Rule suggestion: one break only / player + armageddon game

Since too long matches raise practical questions and even carry the possibility of forfeit ( as sadly happened in a high profile case ), I suggest two modifications:

1. Each player can only request one ten minute break during the whole match. So there can be at most two ten minute breaks ( if both players request it and at different times ). The request can be made after any game.

2. If after ten games the score is equal an armageddon game shall be played, at the usual time control, the higher seeded player having the white pieces, draw being a win for black. Given the big advantage of white in atomic chess this seems a fair deal.

Bonus suggestion:

All official communication between players ( like requesting a break ) should be on the game chat so that spectators can verify the communication.

If you agree or have other similar suggestions please support this thread so that we can make the championship more fair.

Thanks sakkozik, it's a good idea to have this thread. The current rules will stay in place for the final match, however I agree that the controversial end to the onubense vs Arka match suggests that they should be revised for future events.

I think two breaks per person would be OK instead of 1, but I agree that each 2 games is too much. I do not like your second suggestion though. I would even prefer to speed up the time control if we want to reduce the tie-break time but have colours even.

I think it may be confusing making communication in the spectator area. Players will not regularly check there and will miss it. I think it is OK in the current rules and in the unlikely event that there is an argument I think screenshots can be used.

My initital proposals for rule changes/additions:

1. A player can request a maximum of 2 breaks between games, of approximately 10 minutes, during the match;
2. No time breaks can be requested during the tie-break;
3. A player may suspend the match after an even number of games from game 14 onwards;
4. The player requesting the suspension must notify the opponent prior to the final game of the session;
5. The player not requesting a suspension will offer at least 3 potential times for a resumption within 24 hours. One of these must be selected by their opponent;
6. Lying and/or misleading the TD may result in forfeit;

For #3 I arrived at 14 games with the calculation: a game of 30 moves can last 8 minutes, so breaks (40m) + 14 games (8m each) = 152m. Going much beyond 2.5 hours seems long to me.

What do you think about Armageddon game with time negotiation? I think time negotiation (especially the blitz without tiebreak) might effectively remove the first move advantage, which may vary according to player's level and their theoretical knowledge. Black gets 3 minutes without increment and both players choose the time for white (in nearest 15 seconds). The one who chose lower time holds white. The time could be adjusted by adding 15 seconds.

Actually, for the tournament I am planning, I am considering the format of 8 games + 2 tiebreak + Armageddon and break after game 4, 8, and two tiebreaks.

@kclee2172 that idea is more interesting to me. I don't particularly like Armageddon games but they would simplify things in the unlikely event a match went long. Is it possible to challenge a player to time odds games, or do players need to sit while the time runs down?

I can also see logistical problems. How would each player make their Armageddon offers if the TD is not online? They could message the TD with their time before each match but this is not idea for two reasons:

1. If the TD is a player it could give them extra information about potential opponents they would not otherwise have
2. The player may change their mind based on how the match goes e.g. White being less dominant than expected

@tipau They can message the TD or match arbiter(in case TD is one of the player) the time after the second tiebreak games within the break and declare what time they messaged the TD after the break. I think it would be impossible to cheat as the message shows the time it is sent. Maybe I can set a rule requiring the message regarding the Armageddon time should be sent within five minutes after the second tiebreak games.

For adjusting the time, it is possible to use the feature of "Add 15 seconds". For example, if white has 1 minute and 45 seconds while black has 3 minute, the player can start the game with 1 minute and black add 15 seconds 3 times while white does it 8 times. Actually, I want to check whether this works. May I message and challenge you for blitz game to test this?

@kclee2172 I'm happy to help test it

@kclee2172 I've tested it against Stockfish and it seems to work fine. A little bit of a fiddle to arrange but not so bad. I'm happy to incorporate an Armageddon game with these offers if the score is even after 14 games. Updated rule proposals:

1. A player can request a maximum of 2 breaks between games, of approximately 10 minutes, during the match;
2. No time breaks can be requested during a tie-break;
3. If the score is even after 14 games an Armageddon game will be played. Black will have 3 minutes and draw odds. Each player will message the TD a time offer for White, with the lowest offer playing White. If the offers are identical the higher seed will play White. There will be no increment;

Another idea that has been suggested is to extend the length of the match for later rounds. For example:
Up to Last 8 = best of 10 games, 2 pairs of tie-break games then Armageddon
Semi Finals = best of 12 games, 1 pair of tie-break games then Armageddon
Final = best of 14 games then Armageddon

For the most part #8 is quite reasonable.

Minor observations:

Already the tie breaks should played at 3 minutes with no increment. Makes it faster and increases the likelihood of decisive results.

Don't change the format for later stages. Every match should be in the same format. Apart from it making little sense it has a huge drawback that players during the qualifying round get accostumed to something than all of a sudden there is a change that they don't anticipate.

I maintain that two breaks per player is too much given that if both players take their breaks this is four breaks already. However it can reasonably be assumed that at least one player will be interested in speeding up the process therefore not all breaks will be taken. At least this does not allow a single player to abuse breaks which is good enough.

@sakkozik

I made every match to 10 games in the current tournament for the reason you give. It's good to get positive feedback on that, although others have asked for the opposite. I don't think that it would be a big adjustment for the players to play a few extra games at the same tc though. Still, I'm happy to go either way. I think the adjustment of removing the inc for the tie break is more likely to cause the kind of a problem you describe, which is why I don't like it.

My thinking for 2 breaks is:
1 break = bathroom. The match could be 2.5 hours long...
1 break = check some opening lines. It's boring to watch and horrible to play when one person plays the same opening and the opponent has no idea what to do.