Great post and excellent questions.
#26 NobodyReally, I don't think the people playing this tourn think it's an "unimportant tourn". I was playing a few games in it and thought the GM was a GM playing on his own. I never noted any connection to a streaming event.
It would be better separate the streaming event from the tourn like KC says I think. If allowing this, there is a risk for what is allowed is going to be grayed out and a lot of masters aren't playing themself and using this site for experiments like this. The site would in that case lose its value.
A great value of lichess is scheduled tourns with titled players playing. If you aren't sure you are playing them or playing some collaboration, I think a big value of the site is lost.
It would be better separate the streaming event from the tourn like KC says I think. If allowing this, there is a risk for what is allowed is going to be grayed out and a lot of masters aren't playing themself and using this site for experiments like this. The site would in that case lose its value.
A great value of lichess is scheduled tourns with titled players playing. If you aren't sure you are playing them or playing some collaboration, I think a big value of the site is lost.
What was the time control? It takes lots of time to think through the moves. Many blunders are a result of moving too fast. The beauty of classical chess is the complexity and the depth of the moves.
@FM MattyDPerrine
Like I said before. I was watching the stream live for like an hour.
I agree that in the example you provided they actually did take it too far with the consulting. I missed that specific game. What I saw during the stream when I was watching was nowhere near the same level of consulting. It was more like a master and his pupil conversing.
Nevertheless, my opinion about the added value to this site and chess in general remains the same. If this is such a big problem then some kind of solution should be worked out.
Personally I have no problem whatsoever when playing a GM who is consulting with a MUCH weaker player. In fact I encourage it. :-)
But I respect that some people do.
Like I said before. I was watching the stream live for like an hour.
I agree that in the example you provided they actually did take it too far with the consulting. I missed that specific game. What I saw during the stream when I was watching was nowhere near the same level of consulting. It was more like a master and his pupil conversing.
Nevertheless, my opinion about the added value to this site and chess in general remains the same. If this is such a big problem then some kind of solution should be worked out.
Personally I have no problem whatsoever when playing a GM who is consulting with a MUCH weaker player. In fact I encourage it. :-)
But I respect that some people do.
FM MattyDPerrineeditedil You justed nailed it !!! Really good post
Also Baron was nervous for some time during games because he wanted to win so bad, so you can't say he don't care about this tournement.
All in all chess should be one man against the other man, just like in a boxing match, Not a human versus a Robot or a human versus 2 guys... This is not WWF !!!
-Cheers-
Also Baron was nervous for some time during games because he wanted to win so bad, so you can't say he don't care about this tournement.
All in all chess should be one man against the other man, just like in a boxing match, Not a human versus a Robot or a human versus 2 guys... This is not WWF !!!
-Cheers-
en.lichess.org/terms-of-service
The rules are clearly explained.
@thibault I have previously requested a change that only games with similarly rated opponents can be used for the purpose of maintaining trophies. Please implement that for sake of fairness for everyone. It's not right that strong players can use the games with amateurs for this purpose.
The rules are clearly explained.
@thibault I have previously requested a change that only games with similarly rated opponents can be used for the purpose of maintaining trophies. Please implement that for sake of fairness for everyone. It's not right that strong players can use the games with amateurs for this purpose.
@thibault So if I, a mediocre player at best, had a significantly higher-ranked player sitting beside me helping me, that would be fine?
Seriously though, at some point the rating gap between the actual player and the helper would just get ridiculous enough that everyone would go "wait, the only reason he's doing so well is because of that other player". And if that's the case, why then should only certain people be allowed the advantage of a better player's help?
Seriously though, at some point the rating gap between the actual player and the helper would just get ridiculous enough that everyone would go "wait, the only reason he's doing so well is because of that other player". And if that's the case, why then should only certain people be allowed the advantage of a better player's help?
#36:
To be clear, those rules have been amended since the incident to include a line about an exception being made for streamers.
To be clear, those rules have been amended since the incident to include a line about an exception being made for streamers.
Two chess masters consulting with each other in a live stream sets a very bad example. Quite a lot of people might think: If they are allowed to do that, if such behaviour is even publicly displayed – then why should I not have a friend sit by my side and assist me?
A breach of an important rule like this can easily undermine everybody's acceptance of lichess rules in general. A rule like "don't get assistance during the game" can only be based on trust, since in general there is no way like with computer assistance to find out. Undermining this rule might ruin the respect for it.
All of this holds despite the fact that two masters streaming and commenting together is indeed very educational. But is it worth the risk of players feeling encouraged to ignore rules?
A breach of an important rule like this can easily undermine everybody's acceptance of lichess rules in general. A rule like "don't get assistance during the game" can only be based on trust, since in general there is no way like with computer assistance to find out. Undermining this rule might ruin the respect for it.
All of this holds despite the fact that two masters streaming and commenting together is indeed very educational. But is it worth the risk of players feeling encouraged to ignore rules?
My vote for Kingscrusher in this case. It doesn't matter that "opponent asked and it was allowed".
Site's rules state otherwise and one could expect that his opponent plays by the rules.
Site's rules state otherwise and one could expect that his opponent plays by the rules.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.