And more games allow for more variety, similar to Candidates Tournament.
Boring World Championship
Sort:
KhaosTheory wrote:
Tal1949 wrote:
kco wrote:
As I had said earlier in other threads similar to this one here: If you complain how short or boring the draw games is, is obvious that you do not understand chess.
And I have said on other threads- they are not playing draws. They are colliding together at the highest level of play. Just watch the press conference and see what I mean. Anand says, "I studied the position and went through the very sharp variations. I could feel it going outside my prep so decide to shut the game down."
They are not playing chess, they are just using their memorized lines. And when they are forced to actually start playing they back down and just accept a draw. FIDE and world chess is a joke if they do nothing about it.
And for those who think that fireworks might start just watch Carlsen at the conference. He sits back and has no intention of saying anything. Is that the look of a man who will play to win??
lol... wtf?
There is a trend of the players quitting when they run out of theory. Carlsen had little choice in game 1 but in game 2 Anand admits to not wanting to risk out-preparation so he went for a draw. This creates the view that the players are actively avoiding positions they've never seen before which looks like a questionable act from a champion of anything and that championship chess is simply hoping for an opening advantage in 15 moves and quitting when you can't get it.
Perhaps it's fair to say that such timid play is required in a 12-game format. I don't know. But it's also fair to say that a lot of people don't want to see that. If we want theory we can just look in a database. You can't expect people to be excited about a format, or any sport, that discourages new ideas from it's players.
Nov 10, 2013
0
#64
Whose going to pay for a 24 game match?
Of course 24 games is better than 12 games. Statisticians have worked out that a 24 game match (or even an 18 game match) significantly improves the odds of the better playing winning. Which, when we get right down to it is the entire reason for playing a match in the first place!
But unless Sinquefield or some other multi-millionaire sponsors the event, it will never happen.
The 12-game match isn't horrible. It's just not ideal.
And those who are bored by a 12 game match will be even more bored by 18 games or 24 games. A match for the world championship is not the same as a tournament, nor should it be. The primary goal is to determine the best player in the world. Chess tournaments are more entertaining, but less rigorous.
Ziryab wrote:
NotMeEver wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Savage wrote:
(And I hate Democrats as much as anyone, believe me.)
Geez, you two gonna compete for some wingnut award? In American politics, the Democrats are terrible. Half of everything they say and do is wrong-headed. But, their opponents manage to hit the theoretically impossible 98% wrong level. And that's the mainstream Republicans. Currently their party is held hostage by folks so far out on a limb that 98% wrong looks credible to truth seekers. It is astounding.
Their opponents aren't just Republicans, though. It's a lot easier to vote Democrat when you ignore that face.
And I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to talk politics in here.
No, there are actually seventeen or eighteen actual socialists in the US and they have a hard time distinguishing Democrats from Republicans, except for the three who are totalitarians. They call the Repugnacans thieves for stealing their ideas.
Because socialists are the only third-party members?
And I love the Republican name-calling. It totally makes you look informed.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Whose going to pay for a 24 game match?
Of course 24 games is better than 12 games. Statisticians have worked out that a 24 game match (or even an 18 game match) significantly improves the odds of the better playing winning. Which, when we get right down to it is the entire reason for playing a match in the first place!
But unless Sinquefield or some other multi-millionaire sponsors the event, it will never happen.
The 12-game match isn't horrible. It's just not ideal.
And those who are bored by a 12 game match will be even more bored by 18 games or 24 games. A match for the world championship is not the same as a tournament, nor should it be. The primary goal is to determine the best player in the world. Chess tournaments are more entertaining, but less rigorous.
Unfortunately I don't think the current trend in play is going to help sponsorship very much. I'm not sure what they're going to do about that.
As the players become stronger--there will be very few mistakes made and thus very many draws. These two players are very strong.
Maybe it's less about the draw aspect of the match and more about only 12 games. Back when I was a lad I saw Gentleman Jim Corbet fight an eskimo chess player over 400 games before finally claiming the title. Of course back then if a match didn't last more than 300 games we demanded our nickle back!
Nov 11, 2013
0
#69
The best players have become so good that the ideal strategy for the defender is to try draw every single game and it's also very doable. I dont think Anand ever loses the title. He defends it 2-3 times yet and then they stop organizing any more WC matches. No reason to complain though, just the nature of the game.
Mersaphe wrote:
Despite what everyone else seems to think about Carlsen's "fighting spirit", I think this match might go down in history as one of the more boring ones. Kramnik-Topalov was extremely exciting and had lots of blunders and drama, Anand-Kramnik was exciting in the sense that the quality of games was high and Anand's preparation was excellent, and both Anand-Topalov and Anand-Gelfand produced a high number of decisive games so that even though those matches went to tiebreaks they kept my interest throughout. Anand-Carlsen may just be another Kramnik-Leko.
Its a question of style, Carlsen may be the highest rated player in history but he hasn't got there through butchering opponents tactically. Rather he plays very quiet openings and grinds opponents down with phenomenal endgame technique. For all of his youth and supposed attractiveness to sponsors, his actual playing style is more like Karpov or Capablanca than Fischer or Kasparov.
I don't agree with the critics. In my opinion, all they should do is to abolish tie-breaks. If tied, defending champion wins. And yes, extend it to at least 16 if not 24 games. That would have solved the problem.
Nov 11, 2013
0
#72
MSC157 wrote:
I don't agree with the critics. In my opinion, all they should do is to abolish tie-breaks. If tied, defending champion wins. And yes, extend it to at least 16 if not 24 games. That would have solved the problem.
and plus if a tie break have a rematch in the following year.
No rematch, please! Botvinnik just sat on his butt and played matches once every two years.
MSC157 wrote:
I don't agree with the critics. In my opinion, all they should do is to abolish tie-breaks. If tied, defending champion wins. And yes, extend it to at least 16 if not 24 games. That would have solved the problem.
Play 1 game for all the marbles. If a tie we play till somebody wins. No playing a couple days later. Nobody leaves the building till we have a champion. If they have to play 5- 8 games so be it and it last way past their sleeping hours well they are getting paid huge amounts to play ... man up. Sure the last part does not work for Anand.
Nov 11, 2013
0
#75
Ponz, the complaints are not about draws, they're about boring chess. Even Nakamura, one of the ten best players in the world, complained about the lack of fireworks so far.
But he's not playing for the title. Gary Kasparov, in his first world championship match, was blown off the board until he settled down and learned to take draws.
Carlsen's result in the first two games is an improvement over Petrosian, Fischer, and Smyslov combined!
Because of all the chess-super-computers, creativity is down to zero.
Now this is what you get. Computers have killed the game.
The idea of introducing Chess 960 in these games may be the way. The first 2 games are chess 960 where they alternate sides with the exact setup in both games. Now i like to see them try to draw those games. Which will make games 3 and 4 in regular format start off with fireworks.
Nov 11, 2013
0
#78
If world championship chess bores you, there are other things you can be doing.
The nature of the beast is for there to be some short draws. Against Gelfand, Anand played it safe the first time he saw Gelfand's Grunfeld, then he played one of the most ambitious openings possible against it.
Anand has successfully defended his title against Topalov and Gelfand, two dangerous players with vastly different styles. I think it's safe to suggest that Anand knows how to win a world championship match.
Again, if this bores you, there are plenty of other things to do on the internet.
I agree with the OP, the 12 game format must go. It's too short and forces the players to avoid risk. It's a recipe for drowsiness. Fischer/Spassky had a 24 game format, twice the amount which produced some very exciting games! FIDE needs to bring back the 24 game format asap.