USCF rules allow the arbiter to introduce a delay (when there wasn't one before) following a draw claim. One source describes it thus - "in an insufficient losing chances claim [one option] is to place a time delay clock on the board, with the claimant having 1/2 his/her remaining time up to 1 minute (read maximum - 1 minute) with a 5 second delay and the opponent having all his/her time plus the delay. Assuming the game is really a draw, with a 5 second delay, it can be proven on the board."Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:13 am[Perhaps if a G/120 format became popular, a new time control could be devised where the flow of the game was not interrupted by a claim and arbiter intervention, but a delay or increment was automatically applied when one of the players hit their last two minutes.
Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
-
- Posts: 3559
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
-
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
Round 1 saw five draws and five armageddon games with white winning four of them.
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
My verdict (fwiw)?LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:21 pmRound 1 saw five draws and five armageddon games with white winning four of them.
Farce
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
It's not clear to me what the Armageddon game is there to do. Is it an incentive designed to reduce the number of draws in the long game? Are they some excitement after the drawn games?David Robertson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:57 pmMy verdict (fwiw)?LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:21 pmRound 1 saw five draws and five armageddon games with white winning four of them.
Farce
At least with the KO format as per the Grand Prix, I can explain why there's a need for the quicker time-limit playoffs afterwards.
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
It incentivises quick draws, or risk-free 'suck-it-and-see' play by White in the certain knowledge that you get a second bite in the slap-up of the Armageddon. Just rubbish. Typical bureaucratic, arbiter-nexus, admin non-chess-player solutionAlex Holowczak wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:01 pmIt's not clear to me what the Armageddon game is there to do
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
Given the scoring system, that is one thing it certainly does not do.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
Yes, it does. Chess is an exercise in risk-aversionNickFaulks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:30 pmGiven the scoring system, that is one thing it certainly does not do.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
Actually, I think it is probably nothing to do with the arbiters, who probably aren't involved at all in the format of the event. They will just turn up to administer it.David Robertson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:16 pmIt incentivises quick draws, or risk-free 'suck-it-and-see' play by White in the certain knowledge that you get a second bite in the slap-up of the Armageddon. Just rubbish. Typical bureaucratic, arbiter-nexus, admin non-chess-player solutionAlex Holowczak wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:01 pmIt's not clear to me what the Armageddon game is there to do
I suspect it may be more to do with the organisers and broadcasters.
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
Please don't mollify my rantsAlex Holowczak wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:17 pmI suspect it may be more to do with the organisers and broadcasters
-
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
The sight of Aronian's and Grischuk's pieces rolling around the board in their final seconds (around 4 hours into the video https://en.chessbase.com/post/altibox-norway-chess-live) did indeed match your description.David Robertson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:57 pmMy verdict (fwiw)?LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:21 pmRound 1 saw five draws and five armageddon games with white winning four of them.
Farce
-
- Posts: 10381
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
I see MVL won the blitz and is now number 1 ahead of Carlsen (2947.8 v 2919.6 on the live ratings)
Pete Doggers report on the blitz
TWIC
Round 1 report from Chess Mind
Pete Doggers report on the blitz
TWIC
Round 1 report from Chess Mind
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
If the point of the Armageddon is to influence the chess in the main tournament *in a positive way* then they’ve got it back to front. What they should have done is have the Armageddon only after games with a decisive result, a second opportunity for any defeated player, if you like. Eg. Players draw 0.5-0.5. Player A wins game and Armageddon 1-0. Player A wins game, B wins Armageddon 1-0.5
In general the evidence for alternative formats being able to change the playing approach of players seems sketchy at best (at least in a positive direction - plenty of examples of formats pushing players towards risk averse approaches, tiebreaks on draws being one of the most obvious culprits). Maybe the format of this tournament will prove a slow burner by creating “artificial” gaps in the standings, but i’m sceptical. Most players have a playing style and are loathe to change it, except in the circumstances of individual “must win” games.
Best way for organisers to generate “exciting” tournaments is in player selection - a range of different player styles and/or a mix of playing strengths. And generally increasing the number of players helps.
In general the evidence for alternative formats being able to change the playing approach of players seems sketchy at best (at least in a positive direction - plenty of examples of formats pushing players towards risk averse approaches, tiebreaks on draws being one of the most obvious culprits). Maybe the format of this tournament will prove a slow burner by creating “artificial” gaps in the standings, but i’m sceptical. Most players have a playing style and are loathe to change it, except in the circumstances of individual “must win” games.
Best way for organisers to generate “exciting” tournaments is in player selection - a range of different player styles and/or a mix of playing strengths. And generally increasing the number of players helps.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
Maybe the idea of the Armageddon is to make it so farcical that people take more risks in the main game to avoid it?
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
Exactly so (though not, exactly, So)Richard Bates wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:36 amBest way for organisers to generate “exciting” tournaments is in player selection
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:37 pm
Re: Altibox Norway 2019 - the future of chess?
I agree. Using rapid and blitz to affect classical standings always leaves a bad taste imho. Therefore you need a system which encourages players to win normal classical games. Presumably for the elite players this would be a limited swiss. Of course more players = more expense and if I was organising I can see the appeal of a straightforward RR. In which case, choose interesting players.Richard Bates wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:36 amIf the point of the Armageddon is to influence the chess in the main tournament *in a positive way* then they’ve got it back to front. What they should have done is have the Armageddon only after games with a decisive result, a second opportunity for any defeated player, if you like. Eg. Players draw 0.5-0.5. Player A wins game and Armageddon 1-0. Player A wins game, B wins Armageddon 1-0.5
In general the evidence for alternative formats being able to change the playing approach of players seems sketchy at best (at least in a positive direction - plenty of examples of formats pushing players towards risk averse approaches, tiebreaks on draws being one of the most obvious culprits). Maybe the format of this tournament will prove a slow burner by creating “artificial” gaps in the standings, but i’m sceptical. Most players have a playing style and are loathe to change it, except in the circumstances of individual “must win” games.
Best way for organisers to generate “exciting” tournaments is in player selection - a range of different player styles and/or a mix of playing strengths. And generally increasing the number of players helps.