🪓 2025 Modern FFA World 4 Player Chess Championships 🏆 ⚔️ (DISCUSSION)

I think you're only right for groups where the levels are significantly different. But if all 4 players let's say are above 3000, I believe this very low threshold (2 games to win) is inappropriate and increases the luck factor well beyond the 20% that you mentioned.

R1B1 @ganglife_H [1; 63] @carlosgabriel1234 [2] @7_sniper_7 [0; 17] @pknm [1; 45]
R1B2 @icystun [1;67] @slayer950 [1;47] @MuppetRobin [0; 31] @LucianoBonfico [2]
R1B3 @indipendenza [1;0] @The_HyperTurtle [1;19] @Tails402 [1;32] @Tja_05 [2]
R1B4 @MillzGambit [0;74] @NoWellOkay [0;39] @malinghiper [1; 18] @rum_x [2]

Round 2
0 @rojitto [2] @HSCCCB [0;63] @neoserbian [0;44] @carlosgabriel1234 [0;31]
12 @EyeoftheTiger1204 [0;66] @Radon [0;46] @jbolea [2] @LucianoBonfico [0;4]
16 @ARAARA111_back [0;44] @sakthi09 [0;52] @Cha_ChaRealSmooth [2] @Tja_05 [0;18]
20 @ShintoTsukoyami [0;27] @Lovely_Kitty19 [2] @Darksquareman [1] @Rum_X [0;71]
Finalists
@rojitto
@jbolea
@Cha_ChaRealSmooth
@Lovely_Kitty19

Agree to disagree

Thank you Luke

FYI tiebreak is score in most recent game

let's be honest the format of this WCC4pc is not good , i mean 1.25 point is ridiculous to qualify to the final , it should be 2.25 

Finalists:
@rojitto
@jbolea
@Cha_ChaRealSmooth
@Lovely_Kitty19
Provisional final ranks (barring finalist substitutions):
5: @Darksquareman [1] (Lovely_Kitty19 1st alternate)
6: @Rum_X [0;71] (Lovely_Kitty19 2nd alternate)
7: @EyeoftheTiger1204 [0;66] (jbolea 1st alternate)
8: @HSCCCB [0;63] (rojitto 1st alternate)
9: @sakthi09 [0;52] (Cha_ChaRealSmooth 1st alternate)
10: @Radon [0;46] (jbolea 2nd alternate)
11: @ARAARA111_back [0;44;41] (Cha_ChaRealSmooth 2nd alternate)
12: @neoserbian [0;44;5] (rojitto 2nd alternate)
13: @carlosgabriel1234 [0;31] (rojitto 3rd alternate)
14: @ShintoTsukoyami [0;27] (Lovely_Kitty19 3rd alternate)
15: @Tja_05 [0;18] (Cha_ChaRealSmooth 3rd alternate)
16: @LucianoBonfico [0;4] (jbolea 3rd alternate)
17: @icystun [1;67] (jbolea 4th alternate)
18: @ganglife_H [1; 63] (rojitto 4th alternate)
19: @slayer950 [1;47] (jbolea 5th alternate)
20: @pknm [1; 45] (rojitto 5th alternate)
21: @Tails402 [1;32] (Cha_ChaRealSmooth 4th alternate)
22: @The_HyperTurtle [1;19] (Cha_ChaRealSmooth 5th alternate)
23: @malinghiper [1; 18] (Lovely_Kitty19 4th alternate)
24: @indipendenza [1;0] (Cha_ChaRealSmooth 6th alternate)
25: @MillzGambit [0;74] (Lovely_Kitty19 5th alternate)
26: @NoWellOkay [0;39] (Lovely_Kitty19 6th alternate)
27: @MuppetRobin [0; 31] (jbolea 6th alternate)
28: @7_sniper_7 [0; 17] (rojitto 6th alternate)

What happened there is a nice (and awkward) proof of what I wrote above: for the rounds 1 and 2 to request 1.25 pts only is a pure joke. Gives too much importance to the luck factor. I do not think ChaCha is happy to have won LIKE THIS.

ChaCha rn

A. Cha won because his opponents made mistakes. I understand that the second game was decided (from Arra's position) that he disconnected but at the same time cha won because he outplayed sakthi in what I thought was probably a losing position for cha. So he won because he outplayed his opponents (twice because I felt he won, as opposed to was gifted, the first game)...exactly how it should be

B. I don't think it partly being decided by is exactly a bad thing. NFL, march madness, world cup (I think) are partly decided by luck (there being only one game) but that in no way hurts the product or competition. People need luck to win. That isn't a bad thing

C. Probably the biggest question is if people want to take the risk of spending that much time. Currently, the upper bound for a semi-final match would be around 300 minutes (5 games (2 1 1 1)* game length of 60 minutes)...Theoretically, in a best of 3 it could go as long as 540 minutes or nine hours.

OF COURSE luck is ALWAYS a factor, at any level! My point is elsewhere, it's about the acceptable portion thereof. I feel that when the levels are close, to request only 1.25 pts to advance makes the importance of this factor far too high.

And the organizers are obviously of that opinion as well, it's clear from the fact that suddenly for the final 2.25 pts become necessary...

I hear you, but in your suggestion I would think semi-finals would have to be scheduled over two days (even if not played for two days) and to me that seems too long, no?

Caleb had a point. Chacha's advancing scenario in particular was a weak case of the whole luck factor. A better example would be a scenario of a tiebreak actually happening, but such has not happened in the W4PCC yet. With the tiebreak scenario in place, players will keep that in mind and strategize to prevent others from advancing accordingly.
1.25 points, it's at least not a one game thing, but 2.25 is too much for the current format because it likely takes 2 days to decide, and 4 hours should be a guideline for a match limit for prelims/semis.

The tiebreaker for future reference and future editions should not be the last game, but the series as a whole. Meaning all previous results count towards the tiebreak with no preference for last game (unless identical tiebreak).

Example with three players comparatively:

If it is first to 1.15. Player A has results 1-2-2-3. Player B has results 4-1-3-2 Player C has results 3-4-4-1. In this case player C has the tiebreaker for final game in front of B, which is absurd. Rank the results and in case of equal series, then the last game is the tiebreaker.

How it should be from the series above is Player A tiebreak becomes 1-2-2-3. Player B tiebreak becomes 1-2-3-4 and Player C tiebreak 1-3-4-4. If there was two identical series, then the last game best score would have the tiebreaker.

In the current rules the tiebreaker becomes C, B, A. How it should be is A, B, C.

If it's a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that final stages of the selection of THE champion should ensure that in most cases (at least 90%) the best of 4 (at this specific moment) be chosen. Even if it takes 5 days maybe, who cares? Otherwise let's call it "small yearly tournament for happy few".

Anyway I've spoken about these matters for literally years here, and most of the ideas I expressed for instance 2 or 3 years ago have been implemented; currently the formula looks almost perfect, the only changes I would've suggested for 2026 edition (and it could be tested for 2025 BLITZ championship!):

- request let's say 2200 or 2300 minimum rating to compete in the arenas, maybe it was not open enough with 2400+ (but I am not sure neither),

- I am fully comfortable with 1 min. + 5 s. timing, but I know that many players are very used to 1+7 s. and MAYBE from start (arenas included) that should be 1+7 s., to make it fully fair.

- I strongly believe that 12 leaders qualified automatically, plus 4 (only) issued from the arenas, it's not fair enough, the players who fought to qualify should be in majority (compare with what happens in tennis for instance...). That's why, again, I suggest that we organise 12 3 hours arenas (6 every 4 hours, on Saturday and Sunday) taking 2 players per arena (hence 24 players), plus the incumbent champion plus 7 top players qualified automatically (or 8 top players if the champion refuses to participate), hence 32 players making 8 groups A-H.

Round 1: they are reduced to 16 (2 first players of every group having won twice pass).

Round 2: they are reduced to 8 (again, 2 first players having won twice pass).

Round 3: semi-finals, they are reduced to 4 (again, 2 first players having won twice pass).

Final: the first player to have won 3 times wins.

Every round scheduled over ONE week-end, and therefore all the championship will take 5 week-ends, i.e. one month practically. Which is pretty normal for a world championship.

Why I believe that such formula is better? If 2 players from each group pass, it reduces the luck factor to almost zero. In the same time, the time needed for every group remains reasonable, in most cases 6 or 7 games will suffice.

And as for the final, to request three victories also would almost eliminate the impact of random events like disconnections or severe blunders and throwings.

P.S. YES I speak about TWO or THREE VICTORIES, contrary to the current formula which gives points to the 2nd and 3rd. I strongly believe that at THIS level all games should be solo. When one finishes 4th at that level, it's quite seldom his fault only. And the fact of taking into account victories only would utterly remove all the problematics of the order in series examined by Icy above.

To be fair, it works perfectly fine for the NFL to be single elimination and presumably very luck based. I will give you that, If we want something to be as fair as possible, your suggestions probably work better (though expanding it to 2200 doesn't make sense, nor does 32 players, as, bluntly, we struggled finding truly competitive players after the first 16 or so).

The main problem, which you haven't really addressed and is why I haven't gone over your proposal in more detail, is that taking six four hour days of people's time is extremely unfeasible. You're not going to attract more strong players, you're probably going to have less strong players (as I can't imagine I'm the only one who is not available and/or willing to play every Saturday and Sunday for an entire month), and I can't imagine Luke would want deal with all the substitutes; no-shows etc.

Anyway, have a good night/morning, and enjoy the French tornado-free (I assume) weather!

The weather on the Riviera is mainly fine, thanks even if we have occasional tempests.

The problem of the availability that you raise is indeed serious, and we cannot compare to most sports where people are professional and don't have anything else to do

But very strong players are either on the leader boards and would be picked, or are motivated enough to play even 5 week-ends in a row. It's about dedication and motivation. (And, using an ad absurdum argument, if we organise it over just 2 days, in order to make it fast and feasible by all, may we really call it "world championship" afterwards? Slightly ridiculous).

Anyway if you believe that it's the MAIN problem which prevents some players from participating, it is not really difficult to address. It is very simple to follow the formula that I suggested, but over 3-4 months as follows:

WEEK-END 1 6 arenas

WEEK-END 2 6 arenas

WEEK-END 3 REST

WEEK-END 4 round 1, groups ABCD

WEEK-END 5 round 1, groups EFGH

WEEK-END 6 REST

WEEK-END 7 round 2

WEEK-ENDS 8 and 9 REST

WEEK-END 10 round 3

WEEK-ENDS 11 and 12 REST

WEEK-END 13 FINAL

With such a schedule, it is easy to see that even the finalists NEVER have more than 2 week-ends in a month taken. ChaCha or Rojitto or Icy or Ara would play for instance: week-ends 4, 7, 10 and 13, i.e. four week-ends in 3 months. It's not a big deal for someone fully involved and dedicated.

Three months seems a little long; one month seems reasonable, but then (from my view) you run into the problem I had. Anyway, agree to disagree, I suppose ; if more people (right now, 3 have expressed disagreement) want 2.25 for the semi-finals, then I will give it more thought and try to see if I can get around my issues.

As an aside, everyone (including me) seems to bring up disagreements about the format after it's already started, so when this tournament is done, I'll probably start a thread to discuss disagreements about the format during the time period where suggestions are actually actionable.

Congratulations to Rojitto!

For those interested, please see to discuss rules for next year: FFA Championship Rules Discussion - Chess Forums - Chess.com

ok