On a more serious note though, I really do think that faster time controls, similar to the tiebreakers, are necessary for bringing ca$h into the game. Business as usual won't work I'm afraid.
Isnt it crazy to decide Classical Chess champion by Rapid games?
Sort:
uscftigerprowl wrote:
MSC157 wrote:
You're trying too hard, usfctiger. Gg anyway. *facepalm*
What does that accomplish? How was that a decent contribution to the conversation? You could have facepalmed privately. No one cares. If you don't see relevance in what I said then take a hike. I am not trying to do whatever you are hiding from us that you think I am trying to do. I am voicing good legit reasons to have classical games and good classical games enforced. Either contribute or take a hike.
Yes, I didn't contribute to the thread, my comment was more of a reply to yours. But still I think it's a skill to contribute and listen to other and trying to accept or see their point of view, rather than beating the drum about what you think is correct.
And calling Carlsen unworthy champion in nonsense on its own. But I won't go on why, since fabelhaft (I think) already told you.
fabelhaft wrote:
"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? :-)
I like 24 games. I can see your point of 18 games since we now have WC match every two years.
Dec 2, 2016
0
#46
uscftigerprowl wrote:
"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."
If you are going to use rapid and blitz in the world chess tournament, which I am not opposed to, then have a rapid and blitz candidates tournament as well. Players would then have to do just what you are asserting. The Candidates is not determined based on rapid or blitz. The players are not even selected on the premise of their rapid or blitz performance but rather their classical chess ability.
This is why Caruana was so close to making it to the WCC. Anyway, if we are going to have rapid and blitz used in determining a world champion then all players should have the opportunity to play each other, not just Karjakin and Carlsen. ....
Isn't that what was done three cycles back? That method leads to draws in the main matches and the better rapid player winning. Similar to what happened in this match.
There probably isn't a perfect method. Chess, at a high level, draws, a lot. Most people agree that perfect play will result in a draw, so the better each player is, or gets, draws become more likely.
You can't really try to force players to use suboptimal openings, or ones they may consider suboptimal either.
Ultimately, there have been a number of different formats used for both the championship and for finding a challenger. It is likely to change again in the future. There probably isn't a perfect method.
If the recent championship match's 25m rounds had been drawn, and the 5m rounds drawn, the ultimate tie-break game would have been 5m for white, 4m for black, and a draw counted as a win for black.
Maybe doing something similar in the slow games would eliminate ties, or at least not allowing draws by agreement. I don't have the answer.
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
bank2010 wrote:
It is the same as deciding a football match by penalty.
Which is also stupid.
Extremely stupid. Can you imagine the NHL using penalties in the playoffs? Thank GOD it will never happen. When I see this crap in important soccer games (like a playoff) I turn off the TV. I absolutely hate it.
Martin_Stahl wrote:
uscftigerprowl wrote:
"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."
If you are going to use rapid and blitz in the world chess tournament, which I am not opposed to, then have a rapid and blitz candidates tournament as well. Players would then have to do just what you are asserting. The Candidates is not determined based on rapid or blitz. The players are not even selected on the premise of their rapid or blitz performance but rather their classical chess ability.
This is why Caruana was so close to making it to the WCC. Anyway, if we are going to have rapid and blitz used in determining a world champion then all players should have the opportunity to play each other, not just Karjakin and Carlsen. ....
Isn't that what was done three cycles back? That method leads to draws in the main matches and the better rapid player winning. Similar to what happened in this match.
There probably isn't a perfect method. Chess, at a high level, draws, a lot. Most people agree that perfect play will result in a draw, so the better each player is, or gets, draws become more likely.
You can't really try to force players to use suboptimal openings, or ones they may consider suboptimal either.
Ultimately, there have been a number of different formats used for both the championship and for finding a challenger. It is likely to change again in the future. There probably isn't a perfect method.
You may not be able to force a player to use or not use a particular opening but you sure can penalize them for a deliberate, pre-arranged draw. That's exactly what happened in game 12. The people that spent their time and money to be there in person should demand refunds. It was out and out fraud. I didn't even watch the playoff. I consider it a farce. I know I'll never spend my time and money to watch again unless FIDE steps up and has the guts to insist on changes. If the players don't like it, they don't have to play. They can forfeit whatever title they are holding. Fine by me.
Dec 2, 2016
0
#50
Who said it The World Championship was exclusively for Classical chess? Surely it simply decides who is the best chess player in the world right now, regardless of the format
Dec 2, 2016
0
#51
Pardon my ignorance but where does it say that the 2016 World Chess Championship is exclusively a classical tournament?
Dec 2, 2016
0
#52
I love the hate for the championship being decided by rapid and/or blitz, but I love all the solutions to break a tie listed here in this very thread even more.
Dec 2, 2016
0
#53
There are individual tournaments for all formats of the game, so why not unify them all into one match to decide the world's best chess player?
Dec 2, 2016
0
#54
Seems like rapid chess favors the younger competitor. What do you think?
uscftigerprowl wrote:
"You may not be able to force a player to use or not use a particular opening"
Why not? Why must we OH MIGHTY GODS of chess penalize players for wanting to rest after a game they lost (Magnus) and leave the press conference? However, we can't do something more sane and penalize players for not playing different openings and allow them time to rest after a game. Do the press conference before the next game the following day. Both players will be rested and can give better replies to questions rather than being short in their answers because they are exhausted.
There is no natural law that says we can't change things. Change them to be more sensible.
I am not saying they can never use Ruy Lopez (in this case), but after they have used it, then they should be required to play other openings.
"That's exactly what happened in game 12. The people that spent their time and money to be there in person should demand refunds."
That turns into a TV entertainment factor rather than skill and recognition factor of chess. If players played different openings and drew the last game, I wouldn't be as upset over that if the previous rounds had the same results. It makes very good sense to draw the last round and go into rapids if you think you can win it. You can't judge the tournament based on just one game. You have to look at the whole tournament.
My argument is, on the whole, Ruy Lopez was played way too often and does worse for everyone than 1 early draw. Being at the end of a tournament is completely useless. Neither player would want to risk losing in that case regardless the opening. If Karjakin were up by 1 point and it was the last round, I would then expect Carlsen not to make a quick draw, and vice versa.
Would prefer seeing Candidates matches and the final being a 24 game match every 3 years. Champion retains the title in the event of a tie. No need to change a working formula.
Dec 3, 2016
0
#57
12 game match is fine with me. In case of tie, a 13th classical game where challenger gets white and need to win to wrest the title. Draw (or champ wins) and champion retains title. The challenger must be the one to be aggressive to win. The challenger should prove he is worthy of replacing the reigning champ.
What is wrong with my suggestion from post #22? It sidesteps all of the complaints I've seen from anyone (not just limited to this thread) relating to every other alternative tiebreaking procedure that I have seen.
Is it that 4 rapid games (or even 2 blitz games) are considered more meaningful than 1 classical game (or even 3)? Or is it... yeah, I can't even think of another reason. 
And btw, fwiw the modified scoring from that proposal would be a lot more effective at reducing draw rates in match play than, for instance, forcing players to use different openings in every game. And the players would have less of a problem with it, too, which is kind of a nice bonus ;)
Fair enough. I suppose that could be a legitimate criticism from the perspective of someone who does not completely understand what I was trying to describe.
I also have to admit that you aren't the first person to have said this. In the thread I referred to (back in post #22), a member by the name of bbeltkyle89 commented on the same problem.
Nothing like classical chess championship?
World chess championship is about Classical Chess! Else we could have many variants of chess to decide tie breakers!
I understand they have penalty shootout in Football ... which is crazy. But in chess it is crazier,
Since ... There are separate Rapid ratings, and rapid chess tournaments. So its like a different sport event deciding the normal championship.
May be you could have additional games/ start from different (unprepared) positions/ Introduce an engine to play with them the same format of chess, and compare results. That would be fairer, and surely much more interesting!!
Im a 1700 Rabid player, Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.