I think that the FIDE candidates tournaments does not make sense, considering that the rating system is already implemented. I suggest making the highest rated player the challenger for the world championship, each year. Your thoughts?

mmmmm that deprives other people the chance of challenging. just because you are the highest rated does not mean that you are the best

Na I think it will lead players to avoid certain tournaments for fear of losing ranking, perhaps playing weaker tournaments to boost rating etc.

yes also like scott said it puts too much emphasis on ratings.

BTW nice profile pic scott

I don't understand this argument. If you can say this at any time, then what's the point of ratings in the first place?

Linlaoda

ratings are supposed to show who is better. But they can move around and are not absolute, especially if there are 3+ players with similar ratings

The ratings that are most active are the most accurate.  If someone has a good tournament at the beginning of the year and stops, then it may be higher (or lower) but it won't be as accurate.  So for this reason too, the number isn't an absolute measure of performance.

@ ChristianSolder007

Not to be continuously arguing with you ;) but I argue otherwise. ratings are a culmination of all your tournament efforts - where as the current candidates tournament is 1 tournament. It boils down to this:

Which is more variable of a player's true strength.

1) 1 tournament
2) All the tournaments of the past year.

Further, this would have had Carlsen/Aronian/ Kramnik playing instead of Gelfand. Not hating on Gelfand, but this was the year of the CAK.

Carlsen is the highest ranked player of the world,  but hes a baby, afraid of playing, so then we'ed have no championships at all LOL JK

i dont think ratings are absolute, its possible to be over or underated. Like I'm 888 USCF, but thats very inaccurate (of course, it doesn't apply much here since i've only played 5 games)

either way, I don't think this system would be agreed as it seems somewhat superficial

^ how is it superficial.

If the same person is the highest rated player for a long time...we may see the rediculous situation, where the same two players play for the WCC every two years...eg. Carlsen plays Anand, Anand wins...Carlsen retains his top Elo position...and the cycle continues...

Ratings are relative to the frequency and variety of members in the pool of players you face.  In this way it is a superficial method of choosing a challenger.

It's the same reason a match is better than a tournament in deciding which player is better.  And also why a round robin tournament is better than a swiss system tournament.

If ratings showed who was better, we woudln't need a world chamionship match in the first place.  When a player achieved the number 1 spot, they would automatically become world champion.

I think FIDE's answer to this was to have World Championships more often than just once every four years.  It seems like they have one every year now.  I agree with the majority here that ratings are not accurate enough, to use them to determine the participants.  For example, you could have an IGM with 2800 strength, who rarely plays OTB tournaments or hasn't played enough of them lately to get his rating up to that level.  He might want to play the Interzonals and go for the World Championship, even though his actual FIDE rating is only 2650 or so.  Should he be denied the opportunity?  And yes, Wimbledon was a perfect example.  I was glad when Nadal got knocked out, as it gave Murray and Federer a better chance to finally win one.  Just like I don't want to see Djokavic vs Nadal at every single major final, I don't want to see Kramnik vs Carlsen every time either.  Serena Williams would never win a major tennis championship, since she has been injured a lot and has a low ranking.  The New York Giants wouldn't have been able to play in the Super Bowl, since they didn't have the best regular season record.  Where would it end?  Btw, Anand has been champion, on and off, for like 5 or 6 years now and is only ranked 5th in the ratings, I believe.  How do you explain that?  According to your logic, he wouldn't even be able to play in the championship. Apparently, Carlsen didn't want it bad enough or he would have been there instead of Gelfand.  

And so it continues. What's the problem? I'm having trouble detecting the arguments against using ratings beyond just saying it isn't accurate.

@JeffGreen333

why would a 2800 GM have a rating of 2650? How does that even make sense? Are you a GM? Let me ask you this: Let's say you're a class A player. If you don't play for 6 months (we'll use this to quantify "haven't played in a while"), does that make you 1600? Seriously now?

Ok, for example, he could be 20 years old and is still improving. His actual current playing ability could be 2800 strength, but his rating hasn't caught up to his ability yet, since he's improved quite a bit over the past year or two and hasn't played many tournaments to improve his FIDE rating. Ratings trail performance, when you are improving.  Heck, I might play 1700-1750 strength now, but my 20 year old USCF rating is still only 1460 or so, since I haven't played a tournament in 20 years.  Just an example of how ratings can trail your actual playing strength.  On here, they start us out with a 1200 rating and we have to work our way up.  It may take 50-100 games to get your rating up to your true playing strength.  More, if your wi-fi connection keeps going out and you end up losing games with winning positions, because you keep getting disconnected.  lol  I may not see 1700 until I've played 200 games, at this rate.

And so it continues. What's the problem? I'm having trouble detecting the arguments against using ratings beyond just saying it isn't accurate.

.........................................................................................

The problem "linlaoda"...is that no one would want to see the same two players vie for the WCC all the time...it would be "sellable"...

...would you follow the WCC if it was between the same two players all the time?