last day of the round and find out that you agreed to play tomorrow/the day after tomorrow/sometime – sorry, no concessions...

January 16, 2010 Kesh I hope everyone remembers that the deadline is Sunday?
This applies to both brackets.

P.S. In my opinion, the situation was not standard, and the decision was accordingly.

Some people give a 1-star rating – what if they want to play in the next round?

Friend, did I suggest giving a 1-star rating? I was actually suggesting the opposite – if you already have rules to give BOTH zeros for NOT PLAYING, then give both zeros in the playoffs as well.

Is your wife not letting you? Loosen up a bit...

If you've stopped understanding messages, take a nap.

Psyche_7, are you trying to prove something to me? Or are you just looking for someone to argue with?

SergeyY, Wlk777, and Alex_R,
you can think I'm an idiot, but I still don't understand, despite your efforts:
How can a participant in the group stage, who played ONE game out of FOUR and LOST it, make it to the playoffs?
WHY SHOULD I LET HIM INTO THE PLAYOFFS?
The question is purely rhetorical, because there's no reason.
I'm not completely disqualifying anyone. But this is a tournament, even if it's for beginners. And to be a contender, you need to PLAY and WIN. How can I make you understand this? I can still understand how Wlk got a medal ahead of LeBron; Wlk had some victories before, but LeBron suddenly valued poker more. Any fool can see that LeBron is stronger.
BUT HERE, WHAT'S THE REASON?

At least if you had won against Rimpel, there would be some basis for it.
But to advance from the group WITHOUT A SINGLE VICTORY is STUPID, and that will never happen in my tournaments.

I suddenly don't feel like writing a long, beautiful post, even though I seem to have time now. There's nothing to write about. And there's no need.

P.S. I hope you don't tear each other apart here by Monday.
And that I'll force myself to delve into this again.

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: