My Proposed Change to World Championship Format – Think Outside of the Box!
Before going deeper into my proposal, let me explain why there IS a need for change.
1) We currently have the biggest chess attraction to the mainstream (in Magnus Carlsen) since Bobby Fischer.
2) In spite of this, FIDE has a hard time raising massive revenues (sponsorship, licensing rights, merchandising, etc.)
3) AGON struggles to raise money for the World Championship even with Carlsen’s name. $1 million prize funds is chump change for something this big.
4) No big network TV / LIVE streaming deal
5) Many national federations struggle to sell the benefits of chess to their target markets in spite of massive interest in chess globally.
Without being involved with any national federation or FIDE, I am able to raise $1.5 – $2 million per year for many years for SPICE and Susan Polgar Foundation projects. Therefore, it is obvious that chess is marketable if it is being done the right way!
Now, let’s talk about my proposal:
After seeing this 12-game World Championship match and reading countless comments, I would like to see a change to the format of the World Championship. I believe the new system that I am proposing will help make chess more exciting and make the World Championship more exciting and desirable for the fans, potential sponsors, especially for TV.
Instead of a 12-game classical match, I propose a change to 24 games:
* 8-game classical format (40 moves in 100′, 20 moves in 50′, g/15 + 30″ inc) where each win would result in 3 points (1.5 point for a draw)
* 8-game rapid format (25′ 10″ inc) where each win would results in 2 points (1 point for a draw)
* 8-blitz format (3′ 2″ inc) where each win would result in 1 point (.5 point for a draw)
The total points for the match would be 48 and one needs 24.5 points to win.
After 4 classical games, there will be an off day. After the conclusion of the 8 classical games, there will be another off day. Then after the 8 rapid games over 2 days, there will be the final off day. The 8 blitz games will be played in the final day.
In the event of a tie, an Armageddon game will be employed immediately after the blitz format to decide the winner.
Even though the proposed format will have 24 games, the number of days will be shorter and it will be more exciting for the fans and much more appealing to the potential sponsors and TV.
The chess community is very fortunate to have a dynamic World Champion in Magnus Carlsen, one who attracts the most attention from the mainstream media since Bobby Fischer. It is a pity if the chess community does not capitalize on his broad appeal to further chess. The current system is boring and does not attract adequate sponsorship.
This is just my personal opinion 🙂
It is an excellent idea, and the format would attract more viewers. Is there a way to officially propose this changing in format?
I really hope they get to adopt this format! More variety and speed will keep players on the hop; not like the “perfection means balance, balance means draws” concept of today. Having never-ending games with lots of breaks is like trying to persue draws. It only makes sense there won’t be room for action and risks. Fingers crossed for FIDE to wake up!
In Susan we trust 🙂
I like this proposal.
love it! this would be great to watch and it covers all the time formats, testing the players abilitys across the range. very nice.
Another thought… from an amateur who only plays for fun, and probably far too radical, but…
A draw is only a draw if a referee (machine?) agrees it is a draw. If not you fight on. If the whole match ends in a tie, neither participant can win the title… i.e. no tie breakers. instead FIDE sets up a new elimination tournament and names two new contestant. The previous two would not be eligible. I, rather think the two new challengers would try to avoid draws…
Radical, yes, but I bet you’d see an astoundingly lower number of draws and some better chess than is produced by what amounts to the longest continuing experiment in memory retention in history. At present there doesn’t seem to be enough incentive to take risks.
Or you could just go to all 960…..
if one participant would “run the table”, ala Bobby Fischer in the first two candidates rounds in 1972, he’d still only have 24 points and they’d be forced to play at least one rapid chess game. Would it be better to give someone the opportunity it win it outright with classical time controls, or are you proposing an event that encompasses all three time formats? I personally like more classical games, perhaps keeping the current twelve and adopting your 3 point/1.5 point idea for the first three games.
This is great proposal! Love it!
I like the idea of less long games and get fast to the emotion of short games.
I like your idea a lot, Susan, but truth be told I will take ANYTHING over the format we have now. I never thought a world championship chess match could bore me, but this one has been terrible – and to have the world title decided on this sort of tiebreak today is just an abomination. I’ve been following high-level chess since watching Fischer-Spassky in elementary school, and for the first time I can say something I never thought I would or could: I don’t care who wins. In fact, the third rapid game is going on now and I’m not interested enough to watch, I’m just following your Twitter feed instead. I hope your idea is implemented, but again, ANYTHING is better than this current disaster.
The older system involved a longer match of “real” (i.e., classic) chess, and if the outcome was a tie, the champion retained his title. Botvinnic and Bronstein tied in 1951 at 12-12; Botvinnik retained the title. Smyslov’s 1954 challenge against Botvinnik yielded the same result, and the champion again kept the title. Kasparov-Karpov (1987) was also 12-12. Kramnik defended the title successfully in 2004 by tying with Leko at 7-7. Then, in 2006, Kramnik and Topalov tied at 6-6 but went to a four-game playoff in rapid chess (won by Kramnik 2.5-1.5). We saw this again with Anand-Gelfand in 2012, and again today.
Let us reflect for a moment. We already have champions in rapid chess and blitz (and, presumably even in “bullet” chess). Matches like the one that concluded today are for what we now call “classic” chess. Why determine the championship in one form of chess on the basis of a different form of the game? One might argue that Kriegspiel, double-chess, or perhaps shogi might be used instead!
More to the point, why not have longer matches in which the champion retains the title in the event of a tie? In sports like boxing, the champion has always retained the title with a draw, and I don’t see what’s wrong with that in chess. Although 24 games may seem too long today, 12 may simply be too short.
The purpose of the match is, of course, to determine the “best” player in the world, and I think most of us can agree he is still Magnus Carlsen. When players are so nearly equal in strength, a shorter match is more likely to skew the result, whereas the better player should prevail over a longer duration. As ghastly as it may seem, a “wins-only” match would yield the most convincing results (as Bobby Fischer insisted). However, Kortchnoi-Karpov (1978) and particularly the Kasparov-Karpov (1984) contest certainly seemed too long. Thus, I return to a figure like 24 games, or perhaps 20 (Kasparov-Anand, 1995) or even 16 (Kramnik-Kasparov, 2000). If FIDE insists on a 12-game match, I should prefer to see the champion retain with 6-6, although such a brief duration gives the champion a greater statistical advantage than a longer match.
Let us conclude by congratulating Carlsen on a successful defense and Karjakin for a gallant challenge.
Why even have a title match like this one?
Why not just a round robin between 4 top players that have been screened from an previous candidates-like tournament?
Each player plays two games (a white and a black) against the the other 3, and then winner is the one with most points.
I’m suggesting a radical change from the current format, but what if the current champion has considerably declined in his ability – should he still be allowed to defend? What if in the last one year, there are two players other than the reigning champion who have risen to be far better than the champion?
Most other sports do not give the current champion an automatic berth at the finals. At the most, he or she gets a berth at the tournament. I don’t understand why FIDE considers that the Champion needs to be challenged.
There are separate championships for rapid and blitz. So, why mix the classical games with rapid, bltz and Armageddon. If the challenger has a hard earned level score in a 12- game match, he or she should be given what is due to them. So, it is better to have a pair of world champions. We saw that it is not easy to level the score.
Since the XIX century the World Champion in Chess has been the person who
was the best in the CLASSICAL CHESS. This definition is a part of not only
chess history and chess culture but something much bigger: it is a part of
human culture, tradition, sport, and competition in general. Millions of
non-chess-players heard about Fischer, Spasski, Kasparov, Capablanca,
just like millions who don’t care about sports recognize nevertheless Pele
Michael Jordan, Roger Federer and the like. Changing this definition is like
changing some foundations respected for centuries. Should not be done
if we cherish the high reputation of chess as the highest test of
intelligence, knowledge, skill, and fair competition.
The current play-off system already violates such highly respected
principles. It is wonderful we have also World Champions among
Women, Champions Under 20, Under 18, in rapid chess, in blitz, and
many others but mixing them is making the title (and chess overall)
shallower and less respected. Adding even more rapid and blitz games
can be introduced for someone we can perhaps call the World
Champion in Mixed Chess but not THE World Champion.
In addition, I can see no problem with returning to the rule that
the champion retains the title in case of a draw, 6-6 or 12-12
or whatever. After all, to become the World Champion you have
to BEAT the current champion. If you are able to draw many games
and survive the champion’s attacks, it makes you a great player
but not the World Champion.
Most attempts (some proposed, some already imposed) to “improve”
current system only make it worse and worse. They ruin something
very valuable.
I fully agree with Lenny. There are already champions for rapid and blitz. We need to determine a classical champion, and if someone is bored watching classical games they don´t have to watch them. I think it´s not satisfactory to determine the classical champion in a rapid tie-break, and I agree that the champion should just retain the title in case of a draw. Also, the match needs to be longer then, in order to give the challenger a fair chance. I guess, anything from 16 to 20 games would do. Maybe with less rest days, for example, 4 games, one rest day.
As far as tournaments are considered to determine the world champion, I don´t think we need another super tournament that is called world championship because that would make the title worthless. The special thing about the title is, that it takes an incredible effort to win it, and that only very few people have possessed it. I can´ t consider the FIDE champions of 1995-2005 as world champions and I never followed any world championship matches during that period.
What you are saying is the problem. The additional classical games would add substantially to the cost to run the World Championship. No TV would want to cover the WC for that many days. That is why even with Carlsen’s name, they got only $1 million prize funds. Going back to more classical games will result in even less sponsorship. I raised more money for chess than almost anyone else for the past 10 years. I fully know the objections from sponsors. This is why I call for special Outside of the Box thinking.
I like the idea. I think everyone was thrilled by the rapid play-off.
Just not sure I would stretch it to Blitz too. Even in the Rapid games we saw a rather higher proportion of mistakes. Blitz would reduce the quality even further, albeit with a guarantee of excitement! The Rapid games resulted in 50% decisive games.
I would go with your format but hold back the Blitz games for a tiebreak if necessary.
The Chess Administrator (i.e., GM Polgar) is indeed a chess professional, and she doubtless understands the monetary considerations far better than amateurs do. However, her comments above (2 December @ 8:13 AM) and her “proposed change” appear to miss the major objection that several of us have articulated: that the classic chess championship (at some reasonably slow time limit) should not be determined on the basis of games played at a more rapid time limit.
Shaji correctly notes (1 December 10:55 AM) that we already have rapid and blitz champions, and philosopher 55 adds (2 December 6:46 AM) that including the faster games will give us “the World Champion in Mixed Chess but not THE World Champion.” I agree with both; we simply cannot determine the champion at one form of the game on the basis of his performance in a variant thereof. Of course, we can have several “mixed” champions through the simple expedient of incorporating different types of chess into the mix — e.g., classic, rapid, blitz, Basque chess, and blindfold chess. No less far-fetched could be matches that include shogi and xiangqi — which might garner more interest in Japan and China! Obviously, however, as we interpolate yet more disparate elements, we move farther away from the objective: to determine the best classic chess player in the world.
Karjakin seemed “spent” after the classic duel and certainly did not play at his best level in the four rapid encounters. Nevertheless, suppose Carlsen’s nerves had also failed, and somehow he had lost the final contest. Is there anyone who honestly believes the “best” conclusion would have been a single “Armageddon” game? Whether the score is 5-5 (Lasker-Schlechter) or 12-12 (numerous defenses), the champion should keep the title in the event of a tie. Thus, I oppose ANY tie-breaking system.
GM Polgar’s point about sponsorship may indeed be valid. However, is the main concern how much money can be raised or whether we can determine the best player in the world at “classic” chess? True, additional classic games would add to the cost, but would the players refuse to participate if they didn’t get paid as well? I suspect most would gladly play for the title as long as the rewards were “adequate.”
At the end of the day, I doubt any of us will change the minds of others, and I am quite certain that the FIDE leadership is not particularly concerned about this wood-pusher’s opinions. Nevertheless, I look back at the world championship as it was once contested and suspect that we had a slightly more dependable result than any “mixed” or “tiebreak” championship will ever give us.
I found the championship a bit dull, but the rapid chess tiebreaks were thrilling. Not often I stay up to watch any sport, let alone chess. I do think a mixture of differently times chess games is the way forward to garner more public attention. Chess has a reputation for being a boring spectator sport (Karpov-Kasparov 1984 anyone?) but if the games are short enough and well explained it can become really exciting. Cricket was floundering until they started playing 20-20 cricket and more one day games. There’s no reason blitz games can’t sit alongside classical games in determining who has the best chess brain, I actually prefer the more intuitive instinctive play rather than having to refer to the chess database in your head when playing classical games.
Before adopting Susan’s proposal the suggested format should first be tested in several friendly or less important matches.
A WC match is not time to experiment. But it may prove exciting
Susan’s proposal is a good one,but only as an interim measure until popular interest reaches critical mass. Alekhine,for example would not have become world champ as he was not a good speed player.
The real test of strength would be an indeterminate number of games,as used to be the case,in order to reach 6 wins for example. Baseball and other competitions drag on for months and months.Ballgame afficionados are in no hurry to cut short the season.
Simple and easy to understand format is the best format in the World Chess Championship. Play classical games between 12 games to 16 games. If the final score is tie, the champion will retain his title, but the prize shall be shared equally.
This system is not working. Very few sponsors came forward and prize fund is shrinking.
I think that more pressure needs to be put on winning rather than just drawing almost every game. For that reason, either wins should be 3 points and draws 1 point (like in FIFA) or better still, wins earn 1 point and draws earn nothing with say 3 or 5 points to claim championship. With the current system, basically everyone tries not to lose and look for possible wins (as long as they don’t lose). When did this get really exciting? When someone lost a game! The last slow game was drawn because neither wanted to lose! It was not really interesting (to anyone as far as I could tell). Prize money could be given out for each win- say $250,000, nothing for draws, first to $1 million! It would make better TV! It could be something anyone could understand! You might root for the underdog!
How about a round robin of say 20 top rated players EACH YEAR period? Who is to say that Keres was not the best in any given year that Botvinnik ruled? Then there would be a class of super GMs. Nowadays GMs are multiplying like mushrooms.
Here is another proposal. Play 16 games starting with the classic time in game one. Then each game is played progressively with less time until we get to say 20 minutes (plus 30 seconds per move) in game 16. So each game will be with less and less time. A win is a point and a draw is half a point, just like today. If the score is tied after 16 games the player with the higher coefficient of wins becomes the champion. The coefficient of a win will depend on the time limit. The earlier games will deliver higher “bonus” points making it more valuable to win longer time limit games
This is the point. The cost to organize a 12 game is already way too high and few sponsors are interested. That is going the wrong way.
I do not think the number of games is a deterrent for sponsors. Chess is a slow game and is only appreciated by those who deeply understand and love it, unlike conventional spectator sports that are enjoyed by people with very little study of the sport. My proposal would not necessarily increase the number of days over a 12-game match. Shorter games at the end could be played 2, 3 or even 4 in one day as was the case in the tie-breaker day in Carlsen-Karjakin title match. Another point is that I picked 16 arbitrarily. It could be 12, or 10 or whatever the number of games would make it easier to stage. The key idea is to gradually reduce the thinking time every game instead of Susan’s sets of games dropping from classical down to 25-minute games to blitz. I do not think blitz format belongs in a world title match
Susan, please let me make one point: I don´t believe the chess world championship has to follow sponsors´demands at all costs. There are already a lot of tournaments with different formats that attract sponsors and make chess interesting as a spectator sport. All these tournaments are doing a lot of good for chess. But the world championship is different.
The world championship title is a brand in itself and it draws more interest than any other chess event because the title chess world champion has a magic sound to it. We should focus on retaining that magic instead of going for a quick sell out. A mixed format championship might make a few people rich in the short run, but damage the value of the title in the long run.
I disagree. The essence of chess is deepness of thougth not speed to react.
To look for strong emotions in short times we may resort to watch other sports or activities like basketball or horse races.
To raise revenues in chess perhaps “Pay per view” in cable TV networks might be an alternative to try.
I would like to suggest about the games format. What if in every round need to know who’s the winner! If draw in classical game and let it decide for rapid games. If rapid games still a draw. let’s do it on blitz games till we got the winner! But the rapid and blitz game should be play 24 hour after the classical game. Then raise to 7 wins and become a world chess champion.
I am fine with there being Rapid but a definite NO to Blitz, especially a crazy time control like 3+2.
My proposal is:
12 games at the current slow classic time control, however a stipulation is that each player as white may only use the same opening move twice and this should continue throughout the whole tournament.
If there is no winner after 12 games, then cut the time control approximately in half and each day there are 2 games until there is a winner. Each one alternates at playing white first.
However if the above still fails to reach a winner after 12 days i.e. 24 more games then halve the time control again (or make it 25+10) and play 4 games per day.
If you get to 80 games without a winner and all the opening moves have been used twice, well just declare them joint champions.