13 Nov 05
Originally posted by marinakatombI haven't given it a lot of thought but if there were a four-yearly tournament, with the top two players then given six months to prepare for a best of ten, that might be reasonable. Lots of details to be worked out, and I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this.
If you believe that's best, that's fine by me. I don't believe it to be a fair system though. The champion only plays one person. How does that make them the best in the World?
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by marinakatombYes, in a match you only play one person. I see nothing unfair about the Champion being treated as the Champion and not as just one among many contenders. Kramnik earned his title by defeating the player who had dominated chess for 20 years; so long as he defends it on a regular basis against legitimate contenders he deserves the title of Champion.
If you believe that's best, that's fine by me. I don't believe it to be a fair system though. The champion only plays one person. How does that make them the best in the World?
The main problem is deciding WHO should be the challenger to the Champion, not who should be the Champion. The single tournament selection process was scrapped due to complaints about alleged collusion between players, esp. the Soviets. I see nothing inherently unfair about asking contenders to prove they are the legitimate top challenger by winning three short matches (6 pts minimum to win). The Champion has proven he should be there; a contender has the onus of proving he belongs there. Sounds fair to me.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWould Kasparov have been champion for 20 years had he been forced to play in an all play all knock out, or a swiss? Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't. Kasparov did defend his title. I don't challenge his authority over the chess world for the last two decades for one second. I believe he would have won whatever system was in place, but it could have been fairer!
Kramnik earned his title by defeating the player who had dominated chess for 20 years; so long as he defends it on a regular basis against legitimate contenders he deserves the title of Champion.
Perhaps if the top 10 seeds where to play a best of 10 games knock out against each other...
ie
10 players paired off into 5 groups. Each group plays 10 games (ie, two players play a match). The winner goes through to the next round, loosers are out! The highest scoring looser goes through. etc...
This way you have a match between players which is fair to both. Why should the champion be left alone? What sense does that make? If he is the best, he should win. If he can't win, he shouldn't be champion!
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by marinakatombBasically what you are arguing is that there should be NO champion just the winner of a tournament that we arbitrarily claim is the "World Championship". Why not just say the guy who won the last big tournament is the "World Champion"; it's the same thing. The idea of match play to determine who is the best player in a one on one challenge as been the accepted means for deciding the Championship for hundreds of years. It makes sense; chess is a one man v. one man game - if you can beat the other guy in a relatively long match then you are playing better and should be considered better. And if no one has beaten you under such circumstances and you have beaten the best that have come forward, you deserve the title of Champion.
Would Kasparov have been champion for 20 years had he been forced to play in an all play all knock out, or a swiss? Maybe he would have, [b]maybe he wouldn't. Kasparov did defend his title. I don't challenge his authority over the chess world for the last two decades for one second. I believe he would have won whatever system was in place, but it ...[text shortened]... e does that make? If he is the best, he should win. If he can't win, he shouldn't be champion![/b]
Why 10 players? Why not 100 or a 1,000 or everybody with a rating? No matter how you slice it, somebody who is only marginally less deserving by some criteria will be excluded. Your "solution" doesn't solve your "problem".
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWe're never going to agree here i can see. All i'll say is look at snooker. That is a tournament that is played each year, the champion plays in every round. What is wrong with that?
Basically what you are arguing is that there should be NO champion just the winner of a tournament that we arbitrarily claim is the "World Championship". Why not just say the guy who won the last big tournament is the "World Champion"; it's the same thing. The idea of match play to determine who is the best player in a one on one challenge as been t ...[text shortened]... deserving by some criteria will be excluded. Your "solution" doesn't solve your "problem".
14 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by marinakatombPROBLEMS WITH CHAMPION ENTERING FROM THE GROUND UP EVERY YEAR:
We're never going to agree here i can see. All i'll say is look at snooker. That is a tournament that is played each year, the champion plays in every round. What is wrong with that?
they will get targetted ... everyone else will only be looking at them, everyone else will be targetting their play/openings ... but they must play everyone else ... unfair.
they may get eliminated in early rounds through boredom or illness.
PROBLEMS WITH ALL PLAY ALL TOURNAMENT
a group of players may gang up on a target player ... they could throw games to their favourite friend and draw against their foe ... imagine fischer against 10 russians, if they all resigned on move one to spassky, then spassky immediately gets 18 points from a possible 20 (fischer still may have won, but that is not the point, spassky would be given an unfair help)
and of course the present pathetic method encouraging champions to dodge most of the opposition also sucks.
problems problems problems.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by flexmoreTell me, did everyone at Linares target Kasparov? Yes, they did! He still won though didn't he. He was the best player. Why can't the World championship be decided like this? Perhaps like i said a minute ago, the top players could play matches instead of one off games in a knock out comp.
PROBLEMS WITH CHAMPION ENTERING FROM THE GROUND UP EVERY YEAR:
they will get targetted ... everyone else will only be looking at them, everyone else will be targetting their play/openings ... but they must play everyone else ... unfair.
they may get eliminated in early rounds through boredom or illness.
PROBLEMS WITH ALL PLAY ALL TOURNAMENT
a group of ...[text shortened]... encouraging champions to dodge most of the opposition also sucks.
problems problems problems.
Round one, best of 5 games. Winner progresses.
Round 2 , best of 8...
Round 3 best of 12...
Round 4 best of 15
Final best of 30.
Just for an example...
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by marinakatomb😴😴
Tell me, did everyone at Linares target Kasparov? Yes, they did! He still won though didn't he. He was the best player. Why can't the World championship be decided like this? Perhaps like i said a minute ago, the top players could play matches instead of one off games in a knock out comp.
Round one, best of 5 games. Winner progresses.
Round 2 , be ...[text shortened]... f 8...
Round 3 best of 12...
Round 4 best of 15
Final best of 30.
Just for an example...
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by WildfireIt's very tiresome to hear the same thing over and over again. I really don't see what was wrong with the system in place from the early 1960's to the 1990's; the Champion had to defend every three years and there seemed to be quality contenders available every cycle. Fischer got his shot; Karpov and Kasparov were the dominant players in the 1980's by far and they played each other three times. The best played the best for the World Chess Championship in one-on-one matches. I'd really like to know what was bad about this system; I don't accept that it gave the Champion such a great advantage; the title changed regularly under the system. So what was the problem?
Getting sleepy, eh?
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI think Short later retracted. Didn't it turn out he was playing a computer?
You know what Short based his opinion that he is playing Fischer on? The knowledge of an obscure Mexican chess player and the fact that he is getting beaten. That's all.