Dinosaurs are extinct. So are the dramatic, exciting and historic world championship matches (such as Fischer – Spassky, Karpov – Kasparov, etc.) since Kasparov – Kramnik in 2000. Who is to blame for destroying this incredible chess tradition?
People want to see #1 versus #2 (champion vs. challenger). Chess needs matches between #1 and #2 for the men and women’s world championships. The 8 person RR format is much better than the 64 or 128 person knockout but not as good as the old style final match. I would prefer to see the 8 person format to decide the top 2 then settle it with an all or nothing match. Then the new cycle can start fresh. Do you want it back? Do you want to see great matches?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
I agree with the line in the movie: “I want back what Bobby Fischer took with him when he disappeared.”
That and I’d like to see matches for the championship. Theres plenty of tournaments already.
I blame Kasparov for destroying it twice, once with Short and once with Kramnik. Kasparov destroyed too many things. Great player, bad businessman. Yes, I want to see the match format back.
I grew up with zonals and interzonals and candidates’ matches, and I wish they’d come back. But it was never a matter of No. 1 against No. 2, but the champion against the winner of the challenger process.
If that’s not possible now, I have no problem with letting anyone who can raise a prize fund challenge the champion. That’s the way it worked for more than 50 years before FIDE started running things.
paul s, I don’t mean #1 and #2 in rating 🙂 I meant #1 and #2 who qualified such as the world champion and the challenger.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
SusanPolgr said “People want to see #1 versus #2 (champion vs. challenger)”
No, they don’t. They want to see matches involving ‘sick’ players who use their countries’ chess federations to force the FIDE president to grant them a match which they dont deserve 🙂
I have been reading a lot on this topic. and also sharing my thoughts on this topic for some time now.
I feel that my view has changed a couple of times and has matured to some degree. I feel like I understand some of the issues more deeply.
I used to hold on to the position that the old champion was to play the new challenger. and that is a fun approach. but I now realize that is not necessary and not the best.
for example in baseball and football the world series and super bowl is not against last years champion but it is the 2 best teams this year that play off in the big game.
I think that is a valid approach and has good logic for those who argue for this approach. so now I favor a playoff of some sort with the top 2 people playing a match for the world championship.
and just like in baseball, basketball, football, tour de france etc. last years champion has to get out there and show he is one of the 2 best to play in the final match.
I would love to see this happen every year just like in other sports. I am now willing to give up on my old feelings that the old champion had to lose to someone else. when I look deeply into that concept I realize that it is not the best approach.
but there definitely has to be a mano et mano final match. man against man. no ties. winner takes all and becomes the champion that year.
when the world championship was first decided upon, chess was very different. there were very few good players and the idea was to find the best and crown him world champion. and things changed slowly.
but now there are many many top players and things change quickly. the old system of the old champion playing a challenger was ok for 100 years ago. but it is not appropriate and not the best for todays climate with so many great players.
remember the old champion is not cut out of the championship. it is simply that he must prove himself to be one of the 2 best to play the Match. if he truely is the best then he will be able to prove it in combat.
for example at the end of 2006 we can have a match between the 2 best players. right now I would guess the 2 best players will be Topalov and Anand.
Besides that sounds like a great match that a lot of people including myself would love to see.
Notice that Topalov is not being cut out of the championship. He is playing very well so he is included. but if Topalov was losing everything in sight and Aronian was winning everything insight then it might be Aronian and Anand or whoever.
I am sure that Jeff Sonas can come up with a good model to pick the 2 best performing players for the year. or some kind of a tournament or match or whatever system can be used.
Kasparov and FIDE have destroyed the 100 tradition of Chess World Championship. Russians and Karpov also destroyed it because back in 1975 and Karpov this year confirmed this in an interview, Karpov said he would have lost in 1975, so Russians used politics to get title since they knew Fischer would not compromise on anything. Great as Kasparov was a chess player Kramnik beat him and Kasparov then finished destroying the World Championship Title by undermining Kramnik’s crown. The whole chess world has suffered because of this. Just look what FIDE did to Susan Polgar when she was the Champion. Disgraceful. I do not think anyone to this day could be Susan in a match. She is the true Woman’s World Champion and it will be a great honour for me to play her in the simul at the National Open since the only other World Champion I ever got to play was Tigran Petrosian (I drew him!)at the Manhattan Chess Club in 1972 in a 30 board simul. He won the rest of the games. Take care everyone and sign me up if Susan will ever take us on a guided tour of Hungary.
Well the champion versus a challenger is good if both players are exciting.
If both players are boring I would rather have more people competing for the world championship.
The candidates qualifying event worked for almost 100 years. Lets face it: todays players are simply boring, playing not for the beauty of the game, but for ratings and draws. Frankly, the world hasn’t cared who the champion was since Bobby and Boris, with Karpov and Garry ignitng just a few sparks of interest. In fact, a case could be made that the last great chess match anybody cared about was Kasparov vs. Deep Blue! When a machine is more charismatic than a muman being, something is terribly wrong. Topalov vs. Anand? Who cares? Chess needs politics again, a Russian vs. an Ameican. Fischer vs. Spassky raised the bar so high, sparked so many imaginations that nothing has come close since. And this to Mayanking: just drawing the great Petrosian is a victory in itself. Kudos!
“People want to see #1 versus #2 (champion vs. challenger).”
This is a quote from Kasparov’s interview given yesterday in Greece, where he is trying to sell his five book translations.
“I do not think anyone to this day could beat Susan in a match.”
What is required to beat Susan in a match: GM title, FIDE elo 2500+, age up to 30, a Hungarian coach and a prize fund to compensate her loss of time. If you don’t have these, don’t even try.
Kasparov:
‘In my opinion, the Topalov – Kramnik match is actually irrelevant for deciding the future of the World Championship because for me the World Championship match has always been the match between No 1 and No 2! And that’s why I invited Vladimir Kramnik to play against me in 2000 because he was clearly No 2 at that time and for me this was a real challenge.
Topalov, who I wouldn’t say he is clearly No 1 because he and Anand are about equal, playing against No 10 doesn’t lead anywhere, doesn’t resolve the crisis. When Topalov won in San Luis, that was a resolution of the crisis because he was the best player at that time, he played better than others. The only result Kramnik can post is his victory in 2000, so he cannot rely six years on one result to support his claim.’
Kasparov:
‘I’m not very happy with FIDE’s decision to eliminate the World Championship matches. I still think that in the end No 1 should play No 2. You can have tournaments, qualifications, but in the end chess has always been about No 1 playing No 2! The two best players compete. That was the greatest flavour of the title that had been created in the 19th century.
Without this match I think that any tournament lacks its climax, so it’s not that exciting. But this is FIDE’s decision and so far players haven’t seriously objected to it.
Today, for instance, I would prefer to see a match between Topalov and Anand if I had to make my choice. Nevertheless I think that FIDE’s qualification system, based on this strange mixture of knock-out and short matches, isn’t very sophisticated and current leader Topalov isn’t very stable, so it has to be seen whether he can remain on top of his form for a certain period of time, because his performance is rather far from being impressive.’
So, it’s that the players want this, Kasparov wants it! The player just want to play chess really don’t care about who the world chess champion is. In fact, 90% of all chess players don’t know who the world chess champions are and thats just fine, as we don’t know either who’s the ping-pong (table tennis) champ of the planet.
tommy sees the light!
Take the two highest performing chess players in any two or three year period and let them play for the title! Pre-select the tournaments in advance that count and use the ELO rating for relative strength.
And then the title in chess is up for grabs every three years, just like in other sports, and not the defacto property of a player, ever.
Interest will soar. Say one player wins the title. The following year, play open qualifying tournaments (for anyone not in the top, say, twenty or thirty players in the world) and ELO-prize money tounaments for the Super GMs (letting the top players from the previous cycle recoup, as well as giving the world-champion a full year to savor their victory). In the following year (year two), narrow the field down to eight players.
In the third year, conduct a super tournament to narrow the field down to two players. Then match these top two players, with the first to eight points declared champion (must win by a clear point). If there is no clear victor, and the two players are deadlocked at 8 to 7 1/2, give the leader the choice of a speed chess deciding match (best of 5 games) or three more games with standard time controls and his or her choice of white or black pieces the first game, then alternating as before. If no clear winner emerges, then schedule one more speed chess match. If still no winner emerges, then award both players number two (by awarding a tie for second with no clear first, instead of a tie for first in the cycle, the players will try harder to win).
Essentially, incorporate the tournament format once championed by Robert J. Fischer and others.
In any given cycle, the title is up for grabs.
Good riddance.
1. It was grossly unfair, biased towards the incumbent.
2. It tested endurance rather than chess skill. (If I had to face the same opponent 24 times in a row, I would be fed up with chess before I got half way.)
3. It never ran on track. Well, perhaps for a while in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but that was the exception, not the rule. Time and time again the “cycle” shipwrecked on the dependence on one man, the incumbent.
IMO San Luis was perfect. Invite the best players in the world, and have them slug it out for the title over the course of a few weeks. It’s fair, it’s lots of great chess, and it can run like clockwork.
Now we will get a Topalov – Kramnik match, and possibly a Topalov – Radjabov match. So matches not exterminated.
I do not believe in bringing back the old format of qualification. Difficult to finance such a cycle. The planned candidate matches this autom are not financed, as far as I know.
I’d like to have it back, though to have what we had in the late cycles–a long series of candidates matches leading up to a finalist–might not be viable, at least not for now. Look at how no one has bid for the candidates matches leading up to the 2007 WCC tourney.
The way to get it back, I think, is to have as few events as possible in the cycle, and just one match. Perhaps something like a 64 player double knockout interzonal, followed by the top placing players and two or three seeds in a ten player double-round-robin, followed by the winner of that going to the match versus the world champion. That way you only have three events per cycle. If you hold the interzonal at the same time as the WCC match, you’ll only have to have cycle events once per year, which is perfectly reasonable on the players and (hopefully) organizers.
The first thing we must do is to break the idea in our minds that we need to play the old champion against a challenger. this is not true. and is the source of much difficulty.
let us shake off that idea. and adopt the idea that we want to find the 2 best players each year to play a super bowl match against each other for the yearly chess super bowl champion.
Once we really get past that idea the world opens up to us and we see that everything is possible.