Botvinnik became world champion through a tournament.

 Yes, this is true. Botvinnik should have played a match with Euwe after Alekhines death to determing the WC but he wanted the tourney instead, and got it. Botvinnik only has a 50% record with Euwe, who many consider to be the weakest WC while many consider Botvinnik one of the strongest world champions......not very logical but thats the way people (fans) are.

Wait - he won the tourney to become champion. Without the tourney, he was "just another player".

I think any chess fan would have to admit that winning a single tournament is not as difficult as winning head to head matches against top players and then facing the sitting champion in a match. Fischer had to defeat Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and then face Spassky in match play and if he didnt beat them all he would not be world champion......ofcourse others before Fischer faced the same gruelling test to become champion......no tournament (even the strongest) can compare to this imo.

Suppose you have a pool of N players and you go through the process of playing matches to decide the WC. Or you have a tournament and you go through the process of deciding the WC.

In both situations actually only one player gets to be WC. So both seem equally hard.

You could argue that in tournaments you play one player only twice whereas in a match you play more times, so matches are likely to have less "noisy" outcomes.

JC

They're different environments, so applying a formula "pool of N players" isn't really pertinent. Maybe if you had three tournaments, and the best score from those, it might be comparable to match play.

The point is:

In a tournament only one player becomes WC.

In matches only one player becomes WC.

So unless you have some argument about "noisy" results, in both situations it should be equally tough.

JC

The tournament format has recently produced a "chumpion" that played a super tourney in Corus and was unable to win even a single game.....the WCs that have won through matches have never had such a debacle, as far as I know. Its fairly clear that the match play method used in the time of Fischer is more likely to produce the best player as WC than a single tourney. Geller for example was a fabulous tournament player who never became world champion because in matches he lost to players like Spassky ( in two matches without winning a single game ) and yet in tournament play Geller had a plus against Spassky.  Petrosian was the opposite, because of his style he didnt often win the strongest tournies but he was a much feared match player because he rarely lost. The guys who played the matches usually had to qualify for the matches through tournaments......like the candidates tourney, the interzonals.....etc.

Wow, I never knew that there was so much discrepancy. Why not just have a points leader board based on performance throughout the year, and then whoever is the top player on the leader-board gets to play the current sitting champion in match play?

The old-school candidates format is, of course, a tournament. It's an elimination tournament, and can be compared to a tennis tournament, for example.

I realize that "tournament" in chess indicates double round robin typically, and "match play" indicates an elimination tournament.

I agree with my esteemed colleague Mr. Reb though - match play is superior to round robins for determining the champion.

 If Topalov reaches the final (which i believe he will) Anand won t surely demolish him.Firstly because we are speaking of two elite GM and second because Topalov style is much different from Kramnik.May not mean nothing but Topa swept Anand in Bilbao in 25 moves....

 Well both Khalifman and Kasimdazinov are a bit questionable champions...have to agree on you.But they were still the champions and are recognised as that.I think "ericmittens" is no authority on chess to question Topalov title.

Well I definitely hope Topalov does make it through to face (very likely) Anand. That would make for a very exciting match-up.

I think that Anand is very good tactically (as is Topalov), but has a slightly more conservative, strategic style. He seems to like creating complex and open positions from which to gain his advantages, while Topalov is a little wilder in his play. Would Tal be a fair comparison? As a disclaimer, I can't claim to be an expert on either player.

 One win doesnt mean much imo....Anand has a rather large plus overall against Topalov , 8 or 9 games I believe. Both Anand (bilbao) and Kramnik (Dortmund) had awful results just before this match which could easily mean neither of them wanted to play their best stuff just before this big match. I do agree however that a match between Anand and Topalov would be the most exciting of the other possible matchups due to their styles....the games would be much more exciting for the chess fans I believe than say a match between Kramnik and Kamsky.  Anyone disagree with this ?

 I agree.I think Anand Topalov would be huge match and very good for the sports.Anand can now play safely with Kramnik to take victory home.But to play Topa he must have different approach to the game...and also have good nerves.Besides Topalov/Cheparinov duo always surprise us with some solid innovations.

I think if you weren't so biased concerning Topalov (you basically want to have his children from what I understand) you might see that he won a tournament, not a title.

Oh come on...no need to go that low.Especially said by someone who hides in some others picture.....that is morally poor atitude.

My sexyness is too much for my monitor to handle .

And how do you know I'm not actually John Turturro masquerading??

I am also one to question those who win the WC through a tournament, I dont trust a tournament to produce the best player in the world as much as I do matches. However, in the case of both Topalov and Anand I do make an exception since both of them have also been the #1 ranked player (rating wise) in the world and both have broken 2800, something very few have done and also neither of them have seemingly vanished from the top of world chess after winning their titles.......as did Khalifman and Kazim..... I am a bit biased against Kramnik due to his never giving Kasparov another shot AND the favoritism that fide seems to show him (as well as Topalov I might add) . I also dont particularly like Topalov nor Kramnik due to the toiletgate mess in their match. I DO like Anand because I cant think of another top chess player that is such a gentleman as he is and always has been. I also like his style of chess. I dont like the "safety first" style of Kramnik, Petrosian and some other great players. I prefer to see decisive games and not a bunch of boring draws with 2 or 3 decisive games in a match. Now that Kramnik is down 3 games lets see if he gives short draws with white as Kasparov gave him in their match ? I am betting he will NOT ! 

Like to see a unification of world chess and would like to see Anand at the top of it. I really appreciate the exposure he has mananged to acquire for chess everywhere - India in particular.

So impressed with his play in this title chase. He's playing like he wants it more. Doing a great job of playing the man - backing it up on the chessboard too!!!

Winning with black twice! That's willpower and taking risks.