Once Again, Game 30 Reigns

[DENTONCHESS]

Deciding the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP !!!
Ah, the purists must be biting their nails !!

Rob Jones

[brennanprice]

25 minutes with a 10 second increment is a far cry G/30 d0. The former is a fine tiebreak that avoids the horror of K-K I. The latter is an abomination that ought to be confined to the dustbin of history.

[DENTONCHESS]

@brennanprice

25 minutes with a 10 second increment is a far cry G/30 d0. The former is a fine tiebreak that avoids the horror of K-K I. The latter is an abomination that ought to be confined to the dustbin of history.

outdated, thinking, without much thought of growth in chess.

Rob Jones

[DENTONCHESS]

Well, I was hopeful, as G/30 no delay HAS been used in the recent past for this tie break.
However, Brennan is correct:
3. 7 Tie-breaks
3.7.1.a If the scores are level after the regular twelve (12) games, after a new drawing of
colors, four (4) tie-break games shall be played. The games shall be played using the
electronic clock starting with 25 minutes for each player with an increment of 10 seconds
after each move

Rob Jones

[dennisk]

@DENTONCHESS

Well, I was hopeful, as G/30 no delay HAS been used in the recent past for this tie break.
However, Brennan is correct:
3. 7 Tie-breaks
3.7.1.a If the scores are level after the regular twelve (12) games, after a new drawing of
colors, four (4) tie-break games shall be played. The games shall be played using the
electronic clock starting with 25 minutes for each player with an increment of 10 seconds
after each move

Rob Jones

I am not aware that G/30 with no delay has EVER been used as a tiebreak in any serious chess match or tournament – certainly not at the professional level. If I am wrong, please provide a specific example.

There was briefly such a thing as G/30 d0 back in the 1990s, but it “went away” as soon as digital clocks with delay became available – and good riddance, sez I. It should never have been used at all for serious rated chess. I agree with Brennan Price that it was/is an abomination.

Here’s an interesting thought, though: it’s unlikely, but the World Championship could end up being decided with no decisive games at all, and the title being awarded to whoever happens to have Black in the drawn Armageddon game. That, too, would be an abomination. I prefer the old method, where the champion had draw odds, and a challenger had to take some risks and actually play chess (in real chess games, not this rapid/blitz garbage) in order to win the title.

[DENTONCHESS]

@dennisk

@DENTONCHESS

Well, I was hopeful, as G/30 no delay HAS been used in the recent past for this tie break.
However, Brennan is correct:
3. 7 Tie-breaks
3.7.1.a If the scores are level after the regular twelve (12) games, after a new drawing of
colors, four (4) tie-break games shall be played. The games shall be played using the
electronic clock starting with 25 minutes for each player with an increment of 10 seconds
after each move

Rob Jones

I am not aware that G/30 with no delay has EVER been used as a tiebreak in any serious chess match or tournament – certainly not at the professional level. If I am wrong, please provide a specific example.

There was briefly such a thing as G/30 d0 back in the 1990s, but it “went away” as soon as digital clocks with delay became available – and good riddance, sez I. It should never have been used at all for serious rated chess. I agree with Brennan Price that it was/is an abomination.

Here’s an interesting thought, though: it’s unlikely, but the World Championship could end up being decided with no decisive games at all, and the title being awarded to whoever happens to have Black in the drawn Armageddon game. That, too, would be an abomination. I prefer the old method, where the champion had draw odds, and a challenger had to take some risks and actually play chess (in real chess games, not this rapid/blitz garbage) in order to win the title.

At least one of the tiebreaks won by Magnus Carlsen were G/30 no delay.
As to you other point, I agree with you totally. Any tiebreak procedure depending on
alternate game time controls or rules is an abomination. I like the idea of keeping the match at 12 games, and a tie at the end means the World Champion keeps the title.

Rob Jones

[GKarRacer]

@DENTONCHESS

At least one of the tiebreaks won by Magnus Carlsen were G/30 no delay.

If you are referring to the tie-breaks in the world championship matches, then you are incorrect. All of them were G/25 with 10 second increment. See 2013 Rules (tie-break not played), 2014 Rules (tie-break not played), and 2016 Rules (tie-break won by Magnus).