2017 World Cup 2-27 September, Tbilisi

[Michael Farthing]

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.

Surely only black would want a longer game?

[Peter Shaw]

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.

It's got to be a disadvantage to be always coming from behind, even if it is just psychological. I've googled some statistics and apparently the player serving first wins 55.4% of the time in the first set. In other sets, it's less than 50% in general, but that will be because more often than not the player serving first will be the one who lost the previous set, therefore the weaker player.

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!

No because under that system you would obviously swap ends after even numbered games rather than odd numbered games.

[LawrenceCooper]

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.

Surely only black would want a longer game?

My thought was that if white has a lost position then they may play on until mate.

[Michael Farthing]

Why would white be more likely to play on than under present rules. There is no advantage giving black a longer game, and if the two are on similar points there would be a distinct disadvantage. Don't you mean if Black were in a lost position..?

[Tim Harding]

...Tennis... It is clearly unfair that one player always serves first, especially in the final set. Has there ever been any stats done on this?

That is factually incorrect. The same player (who had first serve in set one) serves first in the next set only if the just-concluded set had an even number of games. If it is won 6-3, as quite often happens, or 6-1, as sometimes happens, then the other player gets first serve in the subsequent set.

If the set goes to tiebreak, then it's 7-6 and I believe the tiebreak counts as a game served by the first player, so the first serve in the next set again changes.

If this wasn't the case you wouldn't see players who win the toss sometimes opting to receive.

So that is why you won't find the stats you asked about; your major premise was faulty.

[NickFaulks]

It's got to be a disadvantage to be always coming from behind, even if it is just psychological. I've googled some statistics and apparently the player serving first wins 55.4% of the time in the first set.

That does sound convincing. I'm very surprised it's that high.

[Alex Holowczak]

It's got to be a disadvantage to be always coming from behind, even if it is just psychological. I've googled some statistics and apparently the player serving first wins 55.4% of the time in the first set.

That does sound convincing. I'm very surprised it's that high.

How often does the person seeded higher serve first?

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick, You are out of date. You stated: 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.

The 2017 Law states: 9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times. Consecutive has been removed.

I have just realised, White would resign as soon as he perceived he had a lost position, or agree a draw in an equal position. Dammit, another foolproof, albeit cockeyed, tiebreak system bites the dust.

[NickFaulks]

It's got to be a disadvantage to be always coming from behind, even if it is just psychological. I've googled some statistics and apparently the player serving first wins 55.4% of the time in the first set.

That does sound convincing. I'm very surprised it's that high.

How often does the person seeded higher serve first?

I'm assuming this is based on enough data that it's close to 50%. Of course I haven't checked the data, which one always should ( see climate change ).

[Tim Harding]

It's got to be a disadvantage to be always coming from behind, even if it is just psychological. I've googled some statistics and apparently the player serving first wins 55.4% of the time in the first set.

That does sound convincing. I'm very surprised it's that high.

How often does the person seeded higher serve first?

Presumably 50 per cent as they toss for it. Though sometimes players back themselves to break in the opening game before the opponent has fully got going.
Look at tactics of Federer at Wimbledon. If I recall correctly, he won the toss, opted to receive and broke Cilic's serve in the opening game.

To be first server is a bigger advantage in the fifth set at Wimbledon when there is a long final set with no tiebreak, e.g. the match Nadal eventually lost (to Gilles Mueller?) Then the psychological pressure really builds because if the first server keeps holding, the opponent is constantly in a must-win situation on serve. Whereas if the first server is broken, he still gets a chance to break back.

This is why the colour sequence has been reversed in recent chess world title matches.

[Alex Holowczak]

Though sometimes players back themselves to break in the opening game before the opponent has fully got going.
Look at tactics of Federer at Wimbledon. If I recall correctly, he won the toss, opted to receive and broke Cilic's serve in the opening game.

I've heard those tactics a few times, far more than I've heard the opposite tactic.

To be first server is a bigger advantage in the fifth set at Wimbledon when there is a long final set with no tiebreak, e.g. the match Nadal eventually lost (to Gilles Mueller?) Then the psychological pressure really builds because if the first server keeps holding, the opponent is constantly in a must-win situation on serve. Whereas if the first server is broken, he still gets a chance to break back.

It's not just Wimbledon - the US Open is the only Grand Slam to have a tie-break in the 5th set. Davis Cup has recently introduced tie-breaks in the 5th set, it didn't have them at all until 1989.

[Peter Shaw]

...Tennis... It is clearly unfair that one player always serves first, especially in the final set. Has there ever been any stats done on this?

That is factually incorrect. The same player (who had first serve in set one) serves first in the next set only if the just-concluded set had an even number of games. If it is won 6-3, as quite often happens, or 6-1, as sometimes happens, then the other player gets first serve in the subsequent set.

If the set goes to tiebreak, then it's 7-6 and I believe the tiebreak counts as a game served by the first player, so the first serve in the next set again changes.

If this wasn't the case you wouldn't see players who win the toss sometimes opting to receive.

So that is why you won't find the stats you asked about; your major premise was faulty.

That wasn't what I meant, but can see how it could be read that way. I thought it was clear my premise was that ABABAB... is unfair compared to ABBAABB.... Must remember to stop posting throwaway comments on this forum!

The stat I'd be most interested in is the percentage in final sets which reach 6-6 but I can't seem to find it. I suspect the player serving first would win over 55% of the time. If it's 50% then obviously I'm talking nonsense!

[Mick Norris]

To be first server is a bigger advantage in the fifth set at Wimbledon when there is a long final set with no tiebreak, e.g. the match Nadal eventually lost (to Gilles Mueller?) Then the psychological pressure really builds because if the first server keeps holding, the opponent is constantly in a must-win situation on serve. Whereas if the first server is broken, he still gets a chance to break back.

This is why the colour sequence has been reversed in recent chess world title matches.

No, it is because of the rest days i.e. to ensure the same player doesn't always have white after a rest day

[IM Jack Rudd]

There's a good piece on the subject here. So serving first in the first set seems to give an advantage; serving first in the final set seems to have no appreciable effect.

[IM Jack Rudd]

There's a good piece on the subject here. So serving first in the first set seems to give an advantage; serving first in the final set seems to have no appreciable effect.

EDIT: The specific case of marathon final sets is considered here. The figures there are too close to call.