A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 21st 17, 01:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
RayLopez99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,536
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 8:53:13 PM UTC-5, raylopez99 wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:34:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:

The chess community is very fortunate to have a dynamic World Champion in Magnus Carlsen, one who attracts the most attention from the mainstream media since Bobby Fischer. It is a pity if the chess community does not capitalize on his broad appeal to further chess. The current system is boring and does not attract adequate sponsorship.

This is just my personal opinion 🙂


What will save chess is gambling. As we speak, there's a somewhat secret project (details on the web, Google it) that will 'crowd source' a prediction market that can be tweaked to support 'predicting' (or crudely, if not inaccurately, 'gambling') on who will win a chess match. This, not kind hearted sponsors, not Magnus Carlsen, will raise interest in chess and save chess.

You read it here first.

Why is 'crowd-sourcing' important? Because, like with uTorrent, you cannot stop the gambling via threats like are made now with 'online gambling being illegal in the USA' and other such nonsense.

The only bad news to the above is that it's inevitable that throwing games for money will become even more common in chess matches, but that's unavoidable (and even happens now at the lower levels anyway, for titled norms, rating points, etc).

RL


I'm too lazy to Google it, but the prediction platform will be of course decentralized and allow, unlike today's centralized platforms like Betfair, anybody to be a match maker or bookie. If you think player X will beat player Y in a match, you can propose odds, and anybody or any number of people can take the opposite side of the bet. Payments can be settled in Bitcoin.

RL
  #32  
Old February 21st 17, 01:59 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
RayLopez99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,536
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 8:56:26 PM UTC-5, raylopez99 wrote:
On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 8:53:13 PM UTC-5, raylopez99 wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:34:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:

The chess community is very fortunate to have a dynamic World Champion in Magnus Carlsen, one who attracts the most attention from the mainstream media since Bobby Fischer. It is a pity if the chess community does not capitalize on his broad appeal to further chess. The current system is boring and does not attract adequate sponsorship.

This is just my personal opinion 🙂


What will save chess is gambling. As we speak, there's a somewhat secret project (details on the web, Google it) that will 'crowd source' a prediction market that can be tweaked to support 'predicting' (or crudely, if not inaccurately, 'gambling') on who will win a chess match. This, not kind hearted sponsors, not Magnus Carlsen, will raise interest in chess and save chess.

You read it here first.

Why is 'crowd-sourcing' important? Because, like with uTorrent, you cannot stop the gambling via threats like are made now with 'online gambling being illegal in the USA' and other such nonsense.

The only bad news to the above is that it's inevitable that throwing games for money will become even more common in chess matches, but that's unavoidable (and even happens now at the lower levels anyway, for titled norms, rating points, etc).

RL


I'm too lazy to Google it, but the prediction platform will be of course decentralized and allow, unlike today's centralized platforms like Betfair, anybody to be a match maker or bookie. If you think player X will beat player Y in a match, you can propose odds, and anybody or any number of people can take the opposite side of the bet. Payments can be settled in Bitcoin.

  #33  
Old February 23rd 17, 09:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 7:12:04 PM UTC-5, Andy Walker wrote:
On 17/12/16 20:15, wrote:
I am still talking a game of 90 mins each, or 3 hours — an hour more
than a marathon. And this is more exciting I think, while allowing
for adventurous play.


This happens to be the time allowance in the local league, and
I find it significantly too fast.


Too fast for an amateur player who has worked all day, sure.

Well, that's for evening play, and
there are limits to how much time is possible if it takes an hour after
work to travel to the match and an hour after the match to get home at
a reasonable time. I don't think having to play moves without having
analysed them properly makes play more adventurous; if anything, it
leads to cautious, safe play. With blunders. My own most exciting
games are in correspondence chess -- despite computers.


The current criticism of top level play is that they are not so creative as those of pre-computer players. This criticism was voiced quite loudly by Brits commenting on the recent Gibraltar tourney by the commentating GM and also the Brit woman's champ, and [laugh] have you read her book yet?]

They seem to have a different measure of chess than you Andy, they want creativity, even if with more blunders, rather than the work of clerks at their database records of what other people did.

So, not incidentally, do the public. I don't really think people like safety, and though safety is increased by increasing the time allowed to it who says this is what chess is about?

Hardly anyone plays literally marathon-length chess any more. We all play blitz or 15 or 30 minute games. We do it because it is challenges our wits better than sitting down with a bibliophile for hours and hours.

The assumption that safe-chess is preferable has to be a personal decision, like Valium or BBC1.

Phil



[...]
Nevertheless, modern players still tend to use up as much
time as they have available in order to reach move 40. Is there
any sign that top players really would prefer to have substantially
less time?

Is there any sign that the game should be derived from the 99.999
percentile? Don't ask Nakamura.


"The game"? No. WC matches? Yes.

[...]
At faster rates of play you are encouraged to play dynamically and
not so safely, no?


No. Quite the opposite, actually. You are "encouraged" to
play without proper thought. I don't see why anyone should suppose
this to be good for the game.

Who is more interesting, Nakamura or Karpov?


When they play a match and we can compare directly, we'll be
in a position to know. Until then, you're comparing styles rather
than time limits. Note that Kasparov was much more "interesting" than
Karpov before their first title match, but pretty soon he'd clocked
up five losses and had to change his style -- which, of course, he
turned out to be well capable of doing.

[... P]laying gambits
which need be sorted out in more time than it takes to run a marathon
seem to have deadened the game, and the personalities of the players
— and ensured that the game does not achieve greater public
acceptance.


I don't pretend to know any of the top 30+ players well enough
to comment on their personalities. If you tell me that they're all in
bed by 9pm, stone cold sober and tucked up with a hot water bottle,
then I believe you. But I suspect that in truth they are as varied as
ever they used to be. I suspect also that they are, as a body, more
professional than formerly, and that they need to be. I hope further
that the days of fighting proxy wars by supporting Fischer or Spassky,
Karpov or Korchnoi, Karpov or Kasparov, with interventions by FIDE and
national officials, are over; that may account for a lack of stories
about the players.

As for "public acceptance", that sounds as though you support
John's claim that chess "isn't all that popular with the general public"
and "has gone into free-fall". If so, then I ask you the same question
I asked him -- do you have any evidence? You can refer back to my reply
to John for my reasons to assert that chess has, world-wide, never been
so popular. [That's not an argument for complacency, of course.]

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

  #34  
Old February 24th 17, 05:20 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Andy Walker[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On 23/02/17 21:08, wrote:
[...] I don't think having to play moves without having
analysed them properly makes play more adventurous; if anything, it
leads to cautious, safe play. With blunders. My own most exciting
games are in correspondence chess -- despite computers.

The current criticism of top level play is that they are not so
creative as those of pre-computer players. [...]


That may well be the case, but I don't see it as an argument
in favour of rapidplay. That's just a matter of the characters of the
top players. Some of them have a knack for seeing things that others
miss or dismiss; others play more routinely. That has always been
the case.

They seem to have a different measure of chess than you Andy, they
want creativity, even if with more blunders, rather than the work of
clerks at their database records of what other people did.


You are inventing false antitheses. If GM Bloggs is going to
rattle off 25, 30, 35+ moves of home preparation in a minute in a game
at 40 moves in 2 hours, then why should he not rattle off those same
moves in a 5-minute game? There is no reason why he should be more
creative in the 5-minute game. All we can definitely say is that he
has much less chance of analysing his moves properly [once he is out
of home preparation], and therefore he will *either* commit blunders
*or* stick to simple, safe lines of play.

So, not incidentally, do the public. I don't really think people like
safety,


Sure. Spectators, of any sport, like to see action. No-one
goes to watch boxers standing off and sparring at a distance, or to
watch footballers playing out a defensive 0-0 draw, or to watch F1
drivers tamely processing around the track. But you have not yet
established any connexion between speed and safety [or creativity],
and I [strongly] doubt whether you can. Creative players create at
any speed; cautious players are cautious at any speed.

and though safety is increased by increasing the time allowed
to it who says this is what chess is about?


Well, you seem to be saying that. I don't believe there to be
any connexion between "safety" and increased time limits; rather the
opposite. Again, this is largely a matter of personal character;
some players are cautious, others are more prepared to take risks.
We see the same in any number of other sports -- golf, snooker, tennis,
..... Golfer A will play safely down the fairway where golfer B will
smash the ball as hard as he can and hope to clear the water hazard.

Hardly anyone plays literally marathon-length chess any more. We all
play blitz or 15 or 30 minute games. We do it because it is
challenges our wits better than sitting down with a bibliophile for
hours and hours.


??? No, we do it because it's more fun, and because you can
get through several games of an evening. If you do something really
stupid, well, there's always the next game. The "bibliophile" is
your invention; a well-booked player is just as well booked at any
speed. OTOH, this thread is about the World Championship. There is
scope for a WC of 5-minute chess, and of 30-minute chess, and or
correspondence chess; but the "blue riband" event is the one at
more-or-less classical time limits, and I would like the champion to
be the best player, in the Lasker/Alekhine/Botvinnik/Karpov/Kasparov
tradition, the player whose games make the anthologies, and whose
combinations enthral and instruct us, not the player with the best
ability to move pieces nearer the clock.

The assumption that safe-chess is preferable has to be a personal
decision, like Valium or BBC1.


"Safe-chess" is again your presumption. Players such as
Alekhine, Tal, Kasparov, ... have been capable of creativity even
during WC matches. You are creating false connexions and false
opposites.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #35  
Old March 4th 17, 08:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar


They seem to have a different measure of chess than you Andy, they
want creativity, even if with more blunders, rather than the work of
clerks at their database records of what other people did.


You are inventing false antitheses. If GM Bloggs is going to
rattle off 25, 30, 35+ moves of home preparation in a minute in a game
at 40 moves in 2 hours, then why should he not rattle off those same
moves in a 5-minute game?


Perhaps you should answer your own question, since I didn't ask it! When it is difficult to answer you seem to propose your comparisons with 5 minute games — and I think I have mentioned 90 minute games.

Perhaps you are better than me and have all sorts of 35 move home-prepared sequences to meet all occasions? It's ridiculous to respond that way.

There is no reason why he should be more
creative in the 5-minute game. All we can definitely say is that he
has much less chance of analysing his moves properly [once he is out
of home preparation], and therefore he will *either* commit blunders
*or* stick to simple, safe lines of play.


I even know players who think sticking to simple, safe lines of play is fine, as long as opponent does it. It doesn't win games, viz: how do you maintain the initiative by being simple and safe unless you already were complex and daring such as to gain an advantage.


So, not incidentally, do the public. I don't really think people like
safety,


Sure. Spectators, of any sport, like to see action. No-one
goes to watch boxers standing off and sparring at a distance, or to
watch footballers playing out a defensive 0-0 draw, or to watch F1
drivers tamely processing around the track. But you have not yet
established any connexion between speed and safety [or creativity],
and I [strongly] doubt whether you can. Creative players create at
any speed; cautious players are cautious at any speed.


Unless they need to win. You seem to equate being cautious with scoring points — to return the favor to you, who else does?

and though safety is increased by increasing the time allowed
to it who says this is what chess is about?


Well, you seem to be saying that. I don't believe there to be
any connexion between "safety" and increased time limits; rather the
opposite.


I am saying that with reduced time there is a need to be more creative, since there is not enough time to deploy the full-librarian. It is not a matter of character of the player, as the need to perform during the game.


Again, this is largely a matter of personal character;
some players are cautious, others are more prepared to take risks.
We see the same in any number of other sports -- golf, snooker, tennis,
.... Golfer A will play safely down the fairway where golfer B will
smash the ball as hard as he can and hope to clear the water hazard.


The contest is with TIME, not 'taking chances.' Gold snooker and tennis are not played on the clock.


Hardly anyone plays literally marathon-length chess any more. We all
play blitz or 15 or 30 minute games. We do it because it is
challenges our wits better than sitting down with a bibliophile for
hours and hours.


??? No, we do it because it's more fun, and because you can
get through several games of an evening. If you do something really
stupid, well, there's always the next game. The "bibliophile" is
your invention; a well-booked player is just as well booked at any
speed.


AHA. In which case, what is your objection to tightening the time limit?

OTOH, this thread is about the World Championship. There is
scope for a WC of 5-minute chess, and of 30-minute chess, and or
correspondence chess; but the "blue riband" event is the one at
more-or-less classical time limits, and I would like the champion to
be the best player, in the Lasker/Alekhine/Botvinnik/Karpov/Kasparov
tradition, the player whose games make the anthologies, and whose
combinations enthral and instruct us, not the player with the best
ability to move pieces nearer the clock.



That's a pretty harsh and unfair comparison. The trouble with anthologies is that you can't see the time increment, and often you don't know the circumstance of the game — like it it 'must win' for one player, or is it, 'draw is enough'? And who buys this stuff anymore?

The assumption that safe-chess is preferable has to be a personal
decision, like Valium or BBC1.


"Safe-chess" is again your presumption. Players such as
Alekhine, Tal, Kasparov, ... have been capable of creativity even
during WC matches. You are creating false connexions and false
opposites.


Why not ask for even longer time controls for even better chess? In fact, if you want to see the kind of chess you are recommending as best, set up two computers with 10 hours each on their clocks and let them play each other.. That is the logical extension of your set of ideas.

It doesn't have anything much to do with what human beings are like, since another measure of what is 'best' is to see how people behave under pressure.

I submit to you that that is more normal in sporting events than your proposition.

Phil Innes



--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Polgar Opposition to Motion to Dismiss MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 5 September 10th 09 03:17 AM
Polgar Opposition to Motion to Dismiss MrVidmar alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 5 September 10th 09 03:17 AM
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.