WCH Final match


WCH Final match

Back to forum

Garvin Gray    (2012-10-06)
WCH Final match

After having read Eros Riccio's answers to the interview questions on his defending his title twice, I am proposing a few changes to the final match.

I wish to make it clear that this is not in any way an attack on any person. They can only play to the rules set and try to use those rules to their advantage.

My issue is with the rules themselves.

I would like to propose a new format for the final match, because I think it is ridiculous that any player can defend their title with short draws and make no real attempt to prove that they are superior than their opponent.

Of course if the challenger is happy to draw all eight or twelve games, then that is their 'fault' as well.

My proposal is the following:

After eight games, if neither player has won a game, then the match continues for another four games.

In the first eight games, if both sides have won at least one game each, then the result is a drawn match and the champion keeps their title.

In the tie breaking four games, as soon as one player wins a game, the match is over.

I think the current rules are weighted way too much in favour of the champion, which as we have seen from these two games, the champion does not even have to try to prove that he is better than the challenger, but can just draw all eight/twelve games and retain the title.

Thib, please change the rules for this upcoming cycle.

Jose Carrizo    (2012-10-07 01:43:48)
WCH Final match

Very interesting proposal Garvin,and I see the point, but I think there is a problem with: "In the tie breaking four games, as soon as one player wins a game, the match is over." A lost position may be continued to avoid the first loss.
Maybe the tiebreak games must be played in faster time controls, and so on, like tiebreaks in OTB chess.

Garvin Gray    (2012-10-07 19:13:36)
WCH Final match

>A lost position may be continued to avoid the first loss.

I had carefully considered this possibility. I will take an example from transfer/bughouse. When one player is about to be mated, they will stop playing that game, allowing their time to run out, in the hope that their partner will be able to mate the opposition before their own time runs out.

If both games in transfer reach a mate in one position, the side with less time on their clock with their turn to move loses as they will run out of time first.

How does this apply to the WCH?

Well, yes a player could stall on a game they think is lost, but then they would also be required to win another game to make up for it.

This could be a bit silly, but better than other options.

At least there is a sufficient reward for trying to win a game, which is the main objective of all this, to try and get the players to try and win as many games as possible.

>Maybe the tiebreak games must be played in faster time controls, and so on, like tiebreaks in OTB chess.

Not realistic on here. The faster the game , the more it becomes like freestyle/advanced chess and less like correspondence. Also, as is shown in otb, some players would prefer to try and win in rapids, so the solution of having rapid games could in fact increase the short draw odds because the players think, I would rather play a few rapid games, rather than a years worth of long correspondence games.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-07 19:16:15)
WCH Final match

I'm not sure if there can be a real debate on this issue (but we can try of course)... all opinions are in the nature, when I created FICGS I had in mind the original FIDE WCH and I'm still a huge fan of this system. Now fact is FIDE WCH does not mean anything anymore (its champions as well) after numerous bad changes and I feel FICGS chess WCH makes sense more and more.

12 games is enough to fight for a win IMO and I'm sure that there are a few players able to beat Eros in such a match (doesn't mean it would happen anytime though :)), I'm just too impatient to watch the next ones. Eros is building his name in correspondence chess in multiple places at the same time, and the fact that it happened here so quickly after he joined us makes me think that the system is good! I see nothing to change, the result of his match with Alberto was fully explained by Eros, the score has no importance at the end... and he deserves his other title in the other cycle even more by not having to play the final match... just my opinion of course, as I can understand all systems (ICCF etc.), just a question of personal taste at the end.

Garvin Gray    (2012-10-09 16:33:26)
WCH Final match

Thib: I think your analysis or love with the old style world champ format contains a flaw in relation to playing on here.

In the old style world champs, games are played one at a time. On here, all the games start at the same time.

Secondly, with the old style world champs, the matches were over 24 games, so the equivalent would be to play the final match over 24 games.

The current world champ cycle suffers from the same effect as the ficgs final match does, the match is too short, resulting in lots of draws because one loss is devastating.

If you do not want to change the rules to encourage players to try for wins, then lengthen the match to 24 games.

Otherwise you are just like quite a lot of organisers who just love the past (tradition) and are not prepared to make the players actually try to win games, rather than bore their viewers to death with short draws.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-09 18:52:25)
WCH Final match

Of course this correspondence chess championship is very different from FIDE WCH, but it seems to me that 12 games is still enough (24 games would be quite inhuman by the way), the score in the latest final matches was not significant on the draws issue, particularly now that we all know how Eros deals with it (in a smart way that can be compared to Kramnik's strategy in his match vs. Kasparov: draw with Berlin's defence, fight with White if no risk). IMO the champion has nothing to prove as he made it in a whole cycle and by beating the previous one, while a challenger should at least be able to win one game out of 12.

Actually the real evolution should have been towards freestyle chess, but it has no success enough to organize a whole cycle and it looks like Eros is the king as well. Also I don't like the idea to melt different time controls like FIDE does. The whole challenge is about one thing, not 3 or 4 differents kinds of games.

I love the past tradition not because it is a tradition, but because I really think it is the best system so far! If a new system proves to be better to me (there will always be a question of taste though, of course) then we would have to discuss it here.

The only way to encourage players to try for wins is to go towards the ICCF format, that has other issues that I wanted to avoid at any price. And why to do the same?

Garvin Gray    (2012-10-09 18:59:35)
WCH Final match

I would like to apologize for some of my over-heated comments from my previous post. I get rather annoyed when I see any format that encourages short draw chess as I believe short draw is anti-sport and not in the best interests of chess in general.

What is the iccf format, for those not in the know? ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-09 19:16:42)
WCH Final match

No problem, I understand your concern... well I believe that these short draws are just a problem instead of another, at least we have a clear champion! What will happen when round-robin WCH tournaments (ICCF format) will be decided by Soderborn or whatever because of several winners with 6,5 or 7 out of 12 points, as it seems to happen in some tournaments... Though there is no better way to encourage players to win than RR tournaments.

Neel Basant    (2012-10-11 20:48:44)
WCH Final match

Certainly both the challenger and the defender should have equal ..
In this context i like Garvin's proposal..
The defender should not have draw odd..

Garvin Gray    (2012-10-13 12:49:22)
WCH Final match

Neel, I have no particular issue with draw odds. Being corro, it is not possible to organise anything that might be still decent corro, but is at a more rapid time control to get a tie break going.

My issue is that as Eros's comments have shown, he was not even slightly forced to try and win any of the games.

So I think the rules should be made more attractive to try and get players to win games (and yes put on a show too).

Another idea could be to start eight games, if the champion is ahead, the match is over and if still tied, start games 9 to 16.

If the challenger is ahead after game 8, games 9 to 16 are still played, and now the champion would have to go all out to win a game to at least draw level.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-10-15 05:45:36)
WCH Final match

I don't want to enter the Wch due to rating bias in the groups. So until that is fixed I am only interested in FICGS World Cup.

Don Groves    (2012-10-15 11:40:54)
WCH Final match

Ratings bias? The total ELO in each group is probably as close to the same as possible. Naturally groups are seeded. Is this what you mean by bias?