Winning starts with what you know
The new version 18 offers completely new possibilities for chess training and analysis: playing style analysis, search for strategic themes, access to 6 billion Lichess games, player preparation by matching Lichess games, download Chess.com games with built-in API, built-in cloud engine and much more.
Before we start here are the articles that led to the current debate.
 |
Kasimdzhanov: Open letter to FIDE – with a proposal 21.07.2011 – Uzbek-born grandmaster and former FIDE knockout world champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov, now a permanent second of World Champion Vishy Anand, is a profound thinker, and not just in chess openings. He has now written an open letter to FIDE, describing the current unsatisfactory situation in top professional chess and proposing a startling solution. |
| |
Kasimdzhanov's proposal – our readers react 03.08.2011 – Two weeks ago former FIDE world champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov made a startling proposal, designed to lift chess out of what he perceives to be a crisis: eliminate draws by playing rapid and then blitz games if there is no decisive result. Naturally our readers commented on this idea with vigor – and many with interesting counter-proposals. Here is a (very large) selection of letters. |
| |
Shipov: Chess as a sport and the three-point system 07.08.2011 – Sergei Shipov is a Russian grandmaster (peak Elo 2662), trainer of many top players and talented juniors, journalist and author. His web site Crestbook is well appreciated by Russian fans, as is his live commentary in top events. Sergei sent us the following article, in which he weighs in on our recent debate, initiated by GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov, on draws in chess. |
Note that at the end of this feedback page we ask you not to send in further letters, as we are planning to publish a new article which will point to a different, in our opinion far simpler solution.
Dustan Straub, San Jose, California
After centuries, it's time for a change to the rules of the game itself. Make
stalemate a victory for the side inflicting the stalemate on the theory that
to compel ones enemy to finally throw himself upon the sword is, indeed, a victory.
To keep this consistent with move rules, if a players inadvertently moves into
check - it is now a legal move resulting in immediate loss of the game. Admittedly
this is a radical solution, but this is no time for the deadening affect of
ultra-conservatism. Our beloved game is in danger.
Ashwin Jayaram, Bangalore, India
This is in reply to Kasimdzhanovs suggestion. Chess can never be compared with
tennis. Any person can appreciate Federer's technique, while only a chessplayer
can cheer after watching Bh3 from Topalov-Shirov 1998. And another key difference
between tennis and chess is that in chess the elite only play amongst themselves,
while in tennis, it is very possible to meet a monster across the court. I find
Kasimdzhanovs idea to be quite absurd, there is nothing wrong with a draw. Many
of the epic clashes in chess have ended in draws. The evil in chess is simply
that a person will pay an amount to witness a tournament and everybody has finished
with empty games.
I have a very simple idea (which im fairly sure has been used before). Why dont organizers simply stop paying appearance fees, and instead use that amount to boost the prize fund. A player can calmly take a quiet draw as he is already getting paid. But if a draw or a win is the difference between paying the rent or not, then there will be an honest attempt at fighting. Also, Federer would never even consider missing a grand slam if it wasnt for a very important reason.
Scott Cohen, Hobart, Australia
This is the equivalent of making two marathon runners race over a 100 metre
sprint if they cannot be separated at the finish line. This will not and should
not ever happen. Kasimdzhanov has this so wrong!
Carl Reynolds, Christchurch, New Zealand
Many proposals have now been given to reduce the prevalence of draws, some good
some bad. Any chance of constructing a poll for the readers on which they prefer?
Choices might be something like:
Johannes Struijk's proposal for reducing short draws (no draw offers or move repetitions permitted before the first time control) is very appealing. The resurrection of lines that are currently unused because of possible forced perpetual checks by the defender would change the assessments of some variations, but a tournament needs to be played under those rules to reveal how much that might affect the game and upset the purists. I certainly think it worthwhile to try in order to eradicate short draws.
One point, the New Zealand Go rules specify that the move that would cause repetition is only forbidden if the position would be replicated AND it would be the same player to move. I propose adding that extra clause, and perhaps Johannes could clarify whether he intended that a twofold (but not threefold) repetition of position should still be permitted, as is currently the case?
Andrew Morabito, Hawthorne, NJ USA
I have a few suggestions as to how chess can move forward without resorting
to the more radical ideas such as Fischer Random etc. If the extent of opening
knowledge is as bad for the game as people seem to think, why not do away with
the openings entirely? What I mean is, why not start tournament or match games
from known theoretical positions selected at random so that neither competitor
can "book up" prior to the game? Wouldn't it be a truer test of ability
to start from middle or near middle game positions that are only revealed to
the players at the moment they sit down to play? Naturally the positions would
have to be those judged as even to begin with. Secondly, there's got to be some
sort of score posted throughout the game so that even wood pushers can have
some idea of who's "ahead" at any given time – at least as considered
by a computer. And lastly, time limits would have to be adjusted so that games
do not run too long. Without personalities like Fischer and Kasparov or Karpov
to "drive the engine" so to speak, the game itself has to take center
stage. It can only do this at faster time limits that can create excitement
independently of the players. Chess has got to come to TV – it's the only way
to grow the sport. And the only way to get such an intellectual pursuit accepted
by the general public is to somehow cram the game into maybe a two hour window
so that it becomes more watcher friendly.
Bill, Coyle, Canon City USA
Just a note: I believe as similar plan has actually been tried. I believe it
was a proviso in Fischer/Spassky II that a draw agree before 25 moves would
result in colors switched and a new game to begin after a 30 thirty minute break.
When in (one of the games) an early draw was agreed, Fischer invoked the rule.
Spassky, according the story I remember, had forgotten the proviso and protested.
I believe Fischer didn't force the issue and the draw was allowed to stand.
Jonathan Tan, Manila, Philippines
Chess is not the only sport that experiences a decline in public interest. I
think it is not due to the nature of the game not being physical, nor about
the draws. Take for example the case of boxing, the interest has declined significantly
throughout the years, even if it is a physical contact sport. I think the most
important factor for popularity in any sport is having charismatic athletes.
Like in boxing, the reason why it was so popular in the 70's and 80's is because
of Ali, Sugar Ray, and all those very charismatic and colorful athletes. They
fight with spirit and not only for paychecks. And the fans feel the energy and
become very interested. Same with chess. It is players with too much pride and
spirit (like Fischer) that brought chess to worldwide success and interest.
I strongly feel that whatever rules you put on tournaments, it will not change
anything. The spirit of the old timers must come back to the new generation.
Football is a very special sport. The mind of the players are not corrupted
with just treating their game as "work". There is still a lot of pride
in football players that's why it is still successful to this day. It is not
the result that the people is most interested at, but its about the fight. The
end are just numbers. But the fight is an experience. You reap what you sow.
If chess professionals don't play with a lot of heart, there is not much to
expect. People are animals also. Fans feel the energy and the attitude of the
players. The players must change from within, or the sport they love will suffer.
Guillaume Wüthrich, France
The problem is not the tournaments, but the tournament offer by the organisers.
Let's organise tournaments with different time controls, i.e. blitz and 20 (25)
minutes, for exemple, along with the classical ones. The public can then choose
its thrill and learn to enjoy them all in the end most probably. After all,
if sponsors choose to organise tournaments, if players can make money in those
tournaments, it is because the public demands it. It's time to spread the offer.
For those who are still here, I would want to note that it's not possible to
change the rules so that 3 times repetitions, perpetuals and so on are no longer
possible. This would radically change the game in itself. Just like stalemate
– okay, in a way it's strange, but without it you win with king and bishop
against king, and then chess is not chess anymore. Let's not change any rules
of the game itself – otherwise, juste play Chinese chess, where short draws
do not exist.
David Webb, Beirut, Lebanon
I don't think eliminating the draws is the solution to make chess more popular,
it's just wrong diagnosis. Draw are part of chess, and always should be. The
solution is twofold: first is to have more open tournaments where players of
different strength can match up, that they don't know each other very well.
It would make fighting chess, and more diverse openings, than when we have the
same players each time facing each others. The second suggestion is to have
more televised chess. It shouldn't be just online, we should have a TV chanel
just specialized for chess 24/7. It is the one thing that would greatly popularize
chess and expose it to many different people who have wrong idea or no idea
about chess.
Didier Achermann, Munich, Germany
It's a good idea if you want to kill the beauty in chess. You would get many
more draws, forced by blitz specialists. A better idea would be a beauty prize,
e.g. the winner of a tournament gets 5000 Euros, the winner of beauty prize
gets 3000 Euros. Why try to punish everyone by beauty-killing blitz games? And
let's not forget that there are beautiful draws.
Kenneth Calitri, Reston VA USA
While well intended this RK's proposal is not feasible. I believe the solution
is quite simple in top flight tournament chess: 2 points for a win, 0 points
for a draw, –1 points for a loss. This eliminates players coasting with
draws – no points for a draw. It rewards the player who wins.
And having a point deducted for a loss provides more dramatic point shifts.
This system favors those who play to win, and for aggressive players who have
a mixutre of wins and losses it is a rock'em sock'em format. The point system
I am proposing could be used in one tournament a year on the professional golf
tour to promote aggressive play. They aptly reward a birdie with +2, give nothing
for a par, and deduct for a bogey.
Marc Schroeder, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Kasimdzhanov takes it for granted that chess is losing momentum because of the
high number of draws. This highly speculative assumption is in bad need of proof.
My feeling is that chess is gowing down to the extent that chess is solved by
the computer. The final analysis of many games is ready for publication even
before the game is finished. Is this the world where human blunderchess will
have room for expansion? My answer is: no. I do not want to speculate any further
about the reasons of the "chess crisis", but issue the warning that
Kasimdzhanov's assumption might be completely wrong. In that case his medicine
could kill the patient.
Piyush Ranjan, Bangalore, India
I did not like Kasim's proposal of necessarily settling each game as a win or
loss. Here is a fancy tournament in my mind. The players present in the hall
play online chess amongst each other, using a computer. The precise opponent
however is not known at the start of the round. For N players, may be we can
have N-2 rounds so that even in the last round an element of uncertainty remains.
OR may be N rounds, or some other variant. I feel that not knowing the precise
opponent may lead to more "solid chess" but at least we won't complain
of opponent specific preparation. Initially such a tournament might have more
draw peercentage, but eventually people will adapt to this style and we might
get more results. I would also suggest a slightly larger elo variance in such
tournaments.
Daniel José, Andorra
One way I can think to make chess more popular would be that it can be possible
to bet in real time to ascertain what is the next move of a player. This can
be done easily. It could be a limit to the amount to bet per game, have a few
buttons to select a percentage of the amount you wish to wager each time, and
so on. Even there should be no problem in using analysis modules. Another way
would be to give random prizes for wins in one day. All who had won in the day
could get a prize.
Another way would be to organize tournaments for people without Elo. There are only a few just because they are considered less attractive from the standpoint of the players, who are the most likely to end up organizing tournaments. Another option is to organize things that are absurd but curious to see, as a tournament on top of a mountain, floating in the middle of a lake, in a nightclub with noise, etc. simply to increase the presence of chess in the media. Obviously must not be abused because they would ignore this thinks in the end.
It will be much easier to get sponsors if chess is more integrated in society, and the best way is to expand the base, not necessarily by the schools. May be people can take free lessons in the town square; also introducing custom lessons for people who normally plays at home but would not go further, and so on. Surely it would be nice to spend some efforts to promote chess among people who play it occasionally, especially without asking for any commitment because they do for fun. Many people are curious but they not develop their chess because they see it as a compromise, they do not know who to ask.
You can organize painting competitions or other similar with chess motives, a competition to quickly count the number of moves that are in a position (suitable for many more people), tournaments where the board may be smaller or simplified (king, pawns and all other rooks). Why not hire publicists? No doubt they can find ways to promote chess.
Chris Marciano, Houston, USA
I'm surprised that readers didn't mentioned the success of the 3-1-0 points
system used at Biel. The draws dropped dramatically. I don't think people mind
draws as long as the game is hard fought. Sofia rules can't prevent a boring
game where pieces are quickly exchanges. The 3-1-0 system provides the players
with the proper incentives to fight for a win when they have a small edge.
Ugur Yuvarlak, Istanbul, Turkey
Everybody is wondering how to raise the popularity of the game. I have a bad
news: chess will never be popular. Unless we create a pseudo cold war and pit
the best players of both sides for the world championship crown, no it won't.
Actually we may wait for the "world versus cosmos" games as well,
I bet chess will be as popular as any game, people will simply wonder whether
we are "smarter" than aliens. Chess has such beauty that you need
to be so close; like a blind man close enough to a woman to fall in love. There
is no possibility of falling in love with chess in a chance meeting. You need
to have more or less an intimate contact with it, otherwise you have no way
of becoming enchanted.
Rolf Espenes, Norway
Shipov's scheme on eliminating draws in chess is by far the best I have seen
so far.
Aniello Olinto Guimarães Gréco Junior, Brasília,
Brazil
I am an amateur chess player, passionate about the game since 1989. Perhaps
because of this, not being an elite player, to be closer to the general public,
maybe I can see the current crisis of competitive chess from a different point
of view of the GMs Kasimdzhanov and Shipov.
First we will establish a very simple thing: chess is not losing popularity. Just look the growth of sites like ICC or PlayChess, with more and more members each years. What is losing popularity are the high level tournaments. At the time of Fischer or Kasparov the fight for the world championship was featured in major newspapers. I remember seeing a full page story about the Kasparov vs Short match in the main newspaper in my town. And this in Brazil, a country with little tradition chess. It seems unthinkable today. What has changed?
One of the most common answer to that question is that there are too many draws or draws without dispute in elite chess. No doubt the recent disputes as Candidate matches was not exactly the most exciting thing in the world; and yes, it alienates the general public and also the sponsors. But is this the main cause of the current crisis?
It seems not. The first thing to note is that we have no evidence that the number of draws in chess elite has increased in recent decades. It seems that today the draw frequency is the same as at the time of Fischer. But is the public today less tolerant to draws? I really do not think so.
This may seem odd at a time when most sports are updating their rules to make the draws more rare or nonexistent. But we understand that each competition has a different target audience, and what works for football may not work for tennis. What works for boxing can not work for basketball. And chess is a very different kind of competition and the motivations that lead someone to follow chess news are quite different.
Even at the time of Fischer, a time when chess was very popular, we did not have chess games being broadcast by TV or radio, like football or tennis. The success, the popularity of chess was not because the drama or excitement of a game, nor the spectators follow with tension the fate of the passed pawn of his idol player. There was never a game by game follow-up in chess, not by the common viewer. Instead, there was a general follow-up on who won this or that famous tournament and who was the World Champion, who was a candidate, etc. And sometimes some brilliant game ran the world.
And I do not believe that today is different. The spectator who is only interested in who won or lost is not the same viewer who is watching the matches live PlayChess and watching with interest the analysis off the experts. This viewer is not interested in fine strategy or good chess figth, but is interested in drama, emotion and myths of the board be created and destroyed. And that's where we find problems.
One of the main attractions of chess to the general public is in its relationship to intelligence. The chess champion, in the popular imagination, is an eccentric genius with an unusual intelligence. Just look at the works of fiction. And at the time of the Cold War this was reinforced by the invincible aura of the great Soviet masters, or the troubled genius of Fischer. Chess was a pure intellectual dispute, and therefore thrilling. With the end of the Soviet Union also ended an era in chess, an era when chess had geopolitical importance. But fortunately we had two heroes in the popular imagination, the heirs of the Soviet school. Karpov and Kasparov. It was then that I started really interested in the chess elite, and I must say, it was exciting. And one of the most exciting things was the belief that the outcome of great tournaments and matches were decided primarily by the quality of players.
But we viewers knew little of the crisis that chess was already living. Not a crisis of popularity, but a crisis create by the vacuum left by the Soviet Union, an organizational crisis. Crisis that culminated with the match Kasparov Short X and the creation of PCA. And that is the staring point when I begin to see the the fall in popularity of chess to the general public.
We had a decade in which the world title was split up chess. It is somewhat complicated for a layperson to understand how there could be two simultaneous world champions, and the viewer inevitably wonders: Who is the true champion? Who plays better chess? And these simple questions (at least for a layman) are becoming increasingly complex, and not for chess reasons, but political and bureaucratic.
Moreover we have the changing of the world title race by FIDE, trying to make it more dynamic, more suited to television and internet, with the creation of the worlds KO But the general public does not want to see chess on TV, does not care much whether chess is in the Olympics or not. They want to know who are the actual chess myths, the great incomprehensible geniuses, the great heroes and villains to cheer for or against. And the rules become increasingly confused, dispute systems change all the time.
For several years the general public tries to cope with change. We have two champions, one official and another whos says he is the best player by having more rating. And why are they talking about new champions who I do not know every two years? Besides, I know a champion lost to a computer but said everything was rigged. An agreement was made to unify the title, and a known champion will face someone new. But wait, this is not the first opponent, now is another. And the contest will be in three months. No, sorry, next year. Maybe. But that champion had not lost the title too his student? Oh, now they managed to unify the title. Two "new names" (for lay people) plays and one of them won, but it seems that the other player says he used computers in the bathroom!!!
There were so many rule changes in the way, so many pranks and scandals, that the average viewer simply could not understand the half of it. And one confused spectator is a disinterested spectator. The solution is not create in every game a winner, but create any form of dispute to produce a clear winner. Whether this dispute is a match, a tournament or a match, doesn't matter. But from 1993 to 2005 it was very confusing to the general public, was never very clear who had won what from whom, and if the dispute was correct or rigged.
And finally when we things start to get in order, when the dust begins to drop, we begin to want to change the few things that still understandable by the common spectator? This is the time to take advantage of the advances achieved with great difficulty and stopped to change the rules. We have big names that can easily re-appear in the popular imagination as geniuses and heroes. Now the viewer wants to see is nothing more than a good fight made in order to produce results that he understands, so he can have an opinion about who is better, and for those who cheer. This is not about to produce more or less draws, but to create the impression that chess and chess only decides who wins the dispute. But this is not what chess is showning to the public in the last decade.
I.A. Naji Alradhi, Dubai, UAE
Great idea. But besides the noise and disturbance of the blitz game to other
classical games around, these is another issue: I guess many players will still
play for a draw in the classical game so that both players benefit and guarantee
at least one point, and then decide with blitz. An improvement to the suggested
system could be in two parts:
1) To play the blitz at the beginning of the round. In this case we avoid disturbing other players if the classical game finished quickly. All blitz games will start at the same time, like a celebration or a festival, which is very good for the media and spectators.
2) The scores system. Let us assume that White won the blitz game. If he wins the classical game he wins (2-0). If he draws, the score shall be (1-0). If he loses, the score shall be (0-1). Therefore, one of the two players will always get a zero. There can be no compromising.
We can also consider a direct Armageddon without blitz. therefore reduce the time lost before the start of the classical game.
Johnny Myrbeg, Kristianstad, Sweden
Being an club player in Sweden, I have followed your articles with suggestions
from top world players, how to make chess more popularnd interesting. One obvious
thing that I have not yet read, though the scoring system, have been suggested
to be incooperated from football (soccer), is that football and other popular
sports are used in organized betting systems. For instance in Sweden we are
able to weekly try to get 13 football matches right with 1, X or 2. Adopt the
same principle in chess. Let FIDE organize a similar betting system with at
least 10 games between top players from on going top events, so that ordinary
people have the chance to win (and lose) money om our "sport". They
tic in the 1 box for white win, X box for a draw and 2 if they think black will
win the game. At the same time FIDE will get some money to their events. I think
that football has became very popular partly becaurse of different betting systems
are involved in the sport.
Vahik Ovanessian, Glendale, USA
I think the solution to the problem of draws and the declining popularity of
chess is to abandon classic chess as we know it and replace it with chess 960.
All the pre-digested moves and the opening lines that have been analyzed ad
nauseum contribute to draws. I would like to also suggest that classic chess
is very undemocratic. Only those who have the time and perhaps have self-punishing
dispositios can afford to learn all the openings anointed with those battlefield
names. There is something masochistic in learning all the openings and their
nuances. Classic chess tends to create an inner circle of elite players. Chess,
and sports in general, should allow vast numbers of people to compete, even
though competition is a human malady. Chess 960 will allow many undiscovered
talents to break through the barriers of exclusion and elitism. Chess 960 will
also recreate chess as fun rather than science and a data behemoth. Let's have
fun!
Craig Gross, Pennsylvania, USA
Kasimdzhanov is onto something, and Shipov attempts to refine the idea. It is
important to note that it is rare for the first iteration of an idea to be correct,
it generally needs refinement, as Shipov proposes. Shipov also points out a
key word that the chess world should learn to understand, and that is "Reform".
All the great sports in the USA have gone through reform at one time or another.
As a matter of fact, many if not all, continue to look for new ways to improve
their game. Take the NFL. They not only have changed drastically over the years,
but they actually spend every year proposing new rules, and possible changes
to their game.
I am slightly off topic, but reform is the key. We cannot sit back and worry about the traditionalist. If the game is to thrive, then we must look at other possibilities. Kasimdzhanov, and Shipov are presenting ideas that may resonate with the outside world from chess. Shipov presents good improvements from Kasimdzhanov's original idea, and he too mentions that these may need refinement. That is progress, if we implement them. The human element is still presented, an improved scoring system to encourage a win during standard time controls, with fewer points coming from blitz. It took the NFL around seven years to figure out how to implement instant replay correctly within their game. They were criticized over the years, until the correct formula was found. It's hard to imagine that they ever played the game without it. The same may be said some day about chess, but if the powers that be do not attempt significant reform, then the game will remain nothing more than an extravagant hobby for those who love it the most.
Bob Luck, Tualatin
I still prefer Kasimdzhanov's suggestion better. Blitz tends to favor the more
experienced (higher rated) player, who probably doesn't need the handicap to
defeat a weaker opponent; rapid chess levels that out a little as there is more
time for planning. Also, the prospect of the following games when one is tired
would be incentive to press any advantage for a win in the first place. Players
used to risk losing in order to win more often, and that style deserves to be
rewarded.
Daniel Tapia, Bogotá, Colombia
Once again, by reading Sergey Shipov's suggestion, I was reminded how intelligent
grandmasters can be. Kasim came up with a radical yet logical idea, and Shipov
has improved it. I see that some grandmasters are in favor of it. I urge ChessBase
to do a massive survey to find out what grandmasters think (not patzers!). It
pains me to see people opposing the idea of bettering chess as a spectator sport.
It's like they don't want grandmasters to make money?! Why are people so cruel?
Can't they see that if the public supports chess then there will be more money
and more players will be attracted to the game. It's a snowball effect and chess
will benefit because of these radical ideas. I thank ChessBase for publishing
Kasim and Shipov's ideas on garnering more public attention for chess.
Daniel Wigley, Port St Lucie, FL, USA
I like GM Shipov's 3-point system, but there is still room for thinking about
what sorts of games will be played for the tiebreaks. It isn't good to follow
every drawn game, not matter how long it is, with short blitz games, as he suggests.
The length of the tiebreak games should vary. One way to do this would be to
make the time of the drawn game determine how long the tiebreak games will be.
For illustration, a scheme might go like this:
| Draw less than | Tiebreak games |
| 30 minutes | 50 minutes (or replay) |
| 1 hour | 45 minutes |
| 1.5 hours | 35 minutes |
| 2 hours | 30 minutes |
| 2.5 hours | 20 minutes |
| 3 hours | 15 minutes |
| 3.5 hours | 10 minutes |
| 4 hours | 5 minutes |
So, for instance, players who draw in 1 hour and 15 minutes will face a tiebreak of two 35-minute games. A three hour and 30 minute draw will result in two 5-minute blitz games. The Armageddon games should also differ depending on how quick the tiebreak games were played. Why do this? First, it goes much further to discourage draws, especially drawing for the purpose of saving energy. Second, spectators will see significantly more competition from players who draw. Third, if time is available for longer tiebreak games, then it should be utilized, because longer games makes for higher quality games; they make better tests for determining who is the better player, and they make for better spectating. Fourth, the such a scheme could eliminate the need for anti-draw rules or Sophia rules. An objection could be that it is unfair to subject players to longer tiebreaks simply because of the shorter length of their drawn game. But there is some advantage to be gained from playing a shorter game. The scheme will make drawn games more equal in terms of energy consumption. The scheme tries to make it so that every player who draws will tend to face at least nearly 4 hours of the best competition that is possible in practice. That's good for the game.
Jeff Akron, OH, USA
I am a National Expert here in the USA (a rating of ~2050). I have always been
fastinated with the idea of how to avoid the result of a draw and what kind
of incentive to give a chess player to play for the win. I like the idea of
3 points for a win, 2 points for winning a tie-break and 1 point for losing.
No one has mentioned that this would make it nearly impossible for players to
figure out, "if they draw and he/she loses, then all I need to do is draw
to win something" thinking. I would like to add a suggestion. If the tiebreaker
goes to an Armagedon match, before starting the clocks, White should have to
move e4 or d4, and Black could then have a choice of a few variations pre-determined
weeks before the event. Example: if White plays e4, then maybe the five choices
for this event after e4 would be a Yugoslav Dragon Sicilian, a French Winawer
Qxg7/h7, an Archangle Ruy, a Panov Botvinnik Caro, and a 4-pawn Alekhine. This
would have the added element of necessary preparation and in my opinion, an
added incentive for white to push hard to win the main game. Sure, if the tiebreak
made it to the armagedon match, White would have the first choice, but the advantage
for Black to choose which defense of five sways the armagedon match even more
in Black's favor.
Wade Caughlin, Canada
There has been a lot of discussion on this topic of late and would like to offer
some thoughts. To start I would like to point out that in other individual sports,
it is common to have two formats in order to satisfy different tastes, goals,
or priorities. Examples would be tournament poker vs. heads up poker, or tournament
golf vs match play golf. Golf offers another format that chess might find interesting,
which is the skins game. I propose that chess could benefit from a Skins Tournament
Circut.
The format in mind looks like this: A series of say five or six major cites around the world (or Europe to start) would host a big round robin with top local talent in order to peak local interest, vs. a mix of top players from around the world. The old scoring and rating system would still be used, but the money would be awarded for wins only! People have two motivations in chess: 1) Elo points, and 2) prize money. So let's make the motivation for money big enough that the Elo points don't matter as much. Imagine a ten player round robin where the prize was $5000/win, but only paid to the top five players! I believe a tournament like this would motive all players to try and win no matter what. A player with 9/9 would take home a handsome $45,000! You could even add a perfect score bonus to increase the fighting mood. With five or six of these tournaments in a row, a player could make some good money.
Another side effect is that we would then see more winning streaks instead of undefeated streaks. Which one is better is really a matter of taste. I personally would rather see a player win 20 games in a row and win $100,000 than not lose for 40 games and maybe win some cash.
In closing I'd like to say that I know this format is not perfect. It really address's the issue of short draws only, but probably would not work for a world championship format. I do think a tournament like this would be very entertaining and have o shortage of sponsors.
Paul Lillebo, Oslo, Norway
The dialectic works. Someone suggests a method, someone else counters with an
improvement on the method. GM Shipov has taken GM Kasimdzhanov's interesting
idea of playoffs after every draw (giving every game a decisive result) and
improved it with two simple changes that could make all the difference: 1. Skip
rapid games in the playoff of a draw and go directly to blitz, and 2. Modify
the "3 points for a win" system to make the draw as valuable as a
decisive game. (In effect, Shipov gives the players 1 point each for the drawn
game, then gives the blitz playoff winner 1 additional point, for a total of
3 points for the game.)
Shipov's idea has several advantages over traditional and proposed systems:
But Shipov's system seems to have the glaring drawback that half or more of the games of a tournament or match would be decided by blitz games. He acknowledges this, and offers the novel idea that GMs must get used to this and must hone their skill at blitz, just as they train every other aspect of their game. I think that acceptance of his method hinges on this point. For some, this seems a huge, even fatal, drawback. But that's with our current mind-set. Can we get used to the idea that blitz is an integral part of the normal game (in elite GM play)? Shipov is saying that this is necessary in the future, and he may be right. Blitz is just time pressure play, which is already a part of the game. By spending time on the skills needed in blitz play, GMs will improve that aspect of their game, and we must admit that it's entertaining. I, for one, would love to see this variant tested in some tournaments. I'll add that this discussion relates only to GM games. Amateur tournaments don't seem to have any need for any such adjustment.
I'll also add that the most interesting anti-draw suggestion I saw in the recent "readers' comments" was the proposal from J.J. Struijk to ban the repetition of a position, as in the game of Go. I would limit that to only prohibit the immediate repetition of a position, since it could be tedious to check each position against all previous positions. (I would leave the 3-time repetition rule in place to cover previous positions.) So I would suggest that if A makes a move, B makes a response, and A moves the same piece back, then B cannot move the same piece back. This limitation actually adds great complexity, since many moves might carry the threat of moving the piece back, thus denying the opponent what may be a favorable response. And, as Struijk said, it's the end of "perpetual check".
Kostas Oreopoulos, Thessaloni, Greece
I am writing because I was really upset by what I read in mr Shipov's open letter.
Let me please state a couple of reasons why a blitz game that would resolve
the result is a very bad idea.
Yes a draw is not valued that way, and yes it could be a masterpiece, but do we value it when we say that the players should play another game after they draw?
Bruce Warring, Nellysford, USA
Shipov's ideas on how to score games is the best I have seen so far: a brilliant
compromise of competing ideas.
Andrej Krivda, Wettingen
Very sensible proposal - so what do the top 200 players say about it? One should
finally create a website where such polls would be published and available to
general public not only behind the scenes opinions of players known only to
the elite or their friends. The top players could anonymously submit their opinions
on these matters - if they are interested of course ...
Ben Olden-Cooligan, Toronto, Canada
I agree with both Kasimdzhanov and Shipov that eliminating draws will definitely
increase spectator and sponsor interest in chess. I also believe that Shipov's
suggestion is a good refinement of the original proposal, for several reasons:
Firstly, winning in blitz/rapid should not be equally valued as a win in classical.
I also like that a single blitz win won't immediately decide the winner. Additionally,
in Kasimdzhanov's proposal, if the later games keep being drawn the match could
potentially go on for a very long time. However, there are two conditions I
have for Shipov's proposal that I believe are important:
Brian Theismann, Inver Grove Heights, MN USA
If you are still taking letters about the Kasimdzhanov proposal, I wish to respond
to three of the objections to faster play. All involve fallacies.
Many of the opponents of Rustam Kasimdzhanov's proposal argued that high-level chess is inherently more difficult to understand than tennis. I disagree. The reason tennis seems easier to understand is because each encounter is composed of short, independent skirmishes with concrete results. These skirmishes, called "serves", are grouped into points, games, sets, and matches. As a result, to find out what is happening in a tennis match, spectators can look at the score board to see how many sets each player has won, how many games each player has won in the current set, how many points each player has won in the current game, and whether the current serve is the second serve. By shortening the duration of chess games and increasing the number of games played, spectators would know who was winning based on the accumulated wins of prior games. Faster games would also make games easier to understand because the lines analyzed by the players during the game would be shorter, and therefore more transparent to the typical viewer. Chess games may be more complex, but that property also makes them more exciting, provided the complexity is distilled by commentators. That distillation could be accomplished by pre-taping the games and having grandmasters provide carefully-constructed commentary based on thorough, computer-assisted analysis.
Another common objection to faster games is that, because more errors occur, the quality is lower. This implication is a non sequitur. The greater number of errors in shorter games results from the greater complexity of such games – and therefore the greater difficulty. The addition of more stringent time controls adds an additional dimension to the game – it turns it into "three dimensional chess", if you will. As a result, a equivalent level of play will result in more errors. Note that nobody in the tennis world is arguing that the game should be simplified by lowering the net or increasing the playing area. That is because they do not confuse frequency of errors with low quality play.
Another interesting point made by the opponents is that some European sports have high draw rates. Perhaps Europeans will tolerate draws, but North Americans will not. If you want chess to be an international game rather than a European game, a ninety percent draw rate is not acceptable. Americans will neither play nor watch such a game.
All three of these objections, then, can be shown to be sophistry.
Oscar Maldonado, Hollywood, FL, USA
I am a NM in the US. I think if the game was scored 3 points per win 1.4 for
drawing with White and 1.6 points for drawing with black, we would have less
short draws. A tremendous change in the result will happen favoring the player
that pushes harder to win with either color. I have tried this in several occasions
and it seems that in all the cases the winner is always the best player of the
event.
Zhichao Li, Guangzhou, China
My suggestion: Win = 3 points, Lost = 0 points, Draw as White = 1 points, Draw
as Black = 2 points. Good things: 1. No rapid tiebreak, 2. Encourage White to
take risks, 3. It not only works in Round Robin or Swiss, it also works in matches.
Example: If you play two White games, if you don't take risks, you can draw
both games but only gets two points. If you take a 50-50 risk, you may end up
winning one and losing one, but still get three points, better than two draws.
So White will be willing to take more risks.
Matt Hollai
When will the stupid stalemate rule be abolished? The goal of chess is to capture
the king. If the opponent is in a zugzwang, where his only move will lead to
the capture of the king why on earth is that stalemate? Its very strange. (Even
more strange is the top level players unquestioning of this rule!) The stalemate
rule we have is very silly and needs to be changed.
Note: Please do not send any comments to this feedback page or the subject of eliminating draws until our next article on this subject has been published. It contains some interesting new material and a very simple proposal to solve the problem, if it indeed exists. The proposal leaves tournament chess in its current form intact and does not change the flavour of the game at all. It is also trivially easy to implement – you just add one line to the tournament rules (if you wish). The article will appear in the coming week.
