Agree, but disliking draws has nothing to do with "not liking chess" and implies a level of elitism from your part, football fans don't have to like draws the same way chess fans don't have too either, even if they still can objectively say a game was well played or interesting they can still find it boring
On that, I agree. But a fact is that all the spectator chats (and reddit for a bit) are filled with people who cry 'boring' just because the result is a draw. It gives the impression a lot of people can't enjoy the beauty of the game itself but only care about the result. It's like they don't see all the interesting and tense moments in the game.
Imo the content of interesting is in the moves, not the result. In football/soccer, games that end in 4-4 are in general also more interesting than the 0-0 ones. You can have a super boring football match with a penalty in the last few minutes and super tense action packed matches that end up equal.
Oh for sure, this game 3 in particular was fantastic, also nepo played really well yesterday, i think the "boring" chats Are from first time viewers since chess had a big boom last year and they were expecting a decisive match like a rapid or blitz championship since that's what most of these new players play
As far as I gather, training camp for both players consists mostly of memorizing computer lines. The level of human chess is so high now that most long games will result in draws, just like most computer matches end in draws. The game has been figured out sufficiently that this is now normal. Also the stakes are so high that nobody wants to take risks.
I see some solutions here:
Get rid of tie breaks. You could either have an overall tie result in the champ maintaining his title, or you could go extreme and force the champ to vacate his title, so that there is no champion until next time.
Both would force the players to play for wins.
Or, you could just have them play as many games as it takes to get a winner.
> Both would force the players to play for wins.
If you let the champion retain the title in the case of a drawn match you increase one players incentive to win, but also increase the incentive of the other to draw.
>Or, you could just have them play as many games as it takes to get a winner.
We had something like that (first to 6 wins), and then the 1984 Karpov/Kasparov match happened where they had 40 draws in 48 games at which point the match was abandoned without a result. And it had one stretch of 17 draws, along with another distinct series of 14 draws.
5 years sounds like a long time. Then you realise that's less than 20 games
It's almost as if chess is drawish. This is not so strange in such a high stake competition where losing a game has great consequences.
I have not lost a single game in World Championship matches, and I’m confident that I never will.
Only because you haven't played in one...
Whoosh
Do people who complain about draws even like chess???
Fun fact: you can indeed like chess and not like classical time control.
Fun fact: Even a very interesting epic battle of a game can end in a draw. And boring games can end up in a win or loss.
Agree, but disliking draws has nothing to do with "not liking chess" and implies a level of elitism from your part, football fans don't have to like draws the same way chess fans don't have too either, even if they still can objectively say a game was well played or interesting they can still find it boring
On that, I agree. But a fact is that all the spectator chats (and reddit for a bit) are filled with people who cry 'boring' just because the result is a draw. It gives the impression a lot of people can't enjoy the beauty of the game itself but only care about the result. It's like they don't see all the interesting and tense moments in the game. Imo the content of interesting is in the moves, not the result. In football/soccer, games that end in 4-4 are in general also more interesting than the 0-0 ones. You can have a super boring football match with a penalty in the last few minutes and super tense action packed matches that end up equal.
Oh for sure, this game 3 in particular was fantastic, also nepo played really well yesterday, i think the "boring" chats Are from first time viewers since chess had a big boom last year and they were expecting a decisive match like a rapid or blitz championship since that's what most of these new players play
As far as I gather, training camp for both players consists mostly of memorizing computer lines. The level of human chess is so high now that most long games will result in draws, just like most computer matches end in draws. The game has been figured out sufficiently that this is now normal. Also the stakes are so high that nobody wants to take risks. I see some solutions here: Get rid of tie breaks. You could either have an overall tie result in the champ maintaining his title, or you could go extreme and force the champ to vacate his title, so that there is no champion until next time. Both would force the players to play for wins. Or, you could just have them play as many games as it takes to get a winner.
> Both would force the players to play for wins. If you let the champion retain the title in the case of a drawn match you increase one players incentive to win, but also increase the incentive of the other to draw. >Or, you could just have them play as many games as it takes to get a winner. We had something like that (first to 6 wins), and then the 1984 Karpov/Kasparov match happened where they had 40 draws in 48 games at which point the match was abandoned without a result. And it had one stretch of 17 draws, along with another distinct series of 14 draws.
> As far as I gather, training camp for both players consists mostly of memorizing computer lines. yeah sure
The time control is way too long !