Has anyone ever bothered to ask just why there needs to be a World Championship for chess? For the life of me, I don't know why anyone would bother with it. It's not even remotely interesting to watch two GMs play long, robotic games with endless teeny-tiny manouvers that are based mainly on computer analysis and massive overpreparation. One person may leave the table feeling like a genius with a bag of money, but no one outside of a few thousand chessplayers will ever know who this person is.

Is there any proof that the World Championship cycle actually "helps" promote chess...or anything? Or is it just a big waste of time and money?

I can top that: why do we even need a world?

I suppose that if you get to a level where you can compete with the best of the best, you might also want to know who exactly is the best of the best. If showing those games to a handful of chess-nuts brings your urine to a boiling-point, then don't follow the spectacle.

And if we want to discuss the theme of wasting money, I'm sure a bunch of supposedly intelligent people among a congregation of chess-players can come up with more reasonable things to complain about than putting a few million euros in a WC match.

Every Christmas tree needs a star on the top.

The U.S. needed to prove to the Russians that we were better than they were.

wonderfully said! worth quoting!

 Two thumbs up!

Then how would they know who is the best besides ratings?

You don't need to know who's the best. That's the point.

I think that the title world champion was created to make chess more competitive. Becoming a grandmaster is a tough feat, but becoming the world champion is not for everyone.

If you don't know who is the best then what is your goal in chess. Every chess player has a goal to become as good or even better than who they consider a chess legend. Doesn't every chess player want to reach a certain rating?  Becoming the world champion can be consider to be the greatest achievement in chess.Correct me if I am wrong.

"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)." Even the chess-nerds need somone to look up to.

Good question!

Here's another:

Why does chess need pieces?

Good for you Dr. Spudnik! I'm a medicore player, and the result of the world championship doesn't affect me any more than the winner of the super bowl. We all have things that interest us and things that don't.

I know the Fischer-Spassky match in '72 helped promote chess in a big way in the US. But that's one event which is likely to never be repeated, given the cold-war and everything else that went along w/it. Who knows if Anand or Topalov help chess's cause. Remember Toilet-Gate?

Perhaps other countries appreciate them more.

No. Where did it lead?

Im sure that the WCC match is worthwhile for the sponsors. Why else would they put their money in it?

First, let me say, it's interesting to know who is best. How many sports do you know of that don't crown a champion? I can't think of any. 

But, secondly, let me say, have you WATCHED any of these games? This years WCC has had a number of really interesting, hard fought, well contested games. If none of these games have been interesting to you, I suggest that maybe the game of chess is not for you, because this is about as good as it gets.

the same reason you made this post...attention

oops...sorry the chess players get money too.  One day you will be payed for something