The dust has settled on Vishy Anand's new crown, at least everywhere except the comments around here. Here are a few of the better links to relive the glory. Most of the MSM articles contain the usual mistakes and inaccuracies, not to mention terminological butcheries (is "match" vs "game" really so hard to understand?). I suppose that's better than nothing at all, which is the norm. Many of the items in the Indian press jump the line into hagiography, but that's nothing new either. I recall that I got into the spirit myself nearly a decade ago when Anand was rooked out of an earlier title. This from a piece I wrote for the Indian magazine Outlook at the start of 1998:
The Swiss philosopher Amiel said that talent is doing easily what is difficult for others, but genius is doing what is impossible for talent. Anand's will and talent have taken him near the top of the highest mountain several times, and when he finally reaches the top (when, not if) he will have done something impossible for just talent.
That after Karpov's legal threats against FIDE got him out of the Groningen KO field and into a special final match in Lausanne, where he beat the exhausted KO winner Anand in rapid tiebreaks. The background for that text should be purple, not yellow. But hey, at least it was a decent prediction.
Let's get back to 2007. Similar Anand interview clips appeared in many places, including this AFP item.
Known as the "Tiger from Madras," Anand replaces Vladimir Kramnik of Russia as champion, winning the tournament on points after tying a match with Hungarian Peter Leko on the 14th day of the contest, which he dominated from the start.
"I am just very happy with my game, we had a good team, I felt very well, my second (coach) helped me (with) a lot of interesting ideas, everything clicked," the new chess champ said.
His proud mother Susheela Viswanathan told the Press Trust of India news agency that her son was emotional when he called to inform her early Saturday about his win.
"With a choking voice, Anand said 'Amma (mom), I have won. I am the world champion for the second time," she said, speaking in the south Indian city of Chennai in Tamil Nadu state.
The Indian magazine Business Standard encourages Indian companies to sponsor chess in this fact-mangled piece on their new champion. (Anand, the first non-European, non-USSR champion!)
GM Ian Rogers produced the best quick reports from Mexico and his wrap-up at CLO is no exception. Some interview clips with the champion:
First of all - will the Kramnik-Anand match take place? "Sure." said Anand. "I think it's just in the contract - I don't know if dates are already mentioned but that is the plan."
Kramnik was also already thinking about the upcoming contest, tentatively scheduled for Germany in the middle of 2008. "I think that [Anand and I] are the two best players in the world right now. It will be a chance finally to decide who is who, who is greater. I am really looking forward to it. I am confident that my chances are not worse."
Some might have it that finishing a full point ahead of you at the world championship tournament would have answered the "who is greater" question. But as we already knew, for Kramnik it's all about the match. I rather hope he said something more gracious about Anand's victory somewhere. It would have been interesting to know who the "many" were Rogers referred to. Was that about the fans posting here and pundits online or were there players in Mexico going on the record? I didn't see anything like that.
Author Jeremy Silman signs on to the "Anand still not #15" team in his review of Topalov's new book on the Elista match. (ht Brian) I agree on the #15 thing, but that's really a separate argument from Anand being world champion. There's the Steinitz line of match play that Anand hasn't had a chance at since 1995. Being #15 would be trivia except there's a match next year that will keep the line alive. Then there's winning the only game in town and being the unified world champion and sole claimant, which he is. As I said before, you'd have to be awfully selective to name him 15 anyway. If you count tournaments into the Steinitz line you'd include San Luis and Topalov, and perhaps the KO's as well. I'm sure there's a slice of people who don't count San Luis but who count Mexico because of the unification or Kramnik's participation. To me it's like any sport that changes its format. The records and champions before and after are split by a divide. E.g. baseball records now that there are three playoff series instead of one, or 162 regular season games instead of 154. If there were never another WCh match the Steinitz line would just be over, but it wouldn't mean the world wouldn't have a chess champion.
This long interview with Anand in Rediff (ht JaiDeepBlue) covers mostly familiar territory. It's hard to get beyond the "one game at a time" stuff when a player is talking about a tournament. There are some cute bits about post-event activities with the family. That $390,000 first prize might already be en prise.
Yes. We are going to Turkey for a holiday and then we will come to India by mid-October. We probably will spend a day or two in Istanbul.
How did you celebrate after the win in Mexico?
I went with some friends to an Indian restaurant. When the organisers asked the restaurant, they said they are closed on Sundays. Then they found out who was coming. 'If Anand is coming, I will ask my staff to stay and we will keep the restaurant open on Sunday,' the restaurant owner said. He not only kept the restaurant open but refused to accept [payment of) the bill. That was one of the most touching things I experienced after winning the championship.
Did Aruna give you any gift?
I think she is expecting a gift from me!
(Anand gave the phone to Aruna and she said: 'I had told him if he won the tournament he should buy me a diamond necklace! I hope I will get my gift! But I have promised to buy him a new telescope, and that will be my gift.')
This line from an early Sify interview: (ht argenine)
Well, I don’t know how I feel. I am still giving interviews and the feeling is yet to sink in completely. It has been six long years since I experienced this sensation and it is just settling in. Maybe tonight, I will just scream YES!
Hmm, and I thought he was getting her a necklace! This from the Times of India: (ht PircAlert)
Oh, he was quite sporting. He shook hands after we drew the game and then congratulated me again backstage. We didn’t talk much.
By then of course, you were already over the line. But I believe people began to congratulate you with several rounds to go...
Yeah, messages started pouring in when there were still three rounds to go and I was one and half points ahead. It freaked me out. When you are that far ahead with only three rounds to go and don‘t win, you’d shoot yourself. Maybe I am a bit superstitious, but it was quite unsettling. Then Gelfand beat Aronian and I drew a game and he was within a point of me. Things can whittle down pretty suddenly. So the last three days Aruna and I avoided eating at the hotel to try and not receive the premature congratulations.
Various outlets covered the news of Anand's win in India with comments from Indian politicians. Here's one.
Here's Vladimir Kramnik in Russia's Sport-Express (ht Vlad Kosulin also for translation),
(A) The game vs. Grischuk happened to become the heaviest psychological blow for me. When I failed to win an absolutely winning position. And I saw how to win, but made a different move. This was very important moment. If I'd won, I'd have become a leader with +2. But I got not only +1, but because of the luck of the draw I had 4 blacks out of the next 5 games. This is rather tough test, and honestly speaking, I spent too much energy during this period.
(Q) You lost to Moro during this period. Your usual discretion failed you, and you undertook an adventure at queenside. Did you wish to win too much?
(A) Yes, I wanted to win very much. The tournament situation was not convenient for me. Anand was increasing the lead, and I needed to win with black. But there was no luck for me - this was Moro’s day. Alex is an unstable player. This is his problem. But when you happen to get in the heat of his moment, he can win vs. anybody. Remember how he won vs Anand in San Luis. One-way game! Unfortunately, the same happened to me. I lost, and only a miracle could save me the title.
(Q) Second place can't satisfy you, of course, but looking at your pace in last rounds, if there was a third lap, you would pass Anand.
(A) If there was a third lap, all participants would finish in a hospital. The tournament was a very tough one. Regarding the second place I took... In such an event the only place which is important is the first one. Are you second or eighth - is not that different. Of course, I am displeased with my failure to win. But I guess that my playing level was on par with Anand's. He just collected everything he could, as usual. He takes chances, he is always lucky a little, as I noticed. He played 1-1 with both the 2nd and 3rd players and had no winning chances in any of these games. This is very usual for him as a real tournament fighter. I had an understanding that it will be very tough to keep up with him in this. Only a win in our face to face game could decide things in my favor. Both games went under my control but unfortunately, both were drawn.
(Q) There are 12 games face to face awaiting you in the WC match. What are your thoughts?
(A) I guess this will be an epochal event without exaggeration. We both are the greatest players of after Kasparov era. Starting from 1993 we are on the same level. he has more tournaments won, and I have more WC matches. The upcoming match will put a period on who is stronger. And for some degree will put a line under achievements of our generation. it is obvious that we have not much time left to stay on top. A huge wave of young talented folks is going to take our place and in some time we will fail to oppose them. This is the law of sports. A law of life. My match with Anand will be the conceptual one for our generation. And an exceptionally important event for myself. I happened to successfully play matches vs strongest contemporary players: Kasparov, Leko, Topalov. And now destiny brings me and a fantastically strong player - Anand - together. I will be in earnest about my preparation. And I believe I can bring the crown back to Russia.
No doubt there will be more. Also check out the cool video coverage at the ICC and Chessvibes. ChessBase has some nice pictures from the closing ceremony. I'm a little disappointed with ChessBase's web coverage during the event, if only because they regularly reach a higher standard and I was expecting new heights for such an important event. Don't get me started on the official site.
Mig, I guess, the terminology match comes from people watching tennis on TV apart from cricket in India. Don't know if you noticed it, a draw they call it a tie!
It was a nice piece from you on outlook about Anand!
>I'm a little disappointed with ChessBase's web coverage during the event, if only because they regularly reach a higher standard and I was expecting new heights for such an important event. Don't get me started ..>
I was not disappointed (no false beliefs no false expectations and disappointments).It was what it
should have been.
Btw, have you too been bewildered, astonished, by their "unexpected" interest and rich coverage of
the Elista/Kramnik-Topalov ? Me neither.
The Anand-Kramnik match indeed will be the match of our Generation. It will be a great match.
To bad it is to be only 12 games and not 24 as it ought to be.
Mig says:
--Anand is the one and only world champion.
--But he's not #15.
This works with Russianbear's formulation:
--Kramnik is #14.
--Kramnik has given up his title claims.
--There is no #15.
--So the "Classical" title is vacant for a year, until the Kramnik-Anand match.
I would think, Mig is misled into believing Anand is not #15. If there is no #15, there is no #14! Period. An exception can be given for a hand-picked champion in "steinitz" line, it is logical to give exception for a tournament champion cause both have precedence in the "steinitz" line I believe. Therefore, the new "match purist" line??!
I wouldn't be surprised if more lines come out in the future!
I love the categorical nature some people take in these silly arguments. Period!! Well, that ends it, then!
I'm not a match purist at all when it comes to the world championship. I believe Anand is world champion. Match purists do not. There is no reason to confuse this with what is undeniably a match lineage. This isn't being a purist, it's being observant. There is a line from 1886 of match-only championships with one exception for death. I don't include Topalov or Anand in that line.
And it's not "hand-picked champion" it's "hand-picked challenger," which was hardly unique. As much as we love the cycle with interzonals and candidates matches, using the rating system was hardly less of an abomination than using mini-matches. But let's not mix all of our favorite silly arguments together.
Feel free to start a new numbering system for non-match championships, or one that includes them. Everyone can do what they like. (Period.) I don't consider the #15 thing to be very relevant at all compared to being undisputed WCh. What matters is being unified world champion and that's what Anand is. If Anand loses to Kramnik next year he will still have been world champion 2007-2008, but he still won't have been #15 in the Steinitz line because that line is based on match play.
You can probably even work out a line where Anand is #15. Or even the 14th undisputed world champion if you like. Were there not going to be a Kramnik-Anand match next year, or any other match for that matter, this discussion would be even more worthless than it is, which is pretty worthless. The match line exists, but it's a purely theoretical debate, while being undisputed world champion is not. The match line has been battered and tarnished by rival champions, diminished qualification, and ever-shorter matches. It needs serious rehab. I hope that will happen in the next two years.
Anand won the Worl Championship. Period. Even Kramnik says so.
However, his current title will become a quickly-forgotten joke if he loses his match against Kramnik next year. So, yes, he is the curent WC, but he will only be the 15th if/when he beats Kramnik in a match, which is very doubtful...
Mig, I never imagined my period would trigger you to come and post a response!! Anyways, I didn't even think for a moment you were a match purist.
I see what you are saying. I look at differently though. It doesn't matter how many times has it happened or has not happened, it becomes an exception when it doesn't follow the rule or the system - an established and best way - with the interzonals (tournaments in general terms) and candidate matches (matches that follwed). Cause this system provide a way to prove beyond any doubt. But in the absense of it, I for one (like yourself) wouldn't want to undermine someone achievements who has clearly proven himself to be the best to be an undisputed champion! To me, what matters is "The World Champion lineage!". If it is broken, probably we should come up with the "World Champions League" or something like that!
We will have to wait for the following months, Corus etc., to gauge the general attitude.
I guess thatAnand will be silently accepted as the undisputed-WCh for the sake of avoiding more tiresome scandals. And with the Kramnik-match pending anyway why bother that much ?
But the lingering issue won't be forgotten and it will suddenly, as if from nowehere, return "en force" if Anand tries to duck the Kramnik-match requirement as ridiculous, unfair etc.,
He has already started to suggest that, he made me remember Ponomariov's antics after he bacame "WCh".
If Anand wins the bout, then the 14th world champion will be considered a fake and will be quickly forgotten! Anand will enter as the new and true 14th world champion!!
How does that sound?
doesn't matter who wins, the match is important
Why the match important?
"...then the 14th world champion will be considered a fake and will be quickly forgotten! ...How does that sound?"
Unless you can fake WCC-match successes against Kasparov, Leko, and Topalov, it sounds pretty stupid. Thanks for asking.
Match purist mostly do accept Anand as a World Champ. It's the value of his title that is under the dispute. Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasim, Topalov and even Anand himself were all World Champions. Simply "match purist" regard their titles as inferior in value to the match titles.
Had matches been gone for good, there would be indeed no point in this discussion. One as well might start a new numbering and get on with it. However, it seems like matches are returning, it's the tournaments and KO's that will disappear from the title picture. In this reality, tournament championships become a brief aberration, a thing without the past and without a future, which makes current Anand's status rather shaky.
You can always dispute a title if it is not won in a proper world championship. It doesn't matter if the title is won in a tournament or a single match championship or in a sub-par competetion leaving out top contenters - as long as it is not guaranteeing the best - it is disputable. This is where I don't understand a match purist point of view. Why would a tournamnet title with the "champion" participating be inferior to a disqualified challenger obtaining the title in a match or the ones like Leko played leaving out Kasparov and Anand? Why selective?
Anand has got the game, his ground is firm! The arguments against him are shaky though!
Kramnik did not prove his worth against Shirov and Anand before playing the world champion. All the other matches are sub-par competetion! So, if Kramnik beats Anand, I can consider him the a true champion. If he doesn't, he was NEVER a champion!
"Why would a tournamnet title with the "champion" participating be inferior to a disqualified challenger obtaining the title in a match?"
Several reasons. 1. Simple probability theory. The probability of a strongest player winning the tournament with 8 participants is not very high. Of course it depends on the strength distribution of the players involved, but I'd guesstimate it to be between 20 and 30% for the Mexico type tournament. The probability of the strongest participant winning a match is obviously higher than 50%.
2. Tournament does not insure completely equal conditions for all the participants. For example, say players A and B compete for the win. A plays C in the beginning of the tournament, when C still has chances to win it and fights like there is no tomorrow, makes a draw. B plays C at the end of the tournament, when C has already lost all the chances and doesn't care anymore. Another possibility: D got drunk before the game with B, went to sleep at 6am and didn't pose any problems. On the contrary, for the game with A player D was sober and well rested.
Kasparov was the 13th World Champion. He was the last of the Steinitz era.
After 1993 the Interregnum came where there were two World Champions.
And then in 2006 came reunification.
But the connection to the old Steinitz lineage is broken. The Steinitz lineage ended with Kasparov. No one will ever be the 14th or the 15th world champion of the Steinitz era.
Kramnik and Anand are the 1st and 2nd World Champion of the new age. Trying to fit them into the Steinitz era by calling them the 14th and 15th doesn't make sense. What about Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdjanov and Topalov? You cannot just delete them from history never mind how much you dislike the tournament system or the split that made them World Champions; should they be the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th? or 14a, 14b, 14c and 14d? No, that does not make sense. They are the Champions of the Interregnum, and now after reunification a new age begins.
Kramnik is the 1st World Champion after reunification.
Anand is the 2nd World Champion after reunification.
I actually like this last one
To Osbender's comments: If tournament championship is that much harder to get, then that's the point. That makes this method better than the 'matches'. Anand fought through the melee and came out clean, whereas Kramnik lost it.
Krish.Adam. The tournament championship is much more a matter of luck, that's the point.
Going by your logic, KO championship is the hardest to get, so it must be the best way to decide the champion. We've already seen how it worked in practice though.
""Why would a tournamnet title with the "champion" participating be inferior to a disqualified challenger obtaining the title in a match?"
Several reasons. 1. Simple probability theory. The probability of a strongest player winning the tournament with 8 participants is not very high. Of course it depends on the strength distribution of the players involved, but I'd guesstimate it to be between 20 and 30% for the Mexico type tournament. The probability of the strongest participant winning a match is obviously higher than 50%."
That has to do with the number of competitors and doesn't have much to do with the format of the competition. Assume that in any match strongest player has a 70% possibility of winning. Ok, now let's have an 8-player match tournament (candidates). The probability of the strongest player winning falls to .7^3=34 percent. It seems like the match is better because we are talking about the final match: one to which we assume the two best men qualified.
The interesting question I think is what to make of the 30 percent possibility or whatever chance you want to give to the worst player winning. What does it really mean that somebody is a champion when there is a strong chance he is not the best player in the world? (regardless of how he won the title)
Your second objection though I entirely agree with. In this tournament it seemed though like the last placers fought to the end, trying to avoid finishing last and some of the 2nd-3rd place finishers gave up on catching Anand and drew a bit more towards the end.
Osbender: That was based on your ‘logic’. Anyway, to your point that tournament championship is much more a matter of luck takes a serious beating if you considered other stuffs.
Think about other stuffs. A tournament setting may be considered better for the following reasons:
- It gives a fair chance for everyone. If a guy can play better against just one guy for 12 rounds, but can't do the same against 7 others- then that guy is not good enough.
- It eliminates this psychological effect of one player having on another. I think, in a match, there may be more psychological role to play than tournament. Not necessarily because one player is mentally less tough but just because the other person could be a complete crook that can throw a decent guy off balance. Also, some people can get into other people’s nerves simply because of their off the board tactics, not just because of chess.
- It eliminates this stupid candidate’s tournaments/matches where the current champion sits on his throne and waits for his challenger that may take years. By the time, this challenger gets there; he may have exhausted all his resources including opening prep.
- Also the candidate’s matches that determine the challenger now brings in additional luck factors and all these other stuffs into play which may not produce the best challenger.
- Politics play a major role in a match. For e.g. where the match is held, conditions, terms, what’s in a bathroom etc to name a few.
- No hand-picking challengers any more. This is great!
These are just to name a few. There are drawbacks in tournaments, which I don’t deny. All that I am saying is there could be more to this than we may think and matches aren’t perfect either. Major sports have undergone significant changes. That’s bound to happen, but that doesn’t make the champions that come out with the new system any lesser than the previous ones. It’s all relative and time dependent. Today, Anand has done it in one way- fair and square. Tomorrow, he may do it again or someone else will, but that doesn’t make this achievement any smaller.
Flawed logic:
>>It gives a fair chance for everyone. If a guy can play better against just one guy for 12 rounds, but can't do the same against 7 others- then that guy is not good enough.>.
Refer to what osbender said ..
I proposed a system called Iron Match /tournament which is far superior to what happned in Mexico, but is sort of a 'tournament' . the drawback is it would take too long to finish, but it is more likely to pick the strongest player.
Here is the system:
The top players (like in Mexico) including the WC are selected to play against each other. The first pairings are selected using current tournament system. Howerver, instead of playing one game against the opponent, they must play 6 games! And if any player loses the 6game match they are knocked out of the tournament!
If two players tied, then they move on the next round, playing different players as they would in the torunament minus the players who lost.
This keeps repeating until only one player is left standing, undefeated and the new World Champ!!
If the players keep drawing they keep re-pairing and playing till someone drops.
Thus, if two players are left and constantly drawing - they keep playing 6game matches till someone loses..
It make take forever, but it should determine the WC.
Obsender, if you pick world # 1 and anoint him world champion, you will always be 100% guaranteed that the world best would be the champion!!
I would like to remind a frog story here. A professor cut a leg of a frog and say "jump". The frog jumps. He removes another one, it still jumps and then the third one, it jumps with great difficulty. Finally he cut the remaing leg and the frog couldnt jump. So the professor comes to a conclusion, if you cut all four legs of a frog, it cannot "hear"!! Sounds silly isn't?
The argument using the pattern that the final match is what produces a genuine world champion and it alone does matter sounds very similar to this! You forget the fact that it is not that single match, it is the world championship cycle that produced that quality champion! Of course you can have your own views. But you cannot bluff others with your theory!
The tournament is far better than a single match championship. The prime reason we don't see it though is the potential for foul play and no champion would agree to such risks for the prestigeous crown. Otherwise the luck factor is there in match play as well. We saw what happened to Kasparov, what happened to Topalov after couple of games.
>>The tournament is far better than a single match championship.>
?? Is chess so boring for you that you make these bizzare statements ?
Care to comment on the iron man tournament described above ? Can you say with a straight face that the tournament in Mexico was the best way to determine the WC?
I wouldn't say the tournament in Mexico is the best but definitely better than two top random people playing (like Kramnik-Leko, Kramnik-Topalov etc.) decided among themselves but come out and proclaim they are the best in the whole wide world!
Ok, here are my 2 cents on your format.
1. You have to have a timeframe - no forever format - otherwise dispute will start again.
2. You can have double elimination instead of single elimination given the short match ups.
Otherwise, sounds good! ..if you can get sponsorship and player are willing!
PircAlert wrote: "Obsender, if you pick world # 1 and anoint him world champion, you will always be 100% guaranteed that the world best would be the champion!!"
This just shows that you don't understand how the rating system works. Every rating system is the estimate for strength with the margin of error built in (to be even more precise, rating is a random variable with a certain distribution). In human chess the margins of error are huge due to the low number of games played. Assuming the margin of error to be 50 pts (in fact it's bigger for nearly every player) you can do the math for the "true strength":
Anand 2801+-50
Ivanchuk 2787+-50
Kramnik 2785+-50, etc.
Good luck determining the strongest player with such data.
"With a choking voice, Anand said 'Amma (mom), I have won. I am the world champion for the second time," she said, speaking in the south Indian city of Chennai in Tamil Nadu state.
He may be world champion, but NOT for the second time.
"How does that sound?"
Sounds Dumb. Kramnik is the 14th undisputed champion whether you like him or not.
Amma,
Charles is just kidding. We all salute Vishy as two-time world champion.
You just proved my point Obsender!!
Going by your argument.. When the strength of a player varies +/- 50 of his/her rating, how do you expect a match between a randomly picked two would determine the best among the three (in fact, there are many in that range) - that you quoted in your example? Wouldn't a tournament be a better decider of the best?? Simple logic!
Didn't I say that before? Kramnik is THE disputed non-champion!! (Cause he doesn't claim he is the champion, but a few dispute his non-champion status!!)
How does this sound, Charles?
There are 2 kind of CLASSIC champs:The handpicked SUBCLASSICones:Steinitz,Lasker,Capablanca,Alekhine,Euwe,Botvinnik and Kramnik,all of them just needed a bag of candies to challenge,provoke and beat a socalled reigning classic champ.The second cathegory are the hardworking CLASSICones:Smyslov,Tahl,Petrosian,Spassky,Fischer,Karpov(transitional) and Kasparov.I have a huge respect for all these ones because the long and winding road to get the title.I also respect more the FIDE line than the SUBCLASSIC line.Kramnik is the number 7th not the 14th.
Granda,
You forgot the Big Bacon Classic.
I don't understand match Bacon purists talking about 14 world champions.How dirty Kramnik want to share the glory of superchampions like Fischer or Kasparov?....of course he is a champion but from the Botvinnik line restored.There are only 7 authentic champions in the world(superiority proved).
Some would argue that dirty Kramnik shared some of the superglory of Kasparov by defeating him in a match. But you and I know that's silly, right? You don't prove your superiority over Kasparov unless you also beat Grischuk.
Beat a single player even if he is the reigning champion is not a proof you have to be considered the best of the world.Just a cycle can give some aprox to determine if you are the best.I remeber Fischer winning an interzonal tournament of 24 players,after that beating 4 elite players to become the best.What Kramnik did before beat Kasparov?....be humiliated by Shirov?...come on Yuriy Kleyner open your eyes,the chess world is still paying for the Kasparov arrogance,Kramnik was a champion created by Ka$parov interests not by a clean sportive process.
I understand. According to you, beating a single player, even the best, is not enough to be considered world champion. Let me ask you then, when did Kasparov stop being world champion?
Yuriy kleyner,Kasparov stop being the world champion when he tied Karpov,he could not showed his superiority over a single player.
Kasparov was not the best in the 2000,it's because he lost to Kramnik.
Rudimentary logic should say that if one match is enough to declare superiority, then one match is enough to declare equality. You agree presumably that in 1987 cycle Karpov proved himself better than every single player but Kasparov. Therefore, in 1987, when Kasparov drew Karpov in the same cycle, do you believe there were two champions or zero?
That is the central point.The gargabe of the classic tradition,2 champions or zero? Bronstein, Karpov, Leko, Topalov,Mickey Mouse, Challengers no qualified,Unifications,Second chance rematches,Pickles and Handpickeds,Bags of candies,Big Bacon Classics,Kramnik the best chessplayer ever.
I am trying to come up with a more nonsensical list of non-sequiturs, bad wordplay, concepts, GM names and misspellings as a response--since apparently to you that constitutes an impressive argument. It might take me a while.
Borges's celebrated bestiary from a "certain Chinese encyclopaedia". Its classification of animals includes:
Those that belong to the Emperor; embalmed ones; those that are trained; suckling pigs; mermaids; fabulous ones; stray dogs; those included in the present classification; those that tremble as if they were mad; innumerable ones; those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush; others; those that have just broken a flower vase; those that from a long way off look like flies.