AdrienFran wrote:
Games start 11:00am AST (Atlantic Standard Time)
3 GMT for westerners that's 7:00am Pacific- they are most punctual.
WCC Too many draws?
Sort:
After 12 games they play blitz, unlikely to have tons of draws than...
Nov 21, 2018
0
#44
Daniel1115 wrote:
After 12 games they play blitz, unlikely to have tons of draws than...
So if they were going to do that then are not they or shouldn't they have to play the "Blitz" champion of the world?
May not be the same person.
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?-
No. Utilizing your time to think incentivises the best games. Creating a non incentive to use the time given creates unintended consequences and distorts the decision making of the game from optimum.
whoever has the most material by points left over wins?
No. Material is merely only one imbalance or method of evaluating a chess game, and it is by no means necessarily even the most important. Who is a pawn up or down in this world championship has told us nothing about who was winning the game. Sacrifices are part of the game and make it far more exciting. You wouldn't want to create a disincentive for that.
An Armageddon games with longer time controls?
No. Any method to try to balance it would be arbitrary, and can leave an entire match in the hands of one game and is too volatile.
Have a 10min blitz game after each classical game?
It's a classical world chess championship. I am confused why they even have blitz as a factor in it.
Perhaps best of all would be to just flip a coin....or rock,paper scissors.
but seriously
anyone have any ideas
Yes, the way it used to be in Fisher's day. 24 game match, Challenger must score 12.5 to win, and the champion keeps title in the event of a 12/12 tie. To be the man, you have to BEAT the man. The OLDEN ways. That's the way it SHOULD be.
essejzaf wrote:
@gamename17 has closed his account.
Why did he do that? Did I defeat his so completely in debate that he couldn't even bear to remain on the site? I know my name carries with it great gravitas and honor, even fear for those who oppose me, but I had no idea it was to that effect
Nov 22, 2018
0
#48
You need to be careful what you post in future, FaceCrusher - with great power comes great responsibility
kaspariano wrote:
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
There is this funny thing called Elo-rating. In my opinion it is quite accurate. It is not a coincidence that the highest rated player is the current world champion, and the second highest rated the challenger. If you play a swiss or a k.o.-tournament with reduced time as FIDE did in the 90s external factors as form, nerves, luck etc. will gain importance and give relatively "weaker" players like Khalifman, Ponomariov, or Kasimdzhanov a realistic shot at the title.
Nov 22, 2018
0
#50
carlsen doesn't even deserve to be world champion. he beat karjakin in a different game(rapid)
Makes sense. Karjakin deserves to be world champion, since he lost to Carlsen in a different game.
apotosaurus schreef:
carlsen doesn't even deserve to be world champion. he beat karjakin in a different game(rapid)
Such an ignorant comment. Before tiebreaks were implemented the current WC would remain champ in a drawn match.
Karjakin got an EXTRA chance to beat Carlsen with rapid/blitz in the current format and still failed.
wcrimi wrote:
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 don't think Carlsen is getting outplayed at all, sometimes outprepared but with play at the chessboard I think he has been stronger, he also had the best winning chance in game one.
why shouldn't the best player prove that he is the best player? if the challenger got to draw him every game and the best player couldn't beat him that means he isn't any more the best player. he has gotten a competitor that is equally strong. which means you lose the title best player cuz your NOT!!!!!!!!
congrandolor wrote:
Blitz is not a different game, same board, same pieces, same rules...oh, wait, IS EXACTLY THE SAME GAME! Stop whinning about it, please.
If it's exactly the same game, how come different people win at it?
Yes, same board, same rules. But the different time controls demand a different skill set from its players.
That's why I think that giving 0.6 - 0.4 for stalemate, and 0.51 - 0.49 for perpetual check, and so on, although it changes the rules, with the same time controls basically demands the same thing from the players, obtaining material and positional advantage over the board. By making the extra rewards a tiny fraction of what a checkmate would give, instead of wrecking existing endgame theory, all that happens is that it is supplemented.
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....
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.
You are 100% correct.
When Fischer won in 1972, it was a 24 game match...
Xischer wrote:
When Fischer won in 1972, it was a 24 game match...
I don't think Spassky-Fischer 1972 worked out better because of the format of the match. Spassky only defeated Fischer over the board twice, and Fischer defeated Spassky over the board seven times.
So I don't think the match was more exciting because of the format. Instead, it was because we discovered the players were not evenly matched, if we had not known that already.
Xischer 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....
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.
You are 100% correct.
When Fischer won in 1972, it was a 24 game match...
lol
If stalemate were worth 0.6 or 0.8 points, there would be plenty of those instead of dead draws. If I recall correctly, at least two of the games so far had a forced stalemate available.
Games start 11:00am AST (Atlantic Standard Time)