I have a suggestion to break the draw cycle, use the tennis format. Play three sets of 4 or 6 games. If it is tied at the end of a set, play a tie break. It would ensure there is a leader after the first set, which gives the match a totally different dynamic. Sure chess purists might balk at this, but the fact of the matter is that the last two World championships has gone to tie break anyway. We could have had the title decided on armageddon! I think this rule change would make the match significantly more marketable! Anyone who has ever watched tennis knows that the end of a set is always really dramatic, why not use this in chess? At the end of the day, once we got 4 games away from the end, both players knew a loss was probably going to spell defeat, so they got a bit cagey. If your opponent already has a set advantage, you have to come out swinging.
I have a suggestion to break the draw cycle, use the tennis format. Play three sets of 4 or 6 games. If it is tied at the end of a set, play a tie break. It would ensure there is a leader after the first set, which gives the match a totally different dynamic. Sure chess purists might balk at this, but the fact of the matter is that the last two World champ ...[text shortened]... o they got a bit cagey. If your opponent already has a set advantage, you have to come out swinging.
I have a suggestion to break the draw cycle, use the tennis format. Play three sets of 4 or 6 games. If it is tied at the end of a set, play a tie break. It would ensure there is a leader after the first set, which gives the match a totally different dynamic. Sure chess purists might balk at this, but the fact of the matter is that the last two World champ ...[text shortened]... o they got a bit cagey. If your opponent already has a set advantage, you have to come out swinging.
I have a suggestion to break the draw cycle, use the tennis format.
Only if they do lots of close up's shots of Maria Sharapova! π
This is a very general observation, but I would be OK if they tried gradually shortening the time control- say maybe a few games at G/60 with an increment, and then G/30 with an increment.
Personally, I enjoyed the old 24 game format, and a set time with a 5 or 10 second delay would be fine. With the 12 game format, the only real prep I saw was that they were prepared to draw the regular games and just play 4 quickies to see who wins.
There 12 game is a very attractive package to sponsors that
will be here forever. It a three week deal. 24 games =5 weeks.
I just do not like increments, chess got by without them for 150
years when clocks first appeared. It was meant to raise the level
of the game but has got out of hand. Suspect someone has had
their palm greased by the makers of these clocks to make them
mandatory at FIDE events. There are some players out there who
have never played without increments. It is affecting the game.
Also the split is needs sorting. By making the play-offs Caruana picked
up an extra $50,000. It should be a 70-30 split even after the play offs.
(if we must have them).
Karjakin's idea 13 games (the extra game is played on tie break day).
If a tie who had the most Black's wins. (champion chooses which 7 he wants)
I don't like the format of changing the time limits if, after x-games, the match is a draw. Blitz is a different game. There is a blitz world championship, and the WC should not be confused with the blitz WC. Otherwise, you might as well fall back on correspondence chess time limits to break a tie. But correspondence chess is a different game; they should not be mixed up.
What's wrong with simply declaring that, in the event of a tie after x-games, the champion retains his title? Happened in the match Lasker-Schlechter. Happened in the matches Botvinnik-Bronstein, Botvinnik-Smyslov, Kasparov-Karpov (1987). So what? Why should there have to be a plus score? You have to beat the champion to take his crown; fair enough.
A wee bit a rant against the last World Championship.
"a wee bit...you went potty"....The Duck.
And basically that is about it. Passion ran higher than normal.
Am working on a Christmas Quiz. (this one will make up for it.)
Blog Post 403
Understandable you would think this way. I doubt this outcome will be repeated anytime soon though in a world championship match. It's pretty rare that 2 players would be so equally matched. I must admit these draws, though lacking in fireworks were very high quality games. I like both of these players, and was just sad that someone had to lose.
It is an opinion cum rant but 3 of the last finals from 2012-2018
have gone to tie-breaks. This rant was simmering.
Anand-Gelfand (rated 22nd when the match took place,)
Carlen - Karjakin (rated 13th when that match took place)
So evenly matched in rating is only part of the reason for this recent
match (non-event) and there were not evenly matched in rapid (3-0)
Those 3 matches I mentioned gave us 36 games and just 4 positive results.
Something needs done.
It is an opinion cum rant but 3 of the last finals from 2012-2018
have gone to tie-breaks. This rant was simmering.
Anand-Gelfand (rated 22nd when the match took place,)
Carlen - Karjakin (rated 13th when that match took place)
So evenly matched in rating is only part of the reason for this recent
match (non-event) and there were not evenly matched ...[text shortened]...
Those 3 matches I mentioned gave us 36 games and just 4 positive results.
Something needs done.
There 12 game is a very attractive package to sponsors that
will be here forever. It a three week deal. 24 games =5 weeks.
I just do not like increments, chess got by without them for 150
years when clocks first appeared. It was meant to raise the level
of the game but has got out of hand. Suspect someone has had
their palm greased by the makers of t ...[text shortened]... ayed on tie break day).
If a tie who had the most Black's wins. (champion chooses which 7 he wants)
Hi greenpawn,
I feel that the defending champion should have the black pieces more. The challenger should have to defeat the reigning champion, so I like the odd number of games rule. The catch is that it is difficult to beat a super-grandmaster who does not need to do anything other than make certain of draws. So I like the idea, in the sense that it fits my conception of how the World Championship should be run, I don't know that it will work in practice though.
I think if we must have tie breaks then due to the massive sudden
burst of media interest having them after the main event is way to go.
There were two games what you could arguably call lost.
Game one and game 6. In Game one Carlsen messed up a win,
in game 6 (the best game) Carlsen defended like a demon.
There is a ridiculous mate in something like 32 moves missed by
Caruana which I'm not blaming him for missing but that is it.
Caruana missed excellent winning chances in Game 8.
The rest was shadow boxing and the few chances when they
did appear were missed by players. Carlsen decision to offer
a draw when well up on the clock in a safe though tricky position
for White - at least make him find the best moves till move 40 and
then offer the draw. He was in no danger. That was the shocker that
finally broke the patience of many punters. Not just me. I'm just the loudest.