3 ms·

The candidates might as well be the world championship. But they need to make sure wins give you e.g. 3 points and draws only 0.5. Even in the candidates this

The candidates might as well be the world championship. But they need to make sure wins give you e.g. 3 points and draws only 0.5. Even in the candidates this year Ian - having obtained a nice lead - played drawing lines with white to perfection. I don't blame him, it was the right decision. The incentive structure needs to change. Even after a draw, the concept of Armageddon games to give another half point would be interesting and useful.

__s 4y ago
How do you disincentivize win trading?
- mikaeluman 4y ago
  How do you mean one can trade when someone has lose? Do you mean that all russians agree to lose to their number 1?
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    He means I let you win with white, and you let me win with white, and we both end up ahead by doing so.
jstx1 4y ago
That's why as a spectator I wouldn't like a change in the format to a multi-player tournament. Changing it would be equivalent to making the candidates the World Championship and removing the WC match - basically getting rid of the most exciting part of following chess and keeping everything else the same.
tzs 4y ago
> But they need to make sure wins give you e.g. 3 points and draws only 0.5. As black under such a system I might be more strongly incentivized to go for the draw than under the current system. I'm already starting at a disadvantage by having black, so pressing for the win is extra risky, and if I do go for it and lose my opponent gains 3 points on me. If you want to reduce draws by playing with points you probably should included something that takes into accounts white's advantage. You want to make sure white has a strong incentive to push for the win, which in turn also increases the chances white will go too far, giving black a good chance to also push for the win. For example, asymmetric scoring such as black gets 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and white gets 2 points for a win, 0 points for a draw. That system was tried in a couple or so tournaments around 2005 or so. As far as the format goes, I wonder if a small tournament coupled with something like the promotion/relegation system used in many soccer leagues would be good? Have a Champions Tournament that consists of 4 players that play a double round robin (or maybe a quadruple round robin?) for the World Championship. The participants are the current Champion, the runner-up from the prior Champions Tournament, and the top two from the Candidates Tournament. The Candidates Tournament would include the 3rd and 4th place players from the prior Champions Tournament, the 3rd and 4th place players from the prior Candidates Tournament, and some players who are invited based on rating, World Cup, and Grand Prix results. Maybe also make the Candidates bigger than it is now, say 10 or 12 players. That would be too long to hold as a single event, so split it. Play some of the games as part of the World Cup event and some as part of the Grand Prix events.
- mikaeluman 4y ago
  To your point - White steers the game. People only go for wins with Black when forced to. So I don't see how that changes anything?
kzrdude 4y ago
This year's candidates was pretty combative, I don't think they have a problem to solve more with that.

__s 4y ago

How do you disincentivize win trading?

mikaeluman 4y ago
How do you mean one can trade when someone has lose? Do you mean that all russians agree to lose to their number 1?
- Buttons840 4y ago
  He means I let you win with white, and you let me win with white, and we both end up ahead by doing so.

jstx1 4y ago

That's why as a spectator I wouldn't like a change in the format to a multi-player tournament. Changing it would be equivalent to making the candidates the World Championship and removing the WC match - basically getting rid of the most exciting part of following chess and keeping everything else the same.

tzs 4y ago

> But they need to make sure wins give you e.g. 3 points and draws only 0.5. As black under such a system I might be more strongly incentivized to go for the draw than under the current system. I'm already starting at a disadvantage by having black, so pressing for the win is extra risky, and if I do go for it and lose my opponent gains 3 points on me. If you want to reduce draws by playing with points you probably should included something that takes into accounts white's advantage. You want to make sure white has a strong incentive to push for the win, which in turn also increases the chances white will go too far, giving black a good chance to also push for the win. For example, asymmetric scoring such as black gets 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and white gets 2 points for a win, 0 points for a draw. That system was tried in a couple or so tournaments around 2005 or so. As far as the format goes, I wonder if a small tournament coupled with something like the promotion/relegation system used in many soccer leagues would be good? Have a Champions Tournament that consists of 4 players that play a double round robin (or maybe a quadruple round robin?) for the World Championship. The participants are the current Champion, the runner-up from the prior Champions Tournament, and the top two from the Candidates Tournament. The Candidates Tournament would include the 3rd and 4th place players from the prior Champions Tournament, the 3rd and 4th place players from the prior Candidates Tournament, and some players who are invited based on rating, World Cup, and Grand Prix results. Maybe also make the Candidates bigger than it is now, say 10 or 12 players. That would be too long to hold as a single event, so split it. Play some of the games as part of the World Cup event and some as part of the Grand Prix events.

mikaeluman 4y ago
To your point - White steers the game. People only go for wins with Black when forced to. So I don't see how that changes anything?

kzrdude 4y ago

This year's candidates was pretty combative, I don't think they have a problem to solve more with that.