Lasker's 27 year reign

---

It's just a joke.

I hope I have a box of salt the next time Kramnik gives us a chess history lesson. For instance when Kramnik says there was a wide gap in 1890 between Lasker and Tarrasch---Right! there was a gap alright but Lasker wasn't on top.

Look how Kramnik rationalized Alekhine's gap in the early 30's. He says all of Alekhines contemporaries dropped by the wayside and the future generation (Keres, Botvinnik etc.) hadn't arrived yet---so of course there was a gap. You could say that about any champion that had a large gap. I'm surprised he didnt say that about Fischer. It would fit in with his Alekhine explanation. All of Fischers contemporaries just faded away and the future generation (Kasparov, Karpov etc.) hadn't arrived yet---so of course there was a gap.

I think Kramnik forgot the fact that Alekhine and Fischer HELPED their contemporaries fade into the dust. I hope I have a big box of salt the next time Kramnik gives a history lesson.

---

 Thanks, I'll check it out. But I was thinking perhaps we could dissect the game here on line. Five heads are better than one and ten heads are better than five.

---

For the record, it's Jacques.

Lasker still rules...

---

Lasker's 116 year reign

Well, Lasker, Tarrasch, Alekhine, Euwe and Botvinnik called themselves doctors too, even though they were playing chess.

Annual regular season and playoff for the championship...then there'd be no question of who is a perennial great, who had a fever during a match, or who is a total f[luke]-up.  Chess is like the college [American] football of non-[American]football competitions that don't have national championship tournament/playoff systems. Complete HOGWASH and yet it claims to be such a "logical" game.

Yeah, annual championships would be a lot more interesting.  They would probably lead to a greater number of players becoming champion without having to resort to the lottery nature of FIDE's rapid knockouts of a few years back.

---

I don't think so.  Preperation is very time consuming and so are the matches themselves.  Getting a champion to play every year would prove to be a great disadvantage to the champion and would greatly diminish the prestige of the crown and quality of the champion's play.   The challengers, presumably would be at great advantage always knowing who they'd be preparing for.

By your argument, all time controls in chess should be eliminated to allow highest "quality" of play.

If more time is needed for players, then make the championship like the olympics, every 4 years..doesn't have to be annual (though it'd be better). Frequency is not the issue so much as equal fair conditions/time for every one involved, so as to prove who the real best player is in the world at a given time. Also, matches can be shortened significantly.  That's the nature of tournament play.  Only the best survives and can legitimately claim he did it while going through the same rigors everyone else had to.  

There'd be great scenarios...e.g. a GM may have to choose whether to "rest" his surprise opening/novelty for the playoffs or to unleash it immediately to obtain a more favorable seed...it'd be awesome, with more emphasis would be on logic/thinking on the fly rather than extensive memorization/"preparation".

Ur just jealous because the longest your were ever world champion was... NEVER

I am top 20 all-time in number of years as FIDE World Chess Champion.

Yeah, a 12 game match or even an eight game match every year.  Who knows whether that quality or "prestige" would decrease or not?  Most national championships are held annually, and you never hear anyone complaining about the low quality of the games there.  The FIDE's move to hold the championship every year was a good one.  It was more the rapid time control, short matches and knockout format that were undermining the legitimacy of the process.

R i g h t.... And by your logic there should be a championship match every 3 minutes. They can just play a bullet game and settle the whole thing that way. Make it best out of three if you like. You could have a world championship like every 6 minutes. Just as long as the conditions are fair. Just give them a cathader and colostomy bag and an IV drip and you are all set. ..... dannyhume wrote: By your argument, all time controls in chess should be eliminated to allow highest "quality" of play. If more time is needed for players, then make the championship like the olympics, every 4 years..doesn't have to be annual (though it'd be better). Frequency is not the issue so much as equal fair conditions/time for every one involved, so as to prove who the real best player is in the world at a given time. Also, matches can be shortened significantly.  That's the nature of tournament play.  Only the best survives and can legitimately claim he did it while going through the same rigors everyone else had to.   There'd be great scenarios...e.g. a GM may have to choose whether to "rest" his surprise opening/novelty for the playoffs or to unleash it immediately to obtain a more favorable seed...it'd be awesome, with more emphasis would be on logic/thinking on the fly rather than extensive memorization/"preparation".

I gather that you are talking about national chess championships? Well if you are please note that these are normally not matches but tournaments. BIG difference in terms of preparation, right? .... rigamagician wrote: Yeah, a 12 game match or even an eight game match every year.  Who knows whether that quality or "prestige" would decrease or not?  Most national championships are held annually, and you never hear anyone complaining about the low quality of the games there.  The FIDE's move to hold the championship every year was a good one.  It was more the rapid time control, short matches and knockout format that were undermining the legitimacy of the process.

It was not the format that was undermining the legitimacy, but the fact that several of the world's top-ranked players weren't playing each other for the same world championship.  

The Kramniks and Kasparovs weren't playing the Khalifmans or Rustams or Ponomariov's (sp.), but both were claiming championship status.  If Kasparov and Kramnik were to play in such tournament formats, do you think they'd be "tricked" by "lesser" players and lose cheap-os every single time they played in such a format?  

But it doesn't matter.  Let regular season tournaments decide the seeding but matches decide the playoffs (like in other sports), so that the Topalovs, Aronians, and Carlsens can think they are number one, and then get crushed by the true champions who may be 2nd or 3rd seeds, like Anand, a true champ who no one can deny at this point.  

It works much the same way in other sports.  How about a format like the World Cup (of football or as they say in America, "soccer")?  

Chess is chess.  All else equal, the best player wins on a more frequent basis over time regardless of the format.  

Championships are organized annually in virtually all sports and games: Shogi, Go, checkers, you name it.  Chess is the odd man out.

The reason that Kasimdzhanov won out was more the short length of the matches and short time control and knockout system than the fact that anyone was sitting out.  There were a lot of players with higher ratings playing, but they got eliminated in fluke circumstances whereas if they'd been given longer games or matches or a chance to play again even after an early loss, their skill probably would have shown through.  A swiss tournie or a round-robin is less of a lottery than a knockout.

Right Hume, chess is chess, so why bother with slow games and annual matches? Do it like golf or NASCAR. Let them play and be ranked continuously. Whoever is on top at any given moment is the "champion". Your point about the champ being "caught" or whatever is what? That it would not happen that often? Okay so often is too often when it's one guy getting caught more than the other due to a hectic title defense requirement? Surely you are aware of how often these matches are won by 1 or even .5 a point.

Hm... soccer world championships are not held every year, and the Olympics aren't held every year either. For tennis, it's tournament-based so there is no official world championship I think. If you want to make it that frequent and fluent then it would make more sense to simply say that the No.1 rated player is the world's champion. It's not clear why one annual tournament should count as the world's championship as different from all the other top-level tournaments.