2017 World Cup 2-27 September, Tbilisi

[Stewart Reuben]

Am I alone n thinking decidinig matters by ARMAGEDDON is completely wrong?
It is not chess, it is a variant of chess. It isn't even covered in the Laws.
Ashot Vardapetian suggested a better system, but it has not been taken up. I call it FIRST BLOOD. Rate of play perhaps 3 minutes + 3 second increment.
Player A has White in the first game by lottery. Then B has White, then Black. Then it returns to A who has one of each colour.
And so it continues, until somebody wins a game.
Of course, another day has to be allotted fo this playoff.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Almost feeling a bit sorry for Wesley after the battering on this thread

Personally, I was - unfairly or otherwise - put off him a while ago by his shrill and intolerant online fanboys.

The abuse many of them heaped on Akobian after THAT incident was disgraceful.

[NickFaulks]

Player A has White in the first game by lottery. Then B has White, then Black. Then it returns to A who has one of each colour. And so it continues, until somebody wins a game.

This must be advantageous to the player who first has the white pieces.

[Angus French]

Player A has White in the first game by lottery. Then B has White, then Black. Then it returns to A who has one of each colour. And so it continues, until somebody wins a game.

This must be advantageous to the player who first has the white pieces.

How about WBBWWBB.... as a fairer colour sequence?

[NickFaulks]

How about WBBWWBB.... as a fairer colour sequence?

I think that is what was meant. Clearly advantageous to the first White.

edit : still not a bad idea.

[LawrenceCooper]

Player A has White in the first game by lottery. Then B has White, then Black. Then it returns to A who has one of each colour. And so it continues, until somebody wins a game.

This must be advantageous to the player who first has the white pieces.

How about WBBWWBB.... as a fairer colour sequence?

Agreed, as in tennis tie-breaks and recently trialled in football albeit having white in a first to one tie-break is clearly an advantage.

[Alex Holowczak]

This must be advantageous to the player who first has the white pieces.

How about WBBWWBB.... as a fairer colour sequence?

Agreed, as in tennis tie-breaks and recently trialled in football albeit having white in a first to one tie-break is clearly an advantage.

Well, any sequence that has the potential to end after an odd number of games is unfair. For example, tennis tie-breaks must have an even number of points, unless someone has won it 7-0, 7-2 or 7-4.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Would a system like in tennis work in chess at the blitz stage? Needing to get two ahead, with (obviously) a minimum of two games played? No need to make it a minimum as in tennis (6 games, as in a tennis set; or 7 tie-break points, as in a tennis tie-break). The obvious question would be why is this not done at the classical or rapidplay stage? In chess, you alternate colours (white and black). In tennis, you alternate serve, which is in some ways analogous and in other ways not. I wonder if the stats are similar (White wins versus points won on serve)?

[Peter Shaw]

I have always thought that WBBWWBB... should be used in World Championship matches as this is obviously fairer than WBWBWB... Instead they've introduced the colour switch half way through which seems a rather complicated way of doing it.

It's also a mystery to me why tennis doesn't use this system in sets when they use it in tiebreaks. It is clearly unfair that one player always serves first, especially in the final set. Has there ever been any stats done on this?

[LawrenceCooper]

How about WBBWWBB.... as a fairer colour sequence?

Agreed, as in tennis tie-breaks and recently trialled in football albeit having white in a first to one tie-break is clearly an advantage.

Well, any sequence that has the potential to end after an odd number of games is unfair. For example, tennis tie-breaks must have an even number of points, unless someone has won it 7-0, 7-2 or 7-4.

At least then though it's hard to grumble too much about the opponent having had one more serve when they've won by 3, 5 or 7 points.

[NickFaulks]

It's also a mystery to me why tennis doesn't use this system in sets when they use it in tiebreaks. It is clearly unfair that one player always serves first

Why is it unfair? It can only be psychological, and I don't even really understand that.

[Alex Holowczak]

It's also a mystery to me why tennis doesn't use this system in sets when they use it in tiebreaks. It is clearly unfair that one player always serves first, especially in the final set. Has there ever been any stats done on this?

The idea at the moment is that:-
A serves game 1 from end 1
B serves game 2 from end 1
A serves game 3 from end 2
B serves game 4 from end 2

And so on. If you did as you suggest with serving, the serves would always come from the same end. That would be bad, because serving from different ends adds complexity (e.g. sun location, other climatic factors, other court factors). In the days of serve-and-volley, the grass near the net would have been in terrible condition at one end, but near pristine at the other!

[Stewart Reuben]

I think :I made a clerical error about Ashot's original suggestion:
WBBWWBB etc. indeed seems correct.

Since Armageddon isn't chess, I would have thought a fairer tiebreak might be to resolve it in favour of the player who played more moves with Black. That would discourage short draws.

[NickFaulks]

I would have thought a fairer tiebreak might be to resolve it in favour of the player who played more moves with Black.

The players would have to be careful to avoid five time (consecutive) repetition, allowing the arbiter to step in and foil their plan to create an inordinately long game.

[JustinHorton]

We should decide it by asking the players to type sequences of the letters W and B shouted out by the arbiters until one of them makes a mistake and is eliminated.