Poll
The proposed cycle is: (Closed)
| Good! That's how it should be done. | 2 | 25% | |
| It needs little tweaking, but general concept is good. | 4 | 50% | |
| Utter nonsense. | 2 | 25% |
Much has been in the last couple of days, but I haven't really seen any real alternatives. Most people yearn for the "old" cycles with interzonals, candidates matches and world championship match. This is unlikely to work in this day and age. If we just look at the candidates stage (with 8 players) then this are 7 events (4 quarter-finals, 2 semifinals and 1 final) + a world championship match. Those are 8 events that somebody would have to organize, with dates and venues that would satisfy all - simply impossible. It would be a total and complete mess.
When we are talking about a World Championship cycle we should keep in mind 3 things:
a) EVERYBODY (including patzers like me) should have a chance to qualify for a final event.
b) It should be fair - seeding the reigning Champion straight into the final IS unfair (do not jump on me right away, I will explain
)
c) The cycle should be short and uncomplicated with as few events as possible (but long enough to separate best players from the rest)
Lets talk about point b) first. Yes, I find it unfair that the reigning Champion is already in the final. Carlsen gave example with football (yes, FOOTball - sport where the ball is played by feet not hands) but this is not the best analogy. Better analogy is tennis or snooker. The reigning Champion starts the competition in the first round like everyone else. And it is like that in practically every sport. And please don't give me boxing - boxing is even more disorganized than chess. In boxing you have like 4 or 5 World champions in the same weight class, and to get a shot at the title you have to have a good manager/promotor, rather than good performance. Is that what you really want for chess??? I don't think so. Besides, boxing is a physical sport where each fight takes tool on your body. A fighter can have 3 or 4 figths per year, so there is really no chance for any "cycle" in boxing.
Considering those 3 points above, here is my proposal:
A cycle should be 2 or 3 years long (probably 3 years) and should consiste of the following stages:
1) PRELIMINARY STAGES (this stage satisfies point a) above)
These are Zonal tournaments and Contitnental championships, same as they are run presently. Elite players normally don't take part in these events.
2) SWISS TOURNAMENT
Qualifiers from the preliminary competitions would be joined by (let's say) top 30 from the rating list. I'm not inventing anything new here - such big swiss events were held in 1990-93 cycle and in subsequent FIDE and PCA cycles.
The tournament should have 13 rounds - that is enough to separate best players from the rest. First 7 (or 9) players would qualify for the next stage.
3) ROUND-ROBIN TOURNAMENT
Those 7 (or 9) qualifiers would be joined by reigning World champion, and they would contest the double-round-robin.
4) FINAL MATCH
Top 2 from the round-robin play a 12 game match for the title of World Champion. In case of 6-6 tie the winner of round-robin tournament is proclaimed World Champion.
I think this system satisfies all points a), b) and c) - everybody has a chance, it is fair (to world champion and all other players), it is simple, and there are only 3 main events that needs to be organized - swiss tournament, round-robin tournament and the final match. 3 events in 2 or 3 years, that is manageable both in terms of financial organization and in chosing the right dates in the calendar.
And for all of those "traditionalists" who would give their right hand for preserving the Steinitz's line and for the moto "you can only become the champion by defeating the champion in a match"...well, I have to disapoint you, but this was never Steinitz's idea. Steinitz's idea was actually the very thing I am suggesting here. When Steinitz helped to develop the rules for World championship in American Congress the final accepted proposal was that first there is a strong round-robin tournament, and after it there is a match between the 1st and 2nd prize winner for the title. That is what Steinitz was advocating. The moto that the only way to become the champion is to defeat the champion in a match, was only formed in the second half of Laskers reign. and that is long after Steinitz has died.
This outdated system was fine for 100 years when there were 2 or 3 players that stood out from the rest, but now we have at least 8 players who are practically equal. For Pete's sake what separates top players in the rating list? Decimals!!! Thats why the system needs to be modified, and seeding the Champion straight into the final is too big of an advantage and is unfair for all others. Seeding the Champion between top 8 (or10) players like I proposed above is in my opinion enough.
What do you think of this proposal? Could you live with such a cycle
When we are talking about a World Championship cycle we should keep in mind 3 things:
a) EVERYBODY (including patzers like me) should have a chance to qualify for a final event.
b) It should be fair - seeding the reigning Champion straight into the final IS unfair (do not jump on me right away, I will explain
)c) The cycle should be short and uncomplicated with as few events as possible (but long enough to separate best players from the rest)
Lets talk about point b) first. Yes, I find it unfair that the reigning Champion is already in the final. Carlsen gave example with football (yes, FOOTball - sport where the ball is played by feet not hands
) but this is not the best analogy. Better analogy is tennis or snooker. The reigning Champion starts the competition in the first round like everyone else. And it is like that in practically every sport. And please don't give me boxing - boxing is even more disorganized than chess. In boxing you have like 4 or 5 World champions in the same weight class, and to get a shot at the title you have to have a good manager/promotor, rather than good performance. Is that what you really want for chess??? I don't think so. Besides, boxing is a physical sport where each fight takes tool on your body. A fighter can have 3 or 4 figths per year, so there is really no chance for any "cycle" in boxing.Considering those 3 points above, here is my proposal:
A cycle should be 2 or 3 years long (probably 3 years) and should consiste of the following stages:
1) PRELIMINARY STAGES (this stage satisfies point a) above)
These are Zonal tournaments and Contitnental championships, same as they are run presently. Elite players normally don't take part in these events.
2) SWISS TOURNAMENT
Qualifiers from the preliminary competitions would be joined by (let's say) top 30 from the rating list. I'm not inventing anything new here - such big swiss events were held in 1990-93 cycle and in subsequent FIDE and PCA cycles.
The tournament should have 13 rounds - that is enough to separate best players from the rest. First 7 (or 9) players would qualify for the next stage.
3) ROUND-ROBIN TOURNAMENT
Those 7 (or 9) qualifiers would be joined by reigning World champion, and they would contest the double-round-robin.
4) FINAL MATCH
Top 2 from the round-robin play a 12 game match for the title of World Champion. In case of 6-6 tie the winner of round-robin tournament is proclaimed World Champion.
I think this system satisfies all points a), b) and c) - everybody has a chance, it is fair (to world champion and all other players), it is simple, and there are only 3 main events that needs to be organized - swiss tournament, round-robin tournament and the final match. 3 events in 2 or 3 years, that is manageable both in terms of financial organization and in chosing the right dates in the calendar.
And for all of those "traditionalists" who would give their right hand for preserving the Steinitz's line and for the moto "you can only become the champion by defeating the champion in a match"...well, I have to disapoint you, but this was never Steinitz's idea. Steinitz's idea was actually the very thing I am suggesting here. When Steinitz helped to develop the rules for World championship in American Congress the final accepted proposal was that first there is a strong round-robin tournament, and after it there is a match between the 1st and 2nd prize winner for the title. That is what Steinitz was advocating. The moto that the only way to become the champion is to defeat the champion in a match, was only formed in the second half of Laskers reign. and that is long after Steinitz has died.
This outdated system was fine for 100 years when there were 2 or 3 players that stood out from the rest, but now we have at least 8 players who are practically equal. For Pete's sake what separates top players in the rating list? Decimals!!! Thats why the system needs to be modified, and seeding the Champion straight into the final is too big of an advantage and is unfair for all others. Seeding the Champion between top 8 (or10) players like I proposed above is in my opinion enough.
What do you think of this proposal? Could you live with such a cycle
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Actually your right Steinitz had the right idea back then. Here was the real problem, form history once the Russians won there first world championships with Alekhine. They didn't want to give it up, but the person who really made the rules as there are today with world champion benefits or as we call it today. Was Botvinnik once he got the title he helped to form the rules after Alekhine death. They had a World Chamionship tournament in 1938 I believe. In which Botvinnik won and not only did you have the cycle. By if a World Championship match was tied it went to the Champion! Just ask Bronstein what he thinks of this rule when he was alive. I do agree that there needs to be a better system. By switch one, I don't know. By that is my 2 cents worth
![[no]](/mwf/v12/flags/no.png "Norway")
> Here was the real problem, form history once the Russians won there first world championships with Alekhine. They didn't want to give it up,
You've got to be kidding... You do know that Alekhine moved to France and was pretty much anti-Soviet in the 30s, plus that he lost his title to Max Euwe in 1935, don't you?> They had a World Chamionship tournament in 1938 I believe. In which Botvinnik won and not only did you have the cycle.
1948.
Sorry I didn't clarify, Your right not all the Russians were in it. But if you told me Botvinnik, wasn't the start of it. Then I would have to disagree. He was one of the leading people to want "world champion rights". Your right there was Russians like Alekhine, Spassky, Korchnoi, and others that got out.
Well, Botvinnik just continued the tradition of the unfair Champions advantage. All Champions before him had some sort of advantage in a match.
I see the debate has really heaten up here
What is the matter? What is your proposal how the cycle should look like? What you think is unnaceptable in my proposal? Are you satisfied with how the things stand presently? etc.
-
Or you just do not care at all about the World Championship?
What is the matter? What is your proposal how the cycle should look like? What you think is unnaceptable in my proposal? Are you satisfied with how the things stand presently? etc.
-
Or you just do not care at all about the World Championship?
The main problem with your proposal is money. FIDE's struggling to raise funds for one event and with your proposal they'll need to do it for four. This just won't work.
Imaging for a second that we have a fair, unbiased system, with no advantages to anyone. Now, a few potential problems: 1) Current World Champion decides not to participate, thus you would never know who is better the World Champion or the challenger(s). 2) Strong players may decide not to participate, due to the length of the qualification stage and/or the financial reasons. And you end up with the World Championship with no value or prestige. 3) World Champion decides to organize his own event, an "unofficial" World Championship, deja vu anyone?
And regarding fairness of the current system. The World Champion gets a huge advantage and it is unfair, no doubt about it. But the title is therefore more valuable.
Imaging for a second that we have a fair, unbiased system, with no advantages to anyone. Now, a few potential problems: 1) Current World Champion decides not to participate, thus you would never know who is better the World Champion or the challenger(s). 2) Strong players may decide not to participate, due to the length of the qualification stage and/or the financial reasons. And you end up with the World Championship with no value or prestige. 3) World Champion decides to organize his own event, an "unofficial" World Championship, deja vu anyone?
And regarding fairness of the current system. The World Champion gets a huge advantage and it is unfair, no doubt about it. But the title is therefore more valuable.
> The main problem with your proposal is money. FIDE's struggling to raise funds for one event and with your proposal they'll need to do it for four. This just won't work.
>
From what I've been reading most people would want the traditional cycles to return, meaning that we would have interzonal tournament (or several of them) and then we would have Candidates matches (over alonger period of time). Let's look at the first Candidates matches in 1964-66 cycle
Now count the number of different event someone would need to organize. Without the 3rd place match these are 7 events for the Candidates stage alone! Now you would have to add the interzonals and a world championship match. This are far too many events that need to be organized for the cycle.
Also if you look at the current cycle - first we had 6 Grand Prix tournaments, then we had a World Cup, now we should have Candidates matches (organized as 1 event, thats why the matches are short and the rounds are played consecutively one after another), and then we will have a World Championship match. Now how many events are this? 9 events!!!
In my proposal there would only be 3 events (swiss, round-robin, final match), so when talking about the financial and organizational point of view, how is my proposal being worse that what we had/have???
What is your proposal? How could we have even less events (except for the KO event which is out of favour by practically everyone)?
> Imaging for a second that we have a fair, unbiased system, with no advantages to anyone. Now, a few potential problems: 1) Current World Champion decides not to participate, thus you would never know who is better the World Champion or the challenger(s). 2) Strong players may decide not to participate, due to the length of the qualification stage and/or the financial reasons. And you end up with the World Championship with no value or prestige. 3) World Champion decides to organize his own event, an "unofficial" World Championship, deja vu anyone?
>
The point is that if we would have a fair, transparent system that wouldn't change in every cycle, then players wouldn't have a reason to not participate. Also the competition should be bigger than any individual. There are a lot of sports where top players or reigning World Champions don't compete in World Championship for one reson or another. But nobody puts a question to the legitimacy of the World championships and the new winner. If one of the players doesn't want to participate for some reason then this is regretable, but the show goes on without him/her. Thats how it is in all serious sports. Nobody questions the competitions because some competitor isn't there.
I'm not questioning the World championship cycle because Carlsen quit, I'm questioning it because there is no real structure. If chess would be serious, then we would know the exact dates and venues for the NEXT cycle. Presently we don't even know the exact dates and venues for the ongoing cycle. THIS is what is wrong with the whole picture, not that some player withdrew for whatever reasons.
> And regarding fairness of the current system. The World Champion gets a huge advantage and it is unfair, no doubt about it. But the title is therefore more valuable.
The argument that "to become the Champion you had to overcome the (unfair) advantage from the previous Champion, hence you now deserve the same (unfair) advantage", doesn't hold water for me. Just because some thing was always unfair, doesn't mean that it always has to be unfair and that we have to tolerate it. The title of World or Olympic Champion is always more valuable than winning a dozens of "normal" competitions. Chess would be no different - a World champion is World Champion.
> In my proposal there would only be 3 events (swiss, round-robin, final match), so when talking about the financial and organizational point of view, how is my proposal being worse that what we had/have???
First of all, I've never said it was worse. I just said it would not work. Secondly, you can't really compare to the old times. Those were the times when chess was driven by ideology more that money, nowadays it's not the case. And you can't compare to the present system, because there's no system.
> What is your proposal? How could we have even less events (except for the KO event which is out of favour by practically everyone)?
Abolish the whole thing? Just an idea.
> The point is that if we would have a fair, transparent system that wouldn't change in every cycle, then players wouldn't have a reason to not participate.
I'd give you a reason: MONEY.
> There are a lot of sports where top players or reigning World Champions don't compete in World Championship for one reson or another. But nobody puts a question to the legitimacy of the World championships and the new winner. If one of the players doesn't want to participate for some reason then this is regretable, but the show goes on without him/her. Thats how it is in all serious sports. Nobody questions the competitions because some competitor isn't there.
Okay, a simple question then: Who is the 14th (or for that matter 13th) World Chess Champion?
> I'm not questioning the World championship cycle because Carlsen quit, I'm questioning it because there is no real structure. If chess would be serious, then we would know the exact dates and venues for the NEXT cycle. Presently we don't even know the exact dates and venues for the ongoing cycle. THIS is what is wrong with the whole picture, not that some player withdrew for whatever reasons.
I absolutely agree with you.
1) If chess world or better said FIDE, can't handle one main event per year, then what is the point of FIDE anyway
2) Abolishing the World championship? Thats a bit drastic, don't you think? If we do abolish it, then what's left???
3) If there would be normal cycles one after another, then the money would come. And also a World championship is a matter of prestige not only money.
4) To quote Alexander Khalifman: "World champions are not prisoners. They don't need numbers. They are just World Champions!" (see here at 25:40)
World Champion is a person who wins a tournament/game/match/series/race/whatever called World championship under the auspecies of worldwide organization. Period.
5) It think we all agree on this one. The question is: How to change it?
2) Abolishing the World championship?
Thats a bit drastic, don't you think? If we do abolish it, then what's left???3) If there would be normal cycles one after another, then the money would come. And also a World championship is a matter of prestige not only money.
4) To quote Alexander Khalifman: "World champions are not prisoners. They don't need numbers. They are just World Champions!" (see here at 25:40)
World Champion is a person who wins a tournament/game/match/series/race/whatever called World championship under the auspecies of worldwide organization. Period.
5) It think we all agree on this one. The question is: How to change it?
1) Well, there should be a worldwide organization, good or bad.
2) If this drama with ever changing regulations, cancellations, withdraws, etc. continues then why not...
3) Maybe they come, maybe they won't. It's a big maybe. In the meanwhile you have to deal with the current situation, which is not easy. And it's always about money. Heck, try to organize a World Championship without any prizes and you'll see how many of the strong players will participate. Will such event attract sponsors? Will it be recognized as a true World Championship?
4) With all due respect to Khalifman, with several worldwide organizations around situation changes dramatically. Different organizations, different titles, different World Champions. And the mess is back again with some supporting the one and others another.
5) I'm sure FIDE doesn't like the situation as well, but their problem is they try to please everyone, thus contributing greatly to this mess by changing regulations, deadlines, formats, etc. So, I don't believe there will be any changes to the good in the near future. It needs to be done step by step and FIDE can start by following through with their own decisions and adding transparency to their organization.
2) If this drama with ever changing regulations, cancellations, withdraws, etc. continues then why not...
3) Maybe they come, maybe they won't. It's a big maybe. In the meanwhile you have to deal with the current situation, which is not easy. And it's always about money. Heck, try to organize a World Championship without any prizes and you'll see how many of the strong players will participate. Will such event attract sponsors? Will it be recognized as a true World Championship?
4) With all due respect to Khalifman, with several worldwide organizations around situation changes dramatically. Different organizations, different titles, different World Champions. And the mess is back again with some supporting the one and others another.
5) I'm sure FIDE doesn't like the situation as well, but their problem is they try to please everyone, thus contributing greatly to this mess by changing regulations, deadlines, formats, etc. So, I don't believe there will be any changes to the good in the near future. It needs to be done step by step and FIDE can start by following through with their own decisions and adding transparency to their organization.
This is mostly opinion. But do think if Karpov had won the presidency that he could have made a difference? Being a former player most believe he could have brought positive change to FIDE. What's your opinion?
Just like in football (or soccer as you call it) when the team performs badly and the new manager comes to the club, you never know what will happen. Sometimes the team gets better, just because there was a change. Sometimes there's no change at all and the new guy has to deal with the same problems and it's not always the case he'd be up to the challenge. So, I honestly don't know.
Exactly. It's easy for Karpov to say that he would revert back to the old system with Interzonals, Candidates matches and World championship match, but who would organize all those events? Thats why I say that we need as few events as possible in a cycle.
Well that is part of the reason why. The higher ups, are suppose to get support and find these places. I don't know if you read about the misdealing of the last Olympiads. If you don't have good dealings then it all falls a part. No one has always agreed with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.
3) The prize money that was given out in each of the Grand Prix and for the final Grand Prix standings would be enough.
I was initially repulsed by the response to (2), but the more I think about it, the more I realize that the title of World Chess Champion really means almost nothing right now due to the chaos in the system that leads to this point. I think that Anand is the first legitimate world champion that we have had in awhile, but the entire system is so screwed up that this title doesn't have much meaning, especially when the said system has forced the number one player in the world to flee from it.
I think that many of the commercial objections discussed thus far are in place because FIDE has become so corrupt that the corporate sponsors that existed before are no longer present. Unfortunately, we have only known one system, that of Kirsan, and so we don't really know how things would operate today in terms of funding for the matches and tournaments leading to the world championship if there was a legitimate leadership in place. Perhaps one thing that could lead to this would be getting rid of the so-called "world chess championship" until there is new leadership in place that actually seems to have in mind the interests of the chess world. All that is necessary for this is for the top players not to participate and to ignore the whole process. Nobody will pay attention to any world champion after that point, just as nobody paid attention to Khalifman or Kazimdzhanov, and the title will basically evaporate.
I think that many of the commercial objections discussed thus far are in place because FIDE has become so corrupt that the corporate sponsors that existed before are no longer present. Unfortunately, we have only known one system, that of Kirsan, and so we don't really know how things would operate today in terms of funding for the matches and tournaments leading to the world championship if there was a legitimate leadership in place. Perhaps one thing that could lead to this would be getting rid of the so-called "world chess championship" until there is new leadership in place that actually seems to have in mind the interests of the chess world. All that is necessary for this is for the top players not to participate and to ignore the whole process. Nobody will pay attention to any world champion after that point, just as nobody paid attention to Khalifman or Kazimdzhanov, and the title will basically evaporate.
If we tare down the World championship then there is nothing left.
I don't see things quite so black. All we really need is a simple cycle without constant changes. FIDE officials and GM's should sit down and discuss about the future cycles. And whatever concept they come up with should then be enforced for at least next 3 cycles. Thats all chess world needs.
I don't see things quite so black. All we really need is a simple cycle without constant changes. FIDE officials and GM's should sit down and discuss about the future cycles. And whatever concept they come up with should then be enforced for at least next 3 cycles. Thats all chess world needs.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill