#41 Yes, the players are not at fault, the tie break system is.
#40 A 3-1-0 scoring system makes no difference at all in a one to one match. It would make a difference in tournaments with more than 2 players.
#33 agree, Magnus Carlsen has not proven himself to be better than Karjakin or Caruana in classical chess. So the classical chess championship has been degraded to a rapid championship.
In other sports it is common that even the highest events are "tie-broken" by variants (shooting penalties or something like that), tossing coins, roulette (we had this in chess as well).
In chess it is simply classical chess with a bit a less time, but no completely different rules. Have you ever heard that the Champions league had no winner this time but rather a "penalty master"?
But people were complaining that it was no longer "classical chess" when the time was shortened to say 5 hours a game...
I'll keep it with Magnus: Everyone is entitled to have his splendid opinion.
And there's also the fight that was a draw, decided by judges.... the list goes on.
Who says penalties are universally accepted? And who says that making a stupid rule in one game is enough argument to mess more games up?
Sure it's fair because both the players know the rules and in principle they have equal chances, there are no sudden deaths ect, but that doesn't make it reasonable necessarily. There is still room for debate.
So, #43, you're saying there is no limit to what is classical. It's just what you decide to call classical?
The current format is appreciated by the public and creates some money in a certain sense. Of course we can return to 100+ games within some months because some chess players want to do so... but the bonus will vanish as well.
Guys, that ain't work! Times have changed. The times are over when the top seed is calling for adjournement in case they were afraid to blunder and afterwards their teams analyze the position 'til the cows go home.
One has to come to an end, sooner or later. If you like it or not.
I don't think anyone is seriously advocating for going back to the ways of old...
But that doesn't mean they just got it right.
They fought for a whole freaking month and then one Wednesday a new chess champion had to be found by any means necessary. What's the logic in that? Armageddon.. Why not coin toss? Football matches have been decided like that. Why not? Apparently "who cares" how it happens, as long as it happens and it sells in the process. In the digital age our attention span is within the minutes. We stand outside the glass wall and have an answer from Sesse, so move on already!
There are quicker classical formats they could play for some extended games for example. The players themselves were open to if not supporting a 16-18 games match.
Sure some would have a problem no matter the solution, but I believe there is a better compromise than what they came up with.
Playing rapid games is pretty close to classic chess, tossing a coin is nothing chess-related.
oic
