Nothing surprising, just thought we should have a new thread now that I've posted these brief comments by Kramnik at ChessBase responding to Topalov putting the smackdown on a unification match. I agree with those who say that Topalov's suddenly strident turn against a Kramnik match is as much a ploy as anything and that if the right offer comes along he'll come to the table. Topalov's bizarre comments about a 60-point rating gap are hard to see as anything but smoke. "You need me more than I need you" is the way these things have gone in recent years.
Yeah - looks like Topalov has been talking some smack - I hope that it's been for the secret purpose of provoking Kramnik to play a match. As far as Kramnik 'not being in his class' - he might want to think back to Dortmund 2005 (not so long ago), when Kramnik gave him a whipping. You should have to win a match to be world champion.
Probably they have already agree to a match and now wants some publicity. Thereby getting some sponsors to put in the money. Good move.
Topalov is silly to underestimate kramnik,and referring to the 60 elo points forgetting that kramnik was the second player in history to reach 2800 .topalov,every chess fan want the reunification match .if u not work for the reunification.damn ur title ,if it is a real title.may be kramnik and topalov now like two different color bishops ,will never meet!!
"If Vladimir was offered to play against someone 60 Elo points below himself he’d simply burst out laughing," is a bit ironic considering that Kramnik made no objections to having to play either Ponomariov or Kasimdzhanov under Prague.
Another idea that I haven't seen quite often : maybe Topalov is just afraid to play Kramnik? Maybe he'll do like Kramnik with Kasparov after 2000, avoid a rematch, avoid to play in the same tournaments, and so on...
I believe that if Topalov and Kramnik do play a match together in 20 matches, that would be just enough for Kramnik to go back to 2800 ...
So if Topalov is really afraid to play Kramnik (like stopping chess for one year to "write a book") maybe he'll try what he's doing right now, try to bury his opponent title just ignoring him.
Kramnik is willing to play anybody that can be made available because now he understands that he is isolated and left out. His poor performance and a all top players having joined the FIDE cycle has definitely pushed him to a situation where either he has to eschew hi ego and join FIDE cycle or keep murmuring "my title" like Fischer still does!
-Amit
... a clear fact is that Kramnik does not looses easily. He has lost his last game against Bacrot at Dortmund this year because ... he tried to win the game, in order to win the tournament. But when he has no need to win a game, it's very difficult to get the full point against him.
Oh yeah, people who say that Kramnik is only a match player probably forget that Kramnik has won Dortmund 6 times. He is a very good tournament player of course, but in a match, his ability to hold the equilibrium has made it hard for Leko and for Kasparov to score a win...
Amit, Fischer refused to play against Karpov, but Kramnik has obviously been ready to play against any opponent proposed by fide for the last 3 years, was ready to play Ponomariov, was ready to play Kasimdjanov, is ready to play against Topalov, has fullfilled his part of Prague Agreement, and ... therefore the situation with the mad Fischer is not quite exactly the same.
Amit,
"all top players having joined the FIDE cycle" :
In Lybia, most top players were present, and ... this was not really the case in San-Luis. The rating average of the best 8 players present in Lybia was higher than in San-Luis...
Then, the invitations to San-Luis, and how the players were choosen, all this was not serious at all : to organize a competition you have to first publish the rules, and second organize it. Would all chess players have been told 2 years ago how to get their chance to go to San-Luis, maybe the 8 present players wouldn't have been the same ones...
Last but not least : All players have joined this cycle? Where are Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Bacrot, Aronian, Grischuk, Kramnik, Shirov, Guelfand ? So first idea : the rating average of thoose 8 players is just lower by 13 points to the rating average of San-Luis players. Second idea : if you take into account the peak ratings of both groups (in place of their october 2005 ratings), my 8-player group shows to be stronger than San-Luis one ...
Kramnik - according to a 150 years tradition - is champion of the world, and Topalov is - according to 6 months old rules - champion of the Polgar-Kasim-Anand-Topalov-Svidler-Moro-Leko-Adams private circle. Topalov is therefore the champion of 8 (very strong) players, but nothing more.
You'd have to agree that at this point Kramnik's position looks stronger especially after Topalov's 'U-turn' on Danilov's interview. Kramnik's right both legally and now from a moral stand point too. First of all the rating system should not taken as an absolute criterion, secondly even if we put the two of them in two separate categories (which we don't)World Title must follow strict rules. Besides let's face it Topalov is another SuperGM. So he must accept the challenge as he acknowledged himself in several press-cons before the U-turn. It is just not fair that because Kramnik is a super-strong defensive player he should be deprived of his status after beating Garry Kasparov and defending his title. In boxing if you win the title you are THE champ even if you are a Lennox Luise! Nobody challanged the legitimacy of his belt because he beat Tyson not in style...
I find Kramnik's arguments quite powerful. I also think the 2 million $ demand is rediculous and confusing...why Kramnik should come up with money? Let's just find some sponsors and get it rolling!
Topalov has acheived the impossible:
MADE ME TAKE KRAMNIK'S SIDE!
Please, Topalov, play Kramnik. For the sanity of many of us around the world, who love chess, and want a finish to the "two-champion" situation. If you do not, we are no better off than we were before San Luis...
i suggest a big reconnaissance on every chess site ..WHO IS THE CURRENT WC IN YOUR VIEW(kramnik-topalov).
Well, if there's anything cool about Kramnik it is his consistency. For 3 years now he's been holding onto his word, many have changed their opinion on FIDE etc. including Kasparov. Not Kramnik, he's always maintained his argument and although he defended his title not against the toughest opponent, he did enough to save his status. For me the breaking point about Topalov came after this silly 60 point argument. Your manager and 'confidante' says you are willing to sacrifice all previlidges and then you come up with a cheap shot at 'purely commercial basis'? Make up your mind before playing a nice guy on press-cons. I am not a Kramnik fan but I am really disappointed with Topalov. Hopefully he'll change his position and prove that he really is stronger over the board. The match in Brissago was boring because two defensive players were trying to out-bore each other...Kramnik-Topalov should be immune from that.
topalov will not play because he is conerning with his book (my great procedures)kalifman,anand,pono,kasim.):
The current world champion is clearly Kramnik.
Either you recognize the Fischer - Karpov - Kasparov - Kramnik like, or you have to agree with the fide official line, which is :
Fischer - Karpov - Kasparov - Karpov - Khalifman - Anand - Ponomariov - Kazimdjanov - Topalov. Too many names for my little memory.
Anyway, even if you don't recognize Kramnik, recognizing Topalov as world champ is also recognizing Illumjinov as a guy who can do whatever he wants, change the rules 6 months before an event, organize and cancel matches (think about Kramnik-Ponomariov), sign and cancel agreements (till now the only one who did his part of his job of the Prague agreement was Kramnik)...
The problem is that ... I think that any honnest chess player on this planet shouldn't recognize the fide (at least today's fide). I've asked my (french) federation to get rid of my fide rating, and they answered me to wait a little until Lautier will be elected next president. But I'm fed up with this mafia. Seems like our game's destiny, a very ancient and noble one, our game's destiny is to be under control of a mafioso. It was already the case with Campomanes, and now it's even worse with Illumjinov.
Even if - from the practical point of view - I clearly can see that it's hard, for a 2600 player, to refuse the big payday of the past fide world championships (and of the future world cup)... I still believe that any honnest guy should decline this kind of money, stolen from poor russian citizens from Kalmykia.
Dear chess fans,in 1928 FIDE has organised a championship match between Max Euwe and german Bogoljubow and Bogo won,FIDE considered Bogo as FIDE champ ,however chess history considered that Alekhine the world champion who beat capa.so,kramnik is the real world champion .topalov ,if u afraid of the destiny of Efim,Bogoljubow play kramnik ,he is a worthy chalenger to u and u a worthy challenger to him.
Polgy, nice remark about the predecessor's book!
Kasimdjanov and Khalifman are probably much more impressive as world champions than Keres, Nimzo, Reshevsky or Korchnoi. Hurrah for fide world champions.
If you go and have a look at chessmetrics.com you'll get some interesting data. On a 10 years peak range, amongst all the chess legends, Kasparov is first with 2863. Anand is 7th with 2805, and Kramnik is 9th with 2798, while it's worth being noted that Ivanchuk is still 10th with 2781. On that list Topalov is 32th.
So let's hail our new chess hero, who dares say with such a big pride that he's "60 points above Kramnik" and therefore so much stronger.
60 points, that was the difference between Topalov and Kramnik when Topalov engaged in Dortmund 2002, thus trying to qualify as a candidate to Kramnik's world title (accordingly to Prague agreements). Well ... Leko finished first, and Topalov second. Last year, in Libya, Topalov did loose to Kazim in the final, and finished second again. Now that he finished first he's suddenly changing his minds...
i think the best chance of the reunification was when kasim was FIDE champ .he shew that he is willing to play in any format. he played in knock-out and won it , played in tournament of san luis and was willing to play kasparov in a match!.i think a man like that would accept to play kramnik.why this idea didnt discussed ,we would have seen a reunification match .now ,topalov is happy with his title and let chess go to hell!!
Last but not least, I find it VERY surprising to see that Topalov's future rating, 2804, will be above any rating ever achieved by Anand.
This guy has showed much less talent in his young years than Anand, Ivanchuk, Leko or Kramnik.
I don't know what you may think about it, but I still find it quite strange. But some other players, like Fischer and Korchnoi, have also had some careers where they suddenly exploded at a (relatively) late age.
Anyway, we shouldn't care too much about who's the current world champion; within a few years, Karjakin and Radjabov will make things much more clear :o)
rouslan,chessmetrics says that karpov was 2848 on march 89 ,so topalov not the third player in history to reach 2800 as susan polgar indicates in her site.?!
3rd player to achieve 2800 fide rating.
1st is Kasparov (2849), second Kramnik (2809), 3rd will be Topalov, 4rth Anand 2797, 5th Fischer with 2785 and 6th is probably Karpov with 2780 (unless I make some mistake or forget somebody).
... which changes nothing to the fact that Karjakin's chess style, look, and slav spirit, really give me the feeling that he's the future Karpov !! Never seen such a playing force and understanding at 15 y.o.
For me, Karpov is the best chess player ever. Kasparov is the player who understand best initiative, but Karpov had the best "natural" chess understanding. In a rook endgame, in simple positions, Karpov is a pure genious. Karjakin plays the same chess, and may have the same career. Plus ... he's a K. Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Karjakin, that sounds fair to me...
kasparov to topalov "please correct the mistake of President Putine IN 2000 kramnik and myself committed the same crime. Put sanctions against me also. Arrest me. And put me in the same cell with vladimaire kramnik. And give us a chess set.
chessmetrics.com uses its own formula to determine chessmetrics ratings. So those are not the official FIDE ratings. (It's an excellent site, but many people are confused by this at first.)
"In Lybia, most top players were present, and ... this was not really the case in San-Luis. The rating average of the best 8 players present in Lybia was higher than in San-Luis..."
That's not true at all. Only 4 top 10 players were in Lybia, they were Topalov, Adams, Grischuk, and Ivanchuk. In San Luis, all were in the top 10 except for Kasimdzhanov who was the FIDE champion.
Furthermore, Lybia was a knock-out event that used rapid games for tiebreaks, a highly unreliable format.
"All players have joined this cycle? Where are Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Bacrot, Aronian, Grischuk, Kramnik, Shirov, Guelfand"
Kramnik was invited but he declined. The others were not in the top 10 at the time the participants were chosen.
"For me, Karpov is the best chess player ever."
And yet Kasparov dominated him in match after match, and tournament after tournament. Karpov accomplished great things, but Kasparov eclipsed all his accomplishments. Karpov won 9 tournaments in a row, Kasparov won 14 in a row.
Dionyseus,
"were not in the top ten at the time the participants were chosen".
Who did chose them? God? Which rules? Rules set up 2 months before the tournament? If you change the rules just before (or even during) the events, the tournament has no legitimacy.
"Kasparov dominated him (karpov) match after match and tournament after tournament"
Are we living on the same planet? After almost 120 games played in matches together, Kasparov is leading by an awesome +1. That's what I call true domination. First match was 5-3 for Karpov. Sevilla was 12-12 (and was 12-11 for Karpov before the start of 24th game)...
They are both great champions. In terms of pure practical strength, Kasparov is of course a little bit above. But Kasparov has been dominating chess not with his huge natural talent, but mainly with his fantastic memory and lab opening systems, with his early use of databases, and of course with his agressiveness (and therefore initiative on the board)... in terms of chess understanding, I still believe that Karpov is much stronger.
Do you understand what means "chess understanding"? If not, just try to figure out why any top correspondance chess player would have a clear upper hand against Kasparov in a correspondance match, or why such (relatively weak) players like Berliner or Estrine were considered worldwide as the best analysts.
"the other ones were not in the top 10 at the time participants were chosen"
False : participants were chosen in... sth like march 2005. The rules to choose them were probably dictated by Mr Illumjinov. The problem stands on ... you cannot create and apply retrospective rules, at any sport.
Just imagine that the FIFA would say (right now) that the next World Cup qualifiers in Germany are cancelled, and that the Cup will be played by the 8 best rated countries in the world (cool for me, that would significantly increase the chances of our french team ...). Even if the 8 choosen nations would be the stronger ones, where would be the legitimacy?
The problem is that ... it's exactly how things are happening right now in chess. Are you willing to subscribe to Mr Illumjinov's rules and give such an image of chess to the world?
For San-Luis, there was no qualifier. For San-Luis, you could not, I could not, take part in a Zonal that might bring us to an IZ, that might open us the door to this tournament. Therefore, this was NOT a world championship : since 99,9999% of chess players were excluded from this cycle, how can you say "this is a world championship" ???
San-Luis was a DIKTAT created by a .... dictator, nothing more.
Amazing there are some people who still believe Kasparov dominated because of the openings, as if that were even possible in chess. As if a 21-year-old could crush the best players in the world because of openings. Maybe you should go look at some games. Kasparov's advantage was always tactics, from 15 to 42. Sure his openings became very strong, but you don't dominate with them; chess just doesn't work that way. In the past ten years everyone has had the exact same database and computer to work with. He worked harder. Plus, Karpov's openings were clearly better in several matches he lost. Winning = strength.
Any Grandmaster would wipe out most correspondence players, if not the top ten. Correspondence chess at the top level is about spending an incredible amount of time to go very very deep. The few GMs who entered the correspondence world were among the top players instantly. Silman has said much the same.
Anyway, back to the issue. Kramnik is illustrating the problem with making any concessions in public: the other side will use them against you later. FIDE agreed to recognize Kramnik's title in Prague to move toward unification and also gave him (and Leko) a special (if unnecessary) invitation to San Luis. Despite ignoring San Luis and despite the unification plans falling apart, Kramnik now uses that to say "see, FIDE recognizes my title."
Basically Topalov has to show a hard line in public and make any agreements behind the scenes. If he says "I'd love to play Kramnik; he's the classical champ," Kramnik can reply, "why should I play Topalov, I'm the real champ and he admitted it." Childish, but that seems to be the way it's gone. I just hope there are back-channel conversations going on, or will be in early 2005.
rouslan, i doubt your stats for Karpov vs Kasparov, but even if they were true, the point is that Kasparov almost always won the big prize. Karpov eclipsed Kasp in a Linares and a tourney or two here and there, but other than that Kasparov always took the big plum home. Actually Kasp comes as close as is possible to owning Karpov. As for Kasparov not having a clear "Chess Understanding" I think you're the one without the understanding. Sometimes its better to think about something before actually saying it.
If you think Kasparov dominated because he could memorize databases, go over his games and look at his amazing endgame play, especially with queens on, which even players like Anand, Topalov and Ivanchuk frequently misplay. Go over his games and look at the amazing middlegame brilliancies he conjured up time after time after time over the board, and the attacks which he prosecuted to mate. Look at the way he destroyed Karpov in the Ruy Lopez in the eighties, an opening in which Karpov had been one of the most accomplished players in history. Look at his positional victories, and his unparalled "feel" for a position, where he sacrifices a pawn for the initiative and the compensation becomes evident as much as 10 moves later, and how time after time after time it is shown by later analysis and countless games that his play was completely sound. All this from memorizing databases and computer analysis? Either you're Yuri Dokhoyan and know of Kasparov's exclusive access to a Chess playing supercomputer, which must have been loaned him by the US government when it was not solving trajectories of space ships, or you have limited "chess understanding".
well said "d". if somebody thinks that Garry Kasparov won the lion's share of battles in his career, just because of fantastic memory and databases, definately it seems not like that. just look at "Topalov-Kasparov" wijk aan jee game, that one game itself shows us the clear understanding of '64'squares in the board.
A good comparision between completely two different (their approach) great players.only twice in his long career Karpov finished ahead of Kasparov.(moscow 1981,lineres 1994).
People with limited chess understanding squander any minor leverage they may get out of the opening against a player with more chess understanding. Though difference between Karpov at his best and Kasparov was probably quite small, Kasparov always had the edge.
What i'm really looking forward to is Garry's book on his matches with Karpov, that'll even be much more interesting than Topalov-Kramnik match..
Are you all sure Topalov really told that? There was even no journalist name in the SEx short article.
Well, on the whole, the reactions I've had were almost ... childish (not that I want to get closer to the godwin point but ...)
I haven't had the feeling that people did read what I wrote.
Did I say that Karpov was superior to Kasparov? No, I said that Kasparov was, on the whole, stronger.
Did I say that Kasparov's games were unsound? No, I've just said that in terms of "natural" understanding, he was not as gifted as Karpov. Kasparov's qualities include a huge fighting spirit, huge memory, and 18 hours of daily work. Karpov never did that : his chess level was more NATURAL. More pure talent. By the way, about Kasparov proving able to outplay Anand, Ivanchuk or Topalov in endgames ... he never outplayed Karpov in an endgame. Nobody never outplayed Karpov in an endgame, and Karpov's explanations in rook endgames are the purest things I could ever read on that subject.
With a similar work, Karpov would have been stronger. But Kasparov's ability to work is second to none...
When I say he's been using databases quite early, it's just the truth : you can ask chessbase team who helped them to develop their first versions ...
Oh and yes, about the "genious Kasparov" and so on remarks, about his understanding... look at Lautier games against Kasparov, or at Kramnik games : you'll see that when Kasparov was faced with players whose main talent is to take off all life and initiative from the position, you'll notice that his chess game suddenly droms from "outer space" to ... regular 2600.
Which changes nothing to the fact that, on the whole, Kasparov was stronger, that he did dominate Karpov, and that in their matches he managed to keep a (quite short) upper hand, just enough to make him the undisputed world champion.
Last point : their age isn't the same. Even if they did play together, they never did play together at their respective peaks. During their first match, Karpov was already 34. And ... please, leave me the right to be impressed by Karpov, who reached his highest fide rating, 2780, at 46 years old. Yes, for me he loves more chess than Kasparov does, and I still believe Karpov has(had) more talent.
anyone know a chess site relaying important tournaments other than icc or playchess??
Polgy: You can usually find relays at FICS, but I have the impression that they are not as reliable or up-to-the-minute as those on ICC.
If it's a major event, it's quite common for the official website to show the games live in a java interface. You don't always get commentary and you never get kibbitzing, but you do get the games.
For official websites of current events, check The Week in Chess at http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html
Rouslan: Your points are good, and i'll agree as far as to say that Karpov's talent was not inferior to Kasparov's. But i think Kasparov's nature is such that he grew unbelievably frustrated with the way Kramnik (for example) playd and was not let down by his talent but by his desire for action...perhaps this is a shortcoming in character, but not in talent.
Maybe this kind of assessment of their talents could be made: whereas Karpov was, or is, very good at quiet technical positions, Kasparov is phenomenal at calculating (of course, his impressive memory helps here, though his memory is perhaps lesser to that of RJF) to great depth and accuracy a line otb. And of course, neither are much less talented at the part where the other excels.
Karpov is one of my all time favourite players, and i wish he would still take chess seriously enough to be in good shape for tournaments, though maybe he's not happy about the amount of work keeping up with openings take, that might take pleasure out of chess for some, but in that case i'd love to see him play 960 (with Fischer!).
Rouslan:
Thanks for your contribution. You seem to have a lot of understanding on my issues in the chess world. Regarding Karpov-Kasparov, I agree with you that Karpov's art is natural and purer than Kasparov. In many ways, Kramnik's style is closer to Karpov. Kasparov is strong in tactics, but facing positional players, it was never easy for him as we have witnessed this in his match against Kramnik.
Regarding Topalov, he will eventually agree to play Kramnik. Everybody wants re-unification. While Kramnik is ready, Topalov should not have a problem.
Rouslan:
sorry for the mistake in my previous post.. it's not 'my' issues. i meant 'many'
I think excellent points were made by Rouslan on Karpov's superiority as a natural player. I have studied over 800 games played by the Great pair and I must admit despite having huge respect for Kasparov this is exactly how I feel: Karpov is the better of two as far as 'pure chess' goes. I was preparing last week to face a Petroff and going through CB9 I found 10 or 11 games played by Kasparov against the Petroff. He's won 8 drew once or twice (Kramnik and Anand) and lost one (agianst Karpov in 2003...surprize surprize!) It is the X3D Fritz Championship where Garry Kimovich was forced to give up his Queen (Oooooops!). O.K. the point I was going to make is that since their Great War of the 80's Karpov's play just seems amazing and grasping. I have no words for it, play through 100 games and you'll see it for yourself. The guy is amazing! And it also seems that Kasparov was quite afraid of him in the Endgame which justifies your point Rouslan about his 'natural chess' superiority. I'd have disagree with Mig on the openings. Opening preparation will take any patient GM a long way. Looking at those Petroff games of Kasparov I couldn't help thinking that virtually all of them were Fritz analysis, go and see it for yourself. O.K. it is not fair to say that comp.analysis were all Kasparov had but most of 'daring moves' seem to have come from deep-positional analysis. As for Anatoly the Great, he just plays...and he plays in a way irrefutable even by hydra! Look at how he embarrased Korchnoi in the Queen's Indian recently despite the infamous 'shades'. As for Kasparov, he had a brilliant 'spacial understanding' strangely resembling computers...Going bach to those Petroff games, most of Kasparov's 'novelties' are easily dismissed by Fritz9 whereas Karpov's get exclaimation after exclaimation, just analyse it out of interest. Also your stats are spot on Rouslan, there's virtually nothing between the two truly Great players.
You mean the 2003 X3D rapid match Petroff in which Kasparov was crushing Kasparov until blundering once, then twice, to lose in mutual time trouble in the last four moves? Great example. And you're last few sentences make no sense. He's like a computer but his novelties are no good according to a computer? Whatever. "Find novelty" in ChessBase is a handy feature. In the dozen or so Petroff defense games Kasparov has played against since 1999, his opponent has been the first player to deviate from known games in 7/12. Kasparov's score in those games: 5.5/7. In the other five he scored 3. Whoopee.
Anyone under 2200 could be shown 100 Karpov games and 100 Kasparov games and not know the difference and now we hear that you've detected an actual qualitative talent difference between two of the greatest, if not the two greatest, players of all time? Kasparov and Karpov were very different players, obviously, but trying to separate "understanding" from strength in two legendary players is a joke. It's like hearing two fat guys in a bar arguing whether or not Maradona had more natural talent than Pele.
Kasparov had no right to play a WC match with Kramnik. It wasn't his title it was FIDE's. Kramnik did not qualify as a candidate, Shirov did.
So Topalov winning 'only one tournament' is not enough but Kramnik winning 'only one' unofficial match aeons ago give him a title for ever?
For me, anyone who FIDE says is WC, that's it. Anything else is vanity.
I hope you are not suggesting that Kasparov's mutiple blunders prove Karpov's bad play?...
In 2003 we had Fritz7, I am looking at the shiny Fritz9 in fornt of me...That obviously doesn't change the fact that Karpov hasn't changed much since 2003 which is why he continues to crush the likes of Korchnoi and openly challenges Bobby the Islander...
Finally, anyone rated about 2000 could easily determine certain trends in a single GM game let alone 100. I should also point out that this is how some very well known GMs feel whome I have the pleasure of knowing.
Yama, what a load of ****
1) "Karpov's superiority as a natural player". What is a natural player? Are you suggesting that Kasparov somehow was drugged or got help from computers during his games? It seems so since you later on metions that "Kasparov had a brilliant special understanding strangely resembling computers". That is ridiculus. Both Karpov and Kasparov are exceptionally talented players, but their talents are in different areas. Kasparov's talent is in tactics, and in dynamic positions, where factors such as piece activity are most important. He is first and foremost an attacking player, and would rather give material for tactical chances and/or initiative than face difficult defence. Karpov's talent is in different types of positions. He is formidable in the endgame, one of the best ever (if not the best), and very strong defensively. He's primarily a positional player, even though he played some great attacking games in the beginning of his career. All players happen to have weak sides, even the chess kings. Kasparov's weak side is that he often has had trouble with strong defensive players, which is why he (taking the rating difference into account) has a relatively bad score against Kramnik and Karpov: They are good at the type of positions that Kasparov are (relatively!) weak in. But when the positions become really dynamic, Kasparov is the better. I can recommend reading the book Excelling at Chess, it has a good discussion on this subject!
2) "Karpov plays in a way irrefutable even by Hydra". How do you know? Have they ever played a match?
For me there is no doubt that Kasparov is the best even, with Karpov as nr.2 and Fischer as nr. 3. Who knows how we would have ranked Fischer if he had continued to play? I believe he would have won against Karpov in 1975, but eventually Karpov would have beaten him, e.g, 1978.
As for the Topalov - Kramnik match: I think that if Kramnik came up with a big bag of money, a match would happen. Topalov's talk is just a smoke screen. This is the best case scenario, if they played a match for the unified title. However, I don't think it is likely. A more likely scenario is that Kramnik can't find the money. And in that case: If Topalov continues to win supertournaments in 2006 and 2007 as he has done in 2005, Kramnik's title is worthless. Unless he starts winning supertournaments, of course. That seems also to be unlikely, his form is declining (see chessmetrics.com...... very revealing, also for the Karpov-Kasparov discussion).
the mere fact that we have opinions so evenly divided on both sides dictates that we need to have a head-to-head match to settle this matter once and for all.
By the way, Anatoly Evgenivich also crushed the Romanian Champion in a 6 round match... 4 of those games were with classical time-control. Agragate score: 6-2 ....this is how Karpov plays in 2005....at the age of what 60?
Ratings and such things aside, it's a shame Karpov wasn't invited to San Luis...it doesn't seem unfair to me that he would've qualified simply for being Karpov.
Peter: this is a false impression that Kasparov favoured tactical positions against Karpov. It is true that Kasparov happily offered material to the likes of Polgar to get a crushing attack but never, repeat NEVER offered (real) piece sacs to Karpov. If anyone did offer material it was Karpov who would offer his pawns like candy-bars. Karpov is at his deadliest in knife-edged positions. If you want a list of games I am happy to send you one. Kasparov was indeed in favour of dynamic positions in his late years of chess dominance (playing exclusively e4) but it was when computers were also at their prime...
Please do not misinterpret I have a huge respect as all of us, for Kasparov but if were to choose between the two I would not hesitate to go for Karpov.
Peter: this is a false impression that Kasparov favoured tactical positions against Karpov. It is true that Kasparov happily offered material to the likes of Polgar to get a crushing attack but never, repeat NEVER offered (real) piece sacs to Karpov. If anyone did offer material it was Karpov who would offer his pawns like candy-bars. Karpov is at his deadliest in knife-edged positions. If you want a list of games I am happy to send you one. Kasparov was indeed in favour of dynamic positions in his late years of chess dominance (playing exclusively e4) but it was when computers were also at their prime...
Please do not misinterpret I have a huge respect as all of us, for Kasparov but if were to choose between the two I would not hesitate to go for Karpov.
Personally, I believe that Kasparov's and Karpov's overall match score with each other was so close that the slight difference has no real significance as an indicator of strength. However, it does seem that Kasparov performed somewhat better overall against other players, hence his success in tournament play.
Perhaps the most that can be reasonably said is that, in their personal matches, neither Karpov nor Kasparov demonstrated any superiority over the other, but that Kasparov tended to score more heavily against weaker players (and by weaker players, I mean everyone else during that period when Karpov and Kasparov were vying for the world champtionship).
I do think it is likely that only Kasparov's superior opening preparation allowed him to obtain an even score in his head-to-head games against Karpov. Take, for example, the 16th match game in Moscow 1985 in the "Kasparov Gambit", where Karpov played a TN on move 11 but Kasparov had nevertheless reached the decisive position at move 19 in his home preparation. This is not the only game against Karpov that Kasparov essentially won during home preparation, as Kasparov's own writings make clear.
This is not to say that Kasparov is (or was?) not a great all-around player. First, for better or for worse, opening preparation is a large part of the game at the top level. Second, when Kasparov played Karpov, IMO Karpov was still at his peak and Kasparov had not yet quite reached his, making Kasparov's roughly even score against Karpov in his prime even more impressive.
All that being said, I personally believe that Kasparov ultimately became the greatest player of all time in terms of objective playing strength and overall success, while Karpov comes a close second and may have been the greatest natural talent. (Just look at some of the early games of Karpov as a boy and note how his pieces always seemed to work together so beautifully.) But reasonable minds could obviously disagree here.
- Geof Strayer
Personally, I believe that Kasparov's and Karpov's overall match score with each other was so close that the slight difference has no real significance as an indicator of strength. However, it does seem that Kasparov performed somewhat better overall against other players, hence his success in tournament play.
Perhaps the most that can be reasonably said is that, in their personal matches, neither Karpov nor Kasparov demonstrated any superiority over the other, but that Kasparov tended to score more heavily against weaker players (and by weaker players, I mean everyone else during that period when Karpov and Kasparov were vying for the world champtionship).
I do think it is likely that only Kasparov's superior opening preparation allowed him to obtain an even score in his head-to-head games against Karpov. Take, for example, the 16th match game in Moscow 1985 in the "Kasparov Gambit", where Karpov played a TN on move 11 but Kasparov had nevertheless reached the decisive position at move 19 in his home preparation. This is not the only game against Karpov that Kasparov essentially won during home preparation, as Kasparov's own writings make clear.
This is not to say that Kasparov is (or was?) not a great all-around player. First, for better or for worse, opening preparation is a large part of the game at the top level. Second, when Kasparov played Karpov, IMO Karpov was still at his peak and Kasparov had not yet quite reached his, making Kasparov's roughly even score against Karpov in his prime even more impressive.
All that being said, I personally believe that Kasparov ultimately became the greatest player of all time in terms of objective playing strength and overall success, while Karpov comes a close second and may have been the greatest natural talent. (Just look at some of the early games of Karpov as a boy and note how his pieces always seemed to work together so beautifully.) But pbviously reasonable minds could disagree here.
- Geof Strayer
You are right, we are all good at pointing out our success rather than blunders. And it is true at all levels...Home preparation sometimes can be proved to be disasterious as in the aforementioned Petroff saga. But sometimes steering away from a home-preparation can equally be dangerous especially if the preparation is done on a slippery ground.
Mig,
"trying to separate understanding from strength is a joke".
There is a guy, in France, named Manouck. Rating almost 2200 (and IM). I guess you'd say he's a potato. Ok, he blunders in 50% of his games. But when he does not, he has enough force to slaughter a bunch of 2500 GMs. When he analyses, GMs respect him. Well as much as top GMs would trust Estrine on a 2 knight defense. See what I mean?
About Pele and Maradona : Pele had more talent. That's obvious : Pele didn't need his hands, and Pele didn't need cocaina. Clear enough? (hmm things are so easier in football ...)
And about endgames : you say yourself that Karpov is probably the best endgame player ever. Yes, I agree. That's talent. Openings are a lot of work, endgames are talent. Once you've learn some basic schemes, what allows a 2600 to defeat a 2400 in a rook endgame is talent, what allows a 2700 to defeat a 2600 in an endgame is talent, and what allowed Karpov to convert a lot of draws in full points in endgames against anybody was talent. NATURAL TALENT. As opposed to the capacity some player has to take an advantage, or to grab the initiative in the opening, which is 100% of work.
Fido :
"Anyone who FIDE says is WC"
Yeah? Such a shame ... last time I saw Kasim, who was last year playing for the french team of vandoeuvre, he was FIDE world champion, somebody was joking about his title. He clearly answered that he was not world champion and that he had zero claims over that title. Such a shame even FIDE world champions disagree with your statements...
Peter :
what is a natural player? Let's say, the best way to see what's a natural player is to play fischer chess. To try to get rid of the opening, to focus on combinations and endgame.
Geofrey : I 100% agree with you. Unless you 100% subscribe to my views...
... and about the idea to see Topalov dominate the chess world in the coming years : I don't believe that it'll be possible, at least, not for a long time. History has shown us that great attacking players, Tal, Shirov, can't maintain a high play level for a long time, because their kind of game asks too much energy on the long run.
Attacking players peak can last for a very few years, whereas players who have a ... hm ... let's say, natural talent, like Anand, or Karpov, are likely to play with equal force from 20 to 50 years old.
I hate Kramnik. Now that we've got that out of the way....It pains me to admit it, but his recent delarations featured on chessbase.com are right on the money. He is the world champion (free of aterisks or qualification) as defined for over 100 years. The world champion is not and never has been defined as the strongest player. Its a right earned thru matches...even matches that were "crooked" or not "fair" in terms of challengers chosen. Topalov needs to play him in a match and a real "cycle" should be instituted afterward. Kramnik clearly has no alternative to FIDEs cycle so he will have to be assimilated after the Topalov match.
PS
Any notion that Karpov should have played in San Luis or was better than Kasparov is delusional. I'm no fan of either but their records speak for themselves.
"He is the world champion (free of aterisks or qualification) as defined for over 100 years."
Perhaps the best path is to end that tradition. Without FIDE and funding, Kramnik will dry up from lack of a credible challenger. Kramnik's title loses credibility every day that goes by without him announcing a new cycle to find a challenger.
What I find pathetic is how all of a sudden some people are demanding Topalov to defend his title against Kramnik. Where were you all when Kasparov was winning tournaments and was demanding a rematch to unify the title? I say damn it all, damn the tradition, let Kramnik rot in the hell he created.
Slight correction: hell was created by Kasparov who broke away from FIDE...
None of these guys is exactly lily white. It's hard for me to get emotional about this any more because my expectations of the latest "world champion" have become so low. I don't expect Topalov to be a paragon of rectitude either.
It's getting harder to advocate chess as a game for kids when the best players in the world still act like kids with behavioral issues themselves, long into adulthood. A slogan like "devote a good portion of your life to getting really good at a board game and then you can act like a spoiled brat for the rest of your life" is not much of a selling point.
I've come more and more to admire the mid-level chess professionals, the IMs and weaker GMs, the most. They are the ones who have sacrificed the most for their love of the game, and the ones that have had to grow up because reality keeps intruding in their lives. The best players are living a fantasy world in which growing up appears to be unnecessary.
- Geof Strayer
kasparov the great evil in the history of chess .he played for himself not promoting the game,he is the main reason of the recent coas
"kasparov the great evil in the history of chess .he played for himself not promoting the game,he is the main reason of the recent coas"
I haven't heard a bigger lie than that in a while. No one has actively promoted the game more than Kasparov! He's done tons of simuls, promoted computer chess, and tirelessly promoted chess in schools around the world.
War of the Worlds
Ok, if the future of the planet depended on "us" sending one player to play a chess match (against some brilliant unknown alien), right now, who would we send??
Topalov, of course, hands down. Mtel Masters, San Luis, etc...this year belongs to him. He is on top of his game, regardless of all this talk about "classical" champion, who should play who, etc...
"Hats Off" to you Veselin!
There you have it. It's up to Veselin Topalov to save the planet.
its not lies dionyseus,kasparov is the great liar.after he defeated by kramnik in 2000 he considered him as the 14 th world champion.and considered this match as the real championship.in an interview after his retirement he said ABOUT KRAMNIK "He didn’t beat an official world champion, the match wasn’t sanctioned by FIDE or anyone. He won a match against the strongest player in the world, and that gave him an opportunity to continue to prove he was the best. Without doing this, he needed to win a rematch or a number of victories that could prove his dominance. He failed to do this."u see he lies and still lies and chess is the great victim.because of kasparov we had two world champions one lack credibility and the other lack legtimity.great promtion of the game!!!.
There's a presumption that by undermining Kramnik's position Kasparov strengthens his own, i.e. if Kramnik is denied the right to fight for the title people will simply say that his victory in 2000 was an incident...if on the other hand Kramnik beats Topolov then suddenly his victory in 2000 and even his title defence against Leko will've gone up in importance and Kramnik is firmly established as the era in chess. It is easy to see why Kasparov has gaven an in-depth interview to ChessPro...
There's a presumption that by undermining Kramnik's position Kasparov strengthens his own, i.e. if Kramnik is denied the right to fight for the title people will simply say that his victory in 2000 was an incident...if on the other hand Kramnik beats Topolov then suddenly his victory in 2000 and even his title defence against Leko will've gone up in importance and Kramnik is firmly established as the era in chess. It is easy to see why Kasparov has gaven an in-depth interview to ChessPro...
There's a presumption that by undermining Kramnik's position Kasparov strengthens his own, i.e. if Kramnik is denied the right to fight for the title people will simply say that his victory in 2000 was an incident...if on the other hand Kramnik beats Topolov then suddenly his victory in 2000 and even his title defence against Leko will've gone up in importance and Kramnik is firmly established as the era in chess. It is easy to see why Kasparov has gaven an in-depth interview to ChessPro...
There's a presumption that by undermining Kramnik's position Kasparov strengthens his own, i.e. if Kramnik is denied the right to fight for the title people will simply say that his victory in 2000 was an incident...if on the other hand Kramnik beats Topolov then suddenly his victory in 2000 and even his title defence against Leko will've gone up in importance and Kramnik is firmly established as the era in chess. It is easy to see why Kasparov has gaven an in-depth interview to ChessPro...
I will send Kaspy, of course. I'm sure he will confuse the alien with all his pre declarations, postures and changes of mind. And if he loses, he don't lose because there is the Rematch and he is the best and bla bla bla. PS: The alien goes home thinking the Humans are inconsecuent, ilogic and dishonourables creatures.
For all the excuses and shallow opinions that people want to state, the bottom line is that when two humans sit across a chessboard from each other the superior player is going to win the majority of the time.
A player is on his own once he faces another person across...no matter how extensive the databases or software a player utilizes at home.
Over a period of time, the stronger player will show his dominance over other players.
Kasparov was able to use his natural gifts to show his dominance over Karpov and other GMs during a lengthy era.
Even if Karpov has the better natural ability, the reality is that it was not enough to overcome Kasparov over the board.
Among his peers, Kasparov's chess-playing has always been well-respected.
The late English GM Anthony Miles said something to the effect that Kasparov is a many-eyed monster that sees everything on the board. Correct me if I am wrong, but I take this to mean that Kasparov is so talented that he had a clear understanding of what was going on in their game.
Kasparov has always been confident enough to face anybody over the board.
If Kramnik really wants to consider himself World Champion, then he needs to put his title on the line and prove to the world that he is world champion.
Kramnik was fortunate enough to find a strategy that worked against Kasparov, but obviously Kramnik was not confident enough to show superiority in a rematch with Kasparov.
The lineage of the title of World Chess Champion has been 'broken' twice in modern times and is about ready to be 'broken' again.
The first break was the death of Alekhine. I am sure there are some poor souls that believe Alekhine is still WC.
The second break was when Fischer resigned or was stripped of his title. Again some poor souls probably still believe he is still WC.
Now it is time that Kramnik is stripped of his title also if he is not willing to prove his superiority.
All the patzers in the world can state their feeble opinions all they want but I am sure the more level-headed chessplayers have taken notice of the recent statements of Kasparov and Topalov.
Topalov stated something to the effect that, " he was not sure about the current condition of Kasparov, but if Kasparov is on top of his game, then nobody would stand a chance."
Kasparov stated something to the effect that, " Topalov should be considered the World Chess Champion, and that the chess world should move on and disregard Kramnik's claim to the title."
After all the success that Topalov has had this year, I believe that he deserves the recognition as the current World Chess Champion.
For all the excuses and shallow opinions that people want to state, the bottom line is that when two humans sit across a chessboard from each other the superior player is going to win the majority of the time.
A player is on his own once he faces another person across...no matter how extensive the databases or software a player utilizes at home.
Over a period of time, the stronger player will show his dominance over other players.
Kasparov was able to use his natural gifts to show his dominance over Karpov and other GMs during a lengthy era.
Even if Karpov has the better natural ability, the reality is that it was not enough to overcome Kasparov over the board.
Among his peers, Kasparov's chess-playing has always been well-respected.
The late English GM Anthony Miles said something to the effect that Kasparov is a many-eyed monster that sees everything on the board. Correct me if I am wrong, but I take this to mean that Kasparov is so talented that he had a clear understanding of what was going on in their game.
Kasparov has always been confident enough to face anybody over the board.
If Kramnik really wants to consider himself World Champion, then he needs to put his title on the line and prove to the world that he is world champion.
Kramnik was fortunate enough to find a strategy that worked against Kasparov, but obviously Kramnik was not confident enough to show superiority in a rematch with Kasparov.
The lineage of the title of World Chess Champion has been 'broken' twice in modern times and is about ready to be 'broken' again.
The first break was the death of Alekhine. I am sure there are some poor souls that believe Alekhine is still WC.
The second break was when Fischer resigned or was stripped of his title. Again some poor souls probably still believe he is still WC.
Now it is time that Kramnik is stripped of his title also if he is not willing to prove his superiority.
All the patzers in the world can state their feeble opinions all they want but I am sure the more level-headed chessplayers have taken notice of the recent statements of Kasparov and Topalov.
Topalov stated something to the effect that, " he was not sure about the current condition of Kasparov, but if Kasparov is on top of his game, then nobody would stand a chance."
Kasparov stated something to the effect that, " Topalov should be considered the World Chess Champion, and that the chess world should move on and disregard Kramnik's claim to the title."
After all the success that Topalov has had this year, I believe that he deserves the recognition as the current World Chess Champion.
Before we all get worked up, neither Topalov nor Kramnik are likely in the mood to play each other for the 'real' title in the near future, regardless of what Kramnik says of his own willingness. It's simply too short a timespan for both for several years to come.
On another point, I disagree that Kramnik has been sidelined, although it may appear that way in the heat of the moment. FIDE will continue producing world champions ("like buses" to use David Levy's phrase) thereby systematically sidelining its own champions like FIDE has always done since the split. For example, the general public may have a notion of Karpov as the next champion after Fischer, but the general public has no notion at all of Karpov as a FIDE champion.
The upshot of all that IMHO is that the split will continue for some years to come. I myself, for example, (and I am certainly not alone in this) like Topalov's chess a lot better than Kramnik's, but Kramnik is the lineage holder.
Tatsu: i don't know how "a patzer" couldn't have a clear idea of what is going on or how being "a patzer" would make one's opinions on any given topic necessarily feeble. Also it's not that Topalov or Kasparov is necessarily right over someone who knows very little about chess. But them saying something should have enough of merit for anyone thinking otherwise at least giving a second thought to the matter, after all, they live in the mess and we look at it from the sidelines.
As for those who whine about how evil all World Champions are. Grow up. You know nothing about being a super-GM and you know nothing about being a WC. Until you are in that position yourself, please stop telling them that they are behaving terribly. You know nothing about the reasons, psychological or not, they say and do what they do. This applies as much to Kasparov as to Topalov as to Fischer.
You know nothing about their lives by sitting in front of the tv or computer screen reading about them and then trying to pass moral judgment upon them. Pathetic. Same goes, of course, to Maradona and his cocaine. If you lived a life instead of looking at it from the side, you might do something you know think is morally condemnable, too.
I find it sad that so many keep acting as if world champions deserve rematches. Rematch clauses were always a very bad idea. So, if Kramnik gives Kasparov a rematch and Kasparov wins, doesn't Kasparov now have to give Kramnik a rematch? If you say 'no' then you are in effect stating that only Kasparov was a 'real' world champion and deserved a rematch, but if you say 'yes' then you are potentially allowing for a cycle of rematches that never ends! Rematches should never be allowed unless the loser goes on to qualify in the next (or a later) cycle!
In my earliar comment (posted at October 23, 2005 08:37)I was refering the world famous Kasparaov - Topalov, wijk aan jee, 1999 game.(Not Topalov-Kasparov) Sorry for my wrong indication of that game.
Sacateca,
Thanx for saying that I'm pathetic, since I'm the one who spoke about Maradona and his cocaïn.
So your idea is that when you reach the top (or get closer to it), you will necessarily end up doing something morally bad, or that you can find excuses for acting badly in that case.
I'm sorry, but such ideas are really not mine. As an employee, I had ethics. Now, I'm the boss of 15 employees, and still have the same ethics. Probably because my models look more like Gandhi than like a basic tyrant.
By the way, I have a question. I'm sorry to score a full Godwin here, but ... Hitler had also reached "the top" in 1938-1939. Would you also find him some excuses for what he did?
After reaching the summit, you have no more and no less excuses to behave like an a*****e than anybody else. Reaching the top level is not an excuse to behave badly, those who were acting like gentlemen before being world champions at chess remained gentlement all life long. Spassky was WC and he's a perfect gentleman.
Maradona scoring a goal and therefore winning his half final in world cup, Maradona using cocaina, Maradona is an idiot. For me. A fat idiot. Topalov puting elegance and principles behind his interests is not behaving like a gentleman.
Sacateca, when you choose to become a gentleman (you're never born a gentleman, you choose to become a gentleman or an honnest man), you can't accept either Kasparov breaking everything at top level in chess, or Kramnik refusing a rematch to Kasparov, or Illumjinov denying to Ponomariov the right to play against Kramnik, or Illumjinov doing his best to cancel the match Kasparov-Kasim, or Topalov refusing to play Kramnik. I'm a gentleman, since the only thing that may follow me after death is my conscience. Keeping it as clean as possible is my greatest pride and joy.
Toplalov next book "my 60 memorable ELO points" ):
"Where were you all when Kasparov was winning tournaments and was demanding a rematch to unify the title? I say damn it all, damn the tradition, let Kramnik rot in the hell he created."
This is silly. Kramnik always supported unifying the titles of FIDE champ and classical champ. Kasparov never considered himself champion after 2000, so there was nothing to unify. Kramnik supported the Prague accords, and they let Kasparov in on the deal, so what's the problem?
Kramnik didn't create the hell. He's supporting a tradition by your own admission. Sure, he's a poor champ, but far better than Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kasimdzhanov.
Topalov and Danailov just arrived in Sofia, where they were greeted like celebrities. Danailov mentioned in an interview for a sports radio, that he is negotiating matches for Topalov against Hydra, and, yes, against Robert Fischer.
Rouslan: The problem is that i don't adhere to this concept of being a gentleman...life is too short and the universe is too vast. Extrapolate that to everything at all.
We are free living beings prior to being members of a society we may or may not agree with on the level of moral values.
You are free to judge using cocaine, i'm free to consider it indulgent but perhaps undestandable in the position someone might be, but neither of us should really tell Maradona what to do, should we? i mean, Maradona might not agree with your ideas of being a gentleman, either...what then? Does a gentleman of your distinction force his values and believes upon others? And judge others without a regard for their disposition, solely based on yours? Is that gentleman-like behaviour?
Polgy: Haha! A good one.
Sacateca,
Maradona has been living quite well with football. Fantastically well. Before 94 he was a myth to many young children. When you are lucky enough to be gifted like he was, when you are lucky enough to live the life he had, you have a certain amount of responsibilities towards the children who consider you like a model.
I was not only talking about drugs, but basically of a world cup half final where Maradona did cheat, scoring a goal with the hand. He's therefore a cheater (and a megalomaniac one, since he said "fuera la mano de Dios").
He's fat, he's taking drugs, he's a cheater. From life he received a dream, and he - alone - made pure sh** out of this dream. Therefore I have strictly no respect for him.
I do not force my views. Just say freely, as everybody here, what I think. Never said "god speaks through my mouth (or hands)". Express ideas and express opinions about what's good and what's bad is not inaccurate for a gentleman. How can you expect to be a gentleman if you have no idea about what's right and wrong? How can you expect to be a gentleman if you're not able to recognize other gentlemen?
Oh, and I'll learn you something : humans are NOT free living beings. Our closest cousins in nature are apes; look at them and you'll understand a lot about who you are. We're not really much more (from the social, emotional point of view) than them.
An experiment leaded with Bonobos apes in Hawaï has showed that those apes were able to learn almost 2000 words (sign language). The bonobo mothers transmit naturally that knowledge to their children. Bonobos were able to understand chess rules, and it was just difficult to explain them the mate concept (from the vocabulary point of view I know people mastering less than 2000 words, and about the chess point I have to recognize that apes are doing better than my wife, who's not stupid at all, shall I add).
We are social animals. With dominant males, with females, children, old apes, and we're not solitary predators. In an ape tribe, when a male is chased from the tribe (old greeks called that "ostrakhon", exile ... also gave the word ostracism), he slowly dies in nature, not that he's unable to fight to survive, but because he's a social animal.
Another example, the ancient model of war, that you can see in Homere's Illyad and Odysseus. Heroes fighting together ... and when a hero dies, the "winning" tribe chases the "loosing" one. That model of war is exactly what you can see between apes. From the sociologic point of view, it's been called a tribal war.
Everything you do in life is based on social relations. Play chess, post in this column, dress, make love, talk...
By the way, to all native english readers I apologize about my poor english, but I live in Luxembourg, am fluent in Russian, French, have some knowledge in english, spanish, german, japanese, and therefore think that I'm already doing quite much to communicate with you all :o)
Peace...
Rouslan, you dismiss the point entirely, which is that there is no inherent responsibility to be "a gentleman". The reward for being a gentleman is social praise; the penalty for failing to do so is social sanction. What makes you think that everyone is doomed to perceive the opinions of others as universally relevant? Maradona is responsible for accomplishing his job, which is playing soccer, and nothing more. Topalov is responsible for his job, which is playing chess, and nothing more. There is no higher responsibility to be a role model. Clearly, it would be a wonderful thing and a benefit to society, but there is no mandate to do anything that you advocate. People have a right to be @$$holes, whether you like it or not. There is a definite difference between what one must do and what one ought to do, and you will rightfully be disappointed many times if you fail to recognize this difference.
Hotep,
Maliq
Rouslan,
I agree with a lot of the things you say. Even if I don't, your posts are still interesting.
Check out ChessNinja message boards - there should be a link in the upper left corner. I have a feeling you may like the forum - and if you choose to join - the forum may like you.
Sacateca:
I believe that you have read too much into my post.
I never stated that all patzers have feeble opinions nor did I state that patzers are not able to have a clear understanding of what is "going on".
The gist of my post is basically what you stated in your second paragraph, which was that most of the readers here are not super-GMs or WCs, and thus would not understand what is going through the minds of the elite chessplayers. That was where my statement about 'patzers' was leading.
The stronger chess players have a better idea of who should truly be considered the World Chess Champion, than other chess players who have not had the opportunity to play chess at the highest level.
The super-GMs play each other regularly and thus have a more clear view or understanding about who amongst them has the 'edge' over other GMs.
Kramnik, IMHO, has not shown that he has an 'edge', advantage, dominance, or any form of superiority over the other super-GMs.
His drawn match with Leko did not prove that he was superior than Leko.
Realistically, I do not believe that there will be an undisputed World Chess Champion in the near future, unless Kramnik goes the way of Alekhine.
Kramnik's claim to being the Champion based to a twice-broken lineage will come to an end sooner or later. Kramnik's claim will soon be just as good as Fischer's claim to the title.
Kasparov was willing to place his title on the line against the strongest challengers.
Kramnik has not yet shown the same confidence.
History will soon remember Kramnik as being a WC that chose to cling to his title rather than proving the legitimacy of his claim to the title by defending it against the best players of this era.
Karpov and Kasparov both proved themselves as dominant World Champions by their strings of victories in tournaments against their peers.
Kramnik's legacy is in his own hands.
Peace...
Tatsu, I don't get your argument. Kramnik defended against Leko, who clearly is one of the top players in the world and who qualified for the match by winning a strong Dortmund tournament. Kramnik did not choose Leko; this challenger emerged from the ranks in the manner specified by the Prague Agreement that ultimately had him lined up to meet Kasparov. One cannot blame Kramnik for the failure of the agreement, as he clearly upheld his end of the bargain.
Now, regarding Kramnik's failure to compete against the best players of his era, let us stop the silliness and realize that this is a man who was over 2800. To say that he never proved himself against top competition is just absurd, for how to build such a rating otherwise? He is, here and now, aiming to challenge Topalov, and if you can find a stronger opponent for him, then please let this competitor know that his or her invitation to San Luis got lost in the mail.
Hotep,
Maliq
Tatsu,
You are confusing the world champion with 'strongest player in the world'. You are right that top GMs would have a better idea than us about who is the strongest player, but you are wrong about who decides who is the real world champion. World history is written and remembered by the people, not by those who made it. It is us patzers who truly end up deciding historically who is the true world champion, not the top GMs.
I am beginning to believe that the length of my posts are causing the readers to confuse themselves, because many statements are being attributed to me which have never appeared in any of my posts.
I consider Kasparov the strongest player in the world, but I do not acknowledge him to be the World Chess Champion...he lost that title when he lost the match against Kramnik.
The World Champion and the strongest player in the world are two different designations.
Ideally, the strongest player becomes the World Champion.
The title of World Champion (at least in the US) usually means the best until somebody either comes along defeats the champion or a new competition is held to designate the new World Champion.
I think there are a few questions that need to be answered regarding the World Chess Champion.
1) What exactly is the World Chess Champion?
2) Does the holder of the title have legal control of it?
3) How long is the title valid?
The current state of the World Champion title has been in chaos for quite some time and it will not be cleared up for quite some time.
The framework of the Prague Agreement fell apart long ago.
Yes, Kramnik did hold up his end of the Prague Agreement, but now that the Prague Agreement is a moot point, I believe that it is time that Kramnik moved on to the higher ground and reintegrated himself into the same arena.
Let Kramnik show that given the same footing as his peers, he has the ability to rise to top again.
It looks like a match with Kramnik is not first in line for Topalov. Some big-money match versus Hydra ot other computer is an obvious priority from a business point of view. Random chess match with Fisher is also not exluded, though one could never be sure in Fisher reactions.
Yesterday Topalov gave many TV and radio interviews but most of the questions were silly. Nevertheless, some things were obvious. Topalov sounded like "I am The Chess King", and not like one who will have to prove something (in a match versus Kramnik or otherwise). He also said that he will be "a playing champion", i.e. he will play in many tournaments. One of his main goals is to increase his rating diverense with the other players which he consider now as "small". He confirms playing in Wijk, Monako, Sofia (which probably will be the strongest tournament of the year, again). Sorry, i can not confirm he's playing in Linares cause a stupid journalist interrupted Topalov's answer when he listed where he will participate, in order to ask some silly question.
These days Topalov will have meetings with the President of Bulgaria, with prime-minister, as well as speech in the Parliament among other things. All these activities will be accompanied with press conferences, interviews etc. So, i hope the journalists finally run out of silly qusetions and ask him something more relevant about his future plans. Soon we will have more reliable information about what is the near future of chess "politics" as far as Topalov is concerned, i hope :).
For now, it sounds like a bad news for Kramnik.
As Kramnik said I think Topalov has been emotionnal. He was talking about rating difference but in the reality I think he had the same emotions as I do, namely:
Kramnik's chess stinks. He is not even a defensive or solid player. He is just waiting his opponent to make a mistake and he calculates very precisely. If the opponent doesn't take risks the game ends by a draw. So why Hydra shouldn't be a wc candidate? There is no difference in the style. Please don't compare him to Karpov who was a solid player but not a draw player at all. He had an incredible understanding of chess. Nor to Petrossian who drew very often but his positional talent is recognized by everybody. Nor to Botvinnik, Capablanca etc. And actually if Kramnik's rating is so low, it's because he became himself sick of is own chess and he takes risks. Interestingly I like his chess more now but I doubt him playing like this if he plays for the title. I think the old Kramnik would come back. His style, his attitude and his words show that he is playing only for a title not for pleasure.
Dear knight_tour,
If we allow us patzers to decide who is the true WC, and who is not, let me remind you that it was us patzers who had believed in Lenin, Hitler and Stalin as greatest leaders of their nations showing the world the way to happy future...
Guys, all this conversation is I think without point. There is simply no way that Topalov could have offered those comments attributed to him in the interview, it is inconceivable that someone with his evident intellect could have said things like " I may play a commercial match with Kramnik but with no title on the line, only money ". What's that, Rocky I ? Are we to deduce that Topy believes that in the event of a defeat, he will still consider himself the legitimate world chess champion, with Kramnik merely to be considered then as the Classical and Commercial Champion of the World ?
And that comment about "when I was 60 points below Kramnik I wouldn't consider myself a worthy contender, so why does he do so now" is even more unlikely to have been made. Kramnik may be rated today 60 points lower but he has won a world championship and 10 times the supertournaments that Topalov has. When Topy was 60 points behind, he was no more than a very talented hopefull ( and these guys have almost the same age ).
Unless Topy gives a fresh interview to Chessbase or some other reputable site or magazine ( english-speaking ), I don't give a 1% chance that he realy believes any of these things.
Peace...
Tatsu, how can you say that Kasparov lost the World Championship to Kramnik in 2000 and yet simultaneously claim that Kramnik is not World Champion when no one has beaten him and he is still active? He just defended his title last year, so don't give me that "sitting on his laurels" crap. If the legitimate World Champion lost his title in a match, then the person who beats him becomes champ. It does not float out into the air. The claim that FIDE owns the title and not the titleholder is ludicrous. Again, if Khalifman was not considered World Champion during Kasparov's reign, then at the very least, one cannot discount Kramnik now that Topalov has won it. Truly, Veselin has won maybe the strongest tournament ever, and therefore is a worthy World Champion, but there still are two champs. It is a weak argument to say that one man is champ until another winner comes along whom you prefer.
Hotep,
Maliq
Oh, silliness Maliq as usual.
Khalifman WAS WC.
You can lose something without having the power to decide who will get it next.
Kasparov abandoned his title (going outside FIDE). Kramnik did not win it (he had lost to Shirov and was not a legitimate contender except in cloud Kaspy-land).
After reading these posts, I am more confused about who is the real Chess world champion, championship, its history, and FIDE. I feel its much easier to understand any thing about science or arts than this very subject.
Okay, scep, you keep fooling yourself into believing that anybody truly believed Khalifman to be the true champion during the reign of Kasparov. Keep telling yourself that FIDE has always been more important to the chess public than the individual champions have. Be happy with your 2600 World Champion having more legitimacy than the strongest player who ever lived. I promise you, few considered that Kasparov abandoned the title when he and Nigel played their match in 1993, and the match with Anand in 1995 was not considered merely some exhibition, unlike the joke of a tournament in Las Vegas.
You obviously have this fierce loyalty to the entity that is FIDE, and so it is beyond the scope of your understanding that FIDE had nothing once Kasparov left. Nobody said "Oh, look at this fool, how he has abandoned the title." Rather, it was said "Wow, what will FIDE do now that the World Champion is no longer aligned with it?" Kramnik is in the Kasparov lineage, and as such, his title has value. His is the title held by Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, et al. FIDE cannot claim that the lineage actually runs through it, even though it was the governing body that provided the laurel wreath since the advent of Botvinnik. Chess, like professional boxing, has become a joke because federations like to believe that they, and not the champions, are what make the sport great. Feel free to keep rooting for this, but don't then tell me that I am silly for dismissing the idea that the title is merely the string held by the federation, from which a new puppet dances every few years.
Hotep,
Maliq
Maliq:
It appears that you are not comprehending my posts.
You are debating issues that have never appeared in any of my posts.
I NEVER claimed that Kramnik is not the World Champion.
At this time, 2005-10-25, Kramnik's claim and recognition as World Champion is slowly being questioned.
Yes, Kramnik did defend his title against Leko (I did note that in one of my posts).
Kramnik is a good guy...a man who honors his agreements...no disagreement about that point.
My question is, "Does Kramnik have the courage to set aside any reservations and do what is necessary to play for an undisputed championship?"
Yes, Kramnik is willing to play a match against Topalov...but what if Topalov requires Kramnik to go through some kind of qualification process or play on equal footing, what then?
At this point in time, there is no agreed process to recognize the true World Champion.
Kramnik has not shown any notable results in quite some time...his rating is slowly slipping and eventually his ranking will be outside of the top ten.
The result is that people are going to speculate who is the true champion.
I hope that Kramnik has the ability to step out of the shadows and leave a legacy that will be noted by future generations of chessplayers.
Peace...
Tatsu, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that Kramnik will soon be outside of the Top 10. Note that Anand dropped maybe 50 points during a stretch, even finishing dead last in a tournament, and thereafter regained form. If you take the small recent sample size, then you might argue for Kramnik's demise, but a longer statistical analysis would lead to the conclusion that he is more likely to regain points than he is to continue to drop them.
Now, onto your point about Kramnik "doing what is necessary". Kramnik has a point, and it is a sharp one, with regard to why he does not participate in qualifying cycles. Make sense of the argument that the reigning champion should have to jump through hoops in order to challenge the person who lays claim to the other title. If it had been said that Topalov had to go through a qualifying title to meet Kramnik, would you support this position? If the answer is no, then you therefore must also abandon the idea that Kramnik, rightful champion in his own right, should become as one of many, effectively ignoring his own title. It is quite unreasonable to declare that one champion must dismiss his own title in the name of "unification". Topalov has not done anything that Kramnik has not proven himself capable of doing by winning the super-tournament and breaking 2800, so let us not speak of Kramnik as though he is a chess pauper kneeling at the table of the great king.
Hotep,
Maliq
Maliq:
I believe that you are being a bit short-sighted when you state that there is no basis for Kramnik falling out of the top ten.
Bacrot, Aronian, Grischuk, Morozevich, Radjabov, Ponomariov, Bruzon, Mamedyarov, Vallejo Pons, Harikrishna, Volokitin, Nakamura, Karjakin, Naiditsch, Miton are just a few from the younger generation that could be a part of the top ten in the very near future.
Gelfand, Shirov, Nisipeanu, Akopian, Tiviakov, Kamsky, Lautier, and Bareev are formidable players.
Kramnik's mental state has not been the same since his match with Kasparov.
I would not be surprised if he retired in the next few years.
Kramnik was a handpicked challenger who also happened to lose a 'qualification' match against Shirov.
It would really be nice to see him prove himself as superior to the other players in a tournament in the near future.
Yes well, i agree Kramnik needs to get back in shape and score well in a tournament. If not altogether winning, would be good for his case to get to +3 or +4 at least, without a single loss. He's been sick for a little bit too long...even Karpov recovered quicker.
Here are some recent comments from Topalov and Danailov (in Russian):
http://www.chesspro.ru/events/sl05-sofia.shtml
I'll try to translate most intriguing statements:
*******
Question to Topalov: Are you going to defend your title?
Answer: Yes, I do. In two years. AS A PART OF THE PREPARATION for this defence it will be helpful to play a match with Kramnik. In November Silvio (Danailov) will be in Germany to negotiate the things but it will not be a mathch for the title. It will be a commercial match.
*******
Silvio Danailov explains: "Now we are interested in two matches. First, with the supercomputer Hydra which is somewhere in Dubai and is owned by an Arab sheikh. Another interesting competition (from a point of view of chess popularization) would be a match agains Fischer in "Random-960". But Fischer is always unpredictable, so, there is nothing sure for now."
This would be very funny if this 'commercial' match really happen and Topalov lose. Does he think anybody would still consider him a legitimate Champion? What he says is the worst possible way of (not)resolving the issue!
But the real truth is he is not willing to play with Kramnik, and now this is clear :-(
Maybe topalov will only play kramnik in a "Fischer - Random" match but not "the old chess." :)
Topalov is lookign for the money now. He knows his title expires in 2 years. He will want to collect as much as possible in that time. Whether it is agaisnt Fischer in Fischer random, Hydra, or Kramnik. However, the Kramnik match will have to be the last one. Why? If Kramnik beats him that could blow the sponsorship for the other two matches.
I don't think Topalov want to avoid a match with Kramnik. He is full of confidence these days. The point is that he does not recognize Kramnik as an owner of some title. He recognizes Kramnik only as the person who beat Kasparov. Therefore, Topalov is unwilling to put his title in such a match.
Other point is that Topalov and Danailov plan to earn money for lifetime in the following two years, in case Topalov does not defend successfully his title in the following championship. And a match against Kramnik is one of the most profitable possible undertakings.
So, Topalov is ready to play Kramnik. The question is whether Kramnik is going to play in a match where he gains nothing (except money :))if he wins and lose everything if he loses.
You are right, it looks like he is looking for making as much money as possible. His chances to play with Hydra are very high, and chances to play Fischer are indefinitely close to zero. As for Kramnik, it is obvious that Vladimir will play only for the unified title. Playing just for money, he can lose everything in case of loss, and get nothing in case of win, because he will be still out of FIDE system.
Let's wait for at least 3 or four months or so, and watch FIDE, Kramnik, and Topalov next steps. During October FIDE already changed their mind at least twice and Topalov already had his view 'clarified'.
I don't know if Kramnik has anything to lose really, and he definitely has a lot more to gain than Topalov when it comes to credibility and future sponsorship. The question, as ever, is if anyone will be willing to sponsor such a match. It seems difficult to imagine even with the title on the line. Hors concours seems very doubtful, unless they are willing to pay for a small amount of money. Topalov could surely get more for a match against, say, Anand.
Topalov can say whatever he wants as private person (I'd like the World Champion to be more accurate and more consistent in their statements), but he already has recognized Kramnik as Champion by playing in Dortmund and losing to Leko for the right to play Kramnik. First time he said in public he does not recognize Kramnik was only in 2005, and IMHO it was just a clever business decision to make their position tougher during possible future negotiations, as Sofia was a brilliant idea to check both himself and his main opponents readiness to play under hard pressure before Argentina.
But it is really hard to believe he is honest when he puts Kramnik low knowing that Kramnik had positive score vs. Topalov during both 2003 and 2004, and only in 2005 they got the score equal!
P.S. Topalov has to remember that his own interests, especially long term ones can be different from Danailov's ones. Danailov just makes money, and Topalov should keep the Pono story in memory. By the way, Danailov is not the Pono manager anymore, and both sides are totally silent regarding reasons declining on commenting this, only Pono said once that they are still good friends.
A match Topalov-Kasparov would clarify better who is the #1 united WC. That would have more resonance with the chess public than a match with a never WC like Kramnik. Kasparov's years at the top is better legitimacy for a match than Kramnik's non-title by Kasparov gift and favor.
Ah, that old trick. You played in Dortmund so I'm the world champion. Uh, no. One, Dortmund is an annual tournament and the players didn't have to sign oaths of slavery to Kramnik to play there.
More relevantly, players need to play. It's the fans and politicians who want everything they say or do to mean something in a completely theoretical world of debate. Life will go on. I hope they play a match, but as long as we have plenty of chess each year I'm not going to cry about it. A unified title would be good both for chess quality and sponsorship, but so far nobody is ever willing to sacrifice temporary status and ego for long-term gains. They also fear real loss of earning power, and that's tangible versus vague greater good discussions.
Mig, do you realyy think that "You are not the Champion because I have higher ELO" any better?
Luckily, I don't have to choose. Both are foolish.
Here is fragmentof one more interview with both Topalov and Danailov:
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/magazine/year=2005&no=11&part=74&article=154
English translation is not available yet.
It looks like their points of view are not identical:
Question (Q): Veselin said he is ready to play with Kramnik?
Danailov (D): But who said this should be the title match? This could be just chess match.
Q: But will the winner get any champion's title? Or this questions is already closed?
D: There are no questions which can be closed. But this match can be interesting mostly from the artistic point of view.
Topalov (T): The Champion is me, and only me! The title has been already played!
Q: Does it belong to FIDE according to Praga agreement?
Both D and Q: Yes, yes!
T: FIDE had taken the title from Pono when he rejected playing in Tripoli. And from this point both Pno and Kramnik are in the same position. The title belongs to FIDE, not personally to Pono or Kramnik. FIDE has organized the Championship.
D: Match with participation of the official Champion, No.1 by rating, and No.7? Champion can not be No.7!
Q: Formally Topalov is No.2
D: Kasparov is not an active player
T: Kasparov is now honorary Champion No.1 (this is how it is printed on the page - Vlad Kosulin) like Campo - honorary FIDE President
D: The rating system shows itself how outdated it is, when player who won all the tournaments of the year is not No.1 by rating. Just funny! If somebody does not play, he should not be in the rating list.
Q. Back to the future: What if tomorrow there will be an offer to play with Kramnik?
Answer (A) (not printed who exctly answered the question - Vlad Kosulin): There is nothing definite yet. If there is time and money, I am not against playing. Why should I be afraid? I already said: this will be match for money and for prestige.
Q: Similar to Karpov and Fischer in 1977?
A: When Fischer wanted to play with Karpov, he was not No.7.
Q: He was like Kasparov now.
A: But Kramnik is playing, and he is an outstanding player. But I dn't see value of his title at the moment. What does he put on table? He did not lose to Leko who finished in minus here. And what, this is how he qualified to play with World Champion? Remember, he lost to Shirov. Why does he want to play with me without qualification? When Kasparov separated from FIDE, he had an unofficial title of the best player. Kramnik took from Kasparov the title of "the best in public opinion". But he lost this title during recent years.
Q. What about Praga agreement? Kramnik says he did his part.
A: This is past for a long time. How long should we mention Praga?
...
I skip the rest, because this is mostly the same statements about 60 ELO points, winning in the tournaments, FIDE behavior regarding future cycle, etc.
And now my comments:
Topalov is very inconsistent if not saying more.
He uses Praga to justify what is preferable to him, and says Praga is not valid when it is against his interests.
He says ELO system is incorrect, but uses it as basement for not playing Kramnik.
He says he is the No.1 because Kasparov has retired, but he still counts Kramnik as No.7, and not the No.6.
He says he was before Kramnik in all 2005 tournaments, but does not mention his score vs. Kramnik, and leaves previous years outside.
He says he won all tournaments in 2005, but this is wrong if we remember Linares.
The only positive point in the skipped part of the interview is where he says that he is ready 'in principle' to play both in matches and tournament in the next cycle according to future FIDE decisions, and does not require any privilegies as Champion compared to Nos.2-4 of San Luis.
Peace...
Mig, I simply must dismiss your denial that Topalov ever acknowledged Kramnik's title. Had Topalov beaten Leko and advanced to play Kramnik, would he not have said that he was playing for the World Championship? This twisting of scenarios to fit one's purposes is just absurd. OF COURSE Topalov acknowledged Kramnik as champ, and he was quite looking forward to de-throning him. All of a sudden, he is now in a position of power, and so he claims that Kramnik never had legitimacy. Vladimir Kramnik is 14th World Chess Champion, having taken the title from 13th World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov. For Topalov to say that this claim cannot be upheld because of ELO is ludicrous, especially in light of the facts both that Topalov has not had great success even against the out-of-form Kramnik of recent years and that he lost to the very same Leko whom he demeans. (He demeans Leko by dismissing him as a lowly opponent against whom Kramnik defended the title, conveniently forgetting that this lowly opponent defeated him on the way to Kramnik.) Topa should just stop it and say either "I will play the other champion" or "I will not play the other champion", but certainly to talk of rankings and such as justification for not playing is not acceptable. (Note that he also keeps calling Kramnik #7 while calling himself #1, conveniently accounting for the absence of Kasparov with regard to his own position but not with regard to Kramnik's; it is actually either #2 vs. #7 or #1 vs. #6.)
Hotep,
Maliq
And here is what says Alex Roshal:
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/magazine/year=2005&no=11&part=74&article=155
According to Macro, "FIDE can not force Topalov to play in additional competition. But if Topalov is willing to play, it is unlikely FIDE will be strictly against this. But Topalov has to remember that if he loses, he loses also the Champion's privilegies in the next cycle. FIDE can nopt change already announced rules"
Unfortunately, w eknow the FIDE can change any rules, but this statement makes the situation a little more clear.
Well, even if you remove Kasparov Topalov is only #2 at the current list. You have to include the post-San Luis games so far as well, and *still* not do the same for Kramnik, in spite of the fact that he has passed at least Leko and maybe Ivanchuk too. This trick is really too transparent.
"include the San Luis games" I mean, to get the unofficial post-San Luis ratings.
One more interview with Danailov taken by Roshal after 13'th round of San Luis:
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/magazine/year=2005&no=11&part=74&article=156
Q: Is attitude to play with Kramnik positive?
A: For Veselin from artisitc point of view (from sport point of view he already proved he is stronger than any San Luis participant) there are only two interesting events: matches with Kasparov and Kramnik
...
Match with Kramnik is interesting from another point of view: he is continuer of the classical line of the World Champion title: he won vs. Kasparov and defeded the title vs. Leko.
...
Who would like to make a bet: who will change their mind during the next year more frequently, FIDE or Topalov? I would put my money on FIDE, but who knows...
It looks like this issue of "64" is must read for everybody interested in the around chess information!
One more interview with Danailov taken by Roshal after 13'th round of San Luis:
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/magazine/year=2005&no=11&part=74&article=156
Q: Is attitude to play with Kramnik positive?
A: For Veselin from artisitc point of view (from sport point of view he already proved he is stronger than any San Luis participant) there are only two interesting events: matches with Kasparov and Kramnik
...
Match with Kramnik is interesting from another point of view: he is continuer of the classical line of the World Champion title: he won vs. Kasparov and defeded the title vs. Leko.
...
The rest is skipped.
Who would like to make a bet: who will change their mind during the next year more frequently, FIDE or Topalov? I would put my money on FIDE, but who knows...
It looks like this issue of "64" is must read for everybody interested in the around chess information!
And here is what Karpov thinks (only excerpt):
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/magazine/year=2005&no=11&part=74&article=159
"San Luis can be hardly named the real World Championship. Not all the best participated. Qualification by rating without playing is also questionable. In late 70th I had a talk with prof. Elo, and he said that this would be a horror dream if a rating difference of 5 points wil deside the questions of great importance for every player: will they qualify for interzonal, will they become a challenger..."
A chessplayer shouldn't have to acknowledge any such thing to be able to play chess. These guys just want to be able to play without having their careers held hostage by a bunch of BS about who's the champion today. Few of them care at all and they just say whatever is appropriate at the moment depending on where they are playing and who's asking the question. It's been this way since 1993 and more so every year since. The passions have died down, especially with Kasparov gone.
If Kramnik can put together money I'm sure quite a few San Luis players will be happy to tell us there are two world champions. Just don't think they care as much as we do. They are far more practical and more reasonable; they have to be. When it's between making a living and taking a vague principled stand for people with few principles themselves, it's an easy choice. Very few players can afford to ignore a big money event like Kasparov and Anand could.
Dortmund 2002 was a tournament, not a loyalty oath. Same thing goes for Prague. Both sides, now especially Kramnik, use Prague to say the other side recognized them, and where does this get us? What, Topalov should have skipped the Dortmund supertournament if deep down in his heart of hearts he doesn't believe Kramnik is the really real real real champ? Please. Or not play in a million dollar KO because the winner isn't in a direct line from Steinitz's cigar box? Ridiculous.
They play because they are chessplayers who love the game and need to pay the rent. When one of them happens to win a title - therefore also making enough money to be able to afford a suddenly principled stand, the tune changes. (Or when FIDE has them sign contracts not to play in other championship events, a la Anand and Ivanchuk in Dortmund 2002.) This is what we had with Ponomariov and it's what we have with Topalov now. It's not a surprise. You play the cards you are dealt and when you have a good hand you raise, you don't fold. Call it opportunistic if you like, but these aren't all millionaires who can afford to squander sudden good fortune.
Topalov's comment that Kramnik can't play him because of rating is of course ridiculous. This doesn't mean Kramnik deserves anything from FIDE per se. Some of us think it would be good for the game for Topalov/FIDE to give Kramnik a match, but then there is the matter of sponsorship. Nobody will play for free. If Kramnik can show up with the cash, Topalov should play him, period. But Kramnik should be dropped from the conversation until that happens, frankly. As the saying goes, Topalov won the only championship available and he shouldn't have Kramnik waved in his face when there is nothing he can do about him. Nothing he says in public is going to help; certainly not invalidating his own title by saying unification is necessary. His FIDE title is real and can make him money. A match with Kramnik is a fantasy. It's sad to hear Topalov invalidate Kramnik entirely when it's not necessary, but it's not a surprise.
The only place ever I found Kasim saying something about his match with Kasparov:
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/magazine/year=2005&no=11&part=74&article=162
"Kasparov made everything to make our match impossible. He pressed on possible organizers, on FIDE, on the opponent all the time, and I could not help it, because I did not have any influence."
i do agree with Mig that it would be too much to ask the players to ignore FIDE's events. Kind of like what Bobby Fischer said about the Russians: "It's not a personal thing between me and the Russian players. i like them, it's a question with the Russian government. It wasn't players really, they had no choise."
Whatever happens, FIDE can only destroy the prestige and mystique of chess on ideological level, but the players i'm sure will always do the best they can chess-wise within the given framework. It's kind of easy to forget this and become hysterical and desperate and bitter.
But i'm hopeful that in time Kirsan will not lead FIDE and then things can only improve...
Rouslan: Thank you for your thoughtful response. i only saw it now. Here's shortly my point of view in the matter.
Even apes are free living beings (and i agree completely we are not different from apes, and i would go as far to say we are not different from insects, or birds, or fish). The existence of a social structure is a social limitation, not a moral/existential one. Those, who have the spiritual need to go beyond social structure, do so. Yes, at the expense of becoming hated among those who are happy to exist within the confines of the social structure, but Dostoyevski said that there will be a point in the life of every man where he has to say to hell with it and living according to his own standards.
A social structure exists for a certain purpose, different for different species. But whereas a being can thrive while not adhering to the social structure, there is no reason for any being to do so. And especially, whereas a being has an inner need to leave behind the social structure and go beyond it's confines, he _must_ do so.
Socially Maradona may have a responsibility, but if he feels he has a "higher purpose", or even a psychological need, other than to fulfill that his social purpose, he is free to do so. Punishment upon his is laid by people like you, if you can. Whether that punishment matters to him or not, is up to him.
It's not that i think MAradona's drug use is a good thing, it's just that i believe there was a conflict between his inner self and what was demanded from him socially that he couldn't find a way to harmonize, and this lead him to a rather destructive form of escapism.
Everything is universally permitted. It is the moral guardians who think they are needed in order to maintain order in the universe, who want to limit the possibilities of life. But, to quote a rather bad movie: "Life finds a way." Life will not let itself be limited.
These limitations you want to impose, or which our social structure imposes, are the source of all misery. It is not Hitler, nor Kirsan, who cause misery. It is the prohibitive social structure that create Hitler and Kirsan, who then seem to cause misery.
You should not condemn people who are not letting themselves be confined, because it is exactly those people who matter, in existential sense. Like Bobby Fischer. His tragedy is similar to Maradona's.
The social structure is not an end to itself. In the end, it doesn't matter. Life goes on regardless of social structures.
Sacateca, thank you for your profound and insightful post. Would you mind clarifying just a couple of things for me. When you say "we are not different from insects", do you mean all of us - or maybe only some of us? And also, would you be so very kind as to tell me what book contains the quotation you ascribe to Dostoevsky. I am sorry for my ignorance, but I never read Dostoevsky in English...
dz: Thank you.
With insects, i do indeed mean all of us. There is no moral difference, humans create their own preferences according to their own characteristics.
i don't know which book has the Dostoyevski quote, i read it from a back of an edition of "Devils", and can assure you it was much more eloquent than my bare-bones retelling of it (i'm terrible at remembering details, i can ever only remember the point). It might not be from a novel of his, but maybe it's from another source, like a letter.
There is an enormous blunder in Topalov's reasoning to avoid a match with Kramnik, who is rated more than 60 points beneath him.
When Kramnik defeated Kasparov in their 2002 title match, Kramnik was rated almost 80 points below Kasparov (2849 vs. 2770)! So a mere 60 points is a smaller hurdle for Kramnik, the rightful heir of the chess champion legacy. Topalov must know this, and his assertion therefore emanates fear, not confidence. If he is fearful of Kramnik, then he himself must doubt his legitimacy as the true world chess champion.
Make no mistake, I am a huge fan of both players and would give odds to Topalov based on his phenomenal first half in San Luis. Unfortunately his pompous posturing, while it maintains the Fischer legacy of megalomania, rests on an enormous fallacy about the meaning of rating points.
Granted, Topalov is the most brilliant, non-retired tournament player on the planet. He has proven himself worthy in the equivalent of a candidates tournament. Now let's see how he fares in a match against the world's best match player, who happens to be the heir to the true "World Champion" title held by Kasparov, not the weightless political title that has been batted around yearly by a variety of sub-Kasparov players.
Topalov and Kramnik are the only two people on the planet who can make a legitimate claim to be better players than Kasparov in the year 2005. I for one would pay to see a webcast of the head-to-head battle that determines which one is truly the better chess player. Rhetoric and rating points are no substitute for real chess.
Blisscoach, the Kasparov-Kramnik match was in 2000, not in 2002. Also, how can you call Kramnik the world's best match player? He lost matches to Gelfand, Kamsky, Adams, and Shirov. He beat a depressed and distracted Kasparov in 2000, and he managed to draw a match against Leko in 2004. How in the world can Kramnik be called the "world's best match player?"
Blisscoach, if Kramnik is offering peanuts instead of serious money why should Topalov accept a match against him?
Topalov has an official title, he is making money out of it, so he is logically using negotiating tactics to achieve a better deal if the match actually ever happens. There is no fear in Topalov, only a bank account eager to be filled!
Somebody wrote:
"Blisscoach, the Kasparov-Kramnik match was in 2000, not in 2002. Also, how can you call Kramnik the world's best match player? He lost matches to Gelfand, Kamsky, Adams, and Shirov. He beat a depressed and distracted Kasparov in 2000, and he managed to draw a match against Leko in 2004. How in the world can Kramnik be called the "world's best match player?""
My response:
I grew up during the days when the chess world champion was an "intellectual hero". I was in elementary and high school (end of 50s, 60s) and the kids in the school were actively interested of what's happening in the world of chess, who will be the world champion (that was in Hungary). The newspapers reported certain interesting games in headlines. I mean, chess was a "big thing" and the world champion was almost like a mythic hero. I will never forgive Kasparov to destroy that.
As for today who is the best? Nobody knows. Worse yet, very few cares.
Gabor