Listen, the coin toss is not useful. No matter what, in the end, it’s all up to a coin, isn’t it? Giving the tiebreaker to a coin is worse than throwing the decision at a computer. At least it won’t hurt to have a bit of a difference in rapid or blitz, but still give your 100%. Giving it all away to a coin is taking it to a totally different level. I don’t approve.
@Kreuzodil said [^](/forum/redirect/post/KGHGYju7)
> > > Well, I think it's clear that the fairest tiebreak would be to replay the match of 14 games until there is a winner. It is unrealistic, I know, but at least two classical games and if the standing is 1:1 again two games and so on.
> >
> > That would take too long, and the audience will stop coming if the two sides are well-matched.
>
> Of course, that's not a solution, but it would be the fairest tiebreak. So we have to find an idea that is similar to that and does not take to much time. And here I would choose a time like "30+30" four games or so
That’s a good idea. 30+30 won’t take too long, and we can do 2 or maybe even 3 games in one day, and the chances of draws are less, and just like classical chess, we can give 20 minutes after 35 moves and 15 minutes after 60 moves to give enough time for the slower kind of chess players who require time. This solves all the current problems, and doesn’t give an edge to either side. If that’s not enough, 45 minutes should be enough to satisfy the players.
@GennadyBukin said [^](/forum/redirect/post/wmAm0RyS)
>
> > The **new** counter-intuitive proposal is that the tiebreak shall be a **coin toss.**
>
> Well, everything new is a well-forgotten old: https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/08/arts/chess-should-chance-decide-the-outcome-of-a-match.html
Ok. So now we have a method proposed that had been proposed years ago, and was never accepted.
And furthermore, we probably would see even fewer gambits, which would be a pity.
This is a good proposal, but the problem is, it is 100% luck based. Remember, this is a CHESS tournament, not a casino. Another key point is that the players who can reach this level are usually just as good in blitz, rapid, and bullet. Although both the current format and your idea both have flaws, I certainly think your idea is interesting. (also, I love the licoin!)
My idea, although probably impractical, is to play as many classical games after the designated rounds, and whoever wins first gets crowned champion. This probably won't work out too well.
So, all in all, I think we should let FIDE provide a fairer and better way to break ties.
Good blog!
I agree, a rapid and blitz tiebreak is not ideal for a classical world championship match. But I would rather have a shared world championship title than having the world champion decided by a coin toss. There is way too much at stake to let it all be decided by a coin.
I didn't read all the blog, so don't throw me tomatoes, I just want to say a PREMATURE idea.
If we flip a coin to define a winner, in this case the world champion, the winner is just elected as a result of luck, not because of ability, if you want to be a candidate and fight the actual world champion, you have to be ready, and if you are the world champion, you are maybe the best player in Earth, so you have to avoid to replaced by other player.
I just say that.
Just finish it with an ex-aequo. Carlsen and Nepo showed that split titles do exist. Hilanders obsessed by the "There can be only one" commandment, get a life.
Why not just keeping playing games until someone wins? If a player doesn't have the patience or mental fortitude to go and on, he or she had BETTER play aggressive lines that guarantee a win or a loss.
Option 2 I like the idea of having two Classical games both of which black chooses whites opening move. Black could choose something like Knight H3 or Knight A3 to open the game, or could employ pawn b4 if they had an opponent who was set on castling king side, this would guarantee that an unfamiliar line was going to be played,