A vision for the next 50 years
By Will Cockerell
The Backgammon World Championships [BGWC] should be the jewel in the crown of backgammon matchplay, with five key ideals:
- To grow and promote the oldest, greatest boardgame in the world
- To put the players first and profiteering second, and to avoid all accusations of price-gouging and opportunism
- To be more readily accessible to the world’s most serious matchplayers
- Make the host city the best possible locale for the BGWC, with less consideration given to the fame or status of the city itself.
- To vastly increase the value and challenge of reaching the last 128 of the BGWC and ensure more of the world’s top players feature in the latter stages.
My own experience and observations of Monte Carlo 2023
I had been eager to participate and play in the BGWC since I became a tournament player in 2003, but it took me 20 years to get there. This is because many aspects of the BGWC are inaccessible, and run at considerable profit by the host venue, with far less consideration granted to what the players actually want.
I greatly enjoyed my experience at the Championships in 2023, but I could see the myriad flaws, and that was despite being one of the top 30 busiest players in the tournament with six wins.
Key problems:
- The venue. Monte Carlo is what it is, a global icon, but that comes with a lot of baggage. And it’s baggage that leads some 98% of the world’s tournament players to say: “not today,” and possibly, “not ever.” Unless purchased far in advance, there is a huge mark up for flights into Nice in late July and accommodation options also suffer from considerable price-gouging. My expensive tiny studio was a disgrace for the paucity it offered in the scope of amenities, but the owner can charge such an outlandish price due to it being the going rate. But why should we the world’s players have to put up with such an approach when so many tournaments put on such a wonderful deal for the players – Kyrenia being a fine example.
- At just 198 in the Main, the field is nearly half the size of what it should be – perhaps even a third.
- The tournament length at 7 days is too long by 48 hours. To have just a couple of sessions per day at 2pm and 10pm is a major abuse of the players’ time and goodwill. Could the tournament be slotted into 5 days, and not 7? Of course, it could. Since when are backgammon players incapable of playing before 2pm? Why is it that top golfers, worth hundreds of millions of dollars are quite happy to turn up to 0630 tee times, and yet backgammon players are deemed incapable of rolling out of bed before the early afternoon?
Throughout the first five days, one sight greets those in the playing room more than other: the sight of a despondent player standing there visibly stunned with a dazed expression, wondering what on earth to do with himself for the next 72+ hours of his life. As noted, I was one of the busier players, but I still got over two days completely off. Yes, I didn’t enter the Super Jackpot, but perhaps I didn’t have an extra €1,250 on top of the 2,500 already paid out on the trip.
Let me be clear, an early exit from a high-stakes backgammon tournament is soul-destroying and the player always has the same thoughts: “Am I glad I did this? Do I want to keep doing this? Is it the best use of my time and resources?”
And this was not just the weaker players. Look at the playing record of Lylloff, Yazawa, Mochizuki and Zizka: Played 14, Won 2, Lost 12.
If that’s what they’re doing, heaven help the rest of us.
If we want to keep the world’s players attending tournaments and have a World Championships to be proud of and savour, this is not the way to go about it.
Solutions:
- Reduce the tournament from 7 days to 5, and certainly don’t set aside an entire day for Registration.
- Start play at 11 am or noon, not 2pm. This is easily possibly, no-one would mind. 2pm is an age to wait to play.
- 11am to midnight is 13 hours per day, which is 65 hours of tournament playing time. This is easily sufficient time to pack everything in and find a worthy winner.
- Address the tournament format to address two critical things: more matches and action for all, and strengthen the chance of the stronger players going further.
The last 64 and 128 of the World Championships should be a precious, sacrosanct place reserved for the truly deserving, not just “fallen into” by someone with time and money on their hands, due to a lucky bye in a woefully undersubscribed event. Witness how prestigious the last 128 of Tennis and golf Grand Slams are. Qualification for them is a very big deal for all but the very top players, and some big names often miss out.
- The solution to this is a league format for the first two days, to make the fight for the last 128 real and genuine and give the superstars the best chance to proceed.
My proposal is simple: Leagues of 7, everyone guaranteed six matches, three 11-pointers per day. Of these, the 16 best performing players advance to the last 64 of the knock-out stages, who would all be seeded, as they’re clearly the most “in-form” players in the world at that moment; and the next 96 play out in the round of 128.
Make every point relevant, thus ties on the overall leaderboard can be separated more easily. For instance, a set of results of: 11-7, 2-11, 11-9, 11-1, 3-11, 10-11 would be: Wins 3, points For: 48, points Against 50, Net -2.
As things stand a strong player can lose a close match in the last 256, get booted back into the round of 1024, lose that and he is all done. For sure, the strong players simply want a fairer route in the last 128 and 64, which this presents.
Monte Carlo in 2023 gravely suffered from far too few marquee names competing in the latter stages, and too few desirable match-ups.
Thus, a playing format would look something like:
Timetable slots: Noon, 4.30pm & 9pm.
Day 1: 3 x 11 points in the league
Day 2: 3 x 11 points in the league
Day 3: 96 qualifiers in the last 128 to 15 points, last 64 to 15 points, last 32 to 15 points. Doubles starts, post the Last 64 to give people more time to decide on their participation.
Day 4: Last 16 & quarter-final to 17 points. Super jackpot, 3 rounds
Day 5: Last 4 to 17, Final to 21. Super jackpot 3 rounds & Last Chance.
Day 3 is a shade gruelling, but only around 1.5 hours more play is required than in the current format. Otherwise, the schedule remains perfectly palatable. There is the option to begin Day 3’s noon start forward by an hour to 11am for those that wish it.
The key thing to note of all serious players is that if they have the option of a busy schedule for 5 days, or a non-busy one for 7, they’ll take the former option every time. I’ve played for 8-10 hours in a day at a tournament numerous times, as we all have, and it’s really not too bad. This schedule still falls well short of that.
- Scrap registration the day before. It’s an insult to the players’ time and goodwill and totally redundant in this day and age, when online registration is so easy.
- €250 registration is far too much and is only that much due to the Monte Carlo venue. Have early registration at a considerable discount. Perhaps 150 for 3 months out, and 175 for a month out. 200 a week out and 225 for on the day registration.
Allow players to pay registration and entries by wire if they choose, with cash still an option. And certainly allow the reg fee by wire. Asking for cash in this day and age is unnecessary and a major disruption and inconvenience for the players. It is simply out of step with the modern age. Obviously one can keep the cash option for those that wish/prefer it.
In summary and polling the community
I very strongly believe that moving the BGWC away from Monte Carlo and to a venue that actively wants and desires to host the tournament would improve the experience and attendance of the event in a heartbeat. Apparently, despite the exorbitant fees, the organizers don’t even make much profit at Monte Carlo, due to its punitive rates.
I believe a fresh approach could increase participation to 350+ in the Main event within a couple of years. There are 30+ cities that would leap at the chance to host the World Championships, and London could certainly do a superb job, and there are many great venues to choose from there alone.
And for sure the World Championships should be held in the USA once every four years to pay homage to the fact that a quarter of the world’s top players are American.
Perhaps my next step should be a poll of the world’s players to test the water for their thoughts on this piece. I’ll let you know how I get on.
I think there are a lot of valid ideas and suggestions. The one thing I am sure of is this: you can’t please everyone.
But I actually have come to one strong conclusion about the World Championships that I believe would clearly be an improvement that should please almost everyone: it should be a Swiss Movement.
The tournaments that guarantee you that you can still win until you have lost 3 times, and still cash until you have lost 4 times, is, in my opinion, the best. Everyone is in it for at least 4 matches.
And matching winners against winners by record will make a lot more exciting matchups as the tournament progresses.
This format is wonderful for scheduling; eliminates a lot of the bad luck of the draw; does lead to more of the better players advancing and being able to overcome one or two bad games; and simply makes for a very exciting finish.
Thoughts on the Backgammon World Championship
Background
Backgammon flourished in the lates 1960s/early 1970s for many reasons, but the two key ones were lots of disposable cash from the advent the middle eastern oil boom and sponsorship, largely from tobacco companies such as Merit and Phillip Morris.
In addition, nobody really knew how to play! A fact that only became evident with the advent of neural net computers in the 1990s. Matches were never recorded and, in fact, October this year (2023) sees the 50th anniversary of the first ever recorded set of matches when the USA met the UK at the Clermont club in London.
In the 1990s JellyFish, gnubg and XG taught us how to play properly and the game fundamentally changed as the it became much better understood.
Today backgammon remains a niche game, played very skilfully by a relatively small number of very good players, I don’t believe that number can be increased significantly unless media coverage increases significantly, and sponsorship returns.
Unlike poker it is not easily understood by the man in the street because it is just too difficult. Again, I don’t think that will change.
I have read the articles by Will Cockerill and Jason Pack. Whilst I respect Jason’s efforts, I think his ideas are too far removed from being practical to be considered seriously. I will now address the key areas as I see them. Please note that these are my opinions, and you are perfectly entitled to disagree with them, wholly or in part.
Location
I stopped going to Monte Carlo in 2006 because I felt the event was a rip-off and there was better value to be had nearly anywhere else. Why hold an event in high season in one of the most expensive locations in the world when most players spend 90% of their time playing or watching backgammon? To me it makes no sense. If it stays in Monte Carlo, then move it to May or September to reduce costs.
I would like to see it in different locations in the same way that golf majors go to different courses but there are logistical problems in doing that. I think it would be great to have it in the US at least once every four years. I think Japan would be great as well, but I suspect there that logistics preclude it.
I see no reason not to hold it in major European capitals and US cities such as London, Paris, Berlin Stockholm, New York, Los Angeles etc. You don’t find that many backgammon players on the beach, but they would enjoy the major cities of Europe and the US.
Duration
I agree that a week is too long, and five days should be sufficient. It won’t take a genius to work out how to do that. I also agree that the playing times need to reflect the modern world and not that of the mid-1970s when all night games were more common.
Format
Double elimination is the de facto standard in the backgammon world, and it works extremely well. Don’t change it. My one minor gripe is that I would like to see the WC be a true double elimination so that that the winner of the loser’s bracket would have to win two matches against the undefeated bracket winner to claim the title, but I can see the reasons for the current method – I just don’t agree with it.
BMAB and UBC provide PR-based competitions. There is no need to introduce PR into the WC. One of the attractions has always been that anyone can play. I wouldn’t change that, nor would I have any form of Swiss format within the event. Double elimination works brilliantly. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it.
Double Elimination means you should get a strong final while still giving lesser players a chance. This year’s final was a bit of an outlier where somebody playing with a PR under 2 was overrun but that is part of the beauty of the game – uncertainty will always be there in a dice game, as it should be.
Media
Over the years the streaming has improved greatly and this year it was great with exception of the final where commercialism overtook common sense. Using a board with colours that meant anybody with red/green colour blindness couldn’t watch it was simply ludicrous. The board should have been changed after the first game.
Over the years the commentary has improved. We have lost Magriel and Falafel but others have taken their places. This year Sebastian Wilkinson gave a master class in how to commentate on a backgammon match. It was a great shame that he only did one match. More like him and fewer people who are inclined to waffle and self-promote is the future of good and strong commentary.
The problem though is that although viewing figures were good for a backgammon match, they were just noise in the context of the wider world. The issue is how to increase viewing numbers exponentially to make backgammon truly relevant? That is a topic for another day. The other problem is how to make the game attractive to the casual viewer?
Poker solved the problem by having a camera showing the hole cards. There is no such equivalent in backgammon and, as noted above, the game is just too difficult for the average games player to understand. Backgammon is much closer to chess than poker in that regard. “Queen’s Gambit” did wonders for chess. Where is the equivalent for backgammon?
The late Andy Bell’s “High Stakes” programme covering Monte Carlo 2005 remains a masterpiece of television programming, but it has been seen by too few people.
I will repeat here the need for sponsorship to really move this forward, but it is not currently on the horizon.
Summary (in a perfect world)
1) Keep the Double Elimination format.
2) Make it a five-day event with practical playing times.
3) Rotate the event through European capitals/major US Cities.
4) Seek better media coverage.
5) Seek relevant sponsorship.
In connection to your summary:
1. Double Elimination format should be the final stage. Preliminary competition should be like money-games: for examples, 3 days*7 rounds till specific number of games (8 games, for example) to find the best 16. The best 16 in full double elimination without Crawford rule, but difference of score – money! There were three seasons of such tournament format 10 years ago: Ukraine Open Online. More details => http://ukraineopenbg.at.ua/load/1-1-0-96
Mochy opinion about this format => http://ukraineopenbg.at.ua/forum/2-5-1
Michy opinion about this format => http://ukraineopenbg.at.ua/forum/2-6-1
Gaz Owen opinion about this format =>
http://ukraineopenbg.at.ua/forum/2-8-1
2. 5 days with preliminary qualifying swiss money games rounds + final for the best 16 DE will be perfect solution.
3. That is absolutely correct!
4. Need specific proposal for the media to make this event more interesting and extravagant: for example, team matches with duplicated rolls playing on sensor boards “BEZMA” and balanced scoring system for the game and the match proposed in the book “Fair Backgammon Tournament Rules” => https://bkgm.com/books/Garal-FairBackgammon.html
5. Supposedly some betting companies will be interested in such new forms and formats of BG-competitions described above.
Nice ideas, interesting proposals, but… there will be nobody who can change anything by COMMERCIAL events as far as you don’t present and can prove that your proposals will be interesting for both sides: tournament organisers and participants.
The World Championship must stay unique and special. And it should remain in Monte Carlo.
However Backgammon should have “majors” just like tennis and golf. And there should be some kind of link so that winning two or more majors in a single year brings a special reward.
Monte Carlo would always be a major, and 3 more could be designated. And one or two of the others could float to different continents annually. Cities can bid for it, just like cities bid for Olympics.
The other majors could incorporate many of Will’s suggestions.
It’s good that you took the time to share your thoughts on how we can improve the WC experience, Will. I also would like to see it held at other places than MC but I’d guess that the organizers have a contract to keep it there for a certain number of years and that the penalty for breaking the contract would be huge.
Regarding 7 days vs. 5 days, I don’t really care either way. I agree that the current 2 PM & 10 PM times are both too late. We certainly can start playing before 2 PM. The 10 PM after dinner starting time is OK if you only have to play one more match but not OK if you need to play more than one. One problem with starting the after dinner match at 9 PM is that a lot of restaurants in the MC area are only open for dinner at certain hours so it might be difficult for everyone to have dinner and be back by 9 PM.
Your league format suggestion is reasonable, but without that cumulative scorekeeping idea. Giving a losing player credit for losing a close match gives players an incentive to lie about the actual scores of their matches, as Martin Barkwill pointed out in his comments.
I have been to Monaco 11 times for the World Championship. It is very expensive for the average backgammon player, especially those not from the continent. I like your suggestion about moving the tournament around the world and hosting it in the US once every four years. I love Monaco, but I would like to see other parts of the world, too. I am fairly sure a World Championship in the US in New York, Las Vegas, or Los Angeles would draw 300 players.
Hey guys.
Thanks for all the constructive criticism. I do feel it’s rather one sided though, let me share some other points of view:
a) it’s the world championship, not the Luton townhall tournament. Luxury and and style is mandatory. Inherently that will make it less inclusive and more exclusive. We literally have the most beautiful playing venue, on top notch boards, with top notch YouTube coverage (the venue also plays a big role). When YouTube viewers watch the world championship they must think “WAUW, that looks incredible… that is something really special.” That’s not to rule out other venues, but it’s simply to state “inclusivity and affordability” are not wanted key words for the Backgammon World Championship. It would lose all brand value and marketability if we went down that road, we want to do quite the opposite in fact. We want to maximise marketability.
b) The affordability question: A lot of players simply book an airbnb apartment in Beausoleil or Cap d’Ail and walk to the Fairmont hotel… Then it’s normal French prices, share an airbnb for a total price of €150 per night… That’s not so bad. If you have the money, you can get a big discount with the backgammon rate, to stay at the Fairmont Hotel, double room incl. breakfast, for €409 / night rather than the normal price of €715 / night. That means, that we are actually creating a lot of value for the “richer” segment, since they get to go on holiday on Fairmont at a huge discount, AND play in the Backgammon World Championship. The €1250 Main Event buy-in is actually a laughing stock of the poker players… “how can the world championship be such a low buy-in tournament”… I hear this all the time. We are trying to balance it. But again, the point is not to be as inclusive as possible. It’s more likely we will increase the buy-in and create satellites/qualifiers, than it is that we lower it.
c) I think people in this thread who has never been to the World Championship should try to experience it themselves, before they criticise… It’s a different feeling and special feeling to walk into the Salon D’Or and see 150 blue backgammon boards with golden chairs and table numbers.
d) Time duration: I agree that it’s a long tournament… Including the warm-up event Monte Carlo Open, it’s nine straight days of Backgammon, and it’s also crazy for the staff. The world championship tournament lasts 6 days (Tuesday to Sunday), with last chance on Sunday. There is a total of TEN tournaments played in these nine days, so there is literally a packed program every day of the week, not to mention the constantly running 8-men jackpots. I don’t think the format should cater that a player has to keep playing for many days, just to “stay in the main event”… That makes no sense, it’s a tournament. The last two years we have had a double elimination format, but if anything we are going to reduce it to a single elimination, not triple elimination and certainly not “league format”. Most players actually DON’T want to play for four days non stop, if they already have 0% chance of winning after day 2.
However, I also think that six days is a long tournament, despite the fact that this is the most important tournament of all, so it should not be too short either. Maybe 5 days would be fitting, but it’s difficult with the double elimination format to execute it on five days with 200 players.
e) Late start of the day and matches after dinner at 22:00: It’s been the tradition in Monaco to start late, to give visitors a chance to go to the beach and pool, before play starts, so they are not just stuck in the hotel backgammon bubble. That is the reason, there is a deliberate logic behind it, and some players like it and some don’t. However, I personally agree that it is too much. Especially the matches after dinner are quite grueling… We will have a look at it again.
f) the idea that the format has to be made even more in favour of stronger players, and that main event matches has to ensure that you don’t go out early. I just disagree on that, and I think most players would. We have all the side events to fill out the days: speed, dmp, doubles, seniors, women’s world championship, super jackpot, mochy millions, Patti rubin high roller, stop-pots, chouettes… there is backgammon non-stop all days… But when you are out of the Main event, then you are out. And double elimination already greatly favours the stronger players, compared to single elimination.
All in all, it was a greatly successful event. We had more views on YouTube than ever during the event, we hade great feedback from the players there, we made a profit rather than losing money (always nice), and most importantly: we got to promote backgammon to the world like no other event is doing, not even close. Also, we did have a great time in Monaco, sharing the experience with 300 players+families.
Thanks Marc, great stuff. I had a thrilling week and the experience will remain with me for years. Delighted that you’re open to tweaks, and really hope you’ll consider taking it on the road one of these days.
A six day tournament with an entire day set aside before it starts to enter, is a seven day tournament for sure.
I look forward to seeing the World Championships evolve, prosper and thrive these coming decades.
“it’s the world championship, not the Luton townhall tournament. Luxury and and style is mandatory. ”
Really? Is it important the World Champion should be some high roller who has too much cash to spare, or just the best player?
Now Luton itself may not be ideal, but pretty much any country could provide sufficiently comfortable surroundings without taking the mickey.
The tournament should be the thing, not the venue. Let Monaco’s own tournament cater for those that feel the need to flash their cash in grubby surroundings.
Besides, one man’s “style” is another man’s tat.
One thing that would undoubtedly increase participation is reducing travel expenses. Which begs the question, Is it really necessary to hold the WC at the height of the season in one of the most expensive locations in the world? Has any thought been given to moving the WC to a period when flights and accomodation are cheaper, such as late may or early october?
Another way of increasing participation would be to run a satellite at every major tournament throughout the year.
Very well thought-out article Will and I agree with the majority of your suggestions.
Monte Carlo is an expensive city and, as you say, if you book for a week and get knocked out then you are left with inflated entertainment and living costs.
There are other cities that could offer a luxurious standard while keeping the prices more realistic. I agree with you that the number of entries would increase as the relative costs decrease – I’m sure there would be some sort of inverse correlation between the two.
I also agree that the length of time could be shortened. Maybe hold initial ‘Super Jackpot’ and ‘Doubles’ rounds in days 1 and 2, so that those who are interested in the Main event only, have a 5-day program rather than 7.
Oh, and congratulations on your relative success in Monte Carlo !!
Living in New Zealand I and the other players here and in Australia are a long way away from Europe so it is already expensive to get to Europe and then adding a really expensive hotel for too long just makes it out of reach. I remember talking to the then South African Backgammon Champion and asked him if he goes to Monte Carlo. He said no as it was too expensive, and therefore he did not consider the World Champs to be the World Champs as too many players were priced out of attending. I like rotating the World champs between the USA, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Have a discussion on what the entry fee should be. Then it will truly be the world champs.
Will that article was a great read, thankyou, and your suggestions sound so sensible. I’m an intermediate player with only 3 tourneys under my belt, but cannot see myself ever being a tourney regular because of the time and money cost. The Monte Carlo costs sound ridiculously prohibitive and in need of the changes you suggest. I’m not best qualified to comment but well done for speaking out!
You make many interesting points and, for sure, the format, venue and cost structure of the World Championship should be periodically reviewed.
I must respectfully disagree with your proposal for a league format over the first two days with its reliance on match scores. In my opinion, it is totally unsuitable for a World Championship or any serious competition as it impacts on match strategy and gives rise to skullduggery. I have heard anecdotal evidence of match scores deliberately reported incorrectly to suit the interests of one or both players.
thanks Martin, and yes fair enough. There’s a germ of something there though, perhaps something like those who win 5 or 6 out of six make the last 64, those who win 4 make the last 128, with a few of the best performers who win 3… but it’s ascertaining who those are! I hate to think that skullduggery prohibits something being done. Such a shame and the sharks win. Grrrrr.
A fabulously written piece/analysis – well done indeed.
A lot of fabulous points.
I’ve never played in Monte Carlo. There are three main reasons for that (1) I’m not good enough (2) Whilst that isn’t (as you stated) a bar to entering, the thought of a 7 day BG tournament is not appealing at all. I’m about to go to play in Patz Gebbelli’s 5 day tournament in Dubai and that seems a lot! But doable. 7 days is just too long and requires a very substantial investment of both time (including time away from family/work) and money. (3) Location and lack of value for money.
Your comment about the horrendous prospect of high investment and being “out” very quickly is spot on. So you book a room somewhere in Nice for a week only to find that you’re out after a couple of days (loved your very apt reference to previous World Champions in that group as it was telling). Can you cancel your accommodation? Highly unlikely. Change flights? No. So what needs to change is the format. At least if they engaged your League proposal it guarantees a minimum amount of playing time with a chance or more, and other side events should be run to make use of your time there.
The playing times for a LOT of international tournaments are just ridiculous. I’ve played in Germany (often), Spain, Gibraltar, Dubai and Thailand. Why start matches SO late? I totally agree that there should be earlier start times – indeed nothing wrong with 10am in my book – more than enough time to get up, even do some exercise, shower, breakfast then play. Matches starting after 22.00pm are just plain wrong in my view. Players get tired, it’s a long day, and concentration levels are not what they might have been earlier. I just don’t understand why playing times cannot be 10am, then 12 noon, then 3pm (to allow for lunch), 5.30pm and a final round at 9pm if needed. If people want late nights playing side events, chouettes, money games – no problem – up to them – but the main tournament matches ought to be played when people are most alert.
The wonderful organisers of the Irish Open in Dun Laoghire ensure that playing time ends at 19.00 latest so that players can go off, enjoy their evening/have a proper dinner and a decent night’s sleep before play the next day. Hat’s off to them!
I also agree that moving the World Championships is sensible. It would add not only possibly cheaper choices of travel and accommodation but also variety so that players have somewhere new to see when not playing.
So for me, a big thumbs up on your post and proposals and I hope they are copied to someone with influence in deciding where future World Championships are to take place.
Thank you very much for your sumptuous reply. Yes, I think I have the ear of BGWC towers, which was one of the catalysts to write the piece.
I agree with your comments on the schedule, Mark. Rounds at 2pm and 10pm are a nonsense. The latter typically finished at 130 am.
It seems the event caters for players with an unhealthy lifestyle. The rest of us should demand better playing conditions.
I couldn’t agree more with your critique and suggestions Will. However I think it’s important to note that the tournament is long and wasteful of players time BY DESIGN. It’s less a backgammon tournament and more a just a hotel room promotion designed to gouge the highest return out of those attending.
Monte Carlo is a sad old relic of 1970s James Bond style status. It’s only cool to people who aren’t cool and does nothing to build the brand of backgammon as a modern and relevant game. It’s also scandalous that it’s designed about what’s good for rich westerners when the greatest majority of players and indeed the entire heritage of the game hails from less affluent eastern countries. Hence it prices out many players who should be competing in it. It’s a cynical, retrograde and exceptionally un-inclusive design!
Some brilliant notes, thank you!
Well said.
Very well spoken. – Due to all the shortcomings which you mention, the real World Championship is the UBC Championship. In addition, BMAB should feel called upon to set up a World Championship in which the best players of a season compete against each other. Something like the year-end tennis tournament (ATP Finals in Turin). Moreover, there could be qualification tournaments, so that not only the best players can compete as seeded players, but also players who have qualified via qualification tournaments.
Yes, the UBC is very cool, but wipes out 99.9% of us out of contention. There are wonderful players between 4-10 who play with tremendous elan, creativity and no little skill, but XG will never reward a stone cold bonkers 1,2,4,5,7 backgame, but it’s the last thing a Grandmaster may wish to see.
Also, dynamic cube action is heavily punished, like whipping in a highly speculative cube against a master that XG might hate, but is actually a great chance for the less player to win 4 or 8 points.
The true magic of backgammon lies in the mystery and craft of the “colour” players. If we really were all robots off 2.5 that’d be grisly. A player off 8 has a 42% chance against a player off 2. But at the UBC that nosedives to about 4%. Rather less romantic!
Agree with a lot of the points in the main piece….length of the tourney needs to be looked at and perhaps a rotation system in terms of location. The BGWC shouldn’t only be for those who have the times and money to get to Monte Carlo for a week+. You seem to be wanting contradictory things from the format though – in the main post you’re saying the last 64/128 should be “a sacrosanct place, reserved for the truly deserving” and also that the format needs adjusted “to strengthen the chance of stronger players going through”. The UBC format does this – but then you’re saying that’s not romantic enough as an ahem – ‘colourful’ 🙂 10 PR player who makes slightly bonkers cube decisions won’t beat a Mochy / Sander?!
Yes, a fine line and I think the BGWC and UBC could try to find a middle ground perhaps. At present, just turning up to MC, getting a bye, and winning a jammy match gets you last 64 in the world – it’s too easy. To be sure the latter rounds at MC had too much weakness and too few grandmasters.
And the UBC doesn’t allow for any real unique creativity, which allows these pests [I count myself as one] to fell a grandmaster, as they’ll almost never win the PR.
As I say, need a middle ground of sorts.