What is the best method to determine a World Champion? Before you answer that, let’s consider ALL elements. Don’t just give the format without other considerations.
– Money / Sponsorship (Please remember the original problem. There was NOT enough money to sustain the old World Championship format. The same goes with the current candidate’s matches. FIDE could not find enough sponsors for these matches.)
– Logistic
– Length of cycle
– Fairest format, etc.
Should it be:
– Round Robin of top 8, 10 or 12
– Matches (Quarterfinal, Semi-Final, Final and should the defending World Champion get a free pass until the final match or should the defending WC get seeded in the final 8 or final 4?)
– 128 or 64 or 32 or 16 player knockout
– #1 rating at year end with minimum 24 games played annually
– Best overall finisher in the 4 Grand Slams, etc.
And should it be:
– Every year
– Every 2 years
– Every 3 years
– Every 4 years
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
The championship itself should certainly be defended in a match, as it has been since the beginning of time (or thereabouts). The champion should play only in the title match itself.
The question of how the challenger should be chosen is a more interesting one. I tend to like the old candidates system, but I’m not wedded to it.
Making the top-rated player at a given point the automatic challenger would make it easier to hold more frequent championship matches; instead of having to arrange a huge tournament and/or a series of matches, the challenger would be chosen automatically, and all that would need to be arranged is the title match itself.
Period: 3 years. Maybe 4.
Format: Similar to what is going on today, but different. Candidate matches determine who plays in a “qualifying tournament” of 8. The winner of that tournament then plays a WC match against the standing champion for the title.
Here is how I would recommend it.
First the WCC should be held on every odd or even numbered year – take your pick – idea is every other year.
The actual WCC should be held starting mid-Oct thru mid-Nov to get chess interest back before the holiday buying season to give chess retailers some help.
In the beginning of the year when the WCC will be held there should be a 12R-RR event. The selection process for 6 of the 12 spots should be based purely on rating but must have played 24 games within the past 12 months, not including any form of events that are considered qualifers for the WCC (such as the grand slam events or the suggested Champion of Champion cycles).
The Grand Slam events should have 1 spot each for the 12R-RR Event.
This brings us up to 10 players out of 13.
1 spot should go to the winner of the Champions of National Champions tournament – This is where some things get complex. 1 semi-qualifer event for the America’s (North and South), 1 for Europe, 1 for Asia (Australia included here), and 1 for Africa. The 4 winners will play in a double round-robin event for the 1 spot for the Champions of Champions.
1 spot should be given to the former WCC.
1 spot should be given to a player voted by the international chess community.
All games are classical chess time controls. This event should be held in the first quarter of the year to give the winner approximately 6 months to prepare for the WCC.
The defending WCC is given a pass to meet the winner of the 12-RR event.
The Champion of Champions qualifiers should be the responsibility of the national federations in those areas – they should be responsible for working as a team to come together – get a venue and sponsors. There are additional logistics to consider here since each country will want to host the event in their own country – so a committee would have to be formed with representatives from each country, FIDE, and also independant/objective 3rd parties.
FIDE should be responsible for finding a sponsor for the WCC or farm it out to an organizer without the ridiculous fees that FIDE charges to just come inspect a site (1st class airfare, 5-star hotel, etc.) The event should be held in a country NOT of the origin of either WCC participant. Preferable locations would include – London, Zurich, Paris, New York – as it’s highly unlikely that any of those countries will have a WCC participant.
A lot of team work required. But if teamwork doesn’t happen then the dictator model happens like it did this time around with Kirsan saying and doing as he sees fit.
I definately say some members of the WCC committee should include Susan Polgar.
Round robin of top 10 (by FIDE rating). Few if any outside the top 10 have a realistic chance of winning.
Held every year, or at least every 2 years. More frequent need to raise funds, but that’s offset by more frequent publicity . . . and fairer to players, as they don’t have to wait 3 or 4 years for another shot. Chessplayers have relatively short periods of time at the very top, and a 4 year wait for the next championship can be an eternity. I don’t think the frequency would make it less of an event — the Super Bowl and World Series do fine being played every year.
I understand the attachment to matches, but it can give the current champ an advantage — can wait while a challenger is exhausting himself. (If no qualification process, just giving the highest rated the challenger position, that inhibits opportunities for many others who have legitimate shot.)
I loved the old process, with Interzonal, Candidates Matches, and then the Championship Match. One problem, though, is that a champ whose reign is “until beaten in a match” rather than “until next year’s tournament” may be more tempted to think of the championship as his (or her) personal property. That leads to the problem of a champ refusing to recognize anyone else’s authority over the process. So you have Alekhine refusing a rematch to Capablanca; Kasparov/Short breaking away in 1993; etc., etc. I think that’s bad for public perception of chess, and it’s more likely under the old system than under a system in which the current World Champ at most is seeded into a tournament. Now that we have a unified world champ . . . could we keep that situation for at least awhile, please??
Although I like the idea of the old Candidates Matches, I think they attract very little attention outside the chess world until you get to the finals. 10 guys in a tournament versus 2 guys in a final match = less human interest for those outside the normal chess world?
Anyway, just my opinion. I think most of your readers will disagree strongly. 🙂
Susan, that looks like a piece from an antique set in the photo. Is it? If so, where and when was it made?
Every year if possible. The prequalification tournaments in different places around the world. Then one challenger tournament between those who have the best scorings. And the final against the standing champion once a year.
And finally: as a common standard the 100 % video surveillance made by the officials in the control room, including the WC facilities, to avoid any fair play suspectations.
In other sports, that which happened in Elista, could not had happened, because of their up-to-date preventing arrangements as their common standard by the organizers.
I like the older format of the Zonal, Interzonal, and Candidate tournaments to decide the challenger.
The champion had to defend every 3 years back then, which I thought was fine as well, but every 2 years wouldn’t be bad either.
Round robin format is a horrible idea and should not even be considered.
Go back to the way it was in the 50’s, 60’s, etc. They should have never changed the format in the first place.
san luis format every 2 year is fine with me
Every year. Provides the possibility of more “chess heroes” for people admire and study. Not just one who reigns year in and year out. Plus, as a sport that appeals to children too, having a championship match only every few years seems like a horribly long time. Give kids (and adults) chess heroes and games every year to enjoy and admire!
Defense: Annually or Bi-Annually [to allow for qualifying matches]
The more often the title is challenged, the more valid the title holder becomes. What is the point of defending every 3 years if for two of those years there is a player who can CRUSH you, but you manage to hold title due to avoiding the match 2 more years?
Annual also increases sponsorship visibility and draws millions of fans to watching the matches!
Yes matches, we need to return to the old system of zonals, interzonals, candidates matches and the WC.
However, I agree with Fischer in that draws should NEVER count and furthermore there should be NO agreed draws. When two players sit down knowing they cannot just offer a draw, they will play fiercely [or positionally] until the end, bringing about more decisive games.
San Luis format is HORRIBLE. There are so many “super gm” tournaments, why would 1 make you the WC while the others not?
Go back to the old system!
I think the the championship should be decided every two years, instead of the old system of every three years.
A double-RR tournament such as Mexico 2007 might be a good way to select the next challenger to the reigning champion. The actual championship should be decided in a long match. I prefer 16 games, but the Kramnik-Topalov match proved that even 12 games can be quite exciting.
If the match ends in a tie, a rapid/blitz/armageddon finale is unfortunately the only reasonable way to break a tie. I do not think the reigning champ should have draw odds.
I am no expert on sponsorship, but it’s clear the Kramnik-Topalov match generated more worldwide chess interest (and not just because of pottygate) than any other chess event in recent memory. If chess can build up a pattern of success with these types of matches, corporate sponsorship should once again be a possibility.
FIDE should annoint 4 major tournaments (such as Dortmund, Wik an Zee, or whichever) as Candidate Tournaments. In odd numbered years, the top finisher in each thereby earns a slot in a round robin Challengers’ Tournament; said tournament to be held early in the subsequent odd numbered year.
(If player XX wins two Candidate Tournaments, then in the second tournament the runner up would earn the slot in the Challengers’ Tournament.)
This elevated importance of the major tournaments (Dortmund etc) would make them more interesting events. It would also create a WCC cycle that extends and builds over many months. The San Luis 2005 tournament was a mere couple weeks of over and done with.
The other 4 slots in the Challengers’ Tournament would be filled by other players somehow (tho hopefully Not just by Elo rating).
Next, the winner of the Challengers’ Tournament would thereby earn a challenge match against the reigning Match World Chess Champion title holder.
– – – – – –
The old system of Zonal, Interzonal, and all those Candidates’ Matches is too unwieldy and expensive. It also dragged the WCC cycle out to 3 years, when a 2 year cycle is probably better.
A 1 year cycle would be too frequent.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
Either a double round-robin to produce a challenger (top ten active players by rating), or a series of candidate matches, as was done in the 50s-70s. And the championship should be on a two-year cycle. All systems have their flaws, but I like these much better than the yearly lottery FIDE has toyed with.
They should do something that lets the worlds best player play. There should be regional and state championships before the country championships and those should continue on to the world championship.
Fide has proven that these new formats just don’t work. Round robin tournament is yet another bad idea. It won’t create more intrest (more sponsors) outside the chess world. This unified match was widely reported in media but former Fide championships have not been even mentioned. Tradition is major factor in popular sport events. For example nobody considers to play Wimbledon on any other then grass. But in chess Fide is changing championship system almost every year. World Chess Championship should be matches.
I always liked the Grand Prix idea. Certain events in the chess tournament cycle are nominated as Grand Prix events.
The obvious ones to start with would be Corus, Dortmund, Linares and the Aeroflot. The catagory system exists already, so there should be no controversy in choosing which tournaments get GP status.
The winner of these events get GP points, 10 for a win, 9 for second etc.
After one season, the highest points scorer gets to play the World Champion in a classic match, maybe over 24 games.
So years would alternate between a qualifying year and a championship year.
It’s not viable to have a WC contest every year, but this format means that the WC is always in our minds, as players try to qualify for the challenge the following year.
This would also serve to encourage tournament organisers to increase the status of their tournaments to get to GP level, as the interest would be greatly increased.
One attraction of this idea to me, is that it allows the possibility of a young exciting player to burst through. Magnus Carlsen could qualify if he had a spectacular season for instance. This would generate huge interest in the following year.
Whatever system is chosen has to be easy to follow, and I think the GP idea is the simplest.
Candidates tournament to determine the challenger. World champion to be determined in match play. 12 games is just about right. Match to be held every 2 years.
Every year like the superbowl. Award points like tennis and golf to players with the best ELO at several tournaments that already exist. Invite the top ten players for a super match. The top two point getters of the final top 10 “playoff” would meet in the championship game.
Susan – one of the first things that FIDE must to in terms of getting organizers interested in organizing FIDE events is to remove the ridiculous fee structure they have of what FIDE personnel must be paid for both viewing of the site and then their stipends. The fees are atrocious and I for one would not pay that and neither would a potential sponsor.
How dare FIDE ask for first-class accomodations and outrageous stipends!
I am not sure how to raise the money that is needed to have a full WCC Cycle. But I definately can state the following:
1. The final step to determin a World Champion has to be a one-on-one match , like we had it between Kramnik and Topalov now.
I was reading about a record number of people following the match on each server that relayed it. Public interest was higher than with anything else. That should make it easier to sell.
2. The reigning Wold Champion should not defend his Title every year. every 2-3 years is fine. The Title needs to be something special to achieve.
3. The reigning Champion should not participate in any candidates cycle. He will only play the final match. That will increase the value of the Title.
4. The final candidate should be determined in Knock-Out format, followed by a double or quadruple RR of the last 4 candidates. That will increase the motivation for each participant and also will give the last 4 candidates room to comeback from “bad luck”.
5. The top 8 (average) rated players over the last 12 month with a certain amount of minimum games during that time, will enter the cycle in the Knock-Outs round of last 16.
6. IF the reigning World Champion did not play a single game since he last won the Title, He loses the Title and the winner of the double/quadruple RR of the last 4 candidates is declared new World Champion. The World Champion of course has the right to defend His Title by entering the Cycle.
7. I totally agree with what most people said already: Why should one “super GM” Tournament be the one to determin the World Champion?
8. AT ANY TIME a challenger has the right for a match with the reigning World Champion, if he has the following qualifications:
– sponsors with enough money to hold the match (e.g. $1.000.000)
– among the top 5 rated player for at least 6 month OR
a win at a KAT 20 (super GM) Tournament
I do not know if all of that makes sense, but it seems to be a good system in my opinion.
The classical format is the best. A series of matches culminating with the crowning of the world champion every three years, maybe two, no less. If soccer can live with a champion every four years, and it’s the most popular sport in the world, I guess chess can learn to value the title of world champion a bit more and not make it some ordinary trophy.
To attract sponsorship, I would have the World Championship as the culmination of the other major events such as Corus, Dortmund, Linares, Aeroflot, Wik an Zee, … If I were a sponsor, I would want to see the winner of “my event” go on to win the World Championship and I would also want to sponsor that World Championship event.
The tournament style doesn´t necessarily gives us a WCC, in the FIDE list when they “got the title”, Khalifman was no.25 en now no.95, Anand no.3 and now no.2, Ponomariov no.7 and now no.20, Kasimdzhanov was no. 44 and now no. 35, Topalov was no.3 and now no.1 (due to Kasparov retirement),to me I like that my WCC to be also at the top of the FIDE list, and only Anand and Topalov are there.
A match every two years is the best. The method to get the challenger should be the top classified of the FIDE list and the top quantity of points of a new system that takes in account the level of a tournament and the place they get into in.
This way you might have the best consistent player and no qualification that is exhausting and theres no money to afford. The tournements are already there.
Just an idea…
Bye the way the Official FIDE Champion list should be, to continue with the quality of WCC like this:
12th Karpov 1975-1985
13th Kasparov 1985-2000
14th Kramnik 2000-now a days…
I know this is not going to please a lot but is the truth…
My basic vote (if anyone cared!) would be:
A 14-18 game match every three years for world champion.
Candidates matchES are great, but perhaps impractical today. A candidates tournament and/or series of tournaments would be great.
I would hope to see a final candidate match to see who gets to play the WC. The reason I would insist on that is that I think the old system produced good matches because the challenger already had match experience. We have seen how difficult the pressure was on Topalov (by his own admission) – having hardly played in a match scenario.
Yes, it fell apart because there was not sponsorship, but that was then this is now! The entire landscape of sporting events has changed. Sponsorship is certainly possible today, or at least an area to be explored before we give up.
Tournaments are extremely fun but hardly decisive.
I would say every 2 years…
Quarter, semi, and final the 18 month (6 classical matches -or FIDE- + 4 rapid) between the 8 best ranked (except the Champion).
Then on the following 6 month, a match between the winner and the Champion (12 classical and 4 rapid)…
I’m against those blitz. It would be better to find another thing (perhaps to continue rapid games 2 by 2 until there’s a clear winner)…
There should be no free pass to the defending champion.
There should be no draw odds.
There should be no rematch provision for the current champion.
A 64 player KO can select the 8 players.
Top 6 players are selected from an average of the latest rating lists provided they fulfill some activity criteria. (say 20 FIDE rated games in the last 2 years)
2 Previous finalists.
The 16 players so selected will play in a series of matches to determine the final champion.
Two year cycle.
Challenger vs. Champion in a 16-game match. Champion has draw odds.
Challenger is determined by a series of 8-game matches between 8 Candidates (quarterfinal matches, semifinal matches, and final candidates match). Rapid games to break 4-4 ties.
The 8 Candidates may be determined based on a combination of FIDE ratings, Super GM Tournaments, and/or World Cup Knock-out.
The status of World Chess Champion needs to have value.
1. 2 year cycle.
2. world champion plays a match with the challenger.
3. the match consists of at least 12, at most 16 games. In case of a draw world champion keeps his/her title.
4. the challenger is decided in the knockout system among 16 players.
5. The choice of 16 knockout players:
A) Top 10 people in the rating list. (at the time of selection, 6-9 month before the next WC match)
B) The winners of, say, Linares, WijkaanZee, and Dortmund. This makes at most 3x(2years)=6 people. Most likely, some of these at most 6 people are in the top 10 already. In that case the winners of other tournaments may be included. Or exceptional decisions could be made. FIDE president has some authority on this.
Thanks.
Azer/ Baku.
P.S. I liked the choice of people for Mexico although I strongly disagree with the format. Especially, giving another chance to Ponomariov, Kasimdjanov, Shirov.. people who have possibly suffered during the division period in chess. Anand is there too. I’d have included Khalifman as well.
I see most have addressed the format issue, but not the sponsorship issue, which to me is the real issue.
All the formats could get off the ground, be it candidates, one on one match, round robin tournament if there were serious sponsors interested.
But unfortunately with the current fide structure, this isnt going to happen, so whatever format is chosen will not work in its entirety.
The chess world got what it deserved unfortunately at the Turin Olympiad elections.
The classical WCC cycle is too long. Karpov ‘reigned’ for 10 years but only defended his title, successfully, twice. If Kramnik will only defend his title in 2009 or even 2008, nobody outside the chess circle will remeber who he was.
In no other sport, the world champion enjoys such previlege, only needing to play once every three years, with draw odds, against exhausted challenger, and so on.
The single tournament format (like San Luis) is also not ideal as it produces one-time wonder champions (with the exception of Topalov who I believe will come back again. Anand has probably passed his prime, without really many chances to challenge the title.)
I like the idea of selecting 4 ‘super’ tournaments, have the winners accumulate points (games won?), at the end of year, before holidays, those who finished top 3, plus the champion, get to play a knockout match (say 8-12 games for semi-final, 12-16 games for final). If the champion is among the top 3, he/she gets a free pass on the first round.
That way the champion is encouraged to actually play chess. How many tournaments have Kramnik won since 2000? Like the other poster said, it will also make the current tournament more exciting (simply finish tied 2-8 will NOT do).
I recommend that the top 4 players compete in a tournament to play the reigning champ every 2 years.
BEST WINNER OVER GRAND SLAMS
Hi Susan,
Great Question!
AS for sponsorship, chess has it’s share of big tournaments already. I think we need to set strict guidelines of a minimum of games played per last calendar year if you want to qualify for the Challenger’s Tournament.
So, given that, the top 12 players on the rating list that meet this qualification play in a double RR challenger’s tournament. The winner of that tournament plays the defending champion for the title in a 12-game match. I thought the rules for this match were nearly perfect. The match lasted under a month, the pace was brisk but not torrid, and the players were able to perform at a reasonably high level the entire match.
So, First year: Tournament Play by top players trying to get into the top 12. Minimum # of games required.
Beginning of second year: Challenger’s tournament of top 12 who want to play in it.
End of 3rd quarter, second year: WCC Match.
By November, Second year, you have a newly crowned Chess Champion.
You can do this every two years, it solves the sponsorship problem by not introducing any new matches ,and allows sponsors to hold current big ticket tournaments like they are now.
I’d also lose the restriction of the loser not being in the next cycle. That’s just dumb.
Chess Training Blogspot
The essence of the “classical” title is that to because champion one needs to beat the current champion in a match. This is quite unique in sports, but it is a very long tradition in chess.
The main question is: should the current champion be given that special a status ? Besides this question the others are just details.
If yes, I like using the current round-robin system to determine the candidate.
To engage the fans, you have to pick a system where top players are not excluded. The big problem with all the systems so far (since the 1993 split) is that one way or another some top players are not participating in one cycle or another. For the fans, any system which includes Anand, Topalov *and* Kramnik is probably acceptable. I think any system in which those three have a reasonable shot at the title is acceptable (note that Topalov will be excluded from the 2007 WC.)
Now as to match play versus round robin, I would say that once you are down to the playing for the title, it should come down to match play. The old FIDE candidates match system is probably too expensive, and elimination mini-matches, are unacceptable, IMHO, and I think a lot of fans are in agreement with me. So this leads us to the obvious idea of having swiss style or round robin play for candidates matches down to, perhaps, a final 4, or 2.
The only question is, then, should the WC be seeded as an automatic finalist or should (s)he be forced to enter some earlier candidate stage. I don’t have a strong opinion about this other than to say that the prior WC should never be forced to play in a swiss or round robin style to defend his/her title. If the WC loses, it should be because it has been definitively determined that (s)he was defeated by some superior player in direct match play.
The rules should also be laid out in such a way that accomodations are made for sudden changes in the environment. Half the problem with the situation up until now, is that is has been done in a “seat of the pants” manner. I.e., Ponomariov didn’t agree to play Kasparov, so FIDE holds another World Championship and schedules Khazindzhanov to be Kasparov’s opponent. Shirov should have played Kasparov in 2000, but they couldn’t find money, so Kramnik played.
Simply put, the “candidate system” whatever it is should simply create an ordering of the players in some schedule such that if some player refuses to play (or can’t because they are dead or something) then the system automatically adjusts with the remaining players. This ordering would include rules like “1. Any player defeated in match play in the current cycle is permanently eliminated unless there are no other candidates, 2. The result of any round robin or swiss system only provides the player with a candidate ranking, *not* a guarantee of participation, 3. All players deemed “seeded” automatically have a higher ranking than non-seeded players, 4. The current WC and his/her last defeated challenger will automatically be considered seeded players for the next cycle”.
The reason it important to spell out the rules in this way is because of the need for adjustment to reality (players refusing to play, etc). This case in point is made very clear with the whole issue of Topalov being automatically eliminated from the 2007 cycle just because of the “seat of the pants” kind of nature of the just completed 2006 match. Personally, I find it ridiculous that Topalov, the most deserving player besides Kramnik, will not be vying for the crown in the next cycle just because Shirov and Kamsky would be ready to sue FIDE if their spot had to be given up to accomodate for Topalov. I understand their point of view, but as a fan, I would rather see Topalov there than either of those otherwise worthy players. So I think there has to be iron clad rules where the lowest ranking (by the system, not by rating) player at any stage of the cycle is not guaranteed a spot, and similarly, that “reserve players” (i.e., the highest ranked players that didn’t make the cut from each previous stage) should be prepared to be promoted to the next stage of the cycle if some candidates drop out for some reason.
The other important point about the rules is that you don’t want a situation where a player defeated in match play (and therefore one that can be considered worse than some other player, at least for this cycle) somehow be ressurected to play in the next round due to some loophole in the rules. Fans should always feel that the candidates playing at any given stage are “deserving” of their right to play for the crown. Particular cases of this are Karpov vs. Timman (Nigel Short beat *both* of them in 1992) or Shirov vs Kramnik (where Shirov should have become the challenger to Kasparov in 2000.)
The candidates cycle should also probably provide some way in which to incorporate the results of the top tournaments that are played throughout the year. Kramnik used Dortmund to pick Leko, and Kasparov kept claiming that he had the right to challenge Kramnik to a rematch because of his awesome performances at various tournaments he had played afterwards. While they seem like self serving arguments with their own ill side-effects, I think the fan based reaction to these things was not entirely negative. I think people *wanted* to see a rematch between Kasparov and Kramnik, and people did *NOT* consider Leko to be an illegitimate challenger to Kramnik. I don’t think Ponomariov, Khazimdzanov or Khalifman ever received similar amount of respect (and I don’t think they deserved it).
So it seems natural that FIDE should establish some kind of point system for each major tournament. I.e., each tournament would be scored according to how many top 10 or 20 players were invited, historical importance (how long as the tournament been running) and whatever other simple criteria FIDE or ACP wanted to ensure their suitability, then the winners of those tournaments would be given “tournament points” according to the score of those tournaments (Linares, Dortmund, Biel and Corus are clearly the tournaments I had in mind). Then at the appropriate stage of each cycle, some number of players with the highest number of “tournament points” would receive automatically seeding at some stage.
The reason I suggest this is to give strong players like Kasparov or Anand or whoever another way of establishing a legitimate claim to play for the title without having to “lower themselves” to play in some lower-level candidates matches. It also eliminates excuses for players such as Kasparov who make specious claims that they *deserve* some extraordinary privelleges because of who they are. In this way they would only be required to *prove* they are as deserving as they say they are on their own terms by being the best at the tournaments they choose to participate in (and doing so better than others).
The other point is that it would incentivize prestigious chess clubs to try to organize tournaments and invite top rated players. For example, in the US, they could apply for “top tournament” accreditization for, say, “The World Open” in the hopes that players like Kamsky and Nakamura would have a better chance to win them, or that top players like Anand would make the effort to actually enter in the hopes of securing more points to be a “seeded by tournament performance” candidate. Either way, I think it would be good for chess, and sponsorship (top players coming just to play in your tournament, adds to the prestige, all while still being inclusive of local talent).
So the basic premises behind my idea is to remove the chaos by creating a rule-based system which is both flexible and inclusive enough to accomodate for reality. It would increase the respect that players had for the system (and FIDE or ACP in general) and thereby reduce the number of capricious challenges to those rules made by the players themselves in the past decades.
The cost/sponsorship factor is dealt with in the two most pragmatic ways: 1) decrease the number of candidates stages that are seperate from existing or necessary stages and 2) incentivize existing tournaments themselves to be part of the process so that sponsors can instead choose to support more estabilshed tournaments rather than artificial constructions like “candidates matches”.
—
Paul Hsieh
Based on economics, the best compromise I feel is a tournament with top active highest rated players who played mininum of 20 games a year prior to tournament and winner has match with World Champion as we saw with Kramnik! Every two years would be great. The coverage this match got was great! We must not allow our cherished World Champion Title to be diminished by FIDE methodology. Without a World Champion, as we have now, chess will not be able to get sponsorship.
i’d prefer to keep things simple and payable.
1.chess has a widly accepted rating system and a ranking list, depending on tournament success.
2.we have an amazing number of great tournaments (Aeroflot, Linares, Wjik, Dortmund, etc.) – the former FIDE knock-out championship can be turned to a “Grand Prix” – with a Grand-Prix winner every year. there is no need for “boring” (outside the chess world) candidate matches (players and / or FIDE could hardly find sponsors for)
3. we have a single World Champion who also want’s to earn money and rating points. he should not be excluded from tournaments, or candidate matches or other cycles.
4. FIDE organizes a man-o-man World Chess championship every two years (12 – 16 games, WITH draw odds for the reignin champ – it’s the traditional way!). The contender will be the HIGHEST rated player on the FIDE ranking list at an appointed date with a minimum number of XX games played and evaluated.
This system would be fair, easy and wouldn’t need more sponsoring than chess already has.
I favour the match format starting with 32 players. The winner of the matches will meet the defending world champion. The match should be held in the countries of the GMs playing (half at home and half away). The sponsor could preferably be of the countries of the GMs or multi nationals. Sometimes it may just be the chess federation of a country itself. Both players must get a few rest days in which they campaign/ participate in some sponsor functions. They must also participate in popularizing chess by giving talks and/ or simuls in the countries. Matches could take place from September – December when the grandslam events are not taking place. Unfortunately the lesser GMs playing may have to compromise on their schedule in the latter half of the year.The title defence could go on every four years.
a) Year 0 to 1: Upto including quarters (12 games each)
b) Year 1 to 2: Semifinals (24 games)
c) Year 2 to 3: Finals and now a challenger has been determined (24 games).
d) Year 3 to 4: The world championship match (24 games).
Pros:
=====
I believe FIDE stands to make money from the amount of matches being played. Chess stars become popular and so will chess. I believe local sponsors will be willing to sponsor a local champion. GMs may stand a chance to win a long term contract with a sponsor. Local chess talent can become seconds and that is valuable experience for them. More the matches more the novelties and hence chess standard rises. Challengers have match experience before meeting the champion.
Cons:
=====
The problem is some of the poorer nations may not have the money to shell out. GMs that lose early in the cycle will have to wait a long time. GMs may find the timing of the event cumbersome and hard to prepare. The number of novelties we see in tournaments will drastically reduce as everyone will try to hoard their research for the match. The champion gets to research opening for four years while the challenger has to come up with novelties and prepare every year. Tie break formats :).
every two years, a qualifiying tourney who picks the challenger for world champion crown.
every year takes away some flavor dont u think?
each year is very unrealistic in the current climate. Any qualification cycle- especially if it involves matches and then a match against the champion would take quite a bit more than a year.
I do think the three year cycle is best.
I don’t know why this is even a problem. There are many sports, many formats to choose from. Currently chess follows none of those. Much as I acknowleged Kramnik as the current world champion, let’s face it, we really don’t KNOW for sure, whether he is the best chess player in the world or not (probably he is, but that’s not the point).
What we need is a system, pretty much like soccer (football) where all chess players in the world has, at least a theoretical chance to become the world champion. Why not to play a championship in every country (let them organize it any which way they care, but at the end set forth one person who was declared the best in the country). Then organize tournaments between the winners which gradually eliminate all but the best, let’s say 7 players. Those would play a double round robin final, plus the standing world champ as 8th.
The winner would become the next world champion. For real.
How often? Someone would have to calculate what would be a reasonable timeframe to go through with the above process.
Gabor
I certainly believe that the Chess Champion of the world should defend his title annually or bi-annually! I see little logic in defending every 3 or 4 years. This is too large of a “time gap.”
This requires that the champ remain active…truly active.
Hi Susan
FIDE should devolve qualification systems to National Federations, using a system whereby the more tournaments the national federation organise with the more prize money involved with the more players playing, then the more players from that country qualify for a regional supertournament qualifier. From that, then a handful of short qualifying matches, followed by a 24 game match as of old.
Anyhow, FIDE ought devolve early qualification stages to national federation, to (1) make it some else’s problem (2) generate activity in various countries. The competitive activities would also ensure that enifficient or backward national federations would soon be replaced by pressure from within.
I think it should be:
1) One against one match, the former world champion against the winner of the candidates tournament
2) Every 1 or 2 years
3) The candidates tournament should be a 8-player elimination tournament with:
-Up to 4 players from the winners of grand slam of that year.
-2 players from a big round robin rapid chess tournament
-Then, the best ranked players in the FIDE list.
How can this format get sponsors?, i dont know, but i think this would be a fair World Championship
Hallo Mrs. Polgar and chess-lovers from all over the world !
I’m not a professional chess-player but as a great admirer would like to propose a schema,which,according to me,seems to be fair enough for the players and at the same time attractive for the fans,audience and media.
1.A Champion should be evaluated every year or two (3 or 4 are too much for the “unpatient“ fans and for the motivation of the other players);
2.It should be a match (Quarterfinal, Semi-Final, Final ) between the best 8 players :
-the WC ( that should be his only privilege and it’s enough);
-the winers of the great 4 tournaments;if it is one and the same – the second best or third best and so on;
-to complete to 8 – the best 3 rated players from the FIDE ranking list.
I think,it is a reasonable suggestion,that could satisfy each and every interests.
With LOTS and LOTS of thanks for the wonderful possibility,daily given to us by you and your great Blog,Mrs. Polgar,to throw a glance into the magic world of CHESS,
Ivaylo Daskalov
Bulgaria
I have just read (www.netinfo.bg), that Mr Topalov intends to challenge Mr Kramnik in a match-revenge.That has said his manager,Mr Danailov,at a pressconference in the Grand Hotel Sofia today.According to FIDEs regulations,the former champion and every GM over 2700 has the right to do that,but only if he could find a sponsor for the match.Mr. Topalov’s staff means that’s possible to happen on the 3 of March,2007 in Sofia.
I think all proposals where “national chess organizations” or similar bodies should organize WC qualifiers are flawed because national organization are far worse in organizing and attracting money than professionals. Hence my previous proposal to envolve professional tournament organizers in the WC qualifier business.
Furthermore: To attract money the world championchip should be open to all. If everybody may feel himself as participant not only as viewer, the championchip cycle would be far more attractive to sponsors.
Being open to all the championchip cycle needs time. The 4 years I proposed seem to be reasonable. On the other hand a world championchip only every 4 years is not much. Hence my proposal to intertwine the four year cycle, where all participate, with a 1 year cycle, where commercial offers count.
– Money / Sponsorship – Any reasonable amount of money should do. So much money was needed for this year’s championship in order to have the champions agree to compete.
– Format
– Matches – Quarterfinal, Semi-Final, Final and the defending World Champion should get a free pass until the final match. It just wouldn’t be the same if the World Champion isn’t competing in the WC match. Would a World Champion match have been exciting if Fischer hadn’t played Spassky, but instead someone who was from outside the Soviet circle?
Length between matches – Every 4 years. This could help with the problem with money. Over the course of 4 years, FIDE should be able to raise enough money for the match.
A 2-year cycle already exists, it only has to be officially recognised.
A “candidate” tournament between the best 8 should determine the candidate in a given year, and a title match should determine the champion a year later.
Match format – 14 games+tiebreak.
To me the format could be quite simple: a) big Interzonal tournament or a St.Luis like very strong double robin tournament.
b) a candidates match (10 games + rapid games in case of tie) between the first two of the tournament.
c) the winner of the match plays against the world champion (14 games) every two years.
The b) point is needed in order to avoid that the winner of the tournament could be favoured by agreements and easy draws of other players, like it happened in some ’50 -’60 WC candidate tournaments.
aside from tradition, why is a world champion necessary? neither tennis nor golf has one. each of those individual (as opposed to team) sports has four major tournaments, each with its own prestige.
not having a world champion takes fide–and all of their unnecessary politics–out of it. i think that if tennis or golf had a world champion they would be mired in politics and would not be anywhere near as successful as they are today.
if there was no world champion (and hence no world championship) the four already existing major chess tournaments would gain even more prestige, and would be able to raise more money since they wouldn’t be hampared with politics.
look at it this way: there exist no individual sport which is successful *and* has a world champion. take boxing. it’s mired in politics and accustions of being fixed.
breaking with tradition is always difficult, but i think there is a better chance of chess prospering if more attention is focused on the four existing major (i.e. grand slam) tournaments, and abandoning the politic ridden world championship.
For the World Championship, a match just like the Elista one every other year. On the “in between” years, a San Luis type tournament with the top ten qualifiers.
Re: “I think all proposals where “national chess organizations” or similar bodies should organize WC qualifiers are flawed because national organization are far worse in organizing and attracting money than professionals.”
My point was not that. My point was the better the national federation organise selection tournaments – with better being measured by number of players and sponsporship – the more players they get in the next round. Some countries like China would then invest a lot. Some sleepy federations like the ECF might wake up. The corrupt and inefficient would be exposed as such.
Definitely one on one match between challenger and champion. The champion must defend against the highest rated player every year. If the champion is the highest rated that year, then he has earned the option to not accept challenges for his title. If the champion has not played in at least one super-gm tournament then he is considered to be inactive and reliquishes his title. If the title becomes vacant for this reason, or for any other reason (champion refuses mandatory challenge, champion dies), then the top 2 rated active players should play a match to decide who will inherit the title. Match should be same format as kramnik-Topalov match.
Susan, great topic!
I hope you will be doing a follow-up commentary, selecting the best ideas, and then throwing it open to debate again.
A summary of my proposal (which I will expand on further down) is:
A Quarterfinal/Semifinal/Final Match System with the winner of the Final to be World Champion. The World Champion and the next 3 top players apart from him to be seeded into the Quarterfinals. The other 4 places to be decided from a 16 player round robin Candidates Qualifier Tournament in which the next 10 top players are seeded and 6 qualify from an Interzonal.
It is to be a 3 year cycle.
The Money/Sponsorship question:
(1) Ilyumzhinov (& Co.) should be got rid of if possible. Most sponsors won’t touch him with a 10 foot barge pole.
(2) FIDE’s outrageous fee structure should be abolished.
(3) Apart from Ilyumzhinov, the main reason that FIDE could not find sponsors for the current Candidates Matches is that they are too far back in the system.
Who wants to pay big money for Ponomariov-Bacrot or whatever? But Kramnik-Anand would be a different story.
(4) Sponsorship is much more likely to come forward for an undisputed unified Title than for the split and uncertain one we have had since 1993.
(5) Impose the Sofia ‘no draw offers’ (etc) rule right through the process [as it should be to all events anyway]. Then the sponsors (and the paying public) know that they are going to get a proper game instead of a 15-move draw.
The players should have to earn their payday.
It would also help prevent collusion in the tournament part of the process.
(6) My proposal is not too dissimilar to Seirawan’s 2002 proposal ‘A Fresh Start’, which he must have thought viable from a sponsorship point of view.
(7) With a 3 year cycle, the sponsorship would not have to be found as often.
(8) If, after all this, the sponsorship is still not too hot, then the players would just have to wear it as the price of having a chance to compete for the World Championship.
Why Matches?:
(1) Tournmaments should be kept as far away as possible from the final of a WC. Curacao 1962 was a disaster – we do not want a repeat of that! Or, as Kasparov said when shortly after his title loss, Keene offered him an 8 player double round robin as a qualifier: “opponents could gang up on me and cheat thus eliminating me”.
(2) Knockouts are a disaster as we have seen time and again. Just random.
(3) I don’t like this 4 Grand Slams idea. The players would continually have to be stressing the whole time about the World Championship. It would be a never ending treadmill, virtually a prison. The players deserve a break from this.
And you would be forced to play in all of them. What if you are sick, or have a baby?
In any case, it’s tournaments again.
(4) #1 rating [played bi-annually]. I would have some sympathy with this idea if you do not want a longish qualification process.
However, your rating then becomes ultra-important and affects everything. So you are on the treadmill again.
And ratings do not always tell the whole story.
Also, the Rating System would have to be considerably improved from what it is now.
Position of the defending World Champion in the System:
(1) There should be no such thing as draw-odds in a match, or a ‘Champion’s advantage’ such as that that enabled Botvinnik to retain his title in 1951 and 1954.
A Champion should be just that – the sole BEST, not an equal best, or co-Champion.
(2) The Champion should not be able to sit on his throne and watch his eventual challenger exhaust his energy and opening preparation qualifying to meet him.
I’m sure Spassky was stronger than Petrosian in 1966, but he was too exhausted to prove it.
It could have affected Korchnoi in trying to beat Karpov in 1978, too.
(3) I don’t see why the defending Champion should have ANY advantage over his 3 [or so] most serious rivals for the Title. Why should he? They should all start from an equal footing. He should be able to ACTIVELY prove he is the best if he is to be Champion again.
(4) Therefore, seed the defending Champion and his 3 [or so] most serious rivals into the Quarterfinal stage of Matches.
(5) And also, we want all the best 4 – 5 players in the Matches. We all know who they are; why risk having them knocked out at an earlier stage?
My Candidates Qualifier Tournament:
This is intended to be a key improvement on the 1960’s system, and Seirawan’s ‘A Fresh Start’.
The remaining top players not seeded into the Matches are seeded here. This means they do not have to play in too many events.
And crucially, it means they do not have to waste their time playing weak players (as in the 1960’s Interzonals) who can skew the results.
Interzonal:
To be a 160 player, 17 round Swiss, with about 60 of the players seeded, and about 100 qualifying from Zonals.
(1) ‘A Fresh Start’ proposed 196 players. So 160 should be viable. Could be run like Capelle le Grande.
(2) For this many players, the 13 rounds in ‘A Fresh Start’ is too few.
(3) With this many places, it should cut out the need for most of the separate Zonal tournaments as these will now be able to be from National Championships. Separate Zonal Tournaments would only be required for very weak countries.
Length of Matches:
Quarterfinal – 12 games.
Semifinal – 14 or 16 games.
Final – 18 or 20 games.
I don’t think a proper, serious, World Championship Match [ie the Final] is viable with less than 18 games. Eg, look at the one we have just had. A couple of accidents in the first two games and Topalov already felt his situation desperate enough to have to resort to dubious complaints.
Matches should probably not be held in the country of one of the participants unless both agree without pressure.
Seedings:
From a hopefully improved rating list, or other agreed system.
How to avoid lop-sided match pairings?:
Eg, in 1983, Kasparov, Korchnoi, Belyavsky and Portisch were in one half of the draw, while the other half was MUCH weaker with Smyslov, Hubner, Ribli and Torre.
Or 1965 had Spassky, Keres, Geller, Smyslov in one half, while the other half had only Tal, Larsen, Portisch and Ivkov.
So I suggest the following:
As soon as the qualifiers from the Candidates Qualifier Tournament are known, new ratings are to be worked out. The 8 players in the Matches are then to be ranked 1 to 8 according to these. Then each of the top 4 plays one of the bottom 4 (drawn by lot). When these Quarterfinals have finished, new ratings are worked out, and the 4 survivors are ranked 1 to 4. Then in the Semis each of the top 2 plays one of the bottom 2 (drawn by lot). In this way the top 2 players will not meet before the final, which is how we all want it to be.
Tie-breaks:
These can be very important. All the matches should have a decent tie-break system. Blitz and Armageddon should be avoided if at all possible. There should be colour equalisation. If in the following, the original venue cannot be retained, then have the tie-break at a private residence in the same city, or at FIDE headquarters. Relatively minor organisational inconveniences should not be allowed to affect having a proper tie-break.
So I suggest:
(1) Two further Classical games.
(2) If still tied, two more Classical games.
(3) If still tied, best of 6 Rapid games.
(4) If still tied, then best of two more Rapid games indefinitely, until a decisive result is obtained.
A tweak to the number of seedings into the Matches:
This could be varied from the four I said at the start, by judgement, according to how the ratings fall, eg
(1) There are 3 players way ahead of the rest with no clear 4th. Then seed just those 3 to the matches and have 5 qualifers.
(2) There are 5 clearly ahead of the rest. Then seed those 5, and have 3 qualifiers.
(3) It could happen that there are 8 standout players, all about equal, like at AVRO 1938, so that it would be unfair to seed any over any of the others. In this special case, it might be necessary to have eighthfinal Matches (and dispense with the Candidates Qualifier Tournament), with all 8 seeded, and with 8 qualifiers.
Cycle – 2 or 3 years?
I prefer 3 years because:
(1) The system I have proposed is very intense with more of the top players guaranteed to get to the later stages of the process than ever before. So players would burn out on a two year cycle and hardly ever be free of it.
(2) Below, I would like to propose some Supertournaments which to be REALLY good would require ALL the top players to be free of WC committments for a while.
(3) It makes the Title more special to achieve – it is not a throwaway.
(4) Sponsorship only has to be found every 3 years, not 2.
(5) 3 years is not so long – The Olympics, Soccer World Cup, Rugby World Cup, etc. are 4 years.
(6) But won’t the intervening 2 years be a bit boring? This leads on to my next proposal.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICIAL YEARLY WORLD CUP:
(1) All the World Championship Quarterfinal/Semifinal/Final Matches are to be held in one year [Year 1], with the Candidates Qualifier Tournament also to be held at the beginning of that year, or near the end of the previous year.
The winner of the World Championship is also the World Cup winner for that year [Year 1].
(2) For year 2, there would be a Supertournament along the lines of the old Soviet Championships, ie a round robinwith something like 18 (or maybe 20) players. 13 players to be seeded from the rating lists and 5 to qualify from an Interzonal/Zonal system the same as for the World Championship as already described. [Thus all players could look forward to Zonals, etc. for 2 years out of 3 instead of just one.]
Ties to be broken by playoff.
The winner is the World Cup winner for year 2.
(3) In year 3, have an AVRO style Supertournament with all the players being selected. It could be of 6, 8, or 10 players depending on the best fit for how the rating list falls.
Ties to be broked by playoff.
The winner is the World Cup winner for year 3.
If this is too crowded a program, then cut out (3), and have a World Cup winner every 18 months.
First I suggest that Mexico is a candidates event and defines the challenger for Kramnik. The WC match could take place in 2008.
After that match I suggest this format:
The cycle could be 3 years:
1)During the first 18 months 4-6 Qualification tournaments around the globe. 2-3 (depending on the number of the tournaments) top finishers (No quotas for countries or continents.) advance to Candidates matches to make 12 candidates. The other 4 candidates would come from the last cycle: top 4 finishers. So the first time the loser from 2008 match and the second, third and fourth from Mexico 2007.
2)During the next 12 months all the candidates stages would be played:
16 candidates would play matches (where tiebreaks if needed with the silly armageddon as well).
1.rnd Best of 6 games + tiebreaks
2.rnd Best of 6 games + tiebreaks
3.rnd Best of 8 games + tiebreaks
Candidates final: Best of 12 games
3) The Challenger and the Champion get 5 months to prepare for the match and will play it during the 36th month of the 3 year cycle. (Champion has draw odds!) So this match would be in 2011.
4) After this the nect cycle.
Oh forgot: Maybe 16 games in the final…with draw odds for the Champ.