Kasparov agrees on Mickey Mouse

[Kirby]

I think it's a stretch to interpret Kasparov's comments that way.

I think any opportunity to reference Mickey Mouse is sufficient for this thread.

[hyperpape]

I think that since Chess suffers from a plague of draws, what is best for it may not be the same as what's best for Go. Perhaps decisive games, played faster but at a somewhat lower level, are better for Chess. That says nothing about Go, because we're not starting with the same problem.

[EdLee]

In chess or go, for me the question is who played the better chess or go.

But that's the POV of a spectator/amateur.
That may or may not be the #1 priority when other factors, such as total take-home income or titles or sponsorships, exist. Thus the aforementioned strategies for draw-offering in chess.

[jonsa]

We need shorter limits to draw in people who would otherwise pass an eye over mindsports and longer limits for the limitlessness of go. One speed of play shan't push out the other is along the lines of where I'm thinking...

Sorry in advance for the wall of text.

This discussion on time limits reminds me of a similar discussion that is going on within Cricket (the sport, not the bug). Long-form Cricket, Test Matches that last up to 5 days, are waning in "general popularity". There are, of course, fans of the game who love the long format, the subtle and attritional contest between bowler and batsman that can last for hours or days... but they seem to be in the minority.

And so in the last few decades the ODI (One Day International) was introduced. And then, more recently, the T20. This format finishes in about four hours. This format has caused lots of controversy: some feel that it takes away from the "essence" of the sport, that it is too easy for batsman to score runs, that the bowler is at a disadvantage. Others, though, feel that it is really exciting to watch a batsman try to score as many runs as he can, as fast as he can, rather than trying to protect his wicket and remain on the field, scoring every ball instead of every 5th or 6th. In Test cricket the batsman tries to mitigate risk, in T20, the batsman embraces risk.

The T20 format has gained wide-spread acceptance. It is a very popular spectator sport (in cricketing terms). The cricketing governing boards are asking themselves how can they capture the attention of the public (especially "youth", so that the game will grow) which may not have a long attention span -- perhaps not even 4 hours long. Now they are thinking about introducing T10, a format half as long as T20...

One consensus that has emerged, grudgingly conceded by Test Cricket lovers, is that T20 cricket is important because it makes money; the stadiums will often be full for these matches, which generates enough income to support test cricket. Without these "subsidies", test cricket would be "unprofitable" or "unsustainable" and may be taken off television (making it inaccessible for most fans) or the number of test matches may be curtailed.

So perhaps it is necessary to compromise, giving up some of the "essence" of the sport (or mindsport, in the case of go) in exchange for maintaining a steady stream of competitions, especially ones that are accessible to the public who cannot attend in person, that are attractive to sponsors and "turn a profit".

This is the case in cricket. I don't know if it is also applicable to Go:

We have seen several major Korean go events ruined by this trend. I obviously don't know the details of why these events folded, but the pattern of very short time limits seems to be common to all or almost all.

Perhaps it is not.

I myself would not like an extreme case: either one well-funded long-format tournament a year or fifty-two blitz tournaments, available at the push of a button. It is a question of finding the right balance between the long and short formats and between the (mind)sport as a (mind)sport, a "pure" competition where the goal is the best possible game, and the sport as a unit of entertainment where the quality of the game may be reduced in order to increase excitement. This balance is particularly important when the short formats provide the income that allow the longer formats to be played, even if they do not support themselves financially.

I am struck by the similarity, though, of two niche sports struggling to maintain the "purity" of the sport and the popularity/growth of said sport (which is made accessible to the "general public" by sub-optimal play).

[topazg]

In chess in particular there's also the issue of booking venues / sponsorships / TV and commentator coverage etc. When it was a 20 game title match with "incumbent remains if drawn", you knew there were 20 matches to be played, no more, no less. As soon as "drawing to retain the title" was removed (the arguments for which are not really in the scope of this thread), you need some form of being able to maintain a schedule. Keeping going with classical games after the 12, to find it was perhaps still drawn after 24, or 30, is obviously not an option. On the basis that you probably do need to finish the event with the title challenge concluded, tiebreaks make a lot of practical sense. Faster time controls = more games, each of which are less likely to be drawn.

The moral of this story is that if you want to be the world chess champion based on classical chess skills, ya gotta win them. In which case, there are no shorter time control games. This is not an event that's been "dumbed down" for fast food entertainment by being shortened in general (although classical time controls have changed somewhat over the last few decades), it's simply that the match was effectively drawn (a far bigger issue in chess than in Go).

EDIT: There's even another issue, that isn't completely insignificant. When we watch title matches, or the Olympics, or the World Cup, or whatever it is we choose to follow, we want to see the best players in the world competing at an exceptionally high standard to be at the pinnacle of human competence. The best way to achieve this is to have the sport professional, where people can dedicate themselves from a young age to having little other skills on the basis they hope to be able to maintain a living doing nothing else. To do this, you need something attractive to an audience on a large scale, that will in turn generate the revenue that passes through to the competitor's pockets. Using chess as an example, if more rapid time control tournaments made it more accessible to a wider audience and made it easier to pay Grandmasters a professional salary, then in the super long run the quality of play will most likely still be higher than super long games where financial necessities made it an amateur only sport.

[jlt]

So far nobody has defined what is a Mickey Mouse time setting. I looked on Wikipedia and found time settings of a few professional go competitions:

Mickey Mouse:

• Maxim Cup: 30 minutes long.
• Electron-Land Cup: 20 minutes for each player plus byo-yomi.
• KBS Cup: 5 minutes with byo-yomi.
• CCTV Cup: one move every 30 seconds.
• South-West Qiwang: 30 seconds per move.
• Daiwa Cup: five minutes per player, followed by a byo-yomi of 30 seconds a move.
• NHK Cup: 30 seconds per move. In addition, each player has 10 periods of extra thinking time, 1 minute each.

Mickey Mouse trying to think a bit longer:

• GS Caltex Cup: 10 min main time with 3 x 40s byo-yomi.
• Siptan: 10 minutes total and 40 seconds for byo-yomi.

Not Mickey Mouse:

• Ing Cup: 3.5 hours for each player, while players are available to buy an extra 35 minutes for an additional 2-point komi a maximum of three times.
• Guksu: In the preliminaries, players are given 3 hours to play their matches. In the knockout league, players are given 4 hours, and in the final title match players are given 5 hours.
• Chunwon: The time limits are 5 hours in the final, 4 in the main knockout, and 3 in the preliminaries.
• Meijin: 8 hours each in the title matches and 3 hours in the league and prelims. Byo-yomi is 1 minute per move.
• Shinjin-O: 3 hours.

On most Wikipedia pages, time settings are not indicated, so I don't know about other tournaments. My personal opinion is that, as a spectator, intermediate time settings like 60-90 minutes per side + byo-yomi would be ideal. Blitz games are too fast, I have no time to analyze the board position and play the "guess the next move" game. Conversely, I wouldn't sit down the whole day to watch Meijin title matches, probably because I am not able to appreciate the difference of level of professional play between 1.5 hours thinking time and 8 hours.

[John Fairbairn]

Hi jlt:

Many of the events you list don't exist any more - which is partly why I see a problem.

Others have seen a problem, too - notably the Chinese who seem to have settled on 2h each as the best compromise.

But where the China League has 2h 40m each plus a handful of games at NHK timing (presumably aimed at tv/interne audiences) and 2h each for the women's league, the Korean League (in its main Division A) has 10m + 5x40s; the Korean Veterans League has 30m + 5x40s, the Korean Young Stars League has 20m + 3x40s, the (Korean) Women's Kiseong has 20m + 3x30s, the Korean Pro-am League has 10m + 5x40s, the Korean KBS Cup has 10m + 3x40s, the Yongseong has NHK timing.

Whereas in Japan the Honinbo is in its 75th annual term, the Oza in its 67th, the NHK Cup in its 66th, the Kisei in its 44th and so on and so on, in Korean events it's now the 1st this or the 2nd that - then poof, they disappear!

So, Korea's profile is markedly different from those of Japan and China. Even our amateurs get more than them: the World Amateur has 1h + 3x30s.

I don't think anyone doubts the skills of the Korean players, and maybe Korea fans are much better then anyone else at following fast games, but in my view forcing their pros to play hyper fast all the time is like making a dog prance on its hind legs for entertainment.

[EdLee]

I am not able to appreciate the difference of level of professional play between 1.5 hours thinking time and 8 hours.

A silver lining? Maybe super-human bots can now give some objective, concrete numbers to the difference?

[PatD]

The "RIP" of classical chess because of draws only applies to matches and super tournaments, where the players are almost equal in rating. Since Chess is an objective game, i.e., mate the king, one side has to be given the incentive to rock the boat so to speak. Rating differences force the stronger player to take chances against a weaker player. I have tried many times to draw a master and failed, even in a drawish position.

There is no need for MM time controls at the amateur level and open tournaments, where players of varying ratings participate. Think Gibraltar or Isle of Man tournaments. The "super GM" will not want to draw an IM or mere GMs, so blood bath occurs.

At the exclusive events, such as the world championship match, a change in the format will undoubtedly occur. One proposal is to give the challenger an extra white, and the defending champ gets draw odds. Or, a tie break with MM time format will be played first -- the winner gets draw odds, giving the loser the incentive to play for the win in the classical event.

I am also predicting more and more exclusive/invitation only tournaments to invite up and coming lower-rated GMs. Fans are tired of the super GMs giving draw offers to each other.

[Vio]

All this discussion don't make chess very attractive (to me at least). Looks like the only way to keep money and audience is a wild fight under a kind of time pressure... Weird.

For go we are still a bit more lucky. Go AI beat pros, bring some new ways to think the game too but don't rush the go world to play faster.

By today's standards we should play faster to keep interest from watchers. Other side we loose quality of play, it's like a vicious circle.
I could dream some protection coming from clever state who understand that the market system is not the best one to keep go alive and productive.
Go is so elitist, only very few play it. Even in Asia, where it's something that people did hear about it but don't get wrong it doesn't mean they do play it. If the decision makers don't play, how will they have interest in protecting the game?

[Elom]

One can wonder if go at limits and slow are of the same essence. However, there may be a case to say that newer technologies leap over the generational gap to bring back the old school.

It sounds odd, but what if fast time settings do better on TV while traditional and long limits do better on the internet? Having a major event on all day means more spectators thinking and talking about it throughout. This could give more opportunities for non-spectators to be introduced to the game or sport after which the event's importance could keep them interested and the long limits could let them learn the rules and follow the match before its end.

By contrast, a spectacle speed game's main time may give more opportunities for ads at the beginning, after which a latecomer can follow the game through byo-yomi.

Off topic: Forgive me if I don't quite follow this, but if Caruana accepted the draw because he believes he has a better chance of defeating Carlsen in the rapids than winning the last game then must he not agree with Kasparov that Carlsen either underestimated his ability to win (strange) or lost his nerve. Or Caruana overestimated his chances in the rapid.

I find chess analysis videos interesting, even if I only understand little.
Could not promotion work from that perspective?

[PatD]

It appears the MM time control is good for chess (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... t-in-chess). The rapid tie breaks actually attracted much more attention in Twitch and elsewhere than any of the classical portion.

To be honest, as a lowly 15Kyu player, I enjoy watching an entire NHK cup match although I have no clue what the players are doing (more English translations please!); whereas the Meijin matches and the likes are just too much for me.

[jlt]

To be honest, as a lowly 15Kyu player, I enjoy watching an entire NHK cup match although I have no clue what the players are doing (more English translations please!); whereas the Meijin matches and the likes are just too much for me.

I believe you could enjoy longer games with a good English commentary. If you haven't done so, look for instance at the Lee Sedol vs. Alphago matches with a commentary by Michael Redmond.

[dfan]

Off topic: Forgive me if I don't quite follow this, but if Caruana accepted the draw because he believes he has a better chance of defeating Carlsen in the rapids than winning the last game then must he not agree with Kasparov that Carlsen either underestimated his ability to win (strange) or lost his nerve. Or Caruana overestimated his chances in the rapid.

Carlsen's position was better, but he offered a draw, which Caruana accepted.

Caruana accepted the draw offer because his position was worse. He was likely to lose if he played on and was very unlikely to win.

Kasparov thought it was wrong of Carlsen to offer the draw because Carlsen had a better position and little chance of losing if he played on.

[sorin]

Off topic: Forgive me if I don't quite follow this, but if Caruana accepted the draw because he believes he has a better chance of defeating Carlsen in the rapids than winning the last game then must he not agree with Kasparov that Carlsen either underestimated his ability to win (strange) or lost his nerve. Or Caruana overestimated his chances in the rapid.

Carlsen's position was better, but he offered a draw, which Caruana accepted.

Caruana accepted the draw offer because his position was worse. He was likely to lose if he played on and was very unlikely to win.

Kasparov thought it was wrong of Carlsen to offer the draw because Carlsen had a better position and little chance of losing if he played on.

It occurred to me that Carlsen's decision to offer a draw in a position where he was ahead, and most chess masters (including Kasparov) thought it doesn't make sense ("why not just play and win the 12th game and be done with it?") - is somehow similar to some seemingly stupid decisions that strong Go AIs makes in yose, when they clearly throw away points when ahead, just to maximize winrate (and win anyway).

I guess Carlsen made his judgement using a "minimize risk at all costs" strategy, just like AlphaGo does, which to "mere mortals" it may look wrong.