Originally posted by no1marauderthank you for remarking on my idea - i take it as a compliment 😉
What a remarkably stupid idea.
of course i would not like to see it based only on fast games - but 1/3 of the championship could be based on fast games - we would really find out who knows how to play chess that way.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
If it goes to tiebreak, I really hope that the 4 rapidplay games will be sufficient to determine the winner.
Otherwise it will come down to a couple of blitz games and if they're tied, a 6 minute versus 5 minute game in which a draw counts as a win for Black! The odds favour the Black player so much in that scenario, that whoever is given that colour (presumably by tossing a coin) is very likely to emerge as the World Champion. So effectively the title would be determined by a coin toss.
my thoughts on the fixation of high level chess with slow games is something like this ...
(a conspiracy theory)
... the best chess players do not want to look like fools, they do not want to be seen making mistakes.
by playing slow games they try to never show mistakes.
they are just scared to show themselves to the world - their social skills are not well balanced.
gifted children at schools often show a similar reluctance to reveal themselves.
let them out - let them play and stuff up and still be crowned champion!
Originally posted by flexmoreWho cares? Blitz ain't chess.
thank you for remarking on my idea - i take it as a compliment 😉
of course i would not like to see it based only on fast games - but 1/3 of the championship could be based on fast games - we would really find out who knows how to play chess that way.
Originally posted by no1marauderhave you ever played blitz against someone rated way above you? - or below you?
Who cares? Blitz ain't chess.
the results come through.
blitz is chess.
slow chess is a paranoia of gifted kids grown into adults being scared to reveal their weaknesses, and so they also cannot show their strength.
Originally posted by flexmoreIf you don't like the way chess has been played at the Championship level for 150 years, go watch checkers or tic-tac-toe. A 1/3 blitz match makes about as much sense as a 1/3 Fischer Random match.
have you ever played blitz against someone rated way above you? - or below you?
the results come through.
blitz is chess.
slow chess is a paranoia of gifted kids grown into adults being scared to reveal their weaknesses, and so they also cannot show their strength.
Originally posted by no1marauderi ask you :
If you don't like the way chess has been played at the Championship level for 150 years, go watch checkers or tic-tac-toe. A 1/3 blitz match makes about as much sense as a 1/3 Fischer Random match.
2 players face each other:
if you have 4 weeks then how should they play games to find out who is the best chess player?
perhaps just 1 game with a 2 week timelimit?
or maybe 2 games at a 7 day timeout?
or what?
which is most accurate?
surely a combination of fast and slow is best.
Originally posted by flexmoreDifferent games, different abilities tested. It's like playing one half of the football world cup final as five-a-side - it's still football, but it's not the same.
my thoughts on the fixation of high level chess with slow games is something like this ...
(a conspiracy theory)
... the best chess players do not want to look like fools, they do not want to be seen making mistakes.
by playing slow games they try to never show mistakes.
they are just scared to show themselves to the world - their social skills ar ...[text shortened]... o reveal themselves.
let them out - let them play and stuff up and still be crowned champion!
By all means, have a rapid-play world championship. But keep the classical world championship for 'classical' chess.
Originally posted by no1marauderTypical answer from you. While in uni, didn't they teach what good manners are, didn't they? Or (most probably) they tried and failed miserably. Or better yet, if you are a "lawyer" and exhibits your education in a court the same way you are doing here, I'm sure you are posting from the jail.
Screw you.
I'm done with you.
Originally posted by CrazyLilTingBye. Next?
Typical answer from you. While in uni, didn't they teach what good manners are, didn't they? Or (most probably) they tried and failed miserably. Or better yet, if you are a "lawyer" and exhibits your education in a court the same way you are doing here, I'm sure you are posting from the jail.
I'm done with you.