3-Move Ballot: Possible Modification

[Richard Pask]

Personally, I have always viewed the 3-move restriction as by far the best of the 4 opening conventions for the purpose of determining the world champion. Certainly it has served its purpose well since 1934, and is likely to go on doing so for another 76 years. Despite bizarre claims in some quarters that it amounts to little more than a lottery, the match results since 1934 have been, very largely, highly predictable: the better player wins! One criticism which is sometimes made however, is that a WCM of 40 games (20 ballots) might have an excess of 'tame' or 'lop-sided' ballots. The following modifiction could serve to eliminate this issue. Note: I am not saying it should happen, but that players and ruling bodies might consider it.

Firstly, divide the 156 ballots into 4 equal sections of 39 ballots. Using the ratings system which is operation in 21st Century Checkers (other authorities will disagree with my ratings, but it shouldn' t take too long to hammer out an agreed list), the first section will contain the 39 ballots which are the most even in nature - such as [50/50] and [46/54] - and the last section the 39 ballots which are the most lop-sided - [17/83] and [85/15] etc...

During the 40-game match, ballot randomly from the full deck of 156 ballots. However, once 5 ballots have been selected from a particular section, discard the remaining ballots in this section, and continue balloting from the remainder. In short, if all 40 games are played 5 ballots will, necessarily, have been selected from each of the 4 sections. I leave it to the fraterity to decide whether any such modification is necessary and/or desirable.

Wishing everyone all the best for the coming holiday period: love, peace and happiness.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

One criticism which is sometimes made however, is that a WCM of 40 games (20 ballots) might have an excess of 'tame' or 'lop-sided' ballots.

Richard, many thanks for your thoughts, merry X-Mas to you and your family !

Here are my couple cents ...

Can you confirm and validate above statement which I quoted ? Having a chance to play a good number of 3-moves matches, I didn't get impression that, due to random/lottery factor, openings from some groups dominated. In my eyes, on long run (big number of games), this proportion remain balanced.

In order to prove/disaprove your statement, you have to create 3 groups of openings (not 4 in my eyes) which you mentiond and go through all matches and see the percentage of openings from each group. I can note only 1979 match Tinsley vs Lowder where number of critical openings was big enough, but they also didn't play all games and had 12 (technically - 13) openings only.

2) I personally, see only 3 majors groups here, not 4: critical openings from 3-moves era, openings from 2-moves era with moderate advantage for one side, even openings + GAYP openings. Each group contains about the same number of openings - around 50-52.

3) When I started to play 3 moves 15 years ago, I was very emotional when opening was selected - being more disapointed or excited. Today my emotions dropped - I pushed myself to position to be neutral with any opening, I feel comfortable with any of them.

I respect the whole DECK as it is - no "good" or "bad" openings for me.

4) You or me or anyone else can create a ranking list of openings, but it will be always subjective ! Whatever you think is moderate opening, may look critical to me or even to someone else.

5) Rather than even-uneven status of opening, for me more important factor is - scope of opening. There are some critical openings with minimum scope, and even openings with big scope.

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Richard Pask]

Dear Alex,

I was simply making the point that a match MIGHT have an excess of one type of ballot. This is obviously possible - I haven't undertaken a study of the 3-move matches played to date to see what has actually occurred in practice. I leave it to the fraternity to decide whether the system currently in operation needs any modification; probably not. (I think that when you said 'objective' you meant 'subjective.') I certainly agree that all 156 ballots have merit. For example, MFT lost to Chinook on 11-15 23-18 10-14 and 12-16 21-17 9-14; hardly the most lop-sided of ballots!

[Alex_Moiseyev]

match MIGHT have an excess

Agree.

I think that when you said 'objective' you meant 'subjective.')

Yes, I already corrected my original post.

I certainly agree that all 156 ballots have merit.

Yes, Yes, Yes !!!

[liam stephens]

Alex Moiseyev wrote:

I didn't get impression that, due to random/lottery factor, openings from some groups dominated.

Mention of the lottery factor reminds me of a passage by Derek Oldbury in his Encyclopaedia.


"In many eyes, to this day, a tournament is only just slightly better than a lottery; it is not a fair test as a means of determining absolute supremacy, which is what a Championship is, or should be all about - after all, a Champion is 'one who excels all others', not the one who was lucky in the draw; else the term Champion has no meaning.

.......When a sport, an art, a game, depends on private patronage, then naturally their motivation for supporting the game has to be considered and it is this: a desire to see top class performances, with ever improving standards, new brilliancies unfolded, new beauties revealed. Draughts and checker associations have never regarded high standards of play as either relevant or necessary to the promotion of the game; they are funamentally dedicated to mediocrity."

Ency., Page 122.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Once we started talking about possible improvements / modifications to existing world title match system, I have some thoughts and proposals where we probably can improve things without "touching the base".

I am talking about number of games in world title match. In 1934 It was originally set to 40 games and never being challenged since then. Even more - in earlier matches (1948, 1962) players were forced to play extra 10 games in case of tie after 40 games. This number, 40, was selected in the middle of 20-th century and also during Great Depression, when life style and standards were softer without much speeding and pressure which we are facing today in 21st century.

If we look overall at all 3-moves world title matches which were played since 1934, we can confirm that in almost all of them winner was identified after somewhere around 28-32 games and title didn't change hands later. There were few matches with very close (drawn) outcome. However, in case when both players are about the same strength, any number of games and any result will be unpredictable anyway.

So ... one of the things which could be change - switching to play 28-30-32 games instead 40. Here is a list of possible benefits we can get from such trade:

1) Money savings.

For two players and one referee we can save approximately up to $1,500.00 or close going for less number of days.

4) Time savings.

From 10 playable days + 1 rest day we can switch now to 7 playable days (from 28 games) and perhaps stay away from using rest day. My vacation time is very limited and tie and such possibility will definetely makes it much easy for me (and any other player in working age) to afford it and reduce schedule conflicts with other family and work commitments.

3) Quality of games.

With all my honesty I can confirm you that getting close to the end of 40 games marathon-match reduce quality of games and players get more tired and more compromise / softer.

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Eric Strange]

I think Richard Pasks idea was GREAT!!! I think this was a legit proposal and also something that would make the WCM tournament most fair. Some players target studying is weaker sided openings to memorize because they feel they can draw the more even sided openings without an issue. Some player tend to target the stronger sided openings because they feel they should atleast win on the strong side if they are going to get tagged on the weaker side. Some players calculate more on even sided games because their opponents lack study because crossboard should be good enough to draw.

This may not be a problem for you Alex... but I believe it would benefit your everyone to split the games equally. You cant tell me that in all years of 3-move there wasnt one group of 3-move played more than another.... showing proof is a ridiculous thing to ask.... no offense.

I think instead of cutting down the games you should just play more games during the day and stop resting so much... I believe stamina is an important quality in checkers. 10 days to play 40 games???? that is completely ridiculous. I think we need to cut the amount of time each gamehas to be played.... I asked Albert Tucker why he played in majors the last nats he played in.... he told me because the masters take too long to move and it is very boring. That is why less people show up to tournaments.... the dreadful amount of time someone that is supposed to be good at checkers has to stare at each move..... makes people want to jump off a roof.

I think nobody will agree with this but it is just my opinion... thank you

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I think nobody will agree

I agree with this part of your post. About my chances - remember what granny told to granddaughter

Merry X-Mas to you, your family and your website !

Alex

[Richard Pask]

A technical point. My second post reads like gibberish, with half of the words missing! Sorry about that, but it's not how it appeared when I previewed and then posted it. What am I missing?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Richard, try to click right bottom of mouse and then "REFRESH"