World Championship Match : Ron King vs. Sergio Scarpetta

[tommyc]

The life blood of any sport is new players......................yu and Ron wont last forever.Without new players there is no new horizons. Besides you couldnt take title last time off Ron nothing change since.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

The road to title is very, extremely narrow. Only several went on and only few from them were successful. We shouldn't make this road easy - this will downgrade game.

It is nice to get new countries and players but without sacrificing basic principles. And one of them is - only best player deserve to hold title.

There is standard routine and channel proved for decades and we had outstanding champions we can be proud of. New champion must beat old champion face to face. Period.

[tommyc]

I think what we WERE talking abt was drawn WCM ............i say if champ dont beat or only draw challenger then he is not a true champion.

No more GIFTS if yu are a true champion.Champ Must win to be a true champion not gifted title.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I think what we WERE talking abt was drawn WCM

I posted my last proposals. Did you read them - forcing champion to play in QT next cycle in case of drawn match ?

[Danny_Alvarez]

there is no logic as to why a new champion would be better for checkers....
i agree that new promotors and sponsors would help, but before we can hope to secure them, we should concentrate on better organisations, media relations, and perhaps we should try to do a "gimmick" like a "world guinness record" for the most games played and won or a blindfold one.... something to attract attention to the next world championship... good noise should help in securing a good sponsor.

on a different topic, Alex, the whole checkers fraternity would love to see you challenge Mr King for the GAYP title . That is a fact.

I also like Mr Moiseyev's proposal to make the champion play in the following QT in case of a drawn match. And i also agree that a true champion wouldn't have many problems qualifying .

cheers
Danny

[tommyc]

Danny there are enough blindfold people there already,can yu imagine getting all these sponsors and when a WCM match is drawn its regarded as a win for the Holder...........not thats a laugh and a half.I dont think you would have that sponsor again.

Thats my final word on the subject till some one gets their head out of the sand!!!!!!!!!!!.Adois.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Thanks Danny !

Yes, I think my proposals are interesting and fair. They don't take title away from champion, not include crazy coin or gambling, ot fast games (different sport). But they make it more attractive and competitive.

If we would have this rule install in last match, this may (maybe not) force Ron to play a bit more aggresively on last day which simply means - giving chances / taken chances.

So ...

1) In case of tie World title Match Champion keeps title for another 2 years until end of next cycle.

2) In case of drawn match champion is forced to play in Qualufy Tournament next cycle.

3) Two winners of next QT shall play World Title Match.

4) In case of drawn match among two challengers, they shall play rapid extra games.

If champion can't finish in QT among two top players, he should be better replace anyway.

Tommy, from 6 3-moves World Champions 3 played drawn matches:

W. Hellman vs W. Ryan, 4-4-42, 1948
W. Hellman vs A. Long, 2-2-36, 1962
R. King vs D. Lafferty, 5-5-30, 1996
A. Moiseyev vs R. King, 4-4-32, 2009

Shame on them ?

Alex

[Chexhero]

I like the idea in case of a drawn match having the champion play at the next qualifier. It is totally fair. However, if two challengers meet and there is a draw between them, I don't like the idea of having them play rapid games. Playing rapid games is not like flipping a coin, but it still increases the luck factor a lot more. Again, if I am playing a rapid game for the championship and my opponent makes a stupid blunder, giving me an easy 2 for 3 triple or something, I would not feel to proud and would not want to win the title that way. Why should we have a precious title be decided this way? Yes, we obviously don't like draws and don't want the championship to end in one, but it is a part of checkers and is no less inferior than a win or a loss. The champions job is to defend the title anyway possible, not to necessarily win the competition.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Just floating this idea: if two challengers draw a match, could the title just be vacant until the next WQT?

Do you know that rapid tiebreak games were writtent in my match contract with Ron King in 2003 ?

At the moment we played - both had challenger status because due to title controversary Ron was stripped of his title by ACF at the end of 2001. In 2002 EDA recognised title as vacant.

I also don't like much an idea of rapid games but something must ne done.

Anyway - I just gave an idea, if someone is interested - you may work on details and rest

[Dennis Pawlek]

I do believe Alex idea was the best one so far... plus I wonder if the title holder would not even want to play in such an Qualify event as it in the past proofen to have some price money and as usuall all top grandmasters will seek the challenge/competition to match their skills at such top level. I know its not a horrible lot but... well every drop helps right?

My idea would be instead of rapid games how about a penalty for both players each time they do draw a certain amount of games? Lets change timers after lets say 5 or 10 draws and remove 5 or 10 minutes of both competitors clock.

I think that be smoother then rapid games. It does not eliminate drawn match but I believe it would certainly help to spice up things a bit and makes it for all participants and lookers more interesting! Even Alex idea I believe with rapid is okay coz more quick action might be something that could be sold to media more effectfive. Yet we alway must keep in mind rapid games will not be high value games as this level of play would deserve.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Yes, we are talking about relatively small possibility:

1) Tie in World Title Match
2) Champion didn't finish among top 2 in QT
3) Tie in match between 2 challengers.

I don't think it's more than 5%-10% or maybe even less.

[sergio]

Alex:
Solution ...

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. A bit more attractive and fun. Good champion shouldn't have much problems to finish among top two in QT and if he doesn't - it is always better to replace him.

If two challengers meet in match and tie, they should play rapid tiebreak games ... another fun.


This proposal would be quite acceptable. But, as far as I am concerned, it shouldn’t be used for the last match.
If King had known about this rule, maybe he would have changed his strategy.

I think that the committee of checkers, possibly composed of members of all national federations, may vote on proposal like this. Of course, it may be accepted either unanimously or by a majority. The first one would be better.
So we would already be able to use it next year if a tied match happened again.
There will be an official meeting in Lille, so I think it may be the right place to discuss this proposal.
Best regards,
Sergio Scarpetta

[MostFamousDane]

I would like to point out that using decreasing timers sudden death does not (necessarily) mean blitz games. If we reserve 1 day for playoff we could start with 2 rounds of 30 minutes fixed time. That timer is on one hand still real checkers in my opinion and is used in many weekend tournaments and on the other hand enough to put more pressure on. The 2 rounds should take 4 hours and if total score is still even we could go down to 20 minutes for 3-4 rounds. In my opinon we shouldn't go lower than that but In all likelihood the match is decided then - if not we could use one of the other proposals

[Alex_Moiseyev]

If King had known about this rule, maybe he would have changed his strategy.

Sergio, this is great and exactly what we are trying to achieve !!!

And again - rapid may happened only in 2nd match among two challengers if champion can't win match and QT (finish among top 2).

Tiebreak Rapids today in world matches are adopted in chess and 10x10. We will be using them only on high occasion.

If champion forced to play in QT and won it - we still don't need rapids in the "2nd match".

I also like in this proposal an idea that under new system champion can lose title only if he can't win match and QT. Fantastically fair.

In my opinon we shouldn't go lower than that but In all likelihood the match is decided then - if not we could use one of the other proposals

I agree that world title games can't be play with less than 15-20 minutes.

In case of even score after tierbreaks among two challengers in "2nd match: we may use options ...

1) Title is vacant.

2) Both players get title (WOW) bot don't have any privelege and shall play in the next QT.

Ingo, in this case you will have even two new champions and game gets double boost lol !

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Alex_Moiseyev]

So we would already be able to use it next year if a tied match happened again.

Yes and no I am totally OK to introduce new rule in 3-moves (my idea !), but current 3-moves cycle 2012-2013 already started even though we didn't have any events yet.

So ... for GAYP it should be used 1st time in GAYP World title match 2014 and for 3-moves in 2015 World Title match.

I am not looking for any unfair advantage, but we must be consistent. All after all - WCDF GA will be in the middle of 3-moves QT for this cycle and law shall be enforce going forward.

We are going to make tremendous, signiicant, historical change to 78 and 165 years procedures and everything must be done smoothly with properly set up transition period.

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev