Main Forum
| Post Reply
|
proposed amendment to the ladder rule
|
|
Play chess tournaments online
|
| It's now: Nov 18, 1:30pm EST |
proposed amendment to the ladder rule
Posted by
Saskia
27 Jun 2004 11:59am
there is one rule 'for top 10' that is too onerous because places a player at the mercy of another just below him or her in the ladder...
As ladder player number 6, I MUST play number 7 within 6 days... I have issued a challenge to number 7... but so far he or she has not materialized... I propose that while this challenge lasts, the rule should not apply to me; otherwise what can I do if number 7 simply avoids playing me?
It is OK that special rules apply to top ranks, so that they would not be able to sit tight without rank-threatening encounters... BUT they should not be penalized if the only opponent they need does not show up... Suspend the requirement while that opponent is under challenge!
Challenging a player ranked right below you
Posted by
gcuser1
27 Jun 2004 3:35pm
Thanks for your thoughts. The best way to work out ladder problems is by using COntact Us link. Upon your request our staff can evaluate/update/reverse ladder standings/challenges if needed. Here is some general information on the subject:
It is your responsibility to make arrangements to play a ladder game with a player ranked one rung below you. You can do that via informal invitations or you can issue a formal challenge. If you have a formal challenge and the player ranked below you still does not play with you, then GC can investigate the challenge.
In the case of a formal challenge, GC will reverse the rank reduction if the following is true:
1. your challenge logs show that you tried negotiating in good faith -- you have given your opponent several time/date options, you actively seeked them out, etc. and
2. the challenge was due to expire within 24 hours of your pending rank reduction.
webmaster
Reply to this topic
|
Play chess tournaments online
At GameColony.com you can play games of skill only -- play for free or play for $prizes!.
According to the statutes of most states in the United States, gambling is defined as: "risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance". (Also see No Gambling!). The skill (as opposed to chance) is predominant in games of skill. Playing games of skill for $prizes, therefore, has nothing to do with gambling as it is not a contest of chance -- the more skillful player will win far more often. The chance element of a 'gamble' is either insignificant or missing. When players compete in tournaments or games of skill for $prizes -- it is "competitive entertainment" rather then "gambling". The more skilled winner will always win more matches, tournaments and $prizes.
|
|
