Such a Disgusting Ending

[Abba]

I like the idea of having the rapid playoff first, so that they know where the stand. So Carlsen would win the tiebreaks before the long match starts, letting Caruana know he has to win the match during the long games.

[relyea]

@Abba

I like the idea of having the rapid playoff first, so that they know where the stand. So Carlsen would win the tiebreaks before the long match starts, letting Caruana know he has to win the match during the long games.

When I did the Girls Invitational two years ago and the Cadet last year this is exactly what I did. I did a blitz 5+2 round robin to determine the tiebreaks for the indivisible prizes (scholarships and invitation to the Womens Championship). All tied players were considered champions and got plaques.

Alex Relyea

[dennisk]

@Abba

I like the idea of having the rapid playoff first, so that they know where the stand. So Carlsen would win the tiebreaks before the long match starts, letting Caruana know he has to win the match during the long games.

That’s an interesting idea – and it has been proposed before – but not a perfect solution. It would effectively give one player “draw odds” in the main match. So the main match is still not a level playing field. One player can sit back and play for draws, while the other one has to try for wins. If only there were a way to give them both an incentive to play for wins.

[Michael_A_Murray]

I don’t think tweaking the prize ratio would do much. The value of actually BEING World Champion far exceeds some ten or twenty percent decrement of the prize.

[jproc]

@dennisk

@jproc

@dennisk

@kbachler

@Allen

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.

Along the ideas above:

• 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 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.

Thanks for clarifying but the person who talked about going back to the 40/2 20/1 system never proposed doing away with sudden death and I guess that is what had me confused about your "adjournment"comment. Sudden death has to be kept for the reasons you mentioned.Anyway thx again for clarifying

[dennisk]

@jproc

… the person who talked about going back to the 40/2 20/1 system never proposed doing away with sudden death…

I think he implicitly did propose that by calling it a throwback – i.e., doing it the way they used to do it. When I started playing tournament chess (1985), a TC like 40/2, 20/1 always implied that the second control repeated indefinitely. There was no such thing as sudden death. I’d be willing to bet that this is what Kevin had in mind with his “throwback” proposal. Even now, sudden death is always specified. If no SD control is listed (even now), I would assume that there is none, and that the final listed period repeats indefinitely. It’s always possible that I assume too much, though.

[relyea]

@dennisk

I think he implicitly did propose that by calling it a throwback – i.e., doing it the way they used to do it. When I started playing tournament chess (1985), a TC like 40/2, 20/1 always implied that the second control repeated indefinitely. There was no such thing as sudden death. I’d be willing to bet that this is what Kevin had in mind with his “throwback” proposal. Even now, sudden death is always specified. If no SD control is listed (even now), I would assume that there is none, and that the final listed period repeats indefinitely. It’s always possible that I assume too much, though.

If you are assuming too much, then when would the game end? I just don’t see a reasonable answer to a time control other than repeating.

Alex Relyea

[dennisk]

@relyea

@dennisk

I think he implicitly did propose that by calling it a throwback – i.e., doing it the way they used to do it. When I started playing tournament chess (1985), a TC like 40/2, 20/1 always implied that the second control repeated indefinitely. There was no such thing as sudden death. I’d be willing to bet that this is what Kevin had in mind with his “throwback” proposal. Even now, sudden death is always specified. If no SD control is listed (even now), I would assume that there is none, and that the final listed period repeats indefinitely. It’s always possible that I assume too much, though.

If you are assuming too much, then when would the game end? I just don’t see a reasonable answer to a time control other than repeating.

Alex Relyea

Me either – unless it’s specified. Just a few years ago, we did still have an annual tournament here in Wisconsin with a time control of 40/2, 20/1, SD/1. We got away with it for years, but we finally decided that it was an unrealistic time control for a two-day 5-round Swiss. Saturday in particular could be brutal, and there was always the threat of having the site shut down before we could finish the adjournments. So we dropped the middle period and went to 40/2, SD/1 (and even that makes for a long day if there are 3 games).

But yes – if it’s listed simply as 40/2, 20/1, that has to be a repeating TC.

[kevin_bachler]

Perhaps a better way would be to have the tiebreaks be chess-boxing. youtube.com/watch?v=kK5TQSKmS3o&t=132s

[DENTONCHESS]

@dennisk

@jproc

@dennisk

@kbachler

@Allen

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.

Along the ideas above:

• 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 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.

I think also live broadcast revenues must be considered. It is harder to sell matches
of indeterminate length. After a point, and endless stream of “championship” games,
delays, etc would harm the appeal for perhaps a majority of the paid viewing audience.

Rob Jones

[dennisk]

@kbachler

Perhaps a better way would be to have the tiebreaks be chess-boxing. youtube.com/watch?v=kK5TQSKmS3o&t=132s

I’m cringing at the thought of Caruana or Giri vs. some behemoth. But, having said that, I’m having trouble thinking of any top player who is really big physically. Has there ever been a world champion with a physique that would make him intimidating in a boxing match?

[tmagchesspgh]

Fischer and Euwe come to mind because they were taller than average. Fischer used to train at facility used by boxers. I believe Jan Hein Donner was 6’8", but he was a pacifist.

[jjamesge1]

@MikeMurray

I don’t think tweaking the prize ratio would do much. The value of actually BEING World Champion far exceeds some ten or twenty percent decrement of the prize.

I’m of the opinion that having a true bonus, like a bonus of a million dollars to the winner if the match is finished by the end of the classical time controls. But if not, the million dollar bonus would be off the table.

I also think grandmasters in general less likely to take risks nowadays. A trend that’s been on a slow burner for decades, but has gotten worse since probably around 2005 when computer programs and databases and other training software has become so ubiquitous, and as time have moved from 2005 to 2018, the sheer volume of training material has been logarithmic. With a decent coach, I’m sure a talented kid could eventually become a GM with little more than some some freeware and using the massive amounts of free online resources.

[Michael_A_Murray]

@jjamesge1

@MikeMurray

I don’t think tweaking the prize ratio would do much. The value of actually BEING World Champion far exceeds some ten or twenty percent decrement of the prize.

I’m of the opinion that having a true bonus, like a bonus of a million dollars to the winner if the match is finished by the end of the classical time controls. But if not, the million dollar bonus would be off the table.

Yeah, that might do it. Good suggestion.

[Smythe_Dakota]

@dennisk

… A coworker had an interesting thought: you play a regular match … and if nobody is ahead, you declare the championship vacant. Then, in the next candidates tournament … both players would be seeded …

Not bad, but one small improvement is possible: declare co-champions instead of declaring the championship vacant. All other provisions would be the same as above, e.g. both co-champions would be seeded into the next candidates tournament.

Bill Smythe

[jjamesge1]

@Smythe Dakota

@dennisk

… A coworker had an interesting thought: you play a regular match … and if nobody is ahead, you declare the championship vacant. Then, in the next candidates tournament … both players would be seeded …

Not bad, but one small improvement is possible: declare co-champions instead of declaring the championship vacant. All other provisions would be the same as above, e.g. both co-champions would be seeded into the next candidates tournament.

Bill Smythe

I like the original suggestion. Just leave it vacant with both players automatically seeded to a later round in the next cycle.

I think it would cause more fighting chess due to the possibility of the title being left vacant. I would also bump the World Chess Champion match to 16 classical games. Maybe have 4 games the first week, then 3 games per week after that.

[bruce_leverett]

These suggestions involving leaving the title vacant are dangerous and subversive. If you can leave it vacant for two years, why not ten years, or a hundred years? What a lot of trouble and expense anyhow.

[Smythe_Dakota]

@bruce_leverett

These suggestions involving leaving the title vacant are dangerous and subversive. …

That’s why I prefer declaring co-champions. The mathematical result is exactly the same, but declaring co-champions shows a little more respect for the world’s best players.

Bill Smythe

[jjamesge1]

@bruce_leverett

These suggestions involving leaving the title vacant are dangerous and subversive. If you can leave it vacant for two years, why not ten years, or a hundred years? What a lot of trouble and expense anyhow.

Regardless of two years or ten years or more, it’s a statistical certainty that eventually, at least one player will want the title enough to not be satisfied with 12 draws. In any event, throwing more money is always a good thing. Even with those conditions, splitting the purse 50/50 with a clear winner getting a lot more if always a good incentive.
And when I say more, I mean like say, a million extra dollars for winning the tournament, not to be shared with the losing opponent. Maybe even sweeten the deal with even more money if they win with 2 or more points ahead of the opponent.

So it’s like, hypothetically, if it’s a draw, 2M will be split 50/50 but if a clear winner, then say the winner gets 2M and the loser still gets 1M. Never underestimate the power of money to motivate. Without the certainty of getting the title, it would certainly give both opponents a reason to play for a win. Chess professionals are professionals and have to live off what they earn in chess. After all, and it would be a hell of a motivation to be able to pick up a much more sizable check.

[dennisk]

@Smythe Dakota

@bruce_leverett

These suggestions involving leaving the title vacant are dangerous and subversive. …

That’s why I prefer declaring co-champions. The mathematical result is exactly the same, but declaring co-champions shows a little more respect for the world’s best players.

Bill Smythe

However, declaring the title vacant (in the event of a drawn match) might be a bigger incentive for someone to try to win the match. Both players might be perfectly happy with 12 draws if they both get to call themselves “World Champion”. I suspect they wouldn’t be as happy with neither being Champion. It’s all about giving them a reason to fight.