Oh my, that makes no sense, as usual.
Not all players have the same risk of being disconnected. Are you kidding me?
That’s the thing with ICC tournaments, the managers hold up the tournament to see if there’s a reconnection. Depending on the time controls or the nature of the situation, in this case being lagged out, then it’s handled differently.
If the player disconnects in a lost position it’s a different situation, and the game is almost always set.
What computer has never had a disconnected error? The disconnected error could have happened at your computer, or it could have happen for other reasons. All the people have the same equal risk for the power going out.
So the frequency of errors are the same for everyone? HA HA HA
If it is now the frequency of errors, that is different than having one computer with zero risks. Having a twenty year old car has a higher risk factor for breaking down than a new car. The owner of a twenty year old car accepts the higher risk the car is going to break down. All computers have the same risk factor, how the owner of the computer lowers the risk factor is up to the owner.
It still does not matter if you want to over turn your win for a draw. It you want to show evident your opponent has a poor connection, it just points out your opponent should have knowed better. If you can point out your opponent lose the connection five times a day, it just points out your opponent did know about the risks. It would be like a drunk driver, the driver should have knowed before the first drink the risks of driving drunk. If your opponent has a poor connection rate, and your opponent knows about this, it does not change anything. In fact, it supports your claim for a win.
What do you mean, my opponent should have known better? It wasn’t his fault!
Like I posted before, show me where it says that you agree to the risks before playing in a USChess Quick Tournament on the internet.
Thunderchicken, are you the type of person needing warning labels for everything?
How does that pertain to my original question? Oh wait, as usual, you go off into another universe. Will you answer any of the questions I asked you? Of course not.
Isn’t that being a little ridiculous. Can you prove to me that every one of your tournament games wasn’t fixed before they were played? To claim that something is pre-arranged, the burden of proof is upon you to show some evidence that it was pre-arranged. I haven’t seen any.
What does that have to do with the question under consideration? If the sun exploded and the earth was burned to ash would you forfeit me because I wasn’t able to reconnect? Could you try to read the situation and raise analogies that have something to do with what was said? (Oops! I actually meant that last question to be serious, but upon reflection, it appears to be as unlikely as the other!)
The tds have to be impartial and make rulings based upon the rulebook, but the players may (and should be encouraged) to show a certain amount of sportsmanship. In the case in my event that I cited, the player who had to leave because of a legitimate family emergency was willing to forfeit his game, but his opponent understanding that and seeing a posityion where he was probably losing was willing to agree to a draw. Those kinds of players are who I want attending my events, not the rules lawyers who are trying to take advantage of their opponents.
There is not a single game on my MSA, I can prove over the computer that was not pre-arranged. Anyone can question my MSA record, or your MSA record, or anyones MSA record for any game being pre-arranged.
When someone wants to over turn a result, like thunderchicken want to over turn a win for a draw. It begs the question why? Why does thunderchicken want to have a draw than a win? The answer to be fair is not a good reason, as it raise the question of pre-arranged draw. It also brings up the question, is thunderchicken sandbagging his rating? Cannot prove the game was pre-arranged or thunderchicken was sandbagging, it does raise questions.
How the game ends (flag fall) online or over-the-board, it does not matter how it ended. If my flag falls because my computer goes offline, or I am not watching my clock in a over-the-board game. Should there be a difference how my flag fell, the answer is no.
OH MY GOODNESS! Read what I wrote! Quit jumping to stupid assumptions I wanted to sandbag! READ READ READ, it’s not that hard.
Your statements are almost as absurd as comparing people to being like Michael Jackson!
LOL
Seriously, read what I wrote and tell me how that could be interpreted as sandbagging.
If you actually read the USCF’s Official Rules of Chess, you’ll notice there’s a Code of Ethics.
Look on page 231 and read with me Doug:
#2 - TO COMPETE IN A SPIRIT OF GOOD SPORTSMANSHIP
Wow, can you believe that I have morals and I’m not trying to inflate a meaningless rating? WOW! That’s so hard to believe!
Thunderchicken:
This is what I see, someone that wants to turn a win into a draw. You want to change the rules for this one and only game. You are speaking for yourself and your opponent, are you sure your opponent was going to accept or play for a draw? This is the problem I have, I see you wanting to change a win into a draw, that would change your rating. The change from a win into a draw, this would give you a lower rating. Demanding to have a lower rating, just to change the rules to make your rating lower is sandbagging.
I now agree with you to change the results of the game. If it was me, I would remove you from the tournament. The players will get the accepted points for a forfeited player in the section, but the games with you in that section will not count for ratings. The games you did play with the players will be moved to a special section. All your games in this special section will be rated forfeited games, the name of the section will be called forfeited games. You will be fined the amount of the entry fee, and banned from all other tournaments till the fine is paid in full.
Since you are demanding to change your results to have a lower rating, is all the evidence I need to see someone sandbagging. Sandbagging, is very unethical but the punishment of the act needs a clear form of punnishment. Since you are demanding to change the rules that will lower your rating, do not know of any better example of sandbagging. I’m not the chief director of the tournament, but if you or anyone else wanted to change the results to lower their rating, that is sandbagging to me.
The rules are clear, you won the game just like the other players in any of the games that ending like yours. The idea you want to change the results because you feel it is unfair, is not accepted grounds to over turn the results. You have been speaking for yourself and your opponent, as your opponent could have a much different view how the position of the game was. If you felt so strong the game was a draw, you should have offered your opponent a draw. Having the word of only one player, is not grounds to over turn the results of the game. Even if you and your opponent wanted to change the results, the results have to stand.
Thunder, please take about a 3 day time-out from this forum. I’m deleting your out-of-order post.
Mike - in defense of thunderchicken - Doug’s last few posts were out of order too. It’s clear that tc was only trying to do what was fair and not to profit from one of the zillions-per-day random glitches in cyber-space. I have a dial-up connection too, and every once in a while the server decideds it’s full (or whatever the real reason is) and kills my connection. I try to dial back in and I can’t get in. So I have to look up another (local) phone number and maybe ANOTHER number … The point being that getting back on is not immediate.
Don’t let folks with cable modems or DSL forget about the good old days that us poor people are still in.
And to accuse someone of sandbagging - in repeated posts - when he wants a draw in a drawn R+P ending … that’s poor sportsmanship. I think the emotions from the other topic carried over into this one, and it should have ended a while ago.
An analogous condition to the one tc described is if a bunch of thugs “break” into a tournament; tie one participant up with no one else complaining, and only untie him when his flag falls - and the TD calmly awards his opponent a win. It’s so ludicrous it could never happen (unless pre-arranged 
) … but it does happen onthe internet (although people cheat too …). It just goes back a previous post (?) that a good set of rules is waiting to be formulated …
It does not matter how often anyones’ computer lose the disconnection. It does not matter if the computer is on DSL or dial-up, as they both share the same risk of disconnection. It does not matter if the computer has disconnection ten times a day or one time a week. The computer can lose disconnection, because the computer froze, or the power to the computer is lost.
The idea to make it fair with a adjournment, would not make it fair for the other player. One of the players can use free will for the disconnection, than make the false statement the disconnection was in error of the computer. If it was on your turn, and you lose disconnection, how can the director have a adjournment of the game without your sealed move? If there is no sealed move, you would have the time before the start of the game to find the best move. If you lost disconnection, how would you know about the resumption of the game if your computer will be off-line for days. If your opponent had disconnection, how can you and your opponent make a fair time for the resumption of the game? Would it be fair for one of the players and the director to pick the resumption of the game, with the hope the opponent will be able to be on-line. The adjournment of any game is only fair if both the players are at the board, not just one of the players.
The adjournment of the game would be more unfair to the player that was disconnected, than the player that was not disconnected. If the picking of the resumption of the game is up to the director, both players could not be able to be on-line at the same time. The problem of the director not having a sealed envelope, would make the idea of a adjournment as irregular. The adjournment would not work in normal practice.
Did tell thunderchicken the risks of having a game on the computer. All the players share the equal risk the computer will lose connection to the game. Even if thunderchicken could over turn the results of the game, what about the countless other members that lost their games because of a disconnection. It would not be fair to them, when one game can be over turned.
When thunderchicken was talking for himself and his opponent, how can he be sure his opponent was going to play for a draw? How can you be sure, his opponent was going to offer a draw or accept a draw? If the players came up to me, demanding to over turn the results just on the grounds they want the results to be different: it would be a arrangement of the results. Thunderchicken wants to over turn his win into a draw, this would be a arrangement of the results of the game. If the results of the game are changed, thunderchickens rating would be lower. Sandbagging, is to lower your rating, it does not matter if it is to lower your rating to your rating floor, or down the next rating level, or lower your rating for only one point. Sandbagging is to lower your rating, it does not say how many points is sandbagging, … sandbagging is just to lower your rating.
Thunderchicken can be looking at the problem of the single game, but the problem has happened to other members in the past and will so again. Asking for the arrangement of the game, from a win into a draw is a arrangement of the results. If the arrangement was granted, it would lower the rating of thunderchicken, therefore it would be sandbagging.
Doug’s posts may have been largely irrelevant or a departure from the subject at hand and may have shown little understanding of the subject, but the post I was referring to was a personal attack, which is unacceptable conduct.
As I have said many times in another forum I moderate, refute the logic of someone’s post (if you can) but don’t attack the poster.
Im curious why the USCF allows these US Chess Live internet games to be rated under the QC OTB section?? Shouldnt there be a seperate rating classification for internet players??
The USCF permits online play between USCF members to be USCF rated providing that the event meets USCF tournament conditions in other respects. A certified TD must supervise the event and submit the rating report.
There should be a document somewhere describing the specific conditions for rating online play, but I can’t find it after a quick search. I’ll ask the USCF office about it on Monday.
The USCF used to have a contractual relationship with Games Parlor (aka US Chess Live) but at this time they are just an affiliate, though they are entitled to the same privileges as other affiliates, including submitting events for
USCF rating.
I think Games Parlor still provides USCF members with some limited access to online play as a marketing tool, but that is no longer defined as a benefit of USCF membership.
I believe there have been some USCF rated games on ICC as well. ICC is also hosting a tournament of state champions, but I don’t know if it will be USCF rated.
In my opinion its a terrible idea for the USCF to allow these US chess live internet games to reflect an OTB rating. So does that mean internet games over 30 minutes count towards the standard OTB rating as well??
The USCF should consider a published internet rating if this is occuring.