Anand Linares 07

For me, the best scenario in chess would be for Anand to win the upcoming world championship tournament in Mexico followed by an Anand-Kramnik match. I'd love to see these two giants (and good guys) play a big-time world championship match.

Kasparov's Banja Luka result leads me to two interesting questions, neither of which has much to do with Carlsen...

1. I only recognize 4 names from this tournament (the top 4 finishers, though actually Browne and GGC also look familiar come to think of it). Was this tournament much stronger than today's fan might realize from looking at the names?

2. According to chessmetrics, Kasparov was expected to finish second. Does this substantiate my theory that chessmetrics is not a good way to measure young prodigies from the past' relative progress/standing/expected results (because we are so much more familiar with them than with anybody else they play at this point in their career, maybe?) or was Garry really expected to finish so close to the top?

The average rating for Banja Luka was 2469. For Linares 2007 it was around 2750. The field was much stronger at Linares. Yes, there seems to be some rating inflation, but at Linares there were 6 of the top 10 players in the world + the #12 (and Carlsen). Banja Luka was not at all comparable to Linares--more like a Corus group C.

All you dirt bloggers get to the message board and vote for the most beautiful game of the 2007 Morelia/Linares chess tournament, voting stops next saturday winner will be announced and receive the presitigous award on sunday.

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001485#000001

Quite funny. When you see moro's result from linares (on the chessbase site) you immediately notice that he scored 3 wins against the 3 lowest placed players of the linares part. 'Classic Moro' I instantly thought. Scores well against the bottom players but struggles against the top. Of course then I noticed who the 3 bottom players were: Topalov, Leko and Chuckie.
Fantastically well done by Moro. I really hope that he can build on this and maybe take a further step up and really compete with the big boys on a regular basis.

It is about time Anand got the #1 ranking. He played terribly when he was close to getting the #1 ranking at least twice earlier - once in Dortmund 2002 and then in the recent chess olympiad. However he has shown the resilience to bounce back (as also after being demolished by Kasparov in the PCC match).

It is interesting that he gets #1 in a tournament when his opening play was below par and in most games was at a disadvantage coming out of the opening.

Kapalik

Hmm, it seems like Mexico is becoming a great chess place (with the World Championship being held soon, and maybe future Linares tournaments). Can we expect some Mexican players to make a run to the GM title and maybe even go further to the elite class?

Anand again shows that he is a classy guy and a great player.

If Mexico continues to be a site of major international tournaments, perhaps it will have a spill over effect. More FIDE norm tournaments would be possible for Mexican, US and Canadian players as well as those from central and south america - I'm guessing travel to Mexico would be easier than to Europe.

Do you think Anand would be the stoutest number 1 of all time?

Thank you very much for the translation, Mig!

I hope to see Anand and Kramnik play a match for WC title.

To me the Mexico tournament is nothing better than a candidates tournament with the WC tagging along for political reasons.

If Anand wins in Mexico, I will consider him a FIDE World Candidate's Tournament Champion. But I will still consider Kramnik the overall World Champion.

For anyone to become world chess champion he must beat the reigning world champion who is Kramnik in a proper match.

Its good that the Topalov philes will no longer be able to drone on about the no 1 rated player in the world. He isn't anymore and I doubt he ever will be again. Although I hope he bounces back and regains his confidence. Perhaps time for a change of trainer? I did miss Radjabov in the tournament if only because I enjoy the KID debate. Anand deservedly won but it was not a dominant performance by any means. His 2nd win against Carlsen though was a beauty - a modern classic. However did anyone else find Anand's insistence that he had been world chess champion ie FIDE wold champion a bit odd? Overall the games left me with the impression that not only is Kramnik the most formidable match player in the world but he seems, at the moment, the player most in control of his game.

I think Anand´s reminder about winning in Delhi was on spot to that stupid reporter´s question.

I haven't seen it remarked that it is an oddity of the new World Championship proposals that if Kramnik would prefer a match with Anand rather than face another match with Topalov, it would be in his interests, and he could go out of his way to lose at Mexico - even to throw his games against Anand, or whichever other candidate he would prefer.

"Do you think Anand would be the stoutest number 1 of all time?"

I don't know. Alekhine plumped up a bit in his later years; I guess that a quart of hard liquor a day will do that to you. It's too bad; he was quite a handsome lad in his youth (but then, so was his rival Bogoljubov, who aged even worse.)

It has been remarked. But why on earth would Kramnik give up his World Champion title willingly just to get a match against Anand (or Leko, or Svidler, or...) instead of Topalov? It's a possibility, but not a realistic one.

Steintz wins hands down!

Steinitz. Also an older Rubinstein.

acirce is probably right. Kramnik has a better head to head record against Topalov than against Anand or Leko. Additionally, he would be as confident of winning against Topalov as against Anand or Leko. Needless to say, he wouldn't be playing in Sofia.

Anand seems the most likely of current players to beat Kramnik in a match (especially with a quick play tiebreak). So even assuming Kramnik thinks like that, it would seem an unlikely scenario that Kramnik would throw the tournament to Anand to avoid a Topalov match.

Actually I seem to remember that Anand doesn't like playing matches - he said it was boring to play the same player each time. Is my memory playing tricks on me?

Andy, I think that you've misunderstood the #1 concept that was discussed, despite several decent attempts to articulate it. It has nothing with Topalov. It has to do with it being the best, most up to date measure of Chess performance. Now if they manage to rescue the World Championship and make it a predictable, regularly scheduled event then it will regain its currency. Otherwise, the title faded a lot with the fact that the best player of the generation and more, Kasparov, couldn’t get a rematch for 5 years (while continuing to play at the top and be #1).

D.

P.S. Whether Topalov will regain it or not is a separate matter. Oh, we also mentioned it in regard to Mexico – I think it's pretty clear to you that missing #1, or #2, or #3, whatever is not the best idea. Right? Although that it's a done deal and one can have better things to think about.

let us say the WC tournament is not going well for Kramnik ... he is -3 after 7 rounds. If he is out of it, it is in his interest to throw matches to weaker opponents to get an easy rematch later on. Amazing how FIDE manages to shoot itself in the foot every time.

About the possibility of Kramnik throwing matches, it is just that, a theoretical possibility. I'd like to think a professional of his calibre and class would never consider it.

Andy, Anand's response also seemed a bit curious to me, more angry than fanatical though. Perhaps he's been asked this same question many times already.

Throwing a game may not be something which I think Kramnik would do either, but he could easily allow any opponent he wanted to win (if he was himself out of the race) to get away with easy draws against him... if he thought it would help him in some way... and maybe try harder to win against those he wanted not to face

knowing kramnik, he'll not do an unsporting thing. but the theoretical possibility is there.

imagine anand and carlen are leading till the penultimate round. Carlsen needs a win in the last round to win the tmt (and become WC), and he is playing Kramnik in the last round...

Indeed, this was a point the ACP made. The structure presently proposed is impossible for this reason; you cannot have a situation where a player advantages himself by losing. There are worse scenarios too than just Kramnik trying to pick his own next opponent. Those who think professionals would not behave in such a way should be aware that in bridge it is an accustomed sight and it is set down in the proprieties of the game that throwing games for the advantage of your team later in the competition is not unethical.

Interesting Anand didn’t mention Karjakin. Wonder if he’s forgotten him or genuinely considers him less promising than Radjabov.

Anand will be happy to win, of course, but looking at this event I think Kramnik will be pretty happy. Anand was very fortunate to make the score he did. If he doesn’t play better than that in a match then Kramnik will beat him for sure. Kramnik will hardly be afraid of Carlsen (yet) or Moro, and Svidler, Leko and Topalov are clearly each having troubles in their own way.

The WCCT rule of include Kramnik in a challenge in case he lose in Mexico is nonsense because Kramnik is not "obligated" to win or tie a single game.Even a score 0/14 will be enough for him to defend his classic title.His results could affect or determinate who will be 1rst,2nd,3rd.....Other point is that Elista candidates could produce 1 or 2 more russians to the mexican list and in that case 3,4 or 5 russian players in the same tournament could repeat the Curacao Phenomenon to fix a final between Kramnik and another russian.Why this man has so many benefits if to become a classic champion he won no cycle to challenge Kasparov?, his title is a big aberration supported by a russian FIDE president.

"knowing kramnik, he'll not do an unsporting thing. but the theoretical possibility is there."

Lets all try not to die laughing... What a sportsmanlike honourable man he is..

I think Vishy agrees with my opinion about Karjakin...about they being destined to only get as far as being the bridesmaids...like the Englishmen...the Shorts, Adams, etc..

Or indeed the Anands.

Although frankly the image of any of the above as bridesmaids is one I'd prefer not to dwell upon.

yes, in some ways Anand too...but then unfortunately for him, he happened to be at his peak when the all-time greatest was at his best..and being in the top-3 for about 15 years puts him leagues above everyone else of his era (except Kasparov, of course)...

But, yes, I agree with rdh...lets enjoy what chess these players have on offer rather than dismissing their inabilities to win the big ones..

I think its pretty naive to dismiss anyone of Karjakin's age, especially when he's so strong already.

It's very hard to predict who will improve and who won't. There are too many factors involved.

In 2002 Aronian was rated 'only' 2581, and he was 20!

http://www.fide.com/ratings/toparc.phtml?cod=39

Quite so, MD - in 2002 Aronian was drawing with punters of my rating. Imagine.

Bit rich to say Anand is leagues ahead of Kramnik, anand, or are you saying they're different generations?

It was actually the physical image of Nigel in a white dress and tiara I was trying so hard to shake off, but of course you're right about belittling great players as well.

"If he doesn’t play better than that in a match then Kramnik will beat him for sure".

true. but if Kramnik doesn't play better than the match he played against Topalov, Anand will beat him for sure.

Granda:The WCCT rule of include Kramnik in a challenge in case he lose in Mexico is nonsense because Kramnik is not "obligated" to win or tie a single game.Even a score 0/14 will be enough for him to defend his classic title.His results could affect or determinate who will be 1rst,2nd,3rd.....Other point is that Elista candidates could produce 1 or 2 more russians to the mexican list and in that case 3,4 or 5 russian players in the same tournament could repeat the Curacao Phenomenon to fix a final between Kramnik and another russian.Why this man has so many benefits if to become a classic champion he won no cycle to challenge Kasparov?, his title is a big aberration supported by a russian FIDE president.

Granda you clearly have not looked at the FIDE rating list in recent times or for that matter in the last ten years. Kramnik currently ranks 3rd in the world...So the chances of Kramnik going 0/14 in Mexico is simply impossible. Secondly your comment that he does not deserve the title because he didn't qualify is nonsense. The match happened, Kasparov placed his title on the line ... and lost, Leko challanged Kramnik ... and lost, Topalov put his title on the line and also lost! Pehaps you are a fan of Topalov and still bitter about his loss? Thirdly, I do not see how he is "supported" by the Kirsan, if anything there was bias against him in Elista. He was the one who was harrassed and lost a point in game 5, if you can remember! Additionally, I think it is offensive to suggest that all the Russians will go there to fix games and throw games to other players. All the players in the tournament are very strong grandmasters and with good reputations and your insinuations are simply misplaced. Finally, you are implying that Kramnik would throw games so that he can get a desired opponent in a mathc later on seems very strange, Kramnik is not afraid of anyone in that field, if anything the other participants should be afraid of Kramnik.

Imagine.

izmailov, you havent addressed the very legitimate point that Granda has made

I think the most problematic result would be Kramnik to win the mexico tournament with anand second. Then Topalov has the right to match with Kramnik and not Anand. Obviosly tht would be unfortunate if anand is the highest rated player and has come 2nd behind Kramnik oin the WC tournament. However all these anomolies drop our after this 1st phase thereafter there will be matches evry 2 years with the challenger determined in a reasonably fair way with no right of return to the loser.To have a WC match every 2 years recognised by all is a good result.

Izmailov:to be a legitimate classic champion you need to be a legitimate challenger,Kramnik in a handpicked situation could had beaten Kasparov a million times in a match but his title has no value.In my opinion Kramnik broke the classic tradition started by Botvinnik and well kept by Fischer,Karpov and Kasparov. $$ was the only reason Kasparov accepted a socalled WCC match against Kramnik.I remember Fischer was recognized the champion not only because he beat Spassky,but Petrosian,Larsen,Taimanov,Palma de Mallorca...The point that Kramnik could affect the results of Mexico 2007 is true because he can do whatever he wants,nobody having control of his score,and for sure after that he will play a WCC match in the 2008 against a virtual Mexico 2007 winner.Completely nonsense my friend.Kramnik resuscitated the tradition of handpick challengers started by Alekhine with Euwe.We are returning to the prehistory times.We need cycles where all the Elite have the same chances to become champions starting from zero.

d_tal

I recognize the point that you and granda are making. However, it seems to me that it is not a strong argument, to assume that Kramnik would throw games to opponents he can beat, I think both you and I can agree on this. Kramnik is, from what I know a very honourable athlete, who has competed for many years and repeatedly shown his worthiness as a top competitor. I think that dismissing that and simply saying that, there is a possibility that he will throw games and therefore this format is bad, is not correct. I personally, was very pleasently surprised by the new format I like the match system and I agree with the fact that Kramnik should get a chance to win back his title if he does not win in Mexico. I may be biased because I am strong supporter of Kramnik, but I do believe that this is fair compensation for the fact that he is competing in the Mexico championships (I believe this compensation is necessary, since he is stepping away from the match system, which he clearly prefers to the tournament system, his results show this - if this compensation was not provided he may have insisted on a match system, which would mean more delays and embarrassment for FIDE, more time wasted, etc.). Some people may see this as favoritism to him because Kirsan and Kramnik are both Russians; I do not agree with this, once again I refer back to Elista, where the decision was taken against Kramnik in the questionable game 5; I think this is clear evidence that Kirsan does not favour Kramnik, even if many individuals continually claim this.

I hope this addresses your comment d_tal, if not then please specify, what I did not address and I will try to answer your comment to the best of my ability.

Let's assume that Kramnik is an honourable man. Now let's assume that with one round left, the position is Svidler has half a point ahead of Anand for the lead and has the tiebreak edge.

We know that Kramnik and Svidler are friends, and we have assumed Kramnik is an honourable man, but can you honestly expect him to try to defeat his close friend in the last round in a situation like this?

The flaw of round-robins like this is that ultimately the person who is playing somebody that has nothing to gain in the last round can expect an easy draw or at least for his opponent not to push him too hard. And it's not just Kramnik. The honourable Topalov, or at least the not-much-less-honourable-since-they-are-really-the-same-person Danailov offered Kazim a draw several times prior to their game in the second round of San Luis.

Exactly. I assume Kramnik would indeed try to win, actually, but even so, subconsciously he might not do his best. It's not about Kramnik. It's one of the fundamental flaws about using tournaments to decide the World Champion. Tournaments are quite fine, by all means, I like tournaments; but a World Championship tournament is abhorrent, the most important title in all of chess shouldn't be degraded in that horrible manner. It's disgusting and we can really hope that the current plan holds, for once, so that the shameful event that is Mexico 2007 will only be a temporary interruption and a footnote in tomorrow's chess history books.

I also read Kasim talking about Danailov's attempt at game-fixing. Is there an independent account?

Mexico is making a big effort to sponsor chess events and all it gets its a shameful event.

Thanks Acirce.

Ideal scenario would be if Kramnik withdraws from Mexico on health grounds and is replaced by Topalov, provided
1. Kramnik plays the match against the Mexico winner, and
2. Acknowledges the Mexico winner as the Undisputed WC for the interim period.

I don't think that you can expect honour (or honor, if you prefer). What you can expect from a professional chess player is 1) to play by the rules; and 2) to do what's in his/her best interest. (In science, this is referred to as maximizing one's utility.) The entire branch of mathematics called Game Theory is based on this premise.

I can think of two, possibly three times, in the past 20 years where a professional chess player tried to do something that may not have been in his best interest, but was intended for the good of the game.

At the risk of reopening an argument that won't seem to end, my list consists of the Kasparov-Short breakaway from a corrupt organization in an attempt to start something better. We probably all agree that serious mistakes were made in that attempt, dooming it to failure, but a key factor was the deafening lack of support from the GM community (who were, after all, only doing what they thought was best for themselves -- at least in the short run).

The second item on my list is Kramnik's agreeing to play with the title on the line in Mexico. He has more to lose than gain -- even with the flawed system. I suppose this is mitigated by the guarantee of a match against the winner, but it's still a better deal for chess (hoping, of course, that our worst fears don't come to pass).

The third item (the iffy one) is Seirawan's Prague proposal. It was certainly diplomatic, but honorable? I don't think so.

Mr. Hernandez, would all love to laud Mexico for adding some new sponsorship and interest to chess, but it would be much easier to do if the organizers (and people like you) demonstrated a minimum of respect for the match tradition of championship chess, instead of flat-out ignoring it and expecting us all to be pleased about it. It is a desecration of everything chess stands for, at least to many of us. They could have won our hearts by simply negotiating to change the Mexico tournament into a qualifier while retaining the rights to hold the world championship tournament in Mexico also.

I meany 'world championship MATCH', Naturally.

If Mr Granda is so extraordinarily ignorant of chess history as to think that handpicking opponents for world championship matches started with Alekhine, we can safely ignore his views. The truth is that historically what is an anomaly is not handpicked opponents but a rigorous qualifying cycle: from Steinitz-Zukertort until the death of Alekhine there was no other method than the champion picking opponents, regulated only by public opinion and market forces.

Mind you, if that was ignorant I can’t find words to describe the characterisation of Short’s actions in 1993 as altruistic. Ask them what they think in Manchester. About the only familiarity Short would have with the word is being able to look up how to spell it and toss it gratuitously into one of his columns under the impression it makes him look clever.

It’s strange how often these ‘hand-picked’ opponents give trouble, Tschigorin, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Schlechter, Kramnik……hell, there’ve been fourteen champions. I make it six of them won the title by qualifying for and winning a match against the incumbent.

Izmailov,
"I recognize the point that you and granda are making."

No you dont. Kramnik is unique, because he has a unique rematch clause, which none of the other players do. That's the point.

"However, it seems to me that it is not a strong argument, to assume that Kramnik would throw games to opponents he can beat, I think both you and I can agree on this."

I'm not arguing about what you think or believe. I'm arguing about facts. I also dont have the abaility that you have, of ESP, or divination. Hence I am unqualified to speak about what you think Kramnik will do. I certainly dont agree that Kramnik will not allow his play to be dictated by expediency or other considerations. See YK's post above.

"Kramnik is, from what I know a very honourable athlete, who has competed for many years and repeatedly shown his worthiness as a top competitor."

I wish that was the case, but I have a slightly different opinion. In all his behaviour in Chess matters (in my opinion) he has demonstrated nothing but self interest. Mind you I dont blame him for this, but saying otherwise is ridiculous.

"I think that dismissing that and simply saying that, there is a possibility that he will throw games and therefore this format is bad, is not correct."

There is nothing to dismiss, since your basic premise is a fallacy. It follows logically, that the question of "correct" or "bad" is non existent.

"I personally, was very pleasently surprised by the new format I like the match system and I agree with the fact that Kramnik should get a chance to win back his title if he does not win in Mexico. I may be biased because I am strong supporter of Kramnik,"

Yes you are biased, and this is probably indeed the reason you like the new format.

"..but I do believe that this is fair compensation for the fact that he is competing in the Mexico championships (I believe this compensation is necessary, since he is stepping away from the match system, which he clearly prefers to the tournament system, his results show this - if this compensation was not provided he may have insisted on a match system, which would mean more delays and embarrassment for FIDE, more time wasted, etc.)."

On the contrary, my opinion is it would have been incumbent upon him to show some sort of recompense for the fact that he never qualified to play Kasparov. (In fact, he was actively disqualified. Ask a gentleman called Alexei Shirov about that.) Heaping yet more advantages on him is not the way to go.

So to summarise, no, you havent addressed my point. Best, d_tal

I’m sure that if Kramnik were out of contention in Mexico and Svidler needed a draw to guarantee victory Kramnik wouldn’t press him too hard for victory. I doubt he would even if his own opponent in the forthcoming match weren’t a consideration: why should he? I certainly wouldn’t put in the enormous effort required to try and defeat a strong and motivated opponent, perhaps using up my precious openings ideas, when all that’s in it for me is denying my friend his goal. And I doubt most of us would. This isn’t a criticism of Kramnik, merely one of the obvious reasons why tournaments are not the way to decide world champions. You don’t need to postulate absurd Curacao wicked-Russkie conspiracy theories to see that.

Dtal, old chap, your points have been addressed endlessly. It’s time to accept that Kramnik became the world champion in 2000 and has defended the title since. Kind of, y’know, move on?

I think these conspiracy theories are a little ridiculous.

I think self-interest would ensure that Kramnik, having won the undisputed title, would want his reign to remain unbroken from all possible viewpoints. It is harder to regain a title and he would have less rights (say if he lost the subsequent match) than if he went into a match as champion.

If I was Kramnik, I'd rather not play Svidler who will probably know all my opening theory, meaning I'd have to start from scratch.

Also, in chess terms only (playing Topailov in Bulgaria would not be pleasant) I think any truly top-level players would fear nobody and would not even consider stopping a particular opponent from qualifying for a match.

I dont quite follow all this whining about Kramnik getting a match in 2008. Nobody is commenting on whether the system is a good one. The Kramnik factor will be irrelevant after 2008 so what is the view of the tournament format determining the challenger in a match the following year? Actually I have forgotten what is the basis for determining qualification for the tournament? Anyway way its a throw back to the old candidates tournaments but with shorter match length and quickplay tie breaks. Bottom line we get WC matches every other year and candidates in between that's got to be good for chess. I would like to see Anand win the candidates in Mexico as the no 1 rated player in the world it would be good to see him challenge Kramnik in a match

BTW, it's almost been forgotten in the thread- congratulations to Anand- the purists may not like the fact that he reached worse positions, but as one who appreciates tenacity and battling in those situations (as opposed to trying to create play in sterile positions and then losing), the way he overcame worse positions was very pleasing. Also,the second game against Carlsen was a beaut.

Very glad to see him finally reach No 1 and not too disappointed to see Topalov fall down :-)

Andy - Bottom line we get WC matches every other year and candidates in between that's got to be good for chess. I would like to see Anand win the candidates in Mexico as the no 1 rated player in the world it would be good to see him challenge Kramnik in a match

I'd second all of that. Despite wanting Anand to win, I think Kramnik would. From left field, I think that Adams may be Kramnik's most difficult opponent.

First, I strongly believe Kramnik wants to win Mexico. Thinking he would be -3 at any point is ridiculous.

It is in Kramnik's best interest as a chess player to win Mexico and take Topalov on in a rematch. To think he would 'throw games' to give himself an easier opponent via the winner of Mexico is also ridiculous.

Look at the past behavior of Kramnik. He has been highly professional in all his chess endeavors. I see no reason to believe he would suddenly change tack and jeopardize his reputation as a World Champion in the same vein as Topalov by trying a whole spectrum of unsavory tricks.

He has far too much class for that.

rdh, squire, that kind of move on is convenient, but doesnt right a wrong, begging your grace's pardon. You surely must appreciate old son, that when somebody demonstrates an abject lack of the grasp of these essential facts, they need to be informed. Surely your lordship remembers the old adage, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

Acirce, I doubt there could be an independent account since there probably was nobody else present when the offer was made. If you mean whether Kazim has made a pubic statement about the draw offer, yes, he has, in response to a Danailov article.

rdh--good addendum. Throw in a little piece of self-interest favoring the easy way and no honourable/honorable man would take the hard route.

al--I think like many chess fans Kramnik doesn't make much of the FIDE version of title lineage. The WCC setup already pretty much acknowledges him as world champion seeding him into the title match after Mexico, regardless of result. And the way the cycle is setup right now, there are no rematch provisions. An interesting point though is the draw rights. If Kramnik loses Mexico, he would presumably not win the FIDE title in a drawn match--nothing has been said about tiebreaks, so perhaps they are non-existent.

Nonetheless, given a choice of that or putting up with Danailov and his crap, once again, like many chess fans, would probably rather choose broken lineage and slightly lower odds.

Of course it doesn't right a wrong. Shirov WAS grievously wronged, not by Kramnik but by Kasparov and/or whoever contracted with Shirov in 1998 to organise a world championship match for him if he won Caorle. Kramnik could have seen fit to play Shirov to right that wrong, or he could have seen fit to grant Kasparov a rematch as so many wanted, or he could have done his best to institute a qualification cycle as he did. I've never seen any sort of rational case made against his decision to do the third of those: plenty of fatuous hate-spitting, obviously, but no reasoned case, which is not surprising since one could hardly be made.

It's a mistake to think we don't remember how Shirov was wronged. But that wasn't your point.

Your point, as far as one can distinguish it, is that it's wrong to say that Kramnik should now play the winner of Mexico if it's not him because he never qualified to play Kasparov seven years ago. (how much wronger to say Topalov should get to play Kramnik again if Kramnik wins Mexico, surely, but anyway).

My point is that there's got to come a time where talking about Kramnik's legitimacy as champion ceases to have any merit, and we've long since passed that point. He beat Kasparov and has twice defended the title. It's clear he's the champion - let's face it, nobody else is - and it's time to stop complaining about the past.

rdh old son, dont speed read, but read.

"Your point, as far as one can distinguish it, is that it's wrong to say that Kramnik should now play the winner of Mexico if it's not him because he never qualified to play Kasparov seven years ago."

Nope. That's not my point. Try again.

>>However did anyone else find Anand's insistence that he had been world chess champion ie FIDE wold champion a bit odd?>>

There's no greater indictment of the FIDE title than that you have to remind people that you won it. Nobody would have to be reminded that Capablanca and Alekhine were world champions.

Granda wrote:
>>in the same tournament could repeat
the Curacao Phenomenon to fix a final between Kramnik and another russian.>>

There was no "Curacao Phenomenon". Nobody these days believes Korchnoi was made to throw any games in that tournament (if he had, he'd surely have complained long and loud about it after his defection). Even Fischer himself backed away from the claim fairly quickly and had good relations with Korchnoi for years afterwards (which was Fischer's way of saying "I was wrong, but don't want to talk about it").

There may be format problems with this tournament, but using Fischer's sour grapes to illustrate them may not be the most effective strategy.

rdh--

Confronting these stale arguments is like battling a beat-up old hydra. When you knock it down in one thread it staggers along in eight others.

Why not just admit you're wrong and have done with it?

Kramnik could defeat Anand, Topalov, Leko, Radjabov and Carlsen in long matches and take over the #1 rating slot for the next decade. But he'll never be a "real" champion until he turns the clock back and
a) defeats Shirov in 1998,
b) qualifies for the 2000 Kasparov match,
c) defeats Kasparov in a 2002 rematch, and
d) wins (none of that "shared first" stuff) every tournament he plays.

Granda wrote:
to be a legitimate classic champion you need to be a legitimate challenger... Kramnik resuscitated the tradition of handpick challengers started by Alekhine with Euwe.
>>

Is it your opinion then that Smyslov was the first legitimate champion (since he was the first to win a Candidates)? You imply that's so, but don't come out and say it in so many words. But if that's not what you mean, then saying that Kramnik's title is no more valid than Alekhine or Euwe's doesn't seem like much of a slam.

Factually, of course, you're wrong in saying that Kramnik brought back the handpicked challenger. In fact, it was Kasparov who did that. Since 1993, Anand, Leko, and Topalov, all won qualifying events of one stripe or another before challenging for the title.

>>We need cycles where all the Elite have the same chances to become champions starting from zero. >>

Who decides who the "Elite" are? The only handpicked challenger since 1993 was Kramnik himself, but he was the top-rated opponent. Is it your opinion that Kasparov is still champion?

Bronstein, surely, Graeme?!

Of course, that Candidates event was fixed as well, it seems.....

Sorry, first CHAMPION, not challenger. See what you mean. But after all how can you ever have a first champion, since he can never beat the existing champion?

A champion chess title is not a property,is not a monarchy,a champion chess title is the right to show you are the best of the world,Kramnik before beat Kasparov beat nobody else.A champion has to show a real superiority over the rest of the opposition the same way Fischer,Karpov and Kasparov did it.Why Kramnik wants "fair" qualifier processes to get his "challenger",just get out FIDE rules,handpick your opponent.

>>Granda wrote:
A champion chess title is not a property,is not a monarchy,a champion chess title is the right to show you are the best of the world,Kramnik before beat Kasparov beat nobody else.
>>

That answer is not very clear. Are you saying that you DO recognize Alekhine, Capablanca and Euwe as champions, or you don't?

In my humble opinion the situation of WCC is even worse, than pointed out by the eloquent, well informed and in a greek sense logically educated chess experts here around.

Please recall: the chess entity Robert James Fischer has never been defeated in a regular WCC match or tournament!

Considering this fact, the winner of Mexico should face Fischer, because he is last really undisputed chess champ... ^^

I recognize a champion when he was produced from a qualifier stage.Before Botvinnik there were "monarchies".After Kasparov we have a "Kalmyk circus".

"However did anyone else find Anand's insistence that he had been world chess champion ie FIDE wold champion a bit odd?"

Odd is one word. Absurd is another. My respect for Anand, always about as high as it could go, has just dropped considerably. That he would consider such jokes to be in the great Steinitz line is an insult to the history of chess and the real World Champions.

Yes, I do feel very strongly about this, and my words are perhaps harsh, but Anand is smart. He should certainly know better. He can't REALLY consider winning some speed tournament or whatever the World Championship. If he does, he's an idiot, and no way is he an idiot. I don't know his motives, but it's not fully honest, and I don't respect that. I was always under the impression that he took those FIDE KO tournaments for what they were, and nothing more. Now it looks like he's ... well, I don't know what, exactly, but whatever it is, it's a step down for someone of his high character.

It's strange that someone would find that odd. I would have found it very odd indeed if he had denied it. Look at all his statements since he won the FIDE WC, he considered himself the World Champion, he still considers himself an ex-World Champion.

---

"Metz: In this open letter they use numbers 12, 13 and 14 to identify the different world champions. Which numbers would you use for them, for Chalifman and for yourself?

Anand: I am the current world champion, Chalifman was the previous world champion."

"Metz: This means you don't see any chance of a 'reunification' match against Kramnik because there is no other world champion?

Anand: Reunification won't solve anything."

"Metz: Did you ever discuss with Kramnik who is the 'real' world champion? Or is there no point in arguing because you both have different opinions on the topic?

Anand: I think it is quite silly to discuss this at all."

"Metz: In the past you were irritated by answering questions in the never ending tale of matches against Kasparov and who might be or is the 'real' world champion. Now you are the world champion. Has anything changed or do you still hate to discuss this?

Anand: I am the world champion. I do not need to discuss anything with anybody."

http://www.chesstigers.org/alte_daten/chesstigers_alt/ChessClassic2001e/champs/anand.htm

well well ... so far we have:

Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca
(all together world chess champs by fortune - no fair qualifiers for contenders, so no world champs at all...)

Alekhine - the brave
Euwe - Alekhine the coward ... uuups
Alekhine - the nazi... *harrumph * harrumph

From here on, under the fair regiment of FIDE (^^)

Botvinnik - the young one
Smyslow - ?
Botvinnik - the elder one
Tal - the wizard of Riga
Botvinnik - the rematched one
Petrosian - Kramniks real predecessor
Spassky - the one who called it a french day ...
Fischer - the only true and .... bla bla bla
Karpov - the one who accepted the gift (german - gift = english - poison)
Kasparov - the menetekel of chess
Kramnik - the Berlin wall
Khalifman - the wit champion
Kramnik - the one and only
Anand - "an idiot, and no way is he an idiot. I don't know his motives, but it's not fully honest, and I don't respect that."
Kramnik - the one and only
Kazimdshanov - the accidental world champ
Kramnik - the one and only
Topalov - the Topailov entity
Kramnik - the cheater, the coward, the drawmaster...

great stuff here around ^^

without any doubt: Alois Alzheimer rules...

The title of World Champion is meaningless if the FIDE ratings has someone higher rated than the 'World Champion'. The highest rated player is the best player in the world and these ratings should be updated on a regular basis based on active play and inactive players removed from the list - similar to Tennis ATP Rankings.

People don't want to wait 2 years to see a world champion, they want to know who the best is every few months.

>>The title of World Champion is meaningless if the FIDE ratings has someone higher rated than the 'World Champion'.
>>

By the same reasoning, isn't the rating system meaningless if a lower rated player ever beats a higher one in a match, or even an individual game?

People have a hidden bias towards the rating system because it purports to show an exact measurement, not just of two players against each other, but of everyone against everyone else, even though everyone knows it really doesn't make good on its claims and that a 2803 player isn't really better than a 2802 in any meaningful way.

>>
Granda wrote:
I recognize a champion when he was produced from a qualifier stage.Before Botvinnik there were "monarchies".After Kasparov we have a "Kalmyk circus".
>>

Okay, so you DON'T recognize Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe, though you still seem a bit uncomfortable about saying so directly, rather than in a roundabout way.

The problem is that your system, while trying to make things better actually makes them worse. In the old systems, the winner was the person who won, even in a flawed system. In your version, results don't count unless you personally consider them to have been achieved under ideal conditions. Since *everyone* has their own personal preferences, all you've given us is a recipe for confusion.

I mean look at what you've told us. You've got a situation where Capablanca was never the World Champion because he didn't win it under the auspices of an organization with a candidates system you like. Even when the organization does exist and names a single unified champion, it still doesn't count. You're entitled to the view, but it's obviously not one that anyone else can make use of.

I cannot understand the rationale behind the strong words and all that criticism dished out at, at various times, Anand, Kramnik and Topalov for calling themselves world champions.
Clearly, the players themselves have been more pragmatic than ideological and that should be just fine since it is understandable for one to act for his best interest without playing foul.
Why would any player play in a world championship tournament/match if he doesn't believe that winning it would give him bragging rights? Given this it is pointless to say things like "that he would consider such jokes to be in the great Steinitz line is an insult to the history of chess and the real World Champions."
Anand played both the PCA and the FIDE cycles. As did Kramnik (he played the FIDE cycle in 1994, losing to Gelfand along the way). Do you think Kramnik would've politely declined being the world champ had he won the FIDE cycle in 1994? Do you think Anand would've done likewise had he beaten Kasparov in 1995?
If you are harping ideology/history, remember that the very act of turning up to play in a rival cycle or being willing to negotiate with the rival cycle, or acknowledging the presence of the rival cycle in any way should be a no no.

>>
Considering this fact, the winner of Mexico should face Fischer, because he is last really undisputed chess champ... ^^
>>

Not really. Fischer resigned his title in writing, 33 years ago. It made things nice and neat.

@graeme - so everything depends on a little piece of paper? i can not believe ... ROFL

I'm fairly sure Kramnik would not have gone around sounding off about being the world champion if he'd beaten whoever it would have been (did they reinstate Karpov, I suppose?!) in 1996. He was fairly unequivocal in interviews at the time that Kasparov was the true champion.

Yet another metamorphosis of Godwin's Law - any time you talk about the world championship, some clown comes along and thinks it's funny to say Fischer's still the world champion. Nature's way of telling you it's time to call a halt.

>>I cannot understand the rationale behind the strong words and all that criticism dished out at, at various times, Anand, Kramnik and
Topalov for calling themselves world champions.
>>

Not sure what your point is. Certainly Anand, Topalov and Kramnik have all competed for both the Classical and FIDE titles, and in so doing, "saluted" both titles, so to speak. What Anand would have done if he'd won the Classical Title, or what Kramnik would have done if he'd won the FIDE is anybody's guess.

But by saluting both titles, they all recognized that multiple titles existed. As fans, we, for years wanted them to do something about it and go back to having just one title, and therefore criticized those who impeded that.

As for why all these people have drawn criticism, it's not too hard to understand.

Topalov drew criticism, not for calling himself world champion, but for flip-flopping. Immediately after San Luis he announced that he wanted to play a reunification match, because, after all, Kramnik was a world champion too, and one week to the day later, said he DIDN'T want to play a match because he didn't recognize Kramnik's title. Granted, arm twisting by Kirsan and Danailov may have been ultimately responsible for the flip-flop, but the buck still stops with Topalov.

Anand doesn't get criticism for any ethical failings, only for low ambition. Some people think he has it in him to become the one and only undisputed world champion, and should have done so a long time ago, but was satisfied to hold merely the less well regarded of the two world titles. The one that people have to be reminded that he won at all. Anand doesn't really get much in the way of bragging rights from Delhi. Winning mini-matches with Bologan, Lputian, Macieja, Adams, and Shirov, and a Rapids match with Khalifman is nice, but everyone knows he's capable of a lot more. You certainly don't become world champion by beating people like that.

Kramnik gets heat because he didn't play a rematch with Kasparov, pure and simple. Never mind that it was largely Kasparov's fault, for reneging on a deal to play in a candidates event if he lost. The public wanted to see that match and so the buck stops with Kramnik for the fact that it didn't happen, just as it stops with Topalov for flip-flops comitted by others in his name.

Please dont lump Anand (at Groningen and Delhi) & Khalifman (at Vegas) with Pono (Moscow) and Kasim (Libya) as "some sort of speed tournament". The first three were at standard controls. It is only the last two that were at accelarated controls. Also, other than Kasparov, all the World elite were present including Kramnik (in Vegas) when Khalifman won. Anand beat Shirov 3-0 in a six game match final.. and Kramnik couldnt even win a single game against Shirov. This is not a Kramnik hating post since I like the guy and consider him the undisputed WC ... but please dont try to change history.

When Anand won the World Championship, they were the only avenue for top players to play in a WC ... since Kasparov was cherry picking challengers. Back in late 2000, early 2001 there were two World Champs - Kramnik after beating Kasparov and Anand after beating the rest of the elite. Go back and read kasparovchess reports at the time and one can see that both champs were treated on par.

Of course, subsequently FIDE accelarated time controls, reduced the price fund and made the KO a farce, but please dont make the mistake of lumping the first three KOs with the last two.

Anand is absolutely correct when he says he was World Champ once. Compare that tournament to the Kramnik-Leko cycle and you will find that the former was superior to Kramnik's defence.

>

Josh, can you please explain the grounds for which one would consider a 14 gamer between Kramnik and Leko, decided by a +0 score, a true world championship, whereas a 10 game match played against Adams+Shirov (whose average rating equals that of Leko) won by a +4 score would be a speed-game victory? As far as I remember, Anand was undefeated in all the classical games (twenty odd games) played in the 2000 KO-WC, and only on a sole occasion against Khalifman did he require a rapids tie-break.

...Go back and read kasparovchess at the time and you will find that both champs were treated on par.....

ROFL! Right. And obviously Gazza didn't have any sort of, you know, axe to grind at all.....

As for it being the only route for top players to fight for a WC, this is true to an extent of course, but Anand could have played Kasparov in 2000 if he'd wanted to (and lost again, I expect). He chose not to; Kramnik took the opportunity Anand let slip, and the result is what we see today.

Anand is no more a world champion than Khalifman or any of the rest of them, and the sadness people feel about him, criticism they make of him, whatever, is that really he didn't want it enough and thus wasn't up for taking this chance in 2000.

@rdh - i can not take you serious any longer, because you are not gifted to destinct between sarcasm and not sarcasm - well - have a nice living in your own ebony world...

*shaking my head

PS: somtimes reading helps - and sometimes catchwords unmask the non reader

>>Please dont lump Anand (at Groningen and Delhi) & Khalifman (at Vegas) with Pono (Moscow) and Kasim (Libya) as "some sort of speed tournament". The first three were at standard controls. It is only the last two that were at accelarated controls.
>>

Well, Anand drew his match with Khalifman +0-0=2, and then won a playoff +1-0=3. I don't remember the time controls, but if you're saying the playoff was at classical time controls, thast's okay. In that case, Anand beat Bologan, Lputian, Macieja, Khalifman, Adams, and Shirov, all in classical mini-matches.

It's nice, but obviously not as nice as if he'd beaten Kramnik or Kasparov in title matches. You wouldn't have to remind journalists that a victory like that had happened at all, and you wouldn't have wholesale discussions about whether he'd ever been world champion afterwards. Anand may have held a world title before, but he's never been the one and only undisputed champ. He's good enough to hold that honor if he only sees the need, and doesn't kick back and feel like he's "done that already". Maybe he will. Maybe getting the #1 rating will light a fire under him.

Vohaul wrote:
@graeme - so everything depends on a little piece of paper? i can not believe ... ROFL
>>

Well gee, if even resignations don't count, how can anyone ever beat anyone. By that argument, Fischer was never champ at all, since he achieved all his victories by resignations, nof checkmates. Clearly something's wrong with that argument.

I think it is a bit sad Anand considers himself the ex-World Champion. After the spanking he recieved from Kasparov in 1995 World Championship match, you would think Anand would know the difference between the world championship and a FIDE KO. There have been 14 world champions in history and to even call that was the FIDE KO the world championship is ridiculous. Corrupt FIDE leadership tried to make a little bit more money by applying the words "World championships" to KO tournaments that have very little in common to what is historically and commonly considered the chess world championship. It is sad to see people like Anand refuse to recognize the obvious just because it is in their self interest not to do so. When someone like Anand says he was a chess world champion, he misleads the public.

Several things become apparent from this thread.

1) Unless the so called World Champion is a playing entity who stands at the top of the ranks, preferably #1, the entire concept may become obsolescent. In this fast paced world what happened N years ago loses its meaning very quickly. And traditions are Ok to a certain extent, but this is not the Church. More contemporary approach has been applied in all other sports. If the champion is ill or indisposed that is not going to make the World stop turning and events not played, while he sits on that title.

2) Ultimately the thing will be driven by marketing forces and in that respect the title "World Champion" is a good brand. That means that for it to have any meaning the events should be held more frequent and certainly be predictable, unlike the 1995-2005 (non-FIDE) period.

3) Now that he's being perceived as the main threat, Anand may emerge as the next target of the Kramnik PR machine and fan club. This is partially a joke, but jokes tend to be rooted in reality... Never mind his lifetime achievements, Anand has every right to call himself a World Champion because the events that led to that title were far less arbitrary than in the other case.

4) We’re coming out of a very messy period and I believe that clarity will triumph at the end.

D.

1) The classical system worked fine for chess for 120 years and the 14 World champions were pretty much the best players players of their generations. Chess doesn't need to look at other sports. Chess World championship is a proud tradition that every sport would like to have.

2) the 1995-2005 (non-FIDE) period was a period dominated by market forces. I loved the FIDE cycles of 1950s to 1980s, but they were all based on USSR money. 1995-2005 is remarkably a period of a much bigger influence of market forces - "no money for Kasparov-Shirov? Let's try Kasparov-Kramnik" etc.

3)Anand has no right to call himself a champion and it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that " the events that led to that title were far less arbitrary than in the other case". There is nothing more arbitrary than Kirsan's whim. FIDE KO tournaments: 1997-2004 RIP. Arbitrary format held at random years won by random people - and now it is dead. There is nothing more arbitrary than that. At least, in the other case there is definite tradition and logic (you have to beat the previous champion unless he dies/retires), and it consistantly produced worthy winners.

Like the grandmaster title, I believe that Fide's purpose was to dummy-down the WC title with its KO system, break the traditional lineage and have absolute control over it's "subjects." Fide is first and foremost a political body and then perhaps a promoter of chess to a lesser degree. It's much easier to call the shots when your recycling new "champions" every two years. Like most things Fide trys, it didn't come to fruition but I'm sure they will try some other asinine way in the future.

I like Anand, but to claim that he was a World Champiom does a disservice to himself and the chess world in general.

here is TWIC's view on the FIDE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS that Mr. Anand won:

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/even2000.html

at the bottom of the page, see how Mark Crowther clearly shows the schism in the chess world by calling the Kasparov-Kramnik match NOT THE world chess championship, but the BRAINGAMES WCC.

So Mr. Russianbear and Mr. Graeme's posts misinformed posts notwithstanding, Anand is absolutely right to call himself "(former) World Champ."

>>3) Now that he's being perceived as the main threat, Anand may emerge as the next target of the Kramnik PR machine and fan club. This is partially a joke, but jokes tend to be rooted in reality...
>>

Not in this case. The Kramnik PR Machine has been about as elusive as Elvis and UFO's. People want to believe in it so as to be able to spread the blame for Elista out more evenly. Not necessarily to support Topalov, but just to avoid seeming one-sided. Susan Polgar's blog was especially funny. Every time Topalov released another attack article, she'd write "I wish those two would knock it off." She couldn't bear to just blame one of them, no matter what the circumtances showed.

>>Never mind his lifetime achievements, Anand has every right to call himself a World Champion
>>

Yes. He *does* have the right to call himself that. He won it in good faith from a recognized organization; the same one that administers the unified title now.

He has the right to call himself that, but he doesn't have the right to be satisfied with it. He's capable of winning a lot more than that dinky little FIDE Lottery. He can beat up on the Bologans, Lputians, and even Shirovs of the world all day, and it doesn't mean much.

>>because the events that led to that title were far less arbitrary than in the other case.>>

In what way? There were no qualification events for New Delhi. People were simply invited on the basis of rating. In other words, they were hand-picked. How is that any different from Kasparov picking the top-rated player as his challenger?

If the rating system is as great as people say (and some here have even suggested that it outweighs even the world title, then how can they then turn around and scream foul if Kasparov uses that same rating system as the basis to pick a challenger?

In other words, what sense does it make to suggest that the rating system outweighs the world title, and then turn around and deny that the rating system outweighs the candidates system?

here is a direct quote from Mark Crowther in the article above:

"Having put himself in a position to win World titles on a number of occasions this now relieves the pressure on Anand. He has used his experience of the past to win this title and now whatever happens has his place in history."

clearly i view Mark Crowther writing in 2000-2001 to be a more authoritative source on whether Anand is a past champ or not than the "blind" Kramnik acolytes seen here.

This is not to diminish Kramnik's stature. After all, he beat Garry to become the Braingames WORLD Champ, defended it against Leko and did win the unified title against Topalov. So Kramnik was "A" World Champ from 2000-2006 and is "THE" World Champ from 2006 onwards. These things are known to everybody but please dont pull down someone else's place in history as a World Champ just to make your man look better.

Yes, of course, Anand WAS a world champ. Kinda. Sorta. I would be a world champ too if I played in a "world championship" event against my dog. But, of course, my world title or Anand's world title is worth very little if it stands against everything that is commonly understood to be the Chess World championship competition. They just call a KO event "World championship" and that confuses the issue. They could call the winner of the KO by so many titles: the "World Cup winner" , the "KO Champion", the "Yokozuna", the "FIDE Immortal" - but they chose to steal the title that was actually taken in the chess world already by the classical tradition of "World Chess Champions". So, yes, Anand WAS a world champion, he just was never THE world champion, not in the sense the title is used for 120 years in the chess world. That is why Anand's bragging about being an ex-World champ isn't cool.

Leave Yokozuna alone, bear, the man is dead.

"Fischer resigned his title in writing 33 years ago. It made everything nice and neat."

For the record, Fischer carefully worded his "resignation" as a a resignation of the title "FIDE world champion", but making it clear that he still considered himself world champion, so that in this respect his position was no different from Kasparov's. If Fischer's title may be considered lapsed, the only disanalogy with Kasparov is the length of time before he was prepared to defend it.

k:
"clearly i view Mark Crowther writing in 2000-2001 to be a more authoritative source on whether Anand is a past champ or not than the "blind" Kramnik acolytes seen here." - Sorry, but appeal to authority is not going to help. With all due respect to Mark Crowther, he is wrong on this one. As for "blind" Kramnik acolytes, I can just as easily call people who don't agree with me "blind Anand(Khalifman/Pono/Kasim) acolytes", and it would as irrelevant.

"please dont pull down someone else's place in history as a World Champ just to make your man look better." - Nope, I am not doing that. I think YOU are doing that. And ANAND is doing that. You are making Anand look better by saying he was the World champion, as that implies he was in the line as Steinitz, Lasker, etc. the simple fact is - and he was not. And it is not even the worst part. Calling Anand the (ex)World Champ means Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were also the world champs. So THEY TOO were in the same line as Steinitz, Lasker, and all those guys. AND THAT is an insult not only to my intelligence, but also to the 100+ years of World championship tradition (no disrespect intented to the KO winners, by the way). I don't know which of the above mentioned FIDE KO winners is the one you are a fan of, but it definitely seems like YOU are the one who tries to "pull down someone else's place in history as a World Champ just to make your man look better." You are pulling down 14 players just to make someone else look better.

This "World's #1-rated" stuff is way, way overblown. In the January list, #1 is four points higher than #2.

What does that four-point spread actually mean? That in one out of hundreds of rated games #1 defeated a 2700? 2650? 2600? and #2 only drew him?

Whoop-de-do.

Anand had every right to call himself the ex-World Champion because he won it and earned it. People especially Russians can't accept that. Just as San Luis was organized by FIDE as chess worldchampionship, the same FIDE conducted the then worldchampionships. If Topalov could call himself the World Champion eventhough shortlived, he still was an ex-worldchampion. If It was not Anand who split the chess community into two. It was done by a Russian. Anand was faithfully participating in both cycles and after being tricked by FIDE based Russians favoring Karpov in the 1998 Final, he finally managed to earn it in 2000 in a decent and spectacular way. Kramnik couldn't have beaten Shirov with such a huge margin in classical chess. Not even Kasparov coud have done that. While Kasparov was a chess politician, Kramnik was a coward unwilling to accept a rematch offer. All of them-Topalov, Kramnik and Anand has rights to claim to be Worldchampions (in some cases add ex-~). No one stopped Kramnik or Kasparov from participating in that 1998 or 2000 matches. Kramnik lost to Gelfand once in FIDE, then couldn't beat Shirov and let Khalifman win the other. If, Kramnik who was out of the scene for so long, who wouldn't give a rematch to Kasparov (bitten by his own politics) has any right to beat Topalov who by the way earned the title by cheating in San Luis has any right to claim to be the World champion, then Anand has more reasons to be called as ex-world champion. After all, he doesn't say that he is the current champion, he only says he has won it before. What is wrong about that- if he is wrong let FIDE correct him. Why do you worry? They won't because they organized it just as they are organizing every event now and had done so in the past.

>>For the record, Fischer carefully worded his "resignation" as a a resignation of the title "FIDE world champion", but making it clear that he still considered himself world champion,
>>

What other title *besides* the FIDE title did Fischer ever win? You're right, he did word his resignation in that way, but considering that he resigned the only title he ever won, the distinction seems meaningless.

Incidentally Fischer may have talked about himself as world champion before he ever played Spassky. When discussing his refusal to play in the 1969 Zonal, he used another interesting wording, saying "...I will lose my possibility of becoming **official World Chess Champion** in 1972," (my emphasis), which, if you parse his words the same way, might mean that he thought he already had an unofficial title of some kind. Maybe this is the title he thought he was keeping when he resigned his official one, but goodness only knows what that other title is or where he won it.

>>
so that in this respect his position was no different from Kasparov's.
>>

It's different in one very important way. In fact, three very important ways.

1) Fischer resigned his title, while Kasparov didn't.
2) Kasparov did in fact play FIDE's duly designated challenger, Fischer didn't.
3) Fischer didn't defend against anyone else either. He retired, while Kasparov remained active.

Nevertheless, you could make an argument that Kasparov lost the title in 1993 and Karpov became champion again, but almost nobody seems to want to do that. FIDE made a big mistake trying to disqualify both players. In so doing, they merely forfeited their right to name Kasparov's future challengers. If they had bit the bullet, accepted the situation, and gone on and selected Kasparov's next challenger normally, they'd have had a lot more leverage if he refused to play that guy.

If Fischer had played a title defence against Karpov in 1975, even if he said it was outside of FIDE, then we'd have something to discuss. You know what? He'd probably still have been recognised as World Champion. But by never defending the title, more than anything, he gave it up. Wasn't Karpov even willing to leave FIDE to play?

Calling Fischer World Champ, well, what if Smyslov had said "this rematch clause is BS, there's no way I'm playing this corrupt game", and refused to accede to the rematch clause. Since FIDE wouldn't have bent on the issue, he would forfeit the title back.

NOW, supposing Smyslov never played again. Fischer expects people to still recognise him as World Champion, but would he have recognised in 1972 that he was not World Champion, if Smyslov had done the same thing? Would he? You know he wouldn't have accepted the same argument from someone else. Nor do we accept it from Fischer.

Now if he'd played Karpov in '75, and FIDE had put up a match between losers in the candidates' cycle (say, Korchnoi vs. Spassky "world championship"), I'd follow the same arguments toward the winner of that, as I do now with regards to Anand claiming to be "world champion": BULL &*$%. The winner of Fischer-Karpov 1975 would have been recognised by most, just as the winner of Kasparov-Kramnik is.

I wrote:
>>You're right, he did word his resignation in that way,>>

Actually, not quite right. Fischer did NOT make it clear at the time that he still considered himself World Champion. His resignation was worded in such a way as to make that a possibility, but he didn't actually come out and say it.

The relevant wording is: "FIDE has decided against my participation in the 1975 FIDE World Chess Championship. I therefore resign my FIDE World Chess Champion Title."

He did NOT go on to say "But I'm still a kind of World Champion anyway", though he did leave the possibility open. Though again, we must ask what other world champion title beside the FIDE one did Fischer ever win?

The classical champion is the player with an unsurpassed claim to being the world's best long-match player. Having little or nothing to do with this concept are:

--The FIDE "world championships" 1993-2005,
--Russianbear's upset victory over his dog.

>>If Fischer had played a title defence against Karpov in 1975, even if he said it was outside of FIDE, then we'd have something to discuss. You know what? He'd probably still have been recognised as World Champion. But by never defending the title, more than anything, he gave it up. Wasn't Karpov even willing to leave FIDE to play?
>>

He was, the way he tells it. In Karpov on Karpov, he discusses the negotiations with Fischer to play a match outside of FIDE. The way Karpov tells it, it got as close as Campomanes putting a contract in front of Fischer, and getting the pen into his hand. At the last minute, Fischer balked over the issue of what to call the match. The contract didn't say. Fischer wanted to call it "The Professional Chess Players World Championship", which would have been dicey for Karpov, since the official Soviet Party line was that their players were amateurs, not professionals.

Campomanes said look, just sign the contract and we'll come up with a mutually agreeable name later, but Fischer said no, he couldn't do it that way, in stages. It was then that Karpov says he knew that Fischer would never sign.

Just because Fide initiated the KO system, it doesn't mean squat as far as the World Championship is concerned.

Next time around, let's say, they decide to have a Bullet Chess KO Tournament and the winner will be claimed World Chess Champion, so everyone is expected to think of the winner to be heralded in the same light as Steintz thru Kramnik. In its own self interest Fide put forth a bogus system that shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. It's sad to think that there are chessplayers who feel justified in accepting this travesty as if it were somehow written in stone.

"Yes of course Anand WAS a world champ. kinda. sorta. I would be a world champ too if I played in a "world championship" event against my dog." - Russianbear

Right. I like your thinking!

But don't you agree, you can also make your dog a "World Champion"? kinda. sorta. All you have to do is just lose. Right? Also, it is unlikely your dog would have played any chess against anybody to be qualified to play you. May you would have tried to arrange one match at the most. And your dog would have failed miserably. Public interest out of curiosity in a man vs dog and therefore the money.

So, there you go, you and your dog. You play a chess match in "wwe style", lose to your dog and your dog becomes the "classical undisputed WWE style once in a life time lifetime world chess champion"!

PircAlert

Hey RB, do you permit Anand to call himself a World Chess Champion when/if he wins Mexico?

D.

A solution to solve the problem of Mexico 2007: A tournament of Matches.8 player 4 quarterfinals of 8 games the match plus tiebreaks,2 semifinals of 8 games the match plus tiebreaks,1 final of 8 games the match ,total one undisputed champion beating 3 opponents in a row in 24 classic games. Kramnik can not complain playing in his beloved match format against 3 challengers instead one.The winner would play for a WCC match against the next World Cup winner every 2 years and problem solved.

There are lots of solutions to solve the problem of Mexico. The simplest and easiest was to replace Kramnik with Topalov and have the winner play a match against Kramnik.

That would be greatly preferable to a situation where Kramnik would have the opportunity to have an influence over who his challenger will be. (The same situation could have arisen at A.V.R.O., had not Alekhine announced midway that he wouldn't feel obligated to play the winner).

Kramnik might not be able to comlain about your suggestion (for that matter, he's not complaining about the current one), but the rest of us could. You seem to be under the misconception that the match format is sacred to Kramnik. It doesn't appear to be, he's playing in Mexico without a complaining. Like most players, he's probably most interested in what advances his own career. It's the rest of us who know something about chess history, who hate to see a century of tradition overthrown just because some people don't like one guy.

Anand is pretty dishonest in pretending his "World Championship" was a legitiate one.

To -solve the unsolved- could have many -solutions- but what is the problem that Kramnik wants to play only against one challenger?.A tournament of matches is his best chance to prove he is the best match player.Kramnik considers a match is the only legal way to be a world champion,so why he expect challengers produced in a tournament format?.

Viva Linares!

It was a sweet sixteen party for Carlsen.

Moro played like a maniac and it payed off.

There was some karmic pay off for Topa.

Anand did excellently well in typical Anand fashion.

What a great tournament!

We talk about this lineage of World Champions that started with Steinitz and continued with Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, through to Kasparov.

Beg your pardon?

Steinitz just declared one day: "I'm the World Champion!" after beating one player, Zuckertort. IIRC, Zuckertort's lasting contribution to chess history was that he was the one player Steinitz beat to claim the first World Champion title. Nicely circular.

THIS is a World Champion? You just say you're the World Champion and that's the end of it?? And what sort of qualification system was in place for Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Euwe? Not a very strenuous system; nothing at all like beating two or three opponents in match play before playing a World Championship match. Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, and Short accomplished a great deal more than the group of champions and challengers starting with Steinitz and ending with Botvinnik.

If the lineage is Smyslov-Kasparov, then fine - comparatively, Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariov, and Topalov doesn't rate as well as the Smyslov-Kasparov line. But, compared with the Steinitz-Botvinnik line, Khalifman and company at least had some kind of structure, some kind of process to their titles. They weren't at the mercy of a World Champion arbitrarily deciding who has the right to compete with him.

I would love to see the Candidates system return, with one minor modification: if you win the candidates cycle and draw a match with the champion, the challenger is granted an automatic rematch to be played within six months. Why should the challenger, who has gone through a rigorous candidates cycle and proven himself to be the equal of the world champion, have to start all the way at the beginning? That seems unfair to me.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that if you are going to discredit Kahlifman and company's FIDE titles, you should realize that the Steinitz-Botvinnik line deserves a similar sort of discredit. How did Frank Marshall deserve to play for a World Championship match? He had better backing? Please.

"Kramnik considers a match is the only legal way to be a world champion"

Kramnik has NEVER said that.

You've got some odd ideas here, Ricardo. You seem to think that the world championship succession is a private argument between you and a few other internet geeks. On the contrary, without exception, every book you pick up on the subject will tell you that, yes indeed, Steinitz, Lasker, and all the rest were World Champions. This is not just you against some of the people here, it's pretty much you against the world.

>>Anyway, the point I'm making is that if you are going to discredit Kahlifman and company's FIDE titles, you should realize that the Steinitz-Botvinnik line deserves a similar sort of discredit.>>

Not really. The point you're missing is the lack of dissent. Steinitz had a title that nobody disputed. Khalifman had a title that nobody remembers. See the difference?

>>How did Frank Marshall deserve to play for a World Championship match? He had better backing? Please.

How do you think he GOT backing? Backers don't generally flush their money down the toilet. They back something that they think has a reasonable chance of success. Marshall's tournament successes plus his (slight) winning score against Lasker convinced people that he had a reasonable shot. And unlike you or I, those people put their money where their mouth was; surely that makes them more credible than us, not less. You might say that Steinitz through Botvinnik weren't really champions, but I bet you wouldn't put a plugged nickel on your chances of convincing anyone.

You've got some odd ideas here, Ricardo. You seem to think that the world championship succession is a private argument between you and a few other internet geeks. On the contrary, without exception, every book you pick up on the subject will tell you that, yes indeed, Steinitz, Lasker, and all the rest were World Champions. This is not just you against some of the people here, it's pretty much you against the world.

>>Anyway, the point I'm making is that if you are going to discredit Kahlifman and company's FIDE titles, you should realize that the Steinitz-Botvinnik line deserves a similar sort of discredit.>>

Not really. The point you're missing is the lack of dissent. Steinitz had a title that nobody disputed. Khalifman had a title that nobody remembers. See the difference?

>>How did Frank Marshall deserve to play for a World Championship match? He had better backing? Please.

How do you think he GOT backing? Backers don't generally flush their money down the toilet. They back something that they think has a reasonable chance of success. Marshall's tournament successes plus his (slight) winning score against Lasker convinced people that he had a reasonable shot. And unlike you or I, those people put their money where their mouth was; surely that makes them more credible than us, not less. You might say that Steinitz through Botvinnik weren't really champions, but I bet you wouldn't put a plugged nickel on your chances of convincing anyone.

Who cares who was or is "World Champion?" Why waste time discussing such matters when you can be out getting laid?

So Anand was not preceeded by Khalifman and succeeded by Ponomariov as FIDE World Champion? How confusing.

On World champion = number 1 in rating list; very dependent on the sport. Example (always football for me), when French became FIFA world champion, Brazil was number one in the FIFA rating list; and people care more about world champions than number ones in the rating list.

"Who cares who was or is "World Champion?" Why waste time discussing such matters when you can be out getting laid?"

Totally immature. And yet, the best answer I've ever seen on this topic!

Pardon, I meant France, not French.

Ricardo, you gotta be kidding. Before you post these things, how about doing at least a little research so that your claims don't look so, hmm, peculiar.

"Steinitz just declared one day: "I'm the World Champion!" after beating one player, Zuckertort. IIRC, Zuckertort's lasting contribution to chess history was that he was the one player Steinitz beat to claim the first World Champion title. Nicely circular." - That's the thing. He didn't just decide one day to declare himself the champ. First, he beat everyone he played for 20 years.

In 1866, he beat Andersen who was considered by many the best at the time. In 1866 he also became worlds #1 ranked player according to chessmetrics historical ratings. Then he played pretty much anyone he could and continued winning. In 1876 Steinitz played a match against Joseph Blackburne who was ranked #2 in the world according to chessmetrics. 7 games were played and Steinitz won all 7. In London, 1883 they put together a huge tournament where pretty much all the best players of the time met - including top 7 players in the world according to chessmetrics. It was a 14 player double round robin, so they played 26 rounds (they replayed the draws, which were rare at the time). Result? Zukertort scored +18 and Steinitz finished second with +12. Blackburn finished 3rd with +8 and Blackburn was also beaten by Zukertort in a match earlier with a +5 score. When they played the first world championship match in 1886 Steinitz and Zukertort established themselves as by far the most dominant players of that time.

Perhaps you should check out some stats before you post things.

Here is summary of Steinitz's career:

http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=186510SSSSS3S126127000000141000057100000010100

If anyone could some day sit down and say "I will play the strongest player there is in the world other than me and let that be a start of Chess World championship", Steinitz certainly was the right guy to do it.

"THIS is a World Champion? You just say you're the World Champion and that's the end of it?? And what sort of qualification system was in place for Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Euwe? Not a very strenuous system; nothing at all like beating two or three opponents in match play before playing a World Championship match. Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, and Short accomplished a great deal more than the group of champions and challengers starting with Steinitz and ending with Botvinnik."
I am not going to go into details and refute this utter nonsense and explain why Lasker, Capablanca and others deserved to be world champions even without FIDE and without consistent WC cycle. The quote like that is so ridiculous that to answer it seriously would not be right. I am just going to mention that FIDE had pre-Botvinnik world champions, too. You just don't remember them because noone gives a damn about them anymore. Hell, I love chess trivia and even I barely remember those guys. One of them was Bogolyubov. Another may have been Euwe, but I am not sure. As soon as Alekhine died FIDE was the first to forget about those so-called champions and chose to align themselves with the Steinitz tradition and number the champions accordingly. I think 60 years from now people will once again only remember the Steinitz traditional/classical line when they think of our time. Noone will remember Kasimdzhanov and other FIDE winners. Time will tell :)

I like rematch clauses.

I think the champion ought to get a rematch clause. That way we'd get a Wch match every year and only have to schedule the qualifying over two years (since the Q seems to be such and issue). Then we could have proper candidates matches. And we'd get to see the fascinating development of mano-a-mano chess over two matches in the rematch situation.

I'm all for handpicked challengers too. Kasparov's score against Shirov after the Kramnik match was something like 80%.

"Yes of course Anand WAS a world champ. kinda. sorta. I would be a world champ too if I played in a "world championship" event against my dog." - Russianbear

Hey russianbear. Lets match my WC dog against your WC dog for the unified wc chess title. However be forewarned, my WC dog has Heavyweight Boxing WC dogs as friends.. so your dog better not mess with my dog.

"Who cares who was or is "World Champion?" Why waste time discussing such matters when you can be out getting laid?"

Or trolling websites. That really impresses the chicks.

:-)))) truffaut, you have a point!! How true...

D.

gmc, how can you possibly like rematch clauses? Where do they end? If a new world champion has to play a rematch and then loses, why does that person not then get an automatic rematch, or was that person not a 'real' world champion, i.e. only the other champ gets a rematch. A rematch clause gives too much of an advantage to the champion and it is completely unwarranted. A losing champion can simply join in the next cycle and try to win the title back.

Bovinnik kept having rematches... Does anyone know why the other world champion such as Tal, Petrosian & Smyslov didnt have rematches??

I'd like to buy a round of drinks for truffaut and charles! "Hear, hear!"

World Championship matches are history like marxism, communism and other old Soviet concepts.Good in theory but not practical in 21st century. Russians guys cannot handle other nations guys being chess champs and start to discredit them. For this reason I would rate Fisher and Anand as best chess exponents of the free world ..who cares what they think..

@zzz

Tal and Smyslov could not have rematches as they lost their titles back to Botvinnik in rematches before having the right to claim a rematch themselves, i.e. before keeping their worldchampionship titles longer than one year. If they had they won the rematches vs. Botvinnik and after that lost their titles again in a new worldchampionship, they would have had the right to demand a rematch as well.
The rematch regulation was abolished from 1963 on, that's why Botvinnik could not demand a rematch vs.. Petrosian and neither could Petrosian vs. Spassky. The regulations were changed again by FIDE in 1985 to give privileged Karpov the right for a rematch vs. Kasparov.

From FIDE site:
'Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and Vladimir Kramnik exchanged the opinions in respect of time control and concurred that it is necessary to keep the 7 hours control for top level events and some traditional chess tournaments. For all other tournaments a new time control of 1 hour plus 10 seconds from move 1 for each player will be set up. The World Champion supported the idea. This proposal will be considered by the next Presidential Board meeting.'

WTF??? Kramnik really supported this?

First of all, to everyone - I wasn't suggesting Steinitz and others weren't deserving champions. If this is what you took from what I wrote, it is either due to insufficient skill with reading comprehension or a deliberate act of ignorance stemming from a reflexive dislike of anything resembling a dissenting opinion.

The world champions before 1950 could, in fact, hand-pick their challengers. If there is something sporting about that, I'm an airplane.

Graeme,

You claim patrons don't flush their money down the toilet? Ever hear of the Rice Gambit? Would any governing body ever waste their time and sponsor's dollars on that? What of other tournaments devoted to a single opening? Are those serious events if White isn't permitted to play 1 d4? Is Melody Amber a serious event now?

Russianbear,

Steinitz was regarded as the strongest player in the world in the 1870's. Why is he the first world champion, then? Was not Adolf Anderssen regarded as the strongest before Steinitz? Or Morphy? LaBourdonnais? Why does the lineage begin with Steinitz if history tells us there were others before him? Because he said so? Because the history books tell us this and for crying out loud, we dare not oppose them? The orthodoxy must remain unchallenged?

My point (and I'll try this again, slower this time) is that champions and challengers from 1950-1995 proved more than their predecessors. The candidates process of that era meant that a player competing for the championship had earned his way there.

In 1977, Korchnoi defeated Petrosian, Spassky, and Polugaevsky in match play to earn the right to play against Karpov. In 1907, Marshall only needed financial backing to play a match with Lasker. They may have both been championship challengers, but only one man truly worked for that honor.

But thank you, Russianbear, for not taking the time to refute a claim I didn't make. That would have been a spectacular waste of time on your part.

I Dont think Anand was bragging about he being World Champion.

People seem to have not noted the frustration of Anand at being asked that question. Yes it was frustration and certainly not bragging.

Imagining someone ask him " Why did you not beat Garry?" What do they expect as an answer?
" I got killed thats why? " I think Anand's answer was indication that he did not want to talk about it. If you asked him that whether he was World Champion he'd say "Yes" , he won it in Tehran, BUT HE VERY WELL KNOWS THAT the title is not the REAL World CHampion. Nobody asked him that.
Anand himself said that to be World Champion, you need to beat existing WC in a match. So even though he might have played for fun in DElhi, i think there is nothing wrong in claiming that he WAS World Champion, after all Garry was there and chose not to participate, Can you blame Anand for that? If Kramnik refused to play in Mexico and if there were confusion prevailing still, as to a WC match and classsical World Champion woudn't play or the Talks with immediate challenger failed and someone like Anand won a FIDE organised WC even be it 5 mins games, i think they can claim that they WERE WC !!

Ask him whether it was the true WC, and i'm sure he'll say 'ofcourse not '.

I've to agree with Ricardo here. This supposed line from Steinitz to Kasparov is absurd. Lets take Lasker for example, he avoided a match with Tarrasch for a long time and played only when he Tarrasch was way past him prime. He played against Schlechter and didn't manage to win (in fact he would have lost if not for the unfair condition that Schlechter need a 2 points margin to win), then Lasker avoided Capablanca for like 10 years, he played meaningless matches against Janowski or Marshall, he avoided Rubinstein altogether and so on..
And what about Alekhine? he never gave Capablanca a rematch and played against Bogo.
Even after ww2 with FIDE things weren't any better. We all know that in the match-tourney in 1948 Keres was forced to threw his games to Botvinnik then Brostein wasn't allowed to win against Botwinnink... and so on. Then the absurd rules which gave Botvinnik the right for a rematch. (btw i've never quite understood why weren't Smyslov and Tal granted a rematch after they lost the tittle too, its not like they were less valid champions than Botvinnik). Oh and what about the ridiculous regulation that the champion keeps the title in case of a draw?
This supposed line of "champions" from Steinitz to Kasparov is purely a fictional myth.
Khalifman, Anand and Pono deserve all credit they were real world championship, those events they've won were fantastic!

Lots of pointless semantics in this thread, and thousands of dead horses screaming with pain.

Well, that's a point. The Rice Gambit was an exception to the general rule that losers don't get backing (though Rice did "win" at his real objective of getting his name on something that GM's played). Backing a tournament or format isn't the same thing as backing an individual.

Oh for goodness' sake. If we must have historical reminiscences can we have less of these ludicrous Schroeder-style canards?

Everyone knows that Lasker spent long periods away from chess; that's why, alone among the world champions, he achieved something which means his name lives on in other intellectual disciplines.

The myth that Schlechter needed a two-point margin was exploded long ago. See Winter, Heidenfeld, et al.

Lasker avoided Capablanca for ten years - you must mean 1911 to 1921, I suppose? First of all, in 1911 Capablanca was by no means the most obvious challenger. Secondly, during 1914-1918 there was a certain amount of international upheaval - you may have heard of it - which meant that the climate for staging world championship matches was not favourable. Third, after the war, far from avoiding Capa, Lasker resigned his title to him. It was Capa who wanted the match.

As to Rubinstein, you will recall that negotiations for a match were well advanced when the international disharmony I mentioned prevented it.

We do not 'all know' that Keres was forced to lose to Botvinnik. Many people would like to believe this, true, but I've never heard anyone close to the scene at the time say so (Bronstein, for example) and others who were denying it (eg Averbakh).

The same in 1951. What is common knowledge is that Boleslavsky did not fight as hard as he might have done to let Bronstein qualify instead of him, but Bronstein himself never came out and said he was ordered to lose.

If you could be bothered to read the thread you would see Graeme explaining the rematch rule. Boxing has the same 'absurd' rule of the champion keeping the title in the event of a draw. I would be interested, actually, if you could name a sport where an existing champion defends in a head-to-head which doesn't have this 'absurd' rule.

As to the line of champions from Steinitz to Kasparov being 'pure fiction'; I think the only appropriate reply would be, 'yes, of course it is, sweetie.' I never understand why people see fit to post such utter drivel. One can only suppose that you simply lost sight temporarily of the fact that words have meaning, as opposed to being simply nice vehicles for emitting emotion. Of course it isn't "pure fiction".

>>The regulations were changed again by FIDE in 1985 to give privileged Karpov the right for a rematch vs. Kasparov.
>>

Not quite. The regs were changed in 1977. But not to give Karpov a privilige, to cut a deal with him. Lots of people, the US especially, still wanted to see Fischer's unlimited match rules tried out, but Karpov wanted to go back to the old Best of 24. In order to get him to agree to play an unlimited match, they gave him the rematch clause. It was the US and Ed Edmondson himself who helped him get it.

rdh you have written a lot of nonsense.
First Schlechter indeed needed a two-point margin it is a well known fact, further proof of it is that the negotiations of the Lasker-Capa match fell coz Lasker insisted on the same unfair rule.
Keres threw the games to Botvinik there is no question about that. Their score before was more or less equal but at the most convinient time for Botvinik Keres suddenly losses 4 games in row playing like a patzer? right. The rematch rule was simply unfair and stupid. period.
and has Boxing to do with chess?

>>The world champions before 1950 could, in fact, hand-pick their challengers. >>

Not entirely. Again, you still could only choose from people who were powerful enough players to get somebody to back them.

Really, the ONLY champion ever who truly hand-picked his opponent was Steinitz in 1889. The Havana Club came to *him* (rather than to a challenger) saying they wanted to sponsor his first title defense, and that he could pick anyone in the world as his challenger. He picked Tchigorin, since Tchigorin had a winning record against him that he wanted to erase.

Would you care to post any evidence for your suggestions about negotiations for the Lasker-Capa match, Jean? They are absent from Winter's Capablanca biography AFAIR; generally considered the most reliable (secondary) source.

I'm afraid if you don't know about the Lasker-Schlechter 'controversy' I can't be bothered to point you to the relevant literature, which I don't have here anyway. It was exhaustively dealt with in Chess magazine around 1977 and really left very little room for doubt.

I don't think I said anything one way or the other about the merits of the rematch rule, did I? You were asking a factual question which had already been answered: I pointed this out.

Boxing is another sport which thinks the rule you call 'absurd' is sensible, that's all. Or did you mean this rule could be perfectly sensible in other contexts but absurd for some reason only in chess.

Boxers get their brains knocked up so bad they get Parkinsons... so yes absurd rules would seem fair for them... I just dont think a chess player would think so too...

>>rdh you have written a lot of nonsense.
First Schlechter indeed needed a two-point margin it is a well known fact, further proof of it is that the negotiations of the Lasker-Capa match fell coz Lasker insisted on the same unfair rule.
>>

It is a fact that Lasker-Capa fell through over that clause. It's not a fact that Schlechter agreed to the same clause, though. It doesn't appear in any other of Lasker's matches that we know of. It's commonly believed, but not proven.

>>
Keres threw the games to Botvinik there is no question about that. Their score before was more or less equal
>>

Looking at the database, it looks like the score was +2-0=6 to Botvinnik, which coincidentally, is almost the same score as the Shirov-Kramnik match (+2-0=7). I think it's been well established that nobody who loses that badly should ever be allowed near the world title in the first place.

>>The rematch rule was simply unfair and stupid. period.
>>

The rematch rule made sense when there was no candidates system. Once it became possible for a defeated champion to earn another shot by playing in the next candidates, it became obsolete, though. In fact, Botvinnik didn't have it in his first 2 defenses. If Bronstein had won, he'd have been champ for 3 years, and there would have been a triple threat match between Botvinnik, Bronstein and Smyslov in 1954.

>>and has Boxing to do with chess?

What boxing has to do with chess is obvious. They're both one-on-one sports with a King of the Hill style championship. It has more to do with chess than soccer, which people invoke frequently.

"First Schlechter indeed needed a two-point margin it is a well known fact, further proof of it is that the negotiations of the Lasker-Capa match fell coz Lasker insisted on the same unfair rule.
Keres threw the games to Botvinik there is no question about that. Their score before was more or less equal but at the most convinient time for Botvinik Keres suddenly losses 4 games in row playing like a patzer? right."

So you've found your way here, slomarko. Not nice to see you.

I think the interviewer was a little disrespectful of Anand regarding the World Championship. Okay, so the FIDE title at the time wasn't worth as much. So what? It was still a World Championship of some prestige, and he won. It's just rude to then ask, "Are you too nice to be champion?" when he's always said he believes he was a champion. Anand was justified in talking some smack back to him but chose not too.

Please mark the following statements True or False (no negative marking):

1) Chess is a game which has an international ruling organization called FIDE

2) This body organizes world championships, maintains ELO's, defines rules, awards titles, etc.

3) They scrapped the traditional world championship format in the late 1990's (lets assume they had their reasons - financial, organizational, political or otherwise) and they invited all the best players to take part

4) In the year 2000, one V Anand (not from Russia) won this tournament and was crowned World Champion

5) Since Anand won the official world championship and hence was the (at least the official) world champion

There is no question that Anand won a tournament that was called the World Championship. (So did Yuri Shulman, for that matter). The real question is whether someone with Anand's talent should be satisfied with what he he's done already.

The course of this discussion seems to indicate that no, he should not. While it's ridiculously easy to start conversations on even century-old classical title battles between Steinitz, Lasker and Marshall, nobody cares about Anand's wins over Bologan or Lputian. He won the Delhi tournament, but didn't beat anyone that people would remotely consider to be the best player in the world, not even Shirov.

Anand won a title, but it's one that nobody cares about. On the other hand, the title that Kramnik has is one that everyone cares about. A guy with Anand's enormous talent should not be satisfied until he's made that title his own.

Graeme correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this Shirov the same Shirov who beat Kramnik in match a year or two before?

"Russianbear,

Steinitz was regarded as the strongest player in the world in the 1870's. Why is he the first world champion, then? Was not Adolf Anderssen regarded as the strongest before Steinitz? Or Morphy? LaBourdonnais? Why does the lineage begin with Steinitz if history tells us there were others before him? Because he said so? Because the history books tell us this and for crying out loud, we dare not oppose them? The orthodoxy must remain unchallenged?" - Well, many history books
indeed achnowledge pre-Steinitz unofficial champions. The WC linage begins with Steinitz because it was the first match between by far the two best players in the world that was called the World championship. Of course, one can think of Morphy pretty much in the same way as one thinks of Steinitz, but I thought it was clear we were talking about the title of Chess "World champion", and the title was first held by Steinitz and the format of Chess World championship - the long match between the champ and the challenger - was recognized as proper way to settle the matter of who indeed was the World champion. Of course, one can try and project the title into the past onto people like Morphy (who certainly deserved it), but that is not easy to do because precisely one advantage of having a title is that you know who holds it in any given moment and in certain times of the pre-Steinitz past it wasn't clear at all - for example, it is debatable whether Andersen was the (unnoficial) world champ in 1866.

"My point (and I'll try this again, slower this time) is that champions and challengers from 1950-1995 proved more than their predecessors. The candidates process of that era meant that a player competing for the championship had earned his way there.

In 1977, Korchnoi defeated Petrosian, Spassky, and Polugaevsky in match play to earn the right to play against Karpov. In 1907, Marshall only needed financial backing to play a match with Lasker. They may have both been championship challengers, but only one man truly worked for that honor. " - It is not really fair compare the least successful pre-FIDE challenger to the person who perhaps was the best player ever not to win the title. Clearly, pre-FIDE system had some problems. But that system produced worthy champions (at least as worthy as the FIDE system of 50s-80s). And Marshall did work for that honor, too. Just because he didn't win a cycle doesn't mean he didn't deserve the title shot. As you know, there was no cycle to win in those times, so it is not exactly fair to blame Marshall for not winning one. With the punishment Lasker inflicted on Marshall in the World championship match in 1907, one tends to think Marshall probably didn't deserve to be there, but that is not the case. According to Chessmetrics (again, I suggest to all those who want to participate in these argument to browse chessmetrics from time to time), Marshall was rated #4 in the world when he played Lasker - so it wasn't so bad. In 1905 he beat Dawid Janowsky in a match, and Janowsky was rated #2 in the world at the time. In Nuremberg, 1906, Marshall scored +9 in a 16 round tournament, ahead of Tarrasch (#2 in the world) Janowsky (#3) and Schlechter (#4), among many others. So yes, Marshall didn't win the cycle like Korchnoi did, but there was no cycle - those were simple times with relatively few tournaments/events. But for that time, Marshall had a legitimate claim to be Lasker's challenger, based on the results I mentioned. Just beause he got absolutely destroyed by Lasker doesn't change the fact he deserved to be in the match.

>>Graeme correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this Shirov the same Shirov who beat Kramnik in match a year or two before?
>>

He was. That's the point. Would anyone argue that Keres should never have been let near the Championship at all because of his 0-2 score against Botvinnik?

I don't deny that Shirov had first crack at Kasparov, and he got it. It's a shame he couldn't get funding, but it would be much worse if Kasparov was still sitting on his title 8 years later, waiting for Shirov to get the money.

The situation isn't too different from what happened to Nimzovich. He had first crack at challenging Capablanca, not Alekhine. But he couldn't get the money up before the 1/1/27 deadline, so his rights expired. Granted, Nimzovich didn't actually win a match with Alekhine, but does that matter? At the time, people were angry at Capablanca and Kasparov both, for sitting on their titles for too long without defending them.

Would anyone have been happier if either champion had said they weren't going to play at all until that one guy could get the money? No, it would just have been seen as an excuse not to defend. They both had to play with *somebody*, and considering that they both lost their titles, it's hard to argue that they picked unworthy challengers.

Graeme what i meant is Kramnik lost a qualifying match to Shirov but Anand beat Shirov in the final of the world championship. Anand did what Kramnik was unable to do: beat Shirov in a match. Anand has every right to call himself ex-world champion IMO.
I'd like to comment on Marshall briefly too. he was far from being a creditable challenger, he was beaten badly by Capablanca in a match. Lasker saw that and picked him coz he knew he'd whitewash him.

"This supposed line of "champions" from Steinitz to Kasparov is purely a fictional myth.
Khalifman, Anand and Pono deserve all credit they were real world championship, those events they've won were fantastic!"

"Fictional myth"? As opposed to true and real myth? Anyway, if in your post you defend Khalifman, Anand and Pono the KO lottery winners and knock the Steinitz line, don't be surprised if you are not taken seriously. Surely the classical line had some problems, but it still produced the worhtier champs than KOs did.

The bottomline is, Anand was never the world champion. Neither was Khalifman. Neither was Pono. Neither was Kasimdzhanov. Neither was Topalov in 2005. Hell, Karpov won a match in 1993 and he still wasn't the world champ. I am one of the biggest Karpov fans you will ever see and even I don't consider his 1993 match win the World championship. Sorry, but the words "World champion" only apply to a very specific sort of competition in chess and there were only 14 champions, Steinitz to Kramnik. And to answer Dimi, no I won't consider the Mexico winner the world champion. I WILL consider the winner of Kramnik's match against Mexico winner (or Topalov) the world champion. Some people here like to make it about nationalism (and they are even afraid to use their regular handles for posting that crap), but it has nothing to do with Kramnik being Russian or a peronal favorite of mine. I am a fan of classical world championship tradition more than anything else and I don't want that tradition to be mixed with pretender winners of various KOs and DRRs. You want to have your KOs? Call them "World Cup" or something. Don't create confusion and mislead people by calling them World Championships.

Sometimes things happen that prevent, by force, a perfect solution. Best was Kasparov - Shirov match in 1999. Shirov turned down a monetary offer to play. So what can Kasparov do? Play nobody?? Would that be a better solution for you?? There were 2 options:
Give that Shirov has now excluded himself from playing, Kasparov can:

1. Play nobody a World Championship match
2. Play someone other than Shirov

Okay, 1 would satisfy nobody, not even Kasparov himself. So that leaves Option 2. And who was the best challenger? By rating, I think it was Anand. Anand ruled himself out for various reasons. Next up, is Kramnik. Kramnik, not only second-best choice by rating, but also second-best choice by virtue of coming in 2nd to qualify behind Shirov.

Since the #1 challenger has RULED HIMSELF OUT, the next-best thing is to go to the #2 challenger, by default. I think Anand might have had a 2nd match if he'd wanted it, but he didn't. He thought he had a better chance of winning FIDE's so-called "titles". That alone should tell you something else, too... as to which title had the real merit.

"I'd like to comment on Marshall briefly too. he was far from being a creditable challenger, he was beaten badly by Capablanca in a match. Lasker saw that and picked him coz he knew he'd whitewash him. " - Yes, this is typical of the critics of classical line. Yes, it was devious of Lasker to build a time machine, go ahead two years to 1909, watch Marshall get beaten by Capablanca, and then get back to 1907 and pick Marshall as his challenger. The things the classical champions will do to avoid a strong challenger...

>>Graeme what i meant is Kramnik lost a qualifying match to Shirov but Anand beat Shirov in the final of the world championship.
>>

Shirov is certainly the most worthy opponent that Anand faced in that tournament, no question. But, as you can see, people barely remember it, don't care when they do, and don't talk about the games. If Anand beats Kramnik in a match (and I hope he gets the chance), people will be talking about it a hundred years down the line.

>>I'd like to comment on Marshall briefly too. he was far from being a creditable challenger, he was beaten badly by Capablanca in a match.>>

Yes, but that was later. Lasker-Marshall was 1907. Capablanca-Marshall was 1909, and Marshall was a heavy favorite going in.

Certainly after the 1907 match everyone wondered why this guy ever played for the title at all, but it was one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time.

After all, Marshall had a 1-0 record against Lasker, and had finished 2 points ahead of him at Cambridge Springs 1904, and 2½ ahead at Paris 1900, so he seemed like a good challenger (for reasons very similar to those which made people think that Topalov would whitewash Kramnik last year).

But winning big tournaments and winning a match against the best are different things. Marshall's failure is related to the reasons why people discount tournaments as a way of choosing the champion in the first place, and why Anand's Delhi win gets less credence than it otherwise would.

. As with Kramnik-Topalov today, the Lasker-Marshall match illustrated the difference between winning tournament and winning a match against the best.

No, my mistake. Lasker actually did better than Marshall at Paris 1900, but Marshall did win their individual game. (He wouldn't win another against Lasker until 1940)

Sorry my mistake i've mixed it up. as you rightly pointed out Marshall didnt play against Capa howver he has lost a match against Tarrasch 8:1 with 8 draws(!!!) Clearly Tarrasch was a much stronger player than Marshall and Lasker picked the oponent he knew he could whitewash easily.

Russianbear said, "You want to have your KOs? Call them "World Cup" or something. Don't create confusion and mislead people by calling them World Championships.

Sorry to say Mr. Russianbear. You are wrong. We didn't call Anand the World Champion. It's the FIDE who is the governing body. What Kramnik or Kasparov couldn't do, Anand did. Plyed by the rules. FIDE called Anand- the World Champion. Whether you like or not, that's the fact. Even in terms of chess strengths, what Kramnik couldn't do against Shirov, Anand did it in style. I dodubt if Kramnik would ever have won if he had played in that format because it is simply difficult. He did participate but got kicked in his ass.

Anand's gaining the World Championship in 2000 they way he did is all because of Kasparov of course who split the chess community into two and caused all these chaos. Otherwise, I bet he wouldn't have stayed WC for so long because either Anand/Kramnik or both would have gotten to him by rematch and stuffs. Anand would have played more WC matches by the old tradition just as everyone would have liked IF it not for Kasparov.

"The bottomline is, Anand was never the world champion."
-- Russianbear

It seems it wasn't obvious what I was trying to say in my previous post.. Which is not that Anand or Khalif or Pono should perhaps be included in My Great Successors series Part - I by Gary but that -

Don't blame Anand, blame FIDE.

Most people in this thread have been accusing (or rather abusing) Anand for calling himself an ex World Champion, and he (or anyone else) can probably deduce that by answering the factual T/F questions I wrote in a straight forward (Capablance like?) manner.

It is totally a different matter that the FIDE championships were a bit of a lottery and that other than Anand (lottery or not, Anand played thrice securing 1st, 2nd and joint 3rd in the 3 times he played and skipped to allow Kasim to win once) and Topalov (why have people only been picking on Khalif, Pono and Anand?? Remember Veselin?) the rest are not even genuine 2700+ players so have zero credibility...

Now repeat with me:
Don't blame Anand, blame FIDE.

PS: By the way, is tying a 14 game match (7 all) against a hand picked oppenent (LEKO) so much more deserving an achievement to be a WCC than beating another top player (SHIROV) in a 6 game match (3.5 - 0.5) and several others along the way as a bonus...

Lasker played Tarrasch also. He also played Schlecter, maybe the most dangerous possible match opponent for him in the entire world when they held their match. He probably would have played Rubinstein if not for World War I. Also, Rubinstein later broke down, making a match impossible for other reasons.

Graeme said, "there is no question that Anand won the tournament that was called World Championship. The real question is whether someone with Anand's talent should be satisfied with what he has done already........no he should not."

Well, did Anand said he is satisfied.Why do you assume so. If Anand was satisfied with it, he should have retired then. He is continuing to participate in every major "Grand slam" and the San Luis WChamionship too. He is abiding by the rules put forward by the chess governing body. He is contining to win at least two best tournaments every year by classical style and also the rapids and the blindfolds. He would have won the San Luis WC too if Topalov wouldn't have cheated (hope they prove it beyond doubt). Your suggestions that Anand is satisfied with what he has is absolutely baseless and ridiculous even to think of. After winning Linares 2007 and reaching World#1, he is still ambitious to play for the WC match in Mexico and if FIDE puts an agenda for him to play a 1-1 match against Kramnik he would certianly do that too.

>>Graeme what i meant is Kramnik lost a qualifying match to Shirov but Anand beat Shirov in the final of the world championship.
>>

I think I see where you're going with that. That Shirov beat Kramnik and Kramnik beat Kasparov, so, for Anand, beating Shirov is more impressive even than beating Kasparov (or Kramnik).

It's a nice thought, but people just don't see it that way. The fact that Kasparov has a +17-0=14 record against Shirov himself doesn't help things. Paradoxically, Anand is better remembered for his loss to Kasparov than his win over Shirov.

>>Sorry my mistake i've mixed it up. as you rightly pointed out Marshall didnt play against Capa howver he has lost a match against Tarrasch 8:1 with 8 draws(!!!) Clearly Tarrasch was a much stronger player than Marshall and Lasker picked the oponent he knew he could whitewash easily.
>>

Oh yes, Tarrasch was certainly a more credible challenger than Marshall at the time, no question. Though Lasker had been avoiding him for years, for reasons having nothing to do with Marshall. And Lasker and Tarrasch did play a match the very next year (about 10 years overdue).

KrisAdam: I don't dispute the fact that FIDE called the KO winner world champs. It is just that I believe it was misleading, for the reasons I stated. And guess what, they are not having KO as the world championship anymore, and call them "World Cups" instead. So they achnowledge the very things I have mentioned.

"Sorry to say Mr. Russianbear. You are wrong. We didn't call Anand the World Champion. It's the FIDE who is the governing body. What Kramnik or Kasparov couldn't do, Anand did. Plyed by the rules. FIDE called Anand- the World Champion. Whether you like or not, that's the fact. Even in terms of chess strengths, what Kramnik couldn't do against Shirov, Anand did it in style. I dodubt if Kramnik would ever have won if he had played in that format because it is simply difficult. He did participate but got kicked in his ass. " - It is not clear if Kramnik would ever win the KO. It is not clear if Kasparov would ever win the KO. It is not clear if Anand would ever win the KO again. This is the problem with KOs - they are too random and they don't give the superior players superior chances, the way long match system does. If KO was a lottery, the best players would have the same chances as you and me, but that doesn't mean it would be a good system.

I agree the split was Kasparov's fault. But it is debatable whether Kasparov would lose the title faster. Maybe indeed Anand or Kramnik or Shirov would get him around 1998, but we have no way of knowing it. All we do know is he got beaten in 2000. But I would agree that split has hurt the chess world and especially people like Anand and Shirov.

Jean, Lasket played Tarrach only a year after he (Lasker) played Marshall. He probably should have played Tarasch earlier, but Tarrasch was still a force when they played in 1908.

>>Well, did Anand said he is satisfied.Why do you assume so.>>

I don't assume it, I'm just afraid of it. There were those of us wanting to see him right in there with a challenge as soon as the 2700 rule was announced, but he didn't do anything, and Radjabov snuck in a challenge. Then we were hoping again that he'd be ready to file one right after the Kramnik-Topalov match, and instead he did an interview where he said he was happy to just wait and see who wins Mexico (a year in the future). Topalov, whatever else you can say about him, has been champing at the bit to play a title match, it would be nice to see Anand do the same, considering his chances of success would be excellent.

i want to make something clear I didnt mean to blame Lasker for anything, he was doing what was his best interest and he had the right to do it. My point was that this line of champions dating from Steinitz to Kasparov is purely finctional.
Before WW2 the champions were free to avoid dangerous oponents whenever they wished and after WW2 the championship was decided by soviet politics with the result that most of the time the strongest player in the world not only wasnt the champion but didnt even had the chance for fight for the title.

Off topic: How come there's no thread about new FIDE time control? What a great fun would it be to discuss one hour time control FIDE WC!

http://fide.com/news.asp?id=1288

"It is not clear if Kramnik would ever win the KO. It is not clear if Kasparov would ever win the KO. It is not clear if Anand would ever win the KO again."

Hmm, consider:

* Anand won the Knock-Out part of the FIDE WC 1998, playing 31 games in 30 days, then tied the 6 games matches with a rested Karpov, and lost on tie-breaks.
* Anand didn't play in FIDE Ko 1999, because of a scheduled match with Kasparov - that deals failed apart.
* Anand won the FIDE WC 2000
* Anand won the FIDE World Cup 2000 (which was a Ko as well)
* Anand won the FIDE World Cup 2002 (still a Ko)

Ah and yes, Anand was ditched in favor of Kramnik by Kasparov for a WC match, in 2000. That's why he probably would enjoy to be called the [FIDE] World Champion 2000 with a vengeance.

What in the world is this nonsense, stringTheory, about Anand's beating Shirov being better than Kramnik playing a drawn match with Leko?

Kramnik didn't win the title by drawing with Leko but by beating Kasparov. You remember that, right? So why this absurd comparison with a sick Kramnik drawing with Leko? (sorry, forgot, of course; his ilness was faked. Forget I mentioned that.)

If any one to be blamed for the Kasparov-Shirov or Kasparov-Anand match failures, it is Kasparov himself and not Shirov or Anand. It is easier to shift the blame onto others for whaterver reasons, but that is not the right thing to do.

I look at it like this.

1. A company interviews a 10 years experienced person and promises him 100K. Once he shows interest, the company revises the offer - which is not even inked yet - to 75K. What would you do as the interviewee? 75K may be a good salary or may be not, but again it is only a start up company.

2. Another person with 15 years experience, who had applied earlier once, go for that interview. Since he hadn't been interviewed in the last 1 year or so, you cant refuse him. In an attempt to show an improved image - damaged slightly by the previous interview - the company makes a generous offer of 200K! But again mind games continues with no money guarantee and asks the person to sign the contract at once. What would you do?

3. Now, the company calls a 5 year experienced candidate which it already had in mind. And offers him 200K. This person's score in written test is only 50% of the first person interviewd. He gladly accepts with no offer letter! He takes up the offer, establishes himself and leave the company at an opportune time.

How legitimate is the interview process and how good is the candidate selected?

So, the bottom classical line is, Kramnik was never a world chess champion!!

Kasparov's Banja Luka result leads me to two interesting questions, neither of which has much to do with Carlsen...

1. I only recognize 4 names from this tournament (the top 4 finishers, though actually Browne and GGC also look familiar come to think of it). Was this tournament much stronger than today's fan might realize from looking at the names?

2. According to chessmetrics, Kasparov was expected to finish second. Does this substantiate my theory that chessmetrics is not a good way to measure young prodigies from the past' relative progress/standing/expected results (because we are so much more familiar with them than with anybody else they play at this point in their career, maybe?) or was Garry really expected to finish so close to the top?

Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at March 11, 2007 00:47
The average rating for Banja Luka was 2469. For Linares 2007 it was around 2750. The field was much stronger at Linares. Yes, there seems to be some rating inflation, but at Linares there were 6 of the top 10 players in the world + the #12 (and Carlsen). Banja Luka was not at all comparable to Linares--more like a Corus group C.

Posted by: Dan Dalthorp at March 11, 2007 01:38
All you dirt bloggers get to the message board and vote for the most beautiful game of the 2007 Morelia/Linares chess tournament, voting stops next saturday winner will be announced and receive the presitigous award on sunday.

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001485#000001

Posted by: Bb3 at March 11, 2007 04:54
Quite funny. When you see moro's result from linares (on the chessbase site) you immediately notice that he scored 3 wins against the 3 lowest placed players of the linares part. 'Classic Moro' I instantly thought. Scores well against the bottom players but struggles against the top. Of course then I noticed who the 3 bottom players were: Topalov, Leko and Chuckie.
Fantastically well done by Moro. I really hope that he can build on this and maybe take a further step up and really compete with the big boys on a regular basis.

Posted by: lakejen at March 11, 2007 05:57
It is about time Anand got the #1 ranking. He played terribly when he was close to getting the #1 ranking at least twice earlier - once in Dortmund 2002 and then in the recent chess olympiad. However he has shown the resilience to bounce back (as also after being demolished by Kasparov in the PCC match).

It is interesting that he gets #1 in a tournament when his opening play was below par and in most games was at a disadvantage coming out of the opening.

Kapalik

Posted by: Kapalik at March 11, 2007 06:26
Hmm, it seems like Mexico is becoming a great chess place (with the World Championship being held soon, and maybe future Linares tournaments). Can we expect some Mexican players to make a run to the GM title and maybe even go further to the elite class?

Posted by: Matt Helfst at March 11, 2007 09:41
Anand again shows that he is a classy guy and a great player.

If Mexico continues to be a site of major international tournaments, perhaps it will have a spill over effect. More FIDE norm tournaments would be possible for Mexican, US and Canadian players as well as those from central and south america - I'm guessing travel to Mexico would be easier than to Europe.

Posted by: J Wan at March 11, 2007 09:51
Do you think Anand would be the stoutest number 1 of all time?

Posted by: sean at March 11, 2007 11:13
Thank you very much for the translation, Mig!

Posted by: Charley at March 11, 2007 12:20
I hope to see Anand and Kramnik play a match for WC title.

To me the Mexico tournament is nothing better than a candidates tournament with the WC tagging along for political reasons.

If Anand wins in Mexico, I will consider him a FIDE World Candidate's Tournament Champion. But I will still consider Kramnik the overall World Champion.

For anyone to become world chess champion he must beat the reigning world champion who is Kramnik in a proper match.

Posted by: Kenny Foster at March 11, 2007 14:44
Its good that the Topalov philes will no longer be able to drone on about the no 1 rated player in the world. He isn't anymore and I doubt he ever will be again. Although I hope he bounces back and regains his confidence. Perhaps time for a change of trainer? I did miss Radjabov in the tournament if only because I enjoy the KID debate. Anand deservedly won but it was not a dominant performance by any means. His 2nd win against Carlsen though was a beauty - a modern classic. However did anyone else find Anand's insistence that he had been world chess champion ie FIDE wold champion a bit odd? Overall the games left me with the impression that not only is Kramnik the most formidable match player in the world but he seems, at the moment, the player most in control of his game.

Posted by: Andy at March 11, 2007 14:58
I think Anand´s reminder about winning in Delhi was on spot to that stupid reporter´s question.

Posted by: Zombre at March 11, 2007 15:22
I haven't seen it remarked that it is an oddity of the new World Championship proposals that if Kramnik would prefer a match with Anand rather than face another match with Topalov, it would be in his interests, and he could go out of his way to lose at Mexico - even to throw his games against Anand, or whichever other candidate he would prefer.

Posted by: Roger at March 11, 2007 16:53
"Do you think Anand would be the stoutest number 1 of all time?"

I don't know. Alekhine plumped up a bit in his later years; I guess that a quart of hard liquor a day will do that to you. It's too bad; he was quite a handsome lad in his youth (but then, so was his rival Bogoljubov, who aged even worse.)

Posted by: Ernest Tomlinson at March 11, 2007 17:17
It has been remarked. But why on earth would Kramnik give up his World Champion title willingly just to get a match against Anand (or Leko, or Svidler, or...) instead of Topalov? It's a possibility, but not a realistic one.

Posted by: acirce at March 11, 2007 17:22
Steintz wins hands down!

Posted by: chesstraveler at March 11, 2007 17:23
Steinitz. Also an older Rubinstein.

Posted by: chesstraveler at March 11, 2007 17:25
acirce is probably right. Kramnik has a better head to head record against Topalov than against Anand or Leko. Additionally, he would be as confident of winning against Topalov as against Anand or Leko. Needless to say, he wouldn't be playing in Sofia.

Posted by: dirtbag at March 11, 2007 17:27
Anand seems the most likely of current players to beat Kramnik in a match (especially with a quick play tiebreak). So even assuming Kramnik thinks like that, it would seem an unlikely scenario that Kramnik would throw the tournament to Anand to avoid a Topalov match.

Actually I seem to remember that Anand doesn't like playing matches - he said it was boring to play the same player each time. Is my memory playing tricks on me?

Posted by: mcb at March 11, 2007 18:09
Andy, I think that you've misunderstood the #1 concept that was discussed, despite several decent attempts to articulate it. It has nothing with Topalov. It has to do with it being the best, most up to date measure of Chess performance. Now if they manage to rescue the World Championship and make it a predictable, regularly scheduled event then it will regain its currency. Otherwise, the title faded a lot with the fact that the best player of the generation and more, Kasparov, couldn’t get a rematch for 5 years (while continuing to play at the top and be #1).

D.

P.S. Whether Topalov will regain it or not is a separate matter. Oh, we also mentioned it in regard to Mexico – I think it's pretty clear to you that missing #1, or #2, or #3, whatever is not the best idea. Right? Although that it's a done deal and one can have better things to think about.

Posted by: Dimi at March 11, 2007 22:33
let us say the WC tournament is not going well for Kramnik ... he is -3 after 7 rounds. If he is out of it, it is in his interest to throw matches to weaker opponents to get an easy rematch later on. Amazing how FIDE manages to shoot itself in the foot every time.

Posted by: g at March 11, 2007 23:02
About the possibility of Kramnik throwing matches, it is just that, a theoretical possibility. I'd like to think a professional of his calibre and class would never consider it.

Andy, Anand's response also seemed a bit curious to me, more angry than fanatical though. Perhaps he's been asked this same question many times already.

Posted by: Cynical Gripe at March 12, 2007 01:34
Throwing a game may not be something which I think Kramnik would do either, but he could easily allow any opponent he wanted to win (if he was himself out of the race) to get away with easy draws against him... if he thought it would help him in some way... and maybe try harder to win against those he wanted not to face

Posted by: stringTheory at March 12, 2007 03:23
knowing kramnik, he'll not do an unsporting thing. but the theoretical possibility is there.

imagine anand and carlen are leading till the penultimate round. Carlsen needs a win in the last round to win the tmt (and become WC), and he is playing Kramnik in the last round...

Posted by: Rafique M at March 12, 2007 06:27
Indeed, this was a point the ACP made. The structure presently proposed is impossible for this reason; you cannot have a situation where a player advantages himself by losing. There are worse scenarios too than just Kramnik trying to pick his own next opponent. Those who think professionals would not behave in such a way should be aware that in bridge it is an accustomed sight and it is set down in the proprieties of the game that throwing games for the advantage of your team later in the competition is not unethical.

Interesting Anand didn’t mention Karjakin. Wonder if he’s forgotten him or genuinely considers him less promising than Radjabov.

Anand will be happy to win, of course, but looking at this event I think Kramnik will be pretty happy. Anand was very fortunate to make the score he did. If he doesn’t play better than that in a match then Kramnik will beat him for sure. Kramnik will hardly be afraid of Carlsen (yet) or Moro, and Svidler, Leko and Topalov are clearly each having troubles in their own way.

Posted by: rdh at March 12, 2007 06:36
The WCCT rule of include Kramnik in a challenge in case he lose in Mexico is nonsense because Kramnik is not "obligated" to win or tie a single game.Even a score 0/14 will be enough for him to defend his classic title.His results could affect or determinate who will be 1rst,2nd,3rd.....Other point is that Elista candidates could produce 1 or 2 more russians to the mexican list and in that case 3,4 or 5 russian players in the same tournament could repeat the Curacao Phenomenon to fix a final between Kramnik and another russian.Why this man has so many benefits if to become a classic champion he won no cycle to challenge Kasparov?, his title is a big aberration supported by a russian FIDE president.

Posted by: Granda at March 12, 2007 10:32
"knowing kramnik, he'll not do an unsporting thing. but the theoretical possibility is there."

Lets all try not to die laughing... What a sportsmanlike honourable man he is..

Posted by: d_tal at March 12, 2007 10:41
I think Vishy agrees with my opinion about Karjakin...about they being destined to only get as far as being the bridesmaids...like the Englishmen...the Shorts, Adams, etc..

Posted by: Anand at March 12, 2007 11:16
Or indeed the Anands.

Although frankly the image of any of the above as bridesmaids is one I'd prefer not to dwell upon.

Posted by: rdh at March 12, 2007 11:21
yes, in some ways Anand too...but then unfortunately for him, he happened to be at his peak when the all-time greatest was at his best..and being in the top-3 for about 15 years puts him leagues above everyone else of his era (except Kasparov, of course)...

But, yes, I agree with rdh...lets enjoy what chess these players have on offer rather than dismissing their inabilities to win the big ones..

Posted by: Anand at March 12, 2007 11:39
I think its pretty naive to dismiss anyone of Karjakin's age, especially when he's so strong already.

It's very hard to predict who will improve and who won't. There are too many factors involved.

In 2002 Aronian was rated 'only' 2581, and he was 20!

http://www.fide.com/ratings/toparc.phtml?cod=39

Posted by: MD at March 12, 2007 11:55
Quite so, MD - in 2002 Aronian was drawing with punters of my rating. Imagine.

Bit rich to say Anand is leagues ahead of Kramnik, anand, or are you saying they're different generations?

It was actually the physical image of Nigel in a white dress and tiara I was trying so hard to shake off, but of course you're right about belittling great players as well.

Posted by: rdh at March 12, 2007 11:59
"If he doesn’t play better than that in a match then Kramnik will beat him for sure".

true. but if Kramnik doesn't play better than the match he played against Topalov, Anand will beat him for sure.

Posted by: Rafique M at March 12, 2007 12:38
Granda:The WCCT rule of include Kramnik in a challenge in case he lose in Mexico is nonsense because Kramnik is not "obligated" to win or tie a single game.Even a score 0/14 will be enough for him to defend his classic title.His results could affect or determinate who will be 1rst,2nd,3rd.....Other point is that Elista candidates could produce 1 or 2 more russians to the mexican list and in that case 3,4 or 5 russian players in the same tournament could repeat the Curacao Phenomenon to fix a final between Kramnik and another russian.Why this man has so many benefits if to become a classic champion he won no cycle to challenge Kasparov?, his title is a big aberration supported by a russian FIDE president.

Granda you clearly have not looked at the FIDE rating list in recent times or for that matter in the last ten years. Kramnik currently ranks 3rd in the world...So the chances of Kramnik going 0/14 in Mexico is simply impossible. Secondly your comment that he does not deserve the title because he didn't qualify is nonsense. The match happened, Kasparov placed his title on the line ... and lost, Leko challanged Kramnik ... and lost, Topalov put his title on the line and also lost! Pehaps you are a fan of Topalov and still bitter about his loss? Thirdly, I do not see how he is "supported" by the Kirsan, if anything there was bias against him in Elista. He was the one who was harrassed and lost a point in game 5, if you can remember! Additionally, I think it is offensive to suggest that all the Russians will go there to fix games and throw games to other players. All the players in the tournament are very strong grandmasters and with good reputations and your insinuations are simply misplaced. Finally, you are implying that Kramnik would throw games so that he can get a desired opponent in a mathc later on seems very strange, Kramnik is not afraid of anyone in that field, if anything the other participants should be afraid of Kramnik.

Posted by: Izmailov at March 12, 2007 13:56
Imagine.

Posted by: chesstraveler at March 12, 2007 14:01
izmailov, you havent addressed the very legitimate point that Granda has made

Posted by: d_tal at March 12, 2007 14:33
I think the most problematic result would be Kramnik to win the mexico tournament with anand second. Then Topalov has the right to match with Kramnik and not Anand. Obviosly tht would be unfortunate if anand is the highest rated player and has come 2nd behind Kramnik oin the WC tournament. However all these anomolies drop our after this 1st phase thereafter there will be matches evry 2 years with the challenger determined in a reasonably fair way with no right of return to the loser.To have a WC match every 2 years recognised by all is a good result.

Posted by: andy at March 12, 2007 15:18
Izmailov:to be a legitimate classic champion you need to be a legitimate challenger,Kramnik in a handpicked situation could had beaten Kasparov a million times in a match but his title has no value.In my opinion Kramnik broke the classic tradition started by Botvinnik and well kept by Fischer,Karpov and Kasparov. $$ was the only reason Kasparov accepted a socalled WCC match against Kramnik.I remember Fischer was recognized the champion not only because he beat Spassky,but Petrosian,Larsen,Taimanov,Palma de Mallorca...The point that Kramnik could affect the results of Mexico 2007 is true because he can do whatever he wants,nobody having control of his score,and for sure after that he will play a WCC match in the 2008 against a virtual Mexico 2007 winner.Completely nonsense my friend.Kramnik resuscitated the tradition of handpick challengers started by Alekhine with Euwe.We are returning to the prehistory times.We need cycles where all the Elite have the same chances to become champions starting from zero.

Posted by: Granda at March 12, 2007 16:30
d_tal

I recognize the point that you and granda are making. However, it seems to me that it is not a strong argument, to assume that Kramnik would throw games to opponents he can beat, I think both you and I can agree on this. Kramnik is, from what I know a very honourable athlete, who has competed for many years and repeatedly shown his worthiness as a top competitor. I think that dismissing that and simply saying that, there is a possibility that he will throw games and therefore this format is bad, is not correct. I personally, was very pleasently surprised by the new format I like the match system and I agree with the fact that Kramnik should get a chance to win back his title if he does not win in Mexico. I may be biased because I am strong supporter of Kramnik, but I do believe that this is fair compensation for the fact that he is competing in the Mexico championships (I believe this compensation is necessary, since he is stepping away from the match system, which he clearly prefers to the tournament system, his results show this - if this compensation was not provided he may have insisted on a match system, which would mean more delays and embarrassment for FIDE, more time wasted, etc.). Some people may see this as favoritism to him because Kirsan and Kramnik are both Russians; I do not agree with this, once again I refer back to Elista, where the decision was taken against Kramnik in the questionable game 5; I think this is clear evidence that Kirsan does not favour Kramnik, even if many individuals continually claim this.

I hope this addresses your comment d_tal, if not then please specify, what I did not address and I will try to answer your comment to the best of my ability.

Posted by: Izmailov at March 12, 2007 16:33
Let's assume that Kramnik is an honourable man. Now let's assume that with one round left, the position is Svidler has half a point ahead of Anand for the lead and has the tiebreak edge.

We know that Kramnik and Svidler are friends, and we have assumed Kramnik is an honourable man, but can you honestly expect him to try to defeat his close friend in the last round in a situation like this?

The flaw of round-robins like this is that ultimately the person who is playing somebody that has nothing to gain in the last round can expect an easy draw or at least for his opponent not to push him too hard. And it's not just Kramnik. The honourable Topalov, or at least the not-much-less-honourable-since-they-are-really-the-same-person Danailov offered Kazim a draw several times prior to their game in the second round of San Luis.

Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at March 12, 2007 16:42
Exactly. I assume Kramnik would indeed try to win, actually, but even so, subconsciously he might not do his best. It's not about Kramnik. It's one of the fundamental flaws about using tournaments to decide the World Champion. Tournaments are quite fine, by all means, I like tournaments; but a World Championship tournament is abhorrent, the most important title in all of chess shouldn't be degraded in that horrible manner. It's disgusting and we can really hope that the current plan holds, for once, so that the shameful event that is Mexico 2007 will only be a temporary interruption and a footnote in tomorrow's chess history books.

I also read Kasim talking about Danailov's attempt at game-fixing. Is there an independent account?

Posted by: acirce at March 12, 2007 19:39
Mexico is making a big effort to sponsor chess events and all it gets its a shameful event.

Thanks Acirce.

Posted by: Javier Hernandez at March 12, 2007 20:39
Ideal scenario would be if Kramnik withdraws from Mexico on health grounds and is replaced by Topalov, provided
1. Kramnik plays the match against the Mexico winner, and
2. Acknowledges the Mexico winner as the Undisputed WC for the interim period.

Posted by: Rafique M at March 13, 2007 01:33
I don't think that you can expect honour (or honor, if you prefer). What you can expect from a professional chess player is 1) to play by the rules; and 2) to do what's in his/her best interest. (In science, this is referred to as maximizing one's utility.) The entire branch of mathematics called Game Theory is based on this premise.

I can think of two, possibly three times, in the past 20 years where a professional chess player tried to do something that may not have been in his best interest, but was intended for the good of the game.

At the risk of reopening an argument that won't seem to end, my list consists of the Kasparov-Short breakaway from a corrupt organization in an attempt to start something better. We probably all agree that serious mistakes were made in that attempt, dooming it to failure, but a key factor was the deafening lack of support from the GM community (who were, after all, only doing what they thought was best for themselves -- at least in the short run).

The second item on my list is Kramnik's agreeing to play with the title on the line in Mexico. He has more to lose than gain -- even with the flawed system. I suppose this is mitigated by the guarantee of a match against the winner, but it's still a better deal for chess (hoping, of course, that our worst fears don't come to pass).

The third item (the iffy one) is Seirawan's Prague proposal. It was certainly diplomatic, but honorable? I don't think so.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at March 13, 2007 01:33
Mr. Hernandez, would all love to laud Mexico for adding some new sponsorship and interest to chess, but it would be much easier to do if the organizers (and people like you) demonstrated a minimum of respect for the match tradition of championship chess, instead of flat-out ignoring it and expecting us all to be pleased about it. It is a desecration of everything chess stands for, at least to many of us. They could have won our hearts by simply negotiating to change the Mexico tournament into a qualifier while retaining the rights to hold the world championship tournament in Mexico also.

Posted by: knight_tour at March 13, 2007 03:33
I meany 'world championship MATCH', Naturally.

Posted by: knight_tour at March 13, 2007 03:34
If Mr Granda is so extraordinarily ignorant of chess history as to think that handpicking opponents for world championship matches started with Alekhine, we can safely ignore his views. The truth is that historically what is an anomaly is not handpicked opponents but a rigorous qualifying cycle: from Steinitz-Zukertort until the death of Alekhine there was no other method than the champion picking opponents, regulated only by public opinion and market forces.

Mind you, if that was ignorant I can’t find words to describe the characterisation of Short’s actions in 1993 as altruistic. Ask them what they think in Manchester. About the only familiarity Short would have with the word is being able to look up how to spell it and toss it gratuitously into one of his columns under the impression it makes him look clever.

It’s strange how often these ‘hand-picked’ opponents give trouble, Tschigorin, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Schlechter, Kramnik……hell, there’ve been fourteen champions. I make it six of them won the title by qualifying for and winning a match against the incumbent.

Posted by: rdh at March 13, 2007 06:33
Izmailov,
"I recognize the point that you and granda are making."

No you dont. Kramnik is unique, because he has a unique rematch clause, which none of the other players do. That's the point.

"However, it seems to me that it is not a strong argument, to assume that Kramnik would throw games to opponents he can beat, I think both you and I can agree on this."

I'm not arguing about what you think or believe. I'm arguing about facts. I also dont have the abaility that you have, of ESP, or divination. Hence I am unqualified to speak about what you think Kramnik will do. I certainly dont agree that Kramnik will not allow his play to be dictated by expediency or other considerations. See YK's post above.

"Kramnik is, from what I know a very honourable athlete, who has competed for many years and repeatedly shown his worthiness as a top competitor."

I wish that was the case, but I have a slightly different opinion. In all his behaviour in Chess matters (in my opinion) he has demonstrated nothing but self interest. Mind you I dont blame him for this, but saying otherwise is ridiculous.

"I think that dismissing that and simply saying that, there is a possibility that he will throw games and therefore this format is bad, is not correct."

There is nothing to dismiss, since your basic premise is a fallacy. It follows logically, that the question of "correct" or "bad" is non existent.

"I personally, was very pleasently surprised by the new format I like the match system and I agree with the fact that Kramnik should get a chance to win back his title if he does not win in Mexico. I may be biased because I am strong supporter of Kramnik,"

Yes you are biased, and this is probably indeed the reason you like the new format.

"..but I do believe that this is fair compensation for the fact that he is competing in the Mexico championships (I believe this compensation is necessary, since he is stepping away from the match system, which he clearly prefers to the tournament system, his results show this - if this compensation was not provided he may have insisted on a match system, which would mean more delays and embarrassment for FIDE, more time wasted, etc.)."

On the contrary, my opinion is it would have been incumbent upon him to show some sort of recompense for the fact that he never qualified to play Kasparov. (In fact, he was actively disqualified. Ask a gentleman called Alexei Shirov about that.) Heaping yet more advantages on him is not the way to go.

So to summarise, no, you havent addressed my point. Best, d_tal

Posted by: d_tal at March 13, 2007 06:53
I’m sure that if Kramnik were out of contention in Mexico and Svidler needed a draw to guarantee victory Kramnik wouldn’t press him too hard for victory. I doubt he would even if his own opponent in the forthcoming match weren’t a consideration: why should he? I certainly wouldn’t put in the enormous effort required to try and defeat a strong and motivated opponent, perhaps using up my precious openings ideas, when all that’s in it for me is denying my friend his goal. And I doubt most of us would. This isn’t a criticism of Kramnik, merely one of the obvious reasons why tournaments are not the way to decide world champions. You don’t need to postulate absurd Curacao wicked-Russkie conspiracy theories to see that.

Posted by: rdh at March 13, 2007 07:49
Dtal, old chap, your points have been addressed endlessly. It’s time to accept that Kramnik became the world champion in 2000 and has defended the title since. Kind of, y’know, move on?

Posted by: rdh at March 13, 2007 07:51
I think these conspiracy theories are a little ridiculous.

I think self-interest would ensure that Kramnik, having won the undisputed title, would want his reign to remain unbroken from all possible viewpoints. It is harder to regain a title and he would have less rights (say if he lost the subsequent match) than if he went into a match as champion.

If I was Kramnik, I'd rather not play Svidler who will probably know all my opening theory, meaning I'd have to start from scratch.

Also, in chess terms only (playing Topailov in Bulgaria would not be pleasant) I think any truly top-level players would fear nobody and would not even consider stopping a particular opponent from qualifying for a match.

Posted by: al at March 13, 2007 08:07
I dont quite follow all this whining about Kramnik getting a match in 2008. Nobody is commenting on whether the system is a good one. The Kramnik factor will be irrelevant after 2008 so what is the view of the tournament format determining the challenger in a match the following year? Actually I have forgotten what is the basis for determining qualification for the tournament? Anyway way its a throw back to the old candidates tournaments but with shorter match length and quickplay tie breaks. Bottom line we get WC matches every other year and candidates in between that's got to be good for chess. I would like to see Anand win the candidates in Mexico as the no 1 rated player in the world it would be good to see him challenge Kramnik in a match

Posted by: Andy at March 13, 2007 08:21
BTW, it's almost been forgotten in the thread- congratulations to Anand- the purists may not like the fact that he reached worse positions, but as one who appreciates tenacity and battling in those situations (as opposed to trying to create play in sterile positions and then losing), the way he overcame worse positions was very pleasing. Also,the second game against Carlsen was a beaut.

Very glad to see him finally reach No 1 and not too disappointed to see Topalov fall down :-)

Posted by: al at March 13, 2007 08:30
Andy - Bottom line we get WC matches every other year and candidates in between that's got to be good for chess. I would like to see Anand win the candidates in Mexico as the no 1 rated player in the world it would be good to see him challenge Kramnik in a match

I'd second all of that. Despite wanting Anand to win, I think Kramnik would. From left field, I think that Adams may be Kramnik's most difficult opponent.

Posted by: al at March 13, 2007 08:33
First, I strongly believe Kramnik wants to win Mexico. Thinking he would be -3 at any point is ridiculous.

It is in Kramnik's best interest as a chess player to win Mexico and take Topalov on in a rematch. To think he would 'throw games' to give himself an easier opponent via the winner of Mexico is also ridiculous.

Look at the past behavior of Kramnik. He has been highly professional in all his chess endeavors. I see no reason to believe he would suddenly change tack and jeopardize his reputation as a World Champion in the same vein as Topalov by trying a whole spectrum of unsavory tricks.

He has far too much class for that.

Posted by: KibblesAndBits at March 13, 2007 09:06
rdh, squire, that kind of move on is convenient, but doesnt right a wrong, begging your grace's pardon. You surely must appreciate old son, that when somebody demonstrates an abject lack of the grasp of these essential facts, they need to be informed. Surely your lordship remembers the old adage, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

Posted by: d_tal at March 13, 2007 09:33
Acirce, I doubt there could be an independent account since there probably was nobody else present when the offer was made. If you mean whether Kazim has made a pubic statement about the draw offer, yes, he has, in response to a Danailov article.

rdh--good addendum. Throw in a little piece of self-interest favoring the easy way and no honourable/honorable man would take the hard route.

al--I think like many chess fans Kramnik doesn't make much of the FIDE version of title lineage. The WCC setup already pretty much acknowledges him as world champion seeding him into the title match after Mexico, regardless of result. And the way the cycle is setup right now, there are no rematch provisions. An interesting point though is the draw rights. If Kramnik loses Mexico, he would presumably not win the FIDE title in a drawn match--nothing has been said about tiebreaks, so perhaps they are non-existent.

Nonetheless, given a choice of that or putting up with Danailov and his crap, once again, like many chess fans, would probably rather choose broken lineage and slightly lower odds.

Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at March 13, 2007 09:38
Of course it doesn't right a wrong. Shirov WAS grievously wronged, not by Kramnik but by Kasparov and/or whoever contracted with Shirov in 1998 to organise a world championship match for him if he won Caorle. Kramnik could have seen fit to play Shirov to right that wrong, or he could have seen fit to grant Kasparov a rematch as so many wanted, or he could have done his best to institute a qualification cycle as he did. I've never seen any sort of rational case made against his decision to do the third of those: plenty of fatuous hate-spitting, obviously, but no reasoned case, which is not surprising since one could hardly be made.

It's a mistake to think we don't remember how Shirov was wronged. But that wasn't your point.

Your point, as far as one can distinguish it, is that it's wrong to say that Kramnik should now play the winner of Mexico if it's not him because he never qualified to play Kasparov seven years ago. (how much wronger to say Topalov should get to play Kramnik again if Kramnik wins Mexico, surely, but anyway).

My point is that there's got to come a time where talking about Kramnik's legitimacy as champion ceases to have any merit, and we've long since passed that point. He beat Kasparov and has twice defended the title. It's clear he's the champion - let's face it, nobody else is - and it's time to stop complaining about the past.

Posted by: rdh at March 13, 2007 09:47
rdh old son, dont speed read, but read.

"Your point, as far as one can distinguish it, is that it's wrong to say that Kramnik should now play the winner of Mexico if it's not him because he never qualified to play Kasparov seven years ago."

Nope. That's not my point. Try again.

Posted by: d_tal at March 13, 2007 09:53
>>However did anyone else find Anand's insistence that he had been world chess champion ie FIDE wold champion a bit odd?>>

There's no greater indictment of the FIDE title than that you have to remind people that you won it. Nobody would have to be reminded that Capablanca and Alekhine were world champions.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 09:58
Granda wrote:
>>in the same tournament could repeat
the Curacao Phenomenon to fix a final between Kramnik and another russian.>>

There was no "Curacao Phenomenon". Nobody these days believes Korchnoi was made to throw any games in that tournament (if he had, he'd surely have complained long and loud about it after his defection). Even Fischer himself backed away from the claim fairly quickly and had good relations with Korchnoi for years afterwards (which was Fischer's way of saying "I was wrong, but don't want to talk about it").

There may be format problems with this tournament, but using Fischer's sour grapes to illustrate them may not be the most effective strategy.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 10:15
rdh--

Confronting these stale arguments is like battling a beat-up old hydra. When you knock it down in one thread it staggers along in eight others.

Why not just admit you're wrong and have done with it?

Kramnik could defeat Anand, Topalov, Leko, Radjabov and Carlsen in long matches and take over the #1 rating slot for the next decade. But he'll never be a "real" champion until he turns the clock back and
a) defeats Shirov in 1998,
b) qualifies for the 2000 Kasparov match,
c) defeats Kasparov in a 2002 rematch, and
d) wins (none of that "shared first" stuff) every tournament he plays.

Posted by: greg koster at March 13, 2007 10:40
Granda wrote:
to be a legitimate classic champion you need to be a legitimate challenger... Kramnik resuscitated the tradition of handpick challengers started by Alekhine with Euwe.
>>

Is it your opinion then that Smyslov was the first legitimate champion (since he was the first to win a Candidates)? You imply that's so, but don't come out and say it in so many words. But if that's not what you mean, then saying that Kramnik's title is no more valid than Alekhine or Euwe's doesn't seem like much of a slam.

Factually, of course, you're wrong in saying that Kramnik brought back the handpicked challenger. In fact, it was Kasparov who did that. Since 1993, Anand, Leko, and Topalov, all won qualifying events of one stripe or another before challenging for the title.

>>We need cycles where all the Elite have the same chances to become champions starting from zero. >>

Who decides who the "Elite" are? The only handpicked challenger since 1993 was Kramnik himself, but he was the top-rated opponent. Is it your opinion that Kasparov is still champion?

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 10:51
Bronstein, surely, Graeme?!

Of course, that Candidates event was fixed as well, it seems.....

Posted by: rdh at March 13, 2007 11:31
Sorry, first CHAMPION, not challenger. See what you mean. But after all how can you ever have a first champion, since he can never beat the existing champion?

Posted by: rdh at March 13, 2007 11:33
A champion chess title is not a property,is not a monarchy,a champion chess title is the right to show you are the best of the world,Kramnik before beat Kasparov beat nobody else.A champion has to show a real superiority over the rest of the opposition the same way Fischer,Karpov and Kasparov did it.Why Kramnik wants "fair" qualifier processes to get his "challenger",just get out FIDE rules,handpick your opponent.

Posted by: Granda at March 13, 2007 11:39
>>Granda wrote:
A champion chess title is not a property,is not a monarchy,a champion chess title is the right to show you are the best of the world,Kramnik before beat Kasparov beat nobody else.
>>

That answer is not very clear. Are you saying that you DO recognize Alekhine, Capablanca and Euwe as champions, or you don't?

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 11:44
In my humble opinion the situation of WCC is even worse, than pointed out by the eloquent, well informed and in a greek sense logically educated chess experts here around.

Please recall: the chess entity Robert James Fischer has never been defeated in a regular WCC match or tournament!

Considering this fact, the winner of Mexico should face Fischer, because he is last really undisputed chess champ... ^^

Posted by: Vohaul at March 13, 2007 11:53
I recognize a champion when he was produced from a qualifier stage.Before Botvinnik there were "monarchies".After Kasparov we have a "Kalmyk circus".

Posted by: Granda at March 13, 2007 11:55
"However did anyone else find Anand's insistence that he had been world chess champion ie FIDE wold champion a bit odd?"

Odd is one word. Absurd is another. My respect for Anand, always about as high as it could go, has just dropped considerably. That he would consider such jokes to be in the great Steinitz line is an insult to the history of chess and the real World Champions.

Yes, I do feel very strongly about this, and my words are perhaps harsh, but Anand is smart. He should certainly know better. He can't REALLY consider winning some speed tournament or whatever the World Championship. If he does, he's an idiot, and no way is he an idiot. I don't know his motives, but it's not fully honest, and I don't respect that. I was always under the impression that he took those FIDE KO tournaments for what they were, and nothing more. Now it looks like he's ... well, I don't know what, exactly, but whatever it is, it's a step down for someone of his high character.

Posted by: Joshua B. Lilly at March 13, 2007 12:46
It's strange that someone would find that odd. I would have found it very odd indeed if he had denied it. Look at all his statements since he won the FIDE WC, he considered himself the World Champion, he still considers himself an ex-World Champion.

---

"Metz: In this open letter they use numbers 12, 13 and 14 to identify the different world champions. Which numbers would you use for them, for Chalifman and for yourself?

Anand: I am the current world champion, Chalifman was the previous world champion."

"Metz: This means you don't see any chance of a 'reunification' match against Kramnik because there is no other world champion?

Anand: Reunification won't solve anything."

"Metz: Did you ever discuss with Kramnik who is the 'real' world champion? Or is there no point in arguing because you both have different opinions on the topic?

Anand: I think it is quite silly to discuss this at all."

"Metz: In the past you were irritated by answering questions in the never ending tale of matches against Kasparov and who might be or is the 'real' world champion. Now you are the world champion. Has anything changed or do you still hate to discuss this?

Anand: I am the world champion. I do not need to discuss anything with anybody."

http://www.chesstigers.org/alte_daten/chesstigers_alt/ChessClassic2001e/champs/anand.htm

Posted by: acirce at March 13, 2007 13:01
well well ... so far we have:

Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca
(all together world chess champs by fortune - no fair qualifiers for contenders, so no world champs at all...)

Alekhine - the brave
Euwe - Alekhine the coward ... uuups
Alekhine - the nazi... *harrumph * harrumph

From here on, under the fair regiment of FIDE (^^)

Botvinnik - the young one
Smyslow - ?
Botvinnik - the elder one
Tal - the wizard of Riga
Botvinnik - the rematched one
Petrosian - Kramniks real predecessor
Spassky - the one who called it a french day ...
Fischer - the only true and .... bla bla bla
Karpov - the one who accepted the gift (german - gift = english - poison)
Kasparov - the menetekel of chess
Kramnik - the Berlin wall
Khalifman - the wit champion
Kramnik - the one and only
Anand - "an idiot, and no way is he an idiot. I don't know his motives, but it's not fully honest, and I don't respect that."
Kramnik - the one and only
Kazimdshanov - the accidental world champ
Kramnik - the one and only
Topalov - the Topailov entity
Kramnik - the cheater, the coward, the drawmaster...

great stuff here around ^^

without any doubt: Alois Alzheimer rules...

Posted by: Vohaul at March 13, 2007 13:18

The title of World Champion is meaningless if the FIDE ratings has someone higher rated than the 'World Champion'. The highest rated player is the best player in the world and these ratings should be updated on a regular basis based on active play and inactive players removed from the list - similar to Tennis ATP Rankings.

People don't want to wait 2 years to see a world champion, they want to know who the best is every few months.

Posted by: KissMyAssparov at March 13, 2007 13:19
>>The title of World Champion is meaningless if the FIDE ratings has someone higher rated than the 'World Champion'.
>>

By the same reasoning, isn't the rating system meaningless if a lower rated player ever beats a higher one in a match, or even an individual game?

People have a hidden bias towards the rating system because it purports to show an exact measurement, not just of two players against each other, but of everyone against everyone else, even though everyone knows it really doesn't make good on its claims and that a 2803 player isn't really better than a 2802 in any meaningful way.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 13:43
>>
Granda wrote:
I recognize a champion when he was produced from a qualifier stage.Before Botvinnik there were "monarchies".After Kasparov we have a "Kalmyk circus".
>>

Okay, so you DON'T recognize Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe, though you still seem a bit uncomfortable about saying so directly, rather than in a roundabout way.

The problem is that your system, while trying to make things better actually makes them worse. In the old systems, the winner was the person who won, even in a flawed system. In your version, results don't count unless you personally consider them to have been achieved under ideal conditions. Since *everyone* has their own personal preferences, all you've given us is a recipe for confusion.

I mean look at what you've told us. You've got a situation where Capablanca was never the World Champion because he didn't win it under the auspices of an organization with a candidates system you like. Even when the organization does exist and names a single unified champion, it still doesn't count. You're entitled to the view, but it's obviously not one that anyone else can make use of.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 13:48
I cannot understand the rationale behind the strong words and all that criticism dished out at, at various times, Anand, Kramnik and Topalov for calling themselves world champions.
Clearly, the players themselves have been more pragmatic than ideological and that should be just fine since it is understandable for one to act for his best interest without playing foul.
Why would any player play in a world championship tournament/match if he doesn't believe that winning it would give him bragging rights? Given this it is pointless to say things like "that he would consider such jokes to be in the great Steinitz line is an insult to the history of chess and the real World Champions."
Anand played both the PCA and the FIDE cycles. As did Kramnik (he played the FIDE cycle in 1994, losing to Gelfand along the way). Do you think Kramnik would've politely declined being the world champ had he won the FIDE cycle in 1994? Do you think Anand would've done likewise had he beaten Kasparov in 1995?
If you are harping ideology/history, remember that the very act of turning up to play in a rival cycle or being willing to negotiate with the rival cycle, or acknowledging the presence of the rival cycle in any way should be a no no.

Posted by: bs at March 13, 2007 14:01
>>
Considering this fact, the winner of Mexico should face Fischer, because he is last really undisputed chess champ... ^^
>>

Not really. Fischer resigned his title in writing, 33 years ago. It made things nice and neat.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 14:08
@graeme - so everything depends on a little piece of paper? i can not believe ... ROFL

Posted by: Vohaul at March 13, 2007 14:16
I'm fairly sure Kramnik would not have gone around sounding off about being the world champion if he'd beaten whoever it would have been (did they reinstate Karpov, I suppose?!) in 1996. He was fairly unequivocal in interviews at the time that Kasparov was the true champion.

Yet another metamorphosis of Godwin's Law - any time you talk about the world championship, some clown comes along and thinks it's funny to say Fischer's still the world champion. Nature's way of telling you it's time to call a halt.

Posted by: rdh at March 13, 2007 14:25
>>I cannot understand the rationale behind the strong words and all that criticism dished out at, at various times, Anand, Kramnik and
Topalov for calling themselves world champions.
>>

Not sure what your point is. Certainly Anand, Topalov and Kramnik have all competed for both the Classical and FIDE titles, and in so doing, "saluted" both titles, so to speak. What Anand would have done if he'd won the Classical Title, or what Kramnik would have done if he'd won the FIDE is anybody's guess.

But by saluting both titles, they all recognized that multiple titles existed. As fans, we, for years wanted them to do something about it and go back to having just one title, and therefore criticized those who impeded that.

As for why all these people have drawn criticism, it's not too hard to understand.

Topalov drew criticism, not for calling himself world champion, but for flip-flopping. Immediately after San Luis he announced that he wanted to play a reunification match, because, after all, Kramnik was a world champion too, and one week to the day later, said he DIDN'T want to play a match because he didn't recognize Kramnik's title. Granted, arm twisting by Kirsan and Danailov may have been ultimately responsible for the flip-flop, but the buck still stops with Topalov.

Anand doesn't get criticism for any ethical failings, only for low ambition. Some people think he has it in him to become the one and only undisputed world champion, and should have done so a long time ago, but was satisfied to hold merely the less well regarded of the two world titles. The one that people have to be reminded that he won at all. Anand doesn't really get much in the way of bragging rights from Delhi. Winning mini-matches with Bologan, Lputian, Macieja, Adams, and Shirov, and a Rapids match with Khalifman is nice, but everyone knows he's capable of a lot more. You certainly don't become world champion by beating people like that.

Kramnik gets heat because he didn't play a rematch with Kasparov, pure and simple. Never mind that it was largely Kasparov's fault, for reneging on a deal to play in a candidates event if he lost. The public wanted to see that match and so the buck stops with Kramnik for the fact that it didn't happen, just as it stops with Topalov for flip-flops comitted by others in his name.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 14:33
Please dont lump Anand (at Groningen and Delhi) & Khalifman (at Vegas) with Pono (Moscow) and Kasim (Libya) as "some sort of speed tournament". The first three were at standard controls. It is only the last two that were at accelarated controls. Also, other than Kasparov, all the World elite were present including Kramnik (in Vegas) when Khalifman won. Anand beat Shirov 3-0 in a six game match final.. and Kramnik couldnt even win a single game against Shirov. This is not a Kramnik hating post since I like the guy and consider him the undisputed WC ... but please dont try to change history.

When Anand won the World Championship, they were the only avenue for top players to play in a WC ... since Kasparov was cherry picking challengers. Back in late 2000, early 2001 there were two World Champs - Kramnik after beating Kasparov and Anand after beating the rest of the elite. Go back and read kasparovchess reports at the time and one can see that both champs were treated on par.

Of course, subsequently FIDE accelarated time controls, reduced the price fund and made the KO a farce, but please dont make the mistake of lumping the first three KOs with the last two.

Anand is absolutely correct when he says he was World Champ once. Compare that tournament to the Kramnik-Leko cycle and you will find that the former was superior to Kramnik's defence.

Posted by: k at March 13, 2007 14:39
>

Josh, can you please explain the grounds for which one would consider a 14 gamer between Kramnik and Leko, decided by a +0 score, a true world championship, whereas a 10 game match played against Adams+Shirov (whose average rating equals that of Leko) won by a +4 score would be a speed-game victory? As far as I remember, Anand was undefeated in all the classical games (twenty odd games) played in the 2000 KO-WC, and only on a sole occasion against Khalifman did he require a rapids tie-break.

Posted by: Proloy at March 13, 2007 14:40
...Go back and read kasparovchess at the time and you will find that both champs were treated on par.....

ROFL! Right. And obviously Gazza didn't have any sort of, you know, axe to grind at all.....

As for it being the only route for top players to fight for a WC, this is true to an extent of course, but Anand could have played Kasparov in 2000 if he'd wanted to (and lost again, I expect). He chose not to; Kramnik took the opportunity Anand let slip, and the result is what we see today.

Anand is no more a world champion than Khalifman or any of the rest of them, and the sadness people feel about him, criticism they make of him, whatever, is that really he didn't want it enough and thus wasn't up for taking this chance in 2000.

Posted by: rdh at March 13, 2007 14:55
@rdh - i can not take you serious any longer, because you are not gifted to destinct between sarcasm and not sarcasm - well - have a nice living in your own ebony world...

*shaking my head

PS: somtimes reading helps - and sometimes catchwords unmask the non reader

Posted by: vohaul at March 13, 2007 14:57
>>Please dont lump Anand (at Groningen and Delhi) & Khalifman (at Vegas) with Pono (Moscow) and Kasim (Libya) as "some sort of speed tournament". The first three were at standard controls. It is only the last two that were at accelarated controls.
>>

Well, Anand drew his match with Khalifman +0-0=2, and then won a playoff +1-0=3. I don't remember the time controls, but if you're saying the playoff was at classical time controls, thast's okay. In that case, Anand beat Bologan, Lputian, Macieja, Khalifman, Adams, and Shirov, all in classical mini-matches.

It's nice, but obviously not as nice as if he'd beaten Kramnik or Kasparov in title matches. You wouldn't have to remind journalists that a victory like that had happened at all, and you wouldn't have wholesale discussions about whether he'd ever been world champion afterwards. Anand may have held a world title before, but he's never been the one and only undisputed champ. He's good enough to hold that honor if he only sees the need, and doesn't kick back and feel like he's "done that already". Maybe he will. Maybe getting the #1 rating will light a fire under him.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 15:04
Vohaul wrote:
@graeme - so everything depends on a little piece of paper? i can not believe ... ROFL
>>

Well gee, if even resignations don't count, how can anyone ever beat anyone. By that argument, Fischer was never champ at all, since he achieved all his victories by resignations, nof checkmates. Clearly something's wrong with that argument.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 15:13
I think it is a bit sad Anand considers himself the ex-World Champion. After the spanking he recieved from Kasparov in 1995 World Championship match, you would think Anand would know the difference between the world championship and a FIDE KO. There have been 14 world champions in history and to even call that was the FIDE KO the world championship is ridiculous. Corrupt FIDE leadership tried to make a little bit more money by applying the words "World championships" to KO tournaments that have very little in common to what is historically and commonly considered the chess world championship. It is sad to see people like Anand refuse to recognize the obvious just because it is in their self interest not to do so. When someone like Anand says he was a chess world champion, he misleads the public.

Posted by: Russianbear at March 13, 2007 15:29
Several things become apparent from this thread.

1) Unless the so called World Champion is a playing entity who stands at the top of the ranks, preferably #1, the entire concept may become obsolescent. In this fast paced world what happened N years ago loses its meaning very quickly. And traditions are Ok to a certain extent, but this is not the Church. More contemporary approach has been applied in all other sports. If the champion is ill or indisposed that is not going to make the World stop turning and events not played, while he sits on that title.

2) Ultimately the thing will be driven by marketing forces and in that respect the title "World Champion" is a good brand. That means that for it to have any meaning the events should be held more frequent and certainly be predictable, unlike the 1995-2005 (non-FIDE) period.

3) Now that he's being perceived as the main threat, Anand may emerge as the next target of the Kramnik PR machine and fan club. This is partially a joke, but jokes tend to be rooted in reality... Never mind his lifetime achievements, Anand has every right to call himself a World Champion because the events that led to that title were far less arbitrary than in the other case.

4) We’re coming out of a very messy period and I believe that clarity will triumph at the end.

D.

Posted by: Dimi at March 13, 2007 15:44
1) The classical system worked fine for chess for 120 years and the 14 World champions were pretty much the best players players of their generations. Chess doesn't need to look at other sports. Chess World championship is a proud tradition that every sport would like to have.

2) the 1995-2005 (non-FIDE) period was a period dominated by market forces. I loved the FIDE cycles of 1950s to 1980s, but they were all based on USSR money. 1995-2005 is remarkably a period of a much bigger influence of market forces - "no money for Kasparov-Shirov? Let's try Kasparov-Kramnik" etc.

3)Anand has no right to call himself a champion and it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that " the events that led to that title were far less arbitrary than in the other case". There is nothing more arbitrary than Kirsan's whim. FIDE KO tournaments: 1997-2004 RIP. Arbitrary format held at random years won by random people - and now it is dead. There is nothing more arbitrary than that. At least, in the other case there is definite tradition and logic (you have to beat the previous champion unless he dies/retires), and it consistantly produced worthy winners.

Posted by: Russianbear at March 13, 2007 16:00
Like the grandmaster title, I believe that Fide's purpose was to dummy-down the WC title with its KO system, break the traditional lineage and have absolute control over it's "subjects." Fide is first and foremost a political body and then perhaps a promoter of chess to a lesser degree. It's much easier to call the shots when your recycling new "champions" every two years. Like most things Fide trys, it didn't come to fruition but I'm sure they will try some other asinine way in the future.

I like Anand, but to claim that he was a World Champiom does a disservice to himself and the chess world in general.

Posted by: chesstraveler at March 13, 2007 16:09
here is TWIC's view on the FIDE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS that Mr. Anand won:

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/even2000.html

at the bottom of the page, see how Mark Crowther clearly shows the schism in the chess world by calling the Kasparov-Kramnik match NOT THE world chess championship, but the BRAINGAMES WCC.

So Mr. Russianbear and Mr. Graeme's posts misinformed posts notwithstanding, Anand is absolutely right to call himself "(former) World Champ."

Posted by: k at March 13, 2007 16:22
>>3) Now that he's being perceived as the main threat, Anand may emerge as the next target of the Kramnik PR machine and fan club. This is partially a joke, but jokes tend to be rooted in reality...
>>

Not in this case. The Kramnik PR Machine has been about as elusive as Elvis and UFO's. People want to believe in it so as to be able to spread the blame for Elista out more evenly. Not necessarily to support Topalov, but just to avoid seeming one-sided. Susan Polgar's blog was especially funny. Every time Topalov released another attack article, she'd write "I wish those two would knock it off." She couldn't bear to just blame one of them, no matter what the circumtances showed.

>>Never mind his lifetime achievements, Anand has every right to call himself a World Champion
>>

Yes. He *does* have the right to call himself that. He won it in good faith from a recognized organization; the same one that administers the unified title now.

He has the right to call himself that, but he doesn't have the right to be satisfied with it. He's capable of winning a lot more than that dinky little FIDE Lottery. He can beat up on the Bologans, Lputians, and even Shirovs of the world all day, and it doesn't mean much.

>>because the events that led to that title were far less arbitrary than in the other case.>>

In what way? There were no qualification events for New Delhi. People were simply invited on the basis of rating. In other words, they were hand-picked. How is that any different from Kasparov picking the top-rated player as his challenger?

If the rating system is as great as people say (and some here have even suggested that it outweighs even the world title, then how can they then turn around and scream foul if Kasparov uses that same rating system as the basis to pick a challenger?

In other words, what sense does it make to suggest that the rating system outweighs the world title, and then turn around and deny that the rating system outweighs the candidates system?

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 16:22
here is a direct quote from Mark Crowther in the article above:

"Having put himself in a position to win World titles on a number of occasions this now relieves the pressure on Anand. He has used his experience of the past to win this title and now whatever happens has his place in history."

clearly i view Mark Crowther writing in 2000-2001 to be a more authoritative source on whether Anand is a past champ or not than the "blind" Kramnik acolytes seen here.

This is not to diminish Kramnik's stature. After all, he beat Garry to become the Braingames WORLD Champ, defended it against Leko and did win the unified title against Topalov. So Kramnik was "A" World Champ from 2000-2006 and is "THE" World Champ from 2006 onwards. These things are known to everybody but please dont pull down someone else's place in history as a World Champ just to make your man look better.

Posted by: k at March 13, 2007 16:31
Yes, of course, Anand WAS a world champ. Kinda. Sorta. I would be a world champ too if I played in a "world championship" event against my dog. But, of course, my world title or Anand's world title is worth very little if it stands against everything that is commonly understood to be the Chess World championship competition. They just call a KO event "World championship" and that confuses the issue. They could call the winner of the KO by so many titles: the "World Cup winner" , the "KO Champion", the "Yokozuna", the "FIDE Immortal" - but they chose to steal the title that was actually taken in the chess world already by the classical tradition of "World Chess Champions". So, yes, Anand WAS a world champion, he just was never THE world champion, not in the sense the title is used for 120 years in the chess world. That is why Anand's bragging about being an ex-World champ isn't cool.

Posted by: Russianbear at March 13, 2007 16:40
Leave Yokozuna alone, bear, the man is dead.

Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at March 13, 2007 16:48
"Fischer resigned his title in writing 33 years ago. It made everything nice and neat."

For the record, Fischer carefully worded his "resignation" as a a resignation of the title "FIDE world champion", but making it clear that he still considered himself world champion, so that in this respect his position was no different from Kasparov's. If Fischer's title may be considered lapsed, the only disanalogy with Kasparov is the length of time before he was prepared to defend it.

Posted by: Roger at March 13, 2007 16:52
k:
"clearly i view Mark Crowther writing in 2000-2001 to be a more authoritative source on whether Anand is a past champ or not than the "blind" Kramnik acolytes seen here." - Sorry, but appeal to authority is not going to help. With all due respect to Mark Crowther, he is wrong on this one. As for "blind" Kramnik acolytes, I can just as easily call people who don't agree with me "blind Anand(Khalifman/Pono/Kasim) acolytes", and it would as irrelevant.

"please dont pull down someone else's place in history as a World Champ just to make your man look better." - Nope, I am not doing that. I think YOU are doing that. And ANAND is doing that. You are making Anand look better by saying he was the World champion, as that implies he was in the line as Steinitz, Lasker, etc. the simple fact is - and he was not. And it is not even the worst part. Calling Anand the (ex)World Champ means Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were also the world champs. So THEY TOO were in the same line as Steinitz, Lasker, and all those guys. AND THAT is an insult not only to my intelligence, but also to the 100+ years of World championship tradition (no disrespect intented to the KO winners, by the way). I don't know which of the above mentioned FIDE KO winners is the one you are a fan of, but it definitely seems like YOU are the one who tries to "pull down someone else's place in history as a World Champ just to make your man look better." You are pulling down 14 players just to make someone else look better.

Posted by: Russianbear at March 13, 2007 16:55
This "World's #1-rated" stuff is way, way overblown. In the January list, #1 is four points higher than #2.

What does that four-point spread actually mean? That in one out of hundreds of rated games #1 defeated a 2700? 2650? 2600? and #2 only drew him?

Whoop-de-do.

Posted by: greg koster at March 13, 2007 17:01
Anand had every right to call himself the ex-World Champion because he won it and earned it. People especially Russians can't accept that. Just as San Luis was organized by FIDE as chess worldchampionship, the same FIDE conducted the then worldchampionships. If Topalov could call himself the World Champion eventhough shortlived, he still was an ex-worldchampion. If It was not Anand who split the chess community into two. It was done by a Russian. Anand was faithfully participating in both cycles and after being tricked by FIDE based Russians favoring Karpov in the 1998 Final, he finally managed to earn it in 2000 in a decent and spectacular way. Kramnik couldn't have beaten Shirov with such a huge margin in classical chess. Not even Kasparov coud have done that. While Kasparov was a chess politician, Kramnik was a coward unwilling to accept a rematch offer. All of them-Topalov, Kramnik and Anand has rights to claim to be Worldchampions (in some cases add ex-~). No one stopped Kramnik or Kasparov from participating in that 1998 or 2000 matches. Kramnik lost to Gelfand once in FIDE, then couldn't beat Shirov and let Khalifman win the other. If, Kramnik who was out of the scene for so long, who wouldn't give a rematch to Kasparov (bitten by his own politics) has any right to beat Topalov who by the way earned the title by cheating in San Luis has any right to claim to be the World champion, then Anand has more reasons to be called as ex-world champion. After all, he doesn't say that he is the current champion, he only says he has won it before. What is wrong about that- if he is wrong let FIDE correct him. Why do you worry? They won't because they organized it just as they are organizing every event now and had done so in the past.

Posted by: KrishAdam at March 13, 2007 17:04
>>For the record, Fischer carefully worded his "resignation" as a a resignation of the title "FIDE world champion", but making it clear that he still considered himself world champion,
>>

What other title *besides* the FIDE title did Fischer ever win? You're right, he did word his resignation in that way, but considering that he resigned the only title he ever won, the distinction seems meaningless.

Incidentally Fischer may have talked about himself as world champion before he ever played Spassky. When discussing his refusal to play in the 1969 Zonal, he used another interesting wording, saying "...I will lose my possibility of becoming **official World Chess Champion** in 1972," (my emphasis), which, if you parse his words the same way, might mean that he thought he already had an unofficial title of some kind. Maybe this is the title he thought he was keeping when he resigned his official one, but goodness only knows what that other title is or where he won it.

>>
so that in this respect his position was no different from Kasparov's.
>>

It's different in one very important way. In fact, three very important ways.

1) Fischer resigned his title, while Kasparov didn't.
2) Kasparov did in fact play FIDE's duly designated challenger, Fischer didn't.
3) Fischer didn't defend against anyone else either. He retired, while Kasparov remained active.

Nevertheless, you could make an argument that Kasparov lost the title in 1993 and Karpov became champion again, but almost nobody seems to want to do that. FIDE made a big mistake trying to disqualify both players. In so doing, they merely forfeited their right to name Kasparov's future challengers. If they had bit the bullet, accepted the situation, and gone on and selected Kasparov's next challenger normally, they'd have had a lot more leverage if he refused to play that guy.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 17:06
If Fischer had played a title defence against Karpov in 1975, even if he said it was outside of FIDE, then we'd have something to discuss. You know what? He'd probably still have been recognised as World Champion. But by never defending the title, more than anything, he gave it up. Wasn't Karpov even willing to leave FIDE to play?

Calling Fischer World Champ, well, what if Smyslov had said "this rematch clause is BS, there's no way I'm playing this corrupt game", and refused to accede to the rematch clause. Since FIDE wouldn't have bent on the issue, he would forfeit the title back.

NOW, supposing Smyslov never played again. Fischer expects people to still recognise him as World Champion, but would he have recognised in 1972 that he was not World Champion, if Smyslov had done the same thing? Would he? You know he wouldn't have accepted the same argument from someone else. Nor do we accept it from Fischer.

Now if he'd played Karpov in '75, and FIDE had put up a match between losers in the candidates' cycle (say, Korchnoi vs. Spassky "world championship"), I'd follow the same arguments toward the winner of that, as I do now with regards to Anand claiming to be "world champion": BULL &*$%. The winner of Fischer-Karpov 1975 would have been recognised by most, just as the winner of Kasparov-Kramnik is.

Posted by: Joshua B. Lilly at March 13, 2007 17:08
I wrote:
>>You're right, he did word his resignation in that way,>>

Actually, not quite right. Fischer did NOT make it clear at the time that he still considered himself World Champion. His resignation was worded in such a way as to make that a possibility, but he didn't actually come out and say it.

The relevant wording is: "FIDE has decided against my participation in the 1975 FIDE World Chess Championship. I therefore resign my FIDE World Chess Champion Title."

He did NOT go on to say "But I'm still a kind of World Champion anyway", though he did leave the possibility open. Though again, we must ask what other world champion title beside the FIDE one did Fischer ever win?

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 17:20
The classical champion is the player with an unsurpassed claim to being the world's best long-match player. Having little or nothing to do with this concept are:

--The FIDE "world championships" 1993-2005,
--Russianbear's upset victory over his dog.

Posted by: greg koster at March 13, 2007 17:30
>>If Fischer had played a title defence against Karpov in 1975, even if he said it was outside of FIDE, then we'd have something to discuss. You know what? He'd probably still have been recognised as World Champion. But by never defending the title, more than anything, he gave it up. Wasn't Karpov even willing to leave FIDE to play?
>>

He was, the way he tells it. In Karpov on Karpov, he discusses the negotiations with Fischer to play a match outside of FIDE. The way Karpov tells it, it got as close as Campomanes putting a contract in front of Fischer, and getting the pen into his hand. At the last minute, Fischer balked over the issue of what to call the match. The contract didn't say. Fischer wanted to call it "The Professional Chess Players World Championship", which would have been dicey for Karpov, since the official Soviet Party line was that their players were amateurs, not professionals.

Campomanes said look, just sign the contract and we'll come up with a mutually agreeable name later, but Fischer said no, he couldn't do it that way, in stages. It was then that Karpov says he knew that Fischer would never sign.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 17:32
Just because Fide initiated the KO system, it doesn't mean squat as far as the World Championship is concerned.

Next time around, let's say, they decide to have a Bullet Chess KO Tournament and the winner will be claimed World Chess Champion, so everyone is expected to think of the winner to be heralded in the same light as Steintz thru Kramnik. In its own self interest Fide put forth a bogus system that shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. It's sad to think that there are chessplayers who feel justified in accepting this travesty as if it were somehow written in stone.

Posted by: chesstraveler at March 13, 2007 18:18
"Yes of course Anand WAS a world champ. kinda. sorta. I would be a world champ too if I played in a "world championship" event against my dog." - Russianbear

Right. I like your thinking!

But don't you agree, you can also make your dog a "World Champion"? kinda. sorta. All you have to do is just lose. Right? Also, it is unlikely your dog would have played any chess against anybody to be qualified to play you. May you would have tried to arrange one match at the most. And your dog would have failed miserably. Public interest out of curiosity in a man vs dog and therefore the money.

So, there you go, you and your dog. You play a chess match in "wwe style", lose to your dog and your dog becomes the "classical undisputed WWE style once in a life time lifetime world chess champion"!

PircAlert

Posted by: PircAlert at March 13, 2007 18:38
Hey RB, do you permit Anand to call himself a World Chess Champion when/if he wins Mexico?

D.

Posted by: Dimi at March 13, 2007 18:52
A solution to solve the problem of Mexico 2007: A tournament of Matches.8 player 4 quarterfinals of 8 games the match plus tiebreaks,2 semifinals of 8 games the match plus tiebreaks,1 final of 8 games the match ,total one undisputed champion beating 3 opponents in a row in 24 classic games. Kramnik can not complain playing in his beloved match format against 3 challengers instead one.The winner would play for a WCC match against the next World Cup winner every 2 years and problem solved.

Posted by: Granda at March 13, 2007 18:58
There are lots of solutions to solve the problem of Mexico. The simplest and easiest was to replace Kramnik with Topalov and have the winner play a match against Kramnik.

That would be greatly preferable to a situation where Kramnik would have the opportunity to have an influence over who his challenger will be. (The same situation could have arisen at A.V.R.O., had not Alekhine announced midway that he wouldn't feel obligated to play the winner).

Kramnik might not be able to comlain about your suggestion (for that matter, he's not complaining about the current one), but the rest of us could. You seem to be under the misconception that the match format is sacred to Kramnik. It doesn't appear to be, he's playing in Mexico without a complaining. Like most players, he's probably most interested in what advances his own career. It's the rest of us who know something about chess history, who hate to see a century of tradition overthrown just because some people don't like one guy.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 19:07
Anand is pretty dishonest in pretending his "World Championship" was a legitiate one.

Posted by: tgg at March 13, 2007 19:16
To -solve the unsolved- could have many -solutions- but what is the problem that Kramnik wants to play only against one challenger?.A tournament of matches is his best chance to prove he is the best match player.Kramnik considers a match is the only legal way to be a world champion,so why he expect challengers produced in a tournament format?.

Posted by: Granda at March 13, 2007 19:16
Viva Linares!

It was a sweet sixteen party for Carlsen.

Moro played like a maniac and it payed off.

There was some karmic pay off for Topa.

Anand did excellently well in typical Anand fashion.

What a great tournament!

Posted by: r at March 13, 2007 19:20
We talk about this lineage of World Champions that started with Steinitz and continued with Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, through to Kasparov.

Beg your pardon?

Steinitz just declared one day: "I'm the World Champion!" after beating one player, Zuckertort. IIRC, Zuckertort's lasting contribution to chess history was that he was the one player Steinitz beat to claim the first World Champion title. Nicely circular.

THIS is a World Champion? You just say you're the World Champion and that's the end of it?? And what sort of qualification system was in place for Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Euwe? Not a very strenuous system; nothing at all like beating two or three opponents in match play before playing a World Championship match. Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, and Short accomplished a great deal more than the group of champions and challengers starting with Steinitz and ending with Botvinnik.

If the lineage is Smyslov-Kasparov, then fine - comparatively, Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariov, and Topalov doesn't rate as well as the Smyslov-Kasparov line. But, compared with the Steinitz-Botvinnik line, Khalifman and company at least had some kind of structure, some kind of process to their titles. They weren't at the mercy of a World Champion arbitrarily deciding who has the right to compete with him.

I would love to see the Candidates system return, with one minor modification: if you win the candidates cycle and draw a match with the champion, the challenger is granted an automatic rematch to be played within six months. Why should the challenger, who has gone through a rigorous candidates cycle and proven himself to be the equal of the world champion, have to start all the way at the beginning? That seems unfair to me.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that if you are going to discredit Kahlifman and company's FIDE titles, you should realize that the Steinitz-Botvinnik line deserves a similar sort of discredit. How did Frank Marshall deserve to play for a World Championship match? He had better backing? Please.

Posted by: Ricardo at March 13, 2007 20:25
"Kramnik considers a match is the only legal way to be a world champion"

Kramnik has NEVER said that.

Posted by: acirce at March 13, 2007 20:43
You've got some odd ideas here, Ricardo. You seem to think that the world championship succession is a private argument between you and a few other internet geeks. On the contrary, without exception, every book you pick up on the subject will tell you that, yes indeed, Steinitz, Lasker, and all the rest were World Champions. This is not just you against some of the people here, it's pretty much you against the world.

>>Anyway, the point I'm making is that if you are going to discredit Kahlifman and company's FIDE titles, you should realize that the Steinitz-Botvinnik line deserves a similar sort of discredit.>>

Not really. The point you're missing is the lack of dissent. Steinitz had a title that nobody disputed. Khalifman had a title that nobody remembers. See the difference?

>>How did Frank Marshall deserve to play for a World Championship match? He had better backing? Please.

How do you think he GOT backing? Backers don't generally flush their money down the toilet. They back something that they think has a reasonable chance of success. Marshall's tournament successes plus his (slight) winning score against Lasker convinced people that he had a reasonable shot. And unlike you or I, those people put their money where their mouth was; surely that makes them more credible than us, not less. You might say that Steinitz through Botvinnik weren't really champions, but I bet you wouldn't put a plugged nickel on your chances of convincing anyone.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 20:50
You've got some odd ideas here, Ricardo. You seem to think that the world championship succession is a private argument between you and a few other internet geeks. On the contrary, without exception, every book you pick up on the subject will tell you that, yes indeed, Steinitz, Lasker, and all the rest were World Champions. This is not just you against some of the people here, it's pretty much you against the world.

>>Anyway, the point I'm making is that if you are going to discredit Kahlifman and company's FIDE titles, you should realize that the Steinitz-Botvinnik line deserves a similar sort of discredit.>>

Not really. The point you're missing is the lack of dissent. Steinitz had a title that nobody disputed. Khalifman had a title that nobody remembers. See the difference?

>>How did Frank Marshall deserve to play for a World Championship match? He had better backing? Please.

How do you think he GOT backing? Backers don't generally flush their money down the toilet. They back something that they think has a reasonable chance of success. Marshall's tournament successes plus his (slight) winning score against Lasker convinced people that he had a reasonable shot. And unlike you or I, those people put their money where their mouth was; surely that makes them more credible than us, not less. You might say that Steinitz through Botvinnik weren't really champions, but I bet you wouldn't put a plugged nickel on your chances of convincing anyone.

Posted by: Graeme at March 13, 2007 20:50
Who cares who was or is "World Champion?" Why waste time discussing such matters when you can be out getting laid?

Posted by: truffaut at March 13, 2007 21:10
So Anand was not preceeded by Khalifman and succeeded by Ponomariov as FIDE World Champion? How confusing.

On World champion = number 1 in rating list; very dependent on the sport. Example (always football for me), when French became FIFA world champion, Brazil was number one in the FIFA rating list; and people care more about world champions than number ones in the rating list.

Posted by: tsn at March 13, 2007 21:23
"Who cares who was or is "World Champion?" Why waste time discussing such matters when you can be out getting laid?"

Totally immature. And yet, the best answer I've ever seen on this topic!

Posted by: Joshua B. Lilly at March 13, 2007 21:31
Pardon, I meant France, not French.

Posted by: tsn at March 13, 2007 21:59
Ricardo, you gotta be kidding. Before you post these things, how about doing at least a little research so that your claims don't look so, hmm, peculiar.

"Steinitz just declared one day: "I'm the World Champion!" after beating one player, Zuckertort. IIRC, Zuckertort's lasting contribution to chess history was that he was the one player Steinitz beat to claim the first World Champion title. Nicely circular." - That's the thing. He didn't just decide one day to declare himself the champ. First, he beat everyone he played for 20 years.

In 1866, he beat Andersen who was considered by many the best at the time. In 1866 he also became worlds #1 ranked player according to chessmetrics historical ratings. Then he played pretty much anyone he could and continued winning. In 1876 Steinitz played a match against Joseph Blackburne who was ranked #2 in the world according to chessmetrics. 7 games were played and Steinitz won all 7. In London, 1883 they put together a huge tournament where pretty much all the best players of the time met - including top 7 players in the world according to chessmetrics. It was a 14 player double round robin, so they played 26 rounds (they replayed the draws, which were rare at the time). Result? Zukertort scored +18 and Steinitz finished second with +12. Blackburn finished 3rd with +8 and Blackburn was also beaten by Zukertort in a match earlier with a +5 score. When they played the first world championship match in 1886 Steinitz and Zukertort established themselves as by far the most dominant players of that time.

Perhaps you should check out some stats before you post things.

Here is summary of Steinitz's career:

http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=186510SSSSS3S126127000000141000057100000010100

If anyone could some day sit down and say "I will play the strongest player there is in the world other than me and let that be a start of Chess World championship", Steinitz certainly was the right guy to do it.

"THIS is a World Champion? You just say you're the World Champion and that's the end of it?? And what sort of qualification system was in place for Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Euwe? Not a very strenuous system; nothing at all like beating two or three opponents in match play before playing a World Championship match. Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, and Short accomplished a great deal more than the group of champions and challengers starting with Steinitz and ending with Botvinnik."
I am not going to go into details and refute this utter nonsense and explain why Lasker, Capablanca and others deserved to be world champions even without FIDE and without consistent WC cycle. The quote like that is so ridiculous that to answer it seriously would not be right. I am just going to mention that FIDE had pre-Botvinnik world champions, too. You just don't remember them because noone gives a damn about them anymore. Hell, I love chess trivia and even I barely remember those guys. One of them was Bogolyubov. Another may have been Euwe, but I am not sure. As soon as Alekhine died FIDE was the first to forget about those so-called champions and chose to align themselves with the Steinitz tradition and number the champions accordingly. I think 60 years from now people will once again only remember the Steinitz traditional/classical line when they think of our time. Noone will remember Kasimdzhanov and other FIDE winners. Time will tell :)

Posted by: Russianbear at March 13, 2007 22:02
I like rematch clauses.

I think the champion ought to get a rematch clause. That way we'd get a Wch match every year and only have to schedule the qualifying over two years (since the Q seems to be such and issue). Then we could have proper candidates matches. And we'd get to see the fascinating development of mano-a-mano chess over two matches in the rematch situation.

I'm all for handpicked challengers too. Kasparov's score against Shirov after the Kramnik match was something like 80%.

Posted by: gmc at March 13, 2007 22:22
"Yes of course Anand WAS a world champ. kinda. sorta. I would be a world champ too if I played in a "world championship" event against my dog." - Russianbear

Hey russianbear. Lets match my WC dog against your WC dog for the unified wc chess title. However be forewarned, my WC dog has Heavyweight Boxing WC dogs as friends.. so your dog better not mess with my dog.

Posted by: great mo at March 13, 2007 22:44
"Who cares who was or is "World Champion?" Why waste time discussing such matters when you can be out getting laid?"

Or trolling websites. That really impresses the chicks.

Posted by: Charles at March 13, 2007 22:50
:-)))) truffaut, you have a point!! How true...

D.

Posted by: Dimi at March 13, 2007 23:43
gmc, how can you possibly like rematch clauses? Where do they end? If a new world champion has to play a rematch and then loses, why does that person not then get an automatic rematch, or was that person not a 'real' world champion, i.e. only the other champ gets a rematch. A rematch clause gives too much of an advantage to the champion and it is completely unwarranted. A losing champion can simply join in the next cycle and try to win the title back.

Posted by: knight_tour at March 13, 2007 23:56
Bovinnik kept having rematches... Does anyone know why the other world champion such as Tal, Petrosian & Smyslov didnt have rematches??

Posted by: zzz at March 14, 2007 00:17
I'd like to buy a round of drinks for truffaut and charles! "Hear, hear!"

Posted by: Aestus at March 14, 2007 01:46
World Championship matches are history like marxism, communism and other old Soviet concepts.Good in theory but not practical in 21st century. Russians guys cannot handle other nations guys being chess champs and start to discredit them. For this reason I would rate Fisher and Anand as best chess exponents of the free world ..who cares what they think..

Posted by: Topalovovian at March 14, 2007 02:12
@zzz

Tal and Smyslov could not have rematches as they lost their titles back to Botvinnik in rematches before having the right to claim a rematch themselves, i.e. before keeping their worldchampionship titles longer than one year. If they had they won the rematches vs. Botvinnik and after that lost their titles again in a new worldchampionship, they would have had the right to demand a rematch as well.
The rematch regulation was abolished from 1963 on, that's why Botvinnik could not demand a rematch vs.. Petrosian and neither could Petrosian vs. Spassky. The regulations were changed again by FIDE in 1985 to give privileged Karpov the right for a rematch vs. Kasparov.

Posted by: Stefan Teplan at March 14, 2007 03:56
From FIDE site:
'Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and Vladimir Kramnik exchanged the opinions in respect of time control and concurred that it is necessary to keep the 7 hours control for top level events and some traditional chess tournaments. For all other tournaments a new time control of 1 hour plus 10 seconds from move 1 for each player will be set up. The World Champion supported the idea. This proposal will be considered by the next Presidential Board meeting.'

WTF??? Kramnik really supported this?

Posted by: marc at March 14, 2007 05:22
First of all, to everyone - I wasn't suggesting Steinitz and others weren't deserving champions. If this is what you took from what I wrote, it is either due to insufficient skill with reading comprehension or a deliberate act of ignorance stemming from a reflexive dislike of anything resembling a dissenting opinion.

The world champions before 1950 could, in fact, hand-pick their challengers. If there is something sporting about that, I'm an airplane.

Graeme,

You claim patrons don't flush their money down the toilet? Ever hear of the Rice Gambit? Would any governing body ever waste their time and sponsor's dollars on that? What of other tournaments devoted to a single opening? Are those serious events if White isn't permitted to play 1 d4? Is Melody Amber a serious event now?

Russianbear,

Steinitz was regarded as the strongest player in the world in the 1870's. Why is he the first world champion, then? Was not Adolf Anderssen regarded as the strongest before Steinitz? Or Morphy? LaBourdonnais? Why does the lineage begin with Steinitz if history tells us there were others before him? Because he said so? Because the history books tell us this and for crying out loud, we dare not oppose them? The orthodoxy must remain unchallenged?

My point (and I'll try this again, slower this time) is that champions and challengers from 1950-1995 proved more than their predecessors. The candidates process of that era meant that a player competing for the championship had earned his way there.

In 1977, Korchnoi defeated Petrosian, Spassky, and Polugaevsky in match play to earn the right to play against Karpov. In 1907, Marshall only needed financial backing to play a match with Lasker. They may have both been championship challengers, but only one man truly worked for that honor.

But thank you, Russianbear, for not taking the time to refute a claim I didn't make. That would have been a spectacular waste of time on your part.

Posted by: Ricardo at March 14, 2007 05:42
I Dont think Anand was bragging about he being World Champion.

People seem to have not noted the frustration of Anand at being asked that question. Yes it was frustration and certainly not bragging.

Imagining someone ask him " Why did you not beat Garry?" What do they expect as an answer?
" I got killed thats why? " I think Anand's answer was indication that he did not want to talk about it. If you asked him that whether he was World Champion he'd say "Yes" , he won it in Tehran, BUT HE VERY WELL KNOWS THAT the title is not the REAL World CHampion. Nobody asked him that.
Anand himself said that to be World Champion, you need to beat existing WC in a match. So even though he might have played for fun in DElhi, i think there is nothing wrong in claiming that he WAS World Champion, after all Garry was there and chose not to participate, Can you blame Anand for that? If Kramnik refused to play in Mexico and if there were confusion prevailing still, as to a WC match and classsical World Champion woudn't play or the Talks with immediate challenger failed and someone like Anand won a FIDE organised WC even be it 5 mins games, i think they can claim that they WERE WC !!

Ask him whether it was the true WC, and i'm sure he'll say 'ofcourse not '.

Posted by: Instant Karma at March 14, 2007 07:29
I've to agree with Ricardo here. This supposed line from Steinitz to Kasparov is absurd. Lets take Lasker for example, he avoided a match with Tarrasch for a long time and played only when he Tarrasch was way past him prime. He played against Schlechter and didn't manage to win (in fact he would have lost if not for the unfair condition that Schlechter need a 2 points margin to win), then Lasker avoided Capablanca for like 10 years, he played meaningless matches against Janowski or Marshall, he avoided Rubinstein altogether and so on..
And what about Alekhine? he never gave Capablanca a rematch and played against Bogo.
Even after ww2 with FIDE things weren't any better. We all know that in the match-tourney in 1948 Keres was forced to threw his games to Botvinnik then Brostein wasn't allowed to win against Botwinnink... and so on. Then the absurd rules which gave Botvinnik the right for a rematch. (btw i've never quite understood why weren't Smyslov and Tal granted a rematch after they lost the tittle too, its not like they were less valid champions than Botvinnik). Oh and what about the ridiculous regulation that the champion keeps the title in case of a draw?
This supposed line of "champions" from Steinitz to Kasparov is purely a fictional myth.
Khalifman, Anand and Pono deserve all credit they were real world championship, those events they've won were fantastic!

Posted by: Jean at March 14, 2007 07:36
Lots of pointless semantics in this thread, and thousands of dead horses screaming with pain.

Posted by: quely at March 14, 2007 08:03
Well, that's a point. The Rice Gambit was an exception to the general rule that losers don't get backing (though Rice did "win" at his real objective of getting his name on something that GM's played). Backing a tournament or format isn't the same thing as backing an individual.

Posted by: Graeme at March 14, 2007 08:06
Oh for goodness' sake. If we must have historical reminiscences can we have less of these ludicrous Schroeder-style canards?

Everyone knows that Lasker spent long periods away from chess; that's why, alone among the world champions, he achieved something which means his name lives on in other intellectual disciplines.

The myth that Schlechter needed a two-point margin was exploded long ago. See Winter, Heidenfeld, et al.

Lasker avoided Capablanca for ten years - you must mean 1911 to 1921, I suppose? First of all, in 1911 Capablanca was by no means the most obvious challenger. Secondly, during 1914-1918 there was a certain amount of international upheaval - you may have heard of it - which meant that the climate for staging world championship matches was not favourable. Third, after the war, far from avoiding Capa, Lasker resigned his title to him. It was Capa who wanted the match.

As to Rubinstein, you will recall that negotiations for a match were well advanced when the international disharmony I mentioned prevented it.

We do not 'all know' that Keres was forced to lose to Botvinnik. Many people would like to believe this, true, but I've never heard anyone close to the scene at the time say so (Bronstein, for example) and others who were denying it (eg Averbakh).

The same in 1951. What is common knowledge is that Boleslavsky did not fight as hard as he might have done to let Bronstein qualify instead of him, but Bronstein himself never came out and said he was ordered to lose.

If you could be bothered to read the thread you would see Graeme explaining the rematch rule. Boxing has the same 'absurd' rule of the champion keeping the title in the event of a draw. I would be interested, actually, if you could name a sport where an existing champion defends in a head-to-head which doesn't have this 'absurd' rule.

As to the line of champions from Steinitz to Kasparov being 'pure fiction'; I think the only appropriate reply would be, 'yes, of course it is, sweetie.' I never understand why people see fit to post such utter drivel. One can only suppose that you simply lost sight temporarily of the fact that words have meaning, as opposed to being simply nice vehicles for emitting emotion. Of course it isn't "pure fiction".

Posted by: rdh at March 14, 2007 08:10
>>The regulations were changed again by FIDE in 1985 to give privileged Karpov the right for a rematch vs. Kasparov.
>>

Not quite. The regs were changed in 1977. But not to give Karpov a privilige, to cut a deal with him. Lots of people, the US especially, still wanted to see Fischer's unlimited match rules tried out, but Karpov wanted to go back to the old Best of 24. In order to get him to agree to play an unlimited match, they gave him the rematch clause. It was the US and Ed Edmondson himself who helped him get it.

Posted by: Graeme at March 14, 2007 08:14
rdh you have written a lot of nonsense.
First Schlechter indeed needed a two-point margin it is a well known fact, further proof of it is that the negotiations of the Lasker-Capa match fell coz Lasker insisted on the same unfair rule.
Keres threw the games to Botvinik there is no question about that. Their score before was more or less equal but at the most convinient time for Botvinik Keres suddenly losses 4 games in row playing like a patzer? right. The rematch rule was simply unfair and stupid. period.
and has Boxing to do with chess?

Posted by: Jean at March 14, 2007 08:55
>>The world champions before 1950 could, in fact, hand-pick their challengers. >>

Not entirely. Again, you still could only choose from people who were powerful enough players to get somebody to back them.

Really, the ONLY champion ever who truly hand-picked his opponent was Steinitz in 1889. The Havana Club came to *him* (rather than to a challenger) saying they wanted to sponsor his first title defense, and that he could pick anyone in the world as his challenger. He picked Tchigorin, since Tchigorin had a winning record against him that he wanted to erase.

Posted by: Graeme at March 14, 2007 09:09
Would you care to post any evidence for your suggestions about negotiations for the Lasker-Capa match, Jean? They are absent from Winter's Capablanca biography AFAIR; generally considered the most reliable (secondary) source.

I'm afraid if you don't know about the Lasker-Schlechter 'controversy' I can't be bothered to point you to the relevant literature, which I don't have here anyway. It was exhaustively dealt with in Chess magazine around 1977 and really left very little room for doubt.

I don't think I said anything one way or the other about the merits of the rematch rule, did I? You were asking a factual question which had already been answered: I pointed this out.

Boxing is another sport which thinks the rule you call 'absurd' is sensible, that's all. Or did you mean this rule could be perfectly sensible in other contexts but absurd for some reason only in chess.

Posted by: rdh at March 14, 2007 09:32
Boxers get their brains knocked up so bad they get Parkinsons... so yes absurd rules would seem fair for them... I just dont think a chess player would think so too...

Posted by: hdr at March 14, 2007 09:42
>>rdh you have written a lot of nonsense.
First Schlechter indeed needed a two-point margin it is a well known fact, further proof of it is that the negotiations of the Lasker-Capa match fell coz Lasker insisted on the same unfair rule.
>>

It is a fact that Lasker-Capa fell through over that clause. It's not a fact that Schlechter agreed to the same clause, though. It doesn't appear in any other of Lasker's matches that we know of. It's commonly believed, but not proven.

>>
Keres threw the games to Botvinik there is no question about that. Their score before was more or less equal
>>

Looking at the database, it looks like the score was +2-0=6 to Botvinnik, which coincidentally, is almost the same score as the Shirov-Kramnik match (+2-0=7). I think it's been well established that nobody who loses that badly should ever be allowed near the world title in the first place.

>>The rematch rule was simply unfair and stupid. period.
>>

The rematch rule made sense when there was no candidates system. Once it became possible for a defeated champion to earn another shot by playing in the next candidates, it became obsolete, though. In fact, Botvinnik didn't have it in his first 2 defenses. If Bronstein had won, he'd have been champ for 3 years, and there would have been a triple threat match between Botvinnik, Bronstein and Smyslov in 1954.

>>and has Boxing to do with chess?

What boxing has to do with chess is obvious. They're both one-on-one sports with a King of the Hill style championship. It has more to do with chess than soccer, which people invoke frequently.

Posted by: Graeme at March 14, 2007 10:04
"First Schlechter indeed needed a two-point margin it is a well known fact, further proof of it is that the negotiations of the Lasker-Capa match fell coz Lasker insisted on the same unfair rule.
Keres threw the games to Botvinik there is no question about that. Their score before was more or less equal but at the most convinient time for Botvinik Keres suddenly losses 4 games in row playing like a patzer? right."

So you've found your way here, slomarko. Not nice to see you.

Posted by: acirce at March 14, 2007 10:09
I think the interviewer was a little disrespectful of Anand regarding the World Championship. Okay, so the FIDE title at the time wasn't worth as much. So what? It was still a World Championship of some prestige, and he won. It's just rude to then ask, "Are you too nice to be champion?" when he's always said he believes he was a champion. Anand was justified in talking some smack back to him but chose not too.

Posted by: micartouse at March 14, 2007 10:29
Please mark the following statements True or False (no negative marking):

1) Chess is a game which has an international ruling organization called FIDE

2) This body organizes world championships, maintains ELO's, defines rules, awards titles, etc.

3) They scrapped the traditional world championship format in the late 1990's (lets assume they had their reasons - financial, organizational, political or otherwise) and they invited all the best players to take part

4) In the year 2000, one V Anand (not from Russia) won this tournament and was crowned World Champion

5) Since Anand won the official world championship and hence was the (at least the official) world champion

Posted by: stringTheory at March 14, 2007 10:34
There is no question that Anand won a tournament that was called the World Championship. (So did Yuri Shulman, for that matter). The real question is whether someone with Anand's talent should be satisfied with what he he's done already.

The course of this discussion seems to indicate that no, he should not. While it's ridiculously easy to start conversations on even century-old classical title battles between Steinitz, Lasker and Marshall, nobody cares about Anand's wins over Bologan or Lputian. He won the Delhi tournament, but didn't beat anyone that people would remotely consider to be the best player in the world, not even Shirov.

Anand won a title, but it's one that nobody cares about. On the other hand, the title that Kramnik has is one that everyone cares about. A guy with Anand's enormous talent should not be satisfied until he's made that title his own.

Posted by: Graeme at March 14, 2007 11:02
Graeme correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this Shirov the same Shirov who beat Kramnik in match a year or two before?

Posted by: Jean at March 14, 2007 11:17
"Russianbear,

Steinitz was regarded as the strongest player in the world in the 1870's. Why is he the first world champion, then? Was not Adolf Anderssen regarded as the strongest before Steinitz? Or Morphy? LaBourdonnais? Why does the lineage begin with Steinitz if history tells us there were others before him? Because he said so? Because the history books tell us this and for crying out loud, we dare not oppose them? The orthodoxy must remain unchallenged?" - Well, many history books
indeed achnowledge pre-Steinitz unofficial champions. The WC linage begins with Steinitz because it was the first match between by far the two best players in the world that was called the World championship. Of course, one can think of Morphy pretty much in the same way as one thinks of Steinitz, but I thought it was clear we were talking about the title of Chess "World champion", and the title was first held by Steinitz and the format of Chess World championship - the long match between the champ and the challenger - was recognized as proper way to settle the matter of who indeed was the World champion. Of course, one can try and project the title into the past onto people like Morphy (who certainly deserved it), but that is not easy to do because precisely one advantage of having a title is that you know who holds it in any given moment and in certain times of the pre-Steinitz past it wasn't clear at all - for example, it is debatable whether Andersen was the (unnoficial) world champ in 1866.

"My point (and I'll try this again, slower this time) is that champions and challengers from 1950-1995 proved more than their predecessors. The candidates process of that era meant that a player competing for the championship had earned his way there.

In 1977, Korchnoi defeated Petrosian, Spassky, and Polugaevsky in match play to earn the right to play against Karpov. In 1907, Marshall only needed financial backing to play a match with Lasker. They may have both been championship challengers, but only one man truly worked for that honor. " - It is not really fair compare the least successful pre-FIDE challenger to the person who perhaps was the best player ever not to win the title. Clearly, pre-FIDE system had some problems. But that system produced worthy champions (at least as worthy as the FIDE system of 50s-80s). And Marshall did work for that honor, too. Just because he didn't win a cycle doesn't mean he didn't deserve the title shot. As you know, there was no cycle to win in those times, so it is not exactly fair to blame Marshall for not winning one. With the punishment Lasker inflicted on Marshall in the World championship match in 1907, one tends to think Marshall probably didn't deserve to be there, but that is not the case. According to Chessmetrics (again, I suggest to all those who want to participate in these argument to browse chessmetrics from time to time), Marshall was rated #4 in the world when he played Lasker - so it wasn't so bad. In 1905 he beat Dawid Janowsky in a match, and Janowsky was rated #2 in the world at the time. In Nuremberg, 1906, Marshall scored +9 in a 16 round tournament, ahead of Tarrasch (#2 in the world) Janowsky (#3) and Schlechter (#4), among many others. So yes, Marshall didn't win the cycle like Korchnoi did, but there was no cycle - those were simple times with relatively few tournaments/events. But for that time, Marshall had a legitimate claim to be Lasker's challenger, based on the results I mentioned. Just beause he got absolutely destroyed by Lasker doesn't change the fact he deserved to be in the match.

Posted by: Russianbear at March 14, 2007 11:22
>>Graeme correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this Shirov the same Shirov who beat Kramnik in match a year or two before?
>>

He was. That's the point. Would anyone argue that Keres should never have been let near the Championship at all because of his 0-2 score against Botvinnik?

I don't deny that Shirov had first crack at Kasparov, and he got it. It's a shame he couldn't get funding, but it would be much worse if Kasparov was still sitting on his title 8 years later, waiting for Shirov to get the money.

The situation isn't too different from what happened to Nimzovich. He had first crack at challenging Capablanca, not Alekhine. But he couldn't get the money up before the 1/1/27 deadline, so his rights expired. Granted, Nimzovich didn't actually win a match with Alekhine, but does that matter? At the time, people were angry at Capablanca and Kasparov both, for sitting on their titles for too long without defending them.

Would anyone have been happier if either champion had said they weren't going to play at all until that one guy could get the money? No, it would just have been seen as an excuse not to defend. They both had to play with *somebody*, and considering that they both lost their titles, it's hard to argue that they picked unworthy challengers.

Posted by: Graeme at March 14, 2007 11:37
Graeme what i meant is Kramnik lost a qualifying match to Shirov but Anand beat Shirov in the final of the world championship. Anand did what Kramnik was unable to do: beat Shirov in a match. Anand has every right to call himself ex-world champion IMO.
I'd like to comment on Marshall briefly too. he was far from being a creditable challenger, he was beaten badly by Capablanca in a match. Lasker saw that and picked him coz he knew he'd whitewash him.

Posted by: Jean at March 14, 2007 12:07

Kramnik was able to beat the world number 1 (Kasparov) in a match which is something that Anand was repeatedly unable to do.

Posted by: Graeme at March 14, 2007 11:37
Graeme what i meant is Kramnik lost a qualifying match to Shirov but Anand beat Shirov in the final of the world championship. Anand did what Kramnik was unable to do: beat Shirov in a match. Anand has every right to call himself ex-world champion IMO.
I'd like to comment on Marshall briefly too. he was far from being a creditable challenger, he was beaten badly by Capablanca in a match. Lasker saw that and picked him coz he knew he'd whitewash him.

Posted by: Jean at March 14, 2007 12:07

Kramnik was able to beat the world number 1 (Kasparov) in a match which is something that Anand was repeatedly unable to do.

>>Ah and yes, Anand was ditched in favor of Kramnik by Kasparov for a WC match, in 2000. That's why he probably would enjoy to be called the [FIDE] World Champion 2000 with a vengeance.>>

I don't believe so. I'd have to do some checking through some old files, but I believe Kasparov wanted to play Anand again, but Anand wasn't disposed to play. Either he wasn't interested, or had signed a contract not to compete in non-FIDE events, or something like that. I'd have to check. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't frozen out by Kasparov.

Wait, here's something:

http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/a0a1gkix.htm

>>
In March 2000, the attention of the chess world shifted to London when The Times reported that a 16 game, 2.000.000 US$ World Championship match between Garry Kasparov and Viswanathan Anand was planned for October. The venue was first reported as Bahrain, but later changed to London. The report was confirmed by the Mind Sports Organisation (MSO), a company founded by Raymond Keene, David Levy, and Tony Buzan. Kasparov was reported to have agreed to the terms.

MSO later announced that Anand had not yet signed a contract and that he had been given until 27 March to do so. When he failed to meet the deadline, the invitation passed to Vladimir Kramnik.
>>

So, there you have it. When Shirov couldn't get the money up, Kasparov turned next to the very credible Viswanathan Anand as his next choice, and then to the #2 rated player. I don't think we can accuse Kasparov of shirking strong opposition here.

There's more, you can read it at that link.

>>Ah and yes, Anand was ditched in favor of Kramnik by Kasparov for a WC match, in 2000. That's why he probably would enjoy to be called the [FIDE] World Champion 2000 with a vengeance.>>

That's not correct. Anand was actually Kasparov's next choice after Shirov failed to get the money up.

Have a look at this:

http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/a0a1gkix.htm

>>
In March 2000, the attention of the chess world shifted to London when The Times reported that a 16 game, 2.000.000 US$ World Championship match between Garry Kasparov and Viswanathan Anand was planned for October. The venue was first reported as Bahrain, but later changed to London. The report was confirmed by the Mind Sports Organisation (MSO), a company founded by Raymond Keene, David Levy, and Tony Buzan. Kasparov was reported to have agreed to the terms.

MSO later announced that Anand had not yet signed a contract and that he had been given until 27 March to do so. When he failed to meet the deadline, the invitation passed to Vladimir Kramnik.
>>

So, there you have it. When Shirov couldn't get the money up, Kasparov turned next to the very credible Viswanathan Anand as his next choice, and then to the #2 rated player. I don't think we can accuse Kasparov of shirking strong opposition in general, or Anand in particular.

There's more, you can read it at that link.

*sigh* Amos Burn once famously said that he had never had the satisfaction of beating a perfectly healthy opponent. It appears now that no world champion will, in the eyes of some monomaniacal crank or another, ever have the satisfaction of beating a perfectly legitimate challenger.

Pirc Alert
>>
How legitimate is the interview process and how good is the candidate selected?

So, the bottom classical line is, Kramnik was never a world chess champion!!
>>

That doesn't make any sense. In your example, the candidate in question was hired by the company. To say "he was a bad employee, therefore he wasn't an employee" is ridiculous.

You're entitled to an opinion of course. You don't have to recognize Kramnik, Steinitz, Lasker or anybody you don't want to. But if you state the opinion as though it were a fact, and say "Lasker (or whoever) was never World Champion", when thousands of books say he was, it's not going to change people's minds, it'll just make them think you don't know any better.

Same as if somebody went around saying Fischer was never the world champion on the grounds that he never really qualified for the interzonal. You might think he shouldn't have been let in, but the fact is he was and he beat the champ.

Interesting statement about Kramnik in the link given by Graeme above.

"Kramnik had declined to participate at Groningen in protest against the advantages given to Karpov"

And now he wants those same advantages when he is world champion.

Needless, to say Kramnik wanting the match with him directly seeded into the final is just ensuring his self-interest.

http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/a0a1gkix.htm

dirtbag, why do I have a feeling you know the answer and yet you still post stuff just for the hell of it. Seeding the champ in the final of a regular cycle is one thing, allowing the champ into a final of a grueling KO tournament is totally different. So please do not say he now wants the same advantages. Unless Kramnik requests a KO to decide his challenger AND he will play someone who is tired while he is rested, it is not the same.

>>
Interesting statement about Kramnik in the link given by Graeme above.

"Kramnik had declined to participate at Groningen in protest against the advantages given to Karpov"

And now he wants those same advantages when he is world champion.
>>

Not quite the same, no. The advantage that Karpov got in that case was that the challenger had to play the match with Karpov almost immediately after the conclusion of the Candidates section, with no proper time for rest or preparation (I think Anand qualified on December 30, and had to start playing Karpov on January 2).

It had nothing to do with the champion being seeded into the final, if that's what you're thinking, as can be seen by the fact that Kramnik DID play in the previous cycle, in which the challenger (Kamsky, as it turned out) had adequate rest time before going on to play Karpov.

>>Needless, to say Kramnik wanting the match with him directly seeded into the final is just ensuring his self-interest.>>

Blaming him for a rule that goes back to 1886, as though it were his idea is kind of silly. In any case, that's not what he boycotted Groningen over. A tired challenger having 2 days to prepare for a fresh champion was an unprecedented advantage. The champion being seeded into the finals was not.

Ah, those same lies over and over again about Kramnik. Some guys never get bored...

Graeme,
You asked, was not the selected candidate an employee? Answer is, of course, he was. Was he the best? No way. He gotto be amatuerish. Didn't he do worse than a talented amatuer in the written test?

The interview story continues like this. The talented and the professional who came for the interview were frustrated but behaved professionally and applied to the original company. The professional got through the interview process - which was not a true test of one's candidacy but was nevertheless a fair one. He became an employee, an employee of another company!

In order to be "an employee", you gotto be "the employee", but there were 2 companies and 2 employees and so, the fight went on for who was "the employee".

So, the undeniable fact is, there is a split in the top level chess and the top few do not come together. That itself is enough evidence to show Kramnik was no world champion.

Therefore, what I am stating is a fact. Yours may be a majority opinion, and hence you believe it gotto be the fact. Remember, truth is unpopular! Don't ask me about Stenitz etc. I don't know chess history.

'Don't ask me about Steinitz etc. I don't know chess history'.

Uh-huh.

Looked up the Lasker-Capa business. As I thought it wasn't that Capa had to win by two up in Lasker's terms at all. It was first to six but match to finish after thirty games. Of course challengers always want first-to-whatever because it takes away the champion's draw advantage. In return Lasker wanted 1-0, 2-1 or 3-2 after 30 games to count as a drawn match. So 4-3 or 5-4 (much more probable scores, after 30 games) would have won.

Strange coincidence; had a look at Winter's site today and clocked a learned debate about whether Bird or Burn made the joke about healthy opponents. Seems Bird may have had the better case. He also posts some stuff which makes it perfectly clear the Schlechter-had-to-win-two-up stuff is nonsense: Lasker gave an interview before the last game in which he said that it seemed likely he would lose the title. Of course the conspiracy theorists claim that was to disguise the fact that he had a SECRET agreement that Schlechter had to win two up. Once you get to that stage, there's no more to be said. Winter does post some interesting stuff though which seems to suggest that it may not have been a championship match at all (don't have the link now; anyone can google it easily).

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=54100&kpage=1 for some discussion on the Lasker-Schlechter match.

Graeme, I said it before, but sometimes it is good to repeat things... this one is mine favorite...

"I don't believe so. I'd have to do some checking through some old files, but I believe Kasparov wanted to play Anand again, but Anand wasn't disposed to play. Either he wasn't interested, or had signed a contract not to compete in non-FIDE events, or something like that. I'd have to check. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't frozen out by Kasparov."

Anand declined in 1998, because he had a signed contract with FIDE preventing him from playing in other WC events. Of course, Kasparov & friends were saying all over, well this contract meant nothing, and he could freely break it. He didn't and hence we had a match Shirov-Kramnik, and a following comedy where Kramnik was paid, and Shirov not.

In 1999, Anand was offered a match with Kasparov, and hence, did not play in FIDE Ko. The match felt apart. 1) Anand lost all the money he could have earned in the FIDE Ko (and it was big money, as it was basically Kirsan's money) ; 2) Anand had to skip a few tournaments ; 3) Anand lost all the money he spent in the preparation of the match with Kasparov (including second's salaries).

In 2000, Anand was offered a match with Kasparov again. Indeed. But the main organizer was no other than Raymond Keene, and as you can see the situation was quite a little cloudy: http://www.chesscenter.com/kingpin/Kingpin/raylevy.htm
Also Braingames who paid for the event ended bankrupt in 2000, and Einstein Group who bought the rights of the Braingames title WC, filed later chapter 11.

In addition, unlike Kasparov, Anand did not know who were the sponsor, was not in so close terms with R. Keene, and was offered: just basically "sign here, spend your money on the preparation again, shut up, and with all luck you will play"

So let me paint the situation: Anand is offered a match,
1) after Shirov had been publically skrewed by Kasparov & friends (he should *at least* have been paid for the Kramnik-Shirov match he won),
2) after Anand had been skrewed in the 1999, and lost big money
3) offered a contract by a just created organization, funded in non-crystal clear way, with an organizer which is not universally acclaimed in chess circles. The organization wwent on being bankrupt on the same year
4) offered a contract by people (at least Kasparov) who said basically he could freely break his FIDE contract in 1998, no big deal. And had shown the way, with Shirov, as far as I can say.
5) offered to play against someone who has the worst record in match organization lately (Kasparov) - recall Kasparov-Shirov, Kasparov-Anand 1999, Kasparov-Ponomariov, Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov (all failed).

All Anand did, is to do something anyone half sensible would have done, especially since we are talking about hundred of thousands of dollars here ; he said: ok, you claim you have the money, so please give an advance payment, anyway I am owed a little money for the previous match attempt, remember.

Instead, what happened is that Kasparov and friends *advanced* the deadline for Anand's contract signature, and had chosen Kramnik instead. Give me one reason, if they honestly wanted to play Anand, they couldn't let him have advance money?

Well I can think of only one reason, maybe Kasparov didn't want Anand to be able to fully prepare the WC. That's the only one I can think of.

The truth is everything happened this way probably because Kasparov was much more interested in playing Kramnik. In fact, the record of Anand against Kasparov had never been good... he beat him, what, maybe once in the last ten years? Hence it is every bit correct to say that Anand was ditched in favor of Kramnik.

Yeah, I found that as well, acirce. I don't know who wrote it, but they weren't no historian.

rdh, true - of course you realize I was talking about the ensuing discussion more than just the introduction... Not much, but I thought I'd mention it.

Okay zarghev, so Kasparov chose the toughest opponent and smokescreened or ripped off the others. That's not exactly dishonorable. (and does anyone need to be reminded that Ray Keene would sell his grandmother and buy her back at a loss?). With psychological injuries from the Deep Blue loss and a custody battle still fresh, Kasparov favored rock and roll over a line-dancing cakewalk. Like Tal long before, it just wasn't his style to duck the strongest challenge.

And now Kramnik, not Anand, is the only "active" player in a direct line from Steinitz.

Graeme at March 14, 2007 10:04:
"What boxing has to do with chess is obvious. They're both one-on-one sports with a King of the Hill style championship. It has more to do with chess than soccer, which people invoke frequently."

Well, true and not true.

One-on-one, yes.

Several rounds instead of just two halves, yes.

Points per round decided subjectively by three judges, no.

Letting these judges decide your faith if you didn't manage to KO your opponent by the end of the match, no.

Square arena, yes.

Not allowed to leave the arena, no (I think in boxing you're not allowed to go to the toilet?)

Candidate system for deciding challengers, yes.

Multiple definition of WC based on federation (WBA, WBC, IBF, IBO, WBO, etc), no.

I was disappointed at Topolov's performance. Especially after Corus. I bet that all the drama that has been going on with him had something to do with it.
Jack Le Moine
jacklemoine.blogspot.com

You guys have a problem that Anand called himself a former World Champ? let me get this straight - Anand won the officially organized championship and beat all comers a second time after doing the same in 1998 and you guys have a problem with him claiming he won a World Championship? other poster mentioned, you slyly lump it with Ponomariov's and Kasimjanov's win under accelarated controls to diminish its value?

And you are doing this to preserve the purity of Steinitz's sperm? Which is itself in question and of dubious value. You love Kramnik despite him losing badly to Shirov, becoming a hand-picked challenger and after a lucky win, turn holier than thou and not offer Kasparov a rematch. You love despite him shying away from all conflict unless it is heavily loaded in his favor (unlike Kasparov or Anand who show up to play everywhere). And all he did from 2000 to 2006 was draw Leko 7-7

sicky-sickofnon, I agree with you that the preservation of Steinitz's sperm is of dubious value. I don't know why you brought it up, but whatever blows your hair back is fine with me.

However, I had no idea that between 2000-06 Kramnik avoided all tournaments and faced no opponent save Leko. What a drag-ass!! Why isn't this guy booted from the sport with a lifetime ban???

Somebody had to say it. No way Kramnik is of Anand's caliber. Kramnik's only accomplishment is beating a for-what-ever-reasons-out-of-form GK in a match he never even qualified for. After that it's all trying to make a lifetime living out of this one lucky punch by exploiting and creating confusions. The Steinitz storyline comes in handy (why even care about pre- Capablanca/Alekhine area ?? look at the games). Had only Leko pressed more instead of giving him easy (and boring) draws - he could have beaten him easily (was it perhaps Hensel's team order ?). Next milestone in Kramnik's career: he makes +1 in blitz games in Elista... besides that he was *completely outplayed* (when Topalov lost then only because of blunders).

>knowing kramnik, he'll not do an unsporting thing.

ROFLMAO

I wonder how he manages to look in the mirror in the morning... Now in cold blood he enforces huge privileges for himself and again out-maneuvers a potential too-strong challenger off-board.

LOL seeing how Anand's post-Linares interview has been hijacked into a vigourous WC debate (again!)

Anyway, I'm still hoping for a MATCH between the #1 and the #2, to use Kasparov's metaphor, to determine the true WC.

Unfortunately, Kramnik has agreed to play in Mexico City. Fortunately, he has the right the challenge either the winner of Mexico City or the winner of San Luis. That makes it likely that posterity will judge these tournaments no better than the preceding FIDE KO lotteries, and posterity will remember their winners as what they really are, lottery winners.

In contrast, posterity will remember the winner of a MATCH between the metaphorical #1 and #2 as the true WC!

My question is , how do you know what posterity will remember ?

How do we know what posterity will remember? Sometimes it is just obvious. We knew history would not count these faux-FIDE 'championships' as real championships because it was obvious. And time has proven this to be the case, as clearly no one (except a few weirdos) cares anymore about those so-called 'world titles'. Whatever real problems existed in the true classical line of champions, it is still the real line of champions and the vast majority of us can see that.

Nothing like a little disappointment fueled post-Linares rage from poisoned pawn...Topalov's most fanatical minion.

"Kramnik's only accomplishment is beating a for-what-ever-reasons-out-of-form GK in a match he never even qualified for. After that it's all trying to make a lifetime living out of this one lucky punch by exploiting and creating confusions."

Quite the opposite. One of the main points in favour of matches is they're long enough to mitigate the luck factor, unlike knockout tournaments.

"Next milestone in Kramnik's career: he makes +1 in blitz games in Elista... besides that he was *completely outplayed* (when Topalov lost then only because of blunders)."

Aren't you forgetting that Kramnik in fact made +1 in the classical part of the Elista match with one less game as white?

"Now in cold blood he enforces huge privileges for himself and again out-maneuvers a potential too-strong challenger off-board."

Refresh my memory...who was engaging in the off-board maneuvers in Elista? And how does playing Mexico before a proper title defence constitute a 'huge privilege'?

Really, you should relax and cheer up man, you might now be backing a winner seeing as your man Topalov's best chances depend on Kramnik's success.

If no one cares ... why do top players participate in it? Why do FIDE organize it, if its "fake"? Do FIDE organize a few "fake" championships just for the fun of it??? And who sponsers such championships anyway?

"And how does playing Mexico before a proper title defence constitute a 'huge privilege'?"

Simply by being able to influence the outcome by dropping games.

Interesting stuff about Anand matches with Kasparov that fell through. I am puzzled that it is asserted that Anand lost money. I would not advise anyone to sign a contract it in that situation withpout a bank guarantee - I thought that was standard. In this case the money is already up front and in the event of a cancellation the guarantor bank pays out a proportion of the prize monies to the participants based on the wording of the guarantee and the conditions therein. To sign a contract and spend time and money without this doesnt make sense. Similarly to demand money upfront rather than a bank gurantee for the projected 2000 match does not make sense either.

Perhaps the chap who thinks that Kramnik isn't in Anand's league would like to refresh our memory as to the lifetime head to head score between the two (excluding rapids, blindfold, etc).

And perhaps the chap who told us that Anand beat allcomers both in 1998 and 2000 and must have been the champ both times because FIDE said so would like to remind us who FIDE actually said was the champion in 1998. Clue - it wasn't Anand.

Perhaps the chap who thinks that Kramnik isn't in Anand's league would like to refresh our memory as to the lifetime head to head score between the two (excluding rapids, blindfold, etc).
--rdh

This has been posted a few times before... so if anyone does take the trouble again please also try to provide the color distribution - number of times they played with White/Black.
Thanks.

Is it something like 12-10 for Anand? Browsed quickly through chessgames.com, but kept the score in my head, so mistakes likely! I personally think that Kramnik is capable of playing at the highest standard, and every now and then he plays a game that leaves you shaking your head in admiration at his virtuosity. However there are many grandmasters in the past and present who can, and do, play at that level. Head to head, Shirov, Kamsky and Gelfand have proved their superiority over him in matches, while Leko has matched him. He did win a great match over Kasparov, which was a wonderful achievement, and won a few tournaments, but his current rating difference to Anand's probably reflects the true difference in their strengths. Has never showed in my opinion the amazing brilliance or vision of somebody like Ivanchuk, Anand, Topalov or even Morozevich of the current crop of players.

man! I mean to post as d_tal of course!

Did anyone notice that Mamedyarov is now the unofficial number two in the world, before the Linares results have been calculated? And number three after Anand goes into number one.

http://www.fide.com/ratings/advaction.phtml?idcode=&name=&title=&country=%25&sex=&srating=0&erating=3000&birthday=&radio=jan07&line=desc

d-tal, I don't believe it is, no. Try doing your research through a proper database rather than online nonsense like chessgames. According to them I have a lifetime plus score against Karpov.

"Not allowed to leave the arena, no (I think in boxing you're not allowed to go to the toilet?)"

In chess, you're not allowed to *enter* the arena, since players don't stand on the board.

"5) offered to play against someone who has the worst record in match organization lately (Kasparov) - recall Kasparov-Shirov, Kasparov-Anand 1999, Kasparov-Ponomariov, Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov (all failed)."

I thought FIDE was the one that failed to oraganize the last two. I also thought the point had been the false claim that Anand had been frozen out of the title picture. Now that it turns out that's not true, what do Kasparov's organizational skills have to do with anything? Shirov had his shot but couldn't get the money. Anand had his shot and walked out. It fell to Kramnik next, who was obviously a worthy challenger, since he won.

Posted by: poisoned pawn at March 14, 2007 23:10 "Now in cold blood he enforces huge privileges for himself and again out-maneuvers a potential too-strong challenger off-board."

...I can't actually name any of them, but surely my determination to find one should count for something. ROFLMAO.

Speaking of head-to-head records

While having a few hours to spare at work, I created a crosstable of head to head results between Super GMs (over 2700) over the past 14 months. I chose the 14 months since not only did it make searching easier (year>2006) but it also includes two more big tournaments (Corus & Linares 2006). I calculated total win & loss percentages, score of each mini-match, etc. If anybody would like to see this, let me know and I will try to post it somewhere.

Some of the info was really interesting/informative. Let's see if you guys can guess the identities of these GMs:

(remember, this is since January 2006 and against other 2700+ only)

GM #1 has the largest number of wins, but also the largest number of losses. Perhaps this is not surprising, after all he played the most games against the other super-GMs.
GM #2 has the best mini-match record, he has five more victories than defeats. In fact, he has no mini-match defeats, ie: a positive or even record against every single super-GM.
GM #3 has a very good record, both mini-match and win wise, but no matter what statistic I compiled, he never came out on top, just very near many times.
GM #4 has the largest total number of mini-match victories at 9. He has played the second largest number of games, but his total win-loss record is not so great due to the fact that he is on the losing end of the biggest face-to-face whupping in the table.
GM #5 is on the winning end of that whupping.
GM #6 played the largest number of other super-GMs (18). But surprisingly most of his losses and mini-match losses come from super-GMs who are ranked below him.
GM #7 has the best delta between winning and losing percentages.
GM #8 has the highest draw percentage out of all super GMs who played at least 10 games against others, drawing a full 3 quarters of his games.
GM #9 loses most often (43%) and draws least often (22%) out of everybody who has at least 10 games on record.
GM #10 has the lowest winning percentage, winning only 4 percent of the time, (10 game min too).
GM #11 is the highest rated GM not to have played more than 3 games against any other super-GM.
GM #12 has the highest winning percentage, game-wise.
GM #13 is the only one who won as often as he lost.

Bonus: Out of Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, Aronian and Leko, who has a positive record against the other four?

My apologies if this is of no interest to you, but I had a lot of fun making it.

Oh, and this is my favorite one: GM#14, aside from GM#2 is the only one not to have a single mini-match loss. He also ties him for lowest losing percentage.

rdh, sadly I dont possess a database. Perhaps you can enlighten us? And please dont blame chessgames, they offer an exemplary free service. Also, as I said, I may have (probably did) kept the count wrong in discarding rapid/blitz/blind etc.

Yuriy K, my guess is Aronian for the bonus and #2, and Ivanchuk for #3. Whadayya say???

Yuriy - good stuff

My guesses for the ones I could think of
#1 Topalov
#2 Kramnik
#3 Anand
#6 Aronian
#8 Svidler
#9 Carlsen
#10 Tiviakov
#11 Mamedaryov
#14 Kasparov

Kramnik's score against Anand in classical games is 6-4 and a billion draws.

Great stuff, Yurij. Number four has to be Aronian with his 5-0 (?) record against Ivanchuk, and hence number five has to be Ivanchuk.

I can't actually remember whether Kramnik's six-month withdrawal took place before the beginning of 2006 or not. If it did then certainly he has winning scores against Aronian, Topalov and Anand, although I would thought only an equal score with Leko.

Again, reams of chest-sucking sophistry, d-style:

"Shirov, Kamsky and Gelfand have proved their superiority against him in matches"

And a decade or more on from these matches, Kramnik is world champion while the above Candidate has-beens are on the wane (my vow: if any one of these guys proves me wrong and reaches a title match, I will felch a drifter on CNN)

"...never showed the amazing brilliance or vision of somebody like Ivanchuk, Anand, Topalov or even Morozevich"

Ivanchuk -- GM #6, the worst choker in super-GM history. Could not hit a blast furnace with a heat-seeking missile in a Candidates match.

Anand -- had a shot at Kasparov, defeated. Passed on Dortmund qualifier.

Topalov -- had a shot at Kramnik, defeated. An off-board smear campaign just short of assassination did not affect the result.

Morozevich -- as if.

"Amazing brilliance and vision" were also the hallmarks of Chigorin, Nimzovich, Kan, Larsen, Bronstein, Ivanov, Arbakov, etc...but when the smoke clears from all the individual gems and brilliancies, there's nary a world champion in the bunch.

But of course the facts won't prevent d from continuing to pleasure himself on these threads.

Is there a reason for taking 2006 onwards ? Maybe because 2006 was one of Kramnik's best years and the objective is to make Kramnik look good relative to his peers ?

Why not take 2000 onwards and do the same ? In this period , Kramnik had two good years 2000 and 2006, Topalov had one good year - 2005 and Anand had two good years - 2003 and 2004 .

An addendum to my previous post, littlefish already has a posting of record against other 2700s.

http://members.aon.at/sfischl/po2700.txt

Amusing - I don't suppose many would have guessed who were the two most drawish players in that list, dirtbag. Stock exchange chess, eh?

To answer rdh, Kramnik is +6-4 against Anand in classical games. Of course, they also have like 40 draws.

Yuriy Kleyner, good stuff except you forgot to mention if this was classical games only and if same people can be answers to multiple questions.

I am going to totally guess on it without looking anywhere, as that is probably the most fun to do it:

1) Topalov
2) Kramnik
3) Anand
4) Aronian
5) Ivanchuk
6) Leko
7) Radjabov
8) Svidler
9) Morozevich
10) Bacrot
11) Mamedyarov
12) Polgar
13) Adams

"Bonus: Out of Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, Aronian and Leko, who has a positive record against the other four?" - This has to be Kramnik.

>>However there are many grandmasters in the past and present who can, and do, play at that level. Head to head, Shirov, Kamsky and Gelfand have proved their superiority over him in matches, while Leko has matched him. He did win a great match over Kasparov, which was a wonderful achievement, and won a few tournaments, but his current rating difference to Anand's probably reflects the true difference in their strengths.
>>

Anand: 2779
Kramnik: 2766
Leko: 2749
Gelfand: 2733
Shirov: 2715
Kamsky: 2705

How is it that the rating system accurately shows the gap between Anand and Kramnik, but doesn't accurately show the gap between Kramnik, Leko, Gelfand, Shirov and Kamsky?

It seems like an excercise in futility, anyway. If you think Anand can beat Kramnik in a match, well, maybe he can. Bring it on.

I was trying to include recent results. Originally I was going to do exactly one year but that brings the number of games low and makes it harder to search database. Choosing Jan 2006 as starting point made it easy and included Corus and Linares from that year (neither of which Kramnik was at and both of which Topalov did well at). Looking back subjectively it was also probably a good starting point as Kramnik was over his illness, when he was playing at a very different level from now, and included a good chunk of Topalov's win streak without including all of the dominance, which is also seemingly not as good an estimate of the strength he is at now.

I also only included the GMs who are at the current FIDE list at 2700 or above. So no Carlsen, Tiviakov, or the currently inactive Kasparov. Going farther back gets into the hassle of figuring out which games belong to which rating list, since many people like Karpov, Radjabov, etc have really changed their playing strength and you don't want to include games against them when they were no longer at the top. My idea was to answer the question: who is currently how well against the other top players in the game?

Bear,

I only included classical chess. Every GM is used only once, except for the bonus. Take a shot at #14.

Yuriy Kleyner: I am getting a "G" vibe for #14. Either Gelfand or Grischuk. I am going to go with Gelfand.

Yuriy, that's very cool! Thanks for doing it. My guesses are:

GM#1 for Ivanchuk.
GM#2 can only be Kramnik.
GM#3 may be Aronian.
GM#4 is Topalov.
GM#5 would be Kramnik, but he's already been mentioned. I don't know then.
GM#6... err, Anand? Totally off the mark here, I know.
GM#7... Leko???
GM#8 sounds like the Svidler I know and love.
GM#9 is without a doubt Morozevich.
GM#10 has to be poor Shirov.
GM#11 looks like Adams.
GM#12 is a very wild guess. I'm thinking of Ponomariov.
GM#13 is probably Bacrot.
GM#14 - I'm out of ideas here. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov?

I wouldn't be surprised if number 8 wasn't Mamedyarov. And number 14 Svidler.

Thanks clubfoot, for your permision to pleasure myself.

"And a decade or more on from these matches, Kramnik is world champion while the above Candidate has-beens are on the wane"

Obviously, Kramnik is younger than Gelfand and Shirov, and they had their day. Kamsky gave up Chess remember, for many years? Besides, if Kramnik gets the sorts of breaks he's been getting till now, he will remain WC for life.

"Ivanchuk -- GM #6, the worst choker in super-GM history. Could not hit a blast furnace with a heat-seeking missile in a Candidates match."

That's not the point my insane friend. He displays an understanding of Chess and demonstrates an innovative brand of play that Kramnik can only dream of. Occasionally Kramnik gets delusions of grandeur that he can play like Tal and sacs a few things against a computer, but is soon brought back down to earth.

"Anand -- had a shot at Kasparov, defeated. Passed on Dortmund qualifier."

So?

"Topalov -- had a shot at Kramnik, defeated. An off-board smear campaign just short of assassination did not affect the result."

So? I'm talking about their own board play.

"Morozevich -- as if."

See above.

"Amazing brilliance and vision" were also the hallmarks of Chigorin, Nimzovich, Kan, Larsen, Bronstein, Ivanov, Arbakov, etc...but when the smoke clears from all the individual gems and brilliancies, there's nary a world champion in the bunch."

Yes, and your point? I could understand it if Kramnik had won a legitimate WC title. As it is, give me Bronstein any day.

Just noticed another guy: #15 is very close to #10 in both winning and losing percentage. Both are slightly higher, but in terms of delta, he actually beats #10. This guy, however, ranks worst in my favorite statistic: winning percentage-losing percentage, he is as atrocious
-26 %, just slightly worse than #10.

>>Besides, if Kramnik gets the sorts of breaks he's been getting till now, he will remain WC for life.>>

Since all the other champions got the same breaks or better, how is it they didn't stay champion for life? Honestly, are there any intelligent knocks against Kramnik? All I hear are the same specious-at-worst, vague-at-best stuff being repeated over and over and rebutted over and over. Looks like even his worst enemies can't get anything on him.

d_tal wrote:
"Yes, and your point? I could understand it if Kramnik had won a legitimate WC title. As it is, give me Bronstein any day."

You can have him. He was a great player, after al. But if you consider your personal endorsement to be worth more than a world championship title, I'd say that borders on megalomania.

Can't "Clubfoot" take his rascalities probably CNN and certainly the average chess blog reader is not interested in somewhere else ?

Charles, winning the right to play, and then drawing a match with the WC Botvinnik is hardly my personal endorsement. Neither is being one of the most sparkling and innovative players in history, inspiring the likes of Tal. Why not before posting? At least clubfoot is funny, and humour is worth a great deal.

d - At least clubfoot is funny, and humour is worth a great deal.

way to go d - the first true thing you've written in months...

Charles,

In my above post, it should read "why not THINK before posting"

As to you other post:

>> >>Besides, if Kramnik gets the sorts of breaks he's been getting till now, he will remain WC for life.

"Since all the other champions got the same breaks or better, how is it they didn't stay champion for life?"

Haha! Tell me which champion got a better break than to play for the World Title anyway after losing every qualifying matych he had ever played in? And then getting to play in a round robin in which he has nothing to lose, but has the opprtunity to influence his future opponent?

"Honestly, are there any intelligent knocks against Kramnik?"

The thing is, its unlikely you know the meaning of the word "intelligent". Hence you probably wouldnt recognise anything intelligent.

Al, way to go for you is out the door.

Clubfoot--

Your priorities are sadly out of whack, old son.

It's NOT all about winning the classical world championship:
--earning a million (or half a million) for a single match,
--securing half-million-dollar invitations to play computer matches, and healthy appearance fees for every major tournament
--linking your name with fourteen champions in the past 120 years.

It IS all about:
--winning an extra fifty grand in a tournament here and there
--being able to brag that you're #1 when a victory over some 2650 player and four ELO points are all that separate you from #2.
--burning up your best novelties in events that have nothing to do with the world title
--demnstrating STYLE and CHESS UNDERSTANDING (regardless of whether you're winning or losing).

Chess is NOT a one-on-one fight. Chess is not boxing. Chess greatness is not like Joe Louis, Marciano, or Ali knocking out the other guy in repeated championship bouts.

Chess is platform diving, figure skating, gymnastics. Chess is Greg Louganis, Michelle Kwan, Mary Lou Retton. Chess is STYLE.

To evaluate a chess player's greatness by his won-loss record or his record in world championship matches is absurd. You must look deeper. The GM who plays 39 phenomenal moves and blunders to a loss on the 40th move is GREAT. The GM who plays 40 pretty good moves and wins is BORRRRRING.

Chigorin! Frank Marshall! Bronstein! Larsen! GREAT!

Petrosian, Karpov, Kramnik. NOT!

way to go Greg, follow Al out the door please.

Actually, Petrosian and Karpov are two of the greatest chess players ever. Kramnik, not. Well done, you got something right. And why not follow your own advice from some time back and keep it short and cut the crap? Oh sorry, everything you write IS crap.

greg- where's tommy when you need him? d needs to show some of his idol's love for fellow man :-)

Al,

I really miss tommy, a youthfully optimistic and refreshingly naive person who thought the best of everyone. I know I shouldn't have teased him at every opportunity but I just couldn't help it.

"Honestly, are there any intelligent knocks against Kramnik?"

The thing is, its unlikely you know the meaning of the word "intelligent". Hence you probably wouldnt recognise anything intelligent.

Posted by: d_tal at March 15, 2007 12:37
>>

In other words, "No". Try to be more concise.

you cant help much, can you old son? Like throwing up red herrings and smoke screens in order to advance your argument? When I say Kramnik isnt great, according to you, neither is Karpov or Petrosian. Huh? You poor thing. Sleep happy. Ask Al for his e-mail, perhaps you can get together?

"Actually, Petrosian and Karpov are two of the greatest chess players ever. Kramnik, not. " - I disagree. I think Karpov is way ahead of either Petrosian and Kramnik, in terms of match and tournament strength, as well as domination and longevity at the top. As for Petrosian and Kramnik, it would be an interesting discussion to compare their careers. It seems there are some definite parallels between their careers and both can claim things the other can not. I would probably say that at this point that Kramnik has had a greater career than Petrosian.

And don't knock greg koster, he is a beloved poster and he makes valid points.

Yuriy Kleyner, when will you post results? I kinda want to see the answers :) I have a feeling #7 may be Anand, btw.

Probably tomorrow morning or so--I want to let a few more posters take their shot--many people are at work now.

"Charles, winning the right to play, and then drawing a match with the WC Botvinnik is hardly my personal endorsement."

It's your endorsement that Bronstein's achievements are more impressive than the achievements of some of the World Champions. If you don't understand even that much, what good is anything you said? So you don't like the World Champion, mainly for reasons you made up after the fact to support your conclusion. We know, already.

>>Why not before posting?

Why not complete your sentences?

>>At least clubfoot is funny, and humour is worth a great deal.
Posted by: d_tal at March 15, 2007 12:32 "

Now, don't sell yourself short. You're funny too, you just don't know it.

"Charles, winning the right to play, and then drawing a match with the WC Botvinnik is hardly my personal endorsement."

It's your endorsement that Bronstein's achievements are more impressive than the achievements of some of the World Champions. If you don't understand even that much, what good is anything you said? So you don't like the World Champion, mainly for reasons you made up after the fact to support your conclusion. We know, already.

>>Why not before posting?

Why not complete your sentences?

>>At least clubfoot is funny, and humour is worth a great deal.
Posted by: d_tal at March 15, 2007 12:32 "

Now, don't sell yourself short. You're funny too, you just don't know it.

Charles,

These days the top players seem so evenly matched in chess skill and knowledge that it all may come down to "character," and I think the best put-together guy is Kramnik.

A single-minded dedication to winning the classical title is his principal virtue and his principal vice. He simply does not care if someone has a higher ranking, if his "+2" style doesn't win every tournament, if someone else gets the brilliancy prize.

This infuriates the 15-year-old set who wish Kramnik had more of their "fighting spirit." But it endears him to older, lazier folks: "fighting spirit" can be demonstrated by a mediocre player who sacks an exchange and loses the game, but chess talent like Kramnik's is precious and rare.

"never mind! at least, i'll keep the title of an ex-world champion!"

dear god! lot's of funny people around here - that's the reason, i'm visiting the dirt regularly and often - but not too much - nonetheless keep on the good work... ^^

greetings from the other side

PS: @rdh - finally, my "Fischer" post made it, didn't it?

LOL

"This infuriates the 15-year-old set who wish Kramnik had more of their "fighting spirit." But it endears him to older, lazier folks: "fighting spirit" can be demonstrated by a mediocre player who sacks an exchange and loses the game, but chess talent like Kramnik's is precious and rare."
Posted by: greg koster at March 15, 2007 13:53

I know, but why can't they just be honest enough to say "I don't like his style", instead of relying on these tortured and convoluted rationalizations?

Charles, this gets back to your earlier comment about megalomania. If Kramnik were not Champion I bet that's what most detractors would say: "Big contender but his static chess puts me to sleep" etc. Mig feels that way and has often said so.

But since he's Champion for nearly seven years, a lot of people have begun to take it personally. Some have even argued on this blog that apart from being a mediocrity, a coward and a malingerer, Kramnik has somehow stained the purity of world chess. So he must be made into a non-person and therefore a non-champion. Quite similar arguments were once put forth by the South African government in defense of Apartheid. But heck, this is just a chess blog and I think I just forgot to be funny.

4 days, 15 hours and 35 minutes.

I am pretty sure that if Anand is a world champion, Godwin's law applies to the South African apartheid.

d, your notion that Kramnik lost every quaification match he ever played. More lies, I'm afraid. He beat Yudasin.

Not that it's important by itself, but this sort of disregard for facts on your part is not becoming.

And while Kramnik's losses to Kamsky and Gelfand are remembered, what is conviniently forgotten is the fact that he was at such a young age at which people like Anand and Topalov were not even good enough to even make it to the candidates stage.

It doesn't matter, no matter what age he was, the whole argument is irrelevant. You might as well say Fischer wasn't really champion in 1972 because he lost the 1958 Candidates. So again, I have to ask, why can't they just be honest enough to come out and say "I don't like the guy's style", instead of discrediting themselves with these nonsensical evasions?

All Kramnik bashers, please note - Kramnik lost only when he was either sick or young

Now, now, Russianbear, don't get too emotional.

So which was Kramnik's first major tournament victory and how old he was then? (please, tournament not the olympiad). Could you remind us please?

As for Anand, I think he had just turned 22 when he won his first major tournament victory - allow me to copy paste a few memorable lines from Chessbase (for an Anand fan, anyway):

"Kasparov, Kramnik, and Co. might complain, but after all, Anand won the last Soviet championship, so why not? (Reggio Emilia 91-92 was jokingly called the last USSR championship. Anand won ahead of Kasparov, Karpov, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Khalifman, Polugaevsky, Salov, Gurevich, and Beliavsky"
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2007

Anyway, as far as comparing ages is considered, would you compare Carlsen with Kramnik or anyone else and conclude Carlsen is the greatest ever? Comparing age would be meaningful only if all players started and progressed in exactly the same situation/conditions as each other... it's one thing to live in a place like Moscow and have 50 GM's in your neigbourhood and another to become the first GM of your country... you could lose a few years to not being coached by ex-World Champions, don't you think?

The difference being that while Kramnik won nothing to justify a match against GK, Fischer (after winnig Palma de Majorca Interzonal) won 3 matches against Taimanov (+6), Larsen (+6) and Petrosian...

Charles, with your kind of argument, who is nonsensical ? Are you just another troll ??

"Charles, with your kind of argument, who is nonsensical ?"

I wouldn't invite such a question, "pawn". It's poor salesmanship.

$$$$$
greg- where's tommy when you need him? d needs to show some of his idol's love for fellow man :-)

Posted by: al at March 15, 2007 12:57
Al,

I really miss tommy, a youthfully optimistic and refreshingly naive person who thought the best of everyone. I know I shouldn't have teased him at every opportunity but I just couldn't help it.

Posted by: greg koster at March 15, 2007 13:02
$$$$$$

You guys are good. I love you both.
Anand is a gentleman and nice person. He has been at the top for such a long time. Certainly the 3 outstanding players have been Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand. I hope the world gives Anand a Match shot at the title. He deserves it.

Deep down inside I feel love and it hurts when I get kicked around. So I have been observing. But always remember that God Loves You just the way you are. My job is to love you just the way you are. Therefore there is not need for me to change your opinion.

Everyone argues to change the other person. And no one succeeds. Everyone is simply entrenched in their opinions.

The one I struggle to love today is Topalov. I have this gut feeling that he cheated. That he stole San Luis from Anand. Poor Anand has taken a lot of bad luck in chess. I do not think Topalov should get an automatic rematch with Kramnik if Kramnik wins Mexico. Certainly not if he stole San Luis in the first place.

May the Blessings of the Holy Spirit shine down on you in every moment of every day and fill you with Love and Bliss and Happiness as we come together into ONE friendly group enjoying Chess which is a gift from god.

Where is Tommy. Where is God's Love. It is always present. Awaken and you shall find you are loved so perfectly beyond belief.

And greg remember Tommy loves to read your sharing of yourself in your postings.

Thank you everyone for loving me,

tommy

GM #1 Ivanchuk
GM #2 Anand
GM #3 Grischuk
GM #4 Svidler
GM #5 Mamedyarov
GM #6 Topalov
GM #7 Aronian
GM #8 Kramnik
GM #9 Morozevich
GM #10 Leko
GM #11 Adams
GM #12 Radjabov
GM #13 Gelfand
GM #14 Polgar

"So which was Kramnik's first major tournament victory and how old he was then? (please, tournament not the olympiad). Could you remind us please?

As for Anand, I think he had just turned 22 when he won his first major tournament victory " - I don't understand why you don't want to count the Olympiad where Kramnik who just turned 17 had the best performance (2958). Kramnik also had the best performance in European Chess Team Championship in Debrecen 1992, where he had the performance of 2850, which was higher than Kasparov's. By the time he turned 22 he won a number of supertournaments: Amsterdam, 1993, Madrid 1993, Horgen 1995, and Dortmund twice - in 1995 and 1996.

"Anyway, as far as comparing ages is considered, would you compare Carlsen with Kramnik or anyone else and conclude Carlsen is the greatest ever? Comparing age would be meaningful only if all players started and progressed in exactly the same situation/conditions as each other... it's one thing to live in a place like Moscow and have 50 GM's in your neigbourhood and another to become the first GM of your country... you could lose a few years to not being coached by ex-World Champions, don't you think?" - you may have missed it, but I did claim Carlsen was the greatest ever - for his age. If Carlsen goes on to be a dominant player, and someone will mention he is not as good because of his failures at the age of 16 (like Wijk 2007), I will say to his critics the same thing I am telling you now - early failures are irrelevant, if anything they prove us the player in question is strong, because he got to such a high level so early in life.

It is not exactly fair to discount Kramnik's early successes just because he is from a country with the strongest chess traditions. Anand is a phenomenon, no doubt (Topalov, too, though Bulgaria had at least some good players before him, so he didn't come from nowhere), but I don't see why Kramnik should be punished for that fact.

In fact, Kramnik won Dos Hermanas, 1997 before he turned 22, too, and he won Dortmunf for the 3rd time in a row in 1997 right after turning 22.

Speaking of early Kramnik victories, apparently in 1992 Kramnik was even a co-winner of a Swiss tournament named after his future Daily Dirt detractors:

http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/SingleEvent.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S068986000000131101090100000010100

I don't recognize any of the other names... only Kramnik. Not surprisingly he won the tournament.

Yuriy, come on, spill the beans :-)

The one person nobody has included in your list is Kamsky. I'm sure he's there but where? Maybe #13 - Corus was as bad as Sofia was good

Even the thought about a Kramnik-Anand WCC match is exciting. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope that this event will some day take place, one way or another.
About Kramnik throwing games in Mexico to select his match opponent... I think it's extremely unlikely to happen (first, Kramnik will hardly be -3 at any stage of the event and second, he doesn't seem to be so unsporting). But yes, the fact that this is theoretically possible shows that FIDE has not thought everything through properly.

'....FIDE has not thought everything through properly....'

.....and, in more news, bears are found to defecate in tree-rich environments.

Charles - So again, I have to ask, why can't they just be honest enough to come out and say "I don't like the guy's style", instead of discrediting themselves with these nonsensical evasions?

I think you (and Clubfoot, Greg etc.) are on the right track here, but it may also be "I don't UNDERSTAND the guy's style...".

I'm rated at over 2000 and I don't understand it - he plays a quiet move here and 20 moves later the opponent is busted. The quiet move is the key move apparently.

However, though I don't understand his play, I admire him for it, whereas others are threatened by it??? This should be celebrated, not damned.

Charles,

Lets examine a few of your inanities, mostly posted with nothig more than needing to fulfil a 15 year old's desire to have the last word.

"It's your endorsement that Bronstein's achievements are more impressive than the achievements of some of the World Champions. If you don't understand even that much, what good is anything you said? So you don't like the World Champion, mainly for reasons you made up after the fact to support your conclusion. We know, already."

Referring to Kramnik as the WC is I guess meant to satisfy your 15 yr old mentality that repeating something gives it some weight. So lets look at what I dont understand. Do you understand the difference between singular and plural, or havent they covered it at school yet? Bronstein's achievements are MUCH more impressive than Kramnik's. If you want to call him the WC, fine, but dont assign a royal collective to him. So dont answer a point that I didnt make, and crow over some imaginary point you score in your infantile mind.

As for what I did say, yes, Bronstein's achievements are FAR more impressive to me than Kramnik's. I admire Kramnik's ability immensely, since he did win THE match, and maintained his rating at a very high standard, always in the top ten, and he is very strong player indeed. But Bronstein achieveved more, wait for it, IN MY OPINION. Yes, I have a mind, and I can make independent decisions about who I think achieved more in Chess. Of course I appreciate that you cant, but that doesnt mean I'm obliged to stifle my ability to think.

"Why not complete your sentences?"

Touche! Gadzooks, I stand skewered by your mighty wit.

"Now, don't sell yourself short. You're funny too, you just don't know it."

Oh I know I'm funny and witty. I'm a riot when I tell jokes at parties. But apparently you dont know that you're a joke. And not even a funny one at that.

As for all the red herrings and smoke screens that everybody has put up, I cant speak for anybody but myself. So I'll try again, not for the benefit of the troll pack, but the rest. I believe Kramnik is a WONDERFUL player, I dont for a minute consider his style to be boring. I love to watch his games, and I'm never more pleased than when he snuffs out the tactical plans of a lesser player even before he knows it. I marvel at his play when he accumulates invisible advantages that lesser players arent even aware of, and the smoothness of his play when in form is something else again. I havent always appreciated this, but I do now, having tried to understand how he wins, over the past few years.

Oh sorry, did I disappoint anybody? No more red herrings, no more strawmen to fight against?

Russianbear, I can knock who I want, so long as I follow Mig's rules. Remember, its not your blog.

Meet anand's parents

http://specials.rediff.com/sports/2007/mar/16sld2.htm

http://specials.rediff.com/sports/2007/mar/16sld1.htm

Clubfoot,

"So he must be made into a non-person and therefore a non-champion. Quite similar arguments were once put forth by the South African government in defense of Apartheid. But heck, this is just a chess blog and I think I just forgot to be funny."

That's cos you must stick to the dosage prescribed old son. Neither too much, nor too little. Otherwise you just appear to be a plain old loony.

d_tal wrote:
"Lets examine a few of your inanities, mostly posted with nothig more than needing to fulfil a 15 year old's desire to have the last word."

Nah. Let's not examine them. It's clear to me that you're not very intelligent, and use bluster to cover it up. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, and good arguments only make that worse, so let's not bother.

I'm sorry you don't like the World Champion's playing style, but these absurd attempts to argue that he's not really the champion because he lost Candidates Matches as a teenager, and the like, are infantile. Just grow up and face the fact that for the moment someone you don't like is World Champion. I don't like the fact that a team with 83 wins won the World Series, but I'm mature enough to admit that it happened. When you grow up a little, you'll be ready to talk to me, but you're not up to my level yet.

Until you grow up, you might focus your efforts on getting Wikipedia or FIDE to withdraw their recognition of Kramnik's title, rather than me.

Ok, Al, time to spill the beans. And I will also comment on what some of you guys thought were the right answers.

First off, let’s take care of the easy bonus. It is, in fact, KRAMNIK, who has in fact a +1 final score against each of those guys (rdh, he beat Leko in Dortmund last year).

For GM#1, some picked Ivanchuk and some Topalov. Ivanchuk actually does not play against other 2700+ that often, and ranks towards the upper middle in games played and towards the middle in wins and losses. GM#1 is, in fact, TOPALOV, who here is helped by his Kramnik match, but he still has 20 wins, 8 more than anybody else and 14 losses, 2 more than anybody else. His total mini-match record, however, is +7-5=5, which suggests that for every GM he thrashes there is one who he doesn’t do as well against.

GM#2 in fact does have to be KRAMNIK, who has a terrific +5-0=9 mini-match record. All of his “wins” are by a +1 margin, and he is second in draws at 71 percent.

GM#3 – I gave you a guys a little hint with my description. The person who so often came near the top prize without actually snatching it is of course LEKO. He did very well in many statistics, percentage of wins-percentage of losses, mini-match record (+7-4=5), etc.

GM#4 – congrats to rdh for remembering the ass-whupping (-4=3) ARONIAN suffers at the hands of Ivanchuk. Aronian’s total mini-match standing is +9-5=3, he finished second in total number of games and wins, but is just average in terms of other showings (difference betweens wins and losses percentage wise, lots of draws, etc.)

And therefore, GM #5 of course had to be Ivanchuk.

GM#6: al thought Aronian, and he is second in the number of GMs played, but without too bad a record against the lower ranked. Tsn also had a good guess with Topalov who also has played the second-highest number of GMs, and of course all of them are lower ranked than him. The correct answer, however is…SVIDLER, who played 18 GMs, finished with a mini-match record of +4-7=7, and managed to lose to Gelfand, Radjabov, Ponomariov, Navara, Grischuk and Kamsky, while having a positive record against Topalov, Leko and Aronian. This supports my earlier assertion that Svidler plays very poorly when he pushes for the win, but is very skilled at competing against top-ranked competition.

GM#7: Another one for the bear, this is in fact RADJABOV, who has a +18 percentage. Here I meant to add a >5 decisive game minimum, as otherwise both Judit Polgar and Mickey Adams do better.

GM#8: The King of Draws is MAMEDYAROV. Rdh can not be surprised. Kramnik ranked second with 71 and Leko third with 70, while the Svidler we know and love got a 65, with still a few more above him.

GM#9: The general consensus was that the guy who losses most often and draws least often was Morozevich. Everybody was wrong. Moro is pretty high as far as losses go (fifth or so), but thanks to Linares now has a decent amount of wins and draws 42 percent of the time, not 22 like (drum roll, please, al) the one person nobody included on their list, Gata KAMSKY. He lost a whupping 43 percent of his games, but his final mini-match is only +5-6=2. Kamsky also marks one of three errors on my list (see below).

GM#10: Censor is right, it’s poor poor SHIROV, who could only manage one win in 24 games played.

Now for the errors on my list:

GM#11: The correct answer was going to be Morozevich, but it turned out one of MAMEDYAROV’s games was a rapid, so  that is the correct answer as well.

GM#12: This is the other error, this was going to be Navara, but it’s actually KAMSKY again, with 35 percent to Navara’s 31.

GM#13: Not Adams or Bacrot, who are both actually exact opposite, first one is among the foremost winners, and the second among the foremost losers. But both GELFAND and LEKO are correct.

GM#14: Like I said, this is my favorite. Russianbear was getting a G vibe. When, according to Shakespeare it was said that the letter G will destroy Edward IV’s heirs, George, duke of Clarence was sent to the Tower. Of course, it was the other brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester. Similarly, the letter G was telling you to look at Great Britain, where resides GM#14, ADAMS. I was amazed to get a +3-0=8 mini-match record for him. He hasn’t played much but accomplished a very high 29 winning % and a +21 % delta.

GM#15 is BACROT, who is Shirov’s bad twin in the losing without winning department.

So let’s see, who got how many right:

D: 0
Al: 4
Rdh: 4
Russianbear: 7!
Censor: 2
Tsn: 1

Special thanks to dirtbag, I have been looking for that 2700+ link for a while now. I did something a little different with my table, focusing on individual recent head-to-head rather than over longer time against everybody.

Good stuff Yuriy- surprised that Anand doesn't feature anywhere - I guess he's steady rather than spectacular or does he just have an excellent record vs sub 2700s? Adams had a good Wijk last year and a couple of opens where he was undefeated. I suppose that you included those and the league matches- is that where Svidler's multiple opponents come from?

Anand has a very solid record though not the best 14 months by any means. All of his losses come from four GMs: Topalov, Kramnik, Aronian and Kamsky. Interestingly, all of the GMs to whom he lost at least one game he has lost the mini-match. I did include the opens, but I am not sure Adams faced any 2700s in those...may be wrong there (he did lose to Efimenko in Gibraltar).

Svidler's 18 opponents come from the fact that it's hard to find a tournament he hasn't played. Corus, Linares, MTel, Dortmund, Olympiad, Tal Memorial, Corus again, Linares again, Russian Superfinal...I think he also played in at least 2 team competitions. But hey, the man has got to eat. He would actually be tied with a few people if he didn't play Akopian at the Olympiad.

nice list yuriy. I also guessed 4 ... I think looking at the last three or five years may be more meaningful since many of the minimatches the past year and a half have less than 3 games. when you have the time, could you re-run the list and see if your findings change?

nice list yuriy. I also guessed 4 ... I think looking at the last three or five years may be more meaningful since many of the minimatches the past year and a half have less than 3 games. when you have the time, could you re-run the list and see if your findings change?

Good job Yuriy Kleyner! That was fun.

Re: the results versus 2700+ players - there is something remarkable here about Kasparov's bullet proof nature shown here:

http://members.aon.at/sfischl/po2700.txt

He is recorded as losing just 3 games against 2700+ players in 2000-2006. Two were in his match against Kramnik in 2000, and one was his last ever competitive game when he retired at Linares against Topalov.

I remember he lost some games to weaker players (at the time), e.g. Radjabov won a famous game against him. Were there really no other losses to the 2700+ brigade? Extraordinary.

Guys, thanks for all your compliments.

k, the problem with longer snap shot is you don't want to include older games against players who have improved considerably since, like Radjabov, Navara etc., and the more recent players who are no longer at 2700+ level like Karpov, Short and Bareev. I think that makes the match-ups less relevant--but I could make a table if you give me a standard of who to include or when.

mcb, yeah Kaspy was virtually bulletproof. What I found most interesting is Kramnik's results. When compared to Kasparov and Anand, you would expect him to have fewer wins but much fewer losses. That is our perception of Kramnik, that he does not push enough but is very successful when he does. What we find instead is that Kramnik has roughly the same number of wins as Kasparov and a lot more losses. Whereas with Anand their records are roughly similar, only a little more drawish. Another example of how perception contributes more to Kramnik's image than actual facts.

Yuriy, interesting stuff about Kramnik, though I believe that his reputation comes from the fact that he doesn't seem to dispatch 2600s with the efficiency of an Anand or a Topalov, maybe they just don't get his pulse raised.

From this day forward this blog will be known as The Weekly Dirt; Dailey Dirt being no longer applicable.

"The difference being that while Kramnik won nothing to justify a match against GK, Fischer (after winnig Palma de Majorca Interzonal) won 3 matches against Taimanov (+6), Larsen (+6) and Petrosian...

Charles, with your kind of argument, who is nonsensical ? Are you just another troll ??
Posted by: poisoned pawn at March 15, 2007 18:25 "

What part didn't you understand? Let's take it in nice, simple stages and I think you'll be able to grasp it.

1) You admit, I take it, that losing the 1958 Candidates, didn't bar Fischer from the world title for life. This makes all the talk about the Gelfand and Kamsky matches irrelevant, since they were only for the 1995 titles, which Kramnik was duly barred from competing for).

2) You also admit, I take it, that one need not win a Candidates to become World Champion (Capablanca, Alekhine, et cetera).

3) You also admit that sometimes candidates that some people consider undeserving (Bogoljubow, anyone?) might get a title shot, and it's a crying shame, boo hoo.

4) And furthermore, you admit that sometimes someone some of those undeserving Candidates might turn out more deserving than we thought and actually win the thing (Euwe, anyone?), and become champion even if we wish he hadn't.

So, put all the pieces together, and you'll find that the argument you dismissed as nonsensical is actually unanswerable. Kramnik's a terrible candidate, yada, yada, yada, who should never have gotten a title shot, yada. Nevertheless, it has happened. What I said to d_tal applies here too. Sometimes you just have to grow up and face the fact that sometimes people we don't like win things. There's no point discussing his worthiness as a candidate unless you first learn to deal with the reality that he won. If you can't handle facts, there's no point discussing opinions.

What the....

GM#3 is ANAND, not LEKO. I have no idea why I wrote his name up there.

I know this is off thread but can I just say Phooowar check out chess base article and appreciate what a bottle of hair dye and a decent bank balance can get you - or rather what it got good old Bessel one comely wench methinks.... come to think of it looks like Vaclav Havle (former pres of czech land)has shown the way. Rock on guys keep those little blue pills handy when your not playing chess

Yuriy,

with Anand instead of Leko, make that 5 correct for me.

Can you make a head to head table of Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Morozevich, Leko, Polgar, Svidler, Aronian, Gelfand, Adams, Radja for the last three years? We know Topalov will look better and Kramnik worse, but how will the others look?

>>check out chess base article and appreciate what a bottle of hair dye and a decent bank balance can get you

http://www.chessbase.com/news/2007/prague05.jpg

quite a change!

lwold123 - thats how they looked before a night with the princess(es)

that picture is before they spent a night with the princess (es)

For a change, how on earth will Bessel Kok be able to head up FIDE Commerce if he has to work with someone with a totally different character and way of working like Kirsan? That's to say the least...

Yuriy,

Nice stuff. This has been one of the worst (if not THE worst) quiz result for me. Tells you how much I know about these stuff.

Mmmhhh, I must be in the wrong blog :(

Shirov is running amok against Kirsan's WC (and the 1 hour time control), and has published the following open letters on the ACP website within a period of 5 days:

http://www.chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=611
http://www.chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=616

He signed the first open letter as ACP Board Member, and the second as Candidate and ACP Board Member, but apparently without unanimous backing of the ACP Board.

I found Shirov's tone in the letters a bit bitter, but I think he did throw up some genuine dust.

Moreover, who represents us, poor fans, on what WE want the WC to be?

Tonight, I shall dream of chess win-loss records and database searches, frantically trying to figure out which of the Dortmund 2004 games were rapid as well as what the hell was Merida Honor 2005.

Nonetheless:

Mini-match records from post-Linares 2004 to post Linares 2007:

Svidler +5-1=4 (only loss to Radjabov, victories over Topalov, Moro, Leko, Aronian and Gelfand)
Anand +5-2=3 (losses to Topalov and Aronian)
Kramnik +3-1=6 (wins over Leko, Polgar and Aronian, only loss to Adams)
Topalov +4-3=3
Adams +3-3=4
Aronian +3-4=2
Morozevich +3-5=2
Gelfand & Radjabov: +2-4=3
Polgar +2-4=1

Topalov and Leko played the largest number of games against others, at 84. Svidler is close behind with 82.
Judit Polgar is the only one not to have played everybody else on the list. She also has lowest number of games, at 29.

Best winning percentages:
Topalov 24%
Anand 23%
Leko is third with 20 and everybody else is close behind.
(Kramnik is in the middle of the list with 17)

Lowest winning percentages:

Radjabov 10%
Gelfand 11%
Aronian 12%

Least likely to lose:

Svidler 12%
Kramnik 13.6%
Aronian 13.7% (Anand is at 14.1%, everybody else is far up)

Most likely to lose:

Morozevich 27%
Polgar 24 %
Topalov 20 %

Most likely to draw:

Aronian 75%
Gelfand 71.1%
Radjabov 71.0%

Least likely to draw:

Morozevich 53%
Topalov 56%
Polgar 59%

Best winning-losing percentage delta:

Anand: +9
Svidler: +7
Topalov: +4
Kramnik is the only other one with a positive, +3

Worst winning-losing percentage delta;

Radjabov -1
Gelfand -.8
Polgar -.69
Morozevich -.67

Thanks Yuri!!

MIG should employ you to add some content when he is away :)

last part should read for stats:

Radjabov -10
Gelfand -8
Polgar -6.9
Morozevich -6.7

Thanks, Mo

Charles, stay on in school a little longer, and they might teach you to read.

"I'm sorry you don't like the World Champion's playing style"

Read my post above yours. Take it slowly.

Charles:

1) Cazorla 1998
2) Alekhine: NY 1927. Capablanca: strange to bring up this one as Lasker wanted to cede the title without a struggle by virtue of Capablanca's dominance but the latter insisted on a match
3)... 4)...
Ok, I give up, too much irrelevance bordering nonsense. Basically the organization of chess players and structures to determine an accepted champion in a manner fair to all players should evolve to the better. I don't see the point in justifying errors like the blatant injustice of Kramnik playing for the title in a cycle he had explicitly dropped out by (possible) errors from decades ago, a time disrupted with world wars and when it took weeks to get (chess) information from one point to another.
Also this is not a style or "I don't like" discussion - it's about a player consistently getting unfair privileges and avoiding strong competition: five years of stonewalling GK despite that morally, considering GK's dominance and especially that Kramnik was defeated by Shirov on the way to the title, a title defence perhaps at most one year later would have been about adequate. We know the course of the events, GK's retirement, and now history seems to repeat itself with this ridiculous tournament in Mexico later this year which Kramnik has won already.

"Charles, stay on in school a little longer, and they might teach you to read.

"I'm sorry you don't like the World Champion's playing style"

Read my post above yours. Take it slowly."

Stay on this board a while longer and they might teach you to think. I read everything you said. You want very much to believe that he's not world champion at all, but have come up with no arguments that make any sense. The failure to find any doesn't trouble you, but that's your problem. Bottom line is that you don't like the World Champion's playing style, and also have a bit of trouble dealing with reality.

Have you gotten FIDE or Wikipedia to change their position yet?

Pawn, your first example has no relevance to the question at hand.

Your second one has relevance, but is just wrong. On three counts. New York 1927 wasn't a Candidates tournament, Alekhine didn't win it, and he was official challenger before the tournament was even played. Strike 3. And Lasker had nothing to do with it. Strike 4.

"3)... 4)...
Ok, I give up, too much irrelevance bordering nonsense."

Now, that's the first thing you've said right. Most of us find the facts, especially when they set a clear precedent, to be relevant, though. Let's just agree that, like d_tal, you don't like the World Champion's playing style, and hope he loses his title.

Charles, you mental age is now revealed to me. all of 5.

I will take this very slowly, for your benefit. I will also concentrate on just one of your asininities, so as not to overtax your excuse for a mind. Here we go, hold on for the ride. You said:

"I'm sorry you don't like the World Champion's playing style"

"Bottom line is that you don't like the World Champion's playing style"

"Let's just agree that, like d_tal, you don't like the World Champion's playing style"

Now read an extract from one of my posts, appearing BEFORE your ridiculous statements.

"As for all the red herrings and smoke screens that everybody has put up, I cant speak for anybody but myself. So I'll try again, not for the benefit of the troll pack, but the rest. I believe Kramnik is a WONDERFUL player, I dont for a minute consider his style to be boring. I love to watch his games, and I'm never more pleased than when he snuffs out the tactical plans of a lesser player even before he knows it. I marvel at his play when he accumulates invisible advantages that lesser players arent even aware of, and the smoothness of his play when in form is something else again. I havent always appreciated this, but I do now, having tried to understand how he wins, over the past few years.

Oh sorry, did I disappoint anybody? No more red herrings, no more strawmen to fight against?"

Do you perhaps sense any conflict between what you say I said, and what I did say? If you hear a dull thud, that's the picture falling into place.

Good luck. Tell me when you're done with the above exercise in reading comprehension, and we'll go onto the rest of your idiocies.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, when I include text in quote marks as follows:
" this is an example "
I am quoting text that appeared in the blog. Always better to discuss a fact (look up the meaning) than the results of your attempts at mind reading.

"Charles, you mental age is now revealed to me. all of 5.

I will take this very slowly, for your benefit."

Um, speaking of taking things slowly for personal benefit, what part of "Nah. Let's not examine them..." did you fail to understand?

Reread my post of 3/16, 9:35, and tell me which parts went over your head. You're still doing the same things that I told you then made the issue not worth discussing with you.

Getting into an insult war with you would not only not help me, it would help you to obscure the fact that you've lost this argument. You've tried to convince me that the guy that FIDE and every national chess organization in the world recognizes as world champion isn't really the world champion at all, and you have failed to find any convincing arguments. Everything you've put forward has been based on factual errors, and arbitrary personal standards. You lose.

Have you gotten Wikipedia or FIDE to withdraw their recognition of Kramnik's title yet? I thought not. Haven't even tried, from what I can tell.

The fact that your whole case hinges on your evaluation of me is an admission of the incorrectness of your position. You may not be mature enough to admit it in so many words, but I know you mean it. When you've gotten FIDE to drop its recognition, we can talk some more, son. You'll be older then, and hopefully more mature.

Hey, I've got an easier task for you, son. Forget Wikipedia or FIDE. Get Mig to say that Kramnik isn't the world champion. He's right here and accessible.

Ok Charles, lets drop the insults. Answer my previous post please, and then we'll move onto your other points.

Charles, I will try again, please try to answer this point, and we can continue this discussion.

First I said the following:

"I believe Kramnik is a WONDERFUL player, I dont for a minute consider his style to be boring. I love to watch his games, and I'm never more pleased than when he snuffs out the tactical plans of a lesser player even before he knows it. I marvel at his play when he accumulates invisible advantages that lesser players arent even aware of, and the smoothness of his play when in form is something else again. I havent always appreciated this, but I do now, having tried to understand how he wins, over the past few years."

AFTERWARDS, You said the following on 3 separate occasions:

"I'm sorry you don't like the World Champion's playing style"

"Bottom line is that you don't like the World Champion's playing style"

"Let's just agree that, like d_tal, you don't like the World Champion's playing style"

Please explain how you come to this conclusion. Feel free to quote any of my past posts over the years.

It's a shame this thread is being abandoned just when it's getting interesting.

Charles, it appears that you are unable to respond, and the clear conclusion is you dont actually read any posts before writing your "rebuttal" of them. Rather, you make things up at random to enable you to formulate some argument. As such, I dont propose to waste any more time on your specious posts.