Declare Anand and Gelfand as World Co-Champions. No silly meaningless speed blitz playoff which is psedo-chess at best. Let them be “first among equals.” If you can draw a World Champ in a 12-game match you are damn good and deserve the accolades.
Title of World Champ or Co-Champ would only be good until the next qualifying cycle. The Champ(s) would have to re-qualify just like others would have to qualify. No resting on your laurels. Would draws go down?
I disagree. I think to become world champion you should have to defeat the world champion. I think that the world champion should be given draw odds. Of course a twelve game match for the world championship is incredibly short, but it is a step above a tournament for the world championship.
I do agree that if there is a tournament for a championship, then tied players should be declared co-champs, for example the U.S. Championship. In no case should a title be decided by rapid playoffs.
Alex Relyea
There needs to be a much longer series of classical games. Now the classical WC will be decided by (excuse me for a moment whilst I vomit) rapid and possibly blitz games. Disgusting. Steinitz is rolling over in his grave.
Didn’t Steinitz suggest that you lean over the board with a long beard and cover your rook to confuse your opp?
Don’t recall that from him. Maybe so in jest at some point. If you can source it, let us know.
Kramnik relayed an interesting idea today during the English language commentary.
Play the speed chess tie-break before the classical chess games. Determine draw odds in the match that way.
It’s really a great idea. Then as the match is played, everyone knows who has the draw odds, and the final classical game is fully climactic.
Told to me by Edward Lasker in 1962 at the Flea House on 42nd st NYC. It was reported in the St. Louis Globe on site that in 1872(?) WC match Steinitz vs Zukertort that in game 2 Steinitz did knock over several pieces with his beard during the game. Perhaps this gave rise to the idea.
How about no rapid or blitz games at all so the challenger has to win to become champion? I would also extend the match to 24 games if not more. Classical chess does not deserve a rapid or blitz determination. Your opinion may differ.
Either way is adequate, as long as the match ends as classical chess not blitz. There are some people who strongly believe the champion should have no advantage. I’m agnostic about it and just want a solution that works while avoiding a blitz finale.
I’m OK with longer matches too. The problem seems to be getting a location available for that long. Hosts bid to hold the event, and they seem to prefer a shorter match, so requiring a longer one could make for lower bids. Other than that, 12 games is not really long enough from the artistic perspective.
Does it really matter? Has the WCh mattered for the last 20 years?
Neither one of these guys is the best player on earth. Their games put me to sleep. Two disasters and ten draws. Let’s get this cycle over with and hope that someone with a bit more spunk gets to challenge the winner.
Why do you think that?
Are you kidding me? I was going to say that NEITHER should be declare champion after this blight on chess.
By allowing the WC to keep the title in the event of a drawn match, you hopefully put pressure on the challenger to go for at least one win.
I agree that the longer the series of games, the more financial problems there are for the organizers. Right now, this championship is a farce.
The WC has lost a good deal of its luster since Fischer’s default loss to Karpov. Add to that Kirsan’s stupidities (knockout WC tournaments) and you have a less and less relevant WC. I don’t care that another player(s) may be higher rated than the WC so long as the WC is won in a real, prolonged classical match.
That is brilliant!
During his commentary on ICC, GM David Smerdon mentioned Kramnik’s suggestion. The more I thought about it, the more I liked it.
It benefits match organizers and the media, who can now plan their schedules, venues and travel itineraries on a completely set schedule (unless the match wraps much earlier than expected).
It allows for the use of draw odds, without a built-in advantage for the champion, who will have to earn those odds.
Mostly, it avoids the (admittedly natural) temptation to play more cautiously near the end of a tied match. The player without draw odds will have to make some winning attempts, which should make for more exciting games.
It is somewhat similar, IMHO, to MLB’s use of the All-Star Game to determine which league champion gets home-field advantage for the World Series. It sure makes things a little spicier, without unfairly determining the result of the main event. I hope FIDE seriously considers Kramnik’s suggestion.
Given his visual problems, knocking over pieces seems likely.
Not really. Rapid/speed is still an intrusive factor in the determination of a classical match.
These days, everything is analogous to the Hunger Games.
The Games are grizzly, brutal and terrifying. But that doesn’t diminish the importance of sponsorship and putting a happy face on things. It really is brilliant, the way that book (series) conveys the cynicism of our times, and it’s a huge hit with kids. Before the Games come a few popularity contests among the contestants, which can determine the extent of sponsorship, and perhaps other biasing of the outcome during the games by the Gamemakers. Even during the games, contestants increase their chances of survival by acting in ways appealing to viewers and sponsors. More than that I probably should not say – read the book.
(I understand it’s coming out as a movie. Like all great books turned into movies, I expect the movie to be a very pale reflection of the book, and I may not even bother to see it. I don’t see that visuals would really enhance the literary merit of these books. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised?)
This idea that Kramnik discussed is a minor reflection of that: first you determine your pecking order with speed chess, then the classical chess proceeds with undiminished force taking that into account.