WCC Too many draws? - Chess Forums - Page 2

wcrimi

Nov 21, 2018

0

#21

congrandolor wrote:

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.

MORE BS

It's not the same rules. The time is different.

It's like saying I have a baseball team with the greatest bullpen ever assembled and I win most of my games late with my pitching depth. We are tied 3-3 in the World Series and now we are going to play a few 3 inning games to decide who has the better team.

It's indefensible by anyone other than Carlsen fanboys.

It you legitimately want to know who is better at classical chess out of intellectual curiosity (I do) and/or for historical significance, this outcome could be a terrible result.

Jenium

Nov 21, 2018

0

#22

Gamename17 wrote:

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-.

If you don't mind that random players like Khalifman or Kasimdzhanov can become world champions, then go for it... In my opinion the title should be held by the strongest player on the planet.

urslove

Nov 21, 2018

0

#23

Gamename17 wrote:

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.

Disagree with (2). Draw is also a result, we should respect that.

Gamename17

Nov 21, 2018

0

#24

...If you don't mind that random players like Khalifman or Kasimdzhanov can become world champions, then go for it... In my opinion the title should be held by the strongest player on the planet.

point taken, I can agree with that. How about a 3 game match with the top engine and whom ever doesn't get whipped the worst by lasting the longest or has the most moves before being mated is the champion:-))

Jenium

Nov 21, 2018

0

#25

sounds intriguing

IMKeto

Nov 21, 2018

0

#26

Gamename17 wrote:

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

Why are you trying to fix something that isn't broken?

x-9525854026

Nov 21, 2018

0

#27

Here’s a thought. If WCC tied after twelve games, they play four more. If still tied, they share the title til next cycle and the candidates has top two finishers play for the crown. ( I’ll let smarter people find a way to settle six way ties at the candidates. )

Thinking along the lines that if two players are that evenly matched then they both rise to the top.

x-9525854026

Nov 21, 2018

0

#28

Clarification to last post. Co-champions automatically are in candidates.

WiseUncleIroh

Nov 21, 2018

0

#29

Honestly I have no problem with the fact that all the previous games have been draws because they've still been fun to watch. I don't think someone needs to win for it to be exciting. Honestly, I would find it a lot less exciting if it was just a blowout and the match wasn't so close.

IMKeto

Nov 21, 2018

0

#30

I propose the 3 following ideas:

1. Going old school. 24 game match, with the champion retaining the title in case of a 12-12 tie. And the challenger earns the right to a rematch withing 1 year.

2. Going really old school. Organizing a tournament Ala Zurich '53 with the top <insert number here> players in the world.

3. Fischer's idea. First player to 6 wins.

Realistically...none of these would work now because they would "take to long" and involve to much time, effort, and money.

lfPatriotGames

Nov 21, 2018

0

#31

Gamename17 wrote:

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.

I really like that idea. Chess is supposed to be slow and boring and since the whole point is to determine the world champion, even if it takes 50 games I dont see why that's a problem. If it's tied after the normal amount of games, just play regular games until someone wins, no matter how long it takes.

kaspariano

Nov 21, 2018

0

#32

Jenium wrote:

Gamename17 wrote:

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-.

If you don't mind that random players like Khalifman or Kasimdzhanov can become world champions, then go for it... In my opinion the title should be held by the strongest player on the planet.

...and how do we know who the strongest chess player on the planet is? Maybe he is not even FIDE rated, there are about 800 million chess players in the world

IpswichMatt

Nov 21, 2018

0

#33

I think the problem with unlimited games is that a venue has to be booked and paid for and to do so everyone needs to know how long the match is going to take.

lfPatriotGames

Nov 21, 2018

0

#34

IpswichMatt wrote:

I think the problem with unlimited games is that a venue has to be booked and paid for and to do so everyone needs to know how long the match is going to take.

That's a good point. I'll bet there are venues that would accomodate such a scenario. I know I would. Whats the worst that could happen? Tons of free publicity? Besides, it's a chess match, it's not like there are going to be 50 thousand people there. Why couldn't the venue just say as long as you pay, you can stay? Even if it takes 6 months. I doubt it would take 50 games though, I think someone would make a mistake within 20 games.

IpswichMatt

Nov 21, 2018

0

#35

Yes I’m sure it could be done, it would just be expensive.

kaspariano

Nov 21, 2018

0

#36

lfPatriotGames wrote:

IpswichMatt wrote:

I think the problem with unlimited games is that a venue has to be booked and paid for and to do so everyone needs to know how long the match is going to take.

That's a good point. I'll bet there are venues that would accomodate such a scenario. I know I would. Whats the worst that could happen? Tons of free publicity? Besides, it's a chess match, it's not like there are going to be 50 thousand people there. Why couldn't the venue just say as long as you pay, you can stay? Even if it takes 6 months. I doubt it would take 50 games though, I think someone would make a mistake within 20 games.

Not sure many companies would want free publicity to/from only chess players.

Gamename17

Nov 21, 2018

0

#37

IpswichMatt wrote:

Yes I’m sure it could be done, it would just be expensive.

Well they had it every year a group would come along to sell it,, I mean isn't Google worth a trillion or something? It does generate a lot of internet traffic. this whole thing with the FIDE is a bit odd. Why do Champions always disagree with them. take Kasparov, Fischer etc...

For a game that has 800 million players on earth you'd think it could generate more Sponsorship and business. Traffic on Internet sites streaming appear to be heavy.

lfPatriotGames

Nov 21, 2018

0

#38

kaspariano wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote:

IpswichMatt wrote:

I think the problem with unlimited games is that a venue has to be booked and paid for and to do so everyone needs to know how long the match is going to take.

That's a good point. I'll bet there are venues that would accomodate such a scenario. I know I would. Whats the worst that could happen? Tons of free publicity? Besides, it's a chess match, it's not like there are going to be 50 thousand people there. Why couldn't the venue just say as long as you pay, you can stay? Even if it takes 6 months. I doubt it would take 50 games though, I think someone would make a mistake within 20 games.

Not sure many companies would want free publicity to/from only chess players.

Why not? I have a golf/wedding venue. I dont care if I get free publicity from some group other than golfers and wedding goers. The more exposure, the better. I think it comes down to how many people actually attend, not how many people watch it on the internet. If it's at a hotel with only 500 people there, then I can imagine MANY venues willing to offer an open ended invitation to stay, as long as those there are willing to pay to stay and watch. It it's 20 thousand people staying there then it's different, Not many venues would be willing to accomodate 20 thousand people for several weeks.

ryanxd02

Nov 21, 2018

0

#39

So how do I find the exact times for when the games are? Like I know the dates, but what are teh exact times?

staples13

Nov 21, 2018

0

#40

In other news water is wet