I don't usually respond to my own posts but I do realize my last one was a long post that many may not want to read. But this issue is dear to my chess heart so I will try to ask a simple question:
Would you be more interested or less interested in Sochi if it was matches instead of a tournament.
That is lets say the players were paired and each played the same player for 13 rounds. The top seeded player would play the lowest seeded player and the winner would move on to the next match but the loser would be eliminated.
Obviously I would find this much more fun. I think there would be some surprising upsets and it would be a much more intense event. The players wouldn't have to play any more games than the current set up. But what do you think as chess fans?
It is my opinion that pro chess has way too many tournaments and not nearly enough matches. It is my opinion that there should be about 16 players chosen (by rating or other criteria) and they should simply play head to head matches against each other of at least 12 games in our championship cycle. I don't have strong views about whether the current champ can wait until the final or if he should jump in somewhere else.
I guess if people want to claim there is no sponsorship for such matches that is fine. But it seems to me that it has never really been tried. FIDE had candidate’s matches recently but that was just a qualifier for a "tournament championship." I don't think that is even remotely similar to a qualifier for a match championship. Second, they set the price very high for the type of qualifier that it was. Why not see if the sponsor of our current tournament cycle wouldn't mind having head to head matches instead of switching players around every round. It would certainly be more interesting to me, and I'm sure many other fans. Finally if the players don't want to take what is offered for these matches that is their call, they can choose not to compete. But that should not change what is in fact the best way to find the best player.
Some would say ratings can decide who plays the best chess. I disagree. I think if the ratings are just an indicator of tournament chess performance. Not overall performance. These two things are close but not identical. People with a tactical style may not be as strong as a player with a more solid style but they will do better in tournaments because they will score more wins against weak opponents were as the solid player will score more draws. However it very well may be that the stronger player is the solid player and this could be demonstrated by head to head matches.
Tactical players will tend to do better in tournaments because they will score better against weaker opponents. That’s why Kasparov did better in tournaments than Karpov even though you could see by their matches they were really close in strength. As more anecdotal evidence consider Tal's performance in Yugoslavia 1959. He won the torunament by trouncing the lower half of the field.
If you want statistics to support what I'm saying consider this page:
http://members.aon.at/sfischl/stat.html
He breaks down ratings depending on the strength of the opponents played. Kramnik does comparatively better against competition rated over 2700 than against those rated under 2700. Whereas Moro, Shirov and Topalov do better against weaker competition.
Kasparov is number one in both.
Anand stays at #3 behind Topalov when playing under 2700 players. He is #3 behind Kramnik when playing over 2700 competition.
I would also bet that tournaments have another flaw. I bet that when a player of a certain rating plays below his rating in the first half they tend not to play as well as their rating in the second half. I don't think it’s the case that this is because they were simply a worse chess player than they were a month before. I think it has to do with psychology and the fact that they may be out of the running to win. Hence players who play the players who end up doing well in the first few rounds and the player who have a poor first half at the end have an advantage. This is entirely luck and not dependant on the skill of the players at all. Of course with a double round robin this is somewhat decreased but not eliminated.
In any event tournaments are nice in moderation but when that is all you have and the top players almost never play each other head to head it really gets boring. Matches are real proof of who is better. Tournaments really prove next to nothing. Did Gelfand prove he and Kramnik are the second best in the world by taking second in Mexico? No, its pretty a single tournament result can’t do that. If he had beaten others in matches then, yes I would agree he’s number 2. Can he beat the others in matches? I don't know, and it appears he will never be given the chance. It’s frustrating for fans.