Wouldn't winning twice in a row be the only real way to win? - Chess Forums

notmtwain

Jun 10, 2017

0

#1

Nooobface wrote:

Considering white always moves first, the game is not entirely equal.
Wouldn't the only way to really beat someone be to alternate colors every game and win once as white and once as black in a row?

I feel like it should also be the same with Billiards. Win once as the person who breaks and once as the person who doesn't in a row.

What if black wins?

macer75

Jun 10, 2017

0

#2

notmtwain wrote:

Nooobface wrote:

Considering white always moves first, the game is not entirely equal.
Wouldn't the only way to really beat someone be to alternate colors every game and win once as white and once as black in a row?

I feel like it should also be the same with Billiards. Win once as the person who breaks and once as the person who doesn't in a row.

What if black wins?

Then the universe explodes.

lfPatriotGames

Jun 10, 2017

0

#3

Irregadless, winning one in a row is still considered winning by some. For example, winning the US Open golf tournament just once in a row is considered still winning. And it makes no difference who goes first either. Besides, it gives me a chance to say the word irregardless.

cameronhambym

Jun 10, 2017

0

#4

You could win and draw too

Oops_l_Did_It_Again

Jun 10, 2017

0

#5

If black wins then it would like a best of 3. The point of a best of 3 is the one who wins twice first is the winner of the series and if black wins then another fight contrary to what Nooobface is pointing my idea is just to win twice in alternating colors another that in a row

MitSud

Jun 10, 2017

0

#6

They don't do this in tournaments because it would be a waste of time.

AussieMatey

Jun 10, 2017

0

#7

You could make it first to 6 wins, but it might go for more than 48 games or something.

macer75

Jun 10, 2017

0

#8

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Irregadless, winning one in a row is still considered winning by some. For example, winning the US Open golf tournament just once in a row is considered still winning. And it makes no difference who goes first either. Besides, it gives me a chance to say the word irregardless.

Which by the way isn't a word.

AussieMatey

Jun 10, 2017

0

#9

Yes it is.

lutak22

Jun 10, 2017

0

#10

Hahahahaha god I hope that's a troll

sea_of_trees

Jun 10, 2017

0

#11

Since the beginning of WC Matches (as early as de la Bourdonnais-McDonnell, 1834) the right to move first was unchanged following a draw.

Basically if you want the first move you must prove you can beat me with black. Or if I win as white we switch colors. Drawn game? We continue playing without reversing colors until a game is decisive.

I like that system. They should bring it back. Those two chaps back in 1834 played some very entertaining numbers.

sea_of_trees

Jun 10, 2017

0

#12

All that also gave me a chance to say the word basically.

Toucantime

Jun 10, 2017

0

#13

The OP has it right actually. And this is why there are multiple rounds tournaments and mutiple games matches. Who wins a game, wins a "point" and no one ever gets a prize or a trophy or a title by achieving an isolated victory. The pairing softwares in swiss tournaments, try to alternate white and black for every player, if possible. Now, what beats me, is why swiss tournaments nearly always go by 7 or 9 rounds, when half the players will then play 5 times white and 4 times black...