No. chess has the potential to attract huge audiences and make a ton of money if we tweak it's rules a bit, so IMO you are making an invalid argument.
And if the draws continue, the game will die.
Ways to avoid super GM draws
Sort:
I hope you understand that with 5 out of 5 games drawn this is-and not just IMO- the most boring WCM EVER.
aman_makhija wrote:
No. chess has the potential to attract huge audiences and make a ton of money if we tweak it's rules a bit, so IMO you are making an invalid argument.
And if the draws continue, the game will die.
At least I am making an argument. You might persuade me if you gave some reasons or justification for your point of view, rather than just re-stating your beliefs.
In my opinion is not the number of draws that make chess unappealing to the masses. It just isn't much of a spectator sport. Unlike many games you cannot have a clue what is going on in a GM game unless you are a very strong player yourself. There is no athleticism or physical co-ordination to admire, or to allow people to enjoy spectating even if theydon't play themselves and don't understand the game very well.
And while I don't expect chess to ever achieve mass popularity I do not expect chess to die any time soon. It has been going in its present form for over five centuries. The "Death by draw" was a worry 100 years ago, but the real problem was that there were a lot of fixed ideas about what moves and openings were worth considering that have since been overturned.
Nov 18, 2016
0
#45
blueemu wrote:
Easy to prove me wrong. Just show me a tournament score-table, in both formats (old and new) where the new format re-arranges the prize-winners... and which cannot be duplicated by giving free points for losing games.
Under a 3-1-0 scoring system, the candidates tournament would have had a different ordering. Also, we can't predict what having 3 points for a win would have done to the game play - i.e. results may have been different if players were playing for a win or taking more risks. Hikaru would have moved up a lot.
| 1 | Karjakin, Sergey | g | RUS | 2760 | * | * | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 21 | 2860 |
| 2 | Caruana, Fabiano | g | USA | 2794 | 1 | 0 | * | * | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 2804 |
| 3 | Anand, Viswanathan | g | IND | 2762 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | * | * | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 19 | 2809 |
| 4 | Giri, Anish | g | NED | 2793 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | * | * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 2775 |
| 5 | Svidler, Peter | g | RUS | 2757 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | * | * | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 2780 |
| 6 | Aronian, Levon | g | ARM | 2786 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | * | * | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 16 | 2776 |
| 7 | Nakamura, Hikaru | g | USA | 2790 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | * | * | 3 | 3 | 17 | 2776 |
| 8 | Topalov, Veselin | g | BUL | 2780 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | * | * | 9 | 2644 |
aman_makhija wrote:
I hope you understand that with 5 out of 5 games drawn this is-and not just IMO- the most boring WCM EVER.
It is not boring at all. You have to look at the games themselves rather than the results. A hard fought draw is a lot more engrossing than a one-sided win.
aman_makhija wrote:
No. chess has the potential to attract huge audiences and make a ton of money if we tweak it's rules a bit, so IMO you are making an invalid argument.
And if the draws continue, the game will die.
It seems fair and reasonable to challenge more capability out of both players by increasing chess difficulties.For instance by exchange minor pieces function (FE chess) without change standard time control.The audience will enjoy the game together with both players.There are three options of pieces exchanges that was being lot at random.
Well claims have been made that chess is a 'minority pursuit', but it doesn't have to be this way.
I thank VincenzoPancotti for PROVING blueemu wrong and posting that table. 3-1-0 is a great system. Football once had the same problem as chess, but it got over it using the system.
I don't like how Grandmasters play for short draws. I think it hurts the game. a GM is willing to beat a lower rated player but that GM is too lazy to try to play a real game against another GM. the usual argument is that they are trying conserve mental or physical energy. or they want to draw in the last round so they can share prize money. my thinking is if they can't handle losing and they are such need for prize money then maybe they should rethink their life and get another job. in my opinion short gm draws just destroy the game.
Jun 8, 2023
0
#51
thechessgod5454 wrote:
They are playing it for money to earn a living. I bet u wouldn't want to lose if losing cuts 50% of ur salary
Agreed
they could also get a different job if money is such a problem for them
if that is the case then all these GMs should stop writing books or doing videos that teach amateurs how to get an advantage and play for a win. instead GMs should be telling us how to play for a quick draw because that is what GMs do. monkey see monkey do
I personally think speeding up the time controls is the best solution. It would be appreciated if you guys can post your opinions too. The fact that many boring draws are occurring and is reducing popularity is undeniable. Chess needs money or it will lose its importance and recognition in the world of sports.
I think increasing the speed of a game also tests the players' skill more. I think Greg is right and 40|2 is the best time control for the world championship with two matches a day, maybe.
Solution? But there is no problem to solve.
Chess is a minority pursuit, and is unlikely ever to have big audiences or huge numbers of players. Compared to just about any big spectator sport you care to name the amount of money in chess is tiny. Anyone that takes up chess for the world-wide fame and wealth it will bring is not thinking very clearly. The earnings of the handful of very best players are enough to make them rich compared to most of us, b ut they are pitiful compared to those of high achievers in many other pursuits.
The trouble with this idea is that it changes the nature of the game, and it changes the abilities which lead to success. Moves that would be blunders in slow chess can be game-winning brilliancies when neither player has much time.
And in any case we already have chess at a variety of time limits , so if you prefer to follow speed chess or prefer to play it then you can do that right now.