Not the old-fashioned kind, in which the champion kept the title by drawing the match. That has been abandoned since it would be a huge advantage with matches as short as they have become. hansie bring this idea in the comments:
In the event of any world championship match ending at tie, 6-6, after the regulation 12 games at classical time control, what do you feel of replacing the rapid cum blitz tiebreaker by a single armageddon (13th) game at classical time control with the Champion having the Black pieces and the Challenger having the White, with the proviso that the Challenger must win the game to dethrone the Champion, if the game ends in a draw, the Champion keeps his title on the ground that he could not be defeated in the match despite having more Blacks and less Whites?
My very first instinct was to hate it. But my second reaction is that it's no worse than rapids and blitz and has a cute logic. Another 60 seconds in and I'm almost in love with it. Has this idea been postulated before? Seems too good not to have been.
The main downside is if the champion loses the draw odds part is forgotten and there's a beef about color disparity. If he draws it feels fair, but if he loses it looks odd. Draw odds games are a pretty serious distortion, basically. Same goes with time handicaps, etc. Any time you have to asterisk a game -- that is, it wasn't played under normal rules -- you're playing with history and with fire. Still, while my traditionalist side rebels it's certainly a tidy idea and one I'd like to see run by players for fun. Most feel draw odds are such an advantage that they might think this is too much to give to the champion. See our recent US championship threads on the armageddon time handicap game system they used this year.
I like the idea, too. However, I would first add a set of two games at classical time control (with colors switched, of course) and only if the match is still tied after 14 games, then go for the ultimate 15th draw-odds game. That way, the challenger had three (!) chances to prove superiority over the champion: 1) beat him in the regular 12 game match, 2) beat him in overtime, or 3) beat him in the armageddon game.
The beauty of it is that all games are at classical time-control. Love it!
"Most feel draw odds are such an advantage that they might think this is too much to give to the champion."
Giving a tie break to the challenger seems much too.
In the last WCC matches (since Kramnik-Kasparov 2000), no player won more than 2 games with the white pieces, having either 6-8 tries. That means the champion would have a statistical chance of at least 67% to retain the title under the HANSIE-rule.
The question really is: do we want as much equality as possible as far as the contenders chances are concerned, or do we actually concede a few advantages to the champion, once the match is tied?
In boxing, a draw keeps the title with the champion. In other sports, they play OT. As long as the format is NOT a different one than the original (classical - rapids - blitz), I am in favour of OT (tie breaks).
And since I am in favour of some champion priviledges as well, the HANSIE-rule would make sense - but only if the champion can choose if he wants to have draw odds with black or wants to try to win with the white pieces.(psychologically it might be even tougher to have the black pieces than knowing one has draw odds, who knows.)
All in all, I am fine with the champion having a few extra rights IF the match is tied. And I am also fine with an extra game.
Interesting indeed. What I like most is that it gets rid of rapid and/or blitz - totally different forms of chess - deciding a chess match.
oh that is elegant. Beautiful idea.
I agree with Peter. Rapid/blitz deciding WC's is crazy to me.
But ultimately, color me old school. If you survey all of the World Championship matches, if I recall correctly without taking the time to review each one (http://www.chessgames.com/wcc.html), the results of only two or three WC matches would have been different if you had stopped them after 16 games. So I'm in favor of 16 game matches, with the WC retaining the title in case of a tie.
The Hansie Rule -- sounds commercially viable.
What I mean is, I think it could significantly increase (mainstream?) media interest in the match in the event of a tie, and make watching the playoff game more of a tempting way to spend a day for the fans. Shoot, I love watching the final round of a golf major for four or five hours, and if there's a playoff, whoopdedoo! I don't even PLAY the game!
(Some of my opponents my say I don't play chess either, but that's another post!)
CO
What follows is the most concise summary of my WC cycle that I can muster. It assumes a WC match every other year:
After a full-length (whatever length that is; I'd like 24 games, but I'd settle for 16. 12 just doesn't seem like enough to my mind) match, the Champion retains his title - no tiebreaks of any kind. HOWEVER, the Champion is obligated by rule to play a return match with the same Challenger in the following year.
(My justification here is that the Champion has not demonstrated his superiority over this opponent, so why should that Challenger be forced to go all the way back to square one even though he played no worse than the Champion?)
In the return match, the contestants play another full-length match; THIS time, in the event of a drawn match, there are tiebreaks - first four rapid games, then four blitz games. If we're STILL tied, an Armageddon game. An Armageddon game seems unjust in a World Championship event, but these two have had (at a minimum) 32 games to get a result. It has to come to an end sometime, and the year after the return match is the end of the next candidates cycle.
i have to agree with the 16 games format .
12 games is definetely not enough , i think that the legitimacy of the world champion title would be strengthened with more than 12 games (in the 80's , it's Karpov who would have been world champion in his match vs Kasparov if it was only 12 games to play )
Anand said recently that more than 12 games would give him too much work to his team and cost him too much money , but whilst i understand and respect his concerns ( it's probable that the less games , the better for him since he gets older and probably doesn't want to play the next wch match with a longer format which would be more tiring and intense ) , from the spectator point of view , if the players are out of the computer prep , it's all good for us who want to see them find the moves over the board by themselves as much as possible . The more games also means the more risks the players can afford to take and that is also all good for the spectator in theory .
For the draw odds , i think it's fairer than deciding the holy title with a blitz game , as blitz format is a very different exercise altogether that deserves its own wch matches/tournaments .
However with only 12 games , draw odds makes little sense , 6 blacks (6 berlin and petroffs) and 6 careful white games should do the trick probably too easily . I say if you give draw odds to the champion , make it 16 at least or better , make it 20 games to give a fair go to the challenger who would have more opportunities to create a gap . 20 games , means a wch match that would last about a month if you give rest days every 2 games .
Mig said "The main downside is if the champion loses the draw odds part is forgotten and there's a beef about color disparity. If he draws it feels fair, but if he loses it looks odd."
I have a simple fix for this. If white (the challenger) wins the 13th game, then they play one more game (14th) with the champion playing white. If the champion loses or draws, he loses the match. If he wins (they are tied again), then they play the 15th game with draw odds for the champion playing black. And this continues. It is extremely unlikely that they will produce a long string of decisive games before a draw odds game decides the match. How many times in a WC match have there been 4 decisive games in a row alternately won by the players? So the chances of a 48 (or 20) game match are nearly 0. On the other hand, the chances of an exciting finish with 2 or 4 alternately won decisive games in a row followed by a draw odds game significant.
I suggest a different rule for ALL games (WCH or not) : in case of technical draw, the winner is the play has spent less time to achieve the result
this will lead to disappearence of the 'greatmaster draws' since at any moment there will be a virtual winner (and virtual a loser) and this will force the "loser" to refuse the "draw" and start moving faster and/or play more aggressively to win on the board.
It is about time management (time investment) as much as about objective good moves on the board since if there is good move to win OTB the a good player will take the risk and invest time into assesing the continuation.
grammar :
]
I suggest a different rule for ALL games : in case of technical draw, the winner is the player who has spent less time to achieve the result (less time on the clock).
The simpliest way of reducing controversy in a case that a challenger wins his white game, would be to simply give the world champion the choice of whether to have white and play for a win or black and play for a draw. That way if he loses with black he can't blame anyone besides himself.
Hmmm, the "Ovidiu rule"
- encourages opening preparation that is only aimed at reaching a sterile draw (time spent _before_ the game cannot be assessed, hence doesn't count)
- punishes the player who spends time on the clock trying to avoid simplifications, to keep the game going
- generally favors fast, intuitive players over those who like to, or need to calculate variations in depth [this might make sense to some, personally I don't like it because I am the second type of player ,:) ]
- rules out the following gesture of sportive fairness: Player A has a favorable position but only seconds left on the clock, player B accepts a draw because he doesn't want to win by flagging the opponent. And if both players are short on time, does it make sense that 25 seconds for ten moves beats 20 seconds?
a)time spent _before_ the game cannot be assessed, hence doesn't count
off-board deep opening prep. and the time gained OTB if you pull such stuff is already an issue in chess, Toplaov spent only 10 min in the 1st Sofia game (in other words don't mix the problems, and the arguments)
b)favors fast, intuitive players over those who like to, or need to calculate variations in depth
dosen't "favour", it rewards good players, if you need to spend twice as much time as your opponent to maintain the balance of the game you ARE the weaker player.
The purpose of the game is to establish who is the better player (not to play absolute chess, that can be left to Rybka)
c)he doesn't want to win by flagging the opponent.
the answer to that is implied in the b)answer
@encourages opening preparation that is only aimed at reaching a sterile draw
it neither encouragers nor discourages, with such a rule it won't make any difference if the opening variation is drawish (say a Berlin). There are problems to solve and tactics to fend off even in very simple endgame positions thus you still can (and will) lose if you take more time than your opponent to work out its problems so as to keep the balance in such a positions.
Your aim is to test the players not the game, we already suspect that the game is likely a draw with perfect play.
This system ( "time means better moves") bypasses the drawish nature of the game and shifts the focus toward who plays it better.
It creates a permanent tension every single move because you have to weigh the time investment to search deeper against the chances of return.
It rewards the player who recognizes a position where he has good chances to win if spends more time to find the decisive moves.
I do not question the role of deep opening preparation. At least in matches, it can come down to who has the better seconds or more powerful engines, rather than who is the better OTB player (like it or not, it's a simple fact). But I do question that a home-prepared forced draw should yield a full point.
About the faster player being the better player, I don't agree. Currently at classical time controls, the issue is to make 40 moves in 2 hours (or whatever applies), NOT to be ahead on the clock at any moment of the game. Changing this introduces elements of rapid or blitz into classical chess.
And what about the following situation: Player A has an attack with a perpetual in hand, clock times are 30 vs. 20 minutes. If he spends 11-29 minutes searching for a win, doesn't find one and then gives perpetual, he loses. If he gives the perpetual immediately, he wins. Does this make sense?
Overall, I think you go over the top trying to avoid a draw at any prize. And I can't avoid the impression that you propose such rules because they would favor Topalov ... .
@Changing this introduces elements of rapid or blitz into classical chess.
They are already present.
As you know, zeitnot (time management) is a variable in classical chess as it is a factor in the quality of moves played. It is not uncommon that you chose to play a modest (avearge) move if it easy to evaluate as opposed to a possibly strong move which however would take a lot of time to figure it out entirely.
My 'proposal' was merely about using this (already present) variable to ensure that all games are decisive games.
The more knowledgable player (who knows the how to play the position thus he will play it faster) and/or the more capable to calculate in the same amout of time will be (deservedly) regarded the winner despite the result being a draw.
Love it!
The rapid and blitz tie-breaks are not that bad as pictured here. In football, World Cup Champions have been decided by the penalty shoot-out lottery. Similar situation in my opinion.
Duncan
@Player A has an attack with a perpetual in hand, clock times are 30 vs. 20 minutes.
In your example Player B has spent more time pondering his moves yet he has been outplayed and now under attack (and who tries now to avoid drawish positions and forced draw lines).
If nonetheless A manages exactly that it only means that A is overall the better player (needs less time than B for the same results).
Here is what I would like.
A tie after 12 games would crown a new champion. What's the fascination with the same champion going? Let him assert his superiority in every match -- it should make things more competitive.
The truth hurts sometimes, what to do?
Why not have a Classical sudden death with the Challenger starting with white? Winner takes it all. After four sudden-death games, move on to kick-boxing.
I propose that it be a series of best of three draw-odds games. The champion having the two blacks. Since each game produces a "winner," three will decide the outcome.
Perhaps they could be a slightly faster time control (maybe 90+30) so they could be played in a shorter time period (maybe even all on the same day).
an interesting article on ELO ratings inflation-deflation at Chessbase, it seems (see Macieja's note at the end of the article) that the strongest ever was Bobby Fischer
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6401
Tie-break format should be twelve rounds of chess-boxing. I'm sure both Kramnik and Topalov would have been very eager for that at the end of their match.
Tie-break format should be twelve rounds of chess-boxing. I'm sure both Kramnik and Topalov would have been very eager for that at the end of their match.
P.S. Seriously I love the "Hansie rule" too.
I had an interesting idea during the past championship match. The two players are given random starting postions and colors. The positions and color can be drawn out of a hat or some way be made totally random. The world champion should be able to play any position. This way we can see some Nadjdorf, kings gambits, 2 knights defence, Evans gambits, etc. The players will not know the opening nor the color until minutes before the game starts.
This is an application of randomness as proposed by Fischer but using the normal chess setup. Not chaning the positions of the back rank.
A Ruy Lopez could be played while avoiding the Berlin. A e4 e5 game can be played while avoiding the Petroff. In fact double edged games where a win is most likely to happen can be played.
It would avoid the 25 move opening preparation that is stiffling chess games today. It will force the players to think from their first move instead of move 26. It will avoid the loss by Anand in his early game where he tried to play 2 moves in wrong order. He will be thinking on his own instead of trying to remember computer preparation.
Under this approach there will hopefully be more won and lost games that will not so easily end in a drawn match.
The idea is that they still play regular chess but as World Champion they must prove they can play any and all positions well. That is a true Champion.
@The players will not know the opening..until minutes before the game starts...it would avoid the ..opening preparation that is stiffling chess games today
This idea would work, but it would need some a new set of FIDE regulations , a standardization of the 'official' starting positions.
I haven't been checking this blog for the last few days (shame on me!), and I just looked through the comments in the Anand interview piece. A belated Happy Birthday, Mig!
And about draw odds in a match - my initial reaction was to hate it, and like Mig, I contemplated for a while. My final reaction was to hate it as well.
Can't say I love it, but I dislike it less than all the other crap. Realising that we will not get more than one day for any tiebreak, it is probably the best among the realistic options.
Another option would be to have 4 classical Chess360 games. If that yields no results, both players go at it with a hand-held weapon. Choices are a) Lead pipe b)2x4 pine-wood.
The original idea from 'hansie', highlighted by Mig, would just end in a draw, champion retains title. Why bother?
_ _ _ _
Ovidiu: Has the right idea to use time, just not in the well-trodden way of Rapid & Blitz. Nicely eliminates the draw.
_ _ _ _
Willy the Wonka: His suggestion of randomly drawing 1 of 20 standard chess opening positions is rather close to what has been done in world championship CHECKERS for a century. A sort of precedent.
Most logical would be to play 20 games with draw odds . Simpler and fairer .
No blitz , no 360 , no crap , just pure Classical , Traditional Chess and a decent amount of games for the challenger to have a fair shot at the title .
Only people who would disagree with are :
1) old chess players who would suffer playing more than 10 games against the likes of Carlsen or others with a lot of energy and fighting spirit
2)Players depending too much on their seconds and computer prep , because 20 games imples that the match lasts a month , so he'd had to pay them more and memorize even more Deep Rybka lines
3)Player(s) who want to keep the format as it is becaus it favours them or their style
4)players who absolutely need a rest day afer every game
For the audience who want to see risk takers and spectacular come backs , for the value of the title itself (the more games , the more legit is the title ) , for the organizers ( a Wch that last one month is ok for accomodations , organization etc ) , such a format would be a good thing and has the advantage of being faithful to the tradition and history of the Chess
I agree. Long match with draw odds is the best possible solution.
Q : You have played a 20 game match. Now it's down to 12 games. What are your thoughts on that?
Anand :
I find it hard to imagine how people once upon a time played even 24 games. Not to speak of the ones which went to 32 and 48. I find them completely absurd. In our modern era that you can spend 4 months on something - it's beyond belief. I think, already, 12 games is the maximum. It shouldn't get any longer. In that era, especially between two Soviet opponents, they didn't really have to worry about spectators. Then again, interest in their country was very high so they managed. Nowadays to get two teams and put them in a city for months on end doesn't make sense to me.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6405
It's hard work to be World Champion, at least I think it should be :)
I find it hard to imagine how people once upon a time played even 24 games. Not to speak of the ones which went to 32 and 48. I find them completely absurd. In our modern era that you can spend 4 months on something - it's beyond belief. I think, already, 12 games is the maximum. It shouldn't get any longer. In that era, especially between two Soviet opponents, they didn't really have to worry about spectators. Then again, interest in their country was very high so they managed. Nowadays to get two teams and put them in a city for months on end doesn't make sense to me.
****
News flash for Anand -- there shouldn't be two "teams" -- it should be the player and his second.
Period.
Topalov was right -- it was disgusting to learn that Anand took help from Carlsen and Kasparov.
While I agree that the time for long grueling matches may be over -- there is no reason to spend endless amounts of time to tease out small differences among the top players...
...the solution is to identify challengers and then have MORE FREQUENT matches of moderate (12-16 games) duration.
Under such a scheme...it is not inconceivable that Chigorin, Maroczy, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch or even Bogoljubow might have won the title.
If a 12-game match were an annual affair...and there was a fair way for a challenger to qualify....then even Tartakower might have won (for a year).
Does this degrade the idea of "champion"? Not really -- as the better players should win more often and usually a strong champion would fend off such challengers. But everyone gets his shot!
Instead, a 2 or 3 year cycle insulates the champion, keeps challengers AWAY from the title match.
And -- even more disgusting -- if a champion uses a "team" then it isn't even a match vs. the champion.
We already have an exaggerated idea of what level of play the world champion should have -- now, simply by buying a stronger team, he can keep his title secure.
Folks, that's not sports anymore.
Why would the idea of having a supporting team be incompatible with sports? A world-top runner may also have several coaches, medical staff, a dietist and a sports psychologist to support him. He will have training partners, he may even have pacemakers during races. But he still has to run himself, just like Anand has to play chess himself on the stage.
Regarding annual matches: How would you squeeze a fair (multi-stage?) qualification process AND a match into one year? At the very least, it would come at the expense of other strong events!? And the world champion would constantly be busy playing and preparing for matches, little time left for other chess activities.
"News flash for Anand -- there shouldn't be two "teams" -- it should be the player and his second."
This is not a news flash, but a chesspride opinion flash. And it's irrelevant how things 'should be' in your opinion, "teams" are a fact nowadays. BTW, do you consider casual support from Carlsen, Kasparov and Kramnik for Anand "disgusting", but massive engine support for Topalov - facilitated by the Bulgarian government - legitimate? If so, why? Just because it wasn't enough to win the match??
@Why would the idea of having a supporting team be incompatible with sports?
Because the kind of "sports" chess is- Anand (or Topalov of course) pays people to find moves/ideas for him which later he will pretend that he finds and plays on the board. In not realy playing it is parroting.
A runner has to run himself, he can not mimick, pretend, that he is running in front of the
camera during the competition.
A chess player has to think himself OTB and play not to pretend that he does so while actually enacting a script written by somebody else for him.
Thinking OTB is the essence about chess ( just as is the actual running for athletics). But the essence is shrinking fast. Memorized computer-lines and opening theory , other brains (silicon or carbon) help is ruining chess as a game.
...
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don’t like chess any more."
Bobby Fischer
.............
I see your point, but I think it would only be valid if opening preparation _regularly_ yielded a clear advantage (not all the way to mate, but a winning position which is very hard to spoil). Yet in many cases, a player can only expect an objective += or a subjective += (the position may be balanced, but you feel more comfortable than your opponent).
It's fun to continue with the running analogy: A potential winner of the New York Marathon will
- study the race track beforehand (which parts go uphill or may be exposed to prevailing winds?)
- check the weather forecast
- maybe have a look at his opponents and their likely race tactics
I think this is similar to opening preparation in chess: you will memorize some moves, maybe come up with a novelty, but what matters most is being familiar with the resulting middlegame position - to know what to expect. And then the race or battle begins - a chessgame starts at move 20 or even 30, the decisive phase of a marathon also often starts only after 30 kilometers.
In running, it may help if you have run the same race before (chessy: earlier games with the Grunfeld defense) or getting advice from someone who had participated last year (chessy: a second who plays the Grunfeld defense). Of course there are differences: In running you know exactly what to expect but you cannot change boundary conditions. In chess, you make choices (Sicilian or Petroff?) but you have limited control because your opponent also has to make his moves and might surprise you.
Back to chess:
- Opening preparation doesn't always guarantee a victory, ask Riazantsev about his Poikovsky game against Karjakin
- @ chesspride: If one player tried to "buy" a WCh title in Sofia, it was Topalov spending 100,000 Euros on Rybka 4 - but it didn't help enough, maybe money ain't everything .... .
Make the WC matches 18 games and then it seems quite reasonable and exciting.
two articles on checkers and chess for weekend reading
Play always exists at the horizon of understanding, a point between incomprehension and mastery at which the player’s ability to predict the outcome of her actions begins to founder. To play is to confront the unknown or unpredictable. In order to facilitate play, therefore, the structure of a game must contain an element of autonomy and extend beyond the limits of the player’s mastery, or contain mechanisms for disrupting or thwarting the player’s intentions. Complexity is one mechanism of this kind; randomness is another.
http://littlebobeep.com/2010/chinook-death-play/
........
The automatic answer to the question of who is the greatest mind sports champion of all time would be Garry Kasparov.. Meanwhile, draughts champion Dr Marion Tinsley made such a huge impression during his match in London against the Chinook program in 1992, that this question is definitely worth asking. For example, the implacable Dr Tinsley, aged 65, played four games a day (totalling nine hours), six days a week with only one rest day over a 39 game match. Spectacularly, in so doing, Dr Tinsley turned the ‘Turing Test’ on its head. The Turing Test, famously, posits that if experts cannot distinguish between human and computer output in certain areas, then the machine is said to be ‘thinking’. When analysts were poring over the 39 games played, they found to their surprise..
http://www.keeneonchess.com/index.asp?contiene=article&id=33
Tim Krabbe described a dream he had in which he had a conversation with Kramnik. I like the time-keeping idea he passed along in it:
***
25 January 2007
Thinking time should not go down as the game progressed, but up. "Every grandmaster knowing the first twenty moves of every opening these days," I said, "five minutes for the first twenty moves should be enough. After that, you get an hour for every twenty moves. That way, you can play decent endgames again."
http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_17.htm
Clearly the author of that article knows nothing whatsoever about bridge. Ely Culbertson wasn't among the hundred greatest bridge players ever; indeed not even among the top one in his own marriage. Most bridge players would say that the greatest was Benito Garozzo of Italy.
It seems to me that if we are going to solve the problems in chess then we must give up something. Everything can not stay the same and still change. We have to make our choice. What to change and what to keep the same.
It will always be true that any change will impact some tiny or big aspect of the game. But we will gain the advantage of the reason for the change.
We must keep focused on the goal. Then we can know better what to change if that change gives us our largest desired positive result with the smallest negative impact on the game. Someday it will happen. Just like it did years ago. The world is all about change. The world can never stay the same. The world is already changing every day all around us. The world is a place of constant change.
"indeed not even among the top one in his own marriage"
That's why he got divorced, of course. It was a bridge too far.
IMHO Morphy was the most gifted player to ever push a pawn. He made his own theory, so anyone saying he was not the greatest mind sport player is basing it on his own flawed pea brain reasoning. That is you choice, but it is just your opinion, making it sound like more makes you sound more like a babling idiot. Chess is like all sports a >b a.
The idea is so good that it was implemented before born. Both Topalov's play and words indicate that he considered Game 12 against Anand as a draw-odds Armageddon game.
@anyone saying he was not the greatest mind sport player..etc.
" You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability" (see the Fischer-quote above).
Morphy was clearly the best only when compared to his generation, to his contemporaries. He was to them what a 3500 ELO player would be for present generation of GMs.
In absolute terms however he would be weaker, for a while. He would need some 3-4 years of study to update and expand his "database" of known/evaluated positions, to catch up with has been learnt in the meantine.
After that he would beat Kramnik, Kasparov or Anand with 8-2 or 7-3 scores just as he did with his contemporaries.
In terms of natural ability for OTB game Morphy was the best by a large margin.
Morphy was clearly the best only when compared to his generation, to his contemporaries. He was to them what a 3500 ELO player would be for present generation of GMs.
In absolute terms however he would be weaker, for a while. He would need some 3-4 years of study to update and expand his "database" of known/evaluated positions, to catch up with has been learnt in the meantine.
****
Morphy excelled in open games but was (relatively) poor in closed positions.
What evidence is there that he would be able to incorporate modern views on closed games into his own play? He may well have continued to be (relatively) poor in such positions and thus not be a top player today.
Not every player plays every type of position well. He played in a time when open games were popular...thus he was a top player. That says nothing as to whether he could cure his problematic play in closed openings.
@What evidence is there that he would be able to incorporate modern views on closed games into his own play?
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055942
...Morphy, the master of all phases of the game, stronger than any of his opponents, even the strongest of them..." ~ Alexander Alekhine
"...If the distinguishing feature of a genius is that he is far ahead compared with his epoch, then Morphy was a chess genius in the complete sense of the word." Max Euwe
I tend to agree that the main objection that Mig describes is too strong. In my view, it is more important that a wc match be fair than for it to conform to certain aesthetic ideals ("12 games is too short") or even rid itself of noted blemishes ("a classical match should not end in rapid games").
I just found out an idea that i consider worth trying!
Hold the tie-breaks first!
Just hold a 4 game rapid match and a if necessary a blitz and eventually an armageddon to find out the winner. and all this can be done in a single day.
Now the winner has the draw odds for the classical matches that follows!
The viewers/fans get a quick start to the championship. Even the players may favour this as it will provide them a warmup without too much worrying of the consequences!? They might get an insight, which may be helpful for the classical marathon that follows
Agreed. If you can't beat the champ in 16 games, then you are not good enough to be the new champ.
The most powerful entities are pitted against each other through 1000s of games sometimes with opening books sometimes with carefully constructed opening suites. The results are then published and the result accepted without question. - There is no controversy simply because tournaments/matches can be immediately carried out with no problem.
Human chess competition however is at a crisis - Instead of playing MORE games, closely matches players are playing LESS games thus making the WC match more about preparation than actual relative chess skill
It seems to me that we do need to introduce an "opening suite" from which an opening is chosen at random and played 2 times switching colors. Both games should be done in 1 day! The time control can be sped up a bit to accommodate this.
I say run a WC for 16 days 2 games each - total of 32 games start positions randomly chosen from a large "test suite". Or maybe a mix of 4 "freestyle" (start at move 1) games and 2*14 random position games.
Much more exciting for the spectator and much more revealing of relative chess strength.
The sheer stress of participating in this match is what makes it so exciting!
The "crisis" in high level human chess is therefore in tournament/match creation and not of chess itself.
Additionally, it should become easier for private enterprise/businesses to create tournaments/matches and receive FIDE approval
test test
"Hold the tie-breaks first!
Just hold a 4 game rapid match and a if necessary a blitz and eventually an armageddon to find out the winner. and all this can be done in a single day.
Now the winner has the draw odds for the classical matches that follows!"
This idea FTW. If we're going to have draw odds, this is truly the way to do it. Bravo.
Brilliant! I love it! Tiebreaks before the tournament. Having the world championship decided by an armageddon game is horrible, but it's very different if you then have twelve classical games to prove you deserve to win anyway. Piyush, you are a genius, this is officially my favourite idea ever. It works great for press and promotion as well:
"Magnus Carlsen has just won the quickfire match in an upset over world champion Vishy Anand. This will give him a surprise advantage in the championship match to come."
It's just brilliant. I really hope somebody takes this idea and runs with it.
Very interesting,is this truly a new idea? A rare thing nowadays. Should also lead to some interesting match strategy decisions, like should I use my novelties in the pre-match? And of course the decision about all out attac due to the other guys draw odds... (or the Topalovian suicide as I like to call it).
I'm sorry but whilst it is an interesting idea , i do not like this idea at all for a simple reason : Classical chess should remain classical chess . Rapid tie break is not classical chess , it's rapid chess . Its the world championship match we're talking about , not any random match
Draw odds privilege for the Champion , a one month World championship event , 18 or 20 games ( rest days every 2 games ) . what is wrong with that ? why enter complications when the solution is so simple and consistent with the chess traditions ? .
The real urgency IMO is to address the length of the match , i presume most people here rooted for either Anand or Topalov , personally i couldn't care less , but i was interested about their display and was extremely disappointed that there were so few games played , not to mention i 'm sure that with 20 games the outcome could have been very different . It's like in 2008 , just when Kramnik was making his comeback and was looking to take over Anand , the match ended .
In fact if i had to redesign the format of the world championship wthout concern for the logistics/organizing aspect , i would use the following rule : first guy to have +2 is the winner ( with a gap of +2 , the champion is truly undisputed )
But since we can't do this nowadays cause it could last too much time , i think the 20 games with draw odds solution would be a good compromise without destroying the essence and vocation of the classical chess title ( to be decided at classical chess precisely and not decided by rapid or blitz ) .
What's the problem with Draw Odds?
If the Champion wants them, then, to make it challenging, the Champion should be getting more blacks than whites during the match. For example, 12 games, the Champion gets 7 blacks, 5 whites, and you have your draw odds.
The responsibility is on the Champion to show they are the better player than the Challenger, either by drawing the match or completely outclassing the Challenger by winning.
Why should the Champion have it easy? The Challenger has fought their way up to the Championship match. At that point, the Champion should be showing why they are Champion by taking more blacks than whites.
This is obviously more difficult, but it encourages a deeper effort, and may, in the long term, benefit chess as deeper analysis is made of the black side in many openings.
A Champion who wins in this way is much more impressive, and shows much deeper chess knowledge and playing strength than the Challenger... which is what a Champion should be showing the world.
What's the problem with Draw Odds?
If the Champion wants them, then, to make it challenging, the Champion should be getting more blacks than whites during the match. For example, 12 games, the Champion gets 7 blacks, 5 whites, and you have your draw odds.
The responsibility is on the Champion to show they are the better player than the Challenger, either by drawing the match or completely outclassing the Challenger by winning.
Why should the Champion have it easy? The Challenger has fought their way up to the Championship match. At that point, the Champion should be showing why they are Champion by taking more blacks than whites.
This is obviously more difficult, but it encourages a deeper effort, and may, in the long term, benefit chess as deeper analysis is made of the black side in many openings.
A Champion who wins in this way is much more impressive, and shows much deeper chess knowledge and playing strength than the Challenger... which is what a Champion should be showing the world.
Draw odds privilege for the Champion , a one month World championship event , 18 or 20 games ( rest days every 2 games ) . what is wrong with that ? why enter complications when the solution is so simple and consistent with the chess traditions ? .
***
Nobody will pay for it.
Thus, some concessions are needed. The sports organization (FIDE) annually runs into difficulties raising the cash. Thus, you can't have the old format anymore.
And a reversion to the old "whoever has $10,000 gold gets a match" private title idea is impossible -- we just had a 15-yr civil war in chess that ended in defeat for the private title folks.
So...either pay for it or allow changes.
Holding a tie-breaker first is an very intersting twist that deserves to be tried.
> Nobody will pay for it.
They have far more problems to raise money for everything else. The World Championships is the one thing in chess that sells.
The prize money for the World Championship is so much above any other tournament that you can just start with the same amount of 1,000,000 and ask the guys to play 24 games instead of 12.
Exactly Bartlby, except you don't ask - you tell
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info .........Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net