@mkubecek I was speaking of experience in the abstract sense rather than concrete. So from the data you've provided, and what I said earlier, about how one can easily take 10 minutes here or there during a winning 60 minute classical position with 30 minutes on your clock for example where your opponent still hasn't resigned when they could've. It's technically possible, and no I'm not going to go through your games and see how much of your time usage was wasted, when you could have basically just played your move instantly because it was 100% forced else loss for example yet taking several minutes, searching for these kinds of things. Will I search for them? No.. I don't really care to go through for both of us and resolve how our aggregation of experiences on lichess would amount to who the stronger chess player is. I arguably have a shot against you in classical, just due to personal reasons involving relationships between myself and masters. And it seems you wouldn't even begin to cope against me in ultra or hyper for example, though you also have hidden experiences not known by me for example you might have an alt with thousands of ultra games or maybe you've played 1/2+0 or 1/4+0 anonymously on incognito
lichess.org for example and developed plans to overcome a top 1000 player and you're ready to execute, then you can definitely win some games. But I mean if you want to play a match this is a format that could work:
3 classical games
5 rapid games
7 blitz games
11 bullet games
11 ultra games
Each row constitutes 1155 total points, and you sum each row your score is and whoever is larger at the end wins.
For example
in classical, suppose my score was LWW = 2/3
I would get 1155 * (2/3) = 770 points and you 385.
We do that for each rated time control for standard chess on
lichess.org, to make sure we account for every rated category in standard
lichess.orgThe match's winner is determined by whose sum of scores across all the rows is larger. It's possible though seems fairly unlikely to draw the match. Each time control is taken to be the minimum amount of time necessary to be deemed that category. For example, that means 1/2+0 is for bullet. It's hard to say whether 1/4+whatever is shorter than 3+0, so the tournament organizer would need to write a script to iterate over the lichess database and total up the distributions for amount of time taken in each possible time control for each category of time controls, like 3+0 versus 1/4+whatever it takes to become blitz, which of these two have faster games on average? I guess we do it like that, but honestly we could also pick one time control at a time, like, I pick 1/2+0 for bullet then you say 45+45 classical, then I say 8+0 rapid, then you say 5+4 blitz.
Get it?
I think that's better where we just hand it off one at a time picking a time control for each possible time control category, then slowly we eventually play all the games. The way the games will be distributed is also important. So we would need to agree on that too, and a time and a date.
But anyway, this all assumes we can get a prize pool and someone or organization to sponsor it anyway, and it seems weird to want to give money to furnish an online match between two lichess ppl, one who is obsessed with bullet, and the other, classical. But anyway I'm sure you're not interested in playing me in ultra/hyper but I think it's a reasonable definition for covering 'chess knowledge' to be able to play off instincts as well as deeper more strategical calculation, and the passing off of deciding the time controls helps to keep the whole thing more balanced towards equality. Though whoever goes first in that also has to have 1 more black game than the other player, I think that should be possible to do by just alternating and they start with black if they chose the first time control.