I believe we should give better tiebreaks to people who are above the average age of the U.S. population, below the average age-relevant height, and above the ideal weight.
In fact (Age - Average Age) x (Average Height - Height) x (Weight - Ideal weight at age) is probably a good start on a new tiebreak formula. What could be more meritorious than being old, short and fat and still doing well in a tournament?
Good suggestion. As a further refinement, why not give better tiebreaks to those who understand that in some case tiebreaks don’t work at all, than to those who continue to argue in favor of tiebreak systems that don’t work.
If you declare a tie and divide the prize money equally, there’s no need for any tie breaks. I wonder if that might spur players to try harder for a win so as not to have to split prize money, particularly when it appears that a tournament is headed toward more than two tied for first.
I’m amazed at the resistance to accept Rapid Chess as “real chess.” Given the depth of opening preparation in today’s game, G/30 is almost as good as Classical games from 50 years ago. The Liren-Carlson games were just fine by me.
The introduction of computer prep probably means more draws in top-level events. The salvation is that G/30, and then blitz can help determine who is the best chess player overall. Gone are the days when a reigning World Champ can retain his title with a drawn match. And, I hope to never see a replay of the Smyslov-Huebner candidates match where their time in the casino was up, so they decided the match with a spin of the roulette wheel. ( I think Smyslov won by predicting “Red.” I guess if it had come up “00” they’d still be playing in the Casino bar.)
Probably not. The upside is solo first vs three way split of 1-2-3. The downside is almost certainly a tie for 3-4, etc. Even if the downside were solo 3rd, you would have to have a rather steep dropoff from 1–>2–>3 (which the players hate) to make a rational person (i.e. not a moron on a game show) prefer the risk.
Doesntvthat reasoning contradict your premise in the first post?
I do think at the top level they are motivated more by titles than by money. Forblesser GMs that’s likely less true. Would one approach to tiebreaks and prizes be in order for the elite and another for “regular GMs”?
Consider that the (now) standard method of dealing with playoffs is to only compete for 50% of the gap between 1st and 2nd. (Unlike, say, golf, where the winner of a playoff gets the full 1st prize, plus all the (considerable) perks that go with winning). Do you think that was for the benefit of the organizer? All indications from at least the last few decades is that, at least when competing against each other, super GM’s are very risk-averse and want the prize funds designed to mirror that.
I was thinking more like “Deal or No Deal” where people will turn down an actuarially fair offer of 200K because they “know” that the million dollars is in their case. (I’ve always been under the assumption that anyone who could actually deal with the strategy for that show will never be invited on as it would be too boring). “Wheel of Fortune” has a game within a game strategy because there is a potentially enormous gain from finishing first, so you might solve a puzzle prematurely because you don’t want to let the next person solve it if you get a bad spin.
No. My position is that there should be joint winners in the event of a tie. At this tournament there were no joint winners, but there was a tie break system in use. Regardless of whether that tie break system was a good one, I’d prefer using that rather than rapid/blitz playoff games.
Seriously? Better to award first prize based upon a rather arbitrary formula than by playing chess? Clearly the organizers of these (i.e. the folks who actually put up the $$$) have decided that they want an actual champion for each tournament rather than joint winners. And so far as I can tell, no “tie breaks” are used in the GCT other than those based upon playing more chess.
Yes, indeed. Re-read what I wrote. MY first choice is no tiebreak and no playoff. Share first through whatever place and split the prize money. If the organizers decide to use a tie break system, not arbitrarily as you assert, but after giving due consideration to the tie breaker to be used, I would prefer the tie breaker to using rapid and blitz games to decide the winner. IMO, using rapid and blitz demeans the spirit of classical chess even more than does a tiebreak system. Your view may differ. Matters not to me what you prefer.
Wasn’t the 2018 Rex Cup decided by sharing the championship between three players after two tie breaking playoff scenarios were rejected by two of the players? The chess world seems to have survived quite well.
And obviously the organizers of the GCT have decided that they’re not going to leave it up to the whims of the players. Besides the apparent desire to have an actual “champion” of each event, the money earned is part of the system for deciding which players make the tour final. (Points are shared equally in event of a tie and points are the first criterion, but money comes in if points are equal). There is no way on earth that a group of organizers who are trying to make chess seem more interesting/more professional are going to basically put things up to what amounts to a coin flip. (Note that the GCT has only two classical tournaments—it’s primarily quicker chess to start).
What they have is an “actual champion” in a classical event determined by blitz games. IMO, with which you may certainly disagree, the classical championship that results from blitz games under such circumstances is diminished in sporting terms as is the classical game of chess. But, you are correct in that the promoters, but not all of the fans of classical chess, do get what they want. In the case of a classical champion determined via blitz games, that’s a major yawn in my book. You’re clearly reading a different book. Enjoy your book…
