I beleive that the world chess champion should be the highest rated player in the world. After reading a chess newsletter about the latest tournament where the current world chess champion almost finished near last place, the title of “world champion” has become less. I mean soon Magnus is going to surpass Kasparov’s rating. The same should go for the women’s world title. Have the top rated woman in the world get the women’s title.
The best player does not play his best every day. Ratings are but one indicator of strength. In chess we have favored the match over tournament results to determine who the best player is for a given time period. The world championship has to be earned through a series of tough qualifying tests, one on one matches being the predominant method. During the normal course of tournament play, a player might have a hot streak or play a number of lower rated guys or gals and gain a ton of rating points. That does not necessarily make them the best player or entitle him to be called the world champion. On an amateur level, you can create a nice rating just by “bunny bashing” a bunch of lower rated opponents while avoiding playing the really strong players.
In tennis and golf, you can be the money leader. You can win a bunch of tournaments. But whether you are considered the best is usually based on how one does in the “majors.” They have added ranking systems with points just like chess has, but they weight certain events more heavily than others. You can win a scad of Benjamins winning the Quad City Open and like tournaments in golf, but winning the US open, the Masters, or the British Open make you a legend. The same is true for tennis. You can win at Cincinnati or Indian Wells, but there is nothing to match winning Wimbledon, the French Open, or the US Open in the eyes of sports fans.
In football, the “best” team does not always win the Super Bowl. Ask the 18 -1 New England Patriots.
Also, ratings are a statistical/probabilistic measuring device. There is a standard deviation within ratings. Ratings are not points on a scale, but should be thought of more like “dandelion seeds” where there is fuzziness around a point.
Two players rated within a few points of each other are - in this real sense - rated the same. The world champion should not be the guy with an extra rating point.
Golfer Luke Donald has been the #1 ranked golfer in the world for much of the past year, though he has never won any of the ‘major’ tournaments.
Also quite true in tennis. Caroline Wozniacki was recently the world’s top-ranked women’s player.
I can’t think of any endeavor, individual or team, besides BCS football where the top ranking automatically confers a title upon you - and even the Bowl Championship Series is on the fast track to a playoff (finally).
NASCAR?
While this is closer to what the author of the thread is suggesting, it still isn’t an ‘apples to apples’ comparison. A FIDE rating is a combination of all performances over the player’s FIDE career; the NASCAR points champion is the one who earns the most points during a season.
It is entirely possible that a great champion who built their rating over very strong performances over a number of years could have a ho-hum year (or years) and still have the highest FIDE rating - should they continue to be ‘World Champion’ when they are clearly not the best player in the World?
The other problem is that in the NASCAR example, they start at zero and accumulate points throughout the year. The FIDE rating system doesn’t work that way - you can lose points, and you can also attain a very high rating based on a few games and then . . . stop playing. Unless you calculated a rating just for some period of time (say a year) and built some mechanism into it to reward play (or penalize inaction), I think the system could be gamed very easily to become ‘World Champion.’
All things considered, I don’t think this system would work any better than the NCAA BCS ‘formula’ for choosing the top teams in college football.
thus far, Magnus has lacked the courage and fortitude to play for the
world championship. Until this changes, no, he cannot be event considered in the same sentence as Anand. End of topic.
Rob Jones
Rob Jones wrote: “Until this changes, no, he cannot be event considered in the same sentence as Anand.”
Rob, you just did in above sentence. 
Also, NASCAR does have a “playoff” now - the top 12 drivers by points compete over the last 10 races of the season for the Sprint Cup. It’s similar to the FedEx Cup on the PGA TOUR, except that doesn’t confer any season-long title on its winner, and the FedEx Cup whittles down the eligible field over four weeks of competition. Another difference - the 10 races in the “Chase for the Cup” are full-field events, while the four FedEx Cup tournaments are not. However, both are still playoff systems at the end of a season.
Yeah, but NASCAR isn’t a REAL sport – like chess. 
There are two issues regarding Magnus Carlsen and the World Championship.
-
He refused to play in the 2011 candidate matches, protesting the fairness of how FIDE kept changing the qualification rules. Gelfand emerged from these matches and lost a title match to Anand in May 2012.
-
The next opportunity to become the title challenger comes with a 8-DRR candidates tournament next March in London. Players: Carlsen, Aronian, Kramnik, Radjabov, Ivanchuk, Grischuk, Svidler and Gelfand. The next title match is scheduled for November 2013.
Michael Aigner
I agree. The highest rated player could concievable have played more games against lower rated players (in addition to playing against the top rated players). Concievable, the 2nd highest rated player could have just played less games against just really high level players, thus not winning as many games.
The world championship is more than just some chess games, its also played on a psychological level, in addition to physical and mental stamina.
Then it looks like Carlsen is going to be the next world champion
There’s an old saying: “That’s why they play the games.”
Mr. Bauer writes in post #245368,“…the NASCAR points champion is the one who earns the most points during a season.” This is no longer true in the top section of NASCAR, the Sprint Cup, which is what I take it he means by “NASCAR.” Some years ago when NASCAR changed the rules by going to a “playoff” format, it became possible for the team scoring the most points over the course of a season to NOT finish first, as happened last year when Tony ‘Smoke’ Stewart won five times during the playoff races and finished tied with ‘Cousin’ Carl Edwards for most points, but finished first because of the tiebreaker. Since the leader with the most points is actually penalized by losing his lead going into the playoffs, Cousin Carl actually scored more total points during the course of the year, outscoring Smoke by 19 points, as he scored a total of 2237 to the winner’s total of 2218.
A quick trip to the official NASCAR website at: nascar.com would have prevented Mr. Bauer from writing something so obviously fallicious.
Did it materially change his point?
A quick trip to the dictionary would have kept Mr. Nocab from writing something so obviously fictitious about the ‘word’ fallicious.
Of course, even if he meant ‘fallacious’ he is confusing a factual error with a fallacy - back to logic and reasoning 101 for him.
That said, Eastside already point this out about NASCAR (sorry, I’m not a fan), only he did it with a lot more class.
October cuisine is Fallicious.
So is Nascar.
Go “Smoke”!
Misspelling ‘fallacious’ only proves I am human. I will be the first to admit I am not, nor have I ever been, the best at spelling bee. At least you knew what I intended. I did not have time to go to the dictionary yesterday, but these posts prompted me to do so today. I learned from merriam-webster.com that the definition of fallacious is, “embodying a fallacy.” I clicked on fallacy and learned it is “a false or mistaken idea.” I believe that is what Mr. Bauer had when he stated, incorrectly, that “the NASCAR points champion is the one who earns the most points during a season.” The champion of NASCAR is not called the “points champion.” And he is not necessarily the driver who “earns the most points during a season.”
As for the question, “Did it materially change his point?” I will leave it for you to decide. I believe it did. The first part of Mr. Bauer’s sentence begins, “A FIDE rating is a combination of all performances over the player’s FIDE career;…” To use the NASCAR example, even the correct one, NASCAR would have to award the title each year to the driver who has accumulated the most points over their entire career. Or chess would have to award the title of champion to the player who scores the most points in one season. In that respect the second part of his sentence is a non-sequitur, is it not?
I do not like to see anyone write erroneously about NASCAR, just as I do not like to see anyone write erroneously about chess. For example, I do not think it is good for chess to have so many different so-called “World Champions.” Every week, it seems, one reads about “The World Champion” who turns out to be some child who has won some tournament calling itself “The World Chess Championship for those still in diapers.”
Having worked for International Speedway Corporation in Daytona, Florida, I can tell you it has been said that racing is “Chess at 200 miles per hour.” I guess that would be akin to speed chess! I can also tell you that since I would often wear a chess tee-shirt, I was asked often about chess, a game for which the drivers have a great deal of respect. For that reason it is possible that I may be somewhat sensitive when it comes to how NASCAR is written about in chess circles. And yes, I consider racing a sport and any race car driver, especially one travelling at 200 miles per hour, to be a sportsman. NASCAR may not have the “class” that chess has in the public perception, but I am here to tell you that I met some wonderful people in NASCAR with nothing but class!
Armchair Warrior