“The Grand Tour was originally planned as a circuit of purely classical tournaments but speed events dominated its 2018 schedule. In the only all-classical Tour tournament at St Louis Vachier-Lagrave drew all nine games while Nakamura drew six and lost three, so the two finalists in London failed to win a single classical Tour game between them.” theguardian.com/sport/2018/ … tour-final
Perhaps the time has come to introduce some true time pressure into the classical game format? If we eliminated all increments and delays, might that change the playing field enough to make it more difficult to play for a draw? It would certainly give a boost to the analogue chess clock industry.
Back in the old days (~30 years ago) we didn’t have delay or increment. We also didn’t have sudden death time controls. Now we’ve eliminated 99% of adjournments from Classical Chess, largely because engines are so strong. We have three basic choices: delay/increment, adjournments, or some variation of 14H. I choose the former.
Perhaps 2hr + 1hr + 30min to adjournment. Allow computers to be used for the adjournment, or use computers to decide the game based on multiple computer engine analysis. Average advantage of three engines. Anything <.5 or 6 pawn is a draw.
Multiple time controls, adjournments, and adjudications are anachronisms. As for the use of computers to help players or evaluate positions, no. That would reinstitute adjudications, one of the old, subjective, and pernicious practices.
If you want to have drama and a higher percentage of victories, use one time control session with 10 or 15 second delay, the way David Bronstein suggested. That will provide the comedy of errors that people like to see so that they can believe, with the use of their silicon monsters, that they are better than the players. If you can’t sit still doing a task like reading or playing chess for four hours, then you have other problems that make you worthless in the real world of work. Kids can read Harry Potter books from dawn till dark and play video games for 8 hours without their attention lapsing. Seems to me an official championship style game that is Game 120 with 10 second delay should be enough time to play a quality game. If you are concerned with the problem of having a bathroom break, have one timeout during the game.
Great, now all you need to do is raise about $10 million to sponsor the match, and FIDE might give your opinion 2 seconds thought before deciding to do it some other say.
I don’t think I saw anything in Barden’s column warranting any new ideas. Moreover, Nolan was on point because whether the propensity for top players to draw a lot is really a problem warranting solution, FIDE is going to follow the money. No proposal, no matter how well thought out, is going to get traction without money.
You might want to take a look at Nigel Short’s column in the latest New In Chess. Short sees definite problems with the current WCC format and the fact that the past two WCC matches have been determined by rapid games. As he correctly points out, the present format was created not for sporting purposes but for commercial purposes. IIRC, Agon and its corporate successor had much to do with that.
Short raises several possible changes for consideration. Extend the match to at least 16 games. Reduce the number of rest days. Return to the rule that a tie results in the champion keeping the title. Do not allow draws until the 40 move time control has been reached. Short did not address tiebreaks which leads me to think that he favors the the tie title stays with the champion rule.
I suspect GM Short was referring to agreed draws prior to 40 moves. IIRC, agreed draws in the Carlsen vs. Caruana match were not permitted before move 30.
I don’t think 16 games is enough. The minimum I’d want to see is 18. My preference would be 22 or 24.
As Short noted, these are young guys in good condition physically and mentally. They don’t need so many rest days. In a 16, 18 or 22 game match, fatigue should not be a factor.
The champion keeps the title in the event of a drawn match doesn’t solve the draw problem directly, but it does make it more likely that the challenger will play for a win otherwise they won’t become champion.
If tiebreaks are to be used I’d prefer sets of four G-90 games with no break between sets of four games until one player wins a set of four.
In the more practical Universe, there are human factors that often affect outcome. The intuitive master of that aspect of the game was Fischer. I’d be happy with 18-24 games with the champion keeping the title in the event of a tie.
Yes!! So what’s the answer? Gradually speedier time controls as the match progresses. Eventually it might come down to blitz, but only after a long road.
Example: First 16 games: 40/90 SD/30 inc/30. If tied after 16 games, next 4 games G/90 inc/30. If still tied, next 4 games G/60 inc/30. If still tied, next 4 games G/60 inc/5. Next 4, G/45 inc/5. Then G/30 inc/5. Etc.
Initially, the winner would be the first to reach 8.5 in the first 16 games. If tied at 8-8, play the next four, etc. Always go in 4-game sets, so that a single game won’t decide the outcome.
The number of games per day could gradually increase. Start at 1 game per day, but no rest days, for the first 16. Then go to 2 games per day through G/60 inc/30, then 4 games per day. then 8. By the time it gets down to G/3 inc 2, all remaining games could be played in the same day.
