Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

World Champion Tiebreaks: A Counter-Intuitive Proposal.

“The tie break favours the player who is stronger in that format”

Not sure this a problem that needs fixing and it definitely doesn’t need an article written about it.

This is exactly what is supposed to happen and how it is done - the stronger player wins. Now we want to inflate the odds of the weaker player just because they’re weaker? Nonsense!

If they are equally talented in classical chess then we move down to rapid, then blitz - If one player is stronger then by and by overall they are the more deserving and better player.

I really hope this is a trolling article because if not it’s utterly ridiculous- we’ll be giving pawn odds next if a player is 50 points lower rated.

“The tie break favours the player who is stronger in that format” Not sure this a problem that needs fixing and it definitely doesn’t need an article written about it. This is exactly what is supposed to happen and how it is done - the stronger player wins. Now we want to inflate the odds of the weaker player just because they’re weaker? Nonsense! If they are equally talented in classical chess then we move down to rapid, then blitz - If one player is stronger then by and by overall they are the more deserving and better player. I really hope this is a trolling article because if not it’s utterly ridiculous- we’ll be giving pawn odds next if a player is 50 points lower rated.

@Chessbeard101 said ^

I really hope this is a trolling article because if not it’s utterly ridiculous- we’ll be giving pawn odds next if a player is 50 points lower rated.

Hmm. I mean the author of the blog did reference a peer-reviewed published paper in an academic journal.

Then that paper's flaws were pointed out by the commentators in the comment section.

Then the blog author decided to come up with a provocative and stunning proposal - a coin toss.

Now we want to inflate the odds of the weaker player just because they’re weaker?

Weaker in Rapid and Blitz in the Classical World Championship. Not just because they are weaker generally.

@Chessbeard101 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/7dojNeLx) > I really hope this is a trolling article because if not it’s utterly ridiculous- we’ll be giving pawn odds next if a player is 50 points lower rated. Hmm. I mean the author of the blog did reference a peer-reviewed published paper in an academic journal. Then that paper's flaws were pointed out by the commentators in the comment section. Then the blog author decided to come up with a provocative and stunning proposal - a coin toss. >Now we want to inflate the odds of the weaker player just because they’re weaker? Weaker in Rapid and Blitz in the Classical World Championship. Not just because they are weaker generally.

Applause: Very good point in the article that is does not make sense to decide a "Classical" chess game through "rapid" or "blitz" games!

Question: Why do we have to have only 1 world champion?

Example: Let's take an analogy from ski races. If there are two racers finishing with exactly the same time, BOTH are declared to be winners. Why not the same in chess?

Conclusion: If two ski racers / chess players are equally good, why not grant both of them the title?

**Applause:** Very good point in the article that is does not make sense to decide a "Classical" chess game through "rapid" or "blitz" games! **Question:** Why do we have to have only 1 world champion? **Example:** Let's take an analogy from ski races. If there are two racers finishing with exactly the same time, BOTH are declared to be winners. Why not the same in chess? **Conclusion:** If two ski racers / chess players are equally good, why not grant both of them the title?

But This Tiebreaker Seems More Like Luck To Me.

But This Tiebreaker Seems More Like Luck To Me.

And Plus, Even The Weaker Player Can Win In This Format. They Cannot Win Just By Luck.

And Plus, Even The Weaker Player Can Win In This Format. They Cannot Win Just By Luck.

I enjoyed this satirical chess article from The Onion.

I enjoyed this satirical chess article from The Onion.

@Wuascht said ^

Applause: Very good point in the article that is does not make sense to decide a "Classical" chess game through "rapid" or "blitz" games!

Question: Why do we have to have only 1 world champion?

Example: Let's take an analogy from ski races. If there are two racers finishing with exactly the same time, BOTH are declared to be winners. Why not the same in chess?

Conclusion: If two ski racers / chess players are equally good, why not grant both of them the title?

I think because both are diferent, ski is with time and Hability?
I dont know much of, but chess is also the tactic point, the wins with black (because when you start a game you have a lower chance to win with black than with white) etc....

@Wuascht said [^](/forum/redirect/post/jBedKHjj) > **Applause:** Very good point in the article that is does not make sense to decide a "Classical" chess game through "rapid" or "blitz" games! > > **Question:** Why do we have to have only 1 world champion? > > **Example:** Let's take an analogy from ski races. If there are two racers finishing with exactly the same time, BOTH are declared to be winners. Why not the same in chess? > > **Conclusion:** If two ski racers / chess players are equally good, why not grant both of them the title? I think because both are diferent, ski is with time and Hability? I dont know much of, but chess is also the tactic point, the wins with black (because when you start a game you have a lower chance to win with black than with white) etc....

This reminds of when they change the rules in lead climbing competitions so that in the even of a tie, the speed at which the climbers reached the highest point was used as a tie break. Like with rapid chess and classical chess, a lower speed of reaching the same point, is positively correlated with being a better climber, but it felt artificial as lead climbing should be about who can get the farthest on a hard route, not who can get there the fastest. Speed climbing is a separate discipline.

One thing in favour of faster time controls for tie breaks is that they are used in many classical events, so skill in them could be considered part of classical chess. We use the world cup as a qualification method after all.

This reminds of when they change the rules in lead climbing competitions so that in the even of a tie, the speed at which the climbers reached the highest point was used as a tie break. Like with rapid chess and classical chess, a lower speed of reaching the same point, is positively correlated with being a better climber, but it felt artificial as lead climbing should be about who can get the farthest on a hard route, not who can get there the fastest. Speed climbing is a separate discipline. One thing in favour of faster time controls for tie breaks is that they are used in many classical events, so skill in them could be considered part of classical chess. We use the world cup as a qualification method after all.

Battle of attrition. This forever pushes human limitations to the extremes organically.

Battle of attrition. This forever pushes human limitations to the extremes organically.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

I really hope this is a trolling article because if not it’s utterly ridiculous- we’ll be giving pawn odds next if a player is 50 points lower rated.

Hmm. I mean the author of the blog did reference a peer-reviewed published paper in an academic journal.

Then that paper's flaws were pointed out by the commentators in the comment section.

Then the blog author decided to come up with a provocative and stunning proposal - a coin toss.

Now we want to inflate the odds of the weaker player just because they’re weaker?

Weaker in Rapid and Blitz in the Classical World Championship. Not just because they are weaker generally.

If you're truly the better Classical player, go win a Classical game. If you can't do that over a multi-day/week match, you don't get to complain when the tiebreak tests a different element of the game. Versatility matters.

@RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/q56pxkN8) > > > I really hope this is a trolling article because if not it’s utterly ridiculous- we’ll be giving pawn odds next if a player is 50 points lower rated. > > Hmm. I mean the author of the blog did reference a peer-reviewed published paper in an academic journal. > > Then that paper's flaws were pointed out by the commentators in the comment section. > > Then the blog author decided to come up with a provocative and stunning proposal - a coin toss. > > >Now we want to inflate the odds of the weaker player just because they’re weaker? > > Weaker in Rapid and Blitz in the Classical World Championship. Not just because they are weaker generally. If you're truly the better Classical player, go win a Classical game. If you can't do that over a multi-day/week match, you don't get to complain when the tiebreak tests a different element of the game. Versatility matters.