Balanced WCC Cycle

[PCMorphy72]

After the last FIDE Candidates in Kazan, many discussions have been held about subjects like anti-draw systems, more fair systems, and so on.

In my opinion that subjects are not to be solved through just a single simple approach, no matter how innovative a new rule or an assembly of rewrite rules might be, also if it comes from Sofia or from Jeff Sonas.

I’ve wrote a long, articulate, very detailed topic which shows the approach that I think may help to change the actual hesitant approaches to find a definitive, consolidated, truly shared way. To define in a single word how my approach is, I would say “meticulous”.

I’d need your help, since I know for experience that such super-massive topics like mine may not have success, but I believe there is something interesting that could change the actual FIDE stalemate (and his future “stalling”). So please help me to adjust my proposals, your advices and criticisms will be much appreciated.

These are the links to download my long topic, in pdf or doc format:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/7/..._WCC_Cycle.pdf
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/7/..._WCC_Cycle.doc

I've only just written also a more brief summary (2 pages), skipping the options about the votes:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/7/..._WCC_Cycle.pdf

[PCMorphy72]

Sorry to return to the same topic, but perhaps you would have preferred an article like this:

https://sites.google.com/site/pcmorp...coli/wcc-cycle

So I take the opportunity to invite you all in my website I started in these days to share the article.

This time I had this sentence from FIDE CEO Geoffrey Borg: "Well done and thank you for your thoughts". I don't know how much I have to be excited.

[fso]

Every system of tournaments, where 1 person have to win 1 match, and other person have to win 11 matches is unfair and compleately wrong.

My suggestion, compromise for purists, system.

1. Every year there is a KO-system World Cup, 128 players. The main event of the every year.
2. Every 4 years there is World championship, consists of 16 participants: 1 previous champion, 1 4years ago cup-winner, 2 finalists of 3-year old WC, 4 semifinalists of 2-years old WC and 8 quaterfinalists of the last World Cup. In long matches(or in round-robin, not matters) they fights for the title.

Variation - 3-years cycle. Then

1. Every year there is a KO-system World Cup, 128 players. The main event of the every year.
2. Every 3 years there is World championship, consists of 16 participants: 1 previous champion, 1 3-years ago cup-winner, 2 finalists of 2-year old WC, 4 semifinalists of last WC, 7 from ratings and 1 from organisers. In long matches(or in round-robin, not matters) they fights for the title.

(or 2. Every 3 years there is World championship, consists of 8 participants: 1 previous champion, 1 3-years ago cup-winner, 2 finalists of 2-year old WC, 4 semifinalists of last WC. In long matches(or in round-robin, not matters) they fights for the title.)

This is a fair, interesting system and what is most important - it not pushing away for long time best players, like now. Also, purists likes long matches and big amounts of time between world championships - they have it! But also chess world have a super-event, main event- World Cup every year!

In 2-games KO system there is no space for draw-death talking, here it's impossible, because mitivation for win is most hight as possible! Every draw is big upset for one of players.

Also, please, compleately aggree with this article about big disadvantages of the round robin system, etc.

Greg on Chess: the Trouble with Round-Robins ( By IM Greg Shahade June 14, 2011)
https://main.uschess.org/content/view/11247/632/

@Arlen
Arlen Walker
@uschess Greg is right. One reason I quit organizing events is I got tired of knowing the top 5-10 places (with scores) before the end of R3

[PCMorphy72]

Every system of tournaments, where 1 person have to win 1 match, and other person have to win 11 matches is unfair and compleately wrong.

In my "long topic" I advanced more than one argument to justify World champions privileges in chess. I don't know if you consider them rubbish, furthermore I don't see one of your argument to prove what you judge "completely wrong".
However you have two points in your favour:
1. It's so evident that to play less games than the others (the challengers) seems unfair that no explanation seems necessary, making strong this simple idea (but, please be objective as I'm trying to do, and don't let happen that sort of XVII century Pascal's thought: "Unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just").
2. 11 matches would be too unfair for any challenger, if he is a GM (but in fact such disparity has been never seen in the previous World Championships, and I never talked about something like that)

So, starting with no more than a pair of tournaments/matches of difference as privilege (not 11), since I don't want to say that winning the World Title in chess is so prestigious as the Nobel Prize, and then the Champion wouldn't be obliged to prove at any Cycle he is the depositary of the highest knowledge in a specific field (and in our case a chess match is a unique field, since only winning matter), also because nowadays the training in chess has became important almost as in other sports, I have to say that you have to take my "long topic" to read the arguments in my favour.

My suggestion, compromise for purists, system.

1. Every year there is a KO-system World Cup, 128 players. The main event of the every year.
2. Every 4 years there is World championship, consists of 16 participants: 1 previous champion, 1 4years ago cup-winner, 2 finalists of 3-year old WC, 4 semifinalists of 2-years old WC and 8 quaterfinalists of the last World Cup. In long matches(or in round-robin, not matters) they fights for the title.

Variation - 3-years cycle. Then

1. Every year there is a KO-system World Cup, 128 players. The main event of the every year.
2. Every 3 years there is World championship, consists of 16 participants: 1 previous champion, 1 3-years ago cup-winner, 2 finalists of 2-year old WC, 4 semifinalists of last WC, 7 from ratings and 1 from organisers. In long matches(or in round-robin, not matters) they fights for the title.

(or 2. Every 3 years there is World championship, consists of 8 participants: 1 previous champion, 1 3-years ago cup-winner, 2 finalists of 2-year old WC, 4 semifinalists of last WC. In long matches(or in round-robin, not matters) they fights for the title.)

This is a fair, interesting system and what is most important - it not pushing away for long time best players, like now. Also, purists likes long matches and big amounts of time between world championships - they have it! But also chess world have a super-event, main event- World Cup every year!

Frankly, in this system I find interesting only that 1+1+2+4=8, since it's all "World Cup based".
This time the evidence is against you: the last World Cup before the World championships would be much more important than the other ones, since many elite players would take part only in that last one (especially if 8 quaterfinalists was qualified), snubbing the other ones (which anyway would be snubbed by the chess community and the audience, especially the first one after the WC), so I don't think chess world would have a "super-event every year" (moreover, without a "rest year" scheduled, perhaps there may be an overlapping "World Cup + World Championship" year, damaging both events).

In 2-games KO system there is no space for draw-death talking, here it's impossible, because mitivation for win is most hight as possible! Every draw is big upset for one of players.

I've already seen you like the World Cup format, but do you have considered what happen if both classical games are draw? I think many players don't dislike such situation.

An interesting idea was Khalifman's double KO format, and I'm saying "interesting" having read this statement form an old 2002 Yasser Seirawan's article (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=636):
"Sasha's suggestion enjoyed widespread support. In fact, there were no complaints! A first for the chess world?"
With the eyes of nowadays my answer to Seirawan would be: "Not matters". Many interesting ideas has remained unfulfilled.

Also, please, compleately aggree with this article about big disadvantages of the round robin system, etc.

Greg on Chess: the Trouble with Round-Robins ( By IM Greg Shahade June 14, 2011)
https://main.uschess.org/content/view/11247/632/

If you consider that round robin's disadvantages (e.g. thrown games especially in WC) are so big, why about a WC you wrote "or in round-robin, not matters"?
John Nunn in his article wasn't so drastic (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2729), anyway consider that today's trend is to apply the even worst 3-points-for-a-win system (even worst talking about the thrown games issues).

However I'm curious to see the solution after the problems, as announced as next article at the end of the article you quoted, since I wasn't able to find it in that site.

[fso]

In my "long topic" I advanced more than one argument to justify World champions privileges in chess. I don't know if you consider them rubbish, furthermore I don't see one of your argument to prove what you judge "completely wrong".

Well, handicap cycle is "completely wrong".

However you have two points in your favour:
1. It's so evident that to play less games than the others (the challengers) seems unfair that no explanation seems necessary, making strong this simple idea (but, please be objective as I'm trying to do, and don't let happen that sort of XVII century Pascal's thought: "Unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just").

For examle, let's take the last purist's cycle. Gelfand, on the way to the final of cycle won 7 matches in World Cup and 3 matches in Candidate Matches. 10 matches. Anand won compleately zero. This is the handicap system. I'll say more. Pre-FIDE system, when "cycle" included only 1 event - WCC match, that was normal. Both players won nothing in cycle, just aggreeded, and plays. But, when we are talking about "find the challenger for champion in competitions" then we automatically talking about handicap cycle, which means Unfair automatically, also.

2. 11 matches would be too unfair for any challenger, if he is a GM (but in fact such disparity has been never seen in the previous World Championships, and I never talked about something like that)

Well, again, Gelfand won 10 matches already, and have to win one more to win Cycle, together it's 11. And Anand won 0 matches in Cycle, and also have to win only one for the same aim.

So, starting with no more than a pair of tournaments/matches of difference as privilege (not 11), since I don't want to say that winning the World Title in chess is so prestigious as the Nobel Prize, and then the Champion wouldn't be obliged to prove at any Cycle he is the depositary of the highest knowledge in a specific field (and in our case a chess match is a unique field, since only winning matter), also because nowadays the training in chess has became important almost as in other sports, I have to say that you have to take my "long topic" to read the arguments in my favour.

"Tournament of Four" is one tiny step to fair system. But who have to play there? Champion? He played 0 in Cycle. And 3 from Candidates double robin, already a handicap. Less then now, but. But OK, let it be. Double round robin? Quater robin? In 1948 Keres "lost" to botvinnik all 4 games. Will it fair? I don't know. There where 3 players from USSR and 2 from rest of the world. Was it fair? Could they cooporate? Yes, they could. Where they? I don't know, and nobody will newer know.
To play in your suggested Candidates tounament different GM's have to play compleately different ways, where also on all the way are huge amount of different handicaps. You call it in article wery softly - "privileges". All privileges in World Championship are completely wrong thing, just because it's unfair.
All thease "Grand Prix" Last Chance.. What's this? Privileges for some.. And what about rest in Candidates, who already beated that guys, why they have to beat them again?
Many stages, many privileges, who will pay for it all? For every not-interesting for sponsors stage? Too long amounts of time.. What's all this about? Is it good for chess? No. It's a mess, I'm sorry.

Frankly, in this system I find interesting only that 1+1+2+4=8, since it's all "World Cup based".
This time the evidence is against you: the last World Cup before the World championships would be much more important than the other ones, since many elite players would take part only in that last one (especially if 8 quaterfinalists was qualified), snubbing the other ones (which anyway would be snubbed by the chess community and the audience, especially the first one after the WC), so I don't think chess world would have a "super-event every year" (moreover, without a "rest year" scheduled, perhaps there may be an overlapping "World Cup + World Championship" year, damaging both events).

No. World Cup Every Year as event number 1 of every year - this is the main point. So, in this system it is most prestigious. World championship - just for tradition lovers and to compare the forces of past and current champions. Ofcourse, this championship must be organised as not to interfere with Cup. It have to end minimum month before the new World Cup begins, ofcourse, and at least 2-3 months after the last. Also, elite players, if they such love only a purists championship, they wouldn't take part only in last one. They have to be not very smart to take only one chance, if they such love this pourist's championships! Thay all will play in every World Cup! And, ofcourse, I would like 4-years championship Cycle. Then this argument will be stronger. You belive that u'll qualify from last Cup? Great, prove it! Or u can use another 3 opportunities, if u are really Elite player and capable to WIN. If not, good bye for 4 years. Anyway after the 10-20 years of that system it will be hightly more prestigious to be, forexample, 6-time World Cup Champion, than win 1-2 world championships, for example, believe me.

I've already seen you like the World Cup format, but do you have considered what happen if both classical games are draw? I think many players don't dislike such situation.

Draw? Then tie-break! Dislike? Well, then please, win in this 2! U can't? Why? Maby u are not such stronger that opponent like maby u think, no?

An interesting idea was Khalifman's double KO format, and I'm saying "interesting" having read this statement form an old 2002 Yasser Seirawan's article (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=636):
"Sasha's suggestion enjoyed widespread support. In fact, there were no complaints! A first for the chess world?"
With the eyes of nowadays my answer to Seirawan would be: "Not matters". Many interesting ideas has remained unfulfilled.

Why not tripple KO, quater... Theese systems is for loosers. For winners there is next KO-tournament! KO-system is for Winners only! Win - and You Are the Champ for year! Lost? 11 months of qualifying and preparation and another opportunity you have, please, be prepared. 1-2-4-8 system is because we don't have right to say that 4-years old win is equal to today's win. Ofcourse, not. So, it's fair.

If you consider that round robin's disadvantages (e.g. thrown games especially in WC) are so big, why about a WC you wrote "or in round-robin, not matters"?

Because we allready know "who is who" by the last Cup. World Championship in this system is just some resume of 4-years history. (It can be wathever system purists like, 2games KO also possible, but purists likes something else, so, let it be long matches, 8-games, 4example, DRR, all depends from funds, where is more, and possibilities at the moment). And after that immediately all starts over again! Regular as clock and the maximum saturated chess life - that guarantees the fair system "World Cup - every year number one event".

John Nunn in his article wasn't so drastic (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2729), anyway consider that today's trend is to apply the even worst 3-points-for-a-win system (even worst talking about the thrown games issues).

Yes, Round-robin is bad. And swiss. That why i talking, that 2-games KO-system is the best for chess! It should be became the main system in chess. Imagine, every chess super-tournament is open KO! Like in tennis.

However I'm curious to see the solution after the problems, as announced as next article at the end of the article you quoted, since I wasn't able to find it in that site.

They didn't write it yet. But I think it will be about 2-games KO system. Only in this system 2 leaders in last round with maximum motivated games finds the champion one-by-one in every tournament.

[PCMorphy72]

Well, handicap cycle is "completely wrong".
All thease "Grand Prix" Last Chance.. What's this? Privileges for some.. And what about rest in Candidates, who already beated that guys, why they have to beat them again?
Many stages, many privileges, who will pay for it all? For every not-interesting for sponsors stage? Too long amounts of time.. What's all this about? Is it good for chess? No. It's a mess, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry too, because me and you both have wasted our time with these divergent replies.

[fso]

I don't think it's wasting. Tread name is "Balanced WCC Cycle". Balanced between what? Different opinions is appresiated.