Time to Abandon the World Championship?

[karchad]

@KeithAmmann

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.

I don’t agree. I kind of like the “king of the hill” thing. I like the concept that the challengers have to go through a rigorous contest, and have to decisively defeat the champ. In boxing, usually the champ has the advantage of the scorecard (though not always, see Hagler-Leonard!), while in chess the champ gets draw odds. I think it adds drama to it. When the champ gets thrown in with the rest of the pile every 2 years, it kind of demeans the concept of the championship. I guess it’s just a personal preference, but I like that system, seems to add drama to each championship boxing/chess match.

[karchad]

@Windrider

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.

Call me an old fogey, but I never understood what was wrong with the system we had in the 60’s-80’s. A series of candidate matches, leading to a 24-game championship match. It was simple, it always seemed to produce a top candidate, a great championship match, and there was a lot of drama and decisiveness to each match…

[tsawmiller]

@karchad

@Windrider

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.

Call me an old fogey, but I never understood what was wrong with the system we had in the 60’s-80’s. A series of candidate matches, leading to a 24-game championship match. It was simple, it always seemed to produce a top candidate, a great championship match, and there was a lot of drama and decisiveness to each match…

I liked that too, but I would rather see the World Champion seeded into the next round of candidates matches, rather than sitting around the entire time waiting to see who he will play.

[ChessSpawn]

@tsawmiller

@karchad

@Windrider

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.

Call me an old fogey, but I never understood what was wrong with the system we had in the 60’s-80’s. A series of candidate matches, leading to a 24-game championship match. It was simple, it always seemed to produce a top candidate, a great championship match, and there was a lot of drama and decisiveness to each match…

I liked that too, but I would rather see the World Champion seeded into the next round of candidates matches, rather than sitting around the entire time waiting to see who he will play.

Then it really becomes just another tournament of sorts. I prefer that the challenger play the current champion over the board for the title.

[tsawmiller]

@ChessSpawn

@tsawmiller

@karchad

@Windrider

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.

Call me an old fogey, but I never understood what was wrong with the system we had in the 60’s-80’s. A series of candidate matches, leading to a 24-game championship match. It was simple, it always seemed to produce a top candidate, a great championship match, and there was a lot of drama and decisiveness to each match…

I liked that too, but I would rather see the World Champion seeded into the next round of candidates matches, rather than sitting around the entire time waiting to see who he will play.

Then it really becomes just another tournament of sorts. I prefer that the challenger play the current champion over the board for the title.

Why should everyone else go through the grueling qualifying process while the champion sits around playing blitz against his computer? If he is a real champion, let him prove it again in the trenches with the candidates.

[tmagchesspgh]

In most other sports the champion is not given a special privilege to wait for a final challenger to emerge after an arduous set of preliminary games or matches. They start anew in the following season and compete on an equal footing. US football and international soccer, baseball, basketball, etc. all start fresh to determine a champion. Even tennis, with its lopsided seeding which advantages the top players, still makes them play.

Only two “sports” have this system where the champion awaits a challenger: chess and boxing. In boxing, the champ can sit out for a year or more while the challengers compete to get a shot at him. From a historical perspective, the two sports became popular in the public’s imagination at the same time. Their similarity in qualifying for the “championship” through one on one contests remained fairly consistent. When FIDE set up a regular three year cycle, it still granted the champion the right to wait for a final challenger rather than have to compete in interzonals or candidates tournaments. Both chess and boxing have been riddled with scandals over organization and each has numerous shady characters in its history who were involved in the match making process.

[ChessSpawn]

@tsawmiller

@ChessSpawn

@tsawmiller

@karchad

@Windrider

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.

Call me an old fogey, but I never understood what was wrong with the system we had in the 60’s-80’s. A series of candidate matches, leading to a 24-game championship match. It was simple, it always seemed to produce a top candidate, a great championship match, and there was a lot of drama and decisiveness to each match…

I liked that too, but I would rather see the World Champion seeded into the next round of candidates matches, rather than sitting around the entire time waiting to see who he will play.

Then it really becomes just another tournament of sorts. I prefer that the challenger play the current champion over the board for the title.

Why should everyone else go through the grueling qualifying process while the champion sits around playing blitz against his computer? If he is a real champion, let him prove it again in the trenches with the candidates.

He is a real champion waiting for the challenge of the best candidate. It’s a match challenge to a champion, not just another tournament with the name WC attached to it. It is partly tradition. I favor that. You may not.

BTW, Kirsan gave us a knockout WC tournament(s) that didn’t produce a respected world championship. I recall Kramnick saying Anand was not really WC because he had not won the title in a match.

[ChessSpawn]

@tmagchesspgh

In most other sports the champion is not given a special privilege to wait for a final challenger to emerge after an arduous set of preliminary games or matches. They start anew in the following season and compete on an equal footing. US football and international soccer, baseball, basketball, etc. all start fresh to determine a champion. Even tennis, with its lopsided seeding which advantages the top players, still makes them play.

Only two “sports” have this system where the champion awaits a challenger: chess and boxing. In boxing, the champ can sit out for a year or more while the challengers compete to get a shot at him. From a historical perspective, the two sports became popular in the public’s imagination at the same time. Their similarity in qualifying for the “championship” through one on one contests remained fairly consistent. When FIDE set up a regular three year cycle, it still granted the champion the right to wait for a final challenger rather than have to compete in interzonals or candidates tournaments. Both chess and boxing have been riddled with scandals over organization and each has numerous shady characters in its history who were involved in the match making process.

And there have be no scandals in Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, horse racing…?

[tsawmiller]

I still favor the match concept. I just do not like the champion waiting around to play one match. I’d rather see the champion be one of the candidates matches participants. Let’s see the champ take on several good players one on one.

[jjamesge1]

Why not use 8 tournaments? The winner of each will play in a round robin tournament, in which the top 4 finishers get to the next stage.

The final 4 could play a double round robin, and the top 2 finishers would have an actual match to determine who gets to play the World Chess Champion for the title.

That would mean there is only 2 match rounds: the semi-final, and the title match.

Obviously, in the case someone is already seeded for the 8 man round robin, they would go down the line until they found someone that wasn’t already seeded (2nd or 3rd place most likely) that would be seeded for the round robin “8 man” tournament.

It would simplify the hell out of the requirements. Of course, you don’t have to have all 8 tournaments in the same year, since the title match isn’t done on a yearly basis.

There are so many high level tournaments, instead of picking 8 specific tournaments, have any of the high level tournaments bid to be used as world champion seed tournament. That would also simplify the fact that in the future, some tournaments might no longer exists. Say Tanta Steel decides it no longer wants to host a high level tournmant… it wouldn’t be a problem, they just don’t have to bid to be a world champion seed tournament.

Obviously, there has to be strict requirements for the tournament in order to be used as a seed tournament.

Edit: The 8 tournaments should be done in the first half (18 months) of the cycle. Giving plenty of time for the two round robin tournaments, and the semi-final match, so that the finalist has adaquete time to prepare for the World Chess Championship match.