Yet Another World Championship Proposal

I have an idea for a change to the way the World Champion is determined that I think would lead to better chess, be more popular with chess fans and pros alike, is financially and logistically feasible, and would make the title of "current World Champion" more meaningful.

The idea is based on the simple notion that the World Champion should be the person who wins the most at SLOW CHESS during the WC match; if that criterion is not satisfied, there is no WC until another match occurs and somebody eventually wins under the same rules.

The match would consist solely of a certain number of games at standard time controls, let's say 16 for example, but 12 might even work. The player who wins the most games (draws have no effect) during the match is the new World Champion. If neither player wins more than the other, there is no World Champion, until another WC match is played again with whichever two players qualify for the next match. There are no rapid or bliz playoffs, and no other format for deciding on a WC when neither was able to win. If neither party wins during the match, then both are included in the next qualifier cycle, and the next match will be between whichever two people emerge from that qualifier cycle. Neither party in a match that fails to produce a winner gets any benefit other than being in the next qualifier cycle, where they have to earn the right to compete in the next match, just like all the others in the qualifier cycle.

The fact that there won't always be a WC is a feature of this proposal, not a problem. Being WC means earning the right to play for the World Championship and winning the match: if nobody wins the match, then nobody deserves to be WC.

This improves on the current format in at least the following ways:

• The WC is determined only by chess performance at standard time controls, not by rapid or blitz playoffs or an armageddon game, all of which are contrary to the spirit of standard chess and cheapen the WC title when it is earned through means other than chess play at standard time controls.
• By virtue of the first point above, the match strategy of the weaker player (or better rapid/blitz player) trying to draw all standard games and take their chances in the playoffs where there may be more chance of a statistical fluke happening is eliminated as a possible strategy. This means there would be one less reason for playing only for draws, which would encourage more dynamic play that would be welcomed by chess fans and pros alike.
• When neither player wins in standard time control play, the next match will be between the TWO strongest qualifier participants, rather between the ONE strongest qualifer participant and whoever won the previous match based on rapid or blitz play. When there is no winner, it is a benefit to get more "fresh blood" into the next match. For example, if this system had been in place in 2012 and Anand and Gelfand had remained tied after the standard games in the 2012 WC match, then the 2013 match would have been between Carlsen and Kramnik if they would still have been the two people that emerged strongest from the qualifying process.
• A long reign as WC is more meaningful under this scheme, because it means one has again and again defeated the challenger at slow chess, which is what the WC is all about.

This proposed scheme, along with the current scheme and others, depends on the integrity of the qualifying process as a means of determining the most worthy player(s) for contesting the World Championship. It is important therefore that there are improvements to the qualifying format, so that it makes it likely that only the strongest players qualify for the match, but discussions about the qualifying process are beyond the scope of this proposal, and the proposal has merit regardless of how the match participants are determined.

What an anticlimax. And your logic´s wrong - you say "until another WC match is played ..." - what if that one´s drawn? And the one after? Ad infinitum? Sounds really exciting, and the sponsors would love it.

I do not know but you just summed up the rules from today removing tie-break. I would say, give us back the days from late 80s. Problem solved.

There are more important things than marketing. But I suspect too that a more meaningful title would have good marketing appeal, as would the elimination of matches where it can be rational to play only for a draw in every game -- not to mention that in cases like Anand-Gelfand, where there is no decisive result, the next match would be better under this scheme (who believes Carlsen-Kramnik wouldn't have been more exciting than Anand-Carlsen and also a better reflection of who the current strongest player is?).

It is removing the tie-break PLUS removal of the idea that there must always be a current WC, no matter what has to be compromised in order to achieve that and what effect it has on future matches. The second idea also has benefits, as it would have given us a Carlsen-Kramnik 2013 if they emerged successfully from the qualifiers.

The key idea is that there doesn't have to be a WC. There is only a WC if there is an individual deserving of the title. In cases where there isn't, we speed up the process of finding somebody who is deserving by having potentially TWO new aspirants in the next match.

Also, no problem is solved at all by suggesting a return to a much longer format that doesn't seem to be financially feasible at the moment. I would love longer matches, but the key point I'm making is about what to do when there is no decisive result.

One approach is to say that the 'defender' keeps the title, as happened for Kasparov in one of his Karpov defenses. I don't think that's a good idea, as it very strongly encourages the defender to play only for draws if they don't like their chances.

Another approach is to use tie-breaks with rapid or blitz chess, but I think that's a terrible approach. Rapid/blitz can have their own championship, but the WC should be decided on the basis of the very game that is being contested, not a variant.

What are the other alternatives?

I'm suggesting a new one. There is no tie break, and if neither can defeat the other, then neither has proved worthy of being WC, and the next match will have potentially more fresh blood and more of a chance of a decisive result.

I actually don't think that ties would happen very much, as the different scheme gives much more of an incentive for both players to try to win, and when there are more strongly contested games, it is much more likely that somebody will win more than the other.

My suggestion is ok. You're saying like "oh, Lara Gut and Anna Fenninger are tied, so no one will win this GS. No! Defender's job is to defend and challenger's to attack. And no less than 16 should be played.

Just have the top 20 players by ELO rating play one big tournament every year and the winner is the world champion. I'd suggest the yearly Hastings Chess Congress as a natural place for such a tournament.

Are you happy with the prospect of WC matches where every single game is drawn because one player thinks his chances are best by going for quick draws every time? Are most fans and pros?

Even if 16 games were played, if there were no possibility of tie breaks and Anand kept his crown in the event of a tie, then he would surely have played for a draw in every game, and the 2013 match would have been much poorer as a result.

That policy effectively gives a huge advantage to the defender, who has draw odds. I don't think that's fair to the challenger, and it cheapens being WC to give the champion draw odds in every defense of their title.

I don't appreciate trying to derail a real discussion with this kind of idiocy, so I've blocked you temporarily while I'm looking for real discussion on the idea.

I think there's merit in match play, as long as the format results in the strongest players making it through the qualifiers in most cases, and as long as the match format doesn't make undesirable strategies like "force a draw in every game and I keep my title" or "force a draw in every game and then take my chances in a blitz game" actually be very rational approaches to maximizing the probability of becoming/staying WC.

please block him.

Are you joking ;-) I said I already blocked him.

sorry didn't see that.

The short version:

• the WC is determined purely by slow match play (no rapid/blitz tie-break)
• the WC is determined fairly (no draw odds for the defending champion)
• the WC is the the player in the WC match who wins more games against his opponent
• if no player wins more in the match, there is no WC until the next cycle, when the TWO strongest players that emerge from the qualifying cycle battle it out to see if one can win more games against the other and become the WC. In case of a drawn match, both players are in the next qualifier cycle, but have to battle on equal footing with other qualifier participants

Edit: this was in response to somebody who asked for a shorter, simpler version and whose account has since been banned (Myspace1).

I would like to propose a different idea in here. I'll say let's scrap the WCC format all together and put in some kind of a Grand Slam event type. By doing this we looking at by the Ranking. Do we have a current ranking system here yet, if so, is it reliable ?

I'm sympathetic to the idea, kco. I DO think rating is the best measure we currently have of an individual's playing ability -- I agree with Magnus and many others that being #1 for years is better than being WC for years in terms of being a good predictor of who is the "best chess player".

The WC definitely isn't a substitute for ratings. The question is whether there is any additional benefit in the notion of a chess World Champion, and if so, whether there are schemes that can keep those benefits without incurring some of the downsides of some of the formats that have been tried.

You are talking about "rating" where as I am talking about "ranking", I am sure there is a difference in there, let's have both of them.

What's a concrete way of having rankings for chess? Are you thinking something like a point system rewarding placing 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc in certain tournaments, and rankings being determined by those points? (By points, I mean like tennis points, not ELO points.)

I think that the idea what you are saying.