|
From what I gathered from Agad and a few other folks commenting: Magnus (and prob many others) recognize that Rapid, Blitz, Bullet, etc make up a significant % of what players play, and the share continues to grow over time. So a true World Championship would ideally cover a greater variety of chess formats, and also not demand many months of dedicated prep solely for one grind of 12+ classical games. This is speculation and tea-leave reading, but it would seem reasonable for Magnus to propose format adjustments to FIDE, and they declined to do it (at least not when it would be clear that it was due to MC pressure) and so Magnus passed on defending. IMO it would be real neat to have a variety of ways to qualify for the Candidates, like top X from the elite classical, rapid, etc tournaments, and also some sort of wild card system for folks who have top-tier all-around results while not quite finishing top 2 in a particular event.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Chromatics posted:what's the summary of his take on it? I don't know I wasn't able to watch it unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
I know next to nothing about chess, but just from a general "organized sports" perspective, it's kind of nice to see, if indeed Magnus had requested format changes, that FIDE wasn't willing to give in. Obviously, an organizing body for any sport/game should be receptive to the feedback of the individuals who compete in their events, but that's very different than taking direction from the current champ just because you stand to gain from him continuing to hold the title. Hopefully if he feels the changes he asked for were good for competition chess in general, and not just more in line with his interests, he'll continue to advocate for them even if it doesn't directly impact his career anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
kalensc posted:From what I gathered from Agad and a few other folks commenting: I like this take on it. As a layperson, watching streamers play tight time-controlled games and then playing them myself is what got me back into chess as an adult. Evolving the highest levels to meet the changes in the chess landscape is probably the correct move. It just makes chess more exciting. I liken it to the rise of T20 cricket.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
I think the World Championships should be played in the format most conducive to best-played chess. That's classical, not rapid or blitz. I think Carlsen's proposal was something like playing 'sets' of rapid games, or at least that's something that Nakamura discussed on stream. I think that's... I think that's a pretty dumb idea, and it would be very bad to implement it. I don't even think it would make for more interesting or more watchable games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
i thought the idea was rather than having the tiebreaks right at the end, leaving the possibility of 12 straight draws, you would have a set of 3 classical games, and that set would be tiebroken by rapid or blitz games. the match is decided by whoever wins 2 sets first
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
jesus WEP posted:i thought the idea was rather than having the tiebreaks right at the end, leaving the possibility of 12 straight draws, you would have a set of 3 classical games, and that set would be tiebroken by rapid or blitz games. the match is decided by whoever wins 2 sets first I still think that's bad. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that created a pressure for an even more drawish match. Imagine if after losing a game, instead of trying to get it back, you could just give up on the set and go next (which you would go back to trying to draw into tiebreaks).
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
I think that there is room for alternative formats between classical and rapid. From a viewers perspective, a good balance would be games lasting 2-3 hours, possibly with a cap of 5 minutes per move to prevent long stretches of time with nothing happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
His general point is right. Sure you can talk about best chess, but then we already cap 'best' at current time controls, the best chess would be played with unlimited time. So clearly time management is part of chess. Most people playing chess and most people watching chess play and watch shorter games. There will always be a place for really long games, but the main competition of chess really needs to be closer to what the rest of the world plays. It doesnt have to be bullet, but g30 or g60 gives time for thought and let's the game fit and resemble what modern chess looks like to the majority of people. I also think chess is better as a spectator sport when the players play sub-optimally. The games where two super Gms play really well are frankly usually dull.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:I think that there is room for alternative formats between classical and rapid. From a viewers perspective, a good balance would be games lasting 2-3 hours, possibly with a cap of 5 minutes per move to prevent long stretches of time with nothing happening. Agree completely. (except for the cap per move, that's not feasible) I mean try explaining why "The time control for each game was 120 minutes per side for the first 40 moves, 60 minutes for the next 20 moves, and 15 minutes for the rest of the game, with a 30-second increment per move starting with move 61." is the way it is to non-chess fanatics! It's completely incomprehensible to me why it needs to be this long and complicated. When I play classical in my club it's just 90+30 and that already feels really long. Walh Hara fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:I mean try explaining why "The time control for each game was 120 minutes per side for the first 40 moves, 60 minutes for the next 20 moves, and 15 minutes for the rest of the game, with a 30-second increment per move starting with move 61." is the way it is to non-chess fanatics! It's completely incomprehensible to me why it needs to be this long and complicated. When I play classical in my club it's just 90+30 and that already feels really long. That doesn't seem complicated at all. "You get time for the game, and time is added at certain points if the game goes long. 30 seconds is added per move, both to give you time to write your move down and so that you never have to run out of time just in case the game goes super long." I've given that exact explanation many times. As for why longer games: chess is a game where there are right and wrong moves in a position. Complicated positions give rise to the most interesting "right" moves. In determining a world champion, it makes sense that you want the player displaying the best understanding, and playing the most right moves. You want the games to be of the overall highest quality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:That doesn't seem complicated at all. "You get time for the game, and time is added at certain points if the game goes long. 30 seconds is added per move, both to give you time to write your move down and so that you never have to run out of time just in case the game goes super long." I've given that exact explanation many times. "time is added at certain points" -- How much time? At which points? I think it's more complicated than it needs to be. And why running out of time wouldn't be a legitimate way to determine the winner? And why is writing down moves by hand a genuine concern in a world championship match in TYOOL 2022? Hand Knit posted:You want the games to be of the overall highest quality. You do, Hand Knit. But it seems a growing number of players and spectators don't. How many people do you know who have the time and the desire to watch 30+ hours of chess during the championship match?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
It seems to me that the ability to eventually find the best move is a different (but related) skill to finding a good move quickly, and it's not obvious to me that the former is a better measure of a player's chess skill than the latter
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:That doesn't seem complicated at all. "You get time for the game, and time is added at certain points if the game goes long. 30 seconds is added per move, both to give you time to write your move down and so that you never have to run out of time just in case the game goes super long." I've given that exact explanation many times. That doesn't explain why the time format is the way it is at all! How come "classical time format" means different things in different tournaments? Why does it have to be so much time? The classical time format of the FIDE Grand Prix would be much better already. Walh Hara fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
A match that is 14 classical games is a lot. The last few years have shown that chess can have a wider audience, and that format is pretty unapproachable. If it's not serving the audience and it's potentially not serving competitors (or at least one of them), who is it serving? If there are a bunch of major competitors who really like the format, then it's a different conversation. There's nothing sacred about the format. Non-ad hoc championships have only been a thing for 60 years, happen every few years and the championship was split for part of it. There's been a few dozen unified world championships as organized events. What the championship match has looked like has been changed and renegotiated several times. What would the event look like if it they set the format from scratch now? Edit:. Also, a group or person with leverage trying to get something done seems to be pretty much the traditional way FIDE changes poo poo at that level. T.C. fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jul 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
In fairness there are a lot of rapid and blitz events. If you want to watch short time controls you can find top players on twitch pretty much every single day. There's something pretty cool about seeing just how far humans can push perfection in playing 1 game of chess with maximum concentration and time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
I think the issue is that the majority of competitive chess these days is in fact played in shorter time controls. So candidates and world championship are the only tournaments people pay attention to that are longer time controls and closest to "best chess". So if you get rid of longer time controls, or deemphasize them, even in those tournaments, then you're kind of getting rid of it altogether? I also see the point Hand Knit is making.. especially if you are particularly strong in rapid or blitz games, like Hikaru or Carlsen, you might have even more incentive to draw than in the current situation and you might have such players drawing their way to blitz tiebreakers, exciting for spectators but far from "best players playing the best chess". Maybe keep longer time controls but decrease the number of games, make it less of a grueling slog? Or, as Magnus suggested, have the WC have to come through the Candidates gauntlet too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:There's something pretty cool about seeing just how far humans can push perfection in playing 1 game of chess with maximum concentration and time. Yes, but watching it live is really boring when instead you can just watch a recap later. I don't think classical should die, but if chess is going to draw more money from sponsors, it needs to be more entertaining, and rapid/blitz/bullet are way more palatable as live content.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
My reco WC formst: Single game, 12 hours per move, no three-fold repetition, black gets draw odds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
they already have the fide world rapid championship and blitz championship. you guys can watch those, you know
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:His general point is right. yeah well the current format is probably about the limit in the sense of, you can’t really make it any longer and still fit a single game entirely within 1 day. and with computers these days you probably can’t break overnight like in the old days
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:they already have the fide world rapid championship and blitz championship. you guys can watch those, you know I was literally about to make this post. They have two world championships in short formats every year. People were already complaining Nepo lost games in the WCC because he made dumb blunders. How exactly will shortening the time control and therefore reducing the quality alleviate that complaint? As for 14 games being a long time, if anything I disagree. A longer match would encourage enterprising chess. As it is in a 14 game series just one defeat is so significant, and going two losses down virtually ends the contest, that it leads to more conservative play. They should change the format to a first to X wins, like Fischer wanted. Maybe first to four wins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
I don't understand why it's necessary to have a single champion for every format. Classical, rapid, and blitz have different required skills (I mean, not THAT different) and so why not have different champions for each format? I think you can draw a pretty good comparison to cricket. Test cricket is a thing that only people who really like cricket would get into but one-day or 20/20 is much more accessible to the general public. Similarly, not everyone can really get into classical games but rapid or blitz are a lot more accessible. That seems fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:You do, Hand Knit. But it seems a growing number of players and spectators don't. How many people do you know who have the time and the desire to watch 30+ hours of chess during the championship match? I don't really see why it matters what spectators think. Players, sure if there is a general consensus, but different formats exist for a reason. totalnewbie posted:I don't understand why it's necessary to have a single champion for every format. Classical, rapid, and blitz have different required skills (I mean, not THAT different) and so why not have different champions for each format? The skills are similar but certainly not the same. Fabi can play better than a lot of super-GMs in classical but in rapid those same players could crush him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 03:08
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I don't understand why it's necessary to have a single champion for every format. Classical, rapid, and blitz have different required skills (I mean, not THAT different) and so why not have different champions for each format? Do it like boxing and try to unify those titles ETA and give out gaudy humongous belts
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
Feels like Poker coule be a decent comparison, in terms of variety of championships and formats. Anyways, I enjoyed the Candidates because having 4 simultaneous games allowed for a RedZone style commentary and focus, and the new pairings throughout a week were good for variety and standings analysis. 1v1 Championship loses out on both of those aspects, unfortunately, if solely thinking of the viewer. I get Hand Knit's point about wanting to allow the time for the best to rise above the rest, and enable time for deep thinks and so on. It is neat to see players managing to match engine-tier play deep in a complex end game. That being said, if the best players continue to embrace blitz rapid etc, and FIDE doesn't consider some adjustments to their tourney and qualification structure, then it opens the door for other tournaments to gain "credibility" and for the WC to feel a bit antiquated. Cricket was mentioned, poker has a similar history going back decades to times when Stud or Draw were popular, I'm sure there's others. Hopefully a cycle off for Magnus to push for 2900 will allow him the respite needed to want to enter the next candidates and dethrone either Nepo or Ding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 03:29
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:Yes, but watching it live is really boring when instead you can just watch a recap later. I guess it’s worth noting that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this. Advertisers might be a bit vexed, but from a human perspective there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with the next day recap. As to the questions about but why is this much time in particular added?, I don’t think answers like “because they wanted to allow for really long games” or “it’s what the organizers could fit in their time slot” really leave people confused. And as for why, say, two hours specifically? Nobody’s ever been turned off of hockey because it’s three periods instead of four quarters. The main question, as I see it, is what is the best way to identify a champion that also hews reasonably close to “best player in the world.” I would love for a format where it was “classical games until someone wins six” but Kasparov kind of broke that, the jerk. As another aside, you don’t hear it from the streamers so much, but there’s also a lot of grousing from players that games are too short. Lot of people would be happy with a full on extra hour so they could, to quote one person, “at least try to play reasonably correctly.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 07:34
|
|
|
I watch a lot of go, when I am not in the mood for chess and very much prefer their time system. If you don't know, they have large "delays" that is increment that can't be banked, and relatively short main time. With the delay not even starting until the main time is used up. Which in practice for long games means that the players use up their main time fully during the early midgame. And then they get a reliable rhythm for one move per minute for the rest. With commentators often only tuning in after the main time is used up, giving a fun viewing experience. Not sure if it actually is suitable for chess, but someone who actually knows good chess trying any delay or low main time system is something I always wanted. Also, I watched the magnus interview on his channel, and he doesn't say much interesting. Only that he didn't give specific demands to fide, and that he didn't like their unspecified ideas. And that he had been seriously considering stepping down for almost 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 08:14
|
|
|
The US actually uses a 30 second delay at the start of each move sometimes. (Also, depending on where you are, increment may be added at the start or end of a move). I think the thirty seconds at the start of a move increment is preferred because it allows for the building of time. You play a handful of quick moves without changing the position, and now you’ve got five minutes instead of one to actually make a strategic decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 08:43
|
|
|
Chromatics posted:I don't really see why it matters what spectators think. I think you'll find most sports organizations disagree. Hand Knit posted:I guess it’s worth noting that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this. Advertisers might be a bit vexed, but from a human perspective there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with the next day recap. In every sport that I can think of I can watch the world championship (or its equivalent) in its entirety. In chess I can't and it needs to be digested for me, even though I'm a chess enthusiast who prefers classical time controls. To my human perspective that seems wrong. Zwabu posted:as Magnus suggested, have the WC have to come through the Candidates gauntlet too. That would get my vote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 09:37
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I think you'll find most sports organizations disagree. Which sports organization do you think FIDE is most similar to? Sports leagues make money from licensing and advertising during their televised games and so optimizing for spectators (to some degree) makes sense. FIDE doesn’t really operate that way and I don’t expect them to
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 09:44
|
|
|
Chromatics posted:Which sports organization do you think FIDE is most similar to? Sports leagues make money from licensing and advertising during their televised games and so optimizing for spectators (to some degree) makes sense. FIDE doesn’t really operate that way and I don’t expect them to Sports organizations such as FIFA, FIA, ITF, FIS, have goals to promote their sport, organize competitions, set regulations, assist grassroots and youth initiatives, and bring in money (to athletes, clubs, national federations, and above all themselves). Ignoring the wishes of fans and spectators won't help any of these goals and will in fact hinder many of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 11:18
|
|
|
FIDE makes me think they're a bunch of crusty old white dudes, that enjoy their authority a little bit too much. So like the majority of sports orgs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 11:35
|
|
|
This is maybe a good point to start from the top. What do we want out of a world chess championship? What do we want out of the title of "world chess champion?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
We need humans playing classical chess to advance the game. The world champion should be the human being who shows the best understanding of how to judge the relative merits of each position. Computers combine human ideas of what might be worth calculating with perfect calculation. It's fair enough to not want to be the world champion for 10+ years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 14:08
|
|
fart simpson posted:they already have the fide world rapid championship and blitz championship. you guys can watch those, you know tanglewood1420 posted:I was literally about to make this post. They have two world championships in short formats every year. There is room for improvement and compromise without throwing away the entire concept. Before 2016, the WCC classical was the 120+60 minute format. Then in 2016 vs Karjakin and 2018 vs Caruana it changed to the 100+50 format. This was overall, imo, an improvement in both player experience, game quality, and viewer experience. Then for 2021 vs Nepo it went back to 120+60 for whatever reason, and it was less good than the previous two WCCs. I'm assuming the 2023 WCC will also be 120+60, like the Candidates was, and if Magnus could not even get them at least to go back to 100+50, let alone to try to move forwards instead of backwards, then yea I totally get and support his decision to step down.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
I actually think that the chess champion should be decided without tournament. From a combined score from the various actual championships. Blitz, Rapid, Classical, Correspondence, and ideally another "modern or something" that is between Classical and Rapid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
I think that epic Champion vs Challenger battles have less sense now with instant engine evaluation. Before computers they were two greatest chess minds spending hours in labyrinths unfathomable to casual players. There was something almost mystical about it. You would see a diagram in the newspapers and you'd set it up on a board and try to figure out with a friend what was going on. There was commentary by a local grandmaster but he too could only offer his best shot. Now most of the magic has been dispelled. You know in real time who blundered, who stands better, which lines are likely next. In today's setting it would be more fun and more practical to have a round-robin championship tournament.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
I agree that chess tournaments should not use engine evaluation until after the game is done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I agree that chess tournaments should not use engine evaluation until after the game is done. Rather, the ability to use engine evals responsibly (sparingly) is the most important skill for a tournament commentator in the current age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 17:58
|
|