i probably didn't get what you were saying in this sentence.

Dump the WCC title altogether, in other words. None of this hide-your-preparation business; I'd like to see how Anand would fare if he were really gunning for it all the time. Success would then be measured by how many grand slams you win; also by your rating, to be updated instantly after games. Make <frogbert> Minister of Ratings, perhaps.

i don't really see what's so great with the majority of the top 10 being in the business of "hiding prep" more than half of the time, which would be the case with the frequency implied by 3-year cycles.

and please don't give me that about anand defending his title every 2nd year - true, it's been that way for some time now, but only due to exceptional circumstances, or "left-overs" from the unification process - the "cycles" themselves have mostly been clearly longer.

the 2010 championship had its first qualifiers in 2006 (zonals), more zonals and the wcc in 2007, the topalov-kamsky match in 2009 and finally the match in 2010. roughly 4 years in the coming.

the 2008 match was simply a "rematch" and was not part of any real cycle.

the 2007 championship started with zonals in 2005 (possibly also in late 2004?), wcc in 2005 and candidate matches in 2007.

the 2012 (?) championship had the wcc 2007 as its first qualification event (to the grand prix), then the grand prix in 2008-2009, "pause" due to the wc final in 2010, candidate matches in 2011 (?) and then eventually a match in 2012.

hopefully we're soon done with this nonsense of "semi-parallel" cycles.

note that players that weren't top 10 or otherwise strong enough to be realistic challengers for the crown in 2007 have since january 2008 had the 2009 world chess cup as the single* way to get a shot at the title over the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. for anybody but topalov and kamsky, the entire years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 have been doomed to be years without a shot at the title. that's 4 full years (and then some) without a chance of becoming world champion. so i don't buy any stories about "2-year cycles", despite anand's many title defences.

I don't think it's great either; I think it sucks. Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.

<bharatiy: <shams> so you are for Fide Grand prix!!>

Although I totally disagree with your idea, I am pleased that you go about advocating it openly. There might be a few chess fans who have the same idea as yours but, mindful of the backlash from the majority of the chess world who do support the institution and tradition of the World Championship Match and Title, go about their advocacy in subterfuge, always allowing a way for them to deny it if criticized.

You are wrong though if you think the institution and tradition of the World Championship Match and Title is the oldest tradition in the chessworld. Simply put, it did not exist before this match:

Steinitz-Zukertort World Championship Match (1886)

Before this match, there was a popular notion of <the best chess player in the world>, some kind of <unofficial chess champion of the world>. I believe that for most individual sports, there always will be.

Thus people like

Alexandre Louis Honore Lebreton Deschapelles

Louis Charles Mahe De La Bourdonnais

Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint Amant

Howard Staunton

Paul Morphy

Adolf Anderssen

where at some periods in time regarded by many chess fans at that time as the <best player in the world> and some kind of <unofficial world champion>.

Frankly, it was a messy and vague system to determine the <best player in the world>. In general the more international tournaments a chess player wins, the more highly regarded he was as the best. Given the nature of chess as a game between two individuals, the best ones usually challenged each other in one-on-one matches, after finding sympathetic sponsors who would put up the financial stakes. Naturally, chess fans and chess masters were all the time arguing who really was the <best player in the world> given the messy and vague system they had. For the most part, there was not an undisputed <best player> but many perceived <best players>.

Until Steinitz (and no doubt a significant part of the chess world or else Steinitz would never have been able to successfully institutionalize it) came along and institutionalized the World Championship Match and Title. And fed up with the messy and vague previously prevailing system, the rest of the chess world agreed with Steinitz. For them, they had pretty good reasons to stabilize and institutionalize a supreme Title. Now the goal of every leading chess master suddenly became much clearer - beat the Titleholder in a one-on-one match.

Thus, the Romance of the Chess World Championship Match was born.

There can only be Two.

The Champion to hold the ancient Title he bested all the world's chess masters for.

The Challenger on the same climb to to take the same Title of yore.

(Although at that time, the Title was not ancient at all, and the structured system of the World Championship cycle and the Candidates was still 4 generations in the future.)

What you, and a minority of kibitzers, are essentially proposing is a return to this messy era. The moment the institution and tradition of the World Championship Match and Title is abolished, more than a dozen claimants to the title of the <best player in the world> will show up. We will be back to the era of Staunton. Pretty soon, chess fans will get fed up with the ambiguity, and given the nature of chess as a one-on-one game, will demand that the perceived <best players> in the world play one-on-one matches with each other.

We're taken with the image of a challenger beinged vanquished or dethroning the champion.

That particular image is right there on the board, in front of you, as the forces go out hunting for the King.