What's In a Name?

This win by Anand is more in the class of Botvinnik/1948 than those Khalifman/Ponomariov/Kasimz. efforts.

Match enthusiast, yup, thats me too.
Congratulations, Vishy boy. Finally, you made it

Whatever one's faith (Chess or Hinduism) he will still have to congratulate Anand for winning the Mexico 2007 and, just as Alekhine did in the New York 1927 tournament, becoming the one who will play the champion in "The Match".

Was thinking along the same lines last night, when in disgust I saw that Kramnik had a 13 move draw. Maybe the draw was due to the position and the strength of his opponent, but I certainly felt that he simply didn’t wanted to press because it didn’t really matter. After failing to convert a promising position against Anand in the previous round, he realized that he wasn’t going to win the tournament, and the match next year was always going to be there. I am a fan of Kramnik, but that draw was deplorable. (which does not mean that I am against the draw offer – rules do not need to be changed because of short draws; players attitudes and the publics opinion should)
As a match purist I don’t think Anand should get a star, nor for that matter should Anand 2001, Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimjanov. A match is a match; and Mexico 2007 together with all the previous FIDE ‘WCH’ tournaments were simply tournaments. A match with all the authority that it bestows on the winner should and, in my opinion, is the only way to decide who is the best, the strongest, the numerous uno. Ratings, in which so many people place so much trust, are just an accessory, and mean very little, especially at the top.
Moreover, I don’t really care if Mexico was the only ‘championship’ available for Anand to win (‘the only game in town’). There certainly were periods in chess history when the strongest player was not the one holding the championship title and I dont see anybody trying to put asterisks next to Capa, Rubinstein or Chigorin because they kept winning the only ‘game in town’.

>For now we can enjoy the fact that we only have to >give one name when someone asks us who the world >champion is. Until Saturday, or perhaps only until >Friday, that's Kramnik. After that, it's >Viswanathan Anand.

Mig, did you write this or Garry?

Well said, Mig. I'm a match enthusiast, and to some degree a purist, but I agree that this tournament has real legitimacy to it.

I'm greatly looking forward to the Anand Kramnik match next year and sort of hope that Anand wins it because I feel that is the outcome that will do the most to settle all controversies.

I too believe Vishy should be considered the next World Champion, and that this is a matter of degrees rather than an objective fact. What gets this debate heated up is when one side pretends not to see the arguments of the other. If there is to be a meaningful discussion on this topic it should start with acknowledging all the arguments -- pro and con -- and debating their relative importance.

I believe the players themselves (Kramnik, Anand at least) don't care whether a title is called 'classical', 'unified' or whatever, as long as they get a fair chance to play for it. It is just a minority of fans, who seem to have their egos riding on it....

playjunior, don't you think "Garry" has better things to do than write on blogs? :-)

Zigomar, you got the meaning of asterisk backwards. Asterisks in sports often denote some special condition that detracts from, rather than enhances, an achievement. In this case the asterisk would read as a footnote that these were somehow "illegitimate" champions who won tournaments rather than matches.

More to the point: how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin?

Following the only-matches purists, From 1946 to 1957 the world title was vacant due the fact that 1948 tournament winner was an impostor and could not win any regular match until 1958 !

On the other hand there is no asterik around his name...

IMO this tournament will not define Anand's place in history, but the upcoming match with Kramnik will.

Yes, the victory of Vishy is dominant, well deserved and glorious, but so was his victory in the knock-out championship in New Delhi. However, should he lose the match to Kramnik, it will be quickly forgotten. His place will be the same as that of Sen Luis winner (minus the reputation of a nutcase of course). How many people now are willing to put Topalov in the Steinitz line? Not many I presume. Now compare this to the general feeling in the aftermath of Sen Luis.

On the other hand, should Anand defeat Kramnik, I have no doubt that the end of Mexico championship will be put in history books as the beginning of Anand's rule.

The question really becomes interesting, in the case if Anand-Kramnik match will fail to materialize for some reason. Here I wouldn't dare to predict how the history will sort itself out. Still, I doubt Anand get his ticket to the Hall of WC Fame based on Mexico win alone. So I guess, that means that yes, Anand is a new champ, but still with an asterisk for now.

The winner of Mexico is the World Champion, because the Champion Kramnik agreed to put the title on the line. And only for this reason Anand (or whoever wins) will be The Champion. Anand's #1 position on the ELO list is absolutely irrelevant.

I am a match enthusiast myself and I am glad in the future the Champion is decided in a match between the Champion and the Challenger. As for the match in 2008, I think Kramnik deserved the rematch after agreeing to play in Mexico. The other choice he could have made was to tell FIDE to stuff their plans up their *** and just sit on his title. So kudos to Kramnik. Oh and one more thing: GO ANAND!

There are two lines:

1) "classical": Steinitz #1, .. Kramnik #14.
everyone knows this line
2) FIDE line (FIDE was established in 1924):
1924 Matisson, 1928 Euwe, 1929 Bogolyubow,
from 1948 to 1993 and in 2006 FIDE and
"classical" champions were the same.
1993, 1996, 1998 Karpov
1999 Khalifman, 2000 and 2007 Anand,
2002 Ponomorev, 2004 Kasimdzanov, 2005
Topalov; all this guys are FIDE World
Champions not more, not less;

Only the history will decide, on my mention
if Anand will beat Kramnik next year, no
matter, he is #15; if he will lost, sorry
Vishi, history will not count you.

Do not make mix it with 1948 tournament,
Alekhin was dead, Kramnik is still alive :))

And guys, Kramnik-Anand could be the
wonderfull match, these two boys the most
stronger active (Kasparov :( ) World players
for at least 15 years.

I am biased, but well written, sir.

osbender! I completely agree with you, only my typing skills are slower

Fischer lost his title by resigning it in writing. It's difficult to see why Kramnik couldn't lose his the same way. And the 1948 example shows that a tournament can be held to fill a vacant title.

Whether Anand will be "Classical" champion (or whether there even is a classical champion as such any more) may be debatable, but at the least Anand will be the *only* world champion if he wins this tournament. Whether the Classical title is held by Anand, or whether it's "vacant", at least we can be sure that Kramnik won't hold it any more than Fischer does.

Zigomar: "A match with all the authority that it bestows on the winner should and, in my opinion, is the only way to decide who is the best, the strongest, the numerous uno."

Agree. But the question is, what if such a match never takes place? What if a player is as strong as the world champion in tournament play, but never gets to participate in the champion's candidates cycle? The purist says (not for any chess-related reason, I think), "then the world champion is automatically stronger".

I believe, rather, that in this situation one can say nothing about the relative strengths of the players. The longer this situation persists, the legitimacy of the world champion becomes weaker. In that case, if there is a tournament world championship (which is labeled as such) involving both players, the outcome tells us which player is stronger. This is not as good as a match, but better than inertia.

Yes, Ali got a match to claim the world title against Foreman.

Chess, as the purists are happy to tell, is like boxing, just a little less boring.

By the way, let´s invite Don King to lead the chess Federation. He is one who could develop the true nature of chess: just gladiatorial duels for God´s sake!

This is silly -- Kramnick did not even qualify to play Kasparov; he lost to Shirov and for that was rewarded with a title match with Kasparov. And he defended it with a tie against Leko! And all this is supposed to be more legit than Anand winning by a mile and being the no.1 player at that time?

>>Following the only-matches purists, From 1946 to 1957 the world title was vacant due the fact that 1948 tournament winner was an impostor and could not win any regular match until 1958 !
>>

The difference between 1948 and now is that the title didn't change hands in 1948, a vacancy was filled.

That being said, though, Kramnik's "resignation" of the title creates a vacancy now also, which can also be filled via a tournament.

Just a theoretical fun:

Due to the "historically established rules", the present champ might as well be ... Levon Aronian!

Why? Well, Kasparov forfeited his title (like Fischer) by not playing against Shirov. Hence, Shirov was champ all the time till he lost the match in Elista to Aronian!

It would be great fun if Levon (or a clever manager in his name) would claim (best after the end of the matches Kramnik-Anand and its winner against Topalov/cupwinner) that a "real champion" would have to beat Levon in a match to be legitimate... :-)

OK,
Anand will be 2007 FIDE World Championship Tournament Winner (Champion)
Kramnik is the last traditional Match Champion,
who beat Kasparov, and defend the Title twice, the history will be decided next year or
Anand #15 (2007-..) or Kramnik #14 (2000 -..., (2000, 2004, 2006, 2008))

The history and the law court decisions could be different :-)

And lets look for Kramnik's World Champioship Match records: Kasparov, Leko, Topalov, Anand,
4 strongest opponents in 8 years (do not forget Leko in 2002-2005 was very strong, Dortmund, Linares and Weik-an-See winner). Impressive opposition!

Also do not mixed it with Fisher, Fisher was non-active, it is the main reason why the World decided that Karpov is undisputed Champion, just imagine if Fisher did not stop playing in 1972, but beat for example Korchnoi in 1975 and 1978 with a bigger margin than Karpov (as Karpov beat him only 3:2 and 6:5).

>>This is silly -- Kramnick did not even qualify to play Kasparov; he lost to Shirov and for that was rewarded with a title match with Kasparov. And he defended it with a tie against Leko! And all this is supposed to be more legit than Anand winning by a mile and being the no.1 player at that time?
>>

Um... yeah. Beating Kasparov is a more impressive accomplishment than winning this tournament.

Beating Capablanca in 1927 (which was also done by someone who hadn't qualified) is likewise, more impressive than winning this tournament.

But you're arguing points that don't make a lick of difference to this situation. Comparing Anand's (probable) win to 2000 or 1927, or whatever else we want to do isn't the issue. The issue is comparing an Anand's win in this tournament to an Anand win in the match next year. Which of *those* two victories would be the more meaningful? All this other stuff is irrelevant.

One can argue semantics like "Kramik's resignation of the title" till the cows come home. The history though doesn't care about semantics. Imagine that in 1949 Alekhine is undead. That would have put a huuuuge hole in the legitimacy of Botwinnik's title.

People will also recall Karpov's title in 1974, but they conveniently forget that there was a huge asterisk to his 1974 title in public perception. That's why Karpov went out of his ways to crush all the available opposition and erase that asterisk. In doing so Karpov won more than 100 tournaments during his career, a mind boggling number that nobody (including Kaspy) is even close to approaching. And of course, all the doubts were gone after the successful title defenses against Korch.

So if we look from historical perspective, erasing the doubts about legitimacy of your title required extraordinary feats. It's much easier to beat Kramnik in a match than to repeat what Karpov has done.

There's nothing semantic about it. Granted, the public perception of Anand's title may be in some ways shaky, but that's a completely separate question.

The fact is that Anand's title, like Karpov's, will be the only official one. Even the USCF didn't recognize Fischer as world champion in 1976. There were a few sulky references in Chess Life & Review to Karpov as "FIDE World Champion", but that's as far as their objection went.

But you can never silence all the critics. Lev Alburt still recognized Fischer as champion as late as 1986. Takes all kinds to make a world, huh?

If Anand wins, he'll have the only world title. Public respect is something you can't legislate.

Chess Blog Rank Zero:

Nice catch :-)), but Shirov lost match to Anand in Teheran, December 2000 (it was a separate match, after Delhi knock-out), so Anand is the Classical World Champion from 2000 :-))!!

Yes, it was a really bad story with Kasparov-Shirov-Kramnik in the 1998-2000, but IMHO it was Kasparov fault, but Garry was penalized for this.

One mitigating circumstance regarding Kramnik's spotty performance post winning the crown - he was fighting a painful and deadly illness, ankylosing spondylitis, if I'm right (this link http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2846)
Considering that it is a remarkable recovery and maybe his propensity to draw is somewhat linked to this ailment which apparently never goes away, though it can be controlled.

Graeme, sure, Anand will have the only world title. But what's the point of having a title that public doesn't respect. For example, there is a title of "academic of New York academy of science" that you can buy for $10 a year. I don't know anyone who actually did. And it's not about my, yours or Lev Alburt's recognition. It's about what majority of chess public thinks.

2007 Anand +4
2005 Topalov +6

If Anand in World Champion, better make him #16 and Topalov #15.

I say wait until next year to give him his number.

As Topalov-Kramnik showed, tournament chess is not match chess. I'm just glad we will finally get to see Anand-Kramnik. Should be fun.

Good Luck, Vishy!

Kramnik owes it to Kasparov. If kaspy was not such a monster, Kramnik would have been easily forgotten.

Also, Kramnik had to rely on draw odds to retain his title against Leko. Hardly an achievement comparing how Anand demolished Shirov in a 6-game match in 2000.

Consider :
a) Kramnik always gets knocked off very early in FIDE world cup tourney. This is not expected from a player who is supposed to have a "deep understanding" of chess
b) Anand has lost twice to Kamsky after latter's return to chess.
c) Kramnik is able to beat Kasparov in a match, but loses to players like Shirov.

(b) and (c) needs an analysis into role of pshychology in chess.

"Following the only-matches purists, From 1946 to 1957 the world title was vacant due the fact that 1948 tournament winner was an impostor and could not win any regular match until 1958 !"

Actually, coming to think about it, the training match between Smyslov and Botvinnik doesn't really count as a WC match. The rules stated back then that the defeated champion had the right to a return match, but since there WAS no defeated champion, this leaves us with the conclusion that Smyslov is in fact the undisputed World Champion as has been so for 50 years!

The training match between Smyslov and Botvinnik being the one in 1958, of course...

osbender stated:
One can argue semantics like "Kramik's resignation of the title" till the cows come home. The history though doesn't care about semantics. Imagine that in 1949 Alekhine is undead. That would have put a huuuuge hole in the legitimacy of Botwinnik's title.

Maybe, but of course the difference is not only that Kramnik is alive, but that he played in this tournament, and lost. If Alekhine was alive and either refused to play in a match tournament or lost to Botvinnik, I doubt any such "hole" would have been created...

Also, those questioning the legitimacy of Kramnik's title because of his drawn match with leko must rethink the the validity of the tenures of Kasparov (Karpov 1987) and Botvinnik (Smyslov 1954).

>>Graeme, sure, Anand will have the only world title. But what's the point of having a title that public doesn't respect. >>

Well, the only way he can win a title that everyone respects is to win this tournament first. His path is clear.

If he wins the tournament and the match both, then people will all agree that he's the next champion, and be less likely to quibble about exactly when his reign started. (Tal became World Champion immediately after Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade, didn't he?). If he wins the tournament and loses the match, then it will be knottier.

The "match purism" originates from nothing but tradition. This same tradition involves the World Champion title being a private poperty: until 1946, the titleholder had complete freedom in choosing his opponents (or not putting the title in line at all). So, if Kramnik acknowledges the winner of Mexico 2007 as the new World Champion, there should really be no open questions left.

That said, I'm a match enthusiast myself, and I'm extatic about the upcoming Anand-Kramnik match.

Posted by: bondegnasker at September 26, 2007 10:06
>>"Following the only-matches purists, From 1946 to 1957 the world title was vacant due the fact that 1948 tournament winner was an impostor and could not win any regular match until 1958 !">>

So your belief is that the match purists are unaware that there was a world title tournament in 1948?

That's so unlikely that there might be something obvious you're overlooking. You might want to double check that.

Zweiblum, its not that I got the meaning of the asterisk backwards. I don’t think that there should be an asterisk or a footnote. Chess is not a sport/game which can and should have categories. This is not boxing where you have categories which are justified - weight categories - under 50 over 120. Hence, in my opinion, no united or classical. Perhaps the only category I would consider recognizing would be the rapid, blitz…etc. Tournament is a tournament – lot of people involved, while a match clearly shows the dominance of one player over another.

In response to RR, ‘What if a player is as strong as the world champion in tournament play but never gets to participate in the champion’s candidates cycle?’ we as chess public actually had such a situation. There were at least two players in the late 70’s and early 80’s, which could ‘regularly’ beat Karpov (in the age when he was considered unbeatable) but could never reach the candidate matches themselves – Ljubo and Anderson. Are we going to consider them stronger or as strong the world champion or world tournament champions? Of course not!
Petrosian had terrible tournament results during his 6-year reign as world champion, but did anybody question his strength? No, what’s more, he actually defeated Spassky in 66. His title, in the publics eye, was never questioned despite finishing equal 6-7 in Santa Monica (a double round robin that certainly was as strong or perhaps even stronger, given the participants Spassky, Fishcher, Larsne, Portish, Unzicker, Petrosian, Reshevsky, Najdorf, Ivkov and Donner, then the candidates matches of the year before). Was then Spassky labelled, or should be now with these new classifications we are trying to artificially create, a World Tournament Champion?

I agree that there should be regulations in place, so we don’t get matches like in the Lasker era against Janowsky or Marshal, but until you put your opponent down on the canvas in a one on one fight I cant give you the WCH title.

The Fischer scenario doesn’t really count for anything in this debate because he never played after giving up his title (well to be honest he did against Spassky in Sv Stefan and Belgrade; in a match that was labelled as a WCh match – but I don’t think anybody took that seriously).

If Kramnik wins the match next year, then in 30 years or so, I don't think the next generation will put Anand in the Steiniz-Lasker-Capablanca-... line, regardless of what "every authority that has traditionally ever mattered in the chess world" thinks today.

I am yet another match purist. To become the Classical World champion - which is the only title I care about, Anand will have to beat Kramnik in a match. At the same time, I will not consider Kramnik a champion if he doesn't win Mexico! It will make little sense to consider him a champion when he resigned the title in favor of the Mexico winner. But it would make even less sense to say that the classical title, which is essentially a match title, can be won or lost in a tournament. So, if Kramnik doesn't win Mexico, I will consider the title vacant, pending the outsome of the Kramnik versus Mexico winner match.

This is kinda like Lasker resigning the title in Capablanca's favor, but then they played the match anyway.

From chessgames.com:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By 1920, Lasker recognized Capablanca's prowess, and resigned the title to him, saying, "You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery."2 Capablanca, having felt robbed of his chance to win the title in the traditional fashion, convinced Lasker to play, but Lasker did so only on condition that his resignation be accepted, and he be regarded as the challenger. Lasker's resignation was not widely recognized at the time, nor today, therefore this match is generally regarded as the one in which the title changed hands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Kramnik's resignation of the classical title in favor of the Mexico winner is similar to Lasker resignation in favor of Capablanca. But it will not be widely recognized in the future, just like Lasker's wasn't and the match will have to be held for the 15th world chess champion to be crowned as such.

Frankly, I find it somewhat amusing that people who consider themselves Anand fans want to claim the "undisputed and unified", and therefore, classical world chess champion title for Mexico winner(if it is not Kramnik) without giving Mexico winner a chance to play for it in a match. I think some fans should take a leaf out of Capablanca's book and instead of claiming Anand is the champion without playing the match, hunt Kramnik down like he was Jason Bourne and make sure the match of Kramnik versus the Mexico winner indeed does happen - the way Capablanca hunted down Lasker and made sure he didn't simply get the title by the virtue of Lasker's resignation or by the virtue of his own tournament success.

Kramnik himself will acknowledge Mexico winner if he won't win it himself. But it doesn't mean that us fans of classical match title have to go along with it. In any case, we can all agree that if Kramnik doesn't win Mexico, then the winner of the Kramnik versus Mexico winner match will be the world champ.

I think that the fans who say Mexico winner will also have the classical title just misunderstand the idea of a classical title and show disrespect to the Mexico winner by denying him the right to play for the classical title the way it is supposed to be done. Mexico winner will have the FIDE title - so he will be in the same line as Ponomariov, Khalifman, Topalov, etc - but seems clear that even if Kramnik chose to resign the title to the Mexico winner, he could only lose in Mexico what he won in a tie-break in Elista in 2006, not what he won in London in 2000.

I don't understand why there is this need to rob the Mexico winner out of the perfect opportunity to become the 15th world champ by claiming the Mexico winner will already be the 15th world champ by the virtue of winning this tournament. That is just all around robbery: it robs Kramnik of an opportunity to lose the (classical) title the way it is supposed to be lost and it robs the Mexico winner of a chance to win the title the way it is supposed to be won.

"Ljubo and Anderson could regurarly beat Karpov" where did you get that from?? both had a terrible record against Karpov...

>>So, if Kramnik acknowledges the winner of Mexico 2007 as the new World Champion, there should really be no open questions left.
>>

No real question about who the champion is (it would be ridiculous to call Kramnik the champion if he himself says he's not). The only real questions are a) about how much respect Anand's title gets (some, but not as much as he probably should until the match is held), and b) which "bloodline" he belongs to (which is a question a lot of people will ignore completely).

‘Regularly’ has (‘).
I thought about deleting the whole word but decided not to, that’s why it has ‘. I actually got that from Andrew Soltis, from his Chess to Enjoy column in Chess Life from, I would say, spring of 1995, when he was discussing talent vrs hard work.

Not sure about all that robbing, but I do agree with Russianbear

Well said Russianbear. FIDE, the fans and Kramnik himself may recognise Anand as world champion, but history will not agree unless Anand defeats Kramnik in the upcoming match.

The way Vishy is playing, he may just do that.

Assuming he wins, I will recognise Anand as the 15th World Champion and new member of the Steinitz line. I also recognise Kramnik's gesture in putting his title on the line (not resigning it) in a tournament, rather than the match he was entitled to.

I believe there are three criteria for deciding the lineage and believe that Anand meets them all:

1) Was the reigning champion able and willing to defend his title under agreed conditions? *
2) Did the reigning champion put his title on the line in the match/event?**

3) Did the new champion clearly defeat the reigning champion (and anyone else involved in a tournament) fair and square, according to the rules?

In each case we can answer "Yes" to Anand. Well doen Sir!

* i.e. was he alive (Alekhine) and was he willing (Fischer)? If not the championship was transferred to the winner of a match tournament involving the world's best players (Botvinnik) or the winner of the most recent cycle to find a challenger (Karpov) In both cases the Champions are considered by all reasonable people to be worthy holders of the crown.

** This covers non-title matches involving the World Champion e.g. Lasker-Schlechter.
To me, how the challenger got to challenge for the crown is irrelevant (there are plenty of hard luck stories (No match for Rubinstein and Shirov, no rematch for Capablanca) - the fact that the champ put his title on the line and the challenger won it from him has to be good enough.

Obviously Anand is the champion, but his place in history is something no one can legislate. Even among champions, there is a hierarchy: The public holds Karpov in higher regard than Spassky, though they both were legitimate champions. That might not be fair, but it's reality.

Kramnik's victories over Leko and Topalov might have been by the slimmest of margins, but the fact is that he took the title from the world's best player, and he defended it twice. That's something Anand cannot yet say. I have no view on the probability of him defeating Kramnik in a one-on-one match. But the long-term public perceptions of his title will be much lower if he fails to do so.

al, all this conditions are technicalities, the invention of a bureaucrat. The way you describe it, you can win a title by flipping the coin, if the former champ agrees to it.

Btw, I'm not a religious fan of match championship. It could be that in this time and age KO or a tournament are more progressive form. The problem is that people tried it very recently and it left a sour taste in the mouth of most.

The match title has an aura of exclusivity and respect because there were so few match World Champions. With tournaments and KO's you get a different champion every time and this severely eats into the respect the champion commands. And there is no getting away from the fact that this championship is (or will be) won in a tournament...

Anand is the highest rated player now and he is convincing winning the World Championship tournament. What more is required?

He has been one of the top 3 highest rated player for nearly a decade and a half, winner of many Super GM tournaments, which proves that he is not a shooting star and winning the title is not a fluke.

For how long did Smyslov and Tal hold their World Championship titles? Don't we consider them as genuine world champions - in the line of Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine?

Irrespective of what happens in the next match, I am sure chess fans will respect Anand as much as they respect Smysolv and Tal.

Winning a match requires more than chess skills and match play focus. It also requires the capability to deal with political/psychological maneuvering. I think if Anand gets an aggressive manager who is t home with these tricks, he will overcome a huge handicap he has (due to his being a gentleman).

You can put an asterik on Anand's upcoming WC title, but then again you should put one on Kramnik WC title(*).

(*) Anand, then second ranked player, never participed in a WC title that Kramnik won.

Really, it's not that difficult to grasp, and it's been stated here already many times: the title World Champion is de facto a match-play title. A century's worth of tradition dictates that, and the minor exceptions and even the statements of Kramnik himself can't alter that.

Anand's achivement is remarkable; he should be recognized as the fabulous chessplayer he is. I hope that he beats Kramnik next year (Kramnik's "pragmatic" approach to chess and life has become so unbearably negative, and so divorced from any regard for his many backers and well-wishers, that it's hard to root for him in such a situation). But until Vishy defeats the incumbent in THAT situation, he will simply have won a very strong tournament.

asterisk

I'm with Russianbear on all his points. The classical title has true gravitas. We look back at all of the classical champions with awe and deep respect. We do not have the same view of the FIDE 'champions'. The classical title has always been decided by a match, with the two exceptions of the champion dying with the title or the champion refusing to play the next match. We have neither of those cases here - Kramnik is alive and well and is willing to play the next match. Therefore the classical title can only be passed on with the results of next years match. What Kramnik gives up in the Mexico tournament is the fairly worthless FIDE title. People can disagree all they want, but history is pretty strict on these types of things in the long run. I like what someone said earlier about recalling how pumped most people were about Topalov after his huge win in San Luis only to compare that to now.

I agree with zarghev in the fact that both Kramnik and Anand titles cannot be considered legitimate because of the way they got them. Anand didn't participated in the "World Championship" that gave the title to Kramnik (who even lost the qualifiers for it); in fact he was the original opponent Kasparov chose to challenge in a match in 2000; Anand deprived himself from that opportunity and was consistent with his convictions on how a World Title should be.

To me, the only thing that makes the difference between Kramnik and Anand is that Kramnik has enjoyed the opportunities Anand didn't have, i.e, Kramnik has been a better chess burocrat.

Anand has not played a widely recognized match for the World Title since 1995!! (I do not count New Delhi), when he has been the best player of the World several occasions since then (ej. 1997, 1998, 2003, 2004) and for sure, he would have won the World Title at least in one occasion. I even dare to think that after 2000, chess burocrats have taking apart Anand of a chance he might deserved above players like Leko, for example.

I do still consider Anand a champion without crown, and not because of Anand's fault. And I don't consider at all Kramnik as WC 2000-2007. For me the title has been vacant since 2000 and I hope Anand will be the one who wins next year to get the first universally recognized World Champion since 1993.

After Anand/Mexico/2007 we will be back to Topalov/St.Louis/2006 for a while and then to a reunification "Elista"/2008.
And after that, if Vishy wins he will be able to start a schism of his own.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

From the chess Anand and Kramnik have played in this event, there is no doubting who the world champion is. Kramnik the world champion?? Oh yeah, like the monarchy rules in England. We finally have a unified world champion.

Given the sordid manipulations that have surrounded recent matches (from Kramnik being hand-picked over Shirov to play Kasparov, Kasparov being denied a return match, the collapse of the Ponomarov-Kasparov match, the sham that the Topalov-Kramnik match was, the idea of purchasing matches ... and the latest absurdity, Topalov being given a match out of the blue), it is not a bad idea to jettison the match format. There seems to be a lot of corruption and behind-the-scenes manipulation involved. The idea of a world champion being decided in 12 games involving two players - with the winner often hibernating till the next challenger appears, knowing he only needs to draw to retain the title, to say nothing of the rematch privilege - is looking increasingly outdated. Also, psychology plays as important a role in a match as chess skill, which is a minus point. Targeting weaknesses by employing narcotic openings like the Berlin may be effective, but does nothing for chess as a a spectacle. Two guys m*********** each other; that's a good description of a match. There is nothing sacred about the match tradition. If it's not working, out of the window it should go.

Let us savour Vishy's victory. The first non-Russian WC since Fischer. The first WC from a developing country (India, where the game was invented). His achievement comes despite his lacking the chess education of his Russian peers, something Short, for one, regretted having missed. Carlsen will probably be the next non-Russian WC. Could this be the beginning of the end for the Russians?

"For me the title has been vacant since 2000..."

...when Kasparov lost it to... sorry, dropped it somehow?

Well done, Russian Bear!

WE have to call Mexico 2007 a WCC to please the sponsors. And Kramnik will be gracious enough to refer to Vishy as #15. But neither of these factors will matter to chess historians twenty years from now.

In 2027, we'll read that Anand won the 2007 qualifier, then went on to defeat (or lose to) Classical champion Kramnik.

So let me get this straight about the article on Chess Life Online: Kramnik is saying that he thinks he still has chances to win the tournament? That would require 1/3 from Vishy in the final rounds and 3/3 from Kramnik... and then Vishy still has to lose the RAPID tiebreakers!

Much is made of Kramnik resigning the title, agreeing to respect the Mexico champion, or whatever. I think it makes a difference that he was likely coerced by FIDE in some way. Maybe it was a condition of the Kramnik / Topalov match. At the very least, it was a negotiated thing after the fact to keep the titles unified and to keep the Mexico organizers happy. Kramnik's rematch clause is basically a veiled admission by FIDE that the Mexico as a championship was a mistake. It's a compromise I favored before the rematch clause was publicized. I agree with those who say that Anand is unlikely to be recognized if he fails to defeat Kramnik.

In summary, I doubt very much that Kramnik's opinion of himself as world champion and his public (FIDE required) statements are in harmony.

"But neither of these factors will matter to chess historians twenty years from now."

I consider stup all this stuff about "what the chess historians would say in the future". For me is clear chess historians would talk about the schism and the multiple titles ... no chess historian (even the less serious ones) would say the incomplete story just because of personal opinions. The will mention Khalifman, Kasim, Topalov, etc, it is the people in the present who gives each one the credit and the attention they consider.

Like boxing, you could write a recent story telling all the details and all the possible divisions, but you will focus in the events that made biggest news; it does not matter if there was a legitimate title in paper or not. Until now, neither Kramnik or Anand has had a legitimate and universally recognized title of World Champions, but still Kramnik has produced biggest news than Anand by defeating Kasparov (sadly, just because he was a better chess burocrat as mentioned above) and I hope Anand can make those news in the future.

Sigh ... just when we thought we had a unified title, it's all slipping away. We now have two world champions: the real, unified world champion, Vishy, who has has clobbered the rest of the field, all of whom played in this tournament with their eyes open, acknowledging that the unified title was at stake; and the classical match world champion, Kramnik, who retains the title because he boasts a blood line dating back to King Arthur.

>>Anand is the highest rated player now and he is convincing winning the World Championship tournament. What more is required?
>>

If you want to know what the discussion is about, read the thread.

Paul, and don't forget me and people like me (if there are any) who think the (classical) title is vacant, pending the Anand-Kramnik match. But it will get better: after the Anand-Kramnik match, the winner will be universally recognized.

>So let me get this straight about the article on Chess Life Online: Kramnik is saying that he thinks he still has chances to win the tournament?

Did he say this ?
Hmm..maybe he is a bit overconfident, but true champs always have a big ego.
Now that he has no longer to fear the terrible Grischuk watch out how the roaring lion will unleash devastating Petroff's and Catalan's in the remaining games.
He will rip off all that stays in his way in 13 lucky moves.

Paul, you ought to not pay too much attention to these so called "traditionalists", "purists", etc. -- for they're most of all schismatics. They do not like to play by any rules, unless it fits their immediate cause.

Plus, who says that a match is a better way to determine a champion then a strong, declared in advance Tournament?

D.

Nice article, Mig!

"Match purists", fantastic.

[ Alas, in Russian it would sound less good, because "purist" is a somewhat less common word in Russian than in English... Still, it is similar: "matchevye puristy" ]

How would you call those who consider one month long chess matches as a slight distortion, but still can accept their existence, taken that so many people want matches?

:-)

If Anand manages to defeat Kramnik in a 2008 match, then he will become WC #15. Until then, the title is in some kind of Limbo. If Kramnik wins that match then his title reign will span from 2000 to 2008 and the player who finally beats him in a championship match (maybe Topalov?) will become #15 instead.
If someone asks who is the real World Champion after this tournament, the answer is Vladimir Kramnik. In fact I think he knows this, but will not say it himself to avoid a controversy with the Mexico organizers. Instead he will calmly wait until 2008 to prove it.

RUSSIANbear,

Any wonder why he thinks Kramnik will still be the world champion after a pathetic showing in mexico?

What will chess historians 20 years later say about Shirov being bypassed? About Kasparov being denied a rematch?

The classical match world champion is Robert James Fischer. Soviet manipulation robbed him of his title. That is when the pure blue blood line of the classical world champions got polluted. No amount of tournament victories by Karpov can undermine this historical fact, which will be recognized by all chess historians 50 years later. In fact, I think Fischer himself knows this, but he is so old now that nobody takes him seriously. However, he is preparing seriously and is calmly waiting for an opportune moment to prove it. And prove it he will.

FIDE, Kramnik, challengers all agree it is the world championship. No amount of crying from RUSSIANbear and other Kramnik/match fanatics will change that.

"For now we can enjoy the fact that we only have to give one name when someone asks us who the world champion is."

Technically that has been the case since Kramnik beat Topalov no? As far as this point is concerned, this match does not bring in anything new...

Mexico has to be classified as a candidate tournament. With the wrinkle, that the WC takes part , and if Kramnik wins, no WC Match would occur.
So Anand has won the candidate tournament and has the right to challenge the WC in a match. not #15 so far.

Kramnik gets a rematch and yet he refused to give one to Kasparov? I wonder how many people still remember this.

guest aim: "RUSSIANbear,

Any wonder why he thinks Kramnik will still be the world champion after a pathetic showing in mexico?"

guest aim, perhaps it would help to actually READ what I wrote. I think I wrote rather clearly that I don't think Kramnik will still be the champion if he loses Mexico. I said Anand (or anyone else, even the most russianest of Russians included) won't be the real/classical champion by winning it.

"FIDE, Kramnik, challengers all agree it is the world championship. No amount of crying from RUSSIANbear and other Kramnik/match fanatics will change that."

FIDE, Kramnik, challengers all agreed the winner will face Kramnik in a match in 2008, thus recognizing the match tradition. In a way, calling this tournament a championship is a concession to Mexico organizers and has very little to do with the championship the way the word is understood in the chess world. I am afraid that no amount of anonymous ad hominem attacks on me by you is going to change that.

Kramnik outsat Kasparov in a match, I grant you that; Ok, his narcotic Berlin and waiting for mistakes was a great match ploy. But a real world champion does more than squeak through matches by the skin of his teeth. He does more than hire professional managers to smoothen the way in negotiations with chess officialdom. He also dominates important tournaments. Can a player who was bumped to the top of the queue ahead of a legitimate candidate by a generous patron (who was later painfully stung by his protege for his pains), a player who specializes in one-on-one contests and lacks the hormones to dominate a big field in a tournament in which all parties (barring chess historians yet to be born)agree that the world title is on the line, be considered a legitimate world champion? (Errr... yes, I know there are few diehard monarchists in England, but they seldom open their mouths.) If poor Shirov knew the loser of the match would challenge Kasparov, he would have adjusted his match tactics suitably.

"What will chess historians 20 years later say about Shirov being bypassed? About Kasparov being denied a rematch?"

--They will say that Shirov was offered a rematch but declined it, and that Kasparov not unreasonably played a match with the highest rated player available.

--They'll agree with Kasparov's arguments that an automatic rematch for a WCC match loser is a poor idea.

The fact that Anand has a match with Vladdy coming about makes this all academic. If Vladdy beats Anand, then Anand was never WC. If Anand beats Vladdy, then Anand is WC, either from the match or from the Mexico tournament, that's up to history to decide.

Of course, if Vladdy and Vishy never play....................

RUSSIANbear,

If Kramnik is not the champion, why is it so hard to accept that Anand is the world champion?

"FIDE, Kramnik, challengers all agreed the winner will face Kramnik in a match in 2008" What a spin doctor. Give half truth and delude yourself. They agreed to that and also that the winner of mexico will be the real world champion.

Two words are all that are required to summarize this discussion: sour grapes.

It should really be like this:
Kasparov
Kramnik* (lost to Shirov, wasn't qualified to play Kasparov for the title)
Topalov
Kramnik* (Kramnik and Topalov drew, and Topalov should've retained the crown, since he was current champion)
Anand

Just two words. Wonderful article.

"If Kramnik is not the champion, why is it so hard to accept that Anand is the world champion? " - It is very easy for me to accept Anand as the champion. And once he wins the championship the way it is meant to be won (in a match), I will immediately do so. Noone is taking away from Anand's accomplishments, people are just making a very logical point that you cannot become a match champion in a tournament and classical World chess championship is by definition a match title.

Anyway, the fact that Mexico winner has a match with Kramnik coming makes this all academic, like John Fernandez wrote. If Mexico winner wins the match, he will be recognized as the world champ by everyone, including the match purists. And if he fails to win the match, then the classical tradition will continues with Kramnik being the champion #14, and whoever will beat Kramnik will be #15 - while Anand will be a two time FIDE champ in the line of Mattison, Euwe, Bogoljubow, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov, etc.

Chess purists are so anachronistic it's amazing.

Is there any other sport where the current classical WC gets such a free pass?

The champion picking a challenger is a holdover from another era should be done away with immediately(for example this was common practice in other sports such as Tennis where for example the Wimbledon champion simply played the challenger who'd emerged from a 64 man tournament)

If they had the same system today there would be an outrage. It is disrespectful to other players in the modern era.

Why does the champion deserve an automatic rematch?

I have no problems in a match deciding the winner.
But the champion should NOT get the TITLE shot by default.

Did FIDE specify which party (if any) will have draw odds in the upcoming match between Kramnik and the Mexico winner? (Hopefully, no draw odds for anyone.)

Russian Bear says "It is very easy for me to accept Anand as the champion. And once he wins the championship the way it is meant to be won (in a match), I will immediately do so."

Where is such a definition for the World Champion?

By this definition, when did Botvinnik become the Champion? He won a tournament in 1948, drew matches with Bronstein in 1951 & Smyslov in 1954 and lost to Smyslov in 1957 and got it back in 1958. So, by this definition, he won it only in 1958? If so, then who was the champion between 1948 & 1958?

To me the much more important question is, whether there will be a decent qualifying cycle. I hope whoever wins the upcoming match continues to push for candidates matches.

The last round of candidates matches were great to watch and they didn't even include many of the top players.

If they don't the world championship title the winner holds *will* lose its meaning.

If you just want to go with a series of tournaments (Grand prix) why not just go with rating points? Thats all ratings are anyway is torunament performance.

Having the "World Cup" winner play in a semi is just plain dumb. IMO the ordeal of the cross is preferable to that.

If Anand were to win this Mexico City WC Tournament, yet were to lose the Chess Match to Kramnik (next year), his achievement would not be deserving of an Asterisk. In no way would his claim to the title be tainted.

Yet, in terms of chess history, it would only be deserving of a footnote, given that his "reign" as Undisputed World Champion would have only last for a brief duration, and he will have failed to successfully defend his title.

Let's face it: If Anand wins against Kramnik in their upcoming match, he'll have ratified the result of his dominating Tournament World Championship Tournament Victory. If he loses the match against Kramnik, he'll have diminished the importance of his Tournament victory and brief stint as Champion. While there are some differences, people would be inclined to view his accomplishment as being roughly comparable in significance to Topalov's victoey at San Luis, in 2005.

Iy we have to consider this tournament a qualifier to play Kramnik for a 2008 WCC match,this means Anand has the opportunity to become the real 14th WC champion.To be a real classic champion a chessplayer needs to be a real classic challenger first.You can be the real Kasparov succesor.Lets remember Karpov 75 and Botvinnik 48 never beaten reigning champions to be declared official classic winners.So just beat the pathetic Kramnik the next year and get the 14th classic genuine crown.

"Where is such a definition for the World Champion?

By this definition, when did Botvinnik become the Champion? He won a tournament in 1948, drew matches with Bronstein in 1951 & Smyslov in 1954 and lost to Smyslov in 1957 and got it back in 1958. So, by this definition, he won it only in 1958? If so, then who was the champion between 1948 & 1958?"

Beautiful Tech26!.I would also like to ask to Russian Bear if you can be the best world chessplayer without have a "classical crown".

"Much is made of Kramnik resigning the title, agreeing to respect the Mexico champion, or whatever. I think it makes a difference that he was likely coerced by FIDE in some way."

I think there was a bit of coersion on both sides. Kramnik has said repeatedly that he thinks the world championship should be decided in a match. But all of the other top players had agreed to participate in the Mexico tournament, and to recognize the winner as the official world championship. The players' agreement also prohibited them from participating in any other world championship event.

So Kramnik could have refused to play in Mexico, but he would have been all by himself, with no sponsorship or infrastructure in place to qualify a new challenger. Some people would have continued to recognize him as champ, but without a mechanism in place to defend his title, what could he do with it?

Yet, FIDE knew it needed Kramnik for the Mexico torunament to be viewed as credible. Kramnik made just enough noises to make them worry he wouldn't show up. It therefore offered him a guaranteed re-match, to ensure he wouldn't be tempted to sit this one out.

Many of the players, by the way, actually favor the tournament format. In the first place, it's more money for them, since even the 8th-place finisher wins something. And in the second place, it increases the number of people with a realistic chance of being crowned champ. As Khalifman, Kasimjanov and Ponomariov proved, sometimes a player just gets hot at the right time. In a match format, that is less likely to happen.

"Kramnik's rematch clause is basically a veiled admission by FIDE that the Mexico as a championship was a mistake... I agree with those who say that Anand is unlikely to be recognized if he fails to defeat Kramnik."

I agree with all of this.

"By this definition, when did Botvinnik become the Champion? He won a tournament in 1948, drew matches with Bronstein in 1951 & Smyslov in 1954 and lost to Smyslov in 1957 and got it back in 1958. So, by this definition, he won it only in 1958? If so, then who was the champion between 1948 & 1958?" - Tech26, it seems obvious that it is rather difficult to win matches against a dead champion (Alekhine) or a retired one (Fischer). Last time I checked Kramnik was neither dead nor retired (even if I thought he should have been both after his draw yesterday). So it is not fair to compare Botvinnik's situation with Anand's. Botvinnik had no Alekhine around to beat. Anand does have Kramnik.

Anand's situation reminds me more of the Lasker/Capablanca situation that I mentioned above. Lasker resigned the title in favor of Capablanca, citing Capablanca's great tournament record, but Capablanca insisted on the match because he felt it was unfair for Lasker to deny him a chance to beat him in a match. Lasker wanted to be consistent and insisted on being called a challenger, but Lasker's resignation isn't recognized now and it is considered that the title changed hands after Capablanca has beaten Lasker in a match (1921), not when Lasker resigned the title (1920).

Russian Bear Sep-24-07 :"I believe that the influence of random factors (present to some degree in both formats) is vastly greater in influencing the outcome of any single tournmament than a match".

I really think this point is self-evident, not a "subjective value judgment",
That there may be or not be more random factors in tournaments as opposed to matches is an question of empirical fact. That's true. But whether those random factors are a good or bad thing is a subjective value-judgment. Whether those random factors are outweighed by other positive aspects of tournaments and negative aspects of matches is again, a subjective value-judgment.

But by all means, list the objective qualities of matches vs tournaments and then tell us why you prefer them (value-judgment).
Others may tell us-- as they have in numerous past posts-- the objective factors in tournaments that lead them to prefer (value-judgment) that format.
In the end, it will be value-judgment vs value-judgment-- a contest that cannot be decided by fact or logic.

A tournament will never prove who is best at Classical Chess Match-play, and a match will never determine who is best at Classical Chess tournament-play.>
Even a match will not determine who is at match play, but only who is at match play between the players in the match.

The best system is the one followed when Fischer became champion (a set of tournaments determines eight players to engage in knockout matches, culminating in a 24 game match between the last man standing and the current champion, with a drawn match allowing him to retain his title, the whole cycle taking two years).

In this case the reigning world champion has chosen to put his title on the line in a world class tournament sanctioned by FIDE, so even if matchplay is the normal and sound way to win and defend the world championship, the winner of this tournament will be the legitimate world champion, "full credentials in the lineage of Classic World Chess Champions" included. That is what matters as to the merits of this event.

Oops, I was a bit "Tournarettic", it seems! ;-)

The most unsatisfaying element of awarding a World Championship title on the basis of ...er, an event structured like this....is that is largely resembles other Elite level events. This field could easily comprise the next Linares, which also has a Double RR Structure, often with Top players participating. The results seem a bit random, depending on who is in form. Anand is clearly playing the best chess at this event. Yet, because of its arbitrary nature, it's hard to dervie the firm conviction that he is the best player.

While Leko and Topalov were worthy challengers to Kramnik's title, one always had the sense that Anand was still more worthy yet. Clearly, Anand vs. Kramnik is the Marquee Matchup, especially since most Chess fans now consider Kramnik to be one of the Top Two players in the World (after having had some recovery from the effects of his illness). Anand will be the Current FIDE World Championship Title holder, having the Top ranking, with a rating that will probably exceed 2800. Kramnik will be the previous championship, yet to be defeated in WC Final Match play, and will quite possibly be the 2nd ranked player in the world.

Leko and Topalov managed to draw* the Classical Games match segment, and only lost the matches due to Kramnik's "Draw Odds" (vs. Leko) or win in tie-breaker Rapid games (vs. Topalov).
So, this is the chance for Anand to demonstrate that he is better than all of the other "pretenders", by defeating Kramnik in a head-to-head match-up, and at the same time surpassing the accomplishements of Leko and Topalov.

If Anand beats Kramnik, to clarify and unify the Chess Title once and for all, what are the Chances that Kasparov will be induced to come out of retirement, and muddle up everything all over again?

* Well, if one includes (as FIDE did) Topalov's controversial forfeit win against Kramnik!

Mig is right: this is a religious debate.

In any case, consider that the next winner of a WC rematch (hence once Kramnik would have lost a rematch, eventually), will have the strongest claim at a WC title in chess history: WC tournament winner + WC match winner.

And something tell me, if it is not Anand or Topalov, some day not so far away, it has to be Magnus Carlsen.

I BET that Kramnik won't be jumping to claim he isn't the World Champ after the tournament. And why should he? You're not the world champ just because you play well in one tournament. Just imagine who many 'World Champs' we'd have if the Championship had to be decided in a tournament less than a year after a match had been played for it...

Still a Kramnik-Anand match will be interesting.

And about 'hunting down'... this seems to me to be a thing that Anand isn't SUPER KEEN to do. He'll play Kramnik for sure. But it's easier for him to demonstrate 'superiority' over Kramnik in tournaments.

Before the tournament and even a bit of the way through I thought Kramnik would be favourite in a match... maybe he still is, but if Anand can hit peak form like he is doing now it will be very close.

>>What will chess historians 20 years later say about Shirov being bypassed?
>>

They'll probably say that Shirov got bypassed because nobody was interested in paying money to see him play Kasparov. And that nobody was interested in paying because he has an 0-17 record against Kasparov.

>>About Kasparov being denied a rematch? >>

They'll probably say what they say about Alekhine-Capablanca 80 years later. It's a shame, boo hoo, but Alekhine still didn't lose the title until he dropped it to Euwe.

What is it you wish they would say? That tournament championships are somehow more credible because of it?

>>Mig is right: this is a religious debate.
>>

But what does that actually *mean*? That the issues are important to people? Kind of a facile observation, isn't it? Anybody who read this thread and didn't understand that much would have to be a bit dense.

How about this? One world champion for tournament play, decided by the world cup, and one world champion for match play, decided by a candidates-matches cycle. Everyone says that they are different types of chess, so why not have different champions? Kramnik is terrific in match play but is maybe #3 or 4 in tournament play. Aronian, Anand and Morozevich on the other hand are great at tournament play, but don't do as well in matches.

If Anand predictably wins "WCC Mexico 2007", India with one of the largest audience/following for chess will in its telling of history consider him an undisputed champion. There will be no asterisk in the biography of soon to be Padma Vibhushan maybe even Bharat Ratna Viswanathan Anand. This version of history will have the official stamp of approval of the governing body of chess, of Kramnik who lost his title, of all major contenders for the title, of all most all living former champions, of all most all active chess players (and their professional bodies) as well as an overwhelming majority of chess followers.

Anand's Chess World Champion tenure starts Thursday or Friday when he takes an insurmountable lead. This is what the widely accepted official histories of chess will state in thirty or a hundred years from now when chess would have been computationally solved for all practical purposes and probably cease to exist in its current form.

Opinions to the contrary expressed by some self proclaimed match purists are just that, opinions. They don't really matter.

Hope the resurgent India Inc. will do the right thing and bid for the "re-match" and hold it on Anand's home soil.

I used to be a match enthusiast but have changed my mind after San Luis and Mexico. I thought collusion would be an issue in tournaments for WCC but have been proved wrong. In a tournament we are likely to see at least one fighting game every day. This is good for chess enthusiasts and sponsors. In match play this is not always so. In match play it is boring to see the same two players every day. In tournament play there is lots of variety with 8 players. This variety shows up during the games themselves and more importantly during the post game interviews and analysis, especially now that cheap and fast internet connection allows easy access to video and stuff. Much better than having the same 2 players every day. For sponsors and internet public I have no doubt that tournament play is much more attractive. IMHO we should have a tournament for the WCC every 2 to 3 years. The World Champion would be contractually obliged to defend his/her title in the next tournament and would have to win the tournament to keep the title (no privileges such as draw odds in match play).

This world championship is boring, there is no clear world champion, but some matches. It is just silly and awkward. Some players have no charisma, and no passion- Mig’s reports put me to sleep.

RUSSIANbear,

it's obvious why you consider Botvinnik the world champion eventhough he won it in a tournament. There could've been a qualifier and the top 2 finishers could've played a match in 1948. But no, Botvinnik won it in a tournament but still is the classical world champion and RUSSIANbear has no problem with it. lol, I wonder why.

There is no such thing as match world champion. It's rubbish that you invented. The only title that matters is the world chess champion and the winner of Mexico is exactly that.

Unless FIDE and Kramnik decided to cheat the world, sponsors and challengers and you know it for a fact that they don't consider this the world championship and are just lying, you're deluding yourself. Wake up and accept the truth and you might become CHESSbear or WORLDbear.

Ah- hundred games of two people, every day playing each other are even more boring. This should go in 101 ways to kill chess (my new bestseller).

Well let's not forget that Anand has yet to win the tournament. We have 3 rounds to go and surprises do happen...

However much people go on about it the truth is Anand needs to beat Kramnik in the match next year to confirm that he is the World Chess Champion. This was another super tournament like several held each year. It is not clear that Anand can beat Kramnik in a match where +1 is enough to win - look at the evidence of the 2 games they played in this tournament. To put it another way it is quite clear that Anand is,currently, a better tournament player than Kramnik - his dynamic play in general and with the black pieces in particular is much more suited to tournament play. In terms of style I think Topalov was a more dangerous match opponent than Anand will be - but lets see.

Agree with Ed. As Rimfaxe nicely put, let's not sell the skin befofre the bear is caught.

Russianbear that is :-)

No offense RB, just kidding!

Of course we should be sensitive to traditions changing, perhaps even under our very noses. Examples abound from more familiar sports. Cricket, for instance is undergoing something similar at the moment (first one-day internationals, now Twenty20). The US Open tennis tournament hasn't always been played on hard courts. The Australian Open wasn't really considered much of a tournament until recently. The four "majors" of golf have shifted over time: they weren't always what they were today. This is mainly due, of course, to the fact that these terms mean only what they are taken to mean in common parlance. This can be changed by a single figure (Arnold Palmer is sometimes credited with changing the perception of which four golf tournaments were to be the four "majors" -- and this in a single year, 1960), or by corporations, advertising, etc. It's not a simple matter.

Correspondingly, there's no law that prescribes that the title "World Champion" in chess should apply only to the victor in match-play situations, and not to winners of tournaments -- such as Anand in the current tournament.

But I believe there are some good reasons why people are reluctant to give up on the tradition of match-play world champions, and they're (obviously) deep seated. Like it or not, I think that the general notion of chess is as a ne plus ultra of intellectual combat. It's about *depth* of thought, about the finest and most rarefied achievements of the human mind. It's also about psychological pressure, the ultimate duel of two minds: combat, as I say.

As such, only the match-play situations, in which players face each other time after time, with all the attendant psychological nuances and pressures, appear to provide the true testing ground of a champion. The "depth" of a genuine chess match, it's single-mindedness and focus, truly expresses what we think is special about chess itself, its own "depth".

No-one's saying that a tournament doesn't provide equally difficult challenges. But they are of a different kind (to put it crassly, tournaments emphasize the ability to cope with different situations, rather than the same one time after time), and these don't correspond in the same way to our deep-seated sense of what makes chess "chess".

As I've said at the beginning of this post, there's no reason to think that this is written in stone. Maybe all it takes is one particularly compelling situation or player to begin the process of reorientation (perhaps in the future, people will think it bizarre that it took so long for us to see tournaments as the perfect medium for testing "true" chess greatness). But we're not there yet (and I doubt Anand is the person to do it: he doesn't penetrate deeply enough into the popular psyche -- and this is nothing to do with his chess skills, incidentally). And until it does happen, most of us will be waiting for Kramnik to play Anand in a match to sort it all out *properly*...

Don't worry, Vishy will be fine. Kamsky's not playing!

Mig, I wonder what is Garry's take on this issue? Will he consider Anand the 15th World Champion after this tournament? What if he loses in the match with Kramnik next year?

This “depth” that Theorist insists on only a few people can understand. What about hundreds of thousands of people who are not interested in this so called “depth”, but in exciting competitions. Match of two people over and over could not be more boring. Such a mess with the world championship title is basically a product of fatal incompetence. Very simple -- have the World Cup each year or every second year to determine the world champion, and that’s it.

guest aim : you are again way off. The situation was very different for Botvinnik then than it is for Anand now. Botvinnik could have won 10 supertournaments in a row, but if Alekhine was alive, it wouldn't have made him the champ until he played Alekhine in a match. And I would prefer the matches instead of tournaments, but those were post-war years and I imagine they didn't have funds for the full cycle, and there were many strong contenders so they couldn't have just picked two for a match. Anyway, I don't insist Botvinnik became the champ in 1948 match-tournament(Note it was called match tournament, btw). Had that been Botvinnik's only claim to World championship, I would strongly consider not counting him at all. But Botvinnik definitely won the title in matches later on, so that is not the issue.

Again, accusing me of bias towards Russians is an ad hominem logical fallacy, which definitely doesn't nothing to strengthen your case, but only weakens it. It does nothing to disprove any of the points I was making and it definitely does not explain why a lot of people who are not Russians seem to agree with me and/or share similar views. And are you sure your argument doesn't work against you and if I were to ask Mig to trace your ip, it wouldn't trace to a country that would not -by your own (invalid) logic- be considered neutral in such debates? Anyway, for all you know, I am not even Russian. Or a bear.

In the past, there was World Championship System to determine the best player. In that, I think, there would be a series of tournaments followed by a series of matches, which would find the best at the end. There were exceptions but exceptions should make the rule. That term has been conveniently replaced by "match system" - a nice invention to play with words - so in the long run, you can interchange it simply with a single match - you all know how good that is, playing with the help of 10 seconds?? and doesn't prove much at the end - and call it a world championship, to mislead chess public.

When there was a split at the top level, we couldn't have possibly found the best even with the best system. So, we didn't have champion from 1993. With the chess world united now, we can truly find the best with a good system comprosing of tournaments and matches. The questions if FIDE has the will.

In the meanwhile, we can consider all champions from 1993 till now and until such a WC cycle as champions in the history books since it not any of these individual champion's fault!

No special privilege should be given to Kramnik and Topalov. If we can't avoid that, a one time arrangement could be, they can match with the one of the top finishers other than the champion and then match with the champion thereby eliminating any luck factor in playing one single match against the champion.

If you dont like any ideas and just want to make a mess in the chess world for whatever reasons, please go ahead and do it. Good luck!

One good thing is, players are at least now under one umbrella. Anand has good chance to prove himself finally. And indeed he is just doing that by being world #1 and playing strongly in what is considered to be a world championship.

Anand is a chess genius ever seen and a true world chess champion!!

San Luis & (so far) Mexico City are unusual in that these supertournaments produced a clear winner.

Other WC qualifiers--AVRO 1938 or Curaçao 1962--have been less clearcut.

A good event is long enough that the #1 player is likely to win; short enough that there's no guarantee. A 14-game match is long enough to fairly determine the better of two players, but a 14-game tournament isn't *usually* enough to fairly determine the best of eight participants.

Imagine Gelfand as WC--a very worthy titleholder circa 1993, a bit silly today, as he's only slightly stronger than Pono/Kasimjanov/Khalifman. Great GMs, but weak world champions. A couple lucky breaks, and it could have happened here.

I don't think it's horrible that there's a bit of randomness in the selection of the challenger, as long as the challenger's creds are confirmed in a match with the champ.

The World Cup is way too random for my taste.

On Karpov vs. Andersson and Ljubojevic:

Overall record: Anatoli Karpov beat Ulf Andersson 15 to 2, with 29 draws.*
* Based on games present in our database; may not be complete.

Total massacre.

Overall record: Anatoli Karpov beat Ljubomir Ljubojevic 31 to 14, with 28 draws.*
* Based on games present in our database; may not be complete.

While a commanding record for Karpov, one might say Ljubojevic did better than expected.

In my previous post, it should read "exceptions shouldn't make the rule".

As for asterisk, Kramnik should really be given a "?!".

Chess has, and always had, a way that two people can determine who is better at the game. They can sit down and play a chess match against eachother.

Why F___ that up?

When the question was put to Morphy and Anderssen did they both play Lowenthal Bird and Harrwitz to see who scored better? Doing that would be just as stupid then as it is now. But that is what we do when we play this tournament world championship. We miss out big time.

Anyone who doesn't want to see Kramnik and Anand play one on one to settle the question of who is better can't be a chess fan.

Every cycle players should have the RIGHT to settle who is better over the board one on one. Enough with the ducking and jiving. Answer it over the board and lets be done with it.

Fans have been frustrated long enough with lame arguments about so and so beat so and so, and then He won this tournament but she won that one and he beat him in 1997 but he has a +1 in the last 18 months. What a bunch of HORSE S_____!!!!

Sit everone down accross from the other in a sufficiently long match and sort it out over the board!

We all know that Vishy Anand makes just about everybody's short list of 'best ever' players, so its good to think that its about to be official: Anand IS on par with that elite group of world champions.

Now we can start arguing who he is stronger than. How about: Smyslov, Lasker, Sultan Khan (I mustn't miss him out), Korchnoi (ditto), Bronstein, Fischer (who mainly played weakies but gave himself good press), Kasim/Khalif/Pono, um Spassky, maybe Tal (who rarely played at his best), Petrosian (won less often than Vishy) - in fact just about anyone who hasn't cracked 2800 ...

Let's see

Anand

1. Likely wins WCC Mexico 2007 with a +4 (or more)
2. Is the highest rated player on the planet and soon (likely) the only 2800+ active player
3. Is the World Rapid Chess Champion
4. Has a better tournament (and one-one) record than any of the current crop of contenders and has not shied away from taking part in tournaments and putting his rating on the line
5. Has won more Chess Oscars (a fairly good measure of peer recognition) than his challengers combined and is a shoo-in for the next one

So by all objective measures that I can think of, for this moment in time Anand has scaled a peak that is higher than any of his active contemporaries. Anand > Kramnik > Topalov and as a weighted average of recent achievements, I do not see this changing very much in the coming few years. Most of the prior champions being held up as bechmarks that Anand is being compared against do not hold up to these objective measures during their World Champion tenures. Among players that Anand faced during his career only Kasparov peaked more (Topalov's 2814 ELO peak was too short lived to count). I am not sure there will be another dominant champion in chess like Kasparov.

A good argument can be made that all the so called line of WCC's from Steinz to Spassky even at their peaks would have found it hard to make it past the WCC 2007 candidates rounds by beating the likes of Aronian, Shirov, Gelfand, Kasim, Kamsky given the level to which Chess has developed.

To me Anand's WCC 2007 title, 2800+ rating, tournament wins and overall record against his contenders, is far more significant than whether he has this pseudo-unbroken connection to Steinz.

The so called "bloodline" of World Champions is as pure as the institution of the English monarchy (it's about the same as any other monarchy, i'm not aiming to enflame any Brits.). The FIDE processes to choose a World Champion were the first of their kind to choose a Champion via a somewhat repeatable process where Champions couldn't simply hand-pick who they wanted to play against (so arguably, everyone up to FIDE should just be called "strongest" players but not world Champions). Chess, as with every other social activity will bow down before whoever is "strong" (playing wise, politically etc.) enough to mold the process to his/her will. We were lucky enough that Kasparov did this so well during his "reign".

There's a much simpler solution to all of this. Abolish the world champion and go to a pure rating point system. Make players play a minimum number of tournaments of a certain type (similar to tennis) and just tally rating points. At any point, the world #1 can break open the bubbly and drink a toast to himself/herself. Perhaps that'll force some infrastructure to be put in place to calculate ratings dynamically after every game. Chess players are supposed to symbolize the intellectual cream of society. For all that, the sport is organized in an idiotic manner and the cream of the cream of the crop (the top 20) are happy to keep pushing wood. The shame of this is a heavy weight that they and their lesser colleagues bear alone.

Mexico is a huge step forward and I won't disagree that Anand is (okay, technically not yet) the World Champion. However this tournament, without Topalov and Ivanchuk, is far from perfect. It seems silly for Kramnik to be playing in a tournament to select his challenger. If we were going that route, then the loser of Topalov -- Kramnik should be playing in Mexico with the winner waiting. This leads me to suggest the following format going forward:

The winner of Kramnik -- Anand will be new WC
The loser and finishers 2-4 from this tourney qualify for next Mexico style candidates tournament. The next three qualifiers do so based on rating (this keeps someone at the top, that had a bad tourney in Mexico (sick, etc. or just not invited) in the running based on performance at the other super tournaments)
Finally, the eighth spot would come from the World Cup.
A two year cycle with candidates tourney in odd years and WCC match in even years is the result.
And, lets go ahead and have the Sophia rules, or Yaz's slight modification in the candidates tournament. Kramnik's short draw disgusts me, but he gets a match with Vishy no matter how he does here.

My two cents.

Another thought regarding Anand : If Anand wins the Anand-Kramnik match then he will be the only world champion ever in the history of chess to have won three different formats i.e. Knockout (twice as Karpov blitz win was a sham), Mexico round robin of highly rated peers and a match. Neither Kasparov nor any other champion can boast that. And if we add his absolutely crazy domination of rapid and blitz chess Anand will stand very high in the chess history. All that achieved without being arrogant or controversial. Wow! So in a way it is great that he gets the opportunity to defend his tournament title in a match.

Well Kramnik beat his daddy when he was only 8 years old, and Anand didn't beat his daddy until he was 9!

Yeah but Anand beat his daddy playing with one hand behind his back and Kramnik *never* in the history of the game did that!

Guys these two are going to play a chess match. We don't need to resort to this sort of argument with them.

Unfortunately, we need to resort to this sort of argument for Ivanchuck, Aronian, Grischuck, Gelfand, Morozevich, Radjabov, Jakovenko and the other top players who never had the chance to prove they could beat anyone in the world in a chess match.

What makes Anand (if he wins Mexico City) any inferior to Botvinnik in 1948? The fact that Kramnik is alive and Alekhine was dead? That is so bogus. Is it better to win the title with the defending champion playing and not winning or is it better to win a championship with the defending champion in a grave?

Mr. Russianbear is being hypocritical when he says he recognizes Botvinnik but not Anand. he has to recognize Botvinnik since otherwise his chess man Kramnik is not in the steinitz line. If you recognize Botvinnik, you cannot not recognize Anand since his achievement is superior, not inferior to Botvinnik. The sitting champ put the title on the line and has gone on record that he would accept the winner. The fact that he was not in a grave makes this victory for Anand superior, not inferior.

The Capablanca - Lasker comparison is also specious since they never played in a World Championship Tournament. Thus, there was no reason for people to call Capa a WC till he beat Lasker. The current situation is being equated to kramnik resigning, when the reality is that it is no resignation. In an official World Championship that he himself has acknowledged, Kramnik will be losing his World title to the winner.

Mig's original post is right on target and well meant. However, I notice that several of Kramnik fans have conveniently jumped on the bandwagon claiming to be match purists when, in reality, it is not the format, but actually the fact that their main chess person happens to no longer be the world champion and more importantly somebody else is going to be World Champion.

You cannot be a match purist and simultaneously claim Botvinnik was a Champ in 1948. You cannot be a match purist and forget that Kramnik lost a MATCH - yes a long MATCH to Shirov and hence had no qualification to be a challenger.

I happen to genuinely like Kramnik and hope a match with Anand will happen. he is principled and a credit to chess - far more than many of his fans. but to diminish Anand's ascent to the WC just to boost their chess man under the guise of being match purists is just being hypocritical.

Having said that, I must add that the posts of many rabid Anand fans is also clearly jingoistic and taunting. Guys - enjoy your hero's ascent to World Champ status - but dont go overboard in diminishing Kramnik, who in my mind is equally, if not greater, World Champion. Remember you cant claim your main chess person Anand is an undisputed World Champion without your first acknowledging that Kramnik is the current undisputed champion.

(note: I am assuming this is the same Russianbear who also posts on the message boards, a place I lurk often. I have seen that he is a die hard kramnik fan through and through and doesnt lose any opportunity to diminish the achievements of Anand or Topalov. If it is a different person, then ignore the part of my post talking about his being a Kramnik fan although the inconsistency in recognizing Botvinnik, but not recognizing Anand and the speciousness of the Lasker-Capa comparison remain).

FACT: Kramnik AGREED BEFORE THIS TOURNAMENT IN WRITING that the winner of this Mexican WCC will be the next WC.

FACT: That means, Kramnik PUT HIS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE ON LINE in this tournament.

FACT: The ONLY WC title he holds is the classical WC#14 title.

So SIMPLE FACT: whoever wins this Mexican WCC will take the title of the NEXT CLASSICAL WORLD CHAMPION.

FACT: Kramnik put his classical world title on line in this WCC tournament. It does NOT MATTER whether Kramnik played the eventual winner (most likely, Anand) 1-on-1 or along with others. THAT IS HIS CHOICE. Kramnik CHOSE TO DEFEND his title in THIS tournament format and LOST.

FACT: As a result, in the next year's rematch, he will the CHALLENGER, he will NOT BE THE DEFENDING WC.

Add up all the above FACTS. Only ONE CONCLUSION: Whoever wins this WCC at Mexico would be the next CLASSICAL WORLD CHAMPION #15. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

THAT IS GOING TO BE ANAND FOLKS, it is just a matter of few days for it to become OFFICIAL.

ANAND WILL BE THE NEXT CLASSICAL WORLD CHAMPION #15.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO FURTHER ARGUMENT ABOUT IT.

THIS is THE FIDE Rules and THIS IS HOW IT WILL BE.

It is TIME the "Kramnik-supporters" and "match purists" recognize and accept these FACTS.

Kaluga writes, "Do not make mix it with 1948 tournament, Alekhin was dead, Kramnik is still alive :))" Sorry Mr. Kaluga, this WCC IS VERY MUCH LIKE 1948 because Kramnik is ALIVE, put his title on the line in this tournament, PLAYED IN IT AND LOST !!!!! WAKE UP KALUGA.

Now, somehow Kramnik has got a "rematch" clause written into this match. Fine. AS AND WHEN IT HAPPENS, he will be the CHALLENGER to this WCC winner (most likely ANAND). KRAMNIK WILL NOT BE DEFENDING HIS TITLE in that match.

So the so-called "match purists" have to accept the reality, that Kramnik CHOSE TO DEFEND his classical title the way HE OPTED, via this tournament, he PARTICIPATED IN IT AND LOST. He will be the CHALLENGER next time around.

If Kramnik wins as the challenger, next year, then he can become classical WC #16, that is all.

Face up to the facts, Russianbear,Osbender and other incoherent losers :)

GREET THE CLASSICAL WORLD CHAMPION #15, V. ANAND :)

CONGRATULATIONS VISHY.

Conclusion: The world championship debate divides itself into two camps. Those who see the title as sacred (in that sense it is religious) to be achieved by arduous effort in single combat with a lone adversary, and those who don't mind seeing it passed around over the years among a handful of great players.

Russianbear,

Botvinnik became classical world champion in 1948 by winning a tournament eventhough the champion didn't play. Anand will become world(classical/real/unified/undisputed) by winning a tournament in which the world champion willingly risked his title.

Fact: Krisha's third fact is clearly wrong. The rest (after the third) are simply dubious. Plus the tone is childish, the text is overcapitalized, and there is a bit at the end which is slightly insulting (calling people "incoherent losers").

Boz: Seeing the World Championship passed around between semi-random top ten players and having a different champion every year or two would definitely offend my sensibilites. If that's a religious argument, so be it. But then you're grouping the so called match enthusiasts with the so called match purists as far as that religion is concerned.

Those who say that what we really need is a well defined challenger selection process are really getting at the heart of the matter. As long as the process is different for every World Championship, there is always going to be debate. Everybody accepts champions in various sports because they do it the same way every year. (That said, the most consistent thing over the years for World Chess Championships is ... matches.)

I await Vishy's match with Kramnik. He must certify this result with a match win, though it's difficult not to regard him as champ because of his #1 position.

Boz,

I don't see a title as sacred, that should be transfered only one way or the other. However, I see what works and what doesn't. The thing is that title passed in the KO's and tournaments held very little value de facto. Yeah, every time somebody like Anand, who could lay a legitimate claim to be the strongest in the World wins there is some excitement. However this excitement is short lived. In a couple of years these titles become just a footnote in history. We had this situation already twice (once with Anand, once with Topa).

Good one, aficianado. You hit right on the spot.

To Kramnik-fans, you just cannot have the cake and eat it as well!!

Either WCCT Mexico 2007 winner is the World Champion or the chess world has not had a World Champion since 1946 when Alekhine took the title with him to the grave.

On another Kramnik-fan argument that Kramnik did not lose the world title in a match, then Fischer has more claim as the current world champion because he is very much still alive. Now, would we want to start that argument all over again? Or does Kramnik fans want to argue that Fischer is really dead or that Fischer had lost a match to Kramnik that has so far not been publicly disclosed?

The contrast could not have been more striking: Kramnik agrees to a draw after a handful of moves and Anand goes for the kill against Morozevich in an unclear position(after knowing about the drawn games). What a lame-duck world champion we have! Sure, he still retains the title because he has been baptized in the Sea of Galilee, or blessed by the Bishop of Wessex ... take your pick. Mikhail Marin put it well in his Chessbase columns: "An important moment in modern chess history. Anand's most dangerous trailers, Kramnik and Gelfand, had finished their games hours earlier and a draw would have maintained his comfortable lead in the tournament. The ambitious decision to play on will lead to a slightly irrational position, without any safety net for White. Therefore, Anand deserves the highest praise for the way he chose to climb up to the highest peak of the chess pyramide. This is the kind of World Champion the public needs."

Even if Vishy beats Kramnik in 2008, I don't think that will settle the issue. There is always this illness that Kramnik suffers from. Illescas has already used that one here. Still, it'll be a match to look forward to, judging from their individual games here.

On another note, will we get another non-Petroff game in Svidler-Anand?

I'm not sure that comparisons between the 1948 FIDE Match Tournament and 2007 Mexico City hold up all that well. 1948 was called a * Match* tournament for a reason: The 5 players each played 5 rounds against each other, for a total of 20 games/player. That's longer than some of FIDE's Mini-Matches at the end of their KO world Championships.

So, there were fewer players, and thus fewer "dark horses" who could influence the final standings.

Instead if copying the Linares Double Round Robin format, FIDE could have created some real excitement by having Mexico City be either a Quadruple RR 6 Player event[each player would play 20 games in total], or a Sextuple RR Quadrangular (4 player) event [each player would play 18 games in total]. If Vishy and Kramnik had played each other 4 or 6 times, there would be a lot less open to debate.

Mexico City would have been better off without Svidler. Both Grischuk and Morozevich have added a lot of excitement, but they have demonstrated that they lack the solidity of play necessary to survive. Gelfand still sports a plus score, but he has lacked confidence to press.

In short, it would not have been a tragedy if just 2, or even none of those 4 had been given slots.

Indeed, an event with Anand, Kramnik, Aronian, Leko--and Ivanchuk....along with Topalov(!)--would hvae been epic!

But if FIDE wants to keep this WC Tournament Concept, they ought to change the format a bit: fewer players, and more rounds.

Still, perhaps the best result will emerge from this tournament: Anand will become the world Champion, and Kramnik will play him next year for the title It's the match that chess fans have wanted to see for at least the past 10 years. Before Kasparov retired, such a match would have determined who the 2nd best player in the World is. Now, it will be for even higher stakes.

I just hope that Kirsan doesn't ruin it by making it just 8 games long, or something. Hopefully, it will be at least 12 games in length, but I would not object if it was 16 games.

Then the winner of that will most likely get to play Topalov....

A thought experiment: would anything have changed if Short or Kamsky or Bacrot were in Vishy's shoes today? You bet! This board would have been ringing with hosannas and hallelujahs. Case in point: Dominic Lawson's book on Short's loss to Kasparov, which almost manages to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Argh. "Kramnik fan" this, "Kramnik fan" that.

In the couple of years I've been lurking on this and that chess forum I've seen very little Kramnik fanboyism. That isn't to say that Kramnik hasn't his defenders and the respect of many chess fans. He has plenty of both. But I have seen hardly any "kramnik is teh chest grandmaxt0rz GO VLADY!!1!!1" nonsense. "Topa" has, however, and now that he's fallen from grace, "Vishy" will probably take his place.

There's more than a little psychological projection going on in the minds of people who see drooling "Kramnik fans" in the shadows of every post they don't like.

This is definitely Off Topic (and it is curious Mig didn't mention that - or probably I missed his reference), but I found this excellent (and huge! article) about Kasparov:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/01/071001fa_fact_remnick

written by the widely known journalist and former Pulitzer Prize winner (precisely for his writings on Russia) David Remnick. I believe the article speaks by itself about assesing objectively Kasparov's real chances and what Russian people think about him.

On the other hand, I have the impression the courage, conviction, hard work, stamina, huge determination and adaptability that Kasparov showed in Chess might help him to suceed and put him as a driving force in Russian politics, even if he does not seem to be a very democratic person and people might not share his ideas. I think is not coincidence that politics and Kasparov found together; that profession seems to fit Kasparov's ego-driven, (perhaps) close minded and obsessive personality and bring him a new challenge outside the board.

I stated on this blog before the tournament began that I hoped that Anand would win. That said, with all this talk about Anand being crowned the new World Champion, I wonder if the same amount of passion would have been expressed here if say (with all due respect) Gelfand had won? I have the feeling that the scales would have been tipped in favor of Gelfand having to defeat Kramnik in next years match, before being considered a legitimate WC (#15) by the general chess public...regardless of what FIDE or even Kramnik himself have stipulated. That being said, we chessplayers can certainly be a fickle lot at times.

Lets get a sytem of matches say take the top 12 rated players. Have them play a 14 game match down to six. (14 games is no longer than a typical double round robin tourny) Another 14 game match down to 3. Throw in the WC for a 16 game semis and you have 2. Then a 24 game WC match!

Can you imagine the first set of these matches? It would be awesome watching these big guys battling it out head to head. If we are going to dream, why not dream big? Why this isn't tried I will never know. At the site of Wijk have the first set. At Linares have the second set. Or have the first set at Dortmund and the second at linares or Wijk, doesn't matter. They would get much more attention for thier tournament that way. Then you have your semis and your final. Its easy. You also have a WC no one would dispute.

So much has been said on this issue and there remains valid point on both the side.

I think after winning this Tournament - though it is not a match between Kramnik and Anand - stil Anand should be considered as the #15. The simplest of the reasons are:

1. Anand is currently the strongest player.
2. He held the Fide WC status before and thus is no more just a Fide guy.
3. Kramnik being the current world champion has decided to lay down his crown in this Mexico 2007 World Championship and also included a clause of "rematch" in 2008 - which technically means his challenge game to ANAND.
4. Though Topalov is not here but is very well understood that he lost his chance of winning the title and there is strong believe among the chess followers regarding his ability to be a real world champion.
5. We can actually take the argument of 1948 here too: because it gives the precedence of deciding WC in tournament plus it is the current world champion (yes he is alive and thats why his acts are counted) decided to make Mexico 2007 tournament as a deciding tournament for the World Champion.
6. If there happens no match between ANAND and KRAMNIK - it is KRAMNIK who is actually going to suffer of not having the chance to come back like Botvinnik to become WC. It is not the other way round.
7. Between Kramnik and Kasparov we saw things did not work out well after Kasparov lost his title and many of us were sorry to see that man (Garry) though playing superbly and being considered as the strongest chess player in the world was actually not the WC. The same thing happened with Capablanca after his loss to Alekhine.
8. So Kramnik once decided to lay down his title in this tournament the Purists or the chess enthusists has actually nothing more than a big zero to talk about the validity of the winner of the MEXICO 2007. One can continue to write thesises on this but surely that would not change the status of the new world champion.
9. IT IS THE ANAND ERA BOYS and one can only hope to challenge it rather than naming others for the world champion.
10. Hope Anand will be different and is prepared to fight against the strongest in the matches in future unlike many big names like Alekhine, Karpov, Kramnik!!!

Chess has made a big progress since Elista 2006.

You have two gentlemen fighting for the title next year. Both will accept the victory of the other and will not accuse each other of having cheated. If Anand wins he is the real WC, if Kramnik wins people will quickly forget about the intermezzo.

So if Anand wins the title here, Kramnik gets a rematch since he would be the ex-World Champion, right?

- Will Anand get a rematch if he loses his match to Kramnik? Even Topalov was given a rematch on the condition that Kramnik won...

- Did Kasparov get a rematch when he lost his title to Kramnik?

Under normal circumstances I would have had my doubts over calling Anand #15 after his victory here and blindly supported match play like so many other people here. But... u have to end the injustice against Anand and put a stop to all the FIDE favoritism and bias... he is after all the #1 in the world. I believe in the tradition of matches but I also believe that ideally the WCC should also be the #1 player in the world. Look at Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov when they were World Champions...

- Will Anand get a rematch if he loses his match to Kramnik? Even Topalov (the 'tournament winner') was given a rematch on the condition that Kramnik won.

- Did Kasparov get a rematch when he lost his title to Kramnik?

You can't talk about ideal situations (=match play) and upholding tradition on a selective basis.

"So if Anand wins the title here, Kramnik gets a rematch since he would be the ex-World Champion, right?"

I guess this wouldn't have any sense, because according to the FIDE rules, Anand would enter into next year's match as the World Champion and Kramnik would enter as the challenger (because he would already lost his title after Mexico). So, it would be absurd if he has two direct chances to get a title back.

Thanks, Sandorchess, for the link to that great article. I didn't know democracy in Russia was in such a poor way. A real eye-opener.

As much as I enjoy the debate, I think Anand's take on all this may be the most important. IMHO, I think he wants to just enjoy chess, and he is quite satisfied with having the best results and rating. That would fit with his attitude all these years.

The bickering and fan-showmanship, we're trying to do for him or another, are just our way of behaving like the crowds in the coliseum during the Roman empire.

Let it be ! And face it: we have not cared about the title since Kasparov lost it ... only about the best player.

sf

Nobody questioned kaspy during his reign, becasue he was able underline his status by winning almost all tournaments. After all, a real champion should also be able to win tournaments.

Kramnik is not that dominant, even in matches.

To prove his worth, kramnik needs to win in match against all 5 top players in elo-rating. Will he be able to do that ?

Kramnik has not been dominant in matches. His last 4 matches show: loss (Shirov), win (Kasparov), draw (Leko), draw (Topalov) but win on tie-break.

Kasparov and Kramnik are leagues apart in class. It's a terrible injustice that Kasparov was denied a rematch. That, in my view, takes away the sheen of Kramnik's title, even more than the leapfrogging over Shirov. After all, how many times did Kasparov himself defend his title against Karpov?

Aaaah! Firstly, congrats Vishy (unless you completely lose the plot in the last 3 rounds)

And all this chatter about blah blah blah (classical), (match), etc just seem Kramnik (Russian) fan propaganda to me.

Everyone knew BEFORE the start of the tournament that THIS is THE World Chess Championship. Kramnik's inclusion meant that he himself concedes that the winner of THIS tournament is the one and ONLY World Chess Champion. Everyone should note that this was agreed to BEFORE the Kramnik-Topalov match, between FIDE and Kramnik.

Kramnik gets a chance to match-up again the Vish next year. Why didnt Topalov get a challenge against Kramnik then? (yes, yes, classical, FIDE, time-constraints).

And as one writer put it quite nicely, Kramnik himself hasnt really done well in tournaments in the recent past, considering that the WORLD Champion (classical or else) should at least be in the top 2 on the points table. (Garry)

Some may argue that Kramnik is a jittery tournament player, but a strong match player. Shouldnt he then have been titled World Match Chess Champion? (i know, i know, doesnt make sense, completely below the belt)

Anand, however, is the #1 rated active player in the world. His record speaks for itself. This tournament win will merely be a rubberstamp for the achievements of this bloke.

I just hope the retoric on not giving Vishy his dues is not merely a nationalist effort (Apart from Fischer, who else outside the USSR has won the WCC title??) Then again, this is only my conspiracy theory.

Lastly, did you guys SEE the game Anand-Moro? Outstanding! I would never be able to finish it off like Vishy, but, of course, I am no Super GM.

Under the Fide´s regulations, any 2700+ player can challenge the World Champ, so that Topalov, Radjabov, Kamsky, Morozevitch etc will all have an additional opportunity to mess with the world champ.

So far, just Topalov has paid the fees to enjoy this contractual right, but even some more obscure 2700+ can do the same, having the chance to become World champion, no matter whether he was never listed above top 10.

In that case, the purists won´t be happy again, because they think his hidden local top favourite is not present.

Despite the importance of the all-Russian championship, we never have a match to decide whether Alekhine or the living legend Kasparov deserve to become champion.

The timetable says the 2007 chess rocket has gone, next year we may have another champion.

Who really cares anyway ?

What is this 'a world champion needn't be a champ of tournaments' nonsense. Of course he should, not give in to 13 move yawn draws.
Kramnik is a pathetic competitor and comes across as a weasel who just wants to cling on to WC for monetary and other ancillary purposes.
The true champ gets draw odds at WC matches not Kramnik who didnt even fulfill his obligations either.
a) He didnt give Kasparov a rematch as mandated by his contract.
b) He won by virtue of draw odds against Leko in a very lacklustre performance.

You want a chess vampire hogging the limelight just because he won once and could never completely win over his peers then so be it.
You deserve the champ you choose.
I prefer Anand because of the calm he brings to the board and that he just happens to be a pretty good player as well... yes yes and in the line of Steinitz.

Yeah, I loved the New Yorker article on Kasparov.

Steinitz's line ended with Alekhine's death. From 1948 we have the FIDE line which was interupted from 1993 to 2006. After elista we are back to FIDE line.

Again, the very fact that many here choose to concentrate on what they think my background is just shows they don't have the actual arguments to back up their claims. The lack of coherent argument on the part of those who claim Anand has somehow won undisputed and/or classical title in a tournament is astonishing - all I see is strawmen, irrelevant facts and personal attacks on whose who happen to disagree.

Alekhine was dead when they had that match tournament in 1948. Kramnik is alive. That is a major difference. The classical title has never exchanged hands in a tournament - ever. Besides, I don't say or insist Botvinnik was a champ after his victory in 1948. Botvinnik was definitely a champ later in life because he got the title in matches, however. So I am not being inconsistant.

Sorry, but no amount of Anand fanboyism will win him the title. Let's wait until the 2008 Kramnik-Anand match. Until then I say Anand has the FIDE title of the Ponomariov/Kasimdzhanov line and the classical title is vacant.

He, he: http://webcast.chessclub.com/Mexico07/Macauley/day14/day14.html

Could we get more of those fun videos?

"lack of coherent argument"?

Evidence is clear as day. Kramnik agreed before elista match that whoever wins in mexico is the world champion. So did FIDE. Wake up and see the facts RUSSIANbear. No matter how many times you repeat, you can't make your lies into the truth. So classical title was never won in tournaments(Botvinnik) but that doesn't mean it can't be won in tournaments.

Russianbear is right at least partly.
Lumping Anand with Kasim.... and Khalifman... leaves a bad taste , can only be rinsed with Kramniks defeat in 08.

Kramnik is indeed alive, but he put his title in this mini-match tournament. Sorry by that!

Repeating ¨i-hate-Fide-rules¨ does not help either, better is to be more honest and just recognize the facts: we will have another champ this year, no matter who and no asteriks, please!

guest aim: "Evidence is clear as day. Kramnik agreed before elista match that whoever wins in mexico is the world champion. So did FIDE. Wake up and see the facts RUSSIANbear. No matter how many times you repeat, you can't make your lies into the truth. So classical title was never won in tournaments(Botvinnik) but that doesn't mean it can't be won in tournaments. "

guest aim: Sorry, but appeal to Kramnik's resignation and FIDE does nothing for me. It is an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. If tomorrow Kramnik and FIDE declare that 2 times 2 is 5 just because they need make the Mexico sponsors happy, would that change how the math works for chess players? I don't think so.

The fact that the classical title never changed hands in the tournament cannot be dismissed - and as long as you want to claim something about the classical title, you will have to deal with that. No matter how many times you repeat, you can't make your lies into the truth. You can't swicth the meaning of the classical title to be what you want it to be.

And now to address the issue of match purists somehow showing disrespect to Anand by claiming he will not be the champion even if he wins Mexico. Sorry, but claiming someone is the world champion even though they are not is NOT "showing respect". It is showing disrespect - for the game, for the chess world championships, for the fans, but also for the Mexico winner himself. If Capablanca felt it wasn't good enough for him to get a title by resignation/tournament success and insisted a match was to be played, why should it be good enough for Mexico winner? Sorry, but it is my very respect for the Mexico winner that leads me to think they will want to win classical title the way classical titles are won when there is an alive and active previous champ around - by beating the previous champ in a match. If Anand wins it, the attempts to hijack the classical title in Anand's name based on Mexico tournament results would be the ultimate act of disrespect towards Anand. And I definitely respect Anand enough to think he can WIN the title (in a match) instead of STEALING it (with an irrelevant tournament victory).

"just because they need the Mexico sponsors happy" not only that but they also thought it was the real world championship.

"Capablanca felt it wasn't good enough for him to get a title by resignation/tournament success" lie! Anand is not winning the world championship by winning corus and linares. He's winning it by winning the world championship.

"classical title never changed hands in the tournament cannot be dismissed" no it cannot be dismissed but that doesn't mean it cannot change hands in a tournament.

guest aim - ""Capablanca felt it wasn't good enough for him to get a title by resignation/tournament success" lie! Anand is not winning the world championship by winning corus and linares. He's winning it by winning the world championship."

The so called World Championship in Mexico is as good (same as )as Linares or Corus tournaments - pray tell me the difference. The essence and format is the same with the same crop of 2700+ players, so how is this a "World Championship"?

osbender:

I agree with you completely.

"not only that but they also thought it was the real world championship." - Not really. The fact they declared this the last tournament championship and the fact Kramnik got seeded into the 2008 world championship match, as well as Kramnik and Henzel interviews show me that making the tournament the "championship"was indeed a concession to Mexico organizers.

"lie!" - nope, it is the truth, check out the history books on the whole Lasker/Capa story.

"Anand is not winning the world championship by winning corus and linares. He's winning it by winning the world championship." - You assume the very thing that needs to be proven, guest. I take it logic is not one of your stronger points.

"no it cannot be dismissed but that doesn't mean it cannot change hands in a tournament. " - well, it certaily doesn't mean it CAN change hands in a tournament. You were arguiing and citing history of the classical title, but that history shows no single example of a champion losing a title in a tournament. Therefore, I don't see how the history of the classical title provides any more support for your claim than it does for mine. In fact, if one examines chess history, except for cases when the last champ was not available(due to death or retirement), the defining characteristic of the title is that it has changed hands in a match. Capablanca clearly understood that when he refused to accept the title Lasker resigned in his favor.

To anyone who doubts Vishy's title-to-be, all I can say is, Hang it up.

The king is dead. Long live the king!

It seems to me that prior to this tournament, lots of us were talking about a triumvirate of Anand-Kramnik-Aronian. But, based on this tournament, Aronian seems not yet ready to have his name mentioned in the same breath as Vishy and Vlad.

RUSSIANbear, Just because something(classical title changing hands in a tournament) didn't happen doesn't mean it can't happen.

Macjoubert, The difference is in the way players approach each tournament. Topalov-Nisipeanu for example is not the world championship eventhough it was a match because it wasnot the world championship. Topalov or Nisipeanu did not prepare for it like he would for a world championship. Players prepared for Mexico like it is the world championship.

guest aim - assume Kramnik comes back and says he DIDNT prepare for this like a match because in his mind it ISNT a match - then what do we do?

"Just because something(classical title changing hands in a tournament) didn't happen doesn't mean it can't happen. " - you are right, it doesn't. Just because dogs don't fly like birds doesn't mean it can't happen. But my point is that even if there was a dog that could fly on its own, it would not be a dog in a sense the word "dog" is commonly understood. As long as it is a dog in a sense the word "dog" is commonly understood, it is not a flying animal. And as long as the classical title remains the classical title, the way that has been understood hitherto, it doesn't change hands in a tournament. If it would, it would cease to be the classical title.

Russianbear: "If tomorrow Kramnik and FIDE declare that 2 times 2 is 5 [...], would that change how the math works for chess players?"

No, but then FIDE is not the governing body for math...

If you are going to complain about "lack of coherent arguments", check your own.

I'm abit worn out by reading this thread, the only clear fact as I see it; is that everybody focuses on what they believe should be perceived as correct. As Mig said religion. (And perhaps it is also a fact that it is of no real consequence...).

Right now I'm just looking forward to what should be a great match in 2008.

Q

"No, but then FIDE is not the governing body for math..."

No, but then FIDE is not the governing body for the classical Chess World championship, either - if chess history is any indication.

By RussianBear's definition, Karpov is the biggest thief as he 'stole' the title in 1975 without playing even a single game.

So, where is the continuity from Steinitz?

Kramnik never defended his title against the best players - Kasparov or Anand.

One can make all kinds of arguments saying I don't accept this or that. What is important is what the majority of people think. Everyone is accepting the Mexico tournament as the WCC. Anand needs nothing more to prove, his track record is there for everyone to see.

Tech26, Karpov has proven his superiority to the chess world by winning a cycle and 3 candidates matches. If you can explain how he could win against someone who was retired (Fischer), I would be willing to admit you are right. And the last time I checked, Kramnik is not retired, so it is not the same. If he was and Anand showed anything remotely similar to Karpov's World championship run, I would be saluting Anand right now.

It is likely, I think, that Kramnik had very little reason to "tip his hand" in this tournament. Why show anyone your opening preparation and special lines when a match for the title is guaranteed?

If match play isn't the way the title is determined, then why not, as already suggested, just crown as king whomever has the highest rating at the time?

Better said, perhaps, is why should one single tournament of all the super GM tournaments in a year be arbitrarily selected as THE tournament that determines who is world champion?

The reason there are match game purists is that match play is entirely different in its stratagems and focus than is tournament play. Fischer uncorking a game that didn't begin with 1. e4 at the beginning of his match with Spasky is a good example. Did that shake Spasky's confidence in the future games of the match and in the appropriateness of his preparation for Fischer?

One note to requiring match play is that generally one must demonstrate excellence at tournament play to gain the right to challenge the WC. If one beats the WC in a match, one has demonstrated not only the ability to punch out the little guys in tournament play but also the ability to go mano y mano in match play.

While the fact that Kramnik seems to be able to draw nearly at will makes for sometimes tedious chess, that is a deficit in many tournaments where one player can be on a hot streak. In match play, that same ability to not collapse under fire and be able to fight through to a draw is invaluable.

It isn't so much that I believe that match play is the ultimate way to choose the WC, it's that I see selecting a single tournament out of the plethora of super-GM tournaments played every year as the single one that determines the WC. If that's the new criteria, personally I'd rather look at the end of the year to see who has the highest rating and crown that individual as WC. At leas then there wouldn't be fragmentation of title.

All the relevant parties (to decicions) have accepted FIDE as the governing body of the classical chess world championship, which means there is at present no schism.

That Russianbear does not accept this is not really relevant. Saying it does not make it so!

Q

The New Yorker article on Kasparov was very informative and a model of fairness. I wish him all the success in the world. Consider this: It is late in the year 2007 and we are talking (many skeptically) about the task of bringing democracy to a modern European nation!

"All the relevant parties (to decicions) have accepted FIDE as the governing body of the classical chess world championship, which means there is at present no schism.

That Russianbear does not accept this is not really relevant. Saying it does not make it so!
"
I don't remember Steinitz or Lasker accepting FIDE. Or Kasparov from 1993 to 2000. Or Kramnik until recently. Like I wrote before, Kramnik only recognized Mexico as "championship" because of FIDE's contract with Mexico organizers. FIDE and Kramnik had an understanding this will be the last championship tournament, and Kramnik was seeded into 2008 match regardless of the results - this tells me FIDE and Kramnik themselves consider matches as the way to decide the championship and Mexico was really a compromise. In that sense, I see no need for me (or anyone else) to recognize Mexico as the part of classical world championship tradition. FIDE and Kramnik may try to have it both ways, but I don't care about Mexico organizers, so I can tell it like it is. And what fans think IS relevant. It was fans who recognized Kasparov post the 1993 split and Kramnik post 2000 as the world champ - even if the "governing body" had their own champs. And eventually it will be up to fans to decide whether Anand's title is a legitimate title. IF Anand beats Kramnik in a match in 2008, he will answer all questions and will be universally recognized. But if he loses,, I think Kramnik's resignation in favor of Mexico winner will be forgotten/discarded just as Lasker's resignation of the title in 1920 was.

I tend to agree with Tech26. I fail to see the difference between Karpov in 1975 and Anand in 2007. If we accept that Fischer was dethroned in 1975 by refusing to defend the title then we must accept Kramnik´s decision to put the title at stake in a tournament in 2007. If Fischer had insisted on defending his title in a tournament in 1975, had participated and taken 2nd place behind Karpov, wouldn´t we have accepted Karpov as his successor? I would.

Its funny how much people debate today about who the world champion is. After the Anand-Kramnik match next year, these same set of people will probably be debating *when* Anand actually became World Champion - after Mexico or after his 2-point match victory over Kramnik. You can shout hoarse or call me mad or quote the 'experts' who might claim that Kramnik is favorite or that the match will be close, but: Que sera sera (What will be, will be). Or, like Mig would say: Its not over till its over but its over. Kramnik was a great champion while he was. He beat Garry when nobody else could. His style was a novelty to Garry at the time but Garry had 'sorted him out' by Astata (2001). Kramnik robbed Shirov's shot at the title and suddenly became a 'principled' man and shied away from the best challenger (Garry). But now, kudos to him for beating Topalov (assuming Topalov's allegations are false) and putting his title on the line here. However, its time for him to make way for the new king - now, and next year after his match defeat.
In my book,
#14. Kramnik
#15. Anand, 2007 (after mexico)
#15 (continuing). Anand, 2008 (after beating Kamnik in a match).
#15 (continuing). Anand, 2009 (after beating Topalov in a match).
#16. Radjabov/Carlsen, 201x (after Anand retires).

But debates are fun...keep going guys..at least it means we are in a democracy with freedom of speech (unlike the stupid PlayChess server where sysops who don't even know English are more than eager to play moral police)..

On another note, if someone (Mig/Mark/Jeff/Kirsan??) can please tell me whether or not this event would be on the Oct.1 list, I'd be highly obliged..I'm more interested whether or not Vishy becoming World Champion coincides with his re-entering the elite 2800 club.

Botvinnik won the title in 1948 in a tournament. There was no candidates cycle, and players were selected based on some old tournament performances. That is fine says Russian Bear as Alekhine was dead as if his death made the tournament equal to a match.

Karpov won the title in 1975 by default because Fischer did not defend his title. That is fine says Russian Bear as Fischer did not play and Karpov played a candidates cycle.

Now Kramnik himself is playing in WCC and Anand's win is not sufficient because it is not a match?

What logic is this?

The fact that Anand is the highest rated player automatically validates his title.

Tech26, I made several point about Botvinnik, but not that the 1948 match-tournament equal to a match. Read what I actually wrote, instead.

The logic is simple - unless the champ was dead or retired, the classical championship always changed hands in matches. How difficult is it to understand? Kramnik isn't dead or retired. Beat him in a match if you are are going to claim to be the classical champ, please. Makes perfect sense.

Ratings do not matter. A rating does not a classical champion make.

Mig, you didn't toss up a debate ! You tossed up a storm. All the pent up egos are alive and kicking ass now.
FIDE awaits judgements from chessninja comments to decide whether Anand is or is not the next world champ. Carry on folks !

fan

We must acknowledge Vishy's excellent performance in this tournament - he deserves to win it and good luck to him. However, I still think he needs to defeat VK in match to fully earn the title World Champ.

The problem with a tournament is that you can win it without defeating the reigning champ at all i.e. you can rely on beating more of the "weaker" players in the field.
In a match there is nowhere to hide, you can't possibly win it without defeating the current champ - as it should be.

This is not to be negative about VA, he has done all he could possibly do in this tournament but until he can say

"I beat the Champ"

as opposed to

"I won a tournament where the world champion was also a participant (although...eh...I didn't actually beat him)"

then there will be a little bit less gloss to the achievement.

As far as I remember Anand had a shot at the chess title, and dutifully lost in 95 to Kasparov. After the Shirov negotiations broke down in 99 (regardless of his 0 for 100 to Kasparov), Anand was offered another shot at the title but he declined to play (my opinion was that he was simply scared of playing Kasparov and losing again; not to mention that he lost a match to Karpov as well). Kramnik accepted, and won the London match. Let me repeat, he WON the London match. I don’t care if he used 1. a3, the Damians defence (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6) or pink fluorescent pieces on a green chequered board. He won. It can’t get simpler then this; one guy lost his marbles to another guy.
So, I cant find a reason why somebody would call Anand, or god forbid Shirov, a world champion without a crown, or for that matter Kramnik a non-champion.
What’s more, I don’t remember Kramnik drawing a match against Topalov. I remember him winning. Under the rules that both players agreed to, the rapid games they played were just as significant as the other, longer games they before. The final score of the match was 8.5-7.5. So, no draw, unless one counts the score like my grandfather used to do (always 4-4 for him!).

As for the Leko, Bronstein and Smislov matches, in order for one to become a champion he MUST show that he is better, superior then the reigning champion.

FIDE goes:

Please use your voting buttons to vote if you think Anand is the next WC.

Yes No

Your (Voter's) ELO rating - 900, 800, 700, 600.
The lower the rating, higher the authority.
Also, the more you can hold forth on Steinitz, you an authority man !

fan

"The New Yorker article on Kasparov was very informative and a model of fairness. I wish him all the success in the world. Consider this: It is late in the year 2007 and we are talking (many skeptically) about the task of bringing democracy to a modern European nation!"

I'm not sure Russia can be described as a "modern European nation." Scratch a Russian, and you will find a Mongol.

Maybe George Bush should be informed about this lack of democracy in Russia?

>>By RussianBear's definition, Karpov is the biggest thief as he 'stole' the title in 1975 without playing even a single game.
>>

Stole it from whom? Fischer had resigned it in 1974. Doesn't stealing something usually mean to take it *from* somebody?

Since we can't agree on who holds the title, maybe we can agree on who is currently the strongest chess player in the world? Maybe we can agree on who is currently playing like a world champion?

If its not the title holder, we should rethink the value of the title. It may have a ceremonial value, but little else.

Does someone know for sure how the situation has been wrt. draw odds in all the earlier classical WC matches (eg. the Kasparov-Karpov battles) ?

"Nobody questioned kaspy during his reign, becasue he was able underline his status by winning almost all tournaments. After all, a real champion should also be able to win tournaments."

This is an important point. Most world champions have been, quite simply, superb all-around chess players. And superb all-around chess players tend to dominate, regardless of the format. Both Karpov and Kasparov had long periods when they were winning both matches and tournaments. I don't see any great body of evidence that match play is a different skill than tournament play.

I also don't see the evidence that Kramnik's game is better suited to matches. That certainly couldn't have been the case before 2000 (he had lost to Shirov and Kamsky). And he couldn't have foreseen that the match with Kasparov would fall into his lap the way it did.

To be sure, he made the most of his opportunity, once he finally had it, but that doesn't make him a match specialist. In the two matches since then, he has a +1 score in 25 games played against Leko and Topalov (I am discounting the forfeit). Clearly it was good enough to win, but not exactly overwhelming. He has also had notable successes in tournaments too. Kramnik is simply a great player, and great players will often do well, regardless of the format.

Hi All,

Please allow me to change topics and throw out a slightly different discussion point. What do people think about FIDE establishing an official Hall of Chess Fame? If one were to be established, who amongst the currently active top players would be elected into it? My vote would go to only Anand and Kramnik. There is no doubt that Anand is one of the all time greats to play this game, regardless of whether he wins the championship by winning a tournament or a match. His consistency is just amazing. His only blemish is his inability to handle Kasparov's psychological pressure, which didn't seem to have bothered Kramink.

Let me also point out that Kramnnk should also get an asterisk, as he did not qualify to play Kasparov through a proper cycle of candidates matches.

"Kramnik is simply a great player, and great players will often do well, regardless of the format."

He doesn't do well often enough in tournaments. He has put his title on the line in a tournament now, and what does he do? Instead of trying to catch the leader, he goes through the motions of a 13-move draw with a fellow Russian. Turning down the draw offer would have been an insult to his opponent, would you please. An insult to the chess public, that's what it is.

Were they hung over after drowning their sorrows in vodka the night before? We'll never know.

Maybe because of the advent of computers, it is very crowded at the top now. "If A beats B and B beats C, then A will beat C" rule no longer applies.
Hence kramnik's claim that he can beat anybody in a match is hollow.
Match prize-money is another question. This gives a good excuse for defender to back out of a match.
But, who in their sane mind will pay to watch a match like Kramnik-leko yawn-fest ?

By the way, how is FIDE funded ? Is it corporate money ?

For the sake of chess sanity, and since Kramnik entered this tournament volitionally, Anand is the 15th World Chess Champion. Ramen.

I consider Russianbear's following remark asinine. "I don't remember Steinitz or Lasker accepting FIDE. Or Kasparov from 1993 to 2000. Or Kramnik until recently. Like I wrote before, Kramnik only recognized Mexico as "championship" because of FIDE's contract with Mexico organizers."

How does it matter WHY Kramnik agreed to treat Mexico as the "championship" tournament? How does Russianbear "know" why Kramnik agreed to recognize the Mexico as the WCC? As far as I know Kramnik never made public such a reason ever. What if someone else speculates that Kramnik agreed to recognize Mexico as WCC only because he thought he would win it? Does his private reasoning at all matter? No. It does not. All that matters is that he agreed. Once it becomes evident that he is going to lose at Mexico (as he is doing), he or his unprincipled supporters have no room to suddenly jump in and say, his agreement to treat Mexico as WCC doesn’t hold because he “really didn’t mean” to agree? !!! Perhaps Kramnik agreed to put his title on the line in this tournament only because he had a rematch clause also written in. That is probably closer to truth. But who cares WHY he chose to agree to put his classical title (the only one he has) on line? He agreed and he is losing. If Russianbear and others can’t accept it, then they are sore losers. Russianbear, your reasoning is absolute RUBBISH. Plllsease wake up !!

I read elsewhere in this forum (from another Kramnik supporter and sore loser), "It would be easier to accept Mexico as a WCC if there had been4 rounds against each player”!!! Already, Ilescas (another sore loser-Kramnik supporter) has said that Kramnik was tired in this championship (featuring only 2 rounds against each player). All other reports from Mexico also talk of “everyone else” besides Anand as being “already tired”. What bull*** is it for Kramnik supporters to suggest there should have been more rounds, and THEN they will accept Kramnik as having lost his WC titleat Mexico !! What else to call such people, than “sore losers”?

Here is another ‘joke’ from www.chessclub.com: "The biggest event of the year gets underway, as eight of the world’s top players do battle 13-30 September in Mexico City for the $1.3m World Chess Championship tournament. The gladiatorial contest sees World Champion Kramnik defending the FIDE reunification title he won last year from Topalov..."

This is quite a misleading statement. It seems to suggest that Kramnik put on line at this Mexico tournament “only” the FIDE reunification title. Are we to infer that he has kept back “his” classical WC title to be immune from this tournament result? That doesn't make any sense since Kramnik has agreed that after the Mexico WCC, there will be only ONE WORLD CHAMPION IN CHESS -- the winner of the Mexico tournament.

Consider also this. Suppose Topolov had WON that match. Would he NOT have been the classical champion #15? I think that is patently absurd. It was a 1-on-1 match. It was my understanding (and as far as I know, every one else's) that if Kranmik had lost that match, he is no longer the classical WC, and Topolov would be. So, perhaps the public are being FOOLED by all concerned, especially by Kramnik.

Actually, Kramnik has acted in an unprincipled manner all through regarding WC championsip since his loss to Shirov in the candidates cycle. A good point to start an elaboration of this is another illogical point of Russianbear: "The logic is simple - unless the champ was dead or retired, the classical championship always changed hands in matches. How difficult is it to understand? Kramnik isn't dead or retired. Beat him in a match if you are are going to claim to be the classical champ, please. Makes perfect sense."

WHO DETERMINES how the WC title in chess changes hands? !!! Is it the reigning WC? If so, Kramnik has AGREED this will be the title match. Is it FIDE? If so, FIDE has agreed that this tournament winner will be the ONLY world chess champion in town. What is the “logic” Russianbear alluding to, in his statement, to deny this? I see none.

Russianbear is of the same ilk as Kramnik. Kramnik’s principle has been – grab and hold on to the WC title, by hook or crook, mostly by crook !! Kramnik lost the WC qualifying match to Shirov, then suddenly accepted the invitation of the then reigning WC Kasparov. Kramnik did not stand back and say, “I am a principled person. I have lost the challenge match. Shirov is the only legitimate challenger. I shall not usurp his place.” Kasparov made many mistakes in matters concerning organizing WC chess title, as he himself has admitted. This is not to undermine in anyway his unchallengeable chess greatness. Anyway, Kasparov chose to exercise his (apparent) right as the reigning WC to determine how and against whom he will put the title on line. He chose Kramnik. Kramnik greedily seized the opportunity and won a one-off match against a self-psyched Kasparov. Kasparov declined to write a rematch clause in. In the post-match press conference, Kramnik didn’t even refer to Kasparov as the out-going champion or even by name otherwise. Kasparov’s wife bitterly complained about it.

After winning the title by this rather improper one-off match, Kramnik invoked the SAME principle -- namely the reigning WC decides when and whom to play against for the WC title, to AVOID giving Kasparov a rematch. Kasparov had to RETIRE from chess after trying years like a wimp to get a rematch and pathetically failing. Only his involvement in Russian politics gave an air of saving grace to that sad chapter of his chess life. What was the basis on which Kramnik dodged giving Kasparov a rematch? The SAME Kramnik who opportunistically seized a chance to play for the WC title after losing the challenger match to Shirov took the most "pious" stand that he cannot offer a rematch to Kasparov since he is a man of "principles", and will play only a person who wins a challenger cycle !! If this is not total hypocrisy, I don’t what else is.

Now, as reigning champion Kramnik VOLUNTARILY AGREED how he would defend his title: Against a host of 7 other world-class players in a round-robin. He is LOSING.

Now the same "principle" that Kramnik used opportunistically to grab a shot at the WC title -- namely the reigning champion decides when and whom he plays for title -- is rejected by illogical sore losers like Russianbear to say, ohhhh Kramnik doesnt get to decide how to defend title, we the great public -- read 'we the sore losers who are blind Kramnik supporters' -- will decide when and where he will play for his title!!

Someone complained my language was 'rude' because I referred to Kramnik supporters such as Russianbear as sore losers!! Sheez that is being gentle guys :) Read the above points again, if you have doubts :)

p.s. far fewer caps this time :)

Will we break 300 comments?

Whether we agree or disagree that Anand should be entitled to be called a legitimate World Chess Champion after this tournament, thank god next years match will HELP to resolve the issue one way or the other. Thanks to the "governing body" of FIDE, there will always remain one giant asterisk to this outcome. My point being that without that match this issue would certainly remain moot for some time to come, and perhaps all time in the annals of chess history.

Shankar wrote: "WHO DETERMINES how the WC title in chess changes hands? !!!

The answer is simple. Obviously, Russianbear.

Regarding Kramnik: "He has put his title on the line in a tournament"

Guys, this is the meaning of getting caught in the trap of a stupid,
old lie... Hey, Kramnik never did anything out of "good will" -- he
WAS MADE TO PUT HIS TITLE in play. And then despite the signed
contract, with all kinds of tweaks and breaks. Had Topalov won last
year that ugly epizode of "will play, will not" would have been over
for good and the entire discussion of "unified or not", well past the
chess world. If it depended on Kramnimk and his ultras, he'd be
sitting on the title forever and picking his challengers every few
years apart only when he felt like doing it. He would gladly stay "out
of the system", untouched by events and challenges. If ill and unable
to play, he would not have had the dignity to relinquish his title,
but rather screw the carreer of number of great players while sitting
in the shadows, playing the game of tradition. This might have worked
fine during the romantic era of chess when the top players were far
fewer and it wasn't so easy to bring them all together. But in these
dynamic times the stupid adherence to ancient rules is mindless.

D.

...thank god next years match will HELP to resolve the issue one way or the other...

Such comment is an example of the triumph of hope over experience.
The scandal will erupt as soon as Mexico is over and Kramnik, once back to Moscow, will issue the first declaration.

Krishna,

Both Russianbear and yourself have made interesting points with your apologetics regarding this matter. You would come across much better if you wouldn't make them so personal.

It is quite apparent that you are a staunch supporter of Annand, which is fine, but this whole issue will remain up in the air throughout this thread and most likely, many to follow.

God help us if the 2008 match comes down to Armageddon

I don't see how Anand can possibly be the 15th WC. If the FIDE non-classical title counts as a true title (which I believe), then he was preceded by Topalov, Kasimdzhanov ... indeed he has already had the title himself too.

But if we're only counting the classical title, Anand has not yet got there, since he has "only" won a tournament (and before that a KO event).

So either he is no World Champion at all, or he is the 18th or if it's the 19th or something like that...

... this assuming that Anand really wins Mexico... I will keep stressing that it is very likely but NOT absolutely clear yet.

Why has Kramnik lost his title? Just scroll to the top of this page and there it is as large as life: Because Losing Sucks.

What sucks more than losing ? Sour grapes.

Krishna, again, the personal attacks detract from your argument, not add to it. Deal with it.

I've already explained why Kramnik's decision to resign the title in favor of the Mexico winner cannot be taken as the final word on who is the classical champ. It is clear that in Mexico Kramnik can only lose what he won in Elista 2006, not in London 2000.

"WHO DETERMINES how the WC title in chess changes hands? !!! Is it the reigning WC? If so, Kramnik has AGREED this will be the title match. Is it FIDE? If so, FIDE has agreed that this tournament winner will be the ONLY world chess champion in town. What is the “logic” Russianbear alluding to, in his statement, to deny this?" - FIDE determines things about its own title. The classical title belongs to the chess world, and the chess world chose to consider Kasparov as the champ post 1993, and then Kramnik post 2000. It is widely recognized that there are 14 world chess (classical) champions - from Steinitz to Kramnik so we can definitely trace how the title changed hands. Tracing how the title changed hands is absolutely not the issue.

And yes, if Topalov won the Elista match, he would have been the classical champ #15, just like Anand has a chance to become #15 when he plays Kramnik next year. There is nothing illogical about that. But Topalov-Kramnik 2006 was a MATCH, and Mexico is a tournament, that's why Topalov had a chance to become the classical champ then, but Anand can't win the title in the ongoing tournament.

Thanks for comparing me to Kramnik, by the way. Anyway, I am not sure it is fair to say Kramnik tries to hold on to the title as much as he can, given that here we are, arguing about what his resignation of the title means.

The whole Shirov beat Kramnik thing is so old and irrelevant it is not even funny. It has been refuted so many times in so many threads. Kramnik played Kasparov in 2000, 2+ years after he lost to Shirov in 1998. How long would he have to wait for Shirov's window of opportunity to expire? Chess can't wait 5 years for a challenger to set up a match with a champion. The moment has passed. I don't hear people complain about Anand playing Kasparov in a world championship match in 1995 even though Anand lost to Karpov in the previous cycle. Kramnik's loss to Shirov didn't disqualify him from fighting for the title any more than Anand's loss to Karpov disqualified Anand from ever winning the title.

Ovidiu,

Without hope there would be no experience of any real value, only a rather large amount of cynicism.

Aaah, I see the light now. Kramnik owns two titles, not one. The FIDE title he has put on the line in Mexico. The classical title is safe in a locker back home.

Jeez, what next?

The system has never been fair almost right from the beginning. Rubinstein never got a chance to play a match with Lasker when Rubinstein was in his prime. Capablanca was never given a rematch by Alekhine, though he himself got a rematch from Euwe.

It should have been made fair one after the death of Alekhine, with Fide taking over, but it was not to be.

Botvinnink ensured a system that favored him. Botvinnink should have played in a Candidates match or tournament, followed by a Championship match, but no (here I have paraphrased Bronstein). He ensured a system where he got rematches whereas everybody else had come through rigorous candidates matches and then had to beat him as drawing was not sufficient and then again give a rematch. He stopped playing for the title once Fide stopped giving him rematches and asked him to play the candidates. There was also the country quota system in the candidates was unfair to Stein. Between 60s and 80s the concept of rematch which is unfair to the challenger came back. We have seen the 1984 match being abandoned giving a fresh chance for Karpov.

Thus we have seen people 'managing' the system to get preferential treatment. This is now continuing with Kramnik getting a rematch & then Topalov getting another shot. Some will criticize such 'manage'ment of the system and some may admire such champions for their capacity to play chess as well as 'manage' the system.

RB: FIDE determines things about its own title. The classical title belongs to the chess world.

Russianbear, a nicely summarized position. Still, it is crazy and will
not stand the test of time.

I'm not necessarily a great fan of all the FIDE's dealings, but if
left between them and the prospect of endless chaos in the Chess World
that someone like Kramnik has created... Well, I'd take the idea that
every sport needs an organization to administer these things and guard
against similar nonsense.

D.

Both Kramnik and Topalov have managers. They seem to "manage" the system quite well for their wards. Vishy should also get himself a manager to "manage" the system so that he can concentrate on chess, otherwise the system will "manage" him. The manager may be able to pouch a rematch or two, not to mention delaying/sabotaging matches with challengers. This classical match system is mired in intrigue, favoritism, and nepotism.

The tragedy is that all that these Kramnik apologists have done is nothing but detract from Vishy's great talent. He has been a terrific player all these years and a perfect gentleman. Cherish him for he wont be around for much longer.

You can bicker and place your asterisks next to his name later. Though I feel history will view him much more kindly than some of you do.

"The tragedy is that all that these Kramnik apologists have done is nothing but detract from Vishy's great talent. " - It seems to me that these Anand apologists have done is nothing but detract from the great tradition of Chess World championships.

Dimi, I don't agree that the chaos was created by Kramnik. I would rather blame Kasparov and Short for that. I think Kramnik tried to bring an end to chaos in Prague 2002 and in Elista 2006, but he did a bad job, especially with his decision to resign the title in favor of the Mexico winner. Chess does need an organization to administer the title, but unfortunately, FIDE's current leadership is too flawed and corrupt to be trusted with this responsibility.

Look at this www.chessmexico.com "It also demonstrated what should never happen, two uninspired players with no courage at all to fight, Vladimir Kramnik and Alexander Grischuk, and the problem is that the first one still is the actual champion. Everything indicates that Anand will take his place on Saturday. During the press conference we heard Kramnik's saying: "If I didn't accept the draw offered by Grischuk [after only 13 moves!], I would have offended him". That phrase outraged the veteran journalist Arturo Xicoténcatl, who replied to the champion: "Don't you think that you are the one offending the crowd of fans that follow you on the Internet?" The Russian explained once more the supposed balance of the position, but the truth is that he convinces no one. Only a severe sickness could justify such behaviour, but Kramnik has no signs for it throughout this Championship."

Really, Kramnik is not a champion; he disappointed me with his attitude in Mexico...

Tech26 you are SUPERB!....powerful comments!

I think is a good idea Anand playing Kramnik next year,after all he can become the only chess player
having 4 World Titles:Knock-out WCC,Tournament WCC,Classical WCC and Rapid WCC. So Anand can start the most "purist" lineage and we can trash Stenitz one to the toilet.

Granda, that's kind of like the rhetoric that Topalov/Danailov and/or their fans used before the Elista match. I think we all remember which title flushed which down the toilet :)

>Really, Kramnik is not a champion; he disappointed me with his attitude in Mexico...>

Kramnik is just himself, like him or not (I don't) he was capable to win and then hold the title.
Anand is way more of a disappointment for failing to become champ when there was his time for such thing (and he was in his prime) in the match with Kaspy.
Let me forsee that he won't do much better when tested again 13 years later.

In the mean time since Kramnik signed off (whatever the pressures, every prostitute has her sad story) his title as the prize for this tournament Anand is [...]

Russianbear,you are the toilet in this forum detracting Vishy merits with your "purist" comments that started with King George.We need a system to produce real world champions,like a tournament of matches,not to kill chess following ridiculous traditions.Anand beating Kramnik next year will not be enough for you to accept the reality.Kramnik broke tradition being a handpicked challenger,like in the Steinitz times when you only needed a bag of candies to "challenge" a "reigning champion".

Stop fudging facts Russian Bear -- Anand got to play a match with Garry in 1995 because he QUALIFIED via full PCA cycle, beating Kamsky in the challenger final (a 12 game match); he was not hand picked to play like you know who ...

Granda,

'with your "purist" comments that started with King George.'

I can't help it. Is that an educated guess or some form of revisionist history?

Russianbear, looks like you have no idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis Anand, Karpov, FIDE or PCA cycle in the 90s.

Anand lost to Karpov during 1991 candidates match, the cycle where Short eventually beat Karpov and created the breakaway title with Kasparov. 1993-96 had 2 cycles FIDE and PCA. Anand lost in FIDE cycle to Kamsky, who eventually lost the title match to Karpov. But Anand won the PCA cycle challenge and thus qualified to play Kasparov for the PCA title (or classical title or whatever you 'purists' want to call it)...

So Anand a good tournament player yet a poor Championship player is worthy of being a World Champion whereas Kramnik being good at Championship matches and NOT tournament matches is not?
Yet one on one the lead is slender and never in championship play.

wow Macjoubert is clueless too. What made you think Anand is a poor match player? Do you have any idea on his match record. What is your evidence?

Paul I agree, Russianbear's whole stance that the general public (read: he) is the arbiter of when and how the WC title should pass hands. This is a self-appointed position that is best ignored.

Chess traveler, thanks for your post. Just to make one thing clear, whether or not I am an Anand 'supporter' is not germane to the points I have been making. So may I state my personal preferences, get those issues out of the way.

I do like Anand's chess(his won games often are crystal-clear and reminds me of Capa's games) but there are other aspects of his chess oeuvre that I wish were more to my liking. I seem him as 'choking' sometimes. I would like him to play for a win more often etc. (His effort against Moro in R11 was steller in this regard, he showed great class and went for a win when a certain draw might have been a good enough and even safer result to go for; never mind whether Moro could have defended better and made it more difficult for Anand in that game).

By contrast, I don't care at all for Kramnik's chess style. It is boring, uncreative and lack-lustre. This is my subjective opinion. Kasparov is an authority on the game and the same seems to be is his assessment of Kranmik, in any case this is my subjective opinion of Kramnik's chess. This is not to say Kramnik doesnt understand chess at a very high level. Obviously he does, he has been, like Anand, within the top 3 for a long time. Whereas Anand is continuing at the top-3, and is in fact is #1, for quite a recent while Kramnik has not been. In fact, I think he is unlikely to be in top 3 again ever. It is not that I wish that for him, but that is my sense of where he is headed to.

But all this is neither here nor there, I am just clarifying my personal opinions, so that they can be taken out of the way to discuss the real issues, as I intend to do later in this post.

To complete the statement of my opinions re. these two players, Anand's achievements in chess, as far as I can see, are far greater than Kramnik's overall. Only against Kasparov, Kramnik has performed better than Anand, that I agree is no mean achievement. But Kramnik practically has nothing else going for him. Anand is the only non-Russian player besides Fisher against whom a draw would be considered a darn good result by ANY Russian player (except for Kasparov). That is no mean achievement. Anand has won more Oscars than Kramnik, and is likely to win at least one more (next year) and could conceivably win at least one more, but I can't see Kramnik ever winning an Oscar again. Kramnik seriously seems to have whatever "best" years all behind him.

So chess-wise, yes Anand rates quite higher than Kramnik in my book.

On the personal front, Anand is well-known as a perfect gentleman, but I haven't seen Kramnik act in any improper way. Kramnik also seems well controlled in his speech and utterances. So, Anand gets an A from me on this front too, and Kramnik gets definitely more than passing grade, almost A.

All this I state, just to make clear my personal attitudes, again so as to put those issues OUT OF THE WAY. For my opinions about them as chess players and individual persons are NOT in anyway germane to the arguments I have made so far in my posts about the world champion title.

The angle from which I approach this issue, and express real strong objection is over engaging the very question of whether Kramnik will still be the classical world champion after Mexico (assuming that he will not win it). Please note that the way I have phrased the issue at discussion has nothing to do with who will win at Mexico it, although that is most likely to be Anand. That is the reason why subjective opinions about these two players is NOT at all in anyway related to the points I have been making.

The OPERATING PRINCIPLE governing the world champion title is this. There is currently an effort to UNIFY two different arcs along which "world chess champion" title has proceed in recent years. Mexico tournament represents an important stage of it, and its terms are crystal clear. And raising the issue whether the winner of Mexico will be the "real" chess champion in the sense of the history of chess champions prior to the split is already clearly answered by the terms of this unification attempt. The answer is a clear YES.

To clarify, historically, since Kasparov broke away from FIDE to form PCA, the status of the title has followed two arcs, and their relative merits has been contentious, for reasons only too well known.

Here, I do wish to state, if only paranthetically, that I do believe Kramnik didnt deal with Kasparov fairly at all, once he won their one-off match. I have found Kasparov even after being denied the return match he wanted, still commenting properly and objectively about Kramnik. I can't easily recall Kramnik having ever said anything gracious about Kasparov, neither in his post-match comments or since then. Kasparov is such an all-time great in chess, and Kramnik so entirely owes his very chance to have become a WC to Kasparov, that to me it seems if Kasparov wanted a re-match -- which he most certainly did -- Kramnik owed it, not only for the sake of Kasparov, not only for his own sake but for the sake of the ENTIRE CHESS PLAYING PUBLIC. Yet Kramnik never did. He based his refusal on "principles" about which I have said enough in my previous post. It is very difficult for me to give anything more than ZERO marks to Kramnik for this denial of the rematch. I recall reading Susan Polgar openly calling Kramnik "not a man" for dodging Kasparov like this, and I think she is quite right. Alekhine, by contrast, has a better record. I have read authorized accounts that Capa himself wasn't so sure of being able to win a return match and thus didn't pursue it too hotly either (unlike Kasparov). If that is not true, yes Alekhine also gets bad marks on that score. In any case, Euwe of course has set the GOLD STANDARD for the behavior of a reigning WC in this regard, and I think it would be widely accepted if it were to be said that Kramnik set the WORST example in this case, even worse than Alekhine.

Like my personal definite preference for Anand over Kramnik (as a chess player), this rematch issue (and my subjective assesment of it) has NOTHING to do with my arguments against the very debate that is presently raging on this forum, as I explain below.

To Kramnik's credit, finally he has agreed to resolve the contentions about WC title by agreeing that whoever wins the WCC in Mexico will be the SOLE world champion henceforth. Having agreed to it, he has also participated in this tournament. In return, Kramnik has the guarantee of a challenge match with the new world champion in case Kramnik doesnt win at Mexico, so by all counts Mexico is continuing the tradition of a single unified world champion started by the Kramnik-Topolv match. That means, if and when the return match happens (I do hope that happens), Kramnik can only be the challenger. As far as I know, Kramnik hasn't any of the above so far. Indeed, he was specifically asked in a pre-match interview whether he will accept the new winner to be THE sole world champion and he said Yes. SO I give credit to him for that, and I do not begrudge his chance at a return match.

Thus, my point is that given that the Mexico tournament is part of a continuing effort to decisively END the split started some years ago, there is no room for any question to be raised about whether or not the winner at Mexico is the real world chess champion in totally unambiguous terms. The answer is a resounding YES.

To summarize, historically, there has been two branches for a while, the so-called "classical title" line and the so-called "FIDE title". It is pointless, in my opinion, to now raise the issue, whether after Mexico the "classical line" is still alive. BOTH title terminologies are now buried, they will get their historical recognition, and for that purpose we could call the new line, the unified world championship to make things clear. Indeed, in that sense Kramnik ceased to be the "classical world champion" right after his match with Topalov, since that match was already a unification of the two titles. Perhaps there should have been now only a procedure for selecting the next candidate to challenge that champion. Evidently, there were many "other issues" preventing such a smooth unification, and for reasons best known to all parties involved, this Mexico tournament was needed to be staged as one more world-championship. So the winner of this HAS TO be the next unified world champion.

To now turn around and ask, whether the Mexico winner can be considered the world champion in the sense of holding a "classical title" has NO MEANING. Just as much as blitz chess is here to stay, the modifications to the way world chess title was to be determined are here to stay.

Thus, I regard people who insist on arguing that there IS a "classical line" and that that alone has sole legitimacy as providing illegitimate topics for discussion. Either they do not understand and accept the history of this unification,or they are sentimental supporters of Kramnik (in which I have to call the sour losers).

The bottom line is this: the term "classical champion" (as opposed to a FIDE champion) has meaning only the context of the fact that for a brief period in recent history there has been a split between the world champion and FIDE. Otherwise, there has only been ONE history of world champion title from start to now, with a brief period having two branches. How to deal with these "two" branches that were in operation for a while and how to relatively evaluate the two champions (the classical and the FIDE) during this period, is a task that historians (and general public) can and will continue to undertake. But such assessments, however interesting they are, will have increasingly no bearing as this unification process proceeds. In particular, teh relative status of that historical split can have NO BEARING on the FACT at hand: namely, the two paths have been unified, and there is room for referring to ONLY ONE WORLD CHESS CHAMPION NOW (in fact since the Kramnik-Topolav match). And FIDE has full rights to decide how to administer this world title. All players and managing bodies have agreed tot this.

So the future path is clear. We have (or will have in a few days) a new world chess champion. Kramnik CEASED to be a "classical" champion in anything but a historical sense after his match with Topalov. He has been honored by being repeatedly referred to as THE world champion in the current reports from Mexico and rightly so since he did play a unified world title match with Topalov and win it. That title of being THE world champion is a greater title than his so-called "classical wc" title. There has been no room for this "classical" versus "FIDE" titles for quite a while now (since the Kramnik-Topolov match), and certainly not any more.

If Russianbear and others want to separately discuss whether FIDE in this transition period of unifying the two titles, should have resorted ONLY to 1-on-1 matches, and question why at all this Mexico tournament was held in between, that is a SEPARATE DISCUSSION. That discussion can have no bearing on the issue of whether the winner of Mexico will be again the sole world chess champion. The answer is a resounding Yes, as explained above.

The chess playing public has no other alternative than to accept this conclusion, since that is how the WC title issue has been dealt with. To say now suddenly, "the classical title belongs to the chess playing public" is a meaningless claim. The chess playing public may express its opinions, as we all are, but the decision is made by the top players involved and FIDE. That decision has been made.

So it seems to me, all that Russianbear and others are trying to discuss is this issue: accepting Kramnik was the unified world champion after defeating Topalov, why the next candidate match cycle wasn't organized to find a challenger for him, and why another world championship title "match" is being organized in the new format of the Mexico tournament. THAT discussion is not and cannot have any bearing on the question that Mig has (witingly or unwittingly, sportingly or maliciously triggered): namely, whether the winner of the Mexico WCC can also be regarded as the classical WC champion. That "classical title" has a context (of split) that is no longer operative. We once again have room only for A world chess champion. That will be the winner of Mexico tournament in a few days.

So Russianbear and others are discussing the legitimacy of HOLDING the Mexico championship when it is about to be completed !! Their discussions therefore has no relevance, and if they insist on airing their views about it, they can only be called "sore losers".

Wow! Took a long time to read. If you made it this far come a little further.

Anand deserves to be WC after that game with Morozevich. I would love to have been able to read his mind when Vishy declined to repeat moves. Undoubtedly, Moro, along with everyone else expected Anand to play it safe. Talk about a psychological blow and sending a message. This type of chess is what made Kasparov a great WC: A willingness to play complicated and unclear dynamic positions when it counted.

I side, however, with Russianbear on the merits of match play for WC. Tournaments are more fan-friendly but winning a tournament involves a different type of strategy than match play.

Why do they play four rounds of golf? Seven games for NBA & MLB championships? Because playing multiple sequential games against the same opponent significantly reduces the effects of mistakes, random happenstance, and lady luck. It is the same for match play in chess.

When sizing up your oppoisition in a RR tournament, you may actually plan to draw more dangerous opponents and play to win against others. You can just have more confidence playing to win against one over the other on any given day with the white or black pieces. Also, you could catch an opponent on an off day. Or have an off day yourself. I believe Aronian was sick for several days and his play suffered as a result. Therefore, your tournament results may not be repeatable.

Meeting the same opponent over 16 games is completely different. Sure, there may be times in which you play a short "rest day" draw, but preparing day after day to find creative ways to gain an advantage in a head to head match is far more challenging and playing for draws can backfire. Just ask Leko.

Kramnik does not dominate tournament play the way Kasparov and others have in the past because he plays for small long-term advantages that often lead to drawish games. Not that he can't crush an opponent when he gets a chance, but his style lends itself to match play where he is devilshly difficult to chalk up a win against.

Something to consider is how much incentive did Kramnik have to uncork something dymanic and new in this tournament. Certainly, he wanted to win, but being provided a safety net makes revealing 'something special' less likely. And what about the Topalov factor? Not that he wouldn't try his best but Vlad certainly has hard feelings from their last match (who could blame him?)and I do not think he is terribly broken up that the WC match will be against an honorable gentleman with class (given no Anand meltdown here at the end).

BTW,I am not a Kramnik apologist. I believe Anand is the best player on the planet and has been for quite some time (ratings notwithstanding) He will win the WC match. This is just dust-bunny stuff while they get out of the openings.

>Russianbear: I think Kramnik tried to bring an end to chaos in Prague 2002 and
in Elista 2006, but he did a bad job, especially with his decision to
resign the title in favor of the Mexico winner.

Yeaah, right... That sentence above is so contradictory, as to be an
utter nonsense. For doing a good job for reunification would require
that one HONORS the agreement that Mexico 2007 is the venue for
declaring the next WCC (per contract). Of course, as expected, Kramnik
did not do that, but required a special privilege of a guaranteed
rematch -- with the direct help of Kremlin.

And wasn't Kramnik supposed to play in San Louis 2005?

Anyway, now that Topalov is temporarily out of the picture, let's see
how Kramnik and his ultras handle the current situation with Anand. It
will be very instructive.

D.

Well, for the past 15 years I have considered myself an Anand fan. I even got to play him once, and after he thrashed me I told him I wanted him to win the title. But the sheer idiocy, vitriol, and lack of logic displayed by just about every Anand fan here is sickening me to the point where I am going to root for Kramnik in the match next year, despite how much I dislike him. Only Russianbear and a few others are displaying much actual logic in this thread,which is odd given that chess is supposed to be a game of logic. Russianbear has explained every point clearly and logically while his whole spate of opponents have done nothing but spout emotional nonsense supported by a complete lack of actual logic. My saying so is not based upon a judgement for or against the title, but rather simply on the (lack of) substance of the 'points' so many are making. There must be some Anand fans out there who can make an actual logical point; why aren't you guys posting?

The sad thing is that the horde of Anand fans don't seem to get it that the supporters of the classical world championship are mostly not Kramnik fans (and some of us ARE Anand fans); we are not supporting the real title due to any love of Kramnik, we are supporting it because it is the only title in the history of chess that holds any true value. You, FIDE, and Kramnik cannot change the classical title from what it has always been no matter what you think. You can change the 'world title' however you want, but not the classical title. It has always changed hands in a match, with the exception of when it had no choice - once when the title holder died and the other when the title holder refused to participate in the next match. Neither of those conditions exist here.

You also cannot equate this event with the title tournament where Botvinnik won, because that was a huge tournament where each player faced each other 5 times. FAR more rigorous than this event which is no different than any Linares. In the mini-match between Anand and Kramnik, the only one with any winning chances was Kramnik in the first game. Anand demonstrated zero superiority over Kramnik in those two games. This tournament demonstrated what any big tournament demonstrates - that the victor will be different just about every time, based upon the form of each participant. You guys might as well call Naiditsch the world champion.

Ah well, this time Anand offers the draw and Svidler accepts. There does appear some life in the position but no doubt Anand's performance in R11 makes for a big psychological advantage and Svidler wasn't up to pushing his luck.

Krishna,

As I've stated before, I chose Anand to win this tournament before it began. He is a great player and a deserving champion.

Krishna, you present a very strong argument for his title of World Champion; but to insist that others whose viewpoints are in contrast to your own and therefore "has no relevance" and they should be considered "sore losers" is self-serving and, quite frankly, deficient and undermines an otherwise strong debate. Kind of like we (figuratively speaking) are all entitled to your opinion. Try not to let your ego get in the way of your apologetics when presenting your case and it would, most probably, carry that much more weight.

That aside, once again I wonder if this thread would have been debated as passionately if Gelfand or a few of the other players had won this tournament?

>That aside, once again I wonder if this thread would have been debated as passionately if Gelfand or a few of the other players had won this tournament?

That subject would have been debated equally passionately whoever the
winner is, as long as there are a noisy few who try to reduce Mexico
2007 to something less than a legitimate WCC.

A match, or a tournament -- both are good methods. There is no one
good reason why the match is a better way to decide the title than a
tournament. In fact, one can argue that the match is a special purpose
chess, while tournament performance comes closer to one's overall
ranking. In the case of Anand, Topalov and Kramnik that correlation is
pretty consistent.

D.

Dimi,

I'm neither for or against Mexico 2007 and its WC determination regarding the outcome. My point is that it is easier to make these arguments, pro or con, when it involves someone with the chess stature of Anand as opposed to say (with no disrespect whatsoever) Gelfand. I can't shake the feeling that in the back of the collective chess mind, so-to-speak, that GM Gelfand or some others would be received with the same amount of, for lack of a better word, reverence regarding the world title.

Let's settle this once and for all. The best chess players in the world should meet at the Olympics every two years (summer & winter) to decide the world championship of chess.

Er, let's not. Look, Anand has won something like the athletic World Championships. Done well. Did what he had to do. But the Olympics still remain the pinnacle, and probably always will. Not Anand's fault that he's not competing in the Olympics right now; but wishing that one were the other ain't going to make it so. And for the morons out there: it's nothing to do with the players, and everything to do with the situation. Learn to tell the difference. It will make the rest of your life much easier.

Theorist, what the hell are you talking about? Chess is not yet a part of the Olympics. I'm saying it should be. I'm saying, let's simplify this stupid mess of chess champion that no one understands. What "situation" are you referring to?

huh?

What is this, a blog for retards?

Sorry, for those unable to grasp the concept of analogy: I was likening the (impending) tournament victory of Anand to winning a prestigious, but decidedly second-tier athletics event (in this case, comparing the World Championship -- which no-one really cares about, especially since it moved to its biennial cycle -- to the Olympics). In the athletics world, the Olypmics will always remain the pinnacle of achievement (just as, to spell it out again, match-play is for the chess world), and no amount of wishful thinking will turn one event (the athletics World Championship -- which, in the magical world of analogy [welcome, to those newcomers] is masquerading as the current FIDE tournament) into the other (the Olypmics).

huh?

Okay, hang on. Maybe I'm in the fog here Theorist. Are you telling me that chess IS being played in the Olympics? Is this what's known as the "chess olympiad"? I'm confused. All I want to know is why one individual player from whatever country he/she represents, can't participate in a once every two year event for the title of World Champion of Chess? This would be in the line of what's known as the "classical" championship - as for FIDE, this is confusing to me and I haven't really researched the whole deal since Karpov, but in my mind, there is only one champion at a time and after Spassky, then Fischer, then Karpov, came Kasparov, then Kramnik - correct? Anand will become the latest champion this weekend? Or, does he need to play Kramnik again? Where does Topalov, Shirov, etc. fit into all this???

hehe. this is great.

And another thing, I am working on a new proposal for FIDE. Future chess matches will take place outdoors in a secluded area without access to comptuters, thereby permitting the contestants to adjourn their games overnight for rest without access to computer databases. They will only be allowed to sit around a campfire with one "second" to discuss their strategic plans for the finish. This movement is called: PleinAir Chess, or Chess-Ecology and I am starting a club here in California.

Secondly, in games of humans versus computers, there shall be no time-limit and the human player will be allowed to access any and all databases he requires during one, maybe two adjournment periods. This will be like the "instant-replay" rule in American football where referees must consult video replays at the request of a coach. If the electricity goes out, the human wins.

Russianbear,

It is consistent to only recognize titles transferred through matches -- nothing wrong with your arguments there. As long as the reigning champion continues to play (i.e. is not retired) and does not lose his title through a match, he is still the champion. I respect this line of reasoning.

One question I have though (and this is a question, not a judgment): what should happen if someone refuses to defend the title but continues to play chess at tournaments, and displays poor performance at those? Would you recognize his title until his death? If Lasker had not been forced to play a match in 1921 (due to his need for the money), would you have considered him World Champion until 1941? If Fischer continued to play horrible chess publicly to date, would he still be world champion?

The question boils down to: nothing prevents the lineage champion from breaking with FIDE and continuing to play chess publicly, and never defending his title. In fact, that is pretty much what Alekhine did from 1937-1945 (except there was no FIDE then).

These questions apply to any of the "match purists", who are -- like it or not -- a significant constituency that no one can ignore. Given this constituency will never recognize a title earned through "official" rules that break with the match tradition: can we ever do to prevent a single person from hijacking the title or leaving it in limbo?

Gosh, my apologies if the multiple connotations of the words "Olympics" and "World Championships" have caused confusion. Words are tough that way. (What we need is a combined analyst/therapist for words. I wonder if one exists).

Your ideas about the future of chess sound wonderful, zugzwanged. Best of luck!

Murali,

Good questions. I would think FIDE would have to harken back to the Fischer debacle of 75; or Kasparov/Short of 93 and once again through whatever system, step-in and crown a new world chess champion. The general chess public after the first few years were more able to accept Karpov as "legitimate linage" because fortunately, he was the dominate "active" player of that era and had won a series of matches. Not so with the tournament system used by FIDE for a "replacement to Kasparov. Quickly, name the players in order who were crowned world champion with that system. I said quickly.

Mig tries to sound oh so smart and witty, but says nothing in the end, as per usual. Just complete irrelevance. So many words, and nothing of value.

Just because a chess journo/whatever forms a long (very long) chain of random words (with Anand and world champion thrown in somewhere) it doesn't mean we are going to give up 130 years of chess tradition, just because FIDE (and Kasparov, Topalov etc.) have been p h u c k i n g up things. Would Alekhine have been World Champion had he won New York 1927? Of course not.

What a silly post from Mig. Completely pointless. Everyone who has even the smallest ounce of respect for chess tradition, history and culture laughs at this stupid post (in disbelief, and in a mocking tone).

Hmmm...Just when you thought Kramnik could be dismissed he simply blows Leko off the board. Seems like Anand's agressiveness in round 11 has caught fire with the others. Gelfand's cool reactions under Aronian's fire; priceless. And Moro won't go quietly either. Whatever else can be said, when these guys get their game on, they are amazing.

Krishna: the discussion of who is a better chess player between Anand and Kramnik is irrelevant to the discussion of who is the world champion. If I were to answer that question, I would agree with you that it is not anywhere close, but I would rate Kramnik much higher than Anand, not vice versa. I am a classical/match enthusiast so to me Kramnik's achievements seem to be by far more impressive. Kramnik is a 3 time world champ, while Anand has not won a title and did quite badly in the only world championship he was in in 1995. Kramnik was first in Linares 3 times, Anand won it twice. Kramnik is an 8-time Dortmund winner, Anand only won it 3 times. Kramnik has a plus score against Anand in classical games (6 wins, 4 losses). Kramnik has a plus score against Kasparov in classical games, while Anand has a disastrous score. Anand is the sharper player and he has been more successful against weaker players, but on the very highest level, the Anand-Kramnik-Kasparov level, and in the toughest tournaments, Kramnik has had better results. All of these superior results Kramnik has managed to accumulate even though he is 5 years younger than Anand. Anand may win more Oscars, but chess Oscars are beauty contests and popularity contests, not chess contests. But when it comes to chess contests, it seems Kramnik's career is clearly superior to that of Anand (but they are both great, of course), and I say that even though I am much more an Anand fan than I am a Kramnik fan.

Whether classical title has a context (of split) that is no longer operative - is up for debate. FIDE may not think that and you may not think that. Even Kramnik may not think that - though it is hard to say what Kramnik really thinks. But myself -and many other people who seem to be sharing my concerns- think the question of what happens to the classical tradition and the title is very relevant. You may be right in a sense, though. Perhaps in some sense the classical title is not on the agenda in Mexico. I wouldn't disagree with that - because it is exactly what I am saying. Please note that I am NOT saying Kramnik will be the champ if Anand wins Mexico. I acknowledge Kramnik's resignation in favor of the classical title - at least to the extent that I will not consider Kramnik himself the champion - even the classical champion. But being the match enthusiast, I don't agree that the classical title can exchange hands in Mexico tournament. So I consider Anand the FIDE champion and I consider the classical title to be vacant. That will make Anand the only champion there is - I don't dispute this either. But I do not think Anand is the classical champ #15 - for the reasons stated above. Anand gets whatever number he has in the FIDE line up - and he has it already due to his earlier win in the FIDE KO event.

"The question boils down to: nothing prevents the lineage champion from breaking with FIDE and continuing to play chess publicly, and never defending his title. In fact, that is pretty much what Alekhine did from 1937-1945 (except there was no FIDE then).

These questions apply to any of the "match purists", who are -- like it or not -- a significant constituency that no one can ignore. Given this constituency will never recognize a title earned through "official" rules that break with the match tradition: can we ever do to prevent a single person from hijacking the title or leaving it in limbo? " - Good questions, Murali. Just to clarify though, FIDE existed since the 1920s, if I am not mistaken, and it awarded its own "World champion" titles even then - it is just that noone remembers them anymore :) Look up people like Mattisson, Bogoljubov, etc.

And yes, as long as the match tradition/title and FIDE do not coexist, it is possible for the world champion to sort of hijack the title for a while. Lasker has done it, and also Alekhine to some extend. Eventually, though, the title has survived even Lasker's 11 year breaks in title defenses. But indeed it is a valid concern, Ideally FIDE and the match championships/classical title would go hand in hand, as that as the situation that benefits everyone - even Kasparov himself said hijacking the title was a mistake, ad perhaps that will be a lesson to future world champs. But yes, in the extreme scenario someone hijacks a title and then plays extremely badly - it would depend on the situation. If there were no other challengers to the classical title, I guess the classical title would die out as the title holder himself would. But if there were other strong claims to the title, like #1 and #2 deciding to start all over and having the FIDE-sanctioned match, then it would be a situation not unlike boxing, with multiple title holders (kinda like FIDE vs. classical title in the times FIDE still did the match format), and then eventually it would be up to the actual results of the respective champs and up to the public opinion.

As for the Lasker example, Lasker made it easy by resigning. IF I were alive at the times of Lasker and he didn't play the Capablanca match in 1921, I would probably consider the title vacant after his resignation, and would consider the winner of the Capablanca-Alekhine match the world champ.

Fischer also made things easy by resigning the title and retiring. If Fischer continued to claim the title after 1975 and played chess with horrible results, eventually the chess world's opinion would decisively swing towards the other top players who did much better than Fischer and played a match against each other. With conflicting claims, Fischer would have to put up or shut up and in either case the situation would be resolved, and whoever put up a conflicting claim would be considered a champ.

Nice. 250+ posts and, of course, there is no general agreement as to who is the real Champion and how many of them we have now: 2,1,0? Well done FIDE. As people kept saying all along, this tournament should have been called World Championship Qualifier or something equivalent and instead of Kramnik they should have included Topalov (and perhaps Ivanchuk). Instead, chess world enters kind of limbo again at least before the next title match takes place.

Well, we can hope that Anand and Kramnik play a match next year and Anand wins, so it will be irrelevant whether he became classical champ in 2007 or 2008, just like it is irrelevant to us whether the title technically was transferred from Lasker to Capablanca in 1920 or 1921. Kramnik has it coming for thinking he can put up a match title as a prize for a tournament, anyway :)

Yeah, that was a poor decision by Kramnik, he is punished for not fighting for what is right :). My only worry is that Anand-Kramnik match won't happen for some reason, then Kirsan will change his mind and go back to KO's and instead of a well respected champ there will be someone new every year and the poor guy won't be getting even Linares invitations.

Russianbear,

Excellent posts.

"...in the extreme scenario someone hijacks the title and then plays extremely badly..."

A more extreme scenario would be if the hijacker-champion played extremely well: Fischer after 1972-1975, dominating every tournament and beating Karpov in every individual game but refusing to play a title defense match.

Though we are "sure" Fischer could win a Karpov match, the classical title requires him to actually do so. And if he doesn't, Karpov, by virtue of his victory in the 1974 Korchnoi match, is the world champion.

"wow Macjoubert is clueless too. What made you think Anand is a poor match player? Do you have any idea on his match record. What is your evidence?"

Ramesh - Anand lost to Karpov, Kasparov and Kamsky...in championships, yes one on one.

Try again Ramesh, this time leave the nationalistic fervor behind.

get a life folks!

whatsoever

"Ramesh - Anand lost to Karpov, Kasparov and Kamsky...in championships, yes one on one."

Kramnik's match record is dismal. A wipeout at the hands of Kamsky (1.5-4.5), a loss to Gelfand (3.5-4.5), and again a loss to Shirov (3.5-4.5). These matches were not even close; he was just trounced; yes, one on one. He was, however, rewarded with a match against Kasparov. Yes, incredible as it may sound, he had to lose three matches to qualify for the big one against Kasparov. After that he beat Kasparov (he won just one game, which was enough), and drew Leko. Finally, he beat Topalov in a tiebreaker. Hardly an impressive resume by any standards.

His one qualification is his win over Kasparov, undoubtedly a unique achievement. However, he didn't give him a rematch (fear was the key here).

Russianbear wrote, ostensibly in response to my post: "the discussion of who is a better chess player between Anand and Kramnik is irrelevant to the discussion of who is the world champion." It would have been good if he had acknowledged that THAT is what precisely I had said, more than once in my post. No credit to you for originality then, Russianbear, sorry :)

The nub of the whole matter is that some people -- why not call them "Kramnik supporters" since the whole issue is about the status of the Mexico winner if it is NOT Kramnik -- they believe that "this tournament should have been called World Championship Qualifier or something equivalent and instead of Kramnik they should have included Topalov (and perhaps Ivanchuk)." Yes, if that had happened, the winner of Mexico will be the next challenger, and Kramnik will continue to be the WC for now.

BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

Kramnik agreed to treat this tournament as WCC and has participated in it. There is no use speculating why he agreed. Let us stick to the fact that he has agreed. After this tournament, if he doesn't win it, whoever wins it will be the new and only world champion. Case closed.

Kramnik supporters will have to be satisfied with the fact that Kramnik will get a match with the winner (the format they like most). In the meanwhile, no matter how much they shout from the roof top or from this computer forum, Kramnik will NOT be world champion after this tournament (unless he amazingly wins it in the next 2 rounds). Nothing Russianbear and others can write here can change that.

Peace :)

Ah, yes. Now the "match purists" are being called Kramnik supporters by definition, even though they don't even agree with Kramnik on the very issue at hand.

Brilliant. Let's just also say that everyone who recognizes Mexico as a true World Championship is by definition an Anand supporter, won't we? That wouldn't make less sense, actually more if anything.

I think the real feeling coming out of the above posts is that FIDE has made a mess of the WC title.

Mig when you say Anand will be the "World Champion" after this event you are of course correct in the stictest sense since there is no other person claiming that title.

However, Anand claiming to be "World Champion" carries no more weight than Topalov claiming to be the "Sofia Champion" or the "Chorus Champion" or someone else claiming to be the "Linares Champion"

The point still stands that in order to take the mantle and aura of World Champion as opppose to FIDE's meaningless title - you need to "do the business", "beat the man" (as Steve McQueen told Edward G Robinson in the Cincinatti Kid) call it what you will but it means defeating the current world champion over the board - not over someone elses board.

One good thing to come from this tournament - It's over! Now we can get back to the real WC (as long as FIDE don't destroy that as well by making it a rapid/blitz match) And next year we will know who the boss is.

"a significant constituency that no one can ignore"

Why not?

Actually the fact that there right now is a Championship tournament seem to indicate that quite a few are able to ignore the match purists.

(Yes I see the irony in me not beeing able to ignore this thread, but shouldn't I be able to? Please???).

Paul - Kramnik won 2 games against Kasparov not one.

Posted by: zugzwnged at September 27, 2007 18:24 >>What is this, a blog for retards?
>>

No, you're looking for the next one down.

Krishna: sigh. We are gong in circles. I only said like 10 times I WON'T consider Kramnik to be the classical champ after Mexico - (unless, of course he will not get a match against Anand, as the condition of his resignation was that he would get such a match). But anyway, I don't(/won't) claim Kramnik will be the champ after Mexico if he doesn't win - and there is little sense for you to pretend that I do(/will). It would help if you considered the points I actually made instead of making up things on my behalf.

It's amazing how we keep seeing the same flawed arguments over and over again by people who aren't reading the posts before. This tournament is the same as 1948 (if we forget that the defending champion wasn't alive then). Kramnik lost in the candidates to Shirov so he should never have been able to try again (if we forget that by this standard Fischer and Spassky could never have been champions either). Kramnik agreed to defend his title here, so that's that (if we forget that the discussion is about public perception rather than who the official champion is), et cetera.

Paul, the argument on the Kramnik match losses is also an old one. Yes, he lost some matches early in his career. But if you paid attention, you would notice just how early in his career most of these matches were. He was like 18 and 19 years old, so it was the age when people like Anand or even Kasparov haven't even gotten to the stage of candidates matches. So yes, he lost those matches, but it was a huge achievement for someone that young to even be in much matches. So to claim that those early match losses somehow detract from Kramnik's career is ridiculous.

It is like if Carlsen goes on to be the classical world champ and you will bring up his loss to Aronian earlier this year. It will be as ridiculous as your Kramnik argument, as the simple fact Carlsen even made it to a stage where he could lose a candidate match to someone like Aronian is a huge achievement for someone that young. Yes, Kramnik wasn't dominant in matches when he was 18-19 years old. But how many people were?

And like someone pointed out, Kramnik won TWO games, not one against Kasparov. And he did beat Topalov in the classical part of their match. How many people can claim to be 3 time world champions? How many people have beat Kasparov in a classical match? And how many people have defeated not one, but two 2800+ rated players in a match? Perhaps saying "Kramnik's match record is dismal" is a little hypocritical. If the record like that is "dismal",then "dismal" is something to aspire to, even for your average 2750-rated super GM

>>He was like 18 and 19 years old, ...It is like if Carlsen goes on to be the classical world champ and you will bring up his loss to Aronian earlier this year...Yes, Kramnik wasn't dominant in matches when he was 18-19 years old. But how many people were?>And he did beat Topalov in the classical part of their match.<<

No he DIDN'T. The classical part was drawn 6-6. He beat him in rapids, that's all. And anybody who is qualified enough to have a look at the games will see that it was Topalov who lost whatever games he lost, through silly, careless mistakes. It wasn't Kramnik who *beat* him. He just turned out a lucky bloke in the end, favored with much more than anybody has been playing even Fide reduced time-control games. Even a 2800 player gave him the bounty of overlooking a mate-in-one and going down in the end by overpressing. It wasn't Kramnik's incredible chess that won those games; it was Topalov's oversights.

If he forfeits a game by refusing to play, that's his problem. The game lost by forfeiture doesn't become a void game, any more than than a title forfeited by Fischer becomes a void title.

Kramnik was offered by Kirsan that he have the game nullified, and play two additional games as extension. He CHOSE to forfeit. So whose problem is that? Why was he unwilling to play two additional games? What was he afraid of, given that he boasts of being the best match player who automatically prefers long matches?

If you are gonna cite pre-tournament rules to argue against extension by two games, then by the same rules (and chess rules in general) his forfeiture was perfectly legal. So how does the game automatically become void? If it WAS void, then Kramnik is just leading the match +3-2, in an eleven-game match so far. Which means the twelfth one is still to be played, and the match is incomplete yet.

No matter which way you want to argue, Kramnik DIDN'T beat Topalov in the classical part.

>>He was like 18 and 19 years old, ...It is like if Carlsen goes on to be the classical world champ and you will bring up his loss to Aronian earlier this year...Yes, Kramnik wasn't dominant in matches when he was 18-19 years old. But how many people were?>And he did beat Topalov in the classical part of their match.<<

No he DIDN'T. The classical part was drawn 6-6. He beat him in rapids, that's all. And anybody who is qualified enough to have a look at the games will see that it was Topalov who lost whatever games he lost, through silly, careless mistakes. It wasn't Kramnik who *beat* him. He just turned out a lucky bloke in the end, favored with much more than anybody has been playing even Fide reduced time-control games. Even a 2800 player gave him the bounty of overlooking a mate-in-one and going down in the end by overpressing. It wasn't Kramnik's incredible chess that won those games; it was Topalov's oversights.

If he forfeits a game by refusing to play, that's his problem. The game lost by forfeiture doesn't become a void game, any more than than a title forfeited by Fischer becomes a void title.

Kramnik was offered by Kirsan that he have the game nullified, and play two additional games as extension. He CHOSE to forfeit. So whose problem is that? Why was he unwilling to play two additional games? What was he afraid of, given that he boasts of being the best match player who automatically prefers long matches?

If you are gonna cite pre-tournament rules to argue against extension by two games, then by the same rules (and chess rules in general) his forfeiture was perfectly legal. So how does the game automatically become void? If it WAS void, then Kramnik is just leading the match +3-2, in an eleven-game match so far. Which means the twelfth one is still to be played, and the match is incomplete yet.

No matter which way you want to argue, Kramnik DIDN'T beat Topalov in the classical part.

>>He was like 18 and 19 years old, ...It is like if Carlsen goes on to be the classical world champ and you will bring up his loss to Aronian earlier this year...Yes, Kramnik wasn't dominant in matches when he was 18-19 years old. But how many people were?<<

Russianbear, whom are you trying to fool? Shirov and Kramnik played their match when the former was 26 and the latter 23. Are you trying to suggest Kramnik was a teenybopper at age 23, on par with Carlsen?

Kamsky is just ONE year older than Kramnik. And that difference in age has remained the same, no matter how far back in the past you go. So if Kramnik was oh-so-tender 18 when he played the match with Kamsky, Kamsky would have been 19. If he played the match when he was 13, Kamsky would have been 14. And the score reads (Kamsky 4.5-Kramnik 1.5).

Only Gelfand was one player who can be said to have been considerably advanced in age and experience, when he beat Kramnik.

Hmm, the reason why some of the more vociferous, so called, 'match
purists' have been called disgruntled Kramnik fans is simply because
they are... Through and through. Why BS the new readers of this blog?
For the short time I have read this blog it impressed me that most of
these 'match purists' called exclusively for Kramnik on any
competition/issue and went to great pains to concoct any logical twist
to prove that Kramnik is the most wonderful thing out there, at any
level. That's it.

But hey, the bottom line is this: who cares... This is all nonsense --
match, tournament, bla-bla. It's how an event has been billed is what
matters to the masses. Who cares about a few blog-junkies and what
they think...

D.

What is with this ridiculous belief that the "match purists" are all Kramnik fans who hate Anand?

I like Anand. I think he is more exciting to watch than Kramnik. I'd be happy if he won their (apparent) upcoming match.

But I still will not regard him to have the Classical World Chess Champion virtual title (which means more to me than the FIDE title) until he wins it from Kramnik in a match.

Russianbear's arguments have all been logically constructed. Acirce, who recognizes FIDE's authority as supreme, also has consistent arguments (in which he appears to recognize that there are two distinct titles and thus two ways to see things depending on personal preference).

Krishna and those like him, just want to make things personal and are clearly for or against a particular player. I think Krishna would recognize Anand as world champion if all he did was win a coin flip as long as both FIDE and Kramnik (or maybe even just FIDE) agreed to it.

RB – the point on Kramnik being very young during those early candidates matches is only partly valid – Kamsky was only a year older and Shirov not by much either (ok I see Proloy has pointed this out already); but his match record *after* the Kasparov match is also not that impressive. A 7-7 draw with Leko, and a 6-5 win over Topalov with the latter making several blunders early on.

Kramnik is a great player no doubt, but the key claim to his all-time greatness (the win over Kasparov in 2000) is clouded by one key fact that no one has brought up here on this thread. He had the unbelievable advantage of being Kasparov’s second in the 1995 match against Anand, and as a result had more of an insight into the inner workings of his opponent than any other Kasparov opponent. It is to his great credit that he made the most of this deep understanding of his opponent to come up with a winning match strategy – but he had an advantage that Anand couldn’t even dream of in 1995, namely an understanding of team Kasparov from the inside (it’s like McLaren sitting in every Ferrari team meeting and then beating them in a race).

But even here, Kramnik probably knew more than anyone else that he could not pull off such a surprise a second time and hence the refusal of a rematch to Kasparov on specious grounds of principle whose violation he himself had benefited so much from. You could argue that he was being principled in order to recreate a cycle etc, and I wouldn’t go as far as calling it hypocrisy as others have – but it did leave a bad taste.

Even most Anand supporters (like me) will acknowledge that the match purists are not just being so to support Kramnik. We will also agree that the match system (where your outcome depends only on yourself and not on games you have no control over) does a better job of identifying the best player than a tournament.

However, this only works when you have a match 'system' as opposed to a single match. The problem is that the match purists (at least in this discussion) appear to see the single title match as the holy grail regardless of the process by which the contestants were generated. The match enthusiasts (and I count myself in this description) recognize that the title match per se does not confer as much legitimacy as the entire match system.

So you have 2 flawed systems around since 1995 – a series of matches (better format) with inadequate equality of opportunity for the top players (less legitimate) versus a series of knock-outs/tournaments (worse format) but with much broader access (more legitimate). What makes Mexico different from Corus, Linares etc is that the participants are not invited at the whim of the organizer, but through a process that was accessible to all top players. And this is why the majority of the top players (including Kramnik) will recognize the winner to be a World Champion.

Yes, a tournament is not ideal – but it is not obvious that the merits of the format always dominate the merits of legitimacy of access. It is a trade off and one where different people weigh format and access differently. Best would be to have a full candidates cycle so you have both, but in it’s absence you cannot pretend that there isn’t a trade off between format and access.

The question of the relative ranks of Anand and Kramnik in history can be left to history. But the historians will recognize (as Mig has) that Anand got shut out of the match ‘system’ during the prime 10 years of his career (mostly because he has never been much of a politician), and so he simply played in whichever system was the most transparent and had official sanction.

I think what annoys some about the match purists is the fanatical belief that playing and winning matches is the sole indicator of chess greatness regardless of whether that opportunity was available to all top players in a transparent process (the thrust of Murali’s question).

There is also a separate question about whether a match system automatically ought to mean that the champion only plays the title match since the system can be preserved with an earlier entry of the champion. The status quo creates artificially ‘great’ champions whose reign lasted so many years that we have only 14 since Steinitz, while in many cases this is simply a function of having to play only one match every 3 or so years.

FWIW, I see the most democratic measure of greatness to be the chess metrics ratings that show both strength and consistency based on *annual* results.

http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp

Check out the peak 1, 2, 3, 10 …year ratings:

These confirm what most already know – that Anand and Kramnik are practically equal in strength and achievements (and they know this too as seen in the mutual regard they have for each other). But in every time window that is considered, Anand is one or two places ahead of Kramnik (both ranking between 6 and 10 on the all-time great list)! My guess is that as time passes by and the consistency time windows increase, Anand’s advantage will increase and that by the time he retires, he will comfortably be in any one’s all-time top 10, and will be pushing for inclusion in an all-time top 5 when measured on achievements over a 20-year horizon.

proloy, we have been through this before, so there is no need to pretend you are saying something new here, as everything has been refuted already.

And it is a bit too late for Kramnik vs. Topalov game 5 discussion, is it not? Kramnik won the classical part of that match, it is all there is to that. He won the classical part 6-5, and he won the rapid part, too. He did lose the unplayed games part, 0-1. Like I mentioned before, if there was a match of unplayed games, Topalov would be nearly impossible to defeat thanks to his connections in FIDE leadership. So, in a 12 game match of unplayed games, Topalov would probably beat Kramnik (or, for that matter, Anand) 12-0. But in the classical part of the match, Kramnik won 6-5, even though he had one less game with white. The game lost by forfeiture doesn't become a void game - in the context of FIDE keeping score, but it is definitely irrelevant as long as we are discussing Topalov and Kramnik's performance in the classical part of their match. Danailov and his bodies can make up all the games they want where Kramnik didn't play and that Topalov somehow ended up winning. But as long as we are talking about the games that actually happened, I am afraid game 5 is irrelevant. Needless to say, the forfeit in game 5 was illegal under FIDE's own rules, and that has been discussed in great depth during the time of the match - too bad if you missed - maybe you should read the archives. Sorry, but I will ignore your further posts on the Topalov-Kramnik game 5 issue. It is a little too late to put forth an argument that was thoroughly refuted many months ago, proloy, so I won't waste any more time on it. Besides, it has very little relevence to the topic that is being discussed.

As for Kramnik - or anyone else- winning on mistakes of others- that's is also a ridiculous argument, as most chess wins by any player come from mistakes by their opponents, and there is no reason to single out Kramnik for that.

proloy, perhaps you should read more carefully - I said "most of these matches", so there is no reason to pretend like you nailed me with Kramnik-Shirov. I addressed that match earlier. As for Kamsky being a year older- you have also brought it up before on the mforum, and it didn't work then and it won't work now. In a very young age, 1 year can be a huge difference. Think of Carlsen in 2006 and 2007. What a difference a year makes.

Dimi: it may appear that "match purists" are Kramnik fans, but many of us are not. It just seems that way because Kramnik is the current holder of the classical title - well, at least he will be until the end of the Mexico tournament. If it was Topalov or Anand that was holding the title, you would accuse us of being partial to topalov or Anand.

Russuianbear: Dimi: it may appear that "match purists" are Kramnik fans, but many of us are not.

True, but Russianbear, you are a bleeding-heart Kramnik fan. Of
course, not all of the match purists are merely Kramnik fans, but most
are, particularly the more vociferous ones. That's all.

D.

Marc,

For the most part I agree with your comments. Like you I don't see Kramnik as an overwhelmingly powerful world champion in the mold of Karpov, Kasparov (or even Fischer for his short reign.)

That Kramnik lost before 2000 to Shirov and Kamsky though is probably not relevant today as I do think Kramnik has steadily improved since then.

For the past few years I think Kramnik has been, to use the old phrase, "a first among equals." I'm certain that at the height of Karpov or Kasparov's power years nobody would use that phrase to describe either of them. There were no equals in the field.

I'm not a Kramnik fan. I find his chess tedious in general. But I am a fan of match play to determine a WC as one must show that one has the skill in tournament play to deserve that shot and that one also has the wherewithal to beat the current champion. I do believe those are slightly different skill sets and, to my mind, equally important.

What does bother me is the selection of some single tournament in a year to determine who is the WC.

Why not Linares? Wijk An Zee? (_Fill in Your Favorite Super-GM tournament here_)

kxm:

"Kramnik is a great player no doubt, but the key claim to his all-time greatness (the win over Kasparov in 2000) is clouded by one key fact that no one has brought up here on this thread. He had the unbelievable advantage of being Kasparov’s second in the 1995 match against Anand, and as a result had more of an insight into the inner workings of his opponent than any other Kasparov opponent."

I don't know if it was any more of an advantage than vice versa. Kasparov has got a unique opportunity to see how Kramnik operates, which was to his own advantage. If anything the flow of ideas is likely to be more of a case of more ideas flowing from thr seconds to the player, not vice versa, so it is debatable who benefitted more from the Kasparov-Kramnik partnership.

And I don't know if I agree that got shut out of the match ‘system’ during 10 peak years of his career. Anand played in 1995. He was offered a match ahead of Kramnik in 2000. He could play in Dortmund in 2002. He played in San Luis 2005 which ended up being a qualifier to play Kramnik. So it is not like he was not given any chances.

Chessmetrics ratings are very flawed in some ways -especially when comparing players across eras. So chessmetrics often doesn't make much sense, and it is definitely too much to even consider Anand is one of the top 10 all-time players. And I wouldn't pay much attention even to where it ranks contemporaries like Anand or Kramnik. We all know Anand has a sharper style that leads to more victories against weaker opposition, which often means a higher rating. But ratings are not very relevant when discussing the very top level chess. Kramnik ended up beating Kasparov and Topalov, even if their ratings were considerably higher.

RB:

The point about being the second is not so much about specific openings/novelties as insight into Kasparov's psychology and approach to matches. The analysis may have flowed from Kramnik to Kasparov (since VK worked for GK), but the insight into GK's match psyche from being part of his innermost circle is what I am talking about here, since that is what helped VK with his match strategy.

In terms of VA being 'shut out' - I didn't mean to suggest a conspiracy as much as the fact that VA has never been much of a politician and respects contracts he signs (to FIDE etc). He could not play Dortmund (and neither could Ivanchuk) because of contractual obligations to FIDE. You can call this mistaken loyalty - but a man of honor keeps his word.

Hence my pointing to Chessmetrics - not as a perfect measure, but one that is based simply on playing chess as opposed to mastering chess politics and intrigue and being lucky enough to be granted a match at the whim of the then champion. Also, it is not only about ratings, but also about consistency - which for many people is the true measure of greatness.

You also simply don't address the earlier points about the 2 flawed systems - and the trade off between format and legitimacy. I see where you come from, but you refuse to see other side! That said I do respect your calling the title ‘vacant’ pending a match between Anand and Kramnik.

A 2008 match between VA and VK will be great and should settle many open questions. It should have ideally happened in 1998-99 with the winner playing Kasparov - something suggested by many at that time including Patrick Wolfe - but better late than never!

Add my name to the list of people who do not consider themselves Kramnik supporters (his play can be a bit boring and to some extent he dodged a rematch with Kasparov as though it was a plague). I would much rather support someone like Anand, Aronian, Carlsen or even Leko (Topalov has dirtied his bib a bit too much for my liking so I wouldn't support him)

So Dimi who are all these Kramnik fans you talk about? This debate has very little to do with VK or VA or Topalov - it has to do with the legitimacy of the WC title and the weight it carries. World Championship matches would never have produced a champion like Khalifman (no particular offense to him, he just did his best in a tournament). What match purists (as they are called) are trying to do is to preserve the status of the WC as being something special not just another winner of a tournament amoung many with no differentiating factor for that tournament. At least in the 1948 tournament it was like no other in that they played each other a number of times (5?) but even this only happen because it was physically IMPOSSIBILE to get Alekhine to defend his title. Karpov became champion when Fischer refused to defend but at least Karpov had had a match with Korchnoi over 24 games so this became his right of passage. But today the WC is alive AND willing to defend his title - completely different situation.

Kramnik never gained anything from becoming a second to Kasparov in the 1995 match. It was all a one way street from Kramnik to Kasparov. You know what, when young Kramnik went to Botvinnik school to teach the teachers and other students there.

Russian Bear, nobody questions Kramnik's chess abilities. When, where & how Kramnik gained & developed his knowledge is not relevant. It does not diminish his greatness.

Kxm there is no trade off required. The challenger for a WC title can be chosen in either match or tournament play. Yes the system of choosing a challenger for the Champion should be fair and open and to some degree the BGN format did not provide for that. But let's be honest Kasparov did not duck anyone. Anand could have challenged if he had wanted to.

Russianbear, in case Anand beats Kramnik the next year do you consider fair if Anand refuses give a rematch to him the same way Kramnik did to Kasparov?

Russianbear: San Luis 2005 which ended up being a qualifier to play Kramnik. So it is not like he was not given any chances.

And now the facts:

1) KRAMNIK WAS THE "CHALLENGER" TO THE WINNER OF SAN LUIS.
2) KRAMNIK WAS SUPPOSED TO PLAY IN SAN LUIS.

D.

>>> We all know Anand has a sharper style that leads to more victories against weaker opposition, which often means a higher rating. But ratings are not very relevant when discussing the very top level chess. <<<

This argument is not correct. Karpov had a similar style and he was able consistently beat weaker opposition.

Tennis does not have a World Championship, and every body there accepts the rating system they have.

A world championship is not like a Movie Director winning an Oscar for the best direction once in a few years. There is a moral obligation on the part of the World Chess Champion to prove that he is superior to everyone else. This he has to do by consistently winning other tournaments and staying at the top of the rating system.

This is what Karpov did and what Kasparov did, which is why they are considered great champions.

Great posts kxm! I think you nailed the contentious issue without taking sides. And thanks for the chessmetrics link...

>>No he DIDN'T. The classical part was drawn 6-6.>>

Yes, he did. Kramnik beat Topalov 6-5 in Classical Games, despite having one fewer White. He not only won, but won a handicap match.

You can say that the forfeit counts in the official score all you want, but there's no possible way to argue that it's a test of chessplaying ability. In tests of chessplaying ability, Kramnik beat Topalov in Classical games.

Had Fischer-Spassky ended in a 12-12 tie, with one of Spassky's 12 being the forfeit, everyone would rightly consider that Fischer had performed better over the board, regardless of whether the official score showed that fact or not.

>> In tests of chess playing ability, Kramnik beat Topalov in Classical games. <<

I agree. But by the same logic, winning tournaments & becoming higher rated player too is chess playing ability.

>>No matter which way you want to argue, Kramnik DIDN'T beat Topalov in the classical part.>>

No matter which way you want to argue, Kramik DID beat Topalov in the classical part. Saying that what we all see didn't really happen because the official score doesn't reflect it is just bizarre.

"Russianbear, in case Anand beats Kramnik the next year do you consider fair if Anand refuses give a rematch to him the same way Kramnik did to Kasparov?" - Granda, it is not about fairness. I will consider Anand the classical champ if he beats Kramnik - no question about it. I don't really care about the rematches. If there is no rematch, that is fine with me. Kramnik won't be the first who didn't get rematch.

"1) KRAMNIK WAS THE "CHALLENGER" TO THE WINNER OF SAN LUIS.
2) KRAMNIK WAS SUPPOSED TO PLAY IN SAN LUIS"

Nope - wrong on both, D. Kramnik wasn't any more the challenger to the winner of San Luis than vice versa. As for playing in San Luis - it would be silly for him to play in San Luis after in Prague, FIDE recognized his title and there was this who idea of unification.

Tech26, it is a misconception to think Karpov's style was similar to Kramnik's. Jsut because they are both considered "positional" doesn't mean they played the same (or inthe similar) way.

And yes, there is some moral obligation for the world champ to win other events. Karpov and Kasparov were both very dominant, true. But not all champs were that dominant. Kramnik had his share of tournament success, but he isn't in the same league as Karpov and Kasparov. But noone says he is. He is a definitely a less dominant champ than those two.

>>proloy, perhaps you should read more carefully - I said "most of these matches", so there is no reason to pretend like you nailed me with Kramnik-Shirov. I addressed that match earlier. As for Kamsky being a year older- you have also brought it up before on the mforum, and it didn't work then and it won't work now. In a very young age, 1 year can be a huge difference. Think of Carlsen in 2006 and 2007. What a difference a year makes.<<

Well Russianbear, why don't you make up your mind first regarding what is the "chess adulthood" age in your parlance. Please decide whether Kramnik would have been a much superior player if only he had one more year to catch up with Kamsky's age, or not. If yes, then between 18 year of age and 23, he surely had at least four years. I suppose, then you'd surely not like to claim that Kramnik continued to be a toddler, when he played Shirov.

As regards refutations, well everything that contradicts your position is always "irrelevant" in your opinion. If even Spassky says that the Steinitz line ended with Kasparov, you'll say that's irrelevant because Spassky had said something anti-semitic (or such) and as such is a loon. This can be a very useful artifice for your drenching in self-congratulation, but don't expect it to cut any ice.

Your arguments are specious at best and devious at worst. Just like you go to towns that Kramnik was only 18 when he got thrashed by Kamsky, but suppress the fact that Kamsky too was only 19. And when caught you say it's irrelevant what his opponent's age was, and smear yourself in self-congratulation that you've refuted all arguments. Are you sure, 18-19 was the coming of age of Kramnik, and not, say, 17-18? Or do you wish to say that Kramnik has continued to gain 50 points for every year of life from 18 onwards, like Carlsen did in the last year?

"There is a moral obligation on the part of the World Chess Champion to prove that he is superior to everyone else. This he has to do by consistently winning other tournaments and staying at the top of the rating system."

That an anonymous poster doesn't think Kramnik lived up to his "moral obligations" must grieve him deeply.

On the other hand, despite battling severe illness, Kramnik has been a top two or three-rated player for many years. He's a three-time world champion and a millionaire who earns his living playing a game he loves. His opponents and his great precedessor concede that he just might understand chess better than any current player.

That's some consolation, I guess.

With the posts approaching 300, I thought let me do my bit..

In any sport, a world championship is to find out "who is the best" on the lanet. There are different methods that can be applied - rankings and ratings (as in Tennis, though, the discrepancy between all-round success and rankings is not huge), beat the current champion (as in boxing), consistent better performance over a period of time (motor racing), whoever can play better than most (soccer / cricket world cup) and so on.

In addition, times change, and the games evolve and how people decide a champion may also change. Holding on to tradition for its own sake - hmm, imagine the British being ruled by the King / Queen, depriving people from taking their own decision because that's how it was always been in the past [before monarchy was pushed to the background], we wouldn't have had Thatcher, Blair influencing England and the world's history the way they did.

Therefore, in case of chess, historically it has followed the Boxing route - to become a champion, beat whoever is currently acknowledged as the champion in a match. There have been hiccups in the past, and alternate options have been used temporarily or tried permanently. However, to devalue the champion is unfair - once the model is agreed and applied consistently to all the contestants to decide the champion. Perfection itself is beyond the point.

Beating the champion in a match, may not necessarily be the best either. It is possible that a player is very good against a particular style of play, and hence could beat the current incumbent, but may not be a great player overall thus resulting in not being the highest rated player or not winning many games / tournaments. So, is he the best player on the planet?

Beating the champion in a tournament, may not necessarily be the best either. It is possible that a player scores more by beating other players but not the champion (worse still, could lose to the champion) and still become a champion. In addition, so is he the best player on the planet?

In addition, in these days, where chess has evolved to the point where chess professional play rapids, blitz, blindfold, chess960, the perfect way is to find a system that includes all this. Then, perfection itself is beyond the point. The important point is, who emerges as the best player according to the rules that is consistently applied to all the contestants. From that perspective, Anand, if he does win the Mexico tournament, will become the next world champion. Anand will / should hold that slot #15.

The only question is, can the champion command the respect from the playing, sponsoring / organizing community / and the paying public - immaterial of the format which threw the champion? Only time will tell. With Anand, currently doubled with being the highest rated player, in general seen in high regards by the community described above, may be able to command the same respect, a champion typically does. Largely, this will apply to most of the top 10 players. With anyone else, such as Khalifman or Kasim, it may have been a big question.

However, if Anand does lose the re-match, Kramnik would be taking the championship back. In addition, will gain #16 (to the slot #14 he already holds). However, world chess history, may not give too much of importance (or, I am afraid to say, credibility) to the short reign (Indian chess history, in all probability, WILL!). So, it does become important for Anand to win the re-match.

P.S.: Our recent experiments [albeit, partially forced due to the Kasparov break-away] with tournament failed to evoke the same respect. For one, it probably did not field the highest quality opponents one would have liked (particularly, the then champion). Secondly, it also overlapped with another very strong player claiming that he is the champion. In addition, it threw champions we did not hear of, before or after those tournaments. Finally, a new champion every year did not have the aura of a champion who occupies the seat for years together [which is largely aided by the match format, with draw odds and just having to prepare for one person's style of play - the challenger's].

Then, at the end of the day, the experiment failed. So, post reunification they are returning to the match model. As much as the method, format, etc. was imperfect and confusing, the reunification match last year, followed by the tournament this year, and the re-match next year, each with a possibility of throwing different world champions. In all these three, the world championship title was on the line - I repeat, however imperfect it may be / have been - but it is / was the world championship all the same, with rules consistent to all the contestants. Hence, the winner of the tournament is a world champion!

As the game is evolving further, I'm sure that the way to decide our chess world championships will have to evolve to consider an all-round strength of the players - match play / tournament play, classical / rapid / blitz / blindfold, chess variants such as 960, attack / defense, opening / middle / end games, etc. Alternatively, have different champions. Until then, this debate will go on [until, somebody reports to our Boss about the time we are spending on this blog]!

I don't know what Spassky has to do with anything. But if we to consider Spassky as the absolute authority on chess, I am afraid his views would be so bizzare that his anti-semitism would be the least of our concerns.

Yes, Kramnik was already a relatively mature player when he played Shirov. Yes, Kramnik lost. We all know that. Shirov was a better player early in 1998 so he beat Kramnik - it is as simple as that. Kramnik, however, continued to improve and was a totally different player when he played Kasparov, though. Don't forget his 80+ game unbeaten streak in between.

Yes, Kramnik lost a match to Shirov. Anand lost a match to Karpov. Then Anand lost a match to Kasparov. Then Anand lost another match to Karpov. That and million other things can be listed, but they won't be relevant to our discussion.

I made a simple point about Kramnik about Kramnik's match losses in 1993-94: the guy was young. Yes, one of his opponents- Kamsky was also young, but even he was older than Kramnik and I think a year is a big difference in that age. You make it sound like my point about Kramnik's age is somehow refuted. I say - yes, Kamsky was not a veteran himself, but he WAs older - even if it was only by a year, so my point still stands.

I just want to point something out to those who are suggesting that the match tradition is analogous to the British monarchy. Kramnik is not Kasparov's son. He defeated him at chess.

>>Would Alekhine have been World Champion had he won New York 1927? Of course not.>>

*IF* Alekhine had won it, and *IF* Capablanca had, for some bizarre reason, agreed to put his title on the line in the tournament, then yeah, he would have lost it.

As stupid an idea as it is, there's no law carved in stone saying that a match title absolutely can't change hands in a tournament. Granted, such a title change has very little meaning to a great many people. Anand's title will be worth comparatively little (less than Kramnik's, more than Khalifman's) until and unless he wins the match. But he will have the title, nevertheless, and Kramnik won't.

>> What is with this ridiculous belief that the "match purists" are all Kramnik fans who hate Anand?

Well, for one last time: Neither me nor anyone else has to be an Anand supporter to challenge this so-called "purists". But THEY have to be Kramnik-supporters, since the issue is about what happens if Kramnik fails to win the Mexico tournament (regardless of who else wins the Mexico tournament) :)

For the record, I am NOT an exclusive Anand supporter. I would have been quite happy to see Moro win this tournament. He is a great creative player (too (unlike the title-manipulating erstwhile WC, Kramnik). If Moro had won, still the self-styled purists (more about them below) would continue to shout from the roof top that no one can become 'real' WC until they defeat Kramnik in a match!!

The MAJOR SORE point that MANY have with Kramnik is the way he manipulated his WC to deny a return match to Kasparov (based on "principles" the violation of which made possible his shot at the WC title). This has been pointed out enough in this forum. And now these Kramnik-supporters (aka sore-losers) want to PRESERVE that right for Kramnik to manipulate things. I am totally against THAT. That is defo :)

So let us get one ILLUSION out of the way, namely these 'sore losers' are the only "purists" in town. You don't need to have a ph.d. in rocket science to realize that to defeat Kramnik in a 1-on-1 match will be a greater accomplishment than defeating him as one amongst 7 other players (who are almost as good, though), as far as defeating Kramnik the WC goes. In that sense, I agree that if instead of this Mexican WCC, had there been a qualifying phase (a tournament or candidates matches) to produce a challenger for a match, that might have been better. So, the "sore losers Kramnik supporters" are NOT the only ones who are "purists". I am too.

But for this to have happened, Kramnik should have stood steadfast after Topolov match to demand only such a scheme. HE DID NOT. And the seeds for that were sown way BEFORE the topy match. It was a complex situation with too many 'egos' in play, in which unification was being attempted for a long time. Kramnik played nice games for a long time to keep Kaspy out, demanding he should come through a qualification cycle, which was OBVIOUSLY a cheap shot. After all, Kaspy had waived all that to give Kramnik to give a shot at the title. Anyway that went on for years, then Topi became a FIDE champion with quite high standing (until he botched it all up in my book with the toilet gate). Kramnik was NO KASPAROV and outside of FIDE he couldnt have at all raised the support for a WC match. He could manipulate and get some assurance (besides the match prize money) as motivation to play Topy in a match. FIDE was coming out with one scheme or other. Finally, who knows what the details are, a procedure was AGREED upon by all concerned.

THAT is the BOTTOM LINE. Kramnik AGREED and SIGNED on the dotted line, for reasons obviously satisfactory enough for him (such as the return match clause) that he will abdicate the WC title if he doesn't win this tournament (which, to remind all of you once again, he has now failed to), in favor of the winner at Mexico and that winner as the ONLY world chess champion in town.

Now, obviously if the winner at Mexico (who ever that is), can also defeat Kramnik in a return match that will be make him that much more a better world champion. That is an obvious fact. Any time a WC defeats anyone of appropriate rating and ranking in a match, his stock goes up.

But that is NOT what this whole argument is all about. The Kramnik-supporters want to claim now -- if I read them right -- that the winner of this tournament has to win a match with Kramnik in order to be LEGITIMATELY CALLED the world champion in the sense of historical classical line.

Now THAT claim is SIMPLY BOGUS. Nobody needs to play with Kramnik (or anyone else) after this tournament to legitmize their status as WC. This tournament itself is the SOLE LEGITIMATE basis for the winner to be called the one and only chess world champion around. To remind the sore losers again, that title is VACANT as of today. It will be filled tomorrow :) Most definitely by one of two -- Anand or Gelfand. Kramnik is OUT. :)

I dont care who wins tomorrow.

So to sum up, the gentlemen arguing for "defeating Kramnik in a match to legitmize a wc title" are in total ILLUSION. They are actually asking for an illegal maneuver since Kramnik has legally agreed, along with others, that the winner of the tournament will be the next WC champion. It is TOO LATE to discuss now the merits of (or, the reasons for) having had this tournament format to select the next champion. It is as simple as that. There is no room for Kramnik-supporters to masquerade as "purists". I am also a purist in that sense. But to suddenly wake up and cry foul as soon as their idol has been sadly knocked out the tournament contention (with one round to spare, sheez, what an ignominy) if that is not sour grapes, I dont know what else is. IF Kramnik had won, the same sore losers would have kept totally silent, or beat the chests to say how great Kramnik is that even in this format he won the WC AGAIN !!

There is so much praise being heaped on Russianbear for "great logic" but I see NONE in his arguments. He has to first learn to understand and agree that he is NOT the arbiter of anything. The issue is simply, as per legally and morally binding agreements, is the winner of the Mexico tournament the next world champion after Kramnik. The answer is A UNQUALIFIED YES. There is NOTHING to argue, there is NOTHING for anyone to show their logical skills.

I can't see how much simpler the issue can be made !!

To sum it up one more time for you, Krishna: so called "match supporters" could care less what Kramnik agreed upon. He could have sold his title for $30 to player X and signed the deal in blood. It might be enough for us not to consider Kramnik the champion, but it's not gonna make player X the true champion in our eyes.

So kudos to Vishy for winning, well done. This is an important achievement, definitely more important than winning a couple of Linareses. Still, while he won the title, it's not the real thing yet, in my eyes in any case. I'm looking forward to the Anand-Kramnik match.

"It's not gonna make player X the true champion in our eyes...so kudos to Vishy for winning... while he won the title, it's not the real thing yet, in my eyes in any case."

First, Vishy is yet to win the title, but Kramnik has certainly already LOST it. Someone else wrote, "the whole legion of chess fans may accept the winner of Mexico as the WC, Kramnik may accept, FIDE may accept, but WE will not." !!! In other words, the whole world may say whatever they want, but WE will hold on to our opinion!! Who is this we, if it is not Kramnik, FIDE and the chess playing public !!

>> We the so called "match supporters" could care less what Kramnik agreed upon.

Please don't appropriate this term "match supporters" for referring to "Kramnik supporters". As Paul has nicely explained, there are ways in which a match is a good test for a WC to pass, but there are ways in which it is NOT. May be it is time this whole match idea is to be thrown out. I would prefer, much like tennis, a #1 status as being the pinnacle to reach in each year. This FALSE idea that "match" is the SOLE standard for deciding WC is neither historically true, nor is necessarily true in any absolute sense.

Let us forget all this debate. After all, there IS a match coming up.... Mexico Winner vs Kramnik. Why people have to be SO GREEDY and PERVERSE and want to insist ... oh in the meanwhile WE (the holy ones) have decided we will not recognize anyone as WC until that match happens. Bizarre. Since these "we" do not yet know WHO is going to be the champion tomorrow, their attitude can't be read as being "against" any of the other players. It can then be read ONLY as unreasonable support for Kramnik.

Bravo, Krishna. Excellent!!
Trying to argue against Kramnik supporters is like trying to argue against Fundamentalist Christians.

AT LAST Kramnik cannot claim to be any sort of current World Champion in any way, shape, or form.
COOL!!

Such ugly mean-spirited comments about an individual none of us have personally met or interacted. Reminds me of Eagles football fans pelting opposing players and fans with beer bottles and cans. Disgusting. It is a defining flaw of humanity's character we tend to turn public figures into sterile icons to be prasied or villified at our whims. But I guess it is to be expected. After all, the word "fan" derives from the word "fanatic".

I think that Kramnik can claim to be the match world champion, since he hasn't been defeated there, but for all intents and purposes he is no longer WC.

Whether on the side of Anand or Kramnik or whomever, we all see what we want to see. I'm looking forward to next years championship match to hopefully provide great chess by the two current best players in the world. I'm certainly not looking forward to, once a winner is declared, one side or the others--see I told you so's, blaw, blaw, blaw, yadda yadda, that most assuredly will be posted on future threads pertaining to the up-coming world championship match.

In the meantime, I think I'll re-read The True Believer by the late philosopher/longshoreman Eric Hoffer. Although he never specifically wrote about chess and its adherents (myself included), there are many examples in his writings that are analagous to this thread. By the way people, for those not familiar with his work...that's not a compliment.

We broke 300!

If

--Kramnik-Topalov was the last-ever WCC match,
--and if every succeeding WCC was a double-round robin tournament

would Anand and his successors be part of the Steinitz line? or would the Steinitz line end with Kramnik?

They could always try re-starting the Morphy line.

Kramnik will for now not claim to be WC. If Anand ducks a match then he will go back to being a "classic".

I love this site. I am a chess fan, not a player.

I see all this legalistic talk about who is REALLY the world champion a problem of pretending that definitions somehow can never change, which is of course false. People of different times have changed the rules about almost everything.

I understand the appeal of the history of "THE WORLD CHAMPION." Talk of the world championship "line" (lineage) is powerful indeed, and I admit to enjoying it. But for these modern times, it just needs to change. To allow the competitors of any sport to have ANY say in when, or against whom, to play, is just ridiculous. The wheels of any competitive cycle must move on with strict regularity.

The problem for TODAY's world, as I see it, is that the title of "world champion" should have an expiration date attached, just like for ALL other sports. You are world champion for one year (or two, or three, whatever is decided), then, if you want to be world champion, you have to earn it ALL OVER AGAIN. That is what makes it a "world CHAMPIONSHIP."

On Jeremy Silman's website he writes:

"I can't fully accept Anand (a man I am very fond of, both as a true gentleman and player) as the 15th Champion either, until he beats Kramnik (the 14th World Champion) in their upcoming match."

J.A. Topfke

I think the general objective standard is two-part:

1. Competition must reasonably be expected to result in the best classical chess player triumphing.

Two-game knockouts don't work. Blitz don't work. Selling the championship doesn't work.

Long matches work. Three-way match with players taking turn works. Round-robins of reasonable length work, at least for me. (if, however, somebody were to put forth a good argument for why a match is not a good format for determining best classical chess player or why blitz is, then I might change my mind on whether something fits the standard--but not on what the standard is)

2. Champion must accept the given contest as being for world championship

You can't just gather 8 IMs in your back yard and call the winner a world champion. You can't force the champion to defend the title in a contest you create and strip him of the title if he refuses.

However, in order for the second part of the standard to be valid, the champion must periodically defend the title against one of the very best. If he fails, like Fischer in 75, or Alekhine at the time of his death, then that opens a whole new question as to how a new champion should be decided. Nonetheless,

3. A person arguing that the champion has failed in his duties and a new champion should be declared (in effect, that the title is vacant), should prove that the champion has failed to defend the title against reasonable quality opponent within reasonable period of time.

I say Anand is the world champion.

Fischer had sufficient ownership of the WC title to be entitled to resign it, thus irrevocably losing it.

Kramnik was similarly entitled to declare that his title was on the line in Mexico. As Kramnik accepts Anand as WC there does not seem to be much room for dispute.