World Championship Match : Ron King vs. Sergio Scarpetta

[sergio]

Chexhero:
Don't agree with this at all. Just because 11-15 ensures a very very slight red advantage, doesn't really make red wins any less impressive. Plenty of openings made end up favoring white. 2 world class competitors are just to good for one opening move to really make a difference. And what if Red plays 9-13 on one of those first move loses? Does the rule still apply? 3 moves openings are one thing, GAYP is another.

Perhaps you could accept it , if I change the order of rules and rewrite the fourth proposal.
Right order: mini-match, the fourth proposal, Alex’s proposal.

The fourth proposal
After the mini-match, in case of further tie:
- in GAYP match who will win more games with white side will be declared the world champion; (To win the player with the white side has to risk a lot, much more than the player with the red side);
- in 3-moves match who will win more openings with the weaker colour (each opening may be divided into three groups: 1) equal 2) favourite red side 3) favourite white side. It is the same classification as we have in Italy for Italian Draughts) will be declared the world champion.

Sergio Scarpetta

[Alex_Moiseyev]

in 3-moves match who will win more openings with the weaker colour (each opening may be divided into three groups: 1) equal 2) favourite red side 3) favourite white side. It is the same classification as we have in Italy for Italian Draughts) will be declared the world champion.

Sergio Scarpetta

In Anglo-American Checkers the only such classification is known to me - one adopted by Richard Pask in "Solid Checkers". It very much accurate and acceptable in my eyes but use it as criteria to identify winner ... donno ... too much fun.

On other note I should say - tiebreaks or mini-match in 3 moves can be played via Tough Deck, 40-50 critical and very critical openings.

[Chexhero]

"- in GAYP match who will win more games with white side will be declared the world champion; (To win the player with the white side has to risk a lot, much more than the player with the red side);"

This is not always necessarily true. Lets put it this way, it is not true enough. If playing from white was like playing against the double cross or wilderness in 3 move I could understand, but the disadvantage is not that bad. But that is my point of view. As you are a close to be champion, I do respect your view as well. We will see what happens. While you may be technically right and it could be used as a last option, I think the match should just be declared a draw.

[Bernard Coll]

Between all the bluster and bullshit (Is it a joke?, is it not a joke?) posted above regarding the outcome of last weeks encounter in the match between Ron and Sergio, is it not time for common sense to prevail? The WCDF are responsible for the running of these matches, their next meeting is scheduled in Lille next month. If something that happened or as claimed didn't happen last week, surely the right time and place to raise their greivances is at their next meeting where presumably all WCDF officers will be in attendance to answer any accusations made against them. I think chexhero and myself seem to be the only two posters who see nothing whatsoever wrong with a drawn match. For Alex Moiseyev, next time you crack another of your jokes,Russian or otherwise; WOULD you please tell us all when to laugh?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

For Alex Moiseyev, next time you crack another of your jokes,Russian or otherwise; WOULD you please tell us all when to laugh?

You have my promise (this is not a joke)

BTW. I also don't seee anything wrong with drawn result and existence procedure. The only reason I posted my proposals - some people badly wanted to change something (anything ?) and I just tried to help them and make it reasonable.

I understand Sergio disappointment as unbeated challenger, but I also perfectly understand Ron position and match tactic. Tie privelege was always in place since 1847 (GAYP) and 1934 (3- moves) and number of drawn matches were relatively small.

Perhaps the biggest victim in history from this rule - William Ryan.

[Ingo_Zachos]

...

Perhaps the biggest victim in history from this rule - William Ryan.

I think Charles Barker was a bigger victim. He suffered from this rule twice:

In 1882 he drew the legendary Herd Laddie himself, James Wyllie with 1-1 and 48 draws in a GAYP Match,
in 1900 he drew the even more lagendary Richard Jordan with 2-2 and 36 draws in a 2-move Match.

I think he is the only one that fought for the biggest title, and did not lose, in two different styles and against probably the best players that there were at the time that never won the title himself.

here is an incomplete list of World Championship Matches:
http://www.usacheckers.com/worldchampionshipresults.php

Other players in that line include

James Wyllie (against Martins 1863)
Robert Martins (against Wyllie 1867),
Leo Levitt (in GAYP 1976 against Oldbury),
Jim Morrison (in GAYP 1986 against Don Lafferty),
Derek Oldbury (in GAYP 1994 against Ron King),
Alex Moiseyev (in GAYP 2000 against Ron King),
Willie Ryan (3-move 1949 against Hellmann),
Asa Long (3-move 1962 against Hellmann),
Don Lafferty (3-move 1996 against Ron King),
and finally Ron King himself (3-move 2009 against Alex Moiseyev),
Sergio Scarpetta (in GAYP 2012 against Ron King)

Last but not least there was one World Chamionship contender for the Women`s title that only scored a draw:

Patricia Breen (in 3-move 1989 against Joan Caws)

I know it is no consulation to Sergio, but some of these sooner or later became World Champion, and all of them are regarded as Legends. He is not in a bad company.


Greetinx from sunny Germany,


Ingo Zachos

[Alex_Moiseyev]

here is an incomplete list

Can't say about all items but at least one recent match is missing: Jan Mortimer played two matches with Patricia Breen in the beginning of 2000's

[Chexhero]

I think chexhero and myself seem to be the only two posters who see nothing whatsoever wrong with a drawn match.

AMEN!

[sergio]

I think most of you didn’t read the post I wrote two days ago.

I said: “It’s no use trying to change the rules. But I’m sure all rules must be observed by both players. No one should try to take advantage of this.”. And I asked three questions, but so far no one has answered them.

Now I want to say that I’m not feeling a victim. I did my best and I’m happy, although it was not enough.

Everything will be fine for me, no objection!

Best regards
Sergio

[Ingo_Zachos]

....
What’s the penalty for the player who doesn’t want to write down the game?

....
In which case and how many times could a player check his record of the game? Could he check it in his opponent's time? Could the referee give his record of the game all the time and ignore this rule without saying a word?
....
How many times in the history of checkers has the rule been applied?

...

It I am correct you asked this questions.

(1) In any case (s)he should be aked to fill in the blanks on his/her time and if(s) he is in time-trouble (s)he is allowed to make a "I" on the sheet for each move, and has to fill them in correctly after the time trouble ended when it is his or her move. The referee should repremand the player if (s)he fails to record and give him/her the hint that(s) he lost the game if (s)he fails to sent in a complete record of his/her moves as a last consequence. --- > see answer to 3)

(2) (S)He should ask his/her opponent when it is his/her move and then use the sheet of the opponent to fill in blanks before (s)he made his move, but if the opponet agrees and does not feel distracted (s)he may also do it on the opponents time, but if (s)he refuses I would wait until it is my turn and then ask.

(3) I am not aware if it happend until today, but I am sure this answers (1) to some extend, as if a player refuses to record even if the referee asked him/her to do so, (s)he has lost.(S)He is not forfeited btw, but has lost regularly then. The games count for rating and everything as if (s)he resigned, lost all his/her pieces or had no move left or overstepped the time.

I think that not many referees are aware of this rule, but as a referee in Lille I will point this out to all players before the event will begin.
In Beijing some players were forced to complete their sheets, even if that resulted in time-trouble, but I dont think anyone was declared loser.

This rule does not mean that there can be one or two minor mistakes like mistaking two fields, and that this leads to a loss, but as a last consequnce a player can be declared loser if (s)he refuses to record.

I hope this answers your questions, Sergio.

Greetinx from Germany in moonshine at midnight,

Ingo Zachos

[George Hay]

Of course, there is the famous Martins vs Wyllie WCM of 1863 that ended up a tied match at 0-0-50.
Martins retained the Title, but by this time Wyllie was already a former World Champion.
This match features the famous Wyllie vs Martins game that was played with the exact same moves for 28 games.
This match is featured in Jim Loy's More Memorable Checkers Matches.
==George Hay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Now I want to say that I’m not feeling a victim. I did my best and I’m happy, although it was not enough.

Everything will be fine for me, no objection!

It's done, it's gone, boy ! One event is over, another on the way in Lille. Good luck you there and remember: there is only one way to prove pudding - eat it !

Sergio, all your skills and abilities demonstrated in last match are much better matching 3-noves style in my eyes. Don't waste your time.

GAYP is only small, miniature model of 3-moves style where all your knowledges, imagination, fantasy and cross aboard skills can be utilize with full strength.

Alex
=======================================================

PS. For those who concern - there is no jokes in this post.

[George Hay]

Another tied WCM was the Wiswell vs Hopper rematch of 1953. ( In the first ACF era GAYP WCM in 1951 the Challenger
Tom Wiswell defeated then Champion Millard Hopper.) In 1953 in Glasgow, Kentucky, USA, Hopper challenged Wiswell to a rematch for the GAYP Title! The final score of the 1953 WCM was a tie at 2-2-36 with Wiswell retaining the Title.
(Thanks to Jay H. for the accurate score!)
--George Hay

[Ingo_Zachos]

George, you are right about the Wyllie - Martins Match 1863, but I really doubt that the 2nd Wiswell - Hopper match was really anything but an arranged result. Hopper was never able to draw Wiswell. The result in the fist match is the maximum he could do.
Just look at his results and games in serious competition. Wisell was a master, but Hopper was not. He was a mediocre majors players. Every player that played in San Remo 2011 would have crushed him like Wiswell did.

I believe somehow Hopper talked Wisell into giving him a tied rematch, so that he could get away without being humiliated, which would have been bad for his promotion efforts.

If I see all fourty games I might change my mind, but so far it looks as if Wiswell was doing Hopper a favor.

Cloudy Greetinx,

Ingo Zachos