Anand and Kramnik both hold champion titles, but the way how Anand won the title (in tournament) seems to me as a way to go in the future. I don't know about you, but nowdays, with help of chess software, databases and teams of GMs behind the each player ( with one year to prepare), I don't think that better player will (neccessary) win in the match, but the one with stronger support. I think that time of big matches, no matter how they atractive can be, is over. you can look at the some game of the match and say wow how a great game, only to realize later that theoretical novelty was found by some XY GM from the team, followed by sac found by chess engine, and only last few moves of the game were played by the player himself, but then it was already all over. This is not how I would like someone get a crown of best of the best. In big tournament with larger number of players playing short knockout matches it is much harder to prepare, specialy if for example pairs are made in the last minute, or if you must play against everybody else. Chess has changed a lot. Any opinions on the subject?

The short knockout matches are not accepted by prevailing opinion as a way to determine the world champion. A round robin tournament would enjoy more support, especially if it were a double or quadruple round robin. All formats, even matches, that become speed knockouts are less desirable. The problem of supporting teams cannot be uninvented, but some world class GMs do not have much support. You might eliminate some preparation by demanding players be matched without notice, but that would be absurd. It would be better to get opinions on this from the top 100-200 players. Potential sponsors would have to be consulted as well.

yes, it would be interesting to see what top GMs think about the subject, but I am in no position to ask them that question:)

I agree that double round robin would be good solution, but there would be always the danger of some controversy, where players could claim that somebody let somebody win or draw ( remeber Fischer and his claims that SSSR players  would not allow player from another country to win the candidates tournament).

Round-robin tournaments are definitely a better indicator in the long run.  It seems to me that much of the potential for controversy could be prevented by instituting a change in the scoring method in order to avoid the kinds of situations like we just saw at Linares where Anand and Carllsen play a 22 move Draw that results in Anand in 1st, Carlssen in 2nd and Aronian screwed.  Changing the scoring to a method similar to what FIFA uses -- 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss means there's a strong incentive for players to play to win which is good for the game and the fans.  I would imagine that the Draw Specialists (like Adams et al) wouldn't be happy but that's life.  In soccer/football, drawing every game means you're barely going to avoid relegation therefore getting 3 points out of a match is massively important.  You see teams take risks on the field to salvage a draw out of a losing position and you see teams take risks to get 3 points instead of 1.  What you don't see in soccer is a team playing hard until they reach the top of the table only to end up drawing the rest of their games because they feel "safe".  That difference of 2 points between a win a draw is significant enough that the top table teams are often looking over their shoulder.  And in my opinion, that's exactly what Chess needs. 

I also think a ranking system similar to what's used in tennis would also help a great deal.  The ranking system must be separate from Elo rating -- and would be based on number of events played and the results in those events.  In tennis, you have to play regularly and do well in order to maintain your ranking.  Certain events -- the Grand Slams -- impact rankings more than other events.  If you want to maintain your ranking you can't dodge the best competition, you have to play in the big tournaments like everyone else.  It goes without saying that chess tournaments should all have a definite winner.  Shared titles are extremely disappointing....

-Gonnosuke

I agree that system win=3 points, draw=1 point would be more fair and would lower the percentage of easy draws.

Also why didn't Kramnik play in Linares this year, shouldn't that be expected from a world champion? Maybe there is some good reason, maybe just calculation not to show anything what would help Anand to prepare for match.

When I look at Kramnik, there is always something "fishy" going on when he plays chess and it seems to me that he is GM "not to be touched". Don't get me wrong, he is strong player and had prove that, he is one of the best defenders among GMs. I don't want to be bais, but just remember, bathroom incident in match vs Topalov, not allowing Kasparov the rematch and prior the match with Kasparov, Shirov was the first candidate for the match (he earned that opportunity through his play) but that match failed to happen and then another match (Kasparov - Kramnik) was organized without giving the opportunity to Shirov to challenge the champion. I remember saying that this match happened because Kramnik had better chances vs Kasparov then Shirov, but that doesn't erase the fact that Shirov was the guy who battle through candidate matches. Maybe this is all just bull by jealus people, but it doesn't help in his (Kramnik's) reputation either. You just can't help yourself but to wonder what really happened?

I think that is the reason why more people are taking Anand's side in the match. 

I dislike the current knockout format for the determination of the World Champion of Chess, but I think that the best way to determine a method would be to evaluate input from the top 100 GMs.  I also think that the FIFA scoring would be an excellent way to force tournament players to play for the win, rather than winning the first few games, then playing the other games to a draw.

I dont like the idea of changing chess scoring to look more like soccer, but it helps me to spot soccer fans readily. A draw is a legitimate result in chess. The problem isnt with draws per se but with too many draws that are drawn without any fight by either player. I think the worst offenders of the bloodless draws should simply NOT be invited to events anymore, people like Leko for example. Also , I think the top players should be forced to play at least one or two big Open events a year so that their ratings wouldnt be so bloated! If not this then the most successful players from Open events should be invited to play in these elite events. Recall Bologan winning Dortmund some years ago? Recall the early exits of several 2700+ GMs from the world cup? They lost to much lower rated GMs. I think the first tie break should be most wins, if still tied then most black wins, etc. I dont think chess should adopt soccer style scoring however.

I agree with Reb on not changing the scoring of wins, losses, and draws. The problems mentioned about failed or wrong championship pairings were partly due to having two champions and partly due to problems organizing events. Forcing players to enter one or two big opens a year could not be done unless the rating system considered activity as part of the way to establish world rankings. Otherwise, players might worry more about making a living. I consider FIDE a major problem in organizing events in places that FIDE knows will be off limits to some national or ethnic groups. For example, many past world champions would have been excluded from Libya. True, those champions are dead, but future champions should not be kept out. Paul Hoffman's "King's Gambit," describes his problems merely reporting from Libya. In Florida, when I questioned Campomanes before the event in Libya, his answers, though polite, were not entirely honest.

I think it is obvious that knockout matches are not a safe way to determine the best player.A round robin tournament is much better.

And of course the players should have the obligation to participate in more games if they want to retain their rating.

Reb wrote: I dont like the idea of changing chess scoring to look more like soccer, but it helps me to spot soccer fans readily. A draw is a legitimate result in chess. The problem isnt with draws per se but with too many draws that are drawn without any fight by either player. I think the worst offenders of the bloodless draws should simply NOT be invited to events anymore, people like Leko for example. Also , I think the top players should be forced to play at least one or two big Open events a year so that their ratings wouldnt be so bloated! If not this then the most successful players from Open events should be invited to play in these elite events. Recall Bologan winning Dortmund some years ago? Recall the early exits of several 2700+ GMs from the world cup? They lost to much lower rated GMs. I think the first tie break should be most wins, if still tied then most black wins, etc. I dont think chess should adopt soccer style scoring however.

---

 I agree with Reb that problem is in bloodless draws, but who would be the judge in cases like Leko's? He is still in top 10, no matter the draws. You should discourage them to play for a draw, maybe to force players to play till first time control ( of course if someone wants to resign sooner it is ok, but draw can be agreed only on 40+ move). 

Also, I agree that top players should play more tournaments. Maybe the rating should be determined like in tennis, so if you want to be first, you need to prove it.

However, I started this topic to get your opinion on do you think that tournament(s)  (round robins like Linares that has just finished ) is better  way to determine the best player (next champion), or old fashioned match between champion and challenger? I belive tournament between top 8 or 10 is the better way, reasons I mentioned before, look the first post.

I believe the method used before is best to determine the best player in the world. The candidates matches to determine a challenger to the champion and then a match between challenger and champion. The tournament format has certainly produced some very questionable "champions", like Khalifman. I prefer to call them "Chumpions".

 

Maybe they are not comparable.

If you look at the history of both champions it is very clear that,

Anand is much more stable on the scores and his rating. He has been almost in the top three.

Regards. 

Kazim, Ponomariov, Khalifman,  all "Chumpions" in my book and all produced by the very questionable tourney knock out format. I consider Anand a real Champion though.