I wholeheartedly agree with Kramnik. Four rapid games is a quite respectable match in its own right, and you can play very well in rapid, but blitz is not an acceptable way to decide matters.
Svidler suggested something interesting in the Chess24 broadcast: Play the tiebreaks before the classical. Then the score is not even when the classical games start, and at least one player has to play for a win.
@@nicbentulan absolutely not, Armageddon only works in fast time controls. Do you know how big an advantage black would have in classical? To compensate for black’s enormous advantage, the bids would need to be extremely low. I’m talking like 25 minutes to white’s 120. If one player is playing rapid anyway, might as well just make it rapid tiebreaks.
…yeah, that’s the point. It’d be rapid for one player and not the other. That was a lot of explanation to argue a point I was not arguing against. I’m saying that’d be a silly format obviously. And clearly that’s the case if they’ve tried it and moved on. For everything else you said, yeah just reread my comment under the assumption I’m not an idiot and know what armageddon is. I said it’s silly for one player to basically be playing rapid and the other classical (not just rapid tiebreaks obviously, since I advocated them at the end), I said armageddon only works in fast time controls like we have now, etc.
@@nicbentulan No way, what!? It’s actually you haha, what a wild coincidence that we’re commenting on two separate, completely unrelated videos. Especially after our discussion on anonymity. I hadn’t realized until now. To be frank, and possibly a little condescending, I don’t have time to debate both of your comments. Or all three, since you replied twice here. Just wanted to assure you that this * is* a complete coincidence, I’m not like following you around replying to your comments or something haha.
I think the answer is Cramer proposal which fischer also suggested in 1975 which is, "The first player to win ten games, draws not counting, with unlimited number of games wins the match." That way, both players know they have to play for the win. Not like this championship where in at least 5 games both of them weren't even trying. There was no strategy. They just traded their pieces, shook hands and went home.
Like this you end up with 200 matches, with the winner decided by the level of exhaustion. See Karpov Kasparov 1985, where they couldn’t even get to 6 wins after playing for several months and both lost 20 pounds in this period. I like the old format best: 24 matches, and if it’s 12-12 the champion keeps his title.
Other option of course is to let the match be decided by default, with say the World Champion being able to just defend for 12 games if he wants to, and the challenger being forced to press. Instead this way if the challenger is more confident in rapid he can defend the classical section as the challenger, and then upset the title without ever winning a classical game which I think would be worse than what happened. Some might even suspect that this was Karjakin's exact intention.
Amazing that no one mentioned Carlsen’s queen sacrifice to force checkmate on the very last game. Even if the rest of the match is boring, that is an incredible way to end the match.
Lol the match wasn't boring at all, sure there were some games that didn't produce much excitement but in general most of the Classical games were very intense and entertaining
I like Peter Svidler's idea, play the rapid games first! Then those rapid results will determine the winner should the classical games result in a tie. It starts the match off with an exciting day - and then one player knows he must play for wins because he lost the tie break. I would have never thought of this, but who am I kidding, Svidler is way smarter than me...
Then it will have the same problem of the old rule where the champion or the rapid games winner in this case can just play for draws in the classical games.
I think this is a great idea. Yes, then the winner of the rapid/blitz will play for draws, but in a 12 game match, you cannot just play for draws and hope to win.
I think it would be exciting to have them continue to play classical. Like the old Karpov-Kasparov days. Those long tight matches were EPIC and made history.
It's very easy to say for us. Classical now isn't the same as that of the Kasparov-Karpov era. With the loads and loads of prep backed by extremely high level engines. there's gonna be even more draws. Think of the Kasparov-Karpov match that went on forever and had to be stopped.
The first Karpov Kasparov match was a disaster which they had to stop after some 50 games as neither could get six wins within several months of play and both were totally exhausted, with their level of playing dropping like a stone. This was super unsatisfying for everybody involved, and to this day both claim that they got screwed [in my view Karpov with more justification than Kasparov]. Thereafter they went back to the old system where the player won who got 12 points first, and if it ended 12-12 then the champion kept the title. In fact, this is how Kasparov kept the title 1987 in Seville.
I thought one of them would propose that the champion retains his crown if the challenger only succeeds in drawing him. For there to be a new champ the old one should be beaten.
nope, you wont hear something like that coming from high GMs. They almost unanimously dislike the system were the current champion is victorious by just tying
Just go back to the rule whereby the champion retains the title in the event of a tied match. No need for tiebreaks and forces the challenger to play aggressively.
Fantastic interview. So great to hear their thoughts on both the 2016 World Championship as well as the tiebreaks method! Personally I feel totally on the fence. I agree with Wesley that it seems like the classical world chess champion should be decided within classical games, but there’s also the stamina of the players to consider, and rapid does make it more exciting and delivers decisive games. I also agree with Kramnik in keeping blitz out of the championship...in my opinion, if you’re still tying your rapid playoff, then you need to either share the title or consider it still in the hands of the reigning champion.
Except there's no such thing as "Classical world champion" it's called the "world chess championship" so it naturally encompasses more than just Classical
The chance of 1-1 after two games is surely higher than the chance of 500-500 over 1000 games, by extension the longer the match the more chance it will be decisive. 12 games more likely to be decisive than 2 games. 16 games more likely to be decisive than 12. In fact it looked a lot like Magnus would have won a 16 game match as Karjakin couldn't park the bus for 16 games. 16 games with fewer rest days.
Terrible idea, you would want the players to be at their best to make the match as fair as possible and reducing the amount of rest days goes against that concept
I've been mulling this over for a while now. And the conclusion I come back to is that tie breaking with alternate time controls isn't the answer: it awards the world championship of classical to the winner of a set of non-classical games. I agree with Kramnik: blitz definitely isn't the answer -- it's almost a different sport. No, the only approach that makes sense to me is that the challenger must defeat the world champion to take the crown.
I think it's very natural, maybe you're just thinking of it like two different categories of games, but in reality if both guys can come up with best moves during 2 hour games, and one of them can come up with best moves during a shorter game, then he is better in chess because he thinks faster.
We're such an instant gratification world now. I agree with the thought that it's weird to settle who's the best classical chess player by playing a few rapid games. No, play the damn thing out, whatever it takes; hell, they only get to play for the chess champion of the world every two years.
It's a good point that I hadn't thought of before (Wesley So): Deciding a classical world championship in a non classical game makes no sense. You might have a winner but you still don't know for definite who is the better player.
Richard Hunter I see his point, but it's not called the "Classical Chess Championship", it's called the "World Chess Championship". Yes, there are Rapid and Blitz championships, but those are just held to see who is the best at that time control. Whoever wins those is crowned the world rapid or blitz champion. On the other hand, think about Magnus Carlsen. He just won the world championship, but do we call him the "World Classical Champion"? No, he's just the world champion. That being said, it is better in just classical games. Keeps the time control consistent. But if it comes down to it, I see no problem with getting faster games.
But even if they kept playing it wouldn't mean anything at some point. I mean, if after 50 draws someone makes a small mistake and end up loosing can you realy tell that the other player is better? There can not be two best players so there must be a way to decide it
I agree with wesley so. They should change it a little bit. Past champs used to played double the matches. I'm not saying they should but it should be a little different.
I always felt that to become world champion you should prove that you are able to BEAT the title holder. So in that regard, I'd prefer to give the champion draw odds, like it was in the old days. Rapid play should not be included in the classical world Championship at all. I mean, there is a reason why we have three different world championships. Why mix them?
@@fundhund62 Basically giving the champion disadvantage to verify whether the challenger can beat him? So, all the challenger should do is go for draws and screw the champion.
They should add some more pairs of classical games if there is a tie. 12 games is not much. Add two more pairs to make it 16 in case of a tie. There is a crucial difference between this, and simply playing 16 games. This way, for a tie after 16 games, there also needs to be a tie after 12 games and a tie after 14 games. 12 games are not much.
I also like 16 and I agree that 12 games isn't much. There's an esthetic binary aspect to 16 that's appropriate to chess: it's a power of 2 (to the power 4), you have white and black, light and dark, and 64 squares which is 2 to the power 6... Sort of like baseball, a game of 3x3 innings, 3 outs per inning, 3 strikes per out, and a schedule that's 2 times a power of 3. (3 to the power 4 = 81, x 2 = 162, which is the regular season schedule.
I really like the idea of starting the match with rapid/blitz games, and whoever wins that has draw odds in the classical match. This would change the style of play in the classical part of the match, and the match will not be "decided" by rapid/blitz.
@@someguyslastname8487 I'm sorry what? Why are you encouraging delusions and contradictions? It's been 4 years since you wrote this comment, I hope you could read this comment again and reflect on what's wrong with it
"12 games are a lot of games". That sounds right, but I wonder why the rating turns over after no less than 70 games. After all, 12 games are enough to prove your strength, isn't it?
What about having a classical time control Armageddon game after the regular 12 games? The world champion has black, thus if white (the challenger) fails to win it's a way of saying he's not yet worthy of the crown. The challenger gets the time advantage but in the end, there will be a winner at the end of the day. The challenger being white, gets to determine where the match is going (which could definitely lead to interesting things).
i dont favor rapid to decide a classical champ, maybe add 3 more classical games if classical match ended in tie, if it is still a tie, the champ then retains his title, at least it is still decided in classical manner, the essence of being a classical champion is preserved or if there is an issue with the sponsors or organizers, maybe instead of rapid make it a 3 - 1hour games with 20mins break after each game, if match still ends in tie, the champ retains his title
that makes no sense, if we're comparing the current chess skill level why would the fact that he's the current champion give him an intrinsic advantage? If he drew with someone for 12 games that means that they were playing equally as good, so giving someone the title just because of their past deeds seems very biased to say the least.
I guess the "blitz isn't chess" folks have to come up with some way of explaining why Magnus is the best in classical, the best in rapid, the best in blitz, and the best in bullet. Seems like an awfully funny coincidence. Seems more likely, on the face of it, that it is in fact the same game, since the same players excel in just about identical degrees. The tactics and strategies are a bit different, but it looks to me like "being a good chess player" is the best predictor of how well you will play at any time control. If Magnus - or any of these guys - were significantly worse at fast chess and could be taken down by cheesy hustlers, then there would be an argument. But that's not how it goes. There is no speed artiste who won't get his lunch eaten by the best players.
Your argument is not that good... If you are good at chess, you're most probably good at most forms of it (agree). However, that you are number one in the world at Blitz, for example, doesn't necessarily mean that you're number one in the world at Classical. Although Ivanchuk was the 2016 Rapid World Chess Champion, nobody considered him to be the Classical World Chess Champion at all (he was pretty far from being that, though he proved to be better at rapid than the Classical Chess Champion, Magnus, who, by the way, didn't excel at the same degree he does at Classical). The "blitz isn't chess" line referes, rather, to the much lower quality of blitz chess games. They are full of mistakes, bad mistakes, and there is good reason for it: you have almost no time to come up with your moves at something that is pretty difficult: chess. That Magnus is the best at Blitz (and Classical and Rapid), means rather that he makes less mistakes than his opponents when playing blitz, and or that his mistakes are not that bad.
This isn't hard. The challenger has to defeat the world champ, so for me no rapid games. If they're tied after 12 or 14 games, the champ retains the title. That means you have to play for a win starting at game one, not waiting for game 6 or 7 to make your move. You get plenty of time to prepare & get physically in shape. To depend on rapid to bail you out makes no sense to me for a classical world chess championship. But hey, that's just me!
Well, they use the computer for everything else in classical chess why not give it a real job. As each game yields a won lost or draw value the computer should log a value based on best play. A blundered loss is rated lower than a well fought loss. A decisive win rated higher than a close win. A draw rated on inevitability and missed opportunity. All values are cumulative. If game values are tied after the classical game limit the computer value is the tie break. That approach seems truer to the nature of classical chess than cranking up the speed. And we know cranking up the speed is more about marketing than chess. Just saying.
Don't really think that one-sided match would be boring... the most notable 1972 WCC event was also pretty one-sided by 7-3, but people found it amazing to watch and even crowned it ''Match of the century''. 1960 Botvinnik-Tal match featured two different thinking perspective of chess clashed together, in which Tal found his way to the win by 6-2, and the event was very one-sided as well.
I think Magnus dissapointed us all. He was not well prepared, and most importantly, for future contenders to the crown, he showed that he's not that strong psychologically: a couple of games where he doesn't get what he wants, at such high stakes, and he snaps (Karjakin's iron resilience, of course, had a lot to do with that). Regarding rapids, to decide the WCH: I don't like it at all; it is not proper of something as important as this. I remind you that this is the CLASSICAL World Chess Championship you're dealing with: if you do not win at classical chess here, then how would you even consider calling yourself the best classical chess player? It doesn't make sense. Anything other than classical doesn't make sense here, as you are disputing the classical world chess championship (if you won the rapid games, the tiebreak, the only thing that you proved to the world is that you're better than your opponent at RAPID chess). Now, the reason for adding these shorter tiebreakers is, evidently, your beloved money. Having a winner after a long disputed contest sells newspapers and gets you TV exposure; a tie, on the other hand, not that much, yet it is a perfectly reasonable result. For sometimes players prepare themselves really, really well, and you cannot prove to be that much superior to your opponent, at least at that moment in time. Who gets the crown, then, if you get a tied match? The current World Champion. If the challenger wasn't able to wrestle the crown from the world champion (if he couldn't beat him), then how can he expect to be called the (new) world chess champion??
I wholeheartedly agree with Kramnik. Four rapid games is a quite respectable match in its own right, and you can play very well in rapid, but blitz is not an acceptable way to decide matters.
Interesting
As usual, Vishy Anand sees past all the bullshit.
FACTS
Svidler suggested something interesting in the Chess24 broadcast: Play the tiebreaks before the classical. Then the score is not even when the classical games start, and at least one player has to play for a win.
That would defeat the whole purpose of World Championship being a classical match.
@@nicbentulan absolutely not, Armageddon only works in fast time controls. Do you know how big an advantage black would have in classical?
To compensate for black’s enormous advantage, the bids would need to be extremely low. I’m talking like 25 minutes to white’s 120. If one player is playing rapid anyway, might as well just make it rapid tiebreaks.
…yeah, that’s the point. It’d be rapid for one player and not the other. That was a lot of explanation to argue a point I was not arguing against. I’m saying that’d be a silly format obviously.
And clearly that’s the case if they’ve tried it and moved on. For everything else you said, yeah just reread my comment under the assumption I’m not an idiot and know what armageddon is. I said it’s silly for one player to basically be playing rapid and the other classical (not just rapid tiebreaks obviously, since I advocated them at the end), I said armageddon only works in fast time controls like we have now, etc.
@@nicbentulan No way, what!? It’s actually you haha, what a wild coincidence that we’re commenting on two separate, completely unrelated videos. Especially after our discussion on anonymity. I hadn’t realized until now.
To be frank, and possibly a little condescending, I don’t have time to debate both of your comments. Or all three, since you replied twice here. Just wanted to assure you that this * is* a complete coincidence, I’m not like following you around replying to your comments or something haha.
I´d really like to see another Kramnik-Topalov match, when they play there are very few draws!
I think the answer is Cramer proposal which fischer also suggested in 1975 which is, "The first player to win ten games, draws not counting, with unlimited number of games wins the match." That way, both players know they have to play for the win. Not like this championship where in at least 5 games both of them weren't even trying. There was no strategy. They just traded their pieces, shook hands and went home.
Like this you end up with 200 matches, with the winner decided by the level of exhaustion. See Karpov Kasparov 1985, where they couldn’t even get to 6 wins after playing for several months and both lost 20 pounds in this period.
I like the old format best: 24 matches, and if it’s 12-12 the champion keeps his title.
That comment shows an incredible amount of ignorance
In this day of modern age, that could last forever
why have they never made it first to win 1
Other option of course is to let the match be decided by default, with say the World Champion being able to just defend for 12 games if he wants to, and the challenger being forced to press. Instead this way if the challenger is more confident in rapid he can defend the classical section as the challenger, and then upset the title without ever winning a classical game which I think would be worse than what happened. Some might even suspect that this was Karjakin's exact intention.
Amazing that no one mentioned Carlsen’s queen sacrifice to force checkmate on the very last game. Even if the rest of the match is boring, that is an incredible way to end the match.
Lol the match wasn't boring at all, sure there were some games that didn't produce much excitement but in general most of the Classical games were very intense and entertaining
@@williamrobert9898 nowadays everyone seems to think draw = boring
@@yusouph2002 Facts
Quote Anish Giri: You play forever or speed things up. Wauw. Thats a very well explained in a few words.
I like Peter Svidler's idea, play the rapid games first! Then those rapid results will determine the winner should the classical games result in a tie. It starts the match off with an exciting day - and then one player knows he must play for wins because he lost the tie break. I would have never thought of this, but who am I kidding, Svidler is way smarter than me...
Then it will have the same problem of the old rule where the champion or the rapid games winner in this case can just play for draws in the classical games.
I think that's an awful idea.
I think this is a great idea. Yes, then the winner of the rapid/blitz will play for draws, but in a 12 game match, you cannot just play for draws and hope to win.
@@eidoriano that kind of happens already cause often one player knows they are much stronger in rapid than their opponent
@BarnOwl Nah it never happened, stop lying
I think it would be exciting to have them continue to play classical. Like the old Karpov-Kasparov days. Those long tight matches were EPIC and made history.
It's very easy to say for us. Classical now isn't the same as that of the Kasparov-Karpov era. With the loads and loads of prep backed by extremely high level engines. there's gonna be even more draws. Think of the Kasparov-Karpov match that went on forever and had to be stopped.
The first Karpov Kasparov match was a disaster which they had to stop after some 50 games as neither could get six wins within several months of play and both were totally exhausted, with their level of playing dropping like a stone. This was super unsatisfying for everybody involved, and to this day both claim that they got screwed [in my view Karpov with more justification than Kasparov].
Thereafter they went back to the old system where the player won who got 12 points first, and if it ended 12-12 then the champion kept the title. In fact, this is how Kasparov kept the title 1987 in Seville.
why cut Anish opion like that? 1:16
To split his point. Just like he does in most of his games.
DAMN THAT WAS GOOD!
WELL DONE MAN, WORTH THE SCROLL ON THIS ONE
@@yzfool6639 i know it’s been 3 years.. but this is savage
The editor was like: shut up giri 🤣
Kramnik was super honest 😂
This was a good video. I'd like to hear their picks for the best thing for dinner too.
I thought one of them would propose that the champion retains his crown if the challenger only succeeds in drawing him. For there to be a new champ the old one should be beaten.
I prefer the system that we have today. but it would be better to have more rapid games. Say, not 4 games, but 8
No, it was 24 games. With only 12 games, that would be clearly unfair towards the challenger.
In fact were 24 games, not 12.
nope, you wont hear something like that coming from high GMs. They almost unanimously dislike the system were the current champion is victorious by just tying
in what world does a challenger win by tying? what are you talking about
Just go back to the rule whereby the champion retains the title in the event of a tied match. No need for tiebreaks and forces the challenger to play aggressively.
Fantastic interview. So great to hear their thoughts on both the 2016 World Championship as well as the tiebreaks method! Personally I feel totally on the fence. I agree with Wesley that it seems like the classical world chess champion should be decided within classical games, but there’s also the stamina of the players to consider, and rapid does make it more exciting and delivers decisive games. I also agree with Kramnik in keeping blitz out of the championship...in my opinion, if you’re still tying your rapid playoff, then you need to either share the title or consider it still in the hands of the reigning champion.
Except there's no such thing as "Classical world champion" it's called the "world chess championship" so it naturally encompasses more than just Classical
The chance of 1-1 after two games is surely higher than the chance of 500-500 over 1000 games, by extension the longer the match the more chance it will be decisive. 12 games more likely to be decisive than 2 games. 16 games more likely to be decisive than 12.
In fact it looked a lot like Magnus would have won a 16 game match as Karjakin couldn't park the bus for 16 games.
16 games with fewer rest days.
Terrible idea, you would want the players to be at their best to make the match as fair as possible and reducing the amount of rest days goes against that concept
I've been mulling this over for a while now. And the conclusion I come back to is that tie breaking with alternate time controls isn't the answer: it awards the world championship of classical to the winner of a set of non-classical games.
I agree with Kramnik: blitz definitely isn't the answer -- it's almost a different sport.
No, the only approach that makes sense to me is that the challenger must defeat the world champion to take the crown.
Except that also changes the way the game is played, because it's entirely possible to play for a draw every single time.
I think it's very natural, maybe you're just thinking of it like two different categories of games, but in reality if both guys can come up with best moves during 2 hour games, and one of them can come up with best moves during a shorter game, then he is better in chess because he thinks faster.
wesley only one to say that to decide classical champion with rapid is weird. this was unexpected wonder whatt fischer would have to say ;)
24 Games.
We're such an instant gratification world now. I agree with the thought that it's weird to settle who's the best classical chess player by playing a few rapid games. No, play the damn thing out, whatever it takes; hell, they only get to play for the chess champion of the world every two years.
That's not what this is about lol.
Lol the match is meant to determine the best Chess player not the "Classical" best chess player so it's perfectly fine deciding it in Rapid
It's a good point that I hadn't thought of before (Wesley So): Deciding a classical world championship in a non classical game makes no sense. You might have a winner but you still don't know for definite who is the better player.
Richard Hunter I see his point, but it's not called the "Classical Chess Championship", it's called the "World Chess Championship". Yes, there are Rapid and Blitz championships, but those are just held to see who is the best at that time control. Whoever wins those is crowned the world rapid or blitz champion. On the other hand, think about Magnus Carlsen. He just won the world championship, but do we call him the "World Classical Champion"? No, he's just the world champion. That being said, it is better in just classical games. Keeps the time control consistent. But if it comes down to it, I see no problem with getting faster games.
But even if they kept playing it wouldn't mean anything at some point. I mean, if after 50 draws someone makes a small mistake and end up loosing can you realy tell that the other player is better? There can not be two best players so there must be a way to decide it
@@migssdz7287 Yes, that absolutely would determine which player was better.
I agree with wesley so. They should change it a little bit. Past champs used to played double the matches. I'm not saying they should but it should be a little different.
I always felt that to become world champion you should prove that you are able to BEAT the title holder. So in that regard, I'd prefer to give the champion draw odds, like it was in the old days.
Rapid play should not be included in the classical world Championship at all. I mean, there is a reason why we have three different world championships. Why mix them?
@@fundhund62 Basically giving the champion disadvantage to verify whether the challenger can beat him? So, all the challenger should do is go for draws and screw the champion.
@@SerendipitousProvidence ?
They should add some more pairs of classical games if there is a tie. 12 games is not much. Add two more pairs to make it 16 in case of a tie.
There is a crucial difference between this, and simply playing 16 games. This way, for a tie after 16 games, there also needs to be a tie after 12 games and a tie after 14 games.
12 games are not much.
I also like 16 and I agree that 12 games isn't much.
There's an esthetic binary aspect to 16 that's appropriate to chess: it's a power of 2 (to the power 4), you have white and black, light and dark, and 64 squares which is 2 to the power 6... Sort of like baseball, a game of 3x3 innings, 3 outs per inning, 3 strikes per out, and a schedule that's 2 times a power of 3. (3 to the power 4 = 81, x 2 = 162, which is the regular season schedule.
jrbleau
ok, make it 20.
20 is too much
2017 LONDON IS around the corner
I would love to know what both Carlsen and Karjakin (honestly) think of the 2016 London Chess Classic... ¬_¬
little caruana knew the next time he was to become the prey of rapid
"All the best players dumpster on Magnus"
With Chess is Cheese can learn the Beginners and the Middles Chess and have a lot of Fun
I really like the idea of starting the match with rapid/blitz games, and whoever wins that has draw odds in the classical match. This would change the style of play in the classical part of the match, and the match will not be "decided" by rapid/blitz.
Cihan T that’s actually very smart
@@someguyslastname8487 I'm sorry what? Why are you encouraging delusions and contradictions? It's been 4 years since you wrote this comment, I hope you could read this comment again and reflect on what's wrong with it
@@williamrobert9898 insults with no rationale= useless bargage comment
@@someguyslastname8487 🤦🏻♂️ insults?? R.I.P reading comprehension
@@williamrobert9898 why did you stop replying little man. Reply to me billy boy, I was enjoying your stupidity.
"12 games are a lot of games". That sounds right, but I wonder why the rating turns over after no less than 70 games. After all, 12 games are enough to prove your strength, isn't it?
does michael adams ever blink?
What about having a classical time control Armageddon game after the regular 12 games? The world champion has black, thus if white (the challenger) fails to win it's a way of saying he's not yet worthy of the crown. The challenger gets the time advantage but in the end, there will be a winner at the end of the day. The challenger being white, gets to determine where the match is going (which could definitely lead to interesting things).
My ass
Nice interviews, annoying background music, though
i dont favor rapid to decide a classical champ, maybe add 3 more classical games if classical match ended in tie, if it is still a tie, the champ then retains his title, at least it is still decided in classical manner, the essence of being a classical champion is preserved
or
if there is an issue with the sponsors or organizers, maybe instead of rapid make it a 3 - 1hour games with 20mins break after each game, if match still ends in tie, the champ retains his title
I like the old system: in case of a tie, the reigning Champion retains the title and splits the money with the challenger.
that makes no sense, if we're comparing the current chess skill level why would the fact that he's the current champion give him an intrinsic advantage? If he drew with someone for 12 games that means that they were playing equally as good, so giving someone the title just because of their past deeds seems very biased to say the least.
VanillaSnake21 Exactly!
The idea is that, challenger has to win the title and reigning champion has to defend it.
VanillaSnake21 cause if you tie the champion you dont beat it...
I guess the "blitz isn't chess" folks have to come up with some way of explaining why Magnus is the best in classical, the best in rapid, the best in blitz, and the best in bullet. Seems like an awfully funny coincidence. Seems more likely, on the face of it, that it is in fact the same game, since the same players excel in just about identical degrees. The tactics and strategies are a bit different, but it looks to me like "being a good chess player" is the best predictor of how well you will play at any time control. If Magnus - or any of these guys - were significantly worse at fast chess and could be taken down by cheesy hustlers, then there would be an argument. But that's not how it goes. There is no speed artiste who won't get his lunch eaten by the best players.
Your argument is not that good... If you are good at chess, you're most probably good at most forms of it (agree). However, that you are number one in the world at Blitz, for example, doesn't necessarily mean that you're number one in the world at Classical. Although Ivanchuk was the 2016 Rapid World Chess Champion, nobody considered him to be the Classical World Chess Champion at all (he was pretty far from being that, though he proved to be better at rapid than the Classical Chess Champion, Magnus, who, by the way, didn't excel at the same degree he does at Classical).
The "blitz isn't chess" line referes, rather, to the much lower quality of blitz chess games. They are full of mistakes, bad mistakes, and there is good reason for it: you have almost no time to come up with your moves at something that is pretty difficult: chess. That Magnus is the best at Blitz (and Classical and Rapid), means rather that he makes less mistakes than his opponents when playing blitz, and or that his mistakes are not that bad.
This isn't hard. The challenger has to defeat the world champ, so for me no rapid games. If they're tied after 12 or 14 games, the champ retains the title. That means you have to play for a win starting at game one, not waiting for game 6 or 7 to make your move. You get plenty of time to prepare & get physically in shape. To depend on rapid to bail you out makes no sense to me for a classical world chess championship. But hey, that's just me!
MVL without mustache LOL
Well, they use the computer for everything else in classical chess why not give it a real job.
As each game yields a won lost or draw value the computer should log a value based on best play.
A blundered loss is rated lower than a well fought loss. A decisive win rated higher than a close win.
A draw rated on inevitability and missed opportunity. All values are cumulative. If game values are tied after the classical game limit the computer value is the tie break.
That approach seems truer to the nature of classical chess than cranking up the speed. And we know cranking up the speed is more about marketing than chess. Just saying.
the sad thing is any one of these guys could have become a world champion without that one Norwegian boy.
is levon aronian dieing. get that man some food or something he looks like he is about to die. don't die man love your win over magnus in Reykjavik
No just aging into a lothario and an artist of fine repute. The babyfat is gone. He looks great.
Is this video bout different accents?
is Vishy wearing a wig?
I think challenger should be second best player so championship match could be between two best players of the World.
Let's stop kidding ourselves. It was boring as shit. Switch the whole thing to Chess960 and let's see some good games.
Speak for yourself....not.boring at all, the tension was extremely high heading into the last 4 games....a one sided match would be boring....
Don't really think that one-sided match would be boring... the most notable 1972 WCC event was also pretty one-sided by 7-3, but people found it amazing to watch and even crowned it ''Match of the century''. 1960 Botvinnik-Tal match featured two different thinking perspective of chess clashed together, in which Tal found his way to the win by 6-2, and the event was very one-sided as well.
Aliens go home
b'ding
Ps4 character
I think Magnus dissapointed us all. He was not well prepared, and most importantly, for future contenders to the crown, he showed that he's not that strong psychologically: a couple of games where he doesn't get what he wants, at such high stakes, and he snaps (Karjakin's iron resilience, of course, had a lot to do with that).
Regarding rapids, to decide the WCH: I don't like it at all; it is not proper of something as important as this. I remind you that this is the CLASSICAL World Chess Championship you're dealing with: if you do not win at classical chess here, then how would you even consider calling yourself the best classical chess player? It doesn't make sense. Anything other than classical doesn't make sense here, as you are disputing the classical world chess championship (if you won the rapid games, the tiebreak, the only thing that you proved to the world is that you're better than your opponent at RAPID chess). Now, the reason for adding these shorter tiebreakers is, evidently, your beloved money. Having a winner after a long disputed contest sells newspapers and gets you TV exposure; a tie, on the other hand, not that much, yet it is a perfectly reasonable result. For sometimes players prepare themselves really, really well, and you cannot prove to be that much superior to your opponent, at least at that moment in time.
Who gets the crown, then, if you get a tied match? The current World Champion. If the challenger wasn't able to wrestle the crown from the world champion (if he couldn't beat him), then how can he expect to be called the (new) world chess champion??
Wesley So has a big cold sore on his upper lip
With Chess is Cheese can learn the Beginners and the Middles Chess and have a lot of Fun