English Chess Forum

For more entertainment value. every draw should have an increasing graphic bush-tucker trials as in I'm a Celeb get me out of here. There are plenty of awful food choices in this part of London.

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:37 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:19 pm

I've watched a number of dull matches in knockout stages of the World Cup/European Championship. After 120 minutes they are 0-0, and you get the sense that both teams have got the penalty shootout they were aiming for. I don't think anyone has suggested that the way to solve the problem of those matches where teams are playing for a shootout is to lengthen them to 240 minutes; rather they've been grateful for the penalty shootout to put the game out of its misery.

Do you really consider that to be a valid comparison?

Yes.

Your point is presumably that if the match were longer, the players would be more likely to play exciting chess because they don't have to worry about the ramifications of losing 1 game, because they have plenty of time to equalise.

In a knockout football match, if the match were longer, the teams would be more likely to play exciting football because they don't have to worry about the ramifications of going 1-0 down, because they have plenty of time to equalise. So let's schedule a replay if it's 0-0 AET in the World Cup, like they would in the 1930s and 1940s; or maybe schedule the matches over 2 legs?

I think that lengthening the match to 24 games, as has been mooted in a number of places, is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. It isn't viable these days to have a 24-game match, which would presumably take place over the best part of 6 weeks, between two players. The costs of organising the match will double (rent, accommodation etc.). The prize money should double; you shouldn't expect the players to do twice the work for the same amount of money they get now. Where does all this money come from? And what public buildings, in big cities around the world, have a venue that can be booked for 6 consecutive weeks for one private event? Or will the match be in multiple venues, which requires the expense of venue-hopping from place-to-place?

The fact is that they are both petrified of what the other guy’s computer is going to come up with next. Look forward to faster and faster time controls in world championship matches. In the current case, 12 draws is a real possibility, if not favourite to happen!

"And what public buildings, in big cities around the world, have a venue that can be booked for 6 consecutive weeks for one private event? Or will the match be in multiple venues, which requires the expense of venue-hopping from place-to-place?"

If the organizers are going to discourage spectators, you don't need a public building in a major city!

24 games would be better, but the players might get a bit fed up, apart from the expense. Maybe we need a world championship like the 1948 tournament?

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:08 pm

"And what public buildings, in big cities around the world, have a venue that can be booked for 6 consecutive weeks for one private event? Or will the match be in multiple venues, which requires the expense of venue-hopping from place-to-place?"

If the organizers are going to discourage spectators, you don't need a public building in a major city!

24 games would be better, but the players might get a bit fed up, apart from the expense. Maybe we need a world championship like the 1948 tournament?

I'm wondering if the Candidates Tournament format should actually be the World Championship format. That seems to generate what we want in terms of excitement.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:17 pm

I'm wondering if the Candidates Tournament format should actually be the World Championship format. That seems to generate what we want in terms of excitement.

I enjoy the matches. I'm expecting 1 or 2 more excellent games from this one.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:00 pm

I've watched a number of dull matches in knockout stages of the World Cup/European Championship. After 120 minutes they are 0-0, and you get the sense that both teams have got the penalty shootout they were aiming for. I don't think anyone has suggested that the way to solve the problem of those matches where teams are playing for a shootout is to lengthen them to 240 minutes; rather they've been grateful for the penalty shootout to put the game out of its misery.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:00 pm

In a knockout football match, if the match were longer, the teams would be more likely to play exciting football because they don't have to worry about the ramifications of going 1-0 down, because they have plenty of time to equalise. So let's schedule a replay if it's 0-0 AET in the World Cup, like they would in the 1930s and 1940s; or maybe schedule the matches over 2 legs?

Replays, and games of 240 minutes, are different things in any number of ways, and it is a nonsense to suggest that when you proposed the comparsion of a 240-minute football match you were really suggesting replays or two-legged ties.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:47 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:00 pm

I've watched a number of dull matches in knockout stages of the World Cup/European Championship. After 120 minutes they are 0-0, and you get the sense that both teams have got the penalty shootout they were aiming for. I don't think anyone has suggested that the way to solve the problem of those matches where teams are playing for a shootout is to lengthen them to 240 minutes; rather they've been grateful for the penalty shootout to put the game out of its misery.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:00 pm

In a knockout football match, if the match were longer, the teams would be more likely to play exciting football because they don't have to worry about the ramifications of going 1-0 down, because they have plenty of time to equalise. So let's schedule a replay if it's 0-0 AET in the World Cup, like they would in the 1930s and 1940s; or maybe schedule the matches over 2 legs?

Replays, and games of 240 minutes, are different things in any number of ways, and it is a nonsense to suggest that when you proposed the comparsion of a 240-minute football match you were really suggesting replays or two-legged ties.

Yes, I forgot about the stamina issue of a football match the first time around. But I think the principle of doubling the length of the match to 2 games from 1 game is an equivalent comparison.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:24 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:17 pm

I'm wondering if the Candidates Tournament format should actually be the World Championship format. That seems to generate what we want in terms of excitement.

I enjoy the matches. I'm expecting 1 or 2 more excellent games from this one.

Which means to suggest you expect 3 or 4 more games that are not excellent? 1 or 2 excellent games out of 5 doesn't sound brilliant to me, but each to their own.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:00 pm

I think that lengthening the match to 24 games, as has been mooted in a number of places, is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. It isn't viable these days to have a 24-game match, which would presumably take place over the best part of 6 weeks, between two players. The costs of organising the match will double (rent, accommodation etc.). The prize money should double; you shouldn't expect the players to do twice the work for the same amount of money they get now. Where does all this money come from? And what public buildings, in big cities around the world, have a venue that can be booked for 6 consecutive weeks for one private event? Or will the match be in multiple venues, which requires the expense of venue-hopping from place-to-place?

There are numbers greater than 12 and less than 24.

16 games seems perfectly feasible to me,

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:51 pm

They are purposely targeting positions where there is a large margin for error, and where it will take really quite serious mistakes, or poor play over a long period, to create a serious advantage.

Perhaps that explains why top players every so often dig openings out of the woodwork that are popular at the lower levels of club chess. The recent popularity of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 being a case in point. By contrast in the Spanish, if Black plays moves in the wrong order, he can be busted quickly. For example 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0-0 a6 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. Nxe5

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:15 pm

1 or 2 excellent games out of 5 doesn't sound brilliant to me, but each to their own.

Actually I meant 1 or 2 including tiebreaks. Depending on the definition of excellent, it is still a better ratio than most events in my opinion. But yes, we have different perspectives. I am hoping for great chess, excitement is secondary.

How many games could most players reproduce from previous matches from memory? I think it is usually a handful from each (excluding you, Rogers ) I don't think these day by day assessments matter as much as the assessment of the whole match when it is over.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:43 pm

How many games could most players reproduce from previous matches from memory?

The 1972 match was memorable. Perhaps because I was moonlighting studying chess when I was supposed to be studying maths at university, the 1969 match as well. Draw agreed after 20 moves of Catalan in the 1984-85 match, perhaps less so.

(edit) 84-85 of course. 1983 was the Korchnoi - Kasparov semi final in London. (/edit)

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:54 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:43 pm

How many games could most players reproduce from previous matches from memory?

The 1972 match was memorable. Perhaps because I was moonlighting studying chess when I was supposed to be studying maths at university, the 1969 match as well. Draw agreed after 20 moves of Catalan in the 1983-84 match, perhaps less so.

Indeed, those games were so memorable that you got the years wrong

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:13 pm

Yes, I forgot about the stamina issue of a football match the first time around. But I think the principle of doubling the length of the match to 2 games from 1 game is an equivalent comparison.

Well it's more than just "the stamina issue", it's that in the case of a replay, you only do this if it's level after the first game, the equivalent of which would be having not a 24-game match as such, but another 12 if scores were level after the first 12.

The whole comparison is specious.