Knock-Out Tournaments

a simple solution is what used to be there in ICC yrs ago, if there is a draw and the rating range of the players is within 200 then black advances and if the rating range is more than 200 then the lower rated player advances if a draw occurs, there has to be some compromise and I think this is a fair one.

@psgsoccerook The problem is you are inducing weaker/black player to go for drawish lines and not play risky moves. It can be tested... Let's say i am the worst lower rating player. I can win the tournament without winning anyone. And the best player may get out after 10 victories and an unfortunate dull draw in the end... The armaggedon system may be more fair...

@fonsecasf the armaggedon system is certainly more fair but it will require other players in the tournament to wait longer for the next round pairings and increase tournament duration as a result

@psgsoccerook yes, that's true... this is an hard balance. I believe, if this are the rules, all players agree upon, they have to remember that sometimes will be against them, sometimes it will help them... OTB is different, online we have to adapt the platform for quicker games and pairings, because the players are all around the world, making all type of activities, and OTB all are there only for play chess for that day...

I went to a classical tournament a couple of weeks ago, 60+30 (if i recall correctly). One of my games finished last and all other games were finished at least 1 hour before. I noted that everyone where frustrated and irritated looking at us, and our slow moves and positional gains, because the second leg was right after that game. This is hard OTB, don't work online... Even the time waiting for all games to end in a knockout tournament online can be exasperating....

Most games end in a win for one side. I would guess draws in blitz/bullet/quickplay are ~5% of all games. So waiting for a game to finish isn't much of an issue. Especially if most tournaments are blitz or bullet as they tend to be. For longer tournaments, give the organiser a choice between letting black proceed if draw (fair) or Armageddon or random choice.

A way to avoid too long waiting time for the other players could be the following. For each round, two game (with alternated colors) are played. In case of score of 1-1, we count how much time each player used on both games. The one who spent the less time thinking goes to the next round.

Example: the time control is 1 0, player A versus player B. Game one: A beat B because B loses on time; A had 2 seconds on his/her clock. Game two: B takes his/her revenge and this time, A loses on time. However, B had only one second on the clock and is therefore eliminated. For time control with increment, it is also possible to compute how much time each player used to think.

However, I have to think about the resigning, that is, when we are in a desperate position, whether we readily resign, or we try to do a few quick (legal) moves to make the opponent lose a little bit of time.

@girdav I think it will make players delay to checkmate everytime in order to the opponent spend as much time as possible. May be boring in the long run have everygame to be solve by mate...

@fonsecasf But when one is outmatched and realize than he/she is slower than the opponent, and close to checkmate, it is better in this case to resign.

@fonsecasf I think at higher ratings Armageddon slightly favours black (as White is forced to try and win the game) and at lower ratings it favours White (as technique is worse, fewer games end in draws and so the time advantage is more important).