<https://www.bing.com/images/search?...>

His experience there was not good, he later would speak out on how: "THE RUSSIANS HAVE FIXED WORLD CHESS!"
(An article in Sports Illustrated, I believe.)

His experience there was not good, he later would speak out on how: "THE RUSSIANS HAVE FIXED WORLD CHESS!" (An article in Sports Illustrated, I believe.) >

Yeah, he claimed that Korchnoi had thrown games to, not one designated winner, as might be expected if a tournament were being fixed, but to <three> separate people (coincidentally everyone who had finished ahead of Fischer.).

I admit I have never expected Kasparov's record of becoming WC at age 22 could ever be broken in the normal manner - hurdling a Candidates and then beating the defending World Champion. That Gukesh did so at age 18 is still something hard for me to digest.

That being said, IMO Carlsen, who voluntarily abdicated the WC throne, is probably still the strongest chess player today.

i. Ideally the Champion must have beaten the old one to be Champion.

ii. I hate these FIDE quick game tie-breaks to decide the Classical Champion.

iii. The tiebreakers should be as fair as possible.

Notice that in the traditional Champion-retains-Title-in-a-tie, all the Champion needs is a tied match to retain his Title. Advantage Champion.

My recommendation is we give more Whites to the Challenger. Advantage Challenger.

So things even out.

We still retain the tradition of the Challenger beating the Champ to get the Title.

The Challenger gets to do it in a classical game, not a quick game.

Thus suggestion if the World Championship match ends in a tie:

Additional classical games with a limit, wherein the Challenger receives more Whites. If the Champion manages to tie or win at the end, he retains the Title.

Thus the tiebreaker can be one extra White game for the Challenger. Or two, three, or four. Concretely, say two additional games. Challenger gets to play all two Whites. He has to win all two additional games as Whites. Or win one White and draw his remaining White game. If the score is tied after two games, the Titleholder retains the World Championship. We could even vary further, say one Black followed by one to three Whites for the Challenger. Studies can be made in order to determine the best specific format (of Blacks and Whites) that can afford the Challenger a fair chance at winning.

IMO this would probably be welcomed by most of the chess world in terms of the sporting excitement it affords. Here we have the Challenger; forced to try all means to win in classical games against a sitting Champion that only needs to draw all the tiebreak games. A real drama at the end of the match. If the match still ends in a tie, the Champion retains his Title, and deservedly so since he got more Blacks.

It is an interesting suggestion but I can't see how it can be termed fair for the challenger unless the tiebreak extend pretty long with the challenger as White in all of them.

Say probabilities are 35%, 35% and 30% respectively for a White win, draw and Black win in a typical GM game. If they play just 1 game, incumbent has 65% odds of winning, assuming both have similar strength. If they play 2 games with challenger having White in both, incumbent odds are still a hefty 63%. One has to simulate as many as 9 games for the odds to balance out

Of course the counter is that the challenger has to demonstrate higher strength to wrest the crown and so his odds of winning as White should be greater than 35%. But one can also say that with the advent of engines, Black may have better odds to draw as well, if that is his primary objective.

While fair in practice, it feels so unfair that I doubt anyone would agree.

As for thing quick games, their quality so far had been no worse than the classical ones.

Not a single match reached the blitz stage.

Not a single world champion lost his title in rapids.

So what if once in a few decades one of those things happens?

And this has never been a classical championship. It's a <chess> championship. And will always be.

We've already talked about how our fundamental presuppositions differ.

You find nothing wrong with quick games tie breaks. I do.

Any further discussion on our part will be influenced by our differing fundamental presuppositions, that in the end we will have to agree to disagree. I think we've already discussed this before. We shall be riding on a never-ending merry go round, which I simply do not have time to ride on, given my other works and endeavors.

<I once calculated that for the odds to even out, a 19-game match with 12 whites and 7 blacks for the challenger would have to be played..>

This is an interesting thought though. Why not narrow it down to a 12/7 and 7/7 mini-match if the main match ends in a tie? Rounded off, that would be a short 3-game match of 2 Whites to to the Challenger, and One White to the defending Champion. If it ends in a tie, then the Defending Champion holds on to the Title. If the Challenger wins the mini-match, then he would take the Title.

Thus the tradition of getting the WC Title via classical times controls would be preserved. And the tie break would just be a 3-game classical match, which I'm sure everyone can tolerate.

From the desk of Mr Lionel Lloyd [see previous address].

<FIDÉ IS A PAPER TIGER

Dateline: From <Committee Room of Shanghai Honorable Club of Mahjonng Yahtzee, Chess & Pai Gow>.

Esteemed Grandmaster Mr Ding Liren on behalf of <Chinese Central Sports Committee> requires
<REMATCH WITH Dommaraju Gukesh PAPER TIGER WITHIN 6 LUNAR MONTHS OF APRIL 1ST 2025>
Match unlimited and winner to have 10 wins. Match to be decided drawn if both players have 8 wins.

Venue: Match will be held in <Bhutan>. Held in first two weeks in November 2025.>