EPTThe Chess Thread - Page 88
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Lachrymose
Australia1928 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 01 2016 08:47 Nyxisto wrote: wow, stylish ending. The rapid games showed quite clearly that Magnus is the stronger player. Wonder if classical time controls should go down. Even throughout the classical matches it was clear that Carlsen was getting the better of the openings and consistently had an advantage on the clock. Rapids just emphasised that difference. iirc at the top level, rapid chess (15+10 and not 25+10 like here) has a 30% draw rate. Reducing classical time controls is certainly an interesting suggestion, but I think its also a matter of tournament formats encouraging playing for draws. The World Chess Championship in particular is very draw-ish. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On December 01 2016 08:51 Lachrymose wrote: Carlsen goes to 2906.0 rapid rating. Loses 13 points in classical though. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
Arevall
Sweden1133 Posts
On December 01 2016 08:49 Antyee wrote: There are a lot of people pushing for shorter time controls and I'm fairly sure there was at least one tournament with top players using shorter time control this year; but I can't remember which one. It was the Champions showdown in St Louis. "Vishy Anand, Fabiano Caruana, Hikaru Nakamura and Veselin Topalov battle it out for $60,000 over five days and three different time controls. The players first play each other twice at a fast classical time control (60+5) on Thursday-Saturday, then play each other twice at rapid on Sunday (15+5), then four times at blitz (3+2) on the final Monday." | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 01 2016 08:58 kwizach wrote: I prefer seeing higher quality matches over seeing the draw rate go down, so I oppose shorter time controls. Then you should be watching Stockfish beat Houdini at the tcec  .But there are other ways to reduce the draw rate. For example if wins gave 1.5 points in tournaments that would encourage more proactive play (this solution doesn't work for 1v1s ofc). | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On December 01 2016 09:02 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Then you should be watching Stockfish beat Houdini at the tcec .But there are other ways to reduce the draw rate. For example if wins gave 1.5 points in tournaments that would encourage more proactive play (this solution doesn't work for 1v1s ofc). They also tried something like that (wins were worth 3, draw worth 1, loss worth 0). Didn't have an observable impact on the draw rate. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 01 2016 11:54 Plexa wrote: They also tried something like that (wins were worth 3, draw worth 1, loss worth 0). Didn't have an observable impact on the draw rate. I know they scored things like that at the Bilbao Masters and a few other tournaments, but I didn't think there were enough games played to draw strong conclusions. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 01 2016 09:08 Nyxisto wrote: I think of chess more as a sport so I think getting the drawing rate down is fairly important, it shouldn't turn into an art exhibition. Also as Svidler pointed out the engine + player hivemind nowadays is so strong that too many games turn into theoretical drawing lines. This is not exactly an exciting type of play. This is one area where I think you are right nyx. Chess as artistic science is dead. If you want to watch perfect games just run simulations on your computer. The human element is all that matters now in chess, and lower time controls accentuate that. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
@ZigguratOfUr: I'm more interested in high quality play from humans than from computers. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
What percentage of games are not drawn in some of those cyborg events, where humans are paired up with a computer? | ||
|
Arevall
Sweden1133 Posts
On December 01 2016 14:14 kwizach wrote: Whether or not players have the stamina to still be accurate in the late game after a long game (or several long games over a few days) is precisely part of the human element in chess. @ZigguratOfUr: I'm more interested in high quality play from humans than from computers. Eeking out wins from theoretically drawn position is at best borderline high quality play and stamina/mentality would be just as important if they played several shorter games instead of one long game. I don't dislike classical time controls as much as I think the game can be more entertaining for everybody with different time controls. If we decide to keep classical time controls I think it's better to move on to another game than chess - where white and black is more equal and there is less drawing chance. | ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
On December 01 2016 08:47 Nyxisto wrote: wow, stylish ending. The rapid games showed quite clearly that Magnus is the stronger player. Wonder if classical time controls should go down. Yeah, it showed that he is the stronger player in rapid games. Not more, not less. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18745 Posts
On December 01 2016 17:15 Lucumo wrote: Yeah, it showed that he is the stronger player in rapid games. Not more, not less. I don't think anyone thought Carlsen was the weaker player in the classical games. While I don't blame Karjakin for this defensive play (I do the same thing vs stronger players than myself) he never initiated anything in the games. All the attractive positions and both non-draw games came because of Carlsen's moves. I am pretty sure if Carlsen had played the other games as he did game 12, Karjakin would have gladly joined him in drawing games fast | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 01 2016 14:50 IgnE wrote: So you like watching draws then? I'd rather not see draws than see draws, but I'd rather see draws than the drop in the quality of play that would accompany time control changes. I'm also skeptical that shorter games would make a significant difference when it comes to the size of audiences. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On December 01 2016 13:03 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I know they scored things like that at the Bilbao Masters and a few other tournaments, but I didn't think there were enough games played to draw strong conclusions. The main issue with that system is afaik, that in tournaments where players play both colors against each other, it encourages win trading. Like in those Supercups etc, which are played as round robin groups. And usually it is those tourneys who are the most draw heavy. Random swiss tourneys have an okayish draw rate, which often just stems from many games with a fair ELO difference leading to a table situation where wins are not uncommon anymore, so if you want to end near the top, you really have to win games. | ||
|
Yurie
12163 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18745 Posts
| ||
|
Bacillus
Finland2103 Posts
On December 01 2016 23:33 sharkie wrote: I really like the idea of playing rapid games before the 12 classical games. Winner of rapid leading the match which will avoid the draw borefests since one side has to think of ways to win. Is it better or worse if one player is awarded 1/2 of a point for winning the early rapid section? It feels like a less artifical system, but risks reverting to the present situation if the score gets even too soon. Maybe another 1/2 point rapid series at mid point if the players are even? Deciding the winner based on something that got played 2 weeks earlier translates to a pretty dull conclusion. Carrying the advantage in the scoresheet improves the narrative a bit at least. | ||
| ||
