Originally posted by MurchuDo you mean a longer final or a return to the old school candidates matches? I'd like the final to be a bit longer than 12 games, but I think the candidates tournament is a better way to select the challenger. Personally i think there should be a system by way people can qualify for the Candidates who aren't in the top 50. There still exists a certain bias towards Elite rated players but that's another debate.
Maybe he might bring back a classical match play world championship. That would be something I would really like to see.
Originally posted by MarinkatombHe's like a brand, infact he was one, it would be very useful to have a former World Champion run FIDE, he would instantly get press coverage no one else could. And his work with deep blue could spark more events and sponsors.
Don't get me wrong, i like the guy. But is he the best person to represent the interests of players like Kramnik or Topalov? Kasparov has had criticism for pretty much every top player over the last 20 years, the man really is incapable of being impartial.
That said, his profile would no doubt do the game plenty of good. He is still news worthy and c ...[text shortened]... ausing a rift and bringing the game bad press. Chess needs a Diplomatic figure head, not a Tsar.
With the greatest of respect top chess players are crazy, chess above elo 2000 is a serious mental health problem. So I don't think it holds him back there can't be many top players who don't respect him. I think its a bit mad not to elect him and the last guy hasn't brought chess to the centre stage like it should.
Originally posted by e4chrisAbove 2000? Most of my chess club are over 2000...Actually, I see your point. 😛
He's like a brand, infact he was one, it would be very useful to have a former World Champion run FIDE, he would instantly get press coverage no one else could. And his work with deep blue could spark more events and sponsors.
With the greatest of respect top chess players are crazy, chess above elo 2000 is a serious mental health problem. So I don't thin ...[text shortened]... t mad not to elect him and the last guy hasn't brought chess to the centre stage like it should.
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombBoth.
Do you mean a longer final or a return to the old school candidates matches? I'd like the final to be a bit longer than 12 games, but I think the candidates tournament is a better way to select the challenger. Personally i think there should be a system by way people can qualify for the Candidates who aren't in the top 50. There still exists a certain bias towards Elite rated players but that's another debate.
I would like to see the format and the final be of an exacting standard.
The current final is ridiculously short in my opinion, and would like to see it returned to the length it was, or else see Fischers recommendation that draws do not count, with the winner being the one who reaches a predetermined tally.
A return to old school canditates matches would be a great thing, imo, and in this internet age with the entire cycle broadcast in fantastic depth would make compelling viewing.
I think most of all, I would like to see whoever gets in, return respectability to FIDE and chess. A return to a proper final, and a proper canditates cycle would be a good start.
Originally posted by MurchuI liked the old 24-game matches. They were long enough to force the winner to demonstrate consistent superiority.
Both.
I would like to see the format and the final be of an exacting standard.
The current final is ridiculously short in my opinion, and would like to see it returned to the length it was, or else see Fischers recommendation that draws do not count, with the winner being the one who reaches a predetermined tally.
A return to old school canditates ...[text shortened]... FIDE and chess. A return to a proper final, and a proper canditates cycle would be a good start.
My only issue with unlimited (draws not counting) matches is that the title may be decided by sheer stamina. Matches at that level take a severe physical toll.
Unlimited matches can go on for months - witness Alekhine-Capablanca, 1927 (34 games) and Kasparov-Karpov, 1984-85, which was aborted after game 48 (!). The latter match lasted from September 10, 1984 to February 8, 1985 - 5 months.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes, you're probably right, when you get to that point, it becomes more ironman than chess perhaps.
I liked the old 24-game matches. They were long enough to force the winner to demonstrate consistent superiority.
My only issue with unlimited (draws not counting) matches is that the title may be decided by sheer stamina. Matches at that level take a severe physical toll.
Unlimited matches can go on for months - witness Alekhine-Capablanca, 1927 ( ...[text shortened]... ter game 48 (!). The latter match lasted from September 10, 1984 to February 8, 1985 - 5 months.
I think they should probably go back to the 24 game matches. The reduced format to 12 games changes the character of the contest immeasurably. I think Kasparov himself commented on how much of an uphill struggle it was when playing Kramnik, after Kramnik got a lead on him, as with the 12 game format there was almost non-existent chance for recovery, especially when playing against a very drawish player like Kramnik.
The old 24 game format at least ensured that there would be more than one act in a match, and made for a less risk-averse championship contest, imo. With the 12 game format, you could conceivably steal a march on your opponent, and then try draw every other game. At least after 24 games, you could be assured that the winner of the contest was a deserving one.
EDIT: by the way, great RHP scripts, SG! Just installed a few of them now after noticing the link to them on your profile. Very very useful - thanks 🙂
Originally posted by ketchuploverYes i see he's just been elected too. I wish him luck, if things go well maybe he will run for FIDE president in the near future. I have to say i'm slightly surprised to see him running to head the ECF when he is American, but hey, English chess could really use some fresh energy. 🙂
I think Paulson's running for president of the English Chess Federation
Originally posted by SwissGambitDitto on the thumbs up!
I liked the old 24-game matches. They were long enough to force the winner to demonstrate consistent superiority.
My only issue with unlimited (draws not counting) matches is that the title may be decided by sheer stamina. Matches at that level take a severe physical toll.
Unlimited matches can go on for months - witness Alekhine-Capablanca, 1927 ( ...[text shortened]... ter game 48 (!). The latter match lasted from September 10, 1984 to February 8, 1985 - 5 months.