2018 World Championship in London

[Alex Holowczak]

Although I prefer the longer format of 24 game matches I can see that it may be difficult to go back to that. My main objection to the current format is that the result of the match can revolve around who gets which colour in the Armageddon game. One way of reducing the random element is to play the match as the best of 5 mini-matches, each to consist of 2 classic games as at present. If the mini-match is tied you have a playoff day to decide the overall winner of the mini-match. Of course if all mini-matches were drawn then one player would still get 3 blacks (as opposed to 2) in the armageddon games but this format would reduce the random element in the existing format significantly.

Under my proposal you would still have a rest day between mini-matches and the overall length of the match is just the same (19 days).

Now that's a good idea! If you called each mini-match a set, you could market it as being best of 5 sets, which everyone understands. You get excitement every three days which is good. You might even take a speculative punt in the classical given the score doesn't carry forward for the whole match.

[Alex McFarlane]

One way of reducing the random element is to play the match as the best of 5 mini-matches, each to consist of 2 classic games as at present. If the mini-match is tied you have a playoff day to decide the overall winner of the mini-match.

Player A wins the first 4 games to win 2 sets. All other games are drawn and Player B wins 3 Armageddons to win the world title 3-2!!!
Now who would accept B as World Champion?

I accept winning the first 4 is unlikely but not impossible. The same result would be achieved if A won any two of his games with White all other games drawn.

Also how would people react if we had a world Champion after 6 drawn games if the Champion had won only Armageddons?

[Joshua Gibbs]

Thanks for that disclosure.

Without "keenness" I'm keen to know the name of the variation - as long as that does not breach any non-disclosure agreements.

Sicilian Defense: Lasker-Pelikan. Sveshnikov Variation its ECO code is B33
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl ... 5%20Nb8%20

[Alex Holowczak]

One way of reducing the random element is to play the match as the best of 5 mini-matches, each to consist of 2 classic games as at present. If the mini-match is tied you have a playoff day to decide the overall winner of the mini-match.

Player A wins the first 4 games to win 2 sets. All other games are drawn and Player B wins 3 Armageddons to win the world title 3-2!!!
Now who would accept B as World Champion?

I accept winning the first 4 is unlikely but not impossible. The same result would be achieved if A won any two of his games with White all other games drawn.

Also how would people react if we had a world Champion after 6 drawn games if the Champion had won only Armageddons?

Is that any different to someone winning the US Open Final 0-6 0-6 7-6 7-6 7-6?

If it were at all likely that a World Championship match would have the first four games being won by the same player, then we wouldn't be discussing a problem with the format in the first place.

[Chris Rice]

Looks like Merenzon is not going to go away anytime soon as Eurosport pick up the World Championship rights and chess is back on TV!

[David Robertson]

Eurosport pick up the World Championship rights and chess is back on TV!

Press Release contains familiar cut-n-paste claims:

The 2016 World Championship match held in New York enjoyed record-breaking coverage with the total audience for the whole event topping 1.5 billion people

Uh huh. And (wait for it...)

World Chess chief executive Ilya Merenzon said: “Chess has grown in popularity and now has 600 million players worldwide”

Did no one at Eurosport think to check this stuff?

[Mick Norris]

Did no one at Eurosport think to check this stuff?

Of course not

[JustinHorton]

If it were at all likely that a World Championship match would have the first four games being won by the same player, then we wouldn't be discussing a problem with the format in the first place.

[Richard Bates]

Eurosport pick up the World Championship rights and chess is back on TV!

Press Release contains familiar cut-n-paste claims:

The 2016 World Championship match held in New York enjoyed record-breaking coverage with the total audience for the whole event topping 1.5 billion people

Uh huh. And (wait for it...)

World Chess chief executive Ilya Merenzon said: “Chess has grown in popularity and now has 600 million players worldwide”

Did no one at Eurosport think to check this stuff?

We had 600 million 10 years ago. Shouldn't it be more by now?

[Jonathan Bryant]

Did no one at Eurosport think to check this stuff?

Of course not

Well they want to sell advertising slots. Spreading the ibullshit is in their financial interest too.

[Brian Towers]

but non-chess sports have no problem in recognising such players as their World Champion.

I would go further and say that "everyone has a chance" is widely viewed as a feature, not a bug.

In American football they take the concept one step further and at the start of each new season they give the first picks of the new players to the lowest finishers from the season before in an attempt to level the playing field. Basically the opposite of what happens in the Premier League.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Finally we have a game. Magnus could be in serious trouble.

Could have been, but Caruana let him off the hook. Might the challenger end up regretting that?

[Alex Holowczak]

If it were at all likely that a World Championship match would have the first four games being won by the same player, then we wouldn't be discussing a problem with the format in the first place.

A good point - of course, chess hasn't changed at all in the 121 years since that match.

[IM Jack Rudd]

More recently, the 1993 match was 3½-½ after four games.

[Alex Holowczak]

but non-chess sports have no problem in recognising such players as their World Champion.

I would go further and say that "everyone has a chance" is widely viewed as a feature, not a bug.

In American football they take the concept one step further and at the start of each new season they give the first picks of the new players to the lowest finishers from the season before in an attempt to level the playing field. Basically the opposite of what happens in the Premier League.

They do this in all of the big 4 American sports to a differing degree. I think the NHL has a weighted lottery for some picks, to stop teams deliberately tanking towards the end of the season to get an earlier draft pick. It doesn't entirely equalise the field; the New England Patriots have been at the top for 15 years or so, and the Cleveland Browns have been dreadful ever since they were revived. The drafts are just glorified crapshoots, but there are ways you can increase your chances of success. But it can only work in US sports, where the "new players" are players graduating from college, or in MLB's case also graduating from high school. The Premier League teams all have academies, and the top teams have already hoovered up all the best young talent in the country (and beyond) long before they get to 18 or 21.