World Championship Match : Ron King vs. Sergio Scarpetta

[Chexhero]

I like the idea in case of a drawn match having the champion play at the next qualifier. It is totally fair. However, if two challengers meet and there is a draw between them, I don't like the idea of having them play rapid games. Playing rapid games is not like flipping a coin, but it still increases the luck factor a lot more. Again, if I am playing a rapid game for the championship and my opponent makes a stupid blunder, giving me an easy 2 for 3 triple or something, I would not feel to proud and would not want to win the title that way. Why should we have a precious title be decided this way? Yes, we obviously don't like draws and don't want the championship to end in one, but it is a part of checkers and is no less inferior than a win or a loss. The champions job is to defend the title anyway possible, not to necessarily win the competition.

[JohnAcker]

Just floating this idea: if two challengers draw a match, could the title just be vacant until the next WQT?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Just floating this idea: if two challengers draw a match, could the title just be vacant until the next WQT?

Do you know that rapid tiebreak games were writtent in my match contract with Ron King in 2003 ?

At the moment we played - both had challenger status because due to title controversary Ron was stripped of his title by ACF at the end of 2001. In 2002 EDA recognised title as vacant.

I also don't like much an idea of rapid games but something must ne done.

Anyway - I just gave an idea, if someone is interested - you may work on details and rest

[Dennis Pawlek]

I do believe Alex idea was the best one so far... plus I wonder if the title holder would not even want to play in such an Qualify event as it in the past proofen to have some price money and as usuall all top grandmasters will seek the challenge/competition to match their skills at such top level. I know its not a horrible lot but... well every drop helps right?

My idea would be instead of rapid games how about a penalty for both players each time they do draw a certain amount of games? Lets change timers after lets say 5 or 10 draws and remove 5 or 10 minutes of both competitors clock.

I think that be smoother then rapid games. It does not eliminate drawn match but I believe it would certainly help to spice up things a bit and makes it for all participants and lookers more interesting! Even Alex idea I believe with rapid is okay coz more quick action might be something that could be sold to media more effectfive. Yet we alway must keep in mind rapid games will not be high value games as this level of play would deserve.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Yes, we are talking about relatively small possibility:

1) Tie in World Title Match
2) Champion didn't finish among top 2 in QT
3) Tie in match between 2 challengers.

I don't think it's more than 5%-10% or maybe even less.

[sergio]

Alex:
Solution ...

in case of tie world match champion keeps title for 2 years but loses his privelege and must play in the next QT. Two winners of next QT shall play World Title match. A bit more attractive and fun. Good champion shouldn't have much problems to finish among top two in QT and if he doesn't - it is always better to replace him.

If two challengers meet in match and tie, they should play rapid tiebreak games ... another fun.


This proposal would be quite acceptable. But, as far as I am concerned, it shouldn’t be used for the last match.
If King had known about this rule, maybe he would have changed his strategy.

I think that the committee of checkers, possibly composed of members of all national federations, may vote on proposal like this. Of course, it may be accepted either unanimously or by a majority. The first one would be better.
So we would already be able to use it next year if a tied match happened again.
There will be an official meeting in Lille, so I think it may be the right place to discuss this proposal.
Best regards,
Sergio Scarpetta

[MostFamousDane]

I would like to point out that using decreasing timers sudden death does not (necessarily) mean blitz games. If we reserve 1 day for playoff we could start with 2 rounds of 30 minutes fixed time. That timer is on one hand still real checkers in my opinion and is used in many weekend tournaments and on the other hand enough to put more pressure on. The 2 rounds should take 4 hours and if total score is still even we could go down to 20 minutes for 3-4 rounds. In my opinon we shouldn't go lower than that but In all likelihood the match is decided then - if not we could use one of the other proposals

[Alex_Moiseyev]

If King had known about this rule, maybe he would have changed his strategy.

Sergio, this is great and exactly what we are trying to achieve !!!

And again - rapid may happened only in 2nd match among two challengers if champion can't win match and QT (finish among top 2).

Tiebreak Rapids today in world matches are adopted in chess and 10x10. We will be using them only on high occasion.

If champion forced to play in QT and won it - we still don't need rapids in the "2nd match".

I also like in this proposal an idea that under new system champion can lose title only if he can't win match and QT. Fantastically fair.

In my opinon we shouldn't go lower than that but In all likelihood the match is decided then - if not we could use one of the other proposals

I agree that world title games can't be play with less than 15-20 minutes.

In case of even score after tierbreaks among two challengers in "2nd match: we may use options ...

1) Title is vacant.

2) Both players get title (WOW) bot don't have any privelege and shall play in the next QT.

Ingo, in this case you will have even two new champions and game gets double boost lol !

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Alex_Moiseyev]

So we would already be able to use it next year if a tied match happened again.

Yes and no I am totally OK to introduce new rule in 3-moves (my idea !), but current 3-moves cycle 2012-2013 already started even though we didn't have any events yet.

So ... for GAYP it should be used 1st time in GAYP World title match 2014 and for 3-moves in 2015 World Title match.

I am not looking for any unfair advantage, but we must be consistent. All after all - WCDF GA will be in the middle of 3-moves QT for this cycle and law shall be enforce going forward.

We are going to make tremendous, signiicant, historical change to 78 and 165 years procedures and everything must be done smoothly with properly set up transition period.

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[sergio]

Alex, I have no objection. You are absolutely right.

Sergio

[Chexhero]

If we are going to decrease time for games played I think putting it down to 20 minutes per person is not enough, not at the grandmaster level. I would go no less than 45 minutes per person.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Updated rules for new procedure:

1) World Champion can lose title only by losing World Title Match or not winning World Title Match and WCDF QT (place below top 2 winners).

2) World Champion or any other player can skip WCDF QT only by winning World Title Match with positive balance score.

3) World Title Match among two challengers shall have limited number of tiebreak rapid games in case of drawn match.

4) In case of even score among two challengers after tiebreak games, World Title shall be awarded to both players (or vacant ... whatever) with rights to play in the next WCDF QT.

This should cover everything. With new procedure we may have sometimes funny situations when champion still hold title by going back-and-forward to QT's and matches. Another situation could be when some cycles generate two champions or no title holders ... whatever will be decided.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

If we are going to decrease time for games played I think putting it down to 20 minutes per person is not enough, not at the grandmaster level. I would go no less than 45 minutes per person.

15-20-30 minutes is OK in my eyes ... checkers is sport after all. I am OK with anything except coin and boxing haha

Tiebreak procedure dfinition:

1. Mini-match.

Two challengers play two openings, 4 games mini-match. Match ended if one player score more points in 4 games. Each player is giving for every game 30 minutes to the rest of game with 10 seconds increment (Fisher clocks).

2. Ballot-by-ballot ... for GAYP matches just two games or game-by-game.

In case of even score in 4 games micro-match, two challengers shall play up to 4 3-moves openings or 8 GAYP games. Each ballot (1 or 2 GAYP games) is counted separately and can decide match outcome. Match is ended at any time when one player score more points in 2 games (or 1 GAYP game if it will be accepted on GA). Each player is giving for every game 15 minutes to the rest of game with 30 seconds increment (Fisher clocks).

Match is ended after 4 ballot-by-ballot phase (or 8 GAYP games).

For the second tiebreak phase in GAYP matches they can play it game-by-game instead ballot-by-ballot - up WCDF GA decision.

[George Hay]

Mr. Alex, do you really want the World Champion to be forced to play in the QT in case of a tied match?
Not so long ago you were against Tournament play to determine the World Champion. It was JohnAcker who
came to your defense on that point! But now you propose a change in the WCDF Bylaws that the World Champion
could lose the title by not placing in the top two in the QT! I do not even see a point to the top two in the QT
playing a match for the title. Why not just declare the winner of the QT the new World Champion!?
--George Hay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Mr. Alex, do you really want the World Champion to be forced to play in the QT in case of a tied match?

YES.

George - with new proposals match face-to-face still will be final source to identify World Champion. And yes - I am OK with this fair procedure - Champion can lose title if he can't win match and Qualify Tournament. This is better for game.

I am still highly against idea to use any event in tournament format to decide a World Champion. Nothing changed here in my eyes. Match and only match ! We need true and real champions.

Alex