|
|
Back to forum Garvin Gray (2011-02-23) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Topic is about the upcoming WCH. I am wondering, are there any format changes in general? And specifically in how provisionally rated and new players are handled in the group stages? Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-23 18:31:34) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I hope there will be as few changes as possible. The "history" of the championships will be clearer this way. I still have no idea of a better & clearer system for provisionally rated players but all ideas are welcome... Garvin Gray (2011-02-24 03:08:56) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I have already offered mine, have them play in groups by themselves and the winner qualifies as normal by winning their group. Scott Nichols (2011-02-24 06:55:14) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I second that. Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-24 18:14:53) FICGS chess World Championship #9 IMO the "bad" (if bad, actually I prefer random) consequences are not eliminated but only postponed while adding more complex rules. Better (from a ratings & results point of view) would be to block the entry to these players, but but... Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-24 18:49:15) FICGS chess World Championship #9 If it is a problem with unrated players. Is it possible to have all players have to play at least 1 tournament before they enter Wch, I know that is not a lot of info to go on. But a provisional is a lot better than no rating at all. Garvin Gray (2011-02-25 00:55:15) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I really would like to see the idea of those who are provisionally rated playing in groups by themselves, while everyone is seeded normally. There should only be two or three groups of provisionally rated players, especially if they are seeded in groups of 9 players. A second possibility= remove the exemption for players around 2300 so that they have to qualify just like everyone else. This might even reduce the number of stages by 1, shortening the whole cycle. Daniel Parmet (2011-02-26 00:36:24) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I third Garvin's suggestion. Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-26 22:44:09) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Okay, I'm really thinking about a solution but right now I'm not completely satisfied with this option of having these groups of provisionnaly rated players. I really think that it just moves & postpons the problem while losing some advantages, by the way many established ratings are still underestimated... I would like to try to explain again my whole point of view on the current wch rules. The way I've been thinking this championship is purely statistical, the idea was to find the best chances to see ALL the best players in the final rounds about each 2 years. It worked quite well so far IMO, actually my main regret is not to be able to extend the knockout tournament of 1 round (we would have 16 players instead of 8), that's why it is not possible anyway to have less than 5 rounds for the whole cycle. Each one is 30 to 40 months long, it could be worse. So the whole cycle's aim is not only to find the best player of the cycle but to give chances enough as quickly as possible to the new underrated players for the next cycles! On this point, I'm quite glad to see players like Wayne who made it the very hard way, starting from ELO 1400 (!) to reach 2540 in about 3 years only. The WCH cycle helped many other players to find their place quite quickly in the rating list, also over 2400, and I have no doubt that the best players of the round-robin cycle play the round-robin final. Usually none of these new underrated players play the RR final, they have less chances than 2200 ones to play the 2nd round because of the TER rule but they win some elo points during the 1st round. That is fair IMO, some logical improvements now protect the ratings of 2200-2300 players but I agree that it is still hard to cross certain rating ranges because ratings do not inflate the same way than advanced chess, Go or poker ones. In summary, let's say that it is unfair that 2200 players play 1 or 2 underrated players + one player rated about 2000 who may be worth 2100 or 2200, 2300 & more... He will probably lose some rating points during round 1. However he has more chances to reach round 2 with few chances to win but more chances to get some/many elo points back. I do not say that there is no "problem" with the current WCH rules set (there will always be border effects, whatever the rules) but my point is that I'm not sure that any change that will have heavy consequences will have good effects enough. Finally, if the most is favourable to such a change, it looks more logical to me to forbid the provisionnaly rated players to enter the wch waiting list. By the way we will have less forfeits during round 1, so the quality of the results may be improved. What do you think? Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-27 00:40:41) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Do you have to have played at least one tournament. To not be a provisional? Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-27 00:41:45) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Or to put it another way. Would I be able to play? I think I played in 2 tournaments I think. Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 01:06:30) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Starting with a non-FIDE/ICCF/IECG rating, one need to have finished 9 games to get an established rating. 2 tournaments should be ok. Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 02:47:16) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Thib, I have explained my point of view quite a few times and when you reply you keep either accidently mis-interpreting it, or are doing it deliberately. I suspect there might be a language issue between English as a first language and French as a first language. My issue is with the first stage groups, to which most of the players are allocated. In none of my previous posts have I mentioned UNDERRATED players ie those who have established ratings on here, but most likely their true playing standard is higher than their rating. I will try and explain my position again and I now see I am not alone in having this opinion. With 15 or so groups in the first stage and having some players provisionally rated at 1800, this means those '1800' are seeded in the different groups at player number 3 or 4. But a few of the '1800's' turn out to be quite stronger than that rating, meaning the genuine rated 2100's in that group get another person who can play to their level, whereas in another group which did not have an '1800er', the group that did not have the provisional 1800 gets a statistical advantage by having one less stronger player to qualify for round two. Now to the argument that putting the provisionals in groups by themselves only delays the problem. If there are only one or two provisional groups, then this means that only one or two provisionals make it through to round two. While this idea makes those groups of questionable standard, it is extremely likely that whoever comes out of the provi groups is going to be of decent standard. Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2011-02-27 07:26:35) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Why? What happens if the level of all the provisional players in this special groups is really below or at least 1800? At least one players in this group will have an easy ticket to the second round and that is unfair to the rest of the "regular" groups. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2011-02-27 15:48:42) FICGS chess World Championship #9 It seems that nobody likes the special groups for players with rating > 2300 in the chess WCH - but those who can play in these groups. Maybe the provisional rating of a player should be (1800+<rating of the engine he uses>)/2 :) Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 21:34:13) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Hi Garvin, sure there might be a language issue... sorry about that :/ I think I only try to interpret what you say in terms of consequences on the whole thing but I may be wrong at some points, be sure I'm not trying to avoid anything deliberately. The provisional rating already takes account of if the player uses an engine or not (at least I try to make an estimation on what the new member says in the registration form). As I just said in the other discussion, maybe we could try to extend the M groups to the 2200-2300 players, it may satisfy everyone as it is probably easier to cross the 2000 barrier than the 2200's, what do you think? Daniel Parmet (2011-02-27 21:57:03) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I disagree vehemently with the extension of the 2200 for the M group. The whole attraction of the FICGS world group is that its a chance to play these 2200s that I can never play otherwise. If you remove this chance, all you do is create a zone where the 2100s risk points and gain nothing. I'd have no reason to participate. Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 22:46:42) FICGS chess World Championship #9 ??! but this way 2000-2100 rated players have much more chances to win 1st stage groups and to play 6 strong opponents the stage after instead of only 1 in these groups... well, it looks like a bit a contradiction to me to agree what Garvin says and to say this, or maybe I did not understand something again. Let's see what Garvin & others will say. Garvin Gray (2011-02-28 02:16:26) FICGS chess World Championship #9 If I understand correctly Thib ;) You are suggesting that the 2100 ers get pushed up into the special WCH groups, rather than having to fight it out with the rest of the rif raf in first stage. Is that correct? If so, then while personally that might be helpful for me, I am against it on two reasons: 1) It will only push down the rating issues to 2000ers. 2) I think it would be better to not give the special exemptions to those 2200 and above. I think the special exemptions start at 2200, or is that 2300? Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-28 04:38:07) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Thib I feel for you :) Making a good tournament format is very hard. I know I pulled teeth to try and make my format. I had to do two things for my. 1.Make few games as possible and 2.Make it a reasonable time table for a blitz world championship. I believe Garvin did a great job with this in the parings. Lucky we didn't have a lot of unrated players. So Thib I would like to help, but can I ask a favor to you. Is it possible to get a breakdown of the ratings of the players for the last Wch? I think this would be helpful to maybe coming up with a solution. So maybe like.. What was the number of. 2300's+ 2200's 2100's 2000's 1900's 1800's below 1800's provisional's I know this maybe some work, but this breakdown can give us a picture of what you have. Personally speaking I think Garvin's idea is decent. Were you can put the highest advance provisional player in the lower stage round 2 bracket and the same for the lowest provisional player to go to the higher round 2 bracket, by performance of stage 1. I guess when you talk about statistical merits for your Wch tournament. You are trying to get the lowest error rate, but get the best value to it. Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 16:07:33) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I'll answer this in a few hours. A quick suggestion meanwhile, do you think that provisional ratings (most are 1800) should be e.g. rated 2000 if the new members say that they're using an engine? It may help to solve many of these problems. Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 21:02:18) FICGS chess World Championship #9 @Garvin: I suggest that all 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 OR that all 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2 and still 1 for stage 3. This combined to another new rule that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering would have a provisional rating of 2000 would solve IMO this issue (2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the wch) and would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating). The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule. Actually I think I would be very favourable to one of these changes. @Jimmy: Fortunately there are players like Garvin, Scott, Gino & others who really helped to build the FICGS rules :) On the numbers of players by rating range, it is quite different from a cycle to another, sometimes we have 2 M groups, sometimes there is no M group at all so I'm not sure if it would be representative. Still I'm not favourable at all to have groups of provisionally rated players. Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-28 22:44:19) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Your right Thib, nice to have experience :) I also had the help of Gino and Garvin. In seeing that, I will just watch form the sidelines now :) Scott Nichols (2011-02-28 23:04:11) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Wow, it's really hard to follow the rules, just to understand I mean. I would vote for two easy to make changes. First, do not allow provisional rated players to enter. These players have a high drop out rate and there is no way to judge their strength. It wouldn't be that hard for players to just finish nine games. It would also say a lot for their commitment. Second, I really think everybody should have to play all rounds. The chances of having a repeat champion would be far less. Getting to just move into the next round is a HUGE advantage. Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:25:38) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I agree with Scott on both accounts. I also think with you Thib re using the 2000 as first rating for new people using engines. Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-01 11:17:27) FICGS chess World Championship #9 The idea of this championship was to have a tournament looking like the old classical FIDE WCH, so it would be a non-sense to me to make such changes (the chess world will always be divided into 2 categories on this point :)), I'm not opposed to create something like a Cup tournament (the Freestyle tournament is one example) but it would be probably too much already for the addicted players that we are, so the WBCCC is a good alternative. Glad to see that Daniel agrees on the 2000 prov. rating, does anyone have any opinion on the suggestions I made just after "@Garvin:" in my previous post? Scott Nichols (2011-03-01 16:59:35) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Ah, I see what I suggested would be a different "style" tournament. You do a great job Thib with all your tournaments. They are always fun and enlightening. Daniel Parmet (2011-03-02 00:58:02) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I agree there as well. Thank you for this wonderful website. I do not want you to feel like our comments are against the great things you have done. I think we all just want to see the best FICGS we can see. Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-02 10:51:41) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I didn't see it that way. I know there will always be possible improvements, it is just not so easy to find the best ones. Garvin Gray (2011-03-02 15:29:10) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Ok, I have attempted to reply to some of this, but I keep losing the plot of what I am saying. Perhaps it is just that there are too many intertwined topics that it is all too much. Can someone divide up the topics a bit so I can reply with more clarity? Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-02 15:44:26) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Hi Garvin :) The main point is IMO this suggestion: "All 2100+, 2150+ or 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) could play the M groups at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2, while the winners will qualify for stage 3 as before. Combined to another new rule, that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering to get a provisional rating of 2000, it could solve this issue. Indeed 2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the regular wch groups, while they keep more chances to qualify for round 2, and it would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating). The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule." Garvin Gray (2011-03-02 16:51:12) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Ahh now I know what is confusing. No paragraphs lol Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-02 17:52:00) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Okay, let's try this way, I've added paragraphs. Sorry, hard to read indeed. Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 11:48:40) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I do not think the proposed idea of TDV solves anything at all. Instead all it does is move the issue from the 2100's to the 2000's. I am not in favour of this idea that a rating is dependant on whether a person declares if they are using a chess engine or not. What happens if they do not declare, then start using one? Are they kicked out of the tournament? How do you prove the issue? I think that solution creates more issues than it solves. More and more I am in favour of the idea from a couple of others than players need to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH. Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-05 13:43:30) FICGS chess World Championship #9 There is no similar issue for 2000's IMHO, it is probably easier to cross the 2000-2100 barrier than the 2100-2200 and of course 2200-2300. And once again they would lose much less rating points against these new 2000 provisionally rated players (that's mathematical). On provisional ratings depending on if players declare if an engine is used, even ICCF (as far as I know) grants a 2000 prov. rating to some players, I was not convinced so far but finally... Of course new players can "lie" or change their mind on using an engine, they'll not be kicked out of any tournament but such a rule is surely better than nothing to get ratings more coherent, btw it is just an improvement of the current rule (new players who have no rating anywhere can choose their first rating between 1200 & 1800, and of course I fix it if e.g. the player declares to play with an engine with a new rating of 1200). Anyway the idea of players needing to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH is also fine to me. Let's just try to have more opinions on this. Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-05 14:03:29) FICGS chess WCH : choose your rule Hi all, we need your opinion to choose a new rule for the next FICGS chess WCH, here are the proposals: 1) All 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M groups at stage 1 while only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2. Winners will qualify for stage 3 as before. 2) Same than 1) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000. 3) All 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M groups at stage 1 while only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2. Winners will qualify for stage 3 as before. 4) Same than 3) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000. 5) Players need to have an established rating (9 finished & rated games) before being able to enter the WCH waiting list. 6) Same than 5) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000. As for me, I think that 2) & 4) are ok for all reasons I mentioned before. 5) & 6) are ok as well but it's a pity to reduce the number of players in the wch cycle :/ Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 14:07:55) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Ok for me. In order, most want to see first: 5 3 1 4 2 Not sure how 6) works? If players have an established rating, how are they new members and need to declare. Surely the established rating would be used. Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2011-03-05 16:04:01) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I like 3 & 4 and 1 & 2. I do not like denying access to new members for the championship stages, seems elitist to me. Garvin Gray (2011-03-06 08:56:33) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Aren't having players segregated from the rest being elitist. Tano, you have voted for proposals that are surely elitist ie allowing players to avoid the general population and giving them increased chances to qualify. If you do not believe in elitism then I would have thought you were would be arguing that all players from all ratings should start from round one, including the 2300+ players. Adri Steenbeek (2011-03-06 09:54:46) FICGS chess World Championship #9 5) seems very reasonable to me. The others are too complicated. 6) referring to 5) does not make sense, since they are unrelated. Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-06 13:45:39) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Elitist may be not the right term here (I don't know what would be better though :))... Thanks for sharing your views on this, Adri! Yes, 5 & 6 are unrelated, just wanted to see if the 2000 prov. rating was ok for the most. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2011-03-06 15:03:21) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I do not like this special treatment of players from a certain rating (no matter whether 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300) already from the beginning of the WCHs. And I don't like that the TER is decisive in the case of equal points. I think it's bad luck if in a group are players with a provisional rating or a small rating (and the player starts to use engines now). But in my opinion all members should be allowed to play the WCH without restrictions. Maybe games should not be rated for a player with an established rating, if the rating of his opponent is provisional only. But that's another theme. Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 01:42:09) FICGS chess World Championship #9 So many solutions... so many choices... :) Garvin Gray (2011-03-07 16:30:52) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I can sum up my position in a few simple words from what I have read here: Kick out the provies, make them earn their entry and no special groups for the 2300 rated. Make them start with the rest of the riff raff from round one. Daniel Parmet (2011-03-07 19:24:44) FICGS chess World Championship #9 How hard is really for these people to play 9 games? I would amend choice 5 to say no provisional unless they provide another corr website they play on to get a point of parity for their rating (like LSS/ICCF). I mean really the players most likely to timeout are those who have never played a single game of correspondence ever in their life. I would also point out that if the special rating group is extended to 2100 then I won't be playing. No reason for me to play stage 1 if i'm top seed. Why did the groups get changed from 8 man groups to 6 man groups? Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:09:18) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Hi Daniel! In brief (before my huge next post): "How hard to play 9 games": Not hard, but it may take months, maybe more than a year. That's a problem :/ On top seeds, I agree and that's the point to make "class groups" as much as possible. So everyone cannot have equal chances. On the number of players per group, it only depends on the total number of players in the waiting list. Sometimes it is not possible to build groups of 9 players. Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:18:26) FICGS chess World Championship #9 On top seeds again, maybe I agreed too fast... Actually I agree that being the top seed is a good way to lose some elo points (but that's not the real point of playing a championship, the current FICGS champion will agree there ;)), but I think that I would prefer to play regular groups as the top seed with the 2100 limit than as the top seed with the 2300 limit. Less points to lose -particularly if the 2000 prov. rating rule is accepted- & more chances to play the next round! Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:45:17) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Well, I see that the idea of "equal chances for everyone" is still in the debate, that's quite strange as I thought it was obvious & accepted that such a thing cannot exist in correspondence chess. No correspondence chess championship format can give equal chances to everyone because there is no time for this, and to try to do it only gives less chances to the best player to win it. The way IECG & ICCF do it has probably as many advantages & inconvenients as we do it at FICGS but at the end the efficiency is quite similar to find as accurately as possible the best player among the highest rated ones IMO & everyone have NOT equal chances (either you have to play a few rounds more or there is a TER rule or whatever). I'm not saying that one format is better than others, some will like the FICGS format, some will prefer other formats, that's all IMO. Do not think that the WBCCC format solves all problems, it tries to avoid the time problem but the number of players is very limited in the running edition. Finally, why to play another ICCF/IECG championship here? I think that there is no argument that can justify that all players (including the 8 players of the knockout after all) should play in regular groups, as well as no argument can justify the opposite. It was just a choice to make it different and somewhat looking like the old FIDE championship. That's why choices 2) & 4) are really best to me. 2) may be better because the range 2100-2400~ may be too large for M groups, but another solution may be to build M (2250-2400)& N (2100-2250) groups like it was done in one WCH cycle, where the number of qualified players were different. Actually the idea of class groups with different numbers of qualified players is really interesting but of course, the chances are not the same for everyone once again. Whatever the choice, surely it will not be ok for some players for any reason, but I'm now quite sure that a change should be done. Wayne Lowrance (2011-03-08 06:19:02) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Howdy all. I have stayed out of this discussion. I am biased for sure. Garvin I can see your side, it is tough. But I believe in the existing format. Maybe a few minor tweaks are ok, we will see I guess. Garvin if your good enough, in time you will climb the ladder. If that is your goal. I have played at ficgs for what seems like forever. I started out at 1400.I came here with a previous 4 year record at another side with a rating of 2300. I did not think I would ever get past 2200. In fact a member told me face to face via ficgs I would never go higher. I got all the more determined. This does not help you but I just wanted to tell you it can be done. Maybe it is not fair. Another personnel observation of apparent unfairness. aboard a ship in the navy first class petty officers get to jump ahead in the chow line. It is not fair, but that is the way it was. Man when I promoted to first class I had no compulsion to jump in ahead of long chow line. So Thibault I ask for no drastic step to ficgs rating posture. Wayne Garvin Gray (2011-03-08 12:12:37) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Thib, originally I asked about the situation with the provisionals, so as the conversation has branched almost to a point where making any changes, I think for this one the issue of the provisionals should be dealt with first. On the other issues, I have no real issue with the structure as is for the WCH, as long as other tournaments offered better opportunities to play higher rated players. Put those in place and most of my concerns from this and the other thread are alleviated. Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-09 20:28:47) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Okay, after another long thinking on the different effects of the possible changes, I think that we should try in a first time the following (something between proposals 2 & 4 plus minor improvements): "All 2150+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) will play M & N class groups at stage 1. The two players with the highest scores (or TER in case of equality) of the M group will qualify for the round-robin final, while the player with the lowest score (or TER in case of equality) will be eliminated, the others will qualify for stage 2. The winner of the N group will qualify for the round-robin final and at most half the players in the group will qualify for stage 2, the others will be eliminated. Also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000." Let's see the effects during the next cycle, if things are not ok we'll reconsider the idea to prevent the provisionals to enter the wch waiting list. I don't like complex rules but I like the idea of "progressive" rules. Any argument in another way is always welcome. Garvin Gray (2011-03-09 22:26:30) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I will offer an argument in another way- please do not use the word progressive. As soon as I read that word, I think progressive politics and I run a mile :p Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-09 22:52:03) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I was afraid about that possible reading actually :) Daniel Parmet (2011-03-10 01:47:38) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I'm not sure I even follow the changes... does this mean all 2150+ qualify for stage 2? Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-10 02:45:04) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I'm not clear enough, as too often :/ Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2. Maybe this formulation (that should be included into the wch rules) will be clearer: "Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in class M groups if possible. From these groups the two players obtaining the best score will qualify for the round-robin final stage 3, the player obtaining the lowest score will be eliminated, the others will play stage 2. Other players with a rating superior or equal to 2150 will play 1st stage in class N groups if possible. From these groups the winner will qualify for the round-robin final, at most half the players from these groups will qualify for round 2." Garvin Gray (2011-03-10 02:46:05) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I think I understand the changes Daniel, so lets see how this goes. The top eight rated players who have to nominate to play in this section participate in knockout matches (that is still the same). Stage 1. All players rated above 2150+ are placed in their own round robin groups, these groups are called Group M and Group N. For players in the M group, the top two point scorers progress through to the round robin final. The lowest point scorer from these groups is eliminated. Those who finish from 3rd to second last just move to stage 2. For players in the N group, only the winner qualifies for the round robin final and at most half the players from this group will qualify for stage 2, the others are eliminated. Daniel Parmet (2011-03-10 02:47:44) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Ah so this change basically means I can't play until I get to 2150. Gotcha. Garvin Gray (2011-03-10 02:49:48) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2. I think this should be slightly changed. 1) The top eight rated players will play the knockout matches. 2) The next seven highest rated will play the M group round robin 3) Players 16 to 33 will play in 2 groups, called group N. and then so forth. The reason I offer this as a re-wording/change is that it is a little more flexible and it could be that more than 7 players above 2300 nominate, or that less than 7 players above 2300 nominate. So in effect it just makes it clear that players will be allocated purely in rating order, rather than specifying a particular rating cut off. Garvin Gray (2011-03-10 02:51:35) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Daniel- Ah so this change basically means I can't play until I get to 2150. Gotcha. Garvin- You can still play. You will start exactly as normal in the general round robin groups. It used to be that players rated over 2300 went straight through to groups on their own, now Thib has moved the rating cutoff to 2150. For those under 2150, it should make it easier to qualify for the next stage. Garvin Gray (2011-03-10 02:52:59) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Daniel and others- I am just helping Thib out to clarify the changes as I understand them. My personal position on the rating cutoff is that all the players except the champion and ex-champion should start from stage 1. None of this rating cutoff and special groups stuff. Daniel Parmet (2011-03-10 02:54:11) FICGS chess World Championship #9 No, it makes it pointless. You are the top seed. You play underrated players or weak players both of which are a waste of time. You lose massive ratings points and never get a chance to play the stronger players. It is a complete waste of time to enter as the top seed. Daniel Parmet (2011-03-10 02:56:47) FICGS chess World Championship #9 I agree completely. This is the whole fun of the event which is now gone. Daniel Parmet (2011-03-10 03:15:04) FICGS chess World Championship #9 btw your assumption that all the 1st seeds get through is wrong. In fact, I didn't get through on my last go around because all the 1800s played drawing lines as white to try to make as sterile a position as possible. This of course forced to play for a win from a drawn position which exactly as you expect - lost. These new proposed changes are in my opinion extremely silly and biased towards people in certain rating brackets. Therefore, I can't participate until I'm on the better half of the bias 2150+ Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-10 12:40:21) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Hi Daniel, I don't get your point. Now you're rated 2094 so you would be probably a top seed in the next regular group, playing maybe 2 provisionals (maybe one centaur rated 2000 and one centaur or human rated 1800 or 1700) instead of ~2 centaurs rated 1800 + playing as Black against a player rated 2200. I really think that it is a better "deal" for players rated 2000-2100 also. Yes you may still lose a few points (less than before IMO), but your chances to go to round 2 and play stronger players are much higher... I cannot say more. @Garvin: your proposal makes sense. By "if possible" I mean that the rule is not strictly 2150 or 2300, I'll just try to make coherent groups (in size & ratings) so it quite looks like your way in practice I think. Daniel Parmet (2011-03-11 08:39:51) FICGS chess World Championship #9 well when i'm 2150 i'll gladly return to participating :) until then i'll beg off. Garvin Gray (2011-03-29 13:41:40) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Thib, I was wondering, how many people have entered each of the wch's from the first to number eight? And how are entries going so far for this one? Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-29 14:59:17) FICGS chess World Championship #9 Looks like about 150 players are in the waiting list so far... not bad. From the 1st to the 8th, the number of players was around 120 to 150, as far as I can remember. Garvin Gray (2011-03-30 15:50:27) FICGS chess World Championship #9 One day to go!
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory] |