2018 World Championship in London

The very latest International round up of English news.
Nick Grey
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by Nick Grey » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:13 pm

Was today's game another draw?

I've spent 5 hours on tubes & buses as well as long time waiting. The poor bus driver on my way home got some really bad comments him not knowing & not accepting tickets when there has been an announcement all day & that is to accept reasonable alternatives. That is a bus journey when there are no rail services.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4819
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:52 pm

It was.

John McKenna

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by John McKenna » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:07 am

Joshua Gibbs wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:21 pm
John McKenna wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:16 pm
Thanks for that disclosure.

Without "keenness" I'm keen to know the name of the variation - as long as that does not breach any non-disclosure agreements.
Sicilian Defense: Lasker-Pelikan. Sveshnikov Variation its ECO code is B33
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl ... 5%20Nb8%20
Thanks, Joshua.

David Williams
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by David Williams » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:18 am

Mike Gunn wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:50 am
My main objection to the current format is that the result of the match can revolve around who gets which colour in the Armageddon game.
Why not have the two players make sealed bids as to how long they would be prepared to have to take black? If player A is very confident of his ability to draw with black he bids, say 3:40. Player B prefers his chances of winning with white so would only take black if he could have, say 4:10. So the lower bid gets black, with an average of the two bids. Player A has black, with 3:55. Both players are happy (until they start thinking whether they could have done a bit of second-guessing, but it's fair, and it's not random).

Nick Grey
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by Nick Grey » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:30 am

Why not sealed bids with cash (highest payment) wins?

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:14 am

David Williams wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:18 am
Why not have the two players make sealed bids as to how long they would be prepared to have to take black?
That idea is absolutely fair and has been around for a long time. It is dismissed by administrators as too radical.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Chris Rice
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by Chris Rice » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:47 am

Image

Nigel:

"Wouldn't it be fun if the World Chess Championship were decided with Black going through in Armageddon after all draws in the match?"

Mike Gunn
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by Mike Gunn » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:48 pm

Alex M's point is a fair one, so you could reschedule the idea as 10 standard play games, 10 rapidplay games (only to be played if no decisive result from standardplay) then (if needed) 10 blitz games and then (finally, if needed) 5 armageddons.

John McKenna

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by John McKenna » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:38 pm

In the picture above it looks like Fabi's veered erratically off course and is heading for the pits due to beaming out of a back window instead of keeping his eyes on the road ahead!

Why not dispense with the tiebreaks and in the event of a drawn match declare the challenger champion?

I always felt that Schlecter, more than less, unseated Lasker in their famous drawn match in 1910. (The arbiter declared Lasker retained the title.)

And, Botvinnik should have been twice dethroned when he drew the matches against Bronstein in 1951 and Smyslov in 1954. (FIDE rules dictated he retained the title.)

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:02 pm

Because, not unreasonably, most think the challenger actually has to WIN the match to become world champion.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

John McKenna

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by John McKenna » Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:17 pm

What's unreasonable about the champion having to win the long-play match to retain the title then?

In my view the champ's always already favoured in many ways and the challenger has to jump through hoops to get a match.

Level the playing field as much as possible is my motto.

Reg Clucas
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by Reg Clucas » Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:59 pm

I like Seirawan's suggestion of a 17 game match, with the challenger getting an extra White, and the champion retaining the title if the match is tied.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:05 pm

Beyond a set point (be that 12 or 16 games), let the match continue indefinitely, but with the prize fund decreasing the longer the match goes on...

Mike Gunn
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by Mike Gunn » Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:33 pm

A slightly more practical version of Christopher's idea: let's suppose you have a prize fund of £100,000. The if the match is drawn 6-6 after 12 games (no tiebreak) you give the players £25,000 each and then later you have a full replay match of 12 games if that is drawn 6-6 the players get £12,500 each and so on. To answer the objection of the cost of finding new venues etc, matches after the first could be held in a studio somewhere. It would be in the interest of the players to have a decisive match rather than yet another replay, although the replays would be interesting for spectators.

(In football the FA Cup worked much better when each drawn game had a full replay rather than the lottery of a penalty shoot-out. It was the TV/ money men that ruined a perfectly good system.)

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: 2018 World Championship in London

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:05 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:33 pm
A slightly more practical version of Christopher's idea: let's suppose you have a prize fund of £100,000. The if the match is drawn 6-6 after 12 games (no tiebreak) you give the players £25,000 each and then later you have a full replay match of 12 games if that is drawn 6-6 the players get £12,500 each and so on. To answer the objection of the cost of finding new venues etc, matches after the first could be held in a studio somewhere. It would be in the interest of the players to have a decisive match rather than yet another replay, although the replays would be interesting for spectators.

(In football the FA Cup worked much better when each drawn game had a full replay rather than the lottery of a penalty shoot-out. It was the TV/ money men that ruined a perfectly good system.)
I'm not sure that idea is remotely practical.

So far as I understand it, the main argument against repeated replays wasn't TV. It was that due to a league schedule of 46 games, and a new source of competitive games in the form of European football, teams didn't want to add even more fixtures to their season with replays, particularly now that player welfare is higher on the agenda than it was maybe 50 years ago when players would play games on consecutive days sometimes. More games isn't a problem for TV or the clubs at all in principle, because every additional game will make more money. That's why the lower league clubs, not playing in European competition, are still quite happy for replays - hence we've arrived at the current situation of replays until the Quarter Finals, by which time the lower league clubs will normally have been eliminated.

The idea of replaying the match in full falls foul of the same problem of a crowded calendar in chess - when are you going to hold the replay(s)? You have to avoid clashes with a number of other tournaments; the Grand Chess Tour playoffs and Wijk aan See spring to mind in December and January; and there may or may not be a World Rapid & Blitz over the festive period.