ofc it is crazy to decide by bullet. i don't think you can play bullet on the board. but on internet you can
Isnt it crazy to decide Classical Chess champion by Rapid games?
Sort:
"Carlsen cheats the system"
How does he cheat the system?
"playing Ruy Lopez over and over again doesn't demonstrate overall knowledge of chess"
Both played the Ruy Lopez in some games, then there was a Trompowsky, another 1.d4 game, a couple of Giuoco Pianos, a Sicilian, and apart from that I think he proved overall knowledge of chess in other ways than playing even more varied openings. And there were some Queen's Gambits in Capa vs Alekhine, no?
"Anyone can goof up in fast chess. That's gifting someone the championship"
I don't think it's just about anyone goofing up and gifting Carlsen the championship. Looking at the tiebreak games Carlsen was just different class than Karjakin there.
Dec 1, 2016
0
#24
uscftigerprowl wrote:
nimzomalaysian wrote:
Firstly, there is no such thing as "Classical Chess Championship", it's just called world chess championship. So it's fair to expect the "world chess champion" to be good at all formats of the game. They both were equally good at classical, so the better player in rapid wins the title.
That's like saying there is no such thing as extra innings in baseball. I don't know where you get off expecting people to be good at all 3. Carlsen cheats the system and playing Ruy Lopez over and over again doesn't demonstrate overall knowledge of chess. Between moving pieces fast and preparing different openings, I would expect a "world chess champion" to do the latter. Anyone can goof up in fast chess. That's gifting someone the championship. What if college entrance exams were based on speed rather than intellect?
They are turning chess into a spectator event rather than a true chess championship which should have more games, and the Sofia rule has got to become more stringent on playing out a game.
Well, I don't watch or play baseball so I have no idea what extra innings mean. Anyway, I expect the world chess champion to be good at all formats of chess i.e., Classical, Rapid, Blitz and even Bullet if necessary and clearly Carlsen is good at all of them. So, if you have two people who are equally good at classical then what do you do? You look at their rapid play, if they're equally good at rapid too then you look at their blitz play. That's exactly what FIDE has proposed and I think it's totally fair.
Sorry, but I don't see how playing a standard opening like the Ruy is consided as cheating the system and I don't think any of us are qualified enough to talk about Carlsen's knowledge in chess.
You say you prefer preparing deep lines using a computer opponent and vomitting those moves during a game than intiutively thinking while at the board. How is the former even considered chess? It's just a memorization game. Anyone who plays speed chess knows that speed chess is not just about moving fast and hoping to win on time, I'm pretty sure Carlsen's performance yesterday was at least 2400 even if was taking less than 20 seconds per move and Karjakin failed to keep up with him even after thinking for 2 minutes on average per move. Does this not mean that Carlsen is more deserving of the title?
Chess is a game of tactics and if a person can see a complicated combination in 20 seconds, then that person is definitely better than the person who can see the same combination in 3 minutes.
ofc it is crazy to decide by bullet. i don't think you can play bullet on the board. but on internet you can
Dec 1, 2016
0
#26
I liked the rapid games. They were exciting. They definitely showed who the better player was. Especially on the clock
Dec 1, 2016
0
#27
The problem with rapid is that winning the game becomes more about playing meh moves and winning on time than playing objectively good moves and trying to outplay the opponent on pure chess ability. It decreases the value of the games being played substantially and just turns into a test of speed. Anyone can blunder in rapid and Carlsen himself has been in Karjakin's position plenty of times himself.
Dec 1, 2016
0
#28
nimzomalaysian wrote:
APG817 wrote:
30 games would be a little too much, these are not engines playing like the ones in TCEC, these are humans who get tired after a game that lasts for 6 hours.
A little too much? it's the world championship it's suppose to be a test of endurance attrition and heart just like 15 round championship boxing matches Steinitz Lasker Kasparov and Alexander Alekhine fought like lions for that title. No reason they can't give more.
"The problem with rapid is that winning the game becomes more about playing meh moves and winning on time than playing objectively good moves and trying to outplay the opponent on pure chess ability"
25+10 isn't more about winning on time than playing good moves, that's hardly true for any time controls except 1+0 bullet :-)
Dec 1, 2016
0
#30
Fischer, Tal, Morphy, Botnivik, Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, all the other old greats are all rolling over in their graves, as well as Karpov, Spassky and Kasparov. I have a quicker more exciting idea, let them decide the WC by playing best of 3 on Pac Man.
"all the other old greats are all rolling over in their graves, as well as Karpov, Spassky and Kasparov"
Not the last three, I hope...
12 games is really too little, this one I think the vast majority agree on.
You're trying too hard, usfctiger. Gg anyway. *facepalm*
Dec 1, 2016
0
#35
bank2010 wrote:
It is the same as deciding a football match by penalty.
Which is also stupid.
Dec 1, 2016
0
#36
It's the same as a 200 m race where two runners tie (let's ignore the photo finish), and the winner is decided by running a 100m race.
The length of the match is important, that Karpov-Kasparov match was insane. But the idea the World Champion defends his title if the match is drawn should stand. He hasn't been defeated no matter what the kength of the event is decided to be.
Dec 1, 2016
0
#38
Rapid playoffs are crazy! We need 18 game matches as the 12 game format is too short. I am distressed by this match, not because Carlsen won, but because he won a classical match by rapid games. 18 games and if the match is tied, the champion retains his title. NO PLAYOFFS.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. You train for months and then the World Championship is decided by 4 rapid games????? Yuck!
We could be even more ridiculous by deciding the World Championship by a 1 minute bullet game!!
"I am distressed by this match, not because Carlsen won, but because he won a classical match by rapid games. 18 games and if the match is tied, the champion retains his title. NO PLAYOFF"
Was it after Carlsen won you became distressed or were you as distressed after the 2006 and 2012 title matches? :-)
NO. Cause it is not classical chess championship it is World Chess Championship and IMO it should only be rapid, with no classical as it is too drawish. See the Following:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/ways-to-avoid-super-gm-draws