Proposal of new WCC Match Format

I saw on twitter someone suggested to have the tiebreak determined by rapid play before the classical games are played. I like that. It means someone is always ahead, and more risks must be taken - a whole new more aggressive match dynamic, which would surely provide lots of exciting classical chess games.

There is already a rapid world chess championship.  Quick games have no business deciding the classical world chess championship.  And this insane idea that it will make the game "more exciting" is just that...insane.  If you play chess and cant appreciate the games, then you dont understand chess.  if you dont play chess, then speeding it up isnt going to change that.  

^ Exactly. The other problem is that, such a system is not really giving the players true incentive to play more aggressively for wins. It just destabilizes the balance of the match, at one player's expense. In terms of actual probabilities, the "expected value" of ambitious play with White would be no different than in the current system.

so the grand prix, world cup and candidates wasnt a "series of tournaments"?

I would like to see a consistent 3 year cycle like they used to do:

Zonals

Interzonals

Candidates Matches

World Championship Match

I get what you are saying, but my point is that i see this similar to US college football. The "playoff" started weeks ago, and this WC cycle started two years ago.  They have been playing in tournaments with the chance to play in the WC on the line the whole time.  Throughout this whole time, these players have all taken risks in the games they have played to get where they are now, so i am not to critical when 10 draws happen at the culmination.

Also, if Magnus played in the "series of tournaments" the championship would just be handed to him every year....hes just that consistent. It would never be anywhere as close as Sergey has got, and that is why this is not "dull or disappointing"

The overall match dynamic you're referring to results from the fact that, due to the relative winning and losing probabilities in all of the more contentious theoretical lines available to them during the "preparation phase" of a game, neither player has a higher expected point value (as defined in basic probability theory) for a serious winning attempt than for a safer but more conservative approach. Even if one player manages to win 1 or 2 games by routinely entering treacherous, murky positions, that same player will likely lose 2 or 3 other games in the process - with the standard "balanced scoring" system (1 - 1/2 - 0), this doesn't seem to work in the long run... so why bother?

If you look at the modified scoring system mentioned in the 1st post, you might notice that its purpose is to address exactly this problem. Essentially, the inherent risk associated with more ambitious winning attempts (by White) is significantly reduced, relative to what the player with White has to gain from a win. So, whenever you have the White pieces, winning chances become far more important than losing chances, and should carry much greater weight in decision-making.

I'm not sure what exactly is disagreeable about the over all proposal here. Many people like the 3-1-0 scoring system adopted by several tournaments in recent years which again encourages enterprising play because a win is equal to three draws. Because it's a match you need to extend that to a degree because for every win you get, you may lose a game too. By scoring it as a 5-0 for a white win you give the a great incentive to pursue a win furthered by the knowledge that a draw gives black an additional point over you and that if you do lose you still get a point anyway. I'd expect more players to play White in a lot more lines that were unclear or risky and only going for draws when they were trying to salvage positions- like Karjakin did multiple times being pressed by Carlsen. But you wouldn't see quick draws like Game 12 because white just concedes a point to black for little effort in the proposed system.

It's not a perfect format for sure, but it makes a great deal of sense and I'm not sure what is to disagreeable about it. It sticks to classical time controls, a big complaint with people, it adds a few more classical games, again a big complaint, and it encourages more fighting games- which many want to see especially the more casual chess crowd. I don't think we're going to ever see a return to a 24 classical chess match, so let's work within the existing framework a bit and modify it to alleviate much of the issues fans have with the current set up. More games, no quick chess for tie breaks, and more decisive games. This proposal at least attempts to tackle all those main issues. Anyone got a better one by chance?

I think the format should be:

1. 12 blitz games.

2. If the score is tied, 4 rapid tie-break games.

3. If the score is tied, five 2-game classical matches.

4. If the score is still tied, 1 correspondence armageddon game.

How does that sound?

None of this discussion matters to Fide, or to those calling the shots.

I too diasagreed with the rapid game outcome, but maybe (top level) chess has seen its day, with so much theory already generated in all these years.

 

I think I have a better proposal

1. 12 standard games 40 min.

2. If the score is tied, 6 rapid tie-break games.

3. If the score is tied, 3 classical matches.

4. If the score is still tied, penalties kicks (yes, soccer), because they say chess is a sport.

How does that sound?

I like the idea of penalty kicks, but I also want a correspondence armageddon game. So... how about both?

Ok, how about correspondence penalty kicks?

When people complain about "blitz games being used as a tiebreaker" to decide the World [Classical] Chess Championship, I don't think "tiebreaker" is the intended word of emphasis ;)

Btw, what time control would be featured in the correspondence armageddon game? And during that time, would cheating be allowed, or disallowed? :p

Why not just play two more classical games after the tie breaks?

Or play the tie breaks after game 10 but before game 11?

Why would you want a rapid or blitz playoff to effectively "interrupt the flow" of classical games, at the very moment when the match may be reaching its climax?

Do 24 games with 2 40+2 games and tiebreaks with same format, except Rapid is 15+5. Rest days after round 6,12,18 and before tiebreak.

Rather than so drastically changing the scoring system, why not speed up the time? A smart chess player doesn't need 2 hours for the positions in the games. There will of course still by some doubtful people, but my proposal should be much more acceptable.

• This also seems a GREAT idea for exciting play. Maybe slightly tweak it, so the tiebreaks count as a classical 'game' that is more important. This way it will still matter even if the match is not tied in classical. For example, the tiebreak can replace G1, and at the end if the match is tied 6-6 (or 12-12 in my suggested format) whoever won  the tiebreak wins the match.
• However, I still think at least a 90+30 time control should be for classical so there are MORE mistakes, and thus more results. Yes the quality of chess will slightly suffer, but this will further test the players' nerves and a 'smart' person won't need 30 minutes to think on each move. If chess is a brain game, this seems the best way to test brainpower.

-- The "5-point scoring" system more or less encourages the player with White to go for an all-out winning attempt in just about every single game. The reason being that, in 3 games with White, 1 win and 2 losses score higher than 3 draws - and (in 4 games with White) 1 win and 3 losses are equivalent to 4 draws.

 

yeah and

 

-- The "5-point scoring" system more or less encourages the player with Black to go for an all-out drawing attempt in just about every single game. The reason being that, in 3 games with Black, 2 wins and one loss score lower than 3 draws - and (in 4 games with Black) 3 wins and 1 loss are equivalent to 4 draws.

 

Completely sutpid. It is already easier to bend the game toward a draw than toward a win. Both players should be encouraged to play for win. Winning is known to be much harder for black than for white.

Winning twice or thrice and losing once should be better than all draws for both side.

 

A fair system could be 5-0 2-3 0-5, winning is fully rewarded, and drawing odds are given to black. Winning rather than drawing is still better for white than for black, so actually 5-0 3-2 0-5 might be preferable. It sounds counterintuitive to give more points to white for a draw, but actually, if both players play as many games with each color, it is strictly equivalent to the fairer 5-1 3-3 0-6 system, where we clearly see black wins are more valued and draws are equal.

6-1 3-4 0-7 both player are given the same incentive to win rather than draw, and black have drawing odds (4-1 2-3 0-5 also works).

 

7-2 4-5 0-9 gives black both greater incentive to win rather than draw and drawing odds.

 

For the reason tiebreaks exist; neither player has managed to achieve a winning score. The two games would not be considered part of the match, but rather part of the tiebreak.

My idea in greater detail:

A twelve-game match. The first player to 6.5 points wins.

If the score is tied after twelve games a rapid/blitz tiebreak is played followed by a two-game match. The winner of the rapid/blitz tiebreak needs to score 1 point from the final two games to win while the loser of the rapid/blitz tiebreak needs 1.5 points.