The tiebreak rule in Tournament Tie Breaks is Inherently Unfair

I recently came third in the zh ChessWhiz Cup III, but I finished the tournament with a higher tournament performance, winning percentage, and beserk rate than the 2nd place finisher Atrophied. I am informed that the tiebreak determinant is none of these values, but rather rating gain. This is inherently unfair. It is harder for higher rated players to gain points due to the nature of rating system. What I believe to be an unfair rule was the difference between a 31$ prize and a 10$ prize. Suggestion: lichess should discontinue this unfair practice and determines tiebreaks based on tournament performance, rather than rating gain. At the very least, this should be done during more important tournaments, particular ones with cash prizes. Lichess is quickly becoming the place for chess on the internet, so let's ensure that fair practices exist across the board. Cheers

good to know that it's rating gain, I always thought that it was determined based on the number of games played first and foremost. I do think that in cases like this, where there is prize money, the prize money should be split though.

Hear Hear!

Some ideas for fair tiebreaks:

- Fewest games played (earning the same number of points in fewer games should be rewarded)
- Win rate (roughly equivalent to above)
- Average opponent rating (harder opponents -> harder to earn same number of points)
- Composite evaluation of rating gain during tournament and player's starting rating

You are absolutely right. Your main opponent was streaming the event, and admitted he entered the tournament with lower rating than he actually is. "Because he was berserking too much last night." I dunno, whether he has done it intentionally or not.

The system is flawed and should be refined. Here are some suggestions for tiebreaks:
1) Score between tied players during the tournament.
2) Average opponent rating.

In your situation that LM (if he is ethical) should divide equally those 31+10$ with you.

"Rating gain" as a tiebreak? It shouldn't even be considered as it's inherently unfair! #4 ideas are way better...

Don't worry; I consider it a tie.

You both split the second and third place prizes equally: 50,000 bits (about 22 USD) each, instead of 75,000 to one and 25,000 to the other.

Good to hear, but I also think that the system should be changed, rating gain is a bad way to do ties.