In this case, would it be fair to go back to the old system where the World Champions would sit for 3-4 years waiting for new challengers through Interzonals and Candidate’s Matches? Would this be accurate to determine the absolute best player if a certain format such as Tournament or Match favor a particular player?
Tennis has the 4 Grand Slams on different surfaces and a year end ranking. Golf has a similar system. The NBA, NFL, NHL, MBL, etc. have new teams qualifying every year then knock out each other to reach the Championship match (NBA Final, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, World Series). Even the World Cup has new teams competing every 4 years and not seed the defending Champion in the final match.
FIDE, ACP and Global Chess do not have a concrete absolute best format yet. They are still searching. Many do like the Championship Match but they object to having World Champions sit for a few years. What do you suggest? What would be the fairest way?
I think Candidate Tournaments, Candidate Matches and World Champion Match is best way to determine best player in world. This is system which gave us Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov. Since then, the so called FIDE Champions do not have the same prestige or stature as these gentlemen. Kramnik beat Kasparov and that is only reason he is to be considered a World Champion today.
i want to see the new world champion beating the old world champion…that’s why i am for world champion matches…tournaments have their own rules and are not appropiate for the world championship
Matches for sure, but the current Champion also has to qualify through the whole tournament, just like in other sports. That would be maximally fair and maximally exciting (and interesting for sponsors too).
Susan this is not something to debate. The Mathematics clearly answer the question. The question is how to determine who is the best player. The answer is to have as little error in the final outcome.
Let us say player A is the better player over B. How do we determine that with the smallest error. Remember any system might have B as the winner.
Mathematics clearly show that the Match system is the only way to go. The tournament system is way too random and does not pick the best player in most cases.
In a tournament the winner is seldom the best player. The winner of a tournament is the one who takes risks. This is all clearly worked out in mathematics.
By risks I mean he has a high variance in his play.
Chess must stop debating this as if there is a choice. There is no choice. The match play is the only way to go to determine the best player. If you just want to give the crown to any old player randomly then save your trouble and pull a name out of a hat as you will then do as well as a tournament in many cases.
Remember the Best player will not win tournaments. The player who takes big risks and has high instability or variance will win tournaments. But he is definitely NOT the best player.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3528
I get frustrated when people want to debate this idea. It is not debatable unless you want to do it wrong.
I favor a match every year. the champion can match different people. It really does not matter who is the challenger since the champion should win. So the champion can play a new person every year and defeat them every year.
The real trick is that you want the champion to be the best player. Once he is the champion then you are all set. Let him play everyone one at a time in matches and defeat them all.
What ever you do Susan do not get in favor of a tournament champion. Chess has enough problems. This is one problem that has a clear absolute answer coming out of mathematics. Please end the debate.
With the new world cup system the World Champ would have to play in 2 year cycles, which are 33% shorter than the cycles in the 1948-1990 period. I don’t see why that isn’t short enough. The cycles were only long because everything was messed up before reunification. Now that there is only one world champion things are fine the way they are.
I’d like to note that Elista got far more coverage than San Luis in the media. In fact, if I weren’t a chess fan I wouldn’t have even heard of San Luis.
As I said before:
Drop all World Championship Matches and Tournaments in favor of the mathematically determined ELO Ratings.
This would stop many things from the past:
a] Fischer would have had no need to drop out as he could not just sit on his rating.
b] Kasparov would never have split from FIDE because no matches would be necessary.
c] Diasaters like Elista could be avoided because there are no matches.
Think about it!!!
yes, i agree wholly to mayanking. no offence to kasimzhanov, khalifman, ponomalov, etc, but i personally feel that having a different world champion year after year is quite a lot to take in. it feels of less prestige and loses its appeal to many. at least the Soccer World Cup is held every 4 years, so the World Champions get to keep their title for that duration. you wouldn’t get these sort of legendary status of fischer, kasparov, karpov, if it wasn’t for the classical line of world champions. think about it…
matches are the best. Chess is not like tennis or anything else… matches have been proven to be the best to determine who is the best in the field.
Anyways, they should install the candidates tournament as it is good for the players – as there would be a very lucaritive prize money.
can’t wait to have Kramnik vs Anand!
Rastamann
Greetings,
To the Anonym who thinks Tournament play is random and Match play determines the best chess player has a very baseless point.
If you check the history of top Tournaments over the past 100 years it has been statistically rear for an outsider to win the event. So your quibbling that Tournaments are random lacks foundation; And carrying on your argument that Good tournament players are not the necessarily the best players; Quite frankly, this argument can easily be seen the other way round on WC players.
If your definition of GREAT /CORRECT/World Championship chess is someone who plays solid moves and Tournament chess is simply taking risks then you have to realize that this is your view and the likes of you who perceive good chess play from that philosophical stand point, Personally I simply disagree, Chess has too many facets for a certain style of play to be classed as superior (As Lasker , Alekhine and Tal Proved); You simply like Oranges or Apples or Both. STOP trying to convince all of us this is the Way it should be like you know something about chess we don’t. Your view is one of Millions and NOT DE FACTO.
And as for WC Matches; The real truth is that it is not Player vs. Player; It actually is team vs. another team fused into the participants; Not to mention that some matches in the past, it was actually a squadron of GM’s from a nation that was supporting a particular player like for instance Spassky as well as Many other Russian champs.
While in tournament play, indeed players do have seconds but simply not on the SCALE of WC match play.
Nevertheless I am still in favor of match play but not the World Champ sitting in the final (A system designed by Botvinik) , I believe he/her has to prove himself/herself in the Quarters or Semi’s and not just wait in the final then have a Battalion of seconds help you. (Which of course would not be fully necessary if it where Fischer Random).
King.
It is like mayanking says.
The only reason why Anand “the chicken” would like to play it out in a tournament is that he would never stand his man in a match. Not against any out of the top 10! But in a tournament he has good chances and because of this he prefers this system.
And I think it makes no sense to compare other sports and their WC-systems to chess! Chess is not only a game but a strategically battle and no KO-systems or tournaments make sense to find the one BEST player. I think that candidate matches to determine the challenger and then a match against the champion is the best way for the end of the days that works in chess for over 100 years now!!
Chess has a statistically-based rating system. Assuming the FIDE rating system works properly, the player with the highest FIDE rating at any point in time has the highest probability of being the best player in the world at that point in time, notwithstanding whoever is nominally the “World Champion”.
Any other contest, match or tournament, which awards the title of “World Chess Champion” to anybody other than the #1 rated player is awarding a largely nominal title: just some words to adorn a trophy.
But the rating system hollows out the meaning of every “championship” title, whether it be “World Champion” or “First Grade Champion of XYZ Elementary School”. If we want to know who is the best player at XYZ Elementary School we can look it up in the rating list, and the same is true of “World Champion”.
So, I couldn’t care less how the title of World Champion is awarded. Pick the method that pairs off the best players in the world with reasonable frequency and produces the most exciting and interesting games for me to view.
I prefer the old system with a candidate’s tournament and then a match with the champion. That gave us great tournaments, like Curacao 1962, followed by great matches for the title.
People don’t want the fairest system. They want the system that favors them, or their favorite player.
The best player should have a better win/loss record the most top players – this does not mean that he will have a better win loss record against all of the top players.
A pool of top players would have to be chosen. They would then have to play round robin match games against everyone in the pool. A possible format would be year 1 determine the pool. Year 2, have match play throughout the year to determine the champion. The player with the best win/loss record against the other players is the champion (player A bests B in match play is 1 win).
Another vote for candidates matches. How many events have their been in the last 25 years or so that would be worthy of a book such as “Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953” by Bronstein? Even San Luis only produced 56 games, compared to Zurich’s 210.
Unfortunately I think that it would be hard to convince players to make such a large time commitment.
the “fairness” of WC is of the same kind as the “fairnes” of taxation. “Everybody pays equal tax” is “fair”. Progressive taxation scale is “fair” as well.
Determining the #1 via ratings is plain ridiculos. Even in sports where ratings are important (tennis for example) past champions are remembered by grand slam victories, not by rating. Who remembers what rating Hingis had 5 years back? We remember soccer world champions, Davis cup winners, Stanley cup winners, Olympic champions, etc. Nobody remembers “1st rating by XXXX federation”. “Rating is of 1st importance” = “chess is dead as a sport”. BTW ELO system is designed in such a way that there is no difference between important and less important competitions, team competitions, competitions of different levels etc.
I would prefer matches rather than tournaments. IMHO the champion should enetr at the QF or SF stage.
The meaning of the ratings is that the player with a higher rating has the higher probability of winning a game against a player with a lower rating. If the rating system is properly designed, current ratings are an accurate reflection of the players ‘ capacity to win chess games. Therefore, the person with the highest rating is objectively the strongest player. Once you have a rating system, there is no need for the matter to be decided by an arbitrary tournament or series of matches.
If, over more than a short period of time, the World Champion is anybody other than the highest-rated player, then people may legitimately question the system used to select the World Champion. Therefore, the simplest, most objective, least arbitrary method is to use the rating system. It is also the method least susceptible to political shenanigans, collusion between players, and off-the-board gamesmanship by the players.
The only reason to have the World Championship based on anything other than the ratings is that sponsors and spectators are still wedded to the idea of a “World Championship” match or tournament. So such a match or tournament is a good way to attract prize money and expenses for a big top-level event every year or two. Accordingly, the smart answer to the question of how the World Championship “should” be organized is “whatever extracts the most money from the sponsors and the most competitive/creative effort from the players.”
“Rating is of 1st importance” = “chess is dead as a sport”.
As a sport for adults, chess is indeed more or less dying though not quite yet dead.
i think that what we want is subjective, x y or z person like different stuff, its the same in chess, times changes which means new ways are found out to do stuff, the old clashes with the new. personal interests, anonymous societies, money, etc
personally even thou u have to wait for a couple of years its better the old system, but the new system is also more lively.
its all up to the big boys really.