13460 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
With the World Chess Championship just around the corner, and as we are all an enlightened and intelligent community, I thought I'd just ask around and see what everyone thinks of how the world title of our great game is run?
It's clear from his Tata Steel performance and rank generally (no. 15) that Gelfand is way off the mark. Aronian and Kramnik on the other hand,(neither of whom Gelfand played in the Candidates match) are showing excellent form (granted, Aronian's London results were not flash, but there were draws with Anand, Kramnik and Carlsen). This alone suggests to me some wierdness in the way its run. I'd much rather see Anand v. Aronian of Any thoughts about who should be filling the spot?
Calrsen, as we know has rejected the structure of the tournament, and I think there is some argument for either a swiss type tournament, or at the very least that the current approach is too long winded. I've never really liked Carlsen from the interviews I've seen with him (his playing ability aside) but I have to concede that seeing Gelfand being annihilated by Anand this year is not going to benefit the spectators or the game. Maybe it should just be no. 1 versus no. 2 on the FIDE list? What do people think about have a champion-challenger type approach, or should the champion have to win it fair in square as in football?
The world championship qualification and scheduling is always "lagged" in reference to the peak performers today ... which kind of sucks for those expecting the most entertaining players to be the ones duking it out for the crown.
Nevertheless, you can't discredit Gelfand's fight up the challenger hurdles nor can you forget how Anand defended this title the last two times. They actually might provide some spectacular games for us to watch! :)
To your point about the #1 vs #2 being the sole candidates for every WCh. bout => I'm not too sold on that idea as the title is won via a series of head-to-head matches and the ranking is more derivative of current tournament successes around the world. I imagine they are a few different skill sets between the two?
There are 1-on-1 match players, there are tournament players and sure, we'd like to believe the true great ones ought to do both really well!
And like Gelfand won the candidates?
by 1NaturalDisaster 2 minutes ago
by steinitz_attack 7 minutes ago
by Phocsi 7 minutes ago
How do you win as black?
by Phocsi 9 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by Ziryab 13 minutes ago
Chess Bazaar Piatigorsky Set
by cghori 18 minutes ago
removal of harmless forum topics
by DrSpudnik 19 minutes ago
by kkrrish1990 22 minutes ago
A Tactic from My Game
by sorcererofwonderland 23 minutes ago
by ThrillerFan 35 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!