Has the World Championship lost its meaning?

Who is considered the weakest WC that was produced the old ( match ) way ?  Euwe is chosen most often I believe .... compare him to recent WC s that won it through tournies : Khalifman , Khazimzhadanov (sp ? ) and Ponomariov and I think Euwe was likely stronger than any of them.... lets not forget that those who reach the match stages of a WC are not normally bad tournament players but a bad match player could win a WC in a tourney its not likely a bad tourney player would even reach a match for the WC . 

I will relent only on the blitz( though you should be able to think faster and win on time whether fast or slow), however, if you really are a true master, you should be able to play from any predetermined opening and win or draw. I mean from openings that have a statistical probably that is relatively even for both sides to win. I don't mean forcing you to accept a4 for your first move as white while you opponent gets e5.

If you don't think I am being realistic. I will compare it to team sports. Would you rather see football games decided without special teams? Lets just line up the offenses and see who can execute without the defense in front of them and say they win?

The best chess player shouldn't just be the best at figuring out how to win or draw with his one opening 95% of the time and win or draw with black 35-40% of the time. A true "Grand Master" who is world champ, should be able to demonstrate mastery on a grand scale against the best in every aspect of chess. Hence the idea they have mastered it. Not simplying figuring out how to master his opponents. Perhaps they should start reserving that title to the more exuberant who actually master their craft, instead of giving it to those who are figuring out how to beat a bunch of underachieving players, who have contributed to the diluting of what chess could be.

Classical chess is about just that : classical (slow) chess and is not about any of the many variants of the game that exists. So , a WC event to determine the WC in classical chess shouldnt include any of the variants , even as tie breaks, imo. Botvinnik was considered one of the greatest players ever and yet he didnt like blitz and claimed he only played one game of blitz in his life so we will never know if he was any good at it or not. Also, using faster time controls favors the younger players so if they had used blitz games in the match between Tal and Botvinnik , for example, this would have been extremely unfair to Botvinnik. 

Indeed, I don't consider Kasimdzhanov et al tournament winners, more winners of knockout minimatches of the sort that were called matches in Kazan, after FIDE decided not to hold a "Candidates tournament" (=double round robin) but instead "Candidates matches" (=knockout). Of course also for example Kasimdzhanov won a knockout in which the strongest players were absent, but that's another question. To me knockouts is the worst possible system, but round robins to find a challenger or Champion have been won by Smyslov (twice), Tal, Petrosian, Botvinnik, Anand, not necessarily worse players than match winners invited without qualification like Euwe or Kramnik. At least I wouldn't group them together with knockout winners.

Does anybody know what the perceived problems were with the many-game matches and the candidate system of yesteryear? What were they trying to "solve" with all the changes that have given us the mess we're in today, when nobody but FIDE thinks that the current system works or that it promotes the strongest players in the world playing for the title?

Was it just a matter of money, or were there other concerns?

I find people will often give the nod to modern day players. On some level that has merit. However, take away the benefit they have of the compounded knowledge of their predecessors, would they have achieved more in terms of mastering their craft? That is truly the only way to know. So though it might be fair to say the younger players have figured out how to beat the older, worn out player at their own game, we will never know if the roles were reversed who was better...

Well, Anand is unique in that he has won the WC title in 3 different formats .  So, imo, his "credentials" cannot be questioned...... I think the best way to determine a true WC is the way they did it a few decades ago. The strongest tourney players usually are the ones to reach the candidates matches and from them a challenger to the WC is determined and then they play a match. If they were to go to strictly a tourney format I think the best would be a DRR tourney . Should the WC have to play in that too or would he play the winner of such a tourney in a match ? Match play among top players is very exciting/different imo and it would be a shame to see it done away with completely. 

Probably many things at once. None of today's players (or sponsors) want longer matches, most of them seem to think even 12 games is much. In the old days the Soviet players could have big teams of GMs working for many months preparing for a match, and players could take a year off only studying their opponent. The resources with regards to chess were huge, but now things are different. Finding sponsors isn't easy, Kasparov-Shirov fell through, as did Kasparov's matches against Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov, Candidates in 2007 were postponed time and again, as Topalov-Kamsky. Especially the younger players don't seem to find it all that inspiring to see Anand and Kramnik play a few events with bad results while preparing for one single opponent for a year. It's very expensive (demanding big teams), and at least some of the younger players seem to find it much more rewarding to play tournaments against varied opposition.

I am not disputing Anand's credentials. He very well could be the greatest chess player who ever lives. I do love the idea of a DRR tourney. This gives someone a pass in case of a blunder or a fluke. I don't think they should ever give the defending champ a pass, he should have to play as many games as everyone else. That might be the only difference in the ability of two combatants. One is worn out and one is fresh. That isn't a very fair test of ones true ability. I don't mind who the best is, I just want him to be the one who ends up being declared the champ.

I think you dont understand the great difference between match and tournament play . If tournies only determined WCs I doubt Tigran Petrosian would have ever been world champion and perhaps Geller would have been . Petrosian's style of play was perfectly suited for match play where Geller's wasnt . If I defeat an opponent in a tourney it certainly doesnt mean I am better than him necessarily but if I beat him decisively in a match it more likely does . 

 That sounds like an argument in favor of tournaments, because it is a better overall indicator rather than just if player A can defeat player B after alot of study.

Of course, tournaments for the world championship will suffer from the old Soviet problem, who wants a champ with the possible shroud of thrown games over his head.

This to me is the main advantage of match play, its harder to come up with a reason why one player just threw the match. (Unless of course its Karpov holding someones family for ransom)

 I think your last sentence is missing the point of your first sentence. If you beat an opponent in a tournament (as in finishing better than he does), then it does mean you're better than he is; but only at tournament play. If you beat an oppoenent in a match, it also means you're better than he is; but only at match play. Which is the better "chess" player? It depends on how you define "chess." My point is that if you define it descriptively (by looking at how it is actually played), chess is tournament chess, not match chess.

Petrosian won the Candidates tournament in 1962 ahead of Geller, and I don't think the 51-year-old Botvinnik would have won if he had participated, so Petrosian was definitely good enough to win a tournament World Championship. One problem with matches is that they only prove that one person was better than another person at one occasion. To become World Champion in 1935 all Euwe had to do was beat Alekhine. Not that it was easy, but he had lost his matches against weaker players than Alekhine and there's no reason to believe he would have won a tournament World Championship where he would have to beat Capablanca, Botvinnik, Flohr, Bogoljubow (and the old Lasker he lost all his games against).

The match players dont get to the matches without playing great tournaments . This seems to be something people arent recognizing. In the old system only the best players were invited to various " interzonal " tournaments and the winners of those very strong events made up the candidates and then they played head to head matches until a challenger is determined for the WC and then they play a match for the WC . So basically , you have to be good in tournaments to reach the matches stage for a WC and then prove your ability in match play as well. A WC thus determined has proven his ability in both match and tournament play. 

I think the fact that it is Gelfand that will play Anand for the WC next indicates that the current system is "broken " . 

At least it highlighted the problem with not having proper qualifications. A Grand Prix series of 52 classical games each for the participants was ambitious enough and ended with Aronian and Radjabov in the top two (Gelfand didn't reach top ten). But then, after 3-4 years of qualifications, Aronian and Radjabov were eliminated in rapid/blitz in Kazan after only four classical games each (that they were undefeated in). They are naturally stronger players than Gelfand, it's just that short knockout events often are won by outsiders. In cycles that are many years long it should be possible to have more serious ways to determine the challenger.

 What the hell are you on about?  Test them with tactical problems?!  Have you played the game?

 This just gets better and better. 

Now an acolyte is telling a master what it means to be a master.

Yeah, those wcc candidates are all a bunch of underachievers!

Ya' know, you can read and edit your posts before hitting submit, right?