This is directed to DIR/ND argument:
I think this is basically argument about opinions and I am definitely not saying that one or the other is right. However, DIR, I find the arguments that you use to support your opinion kind of strange. I don't want to misinterpret anything you said so correct me if I am wrong somewhere:
1) Your main argument as I understood it is that challenger matches suck because it is possible for someone to win without playing the top seeds. True, it is possible. Just like in Wimbledon it is possible for Mardy Fish to win without playing vs Djokovic,Federer,Nadal,Del Potro if they all have upset losses in previous rounds. If that happens, does it mean that he was a undeserving winner? I think clearly the answer is no - he was the strongest player at that particular moment. This is exactly the case with Gelfand and candidate matches. Yes, he didn't face the top seeds, but that's because the top seeds lost earlier themselves, meaning that they were NOT deserving to win in that
PARTICULAR TOURNAMENT. Can you argue against that?
2) Now I imagine how you will counter that last statement. "It is one tournament (matches), how can you judge their strength based on that one event, it is short term". Granted, you are right. However, let's move to your proposed double RR event. Apart from the argument that ND used about players being mathematically eliminated and therefore not caring (which you said is not a given - might I say it is not a given that the player will not face all the top seeds in candidate matches =] ), you somehow manage to miss the fact that the double RR tournament would still be short term, and according to you, one cannot judge anything from it, correct? In other words, whoever wins that double RR would be the strongest in that
PARTICULAR TOURNAMENT. What does it matter if everyone will have to play everyone? The player who is in the best form/has some luck at that particular event, will win in BOTH instances. Not correct? Tell me why
In other words, you have your opinion and that is great, but you are constantly twisting arguments to try to "fit" and prove that you are "right" in an argument where there is no "right" in general. I am just wondering, if Aronian won the candidates, would you be saying the same thing? Highly doubt it. What if Gelfand luckboxed first in a RR? Bias ain't cool bro
As far as my opinion, I think that the system has to be EITHER some sort of a RR (to which people would still qualify via a mix of rating/some sort of a big knock-out event), or stay as it is now, with just one change - making matches much longer. Oh and another thing - in a WCC match, either play it to certain amount of wins (6 too long? ok, 4 or something), or at the very least remove the tie-break.. It is incredibly ******ed IMO. For as long as I can remember, if the WCC match ended in a draw, the current champ held the title, which means the challenger HAS to win classical games. IMO they should get back to it.