Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

World Champion Tiebreaks: A Counter-Intuitive Proposal.

@PRIYAMVAD said ^

This makes no sense because it benefits players who choose calm, unchaotic positions where they are more likely to make engine moves, and it encourages a less aggressive, "double-edged" style of chess, since playing that way could hurt them in tiebreaks.

That’s true, but as @RuyLopez1000 said, it is actually the Classical games that are actually deciding the title. The better the players play their games, the lesser the TPLV. It doesn’t matter whether we do the blitz/rapid games at all. We are just trying to give an alternative to save time.

But even in a classical time control game, you can't give more credit to a solid game by Anish Giri, who doesn't take risks and waits for his opponent to kill himself, than to a game by Alireza Firoujza or Richard Rapport, who complicate every game in pursuit of a full point from the start. Even in a classical time control game, mistakes will happen, and that's part of chess; it doesn't diminish the merit of the fight. Furthermore, many moves that a human wouldn't consider mistakes, even if the computer says they are, since we're playing against real people, not stockfish. Besides, you prevent them from making "human" poisonous preparations.

@PRIYAMVAD said [^](/forum/redirect/post/xVmcADim) > > This makes no sense because it benefits players who choose calm, unchaotic positions where they are more likely to make engine moves, and it encourages a less aggressive, "double-edged" style of chess, since playing that way could hurt them in tiebreaks. > > That’s true, but as @RuyLopez1000 said, it is actually the Classical games that are actually deciding the title. The better the players play their games, the lesser the TPLV. It doesn’t matter whether we do the blitz/rapid games at all. We are just trying to give an alternative to save time. But even in a classical time control game, you can't give more credit to a solid game by Anish Giri, who doesn't take risks and waits for his opponent to kill himself, than to a game by Alireza Firoujza or Richard Rapport, who complicate every game in pursuit of a full point from the start. Even in a classical time control game, mistakes will happen, and that's part of chess; it doesn't diminish the merit of the fight. Furthermore, many moves that a human wouldn't consider mistakes, even if the computer says they are, since we're playing against real people, not stockfish. Besides, you prevent them from making "human" poisonous preparations.

@Tactical-Attack said ^

This makes no sense because it benefits players who choose calm, unchaotic positions where they are more likely to make engine moves, and it encourages a less aggressive, "double-edged" style of chess, since playing that way could hurt them in tiebreaks.

That’s true, but as @RuyLopez1000 said, it is actually the Classical games that are actually deciding the title. The better the players play their games, the lesser the TPLV. It doesn’t matter whether we do the blitz/rapid games at all. We are just trying to give an alternative to save time.

But even in a classical time control game, you can't give more credit to a solid game by Anish Giri, who doesn't take risks and waits for his opponent to kill himself, than to a game by Alireza Firoujza or Richard Rapport, who complicate every game in pursuit of a full point from the start. Even in a classical time control game, mistakes will happen, and that's part of chess; it doesn't diminish the merit of the fight. Furthermore, many moves that a human wouldn't consider mistakes, even if the computer says they are, since we're playing against real people, not stockfish. Besides, you prevent them from making "human" poisonous preparations.

It's a relative measure. Firouzja playing tactical chess doesn't hurt him. It only hurts him if his opponent manages to defend. The opponent also has to cope with the pressure. The opponent making errors will give them worse score than Firouzja. Only way it's better than Firouzja is if they defend his attack with an advantage. In which case they deserve to have a better score.

@Tactical-Attack said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Clr6FxxW) > > > This makes no sense because it benefits players who choose calm, unchaotic positions where they are more likely to make engine moves, and it encourages a less aggressive, "double-edged" style of chess, since playing that way could hurt them in tiebreaks. > > > > That’s true, but as @RuyLopez1000 said, it is actually the Classical games that are actually deciding the title. The better the players play their games, the lesser the TPLV. It doesn’t matter whether we do the blitz/rapid games at all. We are just trying to give an alternative to save time. > > But even in a classical time control game, you can't give more credit to a solid game by Anish Giri, who doesn't take risks and waits for his opponent to kill himself, than to a game by Alireza Firoujza or Richard Rapport, who complicate every game in pursuit of a full point from the start. Even in a classical time control game, mistakes will happen, and that's part of chess; it doesn't diminish the merit of the fight. Furthermore, many moves that a human wouldn't consider mistakes, even if the computer says they are, since we're playing against real people, not stockfish. Besides, you prevent them from making "human" poisonous preparations. It's a relative measure. Firouzja playing tactical chess doesn't hurt him. It only hurts him if his opponent manages to defend. The opponent also has to cope with the pressure. The opponent making errors will give them worse score than Firouzja. Only way it's better than Firouzja is if they defend his attack with an advantage. In which case they deserve to have a better score.

@tpr @PRIYAMVAD @Tactical-Attack

Based on @Akavall 's comment I changed the recommendation from Total Pawn Loss Value to Total Win Percentage Loss.

Centipawn loss is not ideal since a -2 centipawn loss is treated the same when going from +10 to +8 and +2 to 0. In both cases the centipawn loss is treated the same even though in the first case the player is still winning, while in the second case it goes from winning to equal.

This means that win percentage loss should be calculated instead.

@tpr @PRIYAMVAD @Tactical-Attack Based on @Akavall 's comment I changed the recommendation from Total Pawn Loss Value to Total Win Percentage Loss. Centipawn loss is not ideal since a -2 centipawn loss is treated the same when going from +10 to +8 and +2 to 0. In both cases the centipawn loss is treated the same even though in the first case the player is still winning, while in the second case it goes from winning to equal. This means that win percentage loss should be calculated instead.

@Tactical-Attack said ^

This makes no sense because it benefits players who choose calm, unchaotic positions where they are more likely to make engine moves, and it encourages a less aggressive, "double-edged" style of chess, since playing that way could hurt them in tiebreaks.

That’s true, but as @RuyLopez1000 said, it is actually the Classical games that are actually deciding the title. The better the players play their games, the lesser the TPLV. It doesn’t matter whether we do the blitz/rapid games at all. We are just trying to give an alternative to save time.

But even in a classical time control game, you can't give more credit to a solid game by Anish Giri, who doesn't take risks and waits for his opponent to kill himself, than to a game by Alireza Firoujza or Richard Rapport, who complicate every game in pursuit of a full point from the start. Even in a classical time control game, mistakes will happen, and that's part of chess; it doesn't diminish the merit of the fight. Furthermore, many moves that a human wouldn't consider mistakes, even if the computer says they are, since we're playing against real people, not stockfish. Besides, you prevent them from making "human" poisonous preparations.

I understand your point, but what I want to just want to say is that we are just proposing an alternative way, and even though every player is different, we can use TWPL from the late middle game, since in the beginning of the game, everything’s nearly the same.

Everyone goes for 1.d4,1.e4, 1.c4, or 1.g3. Barely anything else is ever played. Through the middle game, it’s just the players who decide.
It boils down to the endgame or the late middle game where the game is decided, so that’s when we can use TWPL to decide.

@Tactical-Attack said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Clr6FxxW) > > > This makes no sense because it benefits players who choose calm, unchaotic positions where they are more likely to make engine moves, and it encourages a less aggressive, "double-edged" style of chess, since playing that way could hurt them in tiebreaks. > > > > That’s true, but as @RuyLopez1000 said, it is actually the Classical games that are actually deciding the title. The better the players play their games, the lesser the TPLV. It doesn’t matter whether we do the blitz/rapid games at all. We are just trying to give an alternative to save time. > > But even in a classical time control game, you can't give more credit to a solid game by Anish Giri, who doesn't take risks and waits for his opponent to kill himself, than to a game by Alireza Firoujza or Richard Rapport, who complicate every game in pursuit of a full point from the start. Even in a classical time control game, mistakes will happen, and that's part of chess; it doesn't diminish the merit of the fight. Furthermore, many moves that a human wouldn't consider mistakes, even if the computer says they are, since we're playing against real people, not stockfish. Besides, you prevent them from making "human" poisonous preparations. I understand your point, but what I want to just want to say is that we are just proposing an alternative way, and even though every player is different, we can use TWPL from the late middle game, since in the beginning of the game, everything’s nearly the same. Everyone goes for 1.d4,1.e4, 1.c4, or 1.g3. Barely anything else is ever played. Through the middle game, it’s just the players who decide. It boils down to the endgame or the late middle game where the game is decided, so that’s when we can use TWPL to decide.

@PRIYAMVAD said ^

@Tactical-Attack dijo ^ > > > Esto no tiene sentido porque beneficia a los jugadores que eligen posiciones tranquilas y sin caos donde es más probable que hagan movimientos de motor, y fomenta un estilo de ajedrez menos agresivo, "de doble filo", ya que jugar de esa manera podría perjudicarlos en los desempates. > > > > Eso es cierto, pero como dijo @RuyLopez1000, en realidad son las partidas clásicas las que deciden el título. Cuanto mejor juegan los jugadores sus partidas, menor es el TPLV. No importa si hacemos las partidas blitz/rápidas en absoluto. Solo estamos tratando de dar una alternativa para ahorrar tiempo. Pero incluso en una partida clásica con control de tiempo, no se puede dar más crédito a una partida sólida de Anish Giri, que no toma riesgos y espera a que su oponente se mate a sí mismo, que a una partida de Alireza Firoujza o Richard Rapport, que complican cada partida en busca de un punto completo desde el principio. Incluso en una partida clásica con control de tiempo, se cometerán errores, y eso es parte del ajedrez; no disminuye el mérito de la lucha. Además, muchos movimientos que un humano no consideraría errores, incluso si la computadora dice que lo son, ya que estamos jugando contra personas reales, no contra peces de bacalao. Además, les impides hacer preparativos venenosos "humanos". Entiendo tu punto, pero lo que quiero decir es que solo estamos proponiendo una forma alternativa, y aunque cada jugador es diferente, podemos usar TWPL desde el final del medio juego, ya que al principio del juego, todo es casi igual. Todos van por 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.c4 o 1.g3. Casi nunca se juega nada más. Durante la fase intermedia, solo los jugadores deciden. Todo se reduce al final de la partida o a la fase intermedia avanzada, donde se decide el resultado, y es entonces cuando podemos usar TWPL para tomar la decisión.

So, that makes a little sense in 1v1, but it makes no sense at all in a multi-player tournament. Even so, I find this tie-breaking criterion unreliable, even in the 1v1 World Championship, since when one of the two is losing, it would force them to resign prematurely to avoid worsening their chances of defeat. I can imagine players resigning when the engine gives -1.8 without even trying.

Furthermore, it would be relative to use a conventional computer versus a 120-core supercomputer to analyze the game, since even Stockfish makes mistakes.

@PRIYAMVAD said [^](/forum/redirect/post/MvPxPWGm) > @Tactical-Attack dijo [^](/forum/redirect/post/Clr6FxxW) > > > Esto no tiene sentido porque beneficia a los jugadores que eligen posiciones tranquilas y sin caos donde es más probable que hagan movimientos de motor, y fomenta un estilo de ajedrez menos agresivo, "de doble filo", ya que jugar de esa manera podría perjudicarlos en los desempates. > > > > Eso es cierto, pero como dijo @RuyLopez1000, en realidad son las partidas clásicas las que deciden el título. Cuanto mejor juegan los jugadores sus partidas, menor es el TPLV. No importa si hacemos las partidas blitz/rápidas en absoluto. Solo estamos tratando de dar una alternativa para ahorrar tiempo. Pero incluso en una partida clásica con control de tiempo, no se puede dar más crédito a una partida sólida de Anish Giri, que no toma riesgos y espera a que su oponente se mate a sí mismo, que a una partida de Alireza Firoujza o Richard Rapport, que complican cada partida en busca de un punto completo desde el principio. Incluso en una partida clásica con control de tiempo, se cometerán errores, y eso es parte del ajedrez; no disminuye el mérito de la lucha. Además, muchos movimientos que un humano no consideraría errores, incluso si la computadora dice que lo son, ya que estamos jugando contra personas reales, no contra peces de bacalao. Además, les impides hacer preparativos venenosos "humanos". Entiendo tu punto, pero lo que quiero decir es que solo estamos proponiendo una forma alternativa, y aunque cada jugador es diferente, podemos usar TWPL desde el final del medio juego, ya que al principio del juego, todo es casi igual. Todos van por 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.c4 o 1.g3. Casi nunca se juega nada más. Durante la fase intermedia, solo los jugadores deciden. Todo se reduce al final de la partida o a la fase intermedia avanzada, donde se decide el resultado, y es entonces cuando podemos usar TWPL para tomar la decisión. So, that makes a little sense in 1v1, but it makes no sense at all in a multi-player tournament. Even so, I find this tie-breaking criterion unreliable, even in the 1v1 World Championship, since when one of the two is losing, it would force them to resign prematurely to avoid worsening their chances of defeat. I can imagine players resigning when the engine gives -1.8 without even trying. Furthermore, it would be relative to use a conventional computer versus a 120-core supercomputer to analyze the game, since even Stockfish makes mistakes.

@Tactical-Attack said ^

So, that makes a little sense in 1v1,

I don't see a problem with it.

but it makes no sense at all in a multi-player tournament.

I edited the blog as I agree that TWPL may not be suitable for tournaments as solid players would be favored over tactical/complex players.

Even so, I find this tie-breaking criterion unreliable, even in the 1v1 World Championship, since when one of the two is losing, it would force them to resign prematurely to avoid worsening their chances of defeat. I can imagine players resigning when the engine gives -1.8 without even trying.

No because the TWPL accounts for the fact that in extreme positions, the win percentage loss is lower as changes in evaluation won't effect the outcome as much (e.g. +10 to +8 is not much compared to +2 to 0). A player who is losing will not resign prematurely as they have the chance to improve their TWPL by improving their position as the winning opponent's TWPL would decrease at a faster rate due to how the win percentage works. (e.g. +10 to +8 is not much compared to +2 to 0).

Losing games is worse than having a lower TWPL score. The tiebreak doesn't change the fact that the players want to win games. Having a lead in the classical section is better than leading the TWPL. If the player has a practical chance of defending then they will play on.

I edited the blog to address this.

Furthermore, it would be relative to use a conventional computer versus a 120-core supercomputer to analyze the game, since even Stockfish makes mistakes.

The strongest and most consistent engine should be used in world class events (Stockfish), with optimal settings. The engine used, depth, search parameters and hardware should be disclosed publicly when measuring the TWPL and these settings should be kept consistent throughout the event.

@Tactical-Attack said [^](/forum/redirect/post/aiNPoyxg) > So, that makes a little sense in 1v1, I don't see a problem with it. >but it makes no sense at all in a multi-player tournament. I edited the blog as I agree that TWPL may not be suitable for tournaments as solid players would be favored over tactical/complex players. >Even so, I find this tie-breaking criterion unreliable, even in the 1v1 World Championship, since when one of the two is losing, it would force them to resign prematurely to avoid worsening their chances of defeat. I can imagine players resigning when the engine gives -1.8 without even trying. No because the TWPL accounts for the fact that in extreme positions, the win percentage loss is lower as changes in evaluation won't effect the outcome as much (e.g. +10 to +8 is not much compared to +2 to 0). A player who is losing will not resign prematurely as they have the chance to improve their TWPL by improving their position as the winning opponent's TWPL would decrease at a faster rate due to how the win percentage works. (e.g. +10 to +8 is not much compared to +2 to 0). Losing games is worse than having a lower TWPL score. The tiebreak doesn't change the fact that the players want to win games. Having a lead in the classical section is better than leading the TWPL. If the player has a practical chance of defending then they will play on. I edited the blog to address this. > Furthermore, it would be relative to use a conventional computer versus a 120-core supercomputer to analyze the game, since even Stockfish makes mistakes. The strongest and most consistent engine should be used in world class events (Stockfish), with optimal settings. The engine used, depth, search parameters and hardware should be disclosed publicly when measuring the TWPL and these settings should be kept consistent throughout the event.

I edited the blog as I agree that TWPL may not be suitable for tournaments as solid players would be favored over tactical/complex players.

@RuyLopez1000
Then why not combine TPLV and TWPL?

> I edited the blog as I agree that TWPL may not be suitable for tournaments as solid players would be favored over tactical/complex players. @RuyLopez1000 Then why not combine TPLV and TWPL?

I don't get the appeal. We have the TCEC already for engine level games. People could watch that instead if the goal was solely precision.

People watch human chess to see actual people strive.

Personally, I think the current system, for all its flaws is better then this dystopian alternative.

For an actual suggestion, I would consider some kind of classical Armageddon. Not sure if it would work, but it's atleast worth trying I believe

I don't get the appeal. We have the TCEC already for engine level games. People could watch that instead if the goal was solely precision. People watch human chess to see actual people strive. Personally, I think the current system, for all its flaws is better then this dystopian alternative. For an actual suggestion, I would consider some kind of classical Armageddon. Not sure if it would work, but it's atleast worth trying I believe

@PRIYAMVAD said ^

I edited the blog as I agree that TWPL may not be suitable for tournaments as solid players would be favored over tactical/complex players.

@RuyLopez1000
Then why not combine TPLV and TWPL?

The problem with TPLV is that centipawn loss is not ideal since a -2 centipawn loss is treated the same when going from +10 to +8 and +2 to 0. In both cases the centipawn loss is treated the same even though in the first case the player is still winning, while in the second case it goes from winning to equal.

@PRIYAMVAD said [^](/forum/redirect/post/drTx3gYc) > > I edited the blog as I agree that TWPL may not be suitable for tournaments as solid players would be favored over tactical/complex players. > > @RuyLopez1000 > Then why not combine TPLV and TWPL? The problem with TPLV is that centipawn loss is not ideal since a -2 centipawn loss is treated the same when going from +10 to +8 and +2 to 0. In both cases the centipawn loss is treated the same even though in the first case the player is still winning, while in the second case it goes from winning to equal.

@elkress said ^

I don't get the appeal. We have the TCEC already for engine level games. People could watch that instead if the goal was solely precision.

This is a tiebreak mechanism. The goal is to win the match on games.

People watch human chess to see actual people strive.

Why does this tiebreak mechanism change that?

Personally, I think the current system, for all its flaws is better then this dystopian alternative.

Why is it dystopian?

For an actual suggestion, I would consider some kind of classical Armageddon. Not sure if it would work, but it's atleast worth trying I believe

@elkress said [^](/forum/redirect/post/GQXPysaD) > I don't get the appeal. We have the TCEC already for engine level games. People could watch that instead if the goal was solely precision. This is a tiebreak mechanism. The goal is to win the match on games. > People watch human chess to see actual people strive. Why does this tiebreak mechanism change that? > Personally, I think the current system, for all its flaws is better then this dystopian alternative. Why is it dystopian? > For an actual suggestion, I would consider some kind of classical Armageddon. Not sure if it would work, but it's atleast worth trying I believe