Should we remove the privilege World Champion not to participate in the candidates' tournament ?

Hello,

Google traduction :

Should we remove the privilege of the reigning World Champion not to participate in the candidates' tournament?

The question is very serious and we can reasonably ask ourselves it.

Some will say that this rule has been in effect from the start.
This argument doesn't really hold true because there are at least three rules from the beginning that have been taken down altogether over time.

Indeed at the beginning in case of a tie 6-6 the title holder retained his title!
Moreover even if he lost the defending champion was entitled to a rematch the following year and could thus recover it!
Postponements are no longer made after 40 moves and the move in an envelope. Good thing because it was a whole team that calculated the variants overnight and not the player alone.
I also saw in the current tournament that the time is not more than 40 moves in 2h30.

Does such an advantage exist in other disciplines? I do not know ! He is already theoretically the strongest and we avoid him the previous phase.

Can we imagine the great "Nadal" playing only on the last day at Rolland Garros, being exempt from all other matches and automatically qualified for the final? The world champion soccer team will only play the final 4 years later ? etc ... we can take a lot of examples like that.

The subject deserves to be thought about and discussed here!

In the 1990s FIDE experimented with different formats for the world championship. It produced a few "random" champions no-one really cares about.

I think the classical format should stay. The idea is that it should be very difficult to become a world champion. You have to compete with the best players in the world, and if you win, you still have to beat the best of the best - the current world champion. I even think they should reinstate the rule that says that if the match ends in a draw, the current champion retains the title. The champion deserved that privilege, he went though all the stages and defeated the previous champion. Now someone else has to do the same to deserve the most prestigious title in chess.

AntiMustard 👍

Imagine a fighter who is the world champion having to fight a list of fighters just so he can fight in his own world championship match? The way chess is now is perfect. Except...🤔 The right to a rematch should be brought back if a world champion loses his title. "Botvinnik Rules"

The present rule that the WC is exempted in the Candidates Tournament favors the contenders. It gives contenders chance to win Big Prize Money. Carlsen can win both Candidates Tournament and World Championship depriving others to win big money.

+1

No. World Cup isn't equal to candidates tournament. All the participants in the candidates tournament worked their way through very high level tests to get there. Except for the fuggin stupid wild card crap. Not that one. 

The WC title holder is required to produce winning strategies only against one player, not against a variety of players, leading the WC to prepare against a narrower range of strategies to defend their title, while all of their opponents must succeed against the whole range of strategies.

Therefore a "repeat" WC title is not a true repeat, and it's a lot less representative of true skill than a first time WC title. This devalues the "successful defense" of a WC title.

Furthermore it reduces the chance of a comeback story for the sitting WC and the contender, because there's no lower bracket to climb out of (unlike many e-sports events, which produce comeback stories literally all the time).

There's no argument in favor of the old system that clearly outweighs a regular tournament format. It's obvious that the chess world is too afraid of change.

I like the old format. The New World Champion should be Superior not just better.  I disapprove the tiebreaker games using fast time control as the title is World Classical Chess Championship. I propose tiebreaker games in Classical Time Control but an ECO Ball be drawn to determine opening from A00 to E99. If the tiebreaker game is Draw. Another tiebreaker game on next playing day drawing another ECO Ball until a winner comes out.

After reading this carefully and considering it seriously, I think it's Google translate that should be removed instead 

Hmm I think that would be a good idea. One game each colour for a set of openings where the first move only from white and black are determined from a fair list. First to a pre set number points wins. In the event of a draw they keep choosing from the random list of fair openings and playing two games in classical time control until someone wins the mini match. No rematch but loser is ceded back into next candidates tournament. At least then classical ability and broader chess knowledge is tested rather than one opening essayed forever.

#11
That is what they do in the TCEC superfinals to prevent all draws: a list of 50 supposedly slightly unbalanced openings and one game with white, one game with black.
That is also what they did in Checkers: imposed openings to avoid all draws before Checkers was solved to be a draw.
To decide the human classical world champion it seems less well suited.
An important aspect of match play is opening selection.

As the great philosopher Rick Flair said...  "To be the man, ya gotta beat the man.  Wooooo!"

As far as I know it wasnt for this reason , in fact it was something else.

Back then the candidates used to be a knockout style tournament rather than a round robin one. Which made it an extremely unfair competition

Anand once complained about his exhausting candidates tournament before being told to face Karpov for the Fide Championship immediately upon completion and Karpov of course was fresh having not played any matches. Pretty much no recovery for Anand so it was a missmatch.

As the great philosopher John Daly said... "If ya wanna be the man, ya gotta beat the man. Wooooo!"

     I think a better idea would be a longer match, as a one-game lead in a short match lets the player that gets the lead to play for draws for a few games, something harder to accomplish over a longer stretch of games. 

     A better solution to negate the champion's advantage of retaining their title in a drawn match would be to declare the two co-champions. Should two players be so closely matched that there is no difference between them after 35 (or whatever) games it's fair to call them equal. Then in the next cycle, when the candidate's field is narrowed to two players, each of the co-champions could play a match vs one of the challengers and the victors would meet in the finals.

If so, the tournament's name should be changed.