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
  #1  
Old December 5th 16, 09:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

My Proposed Change to World Championship Format – Think Outside of the Box!

Before going deeper into my proposal, let me explain why there IS a need for change.

1) We currently have the biggest chess attraction to the mainstream (in Magnus Carlsen) since Bobby Fischer.
2) In spite of this, FIDE has a hard time raising massive revenues (sponsorship, licensing rights, merchandising, etc.)
3) AGON struggles to raise money for the World Championship even with Carlsen’s name. $1 million prize funds is chump change for something this big.
4) No big network TV / LIVE streaming deal
5) Many national federations struggle to sell the benefits of chess to their target markets in spite of massive interest in chess globally.

Without being involved with any national federation or FIDE, I am able to raise $1.5 – $2 million per year for many years for SPICE and Susan Polgar Foundation projects. Therefore, it is obvious that chess is marketable if it is being done the right way!

Now, let’s talk about my proposal:

After seeing this 12-game World Championship match and reading countless comments, I would like to see a change to the format of the World Championship. I believe the new system that I am proposing will help make chess more exciting and make the World Championship more exciting and desirable for the fans, potential sponsors, especially for TV.

Instead of a 12-game classical match, I propose a change to 24 games:

* 8-game classical format (40 moves in 100′, 20 moves in 50′, g/15 + 30″ inc) where each win would result in 3 points (1.5 point for a draw)

* 8-game rapid format (25′ 10″ inc) where each win would results in 2 points (1 point for a draw)

* 8-blitz format (3′ 2″ inc) where each win would result in 1 point (.5 point for a draw)

The total points for the match would be 48 and one needs 24.5 points to win..

After 4 classical games, there will be an off day. After the conclusion of the 8 classical games, there will be another off day. Then after the 8 rapid games over 2 days, there will be the final off day. The 8 blitz games will be played in the final day.

In the event of a tie, an Armageddon game will be employed immediately after the blitz format to decide the winner.

Even though the proposed format will have 24 games, the number of days will be shorter and it will be more exciting for the fans and much more appealing to the potential sponsors and TV.

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 🙂
  #2  
Old December 6th 16, 02:19 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Euclides Zoto[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:34:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

My Proposed Change to World Championship Format Think Outside of the Box!

Before going deeper into my proposal, let me explain why there IS a need for change.

1) We currently have the biggest chess attraction to the mainstream (in Magnus Carlsen) since Bobby Fischer.
2) In spite of this, FIDE has a hard time raising massive revenues (sponsorship, licensing rights, merchandising, etc.)
3) AGON struggles to raise money for the World Championship even with Carlsens name. $1 million prize funds is chump change for something this big.
4) No big network TV / LIVE streaming deal
5) Many national federations struggle to sell the benefits of chess to their target markets in spite of massive interest in chess globally.

Without being involved with any national federation or FIDE, I am able to raise $1.5 $2 million per year for many years for SPICE and Susan Polgar Foundation projects. Therefore, it is obvious that chess is marketable if it is being done the right way!

Now, lets talk about my proposal:

After seeing this 12-game World Championship match and reading countless comments, I would like to see a change to the format of the World Championship. I believe the new system that I am proposing will help make chess more exciting and make the World Championship more exciting and desirable for the fans, potential sponsors, especially for TV.

Instead of a 12-game classical match, I propose a change to 24 games:

* 8-game classical format (40 moves in 100?, 20 moves in 50?, g/15 + 30? inc) where each win would result in 3 points (1.5 point for a draw)

* 8-game rapid format (25? 10? inc) where each win would results in 2 points (1 point for a draw)

* 8-blitz format (3? 2? inc) where each win would result in 1 point (.5 point for a draw)

The total points for the match would be 48 and one needs 24.5 points to win.

After 4 classical games, there will be an off day. After the conclusion of the 8 classical games, there will be another off day. Then after the 8 rapid games over 2 days, there will be the final off day. The 8 blitz games will be played in the final day.

In the event of a tie, an Armageddon game will be employed immediately after the blitz format to decide the winner.

Even though the proposed format will have 24 games, the number of days will be shorter and it will be more exciting for the fans and much more appealing to the potential sponsors and TV.

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 ?


Wouldn't this format your proposing favor a player like Nakamura or
Dominguez who are known for their blitz and rapid play. Yet neither
of them has a single win in classical chess against Carlsen, Caruana,
Kramnik. My mistake Nakamura did win against Carlsen in his last game
but he even admitted that carlsen just flat out blundered. It just
seems that many people in chess look at the classical time control and
frown upon it but It must be the correct way to truly show who is the
strongest player.

EZoto
  #3  
Old December 6th 16, 11:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar


Wouldn't this format your proposing favor a player like Nakamura or
Dominguez who are known for their blitz and rapid play. Yet neither
of them has a single win in classical chess against Carlsen, Caruana,
Kramnik. My mistake Nakamura did win against Carlsen in his last game
but he even admitted that carlsen just flat out blundered. It just
seems that many people in chess look at the classical time control and
frown upon it but It must be the correct way to truly show who is the
strongest player.


I think Susan Polgar's ideas are more like a triathlon. Sprint, 400 yard and Marathon sort of thing. Lots of people blunder at long time controls, and recently Kasparov outplayed a bunch of world class players at Blitz.



EZoto

  #4  
Old December 6th 16, 12:07 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Offramp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,151
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 11:34:30 UTC, wrote:
...Recently Kasparov outplayed a bunch of world class players at Blitz.


No he didn't.

Ultimate Blitz Challenge Tournament
Hikaru Nakamura 11/18 (+8 -4 =6)
Wesley So 10/18 (+7 -5 =6)
Garry Kasparov 9.5/18 (+6 -5 =7)
Fabiano Caruana 5.5/18 (+3 -10 =5)
  #5  
Old December 7th 16, 07:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 7:07:48 AM UTC-5, Offramp wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 11:34:30 UTC, wrote:
...Recently Kasparov outplayed a bunch of world class players at Blitz.


No he didn't.

Ultimate Blitz Challenge Tournament
Hikaru Nakamura 11/18 (+8 -4 =6)
Wesley So 10/18 (+7 -5 =6)
Garry Kasparov 9.5/18 (+6 -5 =7)
Fabiano Caruana 5.5/18 (+3 -10 =5)


Oh come on! Even GMs said he outplayed them all.

Another 10 minutes on the clock and he would have come first. True, his was not good blitz strategy, but there was a huge gap between his positional knowledge and the kids. And he hadn't played seriously for what, 10 years?

!!!

You can't have it both ways — if you admit at full classical time control even Carlson can make a stupid mistake, is that because he is too tired?

Classical controls are not optimum chess thereby. Why does the marathon say about world championship runners, rather than the 400 meters?


  #6  
Old December 8th 16, 06:23 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 12:42:34 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Classical controls are not optimum chess thereby.


Agreed. But it's too tempting to cheat using computers in postal chess, plus in
that format, there's nothing for spectators to see.

While classical time controls aren't "perfect" chess, they lead to better
chess, which I think is more interesting to serious chess fans, than any blitz
format would.

So, even though a format that emphasizes blitz would be *one* solution to the
"too many draws" problem, I'm not enthusiastic about that kind of solution, and
I suspect that neither are many other people.

That's why I've suggested adopting some sort of points system that rewards other endings to a chess game besides checkmate - so that even with both sides playing defensively, the side that manages to obtain a small advantage can receive some credit for it on the scoreboard.

That way, they can play, they can think, but they can't evade the fact that
they will need to out-think their opponent, or their opponent will gain at
least a tiny plus score... which may be enough to win, if the other games
didn't produce bigger plus scores.

John Savard
  #7  
Old December 10th 16, 12:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar


That way, they can play, they can think, but they can't evade the fact that
they will need to out-think their opponent, or their opponent will gain at
least a tiny plus score... which may be enough to win, if the other games
didn't produce bigger plus scores.

John Savard


I think many things may be considered, John, except changing the rules of chess. There is always a demand for more time which includes the new technology of adding time for moves played. I simply question why a marathon is the best form?

Chess will wind up like tennis, with the server taking for ever to make the perfect serve an ace — and it already seems to favor white in this way.

But there is something unsympathetic to human beings in wanting the best games — let computers play each other to 6 hour draws! — but these full games don't test players as much as shorter timelines, and why are they more interesting?

I am watching the London Classic at the moment which is a category 2 with average rating something like 2790 [higher than Fischer!] but who really understands that level of play during the game except other 2790 players?

KASPAROV'S IDEA

I favor something faster like an hour on each clock and if a 'delay' system is used then deploy Kasparov's idea, which is not to add time, but to delay the clock starting for 'x' seconds. This prevents an actual increase in time available.

Phil Innes
  #8  
Old December 10th 16, 01:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 5:08:32 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I simply question why a marathon is the best form?


When it comes to running, the marathon doesn't decide the world's best runner,
nor does the 100-metre dash. Instead, it's the 400 metres which is generally
considered the paramount running event.

Similarly, in Chess, traditionally, it hasn't been blitz chess - and it hasn't
been postal chess, either. Classical time controls stand between them:
constraining time enough so that it is reasonable and practical for two
opponents to play each other in person, but not constraining time more than is
necessary to achieve that.

I can't blame you, though, for considering changing the rules of Chess to be an
absolute last resort. That is a very reasonable position.

Given what happened in Checkers, though, with their two-move and then
three-move restrictions; given the success of _komidashi_ in Go; given that
Korean Chess uses material scoring to completely preclude draws...

and given that the draw problem in Chess is at least analogous to what Go faced
before komidashi came along...

I think it has reached the point where a rules change can be considered.

Classical time controls were an attempt, subject to constraints of practicality
and convenience, to avoid time being too much of an issue in play. Blitz chess
makes time paramount.

In my opinion, the shift to blitz chess would turn chess from an intellectual
contest of ideas to an athletic contest of quickness. That would be a big
change in emphasis, and, in my opinion, therefore, it would actually be a
*bigger* change than a change in the rules that scored points for stalemates
and material.

John Savard
  #9  
Old December 10th 16, 11:10 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Andy Walker[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar

On 10/12/16 12:08, wrote:
[...] There is always a demand for more time which includes
the new technology of adding time for moves played.


"Adding time for moves played" does nothing to give players
more time [as the added time simply comes off the initial allowance]
*except* that it goes some way towards restoring the old "16 moves
per hour" [or whatever] from the trend of the past couple of decades
towards "and after move 60, an hour to finish the game". Its real
merit is in avoiding the more unseemly aspects of time scrambles.
Eg, 4NCL now requires players to score throughout the game, even
when they have less than five minutes on the clock.

I simply question
why a marathon is the best form?


Hm. "Marathon" would seem to be a better description of
correspondence chess. Ordinary standard limits would seem to be
more like the middle-distance runs, as opposed to the sprints of
5-minute chess.

Chess will wind up like tennis, with the server taking for ever to
make the perfect serve an ace — and it already seems to favor white
in this way.


Hm, again. I thought you were a proponent of "Black is OK!"?

But there is something unsympathetic to human beings in wanting the
best games — let computers play each other to 6 hour draws! — but
these full games don't test players as much as shorter timelines,


Explanation needed. What is more testing about speeding up
the game to the point where games are decided by lack of time rather
than lack of skill? "Testing", that is, in an intellectual sense
rather than an athletic sense?

and why are they more interesting?


The WC is not about finding the most interesting player in the
world, but about finding the best.

I am watching the London Classic at the moment which is a category 2
with average rating something like 2790 [higher than Fischer!] but
who really understands that level of play during the game except
other 2790 players?


From that point of view, it doesn't matter what the time limit
is. If you are watching the best players in the world, then you are
not going to understand what they play as they play it, but only when
you get the chance to view the games at leisure, and perhaps with the
help of silicon monsters or skilled annotators or both. Outright
blunders excepted, of course, but these are not usual among top GMs
even at 5-minute chess.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #10  
Old December 11th 16, 02:50 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Euclides Zoto[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default Proposed Change to WCh by Susan Polgar



Chess will wind up like tennis, with the server taking for ever to make the perfect serve an ace and it already seems to favor white in this way.

I don't agree. Many tennis purists feel tennis was ruined with the
introduction of the graphite tennis racket. Even Bjorn Borg said
tennis would be only about serves and in a way he was right. He hated
the graphite rackets saying wood was the real way to play tennis. In
a way I agree since in professional baseball they use wooden bats and
never went to the aluminum bats. College and under use them. I think
wood rackets should have stayed in the pros and the graphite for the
non pros.

"
EZoto
 




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 02:08 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.