Relevance of World Chess Championship Title

Ekrabin

Before there were ratings the Title gave the World an indication of who was the strongest. Now that we have ratings for top players is the World Chess Championship Title relevant.

NovaChandran
K
madratter7

I think it is. Ratings are affected to some degree by tournament strategies, etc. It also is a lagging indicator of strength. The world championship is just two people going at it with the only purpose being to outplay the other one.

Ekrabin

Valid observation madratter7

 

stiggling

Yeah, for example lets say there's a round robin tournament where I (seeded as #1) draw with player X, who is maybe seeded 4th or 5th out of 10.

So far pretty standard for any super tournament.

Then my main rival in the tournament (seeded 2nd) plays player X and, and player X has an uncommonly bad game, and loses quickly.

---

So at the end of the day, I might lose the tournament, or fall behind in rating points because of a game between two players that had nothing to do with me.

So in determining who the best is, head to head match play is important IMO.

MickinMD
Ekrabin wrote:

Before there were ratings the Title gave the World an indication of who was the strongest. Now that we have ratings for top players is the World Chess Championship Title relevant.

There have been ratings for many decades.  The highest ratings are usually due to having candidates tournaments or other major tournaments whose results generate the candidates, followed by the World Championship.  Without those cycles, the ratings of the top players would not necessarily represent their true playing strength if, for example, a high-rated player avoided playing other top-rated players.  So, yes, the World Championship title is relevant.