Forums

FIDE World championship 2024 worth anything ?

Sort:
pcalugaru

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

Elroch
JoooDetErFint wrote:

I agree they earned their way - but calling it "world champion" - is that not a bit off ? Any other sports they call it world champions they had to beat the worlds best - but here is more the lack of the best...

"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).

Elroch
pcalugaru wrote:

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

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

JoooDetErFint
Elroch skrev:
JoooDetErFint wrote:

I agree they earned their way - but calling it "world champion" - is that not a bit off ? Any other sports they call it world champions they had to beat the worlds best - but here is more the lack of the best...

"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).

Dont know if you talk Soccer or Football the American - Im from EU so Soccer to me is the big sport - and there you always have to beat X number of the best teams to claim "world Champion" ect Brazil, France, Germany, Spain and so on - the winner therfor won the title no matter who the winner might be - but here the players playing for the title is not the very best, and dont even have to beat the very best - and yet call them self "world champion" ... Come on ... !? If I won the title "World Champion" and I knew there was someon activ better than me - I would not feel like "world Champion". And to me this is not a name game - I name Carlsen bcs the fact is - he is the worlds best at the moment - if someone won against him or he did retire - I would feel the same for the next. Still as of today Carlsen playing his best -he would win against everyone out there. Also belive he shows it is not only in classic.

I dont like to compair - Carlsen, Fisher ect bcs I belive the build on eachother - and whos to say what age in time was the "hardest or best" - I do belive Carlsen is the one who won most and had the highest rating - If I recall correctly.

https://youtube.com/shorts/1EWDl2-Vzjo?si=HU2kotgdhsYeQb5O

Look 20 seconds in Hikaru on who the greatest ever

https://youtube.com/shorts/BZ4y6IRtolw?si=5r2dcZyPWzQA5e2M

Kasparov on who is the best ever

Elroch
JoooDetErFint wrote:
Elroch skrev:
JoooDetErFint wrote:

I agree they earned their way - but calling it "world champion" - is that not a bit off ? Any other sports they call it world champions they had to beat the worlds best - but here is more the lack of the best...

"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).

Dont know if you talk Soccer or Football the American - Im from EU so Soccer to me is the big sport - and there you always have to beat X number of the best teams to claim "world Champion" ect Brazil, France, Germany, Spain and so on - the winner therfor won the title no matter who the winner might be - but here the players playing for the title is not the very best, and dont even have to beat the very best - and yet call them self "world champion" ... Come on ... !? If I won the title "World Champion" and I knew there was someon activ better than me - I would not feel like "world Champion". And to me this is not a name game - I name Carlsen bcs the fact is - he is the worlds best at the moment - if someone won against him or he did retire - I would feel the same for the next. Still as of today Carlsen playing his best -he would win against everyone out there. Also belive he shows it is not only in classic.

I dont like to compair - Carlsen, Fisher ect bcs I belive the build on eachother - and whos to say what age in time was the "hardest or best" - I do belive Carlsen is the one who won most and had the highest rating - If I recall correctly.

https://youtube.com/shorts/1EWDl2-Vzjo?si=HU2kotgdhsYeQb5O

Look 20 seconds in Hikaru on who the greatest ever

https://youtube.com/shorts/BZ4y6IRtolw?si=5r2dcZyPWzQA5e2M

Kasparov on who is the best ever

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."
Khnemu_Nehep
JoooDetErFint wrote:

So I have been watching all the big tournaments for several years - and love it! Something I look forward to every single time. Now the time has come for Gukesh and Ding Liren to fight to become FIDE World Champion - but is it worth anything what so ever ?

Everyone who follows chess knows very well that there is a person walking around who dominated chess on all levels - and who simply does not want to play. In addition to Magnus, there are 3 other players ranked higher on the FIDE Rankings - so what does it mean that number 5 plays for the world championship against number 22?? Isn't that a joke... Regardless of who comes out on top - he is hardly the best in the world...

Personally, I don't care, and it doesn't mean it's a world championship match for me - but just a match between two of the world's best, which honestly doesn't mean much.

What do you think?

https://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men

Nakamura and Caruana failed to get more points than Gukesh in the candidates. Liren is world champion. You're clueless.

Khnemu_Nehep
FrozenForkedDilemma wrote:
Quasimorphy wrote:

Kasparov's circumstances were very different than Carlsen's.

I thought the comparison was Kasparov with Ding. The real shame is if Nakamura took the Candidates more seriously, it could have been him instead of Ding. Instead, he has become a backseat Monday morning quarterback criticizing Ding and not owning up to his shortcomings.

Tf do you mean. He almost got to the WCC. He was 2nd in the candidates.

Elroch

I think Carlsen found it unsatisfying to spend a lot of time and effort drawing a classical match and then win one or two fast games.

DreamscapeHorizons

I also think financial factors were at play. He'd spend a lot of resources prepping and playing the match & not really make enough after taxes and paying for everything for it to be worthwhile. Over and over. He has money now so a title matches money isn't gonna motivate him like it would most of his opponents.

Magnus did say he'd like to see faster time controls in the title match.

Plus Magnus has already won everything imaginable so there's a loss of motivation there. What is there to accomplish?

JoooDetErFint
Elroch skrev:

I think Carlsen found it unsatisfying to spend a lot of time and effort drawing a classical match and then win one or two fast games.

Yea - he did say that in some interview - that he just dont enjoy the format.