not sure what I'm proposing here but this happened in Alekhine finals:

before any of the games where played it was 1 - 1 due to one player not showing up to negotiate and another player missing the scheduled time due to good reasons. so the finals where decided by the other two games - they ended 1 - 1 as well. due to the fact that the team ranked on first place after the regular season only needs a draw in the finals to win the section has been won due to one game. this is so disappointing.

I'd like to find a solution that does not lose the protection the rules guarantee if a player does not show up to negotiate or does not show up at the agreed upon time. but on the other hand it's a very very disappointing result that the finals have been decided by one game and not by four.

can we by any means find a way to modify the rules so that this won't happen again? is it possible that for instance if one player does not show up to negotiate (seems like this player was ill or something)the game could be reschuled with a lower rated player from the same team (if there is one? and is it possible that if a player does not show up within the grace period let's say his clock starts running so he has additional 45 minutes to show up? I know that I'd be pissed if I was the opponent waiting for an additional 45 minutes if my opponent does not show up in the finals but again this result is so disappointing.

I agree it's a very disappointing situation, but it has happened in other sections in previous seasons. For instance, I recall a game between schachbjm and Diduk that couldn't be played, and you bet there'd be a large audience for it. Furthermore, forfeits are a bummer in any round, not only in the finals. Sometimes they can even prevent a team with a good campaign from reaching the finals, which is another very frustrating situation. That's why I'm in favour of games being played, or that all options are exhausted before a result is just set.

"Is it possible that if a player does not show up within the grace period let's say his clock starts running so he has additional 45 minutes to show up?" This was discussed in the thread about the grace period (http://teamleague.org/board.php?page=board&action=topicshow&forumid=2&forum=Proposals&topic=Grace+time+of+30+minutes+for+play+start&topicid=1181), where sbc explains why it's not feasible.

"is it possible that for instance if one player does not show up to negotiate (seems like this player was ill or something)the game could be reschuled with a lower rated player from the same team (if there is one)?" I find this dangerous because it's likely to create confusion and disputes. Once the pairings are up, scheduling and preparation start and there's no way back. That's why captains are emphatically told to check their players' availability before selecting them for the coming round, and they can still make changes in the lineup up to the last minute before Tuesday 22 h. Making exceptions to this is to ask for trouble, IMHO.

Rules won't provide a solution for every situation, but good dialogue should help solve most cases, and in a few others life really gets in the way, unfortunately. If I were informed that my opponent were ill to the point of not being able to play in two weeks, I'd offer an unplayed draw, but this is a personal decision. And I hope that player is feeling much better by now.

In short, I don't think finals should be treated differently from the other rounds. For unexpected and difficult situations I'd simply recommend that the camaraderie in the event motto be valued as much as possible. We're here to play chess in the first place, so not playing can't be fun for either side.

Congrats to all winners!
Beto.

thanks for your opinion, Beto!

you're right dialogue and comradery might help but not if someone does not show up at all to negotiate - if you don't know what's going on you can't offer anything. this happened with a player I'd refer to as very reliable, who seemed to have been online when his captain set the team but not anymore from then on (wasn't my team so I can just tell by the log dates). here it would be good to have for instance a rule that one team might have a substitute to bring in to the finals for a person who's not showing up - but I see that it's not only a point of rules but also a lot of additional work for the admins which should be avoided.

I think finals should be treated differently because there's a lot more in it than a normal round. and it's a common rule in most tournaments in other sports to bring more players if the ones nominated can't show up for the finals.

I agree with Kurumim :)

I like the rules the way they are at the moment. Even though it is a pity when a game cannot be played, if a player does not show up at all, I do not see any alternatives but claiming the win as in the game Kurumim reffered to.

Best regards
schachbjm

I agree with Kurumim :)

I like the rules the way they are at the moment. Even though it is a pity when a game cannot be played, if a player does not show up at all, I do not see any alternatives but claiming the win as in the game Kurumim reffered to.

Best regards
schachbjm

I would think for a Finals Game, captains would place even more importance in knowing player availability. Aren't Finals games allowed two weeks (within reason) to play, anyway? Since there's no deadline to get results and set pairings for a non-existent following week...

I think it is problematic to discuss on assumptions why somebody was or wasn't available for negotiations / game, real life of players happens in ways we have no way of knowing or commenting, in my opinion at least.

What if playoffs was double-rounder? This way the possibility problems of forfeits would decrease since they're not probable anyway.