I played a blitz 3/0 tournament and I won my last game gaining 10 elo, but i guess my win was technically completed after the tournament ended by a few minutes. The game does not show up in my performance list from the tournament, why is this? Does the last game not count if I started the game within the tournament time frame but completed the game a few minutes after the tournament time ended? Does anyone know the answer to this? Here is the link to the game in question...
https://lichess.org/XHWKibJQ/white#41
Why doesn't my game above show up in the tournament performance list?
Why doesn't my game above show up in the tournament performance list?
Here is the tournament in question...
Here is the tournament in question...
In arena tournaments only games that end before time is up count.
@S_Hansen146 said in #1:
> I played a blitz 3/0 tournament and I won my last game gaining 10 elo, but i guess my win was technically completed after the tournament ended by a few minutes. The game does not show up in my performance list from the tournament, why is this? Does the last game not count if I started the game within the tournament time frame but completed the game a few minutes after the tournament time ended? Does anyone know the answer to this? Here is the link to the game in question...
>
> https://lichess.org/XHWKibJQ/white#41
In Formula 1, if a driver manages to do a fast lap in qualifying and then runs out of time immediately afterward, their result will be counted. In fact, this is usually the case. However, on Lichess and Chess.com, a game will not count if the tournament time has expired while it has already started. This is illogical and causes a lot of controversy.
However, this gives chess players the opportunity to demonstrate their moral character. Some will stall for time out of spite, others will admit defeat, forced berserkers, forced draw agreements, if the game started too late to make it through even mutual berserkers, and so on.
It were better if tournaments were about a fixed number of games instead of a fixed time.
@tpr said in #6:
> It were better if tournaments were about a fixed number of games instead of a fixed time.
Why? That's the point of the arena. I don't think it's technically difficult to make the game count. It wouldn't delay all players, only those who could be affected by the games still in progress, and considering the draw doesn't end at the last second, it's not a problem at all. Since the time control is 20+10... at worst, you can look at the final result later, already knowing the approximate standings. After all, someone gets removed from the tournament much later (this can happen in just a couple of days, and with more than one player), and the standings also change.
When it comes to winning a major tournament, for example, a battle for the shield, passions reach their peak at this crucial moment.
Someone might lose the trophy simply because their opponent stalls for time, trying to save their naked king from inevitable checkmate.
It seems like they didn't think much about this when they came up with the current system, but it turned out great. Just one such moment can tell a lot about a player's behavior.
#7
"Why?" * Chess is about winning more games in a given number of games, not about playing as many games as possible in a given time window.
"That's the point of the arena." * The point of arena is that any number of people can join or leave as they like, as opposed to Swiss. Arena has degraded to a contest to cram as many games as possible into the given time frame, with berserk etc.
"I don't think it's technically difficult to make the game count."
* No it is not technically difficult, but not logical. Before time is up it is a rush after time is up it would be slow.
@tpr said in #8:
> #7
> "Why?" * Chess is about winning more games in a given number of games, not about playing as many games as possible in a given time window.
>
> "That's the point of the arena." * The point of arena is that any number of people can join or leave as they like, as opposed to Swiss. Arena has degraded to a contest to cram as many games as possible into the given time frame, with berserk etc.
>
> "I don't think it's technically difficult to make the game count."
> * No it is not technically difficult, but not logical. Before time is up it is a rush after time is up it would be slow.
The Arena is the same tournament with trophies and cash prizes. The essence remains the same. You're unlikely to win a prize or place where you want if you're playing evenly matched opponents, and you'll play a few games and then qualify. It couldn't have degraded in this regard; that's the way it was designed from the start.
<Before time is up, it's a rush; after time is up, it would be slow.>
So what's the problem here? We're talking about one final game. That game itself has a time limit.
#9
Now to win an arena: 1) berserk all games. 2) whenever you have a bad position: resign so as to be able to start a new win streak.
With your modification: 1) do not berserk the last game. 2) In a bad position play on as long as you can and try to draw.