The Divine Right of Kings?

Should World Champions have the ultimate say in matches?

Yes I'm against Fischer but should the World Champion have the final say in all match stipulations?

They decide the time controls.
They decide the time to play.
They decide the playing hall.
Basically they decide everything.
You as a challenger has to cope with it and win.

What say you? It could be fun that way. 😉

@chessturd said
Should World Champions have the ultimate say in matches?

Yes I'm against Fischer but should the World Champion have the final say in all match stipulations?

They decide the time controls.
They decide the time to play.
They decide the playing hall.
Basically they decide everything.
You as a challenger has to cope with it and win.

What say you? It could be fun that way. 😉

What say you? It could be fun that way.

A novel idea, but if that were the case there would be nothing stopping the world champion demanding the challenger win by 3 games, or play every other game blindfolded, or play with 1/2 the time on their clock etc. The list is endless. I don't think so. The present system is not flawless, but it's not bad either.

Doesn't it make the most sense to keep everything as similar as possible with each wc match? Being able to change seats or venue is fine, but nothing beyond that I would think. Pleasing both players should be the upmost priority.

@chessturd said
Should World Champions have the ultimate say in matches?

Yes I'm against Fischer but should the World Champion have the final say in all match stipulations?

They decide the time controls.
They decide the time to play.
They decide the playing hall.
Basically they decide everything.
You as a challenger has to cope with it and win.

What say you? It could be fun that way. 😉

No, the WC should not have the final say. It's too tempting for them to duck opponents that could beat them. It's too tempting to set up unfair conditions.

Examples: 1) The Capablanca-Alekhine rematch never happened [two big egos that couldn't agree on anything]. 2) The 2nd Alekhine-Bogolubov match [picking a weak opponent].

Even with an organization like FIDE, there have been ongoing problems of corrupt leadership. Case in point: Karpov getting a guaranteed rematch in one year if he lost his title. He should have had to re-qualify like everyone else.

I suppose if you want to be the World Chess Champion, you should be willing to play under any reasonable conditions.

Mostly, and traditionally since post Fischer, the conditions have been a balance between trying to strike a balance between being somewhat media friendly and still be a classical match.
After the last match where every classical game was drawn, it became clear that a renewed foced had to be given to reducing the number of draws. The only practical solution, at least for the 2020 match, was to take away increments for the first two time controls, upping the chance of a blunder happening in time trouble.
Is it a better option than chancing tiebreaks again due to all draws at classical time controls? I think that will have to be decided after the match is played. Perhaps debated by historians in the future.

I wasn't talking about unfair playing conditions.
BigDoggProblem convinced me it isn't good.
I read about those Alekhine matches and even some Lasker matches were suspect.
I was thinking more along the lines of the champ making big entrances for show and the challenger having nothing.
I watch too much wrestling. ☹️