Leon_Trotsky wrote on 04/26/19 at 18:56:09:

Now I think I see where this is coming from. A "country-club" environment? Good fees? These might make a criticism of a prison; for tournaments, they are advantages. But the comment is psychologically consistent with wishing to witness top grandmasters losing rating points to outsiders.

The 30-moves-of-theory complaint seems like something from 15 years ago. Today, in the age of Carlsen, at Grenke 2019 Round 6, all players' novelties occurred at moves 8, 11, 13, 14 and (in the only possible semi-arranged draw) 17.

Fighting draws are not a problem: no educated player minds seeing them. Does anyone really think the draws in My 60 Memorable Games are inferior entertainment? Does anyone in this thread really think it's more fun to watch Fischer lose to a patzer than to watch Keres draw Fischer in a stroke of genius?  

The Berlin is not a problem: you don't have to face it, for you can play 1.d4. (As if two players could not execute a semi-agreed draw or play low-risk chess with many, many other openings.)

Semi-agreed draws are not a problem: playing an entire tournament at full effort is impossible for human beings in the normal case--if you try, your concentration will lapse anyway and you will not play at full effort--so unless there are rest days between every game, some semi-agreed draws are necessary.

Round-robin tournaments among the strongest players are not a problem: they are far more thorough and fair trials than Swiss and knockout tournaments. 

Along with world championship matches, strong round-robin tournaments between the most prominent players in the world have always been the most naturally interesting events in chess, just as the Olympics (or the World Cup), where only the best from each nation compete, are the most naturally interesting events in sports. Do you regret Hastings 1985, where Pillsbury came out of nowhere to win, or Nottingham 1936, where Capablanca in his late forties and Botvinnik beat three other world champions as well as Fine and Reshevsky? Or Linares 1994, where Karpov destroyed the rest of the world after Kasparov said that whoever won it would be the world champion of tournament chess? But you can't have these without having others that are not as exciting.

Leon_Trotsky wrote on 04/25/19 at 22:44:23:

This is just ridiculous. You're basically suggesting that people should be banned from playing the moves they consider the strongest. Where are you going to draw the line?

I really don't think a category 22 tounament--or an old version of one, such as New Yotk 1924--sucks. A Magnus or a Karpov can turn in a breathtaking performance. It's not as if these tournaments feature nothing but prearranged draws.

This idea of wanting to watch great players drop rating points is another destructive feature of the rating system, as if chess were about just this one fungible thing--not a struggle for the survival of the king, not a series of great moves, great games, and great tournaments, just a stock-market ticker-tape and a Forbes list.

Nickajack wrote on 04/25/19 at 04:10:34:


This very interesting comparison. I remember years ago when I played ICC a lot, I used to choose opponents whom I thought I could handle in order to inch my way to 3000 blitz. Later when they did pool, I only could get 2400 something in 3-minute, and would frequently lose to 2100 in that pool.

Those elite GMs do seem to have a "royalty" feeling, they get to play each other in these closed round robins instead of with...us  which obviously lets them maintain their ratings since they do not get upset by a 2100 in closed round robin. The possibility is not even present.

In addition to opens like Reykjavík or Gibraltar, look at the Olimpiads. The elites have to face these underrated who may be around 2200 or 2300, and some really struggle against them. Imagine if they had to do this on a regular basis 

It would be interesting if those sponsors for elite tournaments cancelled the format entirely and converted to a 2100+ open or something, then invited those elite GMs. 

If those elite GMs want to depend on chess for living, they have to play with everyone else. And not rely on 30+ move preparation playing same guys over and over.

Let us see if they will play Berlin Wall and QGD as Black when they play big open and are trailing because they lost to some 2300 where they could not prepare 

The alternative is sponsors stop hosting tournaments due to public interest and then they play less chess. 

Nothing wrong with draw, when it is a fighting draw. Draw based on both playing out opening preparation created by their seconds and supercomputers past move 30 is not very entertaining.

Not mean that they must play silly 1. f3, but look at the opening books and DWDs recently. English by Marin, Bird by Trent, Réti by Demuth, London by hell knows how many authors. Even soon released book, Colle Zukertort by Pavloviç. So there are many other theoretical good choices to unbalance game.

As Black, well look to Magnus. He plays Челябинск Sicilian so often, and the others want to play Berlin Wall on autopilot. If more elite GMs were like him, and other enterprising GMs like Rapport and Jobawa it would be something