New World Champion

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Perhaps (although even that is debatable) a more interesting story line to read in the newspaper, but certainly not more attractive to watch entire games with or without comments for a large world audience. One of the drawbacks of standard chessgames w.r.t. attracting public and sponsors is the lack of action per time unit. Parallel games certainly improve on that. So would faster games, but then you would also lower the quality of the games.

Let's face it; the "general public" isn't going to be interested in chess, match or tournament (the exception, of course, was Fischer-Spassky I). They're certainly not going to watch entire games. What did chess players have more interest in: Kramnik-Topalov last year or the tournaments in Mexico City or San Luis? I don't think the answer is the tournaments.

Originally posted by no1marauder
...two players meeting head to head for supremacy is more of a compelling and interesting story line.

sure, if this is your interpretation of 'excitement':

YouTube



there needs to be some changes. tournament style, shorter games, less draws.

Originally posted by wormwood
sure, if this is your interpretation of 'excitement':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWgg20IqibM



there needs to be some changes. tournament style, shorter games, less draws.

Go watch checkers or tiddly winks.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let's face it; the "general public" isn't going to be interested in chess, match or tournament (the exception, of course, was Fischer-Spassky I). They're certainly not going to watch entire games. What did chess players have more interest in: Kramnik-Topalov last year or the tournaments in Mexico City or San Luis? I don't think the answer is the tournaments.

not talking only about the general public...but there are matches...like Kramnik-Svidler for example...that even the chess fans would not watch...
if you do not have an attacking player in the match...the match will be doomed

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is using smiley faces the predominant form of "legal reasoning" in your country? You present virtually nothing else.

You did not ask my question. Did you say nothing about tradition or opinion of chess world?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Go watch checkers or tiddly winks.

how mature.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let's face it; the "general public" isn't going to be interested in chess, match or tournament (the exception, of course, was Fischer-Spassky I). They're certainly not going to watch entire games. What did chess players have more interest in: Kramnik-Topalov last year or the tournaments in Mexico City or San Luis? I don't think the answer is the tournaments.l

Why the quotes in "general public"? I didn't use that term. Why couldn't chess be attractive to millions of people to watch? If all sponsors believed that (it can't), chess would have become an obscure activity already; and it nearly had become that in the US, where they have imported GM's to avoid becoming a 'third world chess country'. Tournaments with media coverage (including meaningful commentation) are a great way to promote chess. By which I have not proven that the worldchampionship has to be decided this way, and that was not my intention. But I believe in the value of chess for entertainment, as well as for education (and mental health), and that is why I supported that point when it was brought up in this thread.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Tournaments are far more boring than matches. In Mexico City for example, Anand had little incentive to take risks to win after he had the lead and the opponents he played who were further back had little reason to risk anything. As a result, 6 of Anand's games ended in draws in less than 22 moves.

Can there be any argument that ANY World ...[text shortened]... anca, even Kramnik versus Kasparov, Leko or Topalov were more interesting than this tournament?

Tournaments are far more boring than matches.
I have never heard such kind of BS before

Can there be any argument that ANY World Championship match, esp. the ones that were closely contested, like Fischer-Spassky, Tal-Botvinnik, Alekhine-Capablanca, even Kramnik versus Kasparov, Leko or Topalov were more interesting than this tournament?

As you have obvious problems to read I will repeat myself again 🙂

"Matches have their drawbacks:

1) Much more psychological tension which leads to lower quality games - its well known that in world championship matches when players nerves are in tension they tend to make more stupid mistakes.

3) As did wormwood mention "in fact, the opposition being a group of players with different styles will measure the overall strength of the player. where as a match against a single opponent will measure only his strength against that single style of that specific opponent. ""

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Why the quotes in "general public"? I didn't use that term. Why couldn't chess be attractive to millions of people to watch? If all sponsors believed that (it can't), chess would have become an obscure activity already; and it nearly had become that in the US, where they have imported GM's to avoid becoming a 'third world chess country'. Tournaments with m ...[text shortened]... l health), and that is why I supported that point when it was brought up in this thread.

Yes you did.

Mephisto2: Tournaments may be more attractive to a general public,

I agree that "millions of people" might watch an attractive match (maybe even a tournament though I doubt it) but that isn't the "general public".

Originally posted by Korch
[b]Tournaments are far more boring than matches.
I have never heard such kind of BS before

Can there be any argument that ANY World Championship match, esp. the ones that were closely contested, like Fischer-Spassky, Tal-Botvinnik, Alekhine-Capablanca, even Kramnik versus Kasparov, Leko or Topalov were more interesting than this tournament?

A onent will measure only his strength against that single style of that specific opponent. ""[/b]

I seriously doubt that the quality of play at Mexico City was better than at say Fischer-Spassky, Tal-Botvinnik, Kasparov-Karpov, etc. etc. etc. etc. The reverse is true; where you have weaker players, you'll have lower quality play. Not matter what you say, it is fairly obvious that the three strongest players in the world are Kramnik, Topalov and Anand; even someone as stubborn as you should surely admit that having the strongest players play each other is the way to get high quality chess.

The "specific opponent" should be the strongest player in the world next to the champion. If you are better than the second best player, that means you're the best even if the second best player might have a better record against the 25th best one. That again is pretty obvious.

EDIT: You have the annoying habit of selectively quoting. Please try to quote my points in full and address them; I gave specific reasons why Mexico City was a "boring" tournament (unless you're fond of short draws by your "Champion"😉.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]Tournaments are far more boring than matches.
I have never heard such kind of BS before

Can there be any argument that ANY World Championship match, esp. the ones that were closely contested, like Fischer-Spassky, Tal-Botvinnik, Alekhine-Capablanca, even Kramnik versus Kasparov, Leko or Topalov were more interesting than this tournament?

A ...[text shortened]... onent will measure only his strength against that single style of that specific opponent. ""[/b]

I like your 3 point...it is sooo correct, look at Aronian-Carlsen match...after it was finished
Aronian-elo performance-2695(carlsen's rating)
Carlsen-elo performance-2750(aronian's rating)
BUT
it is obvious(at least for me) Aronian is better

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes you did.

Mephisto2: Tournaments may be more attractive to a [b]general public,

I agree that "millions of people" might watch an attractive match (maybe even a tournament though I doubt it) but that isn't the "general public".[/b]

You abused two words by putting them in-between quotes. But I grant you that victory, and will correct myself: "Tournaments may be more attractive to a wider public than matches".

Originally posted by no1marauder
EDIT: You have the annoying habit of selectively quoting.

Ahum.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Ahum.

You denied you used a specific term, so I quoted when you did. Korch simply left out all the reasons why I thought Mexico City was boring. If you can't see the difference, you need help.

Originally posted by Korch
You did not ask my question. [b]Did you say nothing about tradition or opinion of chess world?[/b]

Sure I did. But it wasn't my "main argument" as you falsely claimed.