Ain't broke, don't fix it.
WCC Too many draws?
Sort:
I think every change will make the quality of the games worse and will lead to some "not deserved" World Champions soon or later. do you really want that just because the results are not satisfying you? personally I like the way it is now, the next few games before the tie breaks will give the players a lot of pressure and it is really interesting to see what will happen :)
Nov 21, 2018
0
#4
Maybe just have the match go on after 12, game after game , in sudden death until someone wins, and then they are the champ. So if it goes 20 or something so what.
The use of blitz and rapid and an Armageddon game to choose is wrong. They are way different games.
I dont think we would choose a champion from a tied boxing match to have them wrestle or participate in a judo match. It makes no sense.
Nov 21, 2018
0
#5
Why don't you switch to baseball or basketball if you have a problem with draws?
Nov 21, 2018
0
#7
I don't have a problem with draws. I have a problem with the format of deciding who is the best chess player.
Nov 21, 2018
0
#8
IMO, it is not just about the "draws". It is also about taking risks, character of a champion, etc.
Draw odds for the champion seemed to be fair. The challenger should prove that he/she is better than the champ.
Nov 21, 2018
0
#11
Jenium wrote:
Draw odds for the champion seemed to be fair. The challenger should prove that he/she is better than the champ.
A challenger must win a game or a draw favours the Champion? I think they should just have a big swiss play-off event designed to have only 1 winner and that's the champ, have one every year. Take the top 30 or 40 rated players, women included and go for it-.
This championship result is going to suck. It's not so much that there's all these draws. It's that it's going to come down to a tiebreaker that will be decided by DIFFERENT variation of chess. So after 12 games of intense battle between 2 players that are very equal it will get decided by something that tells us NOTHING about who is better at classical chess?
How the hell are the people running this game dumb enough to allow the title to be decided by a different game?
Sure, there has to be some kind of limit, but 12 games is not it. That's nonsense.
If they need a break after 12, that's fine. Give them a week or more off and pick up with another tiebreaker. It could be first to be +1 after an equal number of chances with white, another 12 games, etc... .
Anything would be better than 6-6 and then Carlsen wins because he's better at different game. If you ask me, Caruana has been the slightly better player by a hair so far. Regardless, he should get a fair shot to prove it he's a hair better AT THIS GAME.
Nov 21, 2018
0
#13
Yes, there are "too many draws" but that's what you get when you have such evenly matched players. The problem with this is that over time, too many draws can make the wider audience lose interest. The advent of computers has brought chess interest to new hights, so it would do to keep this interest. But how?
Norway chess are experimenting with certain ideas, will be interesting to see how well they work:
1) Total thinking time is 2 hours, no extra time per move or added time after 40 moves. This will be more audience friendly since we know the maximum time of each match.
2) Inspired by the sudden death system in ice hockey, each win gives the winner 2 points. In the event of a draw, an armageddon match must be played to decide the winner, who gets 1,5 points while the loser gets 0,5 points. The idea is also that players are likely to play aggressively in order to avoid this tie breaker.
Jenium wrote:
Draw odds for the champion seemed to be fair. The challenger should prove that he/she is better than the champ.
Agreed.
wcrimi wrote:
This championship result is going to suck. It's not so much that there's all these draws. It's that it's going to come down to a tiebreaker that will be decided by DIFFERENT variation of chess. So after 12 games of intense battle between 2 players that are very equal it will get decided by something that tells us NOTHING about who is better at classical chess?
How the hell are the people running this game dumb enough to allow the title to be decided by a different game?
Sure, there has to be some kind of limit, but 12 games is not it. That's nonsense.
If they need a break after 12, that's fine. Give them a week or more off and pick up with another tiebreaker. It could be first to be +1 after an equal number of chances with white, another 12 games, etc... .
Anything would be better than 6-6 and then Carlsen wins because he's better at different game. If you ask me, Caruana has been the slightly better player by a hair so far. Regardless, he should get a fair shot to prove it he's a hair better AT THIS GAME.
Blitz is not a different game, same board, same pieces, same rules...oh, wait, IS EXACTLY THE SAME GAME! Stop whinning about it, please.
madratter7 wrote:
Jenium wrote:
Draw odds for the champion seemed to be fair. The challenger should prove that he/she is better than the champ.
Agreed.
Utter nonsense.
As is, it gives Carlsen an incentive to play it safe and go for draws because he's got a huge edge in the tiebreaker games. Carlson loves where this match is going. He's getting outplayed by a hair or at best playing dead even and he's totally in the driver's seat. He just has to keep playing for draws for the next 20 years and unless he comes up against a total monster great that's way better, it's going to be very hard to beat him even if several of the challengers along the way are a hair better.
I agree @wcrimi, I think it would be more fair for the players to play a game 13 (75 minutes on the clock), game 14 (60 minutes) and game 15 (45 minutes) instead of the blitz tie break now. the difference between a 100 minutes game and 25 one feels too big just like the quality of the game :)
Nov 21, 2018
0
#18
Why not simply just ask Challenger to DEFEAT champion ? Remove armageddon/blitz/rapid etc.
If same Challenger plays again, ask Champion to DEFEAT challenger.
Nov 21, 2018
0
#19
The match is boring and frustrating. If Caruana wins it will likely be beacause of home preperation.
Nov 21, 2018
0
#20
Petter_U wrote:
1) Total thinking time is 2 hours, no extra time per move or added time after 40 moves. This will be more audience friendly since we know the maximum time of each match.
2) Inspired by the sudden death system in ice hockey, each win gives the winner 2 points. In the event of a draw, an armageddon match must be played to decide the winner, who gets 1,5 points while the loser gets 0,5 points. The idea is also that players are likely to play aggressively in order to avoid this tie breaker.
These are interesting ideas.
Maybe have a tie breaker built in each game by a rule.
Something like if its a draw who ever has the most time left on the clock wins?-
whoever has the most material by points left over wins?
An Armageddon games with longer time controls?
Have a 10min blitz game after each classical game?
Perhaps best of all would be to just flip a coin....or rock,paper scissors.
but seriously
anyone have any ideas