7888 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I stopped playing chess for a few months, and then watched the world championship and was absolutely riveted. Every game was insane drama to the end. Incredibly inspiring! It made me want to play again. I think all chess championships should follow Topalov's lead, and play each game to the end- "I will not accept draws"-HOT!! The psychology and intensity throughout makes me suprised at your question. My question is: Why can't there be a world championship every year, or even twice a year! I can't wait for the next one!
Now the internet psychiatrists are giving diagnoses. I give up.
That'll teach you to whack the beehive of trolls, psychiatrists, and idiots.
Because it's fun for people who are extremely competitive like me to watch and play for.
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?
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.
This has been raised up before on some article or post (or whatever) before and I find it personally interesting on the topic.
Reason for this is that I am interested in watching the games, but I personally can't really get excited about a match. If someone told me that the game was intense and I saw the move list, I wouldn't understand why. Maybe a lack of appreciation or lack of feeling in it, but I seem to lack the interest that some players seem to find.
Even when I play I can't really tell. I still just love playing it though. Saying chess might not be for you based on that reason seems a bit off, but there looks to be some appreciation for it that I am personally lacking.
If there were no world champion, would you give up chess? Would it affect your ability or interest in the game? Does it all just fall apart?
Because there are spectators who want to watch. Why have a world series in baseball? Why hold championships in boxing, and any other sport you can think of? It's for the fans. Think about it.
I remember all the world championships since the second Botvinnik-Smyslov match and have played through most of the games going back to Lasker-Capa. However, I haven’t bothered with any since the Fischer-Spassky match because they ceased being of interest me. I don’t know why; they just aren't. I have the same nasty attitude towards most GM events these days. Perhaps it’s because of the avarice of the players and organizers?!
All competition is about who is the best. Competitors of any real sport don't play just to improve their games and give exhibitions. They want to prove they are the best. And the only way to prove you are the best is to have a "title fight".
If I say I am better than you, then I should have to play you to prove it. Not having a championship for chess would make chess a joke.
There are sure to be some, maybe many? who play with the hope of one day being "The Best", and they are wished all the best if thats there goal, but there are also many who play just for the adrenalin in the challange, the enjoyment of mutual learning, or to pass the time observing the many variations in play, or maybe one of the many other reasons, other than being "THE BEST".
The claim that chess would be a joke without having a championship, is subjective observation.
Not everyone likes the taste of Lobster, but hey that just leaves more for me.
Was chess a joke for the many centuries it existed before the advent of a world championship? This is a recent development in the history of the game.
Good. If I have prevented another dopey question like this one from being asked...mission accomplished.
Thats too bad... because THIS recent World Championship was one of the closest fought matches ever. A real nail biter. I mean.. come one... Anand wins as Black in the 12th and last game after being tied 5 1/2 to 5 1/2. Thats like the Chess version of a game 7 (NBA, NHL or MLB).
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 for White
by ultimateichigo a few minutes ago
FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified
by Ubik42 7 minutes ago
Chess experiment: How much does three pints of beer impact your chess ability?
by DrJamesB 13 minutes ago
Will technology ruin the game of chess?
by Ubik42 14 minutes ago
6/17/2013 - Mate in 3
by peerpandit 17 minutes ago
Chess Mentor lessons record
by LegoPirateSenior 23 minutes ago
How to play the Dragon
by Rumpelstiltskin 25 minutes ago
Tactical Chaos - Find the Best Moves
by Phylar 26 minutes ago
The Sicilian as played by Non-Masters
by bladezii 27 minutes ago
How does one become a natural at chess?
by AlCzervik 39 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com