Despite the confusing picking of players, I am sure the top 5-6 players in terms of FIDE rating will be there. 

Chess desperately needs a standardised and regular tournament system- this is the sort of thing that just puts people off. I'm really not a fan of Illyumzhinov.

Carlsen! Carlsen! Carlsen!

Go Magnus Carlsen, next world champion!

WOW that wildcard "entry" must be FIDE's way to include someone they like in the cycle!!!

I don't like this format.  So much of it is in the hands of non-chessplayers.  If you are going to determine a champion, do it at the board, not the boardroom.  There will be a lot of controversy here, I guarentee it.

How does having a wildcard "nominated" etc make sense?

Ratings should not be a basis for candidates. Then what is that wildard?wildcard should not be their favorite chess player but the most famous chess player to attract sponsors. I believe this should be a battle of the champions. so losers should not be invited on this.

I reckon FIDE should use the World Championship system that Speedway used to have, but slightly remodelled. There are three zones, one for Europe, one for Asia & Oceania, and one for the Americas and Africa. Three players are selected from each country, and any former World Champions automatically go into this stage. Kramnik gets a bye into Stage 2, Anand into Stage 3. There will be roughly 150 players in each group, and they play in a 10-round Swiss. The top 11 in Europe, the top 2 from the other two zones, join Kramnik in Stage 2, a 16-player Candidates' Tournament. Games are best-of-6, played Monday-Saturday, apart from the final, which is best-of-8, and spread out a little more. Stage 2 would take a month. The winner of the Candidates' Tournament goes into Stage 3, i.e. the World Championship itself. The beauty of this system is that the championship can be held annually, with e.g. Round 1 of the 2010 competition being able to take place at the same time as the 2009 Final. The qualification places can be determined by the top 3 in national championships, which could increase the validity of the result, and the quality of the field. If the nation has no national championship, then it can just nominate its three best players. I also believe it is simple enough, Speedway used it for 60 years until they changed it when they tried to grab money, and have ended up virtually killing their sport.

I'm in favour of keeping the Candidates' Tournament as a knockout format though, because that seems more traditional. As long as it isn't best-of-4, because they might as well flip a coin.

Kirsan should concentrate on uniting the chess calendar, to avoid clashes of events, so that there are no clashes. That way, people won't be squabbling over when matches are held, because there will be clearly defined dates in which to hold events. The World Cup and Grand Prix seem totally pointless, and it takes up space in the calendar for other events, and are boycotted by the stronger players. They're treated as World Championship qualifiers, and to that extent, in my system, this would be replaced with the national qualification etc.

Elo ratings should be ignored when deciding this sort of thing, in my opinion. The system worked perfectly well without them, so it can do the same now.

It is making a change to the current cycle that is already underway which is not a good thing. It is also once again changing the cycle so that there is no consistency. Why call it a cycle? It hasn't been repeated in the same format in years. Once again the plan calls for preferential treatment of people who lose matches. This is most likely just a way to get Kramnik inserted back into the current cycle.

This is all Kirsan being Kirsan. If he was serious about making improvements to the wc cycle, he wouldn't continue to do the impromptu changes, but would seek opinions of others, and put together a sensible plan that will last for more than one wc cycle.

Kirsan is the worst thing to happen to chess in the past 20 years. He has given a lot of money to chess, or at least the people of Kalmykia's money, but in the end chess would have been much better off without him.

A more sensible plan was put forth by John Nunn the day before Kirsan announced his.

FIDE: "This is not a chessocracy! This is a chesstatorship!"

Should be very interesting watching.

sounds great!!

Sounds decent to me.

Keeps the best of the best playing and not sitting on a title! I like it.  The best of the best should always be known and not speculated.