And "concern" being the operative word. What are your opinions on the future of the World Championship? What do you think about FIDE's new format? Does it laugh in the face of tradition? I am a purist, myself, and I believe that the World Title should be decided the way it always has. What are your thoughts?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhineThe way it always has... and which of the many ways it has historically been decided would that be? A five-way round-robin?
And "concern" being the operative word. What are your opinions on the future of the World Championship? What do you think about FIDE's new format? Does it laugh in the face of tradition? I am a purist, myself, and I believe that the World Title should be decided the way it always has. What are your thoughts?
Richard
i liked fischers idea of the world title match to be. nobody is awarded points for a draw. first person to win 7 games is the champion. if that was the case it may have saved chess from its spiral downward. nobody wants to see draws anyways we want to see wins. it would usually go one person gets a win or 2 over the other person then draws every game until hes the champion how lame.
Originally posted by kmac27true, it may be lame, but both players have equivilent options. Once they have dropped a game or two, it forces the loser to become the aggressor. Sometimes it makes for some interesting stuff and sometimes for boring fluff.
i liked fischers idea of the world title match to be. nobody is awarded points for a draw. first person to win 7 games is the champion. if that was the case it may have saved chess from its spiral downward. nobody wants to see draws anyways we want to see wins. it would usually go one person gets a win or 2 over the other person then draws every game until hes the champion how lame.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by chesskid001Then... between whom? The current incumbent, and any random challenger who manages to scrape together sufficient funds to satisfy the WC's bank manager? If interzonals, for how much money and every how many years? Let's face it, what we need now is someone with both the organisational intelligence and the respect within the professional chess community to arrange a (possibly new) way of putting together a match that will satisfy everybody. And let's be honest... that someone is not Mr. Ilyumzhinov. But who then?
I think he means a traditional match, perhaps best out of 24 games like the Fischer- Spassky Match
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by kmac27That, too, has been done. IIRC early last century, between Lasker (or possibly Capablanca) and someone-or-other. The effect is that the match can go on indefinitely, and the result is determined not by who is the better player, but by who has the better constitution. Not, IMO, an ideal situation.
i liked fischers idea of the world title match to be. nobody is awarded points for a draw. first person to win 7 games is the champion. if that was the case it may have saved chess from its spiral downward. nobody wants to see draws anyways we want to see wins. it would usually go one person gets a win or 2 over the other person then draws every game until hes the champion how lame.
Richard