An absolutely disgusting way for the classical WCC to end two cycles in a row. Even more so this time after Carlsen offered his now infamous draw in game 12 from a clearly better position.
FIDE needs to completely rethink the WCC format. I suggest going back to a 24 game match. If its tied at 24, the champion keeps his title. If you must have a tiebreak, make it in sets of four games timed at G-90 with NO increment or delay. Play two games per day, no rest days until the match is decided by one payer winning a four game set, one after the other with no rest days between sets of four games.
The sentiment amoung at least some of the group that will be deciding on the format seems to be 12 games is too few, more than 24 is probably too many, champion keeps in the event of a tie is too big of an advantage, and there can be more games between rest days. I have mentioned that test days on the weekend aren’t the best for viewing/interest in the US.
It is hasty to say that, because the last two matches were somewhat boring, there’s something wrong with the format.
It appears that Caruana underestimated the degree to which he was unprepared for the rapid games. Carlsen, on the other hand, knew the score. If Caruana had realized what a serious problem he had, he might have tried to solve it, by getting better at rapid, or to work around it, by sharpening his repertoire for the slow games. (Has anybody noticed that he only played 1 e4 with White? Carlsen at least was game enough to try 1 d4 and 1 c4 when he didn’t have any luck with 1 e4.)
Does the same thing apply to Karjakin? I wasn’t watching that match as closely as this one, but I think that Karjakin had basically the same problem. If there is a rapid tiebreak, you had better either up your rapid game, or avoid the tiebreak.
Given that Karjakin lost his match that way, why didn’t Caruana learn from Karjakin’s mistake? I don’t know, of course.
The commentators all criticized Carlsen for sliding into the rapid tiebreak rather than charging hard in the late rounds. But, today’s results show that Carlsen handled things fine. (At the cost of going from 60% to 55%. But, it’s for the glory, not the money ) The rest of the world needs to figure out what it takes to get past Carlsen.
I will just point out that Topalov tried option 2 against Anand, overpressed, and lost the match in the final game of regulation (rather than in the tiebreak that he was afraid to go into). So there is no perfect solution. I would be in favor of trying to adjust the format to avoid the possibility of tiebreaks.
A coworker had an interesting thought: you play a regular match (of however many games, although 12 may not be enough – personally, I like 24), and if nobody is ahead, you declare the championship vacant. Then, in the next candidates tournament (into which both players would be seeded), the top two finishers play a match for the title. I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea of having two-year periods with no champion, but I like it better than these silly rapid/blitz tiebreaks. Such a format would give both players a strong incentive to try to win the regular match, with no possibility of having it decided by an inferior form of chess.
Possibly, although Carlsen (unlike Anand), didn’t capitalize on it – and didn’t even appear to try to. It seemed like he had his mind made up to draw the game and just go to the tiebreaks. With no tiebreaks (and no draw odds for the champion), that wouldn’t have been an option. And I think that would have been an improvement. If the current trend continues, it won’t be long before they decide not to bother with a real match and just play rapid games right from the start. And that would be a sad day.
Yes Caruana had a repetition in game 12 if he wanted it ,played on and ended up in a worse (lost) position.After the games today Carlson said that Fabi is every bit his equal in classic chess and that his own play the last two years has been below his standards.I thought it was a very interesting match. Hopefully they increase the number of games in the next cycle to 18 or 24.Looking forward to 2020 already
I don’t know if this would help the fighting spirit, but if there was additional purse awarded to the winner if it was a clear winner at the end of the 12 classical games, that might spur the contestants to play fighting chess and not draw every game.
I think it goes without saying that tactically risky chess engines keep being invented because in fact, riskier tactical play can still win games, even against Komodo 12 and Stockfish 9, even if the engines can’t win a match against the top engines.
-That is, I don’t agree top level human chess has to be mostly draws, but I do think there needs to be an impetus to get humans to take riskier lines. Same applies to chess engines. The top engines will draw a lot of games, but some engines are programed to take riskier lines, and they do win against the top engines… sometimes anyway.
I don’t think the ending was disgusting at all. Clearly Magnus Carlsen was favored to win in shorter time controls, so he no driving reason not to go into tiebreaks.
In any event, both sides had opportunities in the 12 classical games to convert a game to a win, so it’s not like is was 11 forced draws in a row before Magnus, on the 12th game, offered a draw in a superior position.
I think there was such an incentive – the purse was split 55-45, but it would have been 60-40 if the winner was determined in 12 games. Maybe the difference needs to be more than that.
I agree that they didn’t just play 12 boring draws. There was some fighting chess in the match. Both players had winning or near-winning positions at various points, and played aggressive chess to get those positions. But then they either couldn’t find the winning continuation, or chose not to take the risk of playing for the win – i.e., they “blinked”. I don’t blame them for that, but it sure is frustrating to the spectators – and looks a little suspicious when Carlsen starts winning effortlessly as soon as they get to the rapid games. Maybe his superiority over Caruana really is that much greater at a rapid time control, but something about it just doesn’t feel right.
Really?
It appears that 16 or 18 games with fewer rest days are the numbers being discussed in earnest. As a fan following the match, I would prefer 20 or 22 if not 24 with one rest day after every seven or eight games.
The issue of tiebreaks will make or break it for many fans. Rapid and blitz tiebreaks are, IMO, totally bogus and not worthy of a classic timed match with the present long time controls. Best of four G-90 games with no delay or increment. If they tie, do it again at G-90 until someone wins. Play two games per day with no rest days between sets of tiebreak games.
Yes. Changes are being discussed. I posted that before. But a part of the FIDE reorganization the matter of world championship organization funding and format is being assigned to a working group to recommend possibly changes. As that group is just getting underway after the completion of the world championship for both women and the open championship, no decisions have been made.
Of course this is going to be examined internally.
It will be interesting to see if Leonard Barden’s possible scenario comes to pass and, if so, under what sporting terms.
“Caruana will also have plenty to look forward to in his home city of St Louis and for the US team, which will aim to capture the world team championship and regain the Olympiad gold medals from China in 2020. America’s billionaire benefactor Rex Sinquefield, who has made St Louis a global capital for international chess, is always looking for new ideas. Would Carlsen and Fide agree to a Carlsen v Caruana rematch in St Louis in 2019? Giving the champion the right to accept a challenge from the No 1 in the rankings is at least an arguable concept.” theguardian.com/sport/2018/ … ss-game-10
Consider having the result of a tied match being a vacant World Champion seat. (Not satisfying, I agree, but perhaps there is an argument where this makes sense.
Assuming we need to keep “tie goes to the champion”, consider decreasing only the champion’s share of the purse in the event of a tie. So for example, if the purse is otherwise normally split 50/50 and the World Champion keeps the title in the event of a tie, then consider reducing the Champion’s share - perhaps to 40% for example
There are ideas that can be combined with the idea that Randy mentioned (first to win a game if a tie.) For example
After paying each player a base amount (for argument’s sake, $200k), divide the remaining purse based on the percentage scored
Additionally, if the match is tied after X games (doesn’t necessarily have to be the scheduled end of the match), reduce the prize fund by 10% for each additional draw.
Another approach is to offset the champion’s tie match advantage via scheduling. So for example, give the challenger the right to exercise the option of flipping the colors one or two times per match. Thus, if the challenger catches the champ in a prepared opening, and doesn’t press home the advantage, the challenger could announce (at the start of the next game?) that he/she is exercising the right to flip the scheduled colors. This puts the champion in a position of having to prepare for two colors for the next game, and creates an opportunity for the challenger to press home the (previously missed) advantage.
A throwback approach might be to play any playoff under “old-style” time controls rather than blitz. 40/2, 20/1, no delay.
None of the above are perfect, the second-to-last idea at least potentially adds some drama.
All of these are interesting, although the last one (the “throwback” approach, with no sudden death) may be impractical unless you also go back to having adjournments, which has two major drawbacks: (1) a “rest day” (or adjournment day) after every game, and (2) computers. If both players can simply have Stockfish (or some other strong engine) analyze the adjourned position, it almost seems pointless to resume the game. Why not just let the computer adjudicate? For this reason, we almost never do adjournments anymore at the local level (although I still have a short stack of adjournment envelopes for the one Wisconsin Tournament (the Northeastern Open in January) that does still do adjournments).
I do not understand why going back to 40/2 then 20/1 with no increment would require adjourments? That statement makes no sense to me.Obviously I am missing the point but what is it?
I’m assuming that he meant 40/2, 20/1, 20/1, … for as long as it takes (and that’s the only way it makes sense – you can’t really have a “final” time control with a fixed number of moves, or without sudden death). This means that you can’t control when the game will end, so you either (a) go back to one game per day (obviously unworkable for most chess players), and/or (b) you have adjournments (see my original post that you responded to). That is the point. This sort of time control with no adjournments would make it impossible to schedule a 5-round weekend tournament.
ETA: Of course, everything I say above applies more to a normal US chess tournament (the kind you or I could play in) than to a World Championship match – where they already do play only one game a day. But think about it: how many top-level players would be willing to play a game that could go on indefinitely, for who knows how many hours? In the old days, when they used this sort of TC, they always adjourned at move 40. Without adjourning, you’re committing the players to the possibility of sitting at the chessboard for much longer periods than they’re used to.
) The rest of the world needs to figure out what it takes to get past Carlsen.
