Should All Games of World Championship be Armageddon?

ChessBooster
DeirdreSkye wrote:

     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.

 

ChessBooster
lfPatriotGames wrote:

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.

ilovesmetuna

i prefer an armadillo any day.

DeirdreSkye
ChessBooster wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

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.

    If the bussiness man wants to spend money for chess there is the world blitz cahmpionship , the world rapid championship and several other rapid and blitz events every year.If he wants a tournament with his name , he can have that too. Tell him to ask Rex Sinquefield.

istrain

"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.

DeirdreSkye
istrain wrote:

"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.

   It is quite obvious that you are among the guys that don't like the format although you hardly studied the games played.If you studied the world championship games carefully(obviously you didn't) you would already know that in all cases the players deviated from the best engine moves.

   Engines are for training. All athletes have training machines but not all are Usain Bolt. When you see Usain Bolt running what do you see? The proteins he drinks every day , the machines he uses to train or an unbelievable athlete?All chessplayers have engines but not all are Carlsen. The opening choreography is part of the game and  good players have the skills and the creativity to   disagree with engines and that disagreement is highly interesting for chessplayers. If in the match Kasparov Kramnik we forced the players to play lottery openings , we would would never seen the very interesting Berlin conflict that changed the way we see Ruy Lopez. A suboptimal line suddenly became the main line because we let a player play what he wanted to play.And Kasparov insisted on playing Berlin again and again desperately trying to prove an advantage. He lost the title because of his choices. If we forced him to play different openings the result could be completely different and that result wouldn't be the result of the player's decisions but the result of a lottery's decision.

     In a match , the decision of the opening and the line is a critical one. The players prepare novelties and they hope to catch the other player unprepared. 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. With a lottery we tell him "no , I don't care what you prepared , you won't play what you want , you will play what lottery wants". 

     Chess is a game of decisions and the higher the level the more critical every detail becomes. Reduce decisions and it's not chess anymore , it's a joke.

istrain

"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?

ChessBooster
DeirdreSkye wrote:

  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?

Andec25

DeirdreSkye
ChessBooster wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:

  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?

    I never said he has one move to show. I said that maybe he is planning ro play a specific novelty in the last games.

   All this is a huge nonsense .The opening always was part of chess and we love chess  for the opening , the middlegame , the endgame and the decisions we have to make in all these 3 phases. Chess is a game that starts FROM MOVE 1.Not from move 2 , 3 or 4. Some want to cancel the opening others  want to force the players play a lottery opening and some want to cancel endgame(specifically stalemate). You want chess that isn't chess but something tailored in your tastes like it is pizza or your coat for the winter.   

    Guys , seriously ,you play the wrong game.Play backgammon. No openings and no stalemate if you don't play the  Greek version called "plakoto"(but even there it's very rare).

ChessBooster

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.

JCC1995

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).

ChessBooster

swiss is the best armageddon , winner is one who collect most victoriestrophies.png

DamonevicSmithlov

Or just extreme bullet chess. Maybe 1 second each (or 3 or 5 seconds, something very short) for whole game. Maybe first to 1000 points match.

Jenesh0414

piece of a shit. ma puta. fuck all 

 

Daniel1115
JCC1995 wrote:

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).

Armageddon game with a classical time control is a very bad idea. Two similarly skilled players mean that whoever has black and draw odds will easily win, since drawing in classical is not difficult for players at that level, even when they dont have an outright incentive to do so.

ChessBooster

maybe better if 6-6 champion remains, then at least the other one has to start to do something?