World Championship match Carlsen v Caruana

Most of the preparation is done in the weeks and months leading up to the match. During the match they're just reviewing what they've already worked on, with patching up done by the seconds if required.

The real issue with two games a day may be that it comes down to who breaks physically, but that's no different to any other sport either.

cdeb wrote: »

I can see your point, but I still don't agree. Preparation is a huge part of every sport these days; why should chess be any different?

There's a bit of an assumption built in here. If something is a big part of a sport or game, does it follow that it's a good thing? Diving is a big part of soccer, etc.

Huge preparation levels in tennis or golf don't necessarily have a negative effect on the game as a spectacle. Chess is different. Excessive preparation can mean that the entire game is pre-rehearsed. It's as if the game was played two months earlier and all we are seeing is the re-enactment. Even worse, we're seeing re-enactments of mostly computer-generated analysis.

Two games a day is too barbaric IMO.

Why not just abolish the rest days? Makes it more marketable also for the worlwide audience I'd have thought.

sodacat11 wrote: »

If two games a day is barbaric for twenty year olds what is three games in a day ,as we have in many weekenders, for 50+ players????

Its a lower time limit but 3 games a day on a Saturday is also barbaric IMO, I've done it and it can be done, but it shouldnt be done!

I feel your pain.

Is there a good place to follow this online? Ideally with gm commentary.
Thanks.

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/carlsen-caruana-world-chess-championship-2018#live

Thanks - that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for! Can't listen to audio at the moment. Could anyone recomend a podcast/youtube channel where they discuss games like these in simple terms.

I can play chess but I would not be familiar with any technical terms i.e. didn't have a clue what Rossolimo opening was and benefits etc

steve_r wrote: »

Thanks - that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for! Can't listen to audio at the moment. Could anyone recomend a podcast/youtube channel where they discuss games like these in simple terms.

I can play chess but I would not be familiar with any technical terms i.e. didn't have a clue what Rossolimo opening was and benefits etc

https://www.youtube.com/agadmator
and
https://www.youtube.com/chessnetwork

are two popular channels that don't overcomplicate things.

Well, that was a bit of anti-climax.

The classical games were more exciting than the rapid.

I feel like there doesn't need to be any change, Carlsen or Caruana could've won in classical if they played better. I don't think it is the "classical" world chess championships, just the world chess championships. The best chess player in the world. If you're not up to the task in quicker time controls then you don't deserve to be considered the best chess player in the world.

ChessPlayer123 wrote: »

I feel like there doesn't need to be any change, Carlsen or Caruana could've won in classical if they played better. I don't think it is the "classical" world chess championships, just the world chess championships. The best chess player in the world. If you're not up to the task in quicker time controls then you don't deserve to be considered the best chess player in the world.

This is nonsense. You might as well decide a tie in the Masters or British Open by having the players play pitch and putt to decide the winner.
In 2012 I found myself in the surprise position of being tied for the lead with four others going into the final round of the Irish Championship. I was to play Stephen Brady as black in the final round so my chances of winning were slim but I made it quite clear before the game that in the event of me tying first place with two others I would not be participating in any kind of play-off, not because I am no good at blitz (I'm about the same as in classical) but because I don't see it as "real" chess. In my mind I would have been joint Irish Champion regardless of what the history books might have shown.
If I had been in Caruana's shoes yesterday I would have simply defaulted and refused to play in that sham play off but probably they would have got him for breach of contract and witheld his 450k if he did. The whole thing was completely unsatisfactory, we are now left with the feeling that the match may just as well not have been played at all. We are left with a "champion" who could twice only better his challengers in a different discipline to that which he is supposed to be the champion of. They should decide the next match by a game of table tennis or maybe draughts just for a bit of variety.

I really enjoyed the match and watched almost every round from start to end.

I think there could be ways of refining the event to suit both the viewer (who wants to see results and probably more rounds) and the sponsors/FIDE/world chess (who want to make money/monetise the event and, you'd hope, spread chess/grow the game).

I think the stop/start nature of 2-2-2-2-2-1-1-TBs (20 days) holds the match back as a viewing sport where 4-4-4-2-TBs (19 days) or 4-4-2-2-2-TBs (20 days) would keep your day count similar, increase the number of games by 2, and increase the fatigue factor (but not by enough where the standard drops off a cliff). Over 4 consecutive days of play, I think the chance of a win would increase quite a bit (in your first 2 or 3 sessions depending on the model above), the viewers could sink their teeth in a bit more and you'd have an extra 2 games to market while for the nitty-gritty final rounds, you can rest up a bit.

However, this would require players to sign their contracts. If the money is there, I don't think they'd object but I obviously can't say with any certainty.


To go against the general thread, I don't mind the tiebreaks as they are currently. Rapid isn't pot-luck, these guys still play at an incredible standard during it. Obviously not perfect, but its better than say a penalty shoot-out in football in live-or-die games. At some stage, you have to seperate the two and this seems as good a way as any to me. I didn't hear Fabi objecting to it as a means to find a winner.

The only alternative I would suggest for tiebreaks would be to add an additional 2 classical games on 0-day rest ...1,1 followed directly by rapid games the next day. Those formats would then look like (with my own formats above):
4-4-4-211R (20 days)
or
4-4-2-2-211R (21 days)
where R is rapid (and blitz) games.

Joedryan wrote: »

I saw this suggested by somebody on Twitter so I cant take the credit for it, how about this:

18 games. 1 rest day after every 6 games.

That should sort out the men from the boys

The match might go on for 3 weeks, but its a World ch match, cant see the issue.

That sounds sensible but doesn't solve the problem of a tied match.
I don't see why we can't just have joint world champions. When Botvinnik and Bronstein drew 12-12 (or whatever it was) was Bronstein any less deserving of being called world champion? Is Caruana a lesser player than Carlsen now?
The thing about tradition is that once you break with it you have lost it forever. The world championship was seriously undermined by the Kasparov v Short match leading to "champions" like Ponomariov and Khalifman. The abandoned Karpov v Kasparov match that went on forever was another farce and then the final nail in the coffin was the introduction of this infernal blitz/rapid b,,,ls,,t.
Today's snowflake generation seem to have the attention span of a gnat. Everything is about instant gratification, penalty shoot outs, 20/20 cricket, tennis tie breaks, sevens rugby, etc etc.I hear that they are now even building 12 hole golf courses(God help us). My one hope is that most of these things tend to go in cycles, maybe when everything gets shortened to its minimum people will see how shallow it all is and the trend will be to revert to quality and substance.