Suppose there are group of players (lets call it group B) who always berserk each other in a 10+0 tournament.
Suppose there is another group called group A who never does.
On average, group B players will finish two games in the time group A finishes one, and get more than twice the points.
I recall no tournaments where there is that much difference between first and second (though they probably exist), and recall many where there aren't.
Thus, (sensationalizing a bit) I think mutual berserk is something of a mockery, a dishonourable tactic that circumvents and lowlights the players who held to agreement to play Rapid with an external cheat. It's a statement of "no rapid players should win a rapid tournament".
Does this help you see how (especially mutual) berserk can be perceived badly, HORRORMAKER?
Suppose there are group of players (lets call it group B) who always berserk each other in a 10+0 tournament.
Suppose there is another group called group A who never does.
On average, group B players will finish two games in the time group A finishes one, and get more than twice the points.
I recall no tournaments where there is that much difference between first and second (though they probably exist), and recall many where there aren't.
Thus, (sensationalizing a bit) I think mutual berserk is something of a mockery, a dishonourable tactic that circumvents and lowlights the players who held to agreement to play Rapid with an external cheat. It's a statement of "no rapid players should win a rapid tournament".
Does this help you see how (especially mutual) berserk can be perceived badly, HORRORMAKER?