Wch cycles possible changes


Back to forum

Garvin Gray    (2013-06-04)
Wch cycles possible changes?

With some discussion once occurring about the format of the Ficgs wch, time for a new thread with a different slant.

Some posters have given their opinions on pros/cons of the wch cycle and changes they would like to see happen.

Most though are not incorporated because Thibault is against them, or thinks they will not work.

So time for a new question so it might be possible to get some changes or refinements.

Thibault, on what items in regards to the wch would you be willing to see some changes, or at least incorporate well thought out proposals from the members?

This could at least lead the discussion on where to head for a discussion on these matters.

Because quite frankly if Thibault does not agree with your proposal, it will not happen.

If someone wants to know my opinion on this whole matter. Feel free to ask and I will post in a later post, or possibly a whole new thread as I do have quite a bit to say. Be warned, some may not like it ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-05 00:06:55)
Wch cycles possible changes?

Hi Garvin!

Some changes have been made for the chess WCH, about 1 year and a half ago, complicating the rules but not so bad IMO.

I'm not against changes but I'm definitely for coherence... as you know, I think that there is no point changing FICGS WCH going to another round-robin one, just an example. It would kill the original scheme & previous championships value just like FIDE killed its own scheme. I gave my opinion on this when launching the very first championship. Also, I'm quite convinced that constant changes always become bad and hide another problem.

I'm still favourable to create the FICGS CUP with another scheme though! But conditions are not fulfilled... we have no new players enough, numbers are very bad these times. FICGS major problem is here... solving it and most changes proposals become useless.

Anyway, do not think that I will have the last word here for ever, that won't be the case... I only hope that the best decisions will be made for the site.

Garvin Gray    (2013-07-01 13:35:39)
Wch cycles possible changes?

I guess no one else wants any changes.

Oh well I am proposing a small change in regards to the TER rule.

As it stands=

The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.

In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account.

I would like to see these reversed, so it is the rating at the end of the event that decides who goes through. The logic of this is based on the theory being used. The theory is that the reason for highest rating moves forward is that it helps to ensure that the next group is as strong as possible. Well surely then that the most current information is the best guide to strength of play, so in my opinion the TER criteria should change to reflect this.

So the new rule would read:

The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In the case of equality, the player with the highest rating when the next stage begins will be qualify. Should their ratings be equal, then the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-07-02 19:29:35)
Wch cycles possible changes?

I chose the TER so that every player know what result to achieve in a tournament... with the current rating, the result of a match or tournament may change if a player uses the dead man defence. It would be quite terrible IMO :/

Robert Knighton    (2013-07-03 19:02:38)
Wch cycles possible changes?

TER is the only fair way to decide other than tie breaker matches (time consuming) or pushing forward to the next round every player with the same score.

I can see where TER could be frustrating though.

If PlayerA TER 2049 and PlayerB TER 2050 both score 5.5/6 in round 1 then this does seem fairly unjust for player A because playerB only had to fight for a draw to win the round where PlayerA must get a win.

this gives PlayerB a strong advantage over a measly 1 elo.

1 elo also says nothing meaningful about which of the two players has a better chance in the tournament.

Factors such as number of games played or percentage of loss on time would be far better indicators than a single ELO point.

Garvin Gray    (2013-07-04 14:17:57)
Wch cycles possible changes?

Robert, this would especially be the case if in the time between the start of the event and the start of the next stage that Player B was over 100 points higher than Player A, which can happen when it can take a year to start the next qualifying stage.

Garvin Gray    (2013-07-04 14:18:16)
Wch cycles possible changes?

How does a player using dmd gain any advantage?