First of all I'll of course answer the initial questions:
Q1: Would participants prefer 1/7 or a different time control? If so, what?
I think 1/5D is Ok in first stages, but semi-finals and finals (where all the players are HL) cannot be but 1/7I or 1/10D...
Q2: Would you prefer “First to two wins/1.25” (current format) or “First to three wins/2.25” for the quarterfinals and semi-finals?
1.25 is Ok for all the initial stages, but the semi-finals and finals can't decently be 1.25 as all the players there will be HL. So I definitely would insist on 2.25.
Q3: Suggestions on how to make 4pc championships accessible to a wider audience?
Here it's a general marketing issue which is not specific to the championship, but is related to the overall status of 4p chess on Chess.com. I've spoken here about that so many times, and formulated so many suggestions, that see no reason to repeat myself. I am absolutely sure (among other thanks to my various professional experience, as Mktg director and CEO and VP including) that is such changes were implemented, the hobby audience (and therefore the championship audience as well) would be multiplied by 10 in less than 2 years. But as I'm not listened to, no need to waste my time here repeating some things.
Q4: Opinions on the championship containing 12 LB players + 16 Arena Qualified players?
Ok. ANYWAY the arena qualified players have always to be MORE NUMEROUS than the LB players, it's kind of obvious. Otherwise other players are much less motivated and the overall players' experience is more negative. People have to be able to dream and to imagine themselves qualified, even when it is technically very unlikely.
Q5: What should happen if a player loses because they disconnected?
It's an inexistent problem for me. Either it happens in initial stages (arenas), so who cares. As for semi-finals and finals, not the same. I believe that we can decide that:
- if a disconnection occurs during the first 20 moves, the game is cancelled, we're waiting for the player, and once he's back another game starts,
- otherwise if the remaining 3 players agree ALL THREE of them on who should be declared winner (the disconnected player included), he will be,
- otherwise the judge (=Luke) is called, looks into the points and the position, and has a casting vote.
(another solution could be to declare as the winners the player who has most points, unless the 2nd is closer than 20 points, in which case both of them are given half of the points for the victory).
And IF the disconnected player doesn't come back within 10 min., he is forfeited, CAN NOT rejoin anymore and is replaced by a sub (who is NOT given the points that the disqualified player had beforehand...).
Now, as for the FORMULA. My considerations were already given on another thread, here I am simply correcting some of the points after the criticism formulated legitimately on that other thread.
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" instead.
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),
- let's maintain 1 min. + 5I s. as for the arenas, but it should be 1+7 s.I or 1+10D as for semifinals and finals,
- 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, so 1.25). Still 1/5 timing.
Round 2: they are reduced to 8 (again, 2 first players having won twice pass). Still 1/5.
Round 3: semi-finals, they are reduced to 4 (again, 2 first players having won twice pass). But 1/7I or 1/10D as for timing.
Final: the first player to have won 3 times wins. And 1/7I or 1/10D.
Schedule:
WE 1 : the arenas.
WE 2 : round 2 (maximum 8*5=40 games, very much feasible).
WE 3, Saturday : round 3. Sunday : round 4.
WE 4 : final.
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 on the other thread.
Many things to say...
First of all I'll of course answer the initial questions:
Q1: Would participants prefer 1/7 or a different time control? If so, what?
I think 1/5D is Ok in first stages, but semi-finals and finals (where all the players are HL) cannot be but 1/7I or 1/10D...
Q2: Would you prefer “First to two wins/1.25” (current format) or “First to three wins/2.25” for the quarterfinals and semi-finals?
1.25 is Ok for all the initial stages, but the semi-finals and finals can't decently be 1.25 as all the players there will be HL. So I definitely would insist on 2.25.
Q3: Suggestions on how to make 4pc championships accessible to a wider audience?
Here it's a general marketing issue which is not specific to the championship, but is related to the overall status of 4p chess on Chess.com. I've spoken here about that so many times, and formulated so many suggestions, that see no reason to repeat myself. I am absolutely sure (among other thanks to my various professional experience, as Mktg director and CEO and VP including) that is such changes were implemented, the hobby audience (and therefore the championship audience as well) would be multiplied by 10 in less than 2 years. But as I'm not listened to, no need to waste my time here repeating some things.
Q4: Opinions on the championship containing 12 LB players + 16 Arena Qualified players?
Ok. ANYWAY the arena qualified players have always to be MORE NUMEROUS than the LB players, it's kind of obvious. Otherwise other players are much less motivated and the overall players' experience is more negative. People have to be able to dream and to imagine themselves qualified, even when it is technically very unlikely.
Q5: What should happen if a player loses because they disconnected?
It's an inexistent problem for me. Either it happens in initial stages (arenas), so who cares. As for semi-finals and finals, not the same. I believe that we can decide that:
- if a disconnection occurs during the first 20 moves, the game is cancelled, we're waiting for the player, and once he's back another game starts,
- otherwise if the remaining 3 players agree ALL THREE of them on who should be declared winner (the disconnected player included), he will be,
- otherwise the judge (=Luke) is called, looks into the points and the position, and has a casting vote.
(another solution could be to declare as the winners the player who has most points, unless the 2nd is closer than 20 points, in which case both of them are given half of the points for the victory).
And IF the disconnected player doesn't come back within 10 min., he is forfeited, CAN NOT rejoin anymore and is replaced by a sub (who is NOT given the points that the disqualified player had beforehand...).
Now, as for the FORMULA. My considerations were already given on another thread, here I am simply correcting some of the points after the criticism formulated legitimately on that other thread.
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" instead.
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),
- let's maintain 1 min. + 5I s. as for the arenas, but it should be 1+7 s.I or 1+10D as for semifinals and finals,
- 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, so 1.25). Still 1/5 timing.
Round 2: they are reduced to 8 (again, 2 first players having won twice pass). Still 1/5.
Round 3: semi-finals, they are reduced to 4 (again, 2 first players having won twice pass). But 1/7I or 1/10D as for timing.
Final: the first player to have won 3 times wins. And 1/7I or 1/10D.
Schedule:
WE 1 : the arenas.
WE 2 : round 2 (maximum 8*5=40 games, very much feasible).
WE 3, Saturday : round 3. Sunday : round 4.
WE 4 : final.
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 on the other thread.