Magnus Carlsen proposes changes in World Chess Championship cycle

**Mathieu Cloutier** · Tuesday, 11th August, 2015, 04:52 PM

Re: Magnus Carlsen proposes changes in World Chess Championship cycle

What a lame proposal by Carlsen. An annual KO tournament?

The line from Steinitz to Carlsen is made exclusively from players that are legends of the game. And he wants to change that so that guys like Khalifman or Kasimdzhanov can win it too.

**Garland Best** · Tuesday, 11th August, 2015, 05:03 PM

Re: Magnus Carlsen proposes changes in World Chess Championship cycle

My favorite part of the existing system is the Candidates Match Round-Robin. Every one of them have been dramatic. I would hate to see that dropped.

**Vlad Dobrich** · Tuesday, 11th August, 2015, 05:32 PM

Re: Magnus Carlsen proposes changes in World Chess Championship cycle

It should be noted that Magnus Carlsen did not specify that the knockout elimination matches should be the same as in the World Cup - i.e. 2-game matches. The Challengers matches could be increased in length as the final was approached. Thus with say 8 players left, the matches could be of 8 game duration and so on.
And if somehow this would produce a challenger or even a new World Champion from a new part of the world, would that be so bad? Certainly both Norway as well as the entire chess world saw benefit from the Norwegian world champion.

**Garland Best** · Tuesday, 11th August, 2015, 07:11 PM

Re: Magnus Carlsen proposes changes in World Chess Championship cycle

I don't see ringing endorsements for the Women's World Championship Cycle. I would assume that that would be the model followed. I don't consider it nearly as good.

**Nigel Hanrahan** · Wednesday, 12th August, 2015, 12:55 PM

Bully for Magnus Carlsen

In criticizing the over-influential role of the World Champion on the W Ch cycle, Carlsen has distinguished himself from virtually every single W Ch, including Anand, since Steinitz. Bully for Carlsen. His particular proposal is only part of the story.

You guys need to see the forest for the trees.

Supplemental: consider the following from professional tennis. The really distinguishing events in the tennis calendar are the Slams (Auz, French, Wimbledon, and US Opens). Now, they actually have no "World Champion" at all, and they use these events, and performances generally, to determine ranking. The number one in the world must, to win a slam, play from round one or two and proceed to the final. The pairings are easier, no doubt, but it's worthwhile to contrast this process, in a sport far more professionalized than chess, to the W CH cycle.

Carry on.

**Tom O'Donnell** · Wednesday, 12th August, 2015, 01:04 PM

Re: Bully for Magnus Carlsen

Originally posted by Nigel Hanrahan View Post

In criticizing the over-influential role of the World Champion on the W Ch cycle, Carlsen has distinguished himself from virtually every single W Ch, including Anand, since Steinitz. Bully for Carlsen. His particular proposal is only part of the story.

You guys need to see the forest for the trees.

Supplemental: consider the following from professional tennis. The really distinguishing events in the tennis calendar are the Slams (Auz, French, Wimbledon, and US Opens). Now, they actually have no "World Champion" at all, and they use these events, and performances generally, to determine ranking. The number one in the world must, to win a slam, play from round one or two and proceed to the final. The pairings are easier, no doubt, but it's worthwhile to contrast this process, in a sport far more professionalized than chess, to the W CH cycle.

Carry on.

And yet how many people who follow tennis closely can name the number one player over say the last 20 years for every year? Many chess fans can name all the world champions in order going back more than a century. Other sports should follow the chess model, imo, not the other way around.

**Wayne Komer** · Wednesday, 12th August, 2015, 01:10 PM

Magnus Carlsen's Proposed Changes

Twenty-one On-line Comments on Carlsen’s Proposal

August 12, 2015

(1) The WCh match has many advantages: It is marketable, easily understandable to the outside world, makes the title hard to win, an ambitious lifetime achievement. It also is a healthy antidote to the politic favoritism, which seems inherent to FIDE. Otherwise the Azeris might be tempted to just buy the title. The deep preparation of the matches has given us new insights how to think and play chess. The psychology and the pressure bring up hidden strengths and surprising weaknesses. Best of all, the match is what I like to watch. Let's keep it.

(2) NO, NO, NO!

With a knockout format, it adds too much luck to the format. I don't want to see more "World Champions" like Khalifman and Pono. They were not even close to the best players on the planet, and it waters down the title.

Of course, many of the weaker GMs are happy to see this proposal: They may win the lottery.

(3) I think the World Championship Match should be sacrosanct. The World title match is clearly where the serious money and any media interest is? I think most chess fans can remember all the World Title Matches but only the most compelling tournaments. Maybe a 2 yearly match though to give more people a crack at the title.

(4) I have great respect for Carlsen, and he shows class in his proposal to forfeit his own advantage as the sitting world champion. With that said, though, I have a much greater respect for chess history and the tradition of dethroning a sitting world champion through match play. There is no need to "improve the odds of becoming World Champion," as that would only cheapen the title.

I believe that Carlsen betrayed an underlying misconception that has probably has fueled his proposal, in saying during the 2008-2010 cycle that the new format is something that "no World Champion has had to go through since Kasparov," as though Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov were World Champions. They were not World Champions. It could be argued that Topalov held the title briefly based on Kramnik's concessions for the tournament in Mexico, but those concessions served only to set up a title match, which Topalov, as the challenger, lost.

(5) Truly bad idea. If you want another knockout tournament in the calendar, push for that. But don’t go out of your way to screw up The Classical Chess Championship please.

(6) The main theme from Carlsen is to make the sport of chess more exciting at the expense of the privileges of top rank players including himself. I believe it's time for chess to be a spectator sport and to step up to the next level of business. Carlsen is simply saying that the best of the best in chess would be more challenging thus promoting chess to the next level.

(7) Carlsen is starting to sound like Fischer and we all know how this will end...!

(8) We had enough mishmash with the different cycles and different organizations. Let it be like it is. The more continuity, the more credibility for the title.

(9) No, no, a thousand times no! One of the greatest traditions of chess is the challenger must defeat the champion, in direct combat. This allows for Fischer like challengers with legitimacy once they win. The existing system also allows for long reigns (Lasker), and interruption and resumption of preeminence. No, a change to a knockout system would make the chess crown far less valuable and not nearly as historically significant!

(10) More championships and more media coverage. This is the best way to trivialize chess, demystify, and remove the depth, into a simple game without depth. As for the media coverage is the big lie that has been repeated. Chess will never be a sport of great media coverage, because nobody who don´t know move the pieces can watch a game of 4-6 hours. The confessional inventions such as Norway is bread for today and hunger for tomorrow, because when Magnus longer champion, in Norway will not coverage anything, and along the way they have left a format of TV trash.

Summarizing. The proposed Carlsen makes no sense. Discredits the Championship, the Champion, and trivialize the sport itself.

Preserve the variables that identify this sport, which is what makes it unique. It must protect their identity, another way; it would be take the path of self-destruction.

(11) Carlsen's opinion is understandable, but it's just one of many. One likes matches like Kramnik, other like round-robins like Topalov, other like knockouts. Is anyone of them criminal for this? Why trying to force one's favourite of these three while destroying other two? Why the hell we can't have all three, simply as alternative competitions, as we have alternative champions in rapid and blitz? Everyone can chose which one is more valuable for him, while winning all like Anand did better prove dominance.

Despite some controversies in past, old matches are both very strong tradition and very valuable achievement. Beating champion is there as final test like scoring GM norms (beating some GMs I guess) for becoming GM. Additionally, champion is also qualified for match by number of previous match and qualification victories. And is it really better to have more "smaller" winners instead less real legends?

Magnus, make your good championship, but not destroy other, let alternatives live!

(12) The K.O. format, with inevitable rapid and blitz tie-breaks, is too much a lottery. The present system, with the WCh match as a climax of the whole chess life, attracting world's media attention to chess, works well. The Candidates tournament is a great event, and the fears of unfair or morally awkward situations prove unjustified so far. The only suggestion I can give is to increase the number of games in the WCh match. 12 is too few after all. Of course, coming back to 24 would be nonsense in modern times but 16 would be perfectly adequate.

(13) The latest candidates system is already an improvement over what Carlsen suggests, which has already been used and rejected. Grand Prix gives top 20/25 or so a chance. The world cup gives the lower ranked players a chance. There is a wild card entry and the top rated players. I think every good player gets a chance to be in the candidates except the world champion himself.

(14) I think current format is better. Knockout format produced champions like Alexander Khalifman and Rustam Kasimdzhanov. These are good players but not great ones to be remembered as world champion.

(15) So many silly comments here. For the record, the reason why Khalifman, Ponomariov, et al. aren't considered genuine World Champions by most chess fans is that their "reigns" overlapped with those of "Classical" World Champions Kasparov (1993–2000) and Kramnik (2000–2006).

(16) I believe that the zonal, interzonal, candidates matches and then a long match between the champion and challenger is by far the best system to go with. A series of short knock-out matches or one tournament to determine the world championship is outrageous. Carlsen is acting the same way that Fischer and Kasparov did when they became champion....spoiled! Just because you are the best doesn't mean you have the right to hold your breath and stomp your feet and get everything you want. I hope his proposal falls on deaf ears of the FIDE powers-that-be, as Carlsen needs to realize he needs to abide by the same rules as everybody else.

(17) The system as we have now is a system where the champion only has to defeat one chess player in order to remain champion, while the challenger has to defeat many players in order to become the challenger. It is an odd system. Carlsen's ideas make sense.

(18) Carlsen genuinely wants Chess to be a world sport. That means we have to. change formats to something people outside Chess can actually take an interest in. The WC as it is now is interesting for Norway and India. And some Chess nerds like you and me. I think the regional qualification is a very interesting idea, and instead of dismissing it, let's develop it into something even better. But bottom line is, Chess needs to get out of the men's room

(19) Stupid liberals! The coveted title of World Champion is meant for the Champion of the World, not for some lucky clod to get it in the name of "sharing". If you are the best player in the world, then beat the best player in the world, not a bunch of other people.

(20) If it ain't broken, don’t fix it.
What is wrong with the current system?.

I believe, what Magnus is proposing is not too different from the current system.
After all, every good chess player is given the chance to qualify to play the world champion through a series of qualification matches beginning with the zonal cum continental championships.

I know it is a difficult road, but it is the best at the moment
Maybe Magnus could help by telling us exactly what he is talking about

(21) I usually agree with Magnus' ideas but this is, as Miles would have said, "utter crap", I am sorry. In my opinion the goal of a good WC cycle format is not to "improve the odds of becoming World Champion for nearly EVERY chess player", as Magnus claims, but to improve the odds of becoming World Champion for the BEST chess player. Otherwise the title "world champion" is meaningless. Even if the system would not ALWAYS produce a WC that is really the best player in the world it should at least maximize the probability for this to happen. A knock-out event does exactly the opposite. A format of two game mini-matches followed by Blitz has produced unworthy "world champions" in the past (or do you really think that Kashimdzanov was the best player in the world?). Anyway, I guess Magnus will come up with better ideas in the future

wink emoticon

Good luck in the Sinquefield cup!

**Vlad Dobrich** · Wednesday, 12th August, 2015, 01:58 PM

Re: Magnus Carlsen's Proposed Changes

Having re-read Carlsen's proposal, I do not conclude that he would, as World Champion have to enter the cycle at the bottom.
Perhaps he could have been more clear and stated that the knock-out series would be used to determine a challenger who would then have to win the title in an extended (say 20 game match) with the defending champion. Thus the final eight could be very similar to the Candidates series which Fischer won.
And Wayne K, when you say >>>>>
"(7) Carlsen is starting to sound like Fischer and we all know how this will end...!"
And from my recollection, when Fischer used to make his ultimatum demands, NO ONE knew how it would end!
But when Fischer won the World Championship WE ALL know what effect that had on chess in the world.

**Nigel Hanrahan** · Wednesday, 12th August, 2015, 02:19 PM

to hell with biography. Let's see the whole story.

Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post

And yet how many people who follow tennis closely can name the number one player over say the last 20 years for every year? Many chess fans can name all the world champions in order going back more than a century. Other sports should follow the chess model, imo, not the other way around.

Let's use an idea from the domain of history. At one time, the teaching of Social Studies in High School involved the text, "15 Famous Men" or some such tripe, and this biographical myopia was passed off as history. Since that time, social history has taken its rightful place as central and critical to history and the teaching of it. This means, for example, that a story of the many wives of Henry VIII will no longer pass muster for understanding Tudor England. At least, not for those who have seen the science develop and deepen.

We were expected, by the way, to memorize the names of the Prime Ministers. As if this has anything to do with learning. A deeper understanding of Canadian History involves understanding what it was like for the ordinary people to live in that time, and this means understanding the status of women, indentured servants, and slaves. Everyone. Not just Kings. And that is progress, whatever some may think.

Naming the World Champion means what? Far better for chess players to understand the changes in how chess is played at the highest level, to treat their sport with the seriousness worthy of any sub-branch of history, and to honour chess through the ages, its development and so on.

**Wayne Komer** · Wednesday, 12th August, 2015, 02:30 PM

Magnus Carlsen's Proposed Changes

Magnus Carlsen's Proposed Changes

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I took those comments in my last posting at random from about a hundred on three different forums.
______

In the meantime Vladimir Kramnik has weighed in on the proposals. This, this morning from chess-news.ru:

Pure Arithmetic

Wednesday, 12.08.2015

Vladimir Kramnik

I was asked to express an opinion about Magnus Carlsen's proposal to change the system for the world championship.

I must say that for me personally, like probably the majority of players, it would be advantageous if the title is held as a knock-out, just because then I am more likely to become world champion. But these things need to be looked at more broadly, considering primarily the interests and future of chess.

Firstly, the Americans have a very sensible saying that I have somehow voiced in an interview with Chess-News: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. For me it is obvious that at the moment the world championship match is the only chess event, which attracts a huge number of people, even those who have little interest in our game. This is the only chess event, which gets covered in the leading non-chess world media. Finally, it is the only chess event, to which sponsors are ready to allocate seven-figure sums. While this is the case, to abandon the event, in my opinion, is absurd.

Secondly, for many, chess is associated with the world champions and with matches for the crown. Maybe with the younger generation it is not so, but nevertheless. There are so many people who are completely unaware of any knockouts, had never heard the names of their winners. At the same time, they know everything about the names Fischer, Tal, Karpov, Kasparov (the list goes on) and their battles for the title.

If you like, the title of champion of the world is our brand. Not so long ago I read someone who said that the title of world chess champion is the weightiest world title in all sports. I thought about this and realized that this is true. In the minds of people the world chess champion is more than just a world champion. And that is what helps chess to become more popular. But a knockout world championships does not bring a tenth of spectator interest, as has already been proved in practice. And, most importantly, it devalues the title and this will cause irreparable damage to our brand.

I do not exclude that in ten or twenty years, interest in matches may be lost - that's when there will be problems, and then we must think to change something. By the way, if we look at the history of the sport, changes always occur when there are problems. Reduced audience attention, loss of interest on the part of sponsors and so on. If you want, this is pure arithmetic. But we see that in chess right now it is not the case. Interest in general is increasing, we are getting bigger tournaments, children are playing, there is interest in the match for the world championship, a huge prize pool, etc. It is all wonderful.

The argument that the knockout is "democratic" has been heard many times, but it is easy to understand that it is not. In the existing system, everyone has a chance to become a champion. There are just a few more selection stages. The only difference is that it is easier for a player who lacks true world championship class to become world champion via a knockout, and that, in my opinion, is wrong.

I can give you a few more reasons not to agree with Magnus' proposal, but I think this is enough.

In chess, nowadays you can find a lot that needs to change. For example, I wonder why very few players are really concerned about cheating. I believe that this is a very serious problem, and we must concentrate on its resolution. This issue will not go away, will only get worse, and the sooner we deal with it, the better will be the result.

But the world championship match is one of the few things that does not require changes. This is what actually keeps chess at a high level in terms of respect for people and a positive image.

**Tom O'Donnell** · Wednesday, 12th August, 2015, 03:12 PM

Re: to hell with biography. Let's see the whole story.

Originally posted by Nigel Hanrahan View Post

Let's use an idea from the domain of history. At one time, the teaching of Social Studies in High School involved the text, "15 Famous Men" or some such tripe, and this biographical myopia was passed off as history. Since that time, social history has taken its rightful place as central and critical to history and the teaching of it. This means, for example, that a story of the many wives of Henry VIII will no longer pass muster for understanding Tudor England. At least, not for those who have seen the science develop and deepen.

We were expected, by the way, to memorize the names of the Prime Ministers. As if this has anything to do with learning. A deeper understanding of Canadian History involves understanding what it was like for the ordinary people to live in that time, and this means understanding the status of women, indentured servants, and slaves. Everyone. Not just Kings. And that is progress, whatever some may think.

Naming the World Champion means what? Far better for chess players to understand the changes in how chess is played at the highest level, to treat their sport with the seriousness worthy of any sub-branch of history, and to honour chess through the ages, its development and so on.

Treating the World Chess Championship like the weekly winner of the Lotto 6/49 does not honour or deepen it, imo. There are great players, not-quite-great players, and so on down the line. No one is going to remember Ponomariov's or Kasimdzhanov's "Road to the World Championship" while matches like Capablanca v Alekhine, Botvinnik v Tal, Fischer v Spassky etc. (both the games and their backstories) will live in the minds of players as long as chess is played. The history of chess is the history of the greats and near-greats. The rest is irrelevant, imo.

**Paul Bonham** · Thursday, 13th August, 2015, 10:35 PM

Re: to hell with biography. Let's see the whole story.

Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post

Treating the World Chess Championship like the weekly winner of the Lotto 6/49 does not honour or deepen it, imo. There are great players, not-quite-great players, and so on down the line. No one is going to remember Ponomariov's or Kasimdzhanov's "Road to the World Championship" while matches like Capablanca v Alekhine, Botvinnik v Tal, Fischer v Spassky etc. (both the games and their backstories) will live in the minds of players as long as chess is played. The history of chess is the history of the greats and near-greats. The rest is irrelevant, imo.

Taking all that to its logical extreme, the WCC would from this point on be played between computer chess engines only, and the "backstories" would be the stories of the engine authors.

People WOULD remember Ponomariov's or Kasimdzhanov's journey if the human element of their journey were presented... the obstacles they had to overcome, the support they received, etc. Someone with a writing flair could turn that into a compelling story -- Wayne Komer gathers together that kind of stuff (and perhaps writes some of it himself) right on this site every week.

But a tiny sliver of the overall population insists that all that matters is that the absolute and very best were playing the match, and this tiny sliver does this to the overall detriment of chess. And they don't even see where their thinking leads. In fact, they bring up the fact that people still watch the 100 metres despite it not being a Ferrari versus a Porsche.... which could EXACTLY apply to, say, (Ivanchuk versus Rapport) compared to (Carlsen versus Anand). People want to see, more than anything, a spectacle of risk-taking. Only the most severe perfectionists want to see the "absolute best chess", which would be.... Houdini versus Komodo.

It matters not that people can't name the number 1 tennis player in the world for the past N years. What matters is that they remember particular matches, and at the Grand Slams, those matches don't even have to be between top seeds. That's how you get people interested in your game.

**David Gordon** · Thursday, 13th August, 2015, 10:50 PM

Re: to hell with biography. Let's see the whole story.

In my view Chess is like Mental warfare. This is one of the reasons chess is paired with Boxing. A 12 game World Championship match is like a 12 round Boxing title bout. To be the Champ, you gotta beat the Champ. Perhaps chess needs a World Championship Belt.

**Mathieu Cloutier** · Thursday, 13th August, 2015, 11:20 PM

Re: to hell with biography. Let's see the whole story.

Originally posted by David Gordon View Post

In my view Chess is like Mental warfare. This is one of the reasons chess is paired with Boxing. A 12 game World Championship match is like a 12 round Boxing title bout. To be the Champ, you gotta beat the Champ. Perhaps chess needs a World Championship Belt.

That. That, time one thousand.

You add a belt and suddenly, everyone goes crazy.

And yes, I think some sports would gain by favoring the 'chess approach' with precise ELO calculation and regular world championship match. First prove you deserve a shot, then prove you can dish is out with the best,t and then, only then, become the best..