@Robert0905,
That is unfortunate for chess fans, a short games match (twelve games), a player will need to play more caution and be less creative in their games; just one lost can determine a match, even with Carlsen caliber against equal opponent (Caruana) can end the match with one lost and drawing the rest.
What would you think of a 17 or 18 game match instead ?
@Robert0905,
That is unfortunate for chess fans, a short games match (twelve games), a player will need to play more caution and be less creative in their games; just one lost can determine a match, even with Carlsen caliber against equal opponent (Caruana) can end the match with one lost and drawing the rest.
What would you think of a 17 or 18 game match instead ?
Well, I would love a long match. But the players probably couldn't do it.
@Robert0905,
That is unfortunate for chess fans, a short games match (twelve games), a player will need to play more caution and be less creative in their games; just one lost can determine a match, even with Carlsen caliber against equal opponent (Caruana) can end the match with one lost and drawing the rest.
What would you think of a 17 or 18 game match instead ?
Well, I would love a long match. But the players probably couldn't do it.
I think this long of a match could give each a player a mulligan or two and perhaps return some aggression, technical ideas, risks, etc, to the game. Also, with more games, it gives a player like Anand, who has so much experience, perhaps a chance to find some kryptonite in his greater experience with openings. For those who think someone like Carlsen is boring, perhaps they need to see when he feels free to open up his defenses a bit ?
24 like it used to be, or 6-10 wins draws don't count.
"6-10 wins draws don't count"
In the whole year 2012 the World Champion won three games, do you think he or any other top player would accept playing an unlimited match of that sort?
Sure,that used to be the norm.
"Sure,that used to be the norm"
It used to be the norm that the World Champion picks whatever opponent he chooses and can keep his title for 10+ years without having to defend it. Doesn't mean that anyone would endorse that today.
They could play every 3 years. I liked the interzonal to candidates form.
Best of all is Paul morphy. You have to check this guy out,.!
Best of all is Paul morphy. You have to check this guy out,.!
yes
Fischer by a long shot. Karpov would have been blown away. Fishcer didn't have the computers and preparation teams that Kasparov, albeit I liked Kasparov's style. Fischer wasn't afraid, the Russians wouldnt go for his demands.
Sure that Bobby dominated his time tremendously but Garry, on his prime, became someone out of the world in terms of calculating prowess.. then again, you can't put Garry ahead of when it comes to positional chess. Also, imagine yourself being pitted against Mikhail Tal in a time when you don't get computer-backed preparation! So, let's not go into such discussions, all those great players moved the game of chess ahead. Let's just enjoy the game.
Yes Lets all enjoy the game knowing that Bobby Fischer is the best of all time. lol. im kidding. but he is really.
:D
KASPAROV.
Tal is the best
"time" did not "end" yet - we cant say anthing about "all time" so.
Not a particularly brilliant or original complaint. That has been brought up several times.
Of course "of all time" implies "so far".
Paul Morphy
@Robert0905,
That is unfortunate for chess fans, a short games match (twelve games), a player will need to play more caution and be less creative in their games; just one lost can determine a match, even with Carlsen caliber against equal opponent (Caruana) can end the match with one lost and drawing the rest.