World Championship Match : Ron King vs. Sergio Scarpetta

[sergio]

So far you have made too many proposals, and in my opinion a few of them could only worsen the situation. Let me tell you which of these could be discussed in a meeting.

1. Keep the current rule, make no change.

This one is the easiest solution, but, as you all know, it gives the champion a big advantage and allows him to play all games safely. As a consequence of that, the rule should be changed.

2. Reverse the rule: in case of a tie, the challenger will gain the title.

Let me tell you that this proposal is completely bizarre. How can you say the challenger is the Champion without winning anything? This proposal must be rejected, it’s completely unfair and not respectful with the current champion.

3. Give the title to the title holder in case of a draw, but all price money to the challenger.

Another bizarre proposal. It looks like a joke to me. With this rule the challenger could play only for money, if he is not interested in the world title or doesn’t think he can win it. Who suggests this proposal missed the point of the real problem. The prize is not the subject of this discussion.

4. The number of white wins should determine the loser, in 3-move the number of red wins (wins with the weaker color);

This rule is absolutely right, even if it doesn’t solve the problem completely. For instance, In my match it couldn’t be used. Therefore this rule must be added to something else.

5. Declare the title vacant and determine the contestants for the next match in the next QT.

I absolutely disagree with this proposal. How long could the title be vacant ? Can the WCDF say: “I have no world champion” ? We must have our champions after the title match.

6. Declare both title holder and determine the contestants for the next match in the next QT.

I don’t agree with this proposal. I have always known that in the history of checkers there was only a champion, now we want two champions. It could happen that the two players reach an agreement before playing their match thanks to this absurd rule.

7. Establish some kind of rapid game tie breakers on an additional day, toss a coin if that is a tie.

I could accept only the first part of this rule: “Establish some kind of rapid game tie breakers on an additional day”.
“toss a coin if that is a tie” sounds very badly. What will you tell people? I won the title because I was lucky. Get real! Forget this possibility.

8. Toss a coin.

Not again! I absolutely disagree.

9. Abandon the matches and play no QT, but rather each time a World Champion determined in a tournament.

What will happen without a world match? Are you sure the best player will be able to win the tournament?
No one knows the Luck Factor?




Alex said “in case of tie world match champion keeps title for 2 years but loses his privelege and must play in the next QT. Two winners of next QT shall play World Title match.“

I should accept the fourth proposal. In case it fails, the reasonable thing is the mini-match, and in case it fails again, Alex’s proposal.

Best regards
Sergio Scarpetta

[Alex_Moiseyev]

3. Give the title to the title holder in case of a draw, but all price money to the challenger.

Another bizarre proposal. It looks like a joke to me.

Bingo !!! Sergio, it was my proposal, absolutely sarcastic and joke and so far you are the only one who realize this

My second proposal which you like and accepted, was absolutely serious. I thought many times in the past what can be improve (if anything) with tie privelege, and I introduced in this forum first time summary of my thoughts.

It will be very pity if it will be ignore and forgotten in Lille. However you will be there (in Lille) and ball now is in your hands !

Regards, Alex

[Chexhero]

"4. The number of white wins should determine the loser, in 3-move the number of red wins (wins with the weaker color);"

Don't agree with this at all. Just because 11-15 ensures a very very slight red advantage, doesn't really make red wins any less impressive. Plenty of openings made end up favoring white. 2 world class competitors are just to good for one opening move to really make a difference. And what if Red plays 9-13 on one of those first move loses? Does the rule still apply? 3 moves openings are one thing, GAYP is another.

[MostFamousDane]

3. Give the title to the title holder in case of a draw, but all price money to the challenger.

Another bizarre proposal. It looks like a joke to me.

Bingo !!! Sergio, it was my proposal, absolutely sarcastic and joke and so far you are the only one who realize this

Kudos I guess we should have caught the joke since normally when you make serious proposals it sounds like a bad joke but this proposal makes sense - a dead giveaway

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Here is list of joke proposals for drwan world title matches

1) Challenger or WCDF takes all money
2) Challenger or WCDF (vacant) takes title
4) Winner identify via white-red wins and/or temperature outside of playing room.
5) Champion or challenger or both jailed (disqalify for next cycle)
6) Coin

Not joke proposals

1) Tiebreak in main match "utnil someone wins" (trully don't know how to do this smoothly with minumum impact on common sense)

2) My proposal - champion should play in next QT in case of drawn match

3) No changes to existing procedure.

[sergio]

Chexhero:
Don't agree with this at all. Just because 11-15 ensures a very very slight red advantage, doesn't really make red wins any less impressive. Plenty of openings made end up favoring white. 2 world class competitors are just to good for one opening move to really make a difference. And what if Red plays 9-13 on one of those first move loses? Does the rule still apply? 3 moves openings are one thing, GAYP is another.

Perhaps you could accept it , if I change the order of rules and rewrite the fourth proposal.
Right order: mini-match, the fourth proposal, Alex’s proposal.

The fourth proposal
After the mini-match, in case of further tie:
- in GAYP match who will win more games with white side will be declared the world champion; (To win the player with the white side has to risk a lot, much more than the player with the red side);
- in 3-moves match who will win more openings with the weaker colour (each opening may be divided into three groups: 1) equal 2) favourite red side 3) favourite white side. It is the same classification as we have in Italy for Italian Draughts) will be declared the world champion.

Sergio Scarpetta

[Alex_Moiseyev]

in 3-moves match who will win more openings with the weaker colour (each opening may be divided into three groups: 1) equal 2) favourite red side 3) favourite white side. It is the same classification as we have in Italy for Italian Draughts) will be declared the world champion.

Sergio Scarpetta

In Anglo-American Checkers the only such classification is known to me - one adopted by Richard Pask in "Solid Checkers". It very much accurate and acceptable in my eyes but use it as criteria to identify winner ... donno ... too much fun.

On other note I should say - tiebreaks or mini-match in 3 moves can be played via Tough Deck, 40-50 critical and very critical openings.

[Chexhero]

"- in GAYP match who will win more games with white side will be declared the world champion; (To win the player with the white side has to risk a lot, much more than the player with the red side);"

This is not always necessarily true. Lets put it this way, it is not true enough. If playing from white was like playing against the double cross or wilderness in 3 move I could understand, but the disadvantage is not that bad. But that is my point of view. As you are a close to be champion, I do respect your view as well. We will see what happens. While you may be technically right and it could be used as a last option, I think the match should just be declared a draw.

[Bernard Coll]

Between all the bluster and bullshit (Is it a joke?, is it not a joke?) posted above regarding the outcome of last weeks encounter in the match between Ron and Sergio, is it not time for common sense to prevail? The WCDF are responsible for the running of these matches, their next meeting is scheduled in Lille next month. If something that happened or as claimed didn't happen last week, surely the right time and place to raise their greivances is at their next meeting where presumably all WCDF officers will be in attendance to answer any accusations made against them. I think chexhero and myself seem to be the only two posters who see nothing whatsoever wrong with a drawn match. For Alex Moiseyev, next time you crack another of your jokes,Russian or otherwise; WOULD you please tell us all when to laugh?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

For Alex Moiseyev, next time you crack another of your jokes,Russian or otherwise; WOULD you please tell us all when to laugh?

You have my promise (this is not a joke)

BTW. I also don't seee anything wrong with drawn result and existence procedure. The only reason I posted my proposals - some people badly wanted to change something (anything ?) and I just tried to help them and make it reasonable.

I understand Sergio disappointment as unbeated challenger, but I also perfectly understand Ron position and match tactic. Tie privelege was always in place since 1847 (GAYP) and 1934 (3- moves) and number of drawn matches were relatively small.

Perhaps the biggest victim in history from this rule - William Ryan.

[Ingo_Zachos]

...

Perhaps the biggest victim in history from this rule - William Ryan.

I think Charles Barker was a bigger victim. He suffered from this rule twice:

In 1882 he drew the legendary Herd Laddie himself, James Wyllie with 1-1 and 48 draws in a GAYP Match,
in 1900 he drew the even more lagendary Richard Jordan with 2-2 and 36 draws in a 2-move Match.

I think he is the only one that fought for the biggest title, and did not lose, in two different styles and against probably the best players that there were at the time that never won the title himself.

here is an incomplete list of World Championship Matches:
http://www.usacheckers.com/worldchampionshipresults.php

Other players in that line include

James Wyllie (against Martins 1863)
Robert Martins (against Wyllie 1867),
Leo Levitt (in GAYP 1976 against Oldbury),
Jim Morrison (in GAYP 1986 against Don Lafferty),
Derek Oldbury (in GAYP 1994 against Ron King),
Alex Moiseyev (in GAYP 2000 against Ron King),
Willie Ryan (3-move 1949 against Hellmann),
Asa Long (3-move 1962 against Hellmann),
Don Lafferty (3-move 1996 against Ron King),
and finally Ron King himself (3-move 2009 against Alex Moiseyev),
Sergio Scarpetta (in GAYP 2012 against Ron King)

Last but not least there was one World Chamionship contender for the Women`s title that only scored a draw:

Patricia Breen (in 3-move 1989 against Joan Caws)

I know it is no consulation to Sergio, but some of these sooner or later became World Champion, and all of them are regarded as Legends. He is not in a bad company.


Greetinx from sunny Germany,


Ingo Zachos

[Alex_Moiseyev]

here is an incomplete list

Can't say about all items but at least one recent match is missing: Jan Mortimer played two matches with Patricia Breen in the beginning of 2000's

[Chexhero]

I think chexhero and myself seem to be the only two posters who see nothing whatsoever wrong with a drawn match.

AMEN!

[sergio]

I think most of you didn’t read the post I wrote two days ago.

I said: “It’s no use trying to change the rules. But I’m sure all rules must be observed by both players. No one should try to take advantage of this.”. And I asked three questions, but so far no one has answered them.

Now I want to say that I’m not feeling a victim. I did my best and I’m happy, although it was not enough.

Everything will be fine for me, no objection!

Best regards
Sergio

[Ingo_Zachos]

....
What’s the penalty for the player who doesn’t want to write down the game?

....
In which case and how many times could a player check his record of the game? Could he check it in his opponent's time? Could the referee give his record of the game all the time and ignore this rule without saying a word?
....
How many times in the history of checkers has the rule been applied?

...

It I am correct you asked this questions.

(1) In any case (s)he should be aked to fill in the blanks on his/her time and if(s) he is in time-trouble (s)he is allowed to make a "I" on the sheet for each move, and has to fill them in correctly after the time trouble ended when it is his or her move. The referee should repremand the player if (s)he fails to record and give him/her the hint that(s) he lost the game if (s)he fails to sent in a complete record of his/her moves as a last consequence. --- > see answer to 3)

(2) (S)He should ask his/her opponent when it is his/her move and then use the sheet of the opponent to fill in blanks before (s)he made his move, but if the opponet agrees and does not feel distracted (s)he may also do it on the opponents time, but if (s)he refuses I would wait until it is my turn and then ask.

(3) I am not aware if it happend until today, but I am sure this answers (1) to some extend, as if a player refuses to record even if the referee asked him/her to do so, (s)he has lost.(S)He is not forfeited btw, but has lost regularly then. The games count for rating and everything as if (s)he resigned, lost all his/her pieces or had no move left or overstepped the time.

I think that not many referees are aware of this rule, but as a referee in Lille I will point this out to all players before the event will begin.
In Beijing some players were forced to complete their sheets, even if that resulted in time-trouble, but I dont think anyone was declared loser.

This rule does not mean that there can be one or two minor mistakes like mistaking two fields, and that this leads to a loss, but as a last consequnce a player can be declared loser if (s)he refuses to record.

I hope this answers your questions, Sergio.

Greetinx from Germany in moonshine at midnight,

Ingo Zachos