For more than 30 years, the chess world was blessed with dominant World Champions such as Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. Since Kasparov retired, Kramnik, Anand and Topalov took turn occupying the pinnacle.
Today, with young guns like Carlsen, Radjabov and Karjakin, in addition with talented players like Aronian, Mamedyarov, Morozevich, Shirov, Svidler and Leko, etc., it is hard to predict who will win from week to week.
Is it better for the game to have a dominant player like Fischer, Karpov or Kasparov or is it better to have a bunch of players in a similar level?
What is your take?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
It is better to have a dominant Champion. Having the champion change basically week to week infers “pretenders to the throne” (although they are all quite strong).
I agree, having one dominant player who becomes an ambassador for the sport is better; Tiger Woods in golf, Roger Federer in tennis, Michael Schumacher in formula one, etc. So the current situation in chess is a bit of a problem. But give Magnus Carlsen two more years, and it will be solved.
In the times of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov for a while (and before their times) the title of world champion was majestic. Even people who didn’t play chess knew the name of the chess world champion. The other players were known too, but the world champion stood out more than today. I think it was better for the popularity of chess. People like “super-heroes”.
I can not agree more with previous three comments. They all are valid in reasoning just to add:
It was not only Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov in fact one dominant player existing on top of others began most pobably from 9th Century with As Suli. And it continued. One has to understand the Chess Kings were the Chess Kings not because their contemporary players were any weaker – but simply they themselves were just above. This is very important as if you want to be that little above all – you need to have something special, something ahed of your time, something that contributes chess more than anything existing. It is like discovering a new world within the existing world.
Many people argues that with computers help – and grandmasters working with a team of grandmasters full time as their second – is it possible to discover anything new that has not been noticed by the others? Well this Week Aan Jee is a good tournament to answer that. Topalov had a COOK up to his sleev for three years and delivered it against no one else than Kramnik! It reminds us the Trojan Horse of Marshall prepared for Capablanca or the COOKs of Keres played against Fischer. We even saw something similar with Tal vs Botvinnik (Knight sac on move 7 or 10) and Kasparov vs Anand (PCA G10).
Even with the aid of super fast computer and softwares that can defeat world chess champion – the human opponents will always be in test as we have also seen in Kramnik-Clarssen game. So, I think it is better to have one extraordinary player only dominating many outstanding contemporaries and there by contributing much to the game of chess.
Anyone got Kramnik’s video analysis of last round game against Anand?
Nice to have just one dominant player,but I guess that may not happen,at least for the moment. Still out of a kitty of some 1000 GM’s we have perhaps half a dozen who are dominant equally! However among the women Judith is more than just dominant. She towers above them,and in fact is very close to the elite half a dozen. Her recent victories over Gelfand and Adams testifies to that fact.
I think in “a perfect world” it would be good to have one great player that could dominate and take chess to a new level as Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov did. Once this dominant player forges a path to new and bold ideas that astound the chess world and sometimes the non chess world it can greatly better the enthusiasm of the sport of Chess. As Fischer did when he played and defeated the mighty Soviet chess machine, and as Kasparov did when he played Deep Blue and won. Then once this great chess player is established it would be great for one special talented player to emerge and challenge this chess star for the WC Title. Of course it wouldnt hurt to also have many strong players in the mix to make the qualifying matches very interesting too.
How very odd. The ‘one dominant player’ scenario clearly drove crowds away in Formula 1.
And if you didn’t like Schumacher’s legal but unsporting tactics on the track, you couldn’t identify with the icon of the sport.
TV audiences were down, which was bad for the sport.
It seems obvious to me that even contests are more interesting.
I think there exists a dominant player – Deep Fritz. It only happens that it’s not a human, so the public is driven further away from chess.
Maybe with the advancement of computers the humans prepare better and gradually approach their limit, which makes it practically impossible for one man to dominate the rest. If this would happen, it would simply mean that all the rest are ‘weak’ players, not that he/she is a one-of-a-kind player.
Indeed, one day we ARE going to know the outcome of ALL possible moves in chess, which would be it’s last day as a sport. And I think that we feel this day approaching. Of course we are far from it, but – as we witness – not far enough.
I guess this kind of situation has been encountered in many other sports, and I think that the outcome may be to either start using some kind of player enhancements (as some of the ‘dominating’ players in other sports are doing, but that’s always a short-term -and not always legal- solution) or change the rules (the F1 way – but this way chess may loose its credibility).
In all cases we’re living in interesting times. In the mean time I’ll start playing some Go.
A dominant player clears up any questions of who’s better and makes us concentrate more on their play. Also…a dominant player makes chess much more exciting, look at what Fischer has done to the chess world…it has forever changed us. We are much more likely to remember a dominant player than a whole bunch of similar-strength players of any sport. Branding is much easier to do.
I don’t think it matters. its like Tennis, on the Men’s side you Darth Federer dominating all who oppose him (Go Djokovic!) and on the Women’s side you seem to have a handfull of women who can get the job done depending on who is in better form at the time. Its exciting both ways.
When one person dominates, (s)he keeps others from growing, since they will always have a tendency to copy that person. When nobody dominates, it’s easier for players to grow towards their own potential. This will lead to more deepening of the game in a greater variety of aspects.
Domination has never done good to society; Why should it be different in chess?
I don’t see why to want a dominant player: If they would be about 5 to 10 “dominant players”, trying together to go on improving the level, it would be nice. Why ONE champion ? (Of course, Rybka or Hydra are, if necessary, the dominant(s) player(s)
I think a league of living World Champions should retire once they have achieved their World titles. This opens the doors for the young ones.
The League of World Chess Champions can make world-wide tours and promote chess full time with financial support from a Chess World body or the native country of the champion. This would guarantee that chess has a positive image, financial stability, and will grow instead of being a laughing stock when World Champions are accused of talking to toilets, lip balm, miming chess coaches, or the spirit of Bobby Fischer. Whenever one of the World Champions misbehaves, chess inches more towards silliness and then the loons come out to play because they think chess is for crazy people.
Chess sometimes has a self-fulfilling death wish with its future success. Order needs to be created from Chaos. Separate the Super Gm’s from the developing GMs.
This is why the NFL has different level sub-leagues: A AA AAA and full pro.
Take a lesson from successful sports or just become another irrelevant sport.
I think since Kasparov we have not had a dominant player. Only time will tell if one will arise from the young guns. I hope we get one for it seems chess prospers more when we have a dominant world champion. Fischer was the most dominant of the three mentioned and I wonder if we shall ever see another one of that sort. Alekhine dominated, Capablanca dominated Lasker dominated and Morphy dominated his peers. Magnus seems to have the best potential to become the dominant champion I and many are waiting for.
Sigh. They just don’t get it…
What is good for the sport of Chess? Did chess increase education, economy, or knowledge during Fischer’s reign?
What is good for Chess?
A change of heart. A change of perspective. Perhaps some sportsmanship.
Some people still don’t get it.
You can’t wait for a “World Champion” to save Chess!
Kramnik onlt cares about Kramnik and Vishy is happy to be worshipped at home. What have they done to promote Chess? Nothing! Wake up!
Chess as a sport is on life support and you think a World Champion will get it out of bed. Think again.