FICS Teamleague

Board

Teamleague Forum

Championship FormatProposalsIndex ->

posted at 2017-09-28 16:54 by Yaro

Is anyone else bothered by the championship draw odds? Look at this season, where draw odds have already decided 75% of divisions before all the games have been played, despite the possibility of a match tie. This is just silly to me. I'm aware that several world championships have been decided by draw odds, but at a minimum of 10 games. With four games, a single loss by the lower seed already creates an almost insurmountable deficit. Consider the options:

A) If we must insist on rewarding the top seed, why not do so by adding more starting time to the normal 45 minutes, or extra increment? It's a psychological edge, but not nearly as crippling to the lower seed as being a half a point behind for no reason.

B) If a match is still tied after A is implemented, let's have a true tiebreak. The top boards from each side, preferably, will agree on a day to play rapid, blitz (if rapid is tied), and armageddon (if blitz is tied). If by some miracle no winner is crowned, only then use seeding to determine final standing.

C) If people are unwilling to play a tiebreak, reverse A and give the lower seed a starting time advantage or extra increment. At least that will create some counterbalance. As things currently stand, the lower seed is handicapped for no reason.

We're playing for fun, but we hold championships because people still want to be declared winners. Do people truly feel like winners when they win given a head start? Thanks for reading; looking forward to feedback.

Yaro

posted at 2017-09-29 03:09 by herrahuu

In short: I'm happy with the current format.

posted at 2017-09-29 03:18 by smallblackcat

I have a longer response ;)

The lower seed is handicapped for a very good reason - they performed worse throughout the tournament. I don't know of other round-robin tourneys that end with a playoff, and you could argue that such a system is less fair to the top seed.

The reason we have a playoff at all is because it keeps teams in contention for longer, thus maintaining interest. The current system is designed to balance that by giving the better regular season team an advantage.

I'd also point out that a tiebreaker involving only one player per team and/or shorter time controls doesn't account for the main problem - the extra game(s) have to be scheduled. This takes time, and frankly we don't have enough time between tourneys as it is.

It is unfortunate that all the sections were prematurely decided this time, because of the draw odds for the top seed. The question is whether this sort of situation demands changes.

posted at 2017-09-29 04:58 by kurumim

Hi, Yaro.

If we think about it, the event could feature just a round-robin tournament for each section and then after the traditional seven rounds there would be an undisputed champion with more MP or at least more GP (probably very seldom there would be ties). As sbc pointed out, the playoffs actually create an additional challenge for the top team and a chance for the second-placed team to revert the result of the regular season, so in principle they add excitement to the event, not to mention playing opportunities. However, as in any sports competition, sometimes the decisive clash just lacks the expected drama and isn’t particularly entertaining.

In my view, it’s just right that the team with the best campaign be rewarded with some advantage in the final. And draw odds are an appreciable advantage, but nothing huge: the mission of the ‘handicapped’ team is totally achievable if it presents the better chess. And I say this after my team lost the final in TL66 by 2-2: had I just drawn my game on that occasion, my teammates and I would’ve won, so I blame myself for the missed title, not the system.

Maybe it’s not exciting when the top team scores 2-0 right away in the final, but doesn’t it highlight the strength of that team over that season? To me it’s simply a matter of merit.

TL is known to be a great environment for players to enjoy longer games, so any changes to its time control making it rapid or blitz seem counterproductive to me.

In short, I also think the current system is fair and works to provide the players with as much fun as possible while respecting the calendar (two months for each season and a one-month break between them).

Best regards,
Roberto.

posted at 2017-09-29 13:49 by Yaro

Thank you for the replies.

I agree that adding a playoff to our traditional 7 round robin is more exciting and maintains more interest, but I disagree about what constitutes a fair advantage. I consider the playoffs a fresh start. Congratulations on being better than most teams; now fairly prove you're better than the remaining one(s).
Or, let's imagine the Dodgers and Indians start all their playoff games with a one run advantage, to create a cushion in case the other playoff scrubs who didn't finish first challenge them and ruin their great regular seasons. Fair?

I searched for recent Round Robins and came across the 2002 Dortmund/2004 Championship qualifier. The event started as a Round Robin, then morphed into a match knockout. Prior to the 4 game second round Shirov-Leko match, Shirov scored half a point better than Leko in the Round Robin. Their match started 0-0. Do you guys believe Shirov deserved a half point head start? And how would Leko have reacted if Shirov indeed got it?

Kurumim: Reading about how your team "lost" by a score of 2-2 is exactly the type of sentence that inspired my post to begin with. Sure, a half point deficit can be overcome, and your resolve to overcome it is admirable. But is it necessary? Again, there are other less crippling advantages to be had.

posted at 2017-09-29 16:40 by kurumim

Yaro, this is an interesting topic and your point of view is totally valid, but, thinking of fairness, let’s change the perspective: what’s the use of being the best over 7 rounds if that’s not taken into account in the decisive round? Again, as I see it, the competition could end after those 7 rounds and there would be no arguing about who was the champion (at least in the vast majority of cases), so the playoffs are more like a the-winner-takes-it-all opportunity for the second-placed team than anything else, and, as we’ve agreed, they bring more excitement and interest to the whole event and give players another shot at having fun. In addition to all that, the imbalance can be overcome, as we’ve also agreed, and it may lead players to take more risks in their games, which is something the audience always appreciates.

Your idea of a fresh match works well with divisions within a section. Let’s say next season there are 8 teams in the Fischer section. Making it two divisions of 4 teams, we’d have a double round-robin (6 rounds/weeks) and then the winners of the divisions would face off in the final without any advantage for either side. But in this case the finalists had basically different tourneys, so none proved better than the other (yet) and therefore there’s no reason for any advantage. However, what would we do in case of a tie in the final? Your suggestions are creative, but I don’t find them suitable for a long time control team event. One option would be to have an additional match (which would be the 8th round/week), as it used to happen in the past, and in case of a second tie the title could be shared, as it also used to happen in the past, but personally I find the idea of a single champion more attractive, so it’s not easy to come up with a solution. The main problem, actually, is that I don’t think a 4-team division provides as much fun as an 8-team section, or even a 7-team section.

All in all, draw odds seem to be a quick and easy solution to what could be a difficult problem, and I do think they're not unfair at all. But it’d be nice to hear from more players how they feel about the current system.

posted at 2017-09-29 18:54 by Yaro

Most of my ideas have been lifted from watching the World Cup, so I can't take much credit. I realize time constraints are a major issue, so suggesting tiebreaks may have been too enthusiastic. However, I still think implementing longer initial start times, maybe by 10 minutes, for the lower seed is a possibility.

I would also like to hear from other players, particularly those with championship experience.

posted at 2017-09-29 23:12 by schachbjm

I like the playoff system the way it is. The section winner needs a reward, which is given and past seasons showed that many lower seeds are able to beat the section winner. Additional Tie-Breaks would make the season longer for no reason.

posted at 2017-09-30 18:26 by joshuar

If we had enough players to return to Uxxxx divisions, with playoffs within divisions, I'd prefer that and no draw odds. But in the current situation, I think the draw odds make sense.

It's just a shame to see so many unplayed games in the "finals."

posted at 2017-09-30 21:09 by nebulus

You've got the champion and the challenger, challenger team has to prove that it is better. It's also a second chance for the runner-up team. Seems fair enough to me, and I've been on both type of teams. So I'd say the system is fine as it is.

posted at 2017-10-01 08:33 by Yaro

I applaud everyone's eagerness to play through an opening deficit. I'm still intrigued by this seemingly universal concept of fairness, but the people have spoken and I will drop the issue. I thank everyone for their time. On to next season.

posted at 2018-07-29 22:04 by blore

I absolutely back the people who have questioned the original post. It is not like the team with the draw-odds is like someone born with a silver spoon. It has been earned by better performance in the league stage. A counter argument is why have a final and not just the round robin? That has greater issues with ties. And it maybe a major handicap to over come a deficit, but if you look at the league stages it is not like there are no 3-1 3.5-0.5 or 4-0 wins. And the team starting with a disadvantage in the final is doing so for a good reason - they were second best in the qualifying stages. If they still go on to win, then excellent. And thinking on the fly, I said 3-1, 3.5-0.5 and 4-0 wins but even a 2.5-1.5 win is enough to win the final for the second placed team. I think it is fair.