- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by 93confirmedWhat, an even shorter, more blunder-inviting, less chess-like variety? No, thanks. I think the adults' chess championship should be decided by grown-ups' chess with a proper clock time.
I'd like to see the match extended from 12 to 20 games and a single Armaggedon tiebreaker if it's still drawn after that.
I do think that the match should be played over more games, and quite a few more, too. If you only play 12 games, any blunder you make may well be your last. If you play 30, there is more leeway for error, and therefore less incentive to play it safe.
It's clear that this match was herded into the rapids specifically to decide it there, which is not good. Rapid chess is not the best chess. It may be "modern" and "exciting", but we're chess players, not hepcats let alone marketeers. We should care about what makes good chess, not what makes good advertising copy. With a longer match, this would be less likely.
Sure, they would have to play more games. Well, tough. They're playing for the Chess World Championship, not for the Little Nigglington tiddlywinks cup. They should be willing to make a serious effort if They're to be worth the title. Be grateful that there are no adjournments any more - at least these days a match with 30 playing days is a match with 30 playing days, not 30 playing days and 19 free afternoons taken up by adjourned games.
As for deciding it with rapid games if even those 30 games end up drawn, or even (the Lady help us) with a Russian Roulette game, what was wrong with the old rule that the holder of the title keeps it if the match is a draw? The only time that was a problem was in the Lasker-Schlechter match, and that was a ten-game match - even worse than this one!
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by 93confirmedNo, but I do have some predictions for this forum.
Any early predictions for who the next challenger will be?
If the title is not gifted for free, without playing, to Carlsen, then half the forum will be outraged that he did not get his "obviously deserved" title.
If it is, at least part of that same half, and part of the rest, will be outraged that it wasn't donated to Kasparov, instead.
Richard
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20184
Originally posted by Mephisto2True, a title is not more than a title. And there is the prize money of course.
Why? That would make the WC title not different from any of the super-GM tournaments' titles.
But, "world champion" is associated with "the best player on earth", so the system should allow to find the best player. A duel is just a match between 2 players: one is defending his title and doesn't have to compete with other high-level players in order to gain his spot in the championship. The other won the candidate championship a year ago. This takes too long.
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20184
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI don't like so many draws in the championship. How to avoid:
What, an even shorter, more blunder-inviting, less chess-like variety? No, thanks. I think the adults' chess championship should be decided by grown-ups' chess with a proper clock time.
I do think that the match should be played over more games, and quite a few more, too. If you only play 12 games, any blunder you make may well be your last. I ...[text shortened]... ter match, and that was a ten-game match - even worse than this one!
Richard
- more games --> more chances for error (i don't like errors provoked because of tired players)
- 3-1-0 system --> doesn't change anything in a duel
- more players --> this decreases the appetite in drawing, because you actually lose 1/2 a point with respect to players that won a match
- defender automatically wins if the match ends equal --> i like, the match has a defined end and the challenger needs a least one win. However, this puts more pressure on the challenger, so it's a bit unfair. All players should have equal chances.
1 edit
the ideal world championship match for me would be to
play 20 or 24 games with (much) quicker time controls.
perhaps down to 60 minutes for the first 40.
i consider this a natural adjustment to the much more efficient preparation of the computer era. in the recent match the players could easily blitz away 10-20 moves.
why give them too much time for the rest of the game?
edit: by he way i like the current candidates tournament format rather than long candidates matches as seen in the past
1 edit
From Twitter:
Levon Aronian: Congrats to World Champion Anand! Great comeback in the later stage of the match! Gelfand deserves a praise for his creative & dynamic play!
Mig Greengard: What, did they play another match? ; )
Levon Aronian: How come the less a person knows about a subject, the more he treats it with disrespect.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by PacifiqueOh, so Aronian has been reading this thread, has he?
From Twitter:
Levon Aronian: Congrats to World Champion Anand! Great comeback in the later stage of the match! Gelfand deserves a praise for his creative & dynamic play!
Mig Greengard: What, did they play another match? ; )
Levon Aronian: How come the less a person knows about a subject, the more he treats it with disrespect.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by watchyourbackrankI don't understand how you could possibly take a title seriously which has been earned in cut-short versions of the game. Would you think a world champion of football worth mentioning if they'd won their title in a match of two 15-minute halves? Would you do anything but laugh at a Formula 1 champion if all his races were 30 laps maximum? Of course not! Why, then, suggest something similar for chess?
the ideal world championship match for me would be to
play 20 or 24 games with (much) quicker time controls.
perhaps down to 60 minutes for the first 40.
Richard
