It's to determine the best chess player in the world, not to be entertaining.
I thought it was supposed to be both. I haven't watched any of it because chess at that level is so boring, but isn't the whole purpose of people watching, TV cameras, reporters, spectators, etc. entertainment? Aren't games specifically designed for entertainment? If it's not entertaining, why watch or participate?
Well armageddon by definition is a game where one side has 6 minutes and the other 5. Whites six minutes and cooler preference are compensated for by the fact that if black gets a draw then he wins. For this we have separate blitz championships so the question is flawed.
I feel like chess falls into the same category as other activities such as basket weaving or stamp-collecting where if you're trying to make it more exciting you've probably missed the point of it.
It's to determine the best chess player in the world, not to be entertaining.
I thought it was supposed to be both. I haven't watched any of it because chess at that level is so boring, but isn't the whole purpose of people watching, TV cameras, reporters, spectators, etc. entertainment? Aren't games specifically designed for entertainment? If it's not entertaining, why watch or participate?
the entertainment value of chess is being able to watch competition at the highest level. people who haven't actually played chess, either recreationally or in tournaments with a serious desire to improve their skills, won't be able to fully appreciate it. by nature chess is not flashy and therefore to the untrained eye it appears boring, but there is so much going on behind the scenes and only someone who has immersed themselves in chess competition can understand that. this is not true, however, in other sports like soccer, football, basketball, etc. where you don't need to have played the game in order to enjoy watching it and feel the entertainment factor.
Guys chess can be exciting, but you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand complain that chess isn't mainstream enough, and then have the biggest competition in chess be something of a running joke, oh who won, right it was a draw.
If for some reason FIFA World Cup Final was a 12 game affair where the viewers got 6 straight goalless draws, then even in football the fans would be pulling their hair out calling for FIFA to fix the mess. And football is by far the most crazily followed sport in the world.
How could you possibly hope to make chess mainstream like this.
12 games, armageddon in principle, where white has more time, but must win or black gets a point will be more decisive. There will be draws every now and then (stalemates and 3 folds), like they are in football, but a few draws is fine.
Also the nature of the game won't change much. This doesn't change chess at a fundamental level, chess remains a draw with best play, but the consequences of that draw will change, where previously it would end in a tie, now it will be a black win.
But its not like one player will be perpetually handicapped this way. If game 1 is a draw, then player 2 gets one point and then in game 2 player 1 then has black and can earn back his point with a draw. With colors changing every game, its still very balanced, maintains the classical nature of chess and avoids the problem of no breakthrough ever being made.
The only problem I see is that it if black gets 1 point regardless of win or draw, then black will never push for a win. To fix this black will get 1.5 points for a win (white 0), 1 point for a draw (white 0) and no points for a defeat (white 1).
I think that between game 1 and game 6 we have got two very interesting games. The rest can be attributed to the match strategy (Carlsen is so much stronger than Caruana in blitz, so he does not need to push).
To respond to your point about commentary teams having a patzer, I get what you are getting at but I dont think thats neccessary. I think Robert and Danny do a good job making there analysis beginner friendly. Commentary like that from chess24 is for more advanced players keen on going deeper.
Players should be required to play different openings, not this same Sicilian one over and over again. It would be more interesting to me to see them have to play an opening selected at random. You take the most common openings, randomly select one and each player would play it as white and black.
This way, Caruana can't play the Rossolimo as white and Petrov as black incessantly.
I can imagine it now.
Protests everywhere. Saint Louis Chess Club becoming the only stable chess producer. FIDE goes fully corrupt. USCF makes everyone NM. The aliens take Dorkovich and good ol Erik. The world goes into turmoil and America joins the EU while the UK raids Russia. Chess.com being the only sound place lasts no more than a few weeks. The live servers go first. Then the puzzles and last to go are the forums. Next [CENSORED FOR LANGUAGE] crashes and the whole chess world is in turmoil. All the oil and chess stocks go down. Eventually the Interpol seeks those that run their own chess servers and end them all. Macer75 tries to come back but sees that the site no longer exists. We all resort to using Twitch. Soon the Interpol ends all chess and the FBI kidnaps those selling chess sets and David's house gets cut from the grid and he no longer can visit any chess sites. Around the world chess meets its demise. The world top 1000 are "reported missing" by the KGB. Communism prospers and North Korea nukes all chess super computer locations. Sesse can no longer even play chess. Alpha Zero goes out of control and begins to become a professional tic-tac-toe player online. Magnus Carlsen seeks refuge in Antarctica but some whale poachers mistake him for an Eskimo and ask him to show them da wae. Magnus flees but trips and goes "missing". Very few chess players remain. These few group together and DDOS the moon and that causes it to crash back to earth in the same spot their servers were. Chess is extinct and the world is in constant turmoil.
Or I could disregard this thread as a troll thread and go get some apple juice. It is my choice after all.
"In the long run, we're all dead."
~ @vishynotanand
Players should be required to play different openings, not this same Sicilian one over and over again. It would be more interesting to me to see them have to play an opening selected at random. You take the most common openings, randomly select one and each player would play it as white and black.
This way, Caruana can't play the Rossolimo as white and Petrov as black incessantly.
This has been discussed again and again but it doesn't work. Random selection of openings means a great deal of luck affecting the results. Carlsen might get Italian which he knows very well and offers a dequate winning chances, Caruana might get 4 knights which he doesn't know so well and it is "drawish".The names of openings are chosen in random ,don't argue on them , try to see my point. Eventually the whole process will be like high shcool exams where you could pass the exams if you were lucky enough to get the questions you know although an avearage student.
I will repeat that we are talking for the world champion in chess. We can't do nonsense and have a clown for world champion just because the crowd wants blood!
Chess never was , never will be a tv friendly game.
There is blitz championship with the best players of the world competing in 21 games. Where is tv? Where are the sponsors?
There is rapid championship with the best players of the world competing in 15 games. Where is tv? Where are the sponsors?
Chess.com organises title Tuesday EVERY WEEK , plus Speed Championship and ProChess League every year. Other sites also organise weekly and yearly events. Grand Chess tour has 3 rapid blitz events and only 1 classical event!
If there are sponsors that want to give money there are more than enough events to give their money. If tv is interested there are more than enough events to cover. Where is tv? Where are the sponsors? Do they want more events like these? Fine by me. Let's do more world blitz championships. I say one every 3 months , 4 a year , and the 4 winners will meet in one superfinal.Why not?
But for God's sake the world champion must be world champion and not a clown that was crowned world champion because his opponent blundered a queen in a bullet game!We can't sacrifice everything to make chess more ignorant viewer friendly , not because we don't want to make it more ignorant viewer friendly but because killing its beauty will have quite the opposite results.
When we see Messi playing we don't tell him "play barefoot because you are too good with shoes".When we see Usain Bolt we don't tell him " run barefoot because you are too fast with shoes. Why tell a chessplayer " play faster because you are too good when you are thinking"?It simply doesn't make any sense.We want Messi to play as best as he can, we want Usain Bolt to run as fast as he can and we want Carlsen and Caruana to play as best as they can.You will find no football fan trying to hold back Messi , you will find no track and field fan trying to hold back Usain Bolt. It would be plain stupid. Yet you find this absolute stupidity(yes, I am blunt and to be even more blunt I admit that I might be the stupid one here) to chess fans. And they are supposed to be the clever ones!
Carlsen and Caruana are the beauty of this game. The 6th game is the epitomy of how complicated a game of chess can be even with just 3 pieces and 3 pawns on the board. It is scary that this game would never be played because in a faster time control Carlsen wouldn't find this absolutely amazing defense. And all this for what? To make happy a few million ignorants. Hell no!
100% right
A very good analogy for this "issue":
In soccer/football when two very good teams play the game tends to be very cagey, lack of action, lack of attacking play etc. (thus a draw is the most likely scenario). Nobody suggests the rules of soccer are bad and that we need to change them to prevent draws or drawish soccer playing. This playstyle occurs because of team strategy, teams dont want to make the game losing mistake, so they are fine with not pressing for a risky but potential game winning play.
"Carlsen might get Italian which he knows very well and offers a dequate winning chances, Caruana might get 4 knights which he doesn't know so well and it is "drawish"."
I would rather see a win/loss based on what they know/don't know than a draw regardless as we are seeing now.
"Eventually the whole process will be like high shcool exams where you could pass the exams if you were lucky enough to get the questions you know although an avearage student."
So, instead we tell the student to prepare the questions?
"Chess never was , never will be a tv friendly game."
I was never talking about TV.
I am talking about getting openings the players haven't immediately prepared for. If it is the luck of the draw then it is the luck of the draw. That is more reasonable that stacking the deck with preparedness.
Any high rated GM like Caruana or Carlsen should be able to draw if the opening is not in their favor. But let's get away from preparation. Make them play the game, not for specatator sake, but chess sake.
A world championship can't be exactly the same as any open tournament and it will create several doubts. If for example Caruana wins the tournament with half a point but loses against Carlsen and Carlsen somehow remains No 1 , a lot will consider his win doubtful. On the other hand if he wins the world champion in a 12 game match , no one will doubt his win.
The point of the world championship is not to do something exciting for the ignorants but to showcase the OBJECTIVELY and UNDOUBTEDLY best chessplayer in the world.If we don't want the best but just a winner of a tournament we have many ways to do that.Chessplayers don't want more world champions like Khalifman which no one today recognises as world champion.Chessplayers want undisputed world champions like Fischer , Kasparov, Anand etc. A match is the only way to have that.
In traditional way, i do agree with you. completelly.
but what kind of champion, best player of world, if when win match in a blitz game? isn't this doubtfull enough.
some kind of tournament would not be to exite ignorants but to force the guys to show who is strongest indeed, because as i said, to win such competition you need to fight and make wins. No doubt that Fischer or Kasparov, in best days, would win such competition. They were fighters. But today with these matches champion looks like firt one between the equals.
Halifman nobody recognize, yes, true. but he compete at legal tournament, open for all. everybody had equal chances. Which chances had Alexey Shirov for example in late 90s when he was legal challenger and Kasparov avoided match.
I thought it was supposed to be both. I haven't watched any of it because chess at that level is so boring, but isn't the whole purpose of people watching, TV cameras, reporters, spectators, etc. entertainment? Aren't games specifically designed for entertainment? If it's not entertaining, why watch or participate?
yes, for example, why some bussiness man with few milion $ extra this year sould waste money on something like this match?
at this level there are several strongest round robin tournaments during the year, with 70-80 boring draw games. and observe how majority these guys finished in recent open swiss type tournament. all bellow place of 15.
"The world champion must play the openings he wants to play and must win or lose the championship because OF HIS DECISIONS and not a lottery's decision."
If you prepare with computer lines, how is that all of a sudden "your decision"? I want to see "their moves" but not their choreographed moves. That to me would be a kid's camp.
"you would already know that in all cases the players deviated from the best engine moves."
Their choreographed moves don't have to be best engine moves. Where did you get such a stupid idea from?
Caruana might have planned a novelty for game 11 or 12 hoping for a decisive result that will leave no time for reaction to his opponent.
But if correct, than again, do we really need 12-game (or 16, 24...) match. In other case we could only see instead 10, maybe 20 draws? Is it possible that the one who goes for highest title in chess world, has only one or two moves to show?
each chess game particularly depends on player itself (net necessary both), if one wants to do something there is a lots of ways how to do it. no need for random at all. but main question is how to make these guys to do something on board. for instance, yesterdays game 7, all together 80 moves were done, not at least one which would contain some kind of 5-6 moves long variation, idea, combination or whatever. all 80 moves were just sliding over the pieces until all possible options/lines are exhausted.
Maybe a combination of the classical time control and armageddon would be worth trying as it would at least ensure that all games in a world championship match don't end up drawn, something along the lines of playing 8 games in the existing classical time control format but playing the remaining 4 games in a classical armageddon format where white would get say 4 hours for all moves while black would get only 3 hours for all moves but obviously white must win to score the point whereas black only has to draw, this format would at least guarantee a winner in a minimum of 4 out of the 12 games (excluding stalemates and 3 fold repititions etc).
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I think a 12 game match is a bit short when comparing past world championship matches.
If 12 games, then instead of the current tiebreak system, how about the first player to win a classical game after the 12 game mark.
We all know the horror stories of the 6 month long (or whatever it was) Karpov - Kasparov match.
Not that I dislike your idea. I very much like an indefinite game limit like that, but I think the hurdle there is money. Players want money which means sponsors, and sponsors (for one reason or another) don't want a 100 game match.