Proposal 2 x 2 year cycle of World Championships adults

[Managing Board]

Proposal 2 x 2 year cycle of World Championships adults

World Championship Year 1 (2003)
Round robin tournament 20 players
Participants:
- World Champion
- Challenger
- Champion of organizing federation
- Special FMJD/Sponsor place
- From previous WC : 3 best after Champion and challenger
- European Confederation: 7
- African Confederation: 4
- American Confederation: 2
- Asian Confederation: 1
All reserves come from qualification tournaments, if scored 50% or more.

World Championship Women
Round Robin tournament 14 players
Participants:
- World Champion
- Challenger
- Europe: European Championship: 5
- America: 1
- Asia: 1
- Africa: 1
- Organizing Federation: 1
- Sponsor place: 1
- FMJD places: 2
Reserves from Europe




Year 2: (2004)

Match: between new champion and ex-champion. If no new champion: between world champion and nr. 2


Match between world champion women and ex-champion. If no new champion: between world champion and nr. 2
European Championship

Year 3: (2005)
Two stage tournament World Championship
Participants: 40
First phase: 4 groups of 10 players: 9 rounds: best 4 qualify. No direct placement in finals
Final: 16 players, knock-out system: 4 rounds of two days each.
Qualification:
- World Champion & Challenger
- From previous World Championship 5 next best
- Organizing Federation + Special FMJD/sponsor place: 3
- World Champion women
- One player from each national federation supplemented by one player per large federation (max. 26)
- From FMJD rating (and not yet qualified): 3 best

Round Robin tournament 14 players
Participants:
- World Champion
- Challenger
- Europe: European Championship : 5
- America: 1
- Asia: 1
- Africa: 1
- Organizing Federation: 1
- Sponsor place: 1
- FMJD places: 2
Reserves from Europe


Year 4: (2006)
Match: between new champion and ex-champion. If no new champion: between world champion and nr. 2

Continental Championships
Match between world champion women and ex-champion. If no new champion: between world champion and nr. 2

European Championship

[Jacques PERMAL]

I think that it is very urgent to ratify an easier system like in european football or qualification system for world cup football.

[Arnaud CORDIER]

I think it's a too simple system.

Why not a 3 x 10 year cycle of World championship, mixing Round robin system, swiss system, knock-out system, group of qualification, match with set , match without set, candidates matches, match against computer, ...

Sometimes, I really think you are crazy in FMJD.

Look at the lastest 10 years :

• 1995 : Candidates matches to rescue Tchizjov, nr 8 in 1994 World Championship??
  • 1995 : Tchizjov win the match (in quick games) in february 1996
    • 1996 : Abidjan, no comment on the qualification
      • 1997 : Challenge mondial on swiss system ?? => stupid barrages
        • 1998 : Schwarzman win the match
          • 1999 : Nothing
            • 2000 : Tchizov win the WorlChampionship in february 2001
              • 2001 : Nothing
                • 2002 : Challenge mondial on swiss system ?? => stupid barrages (one time is not enough, try again crazy system)
                  • 2003 : Georgiev win the match a become World Champion ... for 2 months
                  You don't think it's enough ??
                  
                  What was the problem with the cycle of 2 years ??
                  
                  even year : round robinsystem with 20 players
                  uneven year : match against first and second (and with no advantage for title holder)
                  and also zonal for other for next even year (read championship)
                  These zonals could be called also "European Championship", "Asian Championship", ...

[Jacques PERMAL]

As Arnaud said, It is a system unbelievable and incredible !!!!
Football World cup qualification system is understandable for everyone.Each geographical area has a number team determined by FIFA criterias ( footballistic strength in particulary). Europe and South America have most of representatives.
So it is fair to allow a 60% of players of former USSR, Netherlands and Senegal to defence their supremacy. But it is unfair to create a 2-year system misunderstandable by the observers like ...me !!!!

[Wieger Wesselink]

To me the cycle for the world championships draughts has become more
like an experimental platform then a serious tournament. There is no
consistency at all, and in that sense the new proposal is no improvement.

I don't like the new trend for deciding everything with blitz games.
Both the set system in the matches and the knock out system in the
normal tournament are clearly in favour of the strong blitz players.
It's not that I don't like blitz games (on the contrary), but I would
like to keep it separated. Unfortunately the revival of the WC blitz
(The Hague 1998, London 1999, Tel Aviv 2000) was only temporary.

One of the things that bothers me is that the qualification for the
world championship is always accompanied by problems and unclarities.
To name just a few:
- In the last zonal tournament in Cannes, there was confusion about how
many Dutch players could qualify for the WC. Besides that, there was
confusion about the rights of some strong players to take part in this
tournament.
- In the WC'94 and in the final of the Challenge '97 there were places
to earn for the next WC. Not all of the players were aware of this(!)
- In the WC'2000 cycle, the title defender suddenly lost his right for
a rematch.
- In the Challenge '97 and the Challenge 2002 there was much confusion
about the direct qualification of some players for the final.
And so on...
I think these problems are caused by the failure of the FMJD to publish
the detailed rules well ahead of the tournament, and also by the tendency
to make last minute changes.

I agree with Arnaud Cordier that the system for the Challenge tournaments
in 1997 and 2002 was crazy. How is it possible that the results of the
opponents are simply ignored in a Swiss tournament??? I have never seen
such an unfair system before.

I propose that the EC no longer is used as a qualification tournament
for the WC. The EC is held irregularly, and more often than not it is
unclear how people can/did qualify for it. I also fail to see the need
to give away places for a WC in such a tournament. An awkward side
effect of this is that Rob Clerc had no less than 4(!) opportunities to
qualify for the WC.

At this stage for me the most important improvement would be more
consistency in the cycle for the world championships. I also would
like to see detailed regulations on the website of the FMJD at least
one year ahead of the tournaments.

[Nicolas Guibert]

And what about this world team championship in London in 2000 ?

Where there was confusion about the way the teams were ranked with an equal number of points (resistance points like in any swiss system, or the stupid sum of the board points)

Even after the last round, there was justified criticism about the way, this was handled.


PS : when you scored 6-0 about the weakest team (UK), it counted as 6 board points, whereas is should have counted as 0 honor point (the UK did not score any point). When you had the chance to play against UK, not only you won for sure, you also got a very high board points total. Stupid, hey ?

[A.Presman]

Being agree with the big part of criticism here I have still to emphasize the practical way how decisions are being made and how this new system will come up.

There is General Assembly which take decision about changes in the system. Sometime some active person take an initiative and put his proposition on paper. If he has a national federation behind him and this national federation is able to send a letter to the FMJD in time - this proposition comes to the GA agenda.
Imagine that CD or President support this suggestion. And if this suggestion looks attractive for so called "small" federations, which wouldn't normally have any player in the final stage of the WCh.
Than automatically happens what happened in 1994 when Mr. H. Macaux introduced all this .
Since that black moment we have all we have.
But after everybody recognized that Challenge is very bad system - CD (President) doesn't dare to come back.
Firstly because it would be the recognition of mistake made by the same people.
And secondly because the majority of the General Assembly depends still from small federations and their votes are important.

And no one federation (as far as I know) made a A4 or e-mail with the suggestion simply step back to the old system.

So if coming week nothing will be registered - only mentioned system will be put to the voting...