I agree they earned their way - but calling it "world champion" - is that not a bit off ? Any other sports they call it world champions they had to beat the worlds best - but here is more the lack of the best...
"Highest rated player" is not "player who wins the world championship", same as in virtually every sport from athletics (each event in the world championship) to football (ok, teams taking the place of players). Most sports have a world championship, and it is something all players would love to win (at least at some time).
Dont know if you talk Soccer or Football the American - Im from EU so Soccer to me is the big sport - and there you always have to beat X number of the best teams to claim "world Champion" ect Brazil, France, Germany, Spain and so on - the winner therfor won the title no matter who the winner might be - but here the players playing for the title is not the very best, and dont even have to beat the very best - and yet call them self "world champion" ... Come on ... !? If I won the title "World Champion" and I knew there was someon activ better than me - I would not feel like "world Champion". And to me this is not a name game - I name Carlsen bcs the fact is - he is the worlds best at the moment - if someone won against him or he did retire - I would feel the same for the next. Still as of today Carlsen playing his best -he would win against everyone out there. Also belive he shows it is not only in classic.
I dont like to compair - Carlsen, Fisher ect bcs I belive the build on eachother - and whos to say what age in time was the "hardest or best" - I do belive Carlsen is the one who won most and had the highest rating - If I recall correctly.
https://youtube.com/shorts/1EWDl2-Vzjo?si=HU2kotgdhsYeQb5O
Look 20 seconds in Hikaru on who the greatest ever
https://youtube.com/shorts/BZ4y6IRtolw?si=5r2dcZyPWzQA5e2M
Kasparov on who is the best ever
The world chess championship is not just the final match! It involves 4 stages each showing the challenger has performed better than others. At any time, the current champion has been there since success in all four of these stages, and his challenger has had recent success at all four.
It is in no way less indicative of chess superiority than the football (soccer) world championship is an indication of football superiority. The fundamental difference is that people take less notice of football rankings than they do of chess ratings.
"Since 1948, the world championship has mainly operated on a two or three-year cycle, with four stages:
- Zonal tournaments: different regional tournaments to qualify for the following stage. Qualifiers from zonals play in the Interzonal (up to 1993), knockout world championship (1998 to 2004) or Chess World Cup (since 2005).
- Candidates qualification tournaments. From 1948 to 1993, the only such tournament was the Interzonal. Since 2005, the Interzonal has mainly been replaced by the Chess World Cup. However extra qualification events have also been added: the FIDE Grand Prix, a series of tournaments restricted to the top 20 or so players in the world; and the Grand Swiss tournament. Since 2023, the Grand Prix has been replaced by the FIDE Circuit, making many more tournaments (not only those organised by FIDE) contribute towards Candidates qualification. In addition, a small number of players sometimes qualify directly for the Candidates either by finishing highly in the previous cycle, on rating, or as a wild card.
- The Candidates Tournament is a tournament to choose the challenger. Over the years it has varied in size (between 8 and 16 players) and in format (a tournament, a set of matches, or a combination of the two). Since the 2013 cycle it has always been an eight-player, double round-robin tournament.
- The championship match between the champion and the challenger."
I agree they earned their way - but calling it "world champion" - is that not a bit off ? Any other sports they call it world champions they had to beat the worlds best - but here is more the lack of the best...
"Highest rated player" is not "player who wins the world championship", same as in virtually every sport from athletics (each event in the world championship) to football (ok, teams taking the place of players). Most sports have a world championship, and it is something all players would love to win (at least at some time).
Dont know if you talk Soccer or Football the American - Im from EU so Soccer to me is the big sport - and there you always have to beat X number of the best teams to claim "world Champion" ect Brazil, France, Germany, Spain and so on - the winner therfor won the title no matter who the winner might be - but here the players playing for the title is not the very best, and dont even have to beat the very best - and yet call them self "world champion" ... Come on ... !? If I won the title "World Champion" and I knew there was someon activ better than me - I would not feel like "world Champion". And to me this is not a name game - I name Carlsen bcs the fact is - he is the worlds best at the moment - if someone won against him or he did retire - I would feel the same for the next. Still as of today Carlsen playing his best -he would win against everyone out there. Also belive he shows it is not only in classic.
I dont like to compair - Carlsen, Fisher ect bcs I belive the build on eachother - and whos to say what age in time was the "hardest or best" - I do belive Carlsen is the one who won most and had the highest rating - If I recall correctly.
https://youtube.com/shorts/1EWDl2-Vzjo?si=HU2kotgdhsYeQb5O
Look 20 seconds in Hikaru on who the greatest ever
https://youtube.com/shorts/BZ4y6IRtolw?si=5r2dcZyPWzQA5e2M
Kasparov on who is the best ever