Tweet
On various chess forums there has been a lot of heated opinion on either side of the 2013 Candidates' tiebreak system, which has determined that Carlsen will play Anand for the World Championship later this year. Although in the chess point system 1 win = 2 draws, in the 2013 Candidates' it was agreed beforehand that 1 win (along with a loss) is greater than 2 draws when it comes to breaking ties in points.
Many people would prefer that some kind of tiebreak match be played between Carlsen and Kramnik. Others feel it is right that Carlsen advances. Still others feel Kramnik should advance, with no further tiebreak matches played.
There is little doubt that standard organized chess is at a critical juncture in history. These 2013 Candidates have provided some of the best top-level chess entertainment in years, helped by the internet coverage. Human vs. human elite-level chess has rarely seen greater drama (albeit appreciated only by serious chess players). Even the implaccable Carlsen has been exposed as somewhat weaker than expected -- and not so implaccable.
The chess establishement -- FIDE, that is -- has decided that wins (and losses!) supercede draws in determining which of two players is greater.
For many years now, draws have been the bane of standard chess at the highest levels. If chess has failed to grab international general public attention or to attract sponsors in droves, excessive draws are pointed to by some as being to blame, and that goes beyond the much-criticized non-fighting "GM draws". It includes even fighting draws.
What then does this really mean at this critical juncture for chess? Obviously it is an attempt to drive the top players to fight for wins harder than ever before. Kramnik has just lost approximately $1 million because it is his style to play "safer" than is deemed good for chess.
(An aside: it is ironic that it is Kramnik who is robbed by this tiebreak of the chance to play for the WC. Kramnik was the one who not so long ago complained in an interview piece that it is getting harder and harder for the elite GMs to gain even the slightest advantage over the board, and that chess was becoming far too focused on opening preparation. He commented that some sort of change is needed. Perhaps this result will see Kramnik spearheading an effort to bring about such a change.)
Is this the beginning of a sea change for top-level chess in which draws will eventually be not just frowned upon, but eradicated altogether? And if so, it that a good thing? Is it really that the secret to growing chess popularity worldwide is to simply make it "fighting chess" in the supreme sense, meaning that draws are simply not possible?
My personal opinion is that more steps than just eliminating draws are needed, but... I've made contributions here towards draw reduction with 2 separate ideas (although falling short of outright banning of draws, either idea would make draws very very rare):
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=7398
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=8462
The first would basically turn chess into a Shogi-like variant only in drawish circumstances, to keep play going and making wins possible where they weren't before.
The second would take computer engines out of chess altogether and for many years to come. Of the two, I prefer this second method. The other thing this second method would do is to allow playing chess for money online possible. No chess engine would be of any help to anyone in online play, and it would take years for engine authors to achieve the level of AI needed to make decent decisions under this system.
(For those of you who have been following my posts over the past year or so, you will recall that I am working on a chess variant that will be playable for real money online, and that I will make it available (to a select few initially) before this year is out. It will have a chess-playing component, but the fact that this will be played online for real money means we have to handle the issue of chess engines. Thus my second proposal above, which will constitute the chess playing component of the game... although the first idea above might also be added. Final decision has not been made yet.)
The true question seems to be: is it enough in this 21st century for chess to be decided merely on the ability of players to choose the best move more often than anyone else? We know that computers can already outperform humans in this regard. However, one thing computers can't do is play like Chucky, which is to say, they can't surprise. Either of my suggestions given above would allow for even more surprises than Chucky provided in the 2013 Candidates.
If what we want in top level chess is exciting drama leading to clear-cut winners and losers (almost always), either of my suggestions would seem to be at least equal to what has decided the winner of these 2013 Candidates.
Many people would prefer that some kind of tiebreak match be played between Carlsen and Kramnik. Others feel it is right that Carlsen advances. Still others feel Kramnik should advance, with no further tiebreak matches played.
There is little doubt that standard organized chess is at a critical juncture in history. These 2013 Candidates have provided some of the best top-level chess entertainment in years, helped by the internet coverage. Human vs. human elite-level chess has rarely seen greater drama (albeit appreciated only by serious chess players). Even the implaccable Carlsen has been exposed as somewhat weaker than expected -- and not so implaccable.
The chess establishement -- FIDE, that is -- has decided that wins (and losses!) supercede draws in determining which of two players is greater.
For many years now, draws have been the bane of standard chess at the highest levels. If chess has failed to grab international general public attention or to attract sponsors in droves, excessive draws are pointed to by some as being to blame, and that goes beyond the much-criticized non-fighting "GM draws". It includes even fighting draws.
What then does this really mean at this critical juncture for chess? Obviously it is an attempt to drive the top players to fight for wins harder than ever before. Kramnik has just lost approximately $1 million because it is his style to play "safer" than is deemed good for chess.
(An aside: it is ironic that it is Kramnik who is robbed by this tiebreak of the chance to play for the WC. Kramnik was the one who not so long ago complained in an interview piece that it is getting harder and harder for the elite GMs to gain even the slightest advantage over the board, and that chess was becoming far too focused on opening preparation. He commented that some sort of change is needed. Perhaps this result will see Kramnik spearheading an effort to bring about such a change.)
Is this the beginning of a sea change for top-level chess in which draws will eventually be not just frowned upon, but eradicated altogether? And if so, it that a good thing? Is it really that the secret to growing chess popularity worldwide is to simply make it "fighting chess" in the supreme sense, meaning that draws are simply not possible?
My personal opinion is that more steps than just eliminating draws are needed, but... I've made contributions here towards draw reduction with 2 separate ideas (although falling short of outright banning of draws, either idea would make draws very very rare):
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=7398
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=8462
The first would basically turn chess into a Shogi-like variant only in drawish circumstances, to keep play going and making wins possible where they weren't before.
The second would take computer engines out of chess altogether and for many years to come. Of the two, I prefer this second method. The other thing this second method would do is to allow playing chess for money online possible. No chess engine would be of any help to anyone in online play, and it would take years for engine authors to achieve the level of AI needed to make decent decisions under this system.
(For those of you who have been following my posts over the past year or so, you will recall that I am working on a chess variant that will be playable for real money online, and that I will make it available (to a select few initially) before this year is out. It will have a chess-playing component, but the fact that this will be played online for real money means we have to handle the issue of chess engines. Thus my second proposal above, which will constitute the chess playing component of the game... although the first idea above might also be added. Final decision has not been made yet.)
The true question seems to be: is it enough in this 21st century for chess to be decided merely on the ability of players to choose the best move more often than anyone else? We know that computers can already outperform humans in this regard. However, one thing computers can't do is play like Chucky, which is to say, they can't surprise. Either of my suggestions given above would allow for even more surprises than Chucky provided in the 2013 Candidates.
If what we want in top level chess is exciting drama leading to clear-cut winners and losers (almost always), either of my suggestions would seem to be at least equal to what has decided the winner of these 2013 Candidates.
Comment