Yeah, you might have a point there. Probably not a good idea to knock the beehive in a thread that I was actually looking for real discussion on ;-).
Please, trolls who have seen my unintentional bait above, instead of horribly derailing this thread, please just go read A Modest Proposal first. If you regret the 20 minutes it takes to read and don't think it's the best damn troll you've ever read, then come back and troll away in my thread, and I won't hold it against you.
Honestly though, I've never been all that thrilled by Swift. Certainly not as thrilled as he reportedly was by himself ("Such genius! Such genius!...").
And Candide was fun (read it again recently). But not a real knockout either. Maybe that's why satire is what closes on Saturday night...
Really? A Modest Proposal is one of my all-time favorites, though I must admit I wasn't so crazy about Gulliver's Travels and haven't read any other Swift. I adored Candide, but it probably helped a lot that I studied philosophy in college, so I felt like he was making fun of my professors, which would make anything seem better.
Is there satire that you really love? The only other classic that comes to mind for me at the moment is The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentlemen, which I didn't make it all the way through but enjoyed the absurdity of in small doses every now and then.
Last year, I tried to find chess players at my work, which is a medium-sized company with a lot of very smart people who enjoy gaming. There were very few chess players. There were lots more D&D players (hard to believe, but true), WoW players, and many other games, but chess is practically dead as far as most young people are concerned, even among the crowd who actively play board games and regularly surf places likehttp://boardgamegeek.com/.
Were they not even interested in blitz ?
No, not interested in blitz. It was as if they mostly thought of chess as something they learned how to play as a kid but hadn't thought about for a decade or two. There are loads of people who play games of various sorts, but when the topic of chess has come up over lunch or when playing other board games, which we have done many times, I've had people look a bit surprised to learn that I play chess regularly, as if it's unusual that people still play that ancient game.
I can find two Dungeons and Dragons players within 20 steps of my seat and know of others elsewhere in my building, and there are plenty of avid game players of different kinds in the same distance, but I honestly don't know where the closest other chess player sits, though somebody did tell me that they thought they knew of a couple of people who play chess from time to time.
Then the WCC becomes just a regular tournament... Even in F1, ch get an advantage - money, crucial thing. Thats why we have 2000-2004 era. :)
How is the two qualifying players playing a 12- or 16-game match like a regular tournament? Is there a class of tournaments I don't know about that involves just two contestants who play each other 12 or 16 games or more?
Do you even think before you post?
Do you even read before you post?
Exactly. That's just double double double double... round robin tournament.
What's the point of being World Champion or Challenger then?
Then the WCC becomes just a regular tournament... Even in F1, ch get an advantage - money, crucial thing. Thats why we have 2000-2004 era. :)
How is the two qualifying players playing a 12- or 16-game match like a regular tournament? Is there a class of tournaments I don't know about that involves just two contestants who play each other 12 or 16 games or more?
Do you even think before you post?
Do you even read before you post?
Exactly. That's just double double double double... round robin tournament.
What's the point of being World Champion or Challenger then?
Sigh, there's no such thing as a double double double double double double round robin tournament between two players, as you know very well. I'm tired of your sophistry and nonsense, so you're blocked for now.
When you understand why a 12- or 16-game match between two players for the title of WC isn't a tournament, maybe I'll unblock you.
Here's a clue:
How many legs does a horse have if you call the tail a leg? It still has 4, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
The reason I don't like Rating determining who the "champion" is is because higher rated players may decide to not play some other high rated players (like when Carlsen didn't participate in the WCC a few years ago).
I think that the WCC should happen every year, this would definitely make chess a little more visible. It is very weird that it doesn't, if you compare it with other sports. I do have to admit though, that in case of a draw between the challenger and the champion, there should be a way to determine the Champion (either the Champion retains the title, tie breaks, or some other method...), it happens in every other sport.
I do understand chess is not like other sports, but for it to gain credibility it has to be understood like other sports...
Personally I would like that the Candidates Tournament would include the past world champion, just because if there is more than 1 player stronger than the Champion, I would prefer to see a match between the 2 stronger players.
If that was the case, in the end of the Candidates tournament, the two top players could play a 12 or 16 games match to decide who is the champion, and if they would still be drawn, the one with the biggest score in the Tournament part would win (since he has better score against other high rated players).
Just my 2 cents.
You still didn't solve the problem of no champion for years. There is always a possibility.
Strategy and how one plays chess and whether the general chess fans/public like it means little in this discussion.
FIDE and other chess organizations, as well as many chess fans, would very much like to see chess reclaim some of the popularity it had in the past, and the WC is part of that process. The fact that you personally couldn't care less whether the WC helps or hurts that process doesn't really matter, because people who don't care whether chess grows or stagnates are not going to be listened to in these sorts of discussions.
When a championship title is on the line the players deserve and should be encouraged to play however they wish to their interests.
I agree, and I never said otherwise. What you seem to have missed though is that different match formats change what those very "interests" are, and FIDE and the public do care what those interests are, even if you don't.
A format where defender retains title on draw is one in which a much weaker defender who acts rationally may try to force the fastest possible draw in every single game. If the format supports that, I fully endorse adopting that strategy, as it is most likely the best chance for success if the defender is much weaker.
My suggestion for an alternate format, on the other hand, gives neither party the incentive to play for the fastest possible draw in every single game, because that doesn't help them accomplish their goals.
Different match formats offer different incentives to the players and will result in different kinds of matches with different results for chess and the future of chess.
If a world champion meets the level of skill of his opponent and ties the match, how did the world champion lose his title? He met his opposition and neutralized it. It is not an unfair advantage.
My proposal is that the WC is not something you basically own forever until somebody can overcome draw odds to take it away (note too that matches are far shorter than they were in the past, so draw odds is MUCH more unfair now than in the past). My proposal is that the WC would be a title awarded whenever there is a decisive WC match that must be earned again and again, as is fitting for something that is supposed to prove you are the best player in the world.
If you can't defeat the challenger, then you're obviously not the best in the world, since there is somebody else who is your equal, and you don't deserve the title.
I recognize that this a redefinition of what the WC is, but I think it's worth considering alternatives, for reasons I've mentioned above and elsewhere in the thread and won't repeat again.
Don't put opinions I didn't express to my name, that is very rude. I never said anything regarding if I want chess to be more popular or not, I said specifically that the general public/chess fans desires have little meaning in relation to the World Championship cycle format. Unless you want to have a democratic voting system for which system to use there are wide and hotly debated differences of opinion (like this thread for example) on what chess fans would like to see. Longer matches, even with a first to win X games, doesn't result in better chess games played. Players would just be similarly cautious every game, waiting for their opponent to make the mistake and capitalize on them rather than risk losing. Kasparov-Karpov 1984 is a great example how that format doesn't translate into better chess. It's just longer, which could result in fewer sponsors participating, and even general loss of interest by the public/chess fans. I doubt anyone wants a World Championship match dragging on possibly for months, especially sponsors and the participants.
I completely disagree that the World Championship should be taken away from the current World Champion if a match is tied. We just disagree on a basic point here and no amount of discussion would ever change my opinion on that. The challanger has to show superior skill against the World Champion to take the title away to me. That is the historic trend and one that makes logical sense. If I possess something and you come to take it away from me and I prevent you from doing so, I don't share it with you, I still possess it. Concerning the best in the world, if you have a process to determine the best challenger and that player fails to beat the World Champion then there is claim that the World Champion would therefore have beaten any of the other challengers had they made it to his table. There will always be some amount of ambiguity with the World Championship cycle getting the best challenger and therefore pitting the two best players in the world against each other but that isn't the fault of the format as any format would have that fault in some manner.
I disagree with your proposal on some differences of opinion with some basic concepts. Sorry.
You still didn't solve the problem of no champion for years. There is always a possibility.
How so?
I agree that the world championship for classical chess should not be decided by blitz, or rapid, or bughouse with your spouses, or poker or roulette.
The should continue to play until someone wins a point. If after a set amount of overtime games its still a draw the champ retains his title.
The match could be longer now I and several others agree. But the real problem is the qualifying system.
Don't put opinions I didn't express to my name, that is very rude. I never said anything regarding if I want chess to be more popular or not, I said specifically that the general public/chess fans desires have little meaning in relation to the World Championship cycle format.
You said, verbatim:
Strategy and how one plays chess and whether the general chess fans/public like it means little in this discussion.
What this discussion was about was an alternate proposal for the WC that was explicitly motivated (as I've mentioned many times) by saying it would be more popular with chess fans and pros alike and would contribute more to the achievement of the goals of FIDE and other chess organizations as well as chess fans and players, which include chess becoming more popular. So yes, it actually does mean a lot for this discussion.
Longer matches, even with a first to win X games, doesn't result in better chess games played. Players would just be similarly cautious every game, waiting for their opponent to make the mistake and capitalize on them rather than risk losing. Kasparov-Karpov 1984 is a great example how that format doesn't translate into better chess. It's just longer, which could result in fewer sponsors participating, and even general loss of interest by the public/chess fans. I doubt anyone wants a World Championship match dragging on possibly for months, especially sponsors and the participants.
My proposal wasn't based on longer matches. It suggested a relatively-short fixed-length match where both players have a very strong incentive to win games (a much stronger incentive than under "draw means defender keeps title" scheme), because winning more games than the opponent is the only thing that helps them achieve their goal of securing the title.
I completely disagree that the World Championship should be taken away from the current World Champion if a match is tied. We just disagree on a basic point here and no amount of discussion would ever change my opinion on that.
The difference between us is that I've proposed an alternate format and given JUSTIFICATIONS for why I believe that format would lead to better chess and would be a net good for chess as a sport. I'm talking about the real-world consequences of different formats. You on the other hand just state that you disagree and that nothing could ever change your opinion.
You're saying that if Anand had, for example, managed to force a threefold repetition before move 25 in every game, then there would be a "claim that he would therefore have BEATEN (not just drawn) any of the other challengers that made it to his table". How in the world do you come to such a bizarre conclusion?
You still didn't solve the problem of no champion for years. There is always a possibility.
Yes, definitely a possibility. It has to be taken into account by considering how often it would happen, and what the consequences of such occurrences would be, and then balanced against the benefits I've mentioned (as well as downsides of other formats), such as the better chess that results when drawing every game is a self-defeating strategy for BOTH players, and when it does actually happen that there is no champion for a year, the benefit of the next match possibly being between TWO new players rather than just ONE new player. This faster cycle means that the end result of the strongest player emerging (when there is one that is definitely stronger) happens faster on average under my proposal than under the current system, in proportion to how often the "no champion" scenario actually occurs.
For example, if Anand-Gelfand had turned out as it did in 2012, then Anand would have lost the title and been in the qualifying cycle for 2013. If the results had been the same, then the match this year would have been between Carlsen and Kramnik. Most people think that Carlsen-Kramnik would have been a more interesting match than Anand-Carlsen, and would have given us more information about who is truly the best match player in the world currently than we gained from the Anand-Carlsen match. I think it would be better if Carlsen were playing somebody else this year, instead of next year.
As it turns out though, I think it's less likely that Anand-Gelfand would have been drawn after the classical games if my format had been used, since the current format specifically gives the person who is the strongest rapid player a very strong incentive to try to draw every classical game if possible, and then win in the rapids, where they have more chance of succeeding. The fact that my proposal completely eliminates this motivation means that rational players will not adopt that strategy, and so there will be more games that are characterized by both players striving for a win when the position allows for it.
I think you cant solve this problem, even in your format. Because as fast as 1 player gets +1, he will just play to draw it, logical.
"Yet another World Championship proposal" should be a hint that this idea has been hit on more than a dead horse, so why bother posting it?
I think you cant solve this problem, even in your format. Because as fast as 1 player gets +1, he will just play to draw it, logical.
You can't get perfection, true, but the question is whether you can get better than one playing for a draw, and the other not being willing to take that much of a risk because that would risk losing? As soon as one player gets +1, the other player will do everything possible to try to at least get back to 0, so that's a very different situation than when they are already at 0 and one of them eagerly seeks a draw.
Uh-oh, looks like Chicken Little just hit the henhouse...