You should favor wins over draws (in-case they both have the same score ofcourse), it's makes game more interesting when you see player who tries to win rather than draw.
Which one better Tiebreak?
Sort:
yes everyone favor wins over draws but that its not the indicator for comparing who is stronger.. that only promote intresting games.
chessfansupporter wrote:
yes everyone favor wins over draws but that its not the indicator for comparing who is stronger.. that only promote intresting games.
i agree, also its not that interesting when its forced and you see crazy blunders like in the Ivanchuk Kramnik game.. i mean that blunder was beyond insanity, at least if i saw itcorrect but im probably misssing some subtle positional concept that make it all logical.
in the last game Kramnik is force to play for win, instead going for solid game. Tiebreak is used to compare who is superior.. that why i favor SB in this case.
chessfansupporter wrote:
in the last game Kramnik is force to play for win, instead going for solid game. Tiebreak is used to compare who is superior.. that why i favor SB in this case.
why not just decide the tiebreak on the board??
forget to mention, the last tiebreak is Rapid. If the 1st,2nd and 3rd tiebreak is equal, then rapid game will be play.
Hi guys,
Candidates for WC2013 is already over. I think this year event is the most interesting candidates ever held. But one thing I am bit disagree, that is the tiebreak. The 1st tiebreak is the Personal Encounter(PE), 2nd is the most games win and 3rd is SB. Since Carlsen draw with Kramnik in both color therefore first tiebreak is equal. Carlsen won the Candidates because he win more games than Kramnik does. However in traditional current standing, Kramnik SB score is much superior. I still prefer SB over Win more games tiebreak in this case. Why? Kramnik only lost one and Carlsen lost twice against Ivanchuk and Svidler. Let’s assume the last round of candidates has not been play, and the last game is draw for all players. That mean Kramnik not lost even single game but Magnus lost once by Ivanchuk. In the case, Kramnik is stronger than Magnus in this tournament and he should challenge Anand for WC title. If that is not clear, I will give one more example. Let say Player A drawn 6 games and Player B win 3 games and lost 3 games. The score for both players is 3 points each. Who is stronger, assuming both will face in the next round. I would say Player A is stronger than Player B since he/she not yet lost a single game. The tiebreak for most win is not suitable for the candidates because this tiebreak only promote players to avoid drawn many games but it doesn’t mean he/she is stronger than others. What do you think??