Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

World Champion Tiebreaks: A Counter-Intuitive Proposal.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

Plus, the possibilities of the coin being biased, or an unbiased coin being replaced by a biased one, or even vandalism or theft, increase with a materialistic object being used.

Then flip a virtual coin on a computer.

We can have a big screen at the end of a tied match with a charismatic presenter hosting the coin flip.

More revenue can be made as tickets will be sold for the Coin Toss, which will be devoured by a blood-thirsty audience, too eager to see one of the players break down emotionally.

The screen will show the 'Licoin' as depicted in the thumbnail of this blog.

A player (current World Champion) will guess the color of a pawn which the presenter holds in their clenched hand.

If they guess right they will choose 'horsey' or 'no horsey', corresponding to the two sides of the coin.

If it lands on their choice then they will be The Champion. Otherwise, the challenger will become The Champion.

The camera should pan to the Champion's thrilled and overjoyed face. Then it should pan to the emotionally broken coin toss loser.

Confetti and Balloons should then be deployed from the ceiling of the venue at this very moment.

This would not be chess anymore. The only reason why chess is such a popular sport/game is that 0% luck is involved. A coin flip is 100% luck. Everything, but not a coin flip! Bullet games, penalty shots or whatever is also no luck. I don't say that it would be fair then, but why flipping a coin?

@RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/SjNV80sl) > > Plus, the possibilities of the coin being biased, or an unbiased coin being replaced by a biased one, or even vandalism or theft, increase with a materialistic object being used. > > Then flip a virtual coin on a computer. > > We can have a big screen at the end of a tied match with a charismatic presenter hosting the coin flip. > > More revenue can be made as tickets will be sold for the Coin Toss, which will be devoured by a blood-thirsty audience, too eager to see one of the players break down emotionally. > > The screen will show the **'Licoin'** as depicted in the thumbnail of this blog. > > A player (current World Champion) will guess the color of a pawn which the presenter holds in their clenched hand. > > If they guess right they will choose 'horsey' or 'no horsey', corresponding to the two sides of the coin. > > If it lands on their choice then they will be The Champion. Otherwise, the challenger will become The Champion. > > The camera should pan to the Champion's thrilled and overjoyed face. Then it should pan to the emotionally broken coin toss loser. > > Confetti and Balloons should then be deployed from the ceiling of the venue at this very moment. This would not be chess anymore. The only reason why chess is such a popular sport/game is that 0% luck is involved. A coin flip is 100% luck. Everything, but not a coin flip! Bullet games, penalty shots or whatever is also no luck. I don't say that it would be fair then, but why flipping a coin?

@PRIYAMVAD said ^

Well, I think it's clear that the fairest tiebreak would be to replay the match of 14 games until there is a winner. It is unrealistic, I know, but at least two classical games and if the standing is 1:1 again two games and so on.

That would take too long, and the audience will stop coming if the two sides are well-matched.

Of course, that's not a solution, but it would be the fairest tiebreak. So we have to find an idea that is similar to that and does not take to much time. And here I would choose a time like "30+30" four games or so

@PRIYAMVAD said [^](/forum/redirect/post/3V9cdVBL) > > Well, I think it's clear that the fairest tiebreak would be to replay the match of 14 games until there is a winner. It is unrealistic, I know, but at least two classical games and if the standing is 1:1 again two games and so on. > > That would take too long, and the audience will stop coming if the two sides are well-matched. Of course, that's not a solution, but it would be the fairest tiebreak. So we have to find an idea that is similar to that and does not take to much time. And here I would choose a time like "30+30" four games or so

@Kreuzodil said ^

This would not be chess anymore. The only reason why chess is such a popular sport/game is that 0% luck is involved. A coin flip is 100% luck. Everything, but not a coin flip!

I understand your reasoning. You don't want randomness. However, I would like to point out that even worse then randomness is unfairness.

Let me give an example of this:

Rapid and Blitz is not supposed to decide the outcome of the Classical World Championship. I believe it's unfair to have a disadvantage in the Classical World Championship if you are a weaker Rapid and Blitz player as the Classical World Championship is all about Classical chess. Not other formats.

Therefore if a player plays equally well as their opponent, then they will have an equal chance in the coin toss. 50%.

Imagine being the weaker Rapid and Blitz player with a 30% chance of winning tiebreaks as an example. Having a 50% chance instead of 30% would feel be more fair in recognition of your equal Classical performance against your opponent.

I think there is some logic to what I'm saying here.

@Kreuzodil said [^](/forum/redirect/post/vt1CpnzG) > This would not be chess anymore. The only reason why chess is such a popular sport/game is that 0% luck is involved. A coin flip is 100% luck. Everything, but not a coin flip! I understand your reasoning. You don't want randomness. However, I would like to point out that *even worse then randomness is unfairness.* Let me give an example of this: ---- Rapid and Blitz is not supposed to decide the outcome of the Classical World Championship. I believe it's unfair to have a disadvantage in the Classical World Championship if you are a weaker Rapid and Blitz player as the Classical World Championship is all about Classical chess. Not other formats. Therefore if a player plays equally well as their opponent, then they will have an equal chance in the coin toss. 50%. Imagine being the weaker Rapid and Blitz player with a 30% chance of winning tiebreaks as an example. Having a 50% chance instead of 30% would feel be more fair in recognition of your equal Classical performance against your opponent. --- I think there is some logic to what I'm saying here.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

This would not be chess anymore. The only reason why chess is such a popular sport/game is that 0% luck is involved. A coin flip is 100% luck. Everything, but not a coin flip!

I understand your reasoning. You don't want randomness. However, I would like to point out that even worse then randomness is unfairness.

Let me give an example of this:

Rapid and Blitz is not supposed to decide the outcome of the Classical World Championship. I believe it's unfair to have a disadvantage in the Classical World Championship if you are a weaker Rapid and Blitz player as the Classical World Championship is all about Classical chess. Not other formats.

Therefore if a player plays equally well as their opponent, then they will have an equal chance in the coin toss. 50%.

Imagine being the weaker Rapid and Blitz player with a 30% chance of winning tiebreaks as an example. Having a 50% chance instead of 30% would feel be more fair in recognition of your equal Classical performance against your opponent.

I think there is some logic to what I'm saying here.

You say "even worse than randomness is unfairness". But I would say a coin flip is random and unfair, and I think something unfair is better than something random and unfair.

@RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/OEnDmotj) > > > This would not be chess anymore. The only reason why chess is such a popular sport/game is that 0% luck is involved. A coin flip is 100% luck. Everything, but not a coin flip! > > I understand your reasoning. You don't want randomness. However, I would like to point out that *even worse then randomness is unfairness.* > > Let me give an example of this: > > ---- > > Rapid and Blitz is not supposed to decide the outcome of the Classical World Championship. I believe it's unfair to have a disadvantage in the Classical World Championship if you are a weaker Rapid and Blitz player as the Classical World Championship is all about Classical chess. Not other formats. > > Therefore if a player plays equally well as their opponent, then they will have an equal chance in the coin toss. 50%. > > Imagine being the weaker Rapid and Blitz player with a 30% chance of winning tiebreaks as an example. Having a 50% chance instead of 30% would feel be more fair in recognition of your equal Classical performance against your opponent. > > --- > > I think there is some logic to what I'm saying here. You say "even worse than randomness is unfairness". But I would say a coin flip is random and unfair, and I think something unfair is better than something random and unfair.

@Kreuzodil said ^

You say "even worse than randomness is unfairness". But I would say a coin flip is random and unfair, and I think something unfair is better than something random and unfair.

No. In a scenario where the players are tied, a coin flip is less unfair then a rapid and blitz playoff.

You say it's a choice between random and unfair vs just unfair but I don't think that is true.

It's a choice between random and unfair.

Look, just answer me this.

Is it more fair for a player who had an equal performance in the Classical to have a 30% chance (as they are weaker in rapid and blitz) or 50%?

@Kreuzodil said [^](/forum/redirect/post/sk7fXUKZ) > You say "even worse than randomness is unfairness". But I would say a coin flip is random and unfair, and I think something unfair is better than something random and unfair. No. In a scenario where the players are tied, a coin flip is less unfair then a rapid and blitz playoff. You say it's a choice between random and unfair vs just unfair but I don't think that is true. It's a choice between random and unfair. Look, just answer me this. Is it more fair for a player who had an **equal performance** in the Classical to have a 30% chance (as they are weaker in rapid and blitz) or **50%?**

I think shorter time controls as tiebreaks are fine and the cointoss idea or anything related to engine evaluation is a bad idea.
Usually, classical playing strength strongly correlates with rapid/blitz playing strength and so I think they are at least somewhat comparable.
Also, if someone is called the "World chess champion", I would expect them to not only be strong in one time control, since the are the undisputed world champion after all and thus should be very strong in all aspects of chess, not just in following engine lines.

I think shorter time controls as tiebreaks are fine and the cointoss idea or anything related to engine evaluation is a bad idea. Usually, classical playing strength strongly correlates with rapid/blitz playing strength and so I think they are at least somewhat comparable. Also, if someone is called the "World chess champion", I would expect them to not only be strong in one time control, since the are the undisputed world champion after all and thus should be very strong in all aspects of chess, not just in following engine lines.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

The new counter-intuitive proposal is that the tiebreak shall be a coin toss.

Well, everything new is a well-forgotten old: https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/08/arts/chess-should-chance-decide-the-outcome-of-a-match.html

@RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/CJVZL2DW) > The **new** counter-intuitive proposal is that the tiebreak shall be a **coin toss.** Well, everything new is a well-forgotten old: https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/08/arts/chess-should-chance-decide-the-outcome-of-a-match.html

Ok this is kinda irrelevant
But the licoin is so cute :D

Ok this is kinda irrelevant But the licoin is so cute :D

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

You say "even worse than randomness is unfairness". But I would say a coin flip is random and unfair, and I think something unfair is better than something random and unfair.

No. In a scenario where the players are tied, a coin flip is less unfair then a rapid and blitz playoff.

You say it's a choice between random and unfair vs just unfair but I don't think that is true.

It's a choice between random and unfair.

Look, just answer me this.

Is it more fair for a player who had an equal performance in the Classical to have a 30% chance (as they are weaker in rapid and blitz) or 50%?

If I had to choose the format for a classical World championship match, I would do it like that:

  1. twelve games (120 min / 40 moves + 30 min, + 30 sec / move from move 41; colors for the current world champion: WSWSWSSWSWSW)
  2. if 6:6: The one with the higher number of wins with black wins
  3. if still tied: The ohne with the higher Progressive Score wins
  4. if still tied: four games (45 min + 30 sec from move one (this is still classical chess and can be Elo-rated!); colours for the current world champion: SWWS)
    5.if 2:2: The one with the higher number of wins with black wins
  5. if still tied: The one with the higher Progressive Score wins
  6. if still tied: two games (45 + 30 sec from move one; colours for the current world champion: WS) until someone wins such a mini-match

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask them!

@RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/TRKYVt2B) > > > You say "even worse than randomness is unfairness". But I would say a coin flip is random and unfair, and I think something unfair is better than something random and unfair. > > No. In a scenario where the players are tied, a coin flip is less unfair then a rapid and blitz playoff. > > You say it's a choice between random and unfair vs just unfair but I don't think that is true. > > It's a choice between random and unfair. > > Look, just answer me this. > > Is it more fair for a player who had an **equal performance** in the Classical to have a 30% chance (as they are weaker in rapid and blitz) or **50%?** If I had to choose the format for a classical World championship match, I would do it like that: 1. twelve games (120 min / 40 moves + 30 min, + 30 sec / move from move 41; colors for the current world champion: WSWSWSSWSWSW) 2. if 6:6: The one with the higher number of wins with black wins 3. if still tied: The ohne with the higher Progressive Score wins 4. if still tied: four games (45 min + 30 sec from move one (this is still classical chess and can be Elo-rated!); colours for the current world champion: SWWS) 5.if 2:2: The one with the higher number of wins with black wins 6. if still tied: The one with the higher Progressive Score wins 7. if still tied: two games (45 + 30 sec from move one; colours for the current world champion: WS) until someone wins such a mini-match If you have any further questions, feel free to ask them!

The idea of comparing human moves to engine moves as a tiebreaker is insane, for many of the reasons already stated in the thread. Forcing people to play even more like computers, even when it doesn't make practical sense to do so, is the opposite of what chess needs.

The coin toss thing feels like satire, but I do think it would be better than deciding using blitz.

Personally for the world championship I think if the match is tied after 10 games, it should just continue until one player wins, like overtime in many other sports. This probably wouldn't be a good solution for tournaments in general, because not knowing when a tournament ends isn't great for scheduling. But for the world championship, it would work great.

The idea of comparing human moves to engine moves as a tiebreaker is insane, for many of the reasons already stated in the thread. Forcing people to play even more like computers, even when it doesn't make practical sense to do so, is the opposite of what chess needs. The coin toss thing feels like satire, but I do think it would be better than deciding using blitz. Personally for the world championship I think if the match is tied after 10 games, it should just continue until one player wins, like overtime in many other sports. This probably wouldn't be a good solution for tournaments in general, because not knowing when a tournament ends isn't great for scheduling. But for the world championship, it would work great.