I agree that the World Championship is rather arbitrary nowadays, but we already have the tournaments for a "Chess Grand Slam." Dortmund, Linares, Tata Steel, a

I agree that the World Championship is rather arbitrary nowadays, but we already have the tournaments for a "Chess Grand Slam." Dortmund, Linares, Tata Steel, and the Tal Memorial are known as the strongest four tournaments during the year, aside from Candidates. These could serve as the benchmark for what the author is suggesting, but large tournaments aren't the answer to everything. There is certainly a difference between match play and tournament play - personally, I feel that the World Championship should still be decided by a one vs. one match. Carlsen has demonstrated his dominance in tournament play and is clearly the favorite, but Anand's match experience allows for a competitive dynamic. Of course, the entire system is a bit unfair and convoluted. Recall the whole World Chess Federation business from the 90s and the Offical vs. Unofficial World Championship nonsense. Carlsen abstained from the 2011-2012 cycle because of his dissatisfaction with the extant process. Nevertheless, I feel that this title is a bit too harsh. I'm supportive of a balance between larger tournaments and a bracket-style approach to decide on a world champion, not abolishing the title altogether.