11364 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...
Losing in Chess gives more pain than losing in any other sport.
by The_Ghostess_Lola a few minutes ago
Hurt/Heal Opening Traps
by A-J-S 5 minutes ago
OTB draw against an expert
by kaynight 7 minutes ago
by Scottrf 10 minutes ago
by Khallyx 10 minutes ago
What an AWESOME GAME! :D
by Blockah 12 minutes ago
Enforcing Tournament Conditions
by HessianWarrior 13 minutes ago
by ROPITAL-Barut 15 minutes ago
I have never been beaten by a girl (yet)
by kaynight 19 minutes ago
If chess players are so smart why they are not millionaires/billionaires?
by kayak21 19 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!