Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Classic Games (Games)

World Chess Champion Urges Quicker Games, Is Also Rich (chessnews.com) 81

Posted by EditorDavid from the being-the-king dept.
CNN profiles Magnus Carlsen, the world's best chess player — and the state of the chess community today: Interest in chess spiked at the beginning of the pandemic, and again in October 2020 after the release of the Netflix series, "The Queen's Gambit." In the first three weeks after its debut, sales of chess sets went up by 87% in the U.S. and sales of books about chess leaped 603%, according to marketing research company NPD Group. Not since the 1970s, when American legend Bobby Fischer burst onto the scene, has the game captured the attention of the world like this....

Carlsen tries hard to be indifferent toward anything at all during the press conference and interview. But he does have strong opinions on how the game should be changed to make sure it holds the attention of the current groundswell of interested players. "I've been somebody who's supported having quicker games in the world championship for a long time," he said. "I think for people who are not into chess at all, who don't know anything about the game, you're more naturally attracted to quicker games." World championship games can last hours and often end in ties because mistakes are so rare...

Carlsen's love of fast-paced chess isn't surprising, considering he is the current world champion in both "Rapid" and "Blitz" formats — games that generally last for 15 minutes or less. His tiebreak wins in previous championship games were both in the rapid format and there are numerous videos on YouTube where his quick thinking is showcased. Computers are now powerful enough to calculate billions of possible move combinations in seconds, ably deciding the best possible option. It makes preparation more exacting and less enjoyable, and Carlsen thinks quicker games would help solve that...

Carlsen could rightly be considered the greatest chess player ever. He has been the world champion for eight years and holds the longest unbeaten run in history. He only trails Russian grandmaster Garry Kasparov in weeks spent as the highest rated player.
But the New York Times points out that Carlsen has done something none of his chess-playing predecessors have ever done. "He has leveraged his fame to become one of the chess world's leading impresarios. In the process, he has amassed a small fortune." Carlsen has several private sponsorship agreements, including with Unibet, a sports betting site; Isklar, a Norwegian water company; and Simonsen Vogt Wiig, a Norwegian law firm. But the main vehicle for his business ventures is Play Magnus, a company that he co-founded in 2013, the year he became world champion. Initially designed as an app that allowed users to mimic Carlsen's playing style and strength at different ages, Play Magnus has expanded, mostly through acquisitions, to become a company with a dozen subsidiaries. It now includes an online playing site, multiple teaching and training platforms, and digital and book publishing arms.

According to Andreas Thome, Play Magnus's chief executive, the company has about 250 employees and about four million registered users of its products and proprietary learning programs. One year after it went public on the Euronext Growth Oslo stock exchange, Play Magnus now has a market capitalization of about $115 million. It is the only publicly traded chess company in the world.
Carlsen's personal stake in the company is worth nearly $9 million, the Times points out — even as Carlsen is now competing in the world chess championship for a $2.24 million prize, where "as much as 60% will go to the winner."

In the 14-game match, the first two games...all ended in a draw. "The result means there have now been 16 draws in a row in world championship games played at classical time controls," the Guardian pointed out, "dating back five years to game 11 of Carlsen's match against Sergey Karjakin in November 2016."

And then the third game, played Sunday....also ended in a draw.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Chess Champion Urges Quicker Games, Is Also Rich More

World Chess Champion Urges Quicker Games, Is Also Rich

Comments Filter:

  • Queen's Gambit wasn't really about chess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by S_Stout ( 2725099 ) on Sunday November 28, 2021 @05:37PM (#62028475)
    Those people discovered chess is a boring sport for the majority of people. The show was popular because the story was good. You could have replaced chess in that show with chinese checkers and it'd have the same effect, maybe more so since chinese checkers is a lot more fun.

  • Monetizing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Sunday November 28, 2021 @05:38PM (#62028477)

    "But the New York Times points out that Carlsen has done something none of his chess-playing predecessors have ever done. "He has leveraged his fame to become one of the chess world's leading impresarios. In the process, he has amassed a small fortune."

    Unlike, say, Gary Kasparov selling chess programs?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Baseball, football (both pro and college), and basketball (pro and college) have implemented rules to speed up the game. I think tennis is considering this as well. There may be a few others but regardless, no one seems to mind a slightly faster pace. It can't hurt for chess.

  • World chess championship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday November 28, 2021 @05:44PM (#62028487) Journal

    You can live-watch or look through past games easily at chess24 [chess24.com], which is owned in part by Magnus.

    Before the match, conventional wisdom is that Magnus is overall better at chess, and is better at endgames, so he has a higher probability of winning overall. Nepomniatchi has better calculation skill in confusing dynamic positions, so if he can choose openings that move the game to confusing dynamic positions that neither player understands, he can win.

    Magnus has gamed that by sacrificing a pawn to allow the games to get into dynamic positions. He is saying, "ok, you want to play dynamic chess, do you dare to do so in a position I understand?" The first game, Nepomniatchi took the passive way out. The second game, he stayed to fight, and got a bit of an advantage, but threw it away. The third game, both players were tired and came to a relatively easy draw.

    If the games go to rapid, Magnus will probably win because he is a lot faster at calculating in endgame positions (that is, he has better intuition so he doesn't need to calculate as much).

  • Shogi = few draws (Score:4)

    by Stephen Chadfield ( 7971 ) on Sunday November 28, 2021 @06:05PM (#62028525) Homepage

    I moved to Japan and switched to playing Shogi. There is a friendly club near my house so I get to play OTB twice a week. The club members have been playing forever so I mostly get slaughtered.

    Draws are very rare in Shogi.

    Unhappy with the Shogi analysis GUIs on macOS I wrote my own. Available free for Windows, macOS and Linux: https://www.chadfield.com/p/sh... [chadfield.com].

    I plan to test it on FreeBSD when I finish the OS install...

  • For those who want casual, unpredictable chess, go with faster timers.

    For those who want the deeper, more intellectual games, go with slower timers.

    We can have both!

    • But he isn't really asking for faster games. What he is asking for, and several of his predecessors before him also were asking for, was a change to the system to make it less boring.

      I think the solution is to crown the world champion as is done in poker tournaments. Right now its done like in boxing where you keep your title until you lose a title match ... blah blah blah.

      Make 'em prove it every year in the same way that everyone else is asked to prove it.

      If Magnus had to climb over a dozen top playe

      • "I think for people who are not into chess at all, who don't know anything about the game, you're more naturally attracted to quicker games." World championship games can last hours and often end in ties because mistakes are so rare...

        Perhaps this quote from the summary clears up what "he" wants.

  • Make it quick, and turn into a Rubikâ(TM)s cu (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Unpopular Opinions ( 6836218 ) on Sunday November 28, 2021 @08:23PM (#62028693)

    As someone who had chess classes in the 5th to 8th grade, I value the benefits chess adds on critical thinking and planning your in game moves - and, to an extent, can help with real world business scenarios. However take away the ability of a player to think by him/herself in favor of pre-made decisions (aka act quick or else) and you have a Rubikâ(TM)s cube: a handful of patterns the quickest to remember them all wins.

    That is not what chess used to be, but hey, the world is all about being profitable these days, so good luck for him on his attempt to destroy an already very niche sport.

  • Randall (XKCD guy) appears to be a fan of Magnus.

    This story mentions Magnus' app which was in: https://xkcd.com/1628/ [xkcd.com]

    You can also see Magnus' regime starting in: https://xkcd.com/1392/ [xkcd.com]

    He has been the highest rated player for 10 years by now according to FIDE.

  • Yeah, no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Sunday November 28, 2021 @08:36PM (#62028723)

    He keeps saying it, but there is already a World Rapid Championship and a World Blitz championship, and as Carlsen should know well, he makes a lot less money from winning those. And few people, even in the chess world, know or care who the current World Blitz Champion is.

    Switching to faster time controls just means he makes less money, and there is less interest.

    If there was more interest, then the public would call the World Blitz Champion the "World Chess Champion" and they'd call the World Chess Champion the "World Slow Chess Champion." And the price funds would be reversed.

    In general, historically, chess champions have shown themselves to have completely normal opinions on other topics, they're just another Homer on anything other than chess itself; even chess promotion, they're just armchair pundits. Even training! The top players are not the best trainers, the best trainers are often not strong enough to be professional players. Carlsen is no different in this regard.

    • He wants the format to switch to what he's good at so he wins more.

      His explanation for why to do that is just a cover.

      • He, and many other GMs, want the format to switch because classical format chess has become boring, and basically 'solved.' It's memorizing multiple lines spat out by a chess engine. It's why the classical games tend to be perfectly tied, and the championship is determined in rapid and blitz.

        See also Chess360, also known as Fischer Random.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ZeroPly ( 881915 )

          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 c

          • And finally, I refuse to accept Magnus as undisputed chess champion. He's the rapid chess champion.

            This is the best combination; ignorance plus hate. lol

            Carlsen has been the #1 rated in classical chess for 10 years. Every month there is a new rating list. Last time he was #2 he was 19 years old.

            In 2013 he became World Champion by beating Anand 6 1/2 to 3 1/2.
            In 2014 he defended his title by defeating Anand 6 1/2 to 4 1/2.
            In 2016 he defeated Karjakin in the tiebreaks. Karjakin's nickname is the "minister of defense" and didn't take any chances in the match at all. The two decisive games were when Carlsen

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ZeroPly ( 881915 )

              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 ma

              • Pay attention, I didn't say you said that, I completely blasted your argument out of the water by REFUTING it with Carlsen's record of having acquired the title decisively and then defending it decively.

                *boom* your argument was totally fucking destroyed. What the hell is wrong with you? You can't read, but you say I didn't pay attention?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by ZeroPly ( 881915 )

                  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 pl

                  • Re: (Score:1)

                    by ph0tik ( 669210 )

                    Your opinion has basically boiled down to "I don't like how Carlsen plays, so he shouldn't be a champion".

                    How embarrassing can your argument get? We should throw his title out because no one can beat him! We should change the game entirely so someone can beat him even though I have no evidence anyone can!

                    Aighearach thoroughly owned you in this argument. Give it up

                    • I get the opposite conclusion. ZeroPly is being entirely clear in his statement and you folks seems to just be unable to understand plain english and what is obviously true. Playing to a draw in standard chess does not show who is better at standard chess. Unless someone wins more games of standard chess than the other there is no determination about standard chess. All we have learned is that Carlsen is way better at rapid. He's not arguing who should be champion - they have stated rules for that.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ZeroPly ( 881915 )

                      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

                    • He defeated the previous world champion, Anand, decisively. He defended decisively.
                      Your argument is complete nonsense. If you don't like the rapid and blitz playoffs, under the old system, in case of a tie the Champion retains the title. That's how ignorant and silly your argument is.

                      If you don't like the recent Championships, Carlsen would still be the Real Champion as the last person to have won it decisively! Up, down, left, right, your argument is complete nonsense.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ZeroPly ( 881915 )

                      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

                    • Yes, I agree with you on that part. He defeated Anand, so he was world champion as of 2013.

                      It's not an annual title.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ZeroPly ( 881915 )

                      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 hop

                    • 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.

                      You're just derping on yourself.

                      You said something stupid, you supported it with an argument that wasn't self-consistent, wipe your chin and give it up. You were wrong. If the most recent match wasn't legit, Carlsen would still be holding the title as the last person to win it decisively.

                      It's ok to be wrong, but stop being a fucking blathering idiot.

                      Fischer lost his title by refusing to play. Carlsen won his matches, you're just whiney about the match rules, that everybody agreed to. There is no controv

                    • I mean, if you can't force a win, you're clearly not the better player, but I do agree that the title should be vacated annually and need to be re-won, not simply defended.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ZeroPly ( 881915 )

                      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.

                    • Just go back to the old days. Draws simply count for nothing, and you win when you are, say, six games up over your opponent. Classical format, no continuations, maximum two games per day. Buckle up, we'll be here for a while.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ZeroPly ( 881915 )

                      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.

                    • Yeah, but as things stand, after X amount of drawn games, they go to rapid/blitz/armageddon. Play on until you're six games up!

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ZeroPly ( 881915 )

                      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.

                    • Yeah, so am I. Standard chess championship can be 'keep playing standard games until you're decisively ahead, or you quit.'

                  • No, I'm just a 2200 rated chess player, so I actually understand the words.

        • The funny part is, people in the chess world stopped saying this after the rise of Carlsen.

          One thing you don't understand is that memorization is only in the opening. It's like in football if the computer determines the best set plays, but the players still have to try to make it happen, and they have to keep playing even when the other team doesn't do what they expected. In chess, as soon as you're out of the opening, you have to make your own moves.

          Carlsen is really good at avoiding people's preparation,

        • Magnus Carlsen is about 75 ratings points above his opponent in classical and rapid, and 100 points higher in blitz.

          That's a big enough difference that if the opponent takes risks in the classical games, they'll likely just lose. So they play safe to avoid embarrassment.

          And then when they lose in the tie-breaks, that's a lot less embarrassing for them, "see how close I came!"

          In tournaments it doesn't work, because not every player is playing safe, and Magnus might end up 5 points ahead of everybody else unl

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        The guy doesn't need to "win more" -- he has literally been Number 1 since 2013. If you want to give him a negative motivation, it's fame and wealth: the Grand Master that reinvents chess for the next century will become famous forever, rather than just being this decade's Grand Master.

        • Yeah, this is closer to the truth. But he isn't actually trying to "reinvent chess" like some others have done. But he is trying to make a headline with a throw-away comment, expressing a position that helps his business interests in chess promotion. (He's been sponsoring successful mixed-time-control tournaments)

  • But the game has fascinated me enough to play it on and off again for decades, ever since I learned the rules by playing against a Timex Sinclair 1000 computer on my black and white TV (and reading a book from the library that explained the basic rules of the game).

    One thing about chess is, it has some of the most beautiful boards of any game I know of. A good quality chess board is a work of art, and you can proudly display one on a table in your home even if you never play it. But I think that, in itself,

    • If I had to compare it to a video game, I'd say it's like watching the top Starcraft II players duke it out in 1v1 battles, except in SCII, it's about clicking all the right options as rapidly as possible so the opponent loses by mis-clicking or just being slower to select his own options. Basically, these games pretty much cease to be "interesting" or "fun" to watch anymore, once people achieve that level of mastery. They're not just trying strategies out because they think *maybe* they'll work. They're starting off with memorized optimal openings, followed by taking actions in almost a mechanical manner, like a computer.

      It's true that at the very highest levels, memorized openings rule, and clicking fast is essential. What makes it interesting is that nowadays the top 20 players globally are so evenly matched at strategy that tactics of engagement decide games. With the best unit compositions being fairly well understood, how the players handle fights has become incredibly important. The result of a high value army engaging with an equally high value army can vary from dominating win to getting utterly blasted, dependin

  • I want to see the best moves, not the best moves in 30 seconds.

  • Championship - 5 games, no draws, longer times allow games to run 2-3 days even. The issue I think is constant draws. So the nightly news is just "another draw" The general public is just bored by 2 or 3 of these - much less 14 or whatever. The evening news could be X has attacked strongly and Y has constructed an unusual defense, pundits arguing about the current position and what each person can do next. LOTs of drama and stuff for folks to chew on. Constant draws are really only interesting to

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close