In a tournament resigning without making any moves should result in disqualification.
Uhmmm, I’m not too sure about that
I don’t even like the one time-out and you’re out rule. I don’t understand why timing out (even just once) is not considered a legitimate way of losing.
I think this perspective depends on the timing style of the tournament.
In correspondence, it’s generally easier to avoid timing out, and I think maybe most TDs are okay with weeding out the less reliable players.
However, I fully agree that timing out should be considered a normal way to lose in a blitz tournament.
Why not? If you join a tourney and then refuse to play a move that’s a fairly good indicator that in fact you do not want to play in the tourney after all or at least that you are not really taking it seriously. Either way no need for continued participation.
Different to timing out I think.
I guess it’s not in the majority of cases but you can have the reverse situation where the player take the tournament too seriously and can’t decide or forget the time passing, just being focused on how to start the game. Would it be the right decision to exclude him from the tournament?
Is… this theoretical person trying to solve the opening from the first move?
I’m guessing that @Groin is referring specifically to the issue of disqualifying people that time out, which could happen in live.
I think whether or not to disqualify people that time out is a separate issue from the original issue raised in this thread. I think it’s reasonable to not disqualify timeouts in live tournaments, but maybe it should stay the way it is in correspondence.
On the other hand, players that immediately resign are actively choosing to not participate in a tournament. It’s essentially throwing games and denying their opponents the opportunity to play a game. I think people sign up for tournaments in order to find players that will take the game seriously. It’s disappointing to be paired with an opponent that does not show up or refuses to play.
Yes I do agree about resigning from the very beginning.
I was concerned about timing out (even in correspondence btw).
Theoretical is your word. I met players who had huge problems with clock. It exists and disqualifying them is maybe not the best thing to do.
What this person is thinking is not really my concern, this person is still here to take part in a tournament.
Theoretical is my word because I do believe anybody joining a tournament should have at least a vague opening plan with a small set of possible first moves to be decided on quite quickly. Anyone who gets Analysis Paralysis from the very first move likely isn’t going to have much fun (or success) from a tournament even were they allowed to continue.
I don’t expect anything more as going to play a game with me from my opponent in a tournament. He may have a quick plan, even maybe more even maybe he’s going to hesitate which one to chose, even maybe he will wait the last minute to decide what is his feeling against me, who knows
For resigning it’s a bit different if there is a will to disturb the organization. Or a last second external event enough serious which can prove it’s not a will. You can consider the symbolism, the seriousness of a tournament and discard the perturbation. Or you can consider the pleasure of still playing the next games, charge being on the TD to be ready with this kind of thing in his organization.
A good example is tournaments aimed at TPK/DDK. I had experience organizing in real life and there were a lot of no show each time. So what? I was happy at least if they came back to play the next round, it’s all about the priorities you put in.
usually people who do the last (waiting till last minute to play the first move cuz you edited that) are trying to get people to leave so that they can force a timeout, but also we’re talking about a clock that is supposed to be used for a majority of the game, with byo-yomi usually reserved for late midgame and endgame, and that byo-yomi being incredibly pressuring to anyone who has analysis paralysis. If you have that much trouble choosing an opening when multiple are acceptable should bring a die or random number generator so they don’t waste time on it.
As for serious disturbances, it’s unfortunate, and in an irl tournament you would hive them to discuss with a TD. But in an online tournament, you don’t have that luxury unless you’re also dealing with a TD who you can ask to re-enter (and enter new people) into the tournament.
You know I’m not joking telling there are people with time management trouble. I have clear memory of 3 players. They all never did well in tournaments, but they still had fun to come together and play there. In truth I didn’t met one timing out on the first move, but I did met them losing all their games because of the clock.
I understand time trouble, especially in blitz tournaments as that is a regular fixture, although live tournaments should be just as accepting, the first few moves should be prepared (for the most part) before the game, with only slight changes based on opponent to save time. And I think that if you have no human TD to deal with outcomes like this, they should be disqualified as the default to deal with the people who troll (and sandbag) by entering a tournament and making no moves, or just forget about the tournament altogether (since we have no indication they will come back).
Now, I also think for non-elimination tournaments (swiss and Mcmahon in particular), should have an option to “pause” on rounds you know you can’t participate, as well as the option to join later in the game (although with a cutoff) to handle more different scenarios.
A you really think all people have an opening plan? I will surprise you most of the time I don’t. Really.
Now in every tournament there is a parity problem sometimes, and a player get a bye. Sad but ok, has to be. So better is to have good tools so you can still manage that, if you get 2 no show, well let their opponent play together, and that’s the job of a TD. But that’s not really how it works online I know.
I think they should, at least plans (or dice to roll if they don’t have enough of a preference) for the first two corners, with some secondary options in case they’re feeling spicy. It’s a waste of time during a game to try to go over the merits and demerits of every single possible opening corner configuration you might see.
And that 2 no show problem is why pause functions would be especially useful: if they both know they’ll miss this round in advance, they’d be able to “pause” participation in the tourney and pairing would be done among the remainder. Otherwise in elimination tournaments resignation of the tournament should be done before matchmaking (without a TD to handle it) since matchmaking is done on a round-by-round basis even for elimination tournaments here
They should… It can be a good advice for someone with time management problem, but it still is not any requirement. It can be stressful too to exhaustively anticipate all the opening patterns or simply put you may prefer to elaborate them in each game again for fun or for being already in thinking instead of using memorised patterns.
Pausing may work if they play in the same game although is maybe not the best to let everyone wait later for them to finish their game. I was thinking of no show in two different games and then some arrangement by the TD to let their opponents play together. This kind of flexibility doesn’t exist in the tournaments tools (in my limited knowledge of them). I do appreciate how a website helps anyone to create/manage events but in same time i regret the loss of any flexibility you have when doing it manually, it’s better if the tool is adapted to humans as the reverse, as far as possible. One of the worst consequences of the lack of options is to induce some weird human behaviour like what is this topic about, but not only. I mean we could improve the tools instead of asking if we should ban out of a tournament.
nah, for the first few moves, you only need to anticipate categories of responses. Do you like cross games? Anticipate cross game offered vs not offered, wanna play a moyo game? Prepare to back off if oppo gives a chance to switch to more territorial with profit. Really you only need max 4 possible opening scenarios for either side that you might have differing responses to, and if your plan is “just play nirensei” (quite popular nowadays), then you never need to differentiate.
You can go deeper than the first corner moves for popular responses you know about, but I think every player should have those corner moves planned out, and it doesn’t take that much memory.
I was referring more to a feature that should be added to OGS for mcmahon and swiss tournaments to pause the tournament (not the game), that is present on both chess.com and lichess, where for the time that it’s paused for you, you don’t get paired while everyone who doesn’t have it paused does. It’s like someone who registers for a tourney irl, has to leave in the middle, and comes back to play where he’s gotten no points for the rounds he wasn’t in.
Your suggestion for pausing a tournament for yourself is an interesting feature to implement.
For the first part of our discussion, even if we don’t agree how someone should prepare for a tournament, I still insist on some freedom of choice for every one, as that was related to the OP. Now I think we won’t go anywhere near an agreement