Timeout games don't count?

Originally posted by mghrn55
A good player would make sure that doesn't happen.

Not everyone on RHP is a good player... it technically could happen, you can't deny this.

After all what's been said, it is interesting to observe what's happened on the clan table...
A lot of teams have dropped, some of the higher ones have even left page 1.

In any case, I think a set rule for all <5 move games being wiped should be acceptable, but
ONLY on the condition that leaders can appeal should they suspect any purposeful nonsense.

It's not fair that a team should lose points due to other clan's wrongdoings.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
Yes I get it, it stops premature ends, the exact wording on the site announcements page is:
[b]"Ignores all wins under 5 moves"

I know I'm being pedantic now, but....

What if somehow on correspondence chess someone get's scholars mated?

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d6 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7#
[fen]rnbqkb1r/ppp2Qpp/3p1n2/4p3/2B1P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K1NR[/fen]

Checkmate.... but wouldn't be counted.[/b]

Actually, that checkmate would count I believe because there was a decision rendered,
i.e. checkmate. Otherwise Ruy Lopez 4 move mate would also not count.

In the other instances, there was no decision, only a resignation or a time out, which
could be easily manipulated.

I do not know this to be true, but I suspect it is true.
We could ask Russ to be sure.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Actually, that checkmate would count I believe because there was a decision rendered,
i.e. checkmate. Otherwise Ruy Lopez 4 move mate would also not count.

In the other instances, there was no decision, only a resignation or a time out, which
could be easily manipulated.

I do not know this to be true, but I suspect it is true.
We could ask Russ to be sure.

I've asked Russ on the site announcements page, let's hear it from the man himself.

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm all for this new ruling,
just I'd prefer there to be an option to appeal just in case of any wrongdoing.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
Hi Al,

Although I get this point, this removing of timeout games when a player hasn't moved could be used to gain an advantage.

Here's an example:

Let's say a 4-person challenge is created, with 2 match-ups slightly in favour of one clan and 2 match-ups in favour of the other, so an "even" challenge.

One clan, realising this timeout claus ...[text shortened]... iod.

Perhaps this point can be raised elsewhere, should it not get sufficient attention here.

Yes, it's possible, but you know better than to accuse me of doing this.

Wolfe has a history of going inactive for months, but he was back and playing well, so I put him in this challenge as a show of support for him, and it so happened that this was right before he dropped off the radar again (I haven't heard from him since). If I had known he wasn't going to play, I wouldn't have put him in. 3 other clans have posted challenges to me with him included. Perhaps they thought I was asleep at the wheel.

Removing timeout games before 5 moves is a good move in my opinion. It keeps people from trying to take advantage of notorious no-shows.

However, I also think any wrongdoing should be able to be appealed. Of course.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
Or... they could just kick the inactive members from the clans altogether?

Not only will this new timeout rule NOT stop collusion (as I said, players can purposely not move)
but it adversely affects ALL clans.

Clan leaders must agree to challenges before they can start... all should be fair from that point onward.

If they really want to sto ...[text shortened]... d ban the rest if they are obvious repeat offenders.

Other sites do it, why can't this one???

No. This I take exception to. No one is going to force me to kick ANY player, for ANY reason. No one runs my clan but me. Perhaps the solution could be to give the clan leader more tools to deal with this. I'd love to be able to make a player inactive, and therefore not eligible for attempted challenges, with the press of a button.

Hi Suzi,

Apologies, I was not making any personal accusations,
this was simply me pointing out the flaws in the new timeout ruling
and how it can be exploited.

You had an inactive player who started moving again, so he was put in challenges,
then he suddenly stopped again.... this is not your fault, of course.

However the player was still a part of an agreed challenge
and - even though it is unfortunate - the game should still count as a win.

I have had members of my own clan lose to timeout this year,
but unfortunately after move 5... unfortunately I don't get any points back for these.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
Hi Al,

Although I get this point, this removing of timeout games when a player hasn't moved could be used to gain an advantage.

Here's an example:

Let's say a 4-person challenge is created, with 2 match-ups slightly in favour of one clan and 2 match-ups in favour of the other, so an "even" challenge.

One clan, realising this timeout claus ...[text shortened]... iod.

Perhaps this point can be raised elsewhere, should it not get sufficient attention here.

I agree that there should be some avenue of appeal, not automatic disqualification for all <5-move games.

Timeout for a no-show on move 1 is different from a Scholar's Mate or Fool's Mate, and they should be scored differently. If someone wins the following game, he and his clan should be given the point for it:

Originally posted by mghrn55
A good player would make sure that doesn't happen.

Some people have to suffer it to get that good.

Originally posted by moonbus
I agree that there should be some avenue of appeal, not automatic disqualification for all <5-move games.

Timeout for a no-show on move 1 is different from a Scholar's Mate or Fool's Mate, and they should be scored differently. If someone wins the following game, he and his clan should be given the point for it:


[pgn]1.e4 f5 2.exf5 g5 3.Qh5#[/pgn]

Again, classic Ruy Lopez is a four move mate. It is also under 5 moves, but it is a
decision, not a time out win. Neither Scholar's nor Ruy Lopez is a forced mate either.
I do not believe these get caught in the sweep. Only time out wins and resignations
prior to 5 moves will be reversed here, as I understand it.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
Hi Suzi,

Apologies, I was not making any personal accusations,
this was simply me pointing out the flaws in the new timeout ruling
and how it can be exploited.

You had an inactive player who started moving again, so he was put in challenges,
then he suddenly stopped again.... this is not your fault, of course.

However the player was still ...[text shortened]... is year,
but unfortunately after move 5... unfortunately I don't get any points back for these.

Time outs should be a part of the game because time restrictions are agreed to by both
clan leaders at the inception of the match. We have all had time out losses by our players.
How you deal with those is up to you. I am fairly intolerant when it comes to them.
There had better be one hell of a good reason for a second chance to be offered.
Kicking them to the curb is an option available to all clan leaders.
This is really only a scenario to be dealt with if you are trying to be a top clan.
If you are playing for the hell of it, then time out losses don't matter to you.

I don't consider this issue a flaw of the system, but more a flaw of the clan leader.
If it happens once, you got blind sided. If it happens a second time, it is your fault.

Bye Robbie............thanks for coming !!!!!

Originally posted by radioactive69
Bye Robbie............thanks for coming !!!!!

Maybe he should change the slogan under his clan name before he leaves. 😀

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Again, classic Ruy Lopez is a four move mate. It is also under 5 moves, but it is a
decision, not a time out win. Neither Scholar's nor Ruy Lopez is a forced mate either.
I do not believe these get caught in the sweep. Only time out wins and resignations
prior to 5 moves will be reversed here, as I understand it.

All 64SoP and I ask is that there be some sort of human oversight here, and not 'robot-justice'.

I noticed, for example, that some of the McTayto games listed in the individual clan player ban thread were legitimate resignations. In one case, McTayto's opponent was showing mate on the move, and McTayto resigned at that point. A false positive, in other words. (Which in no way mitigates the preponderance of evidence against him, and I wholly concur with Russ's decision to take remedial action in that case.)

Originally posted by shortcircuit

Only time out wins and resignations prior to 5 moves will be reversed here, as I understand it.

This is not what Russ said: Thread 172804

"As part of the on-going clan challenge investigation, a rule change is now live which ignores all wins achieved in under 5 moves."

Hence my question to him in the following post, which at this point is still unanswered.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
This is not what Russ said: Thread 172804

[b]"As part of the on-going clan challenge investigation, a rule change is now live which ignores all wins achieved in under 5 moves."

Hence my question to him in the following post, which at this point is still unanswered.[/b]

64,

I would assume he figured people would know he was talking about games not played fairly. If you have a checkmate I am sure that would change. You can be assured we will be watching closely of games won under 5 moves. If there is a pattern that shows there is cheating involved, we will pass it along to Russ.

A fair question to ask because of the way it was worded though.

-VR