I guess you are suggesting that tiebreaks be replaced with the reigning champ keeping his crown
Shouldn't the World Champion of Chess be able to win at least 1 game out of 12?
Sort:
Why not, but on the other hand, watching Magnus defending his title in tie breaks is quite entertaining...
More games. Like Magnus said, you can then take bigger risks in the early games.
no objection
Sweet! Let's see how Fabi reacts...
Nov 28, 2018
0
#27
tmodel66 wrote:
Shouldn't the World Champion of Chess be able to win at least 1 game out of 12?
Other WCC matches have been drawn in the past.
The thing people start talking about after 12 draws is related to the draw death of chess, not the legitimacy of the champion.
Nov 28, 2018
0
#28
Debistro wrote:
There must be some changes for sure. 12 games is too short for one thing. Even Magnus said so himself.
Did he say it's too short, or did he say he'd personally prefer more?
Because other top GMs (a few years ago) have said 12 is plenty to determine who is better and that e.g. the classical 24 is unnecessary.
No. The challenger has to prove to be better than the world champion
Great performance by Magnus!
It's not that Magnus beat Fabi because he was quicker with the mouse...
Nov 28, 2018
0
#32
thefingerling wrote:
there shouldn't be a classical champ if neither can win
Kasparov drew Karpov in a 24 game match, and he stayed the champ, and people called him the greatest ever.
Nov 28, 2018
0
#33
I remember when Bobby Fischer got a commanding lead on Spassky in 1972, the GM commentators noted how relatively easy it is for GM's to intentionally play for a draw. Magnus seems to aim for the rapid/blitz games. He's 1W 22D 1L in 24 long-time-limit games which is atypical.
Of course once Fischer, who won a large percentage of his games, was out of the picture, WC matches took longer and longer to reach the required number of wins. The time limit was 150 min/40 moves then also a long additional time. Then it got to the point where people lost interest in months-long matches.
So I don't know what the best answer is. 12 games of "serious" chess seems too little, but I don't think you can do more than 2 games every 3 days as is current. The 90 min/40 moves time limit surely slightly reduces the quality of the games, but not by enough to offset the practicality of presenting and enjoyable match completed in a reasonable time.
Still, the Rapid (up to 4), Blitz (up to 10) games in one day seems too much.
Nov 28, 2018
0
#34
Well, it looks like we have a new rapid chess champion. No wait, don’t we already have a rapid chess champion?
https://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men
https://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men_rapid
https://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men_blitz
What do those lists have in common?
Nov 28, 2018
0
#37
Q: What do people who disparage speed chess have in common?
A: They're bad at speed chess.
Obviously classical time controls are more prestigious, rapid is just for fun, and bullet is pretty silly, but as @jenium points out, the best chess players are also the best speed players.
Yes he should be able to win one game. But he didn't. I dont think it hurts chess in any way because people that like to play will still play regardless. But it probably does hurt professional chess. Tournaments like this are why the prizes are so low, and are held at places that only hold a few hundred people. Tournaments like this drive down interest in professional chess.
AlphaZeroDarkThirty wrote:
Jenium wrote:
Well that happens if you have two +2800 players who don't make mistakes... Apart from the last two games the games were very close and exciting...
These players are 900 points weaker than the best engines. They make plenty of mistakes. Thhey are just evenly matched and studying the same source material. It's like WWE where the "product" is more important than winning at all costs like in the old eras.
Rh2 in G12 by Fab was a lemon. He plays 0-0 and he's +0.50 according to Stockfish. Carlsen gave away his edge when he missed Kb7 that would have solidified his position. The openings are all scripted to the point where neither player is going to truly confuse the other.
I'm maybe 2300 strength now (crossed 1950 in the one-minute pool on that site, top 200 in a shark tank), and I've played GMs in that pool who could cut both of these clowns to ribbons on their best, and at one-minute. It's like one of those martial arts films where the play is just ten levels above what we're seeing among the "world's best."
No they are not. You just have a fundamental misunderstand of what a rating is. It's a relative strength not an absolute one. Engines and humans play in different pools, so the ratings cannot be compared.
Magnus is still the best... :-)