Stop the insanity
Chess Today had the following today in its newsletter:
Video of the scandalous Round 1 Armageddon tiebreak Socko-S.Foisor was posted at Youtube by the Russian journalist Evgeny Surov. This game looks not much better than the famous chaotic Armageddon between Krush and Zatonskih at the US women’s championship.
After seeing all this, one may only conclude that these armageddons are not a great idea at all. To play two blitz games with increment is saner.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
I agree!
Yes on increments. Increments were designed to avoid this sort of thing, and we have had clocks with delay/increments for 15 years or so. Otherwise, it ceases to be chess, and gets down to who can move and punch the clock most quickly.
Maybe better to use Lightning time control.
For draw odds (armageddon) chess, White gets perhaps 10 seconds max for every move; and the players bid on seconds per move for Black, lowest bidder gets Black.
Easier for the spectators to follow.
Probably less frantic, as no player is ever trying to move then press clock on a turn that lasts only 1 second.
Applies to Blitz as well as to Armageddon.
Caption:
Mr. Slaon found an appropriate jacket to wear…
Two games can end in 1:1. The idea needs to be to find a decision, finally. In reality, time is limited and you can’t continue endlessly.
Maybe ONE armageddon game with increments, like 3+5 against 2+5, would be possible? Draw = Black wins.
I agree!
why they don’t use computers for this games? no one can cheat this way 🙂
Amazingly the arbiters were flustered and didn’t know the rule.
5 minutes are enough to play a civilized game.
I agree on 1 minute games to be silly clock destroying play but all over the world there are so many 5 minute chess tournaments where many of the games are decided by position and only a small part of the ones decided by time end in both players just brutally hitting the clock (with captured figures, with two much power etc.) and in many cases this happens by the players that do so while not in time trouble to (e.g. hitting the clocks with captured figures is a bad habit not only in time trouble situations).
So the problem of throwing around figures and not puttin them back on your own time (the opponent can call the referee then btw.) or ‘destroying’ the clock is not only a matter of time but of the players behaviour.
So do not stop playing armageddon and/or normal 5 minute games (it doesn’t make a difference) but stop inviting players that can’t behave in these games.
There is a very simple way to avoid armageddon – win on regular games. If thats not possible win in rapid play off. If still imposible win in blitz play off.
If you still couldn’t prove that you are better than your opponent, then there is no choice but armageddon. A tie has to be broken somehow.
It’s the same with penalty shoot-out. Both teams had 90 minutes to show their superiority. If it wasn’t enough they get an extra 30 minutes.
What else are you going to do? Letting football/chess players play until they drop from exhaustion? A tie has to be broken somehow. And believe it or not armageddon requires skills also. Knowing the rules, making moves as close to the clock as possible, etc. – those are all part of being a great chess player.
Only one rule must be added – all armageddon games should be taped. And competent arbiters please.
“5 minutes are enough to play a civilized game.”
But not enough to play a meaningful game.
Any blitz or armageddon game should have increments or even delay/Bronstein.
It’s absurd that championships or the right to move on in a championship is decided by who move the pieces the fastest and smash the clock.
What happened is that Socko won on time, and according to FIDE rules of chess the position was not a draw (it was possible to win with help of the opponent).
The question is if an armageddon blitz game combined with these rules is a good way to deside the winner in a 3 day match between two players. It has been suggested many solutions of changing different details to get it to work, I feel that the whole debate should be about if it is fair to decide a match of long games with one game of blitz.
I propose an armageddon game in normal playing time for white, where black wins in case of a draw. The player suggesting the lowest time for black plays black with that time.
“Amazingly the arbiters were flustered and didn’t know the rule.”
The rule has been in effect for years and years. When a player (at a rather high level, to boot)suddenly pretends she’s never heard of it, and stubbornly points to the fancy mate she’s constructed on the board, then finding support in the kibitzers…
I’d be flustered, too, to have such a clear cut ruling contested.
Of course, everyone is noticing that these scandals only happen with women aboard?