Section 2 – Votes for a system in tournament and matches

In a date after the end of the “WCC Candidates Tournament”, another Q.1 for its 3 top-finishers (or 2 if there’s a tie vote) and the World Champion (or another top-finisher, if he had to take part in the tournament, for a case in Section 4) will elect the organizer of the “WCC Final Four Event”, who affordably has the possibility to schedule it as long as less than 1 month (8 games semi-finals, 12 games final, at least, although it’d be better to delay the final 1 month more for a prophylactic preparation). It’s a match-format, which needs different anti-draw systems. Moreover, in a rather rare case according to Word Champion’s rights (see Section 4), the WCC Final Four Event will be replaced with a lone classic “WCC Final Match” (its organizer should be chosen by FIDE or by unanimous vote of both players in Q.1): in this case WCC Candidates Tournament organizer could offer a “Two-stages system” (still into the tournament, before the WCC Final Match): semi-final and final KO matches after the double-round-robin tournament, for a more reliable title-challenger.

As many GMs suggest, at least 6 games are necessary to have a reliable result in a match, but there’s the well known “draw problem”. It’s not only a lack of exciting or fighting games, or the direct addressing to a tie-break, but also the fact that for the best preparation in the “real” chess play, players wouldn’t want to be specialized in forcing a draw (also to use score strategies).
Then, I advise these other questionnaires to the 8 players:





Semi-punishing systems are very conservative as tradition demands, so they should be the default choice, to be changed only with unanimous vote (to avoid a player who claims the punishing system an unfair popular choice and furthermore insulting the tradition, or a player who accuses non-punishing voters about plots or propensities to level out his opportunity to win or retain the title).

In case of system change from a WCC Cycle to another, the community has to see the lack of continuity as an agreement of eight players who had decided to bet all his cards in an alternative system, with a prudent or a brave mood (they may also prefer to agree for a “4-points-for-a-win” system, then also not respecting well-played draws, but it would sound really insulting the tradition, without any continuity as any other “never seen before” system, so a unique alternative is better).