I say, keep the 12 game classical format however,each player may not use the same opening more than once. Lets see who is the better chess player overall,rather than who is better between the two antagonnists.
WC to be determined by fast chess - for shame!
Sort:
Nov 29, 2016
0
#43
aglitatta wrote:
I say, keep the 12 game classical format however,each player may not use the same opening more than once. Lets see who is the better chess player overall,rather than who is better between the two antagonnists.
This year they didn't repeat an opening IIRC... or do you mean as early as move 5 (or move 1?)
If you make the # too low, you force them to play ridiculous moves. If it's very high though, they know dozens of drawing lines and non-positions anyway, and could still make a draw whenever they like.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#44
How many of those complaining are willing to put up the millions that would be necessary to support a match like the one in 1984?
The World Chess Championship under the current rules is not perfect, but represents a good compromise between honoring the traditions of the classical chess championship and the practical realities of organizing such a match. It is also worth noting that FIDE has set up matters so that we now have a WCC every year. For a terminally corrupt organization, FIDE has done well on this match.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#45
stuzzicadenti wrote:
Of course, the Karpov-Korchnoi match, that was a great match, very fair. Korchnoi's family was being held hostage , so it's not like there was any pressure on any of the players then.
Moreover, Korchnoi had good reasons to play a little less than his best. He had to play well enough to make the match look legit, but he could not win.
This was just ridiculous. I paid the 15 bucks to watch the thing. I don't mind the money at all. It's trivial. What's not trivial is my time. These guys deliberately walked into a draw yesterday. What about all the people that took the time to physically show up and watch this travesty? What a joke. I'll never do it again. I'd rather watch club chess than watch these egomaniacs run Ruy Lopez after Ruy Lopez after Ruy Lopez. I don't even care what happens tomorrow. I won't be watching any of it. It's a joke.
If FIDE ever expects a wider audience in the USA they must change this. Until they do it will continue to die here. You should see my local chess club. We don't have any members under the age of 50 any more. The younger crowd just finds it boring and professional chess especially so.
They are quite correct. This WC has been the most boring chess I have ever seen. Shame on them and shame on FIDE.
Its not the fault of the players. The format itself is boring and drawish. I really don't know why people are blaming the players when its the format that is outdated and giving the results that its giving. I guess its karmic justice that the world champ will be decided by the speed chess. The message is loud and clear if people are willing to listen: the long format is boring and ends in a draw. Its not fun to play and its not fun to watch. There is no incentive for any risk from either side and both sides are willing to take a draw. Its time to shift to some other format which is competitive and allows some risk taking from both sides and gives results. If some people think that 30 min per side is too little, then maybe 1 hr per side(and the game ends in 2 hrs). But, don't stretch it on and on forever.
It is the fault of both of the players and FIDE. Personally I hate fast chess. I do not play or watch it. It's way too dependent on and susceptible to blunders. I'm not the least bit interested. It's not chess.
Go back to 24+ games. First to 12-1/2 wins. But, Give black 1/2 for a draw and white 0. That will guarantee extension beyond 24 games and will force white to take risks. I wish you could outright ban the Ruy Lopez/Berlin but that's not realistic and I'm not really suggesting it. But this deliberate walk into draws is garbage. I'm sick of it and just won't watch any more. I certainly won't watch the fast chess crap.
paulgamer a écrit :
It is the fault of both of the players and FIDE. Personally I hate fast chess. I do not play or watch it. It's way too dependent on and susceptible to blunders. I'm not the least bit interested. It's not chess.
There is more chess in a 5 minutes game played by a 2800 than in a 1h30 game played by me (and probably you) !
paulgamer wrote:
This was just ridiculous. I paid the 15 bucks to watch the thing. I don't mind the money at all. It's trivial. What's not trivial is my time. These guys deliberately walked into a draw yesterday. What about all the people that took the time to physically show up and watch this travesty? What a joke. I'll never do it again. I'd rather watch club chess than watch these egomaniacs run Ruy Lopez after Ruy Lopez after Ruy Lopez. I don't even care what happens tomorrow. I won't be watching any of it. It's a joke.
If FIDE ever expects a wider audience in the USA they must change this. Until they do it will continue to die here. You should see my local chess club. We don't have any members under the age of 50 any more. The younger crowd just finds it boring and professional chess especially so.
They are quite correct. This WC has been the most boring chess I have ever seen. Shame on them and shame on FIDE.
While I can understand and appreciate your perspective, if those guys really felt like they'd rather take their chances in the rapid series than settle there in the last game, I can't complain too much. When we as fans know that a tie break is possible, we should also know that at least one of the players, when faced with a final classical game to determine the championship, might devise a plan to go in that direction if they think they might have an advantage.
It's just a strategic decision.
Ashvapathi wrote:
Its not the fault of the players. The format itself is boring and drawish. I really don't know why people are blaming the players when its the format that is outdated and giving the results that its giving. I guess its karmic justice that the world champ will be decided by the speed chess. The message is loud and clear if people are willing to listen: the long format is boring and ends in a draw. Its not fun to play and its not fun to watch. There is no incentive for any risk from either side and both sides are willing to take a draw. Its time to shift to some other format which is competitive and allows some risk taking from both sides and gives results. If some people think that 30 min per side is too little, then maybe 1 hr per side(and the game ends in 2 hrs). But, don't stretch it on and on forever.
I'd be careful about wanting to eliminate classical chess. You're basically wanting to end the version of chess in which both players get to play their very best.
I don't have a problem with rapid--it's certainly far better than blitz, especially at the time controls closer to the upper end of the range--but when you start imposing extreme time limitations on the players they are not able to produce their very best moves.
There's something pure about classical chess that is lacking in other forms.
0110001101101000 wrote:
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).
What about FE chess.The rooks position was represented by knight pieces and vice versa.We can use standard time control.
The other options are rooks - bishops switch and knight - bishop switch.
When both sides play 'pure' chess. It tends to end in draw. 
bong711 wrote:
I believe chess 960 is better as tiebreaker than fast time standard chess.
I think rock paper scissors is the most sensible way to settle the match from here.
Nov 29, 2016
0
#57
richie_and_oprah wrote:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.”
Only a fool would continue to financially support the travesty that is modern high level chess.
And just like that: we're back to our normal state of disagreement. I loved the old 24 game format, but I grew up and realised a bit of what organisers must do for events that last more than a month, sometimes far more. I even prefer the sixteen game format that was a used a few times. But this 12 game format, followed by four rapid, then up to five two game blitz matches, and then Armageddon is a good compromise between lofty ideals and practical realities.
Do remember that FIDE pleased a lot of fans with bovine waste, such as the KO World Champions who were not even in the top-10. Who really thinks that Ponomariov, Khalifmann, and Topalov were genuine world champions? Anand also won twice through these bogus tournament formats, and then once through a bona fide match.
I don't like when a world championship will be decided by rapid games. We already have world rapid championship.
"Anand also won twice through these bogus tournament formats"
Harsh to group the 2007 double round robin World Championship with the knockout minimatches though, it was considerably less bogus and more like the 1948 World Championship.
In the reunification match of 2006 the stipulation was that the winner would defend the title in the already scheduled double round robin World Championship in 2007 and acknowledge the winner as the one and only World Champion.
After Kramnik won the 2006 match it was stated that he only would acknowledge the winner of 2007 as World Champion if he was given a match against the winner (if he didn't win himself). This angered Anand, since 2007 suddenly was "reduced", but since Kramnik did get his match in 2008 there isn't that much controversy in the 2007 World Championship.
If 2007 would not be considered the World Championship one can't consider 2006 as some kind of reunification match either, since the system with two World Champions just would continue if Kramnik considered himself the World Champion after losing the title in 2007, contrary to what was agreed in 2006.
In fact, that would be pretty cool... you could allow the world champ (if he chooses) to participate in the candidates tournament to help boost his stats for that year... of course if he wins the candidates tourney, then the challenger is the 2nd place finisher. You could even allow that to automatically give the world champ the tie break odds.