Candidates!?!?

I agree with xuanet in this point.

Please calm down and
try to focus why we all started playing crazyhouse ->
because its fun ! :)

I hope Fumitoks and the other top players will play in the event.

Greetings , Bad

Hi everyone,

Great to see so much passion in the discussion for this event. Sounds like this is going to be great! Just throwing in my two cents.

I've observed that via a heavily contested double elimination knockout tournament, combined with wild cards, voluntary withdrawals and other decisions, we have ended up with an incredibly strong field which has allowed more talent into the candidates round this year than last.

Sounds like rules were set and a subjective exception was made for JK's inclusion. From an absolute point of view perhaps this exception is not defensible and is likely not to be repeated in future. However, considering FischyVishy's proactive commitment in terms of his own time and money, I believe he's entitled to make one subjective deviation from the rules, which has the honest intention of making this event richer in quality for the community.

@Fumitoks, please play on - you are too good and too deserving to miss out on this. I must advise the readers that Fumitoks is the original player of 1. e4 e5, 2. Qh5 and it would be wonderful to see this line feature in the candidates matches.

To all 11 candidates, I feel that I have played each of you a significant number of games and each of you holds great strength to compete. You are all considered tough rivals, but first considered as friends.

Now, I must admit I've been infrequent with streaming recently due to personal circumstances, but given I'm not a participant in this year's candidates, I feel obliged to get back on the horse and provide live coverage or otherwise post-analysis for many of these high quality matches.

To encourage participation of all 11 candidates, I am aiming to raise a crowd fund target which will be split equally among the players upon completion of all their matches. This will be sourced from viewers of my twitch channel who would like to show appreciation for the efforts of the candidates with donations.

Candidates, fight hard and good luck! Community viewers, please show your support for this world class event.

Regards,
Jann

P.S. @okei, just to clarify for accuracy, JKiller did not teach me crazyhouse, but in a stream I believe I mentioned he has been playing at the top level for longer than I have. He has certainly been an inspiration for me.

I have always striven to be as democratic as possible, and I would definitely have changed my mind had there been sufficient opposition. However, as it stood, the other Candidates never voiced an opinion, JL and TT were supportive, and people like okei, Kyle, schwinggggg, etc. were also supportive.

I don't get the crux of the argument anyway. The problem here is that there are two wild cards and not one (as was stated in the "rules"). Some people seem to be arguing that the wild card itself is unfair (which, of course, it is), but then why not argue against the inclusion of opper as a wild card?!

The other argument is that the "rules" were broken, or that there is some sort of elitism and rule-breaking whenever it's possible. OK, let's dive more deeply then so that you better understand the philosophy behind this tournament:

The primary aim of this tournament is to promote zh and to make it, in one way or another, have some sort of "official" coverage. The tournament is driven by my love for minimalism and hatred for materialism. As stated previously, I also don't like bureaucracies, so I always strive to obey the spirit of the rules rather than their words. As you can see, there aren't that many strict rules and I don't like cluttering up the tournament with useless ideas that take away from the tournament's "glory."

At the same time, I do not completely support a rule by democracy. Let's take, for example, the issue of whether or not we should change the atomic starting position. A poll sent in a certain atomic group showed that most people were in favor of changing the starting position, but at one time or another this kind of majority could easily change (also especially since there aren't that many people in this group). In fact, had I sent this poll to a wider audience of ALL atomic players, the great majority would have never wanted to change the starting position! However, as is clear to an "expert" in the field, or at least a guy who has spent hundreds of computer hours analyzing atomic positions, this notion is wholly incorrect as there is very little enjoyment for Black in atomic. Therefore, atomic MUST be changed, but if lichess were to follow a purely democratic road, all the problems that plague atomic would still be there...

I follow the same philosophy in guiding this tournament toward success. It's not completely democratic, but I do all of this to support the primary aim of the tournament! Still, though, this tournament is run very democratically. The double-elimination knockout was an idea I adopted thanks to the suggestion of vssh, and there have been many ideas that I have urged people to democratically vote upon. In running this tournament, I have also made sure that the important decisions were also always democratic; for example, there's an anti-cheating panel which makes sure to handle important cases (though it wasn't used this year for reasons that are quite obvious). I feel very disrespected being accused of "elitism" because that is exactly what I work against; there are many of my own thoughts I have not acted on because the community was against it. For example, I wanted to follow a certain single-elimination knockout format, but Deadban and Legion were quite against it so I was about to support their idea instead, but then vsshk stepped in and solved everything :).

Anyway, I have dedicated a lot of time, energy, and money to this game in general and this championship in particular, so I don't want to see it fail. If you still feel strongly about two wild cards being let in instead of one, I would gladly forego one wild card as long as a great majority of other people also supported you in your decision.

Wow...this is still going? I guess I just don't understand where the hostility and ill will is coming from. This is a game. It is supposed to be something to relax with and enjoy ...

Since you say that you "don't get the crux of the argument", I'll try to explain myself better. No one argues against the inclusion of opper as a wild card because:
1) He proved himself in the previous cwc, and it is very reasonable to not make some top players of one cwc play from the very beginning of the second one. The same logic as Jann not playing with all the candidates because he is the current champion. I completely agree with what Dieblauesau said: "I think one should own the spot from previous CWC or the qualifier."
2) it was announced before the start of the tournament

Giving someone a wildcard in the middle of qualifier is like saying: "this guy is way better than all of you, and I don't even need to ask your opinion on that". And people in the qualifier were never given a chance to play that guy in a tournament. That is disrespectful, unfair, and elitism.

Compare your approach with the following:
You post in this forum something like:
"Listen guys, JK just registered on lichess, and since there is no way to include him in the qualifier and we know him as a very strong player who would probably make it to the candidates if he played in the qualifier, I am thinking of giving him an extra wild card, do you have any objections?" And then you decide based on responses.

I also remember you saying that if gnejs decided to come back, you would give him wild card too. So it is not just a one-time thing (@JannLee )

Also, about the anti-cheating panel:

You say: "though it wasn't used this year for reasons that are quite obvious". The reasons are not obvious at all. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong, as I can't know it for sure, since nothing was shared), the lichess system didn't catch HC automatically. Instead, one of the participants reached out to you and said that he thinks that HC cheated against him (the rules dictate to do exactly that). So to me (and it seems not just to me) it is obvious that the panel should have been used.

After that, there was a decision that TCubes should take HC's place, and that decision I still don't understand and it was never explained too. The only way it can be justified is if lichess suspected HC first cheated in the match with cubes.

Since you say that you "feel very disrespected being accused of "elitism"" (and if the examples above are not enough), I'll give you one more example. Back then when almost no one thought I'd make it to the candidates, you ignored my messages both here and personal (actually it was more disrespectful than just ignoring), but now when I am in the candidates, you dignify me with responses.

I hope all that clarifies something

Btw thank you jl for your efforts as well...I wholeheartedly support both FischyVischy's and JLs efforts to promote crazyhouse. I feel like it is one of the best games and a hidden gem waiting to be discovered by more people. JLs streams are pure gold... I would like to do something to help promote zh too maybe I could sponsor some tournaments? Not sure how but if anyone can tell me send me a message

Great, so you want a democratic vote, and that's what you'll get.

Also, there are long periods of time where I don't respond to any lichess messages, so don't take it personally.

Anti-cheating panel: Look it's pretty clear what's being "hidden" here. Of course lichess won't explain anything; why help cheaters get better at cheating?

I don't know what you are reading and how you are reading, but

1) no, I don't want a democratic vote. I want you to admit your mistakes and be respectful to the people in the tournament (not just the candidates, as decision to include JK was disrespectful to the people in the qualifier)

2) I know that you had known about my PM because okei told you about it, and you told him you didn't see it. So you responded to him but not to me until 3 days later (not to mention how you responded). Seems pretty personal to me.

3) No one asked to reveal the details about how the panel works. It was enough to say that there was a panel consisting of 5 people (as it was promised), and the panel voted that HC cheated and then explain how it affects the draw and why TCubes is taking his place, so that there aren't any speculations. I don't think that helps cheaters to get better at cheating, do you?

1) Oh, then how should we proceed then? I don't mind admitting a mistake, but it's questionable who views it as such. What do you want? No democratic vote because any wild card would be against the rules? Or a democratic vote?

2) okei can confirm: he sends me a litany of messages which I respond to like 2 weeks later or sometimes even a month. And how did I respond to you?

3) But there was no need for the panel because lichess marked HC!

And if you haven't understood already: there's a pretty obvious reason why TCubes was back in...

1) Not a single person said that they disagree with my points about your decision being unfair. Moreover, some people said they agree or understand my point. So idk about "questionable". They might want JK in the candidates, but that's not the point at all.

I think the best way to proceed is to ask people (again, not just candidates) if there are any objections.

2) again, you responded to his message about my message but not to me. so it's not like you were not responding to any messages, just mine. also, my message was about who i have to play, so it wasn't even hard to answer. what you responded -- you can find by yourself

3) lichess marked HC after one of the participants filed a complaint, which should imply the panel. and again, an announcement should have been made. i don't know from looking at his profile if lichess marked HC because of his zh games or 3-check, and for me it is not obvious that if it were 3-check, it should imply disqualification from cwc

4) i haven't understood why bigchicken wasn't back in and tcubes was. as i said, there is 1 possible reason but i don't know if that's the case

tbh i don't think i can sustain this dialogue if you keep ignoring most of what i say, and respond to things i have never said