If this is too short for some, believing chess to be different then, say, tennis, then make it two years, but no one as incumbent.. You have to win it every time.

It may be supposedly better for the spectators to have a knockout system with rapid playoffs (that has yet to be proven, actually...I still don't see chess getting massive media coverage with this format)....And it's obviously easier for the organizers, knowing the whole tourney will be finished within a set time

I would say it stronger, the odds of getting the best player using the mini match format would be dismal and far to random to be takes seriously.

Unfortunately many use this poor implimentation by FIDE to determine matches are demonstrated to be inferior to tournamnets. Similiar to comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ducati Desmosedici and concluding based on those lopsided examples cars are vastly inferior to motorcycles!

I think in order to determine the best player he was about to eliminate luck as much as possible. And in the unprobable case of a 9:9 draw the unlucky challenger would have been partly compensated with more money. Fair (as far as possible) and practical proposal based on Steinitz ideas way back when.

Botvinnik may benefited a lot-tie with Bronstein,won both rematches with Tal and Smyslov,but he was able to win.Ok,both Tal and Smyslov were having health problems (for Tal it's sure,for Smyslov I don't know) but Botvinnik also made very big preparation.Kramnik was also given that chance recently and he failed (miserably I could say).

It was a lot easier some years ago if you were a top-level player because these days,the champion had complete control of the title.Alekhine was one of the greatest players,no doubt.But he didn't remain world champion until his death for that reason but because he simply didn't play any title matches.He didn't want to! And he was characterised as "perspona non grata".FIDE took control (that's they way it MUST be) but the players nowadays are not that good.All we see is computer vs computer (you know what I mean) in my humble opinion.

1) this implies there is one best player, which may not be true! Shocking!

<1) this implies there is one best player, which may not be true! Shocking!>

by definition two best players is not possible. If there is no best player, then there are several good players - that is why a contest will decide.

<2) this also implies the idea that chance can be eliminated. Impossible!>

True that is impossible, however the element of chance can be reduced and the guy who suffers from bad luck is monetarily compensated.

<‘... The following are the conditions for the match suggested by Mr Steinitz. If they be approved by Mr Zukertort, any minor conditions may be easily arranged.

Bogoljubow wasn't much of a challenge for Alekhine,the latter knew that. He also underestimated Euwe the first time-he CHOSE Euwe himself but paid the price.Because Euwe wasn't like Alekhine,he granted a rematch.Alekhine played more seriously (and Euwe was past his peak) and won. Then he decided: "I'm keeping the title for good" asking any ambitious challenger to raise an impossible purse-yeah,Capablanca also asked a high price I know,but Alekhine asked an even bigger one. He didn't want to give Capablannca a shot because he knew what would happen.

Yes,he tried to organize a match between him and Botvinnik,but in those years,it was known that the average life expectancy was lower than today-people didn't live as long.

Fischer also thought the Capablanca-Alekhine match (first to win six) had a 5-5 tie clause.

So did Kasparov! He claimed that in his 'Great Predessors' Volume 1

Whether or not there actually was, is still an open debate....Edward Winter investigated it in some depth years ago....There's some printed evidence that there was, but it hasn't been proven conclusively either way

The point is, Fischer thought there was precedent for the tie clause, and had good reason to think so...And he thought it was a superior system, and explained his reasoning in detail

<Of course even if it were traditional, it's a tradition that Fischer pledged to abolish>

Supposedly, Fischer also at one point proposed to play the 1972 match for no purse at all!

He also said he would defend the title every year!

In both cases, maybe pragmatism won out over pure idealism

Why should Fischer give more chances for the Soviets (or anybody else) to win back the title, when he only got a shot once every three years?

And why should he renounce a 'retain title on a tie' clause that just about every other WC (including all the Soviets) had?

<In the end, he not only broke his promise to abolish the old privilige, he tried to create a new one.>

Read Fischer's own words on the matter: http://bobbyfischer.net/

Paradoxically, even though he was the champion, he was actually trying to make the system more evenhanded, and more fair to the challenger

I've got quite a bit to say about the Weinstein "schoolboy analysis" that Botvinnik had the gall to publish way back when. The line in question is 67. Rc4 Rb3+ 68. Rc3 which will produce a draw after the barrage of checks is completely exhausted. After 67. Rc4 Black can make the game infinitely more interesting with 67...Rb7! which "ducks the draw" until about move 91. This forces White into a position requiring the utmost precision to play for an extended period of time,creating "fighting chess" for both sides, much better I'd say.

My "response to the schoolboy"----

Well, I understand that they went bowling together at the "Comrade Stalin Super Lanes" in Varna, Bulgaria, on a night off.

Things were going fine, then Fischer was down a few pins. He started to complain about the lighting. Adjustments were made.

Then, he accused the other bowlers of "bowling too loudly"--they were really knocking some pins down. The owner had all the other kegglers thrown out, only M.B. and Fischer remained.

Still, trouble. Fischer accused the Soviet contingent of beaming magnetic waves at him, through the electronic pin resetter, via metallic dust imprinted on Bob's shoes. Supposedly, this would impair Bobby's hand-eye coordination.

Bob demanded new shoes. Also, the auto pin resetter was shut down, and live people were posted near the back to reset the pins. One had to be rushed to the dentist, when a queer gutter bowl took a weird bounce and took out his lower canines. No senior prom for that one!

Still, Misha led by a few pins. However, the always opportunistic Fischer noticed an erasure on M.B.'s scoresheet.

"How do I know what you changed there--did you add some pins to your total!?

"Bobby, this is just bowling. Have a grape Ne-hi and steady your nerves".

Fischer demanded that Botvinnik resign the bowling match, due to "scoring peculiarities".

M.B. refused.

Soviet security leader Felix Dzherinsky said "Begone, you pampered goldfish! We did it to Trotzky, and we can do it to you!"

The match was never completed. The owner of the bowling alley apologized for Fischer's behavior and gave the whole Soviet contingent complementary grape Ne-His and pin ups of Sophia Loren.

Michail Botvinnik went on to become a leader on the professional bowling tour. He was never in time trouble, although he occassionally fouled. Even today, when a bowler finishes a game with three strikes, its called a <Misha, Misha, Misha!>