Hello Sune,
everybody agrees that the system does not give
compelete equal chances.
But which other system would you suggest?
Two extra games would be not much.
If we make it 40 games, it would have the same merit as the 3-move title, which a majority currently would not like.
Something in between is thinkable, but
it does not solve the basic problem of a tie after X games.
Besides, in a 40 match game a tie is also possible, see Moiseyev - King and Hellmann - Ryan and others.
We do
not solve the basic problem what we should do in case of a tie.
Same with tie breaking rapid games. What if they end in a tie as well?
And a sudden death blitz with say 6 minutes for red/black and 4 for white and in case of a tie white being the seond player as they now do in chess requires a decision who gets the white pieces and in general favors the second player.
A toss of a coin would be more honest then that.
Plus longer matches and a tiebreaker play-off take additional efforts both in time and money.
My only suggestion wuld be to award the match win to that player who won more games with white, and in 3-move with red, as these are the weaker sides.
In this case Sergio Scarpetta would have won and Ron would have needed to win one of the last four games.
There is a clear reasoning to the current rule: the challenger must avoid a tie if he wants to win the title, so it is on him to stir things up.
In matches with a tiebreaker the number of draws is not less then in matches without, in contrast, as now both players want to secure the "penaly shoot-out" and they play even more conservative they tens to have more draws!
I think that this match definately showed that it is still possible to defeat the title holder, even if he plays conservative. Sergio had enough winning chances to do it and to defeat Ron, but he failed, while Ron took all his chances, which he badly needed this time.
Lubabalo in 2008 went nuts in his last game and took too much risks, while Sergio played it out,but looked for more variety in his openings then Lubabalo did. BTW: I think Lubabalo learnt a lot, as in San Remo 2011 he played with much more variety then before.
The problem, Sune, is not to declare something unfair, but to suggest a
better alternative, in which we see hard fought games and a decision that is based on skill, and not on the luck of a tossed coin, like in a sudden death game.
So, what are you suggesting we should do instead?
Greetionx from finally sunny Dortmund, Germany
Ingo
PS: the rule that in case of a tie the title holder retains his title is not part of the match contract, but it is the WCDF byelaws.
http://wcdf.wz.cz/bylaws.htm
These byelaws were established years before the match started and both players knew them.
This time an Italian player, my friend Sergio Scarpetta suffered under the rule, but in Dublin 2010 Ron King suffered from a rule that was against him and at that time the Italian player, Michele Borghetti, was the lucky one.
The rules were never made to benefit any individual or to benefit the same country in all cases.
It can be replaced by the GA of the WCDF, but not in the match contract.
I am not sure about the price money, but I think this is a question of the match contract.
I am not sure if and how much price money now was at stake, and how it was divided.
