Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
World Chess Championship
View on Wikipedia

| List of World Chess Championships |
|---|
The World Chess Championship is played to determine the world champion in chess. The current world champion is Gukesh Dommaraju, who defeated the previous champion Ding Liren in the 2024 World Chess Championship.
The first event recognized as a world championship was the 1886 match between Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort. Steinitz won, making him the first world champion. From 1886 to 1946, the champion set the terms, requiring any challenger to raise a sizable stake and defeat the champion in a match in order to become the new world champion. Following the death of reigning world champion Alexander Alekhine in 1946, the International Chess Federation (FIDE) took over administration of the World Championship, beginning with the 1948 tournament. From 1948 to 1993, FIDE organized a set of tournaments and matches to choose a new challenger for the world championship match, which was held every three years.
Before the 1993 match, then reigning champion Garry Kasparov and his championship rival Nigel Short broke away from FIDE, and conducted the match under the umbrella of the newly formed Professional Chess Association. FIDE conducted its own tournament, which was won by Anatoly Karpov, and led to a rival claimant to the title of World Champion for the next thirteen years until 2006. The titles were unified at the World Chess Championship 2006, and all the subsequent tournaments and matches have once again been administered by FIDE. Since 2014, the championship has settled on a two-year cycle, with championship matches conducted every even year.
Emanuel Lasker was the longest serving World Champion, having held the title for 27 years, and holds the record for the most Championship wins with six along with Kasparov and Karpov.
Though the world championship is open to all players, there are separate championships for women, under-20s and lower age groups, and seniors. There are also chess world championships in rapid, blitz, correspondence, problem solving, Fischer random chess, and computer chess.
History
[edit]Early champions (pre-1886)
[edit]Before 1851
[edit]
The game of chess in its modern form emerged in Spain in the 15th century, though rule variations persisted until the late 19th century. Before Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort in the late 19th century, no chess player seriously claimed to be champion of the world. The phrase was used by some chess writers to describe other players of their day, and the status of being the best at the time has sometimes been awarded in retrospect, going back to the early 17th-century Italian player Gioachino Greco (the first player where complete games survive).[1] Richard Lambe, in his 1764 book The History of Chess, wrote that the 18th-century French player François-André Danican Philidor was "supposed to be the best Chess-player in the world".[2] Philidor wrote an extremely successful chess book (Analyse du jeu des Échecs) and gave public demonstrations of his blindfold chess skills.[3] However, some of Philidor's contemporaries were not convinced by the analysis Philidor gave in his book (e.g. the Modenese Masters), and some more recent authors have echoed these doubts.[1][4][5]
In the early 19th century, it was generally considered that the French player Alexandre Deschapelles was the strongest player of the time, though three games between him and the English player William Lewis in 1821 suggests that they were on par.[6] After Deschapelles and Lewis withdrew from play, the strongest players competing in France and Britain respectively were recognised as Louis de la Bourdonnais and Alexander McDonnell. La Bourdonnais visited England in 1825, where he played many games against Lewis and won most of them, and defeated all the other English masters despite offering handicaps.[7] He and McDonnell contested a long series of matches in 1834. These were the first to be adequately reported,[8] and they somewhat resemble the later world championship matches. Approximately 85 games (the true number is up for historical debate) were played,[9] with La Bourdonnais winning a majority of the games.[10]
In 1839, George Walker wrote "The sceptre of chess, in Europe, has been for the last century, at least, wielded by a Gallic dynasty. It has passed from Legalle [Philidor's teacher, whom Philidor regarded as being a player equal to himself, according to Deschapelles][12] to La Bourdonnais, through the grasp, successively, of Philidor, Bernard, Carlier [two members of La Société des Amateurs], and Deschapelles".[13] In 1840, a columnist in Fraser's Magazine (who was probably Walker) wrote, "Will Gaul continue the dynasty by placing a fourth Frenchman on the throne of the world? the three last chess chiefs having been successively Philidor, Deschapelles, and De La Bourdonnais."[14][15]
After La Bourdonnais' death in December 1840,[16] Englishman Howard Staunton's match victory over another Frenchman, Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant, in 1843 is considered to have established Staunton as the world's strongest player,[17][14] at least in England and France. By the 1830s, players from Germany and more generally Central Europe were beginning to appear on the scene:[8] the strongest of the Berlin players around 1840 was probably Ludwig Bledow, co-founder of the Berlin Pleiades.[18] The earliest recorded use of the term "World Champion" was in 1845, when Staunton was described as "the Chess Champion of England, or ... the Champion of the World".[19]
From 1851 to 1886
[edit]An important milestone was the London 1851 chess tournament, which was the first international chess tournament, organized by Staunton. It was played as a series of matches, and was won convincingly by the German Adolf Anderssen, including a 4–1 semi-final win over Staunton. This established Anderssen as the world's leading player.[21] In 1893, Henry Bird retrospectively awarded the title of first world chess champion to Anderssen for his victory,[23] but there is no evidence that he was widely acclaimed as such at the time, and no mention of such a status afterwards in the tournament book by Staunton. Indeed, Staunton's tournament book calls Anderssen "after Heydebrand der Laza [Tassilo von der Lasa, another of the Berlin Pleiades], the best player of Germany": von der Lasa was unable to attend the 1851 tournament, though he was invited.[24] In 1851, Anderssen lost a match to von der Lasa;[25] in 1856, George Walker wrote that "[von der Lasa] and Anderssen are decidedly the two best in the known world".[26] Von der Lasa did not compete in tournaments or formal matches because of the demands of his diplomatic career, but his games show that he was one of the world's best then: he won series of games against Staunton in 1844 and 1853.[25]
Anderssen was himself decisively beaten in an 1858 match against the American Paul Morphy (7–2, 2 draws). In 1858–59 Morphy played matches against several leading players, beating them all.[27][28] This prompted some commentators at the time to call him the world champion:[29] Gabriel-Éloy Doazan, who knew Morphy, wrote that "one can and...must place [him] in the same bracket" as Deschapelles and La Bourdonnais, who he had played years before, and that "his superiority is as obvious as theirs".[30] But when Morphy returned to America in 1859, he abruptly retired from chess, though many considered him the world champion until his death in 1884. His sudden withdrawal from chess at his peak led to his being known as "the pride and sorrow of chess".[31]
After Morphy's retirement from chess, Anderssen was again regarded as the world's strongest active player,[32] a reputation he reinforced by winning the strong London 1862 chess tournament.[32] Louis Paulsen and Ignatz Kolisch were also playing at a comparable standard to Anderssen in the 1860s:[32][33] Anderssen narrowly won a match against Kolisch in 1861, and drew against Paulsen in 1862.[32]
In 1866, Wilhelm Steinitz narrowly defeated Anderssen in a match (8–6, 0 draws). However, he was not immediately able to conclusively demonstrate his superiority. Steinitz placed third at the Paris 1867 chess tournament, behind Kolisch and Szymon Winawer; he placed second at the Dundee 1867 tournament, behind Gustav Neumann;[34] and he again placed second at the Baden-Baden 1870 chess tournament, which was the strongest that had been held to date (Anderssen came first, and won twice against Steinitz).[20][35] Steinitz confirmed his standing as the world's leading player by winning the London 1872 tournament, winning a match against Johannes Zukertort in 1872 (7–1, 4 draws), winning the Vienna 1873 chess tournament, and decisively winning a match over Joseph Henry Blackburne 7–0 (0 draws) in 1876.[36]
Apart from the Blackburne match, Steinitz played no competitive chess between the Vienna tournaments of 1873 and 1882. During that time, Zukertort emerged as the world's leading active player, winning the Paris 1878 chess tournament. Zukertort then won the London 1883 chess tournament by a convincing 3-point margin, ahead of nearly every leading player in the world, with Steinitz finishing second.[37][38] This tournament established Steinitz and Zukertort as the best two players in the world, and led to a match between these two, the World Chess Championship 1886,[38][39] won by Steinitz.
There is some debate over whether to date Steinitz's reign as world champion from his win over Anderssen in 1866, or from his win over Zukertort in 1886. The 1886 match was clearly agreed to be for the world championship,[40][29] but there is no indication that Steinitz was regarded as the defending champion.[41] There is also no known evidence of Steinitz being called the world champion after defeating Anderssen in 1866.[29] It has been suggested that Steinitz could not make such a claim while Morphy was alive[42] (Morphy died in 1884). There are a number of references to Steinitz as world champion in the 1870s, the earliest being after the first Zukertort match in 1872.[29] Later, in 1879, it was argued that Zukertort was world champion, since Morphy and Steinitz were not active.[29] However, later in his career, at least from 1887, Steinitz dated his reign from this 1866 match,[29] and early sources such as the New York Times in 1894,[43] Emanuel Lasker in 1908,[29] and Reuben Fine in 1952[44] all do the same.
Many modern commentators divide Steinitz's reign into an "unofficial" one from 1866 to 1886, and an "official" one after 1886.[45][46][47] By this reckoning, the first World Championship match was in 1886, and Steinitz was the first official World Chess Champion.[48]
Champions before FIDE (1886–1946)
[edit]Reign of Wilhelm Steinitz (1886–1894)
[edit]
Following the Steinitz–Zukertort match, a tradition continued of the world championship being decided by a match between the reigning champion, and a challenger: if a player thought he was strong enough, he (or his friends) would find financial backing for a match purse and challenge the reigning world champion. If he won, he would become the new champion.
Steinitz successfully defended his world title against Mikhail Chigorin in 1889, Isidor Gunsberg in 1891, and Chigorin again in 1892.
In 1887, the American Chess Congress started work on drawing up regulations for the future conduct of world championship contests. Steinitz supported this endeavor, as he thought he was becoming too old to remain world champion. The proposal evolved through many forms (as Steinitz pointed out, such a project had never been undertaken before), and resulted in the 1889 tournament in New York to select a challenger for Steinitz,[49] rather like the more recent Candidates Tournaments. The tournament was duly played, but the outcome was not quite as planned: Chigorin and Max Weiss tied for first place; their play-off resulted in four draws; and neither wanted to play a match against Steinitz – Chigorin had just lost to him, and Weiss wanted to get back to his work for the Rothschild Bank. The third prizewinner, Isidor Gunsberg, was prepared to play Steinitz for the title in New York, so this match was played in 1890–1891 and was won by Steinitz.[50][51][52] The experiment was not repeated, and Steinitz's later matches were private arrangements between the players.[43]
Two young strong players emerged in late 1880s and early 1890s: Siegbert Tarrasch and Emanuel Lasker.[53] Tarrasch had the better tournament results at the time, but it was Lasker who was able to raise the money to challenge Steinitz.[53] Lasker won the 1894 match and succeeded Steinitz as world champion.
Emanuel Lasker (1894–1921)
[edit]
Lasker held the title from 1894 to 1921, the longest reign (27 years) of any champion. He won a return match against Steinitz in 1897, and then did not defend his title for ten years, before playing four title defences in four years. He comfortably defeated Frank Marshall in 1907 and Siegbert Tarrasch in 1908. In 1910, he almost lost his title in a short tied match against Carl Schlechter, although the exact conditions of this match are a mystery. He then defeated Dawid Janowski in the most one-sided title match in history later in 1910.
Lasker's negotiations for title matches from 1911 onwards were extremely controversial. In 1911, he received a challenge for a world title match against José Raúl Capablanca and, in addition to making severe financial demands, proposed some novel conditions: the match should be considered drawn if neither player finished with a two-game lead; and it should have a maximum of 30 games, but finish if either player won six games and had a two-game lead (previous matches had been won by the first to win a certain number of games, usually 10; in theory, such a match might go on for ever). Capablanca objected to the two-game lead clause; Lasker took offence at the terms in which Capablanca criticized the two-game lead condition and broke off negotiations.[54]
Further controversy arose when, in 1912, Lasker's terms for a proposed match with Akiba Rubinstein included a clause that, if Lasker should resign the title after a date had been set for the match, Rubinstein should become world champion.[55] When he resumed negotiations with Capablanca after World War I, Lasker insisted on a similar clause that if Lasker should resign the title after a date had been set for the match, Capablanca should become world champion.[54] On 27 June 1920 Lasker abdicated in favor of Capablanca because of public criticism of the terms of the match, naming Capablanca as his successor.[55] Some commentators questioned Lasker's right to name his successor;[55] Amos Burn raised the same objection but welcomed Lasker's resignation of the title.[55] Capablanca argued that, if the champion abdicated, the title must go to the challenger, as any other arrangement would be unfair to the challenger.[55] Lasker later agreed to play a match against Capablanca in 1921, announcing that, if he won, he would resign the title so that younger masters could compete for it.[55] Capablanca won their 1921 match by four wins, ten draws and no losses.[44]
Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe (1921–1946)
[edit]After the breakdown of his first attempt to negotiate a title match against Lasker (1911), Capablanca drafted rules for the conduct of future challenges, which were agreed to by the other top players at the 1914 Saint Petersburg tournament, including Lasker, and approved at the Mannheim Congress later that year. The main points were: the champion must be prepared to defend his title once a year; the match should be won by the first player to win six or eight games (the champion had the right to choose); and the stake should be at least £1,000 (about £120,000 in current terms).[54]
Following the controversies surrounding his 1921 match against Lasker, in 1922 world champion Capablanca proposed the "London Rules": the first player to win six games would win the match; playing sessions would be limited to 5 hours; the time limit would be 40 moves in 2½ hours; the champion must defend his title within one year of receiving a challenge from a recognized master; the champion would decide the date of the match; the champion was not obliged to accept a challenge for a purse of less than US$10,000 (about $180,000 in current terms); 20% of the purse was to be paid to the title holder, and the remainder being divided, 60% going to the winner of the match, and 40% to the loser; the highest purse bid must be accepted. Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Maróczy, Réti, Rubinstein, Tartakower and Vidmar promptly signed them.[56] The only match played under those rules was Capablanca vs Alekhine in 1927, although there has been speculation that the actual contract might have included a "two-game lead" clause.[57]
Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch had all challenged Capablanca in the early 1920s but only Alekhine could raise the US$10,000 Capablanca demanded and only in 1927.[58] Capablanca was shockingly upset by the new challenger. Before the match, almost nobody gave Alekhine a chance against the dominant Cuban, but Alekhine overcame Capablanca's natural skill with his unmatched drive and extensive preparation (especially deep opening analysis, which became a hallmark of most future grandmasters). The aggressive Alekhine was helped by his tactical skill, which complicated the game. Immediately after winning, Alekhine announced that he was willing to grant Capablanca a return match provided Capablanca met the requirements of the "London Rules".[57] Negotiations dragged on for several years, often breaking down when agreement seemed in sight.[44] Alekhine easily won two title matches against Efim Bogoljubov in 1929 and 1934. In 1935, Alekhine was unexpectedly defeated by the Dutch Max Euwe, an amateur player who worked as a mathematics teacher. Alekhine convincingly won a rematch in 1937. World War II temporarily prevented any further world title matches, and Alekhine remained world champion until his death in 1946.
Financing
[edit]Before 1948 world championship matches were financed by arrangements similar to those Emanuel Lasker described for his 1894 match with Wilhelm Steinitz: either the challenger or both players, with the assistance of financial backers, would contribute to a purse; about half would be distributed to the winner's backers, and the winner would receive the larger share of the remainder (the loser's backers got nothing). The players had to meet their own travel, accommodation, food and other expenses out of their shares of the purse.[59] This system evolved out of the wagering of small stakes on club games in the early 19th century.[60]
Up to and including the 1894 Steinitz–Lasker match, both players, with their backers, generally contributed equally to the purse, following the custom of important matches in the 19th century before there was a generally recognized world champion. For example: the stakes were £100 a side in both the second Staunton vs Saint-Amant match (Paris, 1843) and the Anderssen vs Steinitz match (London, 1866); Steinitz and Zukertort played their 1886 match for £400 a side.[60] Lasker introduced the practice of demanding that the challenger should provide the whole of the purse,[citation needed] and his successors followed his example up to World War II. This requirement made arranging world championship matches more difficult, for example: Marshall challenged Lasker in 1904 but could not raise the money until 1907;[61] in 1911 Lasker and Rubinstein agreed in principle to a world championship match, but this was never played as Rubinstein could not raise the money.[62][63] In the early 1920s, Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch all challenged Capablanca, but only Alekhine was able to raise the US$10,000 that Capablanca demanded, and not until 1927.[58][64]
FIDE title (1948–1993)
[edit]FIDE, Euwe and AVRO
[edit]
Attempts to form an international chess federation were made at the time of the 1914 St. Petersburg, 1914 Mannheim and 1920 Gothenburg Tournaments.[65] On 20 July 1924 the participants at the Paris tournament founded FIDE as a kind of players' union.[65][66][67] FIDE's congresses in 1925 and 1926 expressed a desire to become involved in managing the world championship. FIDE was largely happy with the "London Rules", but claimed that the requirement for a purse of $10,000 was impracticable and called upon Capablanca to come to an agreement with the leading masters to revise the Rules. In 1926 FIDE decided in principle to create a title of "Champion of FIDE" and, in 1928, adopted the forthcoming 1928 Bogoljubow–Euwe match (won by Bogoljubow) as being for the "FIDE championship". Alekhine agreed to place future matches for the world title under the auspices of FIDE, except that he would only play Capablanca under the same conditions that governed their match in 1927. Although FIDE wished to set up a match between Alekhine and Bogoljubow, it made little progress and the title "Champion of FIDE" quietly vanished after Alekhine won the 1929 world championship match that he and Bogoljubow themselves arranged.[68]
While negotiating his 1937 World Championship rematch with Alekhine, Euwe proposed that if he retained the title, FIDE should manage the nomination of future challengers and the conduct of championship matches. FIDE had been trying since 1935 to introduce rules on how to select challengers, and its various proposals favored selection by some sort of committee. While they were debating procedures in 1937 and Alekhine and Euwe were preparing for their rematch later that year, the Royal Dutch Chess Federation proposed that a super-tournament (AVRO) of ex-champions and rising stars should be held to select the next challenger. FIDE rejected this proposal and at their second attempt nominated Salo Flohr as the official challenger. Euwe then declared that: if he retained his title against Alekhine he was prepared to meet Flohr in 1940 but he reserved the right to arrange a title match either in 1938 or 1939 with José Raúl Capablanca, who had lost the title to Alekhine in 1927; if Euwe lost his title to Capablanca then FIDE's decision should be followed and Capablanca would have to play Flohr in 1940. Most chess writers and players strongly supported the Dutch super-tournament proposal and opposed the committee processes favored by FIDE. While this confusion went unresolved: Euwe lost his title to Alekhine; the AVRO tournament in 1938 was won by Paul Keres under a tie-breaking rule, with Reuben Fine placed second and Capablanca and Flohr in the bottom places; and the outbreak of World War II in 1939 cut short the controversy.[69]
Birth of FIDE's World Championship cycle (1946–1948)
[edit]Alexander Alekhine died in 1946 before anyone else could win against him in match for the World Champion title. This resulted in an interregnum that made the normal procedure impossible. The situation was very confused, with many respected players and commentators offering different solutions. FIDE found it very difficult to organize the early discussions on how to resolve the interregnum because problems with money and travel so soon after the end of World War II prevented many countries from sending representatives. The shortage of clear information resulted in otherwise responsible magazines publishing rumors and speculation, which only made the situation more confusing.[70] It did not help that the Soviet Union had long refused to join FIDE, and by this time it was clear that about half the credible contenders were Soviet citizens. But, realizing that it could not afford to be excluded from discussions about the vacant world championship, the Soviet Union sent a telegram in 1947 apologizing for the absence of Soviet representatives and requesting that the USSR be represented on future FIDE Committees.[70]

The eventual solution was very similar to FIDE's initial proposal and to a proposal put forward by the Soviet Union (authored by Mikhail Botvinnik). The 1938 AVRO tournament was used as the basis for the 1948 Championship Tournament. The AVRO tournament had brought together the eight players who were, by general acclamation, the best players in the world at the time. Two of the participants at AVRO – Alekhine and former world champion José Raúl Capablanca – had died; but FIDE decided that the championship should be awarded to the winner of a round-robin tournament in which the other six participants at AVRO would play four games against each other. These players were: Max Euwe, from the Netherlands; Botvinnik, Paul Keres and Salo Flohr from the Soviet Union; and Reuben Fine and Samuel Reshevsky from the United States. However, FIDE soon accepted a Soviet request to substitute Vasily Smyslov for Flohr, and Fine dropped out in order to continue his degree studies in psychology, so only five players competed. Botvinnik won convincingly and thus became world champion, ending the interregnum.[70]
The proposals which led to the 1948 Championship Tournament also specified the procedure by which challengers for the World Championship would be selected in a three-year cycle: countries affiliated to FIDE would send players to Zonal Tournaments (the number varied depending on how many good enough players each country had); the players who gained the top places in these would compete in an Interzonal Tournament (later split into two and then three tournaments as the number of countries and eligible players increased[71]); the highest-placed players from the Interzonal would compete in the Candidates Tournament, along with whoever lost the previous title match and the second-placed competitor in the previous Candidates Tournament three years earlier; and the winner of the Candidates played a title match against the champion.[70] Until 1962 inclusive the Candidates Tournament was a multi-cycle round-robin tournament – how and why it was changed are described below.
FIDE system (1949–1963)
[edit]The FIDE system followed its 1948 design through five cycles: 1948–1951, 1951–1954, 1954–1957, 1957–1960 and 1960–1963.[72][73] The first two world championships under this system were drawn 12–12 – Botvinnik-Bronstein in 1951 and Botvinnik-Smyslov in 1954 – so Botvinnik retained the title both times. In 1956 FIDE introduced two apparently minor changes which Soviet grandmaster and chess official Yuri Averbakh alleged were instigated by the two Soviet representatives in FIDE, who were personal friends of reigning champion Mikhail Botvinnik. A defeated champion would have the right to a return match. FIDE also limited the number of players from the same country that could compete in the Candidates Tournament, on the grounds that it would reduce Soviet dominance of the tournament. Averbakh claimed that this was to Botvinnik's advantage as it reduced the number of Soviet players he might have to meet in the title match.[74] Botvinnik lost to Vasily Smyslov in 1957 but won the return match in 1958, and lost to Mikhail Tal in 1960 but won the return match in 1961. Thus Smyslov and Tal each held the world title for a year, but Botvinnik was world champion for rest of the time from 1948 to 1963. The return match clause was not in place for the 1963 cycle. Tigran Petrosian won the 1962 Candidates and then defeated Botvinnik in 1963 to become world champion.
FIDE system (1963–1975)
[edit]After the 1962 Candidates, Bobby Fischer publicly alleged that the Soviets had colluded to prevent any non-Soviet – specifically him – from winning. He claimed that Petrosian, Efim Geller and Paul Keres had prearranged to draw all their games, and that Viktor Korchnoi had been instructed to lose to them. Yuri Averbakh, who was head of the Soviet team, confirmed in 2002 that Petrosian, Geller and Keres arranged to draw all their games in order to save their energy for games against non-Soviet players.[74] Korchnoi, who defected from the USSR in 1976, never confirmed that he was forced to throw games. FIDE responded by changing the format of future Candidates Tournaments to eliminate the possibility of collusion. Beginning in the next cycle, 1963–1966, the round-robin tournament was replaced by a series of elimination matches. Initially the quarter-finals and semi-finals were best of 10 games, and the final was best of 12. Fischer, however, refused to take part in the 1966 cycle, and dropped out of the 1969 cycle after a controversy at 1967 Interzonal in Sousse.[75] Both these Candidates cycles were won by Boris Spassky, who lost the title match to Petrosian in 1966, but won and became world champion in 1969.[76][77]
In the 1969–1972 cycle Fischer caused two more crises. He refused to play in the 1969 US Championship, which was a Zonal Tournament. This would have eliminated him from the 1969–1972 cycle, but Pal Benko was persuaded to concede his place in the Interzonal to Fischer.[78] FIDE President Max Euwe accepted this maneuver and interpreted the rules very flexibly to enable Fischer to play, as he thought it important for the health and reputation of the game that Fischer should have the opportunity to challenge for the title as soon as possible.[79] Fischer crushed all opposition and won the right to challenge reigning champion Boris Spassky.[76] After agreeing to play in Yugoslavia, Fischer raised a series of objections and Iceland was the final venue. Even then Fischer raised difficulties, mainly over money. It took a phone call from United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and a doubling of the prize money by financier Jim Slater to persuade him to play. After a few more traumatic moments Fischer won the match 12½–8½.[80][81]
An unbroken line of FIDE champions had thus been established from 1948 to 1972, with each champion gaining his title by beating the previous incumbent. This came to an end when Anatoly Karpov won the right to challenge Fischer in 1975. Fischer objected to the "best of 24 games" championship match format that had been used from 1951 onwards, claiming that it would encourage whoever got an early lead to play for draws. Instead he demanded that the match should be won by whoever first won 10 games, except that if the score reached 9–9 he should remain champion. He argued that this was more advantageous to the challenger than the champion's advantage under the existing system, where the champion retained the title if the match was tied at 12–12 including draws. Eventually FIDE deposed Fischer and crowned Karpov as the new champion.[82] Fischer privately maintained that he was still World Champion. He went into seclusion and did not play chess in public again until 1992, when Spassky agreed to participate in an unofficial rematch for the World Championship. Fischer won the 1992 Fischer–Spassky rematch decisively with a score of 10–5.
Karpov and Kasparov (1975–1993)
[edit]After becoming world champion by default, Karpov confirmed his worthiness for the title with a string of tournament successes from the mid 70s to the early 80s. He defended his title twice against ex-Soviet Viktor Korchnoi, first in Baguio in 1978 (6–5 with 21 draws) and in Merano in 1981 (6–2, with 10 draws). In the 1984 World Chess Championship, Karpov fought against Garry Kasparov. Karpov retained the title after the tournament went for more than five months and was terminated with Karpov leading with five wins to Kasparov's three and 40 draws after 48 matches.
Karpov eventually lost his title in 1985 to Kasparov, who won the title by a scoreline of 13–11. The two played three more subsequent championships in World Chess Championship 1986 (won by Kasparov, 12½–11½), World Chess Championship 1987 (drawn 12–12, Kasparov retained the title), and World Chess Championship 1990 (won by Kasparov, 12½–11½). In the five matches, Kasparov and Karpov played a total of 144 World Championship games with 104 draws, 21 wins by Kasparov and 19 wins by Karpov.[83]
Split title (1993–2006)
[edit]In 1993, Nigel Short broke the domination of Kasparov and Karpov by defeating Karpov in the candidates semi-finals followed by Jan Timman in the finals, thereby earning the right to challenge Kasparov for the title. However, before the match took place, both Kasparov and Short complained of FIDE's mishandling of the prize pool in organizing the match, corruption in the leadership, and FIDE's failure to abide by their own rules,[84][85] and split from FIDE to set up the Professional Chess Association (PCA), under whose auspices they held their match. In response, FIDE stripped Kasparov of his title and held a championship match between Karpov and Timman. For the first time in history, there were two World Chess Champions: Kasparov defeated Short and Karpov beat Timman.
FIDE and the PCA each held a championship cycle in 1993–1996, with many of the same challengers playing in both. Kasparov and Karpov both won their respective cycles. In the PCA cycle, Kasparov defeated Viswanathan Anand in the PCA World Chess Championship 1995. Karpov defeated Gata Kamsky in the final of the FIDE World Chess Championship 1996. Negotiations were held for a reunification match between Kasparov and Karpov in 1996–97,[86] but nothing came of them.[87]
Soon after the 1995 championship, the PCA folded, and Kasparov had no organisation to choose his next challenger. In 1998 he formed the World Chess Council, which organised a candidates match between Alexei Shirov and Vladimir Kramnik. Shirov won the match, but negotiations for a Kasparov–Shirov match broke down, and Shirov was subsequently omitted from negotiations, much to his disgust. Plans for a 1999 or 2000 Kasparov–Anand match also broke down, and Kasparov organised a match with Kramnik in late 2000. In a major upset, Kramnik won the match with two wins, thirteen draws, and no losses. At the time the championship was called the Braingames World Chess Championship, but Kramnik later referred to himself as the Classical World Chess Champion.
Meanwhile, FIDE had decided to scrap the Interzonal and Candidates system, instead having a large knockout event in which a large number of players contested short matches against each other over just a few weeks (see FIDE World Chess Championship 1998). Rapid and blitz games were used to resolve ties at the end of each round, a format which some felt did not necessarily recognize the highest-quality play: Kasparov refused to participate in these events, as did Kramnik after he won the Classical title in 2000. In the first of these events, in 1998, champion Karpov was seeded directly into the final, but he later had to qualify alongside the other players. Karpov defended his title in the first of these championships in 1998, but resigned his title in protest at the new rules in 1999. Alexander Khalifman won the FIDE World Championship in 1999, Anand in 2000, Ruslan Ponomariov in 2002, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov in 2004.
By 2002, not only were there two rival champions, but Kasparov's strong results – he had the top Elo rating in the world and had won a string of major tournaments after losing his title in 2000 – ensured even more confusion over who was World Champion. In May 2002, American grandmaster Yasser Seirawan led the organisation of the so-called "Prague Agreement" to reunite the world championship. Kramnik had organised a candidates tournament (won later in 2002 by Peter Leko) to choose his challenger. It was agreed that Kasparov would play the FIDE champion (Ponomariov) for the FIDE title, and the winner of that match would face the winner of the Kramnik–Leko match for the unified title. However, the matches proved difficult to finance and organise. The Kramnik–Leko match did not take place until late 2004 (it was drawn, so Kramnik retained his title).
Meanwhile, FIDE never managed to organise a Kasparov match, either with 2002 FIDE champion Ponomariov, or 2004 FIDE champion Kasimdzhanov. Kasparov's frustration at the situation played a part in his decision to retire from chess in 2005, still ranked No. 1 in the world. Soon after, FIDE dropped the short knockout format for a World Championship and announced the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005, a double round robin tournament to be held in San Luis, Argentina between eight of the leading players in the world. However Kramnik insisted that his title be decided in a match, and declined to participate. The tournament was convincingly won by the Bulgarian Veselin Topalov, and negotiations began for a Kramnik–Topalov match to unify the title.
Reunified title (since 2006)
[edit]Kramnik (2006–2007)
[edit]The World Chess Championship 2006 reunification match between Topalov and Kramnik was held in late 2006. After much controversy, it was won by Kramnik. Kramnik thus became the first unified and undisputed World Chess Champion since Kasparov split from FIDE to form the PCA in 1993. This match, along with all subsequent world championships, was administered by FIDE.
Anand (2007–2013)
[edit]Kramnik played to defend his title at the World Chess Championship 2007 in Mexico. This was an 8-player double round robin tournament, the same format as was used for the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005. This tournament was won by Viswanathan Anand, thus making him the World Chess Champion. Because Anand's World Chess Champion title was won in a tournament rather than a match, a minority of commentators questioned the validity of his title.[88] Kramnik also made ambiguous comments about the value of Anand's title, but did not claim the title himself then.[89] (In a 2015 interview Kramnik dated the loss of his world championship title to his 2008 match against Anand rather than the 2007 tournament,[90] and he likewise did not contradict an interviewer who dated it thus in a 2019 interview.)[91] Subsequent world championship matches returned to the format of a match between the champion and a challenger.
The following two championships had special clauses arising from the 2006 unification. Kramnik was given the right to challenge for the title he lost in a tournament in the World Chess Championship 2008, which Anand won. Then Topalov, who as the loser of the 2006 match was excluded from the 2007 championship, was seeded directly into the Candidates final of the World Chess Championship 2010. He won the Candidates (against Gata Kamsky) to set up a match against Anand, who again won the championship match.[92][93] The next championship, the World Chess Championship 2012, had short knock-out matches for the Candidates Tournament. This format was not popular with everyone, and Magnus Carlsen withdrew in protest. Boris Gelfand won the Candidates. Anand won the championship match again, in tie breaking rapid games, for his fourth consecutive world championship win.[94]
Carlsen (2013–2023)
[edit]Since 2013, the Candidates Tournament has been an eight-player double round robin tournament, with the winner playing a match against the champion for the title. Norwegian Magnus Carlsen won the 2013 Candidates and then convincingly defeated Anand in the World Chess Championship 2013.[95][96]
Beginning with the 2014 Championship cycle, the World Championship has followed a 2-year cycle: qualification for the Candidates in the odd year, the Candidates tournament early in the even year, and the World Championship match later in the even year. This and the next two cycles resulted in Carlsen successfully defending his title: against Anand in 2014;[97] against Sergey Karjakin in 2016;[98] and against Fabiano Caruana in 2018. Both the 2016 and 2018 defences were decided by tie-break in rapid games.[99]
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the 2020 Candidates Tournament, and caused the next match to be postponed from 2020 to 2021.[100] Carlsen again successfully defended his title, defeating Ian Nepomniachtchi in the World Chess Championship 2021.
Ding (2023–2024)
[edit]Soon after the 2021 match, Carlsen indicated that he would not defend the title again.[101] This was confirmed in an announcement by FIDE on 20 July 2022.[102] As a consequence, the top two finishers of the Candidates Tournament, Ian Nepomniachtchi and Ding Liren, played in the 2023 championship in Astana, Kazakhstan, from 7 April to 30 April 2023.[103] Ding won in rapid tiebreaks, making him the first World Chess Champion from China. FIDE referred to Ding as the "17th World Champion"; thus the "Classical" line of Champions during the split has been de facto legitimised over the FIDE line by FIDE itself.[104][105]
Gukesh (2024–present)
[edit]
2024 saw a return to the pre-COVID timetable, with the Candidates tournament played in early 2024, and the championship match in late 2024, from 25 November to 12 December in Singapore. Gukesh Dommaraju was the surpise winner of the Candidates, then defeated Ding Liren in the championship match, by 7½ to 6½. At 18 years old, Gukesh became the youngest undisputed World Chess Champion.[106][107]
Format
[edit]Until 1948, world championship contests were arranged privately between the players. As a result, the players also had to arrange the funding, in the form of stakes provided by enthusiasts who wished to bet on one of the players. In the early 20th century this was sometimes an obstacle that prevented or delayed challenges for the title. Between 1888 and 1948 various difficulties that arose in match negotiations led players to try to define agreed rules for matches, including the frequency of matches, how much or how little say the champion had in the conditions for a title match and what the stakes and division of the purse should be. However these attempts were unsuccessful in practice, as the same issues continued to delay or prevent challenges. There was an attempt by an external organization to manage the world championship from 1887 to 1889, but this experiment was not repeated until 1948.
After the death of world champion Alexander Alekhine in 1946, the World Chess Championship 1948 was a one-off tournament to decide a new world champion.
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 (besides 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.
There have been a few exceptions to this system:
- Before 1963, and from 1978 until at least 1986,[108] there was a rematch clause, allowing the defeated champion a rematch. The 1958, 1961 and 1986 matches were held under these conditions. There were also a one-off rematch in 2008.
- The 1975 world championship was not held, as the champion (Fischer) refused to defend his title. The winner of the Candidates tournament (Karpov) became champion by default.
- There were many variations during the world title split between 1993 and 2006. FIDE determined the championship by a single knockout tournament between 1998 and 2004, and by an eight-player tournament in 2005; meanwhile, the Classical world championship had no qualifying stages in 2000, and only a Candidates tournament in its 2004 cycle.
- A one-off match to reunite the world championship was held in 2006.
- The 2007 world championship was determined by an eight-player tournament instead of a match.
- The 2023 world championship was played between the top two finishers of the Candidates, as the champion (Carlsen) refused to defend his title
World champions
[edit]Pre-FIDE world champions (1886–1946)
[edit]| # | Name | Country | Years | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wilhelm Steinitz | 1886–1894 | ||
| 2 | Emanuel Lasker | 1894–1921 | ||
| 3 | José Raúl Capablanca | 1921–1927 | ||
| 4 | Alexander Alekhine | 1927–1935 | ||
| 5 | Max Euwe | 1935–1937 | ||
| (4) | Alexander Alekhine | 1937–1946 | ||
| Interregnum | ||||
FIDE world champions (1948–1993)
[edit]| # | Name | Country | Years |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Mikhail Botvinnik | 1948–1957 | |
| 7 | Vasily Smyslov | 1957–1958 | |
| (6) | Mikhail Botvinnik | 1958–1960 | |
| 8 | Mikhail Tal | 1960–1961 | |
| (6) | Mikhail Botvinnik | 1961–1963 | |
| 9 | Tigran Petrosian | 1963–1969 | |
| 10 | Boris Spassky | 1969–1972 | |
| 11 | Bobby Fischer | 1972–1975 | |
| 12 | Anatoly Karpov | 1975–1985 | |
| 13 | Garry Kasparov | 1985–1993 | |
Classical (PCA/Braingames) world champions (1993–2006)
[edit]| # | Name | Country | Years |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | Garry Kasparov | 1993–2000 | |
| 14 | Vladimir Kramnik | 2000–2006 |
FIDE world champions (1993–2006)
[edit]| Name | Country | Years |
|---|---|---|
| Anatoly Karpov | 1993–1999 | |
| Alexander Khalifman | 1999–2000 | |
| Viswanathan Anand | 2000–2002 | |
| Ruslan Ponomariov | 2002–2004 | |
| Rustam Kasimdzhanov | 2004–2005 | |
| Veselin Topalov | 2005–2006 |
FIDE (reunified) world champions (2006–present)
[edit]| # | Name | Country | Years |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | Vladimir Kramnik | 2006–2007 | |
| 15 | Viswanathan Anand | 2007–2013 | |
| 16 | Magnus Carlsen | 2013–2023 | |
| 17 | Ding Liren | 2023–2024 | |
| 18 | Gukesh Dommaraju | 2024–present |
World Champions by number of title match victories
[edit]The table below organises the world champions in order of championship wins. A successful defense counts as a win for the purposes of this table, even if the match is drawn. The table is made more complicated by the split between the "Classical" and FIDE world titles between 1993 and 2006. If total number of championship wins is identical, the number of wins at undisputed championships, the number of years as undisputed champion, the number of years as champion are used as tie-breakers (in that order). If all numbers are the same, the players are listed by year of first victory at world championships (in chronological order).
| Champion | Number of wins | Years as | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Undisputed | FIDE | Classical | Champion | Undisputed champion | |
| 6 | 6 | 27 | 27 | |||
| 6 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 8 | ||
| 6 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 10 | ||
| 5 | 5 | 13 | 13 | |||
| 5 | 5 | 10 | 10 | |||
| 5 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 6 | ||
| 4 | 4 | 17 | 17 | |||
| 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | |||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | ||
| 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
Other world chess championships
[edit]Restricted events:
- Women's World Chess Championship
- World Junior Chess Championship (under 20 years of age)
- World Youth Chess Championship (lower age groups)
- World Senior Chess Championship
- World Amateur Chess Championship
Other time limits:
- World Rapid Chess Championship
- World Blitz Chess Championship
- World Correspondence Chess Championship
Teams:
Computer chess:
Chess Problems:
Chess variants:
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b Hendriks, Willy (2020). "1. Footnotes to Greco; 2. The Nimzowitsch of the 17th century; 3. With a little help from the opponent". On the Origin of Good Moves: A Skeptic's Guide to Getting Better at Chess. New in Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-879-8.
Most books on the history of chess make a leap of a century after Greco and go directly to the Frenchman François André Danican Philidor (1726-1795). Although a few things happened in-between, he was the next player considered to stand head and shoulders above his contemporaries. ... However, I do not know how well acquainted Philidor was with Greco's games. He didn't have a high opinion of them, because Greco 'achieved the win in his games often in a risky way and only thanks to mistakes made by the opponent, without ever drawing the attention of the reader to these errors on both sides.' But as we will shortly see, one might argue that Philidor himself was even more outstanding at this 'technique'.
- ^ a b Winter, Edward. "Early Uses of 'World Chess Champion'". Archived from the original on 13 November 2013. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
- ^ "A History of Chess", H. J. R. Murray, pp. 863–865
- ^ "A History of Chess", H. J. R. Murray, p. 870
- ^ Winter, Edward (22 September 2023). "Jeremy Silman (1954-2023)". chesshistory.com. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
- ^ a b "A History of Chess", H. J. R. Murray, p. 878: "It was, however, generally accepted that Deschapelles was the strongest player of his time, and Sarratt appears to have acquiesced in this opinion, although there was apparently no stronger reason for it than the fact that the general standard of French chess had been higher than that of English chess in the end of the eighteenth century. The result of Lewis's visit was to show that there was very little, if any, difference in strength between Deschapelles and himself."
- ^ David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, 1992 (2nd edition), p.56. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
- ^ a b "A History of Chess", H. J. R. Murray, pp. 882–5
- ^ Golombek, Harry (1976). A History of Chess. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. p. 126. ISBN 0-7100-8266-5.
- ^ Walker, George (1850). Chess and Chess-Players. London: C.J. Skeet. p. 381.
- ^ David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, 1992 (2nd edition), p.390. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
- ^ F. M. Edge, The exploits and triumphs, in Europe, of Paul Morphy, 1859 page 115
- ^ Walker, George (1850). Chess and Chess-Players. Charles J. Skeet. p. 38.
- ^ a b Jeremy P. Spinrad. "Early World Rankings" (PDF). Chess Cafe. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 June 2008. Retrieved 6 June 2008.
- ^ G.W. (July–December 1840). "The Café de la Régence". Fraser's Magazine. 22. Archived from the original on 15 June 2008. Retrieved 6 June 2008. Jeremy Spinrad believes the author was George Walker.
- ^ Crescendo of the Virtuoso: Spectacle, Skill, and Self-Promotion in Paris during the Age of Revolution Archived 12 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Paul Metzner, Berkeley: University of California Press, c. 1998.
- ^ "From Morphy to Fischer", Israel Horowitz, (Batsford, 1973) p.3
- ^ David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, 1992 (2nd edition), p.44. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
- ^ The Earl of Mexborough's speech to the meeting of Yorkshire Chess Clubs, as reported in the 1845 Chess Player's Chronicle (with the cover date 1846) – Winter, Edward. "Early Uses of 'World Chess Champion'". Archived from the original on 13 November 2013. Retrieved 6 June 2008.
- ^ a b David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, 1992 (2nd edition), p.15. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
- ^ a b "From Morphy to Fischer", Israel Horowitz, (Batsford, 1973) p.4
- ^ David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, 1992 (2nd edition), p.263. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
- ^ Section "Progress of Chess" in Henry Edward Bird (2004) [1893]. Chess History And Reminiscences. Kessinger. ISBN 1-4191-1280-5. Archived from the original on 28 June 2008. Retrieved 7 June 2008.
- ^ Staunton, Howard (April 2003). The Chess Tournament. Hardinge Simpole. ISBN 1-84382-089-7. This can be viewed online at or downloaded as PDF from Staunton, Howard (1852). Google books: The Chess Tournament. Archived from the original on 20 March 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2020.
- ^ a b David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, 1992 (2nd edition), pp.216–217. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
- ^ Bell's Life in London, 24 February 1856, p. 5
- ^ 1858–59 Paul Morphy Matches Archived 25 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Mark Weeks' Chess Pages
- ^ "I grandi matches 1850–1864". Archived from the original on 16 May 2008. Retrieved 15 September 2008.
- ^ a b c d e f g Early Uses of 'World Chess Champion' Archived 13 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Edward G. Winter, 2007
- ^ Doazan, Gabriel-Éloy (1859). Labourdonnais – Morphy (PDF). p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 June 2023. Retrieved 9 September 2023.
Après Deschapelles et Labourdonnais, il m'a été donné de voir un jeune homme que l'on peut et que l'on doit placer sur la même ligne. Sa supériorité est aussi évidente que la leur. Elle est aussi incontestable et se révèle de la même manière.
- ^ David Lawson (1976). Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess. McKay. ISBN 978-0-679-13044-4.
- ^ a b c d "From Morphy to Fischer", Israel Horowitz, (Batsford, 1973) p.16
- ^ Kaufman, Larry (4 September 2023). "Accuracy, Ratings, and GOATs". Chess.com. Archived from the original on 7 September 2023. Retrieved 7 September 2023.
- ^ Kasparov, Garry (2003). My Great Predecessors, Vol. I. Everyman Chess. p. 55. ISBN 1857443306.
- ^ Kasparov, Garry (2003). My Great Predecessors, Vol. I. Everyman Chess. p. 31. ISBN 1857443306.
- ^ Kasparov, Garry (2003). My Great Predecessors, Vol. I. Everyman Chess. p. 59. ISBN 1857443306.
- ^ 1883 London Tournament Archived 13 August 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Mark Weeks' Chess Pages
- ^ a b David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press, 1992 (2nd edition), p.459. ISBN 0-19-866164-9.
- ^ "The Centenary Match, Kasparov–Karpov III", Raymond Keene and David Goodman, Batsford 1986, p.9
- ^ J.I. Minchin, the editor of the tournament book, wrote, "Dr. Zukertort at present holds the honoured post of champion, but only a match can settle the position of these rival monarchs of the Chess realm." J.I. Minchin (editor), Games Played in the London International Chess Tournament, 1883, British Chess Magazine, 1973 (reprint), p.100.
- ^ "From Morphy to Fischer", Israel Horowitz, (Batsford, 1973), p.24
- ^ Keene, Raymond; Goodman, David (1986). The Centenary Match, Kasparov–Karpov III. Collier Books. pp. 1–2. ISBN 0-02-028700-3.
- ^ a b "Ready for a big chess match" (PDF). The New York Times. 11 March 1894. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 June 2020. Retrieved 13 June 2018.
- ^ a b c Fine, R. (1952). The World's Great Chess Games. André Deutsch (now as paperback from Dover).
- ^ Weeks, Mark. "World Chess Champions". Archived from the original on 23 April 2008. Retrieved 7 June 2008.
- ^ Silman, J. "Wilhelm Steinitz". Archived from the original on 17 April 2012.
- ^ "Wilhelm Steinitz". MSN Encarta. Archived from the original on 1 November 2009. Retrieved 7 June 2008.
- ^ "Do You Know The World Chess Champions?". Rafael Leitão. 19 December 2015. Archived from the original on 11 December 2021. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
- ^ Green, Nathaniel (8 June 2022). "The 10 Most Brilliant Candidates Games". Chess.com. Retrieved 29 April 2025.
- ^ Thulin, A. (August 2007). "Steinitz—Chigorin, Havana 1899 – A World Championship Match or Not?" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 May 2008. Retrieved 6 June 2008. Based on Landsberger, K. (2002). The Steinitz Papers: Letters and Documents of the First World Chess Champion. McFarland. ISBN 0-7864-1193-7. Archived from the original on 30 December 2020. Retrieved 25 October 2020.
- ^ "New York 1889 and 1924". Archived from the original on 19 June 2008. Retrieved 7 June 2008.
- ^ "I matches 1880/99". Archived from the original on 24 May 2008. Retrieved 29 May 2008.
- ^ a b "From Morphy to Fischer", Israel Horowitz, (Batsford, 1973) 39
- ^ a b c "1921 World Chess Championship". Archived from the original on 20 January 2005. Retrieved 4 June 2008. This cites: a report of Lasker's concerns about the location and duration of the match, in "Emanuel Lasker column". New York Evening Post. 15 March 1911.; Capablanca's letter of 20 December 1911 to Lasker, stating his objections to Lasker's proposal; Lasker's letter to Capablanca, breaking off negotiations; Lasker's letter of 27 April 1921 to Alberto Ponce of the Havana Chess Club, proposing to resign the 1921 match; and Ponce's reply, accepting the resignation.
- ^ a b c d e f Winter, Edward. "How Capablanca Became World Champion". Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 7 June 2008.
- ^ Clayton, G. "The Mad Aussie's Chess Trivia – Archive No. 3". Archived from the original on 16 May 2008. Retrieved 9 June 2008.
- ^ a b Winter, E. "Capablanca v Alekhine, 1927". Archived from the original on 9 May 2008. Retrieved 9 June 2008. Regarding a possible "two-game lead" clause, Winter cites Capablanca's messages to Julius Finn and Norbert Lederer dated 15 October 1927, in which he proposed that, if the Buenos Aires match were drawn, the second match could be limited to 20 games. Winter cites La Prensa 30 November 1927 for Alekhine's conditions for a return match.
- ^ a b "Jose Raul Capablanca: Online Chess Tribute". chessmaniac.com. 28 June 2007. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008. Retrieved 20 May 2008.
- ^ "From the Editorial Chair". Lasker's Chess Magazine. 1. January 1905. Archived from the original on 16 December 2008. Retrieved 7 June 2008.
- ^ a b Section "Stakes at Chess" in Henry Edward Bird (2004) [1893]. Chess History And Reminiscences. Kessinger. ISBN 1-4191-1280-5. Archived from the original on 28 June 2008. Retrieved 7 June 2008.
- ^ "Lasker biography". Archived from the original on 6 December 2007. Retrieved 31 May 2008.
- ^ Horowitz, I.A. (1973). From Morphy to Fischer. Batsford.
- ^ Wilson, F. (1975). Classical Chess Matches, 1907–1913. Dover. ISBN 0-486-23145-3. Archived from the original on 20 January 2005. Retrieved 30 May 2008.
- ^ "New York 1924". chessgames. Archived from the original on 10 January 2009. Retrieved 20 May 2008.
- ^ a b Wall. "FIDE History". Archived from the original on 3 August 2009. Retrieved 15 September 2008.
- ^ "FIDE History". FIDE. Archived from the original on 14 November 2008. Retrieved 15 September 2008.
- ^ Seirawan, Y. (August 1998). "Whose Title Is it, Anyway?". GAMES Magazine. Archived from the original on 10 December 2008. Retrieved 15 September 2008.
- ^ Winter, E. "Chess Notes Archive [17]". Archived from the original on 9 May 2008. Retrieved 15 September 2008. Winter cites: Resolution XI of the 1926 FIDE Congress, regarding the "London Rules"; page 5 of the 1926 Congress' minutes about the initial decision to set up an "official championship of FIDE"; Schweizerische Schachzeitung (September 1927) for FIDE's decision to await the result of the Capablanca–Alekhine match; the minutes of FIDE's 1928 congress for the adoption of the forthcoming 1928 Bologjubow–Euwe match as being for the "FIDE championship" and its congratulations to the winner, Bologjubow; the minutes of FIDE's 1928 congress for Alekhine's agreement and his exception for Capablanca; a resolution of 1928 for the attempt to arrange an Alekhine-Bogoljubow match; subsequent FIDE minutes for the non-occurrence of the match (under FIDE); and the vanishing of the title "Champion of FIDE".
- ^ Winter, E. "World Championship Disorder". Archived from the original on 8 December 2008. Retrieved 15 September 2008.
- ^ a b c d Winter, E. (2003–2004). "Interregnum". Chess History Center. Archived from the original on 6 December 2010. Retrieved 15 September 2008.
- ^ Weeks, M. "World Chess Championship FIDE Events 1948–1990". Archived from the original on 1 September 2014. Retrieved 15 September 2008.
- ^ "Index of FIDE Events 1948–1990 : World Chess Championship". www.mark-weeks.com. Archived from the original on 1 September 2014. Retrieved 5 April 2016.
- ^ Wade, R. G. (1964). The World Chess Championship 1963. Arco. LCCN 64514341.
- ^ a b Kingston, T. (2002). "Yuri Averbakh: An Interview with History – Part 2" (PDF). The Chess Cafe. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 May 2014. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
- ^ Wade, R.; O'Connell, K. (1972). The Games of Robert J. Fischer. Batsford. pp. 331–46.
- ^ a b Weeks, M. "Index of FIDE Events 1948–1990 : World Chess Championship". Archived from the original on 1 September 2014. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
- ^ Weeks, M. "FIDE World Chess Championship 1948–1990". Archived from the original on 20 July 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
- ^ Donlan, M. "Ed Edmondson Letter" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 December 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
- ^ Sosonko, Gennadi (2001). "Remembering Max Euwe Part 1" (PDF). The Chess Cafe. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 August 2011. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
- ^ "Fischer, outspoken ex-chess champion, dies of kidney failure". ESPN. 19 January 2008. Archived from the original on 16 May 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
- ^ Weeks, M. "World Chess Championship 1972 Fischer – Spassky Title Match:Highlights". Archived from the original on 25 September 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
- ^ Weeks, M. "World Chess Championship 1975: Fischer forfeits to Karpov". Archived from the original on 11 December 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
- ^ "The chess games of Garry Kasparov". Chessgames.com. Archived from the original on 21 February 2022. Retrieved 21 February 2022.
- ^ "Battle off the boards hots up". The Indian Express. p. 19. Archived from the original on 4 June 2024. Retrieved 4 June 2024. Alt URL
- ^ Lundstrom, Harold (23 July 1993). "Many Fans Root For Rebels In Fight With Chess Federation". The Deseret News. p. 12. Archived from the original on 4 June 2024. Retrieved 4 June 2024. Alt URL
- ^ The Week in Chess 127 Archived 10 February 2020 at the Wayback Machine, 14 April 1997
- ^ Kasparov Interview Archived 6 February 2021 at the Wayback Machine, The Week in Chess 206, 19 October 1998
- ^ Topalov Kramnik 2006, book review by Jeremy Silman Archived 12 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Interview with Kramnik Archived 3 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine, 10 July 2008
- ^ McGourty, Colin (26 June 2015). "Vladimir Kramnik: "It turns out I'm 52, not 40!"". chess24.com. Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
Most likely I finally felt liberated after losing the World Championship title in 2008.
- ^ Cox, David (18 July 2019). "Vladimir Kramnik Interview: 'I'm Not Afraid To Lose'". chess.com. Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
Your reign as champion ended with the 2008 defeat to Vishy Anand.
- ^ Regulations for the 2007 – 2009 World Chess Championship Cycle Archived 10 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine, sections 4 and 5, FIDE online. Undated, but reported in Chessbase on 24 June 2007 Archived 21 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Sofia R7: Topalov beats Kamsky, wins candidates match | Chess News". Chessbase.com. 26 February 2009. Archived from the original on 1 March 2009. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
- ^ "FIDE World Chess Championship Match – Anand Retains the Title!". Fide.com. 20 April 2010. Archived from the original on 8 March 2013. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
- ^ "Magnus Carlsen wins FIDE Candidates' Tournament". Fide.com. 1 April 2013. Archived from the original on 7 May 2013. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
- ^ "World Championship Match – PRESS RELEASE". Fide.com. 7 May 2013. Archived from the original on 7 June 2013. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
- ^ "Sochi G11: In dramatic finale, Carlsen retains title". ChessBase. 23 November 2014. Archived from the original on 30 November 2014. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
- ^ "The World Chess Championship comes to New York City 11—30 November 2016 | World Chess". Archived from the original on 25 August 2016. Retrieved 30 November 2016.
- ^ Mather, Victor (28 November 2018). "Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to win the World Chess Championship". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 28 November 2018. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
- ^ Arkady Dvorkovich: The match for the chess crown will be postponed to 2021 Archived 1 July 2020 at the Wayback Machine, FIDE, 30 June 2020
- ^ BREAKING: Carlsen Might Only Defend Title Vs. Firouzja Archived 14 December 2021 at the Wayback Machine, Peter Doggers, chess.com, 21 December 2021
- ^ "Statement by FIDE President on Magnus Carlsen's announcement". FIDE. 20 July 2022. Archived from the original on 20 July 2022. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
- ^ Victor Mather (20 July 2022). "Lacking Motivation, Magnus Carlsen Will Give Up World Chess Title". New York Times. Archived from the original on 21 July 2022. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
- ^ Dinic, Milan (30 April 2023). "Ding Liren makes history, becoming World Champion". worldchampionship.fide.com. FIDE. Archived from the original on 24 August 2023. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
Ding Liren made history by becoming the 17th World Champion in chess, defeating Ian Nepomniachtchi in the final game of the tiebreaks
- ^ Keene, Raymond (13 May 2023). "Shalom Alekhine: Ding joins the chess greats". The Article. Archived from the original on 16 May 2023. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
It's reassuring to see that even FIDÉ now subscribes to the canonical view of who has and who has not been world champion. By openly conceding that the Chinese Grandmaster Ding Liren is the 17th champion, FIDÉ have confirmed that the true line of succession is Kasparov (13th champion), Kramnik (14), Anand (15), Carlsen (16) and now Ding Liren (17).
- ^ "FIDE World Championship Cycle 2023-2024". FIDE. Archived from the original on 30 August 2023. Retrieved 30 April 2023.
- ^ Graham, Bryan Armen (12 December 2024). "Gukesh Dommaraju becomes youngest world chess champion after horrific Ding Liren blunder". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 12 December 2024.
- ^ "The Centenary Match Kasparov–Karpov III", Raymond Keene and David Goodman, Batsford Books, 1986, p.3
External links
[edit]- Mark Weeks' pages on the championships – Contains all results and games
- Graeme Cree's World Chess Championship Page (archived) – Contains the results, and also some commentary by an amateur chess historian
- Kramnik Interview: From Steinitz to Kasparov – Vladimir Kramnik (the 14th World Chess Champion) shares his views on the first 13 World Chess Champions.
- Chessgames guide to the World Championship
- The World Chess Championship by Edward Winter
World Chess Championship
View on GrokipediaOrigins and Informal Recognition
Pre-1851 Developments
Chess in Europe during the 18th century saw François-André Danican Philidor (1726–1795) establish dominance through innovative strategic play emphasizing pawn advances and piece coordination, principles outlined in his influential 1749 book Analyse du jeu des Échecs, which remained a key text for over a century.[6] Philidor's undefeated record in blindfold and consultation games across London and Paris cafes solidified his status as the era's leading authority, with contemporaries like Sir William Jones praising his superiority in 1780s matches.[7] The Napoleonic Wars diminished organized play, but post-1815 revival centered at Paris's Café de la Régence, where Alexandre Deschapelles (1780–1847) emerged as the top player around 1815–1821, renowned for mastering chess in days and routinely conceding pawn-and-move odds to skilled amateurs while winning stakes games.[8] Deschapelles's feats included defeating strong opponents like Alexey Alexeyev in 1823 at odds, though his style relied heavily on odds-giving, limiting even contests; he largely retired from serious play after losses to rising talents, resuming briefly in 1836–1837.[9] By the 1830s, Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais (1795–1840) surpassed predecessors, defeating Deschapelles in a 1821 match without odds and dominating French circles with aggressive tactics honed against café regulars.[9] La Bourdonnais's pinnacle came in 1834 London matches against Alexander McDonnell (1798–1835), the strongest English player, comprising six series totaling 85 games from June to October, where La Bourdonnais prevailed overall by 45 wins to McDonnell's 27, with 13 draws, producing analyzed games that advanced opening theory like the McDonnell Gambit.[10] These encounters, the first major international rivalry, highlighted tactical brilliance amid endurance tests, as McDonnell won one match but fatigued in later ones.[11] La Bourdonnais's death in 1840 left a void, filled temporarily by Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant, who claimed primacy via Paris-London victories until challenged by emerging English players, setting the stage for broader competition culminating in the 1851 London tournament.[12] Informal supremacy thus derived from café matches and cross-channel duels rather than structured events, with strength gauged by win rates in odds-free games among elites.[13]Howard Staunton and Early Challenges
Howard Staunton, an English chess master born in April 1810, rose to prominence in the 1840s through key victories that positioned him as the unofficial world champion from 1843 to 1851.[14] His most significant achievement was the 1843 match against Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant, a leading French player regarded as Europe's strongest after defeating older masters like Alexandre Deschapelles.[15] The match, held in Paris starting November 14, 1843, at the Cercle des Echecs, consisted of 21 games with a prize of £200; Staunton won 11 games, lost 6, and drew 4, securing a decisive victory that elevated England's standing in international chess.[16][17] This triumph, combined with subsequent match wins against continental players such as Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky, solidified Staunton's reputation as the world's preeminent player, though no formal title existed.[14] Staunton promoted chess actively, founding The Chess Player's Chronicle in 1841 and contributing analysis that advanced opening theory, but his dual career as a Shakespearean scholar limited his availability for frequent challenges.[18] Early efforts to recognize a champion relied on ad hoc matches rather than structured tournaments, hampered by logistical barriers including high travel costs across Europe, disagreements over stakes, and the absence of a central organizing authority.[19] The lack of a standardized qualification process meant dominance was informal and contestable only through private negotiations, often stalled by personal or financial constraints; for instance, Staunton's commitments to literary work deterred potential defenders of his status.[20] By 1851, persistent calls for a definitive test of supremacy led Staunton to organize the first international chess tournament in London, intended to crown the era's best player amid growing participation from multiple nations.[21] However, his fourth-place finish behind Adolf Anderssen highlighted the challenges of transitioning from individual match-based recognition to competitive elimination formats, underscoring the era's organizational immaturity.[22] These hurdles—decentralized arrangements, irregular challenges, and reliance on personal initiative—delayed formalization of a world championship until later decades.[19]Formal Establishment and Pre-FIDE Champions (1886–1946)
Wilhelm Steinitz's Reign and Title Definition
The inaugural official World Chess Championship match occurred in 1886 between Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort, played across several U.S. cities including New York, St. Louis, and New Orleans from February to March.[23] Steinitz secured victory with a score of 12½–7½ (+10 −5 =5), clinching the title on March 29 after winning the final three games.[23] This contest formalized the world championship as a match between top contenders, supplanting informal recognition based on tournament successes or unbeaten streaks, and established Steinitz as the first holder of the title from 1886 to 1894.[24] [25] Prior to 1886, chess lacked a structured title; figures like Paul Morphy were acclaimed champions unofficially after dominant performances, such as Morphy's 1859 European tour, but no match determined supremacy.[24] Steinitz, having won the 1866 London tournament undefeated against Europe's elite, was widely regarded as the strongest player but awaited a formal challenge to claim the crown definitively.[24] The 1886 match's rules—first to ten wins, draws not counting toward the total—set an early precedent for decisive outcomes, though later defenses varied in format.[26] Steinitz defended his title three times against prominent challengers. In January–February 1889, he faced Mikhail Chigorin in Havana, Cuba, winning 10½–6½ over 17 games under a first-to-ten-wins rule.[27] The following year, from December 1890 to January 1891 in New York, Isidor Gunsberg challenged him; Steinitz prevailed 10½–8½ (+6 −4 =9) in 19 games.[28] His final defense came against Chigorin again in Havana from December 1891 to February 1892, where Steinitz narrowly won 12½–10½ (+9 −8 =6, first to ten wins) after Chigorin nearly equalized in game 23 but erred under time pressure.[29] These matches underscored the title's reliance on bilateral challenges rather than centralized governance, with challengers often self-funded or backed by patrons amid organizational hurdles.[30]Emanuel Lasker's Dominance
Emanuel Lasker became the second World Chess Champion by defeating Wilhelm Steinitz in a match held in Montreal from March 15 to May 26, 1894, scoring 10 wins, 2 losses, and 5 draws for a final tally of 12.5–4.5 points.[31] This victory marked the beginning of Lasker's unprecedented 27-year reign as champion, the longest in chess history, lasting until 1921.[32] During this period, Lasker defended his title against several prominent challengers, demonstrating resilience and strategic adaptability despite infrequent formal matches.[33] In the 1896–1897 rematch against Steinitz in Moscow and St. Petersburg, Lasker retained the title with a score of 12.5–4.5, further solidifying his position.[34] Lasker then faced no serious challenges for nearly a decade, turning down or delaying several proposed matches due to financial and organizational disputes, which highlighted the informal nature of title defenses at the time. His next defense came in 1907 against Frank Marshall in New York and Philadelphia, where Lasker won convincingly 11.5–3.5 (+8 =7 -1), showcasing his tactical prowess in a best-of-30 format.[33] The 1908 match against Siegbert Tarrasch in Munich and Düsseldorf ended with Lasker victorious at 10.5–5.5 (+8 =5 -2), overcoming Tarrasch's classical style through practical, fighting chess that prioritized practical chances over theoretical purity.[33] In 1910, Lasker faced two challengers: first David Janowski in Berlin and Paris, dominating with 9.5–1.5 (+9 =1 -0) in a shortened match to 10 points, underscoring his overwhelming superiority.[35] Later that year against Carl Schlechter in Vienna and Berlin, the match concluded in a 5–5 tie (+1 =8 -1 for each in points), but Lasker retained the title as the incumbent under prevailing customs requiring a clear win for the challenger.[36] Lasker's dominance persisted through World War I, during which he resided in the Netherlands and Germany, limiting competitive play. His final defense in 1921 against José Raúl Capablanca in Havana saw Lasker, then aged 52 and returning after a six-year hiatus, concede after 14 games with Capablanca leading 4–0 (+0 =10 -4 for Lasker), effectively resigning the match on June 20, 1921, due to health issues and the opponent's clear advantage.[37] Across his championship career, Lasker amassed a strong record in title matches, including 23 wins, 7 losses, and 16 draws against top opposition, reflecting his psychological insight and ability to exploit opponents' weaknesses in high-stakes encounters.[33] This era underscored Lasker's role in professionalizing the championship through selective defenses, though it also drew criticism for his occasional reluctance to face all contenders promptly.
Capablanca, Alekhine, and Euwe Era
José Raúl Capablanca became the third official World Chess Champion by defeating Emanuel Lasker in Havana, Cuba, from March 15 to April 28, 1921, with a score of 4 wins, 0 losses, and 10 draws, as Lasker resigned the match after 14 games despite the first-to-eight-wins condition.[38][37] Capablanca's undefeated streak in tournament and match play prior to this victory, spanning eight years, underscored his reputation for positional precision and endgame mastery.[37] During his championship from 1921 to 1927, Capablanca adhered to the stringent London Rules of 1922, which required challengers to win a major tournament and post a significant forfeit, limiting defenses but ensuring only serious contenders could compete.[39] Alexander Alekhine dethroned Capablanca in the 1927 World Chess Championship match held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from September 16 to November 29, winning 6-3 with 25 draws under first-to-six-wins rules, marking the longest title match to date at 34 games.[40][41] Alekhine's rigorous preparation, including deep analysis of Capablanca's games, contrasted with Capablanca's more relaxed approach, contributing to the upset despite Capablanca leading early.[42] Alekhine defended his title informally against Efim Bogoljubow in 1929 and 1934, winning both matches convincingly (11½–5½ and 15½–10½), though these were not considered full championships due to Bogoljubow's lesser status.[25] Alekhine lost the title to Max Euwe in 1935 across multiple Dutch cities including Amsterdam, from October 3 onward, with Euwe prevailing 15½–14½ (+9−8=13) in 30 games, aided by Alekhine's irregular lifestyle and Euwe's physical fitness and second Reuben Fine's support.[43] Euwe's reign lasted until the 1937 rematch in the Netherlands from October 5 to December 4, where a abstinent and focused Alekhine regained the crown 15½–9½ (+10−3=12), demonstrating superior preparation and exploiting Euwe's defensive lapses.[44][45] Alekhine retained the title until his death on March 23, 1946, amid World War II disruptions that prevented matches, though he played exhibitions and tournaments.[25] This era highlighted shifts from Capablanca's classical style to Alekhine's dynamic aggression and Euwe's analytical rigor, amid growing organizational tensions over match conditions.[43]Financing and Organizational Challenges
The absence of a centralized governing body before 1946 meant that world championship matches were arranged through private negotiations between champions and challengers, leading to frequent delays and disputes over match conditions, including venues, time controls, and forfeit rules. For instance, the 1886 match between Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort involved extended haggling, with Zukertort preferring London to access his financial supporters before conceding to U.S. locations such as New York, St. Louis, and New Orleans, where the games were ultimately held across multiple cities to maximize attendance and revenue.[46][47] Steinitz posted a stake of $2,000, reflecting the era's reliance on personal or backer-funded guarantees rather than institutional support.[47] Financing posed a core barrier, as challengers typically bore the brunt of raising prize funds through stakes, subscriptions, or gate receipts, with champions often demanding high thresholds to deter weak contenders or cover travel. Emanuel Lasker encountered acute funding shortages before his 1894 challenge to Steinitz, initially targeting $5,000 a side but repeatedly lowering terms to $3,000 amid difficulties securing backers, which delayed the match and underscored the financial precarity of aspiring champions.[48] Similarly, the 1922 London Rules, endorsed by figures like Capablanca, required a $10,000 deposit from challengers, intensifying capital demands and contributing to prolonged gaps between defenses, as potential rivals struggled to assemble such sums amid limited chess patronage.[48] Organizational strains intensified in later matches due to geographic and logistical hurdles. The 1927 Capablanca-Alekhine contest, held in Buenos Aires from September 16 to November 29, demanded Alekhine orchestrate international sponsorships to meet the stake, while multi-venue formats in prior events like Alekhine-Euwe 1935—spanning 10 Dutch cities from October 3 to December 15—complicated scheduling and refereeing, though a national committee mitigated costs via city-by-city crowdfunding for the prize pool and Alekhine's fee of approximately 10,000 guilders ($6,700).[43] These ad-hoc arrangements, dependent on local enthusiasm and private donors, often resulted in uneven prize distributions—winners claiming the bulk—and exposed vulnerabilities to economic downturns or sponsor withdrawals, fostering perceptions of the title as a personal fiefdom rather than a regulated institution.[49]FIDE's Involvement and Early Cycles (1946–1993)
Post-WWII Reorganization and Euwe's Role
Following Alexander Alekhine's death on March 24, 1946, the World Chess Championship title became vacant, prompting the International Chess Federation (FIDE) to assume control over its administration for the first time.[50] Prior to this, championships had been privately arranged between reigning and challenging players, but World War II disruptions, including Alekhine's collaborationist associations and the isolation of Soviet players, necessitated a structured reorganization to restore international legitimacy.[50] At FIDE's inaugural post-war congress in Winterthur, Switzerland, in July 1946, delegates proposed awarding the title directly to Max Euwe, the last player to have held it (1935–1937) and the most recent challenger to Alekhine before the war.[50] Euwe declined the honor, arguing for a competitive tournament to determine the champion based on current playing strength rather than historical claim, a stance that aligned with principles of meritocratic selection amid debates over interim recognition.[50] This refusal facilitated FIDE's adoption of a formal qualification system, culminating in a five-player round-robin tournament scheduled for 1948, with participants selected from top-rated players and former titleholders: Euwe (Netherlands), Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, and Paul Keres (USSR), and Samuel Reshevsky (USA).[50] Euwe played a pivotal role in bridging pre- and post-war chess by organizing the Groningen 1946 international tournament in the Netherlands, which marked the Soviet Union's first major post-war appearance and helped gauge elite form under FIDE oversight.[51] Finishing second behind Botvinnik at age 45, Euwe demonstrated residual competitiveness while endorsing FIDE's tournament model over a direct Euwe-Botvinnik match, which some federations had favored.[51] His participation in the 1948 event, though resulting in last place with 4 points from 20 games, underscored his commitment to the process he had helped shape, as FIDE's format emphasized collective verification over unilateral claims.[50] This reorganization established FIDE's ongoing authority, shifting from ad hoc matches to cyclical events, though early cycles revealed tensions, such as Soviet dominance influencing participant selection. Euwe's principled rejection of unearned title conferral prevented potential disputes and set a precedent for evidence-based crowning, prioritizing empirical performance data from recent tournaments like Groningen over pedigree alone.[50]Inaugural FIDE Championship (1948)
The death of reigning champion Alexander Alekhine on March 24, 1946, left the world chess title vacant, prompting the International Chess Federation (FIDE) to organize a tournament to select a new champion.[52] FIDE invited six leading players based on pre-war and immediate post-war performances: Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, and Paul Keres from the Soviet Union; Samuel Reshevsky from the United States; Max Euwe, the former champion from the Netherlands; and Reuben Fine from the United States. Fine declined participation due to professional commitments, resulting in a field of five contestants.[53] The event adopted an unusual quintuple round-robin format, with each player contesting five games against each of the other four opponents, yielding 20 games per participant. This structure was necessitated by the disruptions of World War II, which had prevented traditional match play or qualification cycles. The tournament commenced on March 2, 1948, in The Hague, Netherlands, where the first five rounds were completed by March 24. It then relocated to Moscow, Soviet Union, resuming on April 11 and concluding on May 17 at the House of the Unions. The total prize fund amounted to $12,500.[54][55] Mikhail Botvinnik emerged victorious with a score of 14 out of 20 points, finishing three points ahead of Vasily Smyslov, who tallied 11. Botvinnik achieved notable dominance, including winning all five encounters against Paul Keres and drawing most games with Smyslov. Samuel Reshevsky and Paul Keres each scored 10.5 points, while Max Euwe finished last with 8 points, hampered by age and rust from wartime inactivity. Botvinnik's triumph initiated a prolonged period of Soviet control over the world championship, reflecting the USSR's investment in chess as a tool for national prestige.[52][56][57] The tournament's outcome solidified FIDE's authority in managing the championship, establishing a precedent for future cycles involving candidate qualifiers challenging the titleholder every three years. Despite suspicions of favoritism toward Soviet players—given three of the five were from the USSR and the Moscow leg provided home advantage—no concrete evidence of collusion emerged, as Botvinnik's superior preparation and play against all rivals underscored his merit.[53]Evolution of Qualification Cycles (1949–1975)
Following the 1948 FIDE World Championship tournament, which selected Mikhail Botvinnik as champion, FIDE established a triennial qualification cycle to determine challengers, consisting of zonal tournaments to identify regional qualifiers, followed by one or more interzonal tournaments to select candidates, and culminating in a candidates event to produce the challenger for a title match against the reigning champion.[58] The initial interzonal in Saltsjöbaden (July–August 1948) featured 20 players from zonal winners and seeds, with the top five—David Bronstein, Laszlo Szabo, Miguel Najdorf, Gideon Stahlberg, and Max Euwe—advancing alongside five seeded players (e.g., Paul Keres, Samuel Reshevsky) to the inaugural candidates tournament in Budapest (April–May 1950), a 10-player double round-robin won by Bronstein after a playoff against Isaac Boleslavsky.[59] This structure emphasized broad participation to ensure merit-based selection, with interzonals held roughly every three years (e.g., Stockholm 1952, Gothenburg 1955) qualifying 3–6 players per event, supplemented by seeds from prior cycles or high-rated players not exceeding a fixed number.[58] The candidates stage from 1950 to 1962 consistently used round-robin formats to crown the challenger, starting with larger fields that shrank over time: Budapest 1950 (10 players, double round-robin), Zurich 1953 (15 players? but effectively focused on top Soviet and Western contenders, won by Vasily Smyslov), Amsterdam 1956 (10 players, double round-robin, Smyslov repeat), Bled–Zagreb–Belgrade 1959 (8 players, quadruple round-robin across venues, Mikhail Tal victorious), and Curacao 1962 (8 players, quadruple round-robin, Tigran Petrosian undefeated).[59] [60] Interzonals evolved modestly in this era, remaining single events until the mid-1950s (e.g., Portoroz 1958 qualifying Tal and others), but participant numbers grew to 21–23 to reflect expanding global chess activity, with top finishers (typically 3–5) plus 2–3 seeds forming 8–10 candidates.[58] This system privileged empirical performance in long tournaments, aligning with chess's strategic depth, though it drew criticism for logistical demands and potential for strategic alliances, as evidenced by short draws among Soviet players in Curacao 1962, which fueled accusations of collusion and prompted FIDE to reassess the format for fairness and decisiveness.[58] The 1965 candidates in Amsterdam–Bled–Nice retained the round-robin model (8 players, double round-robin), with Boris Spassky emerging winner to challenge Petrosian, but the Curacao fallout accelerated evolution toward matches.[59] For the subsequent cycle, FIDE shifted to knockout-style candidates matches in 1970–1971, qualifying eight players via dual interzonals—Sousse 1967 (marred by withdrawals, including Bobby Fischer's protest absence) and Palma de Mallorca 1970 (23 players, Fischer sole winner on tiebreaks)—plus seeds like Spassky, Petrosian, Viktor Korchnoi, and Bent Larsen, pitting them in quarterfinal, semifinal, and final best-of-12 (or more) matches.[58] [60] Fischer's path exemplified the format's rigor: 6–0 shutouts over Mark Taimanov and Larsen, followed by a 6.5–2.5 final win over Petrosian, yielding him the 1972 title shot against Spassky. This match-based system, designed to minimize multi-player collusion through direct confrontation and head-to-head causality, persisted into the 1975 cycle, where interzonals like Leningrad 1973 qualified Anatoly Karpov among others for planned matches, though Fischer's forfeiture amid demands for altered match conditions (e.g., unlimited rematch rights) awarded the title to Karpov without play.[58] The transition reflected causal realism in addressing tournament flaws—round-robins rewarded survival over dominance—while expanding interzonals to two per cycle by the 1970s to handle increased zonal outputs from growing chess populations.[60]Karpov-Kasparov Rivalry and Tensions
The rivalry between Anatoly Karpov, the reigning FIDE World Chess Champion since 1975, and Garry Kasparov, the rising Soviet grandmaster, defined the World Chess Championship cycles from 1984 to 1990. Kasparov, born in 1963 to a Jewish mother and Armenian father, emerged as a prodigy, winning the Soviet Championship in 1981 at age 18 and qualifying as the challenger after dominating the Candidates matches in 1983-1984. Karpov, a product of the Soviet chess establishment, had defended his title successfully against Viktor Korchnoi in 1978 and 1981 amid geopolitical tensions. Their encounters highlighted not only exceptional chess but also internal Soviet politics, with Kasparov positioned as an outsider challenging the regime-favored Karpov.[61][62] The first championship match began on September 10, 1984, in Moscow, under a first-to-six-wins format with no limit on games. After 48 games spanning five months, Karpov led 5-3 with 40 draws, but Kasparov won the 47th and 48th games, signaling a momentum shift. On February 15, 1985, FIDE President Florencio Campomanes abruptly terminated the match, citing exhaustion and health issues for both players, a decision endorsed by the Soviet Chess Federation despite protests from Kasparov and observers. Kasparov alleged political interference by Soviet authorities to protect Karpov, including claims of KGB involvement in undermining his preparation and possibly affecting Karpov's health through covert means, though FIDE maintained the ruling was based solely on medical reports. Karpov, treated as a national hero by the establishment, later admitted the match's strain but denied favoritism.[63][64][65] A rematch followed from September 3 to November 9, 1985, in Moscow, where Kasparov secured the title with a score of 13-11 (+5 -3 =21), becoming the youngest world champion at 22 years old. Kasparov defended successfully in 1986 (London and Leningrad, 12.5-11.5, +5 -4 =19) and 1987 (Seville, tied at 12-12, +5 -5 =21, retaining by championship rules). The 1990 match in New York and Lyon ended with Kasparov winning 12.5-11.5 (+4 -3 =24). Across these five matches, Kasparov won 21 games to Karpov's 19, with 104 draws, showcasing their tactical parity and endurance.[66][66][66] Tensions extended beyond the board, fueled by ideological divides within the Soviet Union. Karpov, a committed communist who later supported nationalist causes, represented the old guard, while Kasparov, increasingly vocal against bureaucratic corruption, advocated for reforms and faced restrictions from Soviet officials. Public disputes, including Kasparov's accusations of match-fixing attempts and Karpov's claims of psychological warfare, intensified scrutiny on FIDE's governance. These conflicts foreshadowed Kasparov's later break from FIDE in 1993, but during this era, they elevated chess's global profile amid Cold War dynamics, drawing millions of spectators and highlighting the sport's vulnerability to state influence.[67][62][64]The Title Split and Reunification (1993–2006)
Kasparov-Short Dispute and PCA Formation
In 1992, Nigel Short qualified as challenger by winning the FIDE Candidates Tournament, defeating Jonathan Speelman 5½–4½ in the quarterfinals, Boris Gelfand 5–3 in the semifinals, Anatoly Karpov 6–4 in the semifinals, and Jan Timman 7½–5½ in the final.[68] Negotiations for the world championship match between Short and defending champion Garry Kasparov broke down with FIDE over control of organization, venue selection, and prize fund allocation, including FIDE's proposed 20% cut of earnings and failure to consult players on bids like Manchester.[68] [69] On February 27, 1993, Kasparov and Short publicly announced their withdrawal from FIDE, accusing it of incompetence in commercializing elite chess and bypassing player input.[69] Kasparov and Short formalized their split in March 1993 by establishing the Professional Chess Association (PCA), a rival entity dedicated to marketing and organizing their title match independently of FIDE's jurisdiction.[70] The PCA secured sponsorship from The Times newspaper, enabling a £1.7 million prize fund—substantially higher than FIDE's offers—and selected London as venue, rejecting FIDE's unconsulted proposals.[70] This move aimed to prioritize professional interests, including better earnings for top players, amid growing dissatisfaction with FIDE's bureaucratic control under president Florencio Campomanes.[68] The PCA World Chess Championship match commenced on September 7, 1993, at the Savoy Theatre in London, structured as first-to-12.5 points in a maximum 24 games.[70] Kasparov dominated, winning 12½–7½ after 20 games (six wins, thirteen draws, one loss), retaining his title as PCA champion and securing widespread recognition as the preeminent world champion despite the schism.[70] [68] Short received £650,000 as runner-up.[70] In retaliation, FIDE disqualified both players from its events, stripped Kasparov of his FIDE title, and hastily arranged an alternative championship between Karpov and Timman in November 1993, which Karpov won 12½–8½.[68] This bifurcation created parallel world titles—PCA (classical lineage via Kasparov) and FIDE—exacerbating organizational divides that persisted until 2006, rooted in tensions over commercialization, governance transparency, and revenue distribution in professional chess.[70] [68]Parallel Titles: Classical vs. FIDE
The schism in the World Chess Championship following the 1993 Kasparov-Short dispute resulted in two concurrent titles: the Classical championship, which preserved the lineage of prior undisputed champions through defender-challenger matches organized initially by the Professional Chess Association (PCA) and later by private sponsors, and the FIDE championship, controlled by the International Chess Federation (FIDE).[71][70] The Classical format adhered to extended matches of up to 24 games with classical time controls, prioritizing strategic depth, preparation, and endurance, while FIDE initially continued with matches but shifted to annual knockout tournaments from 1999, featuring shorter time controls in early rounds to accommodate broader participation.[4][72] Classical title holders included Garry Kasparov, who held it from 1993 to 2000 after defeating Nigel Short 12.5–7.5 in their PCA match in London (September 7–November 1, 1993), and defended it against Viswanathan Anand 10.5–7.5 in the 1995 PCA final in New York (September 11–October 16, 1995).[71][73] Vladimir Kramnik then claimed the title by defeating Kasparov 8.5–6.5 in the 2000 Braingames match in London (October 8–November 2, 2000), holding it until the 2006 reunification.[4][74] These matches featured the era's highest-rated players, with Kasparov maintaining the world's top Elo rating throughout his reign.[75] FIDE champions during this period were Anatoly Karpov, who won the 1993 title against Jan Timman 12.5–8.5 in Hoogeveen and Jakarta (October 1993–November 1993), defended against Gata Kamsky 10.5–7.5 in 1996 (April–May), and against Anand 5–4 (+2=6−1) in a shortened 1998 match in Lausanne (September 7–25, 1998).[72][74] From 1999, FIDE adopted knockouts: Alexander Khalifman won the 1999 Las Vegas tournament (July 1999), Anand the 2000 New Delhi event, Ruslan Ponomariov the 2001 Moscow/2002 Moscow final (youngest ever at age 18), Rustam Kasimdzhanov the 2004 Tripoli tournament, and Veselin Topalov the 2005 San Luis round-robin.[4][76] Karpov received direct entries as prior champion until 1999, but post-1999 winners often ranked outside the global top 10 due to non-participation by Kasparov and others.[72] The Classical title commanded greater prestige in the chess community for upholding the historical challenge-match tradition and attracting elite contenders, whereas FIDE's knockouts were faulted for introducing variance through rapid games and single-elimination risks, diluting perceived legitimacy—evidenced by lower average ratings of FIDE winners (e.g., Khalifman at 2645 Elo upon victory versus Kasparov's 2800+).[77][75] This duality fragmented the sport, with sponsors favoring the Classical for its marketability tied to top talents, while FIDE emphasized democratization but faced criticism for organizational opacity and exclusion of defectors from ratings lists initially.[70][78]Reunification Efforts and Kramnik's Role
Following the 1993 schism, FIDE pursued reunification through various proposals, including potential matches between title holders, but progress stalled amid disputes over format and recognition of lineages.[79] By 2000, Vladimir Kramnik had defeated Garry Kasparov 8½–6½ in a Classical Championship match in London from October 8 to November 2, claiming the non-FIDE title and committing to defend it exclusively against challengers from that cycle.[80] Kramnik defended this title in 2004 against Peter Leko in Brissago, Switzerland, from September 24 to October 13, securing a 9–9 draw resolved by Leko's concession after a final game advantage, thus retaining his status as Classical Champion.[81] In late 2005, FIDE organized a 144-player knockout tournament in San Luis, Argentina, from September 27 to October 13, crowning Veselin Topalov as FIDE Champion with 8½/14 points; Kramnik boycotted the event, arguing it diluted the title's prestige and insisting instead on a direct match between the two reigning champions to preserve the historical lineage.[81] This stance pressured FIDE, leading to an April 2006 announcement of a reunification match between Kramnik and Topalov, with the winner to hold the undivided title under FIDE auspices.[80] The match occurred in Elista, Kalmykia, from September 23 to October 14, 2006, under a best-of-24 format with 5½ points needed to win.[82] Kramnik took an early 3–1 lead after four games, prompting Topalov's team to accuse him of computer-assisted cheating via excessive bathroom visits (totaling 42 minutes across games); they forfeited games 5–7 in protest.[83] An appeals committee, including International Arbiter Geert van Duin, initially upheld the forfeits but reversed them after Kramnik's legal challenge and FIDE intervention by president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov; play resumed from game 6 on September 29, with Kramnik securing the victory 8½–7½ after winning three of the final classical games.[83] [84] Kramnik's insistence on match play over tournaments, coupled with his successful defense and ultimate triumph, ended the 13-year split, restoring a single world championship under FIDE control; he held the reunified title until losing to Viswanathan Anand in 2008.[80] The Elista controversy highlighted Kramnik's resolve, as sealed bathroom protocols were implemented post-resumption, vindicating his participation despite no evidence of wrongdoing emerging from subsequent investigations.[83]Reunified Championship and Modern Era (2006–Present)
Anand's Reign and Format Standardization
Viswanathan Anand became the undisputed World Chess Champion on October 2, 2007, after defeating Vladimir Kramnik in a 12-game match held in Mexico City, scoring 9 points to Kramnik's 7 (including six wins, two losses, and four draws).[19] Anand's victory unified the title following Kramnik's earlier reunification win over Veselin Topalov in 2006, with Anand qualifying as challenger due to his consistent high performance and top Elo rating.[4] Anand successfully defended his title three times during his reign from 2007 to 2013. In October 2008, he again bested Kramnik in Bonn, Germany, with a score of 6.5–4.5 in another 12-game match, securing the win after six draws and three victories in the classical games.[85] The 2010 defense against Topalov in Sofia, Bulgaria, was closer, ending 6.5–5.5 after 12 classical games, with Anand clinching the final game amid controversy over Topalov's forfeited sixth game due to a toilet dispute.[19] In 2012, Anand faced Boris Gelfand in Moscow, drawing all 12 classical games 6–6 before winning the rapid tiebreaks 2.5–1.5 to retain the crown.[85] His reign ended in November 2013 in Chennai, India, where Magnus Carlsen defeated him 6.5–3.5 in 10 games, exploiting Anand's preparation lapses.[4] Under Anand's championship, FIDE formalized a stable qualification cycle to determine challengers, shifting from ad hoc selections and prior knockout formats criticized for volatility and short matches that amplified luck over skill.[86] The process combined a 128-player World Cup knockout, a series of elite Grand Prix tournaments, and a FIDE rating list to seed an eight-player Candidates Tournament in double round-robin format, with the winner advancing to a 12-game title match against the champion, followed by rapid and blitz tiebreaks if needed.[86] This structure, outlined in late 2006 and implemented progressively from the 2007–2011 cycle onward (e.g., Gelfand qualifying via the 2011 Candidates), emphasized sustained excellence and long-format play, providing predictability absent in earlier split-title eras.[4] The format's endurance through Anand's defenses marked a return to meritocratic stability, influencing subsequent cycles despite occasional tweaks like prize fund adjustments.[86]Carlsen's Dominance and Abdication
Magnus Carlsen ascended to the world chess championship title by defeating defending champion Viswanathan Anand in a 10-game match held in Chennai, India, from November 9 to 22, 2013, securing victory with a final score of 6.5–3.5 after six decisive wins and four draws.[87] This triumph marked Carlsen as the first Norwegian to claim the undisputed crown, following his qualification via victory in the 2013 Candidates Tournament. He defended the title successfully in 2014 against Anand in Sochi, Russia, winning 6.5–4.5 across 11 games, demonstrating superior endgame technique in key victories.[88] Carlsen's reign extended through further defenses, underscoring his positional mastery and psychological edge in high-stakes encounters. In 2016, he faced Sergey Karjakin in New York City, where the classical portion concluded in a 6–6 tie after 12 games marked by intense defenses and mutual errors; Carlsen prevailed in the rapid tiebreaks by 3–1, retaining the title on November 30.[88] The 2018 match against Fabiano Caruana in London produced the first 12–12 classical deadlock in championship history, with zero wins amid flawless play; Carlsen dominated the rapid tiebreaks 3–0 to secure the crown on November 28. In 2021, against Ian Nepomniachtchi in Dubai, Carlsen clinched a decisive 7.5–3.5 victory in classical games alone, highlighted by four wins in the final stretch after Nepomniachtchi's collapse under pressure.[87] These matches affirmed Carlsen's unparalleled consistency, as he lost only two classical games across all five defenses—a rarity against elite opposition averaging over 2800 Elo.[89] Beyond match results, Carlsen's dominance manifested in sustained rating supremacy, achieving a peak Elo of 2882 in May 2014—the highest ever recorded—and maintaining the world number-one ranking continuously from July 2011 through his abdication, spanning over 150 months.[90] His unbeaten streak in classical chess exceeded 125 games from 2018 to 2020, against top-tier fields, while victories in multiple World Rapid and Blitz Championships (five each by 2023) highlighted versatility across time controls. These feats, rooted in intuitive understanding and endgame prowess rather than rote preparation, positioned Carlsen as the era's preeminent player, with analysts attributing his edge to superior calculation depth and adaptability.[90] Carlsen's abdication came on July 20, 2022, when he declared he would not defend the title in the scheduled 2023 match against Nepomniachtchi, citing diminished motivation for the grueling classical format and exhaustion from biennial preparations. "I'm not motivated to play another match," he stated, emphasizing a preference for freer formats like rapid chess over the "soul-crushing" demands of world championship cycles, which he viewed as misaligned with modern chess's evolution.[91] Negotiations with FIDE for format reforms, including hybrid time controls, faltered after a July 3 meeting in Madrid, prompting his exit despite retaining eligibility.[92] This decision vacated the title for the Ding Liren–Nepomniachtchi contest, ending Carlsen's 10-year hold, though he affirmed continued participation in elite events outside FIDE's classical structure.[93]Ding Liren and Gukesh Transition (2023–2024)
Ding Liren secured the world chess championship title in 2023 following Magnus Carlsen's decision not to defend it, defeating Ian Nepomniachtchi in a match held in Astana, Kazakhstan, from April 9 to May 1. The 14 classical games ended in a 7–7 draw, leading to rapid tiebreaks on May 1 where Ding prevailed 2.5–1.5 to become the 17th undisputed champion and the first from mainland China to hold the title.[94][95] The challenger for Ding's title emerged from the 2024 FIDE Candidates Tournament in Toronto, Canada, running from April 3 to 22. Seventeen-year-old Indian grandmaster D. Gukesh Dommaraju topped the open section with 9 out of 14 points after a final-round draw against Hikaru Nakamura, securing sole first place ahead of Fabiano Caruana and Nepomniachtchi on tiebreaks and marking him as the youngest Candidates winner in history.[96][97] The 2024 World Championship match between Ding (rated 2762) and Gukesh (rated 2770) occurred in Singapore from November 23 to December 12, structured as the first player to 7.5 points across up to 14 classical games with 120 minutes for 40 moves plus increments. The first 10 games were drawn, but Gukesh captured the lead with a victory as white in game 11 on December 7 (1–0 after 29 moves). Ding responded by winning game 12 on December 9 (1–0), leveling the score at 6–6. Gukesh then clinched the title in game 14 on December 12 with another win as white, finishing 7.5–6.5 and becoming the youngest undisputed world champion at age 18.[98][99][100]Current Cycle Leading to 2026 Match
The 2026 World Chess Championship match will contest the title between reigning champion D. Gukesh Dommaraju of India and the winner of the FIDE Candidates Tournament 2026. Gukesh secured the title on December 12, 2024, by defeating Ding Liren of China 7.5–6.5 in a 14-game match held in Singapore. The upcoming match follows the standardized FIDE format of 14 classical games, with the first player to reach 7.5 points declared the winner; ties are resolved via rapid and blitz playoffs. The venue and exact dates remain to be announced by FIDE.[101] The challenger emerges from the Candidates Tournament 2026, an eight-player double round-robin event where participants play 14 games each. Qualification paths, as outlined by FIDE, allocate spots through performance in key events: the winner of the FIDE Circuit 2024–2025; the top three finishers in the FIDE World Cup 2025; and the top performers in the FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2025. Unlike prior cycles, the runner-up from the previous Candidates Tournament does not automatically qualify, replaced by an additional spot awarded via circuit performance or rating criteria to broaden eligibility.[101][102] As of October 2025, Fabiano Caruana of the United States has qualified as the FIDE Circuit 2024 winner, based on his cumulative performance across elite tournaments. Anish Giri of the Netherlands secured a spot by winning the 2025 FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament. Matthias Blübaum of Germany also qualified as the Grand Swiss runner-up. The FIDE World Cup 2025, held in Goa, India, from early October, will determine three additional qualifiers through its top three finishers, with the event featuring 206 players seeded primarily by October 2025 FIDE ratings (Gukesh seeded first as champion). Remaining spots, if any, will fill via the highest-rated eligible player averaged over specified FIDE lists or secondary circuit standings.[101][103][104]Championship Format and Rules
Match Structure and Time Controls
The FIDE World Chess Championship match is structured as a contest of up to 14 classical games between the reigning champion and a challenger qualified through the Candidates Tournament.[101] A win in a game awards 1 point to the victor and 0 to the loser, while a draw grants 0.5 points to each player; the first to reach or exceed 7.5 points secures the title, with remaining games canceled if this threshold is met early.[101] This fixed-length format, adopted post-reunification in 2006, replaced earlier unlimited "first-to-six-wins" structures used in matches like Karpov-Kasparov 1984-1985, which could extend indefinitely and led to prolonged stalemates.[105] Classical games employ a time control of 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes to complete the game, with a 30-second increment added after every move from the start.[2] This setup, refined for the 2024 Ding-Gukesh match to encourage decisive play by shortening the post-40-move allotment from prior 60 minutes for 20 moves, promotes deeper calculation in openings while allowing flexibility in endgames.[106] Electronic clocks and boards, FIDE-approved for precision, enforce these limits, with penalties for time expiration including loss of the game.[105] Historically, time controls evolved from rudimentary constraints in 19th-century matches—such as Staunton-Saint-Amant 1843's informal pacing without clocks—to formalized adjournments in the Steinitz era (1880s-1890s), where games paused after 30-40 moves if time expired, resuming days later with sealed moves.[107] Adjournment was eliminated by the 1990s amid analysis controversies, shifting to uninterrupted play with increments, as in the 2000 Kramnik-Kasparov match's 120 minutes for 40 moves plus 60 minutes for the rest and 30-second increments.[108] FIDE's standardization post-2006 aligned formats across cycles, though parallel titles in the 1993-2006 split era saw variations, like PCA's 1993 Kasparov-Short match using 6 hours total without move limits.[109]Qualification Pathways
The reigning world champion qualifies directly for the title match, while the challenger is determined by the winner of the FIDE Candidates Tournament, an eight-player double round-robin event held in the year preceding the championship match.[101] The Candidates qualification emphasizes performance in major open events, elite invitationals, and rating achievements, with pathways designed to select top active players while avoiding over-reliance on prior results.[110] For the 2026 Candidates, spots are allocated as follows:- One spot to the top performer in the FIDE Circuit 2024, based on points accumulated from the seven best results in rated elite tournaments (round-robin or Swiss systems with average opponent ratings of at least 2650).[110][111]
- Three spots to the first-, second-, and third-place finishers in the FIDE World Cup 2025, a 206-player knockout tournament qualifying participants via national championships, continental events, and top FIDE ratings.[110][112]
- Two spots to the first- and second-place finishers in the FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2025, an 11-round Swiss-system event limited to 150 players selected by rating and nominations.[110]
- One spot to the top performer in the FIDE Circuit 2025, calculated similarly to the 2024 circuit but covering tournaments from January 1 to December 15, 2025.[110][101]
- One spot to the highest-rated eligible player, determined by the average FIDE rating over the six-month period from August 1, 2025, to January 1, 2026, requiring at least 40 rated classical games (including 15 in any six consecutive monthly lists from February 1, 2025); ties are broken by average performance rating against top opponents.[110][111]
Tiebreaks and Innovations
In the modern era of the World Chess Championship, tiebreak procedures were introduced to resolve drawn matches after a fixed number of classical games, marking a shift from indeterminate-length contests that could extend indefinitely. Prior to 2012, championship matches typically continued with additional classical games until a decisive result, as seen in the 24-game 1984–1985 Kasparov–Karpov match, which required 48 games total due to repeated ties. The 2012 Anand–Gelfand match formalized rapid tiebreaks for the title, consisting of four rapid games at 25 minutes plus 10-second increment per move; if tied, two blitz games at 10 minutes plus 5-second increment; and, if necessary, an Armageddon game where White had 5 minutes, Black 4 minutes, and Black won any draw. This format ensured a winner without prolonging the classical phase, addressing logistical and viewer fatigue issues while preserving the primacy of classical chess. The same tiebreak structure persisted through subsequent matches, applied in 2016 (Carlsen–Karjakin), 2018 (Carlsen–Caruana), 2021 (Carlsen–Nepomniachtchi), and 2023 (Ding–Nepomniachtchi), where rapid play decided the champion in each case except 2016, which advanced to blitz before Carlsen prevailed.[114] Armageddon's asymmetric time controls and draw odds for Black introduced a strategic imbalance favoring aggressive play from White, as draws defaulted to Black, incentivizing risk-taking to break deadlocks. This innovation drew criticism for potentially undermining classical chess purity, with some arguing it elevated speed over depth, though proponents noted its decisiveness in high-stakes scenarios. For the 2024 Ding–Gukesh match, FIDE revised the tiebreak format after consultations with participants, shortening initial controls to four games at 15 minutes plus 10-second increment, followed by two at 10 minutes plus 5 seconds if level, then two at 3 minutes plus 2 seconds, culminating in Armageddon if unresolved. This gradual time reduction aimed to expedite resolution and heighten decisiveness, reflecting adaptations to modern players' rapid proficiency and viewer preferences for quicker outcomes, while maintaining multiple stages to mitigate single-game variance.[106] The change underscores ongoing format evolution, balancing tradition with practicality amid debates over whether faster tiebreaks dilute the title's prestige or enhance accessibility.List of World Champions
Pre-FIDE Champions (1886–1946)
The World Chess Championship title originated with the 1886 match between Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort, held across New York, St. Louis, and New Orleans from January 11 to March 29.[23] Steinitz won by a score of 10 wins to 5, with 5 draws, securing first place to 10 wins under the match rules and establishing himself as the inaugural official world champion.[115] This contest formalized the championship after informal claims by earlier players like Paul Morphy, marking the start of structured title defenses based on direct challenges.[116] Steinitz defended his title successfully against challengers like Mikhail Chigorin in 1889 and 1892 but lost to Emanuel Lasker in the 1894 match in New York and Philadelphia from March 15 to May 26.[31] Lasker prevailed 10–5 with 4 draws, again under first-to-10-wins rules, initiating a 27-year reign during which he defended against Steinitz (rematch 1896–97), Siegbert Tarrasch (1908), and David Janowski (1910).[117] In 1921, José Raúl Capablanca defeated Lasker in Havana from February 15 to March 28, winning 4–0 with 10 draws for a total score of 9–5 in points.[118] Capablanca's undefeated performance in wins reflected his positional mastery, though he faced no successful challenges until Alexander Alekhine in 1927. The Buenos Aires match from September 16 to November 29 saw Alekhine win 6–3 with 25 draws, exploiting Capablanca's rustiness after years without major play.[41] Alekhine lost the title to Max Euwe in 1935 across Dutch cities from October 3 to December 16, with Euwe securing 15.5–14.5 points (9 wins, 8 losses, 13 draws for Alekhine).[43] Euwe's victory stemmed from Alekhine's preparation lapses and Euwe's solid play, aided by trainer assistance. Alekhine regained the crown in the 1937 rematch in the Netherlands from October 5 to December 4, winning 15.5–9.5 (10 wins, 4 losses, 11 draws).[119] Alekhine retained the title until his death on March 24, 1946, in Estoril, Portugal, where he was found asphyxiated, officially from choking on food though circumstances fueled speculation of foul play amid postwar ostracism.[120] The vacancy prompted FIDE to organize a tournament in 1948 to crown the next champion, ending the pre-FIDE era of personal title stewardship.[121]| Champion | Reign Period | Defeated in Title Match |
|---|---|---|
| Wilhelm Steinitz | 1886–1894 | Johannes Zukertort (1886) |
| Emanuel Lasker | 1894–1921 | Wilhelm Steinitz (1894) |
| José Raúl Capablanca | 1921–1927 | Emanuel Lasker (1921) |
| Alexander Alekhine | 1927–1935 | José Raúl Capablanca (1927) |
| Max Euwe | 1935–1937 | Alexander Alekhine (1935) |
| Alexander Alekhine | 1937–1946 | Max Euwe (1937); died in office |
FIDE Champions (1948–1993)
The Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE) assumed control of the World Chess Championship after Alexander Alekhine's death in 1946, organizing a replacement tournament in 1948 to crown the new champion. This event, held in The Hague and Moscow, featured five players: Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, Max Euwe, Paul Keres, and Samuel Reshevsky. Botvinnik emerged victorious with 14 points out of 20, defeating all opponents with positive scores and marking the start of Soviet hegemony in elite chess.[122][57] Botvinnik retained the title in drawn matches against David Bronstein in 1951 (12–12) and Smyslov in 1954 (12–12), but lost to Smyslov in 1957 by a score of 9.5–12.5 in Moscow. Botvinnik invoked FIDE's rematch clause and reclaimed the crown in 1958, winning 12.5–11.5. In 1960, Mikhail Tal, the youngest challenger at 23, dethroned Botvinnik 12.5–8.5 in Moscow through aggressive, sacrificial play. Botvinnik won the 1961 rematch 13–8 amid Tal's health struggles. Tigran Petrosian then defeated Botvinnik in 1963, 12.5–9.5, ending Botvinnik's tenure at age 52.[4][123] Petrosian defended against Boris Spassky in 1966 (12.5–11.5) but lost in their 1969 rematch, 10.5–12.5, crowning Spassky champion. Spassky's reign ended in 1972 when American Bobby Fischer won 12.5–8.5 in Reykjavik, Iceland, breaking 24 years of Soviet control amid Cold War tensions and Fischer's demands for better conditions. Fischer forfeited the title in 1975 rather than accept FIDE's match format against Anatoly Karpov, awarding Karpov the championship by default on April 3, 1975. Karpov solidified his position by defeating Viktor Korchnoi in 1978 (16.5–15.5) and 1981 (11–7).[124][125] The 1984–1985 Karpov–Kasparov match in Moscow was aborted after 48 games (with Karpov leading 5–0 initially, then 28 draws) due to exhaustion concerns, prompting FIDE President Florencio Campomanes to halt it. A fresh match ensued in 1985, where Garry Kasparov, aged 22, prevailed 13–11 after 24 games, becoming the youngest champion. Kasparov defended successfully against Karpov in 1986 (12.5–11.5) and 1990 (12.5–11.5), maintaining FIDE's undisputed line until his departure from the organization in 1993 over disputes regarding knockout formats and challenger selection.[126][127]| Champion | Reign | Defeated in Title Match | Score | Location | Dates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mikhail Botvinnik | 1948–1957 | Tournament (1948); Draws vs. Bronstein (1951), Smyslov (1954) | 14/20 (1948) | The Hague/Moscow | March–May 1948 |
| Vasily Smyslov | 1957–1958 | Mikhail Botvinnik | 12.5–9.5 | Moscow | March–April 1957 |
| Mikhail Botvinnik | 1958–1960 | Vasily Smyslov (rematch) | 12.5–11.5 | Moscow | March–May 1958 |
| Mikhail Tal | 1960–1961 | Mikhail Botvinnik | 12.5–8.5 | Moscow | March–May 1960 |
| Mikhail Botvinnik | 1961–1963 | Mikhail Tal (rematch) | 13–8 | Moscow | March–May 1961 |
| Tigran Petrosian | 1963–1969 | Mikhail Botvinnik; Draw vs. Spassky (1966) | 12.5–9.5 (1963); 12.5–11.5 (1966) | Moscow (both) | 1963; June–Aug 1966 |
| Boris Spassky | 1969–1972 | Tigran Petrosian (rematch) | 12.5–10.5 | Moscow | April–June 1969 |
| Bobby Fischer | 1972–1975 | Boris Spassky | 12.5–8.5 | Reykjavik | July–Sept 1972 |
| Anatoly Karpov | 1975–1985 | Forfeit by Fischer; Wins vs. Korchnoi (1978, 1981) | Default (1975); 16.5–15.5 (1978); 11–7 (1981) | N/A; Baguio/Merano | 1975; 1978; 1981 |
| Garry Kasparov | 1985–1993 | Anatoly Karpov (1985, 1986, 1990) | 13–11 (1985); 12.5–11.5 (1986, 1990) | Moscow/London/Leningrad | Sept–Nov 1985; 1986; 1990 |
Split Era Champions (1993–2006)
The split in the World Chess Championship originated from disputes between reigning champion Garry Kasparov and FIDE over match organization, prize fund distribution, and governance, leading Kasparov and challenger Nigel Short to establish the Professional Chess Association (PCA) in 1993. Their match occurred in London from September 7 to October 16, with Kasparov securing victory by a score of 12½–7½ after 20 games (+6 –1 =13).[70] This established Kasparov as the PCA or "classical" champion, continuing the lineal title from previous undisputed holders.[4] FIDE responded by excluding Kasparov and Short, proceeding with its cycle among remaining candidates, culminating in a match between Anatoly Karpov and Jan Timman from August to September 1993 in Jakarta and Groningen. Karpov won 12½–8½ (+6 –2 =13), becoming the FIDE World Champion.[128] Karpov defended the FIDE title twice: defeating Gata Kamsky 10½–7½ in a 20-game match in 1996 (+6 –3 =11), and Viswanathan Anand in 1998 via rapid tiebreaks after four classical draws (+2½ –1½ in playoffs).[4] In 1999, FIDE shifted to an annual knockout tournament format to crown its champion more frequently, starting in Las Vegas with 100 players. Alexander Khalifman, then ranked 44th globally, emerged victorious by defeating Vladimir Akopian 3½–2½ in the final (+2 –1 =3).[129][130] Subsequent FIDE knockouts produced: Viswanathan Anand in New Delhi 2000; Ruslan Ponomariov, aged 18, in Moscow 2002 as the youngest-ever FIDE champion; Rustam Kasimdzhanov in Tripoli 2004; and Veselin Topalov in San Luis 2005.[4] These events, featuring short matches and rapid tiebreaks, drew criticism for introducing variance and failing to consistently identify the strongest player, as evidenced by relatively lower-rated winners like Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov compared to classical titleholders.[4] On the classical side, Kasparov held the title undefeated from 1993 until losing to Vladimir Kramnik in London from October 8 to November 2, 2000. Kramnik prevailed 8½–6½ (+2 =13 –0) in 15 games, employing solid defensive play, particularly neutralizing Kasparov's Berlin Defense preparation in the Ruy Lopez.[131] Kramnik retained the classical championship without further matches until reunification efforts.[4] Reunification occurred in 2006 via a match between Kramnik and Topalov in Elista, Kalmykia, from September 23 to October 13. The classical games ended 6–6 after 12 rounds, with Kramnik winning the rapid tiebreaks 2½–1½ (+2 –1 =1).[83] The contest was marred by controversy, including Topalov's team accusing Kramnik of impropriety during toilet breaks, leading FIDE to restrict access and Kramnik's forfeiture of game 5 (later reinstated by arbitration).[83] Kramnik's victory unified the titles under FIDE, ending the split era.[4]| Line | Champion | Reign | Key Opponents/Events |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classical | Garry Kasparov | 1993–2000 | Def. Nigel Short (1993); lost to Vladimir Kramnik (2000, 6½–8½) |
| Classical | Vladimir Kramnik | 2000–2006 | Def. Veselin Topalov for reunification (2006, 8½–6½ incl. tiebreaks) |
| FIDE | Anatoly Karpov | 1993–1999 | Def. Jan Timman (1993, 12½–8½), Gata Kamsky (1996, 10½–7½), Viswanathan Anand (1998 playoffs) |
| FIDE | Alexander Khalifman | 1999 | Knockout winner vs. Vladimir Akopian |
| FIDE | Viswanathan Anand | 2000 | Knockout winner |
| FIDE | Ruslan Ponomariov | 2002 | Knockout winner (youngest at 18) |
| FIDE | Rustam Kasimdzhanov | 2004 | Knockout winner |
| FIDE | Veselin Topalov | 2005 | Knockout winner |
Reunified Champions (2006–Present)
The reunification of the world chess title occurred in the 2006 World Chess Championship match between Vladimir Kramnik, holder of the Classical title, and Veselin Topalov, the FIDE champion. Held in Elista, Kalmykia, Russia, from September 23 to October 13, the 12-game classical match ended in a 6–6 draw amid controversy including the "Toiletgate" incident where Topalov's team accused Kramnik of impropriety during restroom breaks.[83][132] Kramnik won the subsequent rapid tiebreak 2.5–1.5, securing the undisputed title.[133] Viswanathan Anand claimed the title by defeating Kramnik 9–7 in a 12-game match in Mexico City from September 12 to October 29, 2007.[4] Anand defended against Topalov in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 2010, winning 6.5–5.5 over 12 games.[4] His second defense came in 2012 against Boris Gelfand in Moscow, where the classical match tied at 6–6, but Anand prevailed in the rapid tiebreaks 2.5–1.5.[4] Magnus Carlsen became champion by beating Anand 6.5–3.5 in Chennai, India, from November 7 to 28, 2013.[4] Carlsen defended in 2014 against Anand in Sochi, Russia, winning 6.5–4.5; in 2016 against Sergey Karjakin in New York City, tying 6–6 classically before winning rapid tiebreaks 3–1; and in 2018 against Fabiano Caruana in London, again tying classically but sweeping rapid tiebreaks 3–0.[134][135] His final defense was in 2021 against Ian Nepomniachtchi in Dubai, where he won 7.5–3.5 after a 5–3.5 classical lead, highlighted by Nepomniachtchi's time losses in games 6 and 9.[135] Carlsen declined to defend his title in 2023, citing dissatisfaction with the format.[91] Ding Liren, runner-up in the 2023 Candidates Tournament, faced winner Nepomniachtchi in Astana, Kazakhstan, from April 9 to 30, 2023. The 14-game match tied 7–7, with Ding winning the rapid tiebreaks 1.5–0.5 in the fourth game.[94] Ding defended against Gukesh Dommaraju, the 2024 Candidates winner, in Singapore from November 25 to December 12, 2024. After 13 classical games tied at 6.5–6.5, Gukesh won game 14 as Black to claim the title 7.5–6.5, becoming the youngest undisputed champion at age 18.[136][137]
Controversies and Disputes
Legitimacy of Title Claims
In 1993, a schism arose when reigning World Champion Garry Kasparov and challenger Nigel Short, having qualified through FIDE's established cycle, rejected FIDE's proposed match conditions, including reduced prize funds and organizational control, leading them to form the Professional Chess Association (PCA) for their title match.[77] FIDE President Florencio Campomanes responded by stripping Kasparov of his title and expelling both players from the official ratings list, then organizing a knockout tournament won by Anatoly Karpov, whom FIDE recognized as the new champion.[138] This created parallel titles: the PCA/Classical line, emphasizing continuity from Kasparov's undefeated reign and featuring matches among top-rated players, versus FIDE's knockouts, which prioritized speed and broader participation but were criticized for favoring tactical risks over strategic depth due to short time controls and single-elimination formats.[139] The PCA line gained broader legitimacy in the chess community, as Kasparov retained his status as the highest-rated player (Elo 2812 in 1993) and defended against strong challengers like Viswanathan Anand, while FIDE champions—Alexander Khalifman (1999), Ruslan Ponomariov (2002), Rustam Kasimdzhanov (2004), and Veselin Topalov (2005)—often lacked participation from elite players boycotting the events and held lower ratings relative to the PCA titleholder.[140] Community sentiment, reflected in player rankings and media coverage, viewed FIDE titles as provisional, with top grandmasters like Vladimir Kramnik (who defeated Kasparov in 2000 for the Classical title) dismissing them as not equivalent to the "true" championship lineage tracing back to Wilhelm Steinitz in 1886.[141] FIDE's format changes, including abolishing the long-standing challenger qualification cycle, were seen as diluting competitive integrity to increase event frequency and revenue, though FIDE maintained its governing authority as the sport's international federation.[77] Reunification efforts culminated in the 2006 match in Elista, Kalmykia, where Kramnik defeated Topalov 8.5–7.5 after a 12-game draw, including rapid tiebreaks amid controversies like the "Toiletgate" dispute over Kramnik's restroom breaks.[83] This victory merged the titles, restoring a single champion, though debates persisted over retroactive legitimacy; FIDE's later numbering of Ding Liren as the "17th World Champion" in 2023 implicitly prioritized the Classical line's continuity, effectively sidelining split-era FIDE holders in official historiography.[142] The episode underscored tensions between institutional control and merit-based succession, with the Classical title's emphasis on elite, extended matches aligning more closely with historical precedents for determining supremacy in chess.[116]FIDE Governance and Corruption Allegations
The Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE) operates under a presidential system where the leader is elected every four years by votes from its 195 member national chess federations, a structure that has facilitated allegations of undue influence and electoral irregularities. During Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's presidency from 1995 to 2018, critics including former world champions Garry Kasparov and Nigel Short accused FIDE of systemic corruption, including manipulation of voting blocs through financial incentives and threats to smaller federations.[143] [144] In the 2014 election, Kasparov challenged Ilyumzhinov but lost amid claims of Kremlin-backed lobbying and invalid ballots, with 13 votes mysteriously disqualified in a prior 2010 contest against Anatoly Karpov.[145] [143] Financial opacity intensified scrutiny, particularly regarding commercial rights to FIDE events such as the World Chess Championship. Leaked Panama Papers documents in 2016 revealed Ilyumzhinov's links to offshore entities like Global Chess BV (established 2006) and Agon Limited (2012), which secured exclusive broadcasting and sponsorship rights for major tournaments, including championship cycles, with unclear revenue flows back to FIDE.[146] A draft agreement suggested Ilyumzhinov held a hidden 51% stake in Agon, though he denied personal profit; critics argued this blurred lines between FIDE's non-profit status and private gain, contributing to historically low prize funds for World Championship matches—peaking at $2.5 million in 2014 under pressure but often delayed or mismanaged.[146] [147] These practices echoed broader governance failures, such as a Swiss bank's 2018 decision to close FIDE's account due to Ilyumzhinov's U.S. Treasury sanctions for facilitating Syrian regime transactions, which disrupted operational funding.[147] [148] Such issues eroded trust in FIDE's stewardship of the World Chess Championship, exacerbating the 1993 split when Kasparov formed the Professional Chess Association (PCA) over perceived biases in match organization and funding under prior leadership, a rift that persisted until 2006.[149] Ilyumzhinov's tenure also drew parallels to authoritarian rule in his native Kalmykia, where an aide was convicted in 1998 for murdering journalist Larisa Yudina after her exposés on regional corruption, raising questions about accountability in FIDE's international dealings.[144] Following Ilyumzhinov's effective ouster in 2017–2018 amid these scandals, Arkady Dvorkovich assumed the presidency in 2018, promising reforms including an anti-corruption committee to probe past irregularities and enforce election transparency.[150] [150] Despite this, lingering complaints from players like Vladimir Kramnik in 2024 highlight ongoing ethical concerns, though FIDE's Ethics Commission has pursued cases involving bribery and disparagement.[151]Cheating Scandals and Integrity Measures
The most prominent cheating allegation in World Chess Championship history occurred during the 2006 match between Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov in Elista, Kalmykia. Topalov's manager, Silvio Danailov, filed a complaint with FIDE after game 2, claiming Kramnik's frequent bathroom visits—totaling 18 minutes in game 2 alone—correlated suspiciously with strong moves, suggesting possible consultation of a hidden computer. Analysis of move quality showed Kramnik's play improved post-visits, but no physical evidence of devices was found despite searches of the bathroom, which was equipped with signal jammers.[152][153] In response, FIDE's appeals committee ruled that games would continue with scores reset for games 4 and 5, prompting Kramnik to forfeit game 5 in protest while still playing game 6, which he won. The match proceeded amid heightened tension, including restricted bathroom access for Kramnik and public disputes; Topalov refused to play game 5 until FIDE awarded him the point, but the committee upheld the forfeiture against him. Kramnik ultimately won the match 8.5–7.5 in classical games, retaining the classical title. FIDE's ethics committee later fined Topalov and Danailov $5,000 each for misconduct, finding no evidence of Kramnik's cheating, though the incident strained relations and fueled ongoing debates about verification methods. Kramnik underwent a voluntary polygraph test in August 2024, passing it to refute lingering rumors from the scandal.[152][154][155] No other World Championship matches have resulted in confirmed cheating, though suspicions have arisen in related elite events influencing title integrity. For instance, during the 2022 Sinquefield Cup—preceding the Candidates Tournament—world champion Magnus Carlsen withdrew after losing to Hans Niemann, implying over-the-board cheating without specifying evidence; a subsequent Chess.com investigation found Niemann had cheated online as a minor but cleared over-the-board play, prompting FIDE to enhance protocols amid broader concerns over engine-assisted preparation. Former champion Kramnik has since accused multiple top players of online cheating based on statistical anomalies, leading FIDE to investigate him in October 2025 for unsubstantiated public claims against figures like Daniel Naroditsky, highlighting tensions between vigilance and due process.[156] To safeguard championships, FIDE established formal Anti-Cheating Regulations post-2006, mandating tiered protection levels for elite events: basic measures include prohibiting electronic devices in playing venues, pre-game pat-downs, and random bag checks; advanced protocols for World Championships add metal detectors, signal-blocking Faraday cages around boards, and continuous monitoring by arbiters trained in behavioral anomalies. Statistical detection, pioneered by University of Washington professor Kenneth Regan, compares player moves against engine evaluations and historical performance, flagging correlations exceeding probabilistic thresholds (e.g., move-match percentages above 90% in critical positions) for investigation; this system has been applied retroactively to past games, including the 2006 match, without confirming irregularities.[157][158] Waivers for less stringent measures require FIDE Anti-Cheating Commission approval, ensuring high-stakes matches like the 2024 Ding Liren–D. Gukesh contest incorporate full-spectrum safeguards, including observer teams and post-game data audits, to maintain empirical integrity amid advancing AI capabilities.[159]Economic and Cultural Impact
Prize Funds and Commercialization
The prize funds for World Chess Championship matches originated modestly, reflecting the event's early emphasis on prestige over financial reward. The inaugural 1886 match between Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort offered a total purse of £800, equivalent to approximately $4,000 in contemporary terms, with the winner claiming the bulk.[160] Subsequent pre-World War II matches maintained low stakes; for instance, the 1927 Capablanca-Alekhine contest involved no formal prize fund, though Alekhine personally compensated Capablanca $10,000 to secure participation.[161] Post-1948, under FIDE auspices, funds remained limited, with the 1951 Botvinnik-Bronstein match awarding $6,000 to the winner and $4,000 to the loser.[161] A significant escalation occurred in 1972 during the Fischer-Spassky match, where British financier Jim Slater doubled the initial $125,000 purse to $250,000 to entice Fischer's participation, amid Cold War tensions that drew U.S. government intervention via Henry Kissinger.[88] Funds grew sporadically thereafter, reaching $1 million for the 1990 Karpov-Kasparov rematch, but stagnated in the low six figures during the Soviet era due to state subsidies rather than commercial incentives.[162] By the 2010s, FIDE standardized totals around $2 million, with the 2013 Anand-Carlsen match at $2.45 million and the 2021 Carlsen-Nepomniachtchi at $2 million, distributed via $200,000 per win plus equal shares of the remainder.[160] The 2024 Ding-Gukesh match marked a peak at $2.5 million, with Gukesh securing $600,000 for three wins against Ding's $400,000.[163] [164]| Year | Match | Total Prize Fund (USD equiv.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1886 | Steinitz-Zukertort | ~$4,000 (£800) |
| 1951 | Botvinnik-Bronstein | $10,000 |
| 1966 | Petrosian-Spassky | $17,073 |
| 1972 | Fischer-Spassky | $250,000 |
| 2021 | Carlsen-Nepomniachtchi | $2,000,000 |
| 2024 | Ding-Gukesh | $2,500,000 |