I don’t think I like the escalating game prize through the match (why are late wins implicitly more important than early ones?) - but the truly interesting idea is to let the “per win” prize money rollover to the next win - and then count DOLLARS as match points. The concept is exciting. But that might have the reverse effect from what we want - as the match goes on perhaps no one will take a risk because 1 win would be insurmountable - so why take chances that could cause you to lose? And at some point in the match 1 win would win the match.
But these are good ideas to consider.
For example, in a normal match, if I have white in game 1, a draw, a win, and a loss in a normal match would be tied 1.5-1.5. In the revised scoring I would be ahead 2-1. An interesting premise. Is there any logical reason for it?
A chess ‘skins game’? Would the players agree to the format? (Experience suggests that if there’s enough money offered, the players will agree to almost any structure to the match.)
The media would love the accelerated prize fund, as it raises the stakes, literally.
BTW, if you don’t want ties, you could increase the skins by a small amount per game to ensure that the two players could not end up with equal amounts, ie,
Game 1: $100,101
Game 2: $100,202
Game 3: $100,303
Well, I thought the Sveshnikov had a risky reputation for creating games very complex both strategically and tactically, where neither side has easy access to a draw. To play it for a draw, especially as Black, is somewhat of an innovation in itself, isn’t it? I could be wrong, because I don’t know much about that opening.
Would “chess” be better with different rules? Let the market decide. Chess as currently defined has some professional players and some fans. Some other people would rather be fans of Chess960, or chess where draws are not allowed, or chess where endgames are not allowed, or … whatever. I don’t think I understand quite what they want because, if a new variant is introduced and then played at a high level with subtleties that elude most spectators, then that variant will also come under fire.
The current game is called “chess” and for, all its flaws, it has a long history. (The just concluded match drew heavily on that history and introduced many new wrinkles to chess opening theory.) It’s the game that USCF has always promoted. Some of us like it, warts and all. Knowledge of those aspects, warts if you like, has helped us gain success as players, or maybe our personalities have similar warts. If you want to play a different game, don’t let us stop you. Give it a snazzier name and compete with us! USCF has no policy saying that its members cannot also play other games.
Regarding various prize ideas: there is a technical issue when players have to choose between winning more money and gaining more rating points. It’s evident in any tournament in the last round, where someone will agree to a short draw with a lower rated opponent to win a prize, or with a higher rated opponent for fear of being outplayed and losing the prize. The more disconnect there is, the less accurate the ratings become because they are influenced by “noise” factors like the prize situation surrounding rated games. That should not be enough to derail good ideas that increase participation – after all the rating system is also supposed to increase participation – but I just want to note it. I would guess (it’s purely a guess) it’s not as big a source of rating inaccuracy as sandbagging, where some players actually want their ratings to go down rather than up.
Anand was impressed by Gelfand’s decision to return the pawn immediately by … c4. I guess a 1200 player could make the same decision at random, but for that span of 1500 or 1600 rating points in between, it would have been a hard decision if the idea even occurred to them.
They agreed a draw because it was drawn. They have very quick and accurate assessment of endings, taking into account dynamic as well as static factors. In game 3 today, Gelfand resigned immediately when it got to the rook endgame, because he could not establish Philidor’s position and he knew, and he knew that Anand knew, that this was one of the positions where White wins. Even though it wasn’t one where the pawn was close to queening, or where Black was close to being mated. They just understand endings that well. To us it’s unclear, to them it’s as clear as the Grim Reaper.
What do such players do when they understand and the audience doesn’t? Do they play it out to show everyone else, to some point where a 2300 player would think it obvious, or 2000, or 1500? No I think they do the right thing to play for the result only and not insult each other.
By the way, if one of those decisions were wrong, we’d all know immediately. Everyone seems to accept that the decisions by the players at the board were correct, even brilliant in some cases. The complaints must be, therefore, that they weren’t obvious enough to the spectators. Logically I don’t see what else the complaints could be about.
As Mike Nolan and Kevin Bachler correctly noted, my proposal basically applies golf’s “skins” concept to chess.
The idea behind raising the stakes in later games is to make it more enticing for the players to take risks as the match goes on - and to allow one win to cancel out a couple of earlier losses.
There is a reasonable argument that my proposal wouldn’t sufficiently incentivize “fighting” chess. There is a further reasonable argument that allowing, say, one win to wipe out 3-4 earlier wins (for example, Player A wins Games 1-4 for $200,000, Games 4-9 are drawn, Player B wins Game 10 for $700,000, Player A wins Game 11 for $150,000, and Game 12 is drawn) is unfair.
On the other hand, I think players at that level would be much more inclined to play more aggressively, especially with White. (For example, like most people, I was shocked that Game 12 of Moscow 2012 ended so quickly. Under my proposal, I really don’t think Anand would’ve shook hands in that final position - mainly because $600,000 in skins, a $100,000 bonus, and his WC title would make one hell of a carrot.) And, as Mike also noted, just imagine the attention a match like that might produce. One game of chess for six or seven figures - where the loser gets nothing? Now that would be entertainment.
