Matt Gaffney has an intriguing article featured in ChessBase today, with the title of the subject line of this thread. It is here: chessbase.com/post/anand-vs- … ore-kings-
My response sent to ChessBase is below.
The title of World Champion does set our sport apart from many others, but only in the best way. The match going on in Chennai is attracting attention as no tournament can do. When a large number of players, say 10, meet for a match, the public’s interest is diffused among the greater number of participants. Such a tournament or tournaments lacks the drama of a great match. Nothing quite compares to the Fischer-Spassky match in Iceland, but the present match in Chennai has come much closer. Moreover, chess is suited for this type of prolonged match as tennis is not. Almost no one would wish to see Nadal and Djokovic play 12 matches over several weeks.
The world championship match is a crown jewel that should not be disturbed.
Gary Walters
Vice President
United States Chess Federation
One thing I found interesting about the article was his comparison to golf and tennis.
One thing I don’t like about those sports is they don’t have any championship match. I tend to think of Wimbledon and the Masters as their championship matches. I definitely think a single world championship match is a much better way to go for Chess.
I look at it as a game of chess is more analogous to a game of tennis, and a chess match of moderate length (12 games) is more closely related to a set in tennis.
In both tennis and chess the side who moves first (serves) has an advantage, so after one game is complete, the colors (serve) switch[es] to the other player, so that the other player can enjoy the advantage.
At the end of the match (set) if there is a 6-6 tie, then a tie-breaker must be played. It wouldn’t be fair for one player to get the advantage of moving first (serving), so the advantage is split in this tie-breaker as evenly as possible.
Of course some die-hards insist that matches should not resort to tie-breakers. Matches must be played to a certain number of wins (until somebody wins by 2) and there should be no limit to the # of games! (Fischer, 5th set of Majors other than US Open). This insistence sometimes leads to matches of absurd length (Kasparov v. Karpov I, Isner v. Mahut)
So remember, when you see a hard-fought 3-set tennis match, it’s really like watching a 36-game chess match compressed into a couple hours [tongue pressed firmly in cheek]
Should probably be sent to Slate, where the opinion originated, as well.
I look forward to reading the full article later - as it is, I’m jammed up enough to not be following the championship at all at the moment sigh. But a quick scan suggests it’s similar to discussions we’ve had around our club. There is very definitely a group which feels that having a World Champion is rather old-fashioned in an age of live ratings.
Perhaps it is good to have times which call out the ‘creme de la creme of the chess world in a show with everything but Yul Brynner.’ But it might be equally good to have a constant level of play gunning for the number one spot, with said number one having to regularly defend that position and not sit back quiescently waiting for the challenger.
Gary,
One could argue that the changed format to only 12 games is disturbing, the rapid format which has decided the
last two championships even more, and the horrific blitz if the previous step does not settle the matter even more.
I understand the necessity of this for the TV revenues, but it does demean the championship from the days of
Spassky-Fischer, when games with quality time controls determined the match. It seems ironic that FIDE, the
organization which has made such an incredible fuss over minimum time controls is willing to settle for what is
by their lofty standards sub-par standards. Hypocritical is another word. On the other hand, what a marvelous
toast it is to the time control most prevalent in USCF-- Thats Right— Game/30!!!
The article’s main claim, that the 1-on-1 match World Chess Championship title and events should be retired, seems a bit silly. It reminds me of a Yogiism (meaning a sensible contradiction): “No wonder nobody comes here anymore, it’s too crowded”.
The attention and money involved in this match WCChampionship event is proof of its popularity and its importance.
If this article’s claim is wise, then let’s get rid of the MLBaseball World Series too, because after 162 games one team has established itself as the best with the most wins. (I watched the home town Seattle Mariners win an awesome record 116 games in 2001, yet lose in the playoffs to the Yankees and not even reach the WSeries.)
What chess lacks but needs is more tournaments that mean something toward an opportunity to challenge for the WCChamp title in a 1-on-1 match. Winning a tournament should have a large positive effect on a player’s chance to move toward a match challenge. Instead most tournaments are just paid exhibitions. Unfortunately most tournaments matter only in the indirect way of gaining/losing rating points.
If the tournaments truly mattered in a direct way toward a chance to challenge the WCChamp title holder, the importance and prestige of the tournaments would be increased; and so would the importance and prestige of the match WCChampionship title.
Chess should have a world champion. The idea of “the best” really draws people in. Of course, this world champion should set an example by being active and demonstrating why they are the best. It is “noble” to suggest giving away something one cannot reasonably hope to attain. Wouldn’t this be comparable to Capablanca suggesting fundamental changes to chess during the period he seemed to be invincible? If GM Carlsen wins the title, he should hold it until a challenger defeats him over the board for it.