The World at War ELO Tournament

[petedalby]

Just a small pushback from me on the earlier post. One of the original principles of ELO was the following:

If your position is impossible, you are encouraged to offer to resign so both players can take on other games.

I can't see the point of continuing to the bitter end if that end is not in doubt. Perhaps if players want to do that it should be agreed at the beginning.

Some of my most enjoyable games have been in the balance until the very last turn, so I'm not one for quitting lightly.

[DmitryN]

The question is in what the player consider to be his goal. If you are playing as Axis against stronger player the goal can be be to hold at least end 1945 or 1946. If you play as allies against stronger player, the goal could be save USSR or at least UK. Something like this.

[HARRIS45]

I wish to support Dmitry's view that it depends on each player's goal. Dmitry and I currently have a game underway in which at its start we both understood that his skill and experience far exceeded mine and I had no realistic chance of victory. To make the game interesting for him I agreed to play to end of game or until he defeated China, USSR, India and UK. My goal within the game is to deny him. But my primary goal is to benefit from watching a style of play which I will never achieve but will benefit me both strategically and tactically in future games. Personally, I believe this approach of setting goals when skill levels are far different is a good approach to matches.