3 ms·

There is one problem: there are too many draws at top human level.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
I'm in top 1% of rapid chess players on lichess, and I hardly ever see a draw. If top 100 or 500 players on the whole planet have this problem, well, they can try some other game, probably, I don't mind.
- joelthelion 5y ago
  The problem is not for these 100 players specifically. It's for all the fans watching them.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    They can watch blitz of bullet games, it is by far more entertaining.
    - kzrdude 5y ago
      Rapid is better (for the audience). Slow enough to be able to catch more of the game going on, while a lot of decisive results happen.
- kzrdude 5y ago
  You can't reach top 1% without being very good at taking advantage of time pressure, though, or am I wrong? The term rapid chess includes many time controls - both with and without increment, so I'm not sure how to understand you.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    It doesn't matter, if there is a time increment, there are still rarely any draws. Maybe 1 in 15 or 20 games. Of course, I'm at the very bottom of that 1%, maybe things are somewhat different higher up. And seriously speaking, the more time given, the higher the probability of a draw: games are usually won or lost because of blunders. If you have time to evaluate all moves and play very patiently, and your opponent does the same, draw is the likely result. But playing this way is boring.
    - kzrdude 5y ago
      I see. I found the rapid world championship, and at the top level the number of draws is certainly higher. (And it's played with an increment). See this table for example: https://chess-results.com/tnr600852.aspx?lan=6&art=5&flag=30 https://chess-results.com/tnr600852.aspx?lan=6&art=5&flag=30 highlighting ½ with the search gives an idea of the number of draws.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        First placed MC had 7+ 1- 5=, doesn't look like a draw death to me.
        kzrdude 5y ago
        I agree, this is why I like rapid.

I'm in top 1% of rapid chess players on lichess, and I hardly ever see a draw. If top 100 or 500 players on the whole planet have this problem, well, they can try some other game, probably, I don't mind.

joelthelion 5y ago
The problem is not for these 100 players specifically. It's for all the fans watching them.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  They can watch blitz of bullet games, it is by far more entertaining.
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    Rapid is better (for the audience). Slow enough to be able to catch more of the game going on, while a lot of decisive results happen.
kzrdude 5y ago
You can't reach top 1% without being very good at taking advantage of time pressure, though, or am I wrong? The term rapid chess includes many time controls - both with and without increment, so I'm not sure how to understand you.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  It doesn't matter, if there is a time increment, there are still rarely any draws. Maybe 1 in 15 or 20 games. Of course, I'm at the very bottom of that 1%, maybe things are somewhat different higher up. And seriously speaking, the more time given, the higher the probability of a draw: games are usually won or lost because of blunders. If you have time to evaluate all moves and play very patiently, and your opponent does the same, draw is the likely result. But playing this way is boring.
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    I see. I found the rapid world championship, and at the top level the number of draws is certainly higher. (And it's played with an increment). See this table for example: https://chess-results.com/tnr600852.aspx?lan=6&art=5&flag=30 https://chess-results.com/tnr600852.aspx?lan=6&art=5&flag=30 highlighting ½ with the search gives an idea of the number of draws.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      First placed MC had 7+ 1- 5=, doesn't look like a draw death to me.
      - kzrdude 5y ago
        I agree, this is why I like rapid.