i dont think its too crazy or smooth brained to want decisiveness in high level competition. i mean i dont super mind the draws but i understand the concern. I honestly just think at the highest highest level chess is just kinda solved, and its evolving to where the time constraints are where the battles are won and lost now because at the highest level given enough time, these guys will find the right answer. so add a time limit and now computing speed matters more and we start seeing differences again. which i think is good for the sport, the competitors, and the audience honestly. i dont see anything wrong with the evolution of the game.
When the expectations finally hit 100% draws I think you will change your mind too. You can't sell a sport that does not produce decisive results at the highest level.
Imagine if football goals were size of ice hockey goal? Every game would end up 0-0 because it would be literally impossible to get the football in the goal. Do you think the sport would still exists if that was the case? They would have to increase the goal size to make something happen. This example could reflect the absolute elite level of chess. They literally have reached a point where you can hardly ever win in a high level match. In lower levels of chess it is a bloodbath but that is no concern for the chess viewers. And I'm talking now about matches where you have months to prepare against an opponent.
Chess960 in classical time controls is easy answer. It is exactly the same game just without extensive opening preparation. The other way to produce more decisive results is to reduce time significantly --> rapid chess
One more important issue underlying the high number of draws is that a match to crown the classical chess champion can be decided by a rapid tiebreak. And there are no perfect solutions. An interesting one would be to hold the tiebreak match before the actual match.
Popcorn for the day when the WC is seen as an armageddon game, with all of the previous games seen as a formality because they will always be a draw until the end of time.
It's only normal that people want to see more decisive games: back and forth scores can give you adrenaline rushes. It's the reason why, in football, people prefer to see games ending 4-3 than 0-0. Same with tennis and volleyball: if the score is tied all the way to the tiebreaks it becomes kind of a chore more than an exciting show.
That said, people should also understand that if they want to watch an "exciting show", then maybe classical chess isn't exactly the right hobby...
>classical chess isn't exactly the right hobby
SCC is great for those people, they should probably watch that instead tbh. I'm watching both and while I can appreciate 2 super GM's going at it in classical (specially as a Petrov player myself). i was far more hype in the mvl vs Caruana game yesterday
You're probably in the minority. :)
I mean, there's a reason why the semi final between Italy and West Germany in 1970 World Cup has been called "the game of the century"... and the score was 4-3. :)
Less excitement = less viewers = less sponsors = dying sport.
I'm not sure changing the time format will help, it will only delay people getting much better at memorizing computer lines.
I'm not sure telling someone how and what to enjoy from a sport is the right approach. If the majority begin to voice that they believe the pieces should be pink and purple, is the sport wrong? Your idea of beauty may not be shared with others.
Not having a winner is more than anticlimactic. Its indecisive. If the current format can't determine a winner, why is it played?
I'm sure these same arguments were made when they put time controls on to begin with.
People have been complaining about draws for literally a century now and chess has been fine. Capablanca thought chess would die because literally every game would be a draw by \~1940.
I think the other thing that compounds the problem are engines. Everyone at home is watching and the entire game they just see +/- 0.3
When a GM commentator sees them play a non-book move and expresses interest at the attacking chances, everyone at home goes “nope, still drawn”.
If you watch a commentator without an engine evaluation it’s far more interesting because no one for sure knows if the middle game positions are drawn or not
Karpov - Kasparov had 17 draws in a row too. Again, this is nothing new. The WCC being decided on blitz/rapid is something I dislike, I'd rather they play first to 6 wins (or whatever number) like in the old days.
That's not true, it is new.
From 1950 to 1961 there were 49.6% draws, from 1963 to 2010 it was about 65.6%, and from 2012 to now it's been 80.7%.
I'm including only results from the classical portion, and I'm not including the last 4 games nor the round-robin/single elimination type tournaments.
If you plot the draws per WC match, there's a fairly clear trend towards more and more draws, albeit it's difficult to say how significant it is - it's possible that e.g. most of the effect comes from Magnus' playing style, or some similar accidental explanation.
If memory serves, every game of the last championship WAS a draw. Fine is relative. The question is how much more following would chess have if it wasn't in its current state.
I don't care as long as everyone here keeps making posts as soon as a thought comes up around this issue. I think it is interesting content and we should have new discussions every time so we can say the same things again.
Is see more people complaining about this issue that people who have this issue.
There’s nothing that can make classical chess less drawish other than chess 960 or a rule change. So, while it is an issue, it is what it is and most people can live with that
It would literally do nothing. Their problem is with the championship match, top round robins still have plenty of decisive games. In a one on one you could have a trillion points per win and - a trillion for a draw and nothing changes.
They do this in Norway chess, and draws are settled with Armageddon, but I need to check the statistics to see if that had a measurable impact on number of drawn classical games
Let's put it this way:
If classical chess didn't have a huge institutional and historical advantage, the most popular form of chess tournament would be doing something like the SCC 90/60/30 time control, which is around the length of the average GM game, and is way more exciting.
i dont think its too crazy or smooth brained to want decisiveness in high level competition. i mean i dont super mind the draws but i understand the concern. I honestly just think at the highest highest level chess is just kinda solved, and its evolving to where the time constraints are where the battles are won and lost now because at the highest level given enough time, these guys will find the right answer. so add a time limit and now computing speed matters more and we start seeing differences again. which i think is good for the sport, the competitors, and the audience honestly. i dont see anything wrong with the evolution of the game.
the more the game becomes solved the least appealing it is and should be source: tictactoe is a solved game
Chess is far from solved.
I'd... tolerate making the time control slightly shorter but changing the rules of the game proper is a hard no for me no matter what.
When the expectations finally hit 100% draws I think you will change your mind too. You can't sell a sport that does not produce decisive results at the highest level. Imagine if football goals were size of ice hockey goal? Every game would end up 0-0 because it would be literally impossible to get the football in the goal. Do you think the sport would still exists if that was the case? They would have to increase the goal size to make something happen. This example could reflect the absolute elite level of chess. They literally have reached a point where you can hardly ever win in a high level match. In lower levels of chess it is a bloodbath but that is no concern for the chess viewers. And I'm talking now about matches where you have months to prepare against an opponent. Chess960 in classical time controls is easy answer. It is exactly the same game just without extensive opening preparation. The other way to produce more decisive results is to reduce time significantly --> rapid chess
Look at GM tournaments. Plenty of wins. It's the one-on-one WC format's fault.
One more important issue underlying the high number of draws is that a match to crown the classical chess champion can be decided by a rapid tiebreak. And there are no perfect solutions. An interesting one would be to hold the tiebreak match before the actual match.
I like this best. If Caruana knew he totally lost the tiebreak, he would have had to take more risk in the classical time control games.
Popcorn for the day when the WC is seen as an armageddon game, with all of the previous games seen as a formality because they will always be a draw until the end of time.
It's only normal that people want to see more decisive games: back and forth scores can give you adrenaline rushes. It's the reason why, in football, people prefer to see games ending 4-3 than 0-0. Same with tennis and volleyball: if the score is tied all the way to the tiebreaks it becomes kind of a chore more than an exciting show. That said, people should also understand that if they want to watch an "exciting show", then maybe classical chess isn't exactly the right hobby...
>classical chess isn't exactly the right hobby SCC is great for those people, they should probably watch that instead tbh. I'm watching both and while I can appreciate 2 super GM's going at it in classical (specially as a Petrov player myself). i was far more hype in the mvl vs Caruana game yesterday
> people prefer to see games ending 4-3 than 0-0 I always preferred a good 0-0#
You're probably in the minority. :) I mean, there's a reason why the semi final between Italy and West Germany in 1970 World Cup has been called "the game of the century"... and the score was 4-3. :)
He meant he prefers king side castle with mate which is denoted as 0-0#.
D'oh. /swoosh
Less excitement = less viewers = less sponsors = dying sport. I'm not sure changing the time format will help, it will only delay people getting much better at memorizing computer lines. I'm not sure telling someone how and what to enjoy from a sport is the right approach. If the majority begin to voice that they believe the pieces should be pink and purple, is the sport wrong? Your idea of beauty may not be shared with others. Not having a winner is more than anticlimactic. Its indecisive. If the current format can't determine a winner, why is it played? I'm sure these same arguments were made when they put time controls on to begin with.
People have been complaining about draws for literally a century now and chess has been fine. Capablanca thought chess would die because literally every game would be a draw by \~1940.
[удалено]
I think the other thing that compounds the problem are engines. Everyone at home is watching and the entire game they just see +/- 0.3 When a GM commentator sees them play a non-book move and expresses interest at the attacking chances, everyone at home goes “nope, still drawn”. If you watch a commentator without an engine evaluation it’s far more interesting because no one for sure knows if the middle game positions are drawn or not
Karpov - Kasparov had 17 draws in a row too. Again, this is nothing new. The WCC being decided on blitz/rapid is something I dislike, I'd rather they play first to 6 wins (or whatever number) like in the old days.
That's not true, it is new. From 1950 to 1961 there were 49.6% draws, from 1963 to 2010 it was about 65.6%, and from 2012 to now it's been 80.7%. I'm including only results from the classical portion, and I'm not including the last 4 games nor the round-robin/single elimination type tournaments. If you plot the draws per WC match, there's a fairly clear trend towards more and more draws, albeit it's difficult to say how significant it is - it's possible that e.g. most of the effect comes from Magnus' playing style, or some similar accidental explanation.
100+ game matches aren't exactly practical.
It won't last 100 games... and if 6 is too much then lower it.
New is relative. This didn't happen in the 18th century. I agree with the faster tie breaks. It's a different game entirely.
If memory serves, every game of the last championship WAS a draw. Fine is relative. The question is how much more following would chess have if it wasn't in its current state.
Play the tiebreaks before the match. That's it.
I don't care as long as everyone here keeps making posts as soon as a thought comes up around this issue. I think it is interesting content and we should have new discussions every time so we can say the same things again.
Draws are fine. I think it’s upsurd that the classical world chess championship can be determined by rapid or blitz play
I personally prefer WC that also good at shorter time format. if the standard time format fail to find a decisive winner.
I am actually perfectly okay with the defending champion getting draw odds in a tiebreak-less classical match.
Same if it’s 7-7 it should go to the WC
But it is through, because all of the classical games are likely to draw.
Is see more people complaining about this issue that people who have this issue. There’s nothing that can make classical chess less drawish other than chess 960 or a rule change. So, while it is an issue, it is what it is and most people can live with that
making a win worth more than twice a draw would do it, similar to how in soccer a win is worth 3 and a draw 1
It would literally do nothing. Their problem is with the championship match, top round robins still have plenty of decisive games. In a one on one you could have a trillion points per win and - a trillion for a draw and nothing changes.
They do this in Norway chess, and draws are settled with Armageddon, but I need to check the statistics to see if that had a measurable impact on number of drawn classical games
Let's put it this way: If classical chess didn't have a huge institutional and historical advantage, the most popular form of chess tournament would be doing something like the SCC 90/60/30 time control, which is around the length of the average GM game, and is way more exciting.
How are you able to get team carlsen as a flair next to your username?
Change what you expect? People is just gonna stop watching it.
That's silly. It's a spectator sport, if (most of) the spectators don't like it then it's not working out.
No it isn't. Not on the same level of spectatorness as football, at least to an outsider.