Bortnyk wins Titled Arena (Formerly World Championship)

@Schlosstrunk said in #16:
> I don't berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.00
> I don't berserk, opponent berserks: expected points = 1.45
> I berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.10
> I berserk, opponent berserks: expected points 1.00 (and not 2.00)

How did you get these numbers? A berserk win is worth 3 points (disregarding streaks), so if I have an expected score of 0.275 when I berserk and my opponent doesn't, then even in the best case where draws don't happen, the expected number of points would be 0.825. And when both berserk, under the assumption that we remain equally strong in the faster time control, since I get 3 points for a win, the expected points would be higher (1.5 in the setting where there are no draws - which would be better than when I don't berserk!).

As you alluded to, of course, the value of berserking can't be judged on the basis of a single game - it is really a tournament strategy.

You definetly should discourage it. As it stands, the titled arena is a 1.5-minute bullet arena.

Banning double berzerking, as suggested above could be a great idea.

I think we can change something, but not berserk's rules , it's really a tournement strategy. Those 100% berserk guys are fast and just using this skill. In no increaments money tournements it became clear that you have to get ready to berserk a lot in order to finish in the top, but everyone has the right to berserk (back), right ? and blitz is a matter of playing quickly in any cases.

If it would be up to me, more tournements with increaments would be a good alternative , where Berserk clearly won't be as attractive, and maybe maybe we will have more quality games. I mean, 5+0 or 3+0 tournements just appeal 100% berserk, and flagging, which I think is a bit of a shame when there is prizes involved.

Maybe keep 5+0 time control for warm up tournements, where I'm pretty sure 100% berserk won't bother anyone since there is no money into play there..

@MessyAnswer said in #9:
> One should not get an extra point for winning a berserk game if the opponent also berserked. The way it is now, a double-berserk game is simply much better for both players than a normal game: the game will end sooner, and the winner will get an extra point. If anything, one should gain fewer points for a double berserk game, not more. Just my two cents.

Yes! Yes! Suggested this 8 months ago to the sound of crickets, but it looks like there's momentum that direction. If there are no extra points, there's still the advantage of finishing faster. lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/blog-YTVXDxIAACIAP2th?page=5#45

@Schlosstrunk said in #16:
> There's also the option that you don't see if your opponent berserked until both players made their first move. And if both players berserked, there is no extra point awarded. This makes berserking a bit more risky.
>
> As I elaborated in my blog post berserking in a 3+0 game is a disadvantage of -168 elo, which corresponds to an expected score of 0.275 against an equally strong opponent. We can now analyse the four combinations to figure out the best strategy:

This is a great post. Thinking through it, perhaps another strategy is to make berserking subtract enough time to make the ELO advantage go away and only allow players with higher ELO (and, say a minimum difference of 150 or so ELO) the opportunity to Berserk. If you're at 2900 and you choose to berserk 3+0 against a 2100 player, you might be starting with 15sec. This way Berserking only becomes a strategy when you're behind in the points and need to take a major gamble to come back. (It would take some time to figure out what the various time adjustments might be, but I'm sure the strong programmers at @Lichess could organize a non-rated tournament w/ various random time controls to figure it out)

wasn't this tournament supposed to be called world championship instead of titled arena though?!

Agree with many of the above comments. This is meant to be a blitz tournament. There is already a bullet variant every second title arena. Let's give the blitz players a chance.

@shagnik said in #21:
> How did you get these numbers?

He said it's in his post. Just look for his blog posts and you find it:
lichess.org/@/Schlosstrunk/blog/fair-time-handicaps/U8YxSk3p

@Albertoibm said in #29:
> He said it's in his post. Just look for his blog posts and you find it:
> lichess.org/@/Schlosstrunk/blog/fair-time-handicaps/U8YxSk3p

As far as I understood, the (very well-researched!) blog post explains where the -168 ELO loss comes from. I was asking about the expected points calculations, though, which I wasn't able to follow.