lichess.org
Donate

What happens if both players go berserk?

Toadofsky 6 hours ago #5
From a game theory perspective #4 is correct. If the majority collude to attempt to win a tournament, unless the tournament has specific rules against it then you just need to defeat them all.

There's no rule against collusion in the Lichess Terms of Service (unless to advance some other aim such as rating inflation/deflation, or something else that explicitly violates an existing rule).

This was your entire statement, that no specific rule exists, agreeing with #4 which states "nothing can be done".
Every situation can not be specifically laid out in writing, this and that are against the rules. Although, "collusion" in tournaments is easy enough to stipulate and should be made clear.
As in OTB tournaments, arbiters use common sense and good judgement, based on their experience in making decisions regarding what is fair play or abuse. Same here and at every chess site, many decisions by moderators are made in the same spirit. Every infraction can not be relegated against by specifics. Many are under the mistaken impression, "well, it's not in writing, no one can tell me what I can't do".
Several posts here have suggested or implied, including yourself, that nothing can be done about collusion if it does not specifically apply to ratings. I am simply setting the record straight. It is against the rules, hence punitive action can be taken if it is proven to staffs satisfaction.
The original poster mentions reciprocating berserk, not throwing games. If a group of players berserk against each other by some agreement or understanding, then they get an extra point and more games. If they do not throw games then they are not sandbagging. Even if you beat them all, one of them might still win the tournament because of the extra points and the extra games.
@tpr
Would you not interpret any such "agreements" between a group of players as violating fair play?
The intent is creating a situation whereby one of the players in the group has an "advantage" over other players, not in the group, to win the tournament. Collusion for this purpose is a "form of cheating" and violates fair play, would you not agree?
If the players said, hey let's all go berserk against all opponents, this may well be interpreted differently. But to only go berserk vs selected players, with a prearranged plan to create a favorable path for certain players, in my estimation can be interpreted as being against the rules.
von Feuerbach (1755–1833) wrote in Latin "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali": there is neither crime nor punishment without prior law or otherwise said: all that is not forbidden is allowed.
Some people - like me - never berserk.
Some people always berserk.
Some people berserk against lower rated opponents.
An understanding to mutually berserk may be explicit e.g. by a private mail before a tournament or tacit "you berserk me, OK I berserk back".
You cannot do anything against that.



Handbook :: E. Miscellaneous

Laws of Chess: For competitions starting from 1 July 2014 till 1 July 2017
INTRODUCTION
FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.
The Laws of Chess have two parts: 1. Basic Rules of Play and 2. Competition Rules.
The English text is the authentic version of the Laws of Chess (which was adopted at the 84th FIDE Congress at Tallinn (Estonia) coming into force on 1 July 2014.
In these Laws the words ‘he’, ‘him’, and ‘his’ shall be considered to include ‘she’ and ‘her’.
PREFACE
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Member federations may ask FIDE to give a ruling on matters relating to the Laws of Chess.
tpr 6 minutes ago #14
von Feuerbach (1755–1833) wrote in Latin "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali": there is neither crime nor punishment without prior law or otherwise said: all that is not forbidden is allowed.

That which is "forbidden", can not be specifically written to cover all circumstance. An interpretation of "Accepted guidelines," "fair play policies" is made by qualified arbiters, judges, moderators etc.
It is against the rules for players to conspire, make agreements prior to games that potentially can effect a result or standing in a tournament. It is often difficult to prove. "Accusations" are made all the time regarding GM's and prearranging games. We never see any action taken. However, this does not mean it is not in violation of fair play standards, as it effects not only themselves but other participants.
Of course, it is impossible to monitor emails, messages between two players, make specific declarations about what they can or can not do, often between friends. On occasion, a player may admit fault. By this evidence, punitive actions can and will be taken as such actions are AGAINST the rules. Players not in the mood for fighting chess, who do not want to risk losing and accept an early draw is quite a different matter than what is being discussed here, which is players in collusion as a group attempting to insure a winner.

Participants may not enter into agreements before matches that will effect results otherwise achieved by fair play standards. This applies to all sporting events.

Rules exist. They often can not be enforced, unless an expressed admission of guilt is made, after which action can be taken.
[slightly OT] @Toadofsky you said:

A Swiss or Round-Robin format would somewhat help in that regard, but years ago Lichess had Swiss events and nobody would play them.

I was wondering on tournament formats here (lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/tournaments-formats#1) and I was amazed to find out there was something like that, introduced years ago. I think this should be introduced again, community got bigger than before and it would be nice to have more tournament formats. And in this case, it would make collusion unlikely.
Arena format has proven popular. I might try it sometime. The 24 hour Autumn Event is awesome.
I 100% agree... bring back swiss events now that membership has greatly increased. The demand exists for a more traditional setting.
Yeah, I think it could be interesting to reintroduce such formats (though a ton of coding effort, esp. since the current pairing algorithm is in Java rather than Scala).

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.