This discussionn lacks adequate context for understanding FIDE's role. Such difficulties and the manner in which they are (mis)handled are symptomatic of an organization that is sadly lacking vision and skill. While the problem is bigger than  any one person, one might wonder if chess was the real loser when Karpov lost his bid to be President of FIDE. Does anyone recall him saying, “It is necessary to restore order,”?

Regular season TOURNAMENTS --> seeding with advantages (like in team sports) --> playoff MATCHES --> world championship MATCH --> WORLD CHAMPION.  These people are PROFESSIONAL chess PLAYERS, so they can and should have a regular season and playoffs like other sports. 

Nobody gets an unfair "legacy" advantage (the goal is to see who is CURRENTLY the world's best chess player, correct?), but advantages are given based on CURRENT regular season performance.  Legacy is bull.  Greatness is achieved by repeatedly beating the best under equal conditions that apply to every legitimate contender.  

Was Alekhine truly the best in the 1940's?  Was Lasker better than Capablanca 23 years after he beat Steinitz for the world championship?  Could Fischer beat Karpov only if all of his requests were granted but would lose in any other scenario?  Isn't it great how Alekhine ducked Capablanca, Fischer ducked Karpov, and Kramnik ducked Kasparov?  

Problem solved.  And I won't see any of this money.  You are welcome.  

DJHeilke>>>I totally agree with what you said.

DJ, you need to lay off the juice dude.

Alright chumps!  I've had all I can stands, I can't stands no more!!

To all of you saying that FIDE should run the WC like the world cup:

1) FIDE tried this (it is how Anand got his title from Kramnick, despite being unable to beat Kramnick), and it sucked.  I did not really consider Anand to be a champion until he beat Kramnick in MATCH PLAY.  Immagine if, in baseball, the team with the best regular season record was simply declared World Champions, despite not being able to beat certain other teams.  No playoffs, no world series, just treat the 162 regular season games as if it was a "giant tournament."  Absurd, I tell you.

2) WC and Chess are much more like boxing: you have to box your way into a position where you could potentially fight the Champ, and then beat the Champ.

3) To those who say that, in the current system, "The world champion has a huge advantage."  I totally agree!!  He (or she, GO JUDIT POLGER) has EARNED that advantage, by beating the previous WC in a MATCH! (Except for Botvinnick, but that was a rare and exceptional circumstance, since Alekhine died too soon).  So while the world champ has an advantage, it is a totally fair, and well deserved advantage. 

I think that the WC does have a duty, to the chess world, to play in tournaments, however.  Just not candidates events.  In fact, it would be unfair for the WC to play in the candidates events, sniping his competition, and then earn the right of challenger against himself!

4) I understand Carlsen's point: that the arduosness of prepping for a WC match is so intense, that, for example, Topalov has given up a lot of income that he could have earned in tournament play over the last 2 or 3 years.  If the WC prize fund makes playing for the WC a bad investment of a chess player's time and energy, then that player has every right to say so (this is how I interpret Carlsen's withdrawl).  On the other hand, if being WC is just a statement that one has one a particular tournament, then what good is it?  Under a tournament style system, 20 different players could say, "Yeah, so-and-so won the WC tourny, but I won a different tourny that had all the same players, so I'm the best in the world, so-and-so just got lucky."  And such a claim would be totally legitimate.  What makes the WC so prestigious is that, ITS HARD!  The previous WC has a huge advantage, and you have to push yourself uphill the whole way, and at the end; the challenger stands alone against the champ.  The WC in chess is so much more meaningful than say, a super bowl ring.  The third string kicker gets a superbowl ring if his team wins, whether he actually plays or not.  But the WC, he is the one who did it! He beat the Champ when no one else could!

Chess, like so many other sports, will be turned into a business.  Sponsorship and such is just that-a business.  Im glad they pulled out it only shows how pathetic they are.  I hope it stays a game and not into a business, but the laws of probability suggest that it will follow suite.

I don't see why FIDE would make this public. If they are correct, it just shows how weak the organization is. One player dropping out can make a city refuse to host their event. What would happen if Anand or Topalov withdrew from the event? Would they have to scrap the tournament entirely? 

I am pretty sure what FIDE says here is acurate, but you know what, they deserve this. FIDE is used to having all the power and pushing players and others around, so guess what, Magnus has the guts to stand up to them and tell them that their system is terrible, it should be changed and that he won't play under these conditions.

To all of those that thought that Magnus withdrawal was only going to damage Magnus, well think again. Here is the first result from that withdrawal. Now FIDE has no sponsor for the match, and without Magnus in the picture, good luck to them in finding another one that is willing to put up the amount of money they are requesting and that would put up with their shenanigans.

FIDE- It is time to change it up, and create a fair system!

that's why you have a deposit to avoid having non serious bids.

I London withdrawal is a sequel to a potential competitor withdrawal,it is inappropriate and belittles the championship and all the trophies that goes with it.This must be undone by staging a grand tournament elsewhere. 

If everything Fide said is true, then Fide is in the right.

However, Fide should not have posted this publicly.

"If I understand that right, then FIDE is complaining that 1) the London team bidding to host the event had the temerity to try to negotiate a good deal..."

You do not "understand that right". FIDE is complaining that the London team bidding to host the event had the temerity to try and screw FIDE over to a point beyond reasonableness by anyone's standards, after a memorandum was signed and while FIDE was attempting, in good faith, to go out if its way to change the contract to the benefit of the London bidder and to the detriment of Fide.

It sounds like the London Bidding Team wasn't going to be in as great of a financial position as they originally thought, and rather than simply call it off, they were trying to get Fide to meet extremely unreasonable requests so that Fide would back out first. If Fide backed out first, then the London team would get their initial 50,000 Euro deposit back. However, since Fide actually had a backbone and was prolonging the process (playing ball, so to speak), the London bidding team finally came forward and withdrew, forfeiting the deposit.

Actually I was not about to post second, I looked at the first post where a person had posted first and followed the suite :)

Carlsen is the biggest draw in Chess today. Without him, the match would be less profitable. Anand, Topalov, etc, are not new, unpredictable, young and exciting like Mr Carlsen. Plus nearly all of them are also old at Candidate matches. Look, who really cares if kramnik or Topalov wins? But even if Carlsen loses in the first round, it will be news. Money-making news. Ok, guys? Good.

II

Secondly, Chess Promotions (or whatever) are business people - white collar hustlers. They were modifying already agreed terms, making sure they bore little risk. Such behavior is typical of some people. Maybe FIDE and others will get some self confidence and begin to approach Toyota, Microsoft, HSBC, etc, for proper sponsorships.

Chess has the same esteem in the eyes of corporate folks as golf. Take it from there, FIDE (and groups like Chess.Comm, ICC, etc, for that matter)

A guy like Steven Spielberg will gladly rustle up a proper tournament , for example.

You hear me FIDE?

The Week In Chess reports:

FIDE Vice-President Israel Gelfer has issued a letter in response to Malcolm Pein's press release on the withdrawal of London's World Chess Championship bid. The statement itself reveals details (unverified) of the negotiations that one would expect both parties to keep confidential. Pein's press release scrupulously avoided this and was diplomatic in tone.

Malcolm Pein made it clear in talking to me that if London were not interested in hosting the championships any more after the withdrawal of Carlsen from the cycle, they would not have left the offer on the table (a six figure sum) for more than two months after he declared he was out.

maybe holding the WC in the Philippines will give FIDE some peace of mind. LOL

Interesting. Obviously, FIDE is going to continue with the World Championship without Carlsen. And although there is no guarantee that Carlsen would win it, how relevant can the tournament be when the top-ranked player in the world doesn't participate? I don't understand why FIDE would continue the tradition of the championship format- can someone explain this to me? Every participant should have to compete for a chance to play in the final round, including the previous world champion. I can't say that I feel particularly sorry for FIDE in this case since I strongly disagree with the tournament format. 

Well, I can vouch for Balachandar (who posted 'second') as a thoroughly nice person, a helpful team member, someone who enters intelligently into discussions, and who is generally nice to be around...Of course, if people like that should be automatically banned...

Post after post of grammatical questions, and people concerned about being first.  No wonder chess isnt taken seriously even on a chess site.

The persons who post these "first" and "second" nonsense should just be banned from the site. I'm not even sure what it is is supposed to accomplish or what the point is, but it makes all discussion and analysis obselete on the daily puzzles because one would have to wade through 15 pages of discussion for a single page's worth of actual content.

@ sixhobbits - good point! I forgot about that error when I spotted the three "withdrawls"! I've now added another (sic) .

I didn't know about the distinction between round and square brackets. You learn something new every day on this site!