Teams World 4 Player Chess Championship (W4PCC) Update

Hello everyone,

I apologize for delaying the announcement of the Teams W4PCC. The last two-against-two championship ended January 15, 2022, a significant amount of time has passed since, and in its place last calendar year we had our first one-against-one teams W4PCC (Self-Partnering) . We are announcing it “administration soon” after the announcement of an event more important to 4PC on a community level, which I’ll update this forum about later. The W4PCCs will have to be worked around that community event and that is why we are waiting on that announcement first. The W4PCCs will be more important than that event on a “competitive” level, meaning the purpose of this event is to see who’s the best rather than feedback from the community as the other event is. I still plan on running an FFA W4PCC closer to this summer, and there’s a chance the FFA and Teams will overlap.

That said, I’m leaving this forum open to discussion about recommended formats and feedback from past W4PCCs. I am leaving links below to previous W4PCCs.

2018 Teams:

Information

Discussion

2019 Teams:

Main Page

Qualifier Information

I have always thought that it would be better if the W4PCCs were more invitation-based. We know who the best players are, and at this current stage, because fewer strong players play, I think it's important to get all those specific strong players to participate. Similarly, the tournaments often have too much variance, with players getting in ahead of players who are probably stronger. Heck, I almost qualified for the Self-Partner Tournament! That's not a good sign for anything

I would think having half (or maybe a third) of the players qualify by invitation and half the players qualify by tournaments would work better. You get the best of both worlds. This ensures that elite players at least qualify; at the same time, there is still plenty of room for the open qualifiers, keeping the utilitarian aspect that will hopefully engage players.

My above idea is probably needlessly subjective. It would probably work better for most non-tournament spots to be based off more objective criteria. Something closer to the 2nd FFA/Solo championship should be considered

Perhaps: 1 WC Team (Eye/Carlos), 1 Runner-Up Team (Icy/Abhinav), 3 LB (JCross, ProMaster, MrWish), 2 Wild Card based on general consensus, plus one more (road for 3rd in last championships perhaps. Then next 8 spots based on tournaments. Assuming some of the aforementioned players are on the same team, then a couple more could be taken from the LB or past tournament. 

Y-1,1,0,1-1,1,1,1-1,1,1,1-0,0,24,0-0-{'resigned'true,null,null,null),'pawnBaseRank':5,'wb':true,'dim':'8x8','spells''jump_0x2,freeze_0x5','','jump_0x2,freeze_0x5',''),'spellFields')}-
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,x,yZ,yO,yB,yQ,yK,yB,yO,yZ,x,x,x/
x,x,x,yP,yP,yP,yZ,yZ,yP,yP,yP,x,x,x/
x,x,x,8,x,x,x/
x,x,x,3,X,X,3,x,x,x/
x,x,x,3,X,X,3,x,x,x/
x,x,x,8,x,x,x/
x,x,x,drP,drP,drP,rZ,rZ,drP,drP,drP,x,x,x/
x,x,x,rZ,rO,drB,drQ,rK,drB,drN,rZ,x,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x

Great ideas, Caleb. I agree, we should have a subjective element of inviting some strong teams to keep them out of trouble and still have arenas available to those who do not meet either the subjective or objective criteria.
This morning, I came up with a new way of calculating objective selection: 2/3 Standard Rapid Teams rating + 1/3 Standard Blitz Self-Partnering rating, each with a correction factor of (Rating-1500)*(70-RD)/RD, making RD>70 unfavorable, but probably with only people on at least one of the leaderboards.
Announcement of the community event still to happen most likely later this week.

I completely agree, I think it is the best and would be an excellent format for the next event.

You could consider just doing it straight, without the RD part of it, seeing as most people have a somewhat high RD...of course, it also benefits people who play consistently.

Either way, seems like a good and easy way to take care of that part

...waiting for announcement...announcement of an event more important to 4PC on a community level...two chess players died waiting in Serbia for announcement...one left...

https://www.chess.com/news/view/community-championships-kicks-off-with-hyperbullet

Curious how this relates to everything, seeing as they plan on using this circuit for variants (but not us this year)

Lütfen bana bir şans verin

I want in total 32 arenas and 32 players will be selected .no pre selected players. some players play more and have more points. Some players cannot play that many games to increase points to show their name on leaderboards. After the qualified 32 players randomly selected 4 players will play in a match so that no one can understand who are playing in a board. Otherwise any 2 players can communicate and other 2 players will have no chance to remain in the game. Hats why at least 32 players should be selected .by doing that it will be almost absurd for players to understand who are playing in a board. All games should be played at same time so that any 4 players from 32 can be selected for a board .I understand it will be a bit lengthy. But for a fair winner I think this is better, Analysis you think this is much more fair, please raise your voice together with me .If I know certain 4 players are playing in a board,it is easy to predict them .Thanks all