Magnus's 10 Year Reign has included 5 defences of his World Chess Title Equals Emanuel Lasker

@WorldRenownPatzer said in #2:
> Magnus didn't win these all in classical. Lasker did.

Lasker had "won" a match by a score of 5-5.
Much more fair than a tie break of course.

@royalblue04 said in #11:
> Lasker had "won" a match by a score of 5-5.
> Much more fair than a tie break of course.

When you don't have computers and have adjournments, this is more of an accomplishment. We have to look at ALL variables.

I would prefer the premise you lock 2 players up in a hotel, give them all the food and drinks they want and they go at it without a clock. If the challenger can't win in the end, he is the loser.

@ WorldRenownPatzer said in #12:
> When you don't have computers and have adjournments, this is more of an accomplishment. We have to look at ALL variables.
>
> I would prefer the premise you lock 2 players up in a hotel, give them all the food and drinks they want and they go at it without a clock. If the challenger can't win in the end, he is the loser.
Actually, I would like an option similar (though not so extreme) to this as well: The players would not have access to a chess engine. That could be very interesting. Though it may be too laborious.

@WorldRenownPatzer said in #12:
> When you don't have computers and have adjournments, this is more of an accomplishment. We have to look at ALL variables.
>
> I would prefer the premise you lock 2 players up in a hotel, give them all the food and drinks they want and they go at it without a clock. If the challenger can't win in the end, he is the loser.

Well, with this definition Magnus had won all his matches in classical games.

Every time has its tools. Chess without computers as part of preperation or post mortem belongs to our time if you like it or not.

@royalblue04 said in #14:
> Well, with this definition Magnus had won all his matches in classical games.
>
> Every time has its tools. Chess without computers as part of preperation or post mortem belongs to our time if you like it or not.

No, there was time control. There were less rounds.

The reference to computers is that you don't play one day and then have access to the computer after. You would NOT have access to computers during the duration of the match.

@WorldRenownPatzer said in #15:
> No, there was time control. There were less rounds.
>
> The reference to computers is that you don't play one day and then have access to the computer after. You would NOT have access to computers during the duration of the match.

Well, then the players would not have no avccess to nny media or persons thatr have access to media. Sounds pretty much like prison. For what reason exactly you would like to sacrifice some of the more imortant human rights?

@royalblue04 said in #16:
> Well, then the players would not have no avccess to nny media or persons thatr have access to media. Sounds pretty much like prison. For what reason exactly you would like to sacrifice some of the more imortant human rights?

Why should they? I would hardly say paid hotel with food, drinks, even throw in movies and video games, access to a gym, swimming pool, etc... is like prison.

There could be a "second" clause where you are allowed one second to come in and discuss things. They just wouldn't have access to a computer. But what would that second discover that they couldn't discover before the match? It would be more of a mental preparation than chess preparation.

Kasparov had a Match against Karpov that was a Draw also & the first Match was halted

Good for Magnus!
But Lasker was just great and only someone like Capablanca could defeat him!

@WorldRenownPatzer said in #4:
> But they weren't all in classical. He beat Anand and Nepo who wasn't playing to the best of his ability.
Ain't that the challenger's responsibility? "To play the best of their ability"?