tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970746810324898604.post6367213834429903075..comments2023-03-22T07:01:56.428+01:00Comments on Lost On Time: Lucky Thirteenejhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970746810324898604.post-55310003243325056762018-12-02T21:09:00.033+01:002018-12-02T21:09:00.033+01:00A different calculation for the same concept. Havi...A different calculation for the same concept. Having draw odds for Black in a single game is about a 75-80% rate, so 200-250 Elo. Averaging over the other 12 games, the challenger would need to be 15-20 Elo better (20 x 12 = 240) to equalize the match chances.<br /><br />Another application of the same theory is that instead of having teams-of-4 play via split colours, you could instead give one team (either with teams of 4 or 5 players) all the same colour, and the other draw odds (cf. China vs USA in Olympiad).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970746810324898604.post-73060001049826323972018-11-30T23:18:15.689+01:002018-11-30T23:18:15.689+01:00I wouldn't mind a thirteenth game. (Or a fifte...<i>I wouldn't mind a thirteenth game. (Or a fifteenth, or a seventeenth.) Tie odds to the player who has an extra Black. Who should that be? Maybe let the champion choose, that can be the nature of their edge.</i><br /><br />This idea was suggested in 2016. The seemingly fatal flaw (your #2) is that person (undoubtedly the champion if you let them pick) with one extra Black has in fact a LARGE advantage (only slightly less than draw odds in the match). An 8-8 draw is about a 15% chance in a 16-game match (so overall 57.5 vs 42.5%). You system maybe gives the challenger a 44% chance or so.<br /><br />To make it "fair" you need to give FIVE extra Whites to one side (10-5 or 11-6 split), and that's assuming rather low draw rates by modern standards. (This is independent of the total number of games, as one assume the other games with equal black/whites are split if the players are equal).<br /><br />Still, FIDE seems to just randomly pick its systems anyway (the WCOC and/or Agon just rubber-stamp whatever is proposed, occasionally nodding to the Smartest Person in the Room for whatever pseudo-explanation is needed). Occasionally they ask math boffins (like the Polish guy Bartosz Socko), etc., but usually it's just by "feel" from FIDE insiders.<br /><br />Whether it's easier (your #1) to explain a 5-White edge is unclear. OTOH, I think it's clear one extra White *would* affect play (one side essentially has draw odds), and of course five more Whites would undoubtedly modify play too, but in a different way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970746810324898604.post-2325845869760370082018-11-28T16:10:55.400+01:002018-11-28T16:10:55.400+01:00Why not give the champion draw odds, and force the...<i>Why not give the champion draw odds, and force the challenger to win outright</i><br /><br />Perfectly viable plan: it's just with an odd number of games you'd force them to hold another game with Black to achieve that, which might strike some people as a slight inprovement.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970746810324898604.post-4479249744642702492018-11-28T16:04:48.699+01:002018-11-28T16:04:48.699+01:00I couldn't cope with the quadruple negative of...I couldn't cope with the quadruple negative of "What isn't a matter of debate..", but guessed what you meant.<br /><br />Why not give the champion draw odds, and force the challenger to win outright? I expect the organisers like the current set-up though: blitz games /are/ pretty exciting. Choosing a champion by armageddon wouldn't feel right, though.kieranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502040701230326572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970746810324898604.post-73125718379602022082018-11-28T12:24:16.481+01:002018-11-28T12:24:16.481+01:00It strikes me that my tweet may give the impressio...It strikes me that my tweet may give the impression I think every match will "always" go like this one has - for clarification, "always", refers to the situation in which Carlsen found himself. (I should probably have said "always <i>likely</i> to happen, but that's the problem with instant takes...)ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-970746810324898604.post-81844853401341527442018-11-28T11:18:28.906+01:002018-11-28T11:18:28.906+01:00Suspect I'm less keen for change than others a...Suspect I'm less keen for change than others are because I've enjoyed the match and feel it's been a contest (despite the fact that all games have been drawn).<br /><br />That said I'd prefer a longer match - say of 16 games - to give, I think, a greater chance of decisive results. <br /><br />Perhaps an option would be to have fewer rest days. Three games in three days days and then a rest day - as in the Candidates tournament - would allow for 14 games with the same match duration.<br /><br />Another idea: how about resolving tied matches by game count - like board count in tied team matches? For each player, sum the game numbers of won games; the winner is the player with the lower score. If the result is still a tie then eliminate the most recent decisive result and count again.AngusFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09312254103335063535noreply@blogger.com