lichess.org
Donate

tourney - last game not counted! ??

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken said ^

don't tell me, it's normal, cos' it isn't!

you don't pair people,
they give their best to win,
and they do win .. ºyipiieº

a n d   t h e n , that MALEDICT S**T OF A GAME DOESN'T C O U N T !? ?? !!

that is such a rotten style to treat people

leaving them in the unclear?!

{
.. same story like having to google for lichess help, and like no admin available ( except appeal for bans only, and reporting ) - in the forum, they are incognito !? and you can't message back to e.g. defend yourself, whenever they find THE GRACE TO TALK TO YOU ... "doesn't accept messages" it tells you ...
}

i got 4 points i might have been among first 10, instead 30 with that last won game "stolen"!!

this behavior is near betraying people:
'play that game!'
and then
'sorry, doesn't count!'

it's crystal clear ARSING PEOPLE !

prove me wrong!

Harsh, but true. A much less controversial option would be to let everyone finish the last game. It doesn't even matter what the time control is, even the longest one. The final result will still only be ready in three days, when all the cheaters they've managed to identify (including the winner) have been removed.
But I see the interest here in that such moments reveal human qualities.

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken said [^](/forum/redirect/post/uJD2z3hz) > don't tell me, it's normal, cos' it isn't! > > you don't pair people, > they give their best to win, > and they do win .. ºyipiieº > > a n d   t h e n , that MALEDICT S**T OF A GAME DOESN'T C O U N T !? ?? !! > > that is such a rotten style to treat people > > leaving them in the unclear?! > > { > .. same story like having to google for lichess help, and like no admin available ( except appeal for bans only, and reporting ) - in the forum, they are incognito !? and you can't message back to e.g. defend yourself, whenever they find THE GRACE TO TALK TO YOU ... "doesn't accept messages" *it* tells you ... > } > > i got 4 points i might have been among first 10, instead 30 with that last won game "stolen"!! > > this behavior is near betraying people: > 'play that game!' > and then > 'sorry, doesn't count!' > > it's crystal clear ARSING PEOPLE ! > > prove me wrong! Harsh, but true. A much less controversial option would be to let everyone finish the last game. It doesn't even matter what the time control is, even the longest one. The final result will still only be ready in three days, when all the cheaters they've managed to identify (including the winner) have been removed. But I see the interest here in that such moments reveal human qualities.

Not that true. And not very much less controversial.

You will shift the bias in favor of people who complete a game short enough to find one last pairing seconds before the "end". You will piss the people who are not assigned an extra pairing during the last seconds.

Not that true. And not very much less controversial. You will shift the bias in favor of people who complete a game short enough to find one last pairing seconds before the "end". You will piss the people who are not assigned an extra pairing during the last seconds.

@Cedur216 said ^

Not that true. And not very much less controversial.

You will shift the bias in favor of people who complete a game short enough to find one last pairing seconds before the "end". You will piss the people who are not assigned an extra pairing during the last seconds.

Players are selected by the system. This is not the same as when a player deliberately stalls for time, for example. In any case, some will have time to start playing before the draw ends, and some won't. But the system cannot be biased, so it's much fairer.

@Cedur216 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/wC7F91Jc) > Not that true. And not very much less controversial. > > You will shift the bias in favor of people who complete a game short enough to find one last pairing seconds before the "end". You will piss the people who are not assigned an extra pairing during the last seconds. Players are selected by the system. This is not the same as when a player deliberately stalls for time, for example. In any case, some will have time to start playing before the draw ends, and some won't. But the system cannot be biased, so it's much fairer.

When the tournament clock reaches 0:00, the tournament is over. The remaining games in progress don't count for the tournament. You won't get points for games finished after the tournament.

When the tournament clock reaches 0:00, the tournament is over. The remaining games in progress don't count for the tournament. You won't get points for games finished after the tournament.

there's already our solution:

@Larakepara said ^

A few seconds before the tournament ends they close the pairings, but yeah it isnt usually enough time.

so, pairings need be closed much earlier.

SIMPLE AS THAT ! ! !

 

{ {
and instead the mob comes hating on me?!!
} }

there's already our solution: @Larakepara said [^](/forum/redirect/post/zpLXXU1Q) > A few seconds before the tournament ends they close the pairings, but yeah it isnt usually enough time. so, pairings need be closed much earlier. ***SIMPLE AS THAT*** ! ! !   { { and instead the mob comes hating on me?!! } }

I think it's reasonable for pairings to be stopped when the time remaining is less than the average game length for the time control.

Most arenas are without increment I believe so this shouldn't be too tricky. Bit more complex on increment arenas

I think it's reasonable for pairings to be stopped when the time remaining is less than the average game length for the time control. Most arenas are without increment I believe so this shouldn't be too tricky. Bit more complex on increment arenas

Don't forget that many players take an arena as an opportunity to play some games against random opponents, are not fighting for top places and do not really care much whether their last game would count for arena score or not.

Don't forget that many players take an arena as an opportunity to play some games against random opponents, are not fighting for top places and do not really care much whether their last game would count for arena score or not.

@BaronVonChickenpants said ^

I think it's reasonable for pairings to be stopped when the time remaining is less than the average game length for the time control.

Most arenas are without increment I believe so this shouldn't be too tricky. Bit more complex on increment arenas

It occurred to me that another way could be done.
Let's say the time limit is 3+0, and the draw ends about a minute and a half before the end of the arena time (the longer the time limit, the earlier the draw ends; that's how it works right now). This means that both players' time is automatically reduced to allow them time to play. A minute and a half = 45 seconds for each. It's like Armageddon in live chess.
And anyone who doesn't want to play with such a shortened time limit can simply skip this last game. For example, if the tournament result isn't important. After all, the tournament will end, but the game on the website won't. You can immediately sign up for another one or play by challenge. There's no point in ruining the game for those who are fighting for the result, which is what the current system allows.

@BaronVonChickenpants said [^](/forum/redirect/post/CBcCS3MC) > I think it's reasonable for pairings to be stopped when the time remaining is less than the average game length for the time control. > > Most arenas are without increment I believe so this shouldn't be too tricky. Bit more complex on increment arenas It occurred to me that another way could be done. Let's say the time limit is 3+0, and the draw ends about a minute and a half before the end of the arena time (the longer the time limit, the earlier the draw ends; that's how it works right now). This means that both players' time is automatically reduced to allow them time to play. A minute and a half = 45 seconds for each. It's like Armageddon in live chess. And anyone who doesn't want to play with such a shortened time limit can simply skip this last game. For example, if the tournament result isn't important. After all, the tournament will end, but the game on the website won't. You can immediately sign up for another one or play by challenge. There's no point in ruining the game for those who are fighting for the result, which is what the current system allows.

@mkubecek said ^

Don't forget that many players take an arena as an opportunity to play some games against random opponents, are not fighting for top places and do not really care much whether their last game would count for arena score or not.

But you understand that the main goal of a tournament is to finish as high as possible?
Imagine a situation where there's a battle for a shield or cash prizes, and the challenger is matched against an opponent from deep in the standings or simply a strange player who doesn't understand it. And all those 2, 3, or 8 hours (if it's a battle for a shield) turn into a waste of time just because of this.

@mkubecek said [^](/forum/redirect/post/WPyj9bu0) > Don't forget that many players take an arena as an opportunity to play some games against random opponents, are not fighting for top places and do not really care much whether their last game would count for arena score or not. But you understand that the main goal of a tournament is to finish as high as possible? Imagine a situation where there's a battle for a shield or cash prizes, and the challenger is matched against an opponent from deep in the standings or simply a strange player who doesn't understand it. And all those 2, 3, or 8 hours (if it's a battle for a shield) turn into a waste of time just because of this.