Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

How to get Carlsen to challenge the World Champion.


  • 22 months ago · Quote · #41

    Sred

    linlaoda wrote:
    Shakaali wrote:
    linlaoda wrote:
    Shakaali wrote:

    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,

    Linlaoda

    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,

    Linlaoda

    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 strategicalSmile.

    I want back the zone tournaments, interzone tournaments and knockout qualifying matches.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #42

    linlaoda

    * please argue how my arguments are not logical. Simply stating it is not logical does not qualify as an argument.


    Best,

    Linlaoda

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #43

    Kingpatzer

    linlaoda wrote:

    ^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. 

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #44

    Sred

    linlaoda wrote:

    * please argue how my arguments are not logical. Simply stating it is not logical does not qualify as an argument.


    Best,

    Linlaoda

    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.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #45

    zborg

    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?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #46

    shengyi

    Very interesting topic...


Back to Top

Post your reply: