How to get Carlsen to challenge the World Champion.

^ thank you gattaca : )

If you place so high significance on ratings why not take things to their logical conclusion and directly award the title of WCH to the highest rated player?

If your rating is 2500 and you start playing at 2800, you could play like that for years before your rating got anywhere near catching up.

EDIT: Just seen, already been said.

I don't understand the correlation. I never made any statement or assertion to suggest this followup suggestion.

Thank you,

Linlaoda

Carlsen is afraid of the CHAMP,CARLSEN IS A COWARD 

"The system is not proper"

Lamest excuse ever

In Carlsen's case, luck :-)

Quote from your opening post: "FIDE candidates tournaments does not make sense, considering that the rating system is already implemented. I suggest making the highest rated player the challenger for the world championship, each year."

Along the same lines you might as well argue that the title match does not make any sense and award the title to the highest rated player, each year.

Results can depend on lots of factors.  Playing strength, sleep, exercise, diet, vices, illness, nerves, preparation for events, outside factors beyond one's control, etc. can all affect your performance in tournaments.  Ratings, at best, are a trailing indicator.  They only measure your performance (which could have been better or worse than normal, given the above conditions) against other players (who may also have inaccurate ratings or succomb to some of the above conditions and thus skew the results) as far as your last rated event (which could have been days or years ago).  

But if ratings are affected by sleep, exercise, diet, vices, illness, nerves, preparation for events, outside factors beyond one's control, etc isn't that the case even more in a single knockout like Kazan? I don't support the idea of skipping qualifications totally, but the rating list is probably a better measure of skill than a single event like Kazan.

Your statement still is not a logical followup of my suggestion. My suggestion... is just as is.

Best,

Linlaoda

That's more or less what the rating list is, but the usual argument against it is that anyone can be first one day and second another, and that this makes it a less reliable measure. I don't agree with that, in more than 40 years only six players have been sole first: Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Carlsen, Topalov and Anand. So I think it's a good measure of playing strength, at least compared to the knockouts. World ranking of winners at the start of knockouts used as FIDE World Championships or Candidates:

Khalifman: 45

Kasimdzhanov: 44

Ponomariov: 20

Gelfand: 16

Anand: 2

Anand showed that it's definitely possible for a favourite to win with that system, but none of the other winners were top ten. Still I don't think the rating list should be used to pick the challenger. Maybe it would result in the strongest possible challenger, but it's more fun to have an actual competition, and as long as knockouts are avoided and a more serious system is used it can't be too bad. 

^agree with fabelhaft

To me the best system would be to have a qualification system that selected the best players from every country, or at least region of the world, to come together and play each other in a big qualifying swiss.

From that, select say, the top 8 players, have them play a quadruple round robin to select the challenger. 

Such a system would never get implemented in reality though, 'cause it makes sense and we know it would work and make for exciting chess, since it did in the past. 

^that's assuming that all countries were created equal. Which is wrong. *cough Russia.

Of course Shakaali's statement is not a strictly logical conclusion. Neither are your arguments. He is trying to find the general idea behind your original post and apply it consequently. If there is no such general idea, well ... maybe your point is more tactical than strategical.

I want back the zone tournaments, interzone tournaments and knockout qualifying matches.

* please argue how my arguments are not logical. Simply stating it is not logical does not qualify as an argument.


Best,

Linlaoda

Not at all. We had that problem before, other countries got to send their best, and there was a limit to the number of candidates from a single nation. It worked just fine. 

I said that your argument from your original post is not a logical conclusion: the fact that we have a rating system doesn't force the conclusion that we should use it to determine the challenger.

Of course, that's perfectly fine, since it is rare to find strictly logical arguments outside the sandbox of a formal language. My point was that while Shakaali's statement is not a "logical followup", it might still be sensible.

Why hasn't anyone in this thread paused to consider FIDE Corruption, machinations by the WCC himself (especially give the history of earlier matches), sponsorship money, breakaway actions by the WCC (e.g. Kasparov and Short) to set up rival institutions, or any of a myriad number of maneuvers (just like a chess game) that lead up to an actual WCC match?

Indeed, there are lots of big institutional forces involved.  GM eccentricities, notwithstanding.

"Ratings" hardly top of the list of deciding factors.  Stop dreaming.  Nuff said?

Very interesting topic...