The Future of World Titles?

[Hugh Devlin]

I have read Igor Martynov’s comments on the recent Irish Open and QT with great interest. I have corresponded with him on a number of occasions and appreciate his views and honesty. He has shared his impressions with us and has attempted to open a constructive discussion on the future of draughts (checkers). I take up that challenge.

Many individuals have made comments to me and shared their opinions about what should happen in the best interests of the games’ future. We all share that future. While I’m certain that we have many different and conflicting opinions about how to go about it, perhaps its time to take up the challenge by engaging in an honest debate where the pro’s and con’s can be discussed and perhaps a consensus arrived at.

I’m also conscious that this forum has a limited range of readers and contributors yet I believe it can still inform the wider debate.

Igor made some observations:

“The most interesting theme for me as a player was, how to make the World Championship more attractive for players…. In my opinion: GAYP is too boring, Challenge QT with the Swiss system is too short and the match is too long.

In my opinion, it is time for some changes and definite reform in the system of the World Championship to make it more attractive and exciting. I have some suggestions. I know that British and Irish people are very conservative but let us discuss:-

1. Reject the GAYP – it is only one part of the 3-Move World Championship
2. Reject women and youth championships – too few participants, they can play all together in the main tournament.
3. Organise the Olympic tournament once in 4 years with 16 of the best players in a round system (for instance, 8 top players from the top countries, 6 top players with the best rating and 2 players personally from WCDF). The winner gets the World title. In the mean time – Challenge tournament and match between World Champion and Challenger.

For me there is nothing new in what Igor states here. I previously had some discussions with players in Barbados while I was there in 2004, 2006, and 2007. It was put to me that we need a major event that involves the World Title to lift our game. The major thrust of this was a 3-4 yearly Major Tournament (World Championship Tournament) where all checkers countries would send their top 2-3 players to represent them. Because the winner would be declared World Champion there would be a greater incentive for the best players to be there, a bigger incentive for sponsors to become involved (and thus a bigger prize-fund), it would attract greater media coverage, and because it was not an annual or biannual event then players and countries could prepare better in supporting and funding their representatives to attend. On the face of it this would be a much more marketable package than what currently exists.


I can also appreciate that “traditionalists” would be horrified at the idea of the World Title moving from match-play to tournament play.

In the past two decades I have witnessed two extremes – the first being the conclusion of the 1st World Minds Sports Games at Beijing, where the presentation and acknowledgement of a champion was made in front of a major crowd after a great event has ended, and the second - a world Champion leaving his seat after the final game of a match had concluded and being acclaimed by the other two people present in the room. The 1st makes for good media, the 2nd is a media disaster.

Again, Jim Mortimer (NZ) wrote to me in 2008 where he stated “I personally think that this system of qualifying then getting to play the champion is very antiquated and should be done away with. Instead you should be using something like the Olympic every 3 years to decided who is world champion”. The same statement has been said to me from people in South Africa, Ireland, Britain, Germany, etc.

The issues seem to revolve around these points:
• A Qualification Tournament every year is too taxing (e.g. seeking sponsors annually)
• There are too many events with too few players being available to support them
• The World Champion should be decided by major tournament (like many other sports)
• Some combination of World Tournament and World Match-play titles could co-exist alongside each-other.
• Only Three Move Opening should be used for World titles, while GAYP can be retained for national titles (if countries prefer)
• The Women’s World Title should be decided by tournament play, 9women playing against women) because of the small number of female players involved.
• Such major events should be staged every 3-4 years - to increase participation, better and focused preparation, sponsorship, media attention, etc – to improve the current annual format.


I would invite people to contribute their views on this subject - diverse as they may be. I’d also ask contributors to be respectful of others who give differing and honest opinions on the subject so that honest and free debate can emerge to shape a consensus.

Personally I have no preference as to the outcome. My interest in this is to be informed by debate, and any consensus arrived at will be brought to the WCDF for discussion with all stakeholders in the game. Hugh

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Hugh, I will respond you in email.

Hey, I knew it's coming (!) when I played in Beijing and i thought about this in the past two years. I have very straight vision and thoughts how we can switch to "mix" system, using both - matches and tournaments to the best interest of all players, game itself and tile respect.

My proposals are based on my experience, knoweldges how it's done in other forms of game and mind sports and common sense. Shortly I can say that I am OK and supporting this idea if all interests will be in considerations and counted.

Whatever works for checkers - works for me !

Regards,

Alex

[tommyc]

Lately ive been discussing some of these points [match play v Ty play]with Shane and Myles.I am very much in favor of the world champion being the winner in a tournament setting rather than match play.In my view match play is too confined,Ty play is much more of an open door and more interesting to all.However i am also thinking we could have a situation that offers up a World no1 each year [who may not be WC] as well as an overall world champion?There is no reason the two cannot co-exist.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

However i am also thinking we could have a situation that offers up a World no1 each year [who may not be WC] as well as an overall world champion?There is no reason the two cannot co-exist.

Thats not a bad idea. We can name new titles as Amateur WC or Junior WC. In addition all players with rating above some number (lets say 2200) cannot compete for this title. Thats make sense and will be in interest of big group players, not only small elite which is competing for Main Title.

[liam stephens]

Tommy Canning wrote:

I am very much in favor of the world champion being the winner in a tournament setting rather than match play.

It very much depends on your definition of a World Champion !

Namely: "One who excels all others"

In the current state of Swiss System Tournaments the lottery factor is so prominent that it could never be suitable for defining a world champion.
I have outlined these lottery elements on numerous occasions (A guide to the lottery) not least the scoring by points per game instead of by rounds (or ballot). And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Reminds me very much of first Scottish Championship Tournament won by William Brydon, with the title Champion of Scotland.
In match play Ferrie beat Bryden 6 wins to 2 wins drawn 19.
Thus Bryden's tourney victory elicited but scathing comment from the influential Aberdeen Free Press:
"The results go to prove that while an annual tournament would be a capital way to create an interest in the game of draughts, it is an utterly inadequate test to decide the question of the championship of Scotland"

In a letter to the Draughts World P.B. (Peter Bennett) remarked:

A Draughts Champion never meant anything other than a Champion Match-player in Draughts, and is not to be confounded with the winner in a tourney. ..................
That a championship match and a tournament are totally different in tests of skill requires little argument to prove. Now, a tournament is but a series of little matches, any one of which is avowedly an inadequate test of first-rate skill: ........."

No, the World Championship can only be determined by match play.
If decided by tournament play, it would have to revert to the old knock out system, which few, if any, players favour.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

If decided by tournament play, it would have to revert to the old knock out system, which few, if any, players favour.

I do ... why not ??? Knock out system is still a model similar to match. In case of tie we can play short-time games (10,5,3,2,1 minute) for tie break.

I am OK with any system where things depends only on my own skills, not 3rd party involve lottery elements. Once we still are playing the same game with same rules and same 156 deck - I am OK.

Tournaments are more attractive, true. We can sacrifice something on old traditions if we have new countries, new players and $$$$ involve. But once it's all at the same level, the only benefits I see from any changes - for small group elite players (less than 10) which has some chances to win title under easy conditions and pressure.

Today I submitted my proposals to Hugh. This is combination of tournament (Swiss Semifinals) and matches (playoff) system and champion is forced to play in tournament. This system makes it harder for champion to defend his/her title but also makes it harder for challenger to go through the whole process 1st time.

What is the main goal of any system ? In my eyes - proper ranking players. If we agree with this, before making any decision and changes, we should answer on one simple question: does existing system fail to accomplish this goal ? If answer is - NO, it doesn't, then we don't need changes.

Alex

[liam stephens]

Nothing wrong with a knock out tournament !

But, I think few would favour that. It is the reason why Swiss type tournaments were introduced and KO tournaments done away with.
The fact is very few players like being knocked out on the first day, then pack their bags and go home. Also a consolation ty for those knocked out is unlikely to be an acceptable substitute.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

The fact is very few players like being knocked out on the first day

In my proposals they will be knockout on the 5th day, when plaoff start. In first 4 days we have Swiss Semifinals (7 rounds) where 8 top finishers go to the next step - playoffs.

But anyway - does existing system fails to identify best player ?

Lets answer on this question before we start talking about new system. When we have an answer on this question - then we know what needs to be change and improve.

[Eric Strange]

I think that the Swiss system is crap.

Any proper tournament should require all players to play all players. The amount of time per game should be set based on the amount of players.

I disagree with GAYP being completely rejected for the simple fact that some pride themselves on GAYP play. The time it takes to perfect lines and all variations + finding cooks makes it a valid skill although the crossboard aspect is somewhat tossed out of the window.

I do think that all players should be rolled into a 1 tournament depending on special circumstances... like we happen to have 20 kids show up to a nationals they should be able to have their own group.

I do not think we can base anything on ratings right now considering acf ratings are completely NULL right now. WCDF ratings are not properly updated, cross tables aren't filled out and submitted properly. I glanced at the newly submitted cross tables for 2010.... looked up the last tournament I played in and it had me losing to Anthony Bishop when I had won our match 1-0-1. This being the only cross table I viewed made me very worried about the rest of them.

Knockout tournament wouldn't work and would make people loathe tournaments. Can u imagine if you were a very good player and you just happened to have Alex for your first match???? Talk about a bad day!!!

[Alex_Moiseyev]

About all this changes I want to tell you one old Russian joke ...

Young girl get married and before first night she came to grandmother and I aksed her:

- Grammy, how do you think I should be dressed for the first night: just take everything out or leave something ?

Grandma responded:

- You know, dear, it really doesn't matter !

[kiwinurse]

Im pleased Hugh,you took Jims suggestions on board.You are right,every year a qualifying tournament is too much. In fact qualifying tournaments should be scrapped,and a major olympic event should be held every 3-4 years in a country that is easily accessible to everyone. For example Las Vegas in America,which is an easier city to get to for most of us,as L.A. is the main plane route going overseas.And probably more economical for most people,plus its an exciting venue.
Or somewhere in the UK, where it is easy and affordable for most.In those three to four years,there is time to gain sponsorship and get press attention.And there should be 2-3 representatives from each country,not just a select few,every country should have an opportunity to send players.It should not depend on ratings,as many are not rated.And its not fair.It should be countries and not checker federations that are represented. Like true Olympic style.
Whoever wins from these matches are the true world champions.Then they retain that title until the next olympic round 3- 4 years later.That to me is infinately easier and simpler to finance than whats going on now.
As far as the womens and youth go, well we dont really need a womens title,as far as im concerned, we have equal brain power,and its time we were regarded as equals in this game,and able to compete with the men.Maybe a youth tournie would be ok for girls and boys.up to say 18. In this country the drinking age has been lowered to 18,then they are regarded as adults. regards Jan Mortimer

[Igor]

I suggest for the future 4-years cycle.
1st year – regional challenge tournaments – America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia
2nd year – World Championship with circular system (16 challengers from the last year)
3rd year – World Qualifier Tournament to define the Challenger or WMSG
4th year – Match between the World Champion and the Challenger

[kiwinurse]

Sounds awfully complicated to me,why not simplify things and make it easier,and less costly. Simple is good.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Nothing new under sun ! The system which Igor proposed is an old Horse which was in use in 10x10 International Draughts in 1960-1976.

Before running 5-continents tournament, I propose Igor to be in charge of organising Europe championship. This will be very good step forward in terms of promoting the game. I remember - we talked about this possibility on this forum.

Concerning changes to world title system - I still would like to hear what is wrong with existing system today. Remember, main goal of world title system - identify the best player, not promotion and not attraction. When we know what is wrong and why not the best player(s) hold title, then we can start thinking how to improve things.

Regards,

Alex

[Danny_Alvarez]

Concerning changes to world title system - I still would like to hear what is wrong with existing system today. Remember, main goal of world title system - identify the best player, not promotion and not attraction. When we know what is wrong and why not the best player(s) hold title, then we can start thinking how to improve things.

Alex, I do not think that anyone here is challenging either your title or that of Mister King. And i think we all agree that you are both worthy title holders.

If I may chip in with my two cents worth (australian cents are worth as much as american cents for the first time in decades ) what we are criticising and trying to improve is the system and its feasibility in terms of cost to both players participating and associations participating/hosting. And i think that although the main goal of a world title match is to find the best player, promotion and furthering the cause is very high on the agenda as well and shouldnt be overlooked.

Spacing out world title matches would be beneficial in that it would allow for better preparation, and more sponsors (hopefully) and also players can save and attend such an event. I think Igor's idea isnt bad, but it should fall to each region to decide if they have enough money to do that.

As always i await to see what others in our checkers family think.
Regards,
D. Alvarez