Kramnik Masters Moscow

Ivanchuk did win Linares (i think in 93) ahead of Kasparov and Karpov and a young Anand.

Well, Linares 93 was 14 years ago, but this year Morozevich ruled Linares. It was due to Morelia performance that he finished in the second place.

Kramnik-Anand is the match of the century.

Ivanchuk won Linares three times. In 1989, 1991 and 1995. He also won Corus in 1996.
Which ofcourse makes Mig's statement correct as Vassily did manage to stay in the world elite for over 10 years now without winning a true top level individual tournament.

Kramnik is playing like he did about a decade ago; in my opinion, before the painkillers got in the way. If He and Anand can keep their current form, we're all in for some great chess next year. It seems like only yesterday that Topolov was making a haughty statement about Kramnik's rating being too low to be considered a world champion candidate for him. Talk about what goes around, comes around. Nothing personal Topolov fans, just a matter-of-fact.

Was Mamedyarov's 28...Rb6 an atrocious blunder that Kramnik also missed? What happens on 29. R:b2 e.g. 29...Qe1+ 30.Kh2, 30... R:b2 31.Q:d4+ Qe5+ 32.Q:e5+ and Nd3+? I can't see why 30...Qe5+ 31.g3 would help e.g. 32.Nd7+. I assume I am missing something, but it looks simple enough and I don't have Fritzy at the moment.

Oh I see Nc5 is also hanging. I am really bad.

There's not much analytical material on this tournament in the English language and the three question marks in Kramnik-Mamedyarov at Chessbase don't really help understanding this game. Especially the two question marks after 41...Kd8 (where 41...Ke8 almost surely loses as well) are strange. I added some more notes to this interesting (time scamble!) fight.

Chess.FM has Larry Christiansen's very nice commentary on Kramnik-Mamedyarov--well worth the time.

Today Kramnik will play for a win against Ivanchuk. With a draw his rating is 2799, with a win he tops the fide rating list with 2804.

Next tournament will be Corus. Such a shame they didn't invite Shirov. Shirov and Leko are Kramnik's permanent full points in top level tournaments.

Didn't Anand just lose a few points? Maybe it is okay if Kramnik makes a draw?

Kramnik will top the list even with a draw. Shared with Anand, but officially #1 because of more games played.

Has anyone else noticed that Boris Gelfand looks like an identical twin of Rafa Benitez, head coach of FC Liverpool in the English Premier League?

Did Kramnik say something about Ivanchuk's pink trousers or something!? They're still playing on...

Bravo Vishy!! Off-topic but news is just in that Vishy has refused to play in Germany. He wants a neutral venue. Karsten Henzel (Kramnik's manager) is German and Chessbase (who promote Kramnik a lot more than other top stars and he does DVDs for them, loses to their program, etc.) is German too.

>Bravo Vishy!! ..news is just in that Vishy has refused to play in Germany.>

great news, another reason to thow a party in India

>He wants a neutral venue. Karsten Henzel (Kramnik's manager) is German >

does he want to play Karsten Henzel now ?

>and Chessbase (who promote Kramnik a lot more than other top stars and he does DVDs for them, loses to their program, etc.) is German too.>

a DVD with Anand would be great, I agree

You see, I told you long time ago. Anand starts getting cold feet... He is trying to avoid the match!

<<You see, I told you long time ago. Anand starts getting cold feet... He is trying to avoid the match!

I disagree. He has been consistent all along. Even when he was asked about the Elista scandal, he had clearly mentioned that irrespective of whether or not a guy is cheating, it is the thought that he might be cheating is what is most damaging to his opponent (as happened to Topalov). Maybe Kramnik is a very clean guy and a genuinely trustworthy sportsman. But that is no reason to not have measures in place to ensure that he does not cheat. Although Topalov probably goofed up at Elista and thereafter, I believe that he was genuinely under the impression (albeit wrongly) that Kramnik was cheating. Even if Kramnik does not cheat in Germany, it will do him a lot of good if he can put a doubt in Vishy's mind that he is cheating. It could unnerve Vishy (or any other opponent else) no end..

vishy and vlady should come play in the USA so I can go watch!

Anand go and change your pants.

"Even if Kramnik does not cheat in Germany, it will do him a lot of good if he can put a doubt in Vishy's mind that he is cheating. It could unnerve Vishy (or any other opponent else) no end.."

I doubt Anand would consider the possibility of Kramnik cheating for a second. He's not a paranoid megalomaniac under the kosh of his manipulative manager ;)

I can understand not wanting to play in Germany as Kramnik does seem very comfortable there (certainly if I was Anand I'd give Dortmund a miss!). It shouldn't be in India either, but that still leaves a fair few other countries and there should be enough interest from sponsors.

They're both great players and nice guys, so fingers crossed we get a match!

yes rs, NYC would be great!!

Please don't associate NYC with the USA. Entirely different sub-species.

Has anyone worked out the new ratings? My rough calculations say that Anand shed a couple of rating points in Turkey. Did Kramnik gain enough to capture the No.1 spot?

Anand Nair, please provide a link to a source claiming Anand doesn't want to play in Germany.

"I disagree. He has been consistent all along. Even when he was asked about the Elista scandal, he had clearly mentioned that irrespective of whether or not a guy is cheating, it is the thought that he might be cheating is what is most damaging to his opponent (as happened to Topalov). Maybe Kramnik is a very clean guy and a genuinely trustworthy sportsman. But that is no reason to not have measures in place to ensure that he does not cheat. Although Topalov probably goofed up at Elista and thereafter, I believe that he was genuinely under the impression (albeit wrongly) that Kramnik was cheating. Even if Kramnik does not cheat in Germany, it will do him a lot of good if he can put a doubt in Vishy's mind that he is cheating. It could unnerve Vishy (or any other opponent else) no end.." ---

There is a difference between the cheating measures issue and a host country issue. Cheating (Anand's as well as Kramnik's) will be of concern no matter what the venue. It is not fair to single out Kramnik for potential cheating and it doesn't make sense to say cheating in Germany is more likely than in any other country. Anand may well have reasons to not play in Germany, but greater likelyhood of Kramnik's cheating there is definitely not the reason to rule out Germany.

Sure Vishy has every right to demand a neutral venue, but if Germany is not neutral, what is? Anand plays in Bundesliga a lot. This move does smell a bit of chickening out, but is, of course, totally in line with gamesmanship that was going on in title match negotiations way before Anand was born.

http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1509

This link says nothing about Anand's refusal to play in Germany though.

and.. susanpolgar.blogspot.com
I think its a fair enough demand. I do not see any reason why the match should take place in Kramnik's manager's home country.

Anand's refusal is more explicit on Susan's website...I don't know where she got the news from, but it does not surprise me one bit.

IMO the most obvious reason to play the match in Germany is that it seems as it was agreed beforehand and that the sponsor is German group. Same reason really why a Mexican championship was played in Mexico and not in Iceland, for example.

The argument that it's not a neutral venue because Henzel is German is weak. Similarly Mexico was not a neutral venue because Anand speaks Spanish.

It may be me, but I can't find a decent listing of who is actually playing in the final this Blitz Event. I see the preliminary standings on http://www.russiachess.org/ but no info on the invitees. I'm presuming Kramnik, Anand, Grischuk Svidler but does anyone have a definitive list before I tear my hair out?

It was not very smart of Kramnik to "announce," a few weeks ago, that the match would be in Germany. That was just asking Anand to raise a fuss.

Let's make a list of no-no countries for the match: Russia, India, France, Germany, Bulgaria. Have I missed any?

>>Let's make a list of no-no countries for the match: Russia, India, France, Germany, Bulgaria. Have I missed any?

Why France??

Good that you mentioned Bulgaria though. Would Kramnik and his team ever agree to play Vishy in 'Danialovland' Bulgaria? For similar reasons, it is perfectly understandable Vishy not wanting to play in Germany.

To greg koster, it might actually have been a preemptive strike by Kramnik to shift the focus to Anand. Now should something go wrong with the match, Anand will be seen as the one to blame.

Spain obviously...

Susan's website reports two problems with the match:
--will Anand have draw odds?
--where will the match be played?

One would have thought that Carsten Hensel would have reached an understanding with FIDE on at least the first of these points before Kramnik agreed to play in Mexico.

Anand shouldn't play the match at all. Kramnik should see how it felt for Kasparov when he did the same to him.

In addition to the countries listed by greg...

France is out because Kramnik's wife lives there.
Spain is out because Anand lives there.
South and Central America are out because Anand speaks Spanish.
Asia is out because Anand knows people who competed in Asian cups.
Africa is out because Kramnik's granduncle's ex-step sister's myspace site has a picture of a zebra.
And so on....

Anand Nair,

Kramnik lives in France.

"Good that you mentioned Bulgaria though. Would Kramnik and his team ever agree to play Vishy in 'Danialovland' Bulgaria? For similar reasons, it is perfectly understandable Vishy not wanting to play in Germany." - No, it is not the same. Henzel didn't do anything to Anand that would even remotely approach what Danailov (and Topalov)had done to Kramnik. Besides, it is not obvious to me that Kramnik would not play Anand in Bulgaria. Playing Topalov in Bulgaria would be a different story, but I can imagine Kramnik agreeing to play Anand in Bulgaria.

In any case, the whole Germany thing may end up not being a huge deal. I can imagine Anand agreeing to play there, as it would be rather stupid to refuse to play there and decline a huge payday.

Don't forget the countries of all the seconds and any addtional ones that they may have visited at one time or another. Well I guess that just leaves neutral Sweden, which is alright...nice looking women.

Does FIDE use decimals for deciding ratings? If so, according to a poster on chessgames.com, Anand is at 2799.3 and Kramnik at 2798.5 after the Tal Memorial.

In my own view, just like we say Kasparov was #1 for 20 years, we should treat Anand / Kramnik as joint #1's on the next rating list unless decimals are used.

By the way, what were the decimals when Kasparov and Kramnik were tied? Cant be too difficult to calculate.

@Russianbear, et al..

Maybe Kramnik is clean and did absolutely no wrong in Elista. But, to those of us (Vishy included) who do not know the true story, there is a non-zero probability that part or all of what Topalov and Danialov alleged has some base. And, we (again, Vishy included) don't need to know if Kramnik is the cleanest guy or not. All that chess fans and players would want is that all measures be taken to ensure that the match is held in the fairest of venues where no one player even has the slightest doubt that something is fishy.

It should be held in Iceland with Bobby as arbiter
(no other Jews allowed of course)

If you don't know the "true story" by now, perhaps you don't want to.

I find the term "fishy" interesting, while including "Vishy" in the same context.

Amos wrote: "Anand shouldn't play the match at all. Kramnik should see how it felt for Kasparov when he did the same to him."

Have you ever lost a chess game?

Compare:

"How did it feel, Garry, when Kramnik forced you to resign?"

"How did it feel, Vlady, when Anand forced Grischuk to resign?"

C'mon. There's only one way for Anand to provide Kramnik with the opportunity to feel what Kasparov felt and still feels.

Anand Nair,

If Danailov and Topalov reported that you wear ladies underwear, there would be a non-zero probability of it's being true.

A small part of my consciousness would thereafter hope that you would never get into a traffic accident; would never have an embarrassing moment at the hospital.

The anti-cheating measures at Elista, nominally imposed to protect the integrity of the game, were actually requested because of the suspicions that followed Topalov after San Luis.

Neither Anand nor Kramnik will request anti-cheating measures, but perhaps FIDE will impose them for its own reasons.

There is a close relationship between Kramnik's manager , Dortmund and UEP. Just google for Universal Events promotion. Anand is perfectly justified in asking for neutral venue.

http://www.uep-chess.com/english/Welcome.html

"There is a close relationship between Kramnik's manager , Dortmund and UEP. Just google for Universal Events promotion. Anand is perfectly justified in asking for neutral venue."

When I watched Dortmund 1995 live there, Hensel was the tournament's spokesman or press officer. I believe the director of UEP was responsible then of the technical department. Nevertheless, UEP has bought the rights to stage the event. If FIDE wanted sth neutral, they were as clever as ever.

"Maybe Kramnik is clean and did absolutely no wrong in Elista. But, to those of us (Vishy included) who do not know the true story, there is a non-zero probability that part or all of what Topalov and Danialov alleged has some base. And, we (again, Vishy included) don't need to know if Kramnik is the cleanest guy or not. All that chess fans and players would want is that all measures be taken to ensure that the match is held in the fairest of venues where no one player even has the slightest doubt that something is fishy." - I hope you do realize the opposite, too. Maybe Anand is clean and has never cheated. But, to those of us who do not know the true story, there is a non-zero probability that he maybe have been cheating at various stages of his career, including Mexico.

So, UEP has bought the rights to stage the event? Interesting. Sounds like Anand will have to play wherever they will choose. If not, they should just forfeit him. His Mexico "championship" was a sham, anyway.

"The argument that it's not a neutral venue because Henzel is German is weak. Similarly Mexico was not a neutral venue because Anand speaks Spanish."

Indeed, it opens up a whole can of worms. Before, all you needed to do was consider the respective home countries of the two players participating in the Match. For nationalistic reasons, I can understand why a player might not feel comfortable playing in the home country of his opponent. For instance, given the strong level of support which the Bulgarian government has provided Topalov, or the Chinese government has provided its players, I can understand why it would be problematic for a player to be foist into that mileau.

However, if you include a "degree of separation", any rational cause for concern disappears. The German government has no reason to intervene, or attempt to play dirty tricks in an effort to assist Kramnik, or impede Anand. It isn't even clear that Kramnik would enjoy the popular support of the spectators, as compared to Anand.

Where will this end? Can't play in the home country of one of your opponent's seconds? What about the Home Country of players' wives? What if you have 2nd house in a country?

FIDE has rules for this scenario, presumeably. If Anand doesn't want to play, FIDE ought not hesitate to strip him of the Title. I see no harm in letting Anand try to find sponsorship for an alternate venue. However, it is wrong to let him exercise a "malicious veto", the main purpose of which is to force the cancellation of the match.

> Interesting. Sounds like Anand will have to play wherever they will choose. If not, they should just forfeit him. >

Give Anand a break. He just want to feel like "I am the champ" for a while.

If he were not to make a fuss a bit, some opposition and demands, nobody would care of him. he would feel like a woman who would go to bed without first saying few times "NO", i.e., it would be as if she has no worth, no value.

This circus is understandable at this point and Anand will come around neatly after more attention is given to him. He wants more consideration.

Oh, how I would love seeing Anand play Kramnik in Sweden!

The only problem with that is of course that absolutely noone here knows anything about the game and couldn't give a dime about it. Except for me, of course.

Susan's website reports two problems with the match:
--will Anand have draw odds?

Why should Anand have Draw Odds? In the Topalov--Kramnik match in Elista, the Championship was decided by Rapid Chess Tie-Breaks. If necessary, the Title would have been decided by a single "Armegeddon" Blitz Game (where one player or the other would have had the "Draw Odds" but as a result of a Coin Flip).

But agreeing to play the Match under such rules, both Kramnik and Topalov ceded any "rights" which they might have had to "Draw Odds". Having ceded them, Kramnik did not get those rights back when he beat Topalov. In fact, he didn't even earn the right to defend his Title via a Match (all he was able to get was a Re-Match clause, against the winner of Mexico City--which turned out to be Anand).

It's hard to justify how Anand might have earned the right to Draw Odds in a Championship Match title defense, when he won his Title from a Championship tournament format.

Of course, in order to cut the "Gordian Knot", maybe FIDE should tell Anand that he will indeed be given (the option of choosing) "Draw Odds" in an Armegeddon Blitz game, rather than have the right to select the Draw Odds be determined by Coin Flip.

That would provide Anand, as Champion, with little more than a merely symbolic advantage, which would hinge on his ability to draw a Blitz game vs. Kramnik--while playing Black, and with less time. Of course, the chances are very low that the match would ever reach the final Armegeddon game.

"Give Anand a break. He just want to feel like "I am the champ" for a while.

If he were not to make a fuss a bit, some opposition and demands, nobody would care of him. he would feel like a woman who would go to bed without first saying few times "NO", i.e., it would be as if she has no worth, no value.

This circus is understandable at this point and Anand will come around neatly after more attention is given to him. He wants more consideration."
==================================
It's too late for that, really. By playing in Mexico City, he agreed to be FIDE's "Bride". His victory in the WC Tournament constituted the "wedding" of Anand to FIDE. Now, after all of the Matrimonial ceremonies it is "The Wedding Night"....and suddenly Anand doesn't want to "consummate the marriage"??

Of course, the Bride has every right to decline, but then one should concede that FIDE has every right to seek an "annulment", forthwith.

Besides, in terms of the politics of Chess Championships, Anand is hardly a "Virgin". He lept into Kasparov's PCA bed in 1995, in order to get a Championship Match. Thereafter, he crawled back to his old flame, FIDE, in order to contest the Knock-Out Championships. When he beat Shirov, he wasn't demanding "draw Odds" for the subsequent championship, either....

Ah, here it is:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/

"Following are the decisions taken at the 78th FIDE Congress Executive Board meeting - Report by Mr. Bill Kelleher

Olympiad

The 2008 Olympiad will be held in Dresden Germany. FIDE signed a contract with the City of Dresden to hold the Olympiad next year from the November 12th to the 25th. There was some concern about the financing but the Dresden City Council finally approved the necessary funds. There are a number of significant rules changes for next year’s Olympiad:

Both the men’s and women’s teams will consist of 4 players plus one reserve. Currently the men’s team consists of 4 players plus 2 reserves and the women’s team consists of 3 players plus 1 reserve.

The number of rounds will be reduced from 14 to 11.

The scoring will be changed from the current game points to match points.

Anti-Doping

In compliance with new WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) regulations, FIDE will introduce “out of competition” testing in 2008. This decision has the potential to be extremely controversial. Fortunately the testing will be limited to the 80 top-rated men players and the 5 top-rated women. Additionally only 10% of these 85 players will be tested. I do not have the latest rating list in front of me, but I think that no more than 4 or 5 of our players are rated high enough to be tested. FIDE has been sensitive to our concerns about testing in the past so hopefully none of our players will be tested.

Women’s World Championship

The Women’s World Championship will be held in late June 2008 in San Luis, Argentina. Initially it was scheduled for mid-May which would have conflicted with the US Women’s Championship. However the Argentine’s graciously agreed to move the dates for the WWC.

Men’s World Championship

Negotiations are ongoing between Anand and Kramnik for the World Championship match next year. Deputy President of FIDE, Makropoulos briefed the board about the status of negotiations. He said that Anand had put forward number of demands before he would sign a contract to play the match. Makropoulos said that he felt all of Anand’s demands could be accommodated except one. Anand wants to restore the right of the champion to claim victory if the match ends in a tie. Makropoulos said FIDE should oppose this and the Executive Board agreed. However the delegate from India then spoke and said that there was another sticking point not mentioned by Deputy President: Anand is insisting that the match be played at a “neutral venue.” The Executive Board did not discuss this issue because of the sensitivity of ongoing negotiations.

And it is clear why. This is a trickier issue than it seems. Prior to the World Championship tournament in Mexico City, FIDE had signed a contract with a German company, Universal Events Productions (UEP), to sponsor the 2008 World Championship Match. It was agreed that this match would be played in Germany. It appears that Anand does not regard Germany as a “neutral venue” because Kramnik’s manager, Karsten Henzel, is a German citizen and has close relations with UEP. Also there are rumors that UEP gave Kramnik “extra inducements” to play the match in Germany. This issue is a potential showstopper.

By Bill Kelleher"

In general, I like the reforms that they made with the Olympiad.

1) I might have preferred to see the Olympiad remain 14 Rounds in length, but it seems as if the last 2 or 3 rounds were not useful in terms of helping to determine who the best teams were. By round 12, the Top teams have usually already all played each other; the last several rounds are anticlimactic, in that the leading teams face "pair-downs". This tended to randomize the final results a bit--especially when game points were the main criteria for Placement.

Since FIDE is also changing the scoring system to have it based on Match Points, there was less of an imperative to reduce the number of rounds. Oh, well.

This was obviously done at the behest of the organizers, to save money

2) I never saw the point in having two reserves
Olympiad. Now that they have reduced the length of the event to just 11 rounds, there is even less reason for 2 reserves. Now, if they share the games, the 4 players and Reserve will each get at least 2 rest days. It is also good to have the Women;s teams be the same size and configuration as the Men's. Having 4 players compete each round yields more reliable results.

Moreover, the individual Federations will not face additional expense, since the Extra (5th) Women on the Women's Teams will be offset by the cutting of the 2nd Reserve player on the Men's team.

3) The decision to switch the scoring system from the aggregation of individual Game Points to the Teams' Match Points makes eminent sense, and is a reform long overdue.

If we want to hold to the conceit that these Team Chess Competitions are indeed about the performance of Chess Teams, then it makes little sense focus on the individual game results. This simplifies things: a Team gets 2 points for winning a Match, 1 Point for Drawing a Match, and no points for a loss.

Just like in football. After all, it would be absurd in World Cup competition to determine the Champion on the basis of how many goals were scored by members of a particular squad, throughout the event. The aim is to score more goals than the opponent in EACH match, rather than in the event as a whole.

Make no mistake about it: This reform was made in response to the Silver Medal earned by the Chinese Men in the 2006 Olympiad. They lost several matches, but were able to make up ground with 4-0 whitewashes. While the Chinese men are rapidly improving, objectively speaking, they probably did not comprise the 2nd best team of players in the World, for that particular Olympiad. The European countries are doing what they can to prevent that "anomaly" from happening again.

======================================
The 2008 Olympiad will be held in Dresden Germany. FIDE signed a contract with the City of Dresden to hold the Olympiad next year from the November 12th to the 25th. There was some concern about the financing but the Dresden City Council finally approved the necessary funds. There are a number of significant rules changes for next year’s Olympiad:

Both the men’s and women’s teams will consist of 4 players plus one reserve. Currently the men’s team consists of 4 players plus 2 reserves and the women’s team consists of 3 players plus 1 reserve.

The number of rounds will be reduced from 14 to 11.

The scoring will be changed from the current game points to match points.

> Prior to the World Championship tournament in Mexico City, FIDE had signed a contract with a German company, Universal Events Productions (UEP), to sponsor the 2008 World Championship Match. It was agreed that this match would be played in Germany.>

LOL..LOL...Mexico-2007 repeats itself : FIDE signs contracts which WChs have to honour later ...now Anand is where Kramnik was in the months after Elista.

>Mexico-2007 repeats itself

I wish it would. But then, as current world champion, Anand would have to call for a return to WCh tournament system and that he was seeded directly into the next one taking place even after a defeat against Kramnik...

It would be a truly spectacular piece of hypocrisy on Anand's part to demand draw odds. I do hope that report isn't true. I've always had a lot of time for Anand, but if it is true I'll have a lot less.

1) Anand does not want to play in Germany.

> Fair enough and should not be a problem.

2) Anand wants draw odds.

> Excuse me? Didn't Kramnik just give up draw odds in his match with Topalov? And now Anand wants them back?
So much for being mister nice guy.

I wonder what they think at Anand´s German club if he doesn´t want to play in Germany.

Clearly Anand is miffed because Kramnik's rematch and Topalov's seeding have been announced after negotiations with FIDE. From posts on chessgames.com, I came across this link which appears to indicate that prior to the WC match both Kramnik and Topalov agreed to play the World Cup if they lost in Mexico.

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3051

"An important point is that the winner of the Topalov-Kramnik match will play in the next FIDE World Championship, which will be held in Mexico City. The loser, even if it is the current title holder Topalov, will have to start from scratch and play in the World Cup. Classical chess world champion Kramnik will play in the next "Tournament of Eight" in Mexico if he wins the match against Topalov. If he loses he will have to play in the World Cup. These conditions have been agreed in the contract and signed by both participants of the Elista match. "

Even well after the Elista match, this was FIDE's plan:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3556

"How will you reconcile this plan with the current situation? With the double-round tournament of eight in Mexico, and the candidates matches in Elista?

Ilyunzhinov: This is very easy. From 26 May until 14 June in Elista, the candidates matches will take place. From 12th September to 1st October, the World Championship will take place in Mexico. It will be run on the same system as at San Luis: eight players, double round robin. In November-December, in Khanty-Mansysk, the World Cup will be played, which will find the challenger. Then in 2008, this challenger will play a match for the world championship (probably over 12 games) against the world champion, named on 1 October in Mexico."

However subsequent to these announcements, there were negotiations between FIDE and Kramnik / Topalov's managers [the poster on chessgames.com calls these shady backroom dealings], which resulted in Kramnik getting the rematch and Topalov the seeding into the next cycle.

I think all this talk of draw odds and venue may be Anand's way of getting a rematch. I dont really grudge him that given Topalov and kramnik are getting it - although it would have been far better if none of the three had it. If one were to rate the rematch "deservedness", Kramnik probably has the strongest case, then Anand and finally Topalov.

Also, can someone throw some light on how close UEP is to Kramnik? I interpret Anand's concerns not as an indictment of Germany, but more as an indictment of the organizer.

I know it's a question of principle, but quite frankly, Kramnik won't need draw odds.

I can see Anand's cause for concern; it is reasonable to assume it is in UEP's interest for Kramnik to win the WC match, considering their ties with Kramnik's manager.

There is a perceived conflict of interest (regardless of the truth) for them to provide a neuteral playing conditions.

Their are numerous ways in which they could possibly influence the result of the match. For example they could stuff around with Anand's travel, accomodation or transport arrangements. Use billing that inferr's Kramnik is the "real" champion e.g. Kramnik (Undefeated Classical Match World Champion) vs Anand (FIDE World Champion). All these could upset Anand before the match.

"I think all this talk of draw odds and venue may be Anand's way of getting a rematch. I dont really grudge him that given Topalov and kramnik are getting it - although it would have been far better if none of the three had it. If one were to rate the rematch "deservedness", Kramnik probably has the strongest case, then Anand and finally Topalov."

Kramnik deserved the "re-match" (or more accurately, 2nd Chance Match) concession a lot more than Anand deserves it. Remember that Kramnik won the World Championship Unification match over Topalov, having staked *his* "Classical" title, which he had earned by defeating Kasparov in 2000.
In gambling, when you put something at risk, and then you win, you are supposed to get the amount of the wager back, and then the prize on top of it.
Yet, for his victory, FIDE wanted Kramnik to cede control of the now Unified Title back to it.

Kramnik was obviously amenable to some kind of arrangement. The "Classical title", while valuable, was also a burden. Still, if FIDE was not willing to make some compromise in revising the arrangements, or they tried to slap Kramnik around with a contract, then Kramnik might very well have walked, renewing the schism in the Chess World, with talk of a disputed title.

In other words, Kramnik had a lot of leverage following Elista, while Anand has rather little.

So, Anand doesn't want to play this match with Kramnik? Too bad, so sad...

So, since FIDE now controls the Title, there is not much chance of Anand causing a meaningful schism. He doesn't want to play? Then the Title will revert to the player who finished 2nd in the Mexico City Tournament (Wasn't that Kramnik?;-)
Or FIDE could simply declare Kramnik winner of the match by default, if Anand fails to show up to Germany to play.

Kramnik earned his title by beating Kasparov in a match of length; Anand earned his title in what in essence was a High Category tournament, not too dissimilar to other elite events, in which he defeated the likes of Morozevich, Grischuk, Svidler, and Aronian.

Not too many folks outside India will be willling to abide Anand simply walking out the door with the World Champion's Title. If he wants to, he can consult Ponomariov about that....

A possible scenario?: Soon enough, the winner of the World Cup winner vs. Topalov match would be known, and FIDE would simply give Kramnik the match against that person, and then likely move on to their next cycle.

The irony is that FIDE is in a relatively strong bargaining position becaue they know that the FIDE World Champion's Title, determined as it is by Round Robin events or World Cup tournaments, simply is that prestigious, nor as valuable as before.

Indeed, FIDE seems to have done this (i.e. cheapen the Title) according to plan, so that future Champions will not have the leverage that Kramnik (or Kasparov) enjoyed.

If it weren't for the fact that the Chess World would miss out on the most anticipated of marquee match-ups, it would be interesting to see Anand try out his gambit, and find out what happens.

As for Topalov? Well, Thanks to FIDE--through Azmaiparishvili-- he received something far more generous and beneficial than mere Draw Odds. He received a Free Point, right in the middle of the match. Plus the seeding to player the Winner of the World Cup. More than enough, in my book.

Kramnik is not getting a rematch. He is getting a match against the winner of the tournament championship.

If Kramnik was asking that they play the Mexico 2007 tournament then yes he would be asking for a "re"____. That would be ridiculous.

But neither his request for a match against the winner of of the Mexico tournament nor FIDE's agreement to give him one was unreasonable. There was nothing underhanded in this. FIDE had a good sponsor in Mexico that they did not want to tick off (by calling it a qualifier) Kramnik had a title that was never lost in a tournament before.

@trm

It was Topalov who gave up draw odds in Elista, not Kramnik. Anand knows that Kramnik wants this match badly so he takes advantage of it...

Don't you just love the symbiotic relationship that chess has with paranoia? It's so beneficial to the game. I wonder how the NFL in my country gets all those games played every week with all the alarmist mentality of the general public, players and owners. Just incredible.

Oops I meant to say: If Kramnik asked for them to *replay* the 2007 mexico tournament then that would be asking for a "re____"

Rasi,

Anand tries to take advantage of his new position, but as people already noted he doesn't have much leverage in these negotiations. Kramnik has "legal" rights to this match (if this word means something when FIDE is involved), willingness to play AND crucially he has sponsors for it and FIDE support (who certainly want their 20% slice of the money pie). If Anand is too stubborn, he will be simply replaced by the winner of Topalov v World Cup winner match.

Anand of course is not dumb, so IMO that's all just a ploy to force as many concessions as possible, maybe force the organizers to fork some extra cash to "persuade" him to play in Germany, maybe get some benefits from FIDE (direct seeding somewhere, kinda Topalovian deal). In any case if Anand is daft enough to walk away from the match, there will be many people willing to take his place.

I certainly hope that we will see Kramnik-Anand as these 2 are the strongest players now, but if that fails, Kramnik-Topa would do as well.

Anand and all the participants of Mexico where NOT asked when rules changed to grant a (re)-match of Kramnik (and also direct seeding for Topalov).

Kramnik had ACCEPTED BEFORE Elista that the winner will play in Mexico as a normal candidate with the same status with all others (therefore with NO match guranteed after).

Anand is therefore not obliged to play Kramnik.

osbender said:

"he has legal rights, willigness and funding"

Well, what about Topalov's offer for re-match with Kramnik on March. He had funding, he had willigness AND he had legal rights. The rules of FIDE, where clear about the champion having to accept any offer from a 2700+ player that had guranteed funding.

As for the drawing rigths...

At Elista match it was Kramnik that needed the match (remember that he could not find sponsors to held championship match, and his rating had decreased a lot and the status of his title was dropping).

Therefore he could not have asked for drawing rights. Earlier, when he could (against Leko) not only he did ask them, but he also used them. In case you forgot, he retained the title by drawing with Leko (note also, that the pressure for Leko would be much less in the last game if he knew that in the worst case he still has tie-breaks...).

So I think Anand is allowed to play his cards properly. I do believe that at the end, after he gets what he can, he will go back and play.

BUT the moral of the last years, is that if you do make a lot of noise, eventually you get extra rights... So he just do what is needed to guarantee that he is not the "nice guy" that has less rights from the "nasty guys".

nitpicking:
"drawn all eight of his games"
nine?

If you look at the final resultsboard of Mexico and cut them in four quadrants a very strange thing becomes apparent. The gang of four Anand Kramnik Leko Gelfand drew all their games except forKramnik thrashing Leko. That is the new world champiom is incapable of beating Leko Kramnik Gelfand and of course Topalov and Ivanchuk werent even present.They only beat up on the four hapless whipping boys who were present so they would have someone to beat. They for their part did fight amongst themselves as can be seen in their quadrant.

Kramnik for his part never beat Leko at the world championship in Brissago they drew. One would expect a world champion to beat the next half dozen challengers.
So Kramnik never beat Leko at least at that time and Anandnever beat anybody in a match of the top six or so. Some world champions.
As far as Elista cables were found in the closet walls ceilings Why???? WHY? If Kramnik was so ill that he had to go to the can fifty times in a couple of hours and more thena minute each time they should have played the match in his hospital room with a catheter running.
The whole thing stinks royally.
Even if there were no electronic cheating or secret code messages that was another one I believe in that case Topalovs manager was suspected:the quadrant method of analyis which I have invented and have never seen anywhere and would be impossible in a Russian site as they display the cross table not according to rank but random so you wont see this blatant outrage the favoured players just play sham draws against each other and may attempt real chess games only against either weaker players or those who were ordered to lose to the top Russian which of course made Bobby Fischerpsychotic as he saw it but no one else accepted what was staring them in the face.
This has been pretty much admitted with respect to Keres Botvinnik and anybody else and Botvinnik on orders of Stalin. Smyslov might have played real games with him but the others especially Keres had to throw their games.
It is obvous to me at least if there is no foreplanned collusion and a total fix there is at least gentlemanly grandmaster draws between Kramnik Leko Anand Gelfand. Do you seriously believe that on a good day any one of them cant come up with some annoying novelty beat any of the others. Thatall 11 of their games would be drawn in a world championship???
I dont.
The notion of drug test is ludicrous, mathematical analysis should be made of not just total wins losses draws but of groups of players
and statistical and probabilistic study of openings repetitions set games null efforts.
In chess drugs wont help but cheating by other means might.
It seems the most popular sport in the world is not football or chess but cheating fixing matches throwing games sham contests.

"Well, what about Topalov's offer for re-match with Kramnik on March. He had funding, he had willigness AND he had legal rights. The rules of FIDE, where clear about the champion having to accept any offer from a 2700+ player that had guranteed funding."

No, he did NOT have any legal rights to a match starting in March - the rules stated the exact opposite.

But I have the feeling that you belong to the bunch who don't care if facts happen to get in the way of your agenda, so I won't waste my time demonstrating this when it was done so many times back then anyway.

Sakkmatt,

Quite a fun rant, but remember that players tend to be in the top of the crosstable because they don't lose games. It's not a question of getting there and then drawing with your fellow table-toppers (though of course the better the player the happier you are with a draw against them!). Kramnik came pretty close to beating Anand in Mexico.

Kramnik didn't beat Leko overall, but there were individual wins for both players - you seemed to be implying there were 12 draws.

As for mentioning the cables in Elista - the internet troll detector lights are flashing. For old time's sake - all modern buildings have cables in the ceiling - how does it help Kramnik if there are cables in the ceiling of a toilet used by both players on alternate days?? He whips out his carefully concealed laptop, climbs on the toilet seat, opens the ceiling panel, performs some DIY to connect the cable to his PC, then leaves the cable as it was, closes up the ceiling, gets down and leaves... and repeats this 50 times (it's great how Danailov's made-up figures are always repeated)? Not to mention the fact that if you have a computer in your toilet you don't need the internet...

Yeah I know, I fell for the bait ;)

"FIDE signs contracts which the players have to honour later"
Of course, what is wrong with that? If we have a system where the players arrange everything we end up with players getting title shots simply because they have friends in high places, a system only narrowly averted before Mexico. Whatever you think of FIDE they have to make the decisions. Can you imagine if France or England decided they will not play the (football) World Cup because they don't fancy going to Brazil?

acirce:

If you noticed the part you quote from my two posts, is not of vital importance for the arguments I was making. From the rest where did I give you the impression I don't argue properly?

My position is that both Kramnik and (even more) Topalov have gained advantages relatively to other people by being difficult and making noise (and using all possible legal means and ambiguities in interpretations of laws). Using also the fact that since they are good players the title would lose legitimacy to the eyes of some people if they are excluded.

Anand on the other hand historically, was mr. nice guy and he constantly got worse deals (in next post I illustrate this). Now, I personally think that he decided to pretend to be difficult in order to get some extra rights...

About Anand in the past:

He participated in both circles (Kasparov/FIDE), as all players (including Kramnik) did. He deservly qualified and lost to Kasparov (95).

Later, he participated in the knock-out tournament that Karpov was waiting for the exhausted winner (another champion getting many benefits from being difficult).

He refused to play against Kramnik in order to qualify to play with Kasparov (and Shirov played and won), in order to honor his word to FIDE that he was vice-champion (98).

When he won the knock-out he properly put it in line the next year and lost in the semi-final to Ivanchuk (Ponomariov winner).

Therefore he has never caused problems. Always participated in cycles. At least once, honoring his word (to FIDE) lost a golden oportunity to have a second match against Kasparov (in 98 Anand was in his best). He suffered form champions requiring benefits (Karpov, and now Kramnik, Topalov).

After this analysis, is obvious to him (from his experiences) that he should be difficult now that he actually has the ability to do it ...

And I still believe that he will eventually play the match.

You guys really take yourselves seriously? Most of you don't know either player, yet you make these statements about their character, or lack of. Come on. Get over yourselves!

About whether Topalov had legal rights to play the match in March:

FIDE rules stated that any player above 2700 can challenge the champion if they have minimum 500,000$ prize. If they had guaranteed 1 million, the champion HAD to accept.

There was only one way out, to say that he didn't have the legal right. The match should have finished 6 months before the sceduled Mexico championship.

Topalov's initial offer (which was delayed due to the strange fact that the bank that provided initially the financial guarantee, was not accepted) was going to finish later. BUT along this he had an alternative days within the time they required.

The truth was, that there was no time to actually organize the match, have the negotioations. On top of this Kramnik (and Topalov) would have to withdraw from Linares.

Technically, it wasn't specified what happens if the champion had something scheduled in the days... For example could, (in principle), the champion could avoid playing by participating to other tournaments?

Also, what was the required period from the offer till the days of the match was also not specified (e.g. it couldn't obviously be 2 hours:-)).

The conclusion is that there was at least some legal ambiguity (I would say thast he had the right, but this is for lawyers to judge while I am physicst:-)).

To make the comparison with the right of Kramnik... Anand or any of the other 6 (-Kramnik) people, when they signed the contracts to play in Mexico, they DID not sign anything about a match with Kramnik ... Kramnik on the other hand, before playing in Mexico, despite the fact that he was bound by Elista contract to play, he got a new contract guranteing a match if he lose the title.

SO here also there is some legal ambiguity, resembling (not identical) with Topalov's case on March.

I actually agree with derida except the point that "he has the ability to do it (be difficult) now". He certainly can try to get some extra benefits, but I doubt he would get much because his current title holds little value. The plight of Pono should teach him something. Now, if he wins the match against Kramnik, that would be entirely different cattle of fish and FIDE wouldn't be able just to ignore his demands.

The thing is that Kramnik got his benefits because he was in the position of strength after winning against Kaspy and Topa. He wouldn't get them BEFORE the match with Topa and he didn't even try for them, being a realist that he is. I suspect, Topa simply bought his benefits (or Danailov bought them). Anand trying to get some benefits now, when his position as a champion is shaky and he doesn't bring money to the table seems like a miscalculation on his part. All that does is tarnishes his reputation (since his 2 major demands are unreasonable and will be seen as such by the majority). It also undermines his bargaining position as he will look like a coward running away from match that everybody is dying to see.

from fide website:
"The winner of the Grand Prix series at the end of 2009 will play the winner of the World Cup 2009 in an eight game match to become the challenger to the World Champion in a match to be held in the third quarter of 2010."

WHAT???

As far as I can see, all grand prix will be invitational....here we go again...

from the links I provided above, it appears the main reason Kramnik got a second shot is because Carsten Hensel brought UEP who guaranteed a match with a nice 20% for FIDE. Similarly Topalov got seeding because Danailov brought some money in (and greased some palms).

it has nothing to do with legitimacy of their positions. i guess radjabov can get a match if he brings money. Hey! I could get a match if I bring some money and the 20% for FIDE. it really is a sad indictment of FIDE that it functions in this way.

On a side note, it is funny the wheel has come a full circle. Anand abided by FIDE and they abandoned him in Prague. At that time Kramnik was the outsider. Now Kramnik is pinning his hopes on FIDE while Anand is the outsider. If I were Kramnik, I'd work with Anand directly than go through FIDE, given the latter's track record.

It is no surprise that Anand distrusts FIDE. First was the direct seeding for Karpov in 1998. Second was being shut out of prague despite standing by FIDE. Third was the rating mess in April when FIDE tried to artificially prop up Topalov and Fourth has been the Kramnik second shot and the Topalov seeding.

Kramnik will be the new world number one in the next rating list whuch is a big achievement and strengthens his hand. He has stated he would not start any preperation for a match with Anand until Corus is finished which would mean February so problems may come if nothing is signed by then. The difference now is that it is the FIDE title that is at stake and ultimately they will decide not the players. Frankly I doubt there is any question of draw odds for Anand - those days are over - its rapid play tie breaks now. It would not surprise me if an agreement is not reached and Anand is stripped of the title with Kramnik playing Topalov/winner of the world cup. It should be quite possible for Anand to find Indian corporate sponsor(s) but I guess the match would need to be held outside India. Still I have this feeling the match will not take place I remember Anand did not take up his match option with Kasparov for reasons I never understood.

In Kramnik-Topalov, Elista 2006 there was no draw odds because it was the Classical Champion playing against the FIDE Champion ie 'two Champions'. In the forthcoming Anand-Kramnik it will be the (Unified) Champion playing against the Challenger, so of course the draw odds is a relevant demand on Anand's part. And furthermore when one thinks about the championship cycle and how Kramnik and especially Topalov (who the **** is he to get any??!!) got some nice privileges, Anand's demand seems very reasonable. And of course from the traditional point of view: this is the way it has always been!

AAAAAHHHH! FIDE has come up with another way to ruin the world championship! They're even banning draw offers. At least it's at a classical time control. http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1512

I See Dead Pieces has made three very sensible posts. How can FIDE mess this up again again and again.

I'm sure Topalov too will never play under the UEP.

If FIDE has contracted with UEP and Anand will not play under UEP, this mess has only one solution - Kramnik plays Anand outside of FIDE. Kramnik only wants a match against Anand and I am sure with the rupee's (or is it rupiah's?) ascent, getting an Indian company to fork out 1 million or so dollars would not be a problem. Of course, Kramnik will have to forgo the "under the table" payments from UEP (if any) - but I doubt that Kramnik would put that money over the chance to play Anand in a match. The real money bag is the title, and for better or worse, Anand holds it now.

Anand can get his rematch and draw odds. I like Kramnik, but if he cannot beat Anand +1 over a 12-14 game match, he does not deserve the title and should not have put his title on the line in Mexico City.

I don't really mind giving Anand the draw odds. I don't think he is the world champ, but I can live with him getting draw odds because he won the Mexico tournament. Afterall, Botvinnik got draw odds in the Bronstein match after he won the 1948 tournament.

About the quadrant final table analysis, in the case of Mexixo please go and actually look at it. Visually it's absolutely creepy as if four separate events had taken place. The left upper quadrant has only 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 0 That is 11 draws and one decided game about 9%. The right lower quadrant among the four losers 1 1 1 0 0 and seven D D D D D D D. The right upper quadrant and the left lower quadrant 00000000000 111 and dddddddddddddddddd or 11111111111 000 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD obviously the reciprocal of one another where the gang of four beat up on the four whipping boys.
Now if you look at any of the subsequent cross tables final displays since then while it is true that there is a tendency to be top heavy in all of them with more wins for the top group and fewer losses it is much more random than Mexico where this tendency is blatant.
If one added the number of moves and draws the unevennesss would be even more extreme.
The four horsemen of the Apocalypse would have played more shameful 13 move draws and grandmaster 25 move draws amongst themselves than with the whipping boys or those losers among one another. As previously stated there is only one game Kramnik Leko which breaks the pattern.
That is in other tournaments many more low placed players beat the top winners and more of the top winners win against one another.

A thought. Wouldnt it be fun if they played blinded as to who is the opponent but see the board.
There would be fewer grandmaster draws, maybe not if the moves were all faultless they would figure out they werent playing No 1529 on the world Élő list.

I dont think you have to physically connect to download some Fritz on your blackberry. But that I dont know, I can see however the strange crosstable final result table.
The fact stand Anand didnt beat Kramnik Gelfand Leko in any games as he became world champ.

"It may be me, but I can't find a decent listing of who is actually playing in the final this Blitz Event. I see the preliminary standings on http://www.russiachess.org/ but no info on the invitees. I'm presuming Kramnik, Anand, Grischuk Svidler but does anyone have a definitive list before I tear my hair out?"

Posted by: Mark Crowther at November 19, 2007 13:47
============================================
Mark, finally there is some updated information about the Blitz Final:

http://www.russiachess.org/eng/content/view/52/71/

Grischuk (and Svidler) were finally given a direct seeding into the Finals. It is absurd that FIDE even needed to make the request; the organizers ought to have invited Grischuk as a matter of course, given that he is the defending Blitz Champion.

So now the field for the Finals of the Blitz Championship has been enlarged from 18 to 20 players, comprised of the Following:

Last minute invitees (by virtue of their having finished 1st and 2nd, respectively, in the 2006 Blitz Championships in Israel):

[2] Grischuk and Svidler

"Wild Cards":[2] Anand and Karpov

Participants from the Tal Memorial Tournament: [10] All ten players are 2700+ rated

and Finally, the Top 6 Finishers from the 11 Double Round Swiss System Qualification event:

They are as follows:

World Blitz Championship-Preliminaries, Moscow 2007

Final standings - round 11

1. Kasimdzhanov 15.0 (2690 Rating--7th Seed)
2. Bacrot 14.5 (2695--5th)
3. Adams 14.5 (2729--1st)
4. Savchenko 14.5 (2583--44th out of 64!)
5. Ponomariov 14.0 (2705--3rd)
6. Dreev 14.0 (2607--36th!; big drop in rating)
=================================
Rublevsky and Korotylev also finished with 14.0 points, but lost out on Tie-Breaks (Median Buchholz score)

Arguably, Boris Savchenko (2583) is the only "Chess Tourist" to play in the Blitz Final. It's good to see that at least one Blitz Specialist will be represented. Dreev pulled things together to qualify.
Maxim Dlugy did well, but was shut out by Bacrot in the last round to finish with 12. Tkachiev finished in 10th, with 13 points

3 of the Top 6 seeds qualified.

In the Blitz Final, 15 out of 20 players will be 2700+....

===============================================

"b) The final tournament is round-robin with 18 participants playing each other with white and black pieces (a double round-robin tournament).

Composition:

10 participants of the Tal Memorial Tournament 2007;

2 wild cards: V. Anand and A. Karpov;

6 players who qualified from the first-phase event.

Venue: GUM, Red Square, 2.

2. Substitutes – to be determined by the Organizers."

------------------------
And Also:

"Attention!
The organizing Committee of the World Blitz championship 2007 decided, at the request of FIDE, to increase the number of participants of the Final Tournament from 18 to 20 by including both the finalists of the 2006 World Blitz Championship in Israel GM A. Grischuk (winner) and GM P. Svidler (2nd place)."

"A thought. Wouldnt it be fun if they played blinded as to who is the opponent but see the board.
There would be fewer grandmaster draws, maybe not if the moves were all faultless they would figure out they werent playing No 1529 on the world Élő list."

Actually, that would be an interesting experiment:
The organizers of a Round Robin could place the players at tables with Laptops, out of sight (or earshot) of the other participants. Then, the players would be paired so that their Laptops became interlinked, and they would play somebody, without knowing the identity of that opponent.
Would there be more draws? Fewer?

"I don't really mind giving Anand the draw odds. I don't think he is the world champ, but I can live with him getting draw odds because he won the Mexico tournament. Afterall, Botvinnik got draw odds in the Bronstein match after he won the 1948 tournament."

Hmmm, appealing to a 60 year old precedent! FIDE-in my opinion, quite correctly--is trying to do away with the Draw Odds advantage for the Champion. So they are bound to follow the same mistake that they made in 1948??

Times have changed: There are no more adjourned games--now, since the advent of Sudden Death time controls, every game is finished in one sitting.
There are now Rapid Chess, Blitz Chess, and even Armegeddon Blitz Tie-Breaks.

Finally, in 1951, the Draw Odds were only applied after 24 "Classical" games had be played.

The impact of Draw Odds would be much more significant if a Match is comprised of just 12-14 games. Thus, the 1948 precedent is a specious comparison. Would granting Draw Odds in a 2 game Mini-Match be OK, too?

From some of my prior posts, I'm obviously rooting for Kramnik (nothing against Anand) in the upcoming World Championship Match. I think that Anand should get Draw Odds as the current champion of Classical Chess. It certainly isn't anything out of the ordinary in this long and rich tradition of the game. I would definately prefer that outcome than having the two "blitz" out crap to determine the winner. I believe it was Kasparov who once stated that "skittles is not chess."

I personally think Vishy might go back on the draw-odds demand if the match is held at a neutral venue (anywhere the Soviet bloc isn't overly influencial).

However, if the match does come apart because of whatever reasons, what it will mean is that the world will not have an 'undisputed' or 'official' world champion. But then whoever dominates the tournament circuit would be widely regarded as the best player of these times. When Kramnik won the match against Kasparov in 2000, he was the undisputed champion. But after Kasparov had him 'sorted out' (most dramatically by beating him at Astana when Kramnik was leading and only needed a draw in the last round) and Kramnik refused a rematch, everyone regarded Kasparov as the best human chess player, until he retired. So instead of looking towards FIDE with hope of a sensible cycle, I'd rather look forward to the Anand-Kramnik advanced chess match and Corus '08. If the match does materialise, it'll be the icing on the cake.

and I'm getting impatient with Mig for not creating a separate thread for this topic..

Anand Nair--

In fairness,don't you think someone should have told Kramnik that his game with Kasparov at Astana was actually a world championship match?

Jakovenko doesn't want to play in the WC blitz
and is replaced by Rublevsky.

As a guy who roots for Kramnik and as a "purist", I don't mind draw odds for Anand too. It's entirely coherent with the previous tradition and if you give draw odds to Anand now, Kramnik will have them once he wins the match. However, this issue is frankly a non-starter.

In Elista rapid tie breaks proved to be perhaps the most interesting part of the match. It was so climatic and the play was awesome. This was one innovation that was unquestionable success. FIDE is not gonna give up such an attraction to appease Anand or anybody else for that matter. Rapid tie breaks are there to stay and that's a good thing. I'm surprised that Anand doesn't realize that.

While rooting for Anand, I do not feel that the draw odds are a fair
and justified demand. They are a throwback to an olden era were
perhaps one had to appease the current title holder in order to get
him to play. Tradition is a great thing, but this is not the
Church. It's better to make sense [now]...

The match will happen. If FIDE managed to chew Kramnik, then they can
certainly do the same with Anand. Love that FIDE, or hate it, but some
order is good in this sport.

D.

"But after Kasparov had him 'sorted out' (most dramatically by beating him at Astana when Kramnik was leading and only needed a draw in the last round) and Kramnik refused a rematch, everyone regarded Kasparov as the best human chess player, until he retired. " - Everyone? By everyone you mean you? I, for one, kept thinking Kramnik would beat Kasparov in a match if he played him - which to me would mean he was still a better player than Kasparov. Also, the best player is really a different argument from the world champion issue - but I definitely considered Kramnik the champion from 2000 to 2007.

But I disagree everyone considered Kasparov the strongest up until the moment he retired. In 2003 and 2004 Kramnik, Leko and Anand were all at a level where it could be claimed they were better than Kasparov. In 2005 they all had a sub-par year, but Topalov emerged as by far the strongest player in the World. Kasparov was definitely a strong player, but there is no need to make it sound like he was dominating right until he retired.

Guys,
All this is BS. What is really important is that the Blitz Championship has 5 World Champions as participants! ;-) Did i miss somebody?

Time rate for the world blitz Ch. Please...
I suppose the Qualy was played st the same time controls, but couldn't find info.
Classic 5 0 ?

4min+2sec from move 1.

Maybe Danailov can offer the Sofia match to Anand .. then Anand can choose between playing Topalov in a match organized by Danailov (he did play a game against Topalov in Bugaria .. which he enjoyed) or playing Kramnik in a match organized by Hensel.

Somehow I have a feeling Anand may be more averse to UEP than Danailov. Danailov, while being a bit cruder is probably a bit more transparent than Hensel and UEP. Kramnik's cronies have a sheen of respectability, but actually scare me a lot more. People like Hensel and Resch have strong economic incentives to prop Kramnik up and beneath this cloak of respectability will stop at nothing to do so.

It really is funny how FIDE is negotiating with its own Champion, Anand on terms while agreeing to the Challenger's every wish.

"Somehow I have a feeling Anand may be more averse to UEP than Danailov. Danailov, while being a bit cruder is probably a bit more transparent than Hensel and UEP. Kramnik's cronies have a sheen of respectability, but actually scare me a lot more. People like Hensel and Resch have strong economic incentives to prop Kramnik up and beneath this cloak of respectability will stop at nothing to do so." - As opposed to Danailov and Topalov's cronies that do not have economic incentives to prop Topalov up?

"It really is funny how FIDE is negotiating with its own Champion, Anand on terms while agreeing to the Challenger's every wish. " - it just goes to show that Anand's championship is somewhat of a formality.

Russianbear - "But I disagree everyone considered Kasparov the strongest up until the moment he retired."

Yes I remember those days and those people were delusional. Anand was winning rapid tournaments left and right, even though people spoke of them as classical chess. Add this to Kasparov wasn't playing much and lost a game to Rublevsky in '04, people started the idiocy of saying Kasparov was not the best player anymore. Then he went on to a Russian Championship and win Linares over Anand, Topalov, etc. proving he was still the best in the world.

1. Russianbear is right that Anand was the best player in 2003 and 2004. Leko, however, has never really been ahead of Anand or Kasparov any year .. so cannot really include Leko. In fact 2003 may have been Leko's worst year as a chessplayer. Kramnik had his worst years from 2003-2005 so he was not even in the mix.

2. 2005 was Topalov's year through and through. Linares, MTEL, San Luis. Enough said.

3. 2006 was Kramnik's year. His performance in the Olympiad, Dortmund and his win over Topalov ensured that. Topalov won Corus and MTEL, but losing the world title to Kramnik clinches it for Kramnik.

4. 2007 is definitely Anand's year. Kramnik too has had a great year and normally it would have been his year, but losing the World Title to Anand

Not everyone considered Kasparov the strongest till his retirement. Like the OJ jury which consisted of two groups - those that thought he did it and idiots, there are two groups considering this issue.

"Maybe Danailov can offer the Sofia match to Anand .. then Anand can choose between playing Topalov in a match organized by Danailov (he did play a game against Topalov in Bugaria .. which he enjoyed) or playing Kramnik in a match organized by Hensel."

I'm beginning to get the feeling that Anand would be more inclined to play a match vs. Topalov in Sofia, Bulgaria (of course, organized by Danailov) than he would be to play a match vs. Kramnik, in Chennai, India (his hometown), organized by whomever Anand selects.

It's not about Karsten Hensel/UEP, nor "neutral venues", nor contractual rights, nor "Draw Odds", nor "respect", nor payback for getting screwed by FIDE.....

It's not even about the money. It's about fear. Anand is afraid to play Kramnik.
Just like he was afraid to play Kasparov again, after the drubbing that he took in the 1995 WC Match.

Doug, that is a ridiculous comment.

It's interesting to watch the Kramnik groupies now train their guns on Anand (whereas they never did so before), in addition to Kasparov and Topalov previously.

Simple FACT: Kramnik agreed to the Unified Title being put on the line at Mexico as part of the contract signing up for the match with Topalov.
Simple FACT: He did this WITHOUT CONDITIONS!! Have you Kramnik worshipers GOT THIS YET??
Simple FACT: Kramnik LATER (note LATER means LATER) extracted the condition of his playing the Mexico winner if it was not him. This was entirely ILLEGITIMATE and broke the original terms of the contract, AND ALSO BROKE THE TERMS ON WHICH ANAND SIGNED UP FOR TO PLAY IN MEXICO.
This match is as ILLEGITIMATE as FIDE stopping the first Kasparov-Karpov match in 1985 as soon as Kasparov won a couple of games. (In fact FIDE have broken their own rules and contracts so many times that they themselves should be considered illegitimate and broken up and replaced.)

Anand said BEFORE the tournament started that the winner of Mexico shouldn't have to play this match.
Anand is completely within his rights to complain about having to play this ILLEGITIMATE match. He should not have to play it.
Kramnik should have had to QUALIFY for this match. (Jeez, when has Kramnik ever had to qualify for anything? - though very insistent on others doing so.)

If Kramnik did not like the idea of the Unified Title being on the line at Mexico, then he should not have signed up to the Topalov match in the first place. Having done so, he should have kept to what he originally signed to, not blackmail an ILLEGITIMATE condition afterwards.

In this argument between Anand and Kramnik, the fault is entirely on Kramnik's side.

Kramnik just gave Anand a good blitz beating. A taster of their world championship battle, surely.

Chris B has convinced me! Nonsence and ignorance can always be disregarded, but if you SHOUT, I'm sold.

"Kramnik just gave Anand a good blitz beating."

Congratulations to Kramnik, the new World Champion!

The blitz event offers great occasion for 'who-beats-whom' silliness. Kramnik beats Anand, Dreev beats Kramnik, Karpov beats Dreev, Ivanchuk beats Karpov, Mamedyarov beats Ivanchuk, Adams beats Mamedyarov, Savchenko beats Adams and there you have it. Savchenko is strongest.

"Yes I remember those days and those people were delusional. Anand was winning rapid tournaments left and right, even though people spoke of them as classical chess. Add this to Kasparov wasn't playing much and lost a game to Rublevsky in '04, people started the idiocy of saying Kasparov was not the best player anymore. Then he went on to a Russian Championship and win Linares over Anand, Topalov, etc. proving he was still the best in the world." - I think it was more of an idiocy to claim Kasparov was still the best in 2003-2004. Leko finished ahead of Kasparov in Linares 2003 and was equal with him on points (with more wins) in Linares 2004. Kramnik finished ahead of Kasparov in both of those tournaments. So it was not like Kasparov has proved his superiority over those guys in 2003-2004. If anything, Leko and Kramnik proved they were superior at the time.

As for 2005, I remember it differently. I remember Topalov finishing tied for 1st place, and given that he beat Kasparov head-to-head, he was without a doubt a moral winner of the event, if there was one, so Kasparov has hardly proven his superiority in 2005, either.

Looks like Ivanchuk has been dominating the blitz event.

According to http://www.russiachess.org/games/blitz.htm
Grischuk is leading.

Well, Ivanchuk beat Grishuk in their game and is leading by half point after first day.

>> "Kramnik just gave Anand a good blitz beating" ??
>> Congratulations to Kramnik, the new World Champion!

Well, this is what Kramnik fans have been reduced to. They will keep rejoicing at such games and dream of a Kramnik-return which will never happen. Kramnik was hiding with the crown for all these years (2000-2004). It takes time to accept the truth but slowly and surely it will be dawned on Kramnik that his time has come and gone!

If Kramnik does not win the return match, then there will not be enough people on this planet to believe that in future, he can come through for a challenger match by crossing the hurdles of a knock-out tournament or round-robin tournaments that might include Anand and Topa (also keeping in mind that the likes of Aronian, Radja, Mamedyarov and Carlsen are improving with each year!)

So once again, Kramnik fans, you can go and have a party after that blitz game because in near future, this is all you will be left with to rejoice.

Well thanks to Kramnik's interview we know a bit more "I have signed the contract and sent it off. I know that Anand is having discussions with FIDE." That sound like Kramnik was sent a contract by FIDE and was happy with it but Anand isnt. Again it suggests that the contract did not contain any draw odds which seems obvious I thought that idea was dead and buried and any way it is never going to fly with FIDE. If Anand persists in holding out for draw odds he will just forfeit the title which is a shame but the world championship system will continue regardless and Kramnik will just play a match with the contender who emerges under this system. Thats because FIDE have got back control of the WCC. Sure Anand can discuss venue if he can come up with the bank guarantees for significantly more money in a neutral country (not India!) Although the objection to Germany is absurd - it is a neutral country with a great and successful tradition of hosting chess events. There is no home advantage (either through birth or residence) and the objectivity and fairness of the event is ensured by the officials organising it.

to him by FIDE but Anand has so far not signed

"Well, this is what Kramnik fans have been reduced to..."

C'mon Amit, not all "Kramnik Fans" are going to make a big deal out of a blitz result...even if it is an Anand speciality. So now that you've emptied your spleen in regard to Kramnik, I hope you feel better.

Personally, I hope that Kramnik wins the title back next year, but I'm not going to denigrate a great player like Anand because of it.

"Well, this is what Kramnik fans have been reduced to."

Dear, you're being kidded.

The final results of first day have been posted. Surprisingly, at least to me, Ivanchuk is leading with 13.5 points out of 19. Grischuk is second with 13 followed by Kamski with 12.5. It is sad but Karpov is at the botton of the table with 5.5.

Has anybody followed the games live on the net? I wonder if the relaying worked well. I always thought those sensor boards were not good in blitz games but technology might have gotten better.

Indeed, it was quite obvious acrirce was kidding with the blitz comment, but the serious reaction of Amit just shows what Anand fans have been reduced to.

> it will be dawned on Kramnik that his time has come and gone!

This reminds me of some Federer's haters who started chanting "federer's-time-is-over, federer's-time-is-over" after a couple of losses in spring of this year. Funny stuff!

Chris B> It's interesting to watch the Kramnik groupies now train their guns on Anand

Ahhh, now you see what's going on. And it's gonna get worse. Kramnik
Central will drown you in gobbles of rhetoric. Brace yourselves...

Chris B> Having done so, he should have kept to what he originally signed to, not blackmail an ILLEGITIMATE condition afterwards.

Hmmmm, I have been saying that for a long time... Kramnik got his
Title Insurance Policy from Kremlin, via Berlin :-) Then Topalov got
his too for Danailov to stay quiet. It's just unfair to Anand to have
to play a title defense every year. Kramnik would have never, ever
done that, knowing him. And his cronies would have defended that
decision with all the verbal voracity one can imagine. Look at the
tantrums they threw when Kramnik was obliged to play Mexico by prior
contract. Some don't even recognize Anand as a champion.

Still, there will be a match. Kramnik is getting to #1 -- that's
great. It will get interesting. There is a lot more Chess to be
played. The one and only thing I have always disliked about Kramnik
and his fans is that they never recognized anyone else.

D.

@D:This reminds me of some Federer's haters who started chanting "federer's-time-is-over, federer's-time-is-over" after a couple of losses in spring of this year. Funny stuff!
-------------------------------------
What's funnier is that Kramnik only recently acknowledged that he is the Nadal and its Vishy who is the Federer of chess..

"Kramnik just gave Anand a good blitz beating."

Congratulations to Kramnik, the new World Champion!

-- Posted by: acirce at November 21, 2007 08:35

Wow, I am impressed. That 13 Be2xa6!! was a -wicked- tactical shot by Kramnik, one of the best of the year.

Kramnik's 13 Be2xa6!! is based on that most fundamental tactic, the PIN.

Um, this "Amit" didn't really think I was serious, right? Must have played along with the joke... right?

I have to learn that this is the Internet soon...

"This was entirely ILLEGITIMATE and broke the original terms of the contract AND ALSO BROKE THE TERMS ON WHICH ANAND SIGNED UP FOR TO PLAY IN MEXICO."

Practicing law without a license, Captain Capslock?

Kramnik's 13 Be2xa6!! is just really awesome, as is the wicked zwischenzug Rc1-c6!, forcing the Black d6-queen to the d7-square so that Nf3-e5 comes with TEMPO.

Kramnik's blitz beatdown of Anand is one of the best played tactical sequences I have seen all year.

"What's funnier is that Kramnik only recently acknowledged that he is the Nadal and its Vishy who is the Federer of chess.." - I know what's funnier than that: how about the fact that you are twisting what Kramnik said into the exact opposite? Kramnik surely didn't mean he was Nadal to Anand's Federer. If anything, he was implying the reverse.

Ah, the things Anand fas resort to...

I find it ironic that Anand fans twist the words and claim Kramnik is Nadal to Anand's Federer on the day Kramnik added a blitz win over Anand to his classical victory over Anand and his blindfold victory over Anand from earlier this year. He also finished ahead of Anand in 2 out of 3 classical tournaments this year as well as Monaco.

[Event "Blitz WCC Moscow"]
[Date "2007.11.21"]
[Round "11"]
[White "GM Kramnik, Vladimir(RUS)"]
[Black "GM Anand, Viswanathan(IND)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D13"]
[WhiteElo "2785"]
[BlackElo "2801"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[EventDate "2007.11.21"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. d4 Nc6 6. Bf4 a6 7. Rc1 Bf5 8. e3
Rc8 9. Be2 e6 10. O-O Be7 11. Qb3 Na5 12. Qa4+ Nc6 13. Bxa6 Ra8 14. Bxb7 Rxa4
15. Bxc6+ Kf8 16. Nxa4 Ne4 17. Bb7 Nd6 18. Bxd6 Qxd6 19. Rc6 Qd7 20. Rc8+ Bd8
21. Ne5 {White wins 1-0} 1-0

By the way, kudos to the organizers having broadcasted all the games succesfully.

Nice pictures: http://surov-live.livejournal.com/7129.html

In the last one, Kramnik does not show much respect to his "great predecessor", does he? :)

Dimi,

I've appreciated your excellent posts for a long time now.
I have been seeing what's going on likewise and it's not pleasant viewing.
Yep, I know all about Kramnik Central. They are organised and we are not. There are a few other good posters here such as Derida, Anand Nair, I see dead pieces, d_tal, Krishna, etc. But some of us have jobs to do or whatever, and don't have all day to post to Daily Dirt.

You are right, there wiil be a match (Ilyumzhinov always forces his way). And it will be interesting; the most interesting possible match-up there is at the moment. It is just that Kramnik should have had to qualify for it.

Like you, I disagree with the draw-odds demand. A player that can only draw a match is only a co-Champion, not a full Champion.
Particularly in a short match it is too great a factor (eg Kramnik-Leko).
12 games is ridiculously short of course, this being the reason Topalov got desperate in Elista. A World Championship Match should be 16 games at an absolute minimum, probably longer.

Poor Kramnik. All he had to do to qualify for his match was beat Kasparov, draw Leko and beat Topalov in a match. Some would call that harder than winning a single round-robin tournament.

If Anand beats Kramnik, are you going to insist that Anand re-qualify for the next match by entering WorldCup/GrandPrix, or whatever FIDE will use? Or will you agree that he has some privileges as standing champion?

Topalov's worst showing in Elista was in the first two games. Did he get desperate as soon as the match started?

tie-breaks - keep playing classical chess games until someone wins. The huge numbers of draws in Karpov v Kasparov I was a huge statistical oddity that should not overshadow common sense every time this issue is brought up.

When Anand agreed to play in Mexico was there anything that said when his next title defense would be? Was there any guarantees about how the challenger would be chosen? Or were these rights given to FIDE? I don't know but I bet its the latter. If my hunch is right Anand doesn't have much legal basis to object to the Kramnik match.

Does he have any non legal clout? Well some it is the unified title. But he loses allot because he won it by a common tournament that is not really distinguishable from events that happen multiple times a year.

Anand will see first hand why Kirsan wants tournament champions. Winning a tournament no matter what its called is just not as prestigious as winning a world championship match. Therefore tournament champions have no bargaining power against Kirsan's every whim.

acirce, russianbear, rdh, et. al.,

I hope you were kidding about kicking me out of the group because I have a job. Anyway, I missed the last meeting; whose turn is it to post nonsensical pro-Kramnik lies?

"The huge numbers of draws in Karpov v Kasparov I was a huge statistical oddity that should not overshadow common sense every time this issue is brought up."

We are unlikely to have 20 draws in a row. But considering today's draw rates and that the Golden Goal type rule you are proposing is likely to lead to more cautionary play, we are quite likely to have at least four. Which, at the rate of one game a day and 12-game match, means you are proposing a huge and unpredictable increase in cost of the event, percentage-wise.

Cool Idea From Earlier Posts:
{
"A thought. Wouldn't it be fun if they played blinded as to who is the opponent, but see the board.
There would be fewer grandmaster draws"

Actually, that would be an interesting experiment:
}

I agree, that would be cool.
The grandmasters are so used to preparing for their known opponent's openings, they would probably dislike the idea.

[Event "Blitz WCC Moscow"]
[Date "2007.11.21"]
[Round "11"]
[White "GM Kramnik, Vladimir(RUS)"]
[Black "GM Anand, Viswanathan(IND)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D13"]
[WhiteElo "2785"]
[BlackElo "2801"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[EventDate "2007.11.21"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. d4 Nc6 6. Bf4 a6 7. Rc1 Bf5 8. e3
Rc8 9. Be2 e6 10. O-O Be7 11. Qb3 Na5 12. Qa4+ Nc6 13. Bxa6 Ra8 14. Bxb7 Rxa4
15. Bxc6+ Kf8 16. Nxa4 Ne4 17. Bb7 Nd6 18. Bxd6 Qxd6 19. Rc6 Qd7 20. Rc8+ Bd8
21. Ne5 {White wins 1-0} 1-0

--Posted by: Zombre at November 21, 2007 15:20

Make sure you check out 13 Be2xa6!!.

Someone should tell Kramnik that the Slav Exchange is supposed to be a dull draw. Here Kramnik plays a stupendous tactical game (13 Be2xa6!!, 19 Rc1-c6! zwischenzug).

Ridiculous defeat for Anand. He appears as someone who has forgotten the tricks and troublues in Slav if you have played Bf5 in the exchange structure.
( a kind of "GM-version" of the "Patzer's Slav" 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 +-)

here another memorable one :

Event "Corus"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2007.01.15"]
[EventDate "2007.01.13"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Ruslan Ponomariov"]
[Black "Magnus Carlsen"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. Ne5 h6 7. Qb3 Ra7 8. cxd5 cxd5 9. Bd2 e6 10. Rc1 Nbd7 11. Bb5! +-
( 1-0 in 30)

[Event "Canadian Open"]
[Site "Ottawa Canada"]
[Date "2007.07.09"]
[EventDate "2007.07.07"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "John Bick"]
[Black "Aquino Inigo"]
[ECO "D14"]
[WhiteElo "2217"]
[BlackElo "1902"]
[PlyCount "121"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bf4 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bf5 7. e3 a6 8. Rc1 Rc8 9. Be2 e6 10. O-O Be7 11. Qb3 Na5 12. Qa4 Nc6 13. Bxa6 bxa6 14. Ne5 Qb6 15. Nd1 Qb5 16. Qxb5 axb5 17. Rxc6 Rxc6 18. Nxc6 Nh5 19. Bc7 Kd7 20. Nxe7 Kxe7 21. Ba5 Rc8 22. Nc3 Rb8 23. Bb4 Kd7 24. Rc1 Nf6 25. Kf1 Ne4
26. Nxe4 Bxe4 27. f3 Bd3 28. Ke1 Rc8 29. Bc5 Ra8 30. a3 Rb8 31. Kd2 Bf5 32. Rc3 Ra8 33. Rb3 Kc6 34. Bb4 Bb1 35. Rc3 Kb7 36. Rc5 Kb6 37. Rc1 Bg6 38. Bd6 Re8 39. Bc7 Kb7 40. Bd6 Rc8 41. Rxc8 Kxc8 42. Bf8 Bb1 43. Bxg7 Ba2 44. Kc3 Kb7 45. Bf6 Bc4
46. Kb4 Kc6 47. Be7 Bf1 48. g3 Be2 49. f4 Bd3 50. Ka5 Kb7 51. Kb4 Kc6 52. Kc3 Be2 53. Kb4 Bd3 54. b3 f5 55. Bf8 h5 56. Ka5 Kb7 57. Bb4 Be2 58. Bf8 Bf1 59. Kb4 Kc6 60. Ka5 Kb7 61. Bb4 1/2-1/2

Wonder if Kramnik was aware of this.

Anand attempted the tie-odds demand to prove that he is the only current WCChampion.
Only the WCC could attempt the tie-odds demand.

Compare Anand attempting that demand -to- Kramnik attempting it.
Anand was told "No", but Kramnik would have been told "Are you kidding??".

Good hardball public relations by Anand.

Doesnt matter what kramnik implied. he is probably good only at matches where too, save the one match with Kasparov, his record has been spotty. That is like Nadal, who is only good on clay. Vishy is good at matches, tournaments, knockouts, rapids, blitz, chess960 .. everything. Russianbear so desperately wants Kramnik to be Federer to Vishy's Nadal .. that he ignores realities.

I must add however, that Kramnik's Dortmund and Tal wins are a step in the right direction .. much like Nadal making the Wimbledon final next year. I am a little sceptical of Kramnik's Dortmund and Tal wins since it appears most of the opposition was concentrating on Mexico and Khanty-Mansik anyway. I think he did OK in Corus 2007 .. but if he wins Corus 2008, I will believe that the Nadal of Chess is close to taking over Federer's (Vishy) mantle.

By the way, Mig also commented that Kramnik was the Nadal and Vishy the Federer.

Having said all those seemingly negative things about Kramnik, I would like to acknowledge the great blitz game played by Kramnik against Anand.

@acirce:

Thanks for that info. I didn't think this Be2xa6 idea was new.

Anyway, Kramnik still played without prep the tremendous ZWISCHENZUG 19 Rc1-c6! first and then 20 Rc6-c8+, forcing the Black d6-queen onto the d7-square so that 21 Nf3-e5 comes with TEMPO, versus playing the more obvious 19 Rc1-c8+?! in one shot.

19 Rc1-c6! is one of the best ZWISCHENZUG I have seen all year.

Yuriy,

I guess whatever privileges a Champion has, if any, should be spelled out beforehand.
In signing up for the Topalov match, Kramnik agreed he would have none if he won, just the right to play in Mexico.
So is it OK for Kramnik to go around breaking contracts willy-nilly? This is the point.
One might note that Kramnik himself wouldn't allow Kasparov any privilege. He wouldn't even give him an acceptable qualifier to play in.

After a very unlucky start, Topalov was 2 down after 4 games. With only 4 whites left, his situation was getting beyond recovery. A longer match would have given him a decent chance to recover.

"Doesnt matter what kramnik implied. he is probably good only at matches where too, save the one match with Kasparov, his record has been spotty."

Are you blind, or just willfully ignorant, cheesy?

I'll try not to rehash Kramnik's excellent tournament record this year or the fact that he will be #1 in the next rating list.

That blitz win against Anand indeed seems to prove that Kramnik is the real WC.

On the other hand, since beating Anand, Kramnik lost to Rublevsky. Therefore Rublevsky is the greatest player ever.

Just trying some Kramnik-fan logic.

Kramnik lost White(!) blitz games to both Rublevsky(!) and Dreev(!), showing you again that blitz chess and classicl chess are different things.

Dreev and Rublevsky would have zero chance of winning Black games against Kramnik in classical chess.

Looking forward to Kramnik supporters arguing that winning tournaments and being World #1 make Kramnik the true World Champion after arguing that the exact same performance measures did not apply to Topalov last year.

"As for 2005, I remember it differently. I remember Topalov finishing tied for 1st place, and given that he beat Kasparov head-to-head, he was without a doubt a moral winner of the event, if there was one, so Kasparov has hardly proven his superiority in 2005, either."

How do you remember it differently? Kasparov was claimed the winner on tiebreaks because of higher number of black wins. There is no such thing as moral winners.

As for "if there was one, so Kasparov has hardly proven his superiority in 2005, either." this is deviating from the point. Chessplayers claimed Anand was now stronger than Kasparov, only to see Anand fold in Linares proving this was not the case.

I think Anand is a decent person, but after reading many of these posts, quite a few of his so called fans appear to be jackasses...one in particular and you know who you are.

"In addition to the countries listed by greg...

France is out because Kramnik's wife lives there.
Spain is out because Anand lives there.
South and Central America are out because Anand speaks Spanish.
Asia is out because Anand knows people who competed in Asian cups.
Africa is out because Kramnik's granduncle's ex-step sister's myspace site has a picture of a zebra.
And so on.... "
-Posted by: insomniac at November 19, 2007 14:03

Haha, nice.

lol @ Kramnik and Kramnik fans using numerous tactics to make Anand play!!

Never qualified, yet forever champion!! (In fact disqualified!!)

No read meat intended here for either Kramnik or Anand groupies...just a few observations about what happened on the board.

It wasn't much of a game, and 13.Bxa6 wasn't much of a combination - not even for a blitz game. Obviously the guy who keeps giving it two exclams and calling it "one of the best shots of the year" was being ironic (I hope).

Many players from 1800 on up would see it, and play it. I believe that John Bick, a mere FM with a rating in the low 2200s, is easily strong enough to have dreamed up the idea in his own head - even if it turns out he knew about it from some previously published game (I haven't tried to look up the history).

Black simply played terribly, and was lost by move 11 or so.

As for Ponomoriov-Carlsen, that had me confused for awhile too. Even now that I've looked at it, Ovidiu's "+-" label seems a little much -- but Black's situation is indeed tougher than it may appear at first glance. What confused me is that my version of Fritz (Fritz8 - yeah I know, I'm a troglodyte) gives White only a modest edge (+0.27, after 11...Be7, followed by 15 minutes running time). But after playing out Fritz's next few moves, I can see its evaluation is wrong, White's advantage is more substantial than that. It appears Black won't be able to castle (after White trades twice on d7 then plays Na4, apparently forcing ....Bd8, and then follows with Bb4). So Black will end up playing the next several moves without his KR, while White quickly mobilizes both his rooks on the c-file.

Chris B: You are right, there wiil be a match (Ilyumzhinov always forces his way).

Yes Chris, but I am starting to see things your way now -- Anand is
right for not giving in easily. Amazing how ready Kramnik is to play
now -- before it was impossible to get him, no matter what money he
was oferred. Vishy is in his full right to ask for something here --
after all, look what Kramnik got for playing difficult... A guaranteed
match, one way or another, no matter how Mexico07 ends. And the match
already pre-sold in Germany, mind you?!? Now that's sick! Good job
Hensel! And everybody is so approving of this little, wonderful
scheme... BTW, who is representing Anand? He clearly needs a tough SOB
of a manager who can push hard for him -- otherwise these slugs will
walk all over him. And these are the first steps to losing the match.
And the psychological war hasn't started yet. Wait until that happens.

D.

Wow, so much analysis on Kramnik win today against Vishy! Ok, they call it blitz, but its more like Armageddon time controls (4+2 is like 6+0 if the game lasts 60 moves; regular 'blitz' is usually at least a few minutes longer). If the same players play this format once each month, I'm pretty sure we'll see at least 8-10 different winners each year. It is that unpredictable. Also, given that Vishy is going to level scores against Kramnik tomorrow, I don't see what makes this so much of a big deal anyway..

>It wasn't much of a game, and 13.Bxa6 wasn't much of a combination - not even for a blitz game...Black simply played terribly..>

That was my point, it was a pathetic game for Anand even by the blitz-standard.
He just seemed to have forgotten the typical traps (Qb3/a4, b7 pawn, Kd8 pin) and tricks in that sub-variation (Bf5 early development) of
exchange Slav.

(while Carlsen's falling for one them can be excused on his youth, lack of experience and thus sense of danger in this kind of position)

Kramnik has spent major part of his chess career trying to justify his World Chess Championship Title by linking it to the chain from Kasparov to Steinitz. If that is so, he must remember that these matches have a history of draw-odds for the Champion and he also used the same to retain his Title in his match with Leko. It's time he gets the taste of his own medicine.

Amit

It must be remembered that Anand is a paper champion so far, so no draw odds for him.

Paper Champion? Don't remember that Anand ever participated in any 'Paper Championship'. What is Kramnik, then?

Chess is a game of logic but it only happens in Chess where a player wins the World Title and then he does not play any match for 4 years and still claims he is number one! Imagine Federer winning one Grand Slam and then does not participate for 4 years and still claims to be the numero uno. [Many people still think that Fischer is still World Champ.]

Kasparov didn't get a return match but people will go to any length to justify Kramnik's match! For years, Kramnik kept harping that Kasparov should go through the qualification cycle! May be once in a while, he should read his own interviews of the yesteryears.

Maybe you didn't notice the subtle difference, but Kramnik beat Kasparov in a long match, mano a mano. Anand on the other hand simply won another super tournament by beating Grischuk and Svidler. Great achievement - yes, true World Championship - no.

Amit, admit it. You just don't like Kramnik; I can tell. =8-)

Kramnik won the world championship because he was particularly good against Kasparov. Anand is the world champion because he is good against EVERYBODY.

Kramnik won the world championship by dominating the strongest player in chess history in a 16-game match. Anand won the world championship by defeating Grishuk, Moro, Svidler, and Aronian in a tournament.

Please! With that line of reasoning Kasparov was world champion because he was particularly good against Anand. Remember, 1995? Which means the only time Anand played a match for the world championship...he lost. Whereas, Kramnik has never lost a match for the world championship. He is good against EVERYBODY.

Dimi,

Yes, Kramnik is always very ready to play when given a challenge opportunity that he hasn't qualified for.
Anand certainly needs a hard-nosed manager alright. In the Wild West conditions that Ilyumzhinov runs, it is not merit and justice that prevails, but 'might is right', who makes the most noise, who's palms you grease, who has the fattest cheque book. And people criticise Kasparov for breaking away in 1993?
Anand seems to only now be starting to realise that Kramnik may in fact be not such a nice guy. It's certainly taken him long enough. Kramnik's underhand maneouvres since 2000 have, apart from Kasparov, damaged Anand more than anybody else.

Of course when you finally cut down through the 'gobbles of rhetoric' and confront the Kramnik people with a key question: 'So is it OK for Kramnik to go around breaking contracts willy-nilly? This is the point.', you get no reply. Usual tactic. You would be used to this.

osbender,
Kramnik himself agreed that the winner of Mexico would not be a paper champion when he signed up for the match with Topalov. You should explain why he signed this.
Kramnik having signed this had no right to try and weasel out afterwards.

"Kramnik won the world championship because he was particularly good against Kasparov. Anand is the world champion because he is good against EVERYBODY."

You mean, now that Kasparov has retired? Anand has his "bete noires", after all.

Don't you think that a nice long match with Classical time controls would be a good way to test the claim the Anand is superior to Kramnik?
If Anand defeats Kramnik in such a match, even Kramnik is ready to concede that Anand is the better player.

Hey Greg,

Thanks for revealing who is in your group.
Though I do doubt that Russianbear is part of it. His posts are of a different nature, and if not always agreed with, do contain substance and argument.
So, let's see, who do we have? The Great Greg Koster himself. RDH, the guy with the attitude problem, several times slammed by Mig on this blog. Acirce, the Stalinist. My, what followers Kramnik does attract! Still, birds of a feather and all that.

And Greg, it would be appreciated if you would stop the misleading claim that Kramnik's victory over Kasparov in 2000 was 'dominating'. '+2' in a 16 game match is not dominating at all. It is barely safe. Even Kramnik's second Bareev said "We were lucky".
You focus far too much on this one event instead of comparing their overall records. Even the greatest of players will have a rare 'off' event. This was Kasparov's; Kramnik has performed worse than this in many events. This result was a fluke (flukes do happen!), like Kramnik's own loss to Shirov in 1998, Short's victory over Karpov in 1992, and Euwe's victory over Alekhine in 1935.

ChrisB, for the umpteenth time. It does not matter what Kramnik thinks of Mexico championship or signs up. The point is that the previous champion is willing and able and still undefeated in a match. In such circumstances you can't become a true champion by winning some tournament.

By the way I find it ironic that you guys attack Kramnik for doing the right thing. After his win over Topalov he could easily skip Mexico and that would immediately render it pointless. Then he could play a big money match with Topalov, while denying Anand and everybody else any chance at the title. This deal that gave Kramnik a match with Mexico winner was the only reasonable way to save Mexico's WC billing and prevent another split of the title.

I find it doubly ironic that you, Anand fans, prefer him to be a coward and run away from the money and a chance to prove that he indeed is the best player. How can you call yourself chess fans if you don't want to see the match between 2 strongest players?

Btw, I don't see what Anand stands to gain by dodging the match. The tournament WC format is dead and new cycle is being played and there is money for the title match. With or without Anand , this match will be played.

osbender, for the umpteenth time. So it's OK for Kramnik to sign contracts and then just break them is it? You still haven't (wonder why?) explained why Kramnik signed this and the follow on implication. Why shouldn't Kramnik have been obliged to play in Mexico regardless? This is what he signed. Pity to let some inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story.

I prefer the match format myself. But FIDE were going in this direction anyway whether or not Kramnik extracted his illegitimate condition. So why couldn't Kramnik have qualified from a qualifier (if able to), then Anand play a match? Can you not see Kramnik's hypocrisy in as former Champion demanding a match with the new Champion when this was the very thing he so strenuously denied to Kasparov?

As far as Kramnik doing the 'right thing' is concerned, I am sure skipping Mexico was the very thing he wanted to do, nearly did, and would have if he thought he could have got away with it. But he knew very well, having signed the Topalov match conditions (remember?), that his credibility would have been zero. Topalov would not have played Kramnik, but would have played in Mexico. Kramnik would have been stripped of the title and have been out in the cold like Fischer after 1975.

Anand is not being a coward, nor dodging the match. He is simply airing a well justified complaint. Anand will have to play because Ilyumzhinov holds all the power. But it is a match that he should not have to play.

So, do you wish to answer the questions at the beginning of this post? Or are you going to be a coward and dodge them?

Kramnik hasn't broken any contracts. He has the right to seek to renegotiate contracts with the other contracting party just like any other person in the free world.

As for not being able to see the difference between Kramnik wanting the right to defend his title in a match, and the tired old Gazza-rematch complaining, I have observed before that ChrisB is beyond reason on this issue. I caution anyone against wasting time replying to him about it.

Oh, so blackmailing an illegitimate condition that wasn't there before is 'renegotiating'. Particularly when the damaged party (Anand) wasn't even party to the arrangement. Oh well, you're the lawyer, rdh.

As for Kramnik 'wanting the right to defend his title in a match', um, er, Kramnik doesn't hold the title anymore. Guess you hadn't noticed.

"An illegitimate condition"? What makes a condition legitimate? A contract? If so, then rematch was illegitimate for Kasparov since it wasn't in the contract, but is fine for Kramnik, since it was in the Mexico 2007 contract. And if rematches are illegitimate in themselves, then perhaps it is time to stop complaining about Kasparov not getting one.

Needless to say, the rematch Kasparov would have gotten would be very different from the one Kramnik may get in 2008. In Kramnik's case it is hardly even a rematch. Even if one recognizes Mexico 2007 as a tournament where a title changed hands, the only "re" Kramnik might get later is a "retournament". There was no match, hence there can be no rematch - and if Kramnik and Anand will play next year, it will be a match, not a rematch. Yes, Kasparov didn't get a rematch after his loss in 2000, but then again, I don't remember him putting his title on the line in a tournament for the sake of unity in the chess world - the way Kramnik has done (even though I think he should not have). I don't think it is illogical for Kramnik (or his fans) to ask that he loses a title in the same way he won it - that is, in a match.

Russianbear,

I have never said that Kasparov was entitled to a direct rematch with Kramnik. Under the terms of their match he was not. You are confusing me with some other supporters of Kasparov who have wrongly said this. What I have always said is that the injustice that Kramnik did to Kasparov was not offering him anything like an acceptable qualifier. I advised you this last time we discussed.

I have also never said that the planned Anand-Kramnik match next year is a 'rematch'. I said it is a challenge by the recently deposed Champion against the new Champion that was not qualified for, and under the original terms signed by Kramnik, no more justified than a Kasparov challenge not qualified for.

Regarding 'illegitimate', we are talking semantics. If you like: 'a condition illegitimately obtained' may be technically more accurate.
The 'match with Mexico winner' condition was not in the original contract that Kramnik signed. Kramnik obtained this condition by threatening not to play in Mexico, something he had contracted to do. Is this a legitimate way of obtaining a condition? Looks like blackmail to me.

Perhaps Kramnik should not have signed the original agreement. But he did. Having done so, should he not have honoured it in its original form instead of blackmailing a change to it?

Chris B, "I have never said that Kasparov was entitled to a direct rematch with Kramnik. Under the terms of their match he was not. You are confusing me with some other supporters of Kasparov who have wrongly said this. What I have always said is that the injustice that Kramnik did to Kasparov was not offering him anything like an acceptable qualifier. I advised you this last time we discussed." - Well, I never said that you said that Kasparov was entitled to a direct rematch with Kramnik or that you said the the planned Anand-Kramnik match next year is a 'rematch'. As for "acceptable qualifier", it seems to be an oxymoron for Kasparov. As for it being acceptable for fans, such as myself, Dortmund 2002 was an acceptable qualifier as were the Ponomariov and Kasymdzhanov matches.

As far as I am concerned, FIDE violated the contract first - first, when it offered Danailov access to restroom video footage, and second - when it allowed "game 5" to be "played" and the result to stand. Under such circumstances Kramnik could do anything he wanted after he won the match. FIDE violated its agreements so many times in its dealing with Kramnik (among others), that they can hardly blame him for not sticking to the contracts. Kramnik getting himself a match after Mexico tournament was hardly blackmail - not anymore than FIDE's actions towards Kramnik himself have been. Kramnik used his legitimacy and influence to get a title match against a worthy adversary - which is what many fans wanted in the first place. That is hardly blackmail.

And why do you say Kramnik didn't honor the original agreement? The original agreement wa.s to haave a WC tournament in Mexico, which is what Kramnik has agreed to after Elista (note the very fact Mexico had such a status was FIDE's blackmail). So if FIDE had the right to deny Kramnik the Elista match unless he agreed Mexico 2007 was world championship, it makes perfect sense for Kramnik to get guarantees for the future match against the Mexico winner. This -supposedly- makes everyone happy - FIDE, Mexico organizers, and Kramnik.

So getting a match was as legitimate a way of obtaining a condition as FIDE claiming Elista winner had to play in Mexico.

This is great! The Anand-Kramnik match is turning into a geek version of the UFC vs IFL for top bragging rights. Too bad chess can't get the same marketing, financial backing and paying fan base. I guess geeks just don't come across as macho as brutes. =8-)

Russianbear,

"And if rematches are illegitimate in themselves, then perhaps it is time to stop complaining about Kasparov not getting one." -your previous post.
"Chris B...As for not giving Kasparov a rematch - it was only because before the match Kasparov insisted the London winner should not get a rematch. If the previous 500 times this was explained on this blog didn't make you understand this simple idea, I don't know this will" - posted by you 14:06 on 28 Sept 2007 on the 'Boris doesn't Bore Us' thread.
Well, yeah, I guess you never said I said that Kasparov was entitled to a direct rematch with Kramnik. Just sort of felt that way.

Well, perhaps for a few anti-Kasparov fans that were delighted to see Kasparov get shafted, Dortmund 2002 was an "acceptable qualifier". This certainly wasn't the general public reaction at the time. Even Keene admitted to a 'general negative reaction'. And see Mig's comments at the time. Even acirce called it 'ridiculous' (hell!!). I have posted this before, but you don't wish to see.

Ah, so Kramnik has a big bust-up with Topalov and FIDE, and in revenge takes an action that punishes neither of them, but an innocent third party (Anand). Is this moral? So if someone robs my house, I an perfectly entitled to take out my revenge by robbing some other innocent person's house! If Kramnik still wanted revenge, even though he won the match, he should have sued FIDE.

"So if FIDE had the right to deny Kramnik the Elista match unlrss he agreed Mexico 2007 was world championship, it makes perfect sense for Kramnik to get guarantees for the future match against the Mexico winner." Maybe so, but friggin hell, Russianbear, this is not what he originally signed up to!!

"This -supposedly- makes everyone happy" Do you see Anand looking happy?

Chris B, you are doing wonderful job!! You make a lot of sense in all your posts. I couldn't have said any better and these are exactly my sentiments! Anand should hire you I think.

Everything must come to end. It is about time for Kramnik's opportunism to end!

"Ah, so Kramnik has a big bust-up with Topalov and FIDE, and in revenge takes an action that punishes neither of them, but an innocent third party (Anand). Is this moral? So if someone robs my house, I an perfectly entitled to take out my revenge by robbing some other innocent person's house! If Kramnik still wanted revenge, even though he won the match, he should have sued FIDE." - I don't think any houses were robbed in the negotiations of the current chess events. The whole analogy is flawed. Negotiating one's position about what a world championship chess cycle should be like isn't an equivalent of robbing a house. The house was robbed in 1993 by Kasparov and Short and Kramnik seems to have done as much as anyone in finding/bringing up the stolen goods. You seemed to have claimed that Kramnik asking for a match against Mexico winner somehow violated his previous agreements. But it is quite obvious it didn't violate them. It seems it is easier to blame Kramnik for sticking to the contracts TOO MUCH and fulfilling his part of the contract, even though putting the title on the line in the Mexico tournament was a contradiction in terms.

"Do you see Anand looking happy?" - I don't see him looking unhappy. He is negotiating, which is exactly what Kramnik did. The only reason Anand even has anything remotely similar to a title is because Kramnik stuck to the contract (when he shouldn't have) and went along with the sham championship in Mexico. If you want to blame Kramnik for something about his FIDE contracts, blame him for sticking with them too much rather than too little. FIDE leadership is such that fulfilling one's own end of the bargain with them is perhaps the more immoral act than not fulfilling it.

RB, you make it sound like as if Anand was begging Kramnik to play Topalov! Even "60 points" Topalov was not bothered. No one at the top cared.

Let us think/imagine for moment - Anand comes and says "Keep the crown, you clown!"

Russianbear,
I am afraid you are making no sense to me at all.

PircAlert,
Thanks very much.
I think we need to set up an Anand/Kasparov/Topalov Central to combat Kramnik Central.

...I have to go to work!

Chris B wrote: "I think we need to set up an Anand/Kasparov/Topalov Central to combat Kramnik Central."

Lol, you've already put Anand in the group beaten by Kramnik, even before the match. That's some confidence in your guy!

Chris B:Since you seem to know so much about the contacts of Kramnik's and of Anand's respective contracts with FIDE, then why don't you do the Dirt readers a favor and post the full contents of those contracts. Otherwise, how are we to determine the merits of your statements of "FACT", as given at the bottom? Please give us direct quotes of the clauses in the respective contracts which you think Kramnik (or FIDE) has violated. That we, we can read the actual contractual language, and make our own determinations.

I understand that you maintain that Kramnik agreed to put his Unified Title on the line at Mexico, and that he did so without preconditions.

However, was there any language in the contract that Kramnik signed with FIDE which specifically prohibited the parties from adding any conditions in the future? If not, I don't see how an added concession violates the terms of the original contract.

Likewise, Anand may well have articulated his caveats prior to the Mexico City WC tournament. However, did the contract that he signed specifically prohibit FIDE from scheduling a match before he was due to play the winner of the World cup (or Topalov)?

It looks like the contracts left FIDE substantial "wiggle-room", and that FIDE exploited the loopholes. The concessions given to Kramnik may arguably been of dubious morality, but it is not so clear that they broke any contractual terms. It's just not that cut and dried.

For what it's worth, I do agree with you that FIDE lacks legitimacy, and that it ought to be replaced.

"Simple FACT: Kramnik agreed to the Unified Title being put on the line at Mexico as part of the contract signing up for the match with Topalov.
Simple FACT: He did this WITHOUT CONDITIONS!! Have you Kramnik worshipers GOT THIS YET??
Simple FACT: Kramnik LATER (note LATER means LATER) extracted the condition of his playing the Mexico winner if it was not him. This was entirely ILLEGITIMATE and broke the original terms of the contract, AND ALSO BROKE THE TERMS ON WHICH ANAND SIGNED UP FOR TO PLAY IN MEXICO.
This match is as ILLEGITIMATE as FIDE stopping the first Kasparov-Karpov match in 1985 as soon as Kasparov won a couple of games. (In fact FIDE have broken their own rules and contracts so many times that they themselves should be considered illegitimate and broken up and replaced.)

Anand said BEFORE the tournament started that the winner of Mexico shouldn't have to play this match.
Anand is completely within his rights to complain about having to play this ILLEGITIMATE match. He should not have to play it.
Kramnik should have had to QUALIFY for this match. (Jeez, when has Kramnik ever had to qualify for anything? - though very insistent on others doing so.)

If Kramnik did not like the idea of the Unified Title being on the line at Mexico, then he should not have signed up to the Topalov match in the first place. Having done so, he should have kept to what he originally signed to, not blackmail an ILLEGITIMATE condition afterwards."

Russianbear,

I had to rush away previously. Addressing a couple of things you said:

If Anand is not unhappy, why is he complaining? If you are happy about something, you don't complain about it. Come on.

My analogy is not flawed. Anand has been robbed. He should have been able to enjoy his Title for a couple of years before having to defend it (as have most Champions in history, including Kramnik).

There was no robbery in 1993. FIDE was as bad then as it is now.
But if we suppose there was a robbery in 1993, then in 2002, it was Kramnik who had the stolen goods. He could have coughed them up then by agreeing to Seirawan's 'A Fresh Start', a Unification scheme that was proper length MATCHES (not a tournament), that everyone else had agreed to and which included Anand. Kramnik alone refused, delaying unification for another 4 years. So much for Kramnik "having done as much as anyone in finding/bringing up the stolen goods".

If illegitimately extracting a condition that wasn't there before is 'sticking to a contract too much', then I'm afraid your logic is quite different to mine.

osbender,

Oh, damn.
I should have made it Kamsky/Gelfand/Shirov/Kasparov/Topalov/Anand Central.

My opinion on the chances are 50-50, too close to call.

Chris B,
Kasparov/Topalov/Anand Central is ok with me. If you look at the trend, -2, 0 it will be +2!!! for Anand.

Right, it is daylight robbery. Anand should not play unless he is adequately compensated for his shortened title span!

DOug,

I don't have the contracts in front of me, no.
But the circumstantial evidence is so strong that it is surely 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Principally, if this 'match with Mexico winner' condition had been in the original Elista contract, Kramnik would have been shouting it from the rooftops rather than taking flak for having engineered a later change. We also might have heard something from Topalov.
Also Kramnik approached the Elista negotiations from a weak position - he was in no position to demand such a condition at the time. And Topalov was content with the Mexico set-up as it was.

I am not a lawyer, so may get the next bit wrong, but I would think a contract signed would automatically imply that later changes are not to be added unless all affected parties agree. Anand was an affected party. Do contracts usually have a clause 'Changes cannot be made to this contract'? written into them?
For example, say I offer to sell my house for $100,000 and someone agrees to buy it. They sell their house in anticipation of moving into mine. But there was nothing in the contract saying I cannot add a new condition. My new condition is "I'm adding $10,000 to the price". This analogy may not be exact.

Maybe it's not that cut and dried. Surely, then, we depend on people having a certain moral standard. If they do not, then surely they should expect criticism. And fans of a person should not defend an immoral action by that person.

Thanks for agreeing that FIDE lacks legitimacy. This is the root cause of all these problems more than anything else. Basically, a lawless situation operates, and this brings out the worst in human nature (just imagine if the police and army went on strike). This is why there are so many problems and arguments.

"If you look at the trend, -2, 0 it will be +2!!! for Anand."
Well, we better get rid or the Kamsky/Gelfand/Shirov bit pronto then!!!

'of', not 'or', of course.

"But if we suppose there was a robbery in 1993, then in 2002, it was Kramnik who had the stolen goods. He could have coughed them up then by agreeing to Seirawan's 'A Fresh Start', a Unification scheme that was proper length MATCHES (not a tournament), that everyone else had agreed to and which included Anand. Kramnik alone refused, delaying unification for another 4 years."

Let's look at this brave claim.

At the time of Seirawan's "Fresh Start" proposal, the Dortmund qualifier had already been announced long ago and invitations sent out. Kramnik was contractually and obviously also morally committed to defending his title against the Dortmund winner. This goes no matter what you, I or Seirawan personally think about the Dortmund format.

But the "Fresh Start" proposal ignored Dortmund and Seirawan expressed frustration that they had to waste time with it. A quite bizarre position I must say personally. Obviously Kramnik had to fulfil his committments. Ask Lékó, Topalov and others if "everyone else" agreed to Seirawan's proposal at the time.

What to do? Let's leave out the details, but ultimately, as is well known, the main parties arrived at a compromise solution called the Prague agreement just a few months later in May 2002. It preserved the match format and included the match against the Dortmund winner. If things then had gone as planned, unification would have taken place in 2003, just as the intention was from the beginning. Just as he was to do later, Kramnik here agreed to concessions never before made by any classical champion, for the sake of unity.

Now, it is another matter that FIDE messed up everything on their side, and Einstein TV failed to find sponsorship for Kramnik-Lékó, delaying the match. But how any reasonable person can describe any of this with the words "Kramnik... delay[ed] unification for another 4 years", is really beyond me. I think you'll understand that the key word is "reasonable".

It is not surprising that Seirawan expressed frustration with Dortmund. This event was doing nothing to help unity, quite the reverse. Now the top players were split into three instead of two - Kramnik and the Dortmund group; Kasparov; and the FIDE group.

The Dortmund committments were not so unbreakable that they could not have been adjusted in the interests of unity. eg Dortmund could have been given the Final Match in 'A Fresh Start' - this would have been much more prestigious than a qualifier that was lacking Kasparov and Anand. If you read Seirawan's 'From a Fresh Start to a New Dawn', it is obvious that Kramnik was the stumbling block and that he was using the Dortmund 'committments' as an excuse to avoid 'A Fresh Start'. If Kramnik had been willing, a way would have been found.

As for Kramnik making concessions as the Champion:
(1) He was a disputed Champion; there was also a FIDE one, which 'A Fresh Start' catered for, and Dortmund didn't.
(2) Kramnik himself had had a free challenge against Kasparov. In view of this, he could have shown more generosity of spirit.
(3) Kramnik's Title had already lost a lot of its legitimacy due to Kasparov being offered such an insulting qualifier that he couldn't possibly accept.

Prague was of course not as good as 'A Fresh Start' as it excluded Anand. And it should be remembered, too, that Kramnik only signed this because his sponsors told him they would drop him if he didn't.

Yes, FIDE did bad and stupid things after Prague (not that these affected Kramnik's side of the draw). Nevertheless, the situation had got to the stage where Kramnik had retained his title against Leko, and there was just the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match to go to get to the Unity Match. At this point, Kramnik strongly hinted that he would refuse to play the winner of Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov using the pathetic excuse that he was supposed to play the winner of Kasparov-Ponomariov, not the winner of Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov. Obviously Kramnik was weasling out of playing the certain winner, Kasparov. This was the real main reason the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match was never played and for Kasparov's subsequent retirement. (Gee, thanks, Vladimir, and I guess Putin isn't thanking you either.)

Of course, the chess world in general wasn't too happy with this action of Kramnik's (if I remember rightly), and this was one of the major reasons why Kramnik was in a weak position in the Elista negotiations. How else do you explain the extraordinary concessions from the World Champion (as Kramnik still considered himself) agreeing to play in Mexico (without a 'rematch' afterwards) if he won, and being totally excluded from the next cycle if he lost?

So yeah, I think I'm being a 'reasonable' person in saying "Kramnik...delay[ed] unification for another 4 years". And causing it to be minus Kasparov as well.

Ohh, gosh, of course it's Kramnik who's responsible for the failure of Kaspy-Pono and Kaspy-Kasim matches. Don't forget to add global warming to the mix too. ChrisB takes "reasonable" to the whole new level.

No, I didn't say Kramnik was responsible for the failure of the Kaspy-Pono match. Read again.

Please explain why Kramnik's announcement that he would not play the winner of Kaspy-Kasim was not the main instigator of this match not being played. After that announcement, there was not much point for Kasparov in playing that match anymore; the possible prospect of a Kramnik match was pretty much the only thing motivating him to stay in chess.

Yes, we have all heard the arguments against Dortmund over and over again. But once it was a fact, you can't just ignore it. You suggest that the Dortmund committments be "adjusted". OK, perhaps that would have been possible, if Einstein TV had agreed. Just as possible as "adjusting" Seirawan's proposal to make room for them. Since there was an agreement on a compromise solution very soon, there is no need to squabble about it -- if anyone was a "stumbling block", it was only for a few months, and after that everything would have fine if not for FIDE. It's pretty telling that all of a sudden you make a big deal about Kramnik sticking to his committments as if it was some kind of crime -- after all your posts earlier in the thread complaining about Kramnik supposedly NOT doing that. I understand your motives all too well, sadly.

Yes, Prague excluded Anand, but Kramnik tried hard to get him (and Ivanchuk) included on the FIDE side before giving up -- and Anand didn't want to play in Dortmund at all even when Kirsan declared that he would be allowed to.

You should be aware that Kramnik was not just referring to him signing for a match against the Kasparov-Ponomariov winner instead of the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov winner, although this too was a valid thing to bring up given the premise that Ponomariov had been treated badly, which I think he was, although there was stubbornness from all sides in those "negotiations". But more importantly still, Kramnik pointed at the crucial fact that Kok had been outmanoeuvred: "The main point of the Prague agreement was not who would play who. It was a completely new structure of the world of chess. This was the point: a new organisation with Bessel Kok. FIDE was in fact completely giving up on the world championship. They were saying, we will no longer organise it, we will give it to this company of well-respected people who will organise it. We will give our name and receive some money for this. It was a complete reorganisation of the world of chess. And it was presented as, I play Leko and Kasparov plays Ponomariov, but this was not the point. For me at least. This restructuring was the basic point of the agreement and the next day it was forgotten. I know that Bessel was simply thrown out the next day. It was just a trick. They just wanted to achieve some goals. All of them, Ilyumzhinov, Kasparov." http://kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=50

Or as he said in the Vasiliev interview: "Not a single point of the document I have signed in Prague has been met by the other side. And therefore I consider myself completely free from any kind of obligations. I do not owe anything to anyone. I played a match for world championship and defended my title. In general, I am positively inclined towards the idea of unification, but we need to discuss conditions under which this unification can take place. (...) And now I need to seriously think how to fine-tune a dialogue with FIDE, in order to be sure that everything we agree upon will be carried out. Because unification itself is absolutely senseless, if it does not carry some positive changes. If we will have one champion, well-defined structure of world championships, everything guaranteed - then yes, this unification is imperative for the chess world. If none of this happens, then this unification will just be another fiction." http://kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=35

Whether Kramnik preferring that the other side of the agreement fulfil their obligations before he fulfils his was the "main reason" that Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov did not take place at all is of course wild speculation at best.

Still, I'll be the first to agree that some other things he said and did around that time were less than convincing.

And, you'll ask, then why did he agree (even insist) in 2005 to play the FIDE Champion, when it could not be said that these obligations had been fulfilled either? Pure hypocrisy? Danger of being totally sidelined by FIDE? Just tired of fighting? Increased optimism about succeeding in post-match negotiations to make sure that there would be a sensible system? You decide. But he never said he would refuse to play the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov winner either - just reminding the chess world that he had no obligations any more. Please get a sense for these crucial nuances.

A thing to note for those who like to postulate that he was simply avoiding Kasparov - at the time just after Brissago, Kasparov's play and results had been suffering from some time. Already after Linares, Kramnik said that he found it harder to play against Anand as well as Lékó. I certainly see nothing that would suggest that Topalov of 2005-2006 would have been an easier opponent - if anything the contrary. Add to this that beating Kasparov for a second time - and I don't think Kramnik doubted his chances at that time - would practically have made him a legend. All in all, I don't think there's much evidence for the "avoiding Kasparov" theory - he had not avoided him before, and he hardly would when Kasparov was seemingly in decline.

"I don't have the contracts in front of me, no.
But the circumstantial evidence is so strong that it is surely 'beyond reasonable doubt'."

I respectfully disagree. Your inference about the contract is reasonable, but the "evidence" (circumstantial, as you say) is not overwhelming.

When there are difficult negotiations, especially in a time sensitive situation, some of the "Sticking points" are left to be resolved at a later date. Both Kramnik and FIDE were strongly motivated to have the Elista WC Unifcation Match with Topalov take place. Kramnik was very cool to the idea of Defending his title (assuming he defeated Topalov) in a WC **Tournament** format.
Yet, from FIDE's (Kirsan's) perspective, they might have thought that the odds were against Kramnik prevailing in the match. FIDE knew that there would need to be special arrangements (Concessions) that would need to be made with the Match Winner, whether Kramnik or Topalov. Why negotiate these contentious points if, depending on the result of the Match, they were to be moot?
Moreover, would it have been to FIDE's advantage to negotiate two separate sets of concession packages, to Topalov and Kramnik respectively? if the terms of the contracts were made public, then Kramnik and Topalov would be demanding that they ALSO received the concessions that the other was getting. FIDE would be in a weaker negotiating position overall, plus would need to justify any major differences in treatment or terms.

Note that Kramnik insisted BEFORE the Elista match that the issue of what would transpire after the match (in terms of the WC Cycle) was still an open question.

In any case, from FIDE's perspective, the worst possible scenario unfolded: Topalov (the FIDE Champion) lost, despite being controversially awarded a Forfeit win. Because of the circumstances of Kramnik's win, he won over the sympathies of much of the Chess Public. This greatly enhanced his bargaining position with respect to any unresolved issues.

[Indeed, it is quite possible that the framework for Kramnik's right to Challenge the Mexico City WC winner was essentially set after the Game 5 forfeit win, since 1)as a practical matter, Kramnik could have walked away from the Match, and still kept "his" title--a Disaster for FIDE, and 2) FIDE seems to have unilaterally broken its own contractual obligations to Kramnik, thereby opening the door to Kramnik's renegotiations of even "settled" issues].

"I am not a lawyer, so may get the next bit wrong, but I would think a contract signed would automatically imply that later changes are not to be added unless all affected parties agree. Anand was an affected party."

This strikes me as wrong. Logically, the only parties that need to agree to change the terms of a contract would be the parties to that contract itself--in this case, FIDE and Kramnik.

Kramnik is free to renegotiate even if the new provisions cause FIDE to breach the terms of its contract with Anand. If FIDE breaches its contract with Anand, then they have to face the music. However, so far, Anand has complained about issues such as "Draw Odds" and "Neutral Venues", and has yet to call in the Lawyers, or directly accuse FIDE of being in breach.
What inference ought we draw from Anand's actions, or lack thereof?

"Do contracts usually have a clause 'Changes cannot be made to this contract'? written into them?"

No, since it is implicit that changes cannot be made unilaterally--it requires the consent of BOTH (or all relavant) signatories.

"For example, say I offer to sell my house for $100,000 and someone agrees to buy it. They sell their house in anticipation of moving into mine. But there was nothing in the contract saying I cannot add a new condition. My new condition is "I'm adding $10,000 to the price". This analogy may not be exact."

You are right: Your analogy is far from exact!

If the buyers agree to pay the extra $10,000, then everything is OK. However, since the seller is making unilateral changes to the contract, if the buyer opposes the change (as quite reasonably, they would), then the seller needs to sell at the originally agreed upon price, turning over the property-- or face potential litigation.

[As a practical matter, this scenario happens a lot in a speculative real estate market, as sellers, and (especially) buyers have ways to get out from a deal they come to regret. Real Estate is a rough game]

"Thanks for agreeing that FIDE lacks legitimacy. This is the root cause of all these problems more than anything else. Basically, a lawless situation operates, and this brings out the worst in human nature"

Chris B: Indeed, we can disagree about Kramnik's actions, and yet acknowledge that the basic problem stems from FIDE's leadership. Most of the various national chess federations are pleased with FIDE's leadership. Kirsan's "gift bags" are enought to buy them off. The European chess federations are chaagrined by FIDE's antics, but lack the determination to break with FIDE, and start a new, competing World Chess Federation.

This isn't going to happen, since the European and American (USCF) federations have all been co-opted. Genuine reform is off the table. Instead, the negotiations consist of, say, whether 6 or 7 or 8 Americans will participate in the World Cup. Penny ante stuff, from FIDE's perspective.

Perhaps Anand is getting a raw deal. But in any event, he wouldn't be getting anything near the priviliges which Chess World Champions have traditionally gotten.

My own opinion is that the destruction of the tradition of having a World Championship title be determined via Match play has been a disaster for the Chess World. Therefore, even though I do not approve of the mechanism, nor the circumstances, by which FIDE has determined to stage a World Championship Match, I am glad that it is (currently, at least) scheduled to take place. It is fortunate that it will be contested between Kramnik and Anand, who have been giants in the Chess World for a decade, and based on current form seem to have pulled away from the rest of the pack of Elite players.

If such a match can only take place because expedient measures have been taken by FIDE, so be it. Maybe Anand is unfairly harmed by the Match provision; maybe Kramnik undeservedly benefits.

However, the Chess World is the big winner is such a match is actually held, so I think that it is reasonable to subordinate Anand's best interests to that of Caissa.

Kramnik is pompous. His playing style is less dynamic and entertaining than Anand's. If the Match comes about, I'll probably be rooting for Anand. Let's face it: If Anand plays Kramnik and wins, he'll be be in a much stronger position vis a vis FIDE, than if (somehow FIDE relents) the match does not take place. Moreover, it will set a new precedent for the World Chess Champion having more power and prestige than the winners of the KO "Lottery" Titles, but less than Kasparov had when he bolted in the early '90s.

I don't know what way a champion playing Kasparov-Kasim would be much different from today's Topalov-World cup winner. Is this the positive change Kramnik bargained for from FIDE as a result of unification?

Kramnik has already finished his off the board games against Shirov+Anand, Kasparov and Topalov once. Whatever he has bargained for from FIDE is unfair. So I would hope Anand uses extreme caution before he agrees to this match. It would probably be better off for Anand to skip this unfairly arranged match, in the short as well as in the long run, for many reasons, unless he gets whatever he wants from FIDE and be in a right mind to play the match.

DOug, fair points.

I still think that if Kramnik could have pointed to anything agreed to before Elista, he would have done so. As you say Kramnik's position was greatly strengthened after Elista, and I think this made the difference.
FIDE and Kramnik were great enemies at the time of the Elista negotiations. It seems to me that it would have been very sloppy of a FIDE that set this match up to get control of the Unified Title to have left things so open. One would have thought they would have dotted the i's and crossed the t's and got Kramnik to do so.

In the bit I have got wrong, it is a bit difficult to explain what I am trying to get at. If the contract was between two individual people, the case would be clear. Being an organisation like FIDE, it is a bit different. FIDE in theory is supposed to represent the interests of players. In reality 'FIDE' means Ilyumzhinov and solely his interests. In this sense, then, the contract was not between the appropriate parties, the other party should have been the Mexico players, or an organisation that represented their interests and consulted with them. In this sense then, the change Kramnik extracted was a unilateral change, and my house analogy may not be so off beam. I know this probably sounds laughably amateurish, but I hope you get my drift.

Yeah, the FIDE situation is depressing indeed. What is required is for the European, US, Russian , Chinese and Indian Federations to get together and break away. I guess this is about as likely as all 5 permanent members of the UN Security council agreeing about Iran.

In my opinion, the disaster is not so much that the title was decided by a tournament, but the long absence of a proper qualifying series.
It is fortuitous that we will probably have an Anand-Kramnik match. This is certainly the event to see. Anand said before Mexico something to the effect (I am not going to bother to try and find it now) that he would play if he won, but that it is not right. But I would not blame him if he pulled out.

I am not so sure that Anand will have much clout if he wins. Ilyumzhinov controls everything now. The follow-on plans for deciding the World Championship are just awful, horrible. Yuk! They may be too convoluted to work anyway. We are in for plenty of trouble yet.

I am glad we have been able to have a civilised discussion. I apologise if I perhaps shouted too much. Your comment "It's about fear. Anand is afraid to play Kramnik" seemed an insult to a great player and gentleman and angered me. The shouting was meant to be mostly aimed generally, not specifically at you.

Ok, acirce, where to start?

"I understand your motives all too well, sadly." I have no idea what you think my motives are. I don't really want to bore people with all the details, but whatever:
In mid-2001, I was waiting for the terms of the Dortmund qualifier to be announced. I had been mildly pleased that Kramnik had taken the Championship and had absolutely nothing against him at that stage. Kasparov had maybe made a couple of hints that he would 'like' a direct rematch, but had certainly made nothing of a demand to the extent that he would refuse to play in any qualifier. I fully expected him to play in the forthcoming qualifier (as long as it was reasonable), probably win it, and then we would see another Kramnik-Kasparov match.
When I first saw the terms of the Dortmund qualifier, I was flabbergasted, angry, and utterly disgusted. I knew immediately that Kasparov could and would not play in this. I thought it must be some joke, but no, kramnik would not change it, he was serious. My opinion of Kramnik changed radically after this, my motivation derives from my disgust at that time. [You might say 'Get a Life'. I do. There are long periods when I do not post to this blog, or bother with chess at all.]

I was delighted with Seirawan's proposal 'A Fresh Start'. It was a great proposal, and it was not just a one-off (like Prague), but also laid a blueprint for the World Championship into the future as well. I was hugely disappointed that it did not become a reality. Kramnik's sinking of this was the last straw as far as I was concerned with this guy.

"If Einstein TV had agreed". I am not aware that Kramnik even allowed Einstein TV to negotiate with Seirawan. So we will never know.

You could not have adjusted 'A Fresh Start' to "make room" for Dortmund. It would not have been the same proposal then. There was no need anyway as 'A Fresh Start' covered everything that Dortmund was trying to achieve.

"Since there was an agreement on a compromise solution very soon [I presume you mean Prague here], there is no need to squabble about it...if anyone was a "stumbling block", it was only for a few months, and after that everything would have been fine...". Come on, acirce, you cannot skate over the main point like this. 'A Fresh Start' and Prague are not an equivalent and in any case there was no guarantee at all that something else was going to be agreed (and in any case, it was only by the skin of its teeth) a bit later when 'A Fresh Start' was sunk. Prague was much inferior. So it's "fine" for the number 3 player, Anand, to be excluded? I don't think so.

Kasparov was absolutely right to reject the "ridiculous" (your term) Dortmund event. On Kramnik's refusal to change it, Kasparov claimed he should have parity with Kramnik in any future World Championship activity. I totally agree with this. Particularly since Kasparov had won 10(!) tournaments in a row, including two over Kramnik the previous year (and with a plus personal score) and also beat Kramnik in their "mini-match" in Moscow December 2001.
So Kramnik trying to make Kasparov play an extra match on the FIDE side at Prague by including Anand and Ivanchuk on that side doesn't wash. Tough on Anand, but Kramnik was at least as much to blame, and Kasparov had been prepared to play quarter-final matches in 'A Fresh Start'.
And of course Anand didn't want to play in the 'ridiculous' Dortmund, though I believe Anand claimed he should have parity with Kasparov (which he would have had in 'A Fresh Start').

(I will continue in the next post.)

ChrisB,

I love how your account of the story repeats every line that came from Kasparov's camp. This is not surprising, considering many influential chess media such as kasparovchess.com and Mig were connected to Kaspy or payed by him. Still some critical thinking would help.

Let's start with your first assumption that it was Kramnik who shoot down Seirawan's proposal. Kramnik wasn't keen on it, true. However, Seirawan and Kaspy failed to get FIDE's support and without that support any agreement didn't make any sense at all. It's tough to deal with Kirsan, but blaming Kramnik for that is ridiculous. See here for Kramnik's side of the story http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=255

Secondly, the claim that Dortmund qualifier is ridiculous again simply reiterates Garry's position. In reality the only really ridiculous thing about Dortmund was the inclusion of Lutz. The other ridiculous thing was Kaspy's own insistence that classical champ should participate in the World Championship on even footing with Kasparov. 10 tournaments won by Kasparov are irrelevant. Spassky was the world champion until Fischer climbed the ladder and dislodged him and everybody was fine with that and that's the way it should be.

Finally, it's indeed a shame that instead of Seirawan's idea which was beneficial to everybody except Kramnik, we got Prague agreement which was beneficial just to one man - Kasparov. Let's blame Kramnik for that.

Btw, while I'm at it, I'll try to explain why Seirawan's proposal while beneficial for chess in general completely failed to take into account Kramnik's interests. No surprising he wasn't keen on it, I wouldn't too if I were in his position.

So here we have Kramnik with the title of classical champion, which potentially gives him:
1) A match for half a million against a machine every time new Fritz comes out.
2) A guaranteed match with a human challenger for about 1 million whenever he feels like it. If worse comes to worse he can always give in to Kaspy's demands and that match would definitely get sponsorship.

The only way to lose this title is through the match. In other words he has a cash cow and doesn't have to milk it fast.

So what does Seirawan offer him in exchange for this cash cow? Bear with me...a quarterfinal match. The prize fund of such a match is likely to be around 20 000. Let's even suppose 100 000. A million an exchange for 100 000? He would be an idiot to accept.

Continuing...

Ok, your argument about FIDE not carrying out their obligations re structure, Kok, etc. has some validity, legally speaking.
I think most of us at the time (me anyway) regarded all this stuff as a bit of dross, a sideline. Did we really expect Ilyumzhinov to reform or give up power? I didn't, and probably Kramnik didn't either. But Kramnik always makes sure he has a legal 'out'... Contrary to what Kramnik says, I think the main point of Prague for most of us WAS who played who.

It seems very suspect that Kramnik was suddenly so concerned about structure and all that when this was what he had just rejected by refusing to participate in 'A Fresh Start'.
And let us look at part of Kramnik's comment: "This restructuring was the basic point of the agreement and the next day it was forgotten. I know that Bessel was simply thrown out the next day. It was just a trick." Well, surely this would have been apparent after, say, 6 months. If it was such a point of principle with Kramnik, why didn't he do something about it then? Why didn't he say 'sort this out NOW or the agreement's off'? Instead he waited TWO YEARS, putting the FIDE side players through the Ponomariov fiasco, Tripoli, etc. in the meantime, before saying something. This is inexcusable.
We all knew what Kramnik meant when he said he was "completely free from any kind of obligations". Kasparov certainly did. I don't think one has to be a genius to work out the 'crucial nuance' in what Kramnik was saying here. Did any of us really care about all this other stuff he was going on about when he made this announcement? We just knew that he wasn't going to play Kasparov. But yes, I don't claim to be the most subtle person in the world.

And if Kramnik was really so concerned about FIDE not doing their stuff, why not get together with Kasparov and sort out something BEFORE a forthcoming match this time, and ignore FIDE as before?

About me going on about Kramnik sticking to or not sticking to committments: Is it not Kramnik that is being inconsistent here? The committments are 'very important' when Kramnik is trying to avoid something ('A Fresh Start'), but when they don't suit him, he is out there busy engineering a change!

Yes, Kasparov's results in 2003-4 weren't so hot. I believe he lacked motivation at this time, partly caused by this whole business dragging on so long and the Ponomariov fiasco. But it's not as if his results were sensationally bad even in this period. At both Linares 2003 and 2004, he had a plus score, was a mere half point out of first place both times, and had a combined total of just one loss.
And it's not as if Kramnik could talk. Apart from the above two tournaments, in both of which he scored just '+2', his results were dreadful:
4-8 at Corus 2003 with just '+1', 1.5 points behind the winner;
2-3 at Dortmund 2003, again with just '+1', a point behind the winner;
6-8 at Corus 2004, with an even score, 2 points behind the winner;
4-7 at Corus 2005, '+1' again, 1.5 points behind the winner;
Last equal at M-tel 2005 with a '-2' score.
In addition, Kasparov recovered strongly at the end of 2004: He won a strong Russian Championship 1.5 points ahead of a field that included Svidler, Morozevich and Grischuk; and came 1st equal at Linares 2005 1.5 points ahead of Anand and 2 points ahead of Leko.
I think a motivated Kasparov would have been a far stronger opponent than Topalov of 2005-6.

In the final analysis, whatever one thinks about all this, one thing is nearly certain: If Kramnik had been as forthcoming about defending his Title against the strongest player as Kasparov was in the 90's, we would surely have seen a return K-K match long ago. Surely that says something.

osbender,

As I said, at the time when Dortmund was announced (July 2001), I was not pro-Kasparov vs Kramnik. My critical thinking told me immediately, without consulting any pro-Kasparov media or anything else, that Kramnik had just deprived us of the most desired event of all - a return K-K match.

Seirawan and Kaspy certainly DID get FIDE's support. This was one of Seirawan's incredible achievements. The item you referred me to would have come out just before this happened. You really need to read Seirawan's "From a Fresh Start to a New Dawn" or you won't know what you're talking about. You can Google it.

The Dortmund qualifier was ridiculous. It was as bad as, and nearly identical to, the FIDE knockouts. Kramnik knew these were anathema to Kasparov, and he himself had condemned them, and was to do so again after Dortmund as well. How hypocritical is that?

Kasparov only insisted on an even footing with Kramnik after Kramnik refused to change Dortmund, ie, in effect, refused to defend his Title against Kasparov. Nothing ridiculous about that.

Kasparov was not the main beneficiary of Prague. Ponomariov was. But he wasted his opportunity.

I have already said why I think Kramnik should have been prepared to make some concessions, but I will repeat it:
(1) He was a disputed Champion; there was also a FIDE one.
(2) Kramnik himself had had a free challenge against Kasparov. In view of this, he could have shown more generosity of spirit.
(3) Kramnik's Title had already lost a lot of its legitimacy due to Kasparov being offered such an insulting qualifier (this was Kramnik's doing) that he couldn't possibly accept.

Alright, I disagree with various relatively minor points in your post (Dortmund, Pono), but let's stick to the key things.

1. He did get FIDE support. Let's see. Seirawan writes

"He liked the "Fresh Start" proposals and he said that he would support them and ask the General Assembly to sanction a new Classical Chess world championship. He wanted more information about Mr. Bessel Kok. He had several conditions: That the new cycle be as inclusive as possible; that the title be sanctioned by FIDE, that in return the players would agree to work with FIDE on its initiatives and participate in FIDE events such as the Rapid Chess Grand Prix, Olympiads, Knockout championships, etc. Kirsan's last condition – and it elicited a round of laughter – was that he wouldn't get stuck with the bill for a new cycle! Garry quickly reassured him that FIDE would receive a sanctioning fee and money would flow into FIDE's coffers."

First off, notice the timing: this was said on April 3, crucially the day AFTER the Dortmund was announced. Secondly, Kirsan doesn't talk concrete terms, just some general cheerful promises. This is all smoke and mirrors. Kirsan genuinely interested in giving up control and asking questions like "who is Bessel Kok?" You've got to be kidding.

2. "I have already said why I think Kramnik should have been prepared to make some concessions"

You may think what you want, but in my world people don't give up a million for a chance to win 20 000. That's the crux of the matter. This proposal was an insult to intelligence. While at the time the title of Kramnik indeed lost a bit of its value (here I agree with you), it was still worth a lot more than $500 000 (losers share in the Leko match), which Kramnik brilliantly proved later.

If you want somebody to make a concession in negotiations, you should offer him something else of equivalent value. That's what reasonable people do. Kramnik was offered zilch and point blank refused, which is exactly what any normal person would do in his place. Notice, that when in Prague he was offered a guaranteed title match with the proper paycheck, the deal was immediately done and he fulfilled his part, unlike other parties.

Btw, this is exactly what criticism of Kramnik boils down to in 99% of cases. The guy acts reasonably, but people demand him to do some crazy concessions instead. That's not gonna happen. He negotiates exactly like he plays chess: strictly according to his position.

Oh dear, people, I did warn you....

rdh--

LOL!

I'm still stuck about forty posts back, trying to figure out how someone can lecture us about SIMPLE FACTS regarding the FIDE-Kramnik contract when he a) has never seen the contract and b) knows nothing about contract law.

Energy, enthusiasm, and ignorance is a dangerous combination.

rdh sez: "...I have observed before that ChrisB is beyond reason on this issue. I caution anyone against wasting time replying to him about it..."

On the contrary, Chris B argues clearly and logically, and unlike those fanatical Kramnik supporters who brook no criticism of their lily white boy, accepts reasonable arguments without being biased by extreme personal prejudice... As for Koster, perhaps when Kasparov is taken out of the equation he can become reasonable, but I doubt it.. not the most crdible of commentators is he..?

rdh> Kramnik hasn't broken any contracts. He has the right to seek to renegotiate contracts...

Ohh, renegotiate... A lovely formulation, indeed. And the threat of
breeching the existing contract to play in Mexico07 was never invoked,
right? And those nice fellows from Kremlin had no role at all, right?

rdh, you're either ungodly cynical (even by British standards), or you
think everyone else is an idiot, or you're one. I'm not sure which...

D.

"Russianbear,

[...] Addressing a couple of things you said:

If Anand is not unhappy, why is he complaining? If you are happy about something, you don't complain about it. Come on." - Anand is not complaining. He is negotiating. Some of his points apparently made their way to the press but it is hardly complaining. I think Anand is negotiating, which is a normal situation, and which is what Kramnik did earlier.

"My analogy is not flawed. Anand has been robbed. He should have been able to enjoy his Title for a couple of years before having to defend it (as have most Champions in history, including Kramnik)." -Well, Anand doesn't really have a title - not the classical one. And if we are talking the "FIDE title", then Kramnik had to defend his 2006 title in 2007, just like Anand will have to defend the 2007 title in 2008. I don't see Anand being robbed there. It is strange how you think Anand should have been allowed to sit on the FIDE title for a couple of years, while Kramnik had to defend it a year after winning it.

"There was no robbery in 1993. FIDE was as bad then as it is now.
But if we suppose there was a robbery in 1993, then in 2002, it was Kramnik who had the stolen goods. He could have coughed them up then by agreeing to Seirawan's 'A Fresh Start', a Unification scheme that was proper length MATCHES (not a tournament), that everyone else had agreed to and which included Anand. Kramnik alone refused, delaying unification for another 4 years. So much for Kramnik "having done as much as anyone in finding/bringing up the stolen goods"." - as far as I remember, Kramnik did agree to the Unification plan in Prague. Given the fact that very agreement would be unimaginable had Kasparov been the champion, it is unfair to portray Kramnik as some sort of an enemy of unification. Kramnik has been the most consistent party in the whole unification process and it is mainly thanks to him that the title was unified. Kramnik played Leko in 2004, while I am still waiting for Kasparov-Ponomariov and Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov matches.

"If illegitimately extracting a condition that wasn't there before is 'sticking to a contract too much', then I'm afraid your logic is quite different to mine. " - again, "illegitimately" is just a word you use because you have an axe to grind with Kramnik. You have failed to show how Kramnik's actions/demands were illegitimate. I am afraid Kramnik's negotiations for events he participated in are hardly any more "illegitimate" than your posts on this forum.

"The Dortmund committments were not so unbreakable that they could not have been adjusted in the interests of unity. eg Dortmund could have been given the Final Match in 'A Fresh Start' - this would have been much more prestigious than a qualifier that was lacking Kasparov and Anand. If you read Seirawan's 'From a Fresh Start to a New Dawn', it is obvious that Kramnik was the stumbling block and that he was using the Dortmund 'committments' as an excuse to avoid 'A Fresh Start'. If Kramnik had been willing, a way would have been found." - I find it hypocritical that the same person who slammed Kramnik for not sticking to the Elista contract (without actually explaining how Kramnik has violated his obligations or demonstrating the contract) is now all of a sudden in favor of breaking off one's agreements when it comes to Dortmund. Can you honestly say that if Kramnik didn't honor Dortmund committments, you would applaud his commitment to unification? Let's face it, unification did happen, with Kramnik being the most persistent and principled party of the whole unification process and you still blame him for every imaginary violation of his contracts he has supposedly done along the way. Do you expect me to believe you would be ok with him not honoring his Dortmund obligations, especially since Dortmund 2002 was a first time in a long time elite GMs had a chance to play in a qualifier for the classical title (and Kasparov and Anand were invited)? Sorry, but I have every reason to believe we would never hear the end of it from you had Kramnik not honored his Dortmund obligations - simply because you are still complaining anyway after the unification has already happened.

It seems like you yourself are being by far less principled in your criticisms than you expect Kramnik to be in his actions.

You know what, Anand should put a hold on this negotiation and wait for Corus (and chorus as well!) to end before he makes any commitment on this match! He should keep everyone guessing.

The more he waits, the more publicity he would get!!

I think Anand should learn (a manager here would help) to introduce off the board PN (practical novelty) like this like Kramnik and others.

Another idea.. submit a 1000 page document highlighting various issues, injustice and unfair play on World Championships since 95 and project himself as championing the cause of a proper WC cycle which Kramnik failed achieve. This is just an improvement over the novelty played before!

Anand should take up painting...

"The threat of breaching the existing contract was never invoked" - Dimi, my child, where have you been all your life??

I'm never very convinced about the nice fellows from the Kremlin caring much about whether a chap who lives in France with his French wife, or an Indian living in Spain, holds the title of world chess champion. It's clearly an important part of Danailov's propaganda machine, and I'm sure he knows his audience better, but I've not seen a lot of evidence for it.

>Dimi, my child, where have you been all your life??

rdh, unfortunately I was born much closer to that part of the World
than I cared for.

rdh> I'm never very convinced about the nice fellows from the Kremlin caring much about whether a chap who lives in ...

"a chap who lives in ..." -- hey rdh, do yourself a favor and stop
repeating this stupid argument -- Kramnik officially represents
Russia!! Many famous Russians have lived abroad. That's not a factor.

And yes, those Kremlin fellows might be a little bit more open these
days about filling their pockets with cash and cornering industries
for personal pleasure, but they're patriots as well. And they care
about Chess too. A full-fledged VP for a Chief of the Chess Federation
-- this guy probably has a higher Administrative power in their
hierarchy than the FIDE boss. That's a lot more than what Anand has on
his side.

Anyway, rdh, apparently you haven't dealt with Kremlin or anything
near it -- for starters they would have wiped the cynical smirk off
your face and "renegotiated" your beliefs instantaneously...

D.

I know in some countries people are brainwashed to think Kremlin is the residence of absolute evil, but I wouldn't be concerned with its role in the chess world. There may well be Russian patriots in the Kremlin, but if those patriots had any influence on FIDE, the Elista Kramnik-Topalov match showed that those patriots are more concerned with making sure Russia is seen as capable of holding a big event like the chess World championship (Sochi 2014 Olympic bif in mind and all that), then they are interested in seeing a Russian win the chess world title. If Kremlin was in any way connected to any decision making process behind the Kramnik-Topalov match, the very fact that Topalov got a point and a game with white odds should make the Topalov fans be thankful to Kremlin, not accuse it of something they are not even able to explain properly.

I don't remember Kramnik flying on Putin's plane, but I do remember seeing reports of Topalov using the Bulgarian president's plane. I don't remember Russian secret services involved in the match, but I remember reports of Bulgarian secret service searching the playing venue in Elista. Let's face it, a smaller country with a lot to prove cares more about these things than a big country that has lost count of the number of world chess champions it has had. It may be a hard thing for our Bulgarian friends to accept, but Kremlin has bigger things to worry about than to worry how to deny a Bulgarian or an Indian their chess victories. I know it is comforting to think you are #1 thing on "Kremlin"'s agenda - and it can be very useful thing to have when your guy loses, but let's be honest - Kremlin probably doesn't give a damn about chess, as it has a bigger fish to fry.

I didn't really read any of these posts (and don't intend to), but I got their general gist, and the fact that there are over 220 of them and they are almost all extremely long leads me to one question: what's wrong with you people? Why is everyone so obsessed with this stuff? Who got robbed, who acted selfishly, who violated whose contract... Unless some of the people here are actually in Kramnik's, Anand's, Topalov's or whoever's team, why do you care so much and rabidly jump at each other's throats over stuff that has nothing to do with your life? It's really interesting to me, from a psychological (or perhaps psychiatric) perspective. I wonder how many people posting on here should seek professional help...

chuddog, it is called a hobby. If you are looking for a psychological (or psychiatric) perspective, I'm afraid it is hardly abnormal to discuss one's interests with people who share them. And perhaps your (apparent) failure to understand that simple thing may itself be a worhty excercise for that psychological/psychiatric muscle of yours.

RB, first of wall, whatever I say about Kremlin is not meant to incite
anti-Russian moods or anything near that. For starters, our ethnicity,
language and culture are very much linked. That needed to be cleared.

But please spare me the naive attempts to downplay Kremlin's role --
true, some of these things like Chess titles and sports are far lower
on their agenda now, compared to before. But it also doesn't take
major exertion on Zhukov's part to have a brief conversation with the
FIDE president and request a few things. Some federations have more
say than others and it probably ought to be that way...

As far as small countries, presidential planes, etc. -- this is all
true and I cannot dispute that. Disputing it would be as foolish as
denying the role of Hensel, Kremlin and other parties in twisting
FIDE's hand...

It's Anand who needs a manager to deal with these forces...

D.

" But it also doesn't take
major exertion on Zhukov's part to have a brief conversation with the
FIDE president and request a few things. ... Disputing it would be as foolish as
denying the role of Hensel, Kremlin and other parties in twisting
FIDE's hand"

Yes, Dimi. Now, if only we figured out why Zhukov needed Topalov to have an extra point and a game with white odds in the Elista match - we'd be all set.

chuddog: It's really interesting to me, from a psychological (or perhaps psychiatric) perspective. I wonder how many people posting on here should seek professional help...

chuddog, thank you for your interest. As you have noticed, we're very
sick and crazy people here. Did you also know that we enjoy tearing
the troats off curious strangers and having them for dinner?
Seriously, we're the weirdest people on Earth. It is our hobby to
argue about useless things. Nobody else in the World does such a thing
as to argue about sports, politics or similar useless matters.

D.

it's quite entertaining how any joking or half-joking comment i make on here provokes anger and/or serious replies and rebuttals. thanks for the laughs, guys.

(p.s. to dimi: yes, i got that your reply was neither angry nor serious but sarcastic.)

chuddog, what makes you think people's replies are not joking or half-joking, too?

Dimi - I didn't make myself very clear - I meant that the threat to breach contracts is a part of contract renegotiation everywhere, whether within the Kremlin's orbit or in the UK. Consider (for any UK lawyers) the well-known cases on whether construction comapnies promising to comply with their existing contractual obligations constitutes consideration for a new contract.

Kramnik Central has been out in full force, I see...

Here is the key bit acirce left out of the Vasiliev interview:
Kramnik: "Kasimdzhanov, of course has earned the match against the great player Kasparov. But what's very unclear is for what reason will they be playing a world championship match?!
Vasiliev: "Vladimir, but didn't you place your signature under the very fact of such a match!"
Kramnik: "Excuse me. I signed under the match Kasparov-Ponomariov."

Greg,
I may not know the finer points of contract law, but the circumstantial evidence is good enough for me, despite the points DOug made:
(1) If the condition had been in place then, Kramnik would have said so.
(2) A guy that is in such a weak negotiating position that he agrees to be totally out of the next cycle if he loses is in no position to demand the 'rematch' condition!
(3) Vasiliev report January 2007:
"Vladimir told me he knows nothing about being guaranteed a rematch in case of his failure in Mexico. In any case, his manager, who is now in Antalya, did not tell him anything about it. But the world champion stressed that regardless of what the rules will be, he plans to play and win the tournament in Mexico." - Daily Dirt 29 January 2007.
Is this still not enough of a fact for you?

"I'm still stuck about 40 posts back."
Well, gee whiz, Greg. Is the work of trolling this blog getting to be too much for you? And you've got all Susan Polgar's blog to troll as well. You poor guy.
Here is a brilliant bit of Miggery concerning you:
"I'm not going to stick my head in the sand, or, as in Koster's case, up my ass...Watching you twist every post and troll for Kasparov in every thread got old long ago." - Mig 15 September 2006.

"rdh...or you think everyone else is an idiot, or you're one. I'm not sure which..." - Dimi.
Probably both, Dimi. I'm pretty sure Mig has called rdh an idiot somewhere on this blog, plus..."No wonder everyone else here is full of nonsense to you, rdh. You're trying so hard to be an insulting prat you don't even read. We all concede you have the prat part down very well. So if you'd please stop trying to prove it all the time it would make these comments a much more pleasant place to be. Thanks much." - Mig 7 February 2007.

d-tal, thanks very much.
I understand rdh is a litigation lawyer. Probably an appropriate occupation for him.

osbender,

1. The timing thing: So? The first meeting was held 30 March. Just coincidental.
"he [Kirsan] said he would support them and ask the General Assembly to sanction a new Classical Chess world championship." Sounds pretty good to me. How concrete do you need him to be?
Also, later in the report, when Kramnik was torpedoing it, Seirawan got Kirsan's reaction: "Kirsan was disappointed with the new proposal. He liked "A Fresh Start", as he saw it inclusive and fair."
You have a funny idea of what "failing to get FIDE's support" is.

2. When Seirawan was introducing 'A Fresh Start', he said: "In reading the solution I put below, please bear in mind that all [note: ALL] parties will have to show a spirit of goodwill and compromise. Otherwise, any solution will fail."
Well, Kasparov did. FIDE did. Kramnik? Yeah, you could be right - just interested in money. Totally selfish. Couldn't give a stuff about anyone else.

"Well, Kasparov did. FIDE did. Kramnik? Yeah, you could be right - just interested in money. Totally selfish. Couldn't give a stuff about anyone else. "

That's funny, Chris B. Kasparov did show a spirit of goodwill and compromise? Apparently, you are just joking with us. Was he a party to something like the Prague agreement in 1997? Or 1998? No, sir. But as soon as he lost the title, he sure "show a spirit of goodwill and compromise" especially when a plan involved him being seeded into a unification semifinal. Somehow, Kasparov didn't show "show a spirit of goodwill and compromise" to people like Topalov and Shirov and chose off the board maneuvering to weasle his way into a semifinal rather than playing in Dortmund qualifier. Same with FIDE. It had very little to offer and got Kramnik to agree to recognize their make believe champions like Pono as rival claimants to the title.

It is funny how Kramnik clearly made the most compromises in Prague, yet you still only manage to blame him. Not only did he make the most compromises, he was the only who actually fulfilled his agreements - played a match with Leko, actively pursued unification, etc - even if FIDE's spirit of goodwill consisted in taping him in his restroom and illegally supplying those tapes to the opponent's team - whenever FIDE wasn't busy with stealing Kramnik's game with white here or a point there.

But no, Kramnik is just interested in money. As opposed to Ilyumzhinov, who happens to be one of the richest people in the world who happens to lead a republic that has gotten well on the way back to the stone age under his leadership. Now, that's a soul with true goodwill and lack of concern for one's own interest.

rdh: I meant that the threat to breach contracts is a part of contract renegotiation everywhere [...]

rdh, outside of organized labor, there are certainly unscrupulous
individuals in every country who threaten to breach existing contracts
as a matter of routine negotiations, but that is generally frowned
upon (at least in the civilized World). It's a matter of honor,
reputation and legal consequence to fulfill what one has been
contracted for. My experience with Brits is that generally they are
very good about such things.

On the lighter side -- Kramnik's attitude towards contracts is rather
colored -- pretty light when it came to playing in Mexico, but yet he
forfeited a game because they locked his toilet...

D.

Up to a point I agree, Dimi. But in this case, from Kramnik's point of view FIDE forced him to sign up to something ridiculous for the sake of getting the world championship back on a proper match footing. I'm glad he insisted on a match against the winner of Mexico simply because if he hadn't we'd probably have lost the match tradition for ever, and to me (and Kramnik) having the world championship decided in a tournament is absurd. Of course anyone is free to cry self-interest and money and so forth, judging Kramnik by their own standards, and there's no proving them wrong. My impression is that he isn't that kind of man, but of course none of us knows him personally, so expressing our opinions is only telling the world something about ourselves, not about Kramnik.

I seriously doubt whether there was any real "renegotiation" at all. This sort of situation pops up routinely in business and politics.

Kramnik/Hensel: We understand the importance of the World Champion playing in Mexico City, but are concerned that the title gained in a match should be defended in a match.

Kirsan: You will inform the press of your agreement to play in Mexico City without conditions, of course, but you may trust that in the coming months FIDE will give your concerns the MOST CAREFUL consideration.

But why are we wetting our pants over the possibility that Zhukov pressured Kirsan?

Kirsan employs "illegitimate" means (buying votes for the FIDE presidency) in furtherance of a "semi-legitimate" end (maintaining a "weak" world chess champion.)

If Zhukov employs "illegitimate" means (his power and influence over Kirsan) it has at least the benefit of furthering a legitimate end (preservation/restoration of the classical title.)