Magnus Carlsen Proposes Different World Championship Format

[Dirt]

I'm 100% behind Magnus on this one.

I'm not. I would like less randomness involved, so I favor a sixteen game format for the championship. I hate to see any full length championship decided by rapid games, and I would suggest up to four full length Fischer Random Chess games before going to rapids.

Eight players in the candidates is all right, although perhaps six would be better, but make them all qualify by rating. I don't see enough interest in the Grand Prix for it to continue.

[Uri Blass]

I think it's a good idea. We all remember the ole' days of grinding through a 4 year cycle.

I remember them and I think that they were better.

I am not a top chess player but I consider chess as serious game
and I do not like faster time control or less games.

If you talk about interest in chess then I think that there was more interest in chess in the old days.

Let look at the number of relatively strong players born in every year(fide rating at least 2200)

I get the following numbers(year of birth and after it number of players):

1997 205
1996 194
1995 222

1994 236
1993 272
1992 290
1991 311
1990 353
1989 403
1988 420
1987 476
1986 470
1985 436
1984 442
1983 440
1982 412
1981 427
1980 396
1979 446
1978 404
1977 392
1976 442
1975 402
1974 458
1973 443
1972 481
1971 456
1970 503
1969 472
1968 466
1967 503
1966 437
1965 453
1964 470
1963 474
1962 446
1961 410
1960 435
1959 399
1958 365
1957 328
1956 297
1955 257
1954 253
1953 202
1952 192
1951 177
1950 171

You can see that the numbers from 1987 start to go down but there is an increase later and the years with most strong players are 1970 and 1967 when the players started to play during the old days of a 4 year cycle.

Note that these numbers suggest decline in the interest in chess in the time that fide stopped to use the 4 year cycle

There are more people born in 1980 relative to people born in 1967 or 1970 so even with the same interest you can expect bigger number for 1980 considering the fact that not many players improve after age 35 and many players even get worse after age 35.

I do not say that things are connected and maybe there was a different factor that caused less interest in chess but I do not think that what you need for more interest in chess is a different format of world championship relative to what we had before and including 1990(Kasparov won 12.5-11.5 against karpov in 1990).

[whereagles]

I would not want a new world champion each year.

I see nothing wrong with that. Many sports hold their WCh every year. Agree that 2-year cycle is more normal, though.

[whereagles]

these numbers suggest decline in the interest in chess in the time that fide stopped to use the 4 year cycle

I'm pretty sure that's not the only explanatory variable...

[jdart]

Magnus is at least brave though to propose a system where he is less advantaged.

But I agree with Krasenkow on this one. A 12-game match is not enough. So fix that. I think the current qualification system could be tweaked, but it is not terrible.

The FIDE World Championship was a disaster. This is how you got Ponomoriov as World Champion in 2002. He was a strong player, but nobody realistically thought he was the best in the world.

I think the 2015 Women's World Championship, which was also a knockout event, was also a disaster. The problem was not so much the qualification process, but that it went into blitz tie-breaks. Deciding the World Championship on a bunch of blitz games is just wrong. I want to see quality games in the World Championship, not blitz games full of errors.

--Jon

[Sean Evans]

Chessbase Article - Magnus Carlsen proposes changes in WCh

[Sean Evans]

I would suggest up to four full length Fischer Random Chess games before going to rapids.

What have you been smoking

[Sean Evans]

Kramnik on Carlsen's Proposal

[Leto]

I disagree with Carlsen here, and agree with the grandmaster that proposed making the length of the championship match 16 games instead of 12 games.

I wonder if Carlsen is not liking the stress and the workload of the championship matches and perhaps he'd prefer to just get it all done and over with in a single day of play.

I see many reasons why his idea would be bad for chess. One that I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that humans sometimes have bad days. If player X is not feeling well on championship day he/she is disadvantaged and will probably not win despite being the strongest player. Whereas in a 12 game match or better yet a 16 game match player X can lose a few games due to not feeling well and still have a good chance of winning the match if he/she is truly the stronger player.

[kaissa]

I would not want a new world champion each year.

I see nothing wrong with that. Many sports hold their WCh every year. Agree that 2-year cycle is more normal, though.

I do. If you hold it often, you have to make it short because there are many other events and there is preparation time as well. If you make it short, Khalifman might be world champion again.

Chess can't be compared to other sports in this respect. Swimming WCh has just finished. To select the best there you only need a couple of days, maybe only hours. In chess the same takes several weeks, even months.

Most of swimmers mentioned Rio 2016 at these swimming WCh in the interviews. Even the winners seemed to put more value in the Olympic title. There were some swimmers with the Olympic rings tattoos, but none with the FINA or Wch. Olympics is the most coveted tournament for them as it is organized every 4 years instead of every 2 years. The easier you make the title to achieve, the less valuable it will become.

Modern life relies a lot on speed and chess does not fit into this. We have to live with it. Having faster time controls, having a world champion every year, brodcasting on TV will not make / has not made it popular; it will just make it odd.