I think Heinrik Carlsen expressed their concerns fairly clearly in the online conference with Ilyumzhinov in 2008. His first point was that important issues need to be raised well in advance, unlike the sudden changes that were brought about at Dresden on short notice. Another request was for the abolishment of privileges, specifically, the champion's right to be seeded into the final, the champion's right to a rematch, the losers of previous matches being seeded to a high place in the next cycle, the hosting nation getting to nominate one player, etc. It sounds like they were basically happy with the rapid knockouts of 1999-2004 as well as the tournament championships of 2005 and 2007. Like Morozevich, he protested against the long length of the cycle.
Lasker's 27 year reign
nobody likes my idea? Not worthy of comment?
I just don't like any grandfathering period. Not even the champ...you won your championship THIS time...should have no factoring into the NEXT championship.
The rest of your idea may work and be awesome.
We see the reigns of champions over the decades/century, yet how strong was Reti at his peak? Tarrasch? Fine? Could Botvinnik in 1941 beat Alekhine? How long would Capablanca's reign have been if he had a chance to play earlier...1915-1936 maybe? Could Smyslov or Bronstein snuck in a comfortable reign in the late '40's to early '50's? Would Bobby Fischer have been champion in the mid-60's and stuck around longer? Do Olympic gold medalists get this kind of advantage? World Cup soccer champs? Wimbledon?
I think one of the keys to a fair system is that players who are improving very rapidly have a chance to get a spot. They win a regional event, and then compete in their national championship, get a spot in the World Cup and somehow (despite it's lottery nature) win that, securing a spot in the Candidates tournament. That kind of thing is what gives the cycle meaning to your average player. Everyone has a chance to win assuming they can make it through.
To be world champion someone must beat the world champion...... period. Thats the way I see it and chess should NEVER change to be like soccer or tennis or anything else...... how ridiculous would chess players look to suggest other sports/games change to be like chess ? If you cannot beat the world champion in a match then you arent the world champion period. Tournaments are a less reliable way to find the best in the world , want proof ? Here it is : Kazimzhadanov and Khalifman are great proof. Chess is more similar to boxing and in boxing also to become the world champion, in any weight division, you must defeat the reigning world champion.......
Anand on the ideal format:
"I think what we had in Mexico (2007) and San Luis (2005) are the best. (In these championships, eight qualified players played on a double round-robin format). First of all, it’s attractive to have four games (involving all eight players) a day. If you have one game and that fizzles out, spectators have to come back two days later. Not a dream format, in my opinion."
Magnus's father Heinrik Carlsen on possible formats for a world championship:
"Magnus favours a knock-out system with for instance 64 or 128 players mainly coming from the preceding step. When there are eight players left in the knock-out stage, various alternatives are possible and we would like to mention three viable options.
The first is to continue with the knock-out matches, and the final winner is the new World Champion.
Another alternative is to proceed with candidate matches between the eight remaining players at other venues and shifted in time. After two rounds of candidate matches, the two remaining players would fight for the world championship title.
A third good alternative is to stage a double round robin World Championship tournament between the eight remaining players from the knock-out cup."
Interviewer: Certainly, the system FIDE have chosen for the current world championship round has attracted many critics, for its length and unwieldiness. But what system would you consider more dynamic and modern?
Morozevich: I have not thought in detail about this question, but I am sure of this: the cycle should be exactly two years. The match-tournaments in San Luis 2005 and Mexico 2007 attracted great interest from the chess world. I think this format could have been retained for the Candidates event, and the winner play a match against the champion, or a final candidates match against the winner of the World Cup.
Interviewer: But how does one choose the eight lucky participants?
Morozevich: You are asking too much of me. I would not like to steal the bread from FIDE’s mouth. Working out the system is their prerogative… (laughs)
I wonder if Fischer or Kasparov (no intention of comparing Carlsen to them, but anyway) would have accepted participating in a system like the one FIDE introduced with their changes midway into this cycle, with four game minimatches played after each other with rapid/blitz tiebreak. Sensations will be inevitable and I bet some outsider will win it, like Kamsky or Gelfand. Remember Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov, this format isn't good for the best players.
It will feel weird if it's won in blitz by #15 or #17 having a good day rather than by a player that has proved to be much better in "real chess", but the participants like this knockout format so they can't complain about the outcome afterwards. But all this has been discussed enough already I suppose.
To be world champion someone must beat the world champion...... period. Thats the way I see it and chess should NEVER change to be like soccer or tennis or anything else...... how ridiculous would chess players look to suggest other sports/games change to be like chess ? If you cannot beat the world champion in a match then you arent the world champion period. Tournaments are a less reliable way to find the best in the world , want proof ? Here it is : Kazimzhadanov and Khalifman are great proof. Chess is more similar to boxing and in boxing also to become the world champion, in any weight division, you must defeat the reigning world champion.......
BUMP
Tournaments are a less reliable way to find the best in the world , want proof ? Here it is : Kazimzhadanov and Khalifman are great proof.
Kasimdzhanov and Khalifman won minimatch knockouts of the same sort that will decide this year's Candidates. In strong tournaments they usually finished in the bottom of the field, but it's easier for the weaker players to win with the minimatch system. Kamsky will have good chances against Topalov since he is much better in rapid and blitz, but in a tournament with only "real chess" Topalov would finish far ahead 99 times of 100.
Topalov couldn't beat them in those years, so he wasn't the best then...yeah maybe now Topalov can crush Khalifman, but 2011 sure as heckfar isn't 1999 and even if you think he was stronger then, he wasn't under "world championship rules", ergo ipso facto Khalifman 1999 > Topalov 1999. Oh and by the way Kasimdzhanov 2004 is better than Ivanchuk, Grischuk, Topalov, and Adams 2004, proven OTB. That doesn't mean all-time he is better than they are or that his peak strength is higher, but when it count the most, under the highest stakes, for the "world championship", he played better than all of those yahoos. Now he is 2nd to the world champ himself.
It's kind of like when good college football teams used to run up the score against crappy teams to make themselves look stronger, but in a pool of other elite teams, who'd win? Have them play each other under equal conditions, the only way to find out. Then when one of the "running-up-the-score-team" loses to a less glamorous team, they cry: "99 out of a 100 times we'd win", yeah except when it really counts. Keep trying or keep crying.
Nobody seems to understand that a "world championship" is not a declaration of peak strength or of career average strength or of eternal greatness in chess, but is a title that should refer to a short period of time(1-3 years, for instance) when the CHAMPION player has proven that he is the BEST in the world AGAINST THE BEST CURRENT COMPETITORS UNDER EQUAL CONDITIONS. That is the only real meaning of "champion". I love the font size bar I discovered in the last few months.
At ultrafast time controls, pretty well anyone can beat anyone. It's much easier for strong players to blunder when the clock is ticking, and you are under the gun because it's a two game knockout. I still don't like the format of the FIDE Chess World Cup. It's a bit of a crapshoot really.
Neither tennis nor golf declare an official "world champion", so maybe FIDE should annihilate the FIDE World Championship. Perhaps that is better than having a meaningless world championship.
Regular season + Playoff = Top match-ups cannot be avoided simply out of cowardice to protect one's rating, which is the chief problem with elite chess. It would also be a more accurate reflection of player's strength. Every 2 years is fine. No individual demands, no grandfathering, whatever the rules happen to be (time limits, format, etc.), everyone is subject to them equally, even if they change midcycle, even if 1 particular GM prefers tournaments instead of matches or vice-versa, even if he does better when averaging 4 minutes per move compared to 2.5 minutes...as long as these things change for everyone equally.
I dunno but it seems like 1957-63 and 1984-87 had some pretty exciting near-annual marquee match-ups.
I was trying to Google an old boxing saying, but couldn't find it. It was something to the effect that when the champion fights, interest in boxing increases at all levels and the sport thrives. When there is a world champion chess match, a large part of the world is aware of it. I don't think a championship chess tournament creates the same excitement or interest. In boxing the title belongs to the champion and it is up to the challenger to take it away from him, which generally means in a close fight the decision will go to the champion. I feel that the championship should go to the best match player not the best tournament player. Tournaments are won by piling up wins against the weaker players and drawing the good players. It takes an aggressive style to win a tournament, and it is tough for a defensive player to win a tournament. Match play allows the better player to win no matter what his style.
Marquee matches, a reality show, some trash talk...FIDE probably could learn a thing or two about marketing from Dana White.
Could somebody tell me who were the one's Lasker supposed to have a world championship match with but had some problems like that of the match of Lasker-Rubinstein
?
He also played players who had no chance against him, like Janowski and Marshall and avoided playing Tarrasch until Tarrasch was almost 50 and past his prime.
No it was Siegbert Tarrasch who repeatedly declined to play Lasker in the 1890's he considered himself a superior master he said "The young man should prove his worthiness by attempting to win one or two International events he is not entitled to play someone like me" instead Lasker challenged Steinitz and won the title.
When the two finally met in 1908 for the world title Tarrasch still didn't have any respect for Lasker he told him " To you Dr.Lasker I have only one thing to say check and mate" he refused to shake hands clicked his heels and walked out of the room without another word.
So Anand is world champion. Carlsen tied for first at Baku Grand Prix, and qualified by rating for a place in the Candidates, but has withdrawn in protest over the changes that were made to the format midcycle. Aronian, Kramnik, Topalov, Mamedyarov and Grischuk have qualified for the Candidates matches scheduled to be held in May. Ivanchuk and Karjakin played in both the World Cup and Grand Prix, but failed to qualify for the Candidates. Nakamura chose to sit out of the World Cup, and didn't qualify for the Grand Prix. Is that about the size of it?
That is a generous reading of Carlsen's rather obscure letter explaining his decision not to play. He wanted changes that would have meant he wouldn't have to play matches to qualify to play Anand.
Not really, he mentioned what his personal preference for coming cycles was, but that's not the same thing as saying that he refused to play matches, and he also pointed out that he didn't want any more changes to be made to this cycle. He just didn't like what FIDE did to the whole thing with all the changes.