Like your site. Miss you on chess.fm,...are you gonna be on anytime
soon?
Regarding your take on the Adams interview, does the World
Champion really NEED to be the best player in the world? Personally, I
think too much has been made of having the top-ranked player & world
champion be one individual. Why can't the world champion be ranked #4,
or whatever. I think the paradigm needs to shift away from systems like
'boxing' (where egos and personal vendettas reign supreme and
affect the scheduling of possible match-ups), and move toward systems
like 'tennis' (where the organization of tournaments and matches are
predictable and fall outside of the influence of 'who' is #1 at the
time).
While I agree that the 'ideal' of having the WC be the #1
player is appealing to us, the fans, the introduction of that
individual's personal feelings and desires into the mix can play
havok, and HAS played havok, with getting reliable sponsorship and
scheduling for world championship cycles. Sponsors don't want to invest
in a system that isn't reliable, and might or might not be regarded as
'the' world championship as a number of world championships have been in
the past.
My feeling is, we've tried the 'boxing' system and it hasn't
worked,...even for boxing :),...Now we should take the system AWAY from
the players and their personal preferences and put it into the hands of
the organizers. I think the 'unification' effort that's being made is a
step in the right direction,...but time will tell if it really can be
pulled together.
Of course, this brings up 'who's the organizer?' and
inevitably 'FIDE' rears its' ugly head,...I won't even GO there in this
e-mail. Just let it be said that they too, need to be addressed...But
back to my main point, the title of 'world champion' should become a
predictable event with clear-cut organization and terms that function
outside the personalities playing the game. Just my two-cents :)
Have a good one!
Ryan