4 ms·

The idea of a "World Champion" doesn't make sense in boxing, either. It doesn't make sense in most professional sports, in which "championship" status is essent

The idea of a "World Champion" doesn't make sense in boxing, either. It doesn't make sense in most professional sports, in which "championship" status is essentially the result of a random walk through a succession of games or matches over a given timeframe. But fans prefer randomness. Fans like upsets, underdogs, unexpected outcomes, turnaround stories, and changing fortunes. Fans would hate long-term statistical regressions across N population of teams or athletes. A lot of sports need champions. More accurately, they need the idea of champions. Fans and enthusiasts have an intrinsic desire to know where everyone stands. Competitors need something to strive for. And that something has to be in constant contention. Someone has to occupy the throne, but his seat needs to be sufficiently precarious. Chess has swung in and out of the public eye over the decades, but by and large, it's occupied the fringes of pop-cultural obscurity. Take away the Garry Kasparovs, Bobby Fischers, and Anatoly Karpovs of the game -- or rather, the idea of these people as "champions" -- and chess would be even more obscure in the public eye than it is today. Chess, to put it bluntly, has never had a great PR plan. The championships, flawed though they might be, are the fraying threads tenuously holding the game above the abyss of public irrelevance. Chess insiders need the wonkiness of Elo ratings and normative comparisons. But outsiders and casual fans need the romance. Chess needs to strike a balance between these two groups and their oppositional desires. The point of the "world championship" in any sport or game isn't actually to determine who's the best. It's to determine who's currently on top over X timeframe (by a mostly arbitrary arrangement of circumstances and outcomes). Fans won't articulate it as such, but that's what they like about championships. Championships satisfy the human desire for narrative.

jrpt 13y ago
The author is suggesting scraping the world championship in favor of a golf or tennis-like grand slam: have four major tournaments per year. These tournaments would still have champions, upsets, underdogs, and narratives to them. It works well enough in golf and tennis. There's the Wijk aan Zee tournament every year which should be on the list. It's up for debate what the others would be. I like the suggestion personally and hope to see it happen. This is coming from a chess player and fan. Also, up until recently, you used to be able to find chess columns and puzzles in the newspapers. Nowadays they've been cut or replaced by sudoku. But for a long time that was excellent PR. I don't think it's fair to say chess never had great PR, since even in the US it used to be in the newspapers regularly. And it's still popular in Europe.
benbou09 13y ago
Maybe popularity doesn't have to be a goal per se
netcan 13y ago
That's an interesting point. Regardless, I still see a world champion boxer who has defended the title a few times as more of a champion figure than a tennis player who is currently ranked number one. A tennis player consistently winning most of the grand slams (like Federer a few years ago). I think you can just look at thee things as extensions of the rules of the game itself. A close tennis match isn't won on a simple count of points won. Tennis' scoring system rewards the ability to win important points, rally, etc. Those are the rules of tennis. The rules of championship boxing (or chess playing) is that you have to beat the champion to be the champion. They are also that a boxer is ranked where fans and fighters think they're ranked, not based on some objective analysis of past scorecards. Come from behind knockouts and coming out on top of a close war counts more than winning every round by technical point fighting. Beating a fighter at his own game or being aggressive too. Beating a famous former champion on his way out can count more than a higher ranked but lower profile contender. Games have their own logic. So do meta games like tournaments or championships.
asdfologist 13y ago
It's also a 100+ year old tradition that even many of the "chess insiders" cherish and respect. For example Aronian (world #2) said in an interview that he thinks Anand deserves to be considered the strongest player because he's defended the title so many times.

jrpt 13y ago

The author is suggesting scraping the world championship in favor of a golf or tennis-like grand slam: have four major tournaments per year. These tournaments would still have champions, upsets, underdogs, and narratives to them. It works well enough in golf and tennis. There's the Wijk aan Zee tournament every year which should be on the list. It's up for debate what the others would be. I like the suggestion personally and hope to see it happen. This is coming from a chess player and fan. Also, up until recently, you used to be able to find chess columns and puzzles in the newspapers. Nowadays they've been cut or replaced by sudoku. But for a long time that was excellent PR. I don't think it's fair to say chess never had great PR, since even in the US it used to be in the newspapers regularly. And it's still popular in Europe.

benbou09 13y ago

Maybe popularity doesn't have to be a goal per se

netcan 13y ago

That's an interesting point. Regardless, I still see a world champion boxer who has defended the title a few times as more of a champion figure than a tennis player who is currently ranked number one. A tennis player consistently winning most of the grand slams (like Federer a few years ago). I think you can just look at thee things as extensions of the rules of the game itself. A close tennis match isn't won on a simple count of points won. Tennis' scoring system rewards the ability to win important points, rally, etc. Those are the rules of tennis. The rules of championship boxing (or chess playing) is that you have to beat the champion to be the champion. They are also that a boxer is ranked where fans and fighters think they're ranked, not based on some objective analysis of past scorecards. Come from behind knockouts and coming out on top of a close war counts more than winning every round by technical point fighting. Beating a fighter at his own game or being aggressive too. Beating a famous former champion on his way out can count more than a higher ranked but lower profile contender. Games have their own logic. So do meta games like tournaments or championships.

asdfologist 13y ago

It's also a 100+ year old tradition that even many of the "chess insiders" cherish and respect. For example Aronian (world #2) said in an interview that he thinks Anand deserves to be considered the strongest player because he's defended the title so many times.