I understand that people don't exactly want the world championship decided by rapid and possibly blitz chess, but at the same time I'd rather have that than a repeat of the 1984-85 World Chess Championship which was mentioned earlier (lasting 48 games and five months and then abruptly ended without a result).
WC to be determined by fast chess - for shame!
Sort:
Nov 28, 2016
0
#23
I like the older format of 24 games, but no one can afford that sorta match any more. The current system is vastly better than several things that FIDE tried during the split title.
Nov 28, 2016
0
#24
Is there a reason why they couldn't move to something they could afford if they were tied after game 12?
It's not like the fans or players need fancy accomodations for the match.
We want a title resolved with classical time controls.
Not sure what the top pros think about this.
I don't like world championship being decided by rapid games. We already got world rapid championship.
KisstheChris wrote:
I hope I'm not the only one who thinks this match is exciting. I mean I actually like the idea of 7+ hour games, two even opponents playing their best (for the most part), not giving up, and endurance. Although the formats are different, this match is reminiscent of older WCC's like Steinitz and Lasker... I actually like how we've reached 12 games simply because there is a good amount of anticipation.
I love the idea of these long, grueling games where the spectators have plenty of time to make the moves on their own board and analyze to their heart's content. The amount of time spent playing really lends a certain gravitas to the affair and makes each game feel quite weighty.
But the draws suck. There's just no getting around that. 10 decisive results and 2 draws would be one thing. But the opposite is a letdown.
It's the third time in ten years this happens, Kramnik vs Topalov in 2006 and Anand vs Gelfand in 2012 were both decided in speed chess. And in a way Anand vs Topalov 2010 could be said to be that, too. Knowing how inferior he was in speed chess Topalov avoided the repetition draw in the last game to try to win when this only lost the game quickly.
How about 'Black wins' as a tie-breaker, similar to the away-goals rule in soccer/football? Sergei would have won with that rule in place.
On the other hand, you could argue that the challenger is required to win to take the title, and a draw should result in the holder retaining the crown.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#29
Dont expect them to be crowd pleaser in their interviee. They are introverts and are not really comfortable with the press. In other cc threads, GMs including WCC are even stereotyped as social misfits as they spend too much time on chess. And neglect other aspects of life like personality development and other skills.
Nickalispicalis71 wrote:
Carlsen and Karjakin can both co-sponsor the latest sleeping pill after this match. Even the press conferences are dull. Karjakin has a terrible speech impairment and I cringe every time he is asked a question. Carlsen is even worst as he no excuse. Does he ever give more than a one sentence answer ? He gives me the impression that he would rather be anywhere but where he is.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#30
Meanwhile - The 'Venusian'..{planet 'Venus'}, reaction, to our earthly 'chess' championship, contretemps. ..{excuse the necessity, for a 'url' link}.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#31
Condolences, to the "Brazilian 'football- soccer' team, and their loved ones.
{'75 'killed' in an 'overnight' plane crash. ..yikes}.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#32
It would seem peculiar that the first tiebreak games aren't decided by something longer- like a 60Min/15sec/move for example, and then going to faster time controls. Even if it made The tie breaks possibly two days long I think it would be a more interesting (and fan liked) tie break system. This isn't a tournament after all, it's the world championship match.
Two games of something like 60minutes with 15 sec increment per move, if tied the next day goes into the format they are doing tomorrow. That'd be my proposal anyway.
RenegadeChessist wrote:
The amount of time spent playing really lends a certain gravitas to the affair and makes each game feel quite weighty.
But the draws suck. There's just no getting around that. 10 decisive results and 2 draws would be one thing. But the opposite is a letdown.
I agree about the gravitas. I don't mind draws so long as they are hard fought draws, and I do appreciate that at the top level you will see quite a lot of those. What I don't like to see are so-called 'grandmaster draws' where you can see well enough that neither player is really going to go for it and that both are happy enough to share the points. Fine up to a point when it takes place in some tournament somewhere or other where we don't have to watch, but for the World Championship where some of us (not me) have paid good money for a ringside table ... hmm ...
Stolen_authenticity: simply for the sake of accuracy, it was not the Brazilian national side (featured in your photo) who were involved in the accident, but oneof our club sides, Chapecoense. This does not diminish in any way the seriousness of the tragedy and we appreciate your kind thoughts.
I don't think there's anything to suggest another 12 games wouldn't produce exactly the same result. The only reason more world championships haven't been decided on tie-breakers is that the WC used to have draw odds - that system would be even worse.
Worth noting that Robert Huebner once lost a candidates QF to Smyslov on a roulette wheel spin: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/08/arts/chess-should-chance-decide-the-outcome-of-a-match.html
Nov 29, 2016
0
#36
bong711 wrote:
I believe chess 960 is better as tiebreaker than fast time standard chess.
Yes, I think chess 960 would be interesting for all but a real challenge for the analysts to cover. I wonder how much either player has playing chess 960...
Nov 29, 2016
0
#37
You couldn't do straight 960 because some positions favor white too much.
Additionally, I think 960 is not as good a test because study adds depth to the game. In some ways 960 is a worse option than speeding up the games (if the players are basically guessing, then the winner just gets lucky).
A good way to tweak it would be have something like 5 pre-approved 960 positions. Then before the game begins each player could choose to remove 1 (or 2) of the starting positions. Then play would happen on the remaining 3 (or 1).
Nov 29, 2016
0
#38
Grumblesmurf wrote:
I don't think there's anything to suggest another 12 games wouldn't produce exactly the same result.
I think one of the ideas though is that the shorter the format, the less risks the players are willing to take. So yes, surprising them with another 12 games may not change anything. However starting the match as a 24 game series certainly might have.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#39
Actually, thinking about how to see who is better in complex positions without forcing them to take risks may be very easy...
Puzzle solving competition would be much better than blitz games IMO. You could even give them quite a long time (5-7 hours) to work on the puzzles. Not only tactics, but yes, the answers would have to be unequivocal.
In fact this (plus some blitz games or 960 games, or whatever you like) could take place BEFORE the 12 game match begins to decide who would win the the case of a tie. That would make play sharper from the outset of the match.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#40
jengaias wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
Actually, thinking about how to see who is better in complex positions without forcing them to take risks may be very easy...
Puzzle solving competition would be much better than blitz games IMO. You could even give them quite a long time (5-7 hours) to work on the puzzles. Not only tactics, but yes, the answers would have to be unequivocal.
In fact this (plus some blitz games or 960 games, or whatever you like) could take place BEFORE the 12 game match begins to decide who would win the the case of a tie. That would make play sharper from the outset of the match.
What kind of puzzles are you talking about?
There is no puzzle that would take them 5-7 hours to solve unless it's a composition(chess problems).But in this case it's not chess , it's chess solving , it demands a whole different set of abilities and knowledge that has nothing to do with chess and it has it's own world championship.
Not a single puzzle of course 
. Maybe 20 or 30 puzzles. I'm not sure what would be appropriate.
I agree it's not the same as a game which involves a lot of practical decisions, some of which have nothing to do with the position itself e.g. time management and choice of your 1st move.
---
Ok, how about this. Before the match, the tiebreak is decided by who had better tournament performances during that year. That seems pretty fair and worthy of weighing in on world champ status.
I hope I'm not the only one who thinks this match is exciting. I mean I actually like the idea of 7+ hour games, two even opponents playing their best (for the most part), not giving up, and endurance. Although the formats are different, this match is reminiscent of older WCC's like Steinitz and Lasker... I actually like how we've reached 12 games simply because there is a good amount of anticipation.