Wch Match Tie Break Rules


Back to forum

Peter W. Anderson    (2015-06-14)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I recently played in an Infinity Chess freestyle event and was impressed by one of their tiebreak rules. If scores were tied a player got a bonus if he had stalemated an opponent.

I would like to suggest this is adopted in the matches (not tournaments) in the FICGS world championship and that is it the first tiebreak rule applied, i.e before ratings and whether wins or only draws have been played. I would also suggest it is adopted for the title matches too. Perhaps it could be introduced from the 15th cycle onwards or even in existing cycles (11 to 14) where a match has not begun.

This seems a very fair tiebreak rule to me, which would normally reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match, especially where all games are drawn.

The only disadvantage I can see to this rule is that it would prolong games as some that would currently be agreed drawn would in future be played through to stalemate.

On the other hand it would get us thinking hard about which drawn endgames lead to stalemate and which don't and that in itself is quite interesting.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-06-19 02:16:28)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Ah... I must say this is an interesting idea. Actually it changes many things! This is a deep change in the whole game after all (in my view).

Any opinion?

Peter W. Anderson    (2015-07-02 16:20:58)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Yes, this could be a small but deep change. Perhaps some drawing opening lines would be less attractive because they will lead to stalemate. I see that as a good thing as it will lead to more fighting chess.

As nobody has objected perhaps it should be implemented :)

Alvin Alcala    (2015-07-02 17:18:46)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

This will convince Thib! :)


Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-02 20:32:45)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I am against that rule. Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-05 14:22:20)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Thanks for the article Alvin, I read it entirely. My feeling is still about the same than Pablo's: This is deeply changing the game. Doesn't it mean restarting from zero while at the end (which may be not so far), the same problem will appear again... maybe slightly weaker, but still?

On the other hand, I concede that I made a (less) deep change in the rules when I started FICGS, by not adopting the 50 moves rule, so I'm still hesitating.

My position would be first to wait and see what ICCF will decide on this point, meanwhile I'll try to have more opinions here on this.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-05 14:49:03)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Also, Arno Nickel suggests:

"Therefore, I specifically suggest enhancing the score system to include a ¾ point for a performance with an added value as compared to a regular draw:

a) stalemating the opponent;
b) being a piece up against the naked king."

What about King vs King + 2 Knights?

I'm not sure if this b) point is really "natural" (and clear enough).

Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-05 15:07:19)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

King + 2 knights = forced stalemate. I was wondering if a king + bishop or king + knight can stalemate by force a lone king.

Peter W. Anderson    (2015-07-05 17:16:00)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

The suggestion that Arno put forward in the article goes much further than what I was suggesting.

Under his suggestion a win could be outweighed by several stalemates. I am not in favour of this.

However, in my suggestion, stalemates would only be taken into account when a match is tied, so stalemates would never outweigh wins.

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-05 21:14:44)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck...

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-05 23:34:17)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

True Peter!

And one other thing, if King vs. King + Knight is not draw, why King + Knight vs. King + 2 Knights would be draw?

Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-06 00:03:04)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

If we think about the stalemate logic, 2 knight vs 1 knight would be a draw by repetition or move limit if there is no stalemate or knight exchange. But can one bishop or one knight + king force a stalemate vs king alone? Anyway this is not chess anymore, many endings would be artificially become lost, for example king vs king + pawn, pawn a c f h vs queen, and many 1 piece vs 1 piece + pawn.

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-06 04:59:02)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill

Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-06 09:05:09)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

@ Ohlin quite the opposite if the human adapt to this rule and if the computer is not "reprogrammed" for the new rule.

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-06 09:34:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Stalemate points as favour for black´s good opening play or white´s strong middle and endgame play?

Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-06 09:48:34)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I don't see the link between your game and the stalemate!?

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-06 10:17:40)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

As Peter Anderson write: "It reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match..."

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-06 13:48:10)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

It seems to me that it's still a point of debate: According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game.

In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?

Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-06 18:03:33)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I agree with Thibault.

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-07 12:35:58)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.

Scott Nichols    (2015-07-07 14:39:48)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I agree with Jan.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-08 01:26:17)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Yes, we agree on that point, it could be more interesting... but this is not chess anymore, this is a new game. So we could even add more new rules like this one to make it even more interesting :)

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-08 06:49:01)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

A new game, no. Correspondence chess will become more like it was for some decades ago when top players dared to play Kingsindian and Benko gambit.

Jose Carrizo    (2015-07-08 17:17:22)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

If a player want to win with Black today, he can play Kingsindian and the Benko Gambit without new rules.

Peter W. Anderson    (2015-07-09 09:35:12)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I have avoided commenting further on this idea because I wanted to see what other people had to say. But now I will reply to the points made.
“Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.”
As I said I am against a points bonus, but am in favour of using stalemates for tie breaks. The real question is would someone start a game aiming for stalemate as opposed to start the game trying to win? I am not sure how you would do that – either way you have to try to build up an advantage and if it gets big enough it will lead to mate and if it is not quite big enough it might lead to stalemate. Anyone who gets the choice between a win and stalemate will presumably always take the win.
The one way I think this will really affect the game is by discouraging some very deeply analysed defences that are known to drawn or close to drawn but will almost certainly lead to stalemate. Personally I think this is a good thing, but I accept that the opposite view could be taken :)

“I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck.”
Reaching stalemate as the defending side can be very simple (e.g. king and pawn vs king) or can indeed show great skill. It is almost never down to luck. In the case where great skill is shown that skill earns you half a point instead of no points. Nonetheless, the very fact that you needed great skill to save the game shows how close you came to losing, so I see no reason not to use this as a tiebreak rule.

“And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill”.
Like Pablo, I think quite the opposite is true. In fact one of my motivations for suggesting the change was to increase the human element in the game.

“According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game. In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?”
I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. If we could play perfect chess and at the start of the game someone decided to take the draw by allowing themselves to be stalemated then that would be a very good example supporting that view. However, I think the reality is different. In most cases when someone gets stalemated (or would be stalemated if the game was played through to its conclusion) it is because they have got a worse position and have little choice if they want to save the game.
If the defending side could achieve a draw by stalemate or by other means, then under today’s rules they could choose either way. Under my proposed rules they might be wise to choose the other method, unless of course they were confident of achieving more wins in the match.

“Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.”
This might be helpful for tournaments but I don’t think it helps at all for match play. In reality, if you can win just one game in a match you will most likely win the match. Therefore you don’t need a bonus to play for a win with black in a match situation.
However, I think this point indirectly touches on an issue with match play and how hard people try to win, and I do think the stalemate tiebreak rules would help a little with this.
The problem as it stands is that the higher rated player (or the champion in the case of the tile match) knows that if all games are drawn he will win the match. The higher rated player (or champion) can therefore take a low risk approach to the match, with both black and white (actually I think the low risk approach with white is just as much a problem).
If the higher rated player (or champion) was not certain that all draws would win them the match then they would probably try harder to win. This would give a better chance of decisive games in matches.
One way of a achieving this would be through a toss of a coin if the match is tied with all draws. Personally I would not find this satisfactory.
Whilst the likelihood of stalemate is quite low, it will nonetheless be there, so this rule might encourage the higher rated player or champion to try harder for a win.
I will speak from personal experience on this matter. In most of my recent matches I have been the higher rated player. I still play some relatively risky defences as black (e.g. the modern against 1.e4) and I always try to win with white. However, I have to be honest, if I am the higher rated player, I do not always play the very sharpest lines as white and I do not often play some of my riskier defences to 1.d4. If the stalemate tiebreak rule was in place, I would be taking more chances with both white and black.
So whilst I accept that it is not perfect, I still think the stalemate tie-break rule is a good idea. However, as nobody else has spoken out in favour of it I accept that it is very unlikely to be implemented and I won’t write any more on this matter unless someone asks me a direct question. It is time to concentrate on my matches under the existing rules! :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-09 15:59:02)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Thanks for this long answer Peter. We'll have an occasion to discuss it again very very soon, I think.

Alvin Alcala    (2015-07-10 14:46:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Hi everyone. GM Arno wants to post in this thread as he has trouble logging in.
Introducing a 3/4-1/4 score for stalemate does not mean changing the whole game. Lasker and Réti, the fathers of this idea, knew quite well what they did, when they said, it's only a minor change (btw following the ancient chess, when mates were rare and a stalemated player had to pay half of his stake).
Some people on ChessBase argued and feared that the game might become bloodless as players would fear to sacrify material. But that's a wrong assessment.
Here is a "normal" classical GM game with a Morra Gambit, that could have happened the same way under the new rule:
E.Berg - S. Rocha (POR 2013)
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0–0 Nf6 8.Bf4 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 e6 11.Rfd1 Qc7 12.Rac1 Be7 13.Bb3 Rc8 14.Nd5 exd5 15.exd5 Ne5 16.Qe3 Qd7 17.Rxc8+ Qxc8 18.Bxe5 0–0 19.Bf4 Qd7 20.Rc1 Bd8 21.Qd4 Re8 22.Qb4 Be7 23.Ba4 b5 24.Bb3 Rc8 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8 26.a4 Qc5 27.Qe1 Kf8 28.Be3 Qc7 29.axb5 axb5 30.Qb4 Qb7 31.g4 h6 32.Qd4 Nd7 33.Qe4 Bf6 34.Qb4 Qa6 35.Bc2 Ne5 36.Kg2 Nc4 37.Bc1 g5 38.Bd3 Qa1 39.Bxc4 bxc4 40.Qxc4 Bxb2 41.Be3 Bf6 42.Qc8+ Kg7 43.Qf5 Qc3 44.Qe4 Qb2 45.Qf5 Qc3 46.Qe4 Qb2 47.h4 gxh4 48.Qf4 Qe5 49.Qxh6+ Kg8 50.Kg1 h3 51.Qxh3 ½–½
Follow the comments in the MegaBase.
White sacrifies a pawn at move 3. He regains it at move 18 by a typical piece sacrifice. Later White, who is pressing a lot, while Black defends quite well, could have won a pawn by 38.b3 (instead of 38.Bd3?): e.g. 38...Qa1 39.Bxg5 hxg5 40.bxc4 bxc4 41.Qxc4.
Berg argues he might have had practical winning chances. Either 1-0 or 1/2. So what is the big difference, if we would say: either 1-0, 3/4 or 1/2? It's just making the game more exciting, more fair and a bit less drawish, what is badly needed for correspondence chess. The basic wrong assessment is that it might be significantly easier to achieve a stalemate advantage. But it isn't (and that's why only a small percentage of games will end like that). Last but not least, players who achieve a clear endgame advantage deserve a 3/4 point instead of 1/2. K+P, K+B, K+N vs. K should be a difference to K vs. K." Thanks again, Arno

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-10 20:47:49)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

But white can´t find the winning plan / move and yet rewarded with an extra score. Meanwhile Black defends quite well but get no additional bonus for his skills. If we compare with football, then Italy had hardly been able to become world champions, just as Tigran Petrosjan never would have been in chess.

Scott Nichols    (2015-07-10 20:56:39)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

IMO the only true tiebreak is a playoff with the time controls shortening after each 2 games until one side wins. I know this is not possible with most tournaments. Certainly someone who "tied" for first, but lost the prize on tiebreaks is not going to tell people they finished second. Lots of sports have playoffs, golf, football etc. Because for the romantic, a tie is like nothing, it's not a true win.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-11 01:43:15)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I hope the "test" tournament will occur at ICCF, it should be more pertinent than any opinion after all.

@ Scott: I agree, this should probably be the best option, particularly over the board... but I always feared that a match be decided on a computer or internet issue, like it regularly happened during freestyle tourneys.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-11 02:24:37)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Eros Riccio just gave his opinion on all this when answering a few questions on his win in the 10th corr. chess WCH, you may have a look here:


Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-11 07:14:05)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

We all agree about that the drawing problem occur when top players playing matches against one another they avoids taking risks, and overall that the likelihood of stalemate is quite low in chess?
Then maybe we should play more risky openings and as well more closed positions also. I see we don´t do that now.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-12 01:04:29)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I'm afraid Jan is right... and Eros says it himself, he takes no risk! So it's not only a question of a drawish game in the context of chess engines, but also of a drawish behaviour. Unless starting playing Go, we'll probably have to change many important rules in chess to make it really exciting again.

Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-12 02:09:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Here is most examples of my ficgs practice (corr and Advanced chess). This represent a low percentage of my games. These games are food for thought from my own assisted experience against that rule that I call "+1 decisive advantage chess". I believe you could already burn a lot of chapters in ending's book. Most of my games show balanced games until the end, sometime, the "punished guy" could have played another drawing defense, sometimes not, unfairly to me. The game would be more safe, with less sacrifices of piece vs 2 or 3 pawns and things like that because of fearing an ending with king vs king + piece or king vs king + pawn even if the sacrifice was sound and well played. Game 22895 and 84758 I would probably have been punished by the rule in the ending of game 22895 (and my opponent in the other game), and that type of ending in general (piece + pawn up vs piece when the king cannot block the pawn). Game 37122 Shame on me, my advantage in that ending was not sufficient to force my opponent to sacrifice his bishop for my last pawn. This is why I only deserve 0,5!
Game 37920 That king of pawns vs piece + pawn would become lost for the player without the piece, what a way of punish some balanced sacrifices for pawns!
Game 54907 and 20704 That kind of opposite bishop ending would be "lost" for the guy pawnless even if the transition into an inferior but drawn ending was the intention of the "inferior guy".
Game 74870 The ending is perfectly balanced but my opponent couldn't finish the game the way he did because of the rule.
Game 74875 I would have been half-losing in the pawn ending after a nice defense in an interesting unbalanced material line.
Game 74880 the ending knight + h pawn would have been "half losing" for me even if we can't say that I was clearly worse overall.
Game 76734 and 76764 Technichally this game is not directly concerned by the rule but it is very close. I was on the verge of defeat but I have managed to defend stubornely. If he have played well to get a winning position and then the win disapear because of bad play but still finish with a draw, he would get a bonus because he played better overall? The way I managed to defend would not be rewarded?
Game 77809 In this game the whole deep opening line would probably be "half losing" for Black in the ending because of the new rule.
Game 80954 Suddenly it seems that I would have been punished for my defense in the final position.
Game 85106 I did not play specially badly but... I would have been punished for my way of finishing the game!

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-12 07:58:10)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Thank you Pablo showing these concrete examples. The tecnical problem occur more often than I expected.

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-12 08:40:47)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Thibault, the good point is that it´s also a drawish behaviour... :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-13 01:44:43)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Thank you Pablo... also many thanks to Peter, Jan & all participants in this discussion that is not ended for sure :)

Garvin Gray    (2015-09-26 11:36:01)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I see this topic is being discussed again, or was. I notice that Eros has not actually won a game against an opponent since match 4.

This means, unless results are missing, that he has not beaten successive opponents the matches since. All this shows is that he is the equal of the players he is put up against and it is the champion retains the title that allows him to stay where he is.

This then results in the nature of play we see, which is defensive.

I proposed back quite a whilst ago that the format should be changed for the final match to 8 games, and then if the result is 4-4, the remaining 4 games are played.

Disclaimer- I come from a position that I believe that Eros should be made to show that he is the best player on this site.

He has drawn too many matches with all drawn games for this to continue and I do not believe this is a healthy situation for the site and it needs to change.

Scott Nichols    (2015-09-27 01:43:01)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I agree, 59 draws, 1 win = 5 world ch's

Does not compute...

Jan Ohlin    (2015-09-27 12:31:32)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

As in fotboll once in a time, to many corner kicks gave a penalty... :)

Garvin Gray    (2015-09-27 12:55:00)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I will carry this point on a bit. Thibault defense for the current system is that it maintains the old classical system of the world championship.

But even fide has recognised that the draw odds to the champion gave too much advantage, and that is in over the board play, never mind in engine chess.

The defending champion already receives two advantages- the right to be in the final match, and if that match is lost, then is in the next qualifying match.

And then the champion in the championship match also receives draw odds.

When you see it written like this, do you now see how much of an advantage the defending champion actually does receive?

And this all goes back to when the site was first set up.

It is not like Eros had to play through from the first stage against all the beginners and fight his way and defeat the previous defending champion to win the title.

Garvin Gray    (2015-09-30 23:29:09)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Btw, to respond to Scott Nichols. I would have no issue at all if the champion had won each match 6.5-5.5. He defeated each opponent on merit and proved under the format used that he was the better player.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-09-30 23:46:19)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

And I'll say it once more :) FIDE made a choice that may have given more chances to everyone, I agree with that, but it seems to me that the chess world championship lost its aura & legend, just like world champions (IMHO). Also, results are a direct consequence of rules, it does not mean that Eros does not deserve his place (IMO), he certainly would have played differently in a round robin. Finally, FIDE WCH is round robin, ICCF WCH is round robin, why everything should be round robin?

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-01 01:01:15)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

The Fide World Championship Match is NOT round robin and has NOT been round robin since 2007. Carlsen defeated Anand last year.

The full cycle is shown here:


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-01 01:50:23)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Oh, right... big mistake, sorry :) I was probably influenced by your comment "But even fide has recognised that the draw odds to the champion gave too much advantage" (heard "that's why they changed the format to RR")

Anyway, ok I also recognize that the draw odds to the champion gives too much advantage... but this system still looks better than any other one to me. I also remind that even Eros agrees with this draw issue. Finally, yes I'm open to any suggestion for a change, but we really have to find something strong.

Jan Ohlin    (2015-10-01 07:00:57)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

While we wait for the solution, we can consider that engines do not tell the truth in closed positions with any pieces left. The question is also how much they understand openings as Benko-gambit? We have too much respect for the engines evaluations. And it counts in me too...

Jan Ohlin    (2015-10-01 07:02:11)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

With ALL pieces left...

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-01 09:07:08)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Keeping the discussion solely to this issue of World Championship Tie break rule and draw odds, I have already made one proposal, which is that the final match be split into two parts. The first eight games be started, and then if tied, then the remaining four games are played.

A defensive strategy in the first eight games is not so well rewarded, because the champion has the knowledge that if the first eight games are drawn, then they have to play another four games.

Yes, after 12 games, I am still stating that the champion retains the title if the match is tied 6-6, unless someone can propose how to break the tie with more games, but at least this way, the two players have more to gain by trying to win a game, especially the champion and concluding the match in the first eight games.

Scott Nichols    (2015-10-01 14:55:14)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

It's pretty simple IMO. Make each year unique, no seeding. Everybody has to play from the start, prelims, semi's and finally a RR final. One thing I would add is a under 2000 and over 2000 ch's.

Alvin Alcala    (2015-10-02 18:37:50)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

In case of a tie let them play a tie-breaker game with accelerated time control.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-08 18:11:38)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Your idea is attractive Garvin! But, it is a question of time also, and organisation of championships cycles... I don't see a satisfying solution with this one.

Scott's idea looks like the original FICGS cup's idea... and ICCF WCH. Just one more correspondence chess RR championship.

Alvin's idea is exactly what a correspondence chess champ. should avoid (IMHO), I mean server or internet provider problems... It would be a shame that it decides a winner (like it may have happened in freestyle tournaments). Also, this is just not correspondence chess anymore.

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-09 16:57:51)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Thib: I have not replied to this topic since my last comment for two reasons. 1) Nothing new to add 2) I had seen Scott's comment and was rather upset by it as I saw the danger in it. This discussion, in my opinion, is about one topic only.

We have discussed the ficgs world cup and other formats before, and can again, but this discussion is for one item only, so I did not want to contribute in any way to derailing the discussion. So I decided to refrain from comment as I had nothing to add.

To respond to your comments Thib- timing of the championship cycles will always be an issue, no matter the format. Regardless if you use 12 straight games, my format, or Alvin's. Or any other version.

We already have different groups starting at different times, and the final starting at different times to the other groups. This is just how things happen. It is possible that the final could be over in 8 games and in a shorter time period and time gained.

I think this format is worth trying for at least one cycle. That is also what happens with the otb world championship. There are format changes from time to time. Some are successful, some are not. Matches used to be 24 games in length. Now they are 12 games. One was played as an 8 player double round robin.

Things change as the environment changes.

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-09 17:00:06)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

A second proposal to reduce the effect of draw odds- increase the total number of games that start at the same time from 12 to 16.

Scott Nichols    (2015-10-09 20:04:30)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

"Also, this is just not correspondence chess anymore." Times and technology have changed dramiticaly, why can't we change with it?

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-14 02:29:41)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Garvin's last idea is actually really interesting in my opinion. I always thought that 12 games should be enough, but I would be ready to change it to 16 if a majority approves... Any opinions on this (and on Scott's remark as well)?

Jan Ohlin    (2015-10-14 07:08:13)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

If playing a lot more games it is like forcing mistakes instead of good games?! Social life will become ruined... Whom will bother about become a "world champ"? Not me who also have small kids to take care of.
And the opposite, if instead play fewer games it will force the challenger to play even more risky openings. The games will become more exciting to watch.

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-14 15:17:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Jan: Eros has clearly stated that he has used the advantage of draw odds by playing defensively and by playing for draws, knowing he only needs to draw all the games to retain the title.

So he knows he does not need to win the match to retain the title and has used the rules to their full effect. Of course this is his right and well done to him, but it is also the organisers and rule makers duty to change the rules when the circumstances are no longer in the interest of the event as a whole.

If all 12 games in each match had been blood and guts affairs, and a few games had been won, but the eventual score was 6-6, then this whole conversation would probably not be happening.

But when only ONE, I REPEAT ONE, game has been won in the last eight matches, and Eros has managed to retain the title each title, it is clear that the rules need to change.

I have made two clear proposals. As illustrated above, it is not a case in the previous matches that all the games were hard fought, so your argument that adding four extra games would be onerous in the final match.

Yes, it could produce an effect of more drawn games from short draws, but then if this the case, then all players should be warned the organisers will be forced to seriously consider introducing no draw agreements before move 30 without the agreement of the arbiter.

Again, this is what occurs when the players make it clear they are determined not to win their games.

Jan Ohlin    (2015-10-14 17:12:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Garvin: I´m maybe the crazy one who wants to play less or equal (!) games as now and think it then will be acceptable for the challenger to play openings as Benko gambit, closed Spanish etc. I see that we have not been sufficiently clever at exploiting engines weaknesses.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-16 01:12:57)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Finally, this discussion inspired me an idea on a possible FICGS cup:


Peter W. Anderson    (2015-10-16 10:17:47)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I will comment more on the suggestions in this thread when my current match against Eros is finished.

However, I would like to respond now to Thib's request for views on Garvin's suggestion of moving to a 16 game final match. I would be fine with that but equally I am fine staying with a 12 game match.

Garvin Gray    (2016-01-13 23:57:16)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Stephane Legrand: Can you repeat your question here from the chat bar, so it can be answered properly.

And also it is not lost in the future.

Stephane Legrand    (2016-01-14 15:21:36)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

In fact, thibault answers in forum :
Rules are rules Pablo, if the 8 games are draw... then the lowest TER is qualified
so I answer that I read in rules that it was the highest only to know what it is really.
Only that.

Alexis Alban    (2016-01-17 15:37:10)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I disagree with the idea that a champion should have to start over from the beginning each year and have to work his way up to retain the title every year.

I however think that it is wrong for a champion to only need to play one match to defend his title. I think the 2015 champion should have to play in the 2016 quarterfinals and work his way up from there.

If that seems unfair then just make the champion play in the semifinals.

Garvin Gray    (2016-01-17 15:44:55)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Alexis Alban: I apologise if my reply seems a little bit harsh, but are you entering the conversation half way through and have not read the entire thread and preceding discussions?

This thread deals solely with the FICGS World championship and its format, mainly in particular with what happens with drawn matches in the knockout stages.

No one has suggested AT ALL, that the champion has to start again from the beginning (from round one).

That format, what I really wish Thibault would get started on with starting, is from the FICGS world cup, which is a different tournament entirely. It is a completely different structure, with different aims. If you wish to debate that tournament, please move your discussion to that thread.

I am really am trying to work hard to try and prevent thread drift.

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-17 23:29:35)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

By the way Alexis, starting from the knockout quarter final is actually starting from the beginning (stage 1 for highest rated players). Anyway starting from the semi final or knockout final has nothing to see with "defending" title as it is now, it's just a completely different scheme.

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-20 22:22:59)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Answering Stéphane Legrand's question:

If the 8 games are draw: the highest TER advances in the cases of knockout quarter, semi & final. In the candidates final, it is the player from the knockout tournament who advances.

Stephane Legrand    (2016-01-20 22:27:45)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Ok. So, nether the lowest TER as you said ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-21 02:25:52)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Okay, I get it now! :) I said this in the chat bar, too quickly of course... This was wrong indeed. Thanks!