World Championship Match : Ron King vs. Sergio Scarpetta

[sergio]

Alex, I have no objection. You are absolutely right.

Sergio

[Chexhero]

If we are going to decrease time for games played I think putting it down to 20 minutes per person is not enough, not at the grandmaster level. I would go no less than 45 minutes per person.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Updated rules for new procedure:

1) World Champion can lose title only by losing World Title Match or not winning World Title Match and WCDF QT (place below top 2 winners).

2) World Champion or any other player can skip WCDF QT only by winning World Title Match with positive balance score.

3) World Title Match among two challengers shall have limited number of tiebreak rapid games in case of drawn match.

4) In case of even score among two challengers after tiebreak games, World Title shall be awarded to both players (or vacant ... whatever) with rights to play in the next WCDF QT.

This should cover everything. With new procedure we may have sometimes funny situations when champion still hold title by going back-and-forward to QT's and matches. Another situation could be when some cycles generate two champions or no title holders ... whatever will be decided.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

If we are going to decrease time for games played I think putting it down to 20 minutes per person is not enough, not at the grandmaster level. I would go no less than 45 minutes per person.

15-20-30 minutes is OK in my eyes ... checkers is sport after all. I am OK with anything except coin and boxing haha

Tiebreak procedure dfinition:

1. Mini-match.

Two challengers play two openings, 4 games mini-match. Match ended if one player score more points in 4 games. Each player is giving for every game 30 minutes to the rest of game with 10 seconds increment (Fisher clocks).

2. Ballot-by-ballot ... for GAYP matches just two games or game-by-game.

In case of even score in 4 games micro-match, two challengers shall play up to 4 3-moves openings or 8 GAYP games. Each ballot (1 or 2 GAYP games) is counted separately and can decide match outcome. Match is ended at any time when one player score more points in 2 games (or 1 GAYP game if it will be accepted on GA). Each player is giving for every game 15 minutes to the rest of game with 30 seconds increment (Fisher clocks).

Match is ended after 4 ballot-by-ballot phase (or 8 GAYP games).

For the second tiebreak phase in GAYP matches they can play it game-by-game instead ballot-by-ballot - up WCDF GA decision.

[George Hay]

Mr. Alex, do you really want the World Champion to be forced to play in the QT in case of a tied match?
Not so long ago you were against Tournament play to determine the World Champion. It was JohnAcker who
came to your defense on that point! But now you propose a change in the WCDF Bylaws that the World Champion
could lose the title by not placing in the top two in the QT! I do not even see a point to the top two in the QT
playing a match for the title. Why not just declare the winner of the QT the new World Champion!?
--George Hay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Mr. Alex, do you really want the World Champion to be forced to play in the QT in case of a tied match?

YES.

George - with new proposals match face-to-face still will be final source to identify World Champion. And yes - I am OK with this fair procedure - Champion can lose title if he can't win match and Qualify Tournament. This is better for game.

I am still highly against idea to use any event in tournament format to decide a World Champion. Nothing changed here in my eyes. Match and only match ! We need true and real champions.

Alex

[George Hay]

Mr. Alex, but your proposal could determine who is a former World Champion in Tournament play!
This is one step away from determining the new World Champion in Tournament play.
This is a slippery slope, practically speaking!
--George Hay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Mr. Alex, but your proposal could determine who is a former World Champion in Tournament play!

This is step forward and better for checkers. QT will be more attractive and yes - help us to identify ex-champion.

For new champions we still need matches - nothing changed here in my position. New procedure doesn't touch basics. Champion shall never ever be decided in tournament.

The main idea of new proposals is simple - if champion doesn't win match (draw result), he needs an extra prove. And if he wins match - he doesn't need extra prove and can skip QT until next match.

[Ingo_Zachos]

Calm down plz,

the decision between Ron and Sergio was close, too close to call. Everybody regrets the fact that someone that scored and fought bravely and was not defeated does not get any rerwardfs for his efforts.

But to condem a rule only in the heat of the moment is what I am afraid some do here.

So far a lot has been said, and many proposals have been made.

Time to give a catalogue of these proposals:

1. Keep the current rule, make no change
2. Reverse the rule: in case of a tie, the challenger will gain the title,
3. give the title to the title holder in case of a draw, but all price money to the challenger,
4. the number of white wins should determine the loser, in 3-move the number of red wins (wins with the weaker color),
5. declare the title vacant and determine the contestants for the next match in the next QT,
6. declare both title holder and determine the contestants for the next match in the next QT,
7. establish some kind of rapid game tie breakers on an additional day, toss a coin if that is a tie,
8. toss a coin,
9. abandon the matches and play no QT, but rather each time a Wolrd Champion determined in a tournament.

Are there more basic ideas that I forgot?

Greetinx from sunny Dortmund, Germany


Ingo Zachos

[MostFamousDane]

I would like to point out

1. I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting tossing a coin.
2. This is not heat of the moment we have had this discussion before with the Kondo match where nothing was done.

I think we have a good catalogue of ideas maybe the WCDF can discuss forming a comitee on the subject at the GA in Lille ?

Having heard the arguments I think my favorite outcome would be having a day reserved for faster timed games if this fails to produce a result (relatively unlikely depending on how low a timer we are willing to accept) then champion retains title - challenger takes all prize money and champion must be 1-2 in next qualifer to keep title.

[liam stephens]

There is one other point which needs to be addressed – those awful looking black and beige pieces.

Shakespeare had a word for it.
Some rules are “more honoured in the breach than in the observance”.
e.g.
WCDF Rules
1.9 The official draught pieces shall be of RED and WHITE colours for the dark and light pieces, respectively.
1.10 If other light and dark coloured pieces and board are used the colours of the men must make a distinct contrast with the colour of the squares of the board.

On the match site the Black pieces on the dark squares were difficult to make out and it was almost impossible to distinguish between kings and men. A number of spectators, including the restricted play world champion commented on this fact on the website relaying the match.
Apparently the resolution in Beijing to purchase new red and white draughts sets was never implemented ?
Incidentally, has anyone noticed, the WCDF Rules in the USA checkers site are concealed on a hidden menu bar that only appears (in tiny script), if you click on ‘Statutes’ on the main menu bar line.
It’s almost as if it was preferred that you did not find them.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

including the restricted play world champion commented on this fact on the website relaying the match.

Yeaaa ... one time I thought Sergio failed into 1 for 3 shot and Ron missed it ! Other people told me that it was a man on 25, not King

About pieces colouring I am neutral and not as crazy for white-red. There are other good combinations here.

BTW. When you will hardly argue in Lille about pieces colors, don't forget to elect a new WCDF President and administration. People make difference

[liam stephens]

"The People are the Heroes now"
With Red and White they play and how !!

[George Hay]

Liam, I don't think anyone is trying to hide anything with the rules. I do feel compelled to comment so that I'm not hiding anything! I did notice a conflict with the checkerboard size with the time honored ACF Rule of two inch squares and the new change in the WCDF Rule. First the old WCDF Rule that is harmonized with the ACF Rule:
1.3 The squares of the draughtboard shall not be less than 44mm (1 ¾ inches)
nor more than 51mm (2 inches) on a side.

And now the new WCDF Rule (since the San Remo GA in 2011):
10. Proposals (i) (I. Caws, J. Reade) That Rule 1.3 be amended as follows: ‘The size of squares on draughts boards should be between 4.5 and 5 centimetres.’ Secondly that Rule 1.9 be amended as follows: ‘The size of draughts pieces should be between 3 and 4 centimetres.’ Carried.

The new standard for draughts pieces gives a slightly wider range and is an improvement on the old rule.
However, the new standard for the size of squares is too restrictive IMHO. On the wide side, 2 inch squares are now too wide! On the narrow side common 44mm squares are now too narrow!
--George Hay

http://wcdf.wz.cz/index.htm

[liam stephens]

Thanks George for that additional update information.

I love that nice red piece on the Logo