Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Championship

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey
Betting is such a big spinoff part of sports activities. Why not maximize the number of matches in chess where people can often reasonably bet on the long shot/underdog by having such short knockout matches? If chess is to become more popular perhaps such betting should be encouraged.

Originally Posted by Jean Hébert
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey
If chess is to become more popular perhaps such betting should be encouraged.

Paul Bonham, get out of Kevin Pacey's body! :)


Given that the Women's World Championship format currently is what it is, perhaps my spin on it is not as *radical* as some of Paul's ideas. :D

To argue the case for short knockout matches perhaps being made more common even further, by analogy one might think of what would make TV game shows probably less popular. Namely, having them twice as long (i.e. one hour rather than the usual 1/2 hour), with a resulting much greater number of skill testing questions for contestants to answer.

Such a show would likely IMHO be won much more often than with a 1/2 hour format by the most knowledgable ('skillful') contestant, as other contestants with a smaller knowlege base would have less of a chance to get sufficently lucky (happening to know an answer) over and over again enough times to win such a 1 hour show. Such a 1 hour show may please purist fans and scholarly types, but generally a large share of the public would be less interested in it.

Similarly, as we obviously know with chess matches, the stronger player will normally be upset less often as far as loss of the match goes (barring an unusually inconvenient lower rated opponent), the longer the match goes. The question is, should world chess championship (male/female) organizers try to please the existing chess fan base who may be normally purist types that like to see the favourite (more skillful) chessplayer win as normally as possible, or should organizers try to appel to a more sporting instinct possessed by the wider and more numerous public at large that likes to see the underdog win more often?

Even in tennis there are more upsets likely to happen than in typical lengthy chess matches, plus in [edit: lengthy] chess matches draw after boring draw can happen quite frequently before a decisive game happens.

Tom O'Donnell, did you see what Kevin wrote about "draw after boring draw"? Why are you so slow with your reprimand?

As to Jean Hebert, why would I want to possess Kevin's body when his mind is so much more attractive? :D

Kevin is stoking the fire here with some much-needed perspective. But allow me to add even one more stoking of the fire: perhaps the differences between the Women's WC and the Human WC (not the Men's WC, because women are allowed to participate, n'est-ce pas?) exist because WOMEN ARE BEING USED AS GUINEA PIGS. The chess authorities know that change is necessary, they don't want to bring those changes wholesale into the Human WC, so they force the changes onto the women.

And so the women are serving as perhaps the pioneers of change in the chess world. And lo and behold, we have total upsets happening and a lot of excitement and maybe it's even reaching the mainstream news world. That can't be good for chess!

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Yes, with sour cream. I never acquired a taste for hot broscht.

The only problem with all that food I like is what starts off on the table ends up on the chair.

By the way, my wife is from Newfoundland so I get all those tasty dishes as well.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Tom O'Donnell, did you see what Kevin wrote about "draw after boring draw"? Why are you so slow with your reprimand?

All serious chess players know Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine. 100 years from now serious chess players will remember those greats plus Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, etc. No one is going to remember "World Champions" Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov, no offense to either.

Same with poker. Who remembers Robert Varkonyi? Jerry Wang? Poker players barely remember them now. In 20 years they will be footnotes, or worse.

If the only thing that Ushenina does is win this event she is going to be in the same boat.

As for "draw after boring draw" what can I say? How many people watched the entire final table of the WSOP this year? I did (on YouTube) and I would be shocked if that number was even 100,000 people. Maybe they can "improve" it by making it a push-fest involving lots of coinflips and then the "boring" thinking part of the game would be gone so even idiots could follow it. Quite a success, I guess.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

I would speculate that the true giants, in terms of human chess, would still win a world championship event more times than once or twice even if it was a short knockout tournament held annually.

I included a sadder truth in the sentence above, namely that computers are now the best, and will presumably remain so. For public interest (such as it is) not to wane in world chess championships played by people, it may become especially important to highlight the sporting and entertaining side, such as by keeping these events short, minimizing the number of dull draws that the public might need to endure in a lengthier affair. Having lengthy matches may well have far less of a point if in the back of everyone's mind there is always the knowledge that computers are the best.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Just to be clear, you are proposing that the world champion be the winner of the World Cup and that you want that event to be a series of two-game matches culminating in a four-game final match?

BTW, yesterday GM Nakamura was doing commentary in London and was asked about the future of chess. He praised Chess960 and thought eventually that it would be the new standard. He welcomed the change as it encourages thinking from the very first moves.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

Just to be clear, you are proposing that the world champion be the winner of the World Cup and that you want that event to be a series of two-game matches culminating in a four-game final match?

I'm arguing at least some of the merits of such an idea, seeing as how the Women's World Championship format is similar to it at present. I would guess most of the current base of chess fans (e.g. on chesstalk) may find what I'm suggesting disagreeable, if not horrific. I do too, but times are changing.

BTW, yesterday GM Nakamura was doing commentary in London and was asked about the future of chess. He praised Chess960 and thought eventually that it would be the new standard. He welcomed the change as it encourages thinking from the very first moves.

As I discussed long ago in a different thread, I feel chess960 is not quite an adequate replacement for chess, if it were to be the new standard. Chess960 does away with the problem of opening theory and computer databases, but endgame theory (and tablebase knowledge) remain the same and, above all, computers would still play better than the best players. I wish for a new standard that avoids the latter, at least for some decades.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

BTW, yesterday GM Nakamura was doing commentary in London and was asked about the future of chess. He praised Chess960 and thought eventually that it would be the new standard. He welcomed the change as it encourages thinking from the very first moves.

How many paying members (not counting life members or honorary members) do you think the CFC would lose if they switched from conventional chess to Chess960?

Switching from English descriptive to Algebraic notation caused the CCCA to lose about 10% of the membership and that's simply a switch of notation. Even the books had changed to algebraic by that time.

Many postal players didn't play international chess because the default notation is numeric. Any other notation had to be agreed and some would never agree.

The ICCF has Chess960 events on their server but it seems to simply be a niche with few sections or entrants.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

BTW, yesterday GM Nakamura was doing commentary in London and was asked about the future of chess. He praised Chess960 and thought eventually that it would be the new standard. He welcomed the change as it encourages thinking from the very first moves.

Chess960 is just for players who are too lazy to study opening theory and suck at regular chess. People hate change in general and something as drastic as changing the rules of the game will scare potential players away in droves. It`s a fun variant and all, but imagine explaining to total beginners how to castle and basic opening principles.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

For some time I've thought double chess was a good candidate to replace chess as the new standard. One problem is that much depends on the clocks in case one side needs/wants to sit and wait rather than move. Another problem is that if it was one player vs. one player then they'd be hogging equipment and table space.

I now think a better eventual replacement for chess as the standard would be some variant played on a 10x10 board (like is currently used for 'international checkers'). Such a game perhaps would not be dominated by computer playing programs for many years to come. If the runaway development of opening theory and databases is considered a long-term threat to such a variant remaining feasible indefinitely, then a chess960-style solution could be tried for that 10x10 variant too.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

To be clear:

1) I am not suggesting that anyone switch to Chess960. I like standard chess fine. I think it is interesting that at least a few of the top players are at least mentioning Chess960 as an alternative. I was simply relaying what GM Nakamura had said. I think it will make Paul Bonham happy.

2) Even if Player X had an 80% chance of beating player Y in a two-game match, that person's chances of winning seven consecutive matches is only about 20%. I doubt that even GM Carlsen would have an 80% chance of winning a two-game match against any 2700, some of whom would probably be his opponents in at least the last three matches. The result: chess will have a slew of "World Champions" whom no one can remember.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

2) Even if Player X had an 80% chance of beating player Y in a two-game match, that person's chances of winning seven consecutive matches is only about 20%. I doubt that even GM Carlsen would have an 80% chance of winning a two-game match against any 2700, some of whom would probably be his opponents in at least the last three matches. The result: chess will have a slew of "World Champions" whom no one can remember.

Assuming that known probability is what determines sporting results so heavily, I wonder how the New York Yankees or Montreal Canadiens ever managed to win so many championships over the years.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

All serious chess players know Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine. 100 years from now serious chess players will remember those greats plus Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, etc. No one is going to remember "World Champions" Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov, no offense to either.

Same with poker. Who remembers Robert Varkonyi? Jerry Wang? Poker players barely remember them now. In 20 years they will be footnotes, or worse.

Yes, the greats who win again and again are remembered and the flash-in-the-pans are forgotten. Does that alone mean we should simply not allow for any flash-in-the-pan winners ever? If so, where do you draw the line? Taken to the extreme, this thinking means only the top rated player should ever win the WC. At what point do you say, "Oh, that person isn't good enough to ever be called WC, so I don't recognize him (her) as WC."?

But Tom, one of the things spectators like about sports is the competition. They like the fact that an underdog COULD win. The more you take that possibility out of the event, the less people like the event. On the other hand, give the underdog 50% chance of winning, and you have a game of pure luck. What you want is the sweet spot where the favorite wins maybe 66% of the time, give or take a few percent.

If the only thing that Ushenina does is win this event she is going to be in the same boat.

Well, duh! But maybe Ushenina will become one of the next female greats in chess, and the knockout event gave her the chance to leapfrog over the female competition much quicker than she would otherwise have done. And her opponent in the final match too. Women's chess is still in its infancy.

The women's knockout format is maybe the first inkling of change that could improve not the game itself, but the framework that encompasses organized chess events. But perhaps a 2-game match is too drastic a move, too much of a luckfest (if such a thing could ever exist in standard chess). So maybe it should be fine tuned a bit: instead of a 2-game match, make it first to win 2 games. That way you can't win with White and then draw with Black to win the match.

As for "draw after boring draw" what can I say? How many people watched the entire final table of the WSOP this year? I did (on YouTube) and I would be shocked if that number was even 100,000 people. Maybe they can "improve" it by making it a push-fest involving lots of coinflips and then the "boring" thinking part of the game would be gone so even idiots could follow it. Quite a success, I guess.

No one tracks the number of people who may have watched the entire final table of the WSOP Main Event, of course, because the broadcast is spread over many hours, but here's an interesting insight from http://www.carbonpoker.ag/blog/wsop-...s-increase-21/
and I point especially to the second paragraph:

"There’s good news regarding the WSOP Main Event since TV ratings showed a big spike when compared to last year’s ME. According to the Nielsen Ratings, the 2012 Main Event averaged a 0.7 rating (664,000 households) for each two-hour broadcast, and these broadcasts ran from the middle of August to October 23rd. This is a 17% increase from the 2011 Main Event, which generated a 0.6 rating (549,000 households).

Another interesting point of the TV ratings report is that a large part of the Main Event final table drew a 0.6 rating (632,000 households). This rating was for the first nine hours of three-handed play, and it’s particularly impressive when you consider that Hurricane Sandy happened right before the final table. Hurricane Sandy prevented many people on the East Coast from being able to watch ESPN’s coverage of the WSOP.

This marks yet another successful year of WSOP coverage for ESPN, which has carried the event from 1988-1998 and 2002-2012. The three-year gap represents a short period where the Travel Channel aired the WSOP Main Event; however, it switched back in 2002, just in time for the “Poker Boom” that began when Chris Moneymaker won the 2003 WSOP Main Event."

What's interesting in this is that ratings stayed up even when it was down to 3-handed play, even though that portion dragged on for many hours and thus the "thinking part of the game", as you put it Tom, would have been going on both longer and more often. Maybe the viewers actually LIKE the thinking part of poker?

That can't be said for chess, unless you're talking about chess playing viewers. The non chess playing viewers are turned off by complicated board positions and long thinks, even if there is a very good commentator explaining all the finer points. Thus, if ESPN were to broadcast even the men's chess WC, with good commentary and diagrams, it would be lucky IMO to draw 6,000 households, 1% of the poker viewership.


BTW, Tom, I thought you might want to see this. It's a listing of Card Player magazine's Player of the Year winners since 1997. To win the award, you have to have had an excellent full year of poker results, so it's a much stronger indicator of the greatness of any particular poker player than the WSOP Main Event. The list follows, and I just want to mention: Men Nguyen has won it 4 times. David Pham won it twice, and T.J. Cloutier won it twice. Everyone else on the list won it just once.

Men Nguyen would not even appear on most people's list of great poker players. Instead, poker greatness seems to be measured by number of WSOP bracelets won, and so Phil Hellmuth Jr. and Phil Ivey top most people's list. You seem to be implying that poker doesn't really have true giants, and maybe that's just a matter of what the media is telling us. From this list, it would appear that Men Nguyen is modern poker's Gary Kasparov:


Winners of the Card Player Player of the Year Award

Men Nguyen (1997) ·
T. J. Cloutier (1998) ·
Tony Ma (1999) ·
David Pham (2000) ·
Men Nguyen (2001) ·
T. J. Cloutier (2002) ·
Men Nguyen (2003) ·
Daniel Negreanu (2004) ·
Men Nguyen (2005) ·
Michael Mizrachi (2006) ·
David Pham (2007) ·
John Phan (2008) ·
Eric Baldwin (2009) ·
Tom Marchese (2010) ·
Ben Lamb (2011)

[Aman Hambleton]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

It`s a fun variant and all, but imagine explaining to total beginners how to castle and basic opening principles.

It is possible to castle in Chess960 ? Oh, that's probably why I am just 1800 at this game. :)

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Cooperative Chess Coalition (CCC) – Chess Reform? – Women’s World Chess Champions

For some time I've thought double chess was a good candidate to replace chess as the new standard.

Compared to you Kevin I think that Paul makes perfect sense.