.Dan wrote: I vote for a return to the days when the winner had to reach a certain number of wins, by some margin (two games?) and they damn well kept playing until someone won. And eventually someone did win ....except when the players (or, more specifically, one of the players—Karpov—) becomes exhausted and a FIDE official steps in to cancel the event entirely, as happened in Kasparov vs Karpov in 1984
***snip*** After 48 games had been played in the Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1984) <http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=55015>, FIDE president Florencio Campomanes <http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=40703> canceled the event while it was still in progress. He stated that the match had "exhausted the physical, if not the psychological resources, of not only the participants but all those connected with the match... **snip** On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:20 PM Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'd like to use this thread to say I don't like the modern championship chess match with its rules like: A tied score at the end of N games means:
* the current champion keeps the title, or
* there are a series of playoffs of what is arguably a different game, as well as for a duration so short that for two closely matched players the end result could be no better than flipping a coin.
I vote for a return to the days when the winner had to reach a certain number of wins, by some margin (two games?) and they damn well kept playing until someone won. And eventually someone did win.
What's the matter with that? If those were the rules, it's doubtful either player would want to tire themselves out with an unduly long series of draws. (Though a few draws for the purpose of scoping out the other player's tricks might help.)
—Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun