Life In 19x19

John Fairbairn wrote:There was a case just a few years ago in the London Open where, I believe, two Russians in contention for the top prizes and drawn together in the final round allegedly contrived a draw to ensure the money stayed in Russian hands. They were disqualified, though I can't remember how their complicity was proven.

In chess? That would really surprise me (although I've been wrong plenty of times before!). "Grandmaster draws" are a pretty endemic part of chess, although many people find them regrettable. Many, many tournaments end with the leader making a quick draw in the final round, and many of those draws were prearranged (or effectively prearranged, when it is obvious that it benefits both players). Some tournaments now have rules where you can't offer a draw until move 30, or not at all until an arbiter proclaims the position truly dead. I'd think this tournament would have had to have had a very unusually draconian rule for a prearranged draw to be punished by disqualification. I'd be interested to hear the details.

In chess?

No, this was go (and amateur go at that).

John Fairbairn wrote:

In chess?

No, this was go (and amateur go at that).

Ah, OK! I combined "Russian" and a European city and the fact that draws are super-rare in Go and made a bad assumption. Apologies.

This post reminds me the little unpleasant thing in Chinese Pro selection. In last two rounds, children who would be surely qualified as a pro were often approached by other possile-qualified children's parents or coach offering money to buy wins. I think they changed the system now, and qualified child no longer plays later rounds?

Helel wrote:@dfan & JF: You never read the original post of these polls do you.

I do indeed, but the following discussion encompassed chess as well.

Wildclaw wrote:KGS has the dishonest play clause in its terms of service that explicitly forbids rating manipulation. EGF tournament rules contains a more generic sportsmanship clause.

So no, resigning while winning may not always be allowed, depending on your intentions and the rules you are playing under.

I know that, but I never liked this rule.
I think it should be abolished.

A player should have the right to resign when he decides that he cannot win anymore. And only he can be a judge of that! Regardless of the position on the board. I have seen many weak(er) players resigning in position which were not lost, or even won, even in tournaments (and especially), and nobody can hold them against it. I saw some strong players doing that as well.

This sort-of ties up with my reasons for why I think draws should be allowed.
Its a loose knot, though...

John Fairbairn wrote:There was a case just a few years ago in the London Open where, I believe, two Russians in contention for the top prizes and drawn together in the final round allegedly contrived a draw to ensure the money stayed in Russian hands. They were disqualified, though I can't remember how their complicity was proven.

1991 I think it was. They rather proved their own complicity by firing out the game in 6 minutes flat when asked twice to replay it OR asked to replay, then replay under observation. That's what I found to be so odd about the case - they clearly believed they were doing absolutely nothing wrong. If they were properly warned of their fate, I can't imagine it as having happened.

Bantari wrote:
I know that, but I never liked this rule.
I think it should be abolished.

A player should have the right to resign when he decides that he cannot win anymore. And only he can be a judge of that! Regardless of the position on the board. I have seen many weak(er) players resigning in position which were not lost, or even won, even in tournaments (and especially), and nobody can hold them against it. I saw some strong players doing that as well.

This sort-of ties up with my reasons for why I think draws should be allowed.
Its a loose knot, though...

I did see an article in Go World on the art of resigning, which pointed out that Otake Hideo was such an artist that he would resign when he realised he had played a bad move, regardless of the situation on the board. He just got dispirited at his own bad play. I have also seen some players resign because, I think, they get bored with their opponent playing on in hopeless positions.

Best wishes.

Javaness wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:There was a case just a few years ago in the London Open where, I believe, two Russians in contention for the top prizes and drawn together in the final round allegedly contrived a draw to ensure the money stayed in Russian hands. They were disqualified, though I can't remember how their complicity was proven.

1991 I think it was. They rather proved their own complicity by firing out the game in 6 minutes flat when asked twice to replay it OR asked to replay, then replay under observation. That's what I found to be so odd about the case - they clearly believed they were doing absolutely nothing wrong. If they were properly warned of their fate, I can't imagine it as having happened.

Er, wha? Any dan player should be able to replay his game just after finishing it. What's surprising about two people so strong that they are likely to be winners of the tournament being able to do that in 6 minutes?

ethanb wrote:

Javaness wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:There was a case just a few years ago in the London Open where, I believe, two Russians in contention for the top prizes and drawn together in the final round allegedly contrived a draw to ensure the money stayed in Russian hands. They were disqualified, though I can't remember how their complicity was proven.

1991 I think it was. They rather proved their own complicity by firing out the game in 6 minutes flat when asked twice to replay it OR asked to replay, then replay under observation. That's what I found to be so odd about the case - they clearly believed they were doing absolutely nothing wrong. If they were properly warned of their fate, I can't imagine it as having happened.

Er, wha? Any dan player should be able to replay his game just after finishing it. What's surprising about two people so strong that they are likely to be winners of the tournament being able to do that in 6 minutes?

I can't be absolutely certain about "people strong enough to win the tournament", but usually when I've watched dan players reviewing, they have similar "now, is that when this sequence happened, or was that after that sequence?" moments to the ones my opponents and I do, only they're more likely to come up with an answer to the question. They certainly don't usually rattle them off fast, particularly not in the first review.

Later they might do it quickly, but that's for games they've reviewed and thought about a lot, IME.