The World Chess Championship has been in chaos since Kasparov lost “the match” against Kramnik in 2000. The Women’s World Chess Championship has been in chaos since FIDE failed to put together a re-match between Xie Jun and I.
These titles have lost their luster. There was a sign of improvement with San Luis last year. The problems with the Women’s World Championship still remains. The rapid and blitz stuff is a joke and a big insult to the integrity of the World Championships.
What is your idea to improve the credibility of these prestigious titles? The floor is yours. 
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Can you remind us what happened that you lost your World Champion title? It was long ago.
Really, Susan. Who in the world, except you, cares what we think about the world chsmpionship format?? Why would I spend writing here a two hour essay on the format, when it will never happen, nor would I get any money for giving people who are payed for this – the solution, they are incapable of thinking of themselves. Train your girls to become champions in the knockout system, thats the best advice I can give you for free.
1.That Seirawan fellow seems to have an asnwer for everything! Team up with him for the ultimate reunification of womens and men chess.
2. Ask Onsichuk. He is the best American player now.
3. Ask Zatonskih Anna. She is the best American player now.
If a FIDE Master can be a successful captain of the US Olympic team, then don’t ask why US Chess is going down the hill.
I have an idea. Eliminate Womens World Championship in chess, if you dream of equality, and make it all like the US CH format was.
Dear Susan, from you blog it’s obvious that FIDE hates you and that this will never change. Yet, you have a friendly link towards their site and are working for them, too? What’s the catch here, am I missing something?
To improve the credibility of a title you first have to improve the credibility of the organisation behind it. As long as the FIDE is ruled like a banana republic that is not going to happen.
The format in San Luis is acceptable.
The wish to introduce rapid and blitz into serious chess is based on a misconception.
The problem is that slow chess is not attractive for a wide public. So it is difficult to get sponsors for it.
Blitz and rapid are used as methods to make chess more attractive.
But that is not going to work.
The main reason that slow chess is not attractive is that high quality chess is hard to follow if you have a low rating (like the majority of the public has).
Of course it is if no help to make chess faster. The only reason to do that can be to make it less dull for the spectators.
But it is a better idea to help the spectators instead. Commentators do basically exact that. They show the wealth in the games to the spectators who can’t see that all by themselves (in such SHORT time as 6 or 7 hours at least!)
This wealth is what should make chess popular. That is the hidden potential of chess. If we can find a formula that unlock that potential chess can become booming.
I noticed that comments in the comments room by masters or gradmasters usally take not a very high flight. That is because they have to adapt to the people. Often it is all about rather basical tactics.
There is of course a limit to the use of live commentary.
Because of that I think that it would be a great idea to make use of the computer. A new program has to be developed for it of course, with special easy to understand animations which help the spectator to form an idea what is going on in the game. Especially for TV or internet that would make chess more accessible for a wider public.
(sigh) Sometimes I am very ashamed, as a human being, to read how hurtful other human beings can be. Susan, I wish to disassociate myself from the despicable comments above. You are one of the nicest most honourable people I know, and chess has a lot to thank you for in your dedication to it and its patrons.
You gave the people here the floor, and just look at how they use it. When someone actually bothers to ask what they think, (someone with the ability to actually represent the mere mortals of chess, and who IS doing so), all they (apart from tempochlucker, who had some very worthwhile things to say) can contribute are insults and disrespect.
To the people who have posted them let me just say that it is very easy to sit and criticise, but your words just go to show how ignorant you are, while you try to appear otherwise. They also betray your motives, which is nothing to do with a love of chess, or wanting to change things within it for the better.
Susan Polgar has nothing to prove to anyone. She has reached a place in chess that most others can only dream about. While we all have the right to discuss things here with her, and to challenge her on points if we feel that necessary, no one, absolutely no one, has the right to insult her or play down just what she has achieved in chess, and is still achieving. In doing so, you disgrace and embarrass yourselves (well, the word ‘anonymous’ actually) in seeking to further the agenda’s you hold, whatever they might be.
And, what is worse, is this anonymous way in which you do it. You dare to sit in judgement of Susan, when at least she stands up for what she passionately believes in, and does so publicly, out in the open, for all to take, leave, challenge, or accept, as we will.
If you are going to show your inability to discuss a subject maturely and constructively, can’t you at least do so without being hypocrites and cowards in to the bargain? We’ll wait and see on that one.
—-
Susan, and all the other people who visit this blog who share your love of chess and your distress at what has happened to it in recent years, and wish it to be corrected, these are my thoughts on the matter…
The problem with a world chess championship, is that there is only so little time and money available to go in to it. This was a problem even before FIDE’s financial mismanagements. Also, chess fans want their regular big tournaments and championships.
Well, there are only 52 weeks in a year, 12 months, a tournament such as Wijk and Linares take 2-3 weeks. To have the big tournaments around to sort out the contenders, there is not so much time left in a year in order to stage the final, and to allow the players fair time to prepare. That is pure common sense.
So, chess fans have to come to the perhaps painful realisation that the big C word (Compromise) has to be applied somewhere. Something has to give in the situation before it is too late. Let’s face it, chess has taken a battering over the last years, through no fault of its own. FIDE have let us all and our sport down very badly — however, there is a possibility now that the administration of FIDE will change! With that can come a realistic chance of hope in things starting to change for the better! All the more better if the new administration (that I for one hope and pray for!) has some thoughts and ideas to be getting on with and mulling over!
Let’s look at options then, yes?
> Is it the regularity that we compromise on? So for example, have a world championship match every 2 years, let’s say? That way a year can be taken to find the contender(s)? There are many ways this can be done: most wins, best performance rating, the winners of Wijk, Linares, Aeroflot, Dortmund, etc. can play off against each other. That then gives the rest of the time for the staging of the match, and ample time for adequate preparation.
Also, in this case, the men’s and women’s titles COULD be staggered so they take place on alternating years. Then, chess would still get it’s yearly world title match after all.
> Do we have the championship decided annually still, but compromise on the big final being a thing of the past? For example, a formula 1 style championship, where so many tournaments in the year take place, all having world championship points, and the one with the most at the end of the season wins?
Personally, I think this is a worthy thing to maybe test. I know a lot of people will groan at it, but 1). It would reduce the sponsorship issue for a while, and let’s face it until the image of chess is improved, (work in progress, thanks to individuals such as Susan) sponsorship will remain an issue. 2). Those who want to be world champion would have to compete and play, no one expecting to get there on rating or suchlike.
This is how world chess champions started in chess, let’s not forget.
> Do we cut game times? g/120, so 2 or more games can be played in a day? Hmmm….not many in favour of this I would imagine.
Truth is, not many like the knockout format. It makes a very serious and respected matter something of a lottery. No disrespect to any one, but it does to a certain extent. It is not the most favourable way of deciding things. Deciding things on blitz play-off’s, is like deciding a football world cup on penalty shoot-outs. Baseball on sudden death pitches. It is something of an anti-climax. The chess world liked having its world champion, and a worthy challenger going through the motions proving to be a worthy challenger. Then, the big stage set for the battle. And it seemed to work, too — until politics threw its spanner in to the works. It can work again if we all work together to that end and thrash it all out.
Anyway, those are just ideas I have been mulling over, what does everyone else think? That means ideas, constructive ones, not just waffle, or childish and hidden spite.
—-
And now, I wish to respond to a couple of things:
‘If a FIDE Master can be a successful captain of the US Olympic team, then don’t ask why US Chess is going down the hill.’
It puzzles me how you can say someone has been successful and then criticise…? Jealousy is obviously a very powerful emotion in you. Paul Truong (whom I am extremely proud to call a very good friend) should be judged on his results, which as you quite rightly stated have been successful.
‘Why would I spend writing here a two hour essay on the format, when it will never happen, nor would I get any money for giving people who are payed for this’ Speaking personally, I did it because I care and have an interest in sorting the mess out….not just adding to it as some clearly wish to. Some of us have other more satisfying motives than ego or money.
It is best when the World Champion is also the strongest player or certainly one of the strongest players. Khalifman was the first Fide Champion by knockout and he said he was not the best. Reading this will give a good idea of the problem and solution.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz40.txt
I believe that the best World Champion format must be designed to pick a challenger to face the champion. the challenger must be the very best possible challenger. Therefore the challenger must be chosen only from a handful of the very best players with the highest rating. the fewer the better. the challenger must then play a good long match against the champion.
I dont like the rule that the champion retains the title on a drawn match.
Probably best is for the Champion to maintain his dominance of chess for a moderately long time. for him to successfully defend his times several times. then a new charismatic player comes along and defeats the older champion to bring in a new era of chess.
It is important to squeeze all all the “luck” from the championship cycle as is possible. the big components of luck are introduced when low rated players are included in the process. luck comes in very strongly with the knockout format. luck is still fairly large with the tournament format. the lowest component of luck seems to come about with a match and the use of plenty of time to make all the moves.
Chess can not have its cake and eat it also. we have to learn to stand up proud of chess just the way it is. if choosing a chess champion takes a long time then let us stand up tall and proud of our champions and our method of choosing the champion. let us not sell the champions title down the river of fast results.
We have the system working well when the Champion is also the highest rated player and his challenger is the 2nd highest rated player. nothing wrong with that as the system. if you want to be a challenger than get your rating up and you will be chosen. of course there has to be some consideration to frequency of playing games.
when you have the correct world champion and you have the correct challenger there is never a problem getting financial support for the Match. People want to see the 2 best players matched off against each other.
Onischuk should have played off in a match against Nakamura. Let us fix the American system so as to be a model to the World Championship.
In my opinion, the thing that is missing from the current World Championship arrangements is tension.
I am old enough to remember the excitement of Reykjavik in 1972, when in the UK, the BBC actually broadcast a chess program on TV every night. The number of people attracted to the game by that confrontation must have been huge.
I also remember well the way we all waited for the huge confrontations in heavy weight boxing, when everyone knew, and seemed to care, who the champion was.
Today we appear to have no time for all this. Politics and commercial considerations have taken away that anticipation. The idea of the two best players in the world playing a 12 game match is still very appealing to most of us. It is also more appealing to sponsors I believe, because they know that everyone will be paying attention to it, as an event in itself.
Deciding whom the contender will be is also a vital part of creating the atmosphere and kudos surrounding the title. Whatever method is chosen should leave no room for doubt that a worthwhile competitor for the title has been chosen.
This mitigates against any type of knock out tournament, anything that involves rapid play deciders, and most certainly anything that uses the word Armageddon. No disrespect to Kasimdzhanov, but most would agree that his incredible ability to play quick chess was largely responsible for his success in Libya.
Four players, selected by some means that truly tests their ability to play classic chess, should play a tournament to decide who the contender will be. I think this should take place 6 months before a scheduled World Championship match. Giving ample time for good preparation.
I like the idea suggested elsewhere, of points achieved in certain tournaments, the “Majors”, deciding the four. This would have the benefit of adding another layer of interest in these super tournaments. The choice of what constitutes a major tournament could be above a certain category perhaps, to allow for the system to be flexible.
So, players spend every other year (qualifying year), collecting points from the “majors”. The next year is the Championship year. The top four points scorers play a tournament over two weeks to pick the contender. Six months later, the World Championship takes place, over 12 games.
I believe there would be no doubt who the World Champion would be after such a cycle.
Finally I would like to align myself with eenkopjekoffies opinion, in respect of Susans efforts to promote chess. The hard work and dedication is greatly appreciated, and sadly lacking in other quarters…
I’m too lazy to read lots of apple polishing and too bold not to have an own opinion on the fate of chess championship, although I’m only an amateur!.
There should be of course the same modus for women chess and for men chess (because there is only one CHESS – despite fischer or capablanca rules …). But I think it would not be a great idea to combine women and men chess, to one tournament, because there are much more chess playing men but women. And women chess IS indeed different to men chess – styles differ and ratings differ! (The exception proves the rule – e.g. Judith or Susan …)
My FIDE proposal:
I am a great “soccer” fan – thus why not apply “soccer” rules?
Each country may have it’s own championship – and may generate a champion. The champion of a country will have the opportunity to play a league – let’s say 8 leagues for the world (single player mode – with a max of 8 games … or so). Winner of the leagues and second placed will match in a 16 persons tournament. First 3/4 of this tournament will play criss cross 8 elimination matches (on 10 games or so) to determine 2 finalists – those will play a 16 match event to gain the title of a chess world champion.
He / she may reign for 4 years and is allowed to enter the half final tournament as number one of the setting list.
And the cycle may go on and on …
A proposal by Vohaul
Dear Susan,
This is the opinion from an amateur player who loves chess
and follow everything that happens in the chess world since
I was a boy (I’m 49).
The best format to the world championship is the ancient format,
I mean interzonal/zonal/candidate tournament, etc.
Time control: classic (no less than 2h-40 moves)
Same format for women champ. If any girl wants to play among men
she can do it, why not? (look at where Judit is in the rating list)
Chess for the midia? what about to popularize chess? it’s just
simple: world cup, knockout tournaments, rapid chess and so on…
It’s just so simple…
Congratulations for your good job for the chess world.
Mário Sérgio Guimarães
Minas Gerais – Brasil
the round robin candidates matches where the 1st few qualified for the next round robin and the ultimate winner played a match with the wc.
however, i don’t think the wc should be seeded into the final. it’s like putting the super bowl champion from the previous year into the superbowl automatically the following year. chess is the only ‘sport’ that does that.
I don’t understand what the problem may be. Girls should follow the model of Judith Polgar, who vowed not to play women tournaments. With the same talent as many others and much more work, she is feared by every male opponent. Even books are being written about her, and few about men. A special championship for women is unnecessary at all. Women can obviously make the same high-level achievements in chess as men can, with the right people to guide them through, and not suppress their possibilities repeatedly and repeatedly. Women only need more motivation in chess. Currently, I see nothing but money as the motivation. Women need more than that.
Some really good stuff after the inauspicious beginning. Phil, thanks for sticking around, enjoyed reading what you expressed.
I was going to add my 2 cents worth (regarding the small amount,I am speaking for myself only), but masegui aka Mario (for short) already said it for me and I agree 110%. Interzonal’s, Candidate Matches, World Championship, rememember how exciting those were. And yes, the traditional time controls. There are some things that just cannot be improved upon, without devaluing its integrity, as we have already experienced in much too short of time.
Regarding chess and the media, yes I believe that the image of chess can be improved upon, but never on a grand scale and not without sacrificing its tradition.
Chess is not a commodity, and if our only goal is to make it marketable (especially in the USA), it will come with a heavy price.
Apologies for the double entry.
Yeah, Kasparov “lost” LOL!
He was told to throw the match or he would be sent to the gulag. An 11 move draw offer with the white pieces while down 1.5 to 0.5?
You think he didn’t hand the title over willingly? You are naive.
You have big tournaments like Wik and Linares who (one would think) would jump at the chance of having their tournament be the World Championship tournament! So you can always ride those tournaments for funding! You can alternate between Linares and Wik every year. This would be equivalent to college football (American, with the egg-shaped ball) bowl games, where the location of the national championship alternates between the Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and some other Bowl whose name I have forogtten.
The whole challenger and world champion matches are the concept of the past, they are NOT acceptable today, it is too much individulism. San luis format is good for today, it should be done for womens too. They should invite top 8 women in the world and let them fight like san luis.
So say the world championship tournament is being played in Wik next year. The winner of Linares that year can have automatic seeding to the world championship tournament next next year, which would be held in Linares! I don’t know. Whatever.
I can not stress enough how important it is to have a Match between a challenger and the Champion. not a championship tournament. the tournament can be used to pick the challenger. thus the San Luis tournament could be used to pick the challenger but the actual fight for championship must be a match with the present champion.
May I say that in sports where there is a team competition. the teams every year are different. different people on the teams and some coaches are different every year. thus they can have any kind of championship each year they want. it is not really necessary to have the best team. in fact many years the fans say a different baseball or football team was really the best but someone else won the world series or the super bowl. that is all acceptable in baseball and football and basketball etc.
But it is very different in Chess because the champion is an individual person who should be king over a period of time. we want the champion to demonstrate his powers over the other players after he wins the title. in the team sports that never happens because the championship game is always the last game of the season.
Thus it is very important to pick the very best chess player as champion. It is best when he can dominate all the chess players of the world for at least a few years.
I play knock-out for the first time. Of course this principle is quite cruel – you just lose once and leave. After 2 or 3 defeats in round – robin you can still win back, prove something or just revenge; but knock-out is the best for World Championships. One tournament-one champion. Men have also found a united system.
Ekaterina Korbut
http://www.womenchess.com/main.asp?id=804
I very much like the system invented by some players, which is very good for everybody – really for everybody. During the Prague meeting they explained the system to FIDE and Bessel Kok. The point was first there is a qualification, with thirty, forty or fifty players, just to make sure that all top players are involved in the process. It would be a double knockout system.
This was proposed by Khalifman. The idea is that in order to be eliminated you need to lose two matches, not one. If you lose one match you still have a chance.
Vladimir Kramnik
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=473
One must always win with grace and lose with dignity.
Bad sportsmanship creates a bad karma that is likely to pursue you and victimize you time after time.
http://www.arpuerta.com/040824.html
To win in this championship you have to emerge alive from a river infested with crocodiles.
Viswanathan Anand (on the FIDE world championship knockout tournament)
http://www.chessville.com/misc/Quotes/misc_trivia_quotes_in_the_news.htm
Let’s say very new for me. Because I come from China and don’t consider myself as a professional chess player, so I play very few tournaments a year. Normally I play individual tournaments which are invitational tournaments with men’s grandmasters, world championship, Olympiad. Just because I become world champion I hardly play in Open tournaments. That’s why for me, this new system is first time in my life. Just play knock out! What is that? One day you lose, then you are gone. (laughs)
Yes, I am still young (laughs). I can prove it. You have to adjust your motivation. You have to play one after the other. You can’t consider it as one tournament as a whole. You can’t say I will play harder against this guy, draw against this one and this guy is tough I will try to defend. You can’t make this plan because you only play very few players. It can be different.
Xie Jun (on the knock-out cycle)
Susan you are a good sport to suffer through all the crabbie Patties in the Chess World. The answer to the issue of Chess Titles is match play, match play match play. Botvinnik-Tal, Fischer-Spassky, Polgar-Polgar. Thanks for giving us a forum….JK Sci-Tech Chess
Yes, from what i’ve been reading on the internet, Susan has went through “hell” (and survived as a winner) playing (and now teaching) the game/sport/science/art she loves so much. She certainly deserves a place among the chosen ones.
Is there any other World Chess Champion with a blog, or forum?
She’s the only GM that has a full time blog. No other GM/WC even give a damn.
Hi Susan, and all
I just wanted to second chesstraveler’s observation that some really good stuff has been posted here in the last few days. I have also enjoyed reading it a lot!
I think most of the ideas have some merit to them, maybe it’s down to the officials to find the winning combination (pardon the pun) this time, not the players.
Personally, I enjoyed San Luis, I think that tournament was very exciting to watch. I think, as someone else has mentioned, that it would be more acceptable if the defending champion did not qualify automatically for the final. As was said, chess is pretty much the only sport in which that happens. Alexander Kotov said that one had to be very self critical if he/she wanted to progress. Maybe that is one area where chess should pay attention to.
So far, I am swaying between either one tournament such as wijk or linares, etc. being seen as the world championship, or two or more combined. Or, we stick with the San Luis example where the champion defends against the other competitors.