Shall we even bother commenting this result? The players just don't care for the spectators.
Let's see if we have any nice translators today
Yes we do
Am I the only one under the impression that the players looks very uncomfortable today?
BTw, I have an idea to motivate them. Right now, whatever they do, they'll get a lot of money. If one of them was to forfeit all his games he would still get 40% of the total prize. ($1.53 millions for the winner, $1.02 millions for the loser, which is not a motivating difference enough....) The idea would be: right, the total price is worth $2.55 millions and 12 games are planned: let's make a won game give $212,500, and a draw or a loss would give $0. 12 draws = $0 for both. And if they complain to the rule, there's an easy answer: "why do you even bother to come compete if you think you have no chance?"
EDIT: alternative idea: giving the winner of each game s/x of the money (s= total left sum, and x = number of remaining games).
I agree that the difference in prize money does not seem to be enough incentive! Heck, I would be more than happy to go get crushed 12 games in a row for a million dollars. But I do think they are players with some pride so their strategy is to win the match (which would mean cut down on any mistakes, which then leads to our draw fest)
Has anyone thought of THIS idea:
Since it is hypothetically an advantage to have White, what if:
instead of half point each for a draw...
White received .40 of a point and Black received .60 of a point!??
Thus reward Black for drawing with the disadvantage?!?
Of course this scoring system should only be considered at THIS level of play. At the lower levels it would be silly.
Just a though. I don't know how viable it is.
It seems to me that after 12 draws the score will still be 6-6...
That is why Julien's improvement works better.
And why do they have 12 games? Why not 13 or an odd number? (which would then make my original weighted draw system completely viable)
Shall we even bother commenting this result? The players just don't care for the spectators.
Let's see if we have any nice translators today
Yes we do
Am I the only one under the impression that the players looks very uncomfortable today?
BTw, I have an idea to motivate them. Right now, whatever they do, they'll get a lot of money. If one of them was to forfeit all his games he would still get 40% of the total prize. ($1.53 millions for the winner, $1.02 millions for the loser, which is not a motivating difference enough....) The idea would be: right, the total price is worth $2.55 millions and 12 games are planned: let's make a won game give $212,500, and a draw or a loss would give $0. 12 draws = $0 for both. And if they complain to the rule, there's an easy answer: "why do you even bother to come compete if you think you have no chance?"
EDIT: alternative idea: giving the winner of each game s/x of the money (s= total left sum, and x = number of remaining games).
I agree that the difference in prize money does not seem to be enough incentive! Heck, I would be more than happy to go get crushed 12 games in a row for a million dollars. But I do think they are players with some pride so their strategy is to win the match (which would mean cut down on any mistakes, which then leads to our draw fest)
Has anyone thought of THIS idea:
Since it is hypothetically an advantage to have White, what if:
instead of half point each for a draw...
White received .40 of a point and Black received .60 of a point!??
Thus reward Black for drawing with the disadvantage?!?
Of course this scoring system should only be considered at THIS level of play. At the lower levels it would be silly.
Just a though. I don't know how viable it is.
It seems to me that after 12 draws the score will still be 6-6...
That is why Julien's improvement works better.
And why do they have 12 games? Why not 13 or an odd number? (which would then make my original weighted draw system completely viable)
Well I guess so they each have an equal amount of chances with the White pieces. BUT give the reigning champ the White pieces first! Just like home court advantage in other sporting events. Make the challenger earn it!
JuLieN wrote:
- Gee Boris, look at that! How do those youngsters manage to pull such moves?
- Bah, they're all on steroids!
LMAO +1
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
JuLieN wrote:
Actually, the .6/.4 would be only half motivating, because they would just wait for their turn to draw the game after and even the score. So an improvement could be:
game 1: draw = .5 for both
game 2: draw = .51 for black, .49 for white
game 3: draw = .52 for black, .48 for white
and so on...
So you just can't seat and wait for your turn to draw.
Sure you can, if you're the player that draws white in the first game. You now have a decisive advantage right from the start.
This is the World Championship. It's not there for your viewing pleasure. If you're going to force players to take risks when playing for what should be the ultimate prize, you might as well just make it a Swiss system, or blitz, tournament.
rlsuth wrote:
This is the World Championship. It's not there for your viewing pleasure.
This is the heart of the problem. If there is no viewing pleasure there are no spectators. If there are no spectators there are no sponsors. If there are no sponsors there is no money. If there is no money there is no world championship. So yes, they do have to take viewing pleasure into consideration. And that's the same thing will all sports.
They did in the past, for example with the Sofia rule. So it means they are well aware of the problem. In this thread we just gave more ideas. Do not hesitate to improve them.
rlsuth wrote:
This is the World Championship. It's not there for your viewing pleasure.
This is the heart of the problem. If there is no viewing pleasure there are no spectators. If there are no spectators there are no sponsors. If there are no sponsors there is no money. If there is no money there is no world championship. So yes, they have to take viewing pleasure into consideration.
And that's the same thing will all sports.
How many sponsors were there when Steinitz played? .... or even before Fischer did? Even then, it was private funding that got him to the table, from a chess enthusiast that wanted to see the Championship happen. Personally, I believe that if someone doesn't want to play for the World Championship because it's not "worth" it, then let them go do something else. The World Championship should be about prestige, not financial gain, and certainly not tailored just for the publics viewing pleasure. There is a strategy involved in winning a match of the WC and that doesn't include taking dubious risks just so some viewer, with no real vested interest in your attempt to become WC, can enjoy themselves.
The current generations wants instant satisfaction. They're not interested in strategy, just tactics.
rlsuth wrote:
This is the World Championship. It's not there for your viewing pleasure.
This is the heart of the problem. If there is no viewing pleasure there are no spectators. If there are no spectators there are no sponsors. If there are no sponsors there is no money. If there is no money there is no world championship. So yes, they have to take viewing pleasure into consideration.
And that's the same thing will all sports.
How many sponsors were there when Steinitz played? .... or even before Fischer did? Even then, it was private funding that got him to the table, from a chess enthusiast that wanted to see the Championship happen. Personally, I believe that if someone doesn't want to play for the World Championship because it's not "worth" it, then let them go do something else. The World Championship should be about prestige, not financial gain, and certainly not tailored just for the publics viewing pleasure. There is a strategy involved in winning a match of the WC and that doesn't include taking dubious risks just so some viewer with no real vested interest in your attempt to become WC can enjoy themselves.
The current generations wants instant satisfaction. They're not interested in strategy, just tactics.
I've searched for prestige in the first five games and found none. If there's no viewing pleasure then there will be no viewers eventually. So yes, you're right: let's them have their world championship in their kitchen, of which nobody will care anymore.
Also there are very exciting strategical games (most of the K-K games were strategically exciting, and I even have in mind some very deep games by Petrossian...). So no, we're not after tactics, we're after some enthusiasm and guts.
Shall we even bother commenting this result? The players just don't care for the spectators.
Let's see if we have any nice translators today
Yes we do
Am I the only one under the impression that the players looks very uncomfortable today?
BTw, I have an idea to motivate them. Right now, whatever they do, they'll get a lot of money. If one of them was to forfeit all his games he would still get 40% of the total prize. ($1.53 millions for the winner, $1.02 millions for the loser, which is not a motivating difference enough....) The idea would be: right, the total price is worth $2.55 millions and 12 games are planned: let's make a won game give $212,500, and a draw or a loss would give $0. 12 draws = $0 for both. And if they complain to the rule, there's an easy answer: "why do you even bother to come compete if you think you have no chance?"
EDIT: alternative idea: giving the winner of each game s/x of the money (s= total left sum, and x = number of remaining games).
I agree that the difference in prize money does not seem to be enough incentive! Heck, I would be more than happy to go get crushed 12 games in a row for a million dollars. But I do think they are players with some pride so their strategy is to win the match (which would mean cut down on any mistakes, which then leads to our draw fest)
Has anyone thought of THIS idea:
Since it is hypothetically an advantage to have White, what if:
instead of half point each for a draw...
White received .40 of a point and Black received .60 of a point!??
Thus reward Black for drawing with the disadvantage?!?
Of course this scoring system should only be considered at THIS level of play. At the lower levels it would be silly.
Just a though. I don't know how viable it is.
It seems to me that after 12 draws the score will still be 6-6...
in which case a series of rather bizarre and draconian system of blitz matches will be played to determine the winner
is one player considered a significantly better blitz player then the other?
if so ,then its probably a good strategy for the better blitzer to draw his way through..take no unnecessary risks and then Blitz the other into oblivion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ches ... conditions
tomgdrums wrote:
White received .40 of a point and Black received .60 of a point!??
I like this idea! This and a more motivating money distribution should force both of them to take risks.
EDIT: Kramnik and Aronian had a shorter match (6 games) and managed to pull two decisive games. With style.
Actually, the .6/.4 would be only half motivating, because they would just wait for their turn to draw the game after and even the score. So an improvement could be:
game 1: draw = .5 for both
game 2: draw = .51 for black, .49 for white
game 3: draw = .52 for black, .48 for white
and so on...
So you just can't seat and wait for your turn to draw.
Let's say game 2 and game 3 is a draw, then:
one player gets 0.51 + 0.48 and the other player gets 0.49 + 0.52
both games are draw but the scoring gave one of them an advantage.
