It's true that people like the drama of contests to be eligible to play for the World Championship. Throw a bunch of candidates into the Coliseum and get them to fight bears, lions and each other. The last one standing gets his chance at the title. :)
I was a teenager when Karpov was still World Champion, and I enjoyed the legendary matches he had with Kasparov. Throughout the 80s and for most of the 90s it was a given that the best player in the world was also World Champion, and I got used to that.
These days, the World Champion thing feels rather flat, like a glass of Coke which has been sitting too long. But a new era could be around the corner.
Great review, Andy. I think the title of World Champion has lost prestige in recent years. As you say, those who get to play for the title are not necessarily the best in the world. That trend has been exarcebated by Carlsen pulling out and by Ding Liren's tenure, which has been disastrous.
Maybe it would be better and simpler to automatically have the match every three years between the two highest-rated players. At the moment that would be Nos. 2 and 3 (Caruana and Nakamura) since Carlsen is not interested.
I'm hoping that the problems with the world championship are temporary - Ding will probably lose the title and eventually the lack of Carlsen won't be an issue because he won't be the strongest player in the world. This post might make the issues with the world championship seem worse than they are, given that these are the very worst matches from the past 25 years. The world #1 vs. the world #2 is a reasonable solution when two players are heads and shoulders about the rest, but not as much when there's a cluster at the top. I think there's a benefit to a player having to qualify to play against the reigning champion, even if it sometimes produces weird results.
It's true that people like the drama of contests to be eligible to play for the World Championship. Throw a bunch of candidates into the Coliseum and get them to fight bears, lions and each other. The last one standing gets his chance at the title. :)
I was a teenager when Karpov was still World Champion, and I enjoyed the legendary matches he had with Kasparov. Throughout the 80s and for most of the 90s it was a given that the best player in the world was also World Champion, and I got used to that.
These days, the World Champion thing feels rather flat, like a glass of Coke which has been sitting too long. But a new era could be around the corner.
Great review, Andy. I think the title of World Champion has lost prestige in recent years. As you say, those who get to play for the title are not necessarily the best in the world. That trend has been exarcebated by Carlsen pulling out and by Ding Liren's tenure, which has been disastrous.
Maybe it would be better and simpler to automatically have the match every three years between the two highest-rated players. At the moment that would be Nos. 2 and 3 (Caruana and Nakamura) since Carlsen is not interested.
I'm hoping that the problems with the world championship are temporary - Ding will probably lose the title and eventually the lack of Carlsen won't be an issue because he won't be the strongest player in the world. This post might make the issues with the world championship seem worse than they are, given that these are the very worst matches from the past 25 years. The world #1 vs. the world #2 is a reasonable solution when two players are heads and shoulders about the rest, but not as much when there's a cluster at the top. I think there's a benefit to a player having to qualify to play against the reigning champion, even if it sometimes produces weird results.