Why There Shouldn't Be a Chess World Champion

An anonymous reader writes "An article at Slate makes the case that the time has come to stop crowning World Chess Champions. This week, challenger Magnus Carlsen is trying to take the title from reigning champion Viswanathan Anand. Despite currently holding the title, Anand is very much the underdog, which only serves to illustrate why the current system is broken. The article suggests measuring greatness the same way tennis does. Quoting: 'Here's what Carlsen should do: Beat Anand for the title, and then work with FIDE to institutionalize four big tournaments as chess's Grand Slams, simultaneously eliminating the title of world champion. Corporate funding for even major chess tournaments can come and go with frustrating regularity, meaning FIDE itself has to get involved. Perhaps the grand slam tournaments could be located in three cities permanently—Moscow, Amsterdam, and a Spanish locale such as Linares would be natural picks—with a fourth that would rotate from year to year. This would give chess the same clear and predictable yardstick for greatness that golf and tennis have instead of the extremely crude world champion benchmark.'"

Comments

This guy has it locked up already

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1weIG-1K7EI

Re:This guy has it locked up already

[Nightlight3]

I thin this one is more pertinent for the Salon article.

Re:This guy has it locked up already

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe I've seen a Geekier story on Slashdot ever....EVER!

Re:This guy has it locked up already

[Nightlight3]

I can hardly wait for the match to start (the first game is this Saturday). I will be getting up at 4:30AM EST for the duration of the match, to watch the games live on the web. Although I play nowadays only against computers, I used to play for college team (at Brown) and had reached an expert rating (2100 USCF rating), before quitting human play. As a kid back in the old country (ex-Yugoslavia), my brother and I who shared one bedroom, after the lights out would play blindfolded chess games in the dark, each with the chessboard in his mind eye. He never stopped active competition and became a chess master eventually (that's one rank above me). Once you are bitten by the chess bug, it stays with you for life.

Re:This guy has it locked up already

[frank-the-fake]

By playing blindfold chess as a child you practiced the vital skill of every chess master - the ability to mentally visualize the chess board.

Once you are comfortable with this, it is only one more step to set up mentally stable decision trees (referencing mental visual images) and of a of a depth limited only by your memory for positions

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because who is going to pay for anything if held as a Moscow event ?? Or Spain ?? Or Malta ?? Or Bumfuckegypt ?? No one that is who !! Make it America - there is only one !! - or fergitaboutit !!

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

America sucks at chess. Among the top 100 players, only 4 are from the US, and get this - none of the four were actually born in the US.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

You may have invented chess but Grande Masterz are from anywhere but.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[_Shad0w_]

That would have been the Indians. Or the Italians and Spanish for the modern game, via the Moors who brought it from Persia.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indians are the only true Americans. Every one else is an immigrant. And if republicans had their way would be kicked out ex post facto haste.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

He means the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

we've always brought in big talent from elsewhere

Einstein
'nuff said

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Noughmad]

You mean the Moops?

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

The indians are immigrants too.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

we've always brought in big talent from elsewhere

Einstein 'nuff said

Arguably, we have a certain talent for importing talent... Scoring all the Jewish physicists when the Nazis drove them out, in order to build a bomb, and then scoring all the Nazi rocket scientists when the Soviets drove them out, in order to build something to deliver it with...

Playing both ends against everybody, awww yeah...

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Indians are the only true Americans. Every one else is an immigrant. And if republicans had their way would be kicked out ex post facto haste.

Archeological for any human inhabitation of the Americas is pretty recent. (Some) indian populations did have the distinction of being the only immigrants who didn't need to squish the locals; but all available evidence suggests close to zero chance that any human population originated here.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

They did squish the other local Indians. All Indians tribes occupy a territory that was previously occupied by a other tribe. The original tribe that first migrated to America was long gone by the time the first European wanted their share of this 'new world'.

LOL. I kid you not, the CAPTCHA is 'reserves'.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[mrxak]

Truly the greatest thing about America is its ability to attract immigrants that then add to its greatness. We should be very careful not to ruin that, either through policy or xenophobia. It's the one thing we can compete in better than anybody else, and that fresh infusion of energy and labor keeps our economy and culture going.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The extant populations aren't original; but there must have existed a tribe (we'll call them 'Squish-ee Zero') who came first, and thus squished not, until they were squished. In some cases, there may even have been more than one squishless squish-ee (if disease, starvation, cold, or other natural misadventure cleared the stage of tribe N before tribe N+1 showed up); but that isn't logically necessary, just a contingent possibility.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit too late for that.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late...

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[VortexCortex]

To be fair, it's because the game is pure cerebral memoization and lacks and true skill component or even the mildest hand-eye coordination. The devs have all but abandoned the game after the queen and bishop patches. IMO, I liked the preivous versions when the queen was no more special than the king. At least it was more accessible to checkers players.

From a game designer perspective the complexity level of chess is painfully low, so much that computer "AI" opponents consists of better ways to organize a tree of known moves, hardly anything like machine learning at all. It's only slightly less boring than checkers to most folks. It's not like other more complex (and fun) turn based strategy games don't exist. Try out one of the flavors of Ogre Battle, or Final Fantasy Tactics -- Hell, even Advance Wars.

If the "digital vs board game" component is throwing you for a loop: It shouldn't. I implement tactics games as paper cutouts and dice to ensure they're fun before spending a bunch of time fleshing out the tedius combat details you'll only concentrate on in rare instances, in favor of the larger game. See? Chess even lacks the levels of complexity an average videogame has. Humans are cybernetic beings, as such they can allocate their attention across a wide ranging field, then bore down into problem spots; A good game provides interesting detail at all levels of play with enough varriation that even without dice you'll never get the exact same game twice -- With chess? There's basically right and wrong moves starting at the 2nd move -- no emergent properties at all, and an environment complexity of precicely ZERO. Whomever can think far enough ahead wins. That's why Chess is a solved game.

Oh sure the game's got history and an over inflated sense of prestige. Look down your nose at other games and play that shitty one. You die-hard elitist chess fans are fucking ridiculous from an information theory and cybernetics vantagepoint. Computers can just help precicely manage more variables and thus allow us to play games with more breadth and depth than a 64 cell grid overlaid with 6 -- COUNT THEM: SIX -- movement patterns. A kid playing halo competively has more shit going on in their brain than a chessmaster. Don't believe me? Whip out the FMRI and see.

Bunch of pompus morons. I'm fine with chess having it's circlejerk. What pisses me off is how folks who tend to like these "ancient" games see everyone else as childish, when their game requires the least cognitive ability to master comparatively. Pokemon would be a step up, though I reccomend Magic: The Gathering instead.

Perhaps it's not America that sucks at chess, but Chess that sucks at America?

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[nospam007]

"Truly the greatest thing about America is its ability to attract immigrants that then add to its greatness."

It got you the World Series.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[nospam007]

"That would have been the Indians. Or the Italians and Spanish for the modern game, via the Moors ..."

I'm so sorry, but It's the Moops.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

America sucks at chess. Among the top 100 players, only 4 are from the US, and get this - none of the four were actually born in the US.

There could be several factors for this, but perhaps the most obvious is the social factor.

To put it bluntly (and with American ignorance in tow), American's don't have time for that shit.

In fact, I'm rather surprised with the global attention span decline due to electronic and information overload that chess is even a interest anymore.

Don't get me wrong either, I loved the game when I was living in Alaska before the internet was born. To my point, there wasn't much to do...

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Magic is a great game but it will never be that popular due to the business model. It's about to get demolished by Hearthstone and Hex simply because Wizards of the Coast are fucking retarded. The amount of people playing Hearthstone already dwarfs MTGO and Hearthstone is still in a fairly exclusive beta phase. It's a shame because Hearthstone is an inferior game in almost every respect.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just the talents, also the slaves. Africans, Mexicans.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood the fascination with chess.
Go play Go or something.
Chess is just a glorified version of checkers.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which, ironically, is closed off from the rest of the world.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[TWiTfan]

Yes, it's only open to U.S. teams like the Toronto Blue Jays.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

We are the Americans. You will be assimilated. Your intellectual distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[dcw3]

Bunch of pompus morons. I'm fine with chess having it's circlejerk. What pisses me off is how folks who tend to like these "ancient" games see everyone else as childish,...

Did you have an actual point to your tirade? Have you even attempted tournament level chess? No, there are no pretty colors, or toons with inflated boobies, only real head to head mental stimulation. And believe it or not, some people are actually capable of playing both chess and video games.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[kenj0418]

Is it just me, or did anyone else hear "One Night in Bangkok" playing in their head as they read this?

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I do now.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

And then we imported Hitler and Fascism/Socialism. For we have met the enemy and he is us.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[killkillkill]

Perhaps because in America (historically at least) one had great opportunity and could improve their position in life by applying their talent to something useful. Your prospects become limited if you dedicate the kind of time it takes to become a master of that level.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[killkillkill]

We are the Americans. You are welcome to assimilate with our culture if you wish. We're far from perfect, but your intellectual distinctiveness can be celebrated and rewarded like in no other nation in no other time on this planet. However, you can also choose to remain a pinko socialist and degrade with the futile effort of the rest of your culture.

FTFY

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Chess isn't America's game. All the information is clearly visible and strategy needs to be carefully planned dozens of moves in advance. Poker is more the prototypical American game, where improvization, luck, and bullshitting will get you farther than memorization.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[AttillaTheNun]

Not to mention the queen is far too op. She needs to be nerfed to balance the game. I'm sick and tired of getting demolished by queen pickers. NoobS!

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[mcmonkey]

Arguably, we have a certain talent for importing talent... Scoring all the Jewish physicists when the Nazis drove them out, in order to build a bomb, and then scoring all the Nazi rocket scientists when the Soviets drove them out, in order to build something to deliver it with...

Playing both ends against everybody, awww yeah...

I have mod points, but I don't see the "+1 America Fark Yeah!" option.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[blackraven14250]

There's only one team from a country neighboring the US. It's not a worldwide event. Even the NHL, which has the most teams outside the US of the big 4 (7 teams in Canada), doesn't try to portray itself as a worldwide championship.

I think the reason that baseball gets away with calling it a world championship despite being geographically limited is that baseball is only really popular in a few countries. Obviously the US, with Japan and some South American countries....and that's it. Compounding that, there's a history of getting the best talent from those regions to join the MLB, so what's left in those countries isn't usually their premier talent.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[digitrev]

I believe the appropriate colloquialism is "Whoosh!".

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most probably, the best chess player of all time was born in Chicago, which is completely irrelevant.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[danlip]

It's huge in Cuba. Of course we don't let them travel to the US to compete.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[SeattleGameboy]

You BASTARD!!!

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Another, completely]

Damn! I've been out of the country for a long time, and haven't followed baseball, but the Expos moved to Washington D.C.?

Why do I need to learn about things this way? Now it really is the "National" league that it always claimed to be, leaving the "American" league the old "North America" excuse.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

A fifth, while currently playing for Italy, WAS actually born and raised in the US.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Indians didn't really start immigrating to the United States in significant numbers until about 50 years ago. Citation.

I don't know why someone would suggest that a group that only arrived here so recently could be the only "true Americans". This whole thread is idiotic.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Vermonter]

Go is a far more ancient game than chess, and lacks many of the problems as cited above with Chess. I mean granted, one day Go will be considered a "solved" game, but that is a long ways off.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[darkwing_bmf]

World Baseball Classic. That's the real global championship tournament for baseball. The United States isn't the world champion.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the f***k are you babbling about? there have been people in the Americas from about 50,000 and civilization from at least 10,000. All human populations outside of a narrow strip of Ethiopia are "immigrants" according to your logic.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst haiku ever!

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Kerstyun]

Packy indian's (towel) are. Red'skin ones (feather) aren't.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[blackraven14250]

The US loses a substantial number of its' best players to the other countries in the WBC, despite them playing in the MLB. For example, the MVPs in 2009 and 2013 were playing in the MLB at the time, despite playing for Japan and Cuba in the WBC. There are also some odd rules that aren't found in the MLB, like a hard pitch count limit (which happens to be stupidly low too - only 65 in the first round, 80 in the second, 85 in qualifiers, 95 in the championships), and 2 runners start on bases in extra innings past the 12th.

Re:IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that later natives were descended from earlier natives. No Europeans are descended from those who came across the Bering Strait. They were all displacers.

I watch chess...

[codeButcher]

I watch chess for the riveting slow-action replays.

Re:I watch chess...

[Aighearach]

Me too! OMG!

This is my favorite classic moment in chess, former Women's World Champion GM Alexandra Kosteniuk checkmaking GM Wang Hao!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDo8WXeVMx0

Re:I watch chess...

[six025]

The slow motion replays of Chess have nothing on this.

Note: for the true sporting connoisseur only.

Re:I watch chess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Soonnn oooffff aaaaahhhhhh bbbiiiittttccchhhh!!!!

Re:I watch chess...

[tinkerton]

Well that was fun. Got more?

Re:I watch chess...

[sconeu]

What they really need is the late John Facenda doing the play-by-play.

Re:I watch chess...

[fatphil]

"Funny"? That was "interesting" to say the least.

Not only did I watch it to the end intently, but I then called my g/f over so that she could watch it too, so I saw it *again*. Best of all, I didn't really notice how long his pause was on the knight the first time, but when you knew its implications, it was shockingly obvious and lasted a lifetime the second time you watch it.

The reactions were beautiful.

World chess champ, yeah, that's great

[93 Escort Wagon]

But does he get a teapot and groupies?

locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should all three locations be in Eurasia? Fuck that.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should all three locations be in Eurasia? Fuck that.

Why should the US baseball finals be called "the world series"? Why should the US rugby-ripoff-for-sissies-in-padding-who-need-a-rest-every-twenty-seconds be called the same name the rest of the planet had long been using for a completely different game? Fuck that, in the wrong'un.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

That's where the majority of chess grand masters come from.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Hand Egg?

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

+3 Insightful, watch it go down to -1 Troll when the arrogant twats wake up ...

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

+3 Insightful, watch it go down to -1 Troll when the arrogant twats wake up ...

Heh, I am the same AC as above... Quite shocked this is being modded up. I only meant it as a kind of tongue-in-cheek countertroll to the post I replied to.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should all three locations be in Eurasia? Fuck that.

Why should the US baseball finals be called "the world series"? Why should the US rugby-ripoff-for-sissies-in-padding-who-need-a-rest-every-twenty-seconds be called the same name the rest of the planet had long been using for a completely different game? Fuck that, in the wrong'un.

Why should the US rugby-ripoff-for-sissies-in-padding-who-need-a-rest-every-twenty-seconds

Realize this is a joshing semi-troll. But it's like running 100 m v. running a marathon. Short bursts of strength/speed don't scale to the marathon, but that's not to say marathon runners are better athletes than sprinters, most people would say the opposite. US football has the biggest, fastest, strongest athletes of any sport. Seriously. Vernon Davis runs 100 m in 10.7 seconds while benching 225 lb/100 kg for 33 reps and weight 250 lbs/15 stone/114kg. No distance-running-based sport is going to have athletes who manage anything close to that.

Not to say football is my favorite. But faulting a sport because it involves strength instead of endurance is bullshit.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, meant 18 stone.

Re:locations

[mrxak]

I think there's something to be said in spreading it around. It will garner more interest worldwide, and probably have economic benefits as well, with more money flowing into the competition from more than just three or four countries.

I would take it a step further, though. Instead of 3 permanent cities and 1 floating competition, how about 3 permanent continents and a floating one? It could be sort of like the Olympics, with the events moving so it's more of a worldwide competition. Moscow may be a good choice for representing Asia, but what about China, India, and Japan? Let the Asian chess championship tournament move around all of Asia, then have a European chess championship tournament bounce between Amsterdam and Linares if they like, and other cities in Europe too. Then put a third one in North or South America moving to various cities. The fourth championship can hit up any other cities in other continents not on the permanent continents.

And for those saying the US has no good chess scene, how do you think it's supposed to get one? And who cares where the players are from. Not only is the money there in the US to support a tournament, but there's plenty of chess players, regardless of skill, who would be interested in watching a tournament hosted in the US.

FIDE should absolutely get involved and set up a Grand Slam of some sort, but the reasons aren't purely for determining who the best players are. It's also about bringing new players into the game. For that, they'll need a global outlook.

Re:locations

[mrxak]

Well, and the whole football name criticism is a bit disingenuous as well. There is no such sport as "football." That's merely a common shortening of the name of several sports. In America, technically it's American Gridiron Football, whereas what most of the rest of the world calls football is Association Football, which itself is a "ripoff" of Rugby Football and Cambridge Rules Football. Then there's Australian Rules Football, Canadian Gridiron Football, Gaelic Football, two major kinds of Rugby Football, and a host of other related sports. Most of these involve a fair bit of hand use, with Association Football being the exception, though let's not forget the goalkeeper uses his hands quite a bit. All the games involve the feet, and all the games share a common ancestry. Just as we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, both species evolved from a common ancestor, the same can be said of the various football sports.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mighty athletes are so pumped with steroids they would have absolutely no chance in any sports that actually really tests for them. If you are ok with that, then fine. They still need a breather every 20 seconds, and most of the game is actually just setting up for the next 5 to 10 seconds of action (which is usually, but not always, just two lines of men crashing into eachothers). Some of the players are so damn fat they make your mom look thin. Not very athletic. In itself the game is kind of ok, but it's borderline sports. The most "athletic" looking persons are sprinters and swimmers, and some martial artists.

Re: locations

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize American Football is a very intellectual game and is probably the closest physical sport to chess. I very highly doubt you know anything about it. Each play is carefully choosen to outwit the opponent. The time between plays allows for that setup.

You keep watching that sissy garbage of yours. Ill stick to a real sport.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Big fucking deal ... I lift 130kg every time I stand up! I don't even do any special training!

Re:locations

[greenreaper]

Because in Oceania it rains all the time and Eastasia prefers Go.

Re:locations

[greenreaper]

Besides, chess has always been played in Eurasia.

Re: locations

[paiute]

You do realize American Football is a very intellectual game and is probably the closest physical sport to chess. I very highly doubt you know anything about it. Each play is carefully choosen to outwit the opponent

I will state without fear of contradiction that Bill Belichick could lecture on the cover zero, cover one, cover two, and the necessary gap responsibilities and after about three hours of that any chess snob would be no masing out the door.

Re:locations

[Anonymice]

Your comparison's a bit moot given you're comparing it to the wrong sport. "Rugby", y'know, from the bit you quoted from.

Re: locations

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't be that intellectual if a dumb-ass like you understands it.

Don't forget to put on your special protective helmet on before you go outside, like Mom told you to!

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that the one true Football requires a chimpanzee. Got it.

Re:locations

[jmac_the_man]

Gridiron football is called "football" because the ball was classically 12 inches long. (They shortened it to make the forward pass easier about 100 years ago, so the modern football is 11 1/2 inches.)

Association football is called "football" because it's played on foot, as opposed to polo, which is played on horseback. The name was originally given derisively; it implied "poor people ball."

In the 1850s, the word "soccer" meant "a member of an association." A 19th century soccer star popularized its use to mean "the game played by members of an association football association."

Re:locations

[Goose In Orbit]

need-a-rest-every-twenty-seconds

Not for resting ... it's for the adverts, the resting part is a side-effect

Re:locations

[pscottdv]

Well, and the whole football name criticism is a bit disingenuous as well.

In America, technically it's American Gridiron Football

"American" and "Gridiron" make sense. But "Football?" The players feet hardly ever contact the ball. And it's not even a ball.

Re:locations

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Why should all three locations be in Eurasia? Fuck that.

Why should the US baseball finals be called "the world series"? Why should the US rugby-ripoff-for-sissies-in-padding-who-need-a-rest-every-twenty-seconds be called the same name the rest of the planet had long been using for a completely different game? Fuck that, in the wrong'un.

Ah yes. I love when British or Aussie wankers like you post that. Allow me to educate you out of your ignorance.

Imagine, if you will, that the MLS (Major League Soccer - the top US professional league of what the rest of the world calls "football") announced that it was the greatest team in the world and that the EPL champion was a bunch of chumps who it could easily defeat. You would laugh. Rightly so. What European league do you think MLS is probably equivalent to? Maybe the French league?

The fact that you don't know due to your ignorance is that the best players in the world in baseball play in the USA in MLB. The gap between MLB and the best other league, which is Japan, is probably akin to the gap between MLS and the EPL. So there actually are no other leagues/teams that can realistically claim to be world's champions. That's why it's called the World Series - it truly is the best of the best. There are players in MLB right now from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Asia. The cream of the cream play in MLB. They don't toil in the other leagues. Again, the only other professional league that has a decent number of MLB quality players, and it's probably only 1-2 per team, is the league in Japan. I'm deliberately ignoring the top minor professional leagues in the USA as the best of those players will be in MLB eventually, but explaining how that system works would take more time than really necessary.

If you don't like American football and prefer rugby, that's your business, but rugby is actually a pretty crappy sport. If the US cared about it at all, and we do not, we would own the entire world in the sport. I have zero doubt about that. In fact, I wish that someone would field a team out of our best professional football rejects and compete internationally.

Re:locations

[TWiTfan]

Why should the US baseball finals be called "the world series"?

Because I'm pretty sure the Toronto Blue Jays would object to it being called the "US baseball finals."

Re:locations

[IndustrialComplex]

Why do you assume !Eurasia consists solely of the US and no other countries? Last I checked there were two continents in the Western Hemisphere and quite a few countries that aren't the US.

Re:locations

[TWiTfan]

The players feet hardly ever contact the ball.

Presumably because it starts with a kickoff.

And it's not even a ball.

The "ball" part was probably to associate themselves as a sport with the much more popular (at the time) "baseball."

Re:locations

[erikkemperman]

I'm pretty sure this type of "USA is the greatest" response only establishes the point of the AC you replied to. Nationalism is a funny thing, it's actually helpful up to a point, as it creates a sense of belonging together. After that point, though, it varies from laughable to dangerous. The amount of flag waving and anthem singing going on in the USA would be considered well into dangerous territory by many.

Re:locations

[Antonovich]

Maybe. You have money and population, that's true. There are basically no countries that really care about rugby except South Africa and New Zealand, and in SA it's only really the whites. If you watched the recent final of the NZ national championship (highest level with NZ-only teams) you would be forgiven for thinking they don't give a shit about it either. The 35k capacity stadium wasn't even half full!

NZ also has very few registered players compared with other countries (Oz, UK, SA, FR) but has managed to dominate the sport for the last hundred years and is currently in a class above all other countries. NZ also loses many, many players who were born there because salaries are minuscule compared to what they can get elsewhere, and if you don't play in NZ you can't play for the national team. It is true though that almost all of the true athletes in NZ play rugby rather than any other sport.

So if you could get all of the best athletes in the US to play rugby then you would almost certainly win. You are one of the most highly populated countries though, and by FAR the richest over 150M. Nothing really to see here.

Re:locations

[MGDruss]

The 4th best player on the current rankings is from the US: http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml Behind Norway, Armenia & Russia ...

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you mad? Why shouldn't one of the locations be in the U.S.? What does baseball and football have to do with the proposed locations for a Chess Grand Slam?

Man, you Europeans with your inferiority complexes.

Re:locations

[pscottdv]

Stop applying logic to my favorite useless gripe.

Re:locations

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, gridiron football is called "football" because it derives from the same sport as association football does. If you go back and look at the sport as it existed before organizations started codifying the rules you will discover that different towns played the sport differently. Association football chose to adopt (and adapt) the rule sets from towns that minimized the use of the hands. The various rugby variants adopted (and adapted) rule sets from towns that emphasized carrying the ball. Both variants of the game were called "football" because they were played on foot, rather than on horseback. I have never seen a good explanation of how gridiron football evolved from the rugby variants, although I am sure it has something to do with the introduction of playing on fields laid out with yard markers.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree - the World Series of Rounders is the elite competition in children's bat and ball sports.

I'm looking forward to watching the World Series of Hopscotch and the World Series of Hide and Seek - I'm sure these games, too, will be dominated by the USA, since y'all are number 1.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

That's OK.

If you take away the shitty team sports that they invented (and which hardly any other countries play), what team sports are the USA good at?

The correct answer is none.

Re:locations

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, there is a very pragmatic reason that the U.S. dominates most sports it cares about. It has almost three times the population of the next country with a comparable average per capita income. In addition, the U.S. is ethnically more heterogeneous than any other country on the planet. These two factors mean that for any given activity the U.S. almost certainly has as many or more people with the inborn ability to excel at any given human activity and the money to make it worth their while to develop that ability IF sufficient numbers of people in the U.S. have an interest in that activity. This does not mean that the U.S. is better than other countries, it just means that the confluence of factors leads to there being people in the U.S. who can excel at an activity and there being, potentially, enough money to attract the best from elsewhere. No other country currently enjoys that combination.
The EU comes close to providing a similar environment, but it has greater cultural variations between its various parts than the U.S. does, at this time. In those instances where its interest in an activity crosses all, or most, of its internal borders, it is able to develop a similar position on the world stage that the U.S. does in baseball and basketball (that is, develop world class competitors and attract the best from the rest of the world).

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

The North American Rounders Finals would be perfect

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Hand Egg?

You must have some really fucked up chickens.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

ball was classically 12 inches long

The ball?!? Then what about... Can't be much oxygen left for their brains. I think I'm beginning to understand why American sports stars are considered to be not so bright über men.

Re:locations

[blackraven14250]

It's actually not nationalism. Most of those players aren't from the USA; they just play in this particular league, which makes the MLB the de facto premier league. Americans probably aren't any better or worse at baseball than anyone else with a substantial farm system, but the guys at the top of other national leagues don't stay in there, they move to the MLB.

Re:locations

[erikkemperman]

All right, I see your point. But actually the nationalism bit in my post was triggered more by these nuggets on the part of GP:

Ah yes. I love when British or Aussie wankers like you post that. Allow me to educate you out of your ignorance.

If the US cared about it at all, and we do not, we would own the entire world in the sport. I have zero doubt about that.

Not that I am particularly offended by any of this, mind you.

Re:locations

[spire3661]

Look man, i know they look fat, but ANY American football player would crush you with his athleticism. There is no room for carrying people in the NFL, its just that competitive. I dont even like football, but holy shit are you wrong.

Re:locations

[excelsior_gr]

as opposed to polo, which is played on horseback.

Which is yet another confusing and utterly wrong name, since people in a lot of countries use the word "polo" as in "water polo". I hereby suggest that "polo on horseback" be renamed to "horsegolf", since it involves using a long golf club on horseback.

Re:locations

[JeffAtl]

All right, I see your point. But actually the nationalism bit in my post was triggered more by these nuggets on the part of GP:

Ah yes. I love when British or Aussie wankers like you post that. Allow me to educate you out of your ignorance.

If the US cared about it at all, and we do not, we would own the entire world in the sport. I have zero doubt about that.

Not that I am particularly offended by any of this, mind you.

If you'd read Attila Dimedici's post above yours, you'd understand why the assertions you have such a problem with are actually true.

Re:locations

[Smauler]

Well... not really. The Cambridge Rules were a code of rules for football, which has existed in many forms for centuries (interestingly, illegally, too). Since about the 14th century, "foot ball" and "hand ball" were considered different. The current association football rules are just a set of rules for football, just like the Cambridge rules were. Rugby football is derived from football, as is Association football and American football. The Football Association was founded in 1863, 15 years after the first Cambridge rules, and the Rugby Football Union was founded in 1871, so association football can't really be a ripoff of rugby. That being said, the modern rules for association football are wildly different than many earlier rules, probably, but no one knows because none of the early rules were written down. Not even the first Cambridge rules were written down.

To be honest, I don't care what people call their sports... I call "soccer" "football", because I'm English.

Re:locations

[ArbitraryName]

Gridiron football is called "football" because the ball was classically 12 inches long. (They shortened it to make the forward pass easier about 100 years ago, so the modern football is 11 1/2 inches.)

No. The American football was derived from a rugby football (as was the game itself), so it made sense to just keep calling it the same thing.

Association football is called "football" because it's played on foot, as opposed to polo, which is played on horseback. The name was originally given derisively; it implied "poor people ball."

This is one of the possible explanations for the word football itself, yes. A more correct explanation is that American football is called football because the games it is derived from are called football.

In the 1850s, the word "soccer" meant "a member of an association." A 19th century soccer star popularized its use to mean "the game played by members of an association football association."

That story is almost certainly apocryphal. The word "soccer" did not appear in print until 1895.

Re:locations

[Smauler]

What European league do you think MLS is probably equivalent to? Maybe the French league?

Not a chance... do you know how good PSG are currently?

So there actually are no other leagues/teams that can realistically claim to be world's champions.

Some would beg to differ. Have you seen the USA's record?

If you don't like American football and prefer rugby, that's your business, but rugby is actually a pretty crappy sport. If the US cared about it at all, and we do not, we would own the entire world in the sport.

Hahahahaha... oh wait, you're serious, let me laugh even harder.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

The 35k capacity stadium wasn't even half full
 
Why would it be? You've got a defending champion looking for its sixth cup in a row playing against a squad that has lost that very game twice in the last five years. Indeed, Wellington is now 0-5 in the finals across the last eight years.

But I'm not so convinced the US could dominate anyway. New Zealand has like 1.5% of the US population- and instead of 3 World Cup match wins in 28 years, the Kiwis have won 3 Finals.

Re:locations

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Yes, "Football", not "Foot making contact with ball". Good luck playing if you have no feet.

If you want to be pedantic, feet hardly ever contact the ball in Association Football as well, because players usually wear shoes that cover the entirety of their feet.

Along a similar tangent, I guess rugby doesn't use a ball either?

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure once you allow the forward pass, you need to allow for stoppage of play between plays. Otherwise the fat forwards (pushy guys up front) can't catch up with the ball.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

So that explains Howard Coselle's "Look at that monkey run!" comment. Makes sense now

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Basketball.

Golf.

Re: locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone got their jimmies rustled.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

MLS is getting pretty good, and in 10 years it will be comparable to ELP.

I would say it is comparable to PSG now.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Golf is a team game? (is it fuck)

And basketball was invented in the US by a Canadian.

Any other sports? No, there aren't, are there? Still, you are NUMBER 1 for all the team sports that every other country in the world could not give a fuck about.

USA! USA! USA!

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

The US players would be busy filing lawsuits against the opposition players.

"He bumped into me maliciously and with intent, I want $25 Million in damages"

Since y'all have degenerated into a cess-pool of lawyers, bankers and politicians.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

So, on a scale from 0 to The Third Reich where do you see the USA?

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Good morning, snowflakes!

I'm here to tell you that you are not special.

Enjoy your "World Series of Lonely Masturbation" tonight guys!

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's not even a ball.

I think the word you were looking for was "sphere"

Re:locations

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, there is something to that (although it is more complex than that). The forward pass was introduced to open up the game and reduce injuries and deaths (18 college players died playing the game in 1905).

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

But Polo utilises 2 goals not 9 or 18 holes and a minimum of 14 clubs so it cannot be Horsegolf maybe it should be Horsesoccer?

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not played on horseback hence Football it is.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Rounders was developed from Baseball.

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the other poster above misses a good point about a half-full 35k stadium. Porportional to population, it's as if we built a stadium for the Super Bowl to hold 2.5 million people and then, when only 1.25 million people showed up to watch the game, we said, "see, nobody gives a shit about football."

Re:locations

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot.

Golf when played for the Ryder Cup and President's Cup to determine the best internationally is actually a team game.

And as you say, Basketball was invented by a Canadian, so it was not invented by the US per the statement of the original post. Unless you wish to move the goalposts some more.

And I'm not an American so please do not paint me as one.

Re:locations

[mrxak]

Rugby Football existed before the Rugby Football Union, dating back to at least 1845, predating even Cambridge Rules. The sport of Rugby branched off into Canadian Gridiron Football (1861), American Gridiron Football (1869), Rugby Football Union (1871), and all of the variants of Rugby and Gridiron we enjoy today.

If anyone should be arrogantly claiming the title of the one true football, it should be Australians, as theirs was codified before any other extant football rules, ahead of the Canadians by two years, the British by four, Americans by ten, and the Irish by twenty-eight. The Australians use their hands plenty in their football, so maybe we should give up on the notion that football is played with only the feet (especially since it's not, in any variant, actually true).

I say, why can't we all just be friends, and enjoy as many footballs as we care to invent? Every type I've ever played or watched, I've enjoyed. Who really cares which was first, or who calls which one by a common nickname?

Re: locations

[uninformedLuddite]

You do realize American Football is a very intellectual game and is probably the closest physical sport to chess

Slashdot is becoming like the special olympics

Re:locations

[metrix007]

It's hard to say that the US dominates most sports it cares about, when there are not a lot of international competitors. Gridiron, Baseball and Basketball...it's mainly only the US that plays these sports.

Considering US performance in the Olympics and other sports that are played worldwide, like soccer, and it's even harder to make the argument of the US dominating at sports.

Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[Prien715]

Clearly, the current 3-year cycle makes no sense.

At the same time, people LIKE tournaments. If you want to be the true world champion, why not have regionals, as the author suggests -- but limit them to residents and let them be "open" (single elimination in round 1). We have brackets in other sports. This would allow people to compete regardless of wealth.

Each "continental champion" (think "North American Champion" or even "East Asian Champion") could face off in a tournament with the other regionals. This would let each population cheer for its hometown star from New York to New Dehli. Sure, maybe the two "best" don't face off in the "World Championship" but it also allows underdogs to win more easily and makes it more competitive.

Or we could just crown Deep Blue every year.

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[Aighearach]

Because it is idiotic. The whole premise is. The young star challenging for the World Championship for the first time being the favorite doesn't tell us the system is broken... it tells us the challenger is a big rising star!

And the Champion is one of only, what, only 6 people to have held ratings over 2800? This is not the 90s, Anand is not Khalifman, and everybody knows Anand is the clear Champion. And that Carlsen is the clear #1 player.

We already have ratings that tells us who is the best. The World Championship is a title. Adding an extra series of tournaments and calling it a title is fine, but why would it replace the World Championship? And FIDE actually tried it, and it was a total joke and those "Champions" aren't considered real champions.

These people should first learn some history about the chess World Championship before they tell chess players how our championship should be structured to better entertain the most casual observers. Because this is a long-argued topic, and there is a very strong consensus that the World Championship title has value, that it is not always held by the strongest player, and that it is normally achieved by winning a 1 on 1 match between a Champion and a Challenger.

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Each "continental champion" (think "North American Champion" or even "East Asian Champion") could face off in a tournament with the other regionals.

Such a system would be ridiculous as you have some regions that produce many great chess players and other regions that produce none.

Under your system top players would have to leave their home countries and move to a region with less competition in order to get a shot at the world championship. Why compete for regional champion in Europe or Russia when you could get the same title (and the same shot at world championship) with much less effort in Africa or the Americas?

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[hcs_$reboot]

Is there a way to mod Informative + Insightful?

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[phantomfive]

Not only that, but the article is begging the question of who is the better player. It is true Carlsen has a higher rating, but Anand doesn't chase ratings so much, and the one-on-one format is where he really excels.

My money is on Anand.

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[Anonymous Coward]

These people should first learn some history about the chess World Championship before they tell chess players how our championship should be structured to better entertain the most casual observers. Because this is a long-argued topic, and there is a very strong consensus that the World Championship title has value, that it is not always held by the strongest player, and that it is normally achieved by winning a 1 on 1 match between a Champion and a Challenger.

You should probably be a bit more grateful that the world even still gives a shit about a board game that can take hours to play, and watching chess for the "casual observer" is about as entertaining as watching paint dry, so don't act like you're selling out stadiums of fans here.

But if you wish to continue on and not change a thing, then whatever direction the overall community is going (players, tournaments, and most importantly funding and sponsorships), expect it to keep going that direction. If it is in a decline, then don't expect to exist as an organization 20 years from now with little or no change.

One must learn to improvise and adapt to change, else you perish. Ever wonder if chess would even be acknowledged by this generation had it not been ported to the computer? Exactly my point.

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever wonder if chess would even be acknowledged by this generation had it not been ported to the computer?

This wouldn't happen to come straight from your ass would it?

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[Bigby]

It is actually similar to what is going on with poker. They try to create these other tournaments to compete with "the World Series of Poker" in Vegas. But none of them come close to the prestige of a single event at the the WSOP. And there is nothing wrong with that...

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[MGDruss]

Don't underestimate the *huge* gap Carlsen has on his rivals in the rankings: http://www.chessbase.com/post/november-2013-ratings--nakamura-in-place-four-011113 Only people like Kasparov and Fischer have managed to pull away like that in the past ...

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bookmakers usually aren't too far away with their assessment - in probability terms:

Carlsen chance of overall victory: 0.8
Anand chance of overall victory: 0.2

So I would recommend that you put your money where your mouth is, if you are correct you will make a sizable profit.

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rating system starting out an unknown player at a non-0 value proves that the whole thing is f'ed up. It literally says that having never played a game of chess makes you better than someone who has lost the one game they ever played.

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[chonglibloodsport]

And the Champion is one of only, what, only 6 people to have held ratings over 2800?

Ratings tend to inflate over time. You can't compare them between eras.

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[phantomfive]

Carlsen has been focusing on his rating because he cares about it. When Anand decided to focus on his rating a few years back, he pulled into first.

Too much focus on one statistic is idiotic.

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, Insiformative.

Re:Why not a "Super Bowl"?

[wwphx]

The thing that did not impress me about Blue beating Kasparov is that it was highly optimised to beat HIM. I REALLY wanted to see Deep Blue in a proper tournament like a round-robin against twenty high-level opponents. I don't think it would fare nearly as well.

I can sort of see the point

[Kjella]

In tournaments it's about who can pick the most points from the weakest players, of course you'd like to win every time but if you're facing Carlsen I think most players will be more than happy to draw and try to outpace him on the rest. The world championship is intended to be a hardcore duel between the two best players, you have to defeat your opponent to win you can't skirt around it. The issue is twofold, one to get the opportunity to play you must win the candidates tournament meaning you must be pretty damn good in tournaments anyway and second by the time another championship comes around many expect the current champion to fall. Unlike many other sports the chess ranking is far more important than "points" collected from tournaments in other sports, so it's hard to make a single tournament be all that important. There are already several long-standing tournaments that usually have most of the top ten players, they're not going to get bigger even if the world championship went away.

Don't turn chess into a big money (C) show

[Anonymous Coward]

Chess does not need to be a show financed by big money. All sports where money got injected tend to turn into reality shows with media buzzing around searching for dirty stories, with pervasive doping, etc.

Re:Don't turn chess into a big money (C) show

[RightSaidFred99]

Yes. It's important that Chess avoid being a big money sport.

...because that's _totally_ a possibility, lol.

Re:Don't turn chess into a big money (C) show

[SuricouRaven]

If chess can grow media-worthy enough to sap a bit of money from The Cult of the Hand-Egg, I'd consider that a very good thing.

Re:Don't turn chess into a big money (C) show

[bmo]

>The Cult of the Hand-Egg,

I didn't know Rugby was a cult.

--
BMO

Re:Don't turn chess into a big money (C) show

[Anonymous Coward]

Chess does not need to be a show financed by big money

Of course it does.

Announcer:"If Kasparov fails to move his Redbull King within the next two moves, he could face danger from the Challenger's Capital One Queen."
Madden:"That's right Gus. All he has to do is put Kasparov into a Bud Light Checkmate, and then he might just stand a chance of winning this thing."

Re:Don't turn chess into a big money (C) show

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Chess does not need to be a show financed by big money. All sports where money got injected tend to turn into reality shows with media buzzing around searching for dirty stories, with pervasive doping, etc.

In that case, give chess one hell of a cash bolus, stat!

Wouldn't having the same care and attention devoted to developing exotic new ways to juice mental performance that sports doping has to enhancing various aspects of physical performance be an amazing boon to humanity?

Right now, the situation is pretty bad. We have a few stimulants and alertness aids, sometimes enough to get ADD Billy to do his homework; but nothing compared to what a suitably enthusiastic athlete can do to muscular performance... Just imagine: A world where the truism 'You can't fix stupid' has been falsified.

Bring on the sponsorships, sign the high-stakes exclusive television coverage contracts, let's roll!

Re:Don't turn chess into a big money (C) show

[operagost]

Since I like crushing willful ignorance one poster at a time, I'd like to point out to SuricouRaven that American football began with no passing game and more points awarded to field goals than touchdowns, which made the kicking game more important. Also, the ball could be snapped with the foot ("heeling") in addition to the hand. The names of games don't change just because their rules do.

Re:Don't turn chess into a big money (C) show

[dcw3]

Wouldn't having the same care and attention devoted to developing exotic new ways to juice mental performance...

Sponsored by Luminosity

Re:Don't turn chess into a big money (C) show

[bmo]

I find the faux elitism by people like SuricouRaven odious.

So he doesn't like American Football. Yes? And? I'm sure I could point out aspects of his culture that I don't like and ridicule that too. But ya know what? Life is too fucking short. I will never understand Cricket, but I'm not going to begrudge people who do and enjoy it.

--
BMO

Related question re: Women's Chess

[RightSaidFred99]

Why do they have separate men's and women's? It makes zero sense. In sports they have separate contests because women are at a sever disadvantage in literally every sport involving strength, speed, agility, or endurance.

But why in chess? It's baffling to me.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Aighearach]

It is not actually separated. Most chess is open. And there is no such thing as men's chess. There are special women-only tournaments as a response to there being 10-1 men in the sport, and a lot of sexist morons. So for a lot of women that is the only way for them to enjoy it.

See also: http://phys.org/news150954140.html

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[petman]

They don't have separate men's and women's. The main FIDE rating list includes both men and women players. The thing is, there are just not that many highly rated women players. To put it into perspective, the current FIDE top 100 list contains only one woman - Judit Polgar, no. 58. So they created another list for women to make the game more competitive for women and increase women's participation. There are chess tournaments exclusively for women, but there are no tournaments exclusively for men. Women are free to enter the open tournaments.

As to why there are so many more good men chess players compared to women? I don't know.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[LainTouko]

And moreover, since Judit Polgar was capable of becoming a world championship candidate, it's proven that women can compete with men at the top.

The problem is that chess, or at least, serious chess seems to be an almost exclusively male pastime, for reasons I can only guess at. This leads to there being very few women in the top ranks of the game, simply because there are very few women at all ranks of the game, which creates the perception that they can't compete. So people organise separate tournaments for girls because that's what you do in sport. And so girls learning chess only have a tiny pool of other people to practice against, so they don't get the broad range of experience that the boys do, and they imagine becoming women's world champion rather than world champion so they don't get the ambition boys do, and so the regular stream of Judit Polgars which we need to break this idea is suppressed.

Segregation is a disaster for women's chess, but it creates a self-propagating vicious circle. It is its own explanation.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Dollyknot]

Basically it is a bribe to get more women playing, no more no less.

The more women that play, the more they will teach their sons to play.

Unlike most people, I don't see chess as an end in itself, but as a means to an end.

Chess is a universal human language, it matters not, how old you are, what race you are, or what sex you are, OTB we all start equal. (OTB = over the board)

There is another universal language, it is the language of 'logic', the fact that we now have computers that in terms of chess, can wipe the floor with all of us is evidence.

I have this mad dream of a democratically run UN with real teeth, by democratic, I mean a UN with delegates from each nation in proportion to it's population, voting on global law.

My idea is, that one of the qualifications required to be a UN delegate, is to have a demonstrated ability at logic, proven by a demonstratable chess ability, maybe an ELO of above 1600.

It is my guess, that this would lead to a better planet, in terms of how we treat each other and all the other species.

The current state of play is incredibly wasteful, with every separate nation armed to the teeth, with it's own army navy and airforce to protect it's Sovereignty.

I propose a different kind of Sovereignty, that being individual Sovereignty guarunteed by a global rule of law.

Then once we have global democratic rule of law, instead of things being run by a cabal hiding in the shadows, we can build a road to the stars.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are many more men players than women. A larger set has a greater probability to contain outliers, both on the good and the bad side. Given everybody start with the same (in)ability of playing chess the bad side is the same, the good side yields better players for the larger set (men). It's the same for every other mind game and for every other partition. I bet that chess players taller that 2 meters are on average weaker than 2 m, and the same for blond players with brown eyes. So the question is why there are many more men players than women. Social/parental pressure on women not to lose time playing games?

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

Because men are better at chess?
You know that there are other differences between men women besides physical ability?

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, like how men are totally better at everything, and women are only better at knitting or whatever lame scraps men allow them to have?

I love evolutionary psychology. Society looks like X now, so it must have been caused by Y, and because we know Y exists, society can only ever look like X. Genius.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Logic has its uses; but why would you expect performance in a deterministic game of perfect information (and only a moderately complex one, at that: this isn't tic-tac-toe; but even some games that humans actually play for fun, like, Go, are considerably nastier, and never mind the ghastly stuff that mathematicians come up with for fun; by generalizing games into N dimensions or building rulesets for use on boards of peculiar sizes and not-fully-possible-in-three-dimensions structures...) to be particularly relevant to performance in the world, which shows...limited... determinism at useful scales, and certainly isn't a game of perfect information?

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Dodgy G33za]

At the risk of sounding sexist, I wonder if it is because men seem to have more of a tendency to become single minded/obsessive about things. I don't know whether it is just more socially acceptable, but I note that men are far more likely to be the ones that have all consuming hobbies.

As to whether this is a product of the way society is structured or nature I have no idea.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Bob_Who]

Why do they have separate men's and women's?

But why in chess? It's baffling to me.

Its because the girls don't have a penis, silly.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

As to why there are so many more good men chess players compared to women? I don't know.

Because patriarchy!

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd hope that chess cultivates a certain decorum; but given the... atmosphere... at a variety of other nerd-heavy and largely male events, it wouldn't be a huge surprise if they have some of the same appeal that the Japanese women-only subway cars do...

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

My idea is, that one of the qualifications required to be a UN delegate, is to have a demonstrated ability at logic, proven by a demonstratable chess ability, maybe an ELO of above 1600.

I wonder how many tournament matches you need to fix to get a guy who doesn't know the rules of chess to have an ELO of 1600. Not that many, I'd guess.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it is because men seem to have more of a tendency to become single minded/obsessive about things.

You're obviously not married.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

The penis is, so to speak, a red herring.

The real reason is that women get pregnant and men don't.

Re: Related question re: Women's Chess

[Aboroth]

My idea is, that one of the qualifications required to be a UN delegate, is to have a demonstrated ability at logic, proven by a demonstratable chess ability, maybe an ELO of above 1600.

It isn't often that I physically roll my eyes when reading, but you managed to get me to do it.

Clearly a better metric is who can win at "Guess Who?" without asking if they're wearing glasses.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Bob_Who]

Democracy in the Golden Age of Greece, established the original blueprint that evolved into modern democracies, eventually. But it was once very different. First of all, if a member of the senate voted for something that turned out bad, they could be punished or even executed by the state for neglectful voting. Also, there was a random factor in elections that did not require a majority vote for every representative: an electoral appointment was made by lottery to the senate so that common man was assured a voice, even if unpopular. Not just career politicians or entrenched special interests would have all the influence on the legislative process. Anyone could put their hat in the ring by virtue of their citizenship. Vagrants would be an improvement of our career politicians' gridlocked constipation and offers a little social laxative and lube required to pull their heads out of their asses.

Like ancient Democracy, chess evolves over time, and with disagreement and controversy over the rules. Its likes politics and power plays, psychological edge and humiliation are part of the calculus.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[allcoolnameswheretak]

It's because men are at a severe disadvantage in cognitive ability to women, so we are having separate tournaments to "protect" women from sexist assholes to camouflage that stain on our greatness and otherwise supreme superiority. Now stop asking questions. Thank you very much.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a fact - that's just your opinion. Sadly there is no strong evidence supporting either opinion. So basically we assume that both women and men have equal chances to be World Chmapion class player but practicality dictates we have Women World Chmpionships.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[necro81]

Possibly because, in a game where the Queen is the most powerful and versatile player, she is subordinate to protecting the King.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not actually separated. Most chess is open. And there is no such thing as men's chess. There are special women-only tournaments as a response to there being 10-1 men in the sport, and a lot of sexist morons. So for a lot of women that is the only way for them to enjoy it.

See also: http://phys.org/news150954140.html

In one hand, you claim it's not actually separated, and then in the other hand you claim they hold special women-only tournaments...?

Using the ratio as the reason is bullshit. The ratio is just as bad for women in other areas of competition (professional poker or video gaming comes to mind), and yet they thrive just fine with men and women playing.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have separate men's and women's...

OK, cool.

...There are chess tournaments exclusively for women, but there are no tournaments exclusively for men.

Er, wait a minute, but you just said...

Isn't it ironic when one-way sexism isn't considered sexist as long as the one-way is pointing the politically correct direction?

Sorry, but even as a man who enjoys playing chess and has competed in the past, I find this practice utterly disgusting. I have participated in many other games (competitive shooting, video games, poker tournaments) where the ratio of women:men was just as low or lower, and yet co-op game play works just fine.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[zippthorne]

The only thing worse than gridlock is when they do stuff...

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you just pulling this out of your ass?

What you're saying is absolutely not my experience as a chess player. As is said elsewhere, the fact that there are woman only tournaments does not exclude women from other tournaments. This invalidates your reasoning.

Again, where do you have your ideas from?

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

And moreover, since Judit Polgar was capable of becoming a world championship candidate, it's proven that women can compete with men at the top..

I can tell you aren't really a player, at least not anyone who's ever played in tournaments. You're actually quite wrong in that statement, unfortunately. All Judit Polgar proved was that she could compete at the top levels with male players, but she never even came close to being a world championship candidate. What she did is roughly akin to a woman competing in the men's tennis tournament in Wimbledon and getting past the first round but losing handily in the second. Judit is really good and lots of men wish they were as good as she is, but she's never been a serious world championship candidate. Earlier this year she was ranked something like 52nd in the world, which doesn't even put her within a light year of being a serious candidate for the world championship. Anand, who I agree is clearly on the decline, would easily defeat her in a tournament. I'd be shocked if she won more than 1 game in such a mythical tournament.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? That's your objection—the names of the pieces?

Here's a suggestion, then:

• Pawn -> Infantry
• Rook -> Artillery
• Bishop -> Commando
• Knight -> Intelligence
• Queen -> Executive Officer
• King -> General

Go forth and push it on the chess-playing public.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

she's not good enough now, but she was a better player than Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov or Ponomariov, or at least she was no worse (in my view she plays better than all three). She could have become FIDE world champ during the period when loads of strong but not strongest GMs got that title. She certainly could have been world champ candidate no prob. But that's partly the point of this whole discussion, world champ doesn't mean what it used to even after reunification. if you mean could she have been number 1 rated, then no, she was a fair way off that.
But again Polgar has a higher peak rating than Nigel Short for example, and plenty of other world champ candidates. She might well have done better than Short did against Kasp if she had played him in late 90s. To say she never came close to being good enough to be a candidate, well that's just wrong.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

Judit Polgar was born to a chess expert and was literally trained from birth to be a chess player. Is that what it takes to for women be competitive with men?

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Bigby]

That is how every sport is. Women are welcome to play on the PGA Tour, NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, etc... Yet, there are the LPGA Tour, WNBA, and other leagues that are women only.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break this to you but everyone in the top 100 rankings has been playing chess constantly since they were single-digit years old.

Personally, I gave up on the game in 1997, but whatever.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[wickerprints]

Indeed, if you read various chess forum comments (the vast majority of which are made by males), the difference in the way male and female chess players are discussed is striking. Big names like Judit Polgar and Yifan Hou attract comments about their physical appearance and the femininity of their demeanor. If similar comments were made about Anand or Kramnik, people would find it bizarre and laugh. And then, of course, are the more overtly sexist comments, making broad claims about how women are simply less intellectually capable than men, or that chess requires a level of physical and mental endurance that only "real men" can handle.

This is also true in more conventional athletic sports--e.g., tennis. The culture of sexism is so ingrained in the male psyche that most men are completely incapable of detecting sexist behavior, whether in others or themselves; and when confronted, the response is predictably some form of vehement outrage and denial. Some then proceed to shift the blame, claiming that others have been indoctrinated by some militant feminist agenda, or worse yet, a nebulous "political correctness."

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[sourcerror]

Woman chess players can compete in all the tournaments where men can play, but the best woman chess player isn't on the same level as the best male chess player, therefore they can earn more money in woman only tournaments.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[operagost]

I refuse to believe that women are as intellectually shallow as you suggest.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[blackraven14250]

I'm not so sure that women would be accepted into most of these leagues at all.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the distribution of our genetic code. Women have less variation on the bell curve than men. This means you will have more genius men that women, but this also means you will have more stupid men than women.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[necro81]

I refuse to believe that women are as intellectually shallow as you suggest.

Or you accept it as a tongue-in-cheek comment, as it was meant. I guess I should have included a [sarcasm] tag.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[JeffAtl]

Yeah that's a good point. There was significant pushback when women have talked about joining the PGA tour. I think that MLB and possibly golf would be the only ones likely to welcome a female and that's pretty much because there is no physicality with the opponents.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Hatta]

They don't have separate men's and women's. The main FIDE rating list includes both men and women players. The thing is, there are just not that many highly rated women players.

Which is how it should be for every sport. Let everyone play by the same rules, and win or lose according to their actual ability. In any other field saying "You're good at X, for a girl" is considered an insult. But isn't that exactly what we're saying to women when we create separate leagues for them?

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Smauler]

This is also true in more conventional athletic sports--e.g., tennis. The culture of sexism is so ingrained in the male psyche that most men are completely incapable of detecting sexist behavior, whether in others or themselves; and when confronted, the response is predictably some form of vehement outrage and denial. Some then proceed to shift the blame, claiming that others have been indoctrinated by some militant feminist agenda, or worse yet, a nebulous "political correctness."

I've heard plenty of women talking about the attractiveness of male tennis players, sometimes quite graphically. Do you think that is sexism?

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[dcw3]

Interesting study on gender differences regarding spatial relations. forbid that there might be actual differences between the sexes...sorry, I just despise political correctness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909401/

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that she's beaten Anand, both in direct games and in tournaments, and was at one point in the top 10, right? She's clearly not in the running for world championship today, but she most certainly was a contender in the early 2000s before her amount of play dropped off drastically when she had a kid.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you aren't a player who's played in high level tournaments.
Polgar was a stronger player, in my view, than at least 3 FIDE world champions (Kasimdzhanov and Ponomariov probably, Khalifman certainly).
And she has a higher peak rating than many challengers or near-challengers, for example, Nigel Short (if you want to not count the PCA/FIDE split years). Hell, even Timman had a close shot at a challenge(and indeed was a FIDE candidate) and he's way below Polgar.
Of course she's not so good now, and never really looked likely to be champion or world number one once her teenage prodigy years were over, when she broke all sorts of records and beat up on some GMs, but it didn't look impossible either

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this is sexist, it is a well know fact that women have a more well-rounded and pragmatic approach to life, while men tend to idealize certain activities and pour effort into them bordering (and sometimes crossing) impracticality; of course this is only a tendency and of course we all ignore if there is a biological basis for this or is purely cultural.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[LainTouko]

Judit Polgar was one of eight players who participated in what FIDE called the "World Chess Championship 2005". Now, the FIDE world championship during the era when the champion wasn't participating was of course a joke, but the winner of that tournament, Topalov, challenged the world champion Kramnik for the title on the basis of his win. This makes the FIDE "World Chess Championship 2005" a de-facto candidates tournament, and hence, the eight participants, including Judit, world championship candidates. Players who were candidates to challenge for the world title.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

NFL opened themselves to having women kickers.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Dollyknot]

Well I did not get voted up or down, so thought I would add a bit more detail, to my post.
I wrote "There is another universal language, it is the language of 'logic'"

I consider the language of 'logic' to be boolean algebra.

I wrote "instead of things being run by a cabal hiding in the shadows"

According to Wikipedia, the first Gulf war ended on 28 February 1991.

I remember reading at the time, when the allied forces had reached the Iraqi borders, that both Generals Schwarzkopf and De la Billiere wanted to carry on to Baghdad, capture Saddam and have him tried as a war criminal, they were ordered not to by Colin Powell, I do not think Powell was running things, but was acting under orders from Bush the elder.

I find it hard to imagine, that an American President would not want international rule of law, sadly, the only explanation that makes any sense to me is, George Bush the elder, was told to end it there, by a cabal in the shadows, who did not want international law, and did not believe all men are cousins (whether they want to be or not) these people have far more power than is democratically realised.

How else can we explain the 12 years after, when the west tortured the Iraqi people by denying them international justice.

Re:Related question re: Women's Chess

[Aighearach]

Here is an article in the main chess press with a picture of two GMs arm wrestling, and the caption "Males performing the typical early summer test-of-strength rituals"

GM Yasser Seirawan broke up a fistfight (over dancing with a lovely WIM) and was described as the Man of Steel, including testimony as to the physical prowess of his figure.

The #1 chess website, the one that gets more traffic than all the others... chessqueen.com the home of former Women's World Champion GM Alexandra Kosteniuk. She is also a model, actress, mother, and promoter of scholastic chess. She likes to remind the world that "chess is cool!"

There are obvious differences between men's and women's chess though. Any chess player can tell you that. Men's chess people look at the crosstables, and play for a draw they think it helps their chances to win money. Women tend to focus more on winning, take more chances attacking, and have fewer draws. As in tennis, they also look better doing it.

Similar to the system in shogi

[Anonymous Coward]

In Japan, professional shogi (Japanese chess) originally had only one title, Meijin (literally, "the Master of the Game"), which dates from the 1600s. However, the title scene has evolved in the 20th century, so that shogi pros now compete in seven major title games every year. The Meijin title remains the most revered of the seven, due to its history and the fact that years of consistent winning in league play is required to become a challenger, but one other (Ryuo) is almost as prestigious as Meijin, and the other five are also highly respected. The titles differentiate themselves in how they select tournament participants, amount of thinking time given, number of matches played, etc.

Different sorts of 'best'

[LainTouko]

I think the problem the author has is that he wants to believe that there is a singular notion of "best chess player". In reality, there are multiple notions of the best chess player. Ratings measure more the ability to stay consistent throughout your career and never let your form dip, tournament wins measure more your ability to take points off weaker players and shift our mindset rapidly to deal with the next style which comes along... and the world championship measures more your ability to present an impregnable wall of defensive ability and be unbeatable.

These are all very valuable things to have, and wanting to take one of them away just because your mind isn't flexible enough to cope with them all existing simultaneously is selfish.

Re:Different sorts of 'best'

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I can see the emotional appeal; but it's a trifle odd to even bother quibbling about the 'bestness metric' when storage and retrieval of every move, in every (reasonably official) game played in somebody's entire career is not exactly a terrifying challenge at the cutting edge of database design...

Especially with the (relative) standardization of computer-readable move notation, you could probably derive practically any wacky fitness metric you could conceive of, compute it, and rank players according to it, as suits your taste. Obviously, only a relatively small subset of possible fitness metrics would be of human interest; but 'best' seems substantially more reductive than required.

Re:Different sorts of 'best'

[CastrTroy]

I agree it's a different kind of game. This is kind of the odd thing about chess. You get to study a single opponent for months, maybe even years before you finally play against them. If you had more of a tournament style play, there would be too many competitors in too short a period of time, and you wouldn't be able to specialize your techniques for playing against a single player. I'm not sure which is actually a better measure of greatness, but they are two completely different ways of measuring greatness.

Re: IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY MUST BE IN AMERICA !

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh, you'll make the Eurotrash and comrades who hang out here mad.

Location for chess tournament

[rossdee]

One town's very like another
when your heads down over your pieces brother

Re:Location for chess tournament

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, I think this excellent reference is lost on the people here. :(

Re:Location for chess tournament

[DigitalReverend]

Bravo!

Re:Location for chess tournament

[Beeftopia]

1) "One Night In Bangkok" by Murray Head, from the musical "Chess."

2) About the song.

3) About the musical.

I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine.

Re:Location for chess tournament

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done sir! This AC salutes you!

Re:Location for chess tournament

[Anonymous Coward]

As Bobby Fischer have found out, that's not true for Belgrade.

Re:Location for chess tournament

[Anonymous Coward]

Burma Shave.

An Indian is the best in the World in a sport...

[Anonymous Coward]

just accept it, and move along. No need to bend the rules just because an Indian is the best in the World. The rules and title have been the same for decades when Karpov and Kasparov were World Champions; so why change them now?

It's never a real sport

[Anonymous Coward]

unless it has a death match.

Boxing?

[Dthief]

whats wrong with the same method used by boxing?

Re:Boxing?

[gl4ss]

boxing, the same sport that has .. I don't even fucking know how many champions. 3 "pro"?

and then world champion? olympic champion? etc etc.. and if you get a match being arbitrary.

in boxing you must have some time between important matches though, but I don't see why a reigning chess champion should be able to wait for years for the challenger match to happen..

Re:Boxing?

[Chris Mattern]

boxing, the same sport that has .. I don't even fucking know how many champions. 3 "pro"?

There are currently *five* organizations independently handing out the title of boxing world champion. There are only two heavyweight champions, with one person holding four of those titles simultaneously (and, interestingly, the other one is his brother), but in other weight divisions there are indeed five different world champions. I can't see how boxing is an example for anyone to follow.

Re:Boxing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's way too hard to pick up the pieces with those massive no-fingered gloves on...

Re:Boxing?

[drsquare]

You mean have half a dozen champions, with each champion picking and choosing his matches, and champions giving up titles if they challenger isn't worth playing?

Or do you mean having results subjectively decided by judges?

New sub-category 'Sports'

[Selur]

Is this the start of a 'Sports'-subcategory? I know the number theory behind chess (wrote a decent chess program a few years back), but is this really a topic for slashdot? Don't get me wrong, I like watching and playing chess, as I like watching football (playing not so much, since I'm physically not so fit), but I wouldn't want a rule discussion and similar on slashdot,...

Re:New sub-category 'Sports'

[Dodgy G33za]

Surely chess is a game, not a sport. I know the difference is subtle, but chess does not require any physical exertion beyond the lifting of the pieces.

And yes, I know snooker, pool and darts are not much better. But there must be a line, or go, scrabble and monopoly would be sports too.

Re:New sub-category 'Sports'

[Anonymous Coward]

Chess is not a sport!

The first (googled) definition of sport is: "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." Emphasis mine.

While chess has mental exertion in spades it's about as physically taxing as reaching for the tv remote to change channels.

As to why this is on Slashdot...News for Nerds. Nuff said!

Re:New sub-category 'Sports'

[TyFoN]

The brain is only 2% of the mass, but actually accounts for 20% of the energy usage.

I suspect Magnus might use even more when he is really thinking.

Personally I can get exhausted for long periods of heavy brain use, and this championship lasts for 100 hrs.

I'd not be too sure I wouldn't call it a sport.

Re:New sub-category 'Sports'

[Bucc5062]

I love /. for just these types of justifications. Between a lawyer and a good /. poster, I'd take the /.'er for clearly they can think way outside the box. With that said, yes, Chess is a sport for not only do we need to exercise this mass of tissue, but like any good sport, we can also finds ways to dope it up for extreme gains and that "do anything to win" attitude. Eventually we change from "doing our best" to "I need to win no matter what"

As an aside, I thought my sport (Eventing), the one I compete in, would remain drug free for drugging a horse then going out and attempting to jump 4'+ solid jumps at approach speeds @ 22 mph would just be stupid...I was wrong. First comes money, then drugs, then it just goes downhill from there.

Yes, Chess is a sport, let's watch it slide into hell one move at a time.

(feeling dark humor today)

Re:New sub-category 'Sports'

[Anonymous Coward]

Play two six hour games in a single day and tell me it is not physically exerting. Then repeat for a minimum of three days.

Re:New sub-category 'Sports'

[jbengt]

Surely chess is a game, not a sport.

Then why did my brother need to pass a physical in order to be on his high school chess team?
(OK, the answer is stupid bureaucratic rules, but still)
More seriously (or more pedantically, really), Sports and Athletics don't mean the same thing. If you're doing it for fun, it's a sport. If it requires athletic ability, it's athletics.

Re:New sub-category 'Sports'

[Anonymous Coward]

you can say the same for a big video game tournament. hardly a 'sport'.

Re:New sub-category 'Sports'

[Hatta]

Why not? Rules are the only interesting part of sport. Which team won which game is just trivia. What rules make a game fair and interesting, now that's a debate you can sink your teeth into.

Re:New sub-category 'Sports'

[TyFoN]

Funny you should mention lawyers.

I just watched this clip of Magnus where he beats 10 Harward lawyers blind folded :)
Quite impressive memory.

He reminds me a bit of Rainman sometimes.

Link Norwegian

Get with the times!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Shouldn't we just have the chess-playing computers in a 24/7/365 competition cycle, with mastery changing hands as often as is computationally feasible, and then just use the time-honored traditions to decide who among us shall bear the title of 'Meatsack Prime' within the chess world?

Re:Get with the times!

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Great idea. We could also replace the Olympic games by much faster/higher/longer/more accurate machines.

Re:Get with the times!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Great idea. We could also replace the Olympic games by much faster/higher/longer/more accurate machines.

No, the Olympics we should keep organic. Not necessarily entirely human; but organic. Just imagine hideous man/tick hybrids sprinting and jumping, ghastly quadruped-thing endurance runners, archers with creepy compound eyes... A glorious celebration of mostly-human athleticism!

Re:Get with the times!

[vasilevich]

Watch livechess.chessdom.com. ntcec Season 2 Stage 4 is currently underway. Those 3000+ ELO engines would mop the floor with these two humans :).

Re:Get with the times!

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch livechess.chessdom.com. ntcec Season 2 Stage 4 is currently underway. Those 3000+ ELO engines would mop the floor with these two humans :).

Get rid of the opening book and endgame tablebase and watch your 3000+ ELO engines have difficulty beating even a modest player, let alone a grandmaster.

Re:Get with the times!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but also get rid of that grandmasters experience, otherwise it's not a fair comparison.

Re:Get with the times!

[jfengel]

You just know that it would get higher TV ratings than the present Olympics do. Lifting 200 kg? Dull. Lifting 20 metric tons, on the other hand...

Re:Get with the times!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect that the crowd would love it, and the moralists would love scolding it and being horrified, so everybody would be happy!

I don't understand

[bytesex]

I've yet to RTFA, but the sentence "Despite currently holding the title, Anand is very much the underdog, which only serves to illustrate why the current system is broken" does nothing to illustrate the point. Rather the opposite: a contender who beats the incumbent happens all the time. The fact that this is possible, is the prime motivator for trying at all, and thus the reason for the existance these tournaments.

Re:I don't understand

[greenreaper]

The point is that it's obvious that he's the stronger player, and the world needs a better system than a single championship once every three years to prove it.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?
We only have Olympics and world cups every 4 years, so why can't these chess people wait 3 years to update their stats?

One night in Bangkok

[Neo-Rio-101]

Moscow, Amsterdam.... Bangkok? It's a drag, it's a bore, it's really such a pity To be looking at the board, not looking at the city

There shouldn't be a world chess champion

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't win from the computer, you shouldn't be champion.
We should just name the computer chess champion and move on to a different game.
Chess is done.

Re:There shouldn't be a world chess champion

[Anonymous Coward]

By this logic we should crown the crane the weightlifting champion, the car the running champ, the airplane the long jump champ, and the cannon the shot-put champ.

We need a -1 Stupid mod.

Chess has to be rethought.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

The problem with modern chess is that it has been analyzed to death.

To make it more interesting they should make some kind of modifications. One that was suggested a long time ago was the players choosing the positions on the back ranks. Maybe adding more pieces and squares etc.

Also add time to the clocks. Let games last several sessions. etc.

Re:Chess has to be rethought.

[frank-the-fake]

The problem with modern chess is that it has been analyzed to death.

Not true

The current analysis of the opening moves is certainly very extensive. But since all top players are familiar with this opening theory, a game between two grandmasters only actually "begins" once one of the players breaks from the current theory. This will usually take the form of a player making a move that is considered to be inferior.

So each Grandmaster game becomes a contribution to current chess theory and will itself trigger analysis amongst chess experts across the world

Re:Chess has to be rethought.

[Anonymous Coward]

And lasers!

Re:Chess has to be rethought.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with modern chess is that it has been analyzed to death.

Not true

The current analysis of the opening moves is certainly very extensive. But since all top players are familiar with this opening theory, a game between two grandmasters only actually "begins" once one of the players breaks from the current theory. This will usually take the form of a player making a move that is considered to be inferior...

I see. So, humans have gotten to the point in chess where they have learned it to machine-precision, and now have to literally break that machined logic in order for the "game" to actually begin.

This is similar to watching two computers play tic-tac-toe...until one of them gets a virus and the game finally doesn't end in a draw. Not sure what part of that you call the game anymore.

When humans find themselves needing to act more human in order to progress, perhaps something is indeed flawed with game theory and game play.

Re:Chess has to be rethought.

[MGDruss]

One interesting thing about Carlsen is how *little* opening theory he knows compared to his rivals. He doesn't follow this approach. Instead of highly specialising in a few openings, he has very general play where he can play most openings well. Seems to be working for him!

Re:Chess has to be rethought.

[GuB-42]

Even if we manage to solve chess, the game will still be interesting to non-perfect solvers such as humans.
A bit like rock-paper-scissors is still played by both humans and computers even though the optimal strategy (chose at random) is well known and simple. This strategy will guarantee a draw against any opponent but you won't be able to win. By using a good suboptimal strategy you will lose against perfect players, draw against pure-random players but at least, if your suboptimal strategy is better than your opponent's suboptimal strategy, you can win.

It's already implemented ! It's named ELO :-)

[hgj]

Is this proposal not just how the ELO ranking works ?

Re:It's already implemented ! It's named ELO :-)

[night_flyer]

I love ELO... Jeff Lynne is a musical genius!

Why?

[ebcdic]

Why does chess need a "clear and predictable yardstick for greatness"? It's a game, not engineering.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does chess need a "clear and predictable yardstick for greatness"? It's a game, not engineering.

This is probably the most insightful post I've seen in here yet. And my view would be: That is the only way advertisers and marketers can generate sufficient hype to make actual money on it.

Yeah, get rid of the Champion title

[MitchDev]

and while your at it, let's stop having winners and losers, every game is a draw and these overgrown children can all feel good about themselves no matter how good/bad they do...it's all about their self esteem!

Re:Yeah, get rid of the Champion title

[dzfoo]

Don't forget the ribbons! Everyone must get a ribbon.

        -dZ.

Re:Yeah, get rid of the Champion title

[MitchDev]

Ribbons? RIBBONS?

But the committee bought a boxful of Trophies!!!! Now we need ribbons too? ;)

Re:Yeah, get rid of the Champion title

[dzfoo]

Our little Timmy has always received a ribbon. If he doesn't get one this time, it may affect his self-esteem. And while we're at it, since little Timmy is getting a ribbon, then they all should get one, lest they feel left out or less capable.

So, yes, ribbons.

Who......

[Anonymous Coward]

gives a shit?

Shit article

[palemantle]

Hmm ... lets see. The author thinks the incumbent - who looks like a worthy champ to my admittedly unenlightened eyes - is useless and that the challenger shits gold.

Consequently, he'd like to replace the current system which is subjective but works for other sports (boxing?) and replace it with an equally subjective system so that his favourite challenger will rise to the top sooner than he'd like.

He then goes on to spout nonsense about what the challenger should do *after* he beats the crap out of the incumbent.

Duh ... it ain't a done deal, mate. That's why they play!

Re:Shit article

[JMZero]

You completely misunderstood the article. His complaint isn't about how Carlsen has arrived here or how long it's taken (it hasn't been long); it's that having a single, seldom-disputed title for Chess doesn't provide a fine-grained measurement for accomplishment. Through chance or deliberate "ducking", someone can end up being world chess champion longer or shorter than they "deserve". He believes that with more frequent sampling, you could get a more accurate "signal" in terms of player skill. He believes this would generate more interest, and give us better data to compare players over time. I think he's probably right, though he's missing the fact that his system would also reward a somewhat different skill set (it's different to win tournaments vs. matches).

Boxing actually has a fairly chess-like title system (though it's a mess). What he wants is a tournament system like tennis or golf. He thinks Carlsen, if he wins, would have standing to push through this kind of change. He probably would.

Re:Shit article

[JeffAtl]

Good points. Tournaments tend to reward generalists while match play tends to reward specialization & preparation.

The same debate occurs in most american sports - should the regular season determine the champion or a playoff system. There are good arguments on both sides but the fact remains that the two approaches along with the hybrids are measuring different things.

ELO already reflects ability

[Anonymous Coward]

there doesnt have to be one "best"

Are you sure this isn't the russian govt?

[EngineeringStudent]

I wonder what Gary Kasparov thinks about this idea. He is a bit of a thorn or a blackened eye to some Russian politicians.

A post like this in a forum like this would not be out of character for them.

Yes, it is a little bit of a conspiracy theorist idea. Sadly, folks in governments like to conspire. ;)

Why all the fuss it's just a boardgame...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not even a real sport, who cares.....

Why isn't a computer the champ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans are false champs.

ELO and the King!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

the article is one massive ego-trip...the author has spent considerable time researching the history of the "world championship" and lots more selectively presenting facts to suit his theory...he conveniently forgot that Anand has gone through the same wait and frustrations in his road to to be a champion and that is probably why it is such a great story...he is forgetting that the "underdog champion" has won all formats ...tournament, match, knock-out, rapid...heck, he even maxed the advanced chess format touted by Kasparov ... Carlsen is a worthy opponent and his taking on Anand in a duel to unseat him is what would make this so exciting...a lot of people like the notion of someone wearing the crown and being challenged by a worthy opponent every one or two years in an involved battle...rather than the crown shifting rapidly between number of heads based on an algorithm...

Not seeing the issue

[PortHaven]

The article really fails to make a substantial argument. Okay, the every 3 year issue I can see. Make it every two. First year is to pick the top 4 contenders. The next year the tournament.

But I don't see what the issue is with having one champion. It seems there may be an issue with point scoring system. As frankly, I think wins are more substantial than draws.

I just came away from the whole article questioning what the issue is in having a world champion. It seems to me that no harm is there. And the fact that the ranking doesn't equate to champion is not uncommon. Look at baseball. How many times does the top ranked team win the World Series? A lot, but no where near always. The top ranked team makes it to the play off, it doesn't mean they survive to the World Series. And it shouldn't.

I think what the author wants is that "World Champion" is merely a result of the tally of rankings. Not established by an event. But that's dumb. Because the challenge of a championship adds a unique pressure and intensity. It adds a goal. And many top performers are not capable of performing their best if there is no goal.

This seems much more like the typical "Tea Cup" generation. Everyone gets a trophy. We can't have a winner. No more football, someone might get hurt. No more World Tiddlywink Championships cause someone might LOSE!!!!

Re:Not seeing the issue

[JMZero]

I think what the author wants is that "World Champion" is merely a result of the tally of rankings. Not established by an event... Everyone gets a trophy.

He wants events. He wants tournaments. Winning a tournament is a big goal. There's no reason some of the tournaments wouldn't be more prestigious (as Wimbledon is for tennis), and they would have reigning champions. Not everyone wins tournaments or gets trophies. His plan has nothing to do with watering down competition. His plan has nothing to do with the safety of the players, who would go on winning and losing (and, if anything, the bulk of them would be under more pressure more often).

All we're talking about is changing the sampling frequency. On one end, you have a measure like ELO that samples continuously. On the other end, you have championship matches years apart. In the middle, you have milestone tournaments a few times a year (like tennis or golf, which he mentions). There's benefits at each point on this continuum. Personally, I think that the "big tournament" structure of golf or tennis creates a lot of interest, and also gives us a useful, interesting way of comparing the success of different players over time (while still potentially rewarding short lived inspired play).

Re:Not seeing the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

It already is every two. Anand defended in 2012, 2010 and 2008 after winning in 2007.

Except...

[Dcnjoe60]

This would give chess the same clear and predictable yardstick for greatness that golf and tennis have instead of the extremely crude world champion benchmark.

Except that golf and tennis are actual sports, while chess is not. Golf and tennis are followed by 100s of millions of people, while chess is not. Now if you want to destroy the tradition and intellectual pursuit known as chess and turn it into something that can be monetized, go ahead. Years ago, they did that to wrestling, so who knows, 25 years from now, we might all be watching All Star Chess on television.

Computer Chess Champion

[kcwhitta]

Based on just the title, I thought this was going to be about computer chess opponents consistently beating world chess champions, making the title unnecessary.

Go fyuck yo'self ...

[noshellswill]

NO,  just bend over and let a PAWN do it.

It should be like little league

[MellowBob]

No points. Participation awards for all!

As they say in boxing...

[srussia]

"Styles make fights."

and the world championship measures more your ability to present an impregnable wall of defensive ability and be unbeatable.

That would be Mayweather.

Human World Chess Champion

[Dr. Gamera]

From the title, I thought the article was going to discuss why the real World Chess Champion these days is always a computer, and how they should add a qualifier to the sobriquet for the winner of the Carlsen-Anand match: the Human World Chess Champion.

Chess: stagnant and dull

[TiggertheMad]

Parent does have a point. I spent some time studying chess openings and competitive play, and it is kind of stale. There isn't a lot of variety in openings that won't get your ass kicked all over the board, and to be really competitive you have to spend a lot of time examining openings and positions that haven't changed much in several hundred years. I believe that a few chess masters have advocated changes to the game to mix it up a bit, and chance it from a game of who can memorize more openings and positions and into more of a dynamic strategy game.

Re:Chess: stagnant and dull

[14erCleaner]

Grandparent doesn't have a clue what chess is about. Anyone who thinks chess is just memorizing openings has never played it seriously. I spent about ten years playing in tournaments, getting up to a USCF expert rating, and never found it necessary to memorize much beyond a couple of move. Most games diverge from anything resembling any other recognizable game within the first 5 to 10 moves, after which the real fun starts. Strategy, tactics, positional play, endgames - this is a really wonderfully complicated game that most people can't handle, so they try to put it down as "memoization" (sic) or "a solved game". If you don't like it, that's fine, but you shouldn't try to comment on things you don't understand.

Remember, each game of chess means there's one less mistake to be made. :)

Chess is not Tennis

[Anonymous Coward]

the riveting action found in tennis merits Grand Slams in four major continents, not the same as chess where the level of action in chess is not necessarily understood by the general public. thus this idea of abandoning World chess championship has no merits at all.

Maybe... the problem isn't unique to Chess

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're suggesting is interesting, but I don't really agree. The problem is that everyone can have off days for random reasons, and if your off day happens to be in one match, it can have huge consequences in championship-type systems. I suppose part of what you're arguing is that the people who win the championship have fewer off days, but that's a big assumption: it's not just how many off days someone has, but when they have them, and with whom. You could have two people, both who have a six-match winning streak, and if one streak starts before the other, the other person will lose the championship. Similarly, most people would agree that winning five games against the top five ranked players in the world probably means more than winning seven games against unranked opponents.

This problem isn't unique to chess, and it's one reason why I've always preferred series like in baseball, or even better, the rankings system of college football over the playoffs of professional football. There's always been a call for college playoffs, but that's seemed ridiculous to me, because it terms a relatively reliable index of performance into a system that can be completely thrown off based on how one team does on one day. It may make football more entertaining or suspenseful, but it decreases its validity as an index of team performance, quality, or ability.

This is the same thing in chess. I think the big difference is that there's already a rating system that's presumably very reliable, and then there's a playoff-style championship on top of it. It would be like if college football kept the rankings but then said "oh--here's the championship game too." What do you do when there's a discrepancy?

Anand should win!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi
  Of all the posts to happen! For the first time the title is happening in my home city also Vishwanathan Anand's home city and you want Magnus Carlsen to win. Certainly dont appreciate the thought!

Chess: stagnant and dull, AND full of assholes

[TiggertheMad]

Oh yeah, there was that other thing about competitive chess that I found annoying that I forgot to mention: Pretty much all the serious players are total assholes.

this is a really wonderfully complicated game that most people can't handle, so they try to put it down as "memoization" (sic) or "a solved game".....you shouldn't try to comment on things you don't understand.

I put it down as stale, so that means that I am not 'good enough' to understand it? Your comments call out anyone who disagrees with your opinion as to stupid to have a valid opinion. That is some amazing logic there, poindexter....