Just beat Shulman in the “armageddon” playoff game. The live coverage made it gripping to watch.
Gripping? I don’t think gripping is how I’d describe a Black bid-time draw to win. It’s a finish fit for Washington Square Park. Better, IMO, to use a tiebreak system or declare them co-champions.
BTW, using various tiebreak formulas, who would the winner have been?
They were the only two players to finish without losing even one game.
Solkoff - tied at 54.5
Modified Median dropping one score - tied at 51
Median dropping one top and bottom - tied at 44
Kashdan - tied at 28
Head to Head - tied at 0.5
Most blacks - uncertain, but probably tied
Modified Median dropping two scores (normal for events of 9+ rounds) - Gata=47 and Yury=47.5
Sonnenborn-Berger - Gata=36.5 and Yury=38.5
Median dropping two top and two bottom (normal for events of 9+ rounds) - Gata=34 and Yury=34.5
Cumulative - Gata=41 and Yury=38.5
Thanks. Co-Champions seems the best way to me unless you want to pick a tiebreak system that gives a result.
Mr. Lafferty,
You are absolutely correct on this one–co-champions is the way to go, split the cash. A tiebreak
for the trophy (if any). I hate playoff systems in which the outcome is determined by methods
foreign to the rules of the game that led to the tie.
Rob Jones
I think what you propose is fair and common sense, too. 
quote=“anjiaoshi”]Just beat Shulman in the “armageddon” playoff game. The live coverage made it gripping to watch.
[/quote]
Gripping? I don’t think gripping is how I’d describe a Black bid-time draw to win. It’s a finish fit for Washington Square Park. Better, IMO, to use a tiebreak system or declare them co-champions.
BTW, using various tiebreak formulas, who would the winner have been?
[/quote]
They were the only two players to finish without losing even one game.
Solkoff - tied at 54.5
Modified Median dropping one score - tied at 51
Median dropping one top and bottom - tied at 44
Kashdan - tied at 28
Head to Head - tied at 0.5
Most blacks - uncertain, but probably tied
Modified Median dropping two scores (normal for events of 9+ rounds) - Gata=47 and Yury=47.5
Sonnenborn-Berger - Gata=36.5 and Yury=38.5
Median dropping two top and two bottom (normal for events of 9+ rounds) - Gata=34 and Yury=34.5
Cumulative - Gata=41 and Yury=38.5
[/quote]
Thanks. Co-Champions seems the best way to me unless you want to pick a tiebreak system that gives a result.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[i][b]We had co-champions in the past. It didn’t work. One year there was a three way tie - one year later I asked one of the players in the tournament who the three were. He got two out of three right.
We need a US champion to promote chess - A co-champion simply isn’t the same. Imagine Mary Lou Retton 's picture on a box of kellogs cereal saying co-champion.
I can tell you sponsors don’t want co-champions. They want a champion challenged by an up and coming star. Michael Jordon was their basketball man , babe Ruth was the baseball man, Tiger Woods was the golf man and Mohammed Ali the boxing man.What co-champions everwere so promoted by their sport.
Yes tie-breaking systems leave a lot tobe desired but when there is time for only one playoff game - an over the board chess game without one side having the advantage of white giess an even playing field. The bidding approach does that. It decides the championship in a single game. It does attract a lot of interest and obviously it was gripping to at least some in the audience.
I can tell you, had that opportunity existed in the days of AF4C sponsorsip, Af4C would still be here AND so would Rex with one or the other sponsoring the US Championship and the other some other of area of chess - AND USCF would be in far better financisl shape.
Many of us differ on this form of playoff and an d the desirability of any playoff. I respect the differing viewpoints. Finding popularand consensus solution is a tough nut to crack - perhaps better ideas will be forthcoming.
Don Schultz
Organizer, 1994 US Championship[/b][/i]
It is not clear to me that either the players or the current tournament sponsor want either a two year cycle or a challenger tournament followed by a multi-game match against the defending champion.
So far, the only one who seems to be particularly in favor of it is you, Don.
Mike: Do you really believe I’m the only one?
Actually, Even if I were the only one, (which I’m not). I am happy to be able to be able to express my opinion.
Let’s see – Bill Goichberg doesn’t disagree with me on a final match following a tournament. His suggestion is a bit different than mine in that he sugggested the top two in the tournament play the match. He does, however, NOT like my suggestion of a two year cycle.
Far more people disagree with me on the bidding concept for a playoff. Two years ago I’d be hard put to name anyone. Yet to my pleasant surprise, it was employed in this year’s championship. For that to have happened at least someone must have liked it.
I think it not a good idea to criticize any new idea (well almost any new idea), simply because it lacks support. IMO, the best approach is to find out what, if anything, is good about a new idea and then move on to the negatives.
Don Schultz [/b][/i]
Gripping? I don’t think gripping is how I’d describe a Black bid-time draw to win. It’s a finish fit for Washington Square Park. Better, IMO, to use a tiebreak system or declare them co-champions.
BTW, using various tiebreak formulas, who would the winner have been?
[/quote]
They were the only two players to finish without losing even one game.
Solkoff - tied at 54.5
Modified Median dropping one score - tied at 51
Median dropping one top and bottom - tied at 44
Kashdan - tied at 28
Head to Head - tied at 0.5
Most blacks - uncertain, but probably tied
Modified Median dropping two scores (normal for events of 9+ rounds) - Gata=47 and Yury=47.5
Sonnenborn-Berger - Gata=36.5 and Yury=38.5
Median dropping two top and two bottom (normal for events of 9+ rounds) - Gata=34 and Yury=34.5
Cumulative - Gata=41 and Yury=38.5
[/quote]
Thanks. Co-Champions seems the best way to me unless you want to pick a tiebreak system that gives a result.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[i][b]We had co-champions in the past. It didn’t work. One year there was a three way tie - one year later I asked one of the players in the tournament who the three were. He got two out of three right.
We need a US champion to promote chess - A co-champion simply isn’t the same. Imagine Mary Lou Retton 's picture on a box of kellogs cereal saying co-champion.
I can tell you sponsors don’t want co-champions. They want a champion challenged by an up and coming star. Michael Jordon was their basketball man , babe Ruth was the baseball man, Tiger Woods was the golf man and Mohammed Ali the boxing man.What co-champions everwere so promoted by their sport.
Yes tie-breaking systems leave a lot tobe desired but when there is time for only one playoff game - an over the board chess game without one side having the advantage of white giess an even playing field. The bidding approach does that. It decides the championship in a single game. It does attract a lot of interest and obviously it was gripping to at least some in the audience.
I can tell you, had that opportunity existed in the days of AF4C sponsorsip, Af4C would still be here AND so would Rex with one or the other sponsoring the US Championship and the other some other of area of chess - AND USCF would be in far better financisl shape.
Many of us differ on this form of playoff and an d the desirability of any playoff. I respect the differing viewpoints. Finding popularand consensus solution is a tough nut to crack - perhaps better ideas will be forthcoming.
Don Schultz
Organizer, 1994 US Championship[/b][/i]
[/quote]
I respect your point in regard to sponsors. Perhaps a better idea would have
been using the same time controls and a two game playoff series, white/black
until the championship is earned. Armageddon just seems an illogical way
to decide such an important title.
Rob Jones
The traditional place for an Armageddon game is when 1. the players are still tied after several tiebreak games and 2. either the schedule or fatigue mandate an end to the playoff. We had neither problem in St. Louis, since the playoff was held on the day after the last round, with the awards ceremony that evening.
My question is why we can’t have 2 or 4 rapid time control games first, before going to the Armageddon? As I see it, Armageddon is supposed to be a last resort, not the first option!
I admit the game was exciting. However, that was a direct consequence of the mistakes by both players. Quality chess deserving of a US Champion it was not. But for a 1600 player, I can see how thrilling it was to see who would err next to last and become US Champion.
Michael Aigner
Don, I suggest you contact the ED/Board and not just Bill Goichberg.
Why?