The proposal on the change of the World Chess Championship Cycle
The main circumstances of the current cycle which make it “bulky” are its complicity. It is a complicated formula (for example, Candidates’ matches) that is difficult to be presented and advertised for potential sponsors. This is also one of the reasons for the top Grandmasters’ unwillingness to participate in the World Cup due to its formula.
1. The following simple scheme is proposed: in odd years (November- December) to organize World Cup with 128 players, the winner of which will play a match of 12-16 games with the World Champion in even years.
Advantages:
– Every year FIDE will be organizing one of the most important events (which is significant for potential sponsors and for FIDE PR activities).
– The FIDE shares from the prize funds of these events shall become more regular in timing.
– A more harmonious calendar (now: The World Cup and World Championship are organized the same year during the period September-December).
– The leadership and FIDE employees can concentrate on the most important event and will not be “distracted” during the preparation and organization.
2. It is proposed to change the formula for the World Cup: Initial stage 128 players are divided into 16 groups with 8 players each on the following principle: group 1 (numbers 1, 32, 33, 64, 65, 96, 97, 128), group 2 – (2, 31, 34, 63, 66, 95, 98, 127) etc. Free days – after 4th and 7th games.
Then 16 winners are divided into 2 groups with 8 players based on their rating:
1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15. Free days – after 4th and 7th games.
In the final, there is a match of 4 games and possible tiebreak.
Advantages:
– We shall not have criticisms from the participants and mass media in respect of first round: “knockout is roulette”, “lucky – unlucky”, “did not sleep well”, “one blunder and you are out” etc.
– The number of accidental results will fall – a total of 7 games in the first two stages is enough for the top Grandmasters to prove that they are the best.
Among the 16 group winners, there will not be weaker chess players.
– All the games will be played with the same time control.
– The tie break might be necessary only in one case – if there is a tie in the final.
– There will be no necessity to have a large number of additional local arbiters for the tiebreaks during initial stages.
– Weaker participants have opportunities to meet with 7 different players from various continents, get substantial experience, and not leave after the 1st round as under the current format.
– The top Grandmasters will have difficulties in explaining the reason for their non-participation. – No more confusion with the hotels and air-tickets, there will be a firm plan for the departures of those who are knocked out.
– Organisers will have more chances for the media coverage of the World Cup participants.
– It is easier to negotiate good prices with the hotels, as the number of the nights spent in the hotels will drastically increase.
These reasons will promote the increase of the status of the event with mass media, possible organizers and sponsors and therefore, encourage the participation of all leading Grandmasters.
Source: FIDE
This is actually a great suggestion from FIDE! Credit where it is due! It makes the concept much more dynamic and simpler. It makes it easier to attract sponsors. It protects the traditional match format. At the same time it succeeds in eliminating the “one blunder flaw” which was the core problem with the KO format. The winner of the 128 player qualification tournament will have to prove himself in both tournament and match play.
My only complaint with this format is that the final match should be 6 games instead of 4. With a 3-4 day break for the players to prepare for it.
We will also get rid of the San Luis type “elite tournaments” with 4 guaranteed places and other nonsense.
For once FIDE are right on the money!
Go for it!
But it requires that the winner of Mexico City plays Kramnik and Kramnik is not forced to participate. Otherwise it is a no go.
Well, I expected some simplification, it had to come. My first response, before much consideration, is positive. Think this is kind of an elegant solution. You preserve matches, with that special man (woman) agains man perspective. And you have an interesting and fair kind of tournament with knock out at the end. Yes, thumbs up, Fide.
Yes, akselborg. Now we only need to get behind Kramnik and support his rights. If we are going back to the match format (and thank God for that) we are not going to have any “odd tournament” in between to strip the holding champion off his title, breaking the traditional line from Steinitz to KKK.
I add my endorsement. It’s the best scheme proposed in a long time.
Nice proposal.
Regarding Kramnik… What about signing the contract according to which, in case he looses Mexico, the winner will be obliged to give Kramnik a match within a year? Technically it would work as if Mexico were qualificaiton to the match, but at the same time there are chances Kramnik would agree to participate, Mexico would keep its significance (its winner would be world champion, at least for a few months)
At last !! a good ringing to my ears…this is what we need. The one who wants to be a WCC has to prove it hard (qualifying and matching. That’s the only way to say “I’m the World Chess Champion of them all”
Here is my understanding there are 2 rounds of 8 player round robins of 7 games each. no mention of how to handle tiebreaks. I would prefer over the board and not some arbitrary tiebreak system.
So I enter as one of 128 people. I play 7 others and have to come in clear first. then I play another 7 games and have to come in clear first. then I play a 4 game match to decide who plays the champion.
Of course this does not get rid of all complaints. Someone will bring up that the round robins allow collusion among friends. and the final match is a bit short. and I dont know that tiebreaks will give the best player to advance. Finally we seem back to allowing the old champion the advantage of being seeded into the final. But I am also in favor of that. I like the idea of getting a challenger for the champion. But some people complain about that.
I do not like armegeddon games. I would prefer they simply keep playing until one person wins a game. Even with 5 minute games they can play many games in a short time. They do not even have to be played in pairs.
I hope the winner of Mexico becomes the challenger to play Kramnik.
I would like to see the USA use a system of picking a challenger to the champion.
I believe the champion challenger matches bring the best publicity and the highest interest.
I think a 14-round Swiss to determine the top two players would be fairer. At least three of the top four seeds would make it through to second stage, but their results would be thrown out for second stage. This is less precision, not more.
The inherent arbitrariness of the Swiss would offset by # of rounds and the fact that two places would be determined (4 games is not enough: 8 to 10 would be better).
There is nothing magical about 128 if one is not playing a Swiss. There’s probably a number high enough to include all legitimate contenders plus representatives from every zone that is significantly less than 128.
But it requires that the winner of Mexico City plays Kramnik and Kramnik is not forced to participate.
Dream on. Kramnik is committed to Mexico City. The sponsors there have made a contractual commitment to put on a world championship, not a qualifying tournament to decide the real championship later on.
The players likewise have contracts to play for the world championship, not for the right to face Kramnik. Kramnik is playing in Mexico City under precisely the same rules that Topalov had already agreed to.
FIDE needs to prove that it can live up to its commitments. Every time FIDE changes the rules mid-stream, it’s another dent in their credibility. We may not like the current cycle, but it needs to be completed as advertised.
The new rules are an excellent step forward. The time for them to begin is after Mexico City.
marc s. is absolutely correct. Kramnik MUST follow the contract he signed. If he doesn’t play, he will be stripped of his title. Hit the road Jack!
This is very nice. Only thing I’d change is to have the World Cup final be six games. Four is ok, but since there are already 14 games beforehand, two more shouldn’t be too bad to get a more sure result. It’d definitely be an arduous event.
White pieces are such an enormous advantage in chess today, that the tiebreak for 1st (if shared points) should be the number of blacks (4 beats 3). Only then rapid chess.
But before any reforms, and for any reforms to be plausible, the chess world need to unite behind our Champion, the best player in the World, Vladimir Kramnik. We can’t break the match format, only to go back to it with a “champion” that never in his life won a match to hold the title!
Kramnik we all love you!
IMO, the top 4 players should directly seeded into the round of 16. The players ranked 5..8 should be directly seeded into round of 32.
The World Champion should be directly seeded into round of 8.
A few complaints sure, but on balance this is better than anything I ever could have expected from FIDE.
Wish the final were much more than 4 games
I like the idea of Kramnik getting an automatic rematch if he participates in Mexico and loses. It would thrill Mexico and it would set up a potentially exciting rematch.
Hopefully the matches with the champion can be at least 16 games
IMO, the top 4 players should directly seeded into the round of 16. The players ranked 5..8 should be directly seeded into round of 32.
The World Champion should be directly seeded into round of 8.
What an awful suggestion. It’s an absolute joke that 2-4 from San Luis are seeded directly into next years final tournament. It benefits noone but the players in question.
This new system isn’t candidate’s matches but it’s close enough to be satisfactory. I think with enough rest days and a longer match between the finalists (4 games with tiebreaks????) 8 games with rest days sounds much better.
I believe that WCh challengers should be treated seriously, just as the WCh itself ought to be treated seriously.
I am a big big Kramnik fan but I think FIDE has a fait accompli with Mexico 2007 and if Kramnik loses then he loses. I personally think he has great chances to win it anyway.
I think it would be potentially be undesirable to go back to the age of Botvinnik where the title keeps bouncing around.
The odd years/even years issue does leave open the possibility of such a rematch in 2008 (IF he doesn’t win in Mexico), but knowing how Kirsan/FIDE seems to feel about Kramnik I wouldn’t count on it.
I believe in the classical line and that there shouldn’t be too many names on it, it should be really special and each Champion should be a LEGEND. Many of the world championship matches are also legendary.
In this regard it would be undesirable to reduce the roll of Champions to a mere list of names.
So long as FIDE can remain committed to this new system then I will support it and whatever champions it produces.
Maybe its time to admit we need two type of champ?
but anyway the 128 Number is a bit too much, it is better to reduce it to 64 player and it will still remain open and from variuos continent. a pre Qualified round can be done in regional levels first so only the best of the regional can parcitapte in the top64
I like to keep the candidate matches.
In this way we may end up with a challanger without any match experience at all.
The best suggestion I have heard of since …;
But a question: “All the games will be played with the same time control.”
What time controll will that be? FIDE, classical?
Needless to say that we preferr the last one!
In my opinion single round 8 player groups where only the winner continues is too random. I would prefer something like playing an 11-round Swiss tournament and the top 8 continues to play matches to find a challenger. The matches should be at least 6 games.
Quite an interesting idea. Much better than the chaotic ‘system’ it has been implanted de later years.
However, i would have liked that the grand slam winners had some kind of advantage (get directly into de 2 last groups)
Oh dear…. what a bad plan!!!
Choose the challenger by a 128 player KO tournament!?!? you must be kidding….
And organising big events like this every year will for sure attract sponsors!?!?! NOT!
Chess will die….well…it was dead, so it can only get better….
The scenario of a few years ago will be repeated! The World Champion will be some less known, or nr 60 on the rating list or so…
(Khalifman, Kasimdzanov, Ponomariov, …)
oh dear….
I propose the following format:
Kramnik is the World Champ.
The rest play a 128-player KO to determine the runner-up.
My suggestion:
Choose the top 50 players.
Distribute them into 10 groups of five players each. Each group of five plays a double round robin.
The ten winners are divided into two groups of five, each group which then plays another double round robin.
The two winners play a match of eight games (the same length as each of the round robins).
This will
– equalize the colors for everyone in the round robin and for each pair of opponents
– allow the spectators to focus on truly the best players in the world
– allow the winner of the tournament to play a larger percentage of people in the tournament, thereby increasing the credibility of the tournament result
– is just slightly longer than the FIDE proposal.