FIDE World Championship - Magnus Carlsen vs Ian Nepomniactchi

Well, you start the discussion with "it's long and boring to watch" then immediately go into purely logical (/sarcasm) reasons why we should make the games shorter. Forgive me for not taking it very seriously.

And as I pointed out, they didn't use all their time today. It's a non-problem. If shorter time yields equal quality then the players will choose to spend less time. That's just obvious.

By the way, in the past the time controls were even longer. See:  adjournments.

secret yogurt lol

@llama47 - I don't actually believe that I ever said that it should be shorter on this thread, did I? I just said that it was bad theater. I said the value lies in looking at the games after the fact and not in actually watching the games. I didn't suggest that we should shorten the games, just that we should determine the best length of a game based upon evidence not presupposition.

In the past I have argued that the WCC should be determined by how chess is actually played, not by just one time format. I believe that in order to be proclaimed the best chess player, you should be the best chess player and not just the best classical player. I think it's entirely reasonable that we could have classical, rapid, and blitz sections, and that each is weighed equally. Is Fabi a better chess player than Hikaru? Well, he's a better classical player, and classical has more prestige, but he's not inherently a better chess player. He's a better chess player in a time format that most chess people, in an entirely subjective manner, consider more important. That's all.

But I know that I'm in the minority so won't die on that hill.

The one who does better in the classical format is the better chess player . 

Which is an entirely subjective point of view based upon what you value in chess and is not an objective fact.

When I've watched the championship in past years on Kingcrushers channel and some years on other titled players channels, the enjoyment came from the length of time spent investigating the positions. In many cases, in a chat room of like minded people we had come up with better continuations than the game actually proceeded. It's interesting that some opening preparation moves were correspondence database moves and considered novelties. Some of us have a certain mentality that the most complex positions and best moves come from long time controls or collusion such as vote chess. So it's this hope for the highest accuracy that I derive my entertainment from.

It's just that you can win/lose speed games for reasons other than the moves you play... and if you define a chess games as the moves played, then you could say long time controls are "real" chess.

Of course the clock matters too, so you could argue the other way, but there's more to it than personal preference.

Who's better at chess should only be decided by the moves they play . Not the clock and not any other damn factor . And probably everyone agrees on this .So yeah classical is the way to go as always . 

@llama47 Oh really? Being good at chess requires several different skills: calculation, tactical skill, pattern recognition, and memory. Classical chess puts a greater emphasis on calculation whereas shorter time formats put a greater emphasis on tactical skill and pattern recognition. A good memory is, of course, useful in both.

Why is calculation inherently something more to be valued than pattern recognition and tactical skill? I think each is a different skill and that a chess championship should test your entire skill set, not bias it in favor of one being considered more prestigious.

Knowing which lines to calculate and which to ignore involves tons of knowledge. You're effectively rendering semi-correct evaluations and re-analyzing the strategy on every half-move while also checking for tactics, etc.

To be fair, how chess "is actually played" is without a clock and without tournament rules.  The only reason for time controls at all is as a concession to the spectators, not the players.

Sports as a money making mechanism that must be popularized is unnatural.  Rather, the match should be played by the two best players, and if people choose to watch, then they watch.  Let them grow beards while playing...it's not the spectator's place to complain about not being entertained, because chess is not played to entertain spectators in the short term.

Chess is also a somewhat different animal.  If you watch two basketball teams play a wild game with all offense, poor defense, and numerous lead changes, that's still entertaining.  If you watch the two best chess players in the world engage in a blunderfest, that's garbage.  Which is why when super GMs get interviewed about the chess games that inspired them or taught them something they hung onto all their lives, you won't hear them talking about blitz games, which are throwaways.

If you had a pottery making world championship, but the contestants only had 15 minutes, you might call that entertainment...but the resulting pottery would be thrown out afterwards...because it would be worthless.

You can take this with a grain of salt if you like, because I believe all professional sports leagues should be disbanded, so...

Maybe this isn't the place to have this discussion, but I'm curious why?

Because professional sports leagues are a marketing hijack of spectators from more deserving local sporting events, they generate billions of dollars that go to relatively few people, and they promote/sensationalize things to a surreal level, which creates a harmful effect on kids that grow up watching it. 

Have you ever stepped back to ponder the absurdity of a 260lb linebacker in his pads knocking someone on the ground, then jumping up and stomping around trash talking and flexing like he just cured cancer....many for every single tackle they make?  This is something that has evolved, through exploitation.  Professional sports are a product designed to extract cash from masses of people by appealing to their fundamental insecure needs...need for inclusion with groups, need for association with winning, need for watching and learning from physical conflicts, etc.

I'm with you insofar that entertainment in general is a lot of BS, but a population needs entertainment, it's good for society. Sure a grown man playing a children's ball game at a high level, and jumping around like he did something important is absurd, but as a nihilist it seems fitting heh.

I think your best point is the hijacking of money away from local sporting events and into the pockets of a few.

Bismillah

Heh, that'd be interesting.

Polgar/Giri - I don't think so. They didn't start commentating until 6 moves in, and they were 10 moves behind at the end.

I hear you too. I agree that sponsors are necessary to pay the bills. So I am not against making the WC a fun event. And in fact, FIDE has already made a lot of changes to make the World Championship viewer friendly:

- They shortened the time control and reduced the number of games.

- No draw offers are allowed before move 30.

- They even included a rapid/blitz tie break, which is quite a radical change.

And in my opinion having 2 GMs talking about the games make them more accessible to the audience. I remember watching Kramnik-Kasparov on ICC when no audio was available, and it was way harder to follow. 

Where I disagree is that I don't think that there should be massive changes in the time control, the mode or in the game itself just to entertain the crowd. (FIDE tried that a while ago and implemented a KO system with a shortened time control. The result were champions who were not even in the top 10.) Chess, if played well, is a drawn game. So if the two best players play it is to be expected that most games end in a draw. It also takes longer as a football game, and the action isn't visible to the untrained eye. So I understand that for most people this isn't as exciting as football or basketball. But maybe the WC isn't just for everyone.

Magnus will probably win