Time to Abandon the World Championship?

All Things Chess
1

Hey all:

I am no longer convinced that the current model of having a semi-regular competition for a ‘World Championship’ is the best format for fans to enjoy professional top-flight chess, nor for the media to report on it.

The Old Way
I needn’t go into detail about the history of the World Championship, but the model very much resembles the sport of boxing and has roots in the late 19th and early centuries. This model has worked well for chess in the past, but growing technologies and a vast increase in the pool of professional competitors, has, to my mind, raised serious questions in the viability of this model. For instance, if the current situation is any indication, we should question the merit of even having a World Champion-- in 2012, to what will no doubt be little fanfare, the champion, world #2 Anand, will face off against a challenger, Gelfand, who has on only rare occasion been ranked among the top 10 in the world in the last decade or so.

A New Idea
Perhaps we should abandon this model and switch to a different one that might be more agreeable to chess. In particular, I wonder if a tennis/golf model would serve the game better. In both tennis and golf, there is no “World Championship”; instead, each sport has four “major” tournaments held each year. Fans and the media gauge a player’s career based in part on how many majors she or he has won.

Each event has some unique aspect to it so that majors aren’t just carbon copy duplicates of one another held four times a year. To take the example of golf, its four Majors are: the Masters, the US Open, the Open Championship (often called the “British Open”), and the PGA Championship. The Masters is always held at Augusta National Golf Club. The course is particularly difficult, and winners receive (in addition to prize money) a green jacket. The US Open is held each year at one of a number of particularly prestigious golf courses with no set rotational order (thus, Pebble Beach hosted in 1992, 2000, and 2010, while Southern Hills hosted in 1977 and 2011). In addition to inviting highly-ranked professionals, the US Open is a true open and a number of qualifying tournaments are held before the event that anyone (with enough money) may enter in hopes of earning a spot in the main event. The British Open holds its events on a somewhat stricter rotation, typically choosing as venues links-style courses. The PGA Championship, like the US Open, holds its tournaments at a different course each year. There is no set rotation, and the number of courses that have hosted the event is a bit more diverse.

In my proposal, professional chess would host 4 major tournaments each year. While I’m hardly an expert in such things, we could easily come up with 4 such tournaments that could comprise chess’ Majors. For instance, one could be the US Open. FIDE could easily establish a sort of annual FIDE Championship. The Corus/Tata Steel tournament could be another. Some quick Google-searching turned up the Tradewise Gibraltar tournament as another option. No doubt one could come up with other potential events.

Ideally, though, these four would become the premier chess events, with significant press hype, fan interest, and prize money. They would each be held at fixed times so that players, fans, and the media could anticipate them. Moreover, each tournament would have its own unique elements. The Tata Steel tournament, for instance, might invite only elite players (including, automatically, winners of the previous four (or 8?) majors) for its somewhat small pool of 15-20 in the event. The US Open may have a first round or two of group play among lower-ranked players, the winners of which are matched up against seeded players in match play. The FIDE event could have a scaled down version of its alternate World Championship events of the late 90’s, and so on.

Money and Marketing
The key element to any of this comes in the form of money. There must be enough prize money for each of these events so that even the last-place finisher (or at least, the last place invited finisher) leaves the event in the black even after travel, housing, and incidental expenses.

Obviously, Tata Steel and Tradewise have big sponsors. However, to make them even more viable, there no doubt needs to be more money poured into them through secondary sponsors. Anyone who’s watched a soccer game knows that there’s tremendous opportunity for sponsorships and, thus, sponsor money. Book sellers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble might pay to have their logo in banners in the tournament hall. Since there’s a strong association between chess and poker, Las Vegas, its myriad resorts, or on-line gambling sites may want some ad placement. Computer companies like Dell or HP might want to entice people with their latest machines, and of course major US corporations like Coke, Pepsi, and McDonald’s may also want to have ad space.

A corollary here is TV access. People laugh at this, but I, for one, have enjoyed the rare times when I saw a chess match on TV with some actual human commentary. I can’t be the only one. What about having an internet stream and running a chess match like a golf match? When you watch, say, the Masters on TV, you have various commentators positioned around the course. There is a lead announcer who serves as a sort of MC for the event. This MC guides us to what’s going on, taking us to a key putt for birdie on hole X before bringing us to an important tee shot on hole Y. Similarly, a host for a championship chess broadcast might tell us that something interesting is happening in the match A vs. B and take is to the commentator to that match. The commentator would then tell us what’s going on-- B is opting for a rare Sicilian Defense variation (as an example) and we should expect A to react in one of 2 or 3 ways, etc., etc., etc. While this is being broadcasted, of course, there is a Coca-Cola logo in the bottom corner of the screen, or whatever. And periodically, the MC might announce that this portion of the tournament is sponsored by Amazon.com or whatever, with a short read plugging the company.

Moreover, if this were done on computer, there might be an option for people to live chat with an expert to ask questions, etc. These chats would also, of course, have links to ads and logos just in case.

Conclusion
My idea is that more press is better, and having four major events (latching on to an established concept thanks to golf and tennis) would help boost fan and media interest in chess. It might also, I think, help boost sponsorship interest, especially if TV or internet streaming provided a large audience. Early events would doubtless lose money and the governing bodies of chess would have to be ready for this. In the US, professional soccer was launched following the 1994 World Cup, and even now it’s clear that not all franchises are profitable. Fortunately, its investors have deep pockets (and, probably, clever accountants to use its losses as tax write-offs) so that even after years of loss, the sport continues without showing any sign of distress. Chess must have the same attitude: even if several years produce limited success, there is potential for something great. However, in my opinion, it must start with abandoning the antiquated “World Champion” concept and move to a more viable model.

2

The problem I have is that I like that there is a world chess champion determined by match play. There might be some merit to having the top players in a series of tournaments play a series of matches as has been tried-sort of.

I would like to see boxing used as the model for a CWC. Set out a requirement that the champion must defend his title once within X number of years in a match where the winner is the first to win X number of games with draws not counting. The champion gets to pick his match opponent from amongst the top three or five players on rating over the prior year. As long as the match is with one of these players, the champion can pick the challenger with the most profitable deal. If the champion fails to defend within the time provided for a defense, the title is declared vacant. Then we have to come up with a process for finding a new champion.

3

If the champion can pick his opponent from 3 or 5 high rated players, then how does a specific player ever make it? Nobody in their right mind would pick Magnus + Kasparov as the challenger. I bet Anand would pick Karjakin.

I also don’t like the idea of buying a title match, especially when Asian or European governments, or rich companies, can easily throw in a few millions.

I was disappointed to see Magnus drop out last year just to make a statement about FIDE, even though I agree with his talking points. He’s counting on having many future opportunities as his rating shoots to 2851 and beyond.

Michael Aigner

4

As always. Money talks; nobody walks.–Dennison, The Mens Clothier, Paramus, New Jersey

I don’t have as much of a problem with the money for the match issue as with the stupidity of FIDE and Kirsan. BTW, you might want to read Kasparov’s piece in New In Chess–the one with Fischer on the cover.

Let the top players fight to be in the top three in world rankings for the title by playing in tournaments where they can increase their ratings and then make a deal to play . Timid chess play will not be rewarded with a ranking allowing for a title match. If a champion keeps ducking the number one guy (or woman) because of money, the chess world can come down on him and pressure the champion to meet the best (highest rated) for less money. That happened in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Not a perfect system, but nothing is perfect except my wife. I see this as better than the stupidity of the present ever shifting systems. It puts more power in the hands of the champion and the challengers, reducing FIDE involvement.

5

This appears to be a suggestion to return, at least in part, to the good old days. What is unclear in this case…is why the “good” old days were good. Part of the reason FIDE spent its first 20-25 years trying to bring the world championship under its auspices is because of heavy dissatisfaction with a system that allowed a champion to select his challenger.

Sure, the pressure you mentioned was brought to bear, especially on Alekhine. However, Alekhine’s refusal to rematch Capablanca showed that idle threats are ultimately useless. Even when the threat is carried out - for example, the world’s #1 rated player sitting out this championship cycle - the beat can go on without that player. Fortunately, since Carlsen is still quite young, he will likely have many more chances to compete in championship cycles. However, I personally would have liked to see him play, and if he had won the title, he would be in a prime position to forcefully advocate the changes he mentioned when he announced he wouldn’t play this time around.

History seems to suggest that the world title needs to be under some codified system, administered by a world organization. What top players have debated since FIDE first organized the AVRO tournament is exactly what that system should be. The trouble with most systems prior to the end of the Cold War was that one country had so many of the top players that it was impossible to come up with a system that could avoid the appearance of being excessively gamed. Fortunately, this is not the case now, so a better way should be available.

Of course, there are other issues too. For purity, I actually liked FIDE’s old three-year Candidates cycle, with a 24-game title match. The problem is, the world moves too fast these days for that to be practicable. I do agree that excessive tinkering is bad, but it’s probably necessary to find a system that works.

6

In defense to Alekhine, I think Capablanca’s conditions for their first match [first player to six wins and raise $10,000 prize fund(in gold)] so annoyed him that when Capablanca wanted a rematch, he declared that Capablanca would have to meet the same conditions that he himself (Alekhine) had to meet. Capablanca stalled at first, hoping for a shorter match (best of 16), but eventually gave into Alekhine’s demand of an unlimited match.

Unfortunately, by then the 1929 crash made it impossible for Capablanca to raise the capital needed for the match and it never happened.

7

This isn’t an unfair defense. However, my recollection is that Capablanca proposed the conditions for a world title match in 1922, the $10,000 minimum purse being one of them. Alekhine - along with six or seven other leading contenders - signed off on those conditions. I believe these were called the “London Rules”.

So, assuming that my memory is correct, if Alekhine was so annoyed by the conditions of their 1927 title match, why agree to them several years earlier?

8
9

Perhaps because he did not realize how difficult raising the $10,000 was. Alekhine was the only player who managed to do this during the six year reign of Capablanca, and nobody else was able to do this until FIDE began organizing the world championship in 1948 (Bogo and Euwe raised smaller amounts and played only for the title).

So I think Alekhine was somewhat justified in basically telling Capbalanca:

“You made me follow the London rules to the letter. So I’m going to make you do the exact same thing.”

10

I don’t agree, but that is a matter of preference, and your position isn’t unreasonable. I just believe that any world championship title should be held in a system where no one person - even the champion - gets to select who competes in it.

As I’ve said, any system where the champion gets to select a challenger is not one I would prefer. Feels too much like boxing to me.

Part of the process is that FIDE will always try to get the best deal. They derive a pretty good amount of income from the WC match, so that’s not unreasonable. And, even though there is a good argument that Gelfand is not the strongest possible opponent for Anand, he did go through an established qualification system where every top player had the option to participate. This gives him a lot of credibility.

Of course, Gelfand could beat Anand, and then there will be a lot of crow served amongst the prognosticators. No, I won’t be making any wagers with Ladbrokes on Gelfand to win. :smiley: But at least no one can really argue that he doesn’t deserve to be the challenger. He beat the players put in front of him.

11

Boyd, the probems of the qualification system were well pointed out in the Kasparov article. I’d like to see FIDE out of event profiteering and be a much less “involved” organization.

I like the boxing model. It also fits in with the latest craze of chess boxing. :smiley:

12

I’m aware of the NIC article. History demonstrates that there is no “perfect” qualification system, and that is likely to be even more true now that a three-year cycle is no longer a serious option. Any organization that puts together a WC cycle will likely insist on having full control of the process. I am not sure there is a middle ground for that.

The boxing model invites all sorts of manipulation, which saps credibility from the sport and the titleholder(s). As flawed as this cycle (and some past cycles) have been, they all at least afford the opportunity for every top player to compete for the championship. Boxing, OTOH, has multiple organizations, multiple championships, and general chaos at the top levels of the sport. Only those who directly profit from this chaos would argue it’s good for the sport.

Chess was headed this way, with the advent of the PCA in 1993. (Side note: Kamsky’s feat of winning two different WC candidates cycles at the same time will likely never be repeated.) Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately), Kasparov’s Deep Blue match hacked off Intel, who was the PCA’s main sponsor, and it died not long after Intel stopped footing the bill.

I might like your suggestion better if the champion were, say, forced to take the match against the highest-rated challenger who agreed to play under the FIDE auspices by a certain date. Another possibility might go something like this: the three highest-rated players who accept invitations by date “x” participate in a quadruple round-robin with the current WC, and the winner is the new WC.

13

I meant to reply to this originally, and got sidetracked. Sorry about hijacking your thread!

I didn’t quote the rest of your post, but I like the new ideas you mentioned. I am a little uneasy with the idea of abandoning the World Champion title, because I think it helps the game to have that title in play. But there is definitely value in evaluating what other successful individual sports do, and seeing what applications there are to chess.

As you correctly point out, money is the deciding factor. Most of the events that could be considered “majors” right now are basically invite-only round-robins. That would probably have to change - and those events would quickly get more expensive.

Tennis majors are two-week-long events. Four high-end, invite-only Swisses (with maybe a scoring system like the one being used in Biel right now, or maybe even using the plus-score system for prizes, to discourage excessive draws) might be quite doable. You could even have qualifiers for those high-end Swisses.

If you wanted, you could even have a rankings system where the top 4-6 players get together at the end of the year for a small double-round-robin. You could even attach the WC title to this year-end event if you wanted. Golf already has this (The TOUR Championship), but there’s no WC title attached.

Anyway, keep the ideas coming. Thanks for taking the time to put that post together. :slight_smile:

14

The history of the last 40 years indicates that the only really-big-bucks event is the world championship. Kasparov honestly believed that his PCA would be able to draw in big sponsors for the interzonal and candidates matches that lead to the title match. He eventually admitted that just doesn’t work. That’s one of the reasons he abandoned qualifications and decided to select his 2000 match opponent (first Anand, then Kramnik) himself.
As long as there is a recognizable world championship, there will be generous sponsorship. We’re seeing this today with Anand-Gelfand, even though the challenger is a less-than-marquee name.

15
16

Thanks for your reply. I do think the system is doable, and I wonder if in today’s day and age it makes something more viable for professional chess. And indeed, having a sort of FIDE end-of-year event for a FIDE Championship-- inviting the top players (plus, say, last year’s winner, and the winners of this year’s other three Majors) would be a great idea.

To be sure, it would take quite a bit of time to make this a viable system. In the US, professional soccer has been going on since 1996 and most franchises are either breaking even or losing money. Fortunately, MLS had the incredibly deep pockets of AEG to prop the league up for over a decade despite losses. However, the US has slowly begun to buy into soccer and the MLS and the tide is turning with regards to profitability and popularity.

I call into question the future lure of the World Championship because I believe that the rather capricious system for determining a challenger (and having an actual championship match) coupled with the slow pace with which the process moves is marginalizing the event. As I pondered what appeared to be FIDE’s attempt to make the process more regular and happen at shorter intervals, it struck me that more and more the event was starting more to resemble something like the Master’s or Wimbledon and less like the IBF Heavyweight title. As I thought more about that process, the more I liked the idea of chess “Majors” and less the idea of a World Champion.

17

I believe it is appropriate for the there to be a world champion, but agree the methods used so far generally haven’t worked too well. I think having a candidate’s tournament is the best method so far, but clearly there have been some problems with that. Since the world championship is such a major event, I do not believe there should be a problem with it lasting a while, but on the same hand what happened with Kasparov-Karpov was a little extreme. Although any approach (including not have a championship) will have flaws, I think the following would be a reasonable and relatively efficient approach:

First, the 64 highest rated players in the world who have participated in an international tournament within the past year would be invited to a Swiss system “candidates” tournament. The top 32 from that tournament would advance to another Swiss system tournament. Then the top 16 from that would advance. These 16 would proceed to compete in a Round Robin tournament. The top 8 from the Round Robin tournament would advance. Now these top 8 would play matches with the pairing determined from the cumulative results of the previous candidate tournaments. Each match would consist of 4 two hour games and 3 one hour games. In the event of a tie, the player with the better cumulative results from the candidates tournament would win. Each of the 4 match winners would play another match of the same style thus determining the two contenders for the world championship. Now the final match would consist of only 5 four hour long games. In the event of a tie at this the end of those games, 3 two hour games would follow as a “tie-break”. In the event that the score is now 4-4, a series of 1 hour games would be played, and the first person to win a game would be declared world champion. In the event that 5 one hour games all result in a draw, then the person with the best cumulative record over the entire world championship tournament/match event would be declared world champion.

Of course this method has flaws like any other method. However, it has several things going for it. First, by inviting the top 64 rated players in the world, it is nearly guaranteed that the 2 strongest players in the world will have a chance to compete which has not always seemed to happen. Next, this process is organized in such a way that a very strong player may have a bad start, but will still have a chance for the championship. Meanwhile, by allowing the top half of the field to advance to the next round, it would be nearly guaranteed that the true contenders would be able to advance and not miss the opportunity because of a couple bad games, unfortunate pairings, or some other “glitch” in the system. Naturally a match between two players is more determinate and exciting than a tournament, so it is desirable to have a match at some point - I believe 8 players is a good place to start. Now these matches must not last too long, but have to last at least a few games, I believe the match-method I propose is reasonable considering all factors. Then the main difficulty is the final two contenders - the “true” world championship. This is where problems have traditionally arisen. Clearly a Kasparov-Karpov-type marathon is undesirable, yet it is necessary to determine without doubt the true champion. Five games is rather few in number; however, by allowing the players 4 hours each, hopefully the games will be representative of each player’s skill and would be sufficient to determine the champion. One of the benefits of having a shorter match is of course that it discourages unnecessary draws. The tie-break games are undesirable, but I cannot think of a better alternative. The reason why the match will be terminated after the 5th one hour game is simply so that the match does not last indefinitely - additionally, by the time all this has been done, one player’s cumulative results should be noticeably better than the opponents - the chances of two players having the exact same results in 3 tournaments and 2 matches are slim indeed. Using this method could be done in a relatively timely manner, and would give ample opportunities for the best players to prove themselves. Again, I know this method is not a perfect model, and is only intended to serve as a rough outline of a possible method; however, I believe some variation of this method would be satisfactory.

18

Chess is the only competitive activity I can think of (except perhaps boxing, as alluded to before) in which the old champion is “king of the hill” and others must compete for the opportunity to try to knock him off it. Just because the Giants won the World Series last year, or Spain won the World Cup, doesn’t mean that next time around those two teams get to sit pretty while all the other teams fight a battle royal. So how come chess champs get coddled like this, aside from the fact that “it’s always been done” that way? It strikes me as an unwelcome vestige of a monarchist past, in which one rules by divine right until one’s time is over – Le roi est mort; vive le roi! We live in the democratic era now (well, maybe not in Kalmykia); everyone should have an equal crack at the title, including the prior titleholder. No special advantage should be conferred upon the sitting champion. If he deserves to retain the title, he can prove it by winning it again.

19

Speaking of boxing – aren’t there various organizations each claiming to have recognized World Championships?

20

I dont think theres any problem at all with having a chess world champion, in fact I really like the idea. However the candidates matches were a huge disappointment. Having matches decided so heavily by non-classic time control really ruined it for me, and allowed players who werent the strongest to get to the final rounds. If youre going to have matches you better have atleast 6 games per match, or else just stick to a double round robin type tournament. Whether or not you have to beat a particular opponent, atleast the player who is playing the strongest classical time control chess will be picked, rather than having people like Grischuk taking on screwy strategies to try to draw as white so they can get to a tie break and win with blitz against superior opponents.