Originally posted by greenpawn34
He's ranked number No1 (according to a four digit number) so how do we
measure any future improvement.
The World Champion is number one.
As Nigel Short said. "He's not number one until he becomes the World Champion."
I think in this era the ELO system is a better gauge of skill than being the "WCC". Last WC match showed how retaining the title is a lot easier than winning it. A well above average but not dominant GM rides some nice blitz tiebreaker wins to qualify for a match with Anand. The match was weak enough to warrant Kasparov stating-
"Anand played the match terribly. But, it seems, Gelfand wasn't fated to win even against such a weakened opponent. Anand played the 2008 match against Kramnik excellently and acceptably against Topalov in 2010, but his current play is at a different level.........I would repeat again that the finished Title Match had no relation to determining the strongest chess player in the world".
How to get into such a candidates match? there's a few logical ones but then there are these- "Tournament organizers' nominee, Loser of the World Chess Championship 2010 match, Loser of the 2009 Challenger Match"
Maybe losing big events deserves it, but nominee? really????
There is a lot of romance tied to the title but I think a math system has more credibility.