Institute a compltetely new World Champ format. Make it Sudden Death just like the NCAA Basketball Tourney.
Get the top 64 chess players men and women (determined by ratings or other means). Seed the players. Play your opponent twice. In case of draw play 5 minute game(s) until clearcut winner. Winners advance. Ultimately the final 2 players would play 2 games for all the marbles. If match drawn then 5 minute game(s) until aclearcut result. Winner would get one million dollars. Loser would get zilch.
The 1997 FIDE Candidates, The FIDE world championships of 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2004 used a format similar to this, and the bi-annual World Cup (a qualifying tournament for the Candidates matches) is also similar.
Few people liked it, it was too much of a crapshoot, and the winners were not as well respected as the Classical World Championship winners.
Given the nature of chess, the absence of outside influences, the idea that luck does not exist in chess (although sometimes “good fortune” might), I think that attempts at forcing situations that are not generally reflective of good chess play isn’t what we want.
If we want fighting chess, make part of the world championship prize fund dependent upon wins. For example, instead of $1m split 60/40 between winner and loser, have $500k split 60/40, and have UP TO another $500k awarded for wins. For example, in a 10 game match pay $50k per victory. Draws would lose value for the players, or a portion could be credited back to the match prize fund - but maybe to a winner takes all fund rather than to the 60/40 split. In this way, they would continue to build pressure for victories rather than draws.
Well this year’s runner up Gelfand won the World Cup which is exactly as you describe!
Then he won the Candidates Matches, which are also a lot like you describe! 16 players rather than 64, slightly longer mini-matches.
Really the only difference is that you would dethrone the champion each cycle and make him start over, maybe seeded directly into the Candidates’ Tournament you have described.
PS having shown a lack of awareness of the path Gelfand took to the final match, it is understandable that you would not appreciate the awesome strength and almost unbelievable nerves it took – the same nerves that failed him today when he should have played faster to avoid time trouble.
Yes I have been out of the chess scene for a long time (earlier thread NOCAB asked me if I had been in a coma since 1991). I plead guilty. But common sense still has value.
Dan
Disargee, Anand will at least be unviersally recongized as the world champion, unlike the earlier FIDE world championships.
This was a boring cycle, but that’s no reason to go back to something that didn’t work. Let’s also not forget that the previous three world championship matches, all of which were also twelve games, were exciting. Kramnik-Topalov (2006), Anand-Kramnik (2008), Anand-Topalov (2010).
I would rather see an end to the matches. Preferable would be a World Championship cycle of two years duration. The top 9 or 11 players through a qualification process would join the previous champion and play a double round robin for the title. The advantages of this would be that there would be a regular, well defined process; players would not be able to sit on their rating to qualify; the champion would have to play in real tournaments to stay in form; there would be less damage to organization of other tournaments around the world; sponsorship would be easier; top players and organizers would be able to plan out their schedules better. The Olympics, the World Cup, and most other sports work on a regular schedule. Only in chess do we have such a miserable system of determining a champion.
As a fan, I would prefer to see 5 or 6 games a day rather than one. Ratings would not mean as much. Winning, upsets, and comebacks would add to the tension. There would be less of the present order of playing only in quick events, sitting on ratings, and ducking one’s rivals as occurs today. Preparing for nine opponents is a lot more difficult than preparing for one. Two guys can play a lot of draws; you cannot count on 10 players to be non-combative. There would be more stories/biographies to explore and market. If the qualification system were open enough, then there would be surprises, incentives to play, and a boost to competing. There would be no “accidental” champions.
Chess is more like baseball than basketball in that the stronger player/team is far from a cinch to win a short series.
The legitimacy (and the ordeal) of the World Cup would be increased by making it a double-elimination event. One could even eliminate the playoff games and count a 1-1 classical chess match as a draw: once a player loses two match points (two match losses, four match draws, etc.), that player would be eliminated. Brackets would be replaced by Swiss-style pairings.
FIDE did something like what Tom proposes above. Kasimzhdanov won, actually he was and is quite an awesome player, but nobody had ever heard of him. Then another long name, Ponomariov. Then a few more champions that weren’t expected by the public, although they are all known as top players among the others in that circle. (I may not have the history quite right but you get the idea.) And meanwhile Kasparov decided to boycott that whole system with all its risks and defend his title in matches once in a while when he felt like it. Fortunately for us, he didn’t duck the real challengers.
The whole world concluded that FIDE’s champion was no longer the “real” world champion and had to fight their way back into the “unified” championship.
Tom, you’re proposing going even a step further than FIDE already did. Anand could take a page from Kasparov and act as the “real” unofficial champion if FIDE goes that way. (And I’ll predict that we remember history and that the first champion from your tournament would be Nepomnyashchi .)
I think people like matches to determine the champion, and according to a comment from Gelfand, the popularity of the internet broadcasts was quite high worldwide.