Yesterday, super GM Pentala Harikrishna from India made one of the most incredible comebacks in chess history at the 2006 Chess Classic Mainz. After losing to German GM Arkadij Naiditsch 3.5 – .5 on the first day, he won all four games on the second day to win the match 4.5 – 3.5!!
In the match between the legendary GM Hort and GM Portisch, they fought to a 4 – 4 tie. Hort won the tie-break 1.5 – .5.
These are great events and very entertaining. The only curious part about these matches is the titles:
– Chess960 senior world championship
– Chess960 junior world championship, etc.
A few years ago, we also had the Accoona Women’s World Championship. What do you think? Does this mean that anyone can organize a World Championship? Do you agree with the use of the title World Championship in this fashion?
Too many WC titles. It becomes like outlet factory. Everyone can claim this now.
For their chess960 events, the Chess Tigers in Mainz do throw around the phrase “World Champion” too liberally.
Overall there is no harm for now. The Chess Tigers’ usage of WC does accurately reflect that their’s is currently the world’s premier chess960 event.
The world tunes in to Mainz in such big numbers every August not for its fine rapid traditional chess, but for its novel chess960 events. Chess960 is thus already proving its publicity-achieving powers. Eventually another organization is going to get jealous, and will seize this same proven opportunity.
Their Senior and Junior events are too arbitrary in who gets to compete to warrant the WC title.
Yet the Chess Tigers’ regular open chess960 tournament with match is well designed enuf to legitimately be the “Rapid World Chess960 Champion”. FIDE’s 2005 Champion tournament (in San Luis) seems no more legitimate, almost inferior in a sense, as FIDE’s lacks a final match.
Any title for long time controls is more prestigious than for Blitz or Rapid. Unfortunately long time control tournaments are more expensive to produce. But a well-funded long time control event is what chess960 needs next.
Eventually when other organizations conduct serious chess960 events, they may complain or argue the “World Champion” term; that will mark a point of growth for chess960!
I can imagine say a USA organization conducting a serious chess960 event, then putting up its winner in a public challenge to the Chess Tigers’ winner, for the right to be considered the current best or champion.
Rivarly is sweet in sporting competition.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
Great comeback, by the way, I think you forget to say at least a word about Kosteniuk, she won the title too (or at least the match). Be fair Susan, you don’t like her but, at least, be gentle.
In track and field, there is one world body that is in charge of world championship titles. There are
men’s and women’s titles, senior and junior titles, indoor and outdoor titles, and titles according to discipline (100m, shot put, etc.). The world body determines who gets to put on the championship events and the conditions under which they take place. The result is that being world champion actually means something.
On the other hand, boxing has numerous competing organizations, little or no unity, and a whole bunch of world champion titles that are essentially meaningless.
If chess had a functional world body, we’d have a structure more like track and field, but instead we have boxing, and where this really hurts us is our image to the rest of the world outside the chess community. How can chess be seen to be legitimate and worthy of recognition and sponsorship?
A similar situation exists with the granting of titles. Too often we hear stories of players who paid for GM norms, fake tournaments and the like. Our world body’s most important role should be to oversee world championship events and the granting of international titles, and keep those ships in order, which means cracking down on offenders and pretenders. The current state of affairs is the chess world’s equivalent of a doping scandal.
Using “World Championship” like that is pure showmanship, going back to Barnum and beyond. No harm, no foul I say.
I don’t agree with separate women’s title of any kind. To me their existence seems patronizing, and a (false, IMHO) acknowledgment that women are intellectually inferior to men.
And yes, I did read Susan’s piece in Chess Life, and disagree strongly. I don’t think it’s worth (from memory here) getting more girls into chess, and sending more American women to the WCs, if the price is to reinforce a culture of inferiority among women.
A layperson knows intuitively that men and women do not complete on an equal level in physical sports, such as marathon running (my event). But ask that same layperson what “world champion” means – they have no idea that women feel the need to have their own “champion.”