12746 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!
If you place so high significance on ratings why not take things to their logical conclusion and directly award the title of WCH to the highest rated player?
I don't understand the correlation. I never made any statement or assertion to suggest this followup suggestion.Thank you,
Quote from your opening post: "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."
Along the same lines you might as well argue that the title match does not make any sense and award the title to the highest rated player, each year.
Your statement still is not a logical followup of my suggestion. My suggestion... is just as is.Best,
Of course Shakaali's statement is not a strictly logical conclusion. Neither are your arguments. He is trying to find the general idea behind your original post and apply it consequently. If there is no such general idea, well ... maybe your point is more tactical than strategical.
I want back the zone tournaments, interzone tournaments and knockout qualifying matches.
* please argue how my arguments are not logical. Simply stating it is not logical does not qualify as an argument.Best,
^that's assuming that all countries were created equal. Which is wrong. *cough Russia.
Not at all. We had that problem before, other countries got to send their best, and there was a limit to the number of candidates from a single nation. It worked just fine.
I said that your argument from your original post is not a logical conclusion: the fact that we have a rating system doesn't force the conclusion that we should use it to determine the challenger.
Of course, that's perfectly fine, since it is rare to find strictly logical arguments outside the sandbox of a formal language. My point was that while Shakaali's statement is not a "logical followup", it might still be sensible.
Why hasn't anyone in this thread paused to consider FIDE Corruption, machinations by the WCC himself (especially give the history of earlier matches), sponsorship money, breakaway actions by the WCC (e.g. Kasparov and Short) to set up rival institutions, or any of a myriad number of maneuvers (just like a chess game) that lead up to an actual WCC match?
Indeed, there are lots of big institutional forces involved. GM eccentricities, notwithstanding.
"Ratings" hardly top of the list of deciding factors. Stop dreaming. Nuff said?
Very interesting topic...
What is the lamest game or setup position you can think of.
by BigDoggProblem 120 seconds ago
what do play against 1.e4 d5
by ilikecapablanca 3 minutes ago
Crazy Move in Grunfeld! How to beat this annoying line?
by GeorgeBlackChess123 5 minutes ago
Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen
by batgirl 7 minutes ago
Another French Fry Please.
by batgirl 9 minutes ago
Accuracy of ratings
by jefffalcone 10 minutes ago
by Rumo75 16 minutes ago
Where to find rules re tournaments
by Possies 16 minutes ago
Rare Gambit in the Sicilian
by Hadron 16 minutes ago
12/10/2013 - Easterwood-Williams 2004
by Bryan681972 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!