HWC 2023 Preparation and voting!

@Kofeynya said in #4:
> I believe 1+1, 2+1, 3+1 are well balanced. For a world championship format, 3+1 is appropriate. This is superior to both 2+2 or 3+2.
>
> Black is not so much better in horde, even if winning by force. Still it is easier to play due its apparent power. Horde remains more balanced than say, atomic or antichess.
>
> If I had to choose between 2+2 or 3+2 I would say 3+2 but then the thing is wildecats will win the tournament :))

shhhhhhhh they aren't supposed to know about wildecats!

also I don't think colour matters @ravif, if we do it so that one can only win by having a 2 point advantage- a player would have to win as white in order to ever get a 2 point advantage.

i think so

btw @Horde_Coach do u prefer 2+2 or 3+1?

I would prefer 3 + 2 for a world championship to have more quality games as the best play here. I don't have comments with which option could be in tiebreaks but definitely a 2 points difference could extend a lot due to the black and white difference, so I think it could be first the 2 points difference and then after a certain amount of matches, go to Armagedón.

As @Dude128 points out, you can't win by 2 without winning a 2-game mini-match, and they're completely equivalent if there are no draws. The only real difference is whether a 1.5-0.5 mini-match is enough to break a tie. It probably won't make a big difference, but personally I think it should be enough. I have three reasons for this. The first is simple: the players have had equal opportunities to play with white and black, and one scored better than the other. No need to spend more time breaking a tie that's already broken.

Second, if you have to win by 2, then color choice could *potentially* matter after a 1.5-0.5 mini-match has occurred. If we assume that black has better chances in general, then it's an advantage to have black first, so that you're more likely to close the tiebreaker out at 2.5-0.5 (or to not get closed out by the same score). But I'll concede that draws are rare enough (plus black's advantage is modest enough at most human levels) that this isn't a very serious handicap.

And finally, I'll admit it: I like draws and want them to have a meaningful impact on the match result when they happen. :)

I think, 2+2 will be best

1. I would enjoy 2+2 more
2. Best of 10, but the winner needs 2 points lead to win
3. Play until somebody is 2 pointy ahead

@Kofeynya said in #13:
> i think so
>
> btw @Horde_Coach do u prefer 2+2 or 3+1?

Honestly 2+1 but if I had to choose I Think 3+1

@ravif said in #15:
> As @Dude128 points out, you can't win by 2 without winning a 2-game mini-match, and they're completely equivalent if there are no draws. The only real difference is whether a 1.5-0.5 mini-match is enough to break a tie. It probably won't make a big difference, but personally I think it should be enough. I have three reasons for this. The first is simple: the players have had equal opportunities to play with white and black, and one scored better than the other. No need to spend more time breaking a tie that's already broken.
>
> Second, if you have to win by 2, then color choice could *potentially* matter after a 1.5-0.5 mini-match has occurred. If we assume that black has better chances in general, then it's an advantage to have black first, so that you're more likely to close the tiebreaker out at 2.5-0.5 (or to not get closed out by the same score). But I'll concede that draws are rare enough (plus black's advantage is modest enough at most human levels) that this isn't a very serious handicap.
>
> And finally, I'll admit it: I like draws and want them to have a meaningful impact on the match result when they happen. :)

I mean if a draw occurs that’s kinda blacks fault for not winning a winning position(starting position). I think in that case colour still would not matter as the person who first played as black kinda gave the advantage to white.

Also should there be equity for those that per se disconnect during a game? And how about being late; how late is too late?? @Dude128