Topalov and Kasparov Agree

So much for that. Sigh. I thought Danailov was talking on Topalov's behalf when he explicitely recognized Kramnik's classical title. Apparently not.

Perhaps Topalov is not convinced that he would win in a match against Kramnik...

So, who is the "chicken" now?

Once again one has to give credit to Kasparov who wasn't afraid to choose the most difficult opponent and didn't chicken out. He behaved like a real champion.

I don't like to be quick with the chicken comments. Topalov is no more scared of Kramnik than Kramnik was of Kasparov; take that for what you will. But after you win a title it's hard to fight of a depressing pragmatism. You fought so hard to win it, why should so-and-so deserve a shot at it? Enjoy it for a while, take a moment to feel what's it's like, and to not need the money. Make the other guys jump through the hoops, it becomes addictive. This is why Euwe will always stand out.

Respectfully, there is a difference between Kasparov-2000 and Topalov-2005.

In 2000, Kasparov was sitting on his laurels for five years since the defeat of Anand in 1995. To put it simply, it was time for him to put his title on the line.

Topalov has been world champion for what, 48 hours, and we're already calling for his head? People, give it time. I see no reason whatsoever that a reining champion should not sit on his laurels and enjoy life for at least a year. Kramnik, by the way, took four years to savour the title before putting it on the line.

In 2000, Kramnik was, in my view, a real world champion, because he won the title in a contest against world's top player. He lost his legitimacy around 2003, with his declining rating and his non-title-defense. Drawing a match against the #6 player in the world (Leko was 6th at the time) did nothing to reaffirm his legitimacy, and neither did dropping his rating to #7.

In 2005, Topalov is the real world champion, because he won the title in a contest against the world's top players. Will he still be the real champion in 2006 or 2007? That depends on whether he keeps his #1 rating spot, defends the title against worthy opposition, neither, or both. But there is certanly no need to question his legitimacy after 48 hours.

If Topalov thinks that he can play just for the money and have the money amount to anything, he hasn't thought this thing through too well. I believe Danailov would say that is why players need managers. I like Danailov's proposal of a match in 2006. The highest rated player should not be automatically dubbed the "world chess champion" in my opinion. That's a bit too flukey. Topalov is going to "take some time off and write a book" -- so let's let him do that and stop trying to pin him down to a definite conclusion. Let Topalov write his book. Let Kramnik arrange a match.

At this point in time we happen to have two world champions and the only way to get out of this mess is to have them play against each other.
Danailov's proposal of a match in November 2006 would have given Topalov more than a year "to sit on his laurels". I am absolutely devastated that Topalov now seems to have rejected the idea of such a match. Perhaps somebody should remind him that traditionally the title of world chess champion was about matches, not about tournaments. I don't see why this should change.

Topalov can still change his mind. I'm not judging him too soon. Just let him know what the overwhelming majority of chess fans wants. He shouldn't have a good reason to say no really since he would anyway have to put his title at stake soon enough in the FIDE cycle.

The main difference between this and Kramnik-Kasparov is of course that a Kasparov rematch would have done nothing to solve the mess chess was in. There would just have been two handpicked challengers in a row.

So much for unification in the next ten years.

To all you Kramnik believers ...

I was almost devastated as as one of the posters, then I remembered something ...

Topalov is using the same logic that Kramnik used to prevent a match between Kasparov and him. He stated, I believe that Kasparov did not deserve a direct shot at the title. Topalov is simply restating that, and with more reason/strength, I might add.

60 points below, number 7 ? I would even say that giving Kramnik a title shot would anger all the super-GMs. And should Kramnik win, the chess world would become hell on earth.

What's happening now is what we all expected before San Luis, if San Luis turned out to be a great tournament:

1. Kramnik would go down in flames by his own fault (lack of luster) and by FIDE's shrewdness (great San Luis tournament)

2. The WC that won by a convincing margin and that had the appropriate profile - all agreed that it would reasonably be Leko, Topalov, or Anand in view of their standing and tournament results in the last 2 years - could be recognized by all as the real WC.

Topalov gave such a performance, and San Luis was such a success that I don't recall any Kramnik-title-shooters worrying about a fusion match (and I read this blog daily, almost religiously). The Topadero was majestic and we all bowed down to him as people did to Kasparov.

Now, due to Dainalov's comments, some folks will get back on their destriers to campaign for a useless match.

I beg you, Sirs ... 60 pts below ? number 7 ? Then, title match ?

In 2000 Kramnik was rated 77 points below Kasparov. When Leko won the Dortmund qualifier he was rated 75 points below Kramnik. What is this "60 points" nonsense? Who cares? Kramnik is the classical champion, just like Danailov said, and the anti-Kramnik crowd can't wish it away.

85 for Leko-Kramnik, not 75, sorry.

a...

you're embarrassing yourself. WCh Brissago: Leko (2741) vs. Kramnik (2770), go to chessbase.com.

and if you want to talk about trends. Topy's is upward. Kramnik's is downward.

it's not the elo point difference, it's the combination of ranking and point difference.

what say you next ?

Kramnik lost to Shirov and so was not legally qualified to play Kasparov for the title. It was just a friendly match.

Kasparov says it: "The official title has melded with the strongest player, so the theory goes, so it's time to embrace him and move on."

If anyone asks who is the champ, my answer is Topalov. The chaos is over, as I see it.

It would be hollow of Kramnik to call himself the world champion with his results lately. Althoug he can call himself "the classical wc", for what that title is worth. Still, by participating in the message boards here I understand that very many do not agree with me, and I respect others views.

Steve, I said when Leko "won the qualifier". In any case some ridiculous "60 points" argument means nothing.

guys - november 2006 is a long time away. some relevant points:

First - Kramnik has a title - that cant be ignored.
Second - Topalov has the more credible title now
Third - By then I hope Garry would have finished his book and be sick of politics and will be ready to come back and play if he has a legit title shot
Fourth - Despite San Luis being ex-ante fair, it didnt really prove Topa is better than Anand, did it? As a guest blogger on Susan Polgar's site wrote:

Anand went 0.5-1.5 and 1-1 against Moro and Kasim. Topa went 1.5-0.5 against both. Take away the results against these two outsiders and there is no difference between the two.

Now this is not to belittle Topa in anyway - after all he played by the rules and played great chess and it was the all important tournament and Topa is the world champion, but you cant say Topalov is stronger than Anand, can we? This year they played 7 times and it is tied 1-1. Even at San Luis, it was tied 0.5-0.5.

Right now, it appears that Kasparov, Anand and Topalov are a cut above everyone else (the difference in rating between Topa and Anand is just 8 points. And Topa and Kramnik hold titles.

I have two unification scenarios:

1. Garry comes back

Then have Garry play Kramnik in one semifinal and have Topa play Anand in another for say, 8-10 game match and have the winners square off in the final. I think Kramnik and Topa shd have draw odds in the semis here since they hold titles with no draw odds in the final.

2. Garry doesnt comeback

Just have a Topa Kramnik match without draw odds and unify the title. In this case, Kramnik has the most ioncentive to get the money and it should be his responsibility.

I'm sorry, but I have to call poppycock on the following argument:
"Anand went 0.5-1.5 and 1-1 against Moro and Kasim. Topa went 1.5-0.5 against both. Take away the results against these two outsiders and there is no difference between the two."

Well, just take away Kasparov's results against all the players he defeated, take away my results against all the players to whom I lost, and there is no difference between me and Kasparov.

Once you allow yourself to selectively wipe out some results and keep others, you can prove absolutely anything.

If Kramnik is not world champion, then neither was Kasparov from whom he took the title.

If winning one top tournament qualifies you as world champion, then so is the winner of Corus Wijk aan Zee or Linares.

Being world champion has never been about being number one on the rating list. If it would be, why play a world championship at all?

And don't be too quick to embrace Ilyumzhinov's FIDE... ratifying one successful tournament guarantees jack sh** for the future.

If Kramnik is not world champion, then neither was Kasparov from whom he took the title.

If winning one top tournament qualifies you as world champion, then so is the winner of Corus Wijk aan Zee or Linares.

Being world champion has never been about being number one on the rating list. If it would be, why play a world championship at all?

And don't be too quick to embrace Ilyumzhinov's FIDE... ratifying one successful tournament guarantees jack sh** for the future.

Kasparovs comments only show that you can't buy class. On the other hand Topalov's show he is afraid of Kramnik. You can say whatever about their results this year, but streaks have an end.

Slightly off topic, but I guess there is no question regarding who will win the Chess Oscar for 2005...

I think ANTOANETA STEFANOVA is the real World Champion! She would beat Topalov anyday, if given enough time to prepare and for Topalov's doping to wear off. There is no doubt in my mind that women play better chess than men. Until they marry, of course.

FIDE is the only organization to be thanked for improvement of chess in the World.

Don't you think it's rather strange Kasparov retired, just when the doping controls became very strict?

FIDE elo is the only thing that really matters to professional chess players. Losing one point elo is equal to a nightmare.

So, I can understand Topalov's comment on the elo difference between him and Kramnik. And - he is right! The difference of 60 elo points clearly shows a difference in class, which is measured by 25 points only.

The Daily Dirt is the dirtyest chess column on the Internet. Thanks Mig, for the dirt! Always glad to read your dirty posts.

Is "Fide friend" really Valery Salov? Mig, you sure do get some strong commentors!

I agree with Susan Polgar, Topalov, Kasparov, and a whole lot of other people...Kramnik's "title" was lost by forfeit in San Luis.

-Todd Reynolds

No point to argue - neither Topalov nor FIDE is interested in continuing tradition of championship matches. Kirsan just pushed through the decision to play similar World Championship in September-October 2007, with top 4 from San Luis, and the other 4 taken elsewhere:

http://www.interfax.ru/r/B/politics/2.html?menu=1&id_issue=11408578

So, this explains both earlier interview of Danailov (he didn't know yet of Kirsan's plans?), and the later interview of Topalov. There is really no point of playing match with Kramnik, if the Champion will be determined in the tournament in 2007 anyway....

Topalov becomes FIDE-champion. After winning the tournament he want to take a break from chess and write a book, he doesnt want to play the worldchampion... thats the FIDE-champ we all wanted! great!

The World Champion`s title must be won in match play from the current holder (unless unavailable from death, retirement, &c.). It isn`t up for grabs in some round robin tournament. If you want it, it`s a multi-game one-on-one match: take it if you can. Until then, it remains in the hands of the one who DID manage to take it from the previous holder.

I don`t know why people are so eager to smash the time-honoured and prestigious Steinitz chain. I think that would be a tragedy. And don`t pull out the crap about "it`s already broken, Alekhine died!" Use common sense, if someone dies, of course they can`t defend their title.

Peace...

I don't get this argument about rating difference at all. Topalov has just now reached the heights to which Kramnik had been for a decent amount of time. There is no doubt in my mind that Vladimir Kramnik is one of the strongest players to ever move the pieces. This man beat Kasparov in a match without losing a single game to him and eclipsed 2800. To speak as though he has suddenly lost the ability that allowed him to do these things is foolishness. Kramnik's rating decline began when he decided to change his style and start playing 1. e4 instead of the openings that he had long been criticized for. Now, Kramnik playing exclusively 1. d4 or 1. Nf3 in a match against ANY GM is much different from the one who keeps getting beaten on the white side of Sicilians.

Yes, there is great difference in ratings, but do not fool yourselves into thinking that there is this great difference in strength in favor of Topalov. Kramnik is his equal in strength when in top form, and to dispute this is to ignore the fact that Topa played the tournament of his life to get to where he is now, and that regardless where he is now is only where Kramnik in top form had rested comfortably for a time.

Finally, it amuses me that people speak so highly of Anand and conveniently ignore the swoon that he, too, had at a point in his career. He was at 2797 and reigning FIDE World Champion when he lost to Ivanchuk in 2001, and he thereafter went on to finish terribly. There was even a moment during his reign as champion in which he finished dead last in a tournament, and yet people sing his praises, not because of consistency, but because he recovered. Hypocrisy rules the day if the same people who challenge that Topalov is not clearly stronger than Anand simultaneously challenge that he is clearly stronger than Kramnik.

Hotep,

Maliq

This is the move I predicted a week ago. I was surprised by Danailov's comments, but now I can go back to being unsurprised. Beginning negotiations for a title match between Topalov and Kramnik would in my opinion have worsened the chances of undoing the schism, if anything.

The schism came into being on the basis of Kasparov's authority, and now Kasparov says there is no schism. If Kasparov (!) has come around to endorsing the FIDE World Champion as the Real World Champion, I honestly think we're done with schisming.

p>

I applaud Topalov for taking a stance against Kramnik. Kramnik was invited to San Luis, but he declined, it's his loss. It is now Kramnik's obligation to create a new world championship cycle to find yet another challenger for his so called "title." Will he find a sponsor? Only time will tell, but I doubt he'll get the funding.

Josh: as to the "Steinitz chain", Kramnik got the title from Kasparov, Kasparov got it from Karpov, but who did Karpov get it from? :-)

p>

This was expected. Topalov said for a long time he does not recognize Kramnik's title.
But if 60 points difference is a different league, why did he accept playing in San Luis with Adams (70 points below), and with Kasimzanov (118 points below)?
What he says is BS. ELO has nothing to do with title pretendence. Only qualifiers can choose the right pretender, and Topalov knows this (he lost to Leko in Dortmund, 2002 and by the way, he was 62 ELO points below Kramnik at that time but I am sure he was thinking he had a right to play for the title).
Topalov never played in matches, and he does not want to risk the title he just got, and he knows the match without title unification will never happen, it is a nonsense.

I just read the Chessbase article about the awards ceremony: What is this? Little League? Everyone gets a prize so they feel good? Made me laugh.

I wouldn't take Topalov's comments all that seriously...if a match with Kramnik is to be negotiated both players want to deal from a position of strength. It's part of the bargaining process. If you need an example from outside the chess world look no further than the way big bucks boxing matches are booked..or the negotiation process for high salaried athletes. Players can't always blurt out their innermost thoughts or "bottom line"..it's not in their best interests.

I really don't get what Kramnik is Champion of? He joined some private tournament and won a match, enough to be the World Chess Champion? His name next to Tal's? Or Petrosian's? Come on, that's really funny. OK, he beat Kasparov, that's worth something, and he got the cash for it, so OK, too.

Topalov and Stefanova are the real Champions, not the shovinist Kramnik association, which has no womens championship.

I wouldn't take Topalov's comments all that seriously...if a match with Kramnik is to be negotiated both players want to deal from a position of strength. It's part of the bargaining process. If you need an example from outside the chess world look no further than the way big bucks boxing matches are booked..or the negotiation process for high salaried athletes. Players can't always blurt out their innermost thoughts or "bottom line"..it's not in their best interests. A stance of aloofness is almost to be expected from both parties, isn't it?

So WAIT A MINUTE.... the Interfax report from "qqq" (above) has just caught up to me. Does this mean that FIDE has decided to scrap the plan for candidates' matches that they came up with in spring, and is planning to just stage another tournament (like San Luis) in 2007 to award the World Championship???

(And that the "battle for second place" at San Luis between Svidler and Anand, who thought that they were fighting for better seeding in the candidates' matches, turns out to be a mockery, since there will be no such matches?)

FIDE's demon child is reasserting itself, if so.... If FIDE is going to abandon (again!) the idea of a cycle including a match component, they have done just the thing that might revivify the "Kramnik-is-champion" forces. In any case I would expect a loud groan from much of the chess world... is this really true?

p>

It is interesting to note the collapse of the russian senior chess school. Although still able to produce World Champions in junior competition, the active seniors are obviously the weakest in all russian (soviet) history now. I wonder if the Bulgarian chess school will publish it's secrets on becoming World Chess Champion.

Petrel
it certainly seems true. Looks like they used the "look, we have a new classical cycle" trick to temporarily look good. A few days after San Luis, they say "hey, just kidding". Shameless.

To get a real impression of Kramnik, check out the quote of one of the most talented russian woman chess players, Maria Manakova: "As for Kramnik, he doesn’t interest me. He is neither bad nor good. When he won the title of world champion he should have offered Kasparov a rematch. He didn’t – he was simply scared. Such men don’t interest me." Full article at: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1826

Please stop double posting. Just be patient. Thanks.

The Interfax article isn't clear. It says something about the winners of the cycle joining the top four from San Luis in a tournament, whatever that means. It's not much of a cycle if eight players are in a final tournament.

Why should I get an Impression of Kramnik reading a Manakova oppinion. (tell me Kosteniuk, K sisters, etc, but Manakova who??)
Common-Sense Friend

Why should I get an Impression of Kramnik reading a Manakova oppinion. (tell me Kosteniuk, K sisters, etc, but Manakova who??)
Common-Sense Friend

mig - is this daily dirt thread a candidate for the Hall of Flame?

Nice comments by Kasparov and Topalov. Kasparov only changed his mind for what - 100th time? He used to say something completely different when he was the classical champion. And Topalov played in Dortmund 2002 qualifier, thus recognizing Kramnik's title.

Kramnik has the only real Wrold championship title. That title can be traced all the way back to Steinitz. Topalov just won a supertournament - it is ridiculous to consider him the world champion just because FIDE says so. FIDE didn't have control of the title since 1993, and San Luis title is hardly more prestigious than the KO lotteries that FIDE conducted and that are now abandoned. Kramnik's title is 120 years old and it was owned by the greatest players of their respective generations. Topalov's title is a week old and Topalov is the only one who ever had that title. So the question is not whether Kramnik deserves to play Topalov, the question is: does Topalov deserve to play Kramnik?

"So the question is not whether Kramnik deserves to play Topalov, the question is: does Topalov deserve to play Kramnik?" (Russianbear)

Did Kramnik deserve to play Kasparov in 2000?

Did Leko deserve to play Kramnik in 2004? If so, does this mean that Dortmund 2002 was a more legitimate WC qualifier than San Luis 2005?

Does Fischer (who never lost a match as WC) deserve to play Kramnik?

Incidentally, Kasparov was only able to keep his title relevant post-1993 by

1) first establishing a credible cycle with lots of money

2) dominating the supertournament cycle in the period 1999-2001.

3) taking advantage of the fact that FIDE's KO system did not produce credible WCs.

If Kramnik is uncapable of doing the first of these (due, possibly, to his position on the FIDE rating list) or the second (due, for instance, to his solid positional style - as opposed to a more wild and tactical style), his title will likely fade into irrelevancy, regardless of what Kramnik's apologists might say - especially if FIDE maintains a credible cycle.

Yes, FIDE seems awfully credible at this point ..

P:

Karpov got the title from Fischer who was too chicken to play him. Fischer's title expired after 3 years. Kramnik's title has expired too, unless we go back to lasker times of avoiding matches for decades.

There are some strong logical reasons for a match to take place, beyond the obvious ones of melding classical and FIDE.

First, I believe almost all players out there recognize that FIDE is diminishing the world title by having the title holder be seeded only into the quarterfinals of the next cycle. There is no way this does not hurt the title!

FIDE can fix this very easily by using a unification match.

1. Have the loser of the unification match take what is now Topolov's spot in the quarterfinals.

2. Call the winner of each cycle the challenger to the world champion, rather than world champion itself. This gives the title its dignity back.

3. The loser of each world title match after each cycle should be seeded into the quarterfinal of the next cycle.

4. The world title match for each cycle should be something like 12 games, but the challenger should get draw odds for the match (a new twist!). This is for two reasons: One is to recognize the tiresome, difficult path the challenger just had to take to get there, while the champ was resting, and two it is to make the world champion prove that he/she still truly deserves it. There should NEVER be a rematch clause again!

Well I hope this isn't true. When Kasparov was champion he never would have agreed to put his title on the line based on a single tournament. (the closest he came to making this claim was Linares 1994 but it clearly wasn't on the line) Now that he is no longer in the running is he going to say the title choudl be determined by a single torunament?? Its a sad day for chess if he does.

Topalov was not quite as impressive as fischer when he was in the preliminaries for a title but still very impressive. Fischer also had the highest rating in the world before he played a match with Spassky. Yet everyone knew he had to beat Spassky if he wanted to be considered the WC. Winning a torunament is nice but its no world championship.

Well I hope this isn't true. When Kasparov was champion he never would have agreed to put his title on the line based on a single tournament. (the closest he came to making this claim was Linares 1994 but it clearly wasn't on the line) Now that he is no longer in the running is he going to say the title choudl be determined by a single torunament?? Its a sad day for chess if he does.

Topalov was not quite as impressive as fischer when he was in the preliminaries for a title but still very impressive. Fischer also had the highest rating in the world before he played a match with Spassky. Yet everyone knew he had to beat Spassky if he wanted to be considered the WC. Winning a torunament is nice but its no world championship.

Murali,

Kramnik did deserve to play Kasparov in 2000 - that can clearly be deduced from the fact that he beat KAsparov in 2000.

Leko did deserve to play Kramnik, as he won the candidates tournament.

I believe Topalov deserves to play Kramnik now; my point was that since Kramnik is the [real] world champion, there is no question that he deserves to be in the title match as well.

As for "keeping the title relevant" - Kramnik defended it just a year ago against the strongest challenger. His title cannot fade into irrelevancy if he keeps playing worthy challngers every 3-4 years.

As for FIDE maintaining a credible cycle - they first need to establish the credible cycle. KO tournaments that they called "world championships" were ridiculous and produced very random winners. San Luis is just a supertournament and can hardly qualify as a cycle. FIDE is not credible is not not likely to be credible in the forseeable future.

Kramnik is the World Champion. Topalov has now earned the right to challenge him. If he does not we will continue with the present schism which is just bad for chess. Petrosian wouldn't have been number one on the rating list either, but he was still clearly world champion.

Kramnalov and Topalnik can just change their names and claim to be unified that way - what ya gonna do about it?

Kramnalov and Topalnik can just change their names and claim to be unified that way - what ya gonna do about it?

Russianbear: if Kramnik can pull up sponsorship to establish a credible cycle and defend his title every 3-4 years, then his title will remain relevant. The problem is, I don't see how he will be able to do so, especially since FIDE forces its top players to sign contracts in which they agree not to play in any alternative WC system. Those who play in Kramnik's cycle must defect FIDE and forsake from playing in the FIDE cycle.

How can Kramnik convince top players to choose his cycle over FIDE's? By throwing lots of money on the table; if the FIDE cycle offers 300K and Kramnik's cycle offers 1 million, Kramnik is in business. Now, remember that Kasparov himself, with a dominating tournament record, worldwide fame, and experience dealing with big people, could not pull it off. Do you think Kramnik will be able to? I don't think so.

Result: Kramnik will be reduced to "defending" his title every few years against a handpicked challenger who agrees to forsake the FIDE cycle. I bet none of the top players will be willing to take this risk.

My prediction for the future of the chess world: Kamsky deflects FIDE and is selected to play a match against Kramnik in 2007. The match is drawn. A small number of people will maintain that Kramnik is the only *real* world chess champion as he successfully defended his title twice. No one else cares.

Kramnik supporters can talk as much as they want, but Kramnik's title will only be worth something in his neighborhood, where he can promote it. Topalov has now proven that mens chess is much better than womens. So, Kramnik can play Judit or Manakova for the sex unification match is he wants.

Kramnik supporters can talk as much as they want, but Kramnik's title will only be worth something in his neighborhood, where he can promote it. Topalov has now proven that mens chess is much better than womens. So, Kramnik can play Judit or Manakova for the sex unification match if he wants. This is a much better kind of unification.

Am I missing something? Does Kramnik want to play a WC match with Topalov?

It seems most are prepared to recognize Topalov as the world champion now, but I see no reason why the same people refuse to accept Anand as a one time world champion too..Anand too like Topalov won the FIDE title in a tournament which did not have Kramnik or Kasparov...(and unlike Khalifmann or Pono he was in the top 3 and has won several Oscars and ...)
For a game that is believed to provide an escape from the irrationality of the real world...this is being very unfair to a player as great as Anand

It seems most are prepared to recognize Topalov as the world champion now, but I see no reason why the same people refuse to accept Anand as a one time world champion too..Anand too like Topalov won the FIDE title in a tournament which did not have Kramnik or Kasparov...(and unlike Khalifmann or Pono he was in the top 3 and has won several Oscars and ...)
For a game that is believed to provide an escape from the irrationality of the real world...this is being very unfair to a player as great as Anand

Ok, so he unlike Topalov, Kramnik and Kasparov has not managed so far to break the 2800 barrier...but he did reach 2796/2797 more than 5 years back...So is that what takes to be accepted as the WCC today...ELO > 2800 ?

i find Kasparov's comments stunning, but will wait for his column before jumping to conclusions. At the moment i can only imagine he's basing it on Kramnik's bad results after becoming WC and ducking a match, but i find it strange that Kasparov would think this is a big enough reason to have WC to be decided on a single tournament.
But also, Kasparov surely has much more understanding and insight on this subject than me so in this case i'm ready to admit that my differing opinions are somewhat irrelevant.

As for Topalov, as happily as i was surprised by his manager's comments, it's time to get back to earth now and recognise that Topalov is not all that wonderful and after all is taking his title very seriously.

As for FIDE, if WC is going to be continuously decided in tournaments instead of a cycle and candidate matches, then WC title is not going to mean anything at all anymore. While Kramnik was the last official WC, Kasparov was the last worthy WC. i despise FIDE for cheapening chess and its most predigious title like this.

I must agree with those who claim that Kramnik lost his title by refusing to play San Luis, similar to Fischer losing the title by refusing to play Karpov on his conditions.

I've seen this coming for a long time. Sorry Kramnik. Hail Topalov!

everything is history if Kramnik-Topalov match happends.

if not, continue the flames.......

Wijk tournament is coming soon and both Topalov and Kramnik will play there. So, we will see who's better.
My prediction: Kramnik again finishes at least one full point behind Topalov and that's the end of his pretetions. So, it is up to Kramnik. If he continues to finish behind Topalov in all tournaments where both participate, who cares about his "title".
P.S. And contraty to Kramnik, Topalov is ready to put his title in RR tournament, rejecting all champion's privileges. So, he is not affraid to defend his title on equal basis with the challangers, which Kramnik wants to avoid. So, Topalov says: "You want my title. Play for it with the other guys and if you are better - take it. But I'll not give you a privelege over the other players for a shot at my title, cause you dont deserve it."

If Svidler would have won Topalov at round 5 Peter might be the champion now!

But I'm happy that Topalov won, because he was the only player who was able to score against almost every player at least once OTB (except Anand). There was four players that Svidler didn't score against. Topalov was simply the best.

So, Veselin has arrived. Let's hope he can take pressure better than Kramnik.

It seems to me that Kramnik´s title is bio-degradable and will expire as soon as Topalov is widely recognized not only as FIDE WChampion but also as the strongest active chess player. That sounds legitimate enough to me.

In every sports there are rules and these rules can be changed. But there is a time to do it. You can't do it during a game, a tournement, a match. Personally I don't know when FIDE made the decision of accepting the San Luis(or it could be any other place)tournament winner as wc. If it decided it, say, 2 months after the Kramnik-Leko match, Kramnik must stop whining and accept the new rule even if it has never been applied in chess history before. But if the decision has been made , say, 2 months before the tournament, it would not be fair to ask Kramnik to participate to this one. The ideal policy would be to warn everybody that the actual rule would be applied for the last time (wc defending his title against a challenger) but the next time the new rules would be applied. But I agree that in the practice this is very difficult.

In every sports there are rules and these rules can be changed. But there is a time to do it. You can't do it during a game, a tournement, a match. Personally I don't know when FIDE made the decision of accepting the San Luis(or it could be any other place)tournament winner as wc. If it decided it, say, 2 months after the Kramnik-Leko match, Kramnik must stop whining and accept the new rule even if it has never been applied in chess history before. But if the decision has been made , say, 2 months before the tournament, it would not be fair to ask Kramnik to participate to this one. The ideal policy would be to warn everybody that the actual rule would be applied for the last time (wc defending his title against a challenger) but the next time the new rules would be applied. But I agree that in the practice this is very difficult.

Hmm, Mig, it is strange how my nickname is associated with some website I have nothing in common. It's some bug, I suppose :).

Hey mig the double postings are due to a bug in your system. Don't blame us.

i don't think WC title and its legitimacy are dependent only on arbitrary rules issued by FIDE...just because someone decides to change the rules, doesn't mean that the title changes, it's just a "whole different ball game" then.
And everyone can decide for themselves whether or not the historical classic WCC title is worth preserving or not. FIDE obviously doesn't think so.
All the minor grievances with FIDE aside, like being incompetent and treating everyone badly, this WC tournament thing (and indeed, Libya knock out) is far worse and Kirsan and his co-conspirators should soon be ejected from FIDE, or then maybe turn eyes towards alternatives.
If classical chess is not FIDE's primary agenda then FIDE becomes irrelevant for friends and players or classical chess.

Those who speak about Fischer simply refusing to play Karpov should maybe read more chess history...especially the book Russians vs. Fischer might be helpful in seeing the bigger picture.
It was in the interest of the russians not to have a match with Fischer, imo.

The double postings come from clicking the button multiple times when it takes awhile. I know it's slow right now, still database issues probably.

No, they came from getting an error message and then trying again.

We need unification. The amount of posts and interest in this subject illustrate that Topalov and Kramnik both have certain credibility as champions. The next months and years will be a contestm for public opinion if there is no re-match. Topalov risks and gains a lot by putting the title on the line so does Kramnik. It would be great for chess if they played. Otherwise we will have an ongoing battle for public opinion. Supposing KRamnik regains top form and wins all events boycotting future San Luis - this would damage Topalov (and his successors titles). So the two of them can play a match (winner takes all) or they can battle for the support of the spectators/fans from tournament to tournament. What a match it would be...........

We need unification. The amount of posts and interest in this subject illustrate that Topalov and Kramnik both have certain credibility as champions. The next months and years will be a contestm for public opinion if there is no re-match. Topalov risks and gains a lot by putting the title on the line so does Kramnik. It would be great for chess if they played. Otherwise we will have an ongoing battle for public opinion. Supposing KRamnik regains top form and wins all events boycotting future San Luis - this would damage Topalov (and his successors titles). So the two of them can play a match (winner takes all) or they can battle for the support of the spectators/fans from tournament to tournament. What a match it would be...........

I agree with much of the preceding post by Gallagher, and with others who say that the credibility of a world champion depends on much more than a line of succession or a simple set of rules. I would love to see a unification match between Kramnik and Topalov and a return to a regular cycle, but it is far from necessary. There are numerous examples of sports and games with more than one "world champion". Even chess recognizes correspondence, rapid, and blitz world champions without any problems. Nobody should suggest that the correspondence champion's title is tarnished by not winning (or even competing in) super tournaments. The problem is with the credibility of the FIDE and classical championships as they now exist. Until there is an open, honest, and consistent cycle to determine a challenger for the classical championship, it will lack credibility. Similarly, until FIDE consistently produces an event among the top players (who actually accept their invitations) and at reasonable length and time controls, its title will not be widely accepted. San Luis was an excellent start, but does not solve the credibility issue without proper followup.

Chess isn't a 21st century game. It's rules are much older than any other sport have. It has a WC since the 19th century, and the world championship rules are clear for much more then a century. Topa is a great player, and FIDE WC, but Kram is the Classical WC. Period. You can't change rules in the middle of the game.

If Topa don't accept to play Kramnik, Kram will be able to find creditable challenger. Kram still has a title, and if he can find some money, FIDE won't be able to stop him playing a match against anybody in top10. E.g. there is Ivanchuk. He has been put to the margin by FIDE. Or Bacrot. Or Aronian. They won't say NO. And Anand is still one of the best without a tile ever (that FIDE WC was a joke). And also a Leko rematch is possible.

isnt this a debate that has no end. kramnik fans will side with him, and anti-kramnik against will side with anyone but kramnik.

what happens if fide just ignores kramnik and his title and holds these cycles and/or qualifying matches to find a challenger for a match with topalov? what if the competitors sign clauses to not play for any other title (ie kramniks title)? all the top players will play these fide tournaments and matches. what will kramnik do? enter supertournaments but no real championship match against a super GM. set up matches with willing GMs but not the elite (ie joel benjamin). it seems like all the super GMs are siding with fide and would be willing to play in fides tourneys.

kramnik will then be the last in that traditional line of champs, but what will that matter if the current situation will be that all super GMs play for fides title.

will kramnik then just stick to his title without any real challengers forever eventhough slowly but surely everyone else just cares about the fide title?

Both Kramnik and Topalov have credibility problems, for different reasons. But between the two of them, Kramnik has more problems to solve, and those problems will only become more daunting as time goes by.

You may not like FIDE's latest method for crowning a champion, but they pulled it off. Tarnished as FIDE is, any champion they endorse, by whatever method he or she is selected, has instant credibility. Most of the top active players accepted the San Luis tournament as legitimate, and all of those players signed agreements that they will not participate in any non-FIDE WC event. The prize fund was, by modern FIDE standards, substantial.

Kramnik defended his title a year ago, and it might seem like there's no immediate need for him to defend it again. But given the long lead time for identifying a challenger and scheduling a match, it won't be long before Kramnik needs to get serious, or his title will die of old age. And unlike Topalov, Kramnik has no organization standing behind him.

Kramnik's only options are a reunification match with Topalov or a parallel cycle of his own. I suspect that, for the right amount of money, Topalov and FIDE might agree to such a match. But at the moment they're holding all the cards. They have no reason to jump into a deal with Kramnik. I agree that some of the latest comments are just posturing.

Any such match would require sponsorship. Kramnik was lucky to persuade Dannemann to sponsor the Brissago match with Leko, but Kramnik had a much stronger rating back then. As he continues to fade, interest will wane. If Kramnik wants to be taken seriously, he will need to start playing like a world-beater again. Even after Kasparov lost his title, his dominance on the tournament cycle ensured his continued relevance. Kramnik hasn't been able to pull that off.

Yes, Kramnik is the last of the line that goes back to Steinitz, but that'll get him only so far. At this point, he needs to start dominating again. His +2 against Kasparov in 2000 was an impressive achievement, but that was 5 years ago, and his drawn match against Leko didn't impress anybody. At some point, being able to say "I beat Kasparov in 2000" won't be enough. We might not yet be at the point that his "championship" no longer matters. But we're getting close.

By the way, is Oscar given for the most number of super-GM wins in an year OR most number of 'beautiful games' in an year by a player ?

the schism is over? what an irony. this is coming from the father of chess schism himself. Kasparov is really speaking like a politician now. He is denying all the chess tradition all of a sudden? I am not surprised when the man has doubts about the history itself. In just a week's time, we already have got two conflicting statements from Topalov and his manager. This highlights more than ever, the hopeless situation of the chess world.

Ryan, none of this would have happened had Kramnik given Kasparov a rematch. What's done is done, and now Kramnik will die a slow agonizing death as his credibility goes down the drain everyday. His first defense came 4 years after he won the title, against the winner of Dortmund 2002, and incidently some of the players from that candidates tournament never got paid, which resulted in the NAO Chess Club pulling their partnership from the Einstein Group, which led EGs bankruptcy. Kramnik and Leko were originally promised 2 million for their match, but had to settle for a cigar company's $750,000 prize fund after the downfall of Einstein Group.

Kramnik has a tough task now. He must quickly create a new cycle and find the funds for it. With his rating continuously dropping, will he be able to find someone to sponsor him? Only time will tell.

It's official: Kramnik is irrelevant. It's a good thing for chess too because he hasn't done a thing for the game.
Long live World Champion Topalov!

What makes you think Kramnik owed Kasparov a rematch? That is silly. If Kasparov had won would he have owed Kramnik a rematch? No way. You can't just treat some people who win the world championship differently from others. You are acting like Kasparov was the real champion and Kramnik was just a pretender. Kramnik BEAT Kasparov. He owed Kasparov no rematch.

WILL SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT HAS TOPALOV DONE NOW WHICH ANAND HAS NOT ALREADY...ANAND TOO BECAME THE FIDE WCC IN A TOURNY WITHOUT KASPAROV OR KRAMNIK...

OFFCOURSE PEOPLE LIKE PONOMARIOV, KHALIFMANN AND KASIMJONOV HAVE NO CREDIBILITY SINCE THEY ARE NOT EVEN 2700+ PLAYERS...

SO IF YOU ACCEPT TOPALOV YOU MUST ALSO ADD ANAND TO YOUR LIST OF WORLD CHAMPIONS.

Despite not being able to figure out his caps lock key, string makes an interesting point. The obvious distinction is that of format, KO lottery vs double round robin. This isn't a very strong argument, really. Topalov's crushing score made things different, but if there had been a winner on +2 or +3, perhaps with a tiebreak, nobody would be saying this format produced a more convincing winner than the KO's that produced Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariov, and Kasimdzhanov.

The less obvious issue is simple credibility. With Kasparov out of the picture and the classical champion ailing on the lists, it clears up a bit compared to 2000. Back then Kasparov had a huge rating and was crushing everyone, so his 'de facto title' credibility was strong. And there was no denying he was part of a long and healthy lineage. Then Kramnik beat him convincingly, giving Kramnik a big boost, one that has faded. Perception is what this argument is about.

THIRD TIME LUCKY!
Ok, no need for CAPS LOCK on now
Mig, it was just to attract your attention to my post...and it did work :)

You make a good point about perception playing a big role in this...damn..perception management seems to be even more important outside my workplace.

Fourth time. Please don't spam the comments! I never have time to read them all; it's just a matter of when I happen to be around.

Having a system and all the players agreeing in advance to follow that system is the only thing that will really solve this. If not it's all self-interest and decisions of convenience. Rule of man not law, etc.

Stringtheory, maybe this link will make you happier: http://www.greekchess.com/wcc2005 It sites Anand as world champion 2000-2002

First idea about Topalov : he says that his rating is 60 points above Kramnik's rating, that 60 points is a whole universe, and that hence he's much stronger than Kramnik.

Oh yeah, the bulgarian guy is totally right : with white pieces, his score against Kramnik is even, and with black pieces Kramnik leads by +9. And last time they did play together, it was not so long ago ... just two months : Topalov managed to loose to Kramnik, who was then displaying his worst chess for the last 3 years...

So how is it possible for him to accept to play for money, but not for a reunification title? If he's SOOOOOO stronger than Kramnik, why should he care about puting his fide title at a (he said equal to zero) risk?

Let's look at a possible turn of events : kramnik and topalov do play a match together, just for money and with no title. If Kramnik looses, it will be clear, there will be a de facto reunification. But in the (very likely) case that Kramnik wins ? That would be just funny. Topalov would go back home with his worthless fide title, with everybody laughing at him (because now that he has clearly stated to the whole world that Kramnik is a patzer, it would be quite hard to loose against such a patzer ...)

Conclusion : Topalov will not play, even for money, because he knows he'd loose. Other conclusion, I am almost certain that Topalov will avoid any tournament where Kramnik will be playing ... exactly like Kramnik did with Kasparov between 2000 and 2004.

Kramnik, yet alone, is clearly the strongest match player on this planet.... and for me, there is a long tradition of world championships based on such long matches. So, some conclusions :

First point, I don't give to Topalov the right to decide if this world championship tradition should end or go on.

Second point, I don't give to Mr Illumjinov's FIDE the power to decide anything about chess. ALL their world champions, since Kasparov schism, are non-existent, meaningless, and basically suck. Blitz is not for me a criteria to pick-up the world champion. And ... just read the texts, in San-Luis, in case of equality, it would have been decided in blitz. As usual.

Third point : Kasparov is DIRECTLY responsible for the mess in the fide world championship cycle(which had been working quite well during the last 30 years) for the last 12 years. So why would we, chess players, give him any credit? He has left? Ok, so please, at least, Mr Kasparov, shut up, stop speaking about politics in chess, focus on your new life and leave the chess world alone. We don't need you any more. As a chess player we had huge respect for you, but as a man you're worth zero, you're a childish schizophrenic paranoid. We don't need the BS you're monthly displaying in NIC columns as well.

Finally ... it's a shame Topalov did not hear Danaïlov. Danaïlov was speaking wisely, and Topalov did just step off his responsibilities. Becoming Kirstan's friend, he is - to my eyes - directly transfered from the "good guy" category to the **** one.

And the most important point : in 2002, Dortmund tournament was the official qualifier (prague agreements) to play against Kramnik for WC title. Topalov did play in Dortmund, therefore recognizing Kramnik's title... and finished second. How is it possible to deny today this title?

I don't intend to say that Topalov's title is meaningless. He won a strong round robin tournament, and has been very convincing in 2005. But what I basicaly say is that ... denying Kramnik's title from 2000 to 2005 is exactly like denying Kasparov's title from 1993 to 2000. And that Topalov's title isn't worth a lot more than Kasimjanov, Khalifman, Ponomariov or Anand ones.

For me, Kramnik remains world champion. Fischer did lose his title in 75 to Karpov because he didn't came to play. But ... from what I can remember, Kramnik NEVER refused to play any official candidate sent by fide. From what I can remember, he won the title in 2002, then signed in early 2002 the prague agreement. Prague agreement meant that, would FIDE had done their job correctly, Kramnik was ok to play two matches in a row. In 2004 he fullfilled his part of the agreement, and FIDE did not fullfilled his part. I don't talk here about what he said, or what Illumjinov said, or what Kasparov said, I'm just talking about facts.

The fact is that the so-called chicken Kramnik, after winning his title in 2000, was ready to play in 2002, 2003, 2004, has played in 2004, and is ready to play now, anywhere, at any time. The fact is that Kramnik has not planned to "retire from chess and write a book". He's just waiting to play ... as usual.

The fact is that Kramnik is not the one who did bad things. Please, first let's get rid of Illumjinov team (Illumjinov is the reigning tyrant of kalmukya, where he assassinated the journalist Larisa Yudina in 1998, but many other interesting things can be found on wikipedia when typing Illumjinov's name...).

Let's get rid of this bandit. Let's vote for Lautier or Karpov as new fide presidents. Let's move on.

In every sports there are rules and these rules can be changed. But there is a time to do it. You can't do it during a game, a tournament, a match. Personally I don't know when FIDE made the decision of accepting the San Luis(or it could be any other place)tournament winner as wc. If it decided it, say, 2 months after the Kramnik-Leko match, Kramnik must stop whining and accept the new rule even if it has never been applied in chess history before. But if the decision has been made , say, 2 months before the tournament, it would not be fair to ask Kramnik to participate to this one.
For this very same reason I don’t agree with Topalov on the rating issue. Chess is not tennis where there is no wc but a wn1 instead. If one day FIDE changes the rules and decides to have the best rated player as wn1 instead of having a wc he can make his claim again.
BASICALLY: We all like having rules according our will but SOMEONE MUST MAKE THE RULES and for the moment this “someone” is FIDE.

Yes Ruslan. Let's vote for Karpov. A Karpov who has been publicly describing other Grandmasters as idiots, whose bank in Moscow has been involved in a money-laundering scheme and a Karpov who is a supporter of Touze, the scandalous organizer of this year's World Youth Champs. Mercy please...

I agree that Ilyumzhinov is a tyrant and I believe the chess world would be much better off getting rid of him, not least in being able to attract good sponsors. I agree that Lautier would make a great head of FIDE. Please stop slumming with Ilyumzhinov, a dictator who is the friend of dictators. I believe Ilyumzhinov has hurt the chess world much more than Ilyumzhinov has helped it during his term as FIDE president.

Giannis (Makropulos?), Mr Karpov hasn't been directly involved in a few murders. So it can't be worse that today's fide team with Illumjinov, Azmaiparashvili, Makropoulos.

Furthermore, Karpov's image, as an ex world champion, would certainly bring more to the game than the one of an officially recognized tyrant.

Last but not least, Karpov is a very kind person and loves chess a lot. I trust him for that. Karpov is still able to blitz for pleasure with children, and not necessarily in front of cameras.

A last little point, I'm fed up to see Kirsan's face each time I come on fide.com. I expect more from an international federation than a tool used to promote his own person. And I'm fed up to pay my fide tax yearly, and to see that fide tax mixed with some other money coming from weapon and narco trafics, and so on.

So yes, Karpov is probably not the best choice, I'd much rather Lautier, but even Karpov is thousands of miles above Illumjinov.

... and Giannis, about Karpov's bank being involved in money-laundering schemes, it's just ridiculous. You certainly must be Mr Makropulos to put in such idiot things.

Let's go back to reality : 11/09 events have been linked with a lot of strange financial events and people, all of them having links and accounts at the Deutsche Bank. Half of german citizen have an account at the DB. Does it means that half of germany can be directly considered as responsible for the attacks in New-York?

Let's not dip into the totally absurd if you can't make your point by conventional means. Karpov's name was mentioned in the banking scandal reports, which is not insignificant even if, as is most likely, he is never accused of any wrongdoing. Image is important in these positions, at least according to your statements about Ilyumzhinov.

As for statements like "Karpov is a very kind person" I don't think we need to leave reality entirely. Unless the job of FIDE president is to center on playing blitz with children I'd prefer someone honest, devoted to promoting the game not himself, and morally consistent. None of these things describe Karpov in any way.

I'm certainly no fan of what Ilyumzhinov has done to the chess world, especially considering how much he could have achieved with his resources. It's also tricky with GMs since there is a tendency for them to be short-sighted and miss the forest for the trees when it comes to politics that involve their friends and associates. Tough decisions and business decisions need to be made too. What's good for the wider body of chessplayers in ten years can be more important than what sounds good to the top hundred players now.

This is why a players union is critical to counter-balance a political and business organization, but shouldn't replace it. Player's unions are frequently at odds with governing bodies in other sports. The ACP is attempting to fill that void, but since Ilyumzhinov has such a complete lock on power in FIDE the ACP's role is quite limited. They haven't shown the capability to brandish carrot nor stick.

Ruslan, just to answer your question, I'm Greek but my surname is not Makropoulos. And I don't have to be Makropoulos to see what's written across the internet about Arbat Bank, the bank in which Karpov is chairman and which has been shut down by the Russian auhorities.

So don't get very excited and mind your language, it's really disturbing... Mig, how can you allow expressions such as "assh..." published?

I recently upgraded the system and all the filters and such were lost. Usually I rely on people to not talk like silly children...

Sorry Mig and Giannis, about the vocabulary. Although first I've quoted that word, and second it really express how I feel about fide's director and close friends. Because I love this game and because I think it deserves something better than what we have now.

Sorry about my words. First point, I used "". Second, it really express the way I feel for FIDE bureau, president, and close friends. Transforming this nice game into a mafia is not up to me. I feel sad about what I see, and I think that our chess players community deserves something better. But sorry again about my words.

Since you're accusing Ilyumzhinov of having murdered Yudina, I assume you have proof, it's an enormously serious accusation and it's nothing to take light-heartedly.

"In every sports there are rules and these rules can be changed. But there is a time to do it. You can't do it during a game, a tournament, a match. Personally I don't know when FIDE made the decision of accepting the San Luis.... If it decided it, say, 2 months after the Kramnik-Leko match, Kramnik must stop whining and accept the new rule even if it has never been applied in chess history before. But if the decision has been made, say, 2 months before the tournament, it would not be fair to ask Kramnik to participate to this one."

It's somewhere in between. All sides were in agreement that the Prague Agreement was dead. A new system was clearly needed, and this was what FIDE came up with. It was announced as a World Championship Tournament from the beginning, and not merely 2 months in advance. Kramnik was invited, and declined to participate.

Kramnik's problem is that if he's not going to participate in THIS tournament, then he needs to come up with a system of his own. I don't see any indication he has the resources to do that, or indeed, that he is even thinking about it.

I agree with whoever said that if Topalov and Kramnik play a match, even if not billed as the W.C., it will be a de-facto unification. If Kramnik loses, no one would take serious his claims of being the Classical Champion. If Topalov loses, no one would take serious his claims of being the FIDE Champion.

The way Kramnik has played the last several years, I think Topalov would be favored. The Kramnik that beat Kasparov in 2000 is a distant memory. The only reason there were so many draws in Brissago is that both Leko and Kramnik are very draw-happy players. Leko played to avoid losing, instead of playing to win. We have seen in San Luis that Topalov doesn't play that way.

I think this is an important discussion for the chess community to be having, as fatigued as we all may be with the lack of resolution to this dispute, that doesn't change the fact that it unresolved. We can't just make it go away because we don't want to think about it any more.

No, but realize that it's angels on the head of a pin unless some original thought or information is going into it. If it's just partisan generalizations that have been made a million times since 1993 with few modifications, it's not really a discussion, it's dueling monologues.

But it never ceases to surprise me that many of the principals actually pay attention to public opinion. It's a small enough universe and a delicate enough balance that these even circular debates can be relevant if they produce valid arguments.

That it's unresolved to some doesn't mean it's not perfectly clear to many others. Kramnik and Topalov might acknowledge the existence of the other title, but that doesn't mean they consider it relevant beyond the possibility of a paycheck. Fans take this stuff much more seriously than the players. This has gone on for a dozen years now. If they really thought the so-called schism was a problem it would have been resolved long ago. They just don't care very much. Players outside of that elite circle care a little more, but as long as they have occasional events like the world cup and Libya, it's not as if they have great expectations from FIDE.

Trying to tell pros that a unified title will lead to better sponsorship possibilities down the line that will benefit everyone is painting pretty pictures in the clouds to pragmatic people who need to make a living now. It's just not a serious issue to most.

Regarding possible candidacies:
Ilumzinov. No comments needed.

Loutier. Good GM. Kind and respected. What else? Has he shown management abilities with ACP? No. Is he familiar with finances? Does not look so. Is he familiar with non-professional chess problems? I doubt so. Can he bring money? Does not look so.

Karpov. World Champion. Somewhat controversial in public opinion. His past behavior was not as crystal clear as of Euwe, but if we compare him to Kasparov, Ilumzinov, or Campo, he is just white and puffy, IMHO ;-) He definitely knows how business behaves, he is successful businessman himself, he has connections all over the world.
He has experience with both top level chess, and with amateur world as he pays attention to his network of chess schools for kids which definitely deserves our respect.
The only question for me is not about his credibility, but in his current business responsibilities. Will he have anough time and will to spend on everyday chess world problems? And, even more important, can he get backing from Russian authorities? No Russian businessman in good will would publically oppose to political decisions (Kirsan for FIDE) made by Putin administration because the only consequence of such behavior is total extermination of their private business! Examples are well known.

I didn't read all the 109 (yikes!) preceding comments, but did a text search for "negoti" and saw that whiskeyrebel made most of the point I was about to make. It's a negotiating tactic. If Topalov appears too eager for the match, Kramnik will want things like "champion retains the title in the event of a drawn match". Topalov sees that it's time, once and for all, to get rid of such odious clauses. Also that, until the match is played, Topalov is as much the world champion as Kramnik is. At least, I *hope* it is a negotiating tactic. We've been buffeted for about 20 years in the dreamworlds of Karpov, Kasparov and Kirsan; how much more strangeness must we experience?

I do not think there is divergences between what expressed Danailov et what Topalov is saying now.
As far as I can understand Danailov said he was ready to give up world champion privileges for a the NEXT FIDE World Championship and nothing else. And ,as he said, the interest of a Topalov-Kramnik match is DIFFERENT i.e ( in my opinion) not for title.
I can't believe in serious divergences between Danailov and Topalov. and if so, it would be bad news for our new hero...

rgds

Interesting, although my evaluation of Karpov's behavior and business knowledge is far lower than yours, Vlad. Lending his name isn't the same as being in a position to make crucial decisions about sponsorship and investment. Wouldn't Zhukov be almost forced to back Karpov if he makes a big run? If he does, it's a real candidacy against Ilyumzhinov.

I would love to see someone like Bessel Kok head a ticket with a GM on board. Someone with a real business background who doesn't have a dozen axes to grind and a hundred favors owed in the chess world.

topa is an idiot if he thinks he is a better player then kramnik and he shouldnt play him becuse he has the better rating if so why did he play dourtmund 2002 in order to play a match with kramnik when he had the lower rating

"Topa is an idiot if he thinks he is a better player then kramnik and he shouldn't play him becuse he has the better rating if so why did he play dourtmund 2002 in order to play a match with kramnik when he had the lower rating"

Topalov has leverage now that he didn't have in 2002. Like any intelligent guy, he's using it. To do otherwise *would* be idiotic.

About Anand, he was World Chess Champion, so what? Who says otherwise?

About Kramnik's result against Topalov, so what? Everybody has somebody who beats him badly, even if much worse a player, this is very common knowledge.

About FIDE, who has better ideas, why not candidate yourself for some position there?

About double posting, the system gave an error message to try again or something, I forgot.

About chess, it's the most cleanest sport compared to others, so why so much dirt?

Mr. Berry...I'm glad someone here picked up on my thoughts that public statements by the players and their representatives should be seen as negotiating tactics. Furthermore, this should be recognized as a way to build interest in the match by suggesting there's "heat" between the competitors. Wrestling promotions like WWE have been doing this for many, many years...and it works. Judging by how many people here take these words as being deadly serious, I'd say it's a smart move. A Kramnik vs. Topalov match will draw more money and generate more interest if their fans are at each others throats as opposed to some silly mutual admiration love-in.

In case Kramnik is already searching for an opponent to defend his title against around end of next year or so..can someone please inform him that I will be free during Christmas next year...like Leko I too have an ELO rating.
I will try to cross 2200 by then.

I am following chess for over a decade, I have some thoughts on the current situation in the world of chess.
First :
Kasparov broke the title in 1993, (May be mistake , as he admits himself, but he broke away with FIDE. time.)
after that incident,the chaos are not entirely created by Kasparov himself.
It is FIDE which created the chaos by applying k'out championships.
(Note:
But Garry delighted us with great chess, during that time, winning strong tournments at Linares, Wijk aan jee, Las palmas etc. (10 tournments winning sequence is splendid achievement for any champion.)
But in 2002 prague agreement was signed by the elite chess players.
What is the result?
GARRY KASAPAROV RETIRED FROM CHESS.
Every one used this chance for isolating Kasparov (Nobody couldn't isolate him in real chess) Just count the number of achievements at the time.(in 2002)
As a true World champion 15 years
Linares champion 8 times
World No.1 ranking for 17 years
Member of Chess Olympiad Gold medal winning team 8 times,
hat-trick individual top board gold medals in 1986,1988,1992
Chess Oscar award 11 times (then Anand 2 times Oscar winner, Kramnik Once Oscar winner at that time)
and so on.
what else to achieve for him then, Just to reclaim the reunified title in 2003.
If he was denied for this chance, he could not determined to do better himself. that's why his results are bad in 2003 and 2004, (I think).
Kramnik questioned the No.1 ranking and Garry's seedings to the Kasimdznov match.
But remember who should compensate for Garry for the cancelled matches.
Any way to end the chaos Garry retired. Excellent decision at that time, winning at his favourite ground Linares.

Now the situation is clear for reunification, just after this retirement.

Please wait a minute,
Now the San Luis world championship ended in great achievement for Topalov . If he had won that championship by narrow margin we can say to play him with Kramnik.
Now we have to remember the words he himself used against Kasparov last year.(with different names) "why should Topalov play a match with kramnik, who(Kramnik) have not won a single tournment (not even finished in the top half of the standings)"
Conclusion:
In my opinion Topalov definitely should not give reunification match to kramnik, give sometime to prove kramnik that he himself as a worthy world champion. Then only they should play reunification match.
while Other grand masters Anand, Leko, Svidler and all others fighting for the top place, why we should give a million dollar match to Kramnik without any good results (for Kramnik).Kramnik and others critisized karpov back in 1997, 1998 For his bad results as world champion.Now Kramnik himself should take responsibility for his bad results and prove as a true "world champion".
In any dictionary, WORLD CHAMPION REPRESENTS GLORIOUS CHARACTER TO HIS GAME. His predessors done well in this regard.
PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND US, DON'T DEVALUATE YOUR TITLE.
(Any comment from mig and others)

I am following chess for over a decade, I have some thoughts on the current situation in the world of chess.
First :
Kasparov broke the title in 1993, (May be mistake , as he admits himself, but he broke away with FIDE. time.)
after that incident,the chaos are not entirely created by Kasparov himself.
It is FIDE which created the chaos by applying k'out championships.
(Note:
But Garry delighted us with great chess, during that time, winning strong tournments at Linares, Wijk aan jee, Las palmas etc. (10 tournments winning sequence is splendid achievement for any champion.)
But in 2002 prague agreement was signed by the elite chess players.
What is the result?
GARRY KASAPAROV RETIRED FROM CHESS.
Every one used this chance for isolating Kasparov (Nobody couldn't isolate him in real chess) Just count the number of achievements at the time.(in 2002)
As a true World champion 15 years
Linares champion 8 times
World No.1 ranking for 17 years
Member of Chess Olympiad Gold medal winning team 8 times,
hat-trick individual top board gold medals in 1986,1988,1992
Chess Oscar award 11 times (then Anand 2 times Oscar winner, Kramnik Once Oscar winner at that time)
and so on.
what else to achieve for him then, Just to reclaim the reunified title in 2003.
If he was denied for this chance, he could not determined to do better himself. that's why his results are bad in 2003 and 2004, (I think).
Kramnik questioned the No.1 ranking and Garry's seedings to the Kasimdznov match.
But remember who should compensate for Garry for the cancelled matches.
Any way to end the chaos Garry retired. Excellent decision at that time, winning at his favourite ground Linares.

Now the situation is clear for reunification, just after this retirement.

Please wait a minute,
Now the San Luis world championship ended in great achievement for Topalov . If he had won that championship by narrow margin we can say to play him with Kramnik.
Now we have to remember the words he himself used against Kasparov last year.(with different names) "why should Topalov play a match with kramnik, who(Kramnik) have not won a single tournment (not even finished in the top half of the standings)"
Conclusion:
In my opinion Topalov definitely should not give reunification match to kramnik, give sometime to prove kramnik that he himself as a worthy world champion. Then only they should play reunification match.
while Other grand masters Anand, Leko, Svidler and all others fighting for the top place, why we should give a million dollar match to Kramnik without any good results (for Kramnik).Kramnik and others critisized karpov back in 1997, 1998 For his bad results as world champion.Now Kramnik himself should take responsibility for his bad results and prove as a true "world champion".
In any dictionary, WORLD CHAMPION REPRESENTS GLORIOUS CHARACTER TO HIS GAME. His predessors done well in this regard.
PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND US, DON'T DEVALUATE YOUR TITLE.
(Any comment from mig and others)

well said velusamy. i will just add to that the fact that Kramnik himself never qualified, when all these arguments he uses just fell by the wayside very conveniently. I think first Kramnik should play a match against Shirov, and win it before he can even talk about any "rightful" matches. And as for people who insist on continuity, well wake up, it never existed. What gave the title its strength was a rigorous qualifier, which is why the titles after Alekhine, Fischer etc was never questioned. Topalov doesnt have an iron clad claim, but he certainly has a stronger claim that Kramnik. Its about degrees and relative measures now, and we have to live with it.

The fact that Topalov played in Dortmund 2002 means that he recognized Kramnik's title in 2002. It doesn't mean he still has to bow to Kramnik in 2005.

Korchnoi participated in the 1974 candidate's matches, so does it mean he "recognized Fischer's title"? And, hypothetically, had Korchnoi defeated Karpov in 1978, would you expect him to go "uhm, actually I am not the world champion, Bobby is" ? Of course not.

I will reiterate my opinion: Kramnik was the rightful world champion in 2000, but he lost his legitimacy by:

a. Not giving a rematch to the previous champ, the last one to avoid a rematch was Alekhine in the 1920s.

b. Not defending his title against the strongest opposition (drawing a match against world's #6 is unconvincing at best)

c. Taking too long to defend his title for the first time. (Quiz: when was the last time a newly-crowned champ took OVER FOUR YEARS to put the title on the line for the first time? Answer: Capablanca took 6 years. All others, 3 or less)

d. Unconvincing tournament results (or, as Mig has eloquently put it, sucking).

With the rematch thing--- I am not sure you are being so accurate. Alot of those were Botvinnik's victim who were forced to do it. Then Fischer obviously didn't give a rematch but lost the title. Then we have K-K but again there was a cycle which lead to qualifications and so there wasn't much choice but to play whoever arose from that. The above points could be repeated in response to the three or less. The point is, Kramnik is a real victim of his times... and then he decided to start sucking also.

I forgot about Dr. Euwe, but so does everyone... look at what his generosity and fairness got him!

Well, regardless of whether the "Botvinnik-victims" were forced to do it or not, the rematch is a notable part of the tradition harrowing back to Steinitz-Lasker.

Only Capablanca and Alekhine dodged a rematch, while Spassky and Petrosian didn't play a rematch for the simple reason that the previous champion didn't ask for it. And there was of course Fischer, who stopped playing chess altogether, so there was no question of rematch. There was only one champion in the last 70 years who ACTIVELY AVOIDED a rematch, eventhough one was requested, and the opportunity existed: Kramnik.

Kramnik had a clear opportunity to give a rematch to Kasparov around 2001. With the sensational result of the 2000 match, a sponsor for a rematch could have been found easily. He chose to dodge Kasparov, took a year to put together Dortmund-2002, took another two years to play the Dortmund winner - all those are strikes against him. When it's all put together and combined with the sucking, AND refusing to play in San Luis, AND Topalov's convincing victory, I just don't see how Kramnik can have a valid claim to any title.

Dear Alex,

Alekhine did not give a re-match to Capablanca because of the only simple reason: Capablanca could not succeed in satisfying the London rules for the World Championship challenger created and strictly followed by himself when he was the Champion.

When Smyslov and Tal gave re-matches to Botwinnik they did this not because they were so wise, they did this because this was part or FIDE World Championship rulings!

Petrosian and Spassky did not give a re-match to Botwinnik and Petrosian correspondingly because of the only simple reason: FIDE World Championship rules did not include this provision anymore!

When Kasparov gave the re-match to Karpov, he did so only because there was a very controversial last minute ruling by FIDE, and because if he did not accept this rule, his match would be cancelled, and Karpov would save the title!

Kramnik did not give re-match to Kasparov because of 2 very simple reasons: 1) their contract did not include Kasparov's right for the re-match; and 2) Kasparov himself was strictly against giving a Champion this re-match right, and he was vocal about this issue for approx. 15 years, till his loss to Kramnik, after which he chanded his mind...

The golden rule for any honest person: honor signed rules, and never challenge other to break it!

Wow this was a long read.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned an important point.

very quickly in 24 months FIDE will have another WC Match being held. Now this is not so long a time. I am sure Kramnik will be invited to participate in the next cycle.

Topalov will be in the next cycle with no advantage as the Champion.

If Kramnik does not come up with the money for a quick match with Topalov then Kramnik will be hard pressed to explain why he does not participate in the next FIDE cycle.

By Kramnik participating in the next FIDE cycle he will have the opportunity to have his unification opportunity with Topalov. all the money will be raised and provided by FIDE.

It seems obviously to me that Kramnik must either come up with the money and have a match quickly or FIDE will be into the next cycle and Kramnik will be left in the dust.

Now if a champion wants time to prepare for a title defence. then the time to have that match is approximately mid way between now and the next FIDE cycle. or exactly one year from now.

So Danilov was correct. proposing a match in one year is just about the only time that the match can be played.

Therefore Kramnik is really under the gun. I think FIDE has chosen 2 years to put pressure on Kramnik. FIDE wants to discredit the title that Kasparov took with him and gave to Kramnik. they can discredit it by not allowing Kramnik to play a WC Match.

right now all Kirsan has to do is wait for Kramnik to waste time and it will become too late very quickly for Kramnik to arrange a match.

So everyone can argue about a match or who is champion. but I believe that if Kramnik does not defend his title and Topalov does defend his title then Kramnik's title is basically dead in the water.

So right now Kramnik has only a few choices.

1. Get the money together immediately and arrange a match with Topalov

2. Join in with FIDE in the next cycle.

3. go for the Fischer approach and sit there and do nothing claiming you are still Champion in the long line that includes Fischer.

the Fischer approach did not work for Bobby and it will NOT work for Kramnik.

Therefore Kramnik took his chances that the FIDE San Luis tournament would not produce a viable champion leaving him in a good spot. But the gamble did not work. FIDE pulled off a good tournament thanks to Topalov who dominated it. so now FIDE has finally lucked out and has a viable champion. Kramnik lost with his bet that San Luis would fail, and now he is between a rock and a hard place.

Here is my read on the issue. Kramnik could have played Kasparov for big money back after he won the title. say in 2001. Kramnik would have received a big pay day even if he lost. but his ego wanted to keep the title.

now his ego title is almost gone and he has not produced the big money tournament that he would have received playing Kasparov. and on top of that now he has to raise the money to play Topalov who is a World Chess Champion. Everything is slipping away from Kramnik. soon he will have nothing if he does not act fast.

and of course the first thing he must do is to put his ego aside and just do what has to be done to get a match. Kramnik really has to prove himself all over again.

For me I recognize Topalov as champion now, and do not recognize Kramnik as champion any longer.

Kasparov having been against it is not a reason, I wouldn't think. Nor is, "it's not in the contract." Those aren't reasons, they are deflections. Kramnik had to make a choice, play a rematch or not. He chose not to. In his comments Kramnik said it was because he wanted a real democratic cycle for everyone to participate in, although he occasionally used Vlad's deflections as well, the "because I don't have to" stuff, which answers a question that wasn't asked.

I don't think Kramnik was afraid of Kasparov. And I think Kramnik was originally sincere about his desire to help create a real democratic cycle again, despite later abandoning it in preference for Dortmund (the extra prize money could have gone towards a big qualifier, no?). Of course he was in no hurry to face his most dangerous possible opponent; he's not an idiot. This doesn't mean he's afraid; everyone exaggerates for effect. He just saw no good reason to do it. After two years of Kasparov's antagonism Kramnik would rather have given a match to Osama bin Laden.

Demanding that Kramnik gave Kasparov a rematch in 2001 is silly. Why would Kramnik have to do that - does he need to win two matches in order to keep a title? BS. Furthermore, Kasparov's tournament domination in 2001 was no different that his domination in 2000, and Kramnik beat a dominanant Kasparov in 2000. Kramnik, thus, had nothing to prove, and owed Kasparov no rematch in 2001.

If Kasparov was dominant in supertournaments in 2001, and used that as a claim to a rematch, he should have played Dortmund 2002, won it, and challenged Kramnik instead of Leko. I've always been bitter by Kasparov's refusal to do so.

Mig gave Kasparov partial justification by saying that the two mini-match system + blitz tiebreakers used in Dortmund introduced too much randomness in determining the challenger, but I don't think Kasparov would have played even the fairest qualifier - he thought he was entitled to a direct rematch, based solely on FIDE ranking and tournament domination. It was not fair to grant him that, at least until 2002.

In 2002, Prague occurred, and with FIDE and Kasparov siding against him, Kramnik was forced to accept unification. Too bad the match with Leko took 2 years to happen, giving Kramnik too much time to slip on the rating list.

Does Kramnik have a claim to the title? Yes. Does he have something to prove? Yes, since he's been sucking lately. Was he a victim? Yes, because the powerful organization, FIDE, will not side with him - if FIDE did not recognize Kasparov as champion in 1993, why will they recognize Kramnik as champion in 2000-2005? Top GMs will side with whoever gives them money: FIDE. Kramnik has to fight this battle alone. If only Kramnik's supporters could make a difference by posting on blogs...

Let's hope the ACP is succesful, and it will be able to represent players well, to prevent players like Kramnik from getting screwed by FIDE in the future. Also, ain't it funny how Shirov got screwed in 1998-2000, and now Kramnik got screwed in 2002-5? It seems like the Kasparov-1993-breakup succession lineage is cursed.

Explain again how Kramnik got screwed? He was handed a million-dollar match on a silver platter after losing a qualification match. He could hardly expect FIDE to embrace him after ignoring Kasparov for seven years. His status as classical champ allowed him to cash another big check for his feeble match against Leko last year. Doesn't sound too screwed to me. His only loss was skipping the knockouts, but he could have played had he wished.

I'm quite sure Garry wouldn't have played in any big qualifier to reach Kramnik, and have said so before, although that doesn't make Dortmund 2002 any better.

Kramnik restates his position in this post-San Luis article http://www.64.ru/?/ru/news/&item=149

He is still ready to play Topalov for reunification and hope everything will be clear within the next weeks. Makes the point against Topalov's "60 points" argument that Petrosian, Botvinnik, Spassky didn't win many tournaments but that everybody considers them legitimate champions. Also points out that FIDE recognized his title as well in Prague.

Thanks for the link acirce

Kramnik sounds very reasonable and calm. In contrast, in the interview with Sport Express which now has been translated on chessbase.com (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2693), one is hardly able to recognize the kind and diplomatic Topalov of so many other articles and interviews, including Chessbase coverage of San Luis. Compare for example the interview he gave to the Deccan Herald (http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct202005/sportscene16592620051019.asp).
It hardly seems to be the same person speaking.

So perhaps the Russian interview was the result of too much "rakiya" (or the San Luis equivalent of it...) or, as Kramnik put it, "only of emotion"...

Topalov can't be said to be the strongest player at the moment just because of his rating. His results in the tournament were lacking on the second half, thus denying him Fischer/Kasparov kind of tournament domination, again speaking on behalf of the lottery&luck nature of the tournament victory. It's not just one tournament he won, i know, but at the moment he is the proverbial first among equals rather than above the rest (that is, for some reason he is in better form than the others who are all playing below par, only Anand has consistently shown this bad results, but Leko certainly is much better than shown in recent tournaments, so is Polgar, Adams...). This is where i would disagree with Kasparov who thinks Topalov legitimate WC because he is the best active player atm.
Topalov's manner of playing on the 2nd half, while practical and understandable, was far from that of a 'chess playing God'. Those who are head and shoulders above competition don't need to 'make sure' they win the tournament by playing with less vigour. Compare with Fischer and Kasparov who played every single game as it mattered. But then, Topalov admitted he is not their equal...which again speaks volumes of what he thought at the time of his WC legitimacy really.

If he isn't, then who is?

Danailov once commented in an interview that "everyone knows" why Intel withdrew its sponsorship, because of the lack of a unified title.

That makes perfect sense considering that the title wasn't unified when they started their sponsorship.

Indeed Martin

What about a reunification match with Kramnik?

My manager and Kramnik's manager share a good rapport and if there is any interest and sponsor and if FIDE is all for it then I have no problems. For me, title is of course important but if you are not showing that you are the strongest, then it is not worth it. It is not a real title. A World champion should not escape from matches.

Do you think this championship may put some order?

Surely, Kramnik's title now is a little bit de-related because he is not showing good results. But in match he is a dangerous opponent.

-
Come on, Topalov should immediately clarify what the hell is going on with these discrepancies in his interviews and comments, one minute he's all humble and the next he's arrogant. Some strategy?

Indeed Martin.

What about a reunification match with Kramnik?

My manager and Kramnik's manager share a good rapport and if there is any interest and sponsor and if FIDE is all for it then I have no problems. For me, title is of course important but if you are not showing that you are the strongest, then it is not worth it. It is not a real title. A World champion should not escape from matches.

Do you think this championship may put some order?

Surely, Kramnik's title now is a little bit de-related because he is not showing good results. But in match he is a dangerous opponent.

-
Come on, Topalov should immediately clarify what the hell is going on with these discrepancies in his interviews and comments, one minute he's all humble and the next he's arrogant. Some strategy?

Indeed Martin, I had not seen this interview before but I noticed a very humble Topalov in the press during the tournament so it was very surprising to see him take this arrogant stance.

Reading this is just mind blowing:

What about a reunification match with Kramnik?

My manager and Kramnik's manager share a good rapport and if there is any interest and sponsor and if FIDE is all for it then I have no problems. For me, title is of course important but if you are not showing that you are the strongest, then it is not worth it. It is not a real title. A World champion should not escape from matches.

Do you think this championship may put some order?

Surely, Kramnik's title now is a little bit de-related because he is not showing good results. But in match he is a dangerous opponent.

-
Come on, Topalov should immediately clarify what the hell is going on with these discrepancies in his interviews and comments, one minute he's all humble and the next he's arrogant.

hmm, I assumed my comments didn't get posted because I always got "internal server error" so I kept trying, apparently they all came through. Please delete the first two..

bmajors, Kramnik's match record is as bad (or good) as his tournament record. Count 'em...

Hey, world champeen style arrogance attracts interest. If I were Topalov's manager I'd have him struttin' around in flashy clothes talkin' trash on Kramnik..perhaps with a couple lovely ladies on each arm. I mean no disrespect...the chess should of course still be taken seriously. Some theatre to attract sponsers is hardly out of line. Why was Bobby so popular?? Partly due to his skills..but remember, lots of his fans barely knew how to move the pieces. They were attracted by the fact that he was a cocky, arrogant jerk who slammed his enemies publicly. Boxers, poker players, etc. have all known this for years. The bigger the mouth, the bigger the gate. Again, they can drop the schtick when they reach the playing hall to maintain the integrity of the game.

Actually, though the tone and emphasis was different, wasn't Topalov being consistent in both interviews? Key passage from first interview follows: "For me, title is of course important but if you are not showing that you are the strongest... It is not a real title." Note last phrase.

Jeremy,
If Topalov would like to see who is the strongest, he could just look at his own recent results vs. Kramnik:
Since Dortmund 2002 they met 14 times, Kramnik is ahead +1 (+3 =2 -2) in classic chess, +2 in active chess (+2 =2 -0) and +2 (+2 =1 -0) in blindfold. Topalov could not win a single game in 2003 and 2004, and only in 2005 he won twice. And even in 2005, his best year ever he managed to get only an even score with Kramnik (+2 =2 -2)!
Topalov knows very well that beating Kramnik in a match will be _much_ harder than winning in Argentina. Making such statements he is just making bad air amd losing credibility, IMHO.

People keep commenting that Kramnik got to play Kasparov without first winning a cycle, but (and I don't say I like this) Kramnik has the weight of world title history behind him here. As long as there was no global federation, the world championsh picked their match opponents, often ignoring the strongest competitor, for instance when Lasker picked Marshall, who was much weaker than Chigorin, Rubenstein, or Tarasch at the time. Kasparov took the title outside of the global federation, so it is only logical that the titleholder chose his contender- just as has always been done in world chess history. Personally, I prefer to see candidate cycles, but people should stop harping on Kramnik over something that is historically correct.

Only thing i have against Kramnik on the basis of him having been handpicked that he used that argument against "handpicking" Kasparov for a match when Kasparov was the absolute best player around. But cycles et al are really secondary for me as long as the title of WC is in the hands of a formidable and dominating player, and that the previous WC has to have been beaten unless extraordinary circumstances prevail.

Kasparov isn't thinking ahead. Next time we get a FIDE champ like Khalifman, Ponomariov, or Kasimdzhanov, we'll know who to thank.

Yeah. Next FIDE WC might be won by someone ranked #7 or #8 while Kramnik by then has regained form and is, say, #3. That is easily conceivable. What about Kasparov's argument then? A bit short-sighted eh?

Ah, but then we'll be back in the argument you always make about Petrosian and Spassky: it doesn't matter about their rating or tournaments because they won under a system. If there is a rigorous and accepted system you have to shut up about the winner's credibility. Topalov's rating and his FIDE title give him the credibility now, at least enough to last until a real system is created, we hope. Then we can get back to deciding the world championship title over the board instead of on message boards.

And by having to shut up I meant everybody, not any you in particular! The winner wins, the winner is the champ, we can all sleep at night knowing there is only one world champion. Perchance to dream...

"If there is a rigorous and accepted system you have to shut up about the winner's credibility", this I agree with. I was never questioning any WC on the basis of their rating--Kasimdzhanov was World Champion exactly as much as Topalov would have been if he had won in Tripoli, and Kramnik is World Champion exactly as much as Kasparov was. That's why Kasparov's bringing in Topalov's status of best player is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to whom? You, okay. Quite relevant to many people. Kasimdzhanov got by many very strong players in Tripoli, including Topalov, but had almost no credibility because of the KO format and because of his rating. Topalov or Anand would have had much, MUCH more influence coming out of Libya with the FIDE title. This would have been relevant for unification sponsorship, the stuff that wasn't around for a Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match. Rating matters in a very real, very practical way as much as you might like to believe it doesn't and as much as it wouldn't in a perfect world. Topalov himself is using his rating as a stick against Kramnik now, unfortunately. It shouldn't matter, but it does, and it will as long as we have dueling champions who refuse to really duel.

Well, I don't mind having a champion that isn't perpetually #1 in the ratings. They can't all be like Kasparov, and we shouldn't expect them to be.

I'm concerned about Kasparov dumping his ideals just because FIDE produced a credible champion this time. And I believe in the romantic ideal of a match between two heroes: a champion and a challenger. I don't hear him or Topalov talking about that. I'm sad about it; he could have used his clout to argue for unification.

Dear David O.,
Please, don't make ELO ratings the chess fetish!
Rating is not an absolute truth. If you compare who is a stronger player, look at their scores! Let's take Topalov and Ivanchuk. How can we compare them by ELO if they 1) haven't played one another for a very long time; 2) haven't played vs. the same opponents for a long time. Topalov playes only vs. 'elite', and Ivanchuk plays almost only in opens. This is like comparing the USCF ELO and the British one. Only when they play together for, say, a year, we could really make a realistic comparizon.

Dear David O.,
I totally agree that we should not make ELO ratings the chess fetish!
Rating is not an absolute truth. If you compare who is a stronger player, look at their scores! Let's take Topalov and Ivanchuk. How can we compare them by ELO if they 1) haven't played one another for a very long time; 2) haven't played vs. the same opponents for a long time. Topalov playes only vs. 'elite', and Ivanchuk plays almost only in opens. This is like comparing the USCF ELO and the British one. Only when they play together for, say, a year, we could really make a realistic comparizon.

Who is this Kramnik!

He is not and never was world champion. He did not qualify to play Kasparov (Shirov beat him). The match with Kasparov was not a world championship, anyway. It was a private deal.

Kramnik is a fake WC. He has NO rights viz a viz Topalov.

There is no need for unification. There is only one WC - Topalov!

Peace...

Scep, you post silliness and disguise it as clear fact. What is the history of the World Championship if not a history of private deals in which the champ put the title on the line? FIDE did not control the title until the passing of Alekhine, so dismiss this claim that Kramnik did not legitimately win the title. Now, it is hypocritical for people who simultaneously did not acknowledge the reign of Khalifman during the era of Kasparov to now claim that Kramnik has no legitimacy because Topalov holds the FIDE title. Where were these cries when Kasimjanov held the FIDE title?

Hotep,

Maliq

Dear Scep,
Can you, please, describe when and where Topalov qualified to play in Argentina? According to you, FIDE Championship just couldn't provide a new Champion, because nobody there qualified in a competitive way. All of them were chosen and personally invited by FIDE like Kramnik was invited by Kasparov.

Vlad,

Topalov qualified according to FIDE rules. Kramnik was invited.

Maliq,

You are the purveyor of absolute silliness. FIDE has controlled the title since the pasing of Alekhine. Khalifman and Kasim were WC.

scep,
You are not correct as you will see in 50 years or so....world chess history will never consider Kasim, Khalifman, Pono, etc, to have been world champions. FIDE knockout champs were what they were.

"because nobody there qualified in a competitive way. All of them were chosen and personally invited by FIDE like Kramnik was invited by Kasparov."

Correct me if I'm wrong but 4 of the 8 participants got in through qualifiers. 3 got in based on their rating. Kasimdzhanov got in because he was the FIDE champion at the time. Kramnik was invited, but he declined.

Dionyseus: Four of the original eight San Luis invitees were invited for reasons other than rating. Kramnik declined, while Kasimdzhanov, Adams (runner-up in the FIDE cycle) and Leko (runner-up in the classical cycle) each accepted. Anand, Topalov, Morozevich, Svidler and Polgar all got in on rating.

Dear friends,
I belive the only legitimate qualifier is in winning face to face like in Dortmund, 2002. Everybody else "qualified" on base of Mr. Kirsan' personal will. For next event he'll esteblish another qualification rules. And you name this qualification??? For me, only Kasim had legitimately qualified to Argentina as current FIDE WC.
Regarding FIDE control over the title, FIDE tried to control the title before Alkhine died, it even had one match for the Champion title done. Does anybody remember participants? This match was never recognized as a true World Championship, and only after Alekhine passed away, FIDE got control over the title. Looks somwhat similar to the current situation, only Kasparov retired while Alekhine died, and Kramnik is willing to unite the title if FIDE is able to restore the credible cycle.

Vlad, Vlad, tell me, what did you think about Lutz getting into Dortmund 2002? Lutz was what, rated 40th in the world at that time? Vlad, what did you think of Anand not being included in Dortmund 2002, or how about other top players?

Dionyseus:

Anand, Kasparov and Ivanchuck all refused to play in Dortmund. It was obligations to FIDE that forced Anand and Ivanchuck to refuse. Dortmund was a poor candidates cycle but given the agreeemnt to have it before Kramnik won hsi title and the overall difficulty in gettign these things put together I think it was as good as we coudl hope for.

As far as Lutz playing you have a point. :) It was a tradition of the torunament to have a local player play. You have a point but not a big one.

And another thing I don't understand is this "private match" complaint. The Dortmund qualifier and the matches agaisnt kasparov and Leko were jsut as public as San Luis. FIDE is a private organization. Just becasue it is an organization doesn't mean its not private. So I jsut don't get it.

Dear friends,
In recent interview, posted on www.chesspro.ru,
http://www.chesspro.ru/inter/kasparov3.shtml
Kasparov makes controversial statements as usual:
1) Topalov is the only legitimate Champion, and Kramnik is nothing (even his legal Praga-based rights are very questionable), their match will only add chaos. Well, I don't get this: before his retirement Kasparov did not see any issues with legitimacy of Praga, and nothing changed since then except his retirement. Also, if Garry believes Topalov is so superior, he will easily win the match and close the issue. But IMO, Garry understands that Krakmik's chances even now are high, and if Topalov loses, and FIDE can't provide reasonable to Kramnik grounding for the next cycle, the 100% legitimate title again will not belong to them.
2) Regarding the classical Championship tradition: now Garry does not know how to qualify the branch line started in 1993! He mentions that there are very respected people who changed their minds: they did not consider him the WC, and now they consider Kramnik WC! Can we point to Garry that he is just opposite: before losing the hope to get the title back he considered this branch as the WC, and now he does not consider Kramnik the one? Kramnik, who defended the title a year ago, who won Linares a year and a half ago, and has a positive recent score vs. "unquestionable champion" Topalov?
3) Now Garry states that Praga was all about the title belonging to organization, not about unification! Unification was just "organizational measure to implement this", and does not make sence anymore.
4) Match Kramnik - Leko can't be counted because Leko have not won any qualifiers!!! Is Garry kidding? Dortmund and final match Leko-Topalov have never happen, and Garry can also name qualifiers won by Argentina participants to get there?

Kramnik holds the classical World Championship Title. His lineage as world champion is undeniable. Kramnik is the real world champion. Topalov has got no lineage to the REAL TITLE. Topalov only has a superior rating. Some people may not realise this, but rating is not the same thing as World Champion. #1 rating does not = world champion. The World Championship is always decided by a match between the World Champion and the contender - not a tournament. Kramnik is the World Champion, Topalov is the #1 contender.

Vlad: One thing that comes to mind is that maybe he thought of Leko-Kramnik match as a qualifier to play the winner of Kasparov-??? match? He always maintained he will not play in a qualifier where he starts at a lower stand than Kramnik...
And as for qualifiers for San Luis, well in the end everyone who had a chance of winning it was there.

For better or worse, Kasparov has always been immensely practical, and not as idealistic and theoretical as most of us. The difference is, that he always had to live in that chaos whereas we are only watching from the sidelines of course expecting our heroes to stand up to anything. (This is not to say i agree with him, but i do understand perhaps what he means and don't think he's really changing his mind as much as it would seem on first glance).

Yes, i'd more agree with Marko than Kasparov on this, but of course it must be considered that at some point in this mess Kramnik could've actually behaved badly enough to make some people think his title could've been forfeited.
What i don't understand though is that doesn't Kasparov agree that he was the real WC since 1993 to 2000? Or maybe he just means that at this moment that is irrelevant, again from pragmatic point of view.

I don't know whether anyone has made this point, but what the heck, I might as well make it a second time even if someone else has: The validity of Topalov's title will partly hinge on whether FIDE is able to maintain itself as a viable host for future WC matches.

Topalov won a supertournament. Kramnik beat Kasparov. For me Kramnik is the champ (and a classy one). He wants to play, if Topalov doesnt show, he stays champ.

One can not read Kasparov's essay without realizing that Kasparov can not help being self-serving. As magnanimous as he is towards Topalov (even if a bit begrudgingly) he is spiteful to Kramnik. He says he fully enjoyed being a spectator and not projecting himself into the FIDE San Luis tournament, but in his assessments of Kramnik's and Topalov's relative worths, Kasparov shows that he still hasn't fully retired from the chess world. Note that Kasparov assesses a match against Anand without placing a value judgement on it, while Kasparov claims that a match between Topalov and Kramnik would throw the chess world into a chaos, nothing good would come of it. I say this to Garry, whom I admire as a politician just as much as being the greatest chessplayer of his time: If you really want to enjoy retirement and pursue your political ambitions, hold off on the chess punditry because it makes you look weak.

Yeah, not to mention the sheer egotism and self indulgence in many parts of Kasparov's interview. I know he is a great player but it is quite excessive, like the part he mentions about Leko suddenly being uncomfortable about having to fight for 1st place after he is gone.

Yeah, not to mention the sheer egotism and self indulgence in many parts of Kasparov's interview. I know he is a great player but it is quite excessive, like the part he mentions about Leko suddenly being uncomfortable about having to fight for 1st place after he is gone.

Yeah, not to mention the egotism and self indulgence in many parts of Kasparov's interview. I know he is a great player but it is quite excessive, like the part he mentions about Leko suddenly being uncomfortable about having to fight for 1st place after he is gone.

It sounds egotistical by ordinary standards, but on the other hand, we can understand so little about the psychological issues on top level chess, simply because we are not there, that Kasparov really might be correct about it. At least he should know what he's talking about.
A big problem with Kasparov is, i think, that he's open and doesn't sugarcoat his words to express false humility (in this regard, i would almost put him to the same class with Fischer). People are used to a certain style of rhetoric, and Kasparov simply refuses to adhere to it.
To me he's always seemed sympathetic.

How lame. Kramnik is definitely worthy of a title shot. He beat the 13th World Champion. Granted his tournamnet results have been less than steller (over the last few years), but he did what no one could do for the last 15yrs.: beat Kasparov in a title match. How can anyone rightly deny Kramnik a shot at a unification title? It is disraceful and shows cowardice on the part of Topalov. There is only one reason why he won't Vlady: he is afraid he will lose --- plain and simple. (and he would lose against vlady in a title match)

This is extremely funny. Everyone knows that Kasparov will always agree with everything that is against Kramnik. Kramnik killed Kasparov +2 in the WCH Match remember?

Kasparov is so hurt of that, that he will never realize that Kramnik is the real WCH and is not if he deserves to play someone or not, is if his opponent deserves to play against him.

Kasparov was a great chess player, not the best but a great one. But now most of the stuff he says is extremely funny! Don't know but he may turn into the next Bobby Fischer?

I know that Kasparov is your great friend Mig, but not because he is your friend you have to agree with him on everything he says. So don't kill me with my commentaries! :P