FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Has anyone ever bothered to ask just why there needs to be a World Championship for chess? For the life of me, I don't know why anyone would bother with it. It's not even remotely interesting to watch two GMs play long, robotic games with endless teeny-tiny manouvers that are based mainly on computer analysis and massive overpreparation. One person may leave the table feeling like a genius with a bag of money, but no one outside of a few thousand chessplayers will ever know who this person is.
Is there any proof that the World Championship cycle actually "helps" promote chess...or anything? Or is it just a big waste of time and money?
First, let me say, it's interesting to know who is best. How many sports do you know of that don't crown a champion? I can't think of any.
But, secondly, let me say, have you WATCHED any of these games? This years WCC has had a number of really interesting, hard fought, well contested games. If none of these games have been interesting to you, I suggest that maybe the game of chess is not for you, because this is about as good as it gets.
This has been raised up before on some article or post (or whatever) before and I find it personally interesting on the topic.
Reason for this is that I am interested in watching the games, but I personally can't really get excited about a match. If someone told me that the game was intense and I saw the move list, I wouldn't understand why. Maybe a lack of appreciation or lack of feeling in it, but I seem to lack the interest that some players seem to find.
Even when I play I can't really tell. I still just love playing it though. Saying chess might not be for you based on that reason seems a bit off, but there looks to be some appreciation for it that I am personally lacking.
If there were no world champion, would you give up chess? Would it affect your ability or interest in the game? Does it all just fall apart?
Because there are spectators who want to watch. Why have a world series in baseball? Why hold championships in boxing, and any other sport you can think of? It's for the fans. Think about it.
I remember all the world championships since the second Botvinnik-Smyslov match and have played through most of the games going back to Lasker-Capa. However, I haven’t bothered with any since the Fischer-Spassky match because they ceased being of interest me. I don’t know why; they just aren't. I have the same nasty attitude towards most GM events these days. Perhaps it’s because of the avarice of the players and organizers?!
All competition is about who is the best. Competitors of any real sport don't play just to improve their games and give exhibitions. They want to prove they are the best. And the only way to prove you are the best is to have a "title fight".
If I say I am better than you, then I should have to play you to prove it. Not having a championship for chess would make chess a joke.
There are sure to be some, maybe many? who play with the hope of one day being "The Best", and they are wished all the best if thats there goal, but there are also many who play just for the adrenalin in the challange, the enjoyment of mutual learning, or to pass the time observing the many variations in play, or maybe one of the many other reasons, other than being "THE BEST".
The claim that chess would be a joke without having a championship, is subjective observation.
Not everyone likes the taste of Lobster, but hey that just leaves more for me.
Was chess a joke for the many centuries it existed before the advent of a world championship? This is a recent development in the history of the game.
Thats too bad... because THIS recent World Championship was one of the closest fought matches ever. A real nail biter. I mean.. come one... Anand wins as Black in the 12th and last game after being tied 5 1/2 to 5 1/2. Thats like the Chess version of a game 7 (NBA, NHL or MLB).
Go on Spud say it ....." I told you so !"
Actually he did, in a comment on Pacifique's LOL blog...
Personally, I did enjoy the Interzonals and the candidates matches in "the good old days." The WCC finals themselves were often a letdown in comparison to what happened in the prelims.
Today, the championship cycle appears too haphazard for my taste. I don't like short matches, I don't like the idea of a single Swiss to determine the candidate. The fact that it is Carlsen, and not Kramnik playing for the title today is largely due to chance. If only Chucky had a bad day in that last round...
I like the Chucky part so much.
do we have a world championship in tennis?
we need to rely on ratings and super tournaments to determine the best player in the world. the current system is very old. world champion is granted a place in next world chess championship and by drawing 12 games and one win in some chaotic rapid games, he can remain world champion till next two years. atleast world champion has to play in next chess candidates.
Another reason why Anand must go. If we try to change this system while he is champion all kinds of things are going to bust lose. Carlsen needs to win so we have the opportunity for change all around.
That's sad, because there was a lot of great chess in the next WC.Korchnoï's endings, Karpov's strategy, Kasparov's attacks...