https://www.thearticle.com/beyond-carlsen-the-devaluation-of-the-world-chess-championship
Interesting article, but........
Keene mentions AI and the pandemic as two major factors driving chess play online to the seeming detriment of classical otb chess and the world championship. While there is a good deal of truth to his observations, there are two other factors that, IMO, have also contributed greatly to the devaluation off the WCC. Those factors are the shortening of WC to twelve games with rapid and blitz tiebreaks being used to determine this classically timed match and the drive to maximize financial return from these matches by Ilya Merenzon, the CEO of WorldChess. (WorldChess itself is a holdover from the Kirsan Era of chess monopoly monetization flowing from Kalmykia)
Recall, if you will, that during the Carlsen-Karjakin match that was held at NYC's South Street Seaport, Merenzon tried, unsuccessfully, to restrict access to the moves of these games and their initial broadcast in real time. His attempt to restrict real-time viewership to the WorldChess transmissions was seriously slapped down by the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals. WorldChess also attempted to monetize attendance at the event with, IMO, absurdly priced admission fees to view the games at the Seaport. It has proved much easier to monetize chess online with the help of the pandemic and Netflix's Queens Gambit as noted by Keene.
What has devalued the WCC most, IMO, is the format of having only 12 or 14 game matches with ties after the classical games not leading to the champion being declared the winner, but a continuation into rapid games to determine a classically timed championship. These shortened match formats are justified by pointing to the expense of holding a match of 24 or more games using one of a number of the older formats used. True enough that longer matches increase costs, but shortening matches has only led to the absurdity of WCC matches being determined by rapid/blitz playoffs, the real devaluation.
A classical WCC match of at least 24 games might also reduce the influence of AI by reintroducing the sporting factor of human fatigue into the WCC. It might also help to reintroduce candidate matches into the process of deciding on a challenger of the WCC title.
I agree that both the shortening of the world championship and its crass monetisation have contributed hugely to it's devaluation. Both of these find their roots in the effects of late capitalism, where everything has been commodified.
@ClayAndSilence said in #2:
> I agree that both the shortening of the world championship and its crass monetisation have contributed hugely to it's devaluation. Both of these find their roots in the effects of late capitalism, where everything has been commodified.
Very much what Marcuse wrote about in One Dimensional Man.
Possibly, the problem isn't short world championship matches, but world champions making few appearances in lengthy, high-caliber round-robin tournaments.
@BarakSaltz said in #5:
> Possibly the problem isn't short world championship matches, but world champions making few appearances in lengthy high-caliber round-robin tournaments.
Perhaps both. The days of tournaments lasting more than two weeks are pretty much gone for a number of reasons.
World championship matches lasting 24 games are still possible, IMO.
Value of WCC is not some number hanging in the sky, and by actions we add or take away from it... Everyone settle it's value in their own heads by their own judgement, unless you are waiting for "someone" to tell you whether this title is worth something or not. WCC title value for the winner is exactly the value, which he set in his head and nothing more.
World Champion in classical chess shouldn't be figured out in tie breaks of rapid or blitz, or bullet in the future... No tie breaks is the solution for challenger to approach match differently. He has to come to the match and knock the Champion out, be it 10, 12, 14 rounds.
Also no rest days should be beneficial for viewers, and fatigue would get in the game faster.
Drawing all classical games and let's say winning classical champion title in armagedon just seems odd, even though tie break system is used for a long time.
I partly agree with #6. There should be no blitz or armageddon, but I am not against rapid. I don't know why I always have to see rapid and blitz mentioned in the same sentence. Nobody ever seems to want to draw the line at rapid.
I'd like to see a time control somewhere in between - about twice the speed of current classical chess.
And ensure some variation.
In the Carlsen vs Caruana match we saw the same few openings every game, with every game in the classic period finishing drawn. It led many to believe that classic chess was somehow "solved" at the top level and that all the games would finish drawn, at least as long as a player played their pet prepared opening, or the known counter.
Too often we see players playing with a Stockfish analysis and spectators egging on the player who is shown to be winning to find all the best moves so they can complete the victory, because what nobody apparently wants to see is the game finish drawn.
I don't think Fischer-random / chess 960 is the solution, but some way to prevent "preparation" being such a key. I got some feeling that is why Magnus got bored of the game.
Forced opening lines that aren't communicated to the players before they have to play would also kill preparation, but that would be even less popular than chess960.
To make WCC interesting the match format should go away. that is just not good entertainment. Invitational tournament would whole lot better. And would also reduce AI preparation as no one can prepare again variety of opponents with accuracy preparing against just on player.
I enjoy the idea of the forced opennings/longer match. Computer games when played from move 1 are almost always drawn. It looks logic that players who memorize 30 moves deep lines of Ruy Lopez and Petroff will also draw every game because they are too familiar with what the openning have to offer. And with the tiebreaks in mind they have no reason to risk anything beyond theory. Another idea would be to reduce the time controls as the match progresses, but still within the realm of classical chess
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.