A suggestion for the next 4PC world championship

I've seen a post today about how many 2400 + players there are. If I understood it correctly a world championships might be coming up soon. I'd like to offer a suggestion for the tournament : why not have a class tourney ? The 2400 and up play in their own class. Then have the 2200 - 2399 players play each other in that class, and lastly 2000 - 2199 playing each other. To qualify you need to be above 2000.  Three tourneys run at once shouldn't be a problem. I volunteer my services, back in the 1980's I used to be an organiser for local Swiss tourneys, so I have experience at the setup and running of it.  

Why though? If you can't reach 2400, you're just not good at the game. Plus it would encourage sandbagging.

Why implement a class tourney for 3 separate rating ranges? What issues is this trying to address?

Wait, it is important that you know this:

At the world championship, the best arrive and the best in the world play, just as their word says. Currently we have a league (4PCL), here players of all kinds of ELO level participate. If you want to be part of the organization, you can speak directly with the Officers.

I leave you the direct link to join the Discord server, which is the official work area.

Discord 4PCL 
https://discord.gg/q4hVBCtM

Other tournaments can be held for fun, but in my opinion anything under the name "championship" should be a championship, i.e. the best of the best

Well, because Costa Rica qualified as the best of all in its category.

It is for this reason, that the reason for having a league is to identify the best in a wide season of games, an Arena is not enough, I explain myself true.

Iran is #22 in the FIFA World Rankings and Costa Rica is #34, out of 32 teams in the group stage of the World Cup. Even if you had used better examples (like Ghana at #60), it still wouldn't be a fair comparison, a much more accurate comparison would be if you had separate qualifiers and tournaments for teams ranked in the top 50, #51-100, and #101-#150.

And if you were planning to respond by saying that the World Cup qualifiers are open to just about every country - you're right. The same could be applied to the 4PWCC. For example, the qualifying arenas could be 2500+, 2200-2499, (although it would be weighted towards 2500+, something like 28 2500+ qualifiers and 2 for each of the other rating groups).

I believe it doesn't make sense, sorry.

The championships are done in order to determine who is the best.

What is the point of the idea?

If it's to allow everybody to take part just in "anything", win it and be happy, so no problem, we have arenas for that.

If it's to organise a system where a couple of weaker players can take part in their category tournament, win it and therefore at a later stage join the "main" event for stronger players, just like giving them a chance, it only looks nice and cool. But the idea is terrible: it will result in humiliation for them (as they are not good enough to compete with Radon or ChaCha) and a lot of unfairness for all their opps who will quite often finish 3rd or 4th by simple unluck, because to have a 2100 player in front when your sides are 2700 is a total catastrophe.

And besides what FFA world championship are you speaking about?! We have just had one, in June in fact. Now it's turn for blitz or bullet; and for Teams; and for antichess. Next FFA world championship shouldn't take place before mid-2023 I think.

Yeah, I think we are saying the same thing. Anyone can have a tournament, but only the best can have a championship

It is strictly true that FFA means free for all. And YES all that you mentioned is absolutely conform to the rules!

I have just ONE objection, that's when you say: "If I decide not to cooperate with my opposite in 4 player stage, it's not a low level" : precisely, it's low level. YOU ARE FREE NOT TO. But it's still very low level, because it's against the best strategy in FFA (as per current rules and points calculation way... Because it's pretty feasible to modify some things in order to make such cooperation disadvantageous).

All your examples show that you are confused as for "best strategy" concept.

One may very well play whatever and however he/she wants, just to feel happy (for instance, ruining the opp's game like you described). It lacks sportsmanship, but is still 100% conform to the rules. What I was saying is that such personal choices are nothing to see with strategy: it's just something that makes pleasure to some and it's their choice. But it remains low level because the "best strategy" is something objective in a game theory: that's the one (if it exists) that maximises your chances of victory or your final points' outcome or money whatever is taken into account in some partiular game. HERE: it's your points of rating after the game. So for instance in pure Solo +3 -1 -1 -1 the objective best strategy is still cooperation with the opp but to much lesser extent than in a pure FFA like +3 +1 -1 -3. And different variants in between.

I do not agree about the subjective side of the best strategy that you point out. Collective experience shows that the opp coop. is the best FFA strategy in the 1st stage. It is due mechanically to the configuration of the board. But I agree though that there is some minor part of autorealisation: the OC exists more because you don't follow it, your chances are lower because other players would punish you. And if one day there are let's say 35 players in the Top 100 who never cooperate that would change a lot of things. And STILL I don't believe this could ever be the case because of the configuration of the board, once again...

I can give away all my pieces and still be within the rules. It's still low-level.