< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 370 OF 376 ·
|Jul-01-12|| ||ray keene: i think 1...g6 is perfectly ok, then switch to a pirc/modern/kings indian or what you will depending on how white plays|
|Jul-01-12|| ||veigaman: Hi Ray, can you describe McShane style and personality? I love his approach, thanks in advance|
|Jul-01-12|| ||ray keene: very aggressive as black-sometimes passive as white-maybe he shd try flank openings as white as he did in his win last year v magnus|
|Jul-02-12|| ||solskytz: < tiebreaks before the match?? insane idea!!>|
What's insane about it?
|Jul-02-12|| ||parisattack: <Paint My Dragon: Well yes, someone hiding the ducks behind a chair may well cause dessert to be brought forward! :)
In my opinion, there was nothing wrong with 'best of 24', titleholder keeps the title at 12:12. It has a long tradition. We can use rapid play-offs at every other event, including Candidates Matches, but it feels wrong as a WC decider.>|
Voice of reason. Fully concur. Many of the ideas are interesting but simpler is better - Ockam's Razor.
<ray keene: i think 1...g6 is perfectly ok, then switch to a pirc/modern/kings indian or what you will depending on how white plays>
Played it for most of my (admittedly short) OTB career and it stood me well. Liked the Gurgenidze variation best but also played the Classical with ...c6 and either ...Qb6 or ...b6. Now dabbling in the Hippo correspondence which seems to be getting good results in the 2400-2600 tier. List of Robatsch/Modern books posted on my CG forum; always interested in new additions to it.
One of my chess fantasies is to have a few hours with GM Keene, GM Suttles and IM Day discuss hypermodern openings. :)
<ray keene> Did you ever snag a copy of the Caissa Zukertort book? I saw one on a list recently; $150 tho...
|Jul-02-12|| ||Shams: <Many of the ideas are interesting but simpler is better.>|
I'll take more fairness over simplicity. Hell, the Huebner-Smyslov roulette wheel is simplest of all.
|Jul-02-12|| ||drnooo: actually there is a super fair way of determining a wc championship particularly a short one of less than fifteen games tied at the end
let both sit down to the best computer
have a drawing of opening moves up to ten
both playing white same opening move and if both lose then whichever one loses to the fewer moves: the rules of classical chess have been upheld, if both win, which is highly unlikely, then play again: and the sheer stupidity of rapid games deciding classical time controls is out the window like a thrown clock
|Jul-03-12|| ||drnooo: of course there is one other way to avoid the stupidity of rapid games in a classical world championship. After a short series say of 12 or 15 if still drawn simply say there is no champion, the so called champ clearly having demonstrated only equality: they get seeded into the next qualifying round with others and unless and until one of the various contestants beats everyone by at least ONE game, hey there still is no champ
It's very nutty to say you are better than the other guy when after fifteen games you have not come out on top.
But hey, if it gives you a jolt to say so, have at it.|
|Jul-03-12|| ||ray keene: had book on zukertort but sadly lent it to someone-exit book!|
|Jul-03-12|| ||ray keene: <parisattack> if you are ever in london pls pop over|
|Jul-03-12|| ||ray keene: having the tie break before the match sounds a bit too much like alice in wonderland to me-sentence first-verdict afterwards and so on...maybe i am missing something here-if i am lets have the penalty shootouts before the football match proper starts and the tie breaks at wimbledon too-one for each of the sets just in case !!|
|Jul-03-12|| ||King Death: <ray keene> In the Adorjan-Ribli playoff match for a candidates berth the tie breaks from the interzonal at Riga were used so Ribli knew that he'd have to win the match instead of settling for the draw that happened. Doesn't this amount to the same thing?|
|Jul-03-12|| ||Cibator: <King Death: <ray keene> In the Adorjan-Ribli playoff match for a candidates berth the tie breaks from the interzonal at Riga were used so Ribli knew that he'd have to win the match instead of settling for the draw that happened. Doesn't this amount to the same thing?>|
I'd have said so, for sure. And I have to agree with GM Keene as well. Knowing in advance that the tie-break rule will favour one of the players can never be satisfactory.
I'm still narked years later on behalf of a schoolfellow who reached the final of a local one-day junior KO tournament knowing that in the event of a draw, the younger player would be declared winner. Naturally, his younger opponent played ultra-solid, with the inevitable result. Should have been a blitz play-off, of course.
|Jul-06-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<Ray>
<lets have the penalty shootouts before the football match >
I suspect no England fan would ever turn up for a game if FIFA introduced that!
I have always loved Ray's opening note to Suttles-Unzicker, Siegen Olympiad 1970. Something along the lines of: Suttles ideas are obscure but here he excels himself; cover the moves and try to guess what was played -- if you get more than 50% correct you too are crazy or a genius.
|Jul-06-12|| ||Petrosianic: The difference between soccer and chess is that in soccer you have to earn your draws. The teams can't just agree to GIVE half points to each other at will.|
If they could, if you saw soccer games where both teams stood around motionless for an hour, and explained that they had agreed to settle the game in the penalty kicks, there probably would be a move to put those at the beginning of the game.
Adorjan-Ribli (and many other mini-maches besides) were settled on Sonnenborn points when the match itself ended up drawn. And of course, in most world championship matches the players knew in advance who would get the title in the event of a draw. Most people must have found that system "satisfactory" if it lasted for over a century without a revolt.
I don't think the Alice in Wonderland analogy holds, simply because the sentence ISN'T a sentence if the match isn't drawn. If the match isn't drawn, then those tiebreakers were just warmup exhibition games. If you actually WIN the match (which is supposed to be the object), it won't matter that you lost the tiebreaker.
There's only one possibly serious objection to the idea that I see. Right now, there's a tendency to lump the tiebreak games into the regular ones when reporting the score. For example, you can read lots of stories claiming that the score of Anand-Gelfand (or Kramnik-Topalov) was 8½-7½, when that wasn't the score at all.
So, if we put the tiebreaker first, imagine a situation, where Player A loses the tiebreaker 3-0, but wins the match 6½-5½. That means he's the champion, and the final score is 6½-5½. But people who lump the rapid games in with the classical as though they were the same thing might think "Wait a minute, Player A actually LOST the match 6½-8½, so why is he the champion?"
To support the Tiebreaker First idea, you have to be okay with the fact that Player A won this match 6½-5½, and that the three Rapid games that he lost were a completely different beast. If you're not okay with that, you really don't want to support this idea.
|Jul-06-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Actually in soccer the two teams can in fact agree to draw if a draw helps both teams, such as in a last-round game of a four-team preliminary round.|
There were some blatant examples in the World Cup a few years ago. So now they play the final games simultaneously so that can't happen.
|Jul-06-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: West Germany 1 - Austria 0 (World Cup 1982) is <the> infamous football game.|
|Jul-06-12|| ||Jim Bartle: But I think there was a draw in the 1990 World Cup which left a third team without a chance.|
|Jul-06-12|| ||Cibator: Actually, the pre-arrangement (alleged or confirmed) of mutually convenient draws in football has a history going back to 1898.|
|Jul-07-12|| ||solskytz: <having the tie break before the match sounds a bit too much like alice in wonderland to me-sentence first-verdict afterwards and so on...maybe i am missing something here-if i am lets have the penalty shootouts before the football match proper starts and the tie breaks at wimbledon too-one for each of the sets just in case !!>|
Dear GM Keene,
thanks for getting back to me on my question.
I notice your answer only now, and also notice that someone got there before I had to chance to relate to what you wrote.
On further reading, I liked very much the way Petrosianic answered you, showing some principal differences between then way other sports are played, and chess - most importantly, the point about 'idle, playless draws', or draws agreed upon quickly and effortlessly, which are less of a problem in other sports than in chess, as well as touching the Alice point. I have really nothing further to add at this point.
|Jul-10-12|| ||ray keene: if sponsorship dries up because of boring chess the players will have to evolve-i think i am 100% correct in saying that pre match tie breaks, reverting to fischer random and other such nonsense will not figure in the next wcc cycle|
|Jul-10-12|| ||Petrosianic: I'm sure you're right there, but the same might be true of any idea we come up with, good, bad or indifferent. Elista doesn't seem all that concerned with what we think.|
|Jul-10-12|| ||ray keene: the wcc rights have been transferred to andrew paulson of agon-i am 100% convinced he will stick to a classical format -tho he might -with a bit of luck-lengthen the world championship to 14 or even 16 games-one lives in hope!! thanks for all your your ideas|
|Jul-10-12|| ||Petrosianic: I still think the Tiebreaker first idea is worth a try, however I would also say that before we go that far, we ought to try Sofia Rules.|
We've just finished the shortest world championship match in history, in terms of moves/game. I think we need to restore the traditional situation of one player or the other having something to lose by a drawn match.
One way or the other, there's going to be a huge ruckus the first time the title changes hands in the tiebreaker. Especially if it ever changes hands on a drawn Armageddon Game.
|Jul-11-12|| ||Paint My Dragon: Best of 24 and holder retains title at 12:12 fulfills all the goals as far as I can see;|
1. Restores the idea that a drawn match is not an option for the challenger, who needs to come out fighting.
2. Gives both players a chance to throw in some risky preparation early doors, knowing they can still pull back a small deficit over so many games.
3. Affords the challenger the opportunity to demonstrate he is undisputably better by overcoming a small starting disadvantage and keeping pace with the champion over a long haul.
4. Conversely, confers greater stature on a champion who can resist a more sustained long haul challenge.
5. Allows plenty of warm-up time for both players to play themselves into form.
6. Gives the necessary time for all facets of the game to come to the fore - resourcefulness, technique, endgame play, stamina, opening novelties, tactics, creativity etc.
7. Increases the scope for the lead to switch back and forth as form fluctuates, thereby making it more exciting for spectators.
I struggle to see the drawbacks. Yes, casual viewers may like the excitement of rapid/blitz finishes, but it just feels unseemly at the very top level. To me, it cheapens the contest and greatly increases the chance that both players sit back and wait for 'the randomizer' by adopting a safety-first policy during the main contest, or worse still, that the outcome is decided by a crass blunder.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 370 OF 376 ·