Has the World Championship lost its meaning?

Once upon a time title matches were at least 24 games. The challenger qualified in a tough cycle, for example Spassky won several 10-game matches against top 10 players like Keres, Geller and Tal. However, the last decades the changes have been big. 1993 had a 24 game match, 1995 had 18 games, 2000 had 16 and 2004 had 14, since then it's been 12, and the number may well keep decreasing. The same thing with the Candidates. Short won a 14-game final, Topalov beat Kamsky over 8 games in 2009 and in Kazan all matches but one were four games long (the last one six). The most traditional participant with regards to matches was probably Kramnik, and even he said that he considered  four game matches to be "pretty long".

No one questioned that Spassky-Fischer, Fischer-Karpov, Karpov-Korchnoi and Kasparov-Karpov were the strongest players from the end of the 1960s to the 1990s. They were also the top two on every rating list the first 27 years it existed, with exception for three one-list-drops to third by Korchnoi/Karpov. But those were the only times in almost 30 years Fischer/Spassky, Fischer/Karpov, Karpov/Korchnoi, Kasparov/Karpov weren't top two on the rating list. "Top two" (on the rating list and in the common perception) and "title match participants" were almost synonyms.

Then things started to deteriorate with knockout World Championships and a "private" title with only two players in the Candidates 1998. The loser was later given the title match, won, and defended thanks to draw odds after an eight player cycle the best players declined. The reunification match was decided in rapid and then there was a tournament World Championship. After that an automatic match for the previous title holder was followed by Topalov getting a title match just by beating Kamsky in an 8-game match.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2012 lists more than 25 changes made to the latest cycle, that took many years to complete and still was decided by a short knockout competition with three decisive games of classical chess. The Candidates matches when Anand qualified to face Kasparov had 30 decisive games.

Title matches are now 12 games long, but the best players are less likely to reach them than in Fischer's days. Anand and Gelfand have gone 4-7 years without winning a tournament, even if it will continue to be said that they aren't interested in doing their best in any other events than knockout qualifications or title matches. FIDE's latest cycle change (also this time during an ongoing cycle) turned the Candidates into a round robin. Unless there will be as many changes as last time it does look more promising, but to me the World Championship has still lost much of its former glory.

Wow, that is a pretty big post. It seems like you have some good points; however, I cannot say that I dislike the new format. I believe that 24 games is too long. Such a match would exhaust both players and ruin the quality of their games.

Also, in a shorter match, every game is more important. This leads the players to play stronger moves, which is, after all, what the viewers want, right? FIDE is paying these people so that they will get spectators to watch, which they need to stay in business.

Finally, I also think the shortening of the Candidates match is a wise choice. This gives the winner more time to prepare against his opponent, and get ready for the World Championship. Not to mention, anyone who has just one the Candidates match will be extremely tired, and need a period of rest before any serious study can be made.

I agree that FIDE has done everything they can to ruin the WC title's value. 

THe whole point of a grueling match is that it tests the mental will of a player, their preparation, and their whole support team.

Today's current format it is actually statistically probable that the best match player won't come out of the candidates' cycle to meet the world champion. Given a cycle that doesn't seek to bring forth the very best challenger, it becomes clear that it is unlikley the best match player will be world champion. 

At which point what is the purpose of the title? The WC is not always going to be the highest rated player, but being the unquestioned best match player is still a very compelling accolade. But we've done away with that. So now we have a title that is not the best tournament player, not the best match player, and not the highest rated player. So what's the point?

The shorter the match the duller the games will be imo since a loss in a short match is far more critical than a loss in a longer match . The players will play more " safety first " type chess in a short match and be far less likely to take any "risks" which produce both more interesting and more decisive chess. 

Will chess960 (or something equivalent- random but equal middlegame positions for instance) take over?  The best chsss players already are the best chess960 players (give or take), so perhaps some element that goes against "preparation" allows players to be creative and riskier over the board, I'd think.  Fischer thought so and he is the greatest player ever to play the game, along with a few others that are not as good as Capablanca.

To be the man you gotta beat the man, and Anand is the man.

@DannyHume: the issue is not that the openings aren't interesting or that there's not enough there to be worth playing for. There's not a need to change the rules of the game in order to keep the game. 

At issue is that the format of a series of short matches decided by blitz games devalues the entire affair. It's not about where the pieces stand at the start of the game, it's about not having a cycle that guarantees the best match player ascends to the crown. 

@TheBone1: And to my point, given a candidates cycle that is not structured to guarantee the best match player comes to the table as the WC Challenger, it is only a matter of time before the person holding the WC title isn't anything close to "the man." He or she will just be the person holding the meaningless piece of paper at the moment.

The current format is a step up from the disasterous knock out tournaments that gave us World Champions like Kasimdzhanov. But it is still a long way from a cycle that anyone who cares about great chess should support.

I personally don't like how money tends to dilute the purest of things. However, if it weren't for money, most of us wouldn't know that some people got together and held a tournament that was being hailed as the world championship of chess.

As far as the game scenarios go, if none of us who appreciate Bobby Fischer, haven't figured out by now, that the demands of players will come first, then promoters that front the money, for the events to even begin to take place, then the fans and lastly FIDE/USCF get their say so.

I personally like the idea of putting the would be champ to the test in blitz, standard and 960. I think the world's best chess player should be the most well rounded. Not the fastest pawn pusher, or someone who is really good at memorizing one opening and barely squeaking out a match. If possible even test them with tactical problems to prove their prowess or lack there of.

Why not test them in golf, horseshoes and checkers while we are at it.. to be sure who is really the most rounded ?!  Tie could be broken with a tobacco spitting contest !  

I cant agree with this.  24 game matches have been played in the past and the players have not become exhausted and have in fact produced fantastic chess and wonderful drama.  Having more time to prepare for the final after a shorter match isnt an argument - the final can simply start later or the qualifiers start sooner.  And in the days of candidates cycles and long matches, usually the challenger won the final so they werent exhausted either!! 

The last time I really had a clear idea who the champion was GM Kramnik defeated GM Kasparov. Since then the champion has been GM Kramnikopalovonomariovelfandarlesanandamsky.

@nameno1had actually, money is another real issue to be considered. Where are real sponsorship dollars? The World Chess Championship draws less sponsorship dollars than American college football bowl games played between .500 ball clubs in mid-December. The WC isn't hurting for funds right now, but it does not have the kind of influential corporate backing that would allow FIDE to support a return to candidate's cycles similar to what we had prior to Kasparov's taking his toy and going home. 

What's wrong, are you affraid they will actually award the best chess player with the world title instead of coddling the winner?

This was a consideration of mine already,as I said, I don't care much for how money dilutes the purity of things. Chess was much more pure, before Kasparov's move to get a bigger slice of the pie, ended up watering down what we have left. Also, my mention of the promoters having their way about things, even before the sanctioning bodies do, because they need the funding so bad...

No, I am afraid that doing what you suggest changes the game too much as blitz and 960 are NOT chess . So if you want to test them in variants of chess why not include other games as well ? 

Maybe a pissing contest too?  See who can "shoot farther."

Nigel Short might get his revenge.  

 If we want to test them on Chess, why are we looking for the best match player? None of the major Chess events are matches, they're all round robins. None of the local USCF events are matches, they're all Swiss (an approximation of a round robin). If Chess was about match play, chess.com would be focused on 24 game matches between two players, but it's focused on tournaments. It's like deciding the world champion of baseball by playing cricket.

Its rather clear from past experience that match play is more likely to produce the strongest player as world champion than tournament play . Just look at the players that have become WC through tournies and compare them to those who did it through tough matches.... its not in question. 

24 game matches ain't that long....considering Alekhine-Capa was 34 games and Kasparov-Karpov went over 40 games.on the contrary 12 games seems a bit short.

I wonder if it's so clear as to not even be in question. The tournament World Champions are Botvinnik and Anand (when they were considered to be the best players in the world) and if the FIDE title during the split years is counted also Topalov (when he was considered by many to be the best player in the world). Botvinnik was also World Champion in 1962 when he was in his 50s and maybe not stronger than a tournament World Champion would have been at the same time.

Euwe has rarely been considered the best player in the world (he lost his matches against Bogo and was beaten also by Capa before being given a title match), and maybe the winner of Anand-Gelfand wouldn't have to be a stronger player than a tournament World Champion in 2013 would be, just like Euwe might not have finished first in a tournament World Championship in 1936.