Forums

If classical chess's future is dubious how can we make classical chess more interesting?

Sort:
Avatar of FizzyBand
NM FizzyBand
Jan 6, 2021
0
#81
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Ridiculous. The best game of 2020 was announced (Dubov-Karjakin), it was a rapid game, and the voting wasn’t even close. It’s a beautiful game.

Tell me how many WCC games from the 20th century will be remembered? I’d put the over-under at 1 and take the under.

Yeah the Dubov game was classical... 

While rapid and blitz may be far more exciting for spectating, classical usually produces far more well-played games and masterpieces as there is time to calculate.

 

Avatar of blueemu
blueemu
Jan 6, 2021
0
#82
mpaetz wrote:

Thirty years ago the international football (soccer to Americans) became convinced that defensive strategies had become too sophisticated and effective, leading to too many dull games as inferior teams could fall back into a "shell" and hold on for a draw. Their solution was to change the win=two points, draw=one point on the standings table to win=three points, draw=one point, making a win and a loss worth more in the final standings than two draws. If FIDE did the same thing it would incentivize players to go for the win. This wouldn't keep NikkiLikeChikki and her ilk from being bored by long games, but I would suggest they wait until the games have been analyzed and published--then there would be no difference.

See my Post #17 on page 1 of this thread.

Avatar of blueemu
blueemu
Jan 6, 2021
0
#83
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

Tell me how many WCC games from the 20th century will be remembered? I’d put the over-under at 1 and take the under.

Games 6 and 13 of the Fischer vs Spassky WCC match?

Game 14 of the Botvinnik vs Smyslov WCC match?

Game 1 and game 6 of the Botvinnik vs Tal WCC match?

Avatar of rpkgs
rpkgs
Jan 6, 2021
0
#84

Anand Kasparov 1995. 

Deep Blue vs Kasparov

Kramnik vs Kasparov

 

Avatar of mpaetz
mpaetz
Jan 6, 2021
0
#85

In the old days, interzonals, candidates matches or tournaments that resulted in ties were decided by a coin flip. Of course players went all-out for the win in the final games, trusting more in their own abilities than hoping for luck. And world championship matches that ended in ties left the defending champion with the crown, so the challenger had nothing to lose by playing riskier lines trying to win. I'm sure there are even more ways to get players to go for wins rather than playing it safe. Tournament prize funds might be awarded partly for final standings and partly for wins--that would certainly be attractive to GMs playing to earn a living.

Avatar of rpkgs
rpkgs
Jan 6, 2021
0
#86
mpaetz wrote:

In the old days, interzonals, candidates matches or tournaments that resulted in ties were decided by a coin flip. Of course players went all-out for the win in the final games, trusting more in their own abilities than hoping for luck. And world championship matches that ended in ties left the defending champion with the crown, so the challenger had nothing to lose by playing riskier lines trying to win. I'm sure there are even more ways to get players to go for wins rather than playing it safe. Tournament prize funds might be awarded partly for final standings and partly for wins--that would certainly be attractive to GMs playing to earn a living.

Good idea. No need for a change in rules in the actual chess, but just the format. 

Avatar of Jenium
Jenium
Jan 6, 2021
0
#87
mpaetz wrote:

Thirty years ago the international football (soccer to Americans) became convinced that defensive strategies had become too sophisticated and effective, leading to too many dull games as inferior teams could fall back into a "shell" and hold on for a draw. Their solution was to change the win=two points, draw=one point on the standings table to win=three points, draw=one point, making a win and a loss worth more in the final standings than two draws. If FIDE did the same thing it would incentivize players to go for the win. This wouldn't keep NikkiLikeChikki and her ilk from being bored by long games, but I would suggest they wait until the games have been analyzed and published--then there would be no difference.

I am not sure that it is fair to punish players for playing a "perfect" game. Unlike football, chess is indeed a drawish game and doesn't rely on luck, and changing the result of the game seems to be more drastic than reducing the time control a bit.

Also this actually wouldn't help in WC matches, where draws are really the issue.

I might be in the minority here, but the last WC matches with their rapid tiebreak finishes where actually quite interesting, and not that much more drawish than pre computer matches like Kramnik-Kasparov (13 draws in 15 games), or Kasparov-Karpov 1984 (40 draws in 48 games).

As for the round robin super GM tournaments, which are indeed a bit boring to watch, there are less drastic ways to encourage wins, like using a swiss system with more players, k.o. formats, or simply more rapid/blitz tournaments.