And so are you disputing anything I said, or agreeing with it all? Because your linked definition doesn't change anything I've said, I simply gave you examples of it. If anything you are showing why you are the one displaying poor sportsmanship when complaining about the rules of the game.
Compare your examples to the definition and there is your answer.
My proposition how to fix this for a better one:
- Use a fixed amount of games for each time control.
- NO TIMER FOR ENTIRE MATCH PLEASE.
- 8 games for 5+1, 10 for 3+1, and 10 for 1+1
That's it. Easy, great to watch, and no dirt.
The problem is that, regardless of whether or not there's a match clock, we'd still have issues with the leading player using match strategy.
Consider when Ian Nepomniatchi took an early lead in the Candidates. He then began intentionally playing drawish openings, with the goal of drawing out the rest of his games.
This would happen in a match with no clock. Once a player siezes a lead of 2 points or more, he'll then play forced drawing lines from there on out. And fans of the losing player would complain much the same ("He's not trying to win anymore! He's just playing for draws! It's dirty! Unsportsmanlike!").
It'd just be a race to seize a lead, then a bunch of draws from there on out. I'd argue that this would make the format even less enjoyable to watch ...
So (IMO) the match clock should stay. It adds an extra element of strategy and risk, with the time pressure ticking away.
its just strategy unfortunately, something they maybe could do is readjust the amount of time for the bullet section making it at least 60 minutes although 4 hours for the players is brutal. i think the only thing that they would change is that pretty much cause it only makes some sense
Also bleeding the clock is just part of the match strategy, you gotta bleed it with every second if your the one winning as it boosts the chances of getting the money while also decreasing the chances that your opponent will have enough time to comeback, even carlsen respects it
It's not really poor sportsmanship. In many other sports, there is a strategy to run the clock down and try to hold on to your lead as long as possible. In the case of the SCC, I think this is perfectly fine. Hikaru and Magnus had a back and forth match where both players had chances to lead. In the end, after an intense bullet section, Hikaru was able to stall the clock for one game to secure a close match win.
I think this argument against the format is completely stupid and flawed due to the fact that the ending is the bullet section. The games are only 1-2 minutes long! In a 30-minute session, there's going to be something like 10+ games. There's very little margin to even be able to stall, as you saw Hikaru barely squeezed in the moves to make the time cut. Since there's so many short games in a short amount of time, I feel like this is actually a pretty good format against time wasting. Players will pretty much always have say 29 minutes of nonstop games.
It gives the match more depth, so why change it?
While I was watching the SCC live, the conclusion felt highly unsatisfying. After reading other people's perspectives on it, I changed my opinion.
At first, it felt like it was dirty, that Hikaru 'should' try to win in chess, and not with time, but people brought up many valid points and analogies. On top of that, none of the high-level players seemed to think it was dirty either.
I now look back on the final match with a new view: Magnus had to win fast, Hikaru had to survive long enough and the overall match clock added tension that would not have been there otherwise.
On top of that, Magnus said it was the most fun he had had in years, so who am I to complain in the first place?
While I was watching the SCC live, the conclusion felt highly unsatisfying. After reading other people's perspectives on it, I changed my opinion.
At first, it felt like it was dirty, that Hikaru 'should' try to win in chess, and not with time, but people brought up many valid points and analogies. On top of that, none of the high-level players seemed to think it was dirty either.
I now look back on the final match with a new view: Magnus had to win fast, Hikaru had to survive long enough and the overall match clock added tension that would not have been there otherwise.
On top of that, Magnus said it was the most fun he had had in years, so who am I to complain in the first place?
I caught part of the match by accident. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was fast, exciting, as stated above the clock added tension. And as this person caught in the post game interview. Carslen said it was the most fun he had in years! You could sense how much he appreciated playing in this tournament during the interview. And as I recall he emphasized more than once how enjoyed it. Does that not show how good of tournament it was?! To all those complaining about lack of sportsmanship, I look forward to seeing them in a tournament pause a clock for their opponent when they are in time trouble.....
I've been watching SCC since the very first edition.
And for all these years the format has always been the same. 90/60/30 minutes for each time control.
And we all have to admit that this format hasn't aged well. It desperately requires to be updated.
The main reason - it encourages players to play dirty.
This is disgusting to watch. It's terrible sportsmanship, it's a terrible show. It doesn't do good for chess and the community, it ruins those matches, and ruins players' reputations.
It is extremely toxic and really unbearable to watch.
The peak of this toxicity was the last game between Hikaru and Magnus.
My proposition how to fix this for a better one:
- Use a fixed amount of games for each time control.
- NO TIMER FOR ENTIRE MATCH PLEASE.
- 8 games for 5+1, 10 for 3+1, and 10 for 1+1
That's it. Easy, great to watch, and no dirt. Duration of each match would stay the same.
Save the SCC.
I disagree and I was pleasantly surprised and very proud of Magnus for saying there is nothing wrong with letting the clock run out and that it is a valid tournament strategy. I've always felt that anything that undermines the purpose of a clock, is undermining chess in general. The clock is what makes chess a sport to me. I don't even like increments and I think when they were introduced by fischer, he was simply being a poor sport. lol. But Magnus showed real class and sportsmanship after his loss today. I have way more respect for him then I ever did now.
Magnus signed the contract. And is basically been bought by chess.com (all of his companies). What else do you expect him to say?
We are here to watch great and clean chess.
Not to watch some tricks, cheats, "politics" and other dirt.
I don't won't to be entertained at the cost of the game.
Plus it leaves the feeling of unfairness, that one player could have won because his chess was better, and he lost because his opponent is a time trickster.
We are here to watch great and clean chess.
That's odd, I didn't know people watched blitz and bullet for "great and clean chess".
I actually thought that the clock related tactics added a lot of entertainment value to the game. You have more strategising about when to resign if you're loosing, the rush of Magnus needing to beat the clock even when he was winning in the last game etc. Plus it can create more upsets if a weaker player is able to get an early lead they can try and hang on to it by dragging games out and trying to make draws.
I agree.
Clock management is part of most games.
Watch American Football, for example, and look specifically at the fourth quarter. When one team is ahead, on offense, they'll often milk the clock with consecutive running plays (to keep the clock ticking). When one team is behind, on offense, they'll try to pass near the sidelines so the receivers can run out of bounds (to stop the clock).
Basketball? The team with the lead will begin milking the shot clock. Sometimes this means the point guard dribbles the ball and runs around in actual circles, to burn as much clock as possible.
You need to use the clock the best you can, depending on where you stand in the match. This means ending games quickly, if you're behind. It means stretching games out, if you're ahead. If you don't, then you're showing a lack of experience ...
If other sports have terrible practices why whould we blindly reapeat that in chess?!
I know that in soccer too, and it always looks and feels disgusting.
Chess has a major advantage. It can have fixed amount of games, and each game has fixed amount of time. This is HUGE advatnage. And it's being thrown in the bin, and then the most unsuitable format being forced upon chess to make it ugly, but "entertaining" for some...
So tournament organizers created a problem which chess organically never had.
We are here to watch great and clean chess.
That's odd, I didn't know people watched blitz and bullet for "great and clean chess".
Blunders are part of chess. That is the extreme entertaining part. Why add this alien "milking the clock", "resign now to have more time", why? This is absolutely not necessary.
We are here to watch great and clean chess.
That's odd, I didn't know people watched blitz and bullet for "great and clean chess".
Blunders are part of chess. That is the extreme entertaining part. Why add this alien "milking the clock", "resign now to have more time", why? This is absolutely not necessary.
It's always alien to someone. A hundred years ago, playing blitz and bullet at all would have been deemed absurd by many top level players. And they're doing it now why? Because the players and fans have learned to appreciate it. Same with this.
When building a great database, the only time you would include bullet games is when those games have been engine v. engine. Any other time and you would filter them out. Anyone would. They're not proper games. Even with an engine you have to take into account that it's bullet, if you're building an opening book, for instance. You need to account for the lack of proper time for the engine to think.
While I was watching the SCC live, the conclusion felt highly unsatisfying. After reading other people's perspectives on it, I changed my opinion.
At first, it felt like it was dirty, that Hikaru 'should' try to win in chess, and not with time, but people brought up many valid points and analogies. On top of that, none of the high-level players seemed to think it was dirty either.
I now look back on the final match with a new view: Magnus had to win fast, Hikaru had to survive long enough and the overall match clock added tension that would not have been there otherwise.
On top of that, Magnus said it was the most fun he had had in years, so who am I to complain in the first place?
Well said.
Also, Hikaru did win on chess, too. He won 14.5 games. Carlsen won 13.5 games. The math doesn't lie.
But the match wasn't an even keel - it ebbed and flowed, in both directions.
Hikaru dominated Magnus in the beginning. It wasn't even close. Everyone wondered what had happened to Magnus.
As someone said in the chat, Hikaru, in the beginning, was looking like Achilles from Troy, completely demolishing Carlsen, while thinking: "Is there no one else? IS THERE NO ONE ELSE???!"
Then the middle of the match came, and Hikaru began to make mistakes, and Carlsen began to climb his way back. The match started heating up.
By the final portion, Carlsen had clawed his way back, and Hikaru was starting to tilt. This made the match hugely exciting, as Carlsen was building positive momentum, enough to possibly take the lead ... but the clock was working against him!
Tick tock, the seconds were winding down! Fans were on the edges of their seats.
The tide had shifted in Carlsen's favor, and Hikaru had to strategize to hold on - to do whatever he could to cling to his lead. To save the match, at all costs.
In end, Carlsen's comeback wasn't fast enough. Hikaru dragged out the last game, at the peak of Carlsen's momentum ... and the final score made it clear that Hikaru outplayed him - by one game.
If we take away the clock (and take away the ability of the players to utilize the clock), then we'd be robbing ourselves of a big part of what makes this event so thrilling ...
A fixed number of games is an inferior format. The match clock adds strategy.
I was disappointed that Carlsen wasn't at his best, but that's the nature of sporting events. Oh well. The format was good.
It also gives a fixed time block that the event occurs in, which makes it easier for broadcasters to schedule and for people to know how much time they can commit to watching it. With a fixed number of games but of variable duration, you don't when it's going to end.
He was running the clock when it was obvious threefold repetition. That just shows lack of fighting spirit.
You say his clock management showed a lack of fighting spirit. I say it showed intelligence and experience.
Different perspectives on the same topic (as is usually the case, in so many things in life).
Hikaru also showed the same intelligence (in my opinion; or lack of fighting spirit, in your opinion) in other games, where he stretched out worse endings as long as possible, putting as many moves as possible onto the board.
These are conscious decisions to alter the moves he makes, from game to game, to maximize the impact of the clock on the match. It shows that he's ever-aware of the clock and its consequences - an awareness that comes from competing in this format for so many years.
I understand the desire, as a fan, to see chess, chess, chess. Forget the clock! Just duke it out!
But we can't fault a grandmaster for using a clock to his advantage. It's kind of what grandmasters do - they think ahead, strategize. They take the smallest advantages and nurse them into something concrete ...
Intelligent?
This is the same Hikaru who got choked out in St Louis in a street fight.
May be if he was literally more sportsmanlike and respected among crowds, he would have not have gotten beaten up so badly.
I think you are believing too many rumours. Beat up badly? You would be the first one to cry and report someone for abuse because they looked at you wrong. I know this for a fact .
You would have a better argument if you said HIkaru is unsportlike because he literally cheats on his stream for a living. By smurfing with anonymous accounts ion unsuspecting players to undermine the rating system and rob them of competitive matches. He even titles his youtube videos "Disrespecting players" admitting to how disgusting it is. And this is the guy leading by example that is supposed to be a role model for kids and he is teaching them how to manipulate ratings and be unsportlike.
But clock management is a major part of chess, whether a single game or a tournament like the SCC. And there is far too many players in this community who don't understand how difficult it is to do. Simply adapting between 5 min blitz and bullet is a feat. Thats why when I hear players suggest playing classical to get better at blitz, They are totally clueless that will most likely make them worse at blitz, because again it is about managing the time efficiently.
And one thing that separates these professionals from the average amateur is how well they can manage their time and excel in all time formats.
Define and clarify what “sportsmanship” means?
The fact you need that defined especially after I explained an example of HIkaru being unsportlike. Contrary to your example of him using a valid strategy to win a tournament within the rules, says alot.
First off, someone unsporting would complain and whine about his time management like you did. Thats first off. Magnus showed good sportsmanship by graciously accepting his defeat with class and saying it is part of the game. Which it is.
Secondly, another example of poor sportsmanship is a player that does anything outside of the game to undermine a competitive match. Such as creating anonymous accounts to maniuplate the rating system. You could literally make an endless list but this is a major premise.
Screenshot: