Yet Another World Championship Proposal

It's an interesting idea. It does seem more likely to truly reflect the strongest than the WC as currently implemented.

Some might object though that match play is a different kind of beast than tournament play, and that chess is enriched by having both.

I'm not sure where I stand though on the question of whether match play should still have the quasi-preeminent place it has traditionally had, or if not, if it's still something that is worth striving to keep.

My proposal is more along the lines of IF there is going to continue to be an institution of Chess World Champion, here's an alternative that I think is superior and addresses some perceived flaws of the WC recently. You make the good point that maybe there are more radical alternatives worth thinking about that eliminate the institution of WC altogether.

that sound very familiar especially to myspace1's previous comment.

How about something simple like they play infinite amounts of games until one player has a score 3 points higher than the other (i.e has 3 more wins than the other player). 

Sounds great to me, but it's not feasible financially or logistically, so isn't a real option.

To be honest, I don't know either. It's something I've heard repeated again and again when the topic of a return to longer matches is discussed and assumed was probably true because I never heard it contested, but I don't know the specifics. I would guess it probably had something to do with general declining public interest in chess, which makes sponsoring chess less attractive to corporate sponsors, perhaps combined with a lack of state support that would have been present during the Soviet era.

I would guess it probably had something to do with general declining public interest in chess, which makes sponsoring chess less attractive to corporate sponsors, perhaps combined with a lack of state support that would have been present during the Soviet era.

I think that what was happening too. "Interzonal" doesn't sound very appealing to the sponsors.

You still didnt say what's wrong with my format were champion remains Ch if tied. The point is that if Canada attacks USA and both countries have 100 soldiers and all soldiers are killed, there is still USA...

I answered your question right after you posted, in #10. To repeat verbatim:

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.

You don't listen to me, sorry. Can't keep conversation this way.

Yes the defender should retain the title if a match is tied. The title must be taken from the world champion, so the challenger has to prove superior, not equal, to the defender. Is this an advantage to the world champion? Absolutely, and deservingly so (he likewise had to do it to earn the title). Having no world champion from a tied match is incredibly bad in my opinion.

The downside of "defender retains title on draw" is that it means a weaker defender has a very strong incentive to play the most conservative, risk-free, drawish chess possible in every single game of the match so as to have no decisive games if that defender believes his opponent is stronger and is more likely to win under normal play.

Some may not mind such boring matches where one player plays as conservatively as possible, but most people do, as does FIDE and other organizations who care very much about making the game more appealing to a broader class of viewer and making chess more popular.

Likewise, most people believe that offering draw odds to the defender in every defense is not fair, so you guys are in the minority. How does it indicate who is the best player if one has an unfair advantage? It is irrelevant that the defender had to win the title in the first place through unfair odds (which isn't actually true, since currently there are no draw odds for the simple reason that it was recognized to be unfair, so the defender wouldn't have earned the title unfairly in the first place if the rule were re-adopted again).

Strategy and how one plays chess and whether the general chess fans/public like it means little in this discussion. When a championship title is on the line the players deserve and should be encouraged to play however they wish to their interests. Show me a poll that indicates that most people believe offering draw offs to the defender is unfair. Even more so, show me logically how that is NOT fair. A Challenge must demonstrate he is superior to the defender to take whatever the defender holds. That can't be if the match is tied. Saying there is no world champion if that happens seems completely illogical to me as either of those two would be a world champion if they had won one more game than their opponent. The fact they didn't doesn't mean suddenly neither deserves to be a world champion, they didn't suddenly become weaker players undeserving to be claimed the world champion. In this case you can have a tie breaker (which is what we have now) or the defender keeps the title. I find nothing wrong with the defender keeping the title if the match is tied because he is world champion of classic chess and using nonclassical chess time controls to determine a classical chess champion seems wrong to me. But I certainly favor that method than having no world champion if a match is tied.

If a world champion meets the level of skill of his opponent and ties the match, how did the world champion lose his title? He met his opposition and neutralized it. It is not an unfair advantage.

FIDE and other chess organizations, as well as many chess fans, would very much like to see chess reclaim some of the popularity it had in the past, and the WC is part of that process. The fact that you personally couldn't care less whether the WC helps or hurts that process doesn't really matter, because people who don't care whether chess grows or stagnates are not going to be listened to in these sorts of discussions.

I agree, and I never said otherwise. What you seem to have missed though is that different match formats change what those very "interests" are, and FIDE and the public do care what those interests are, even if you don't.

A format where defender retains title on draw is one in which a much weaker defender who acts rationally may try to force the fastest possible draw in every single game. If the format supports that, I fully endorse adopting that strategy, as it is most likely the best chance for success if the defender is much weaker.

My suggestion for an alternate format, on the other hand, gives neither party the incentive to play for the fastest possible draw in every single game, because that doesn't help them accomplish their goals.

Different match formats offer different incentives to the players and will result in different kinds of matches with different results for chess and the future of chess.

My proposal is that the WC is not something you basically own forever until somebody can overcome draw odds to take it away (note too that matches are far shorter than they were in the past, so draw odds is MUCH more unfair now than in the past). My proposal is that the WC would be a title awarded whenever there is a decisive WC match that must be earned again and again, as is fitting for something that is supposed to prove you are the best player in the world.

If you can't defeat the challenger, then you're obviously not the best in the world, since there is somebody else who is your equal, and you don't deserve the title.

I recognize that this a redefinition of what the WC is, but I think it's worth considering alternatives, for reasons I've mentioned above and elsewhere in the thread and won't repeat again.

As long as the Irish don't have to sell their babies, I'm in!

Is AndyClifton implying I'm trying a Swiftian satire? I'm actually not joking for a change.

I'm just glad you got it.   That sort of thing can get to be a bit of a hazard around here...

@massaquoi

Here's the Google Trends graph for searches for the term 'chess' over the last 8 years. You'll notice the obvious downward trend. It's not a rigorous test by any means, but it's consistent with the impression most people have that chess has been declining for a while. It doesn't matter whether you plug in 'learn chess', 'play chess', or any other combination, you'll see the downward trend.

Last year, I tried to find chess players at my work, which is a medium-sized company with a lot of very smart people who enjoy gaming. There were very few chess players. There were lots more D&D players (hard to believe, but true), WoW players, and many other games, but chess is practically dead as far as most young people are concerned, even among the crowd who actively play board games and regularly surf places like http://boardgamegeek.com/.

I'm still trying to find some hard evidence though.

See discussion in this thread.

It's a reminder that satire is also in decline. Trolling on the internets is the sad contemporary equivalent of brilliant works like A Modest Proposal and Candide.

Then the WCC becomes just a regular tournament... Even in F1, ch get an advantage - money, crucial thing. Thats why we have 2000-2004 era. :)

How is the two qualifying players playing a 12- or 16-game match like a regular tournament? Is there a class of tournaments I don't know about that involves just two contestants who play each other 12 or 16 games or more?

Do you even think before you post?