I think there is still enough interest in chess, worldwide, to support a few players.  But FIDE needs to be moved out of the way in order to make it work.  There is no need for FIDE to run the WCC.  The WCC existed for 60 years before FIDE.  Let's return to pre-FIDE where the challenger comes up with the stakes and the venue.

"If Carlsen is the best, he should have played the Candidates to prove it. Simple as that"

If the Candidates really prove who the best player is. Gelfand won but I don't think he is a better player than Aronian and Kramnik just because of a knockout event mainly decided by rapid and blitz. I think Carlsen is a better player than Gelfand, it's just to look at their results the last years. That's obviously not the same thing as saying that Carlsen should play the title match instead of Gelfand, Carlsen didn't participate so of course he isn't an option. I would rank Gelfand somewhere around #10 in the world and Carlsen #1-2 together with Anand. Then Aronian-Nakamura-Kramnik-Ivanchuk-Karjakin-Topalov in #3-8 and after that I have no idea but Gelfand maybe 10th.

I hope they get a sponsor as I think Gelfand will do well...

A couple of thoughts: @rorschach 1985, I 100% agree.  Match play is not tournament play.  If WCC gets reduced to nothing more than a strong tournament, it will be very bad for chess.  The reality of it is, being WC doesn't make you the best player in the world, but it does make you the best MATCH player in the world...

GM Vaughn: No sponsor would be crazy enough to pay for a 4 star venue with an open ended, first to 6 wins metric.  Look at the strong players and especially the discussion between Kramnik and Radjabov during the candidates matches.  It is obvious that with computers and home prep, a match that was played to 6 wins would be 1000 games (989 draws, 6 wins for one player, 5 for the other).  This would be an interesting exercise in statistical mechanics, but not a way to determine a challenger for the WC (in the example above, it is hard to argue that the winner is the "better" player winning a match 500.5-499.5 and with the 11 win requirement, you might not get a new WC until 15-20 years after teh start of the match!!

I have no problem with rapid games.  Blitz may not be the way to go, but it is obvious that the Super - GMs cannot ever be beaten decisively in classic time if they choose to draw the game from the outset. The addition of rapid and blitz and armageddon rules are meant to force players to make mistakes, as one player cannot win without a mistake.  Chess will have to change probably sometime within my lifetime if it is to survive.  A new rule could be added, or tournament scoring could be handled differently (ala sofia).  Kramnik's idea of no castling for the first 10 moves is an interesting and relatively small change, with the added benefit of making the opening more of a fight.

Well, Anand has never been known to be a major attraction to get sponsors for the WCC. If I remember correctly, when he played Topalov, Dainalov complained that Anand's team had not been involved in the process of securing sponsors. Now, we have Gelfand. I think the main issue is that the public (and maybe even possible sponsors) might fear this will be another one sided beating from Anand.

I for one, as a chess fan, regret the whole situation since I think the match will be very interesting. I also welcome the fact that this will be the first WCC since 2001 where either Topalov or Kramnik are not playing....so we get some variety after all. Again, these are just my two cents.

Let me throw out a couple of questions for people to chew on.  First, would we have all this backlash if Aronian, Kramnik or Topolov won the candidates matches?  I personally believe that the problem people really have with the candidates matches is the result and not the process.  I could be wrong, but I think too many fans favorite players either were eliminated or chose not to particapate.  It more of sour grapes of their player not being the challenger for the title than the process.  True, I hate the use of rapid and blitz games to determine the winner of a match of classical chess, but look at the recent US Championship.  They used the same tie-break system and I didn't see any backlash from Anna Zatonskih winning the women's championship.  She used rapid, blitz and armeggedon chess to get into the semi-finals, get into the finals, and win the championship.  People (including myself) admired her grit and determination to scratch her way through and win. 

Second, what do the Super-GM's feel about the process?  Other than Carlsen is there anybody who is a top rated grandmaster feels that the process is broken?  It really doesn't matter what us fans believe, but what the players actually feel.  Other than Carlsen I have heard no dissention in the ranks of the GM's about the canididates process.  Again, I could be wrong.  I am not pretending to know everything about organized chess, but I haven't read or seen anything from people like Kramnik, Aronian, Nakamura, or anybody other than Carlsen that the system is broken.

Just a couple of things to think about.....

2000 euro "bid fee"?

hahahahahaha

Pro-chess is doomed.

This is all a tempest in a teapot.

Everyone is a little disappointed that Carlsen did not play in the candidates matches, since most people believe that he and Vishy are the top two players in the world. But by not playing in the candidates Carlsen knew that he would not be eligible to play for the world championship. So instead we get Gelfand, who has proven himself to be a real sleeper challenger, in that he always seems to do better than everyone expects, so the world championship could prove to be very exciting next year.

And, they will find a sponsor for the match. Two countries that have done relatively well in the recent economic downturn are India and Israel.

FIDE sound a lot like FIFA!!

lol

Talking of football, imagine if Spain were to go straight into the 2014 World Cup Final? How ludicrous. But that's what happened when Anand was automatically placed in the following World Championship matches.

The length of the Candidates' cycle and the number of matches, blitz finishes, money grabbing by FIDE and the winner going into the next final make FIDE look a complete joke.

Which is worse...FIFA or FIDE??? Tough one!!

Carlsen doe not deserve a shot at the title.  I hope that Gelfand does not into the same problem that Shirov had when he was the one to play Kasparov for the title and when there was no bid, Kramnik came in.  I do not even think that Carlsen is even that interested in chess anymore.

Some people seem to be missing the point. The FIDE process is rubbish. Fischer 1-World 0   Fischer was right. Chess has significance and the process should be something  that  supports that respect not demeans it. Fischer was right The championship should be held every two years giving a challenger determined the time to prepare new ideas. Three years  is too long. Candidates matches are correct for final 8 but need to be first to 6 wins not a lottery but a way to determine a real 'best' challenger. This is why Carlsen doesn't take part in a lottery  Botvinnik was also right blitz is not chess there is not sufficient time to calculate and to play accurately. Fischer was good at blitz but  again it is not real chess.

WCF is the way to go www.wcfchess.com. First Qualifiers open to anyone in world then the top qualifiers meet in knockout matches Once down to the final 8 take the selection process seriously with Fischer's first to 6 wins formuila and finals first and championship first to 11 wins. And that marketing major? Merchco, Send us a resume after reviewing the website.

RIP FIDE - expired due to management deprivation

Have read all the posts and am new to chess so do not understand all the bureaucracy but its people who play chess not organisations.

So its up to organisations to facilitate this not to hinder it.

The directors of the chess organisation has a duty to that organisation to ensure this happens and the organisation has a moral duty imposed on it by humanity to make sure this happens.

Shame on any individual or organisation that hinders the process.

Here is a suggestion  like in other sports it should be decided how often the world title should be held, world cup every four years,olympics every four years.

So maybe every year/ every two years/ every four years i do not know but that should be decided first.

Then imediately after the chess championship is over and the world title holder announced the process starts again.

Any player who participates in ranking tournaments in this period is awarded points and the best 32 in the world at the end of the year/two years/four years enter the world championships of chess to be hael in different countries around the world each period.

It should probably held over a month and maybe a round robin series initially to decide the last eight, after which each of the last eight compete in a knockout with maybe five matches being played in the quarter finals 7 in the semi finals and 9 in the finals or whatever works obviously there would have to be time limits set but that could be organised no blitz please to decide who is world champion, we want it to be the best.

Then at the end of the tournament the process starts again for the next world champion.

This would open up Chess and would bring in plenty of sponsorship as it would not be 2 players but 32 players bringing in the crowds(bums on seats) brings in the money and the sponsorship.

Maybe it could be the top 28 in the world ranking and 4 wild cards someone who maybe has just arrived on the seen a young upstart to make it even more interesting, this would make it fair for the old and the young the new and not so new to chess.

It would instill discipline into the organisation and bring some much needed order  into a sport/game that involves discipline and order come on everyone in chess its your moral duty.

Ps i have a diploma in marketing and no job at present so if fide wants me on board to make this happen no problem or if anyone else has a good job i am all ears.

@rorschach...I couldn't agree more with you!!  Well said!!

ffezz,Carlsen vs Gelfand is 6-5 for Carlsen with 15 draws.

How do you assume that Carlsen is that much better than Gelfand?

@eeffz....I believe you are twisting my words.  Experience alone doesn't make a world champion.  But, one needs to go through the process which Anand and Gelfand did, over and over until they earned their shots at the title.  Carlsen decided to sit out the process of determining a champion.  That was his choice.  He had an invitation to play in the candidates matches and declined to play.  So, again, where is his claim to challenge Anand for the title?

There are two big things that really bother me about this issue.  The first is that Carlsen fans for some reason believe that he is the annoited one and that he deserves a shot at the title just because he is the great Carlsen.  He is above the process and shouldn't have to go through it.  That's rubbish, Carlsen is the same as any other chess player who has apriations to be world champion and should be held to the same rules as anybody else.

Second, I am really bothered by the backlash against Gelfand.  Yes, the guy is a forty something quiet nerd and not a not a young charismatic model like Carlsen, but give the guy a break.  He played very well in the candidates matches, he worked hard and he earned his shot at the title.  Gelfand deserves congratulations and praise for his efforts and not this backlash.

I am also not convinced that Carlsen would beat Gelfand in a match.  Match play is much different than tournement play and unless I am wrong (which I certainly could be) Carlsen doesn't have that much experience in playing matches.  Carlsen is not invincible.  In fact he is very beatable, and I honestly do not think that he would have survived this set of candidates matches and that is one reason why he chose to sit out.

And you sir are the one who should get out from under the rock you are living under.  Because it is far more unrealistic to believe that somebody deserves a shot a title because he's "clearly the best" than to believe that a person who earned his way by going through the process deserves a shot at the title.  Again, if Carlsen wants the title, then he do it the old fashioned way....earn it!

@mobidi

I like Aronian (I thought he was going to be the next World Champion, actually), and Kramnik is one of my favorite players. But they were eliminated before they could reach Gelfand. Sorry.

FIDE is very strange organization-and all this sistem ( where Gelfand won ) is very strange-he had no such opponents as Aronian ,Kramnik.Of course Gelfand is very good player ,but...and of ,course ,funny prize fund (where is new Bobby?)- ithink min fund must be 10 000 000 USD !

@ffezz

If Carlsen is the best, he should have played the Candidates to prove it. Simple as that.

@ rorschach1985

you are obviously a seasoned veteran of chess and no one who has played less chess than you would deserve to beat you even if he is a better player. makes perfect sense right? who cares if he took bumps on the road. WCC is about who is best and it is pretty obvious who that will be between gelfand and carlsen. and carlsen is more popular than gelfand because a) he's younger b) he's better and c) he is more out spoken and has a personality. if you believe that carlsen's stepping out in protest makes him less of a chess player or in any way changes the fact that he should be the true challenger then you sir need to get out from under the rock you live in.