3 ms·

Well yeah, the match format wasn't ridiculous in the 80s and 90s when it was still human prep vs human prep.

• Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  So, now you have computers that show you the best moves, ok. But this knowledge still has to be squeezed into a human brain. So I don't see any problem with the match format. And even 'draw death' talks are laughable after latest candidates tournament and yours championship.
  • oldstrangers 3y ago
    Memorizing 20-30 or even 40 lines is next to trivial for a Super GM. And prior to this year with more decisive games, the championship was becoming incredibly stale with every event being decided by tie breaks. And despite how exciting this event was, it was still decided by rapid tiebreaks. So do what Carlsen says, reduce the number of classical games and throw in rapid and blitz, winner takes all. That makes the most sense.
    • Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
      Quite the opposite approach would be better. Tiebreaks only happened because players are actively seeking them for various reasons, playing to 14 draws in previous matches. Set the formula to 5 wins in classical (like it used to be), and it would be a real chess championship event. Players would no longer seek draws hoping for some luck in the tiebreaks.
      • oldstrangers 3y ago
        ...and then you get what happened in 84-85, a match that lasts 48 games and 159 days.
        • Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
          And that would be great.