But how does this go against General Relativity? Let's suppose that spacetime is not flat everywhere (factoring in mass), and that this has been the case since the Big Bang. In most of the universe you'd see what you expect (as with Hubble pictures), but when you look at areas where artifacts of the Big Bang are present, then you wouldn't get the results you'd expect - as with this galaxy.
Doesn't that wind up being the same as having invisible "stuff" that is spread fairly evenly except for in certain areas?
That makes no sense. If it's a gravity model that doesn't incorporate dark matter, then how could it not be absent?
For example, how do we know that spacetime is flat across the entire universe when not distorted by mass? If it varies across the universe, then some galaxies would behave differently from others.
I'm saying that blitz and rapid have no place in a standard time control championship. We already have separate world champion tournaments for those. So if the score is tied after 24 standard rated games, then go to an additional 12 standard rated games.
It won't make corporations as much money. But then again, Olympic wrestling doesn't bring in as much money as having folding chairs and cage matches. At some point you've got to value the sport over money.
But draws count for nothing right now? You could make each draw 3.14 points or 0.0 or 0.5, but as long as you're giving the same to both players in a match, it doesn't matter.
Adjournments no longer make sense in the age of computers, so I"m OK conceding on that. But 1 game a day, with some breaks, and 22-24 games total should keep it fun. Having 12 or 14 is too short. As soon as there's a win, the winner is going to turn himself inside out drawing every last game, rather than trying to get a better lead.
The problem with vacating it annually is that the world champion title just becomes the winner of a tournament, so it's devalued quite a bit. Even if we had a process to pick the top two and have them go head to head, it just happens to be whoever is on a streak that year.
Having the world champion defend would be fine if a tied result means he no longer keeps the title. It would give him incentive to play for wins, rather than grinding out draws at the first sign of danger.
It's also not a lifetime achievement award - otherwise Bobby Fischer would still be world champion, since no one beat him after the 1972 match.
Carlsen was undisputed champion from 2013-2016. As soon as the 2016 match with Karjakin failed to produce a decisive result, the world champion position should have been deemed unclear. And a rematch should have been held, or a new selection process. This current system of Carlsen playing all draws in standard, and winning in rapid, is complete BS.
Of course, I am hoping that one of them will win in the real games (that count), so that we have an undisputed world champion again. Otherwise, why not just flip a coin rather than making them play rapid? Or even worse, blitz or armageddon?
Yes, I agree with you on that part. He defeated Anand, so he was world champion as of 2013. No argument there. But he tied Karjakin and at that point the title should be considered unclear - same thing as in boxing. There needs to be a rematch to crown a winner. Otherwise the reigning champion has no incentive to win - he just needs to crank out draw after draw and preserve the title. Which sadly is what's happening.
Then you have the Caruana match on top of that. Caruana is clearly not the greatest rapid player, and if that's obvious to you and me, it's obvious to Carlsen. TWELVE draws with Carlsen having no incentive to push hard, because he's set once it goes to rapid. That's an abortion of a tournament format.
Whoever wins the standard portion of this match will be the new world champion. If it's tied, the world champion title should be considered open until a rematch can be held. Sorry that causes difficulty for the corporate types, and for Carlsen who's built quite a tidy fortune on the game. But preserving chess should come before profits.
Now to be absolutely clear, in a proper world championship match between Nepo and Carlsen - say 22 games with additional ones in case of a tie - I think Carlsen would win. But that needs to happen before he can call himself champion.
Sweet Lord, how dense can a person be?
I say again - I have nothing against Carlsen. I absolutely think he should be the RAPID chess champion. I'm against the format of the world championship match, because you shouldn't decide a standard chess championship by rapid games. In the same way that you shouldn't decide a marathon tie by a sprint, or a tie in the 400m breaststroke with a game of table tennis.
I obviously erred by writing this at an 8th grade level. So let's try this at a kindergarten level. Here's a list of competitive pastimes:
And here's a list of tournament types
And all you have to do is match the tournament with how we determine the best person in that activity. For example, it you match Poker tournament to Basketball, then you're WRONG. Because we can't use a poker tournament to see who's better at basketball. See how that works?
Why don't you start there, and see if you can match the two lists. Once you do so, I promise this whole discussion will make a lot more sense to you.
Are you intellectually retarded? Or do you just not understand chess? You rambled on about all the great things Carlsen has done. I"m sure he's great with puppies as well.
My point is that the world championship for standard chess (see, I made that word bold so you couldn't miss it) should be determined by standard games. Much like how the marathon is determined by marathons, not 100m sprints, and the 200m butterfly is not determined by the backstroke.
Until the world championship reflects who's the better player at standard chess, I refuse to accept its validity. Just because an ADD addled generation can't focus on anything for more than 15 minutes doesn't mean we need to change chess. Sucks for you if you don't like my opinion.
Pay attention... I never said Carlsen wasn't the highest rated. I never said he wasn't the best. I said I didn't recognize him as the champion in standard chess.
I'm disputing the validity of the current match format. Carlsen tied with Karjakin at standard chess and then won at rapid. Then he tied with Caruana at standard chess and won at rapid. See a pattern there? There's no reason to say Carlsen should be champion at standard chess. Until the championship can be determined by standard time controls, it makes absolutely no sense to call it a world championship. We already have a world rapid championship.
That's not why they are tied. They're tied because not enough games are played. The 1984 Karpov-Kasparov match went to 48 games before it was ended, and there was a streak of 28 straight draws in there. Spassky-Fischer was 21 games, and there was a streak of 7 draws. And these were long before ChessBase entered the scene. Draws are part of chess. If you don't like them, don't play chess.
The problem is that the corporations and the money people involved are trying to make this about how many eyeballs they can capture. And yes, rapid is more exciting to watch for someone who has no strong opinion on whether the delayed poisoned pawn is better than the mainline poisoned pawn. But blitz is more fun to watch for non-chess people than rapid. And chessboxing is more fun to watch than blitz. At some point, you're catering to the viewers at the expense of the game.
My suggestion is to put chess in front of the sponsorships and the eyeball count. Make the world championship at least 24 games, with 6 added on in case of tie. And if there's a tied score, there's no official world championship until the next cycle. No more shenanigans where Carlsen draws all the standard rated games so that he can win in rapid.
And finally, I refuse to accept Magnus as undisputed chess champion. He's the rapid chess champion. You don't determine the marathon winner by having a 100m sprint as a tiebreak.
As someone who's been playing competitively since the 90's, I think this misses the point almost entirely. Yes, the movie is all about the story, in the same way that essays are all about sentences. This movie was never supposed to be a documentary.
That said, the reason it's good is that it gives people who are not competitive chess players a glimpse into an entire world hidden from them, and the subculture that inhabits that world. The chess players are obsessive yet quirky and human, not the usual formulaic cutouts you see in American media. And the chess scenes are about as real as you're going to get - none of that nonsense where someone confidently announces "checkmate" and apparently their 2700 rated GM opponent missed that there's a mate-in-1 in that position.
It's to chess what Bull Durham is to baseball - it gives non-participants an idea of what that microcosm feels like to the players. And you couldn't replace chess with chinese checkers in the plot, any more than you could make Bull Durham about table tennis. You really think you're going to have a final scene where the protagonist skips away to play Chinese checkers with old men in a Moscow park? Laughably ridiculous.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne