FIDE World championship 2024 worth anything ?

.

.

I understand his reasons for not playing. Not playing is still a stain on his reputation. He was well on his way to surpassing Kasparov in my personal greatest of all time rankings. I'm not sure if I'll ever put him above Kasparov now, maybe if he returns to the World Championship.

Good quastion ! Don´t know - but as the tread states my point is - that for the very first time in my 20 years watching the "FIDE world Championship" it lost its meaning to me- bcs I dont belive the right person winning is the "world champion". The games in Oslo becomes my "world championship" bcs the better players are there. maybe the person ranking number 1 on FIDE list should have the title after if they hold it by end december ?! Or rename it to "FIDE Cup" - but noway this is a match for "world champion". Magnus and I would claim a few other top players -would most likely be better candidates if they played.

In the age of 22 years old I watch him win against Anand, were I think he became World champion for his first time - since I watch every single time - and alwas knew the player that won WAS in fact the best in the world.

I NOT trying to take anything away from the players playing for World chapionship - my claim is it just dosnt matter anymore - theres no point to it -since it is not the best player in the world whos winning.

Here is what happens if you seach for : Who is the worlds best chessplayer right now

into google:

Why would you want to put him above Kasparov? You should put whomever you want at the top. It doesn't have to be someone that other people favor. For some people nobody will ever top Fischer.

Nobody stays the best forever. Time, or other circumstances, always win out. At this point there seems to be little motivation or reason for Carlsen to participate in any one particular tournament. He still plays better than anyone in the world and is still the best player in the world. But that doesn't mean he's the "world champion". I don't see any problem with having those two distinct "titles". Carlsen's reputation certainly isn't determined by his participation in any particular tournament. It's determined by what he's already accomplished.

I'd like to put Carlsen above Kasparov because I'd like the strongest player of all time to also be the greatest player of all time. I believe Carlsen to be the strongest, but his failure to contend for the world championship removes him from greatest consideration, IMO. Sure, it's my own evaluation. Others' opinions vary.

I understand your perspective. But Carlsen doesn't want to play in the WC circuit anymore.

Personally, I consider him "retired" from WC play.

Somewhat similarly, Kasparov declined to participate in several World Championships after losing his title to Kramnik in 2000, due to certain disputes over formats and qualifications.

So there were several FIDE World Champions over the next 6 years (between 2000 and 2006), while Kasparov, declining to participate, continued to win other events, and remained the World #1 player ... until he officially retired from competitive play.

If what Maets says is true, that Kasparov declined to participate in a world championship, does that mean you have to remove Kasparov from consideration as the greatest ever?

And what about Fischer, didn't he also refuse? The list of people who could be the greatest chess players of all time is probably pretty short. Are there any that DIDNT fail to contend for the world championship at some point?

I don't bad mouth Magnus for refusing to play a title match, it's his prerogative. Preparing for the match is a lot of work and expense compared to the return on investment of time, effort, & money. If that makes sense. BUT..... I do criticize him severely for telling the world his intentions DURING the candidates tournament and not BEFORE. It changes the strategies and mentalities of the players in contention to win. For example, it makes a giant difference how u play, the risks, etc, knowing that the top 2 matter instead of only 1st. Also, if Gukesh wins the match vs Ding then he's beaten a player that's never even won a candidates tournament.

Karpov qualified to play Fischer in 1975 and then played in every world chess championship match from 1978 to 1990. He was eliminated in the 1992 Candidates, but then won the 1993 FIDE title after Kasparov (then champion) and Short split from FIDE. He won again in 1996 and 1998. Then chose not to defend his title in 1999.

Heck, even Morphy walked away when he was the best in the world.

On the other hand, Steinitz defended his title frequently, didn't dodge anyone, and had to "retire" from chess for medical reasons shortly after his rematch against Lasker.Maybe we need to consider Steinitz the greatest!

Kind of like Kramnik.

He lost his Candidates match against Shirov. But Shirov declined to play due to negotation issues with the event, so Kasparov ended up playing against Kramnik for the 2000 World Championship.

Kramnik also didn't qualify to challenge Anand for the title in 2008 - he was given special priveleges for finishing second-place in the World Championship tournament of 2007 (behind Anand, again).

Kasparov's circumstances were very different than Carlsen's. As for Fischer, I wouldn't even consider him a contender for greatest in large part because he was a quitter. I don't have much respect for those who squander their talent when they're at the height of their power. I really hope Carlsen returns to the World Championship fight. Carlsen's behavior is something I could forgive. I'd think more highly of him even if he tried to regain the title and failed.

In the old days the champion owned his title, now it´s owned by FIDE.

For some people quitting is the essence of chess. They will vigorously and staunchly defend the prerogative for chess players to resign or quit. If all (or almost all) of the great chess players at one point refused to participate in the world championship maybe that's just not the best criteria for defining a great chess player.

I admit I don't know all the particulars about which world champions refused to play in the world championship, and for what reasons. But unless it's some sort of medical issue where they physically CANT play why would the reason matter? It seems to me Fischer not playing is no different than Kasparov not playing. Both of which is no different than Carlsen not playing.

Ding... has lost at a really bad spot in the tournament.

The last two games are going to be nail bitters!

The best thing happen... one of them pulled ahead in Classical time controls... I can't stand drawing till the end and letting the WC title get decided by rapid and blitz time controls

"Highest rated player" is not "player who wins the world championship", same as in virtually every sport from athletics (each event in the world championship) to football (ok, teams taking the place of players). Most sports have a world championship, and it is something all players would love to win (at least at some time).

Not a certainty that it will be, but would be nice after I can't recall how many settled on rapid and blitz!

The world chess championship is not just the final match! It involves 4 stages each showing the challenger has performed better than others. At any time, the current champion has been there since success in all four of these stages, and his challenger has had recent success at all four.
It is in no way less indicative of chess superiority than the football (soccer) world championship is an indication of football superiority. The fundamental difference is that people take less notice of football rankings than they do of chess ratings.

"Since 1948, the world championship has mainly operated on a two or three-year cycle, with four stages:

1. Zonal tournaments: different regional tournaments to qualify for the following stage. Qualifiers from zonals play in the Interzonal (up to 1993), knockout world championship (1998 to 2004) or Chess World Cup (since 2005).
2. Candidates qualification tournaments. From 1948 to 1993, the only such tournament was the Interzonal. Since 2005, the Interzonal has mainly been replaced by the Chess World Cup. However extra qualification events have also been added: the FIDE Grand Prix, a series of tournaments restricted to the top 20 or so players in the world; and the Grand Swiss tournament. Since 2023, the Grand Prix has been replaced by the FIDE Circuit, making many more tournaments (not only those organised by FIDE) contribute towards Candidates qualification. In addition, a small number of players sometimes qualify directly for the Candidates either by finishing highly in the previous cycle, on rating, or as a wild card.
3. The Candidates Tournament is a tournament to choose the challenger. Over the years it has varied in size (between 8 and 16 players) and in format (a tournament, a set of matches, or a combination of the two). Since the 2013 cycle it has always been an eight-player, double round-robin tournament.
4. The championship match between the champion and the challenger."