If super GM'S were to draw every game in a round robin, what is it to you?

i hate classical chess! there will be BLOOD only in rapid or blitz

Precisely. As I stated in a previous thread, if top level Chess is going to be played mainly to draws, then it needs to be operated as a beauty contest. Wins and losses would be disqualified as `ugly`. The drawn games would then be submitted to a panel of judges to determine the most beautiful games. The scoring and prize payouts would then be awarded according to the judges decisions. Kind of like competitive gymnastics. And if we're not going to do this, then we need to shorten the time control to rapid and let humans do what they do best; namely, duke it out.

End of classical chess because of the too many draws has been successively predicted in the 1890's, the 30's, the 50's, the 60's, the 70,'s, the 80's, and now. In fact, in almost any period since the end of the Romantic period you can find top level players as well as amator complaining that classical chess is going to die because of draws.
Well, chess is still alive and kicking, and exactly as interesting as ever.

I like the idea of rapid becoming the norm for GM's. Only counterpoint is , it changes the dynamics and puts into question, who is the best player? Currently 2 hours is viewed as a standard, why not different?. 2 hours fits into a daily schedule. I'll bet at 1 day a move you'd see different contenders, just like at blitz others excell.

I wouldn't say top level Chess is as interesting as ever. It used to be as interesting as ever back in the days of Capablanca, Marshall, even as recent as Karpov, Kasparov. But nowadays, combining the photographic memory abilities of the super GM`s, along with their Chess engine home analysis using Stockfish, Komodo, etc, it's worse than ever. At least, back in the day, the ideas they brought to the board were original, human, ideas. Nowadays, they take an idea from Stockfish or Komodo and hope the other guy hasn't seen the same thing. That is why we need to go to a rapid time control. At least, that way, the players are encouraged to try out original ideas that they find over the board. In itself, it still isn't an ultimate solution, there are other ideas, such as random selection of openings that could be tried, but at least it's a start.

Did you read what I wrote ?
Capablanca claimed that chess was not interesting any more because draw were too frequent.
Fischer claimed that at his time chess was only about memorisation and arrangement.
Steinitz was criticised for his boring (!!??) play !

By the way, the more you decrease the time alotted to think the less original ideas you will have, this is just logical : less time to think = less thinking = less creativity (but much more blunders).

The norm has always been 1 game. For a good game 4 to 5 hours in a single day. Today's issue is quite clear, with engines and preperation, it becomes difficult to win. The top GM'S have their status to protect. And why shouldn't they? So, time control obviously shouldn't be extended in today's fast paced world (Although fine with me) but shortened to satisfy the thirst of those in the grandstands wanting blood.

Excellent post GalaxKing... good insight of top level play. Fortunately, I'm a patzer and can still enjoy the game vs other patzers.

It is a hard concept for us amatures to accept.There needs to be a winner/loser. We make so many mistakes, the last mistake loses the game. GM'S make very few mistakes, hence the logical outcome of any chess game is a draw. It's the nature of the beast. No 2 ways about it.

I understand what you're saying, and I guess between the super GM`s of history and present, those guys ability is so advanced, there will always be a high number of draws. It's just that if I'm going to watch an entire five game round all end in draws, why should it take five hours? At least with rapid time control they could play multiple games every day and create decisive results, like they do in the tie breaker games. I guess my bottom line thought is, if they're going to determine the winner of these super tournaments by rapid Chess, might as well play the entire tournament with that time control. Because rapid time control will give you the decisive results that you were going for in the first place. It costs a lot of money for these guys to spend a week in a hotel, not to mention the money it costs to sponsor the event, rent the space, pay arbiters, etc. Why spend all that money to watch five days worth of draws and then decide the winner in one evening of rapid Chess. And honestly, watching the rapid playoff games was a lot more exciting than watching the classical games.

Exactly! Rapid it must be! But will take awhile to implement, if ever. Will need the support of the GM'S which is problematic. But THEY are pricing themselves out of the market, and for continued sponsor support, changes will have to occur.

Thank you for your support, lol. I do enjoy a well played classical game, but only because it's cool to watch the top players. As far as sitting there for five hours and listening to the commentators repeat their `what if` moves for the umpteenth time, I just wanna cry, lol.

1/3 point for a draw would mean to punish players for playing a perfect game and bringing it to the logical outcome and to encourage coffeehouse chess...

There are better solutions: Sofia rules, swiss or k.o. tournaments ...

In addition, I disagree that the game would be dead if all super GM's drew their games. Why care about super GM's who draw their games in 10 moves if there are plenty of players below 2600 who play exciting chess?

What can be worse than sitting thru chess commentators during a live game? I can think of watching paint dry , but that's a distant 2nd. How about Jay Leno making humorous comments, with a side kick giving crazy analysis?

Rapid chess means you'll get your draws faster.  It probably means there will be more 'blunders' too, although what is defined as a blunder nowadays seems ridiculous to me anyway.  As chess engins get stronger and stronger so the threshold of blunder also goes up so that armchair engine-users shout 'blunder' because GMs at the table don't see an insane computer line that leads to an advantage.

I like settling down of an evening to watch coverage of a tournament of 6 hour games.  Less so the World Championship though because I like having numerous games to follow rather than just the same game throughout.  With 6 parallel games there's usully 1 or 2 that are interesting.

In the modern world no-one has any attention span though so people just want everything faster.  The attitude of "make the players play faster so they'll make more blunders and someone will win" is hardly one to lead to a sport containing quality.

There should be more experiments though at encouraging decisive results.  Even basic stuff like using some of the prize pool to give some (balanced) amount per win and nothing for a draw.  Even Anish Giri himself said that if you pay them GMs will basically do anything (within the chess arena).

Imo Giri is the best player today. Yea... he takes alot of draws like Petrosian, you can't beat him. Maybe with more experiance he will find ways to win more often.

The cost of rapid chess means there will be fewer Carlsen-Nakamura endgames. The benefit of rapid chess means you'll get more Giri-MVL types of games. 

People who are whining about the draw death of chess won't have as much to whine about. People complaining that chess players aren't perfect still whine when Carlsen goes into insanely complicated positions against Grischuk and wins despite giving up winning chances. Oh, wait. That was played at slow time controls too. 

I do like slow chess. It can be really beautiful. But humans will never be perfect no matter how much time you give them. I don't for one instant believe that playing rapid chess will increase the number of spectators, but it may not lose the current base. The increasing number of draws may end up losing spectators. (Not me. I thought the Carlsen-Adams and Anand games were fantastic!)

Oh I'm sure rapid would increase the spectators. You'll get more "exciting" time scrambles, drama at the board when someone's finger slips, more heartbreak due to blunders and missed wins, more excited and frantic commentating because there will be postions that the commentators won't be able to call in such little time AND you might be able to watch a whole round in one sitting. And it'll all be brought to you by Visa: It's everywhere you want to be.

OK maybe Visa won't be involved. 

Grischuk provides plenty of "exciting" time scrambles in clasical chess, as did Caruna and Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup.  However much time you give players they will often find a way to use it all.

You get lots of decisive games if you watch a < 1200 bullet tournament on chess.com.  People make lots of mistakes => decisiveness.  No need to watch 6 hour marathons when decisiveness if the aim!