If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I would agree with a return to the 24 game format with draw odds to the champion. But as I recall, this ended when FIDE in its wisdom (???) refused to give those odds to Fischer. That, plus other demands refused, gave Bobby the excuse to cut and run rather than face Karpov.
I would agree with a return to the 24 game format with draw odds to the champion. But as I recall, this ended when FIDE in its wisdom (???) refused to give those odds to Fischer. That, plus other demands refused, gave Bobby the excuse to cut and run rather than face Karpov.
I think it was removed before that, maybe even as far back as the Petrosian-Botvinnik match. I also recall that Fischer wanted the challenger being required to win by two games or something like that?? Our experts will tell us!
Thanks for the input guys. Kerry Liles brought up that 24 games may be too long. The Kasparov-Kramnik match in 2000 featured a 16 game match with draw odds to the champion. Would this be a more reasonable match length?
Another suggestion that MAGNUS himself brought up in an interview I saw last year (I am sorry I do not remember the circumstances surrounding it) is to have a Yearly or Bi-Yearly double round robin tournament with the top 10 players. Winner is world champion.
Last edited by Taylor Waite; Tuesday, 29th November, 2016, 03:56 PM.
Thanks for the input guys. Kerry Liles brought up that 24 games may be too long. The Kasparov-Kramnik match in 2000 featured a 16 game match with draw odds to the champion. Would this be a more reasonable match length?
Another suggestion that MAGNUS himself brought up in an interview I saw last year (I am sorry I do not remember the circumstances surrounding it) is to have a Yearly or Bi-Yearly double round robin tournament with the top 10 players. Winner is world champion.
There is an article in Chessbase today by Yasser Seirawan ( http://en.chessbase.com/post/seirawa...c2016-new-york ) where he too complains about the situation. He was looking at a compromise of 18 games if I recall. In any case, the fundamental dispute is about how to deal with the situation of a tied match or tied result in a round-robin tournament. The length of the match or the number of top players in the RR and similar questions are (to me) less important than what to do about a tie.
Another suggestion that MAGNUS himself brought up in an interview I saw last year (I am sorry I do not remember the circumstances surrounding it) is to have a Yearly or Bi-Yearly double round robin tournament with the top 10 players. Winner is world champion.
From August 2015 - Magnus Carlsen proposes changes in World Chess Championship cycle
Seirawan's proposition is indeed radical. Play 12 games and if the score is 6-6, play one additional game and the player with black has draw odds. Flip a coin before the match to determine the colors in that extra game.
Obvious advantage: classical chess champion is determined by classical chess games. The guy with white in the extra game knows he's better play for a win, because having black in the extra game is quite an advantage.
What I profoundly dislike: challenger gets the extra black, he draws 13 games and becomes world champion. Try to explain that to the media.
IMO, this proposition makes sense only if the defending champion has the extra black. As he is 'defending' the title, I like the image of him having to hold the fort with black in an ultimate game.
It's better than draw odds, no phony rapid or blitz games. I could live with that (with my extra proposition)
Seirawan's proposition is indeed radical. Play 12 games and if the score is 6-6, play one additional game and the player with black has draw odds. Flip a coin before the match to determine the colors in that extra game.
Obvious advantage: classical chess champion is determined by classical chess games. The guy with white in the extra game knows he's better play for a win, because having black in the extra game is quite an advantage.
What I profoundly dislike: challenger gets the extra black, he draws 13 games and becomes world champion. Try to explain that to the media.
IMO, this proposition makes sense only if the defending champion has the extra black. As he is 'defending' the title, I like the image of him having to hold the fort with black in an ultimate game.
It's better than draw odds, no phony rapid or blitz games. I could live with that (with my extra proposition)
You wouldn't actually need the 13th game. Let the 12th game be the one that decides, and defending champion gets Black in that game.
So if the score going in to game 12 was 5.5 to 5.5, Black (defending champion) just has to draw and the championship is his although the score is tied 6-6.
If the score going in to game 12 was 5.0 to 6.0 for defending champion, again, he just has to draw with Black and wins (but this time in the total score also).
And if the score going in to game 12 was 6.0 to 5.0 for challenger, a draw wins the challenger the championship by total score.
If the spread in the score was anything greater than 1.0 points (i.e. 6.5 to 4.5), there wouldn't be a game 12.
For a moment I was wondering: as an alternative to all that.... why not allow co-champions?
But it wouldn't avoid the problem. Because if a given year has co-champions, then the next cycle must produce 2 challengers, one to play each co-champion. Winners of those matches meet for WC. But the two semifinal matches each MUST produce a single winner. So those 2 matches must have a way to break ties.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
You wouldn't actually need the 13th game. Let the 12th game be the one that decides, and defending champion gets Black in that game.
Well, the idea would be to counterbalance the champion's advantage of draw odds (as in the old system), by having him play an extra game with black. Hence game 13. So the champion still starts the match with a small advantage, but not as much as draw odds. And the challenger will have all the much needed motivation to play for a win at some point.
As it is, with these 12 games matches and rapid tiebreaks, you sometime feel like both players are just happy with draws. Which shouldn't be the case. Seirawan's proposal takes care of that, without giving too much of an advantage to the defending champion.
If the score going in to game 12 was 5.0 to 6.0 for defending champion, again, he just has to draw with Black and wins (but this time in the total score also).
Also, what happens if the challenger wins? Score is 6-6 and you can't give the challenger the title on that?
Everyone is overlooking the best tiebreaking alternative: POKER DICE!!! Best two out of three rolls takes the title. : /
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Right, so there wouldn't be a Game 12 if the score was 6.0-5.0 for the defending champion after 11 games.
And with that information in hand, I can safely confirm that your brand new system is exactly the same as giving draw odds to the champion. ;)
Congratulation, sir! Yet again, you managed to take something pretty simple and straightforward and you formulated it in an unecessary convoluted way. You really have a talent for that, by the way.
But let's say they did have Game 12 with that score... so the challenger wins and sends the match to Game 13 because it's 6-6.
Then they draw Game 13 and they give the title to the defending champion? That will do wonders for chess becoming a sport.
Big difference here is that the challenger gets to play 7 games with white, while the champion only had 6. That doesn't negate the draw odds advantage completely, but that certainly minimizes it in an elegant way.
Big difference here is that the challenger gets to play 7 games with white, while the champion only had 6. That doesn't negate the draw odds advantage completely, but that certainly minimizes it in an elegant way.
Actually you can't draw a conclusion about that. No studies have been done.
Here's what you'd have to do: have many, many games -- let's say 1000 as a minimum -- between players of roughly equal strength, maybe within 50 ELO points, with both players being over let's say 2600 or 2700. The lower rated player is considered the challenger and gets White. The conditions of the match are this: this single game is considered a match, which must have a winner. The winner of the match gets a substantially bigger prize than the loser, and in fact, the loser barely gets enough to make the match worth his or her while. This is to emulate the benefits of BECOMING (but not already being) WC. Both players need to be very VERY highly motivated to win the match, to the point where drawing the game (losing the match) is like.... well, pick your poison.
So let's say loser gets $200, winner gets $5,000. White must win the game to win the match, otherwise Black wins the match.
You might find under those conditions that White may win the majority of matches, maybe even a substantial majority. Or not. We don't know, because of the sheer rarity where those conditions have existed for a single game between elite players (or any players, for that matter). In fact, I doubt those conditions have ever existed. Game 12 of this WC match didn't have those conditions: Karjakin could draw and still have a roughly equal chance to win the match.
Actually, this would be a very interesting direction for someone with lots of sponsorship connections (Jean Hebert? :D) to take to grow interest in chess. Bring together various big-name players, very close in rating, and maybe even where the challenger is known to play for blood on the board and the "champion" (higher rated player, who will be Black) is known for playing very solidly. Put this single game on TV or internet, with even bigger prize money at stake (but not too much bigger for the match loser).
Hmmmmm.... I seem to remember the organizer of Linares back in the early 1990's used to offer incentives for players to play for a win, with either White or Black. How much was that incentive, and did it have any effect? Still not the same as what I'm proposing here, but maybe the closest thing.
I think what I'm proposing here would have YUGE upside potential for generating worldwide interest, and even for generating a profit if live coverage of the match were charged for as with Agon in this match.
Who would everyone like to see matched up in such an all-or-nothing game?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Actually you can't draw a conclusion about that. No studies have been done. [...]
Sorry Paul, but your post doesn't address the quote you took from my post in any way or form.
And you conveniently left out the part where I point out that your elucubrations about a revolutionary 12 games match format just end up exactly like giving draw odds to the champion. So... I take it that we agree your new format is just useless verbiage for 'draw odds'.
Tweet
Comment