Kramnik: "I’ve already started my preparations"

Kramnik was living in Moscow until his marriage? He is one of the few players, along with Kasparov, who stayed on in Russia during the terrible years of the 90s I think.

Perhaps it must be bugging Kramnik that many people don't consider him stronger than Kasparov, in spite of that match win. Whatever the reason, and whatever was lost in translation (if there was any), his dislike of Gary comes through.

I also profoundly disgaree with his general thesis that something that is relatively better than in the past does not merit further improvement, and does not bare comparison with standards in other societies. I guess, as always, ones opinion will change when the existing situation is contrary to ones needs. So long as one fits into a specific segment that meets with approval, I guess its difficult to project ones thoughts to the existence of those outside that segment.

Mig, the Kramnik link is broken.
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=178

I assume the claim about "50% of educated Russians ... say they would emigrate if they could" comes from this:
http://www.acg.ru/english/news2.phtml?m=2658

Well, I don't think it is fair to jump to "50% of college education aged 24-35, only in 14 biggest cities of the nation, and to only those with a high per-capita income - 1,500 euros per one member of the family in Moscow, 1,000 euros in St.-Petersburg and 800 euros in other cities are willing to emigrate - for a while, or for good" to "50% of educated Russians who say they would emigrate if they could".

Besides, in Russian the question can be asked so that it is not clear if you are leaving the country for a vacation or to emigrate. I've heard it was this vague version of the question that they asked. So the high numbers probably don't tell the whole story. If you asked similar sample of Americans if they want "to go to another country", most of them would assume they are being asked about a vacation, so perhaps even more than 50% would respond "yes" - since Americans can afford vacations abroad more than Russians. To go from that to "Most Americans want to emigrate" would be a bit much, though.

A gallop poll mention below on that very page mentions that in Russia, the rate of potential migrants is 17 percent, which is smaller than in many other countries including Gemrnay and France.

Kramnik is pretty cagey no doubt. His comments in the press (about chess) are ultimately self serving, but I don't think this can be held against him. Kasparov was the same way.

All in all though, that's a pretty weak interview. Nothing new, little insight.

you have to have your basic needs met before you can even think about human rights (i.e. about other people). and often a few years of prosperity doesn't even come close to cutting it. it'll probably take a few generations, and a gradual change in mentality.

besides, if one's achievements (job, for example) aren't merit-based, the priviledged will want to stay priviledged, and they will not think issues of fairness are to be discussed.

i get the sense (at least in my eastern european country) that most people that are doing well now, even the non-cheaters, have a "got out of jail free" attitude - they got lucky, and they realize it. it's hard to develop a humanistic view out of that.

and then, of course, you need to actually *care*...

"Kramnik is pretty cagey no doubt. His comments in the press (about chess) are ultimately self serving, but I don't think this can be held against him. Kasparov was the same way.

All in all though, that's a pretty weak interview. Nothing new, little insight. "

I have to disagree. It is the first time I've heard Kramnik talk on Russian politics/economy. It is the first time I heard Kramnik discuss psychological tricks.

And, most importantly, in this interview Kramnik states for the first time what some of us have been saying all along: that classical title cannot be lost/won in a tournament and that he only agreed to put the title on the line as a compromise with FIDE and Mexico organizers. So, while he does consider Anand as the FIDE champion (as he did consider Kasimdzhanov the champ), he doesn't think Mexico win puts Anand in the line of match champs originated with Steinitz.

That is big deal if you ask me.

amen
for both posts r-bear

I can't believe the Indian author was so upset about the interview. Kramnik makes multiple mentions of Anand's strength and his earned right to play in a WC match (and feel it's valid).

Sensationalism and chess should not mix...uh, unless humor is present (erm, sorry Mig).

oh btw- This match is gonna kick a$$!

The number of deaths due to Western plundering of Russia are not incomparable to those caused by Stalin's purges. Kasparov's political opinions are is in fact common with a lot of Eastern Europeans immigrants in the US who are somewhat to the right of the republican party. Here is another link the different view post 89 Russia by the well-known expert Stephen Cohen:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/13/comment.russia

An except: "Fearful for their dubiously acquired assets and even for their lives, the new property holders were as determined as Yeltsin to limit or reverse the parliamentary electoral democracy initiated by Gorbachev. In its place they strove to create a political system devoted to and corrupted by their wealth, at best a "managed" democracy. Hence their choice of Vladimir Putin, a vigorous man from the security services, to replace the enfeebled President Yeltsin in 1999. And uncertain how long they could actually retain their immense property, they were more interested in stripping its assets than investing in it. The result was an 80% decline in investment in Russia's economy by the end of the 1990s - and the nation's demodernisation. Given such a record, it is scarcely surprising that Putin's attempt to reassert state control over Russia's oil and gas industries is so popular."

That was an interesting, but one of the lamest Kramnik's interviews. And that's coming from a guy who rooted for Kramnik for a long time, through all of his matches and will root for him in the upcoming match.

First, he is clearly dishonest in the political part. Obviously he doesn't want to upset the Russian establishment, so he kisses Putin's behind:
"Nowadays most of the people in Russia are better off than ever before. Maybe for the first time in several centuries the majority of the population in Russia lives as normal human beings, and they’re not afraid that they won’t have anything to give to their kids for supper."

Why is he dishonest? Because he is much too logical and analytical guy not to notice self-contradiction. Throughout the interview he clearly speaks from the "food first" viewpoint. Fine. From that standpoint people were better off in Brezhnev's times because food was guaranteed during that time much more so than it is nowadays. And in the next sentence "Nowadays, people in Russia are better off than ever before". Yeah, right. Let's compare the number of homeless, unemployed, living below the poverty limit in Russia now and under Brezhnev.

Then comes this lame "yes and no" answer to the question of Anand's championship. Yes, many people (me included) don't consider Anand a WC in the Steinitz line. But Vlad should have expressed all his reservations BEFORE losing Mexico. Once he agreed to the whole circus and lost, all he can do is shut up and quietly plot his revenge. Now HIS attempts to undermine Anand's credibility as a champ reek of a bad loser rants. It's probably part of pre-match mind games, still it's hardly a tactic to be proud of.

Oh, come on. I think we instead have to thank Kramnik for showing pragmatism to allow the title to be reunited. He says Anand is the World Champion, but he doesn't consider him the inheritor to Steinitz's line. There is no contradiction there.

I consider Anand the world champion because rules are rules and everybody agreed to them. You can assign to that world championship the value you want, that's a different matter entirely. The title is objective, the value you give it is subjective. I think Kramnik is allowed to have his opinion. I consider it a lot more reasoned than that knee-jerk jingoistic Times of India article was.

Though I am an Indian and an Anand fan, but I agree with Kramnik that Anand is not a World champion in the line of Steinitz. I would consider Anand a True World Champion, only if he defeats Kramnik in the ensuing Match, amd that too within the the 12 regular games.
Given Anand’s match record with the players whose names begin with ‘K’, this seems pretty tough as he has lost matches to Karpov (twice) and Kamsky, not to speak of Kasparov. He also has a worse record in head-to-head classical games against Kramnik. But he can take solace in the fact that Kramnik also has lost matches against Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov.

Hansie, "Kramnik also has lost matches against Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov." and drawn against Leko and Topalov.

"Though I am an Indian and an Anand fan, but I agree with Kramnik that Anand is not a World champion in the line of Steinitz."
Neither is Kramnik. One match does not a WC make!

And yes osbender, those comments of Kramnik reek of sour grapes. Frankly I didnt expect anything else.

Ironically Kramnik was far more circumspect in 2000 after beating Kasparov. That was because he had taken part in the 1999 KO, the one boycotted by Anand, and been knocked out by Adams in the quarterfinals. So it would have been a bit silly to rag on the KO so soon after. At that time he just said there is enough space for two champions.

"Oh, come on. I think we instead have to thank Kramnik for showing pragmatism to allow the title to be reunited. He says Anand is the World Champion, but he doesn't consider him the inheritor to Steinitz's line. There is no contradiction there."

Look, I do agree with what he says on the WC issue, but it's not up to him to say these things after the loss. If he wanted the world to know his opinion, he should have said all that before Mexico. In current circumstances a good sport (Federer comes to mind) would congratulate his opponent and go on quietly to prepare for the showdown that really matters, i.e. the Anand match.

Well balanced and sensible comments, osbender. Yes, this might be part of psychological onslaughts.

Kramnik is right. Kasparov was a "destructive" force in chess politics and he's a destructive force in Russian politics.

The world's greatest-ever chess player from the world's most powerful chess nation was in a unique position to influence the organization of chess for the better.

Instead, he trashed the the wonderful old zonal-interzonal-candidates matches system by decapitating it. Then he formed a rival organization, and when he couldn't put together a majority he simply bolted.

He was a GODAWFUL chess politician.

Unless I'm missing something, Kasparov's program in Russian politics is to:
--unite all anti-Putin forces regardless of their political beliefs
--depose Putin
--free elections
--we'll figure out the rest later, trust me.

His Russian program sounds an awful lot like his chess program and it'd probably have the same result.

I don't get the 'psychological onslaught' comments. I mean, hey, it COULD be.

But he didn't make any crazy or aggressive statements (about chess, at least). And when he talked about psychology, he only said "there must have been some psychology".

I've played in a few tournaments, and gotten nervous or distracted at times while doing so. That is psychology, not psychological warfare. And more to the point I am unaware of any mention of tricks except those that Kasparov allegedly pulled.

Kasparov's political view can be simple minded at times. He views his fight against Putin thru the same prism as his rivalry with Karpov. I am sure his political views will mature as he gains more experience in the political arena.

The truth is that Democracy is not a panacea in places that don't have a democratic tradition. You cannot jump from an authoritarian system to democracy overnight as we've learned painfully in Iraq. Stability takes precedence to democracy.

Russia is better off following the Chinese model for now but both China and Russia will fail if they don't plan the transition towards Democracy. Another possibility is that the transic will be triggered from the bottom once the basic needs of the people are met.

"Anand is the World Champion, but he doesn't consider him the inheritor to Steinitz's line. There is no contradiction there." -- mungono

My predictions...

If Anand defeats Kramnik in their late 2008 WCChamp MATCH, then the history books will say that Anand's reign as WCChamp began with the tournament Mexico 2007. But...

If instead Kramnik defeats Anand in late 2008, the history books will use an asterisk to exclude Anand from the Steinitz lineage of MATCH WCChamps.

Odd perhaps, but as paradoxes go in life, this is a small one.

I agree, Gene M. Anand loses in October, he'll end up like Topalov and Kasimdzhanov.

I don't see why Kramnik shouldn't say that's what he thinks, especially since he's right. And it seems pretty obvious to me that he was hardly in a position to say so before Mexico. One has to pay some consideration to the sponsors and organisers there.

Osbender, I think the 'and' in this sentence is disjunctive:

"Maybe for the first time in several centuries the majority of the population in Russia lives as normal human beings, and they’re not afraid that they won’t have anything to give to their kids for supper."

They both live as normal human beings (ie some political freedoms compared to Brezhnev's day) AND they have enough food to eat. He's saying that this combination has never existed before. I've no idea whether that's true, but it's not self-contrsdictory as you suggest, let alone dishonest.

I'm not sure I agree that his alleged dislike of GK comes through either. Clearly he dislikes GK's political views, but he's not particularly harsh about Kasparov's behaviour at the board. Others have said much harsher things, including Anand in 1995. Let's face it, GK's behaviour at the board was not entirely correct and VK says so only very mildly. You should read what Moskalenko says about a young Moro's (very similar) behaviour in The Flexible French.

Beautiful interview. Perfect description of the true Russian opinion on state of country.

Mig + Other Russia are not on the level at all - the destruction of russia can never be the best interest of russian people.

Why is the link not working? Do you not want people to read it?

http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=178

Its not formatted properly -

"Do you not want people to read it?"

The man just had his first kid, for chrissake. We should be grateful he's reporting at all. Tone down the conspiracy theories please.

"I don't see why Kramnik shouldn't say that's what he thinks, especially since he's right."

Because sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut even if you are right. This is precisely the case. I would understand this sort of interview if there was some sort of controversy or uncertainty: Anand hiding from the match, prior agreements breaking down, etc. As it stands, there is going to be a match that will connect all the dots, erase all the compromises, and produce a clear, undisputed classical champ in the Steinitz line. In such circumstances his interview will be seen by many
a) as sour grapes
b) as a dig at Anand
Why he felt the urge to do that is beyond me.

I agree with osbender about the Brezhnev era and the fact that Kramnik should have spoken up earlier. But I do think it is great that Kramnik says the Mexico "title" is not in the line of Steinitz match championships. It may be late for him to say this, but better late than never. And besides, he is right on this one.

"In such circumstances his interview will be seen by many
a) as sour grapes
b) as a dig at Anand "

Or
c) Kramnik's sincere opinion on the subject. God forbid that makes it into an interview!

Besides, it is actually better for Kramnik to say it NOW, before the match, than after, so that Anand knows exactly what his position is. If Kramnik went on to beat Anand and then said, "you know what, I don't think you were REALLY the champ after Mexico", THAT would be a (much worse) dig at Anand, because then Anand would not be able to do anything about it. But now that the match is coming up, it is actually the best possible scenario to get this out in the open so that Anand and the fans know exactly what is on the line - BEFORE it is too late for Anand to know/realize this and now that Anand still has a chance to change that.

Look, it's not up to Kramnik to determine Anand's place in history anyway. The history will sort itself.

As for explaining to Anand and his fans what Anand's place will be in case of a loss, it's again the job for the press, blogs, and us :), but not for Kramnik. I think deep in heart they all know...

Maybe it is not up to Kramnik to determine Anand's place in history. But it is up to Kramnik to answer interview questions. I don't think he volunteered himself to be the spokesman for future chess historians, but rather stated his own opinion. And stating one's opinion would not be out of place in an interview.

If Anand doesn't have enough humility to point out that the title he won in Mexico isn't exactly the world championship title the way the concept is understood since Steinitz, I don't see the problem with Kramnik saying it. It is something that needs to be said by a top player, be it Kramnik, or anyone else.

Yeah, it's up to Kramnik to answer interview questions. However, IMO it would be better for Kramnik to sidestep this question since he himself has a vested interest in the whole affair and all the important agreements are already reached, so there is nothing to be gained. You see, because of Kramnik's stake in the title all his statements will be viewed not as opinions of a private person, but as these of a rival party.

From this point of view this interview looks like a bit of pre-match trashtalking, which might please some boxing fans, but it leaves a bit of sour taste in my mouth.

It's not the end of the world and all and chess players routinely say much worse things. Still I would expect Kramnik to behave more intelligently.

Actually as far as pre-match trash talking goes, these exchanges (i'm referring to the earlier interviews, doubt if Anand will respond to this one) are quite sedate. Both players are temperamentally unsuited to turning up the volume before important games.
I doubt if there would be more of this - and I expect the match to pass without incident. It would very crazy if a scandal developed again.

GeneM,
Which history book are you refering to? Rumor has it Indian history books already have a "?!" against Kramnik's title and it appears it will not be removed until Kramnik stops using 50-50 lifelines i.e. taking cheap shots at fluke one match titles, properly qualifies and then take a shot at the real title.

Now, does your history book still show an asterisk next to Anand's title?? Could you please check your book again? :)

I wouldn't even call it trash-talking.

Anand implies that Bonn is just another FIDE WCC title, (he's won several already). Kramnik says the winner in Bonn gets a seat at Steinitz' table in chess heaven.

They're both entitled to their opinions and neither has been particularly disrespectful of the other in voicing them.

PircAlert it is all good to make things up, including supposed opinion of future Indian chess books but we already have history books and you can check them out for yourself on how they treat match versus non match champions. People who win match titles become chess immortals, people who win tournaments become the chess history footnotes, which is exactly what Anand will be in both India and outside of it if he fails to beat Kramnik in a match.

Remember Mattison? He was the FIDE champ in the times of Alekhine. Oh, you don't remember him? That's exactly my point.

I don't even know who Mattison is. How do you expect me to remember him? Does he play chess in Madison (64) Square Garden? :)

Those who think that Anand isn't already a part of the "chess immortals" are deluding themselves. His list of achievements is too long.

Obviously Kramnik is better than Kasparov..he crushed him in a match..no????????

j peters, are you trying to start a new world war??
pleeeease nobody start a flame war reply!!! We've heard it all before!

I was in St. Petersburg last week for a literary seminar...most of the indegenous writers I met there thought Kasparov was too radical. And personally I thought alomst all the people I met during my maiden visit to Russia were...well...satisfied. Maybe Kramnik has a point. Mig after all is a paid employee of Kasparov and has to agree with the boss. The boss is always right.

I dont think there is much to get excited about here. Anand needs to win the match to cement his place in chess history if he loses then the brutal truth is that the record will show Fischer Karpov Kasparov Kramnik and yep there were other FIDE champions who won the title by winning a tournament (Kahilfman, Ponomariov and Anand who did it twice)The question Anand needs to answer is: does he have the psychological strenght to take the title in a match? There is no doubt he has the chess ability. Thats the difference in their chess careers Anand was dominated by Kasparov - Kramnik never was.

I dont see any problem with the interview he merely stated what has been common knowledge. Namely he believes that its the match that really counts. A perfectly reasonable intelligent and acceptable comment not in any inappropriate before the match. This a professional sport and if Anand feels a molecule of pressure because of such a statement then he has a big problem. I think Anand should win the match provided he does not crack under the pressure. We all know kramnik can take the pressure.

I consider myself a big Kramnik-fan, but his position on Russian politics is absolutely disingenuous.

He says: "Western people don’t understand, they talk about democracy and about the competition of political parties. The fact is that the people in Russia support the President and the government. If the average income of USA households grew by three times in two years, believe me, a vast majority of Americans would wish Bush stays in office. So to me it is not a matter of democracy, it is a matter of how well you do your job as a President".

-Kramnik seems oblivious to the question of fair distribution of Russia's wealth. It does not seem to occur to him that the Russian people may actualy be far worse-off than they could be under a fairer distribution of resources.

-Kramnik seems all to ready to treat Putin's political practices as the price that must be paid for prosperity. On its own terms, his argument seems to justify 'wealth-generating' dictatorship as generally preferable to democracy that might deliver less wealth. But the background assumption that a genuinely democratic process (and a reversal of Putin's stranglehold over political life) would deliver worse resource outcomes is utter nonsense. In fact, the reverse is true: its intrinsic value as a mode of equal respect aside, democratic decision-making also affords a community the best chance of making the right decisions in the fields of economics and social policy.

In general, I find it deplorable that Kramnik treats democratic governance as a 'risky' chess variation that a player should forego in favour of a 'safer' variation that promises a smaller but clearer advantage. Russian people are not pawns on a chessboard. They should be free to consider all the variations without state inteference and make their own choice. Would Kramnik be happy if someone told him that he cannot consider some variations, on the ground that they are unsafe?

Emmanuel,

Maybe you should re-read the article.

Kramnik says that destruction of the present Russian government risks a return to the anarchic conditions of the 1990's.

Kramnik sides rather with those who work for incremental, constructive movement toward a fairer, more democratic state.

The words "oblivious," and "utter nonsense" fit your post a lot better than they fit Kramnik's remarks.

What will happen if the match Anand-Kramnik is tied and Anand get the title because of win the rapid-blitz tiebreak?....Will be Anand still considered a FIDE champion and will Kramnik claim he is still the classical champion (best chess player of the world according to him) because never been beaten neither by Leko Topalov Anand nor another human even when Kramnik never has beaten those 3 guys?.I think that is the next Kramnik trick to get another unified title against Anand-Topalov/Kamsky winner.The classical saga will continue.If a match,according to Kramnik, is the correct way to determine a real world champion why the championships of every country are mostly decided by tournaments and not matches? I have never seen a USA or Russian championship title decided by a match between a previous socalled champion and a challenger.The classical match Steinitz format is killing the competitive chess spirit by emulate the dirty boxing legacy.

Greg,

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. In particular, you seem to take at face value Kramnik's suggestion that Kasparov and like-minded persons aim at the 'destruction of the present Russian government'. I'm really interested to hear whether you regard calls for basic political freedoms and social justice, and the critique of the current administration as corrupt, as attempts to 'destroy' Russian government.

As to who is striving for peaceful and incremental change, I would encourage you to extend the charity you display towards Kramnik's viewpoint to that of Kasparov and 'The Other Russia'.

Kasparov interview in the 1/27/07 WSJ. His words in quotes:

"...if Putin goes, then who will be in charge? That's a big problem. Then it's instability. An authoritarian regime cannot have a successor while the big name [Mr. Putin] is still alive, much less well, young and strong."

As the new year unfolds, Mr. Kasparov predicts "a political crisis" in Mr. Putin's government, along with "less stability, more uncertainty." That's the opening for the Other Russia. "We should keep our group together, close to the wall, to get into the hall when it's broken. But not too close to be buried under the debris."

And then? "If the Other Russia wins, who cares? The victory of the Other Russia candidate destroys the legacy of any institution built under Putin. You have to start from scratch. You have to call new [parliamentary] elections. You have to introduce new laws. You have to undergo judicial reform. You have to destroy censorship." In short, you have to start over, back to where Russia was before Mr. Putin took over, building democracy, block by block.

----------

"I was in St. Petersburg last week for a literary seminar...most of the indegenous writers I met there thought Kasparov was too radical. And personally I thought alomst all the people I met during my maiden visit to Russia were...well...satisfied."

Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd? I lived in US and people there were rarely satisfied with politics. Now I live in Europe and "satisfied" is the last word that comes to my mind when I think of Europeans and politics. Germans are never satisfied with their government, French are never satisfied, Italians - same story, hell, even Swiss are never satisfied. And lo and behold, in Russia, in the country with a gap between rich and poor not seen anywhere else in Europe, people are satisfied. Hmm....

There is no corruption, wealth gap or dictatorial politics under American democracy. The US economy is strong and political discourse is polite. Heads of big companies never act to steal vast sums of money. Every American has enough to eat and uses a fair and sustainable share of world resources.

Kasparov can bring American style freedom to Russia. Except Russia will not attack various countries to steal their oil because under Kasparov Russia will be even more democratic than the US.

Heaven on earth is very close.

I think I agree with you in general, Osbender -- but, really, the Italians? It's a charitable viewpoint that treats their chronic political fiascos as a positive symptom of anything. Not a model for any political process that actually aspires to work...

"-Kramnik seems oblivious to the question of fair distribution of Russia's wealth. It does not seem to occur to him that the Russian people may actualy be far worse-off than they could be under a fairer distribution of resources."

I don't think Kramnik was giving a lecture on politics or economics. Fair distribution of wealth may well be an issue in Russia - indeed it is, but I don't think Kramnik was forgetting the regular people. The income of an average Russian may not have grown as fast as Russian GDP has, but it least it has grown, which is much more than can be said about the Yeltsin era, when things only seemed to go from bad to worse and when Russia experienced a sharp decline in living standards. A case can be made Putin hasn't made things much better for an average Russian, but he hasn't made them worse - which is a huge improvement over the Yeltsin and Gorbachev eras, when things seemed to become worse - economically - from year to year.

"-Kramnik seems all to ready to treat Putin's political practices as the price that must be paid for prosperity. On its own terms, his argument seems to justify 'wealth-generating' dictatorship as generally preferable to democracy that might deliver less wealth. But the background assumption that a genuinely democratic process (and a reversal of Putin's stranglehold over political life) would deliver worse resource outcomes is utter nonsense. In fact, the reverse is true: its intrinsic value as a mode of equal respect aside, democratic decision-making also affords a community the best chance of making the right decisions in the fields of economics and social policy."

It all sounds good in theory, but in Russia this liberal/idealistic approach has failed miserably in practice and perhaps as much as millions of people were starved to death due to policies of such free market idealism of the Yeltsin era. One things that needs to be stressed - and Kramnik tried to do it in the interview, but maybe he didn't do it enough- people in Russia have experienced nothing but economic decline in the Gorbachev and Yeltsin eras, and they are ecstatic about a leader with whom things don't seem to get worse, and maybe even get slightly better. Yeah, Putin may be all the things Kasparov & co. call him, but after 20 years of economic decline, people appreciate a little stability, it seems. If anything, it is precisely the Kasparov-like liberal idealism of the Yeltsin era that is responsible for the rise of Putin.

"In general, I find it deplorable that Kramnik treats democratic governance as a 'risky' chess variation that a player should forego in favour of a 'safer' variation that promises a smaller but clearer advantage. Russian people are not pawns on a chessboard. They should be free to consider all the variations without state inteference and make their own choice. Would Kramnik be happy if someone told him that he cannot consider some variations, on the ground that they are unsafe? "

- So many Russian pawns have already been sacrificed to economic gambits invented by Kasparov-like liberals, that the Russian public seems to have made its choice: they chose a degree of stability even if they have to give up some of their political rights. Political rights are not edible, and don't come in handy when you are about to starve to death. And yes, Putin is a dictator who took advantage of it. But make no mistake: he was/is supported by large segments of the population. It is all good to be like Mig and quote Clinton about how democracy and prosperity don't have to be opposing values. But to really understand the situation, one would have to remember that prosperity and what people like Kasparov (and Mig?) understand by "democracy" are not values that have been simultaneously available to Russians in recent history. In fact, in Russian experience, they are indeed opposite. And in any case, Americans didn't have anywhere near the economic problems of Russia, and yet they gave up their freedoms to the Patriot Act and the like. If the people of the supposed leading western country were compelled into giving up their freedoms citing as an excuse a single terrorist act, maybe one shouldn't be surprised that Russians have done so in a much more dire situation. Kasparovian "Democracy" has been Russia's 9/11 and Putin is its Patriot Act.

Granda Superb!

"perhaps as much as millions of people were starved to death due to policies ... of the Yeltsin era"

Russianbear, your posts are enlightening as ever. Perhaps it was billions of Russians who starved to death? Or quadrillions?

Eagerly looking forward to your further pearls of wisdom.

Whatever happened to both Ovidiu, Maliq Soter and Yuriy Kleyner? Anyone know why these 3 have been silent for several weeks? Have they run off together to start a commune? I am puzzled.

sorry. delete the 'both' before Ovidiu.

Russianbear,

although I am happy to defer to your experience of Russian social and political life, I disagree with the way you frame some issues.

You say: "the Russian public seems to have made its choice: they chose a degree of stability even if they have to give up some of their political rights".

-How do you know that people have indeed chosen so, when the Putin regime has systematically suppressed opposition? I think that the only reason Putin seems the only plausible choice is that the state apparatus spends a lot of effort making sure that no-one else can be heard.

You say: "Political rights are not edible, and don't come in handy when you are about to starve to death".

-This makes sense only if you buy into the idea that granting genuine political rights (free the media; allow more freedom to political organizations; make courts independent etc.)would destabilize Russia or undermine its economic boom. It would be very interesting to see the evidence for this.

More generally, I think that Kramnik's comments and your post may go some way towards explaining why people do not revolt again Putin, but they do not provide reasons why anyone should support his policies, much less why one would 'disagree' with Kasparov and The Other Russia. My dissapointment comes from the fact that Kramnik did not even say that he endorses their struggle for greater freedom, justice and accountability, even if he might reject the persons leading the party.

RB, it is wrong for the Russian people to blame what happened during the 90s on capitalism or democracy. I lived in Moscow from 1993-1997, and what was going on at that time was neither capitalism nor democracy; it more closely resembled Chicago of the 1920's IMO - gangsterism.

You guys make it sound as if Russia is one dangerous place to stay in or go have a holiday. It's a pretty normal place guys. So some guys in government want to make money...lots of it...so what?! Anybody in government anywhere is greedy. Russia did not feel to me as being under an authoritarian government when I recently visited.

Kasparov has a big talent for making average mistakes of someone else (like Putin) sound life threatening to other people (like russians). Putin and C0 are there to stay and the rest of the leaders in the developed world are unlikely to take Kasparov seriously.

But then Kasparov also has a big talent for prophecy...and his prophecies are usually spot on...if he thinks a crisis is in the offing I am not willing to put my money against him!

Thanks for the link, jonthebon. Cohen's amazing.

Theorist:
"I think I agree with you in general, Osbender -- but, really, the Italians?"

My argument is not that Italian politics is better than the Russian one (although it could, in fact, be the case). However, in normal countries people as a rule are dissatisfied with politics because they always want improvement, no matter how good the situation is, and everybody has his own ideas about what must be improved and in what way. If I hear that people somewhere are "satisfied" that raises a huge red flag for me.

Mehul, I'm wondering what your background is. "It's a pretty normal place guys. So some guys in government want to make money...lots of it...so what?! Anybody in government anywhere is greedy"

You see, in a "normal" place people wouldn't tolerate guys in the government using their position of power so blatantly. It is true that most politicians are greedy self-serving bastards. However, if a politician in a civilized country is caught using his position for financial gain, that usually spells the end of his political career. Yes, Italy is special :).

"Russianbear, your posts are enlightening as ever. ...
Eagerly looking forward to your further pearls of wisdom."

Not as much as I look forward to yours, dz.

"-How do you know that people have indeed chosen so, when the Putin regime has systematically suppressed opposition? I think that the only reason Putin seems the only plausible choice is that the state apparatus spends a lot of effort making sure that no-one else can be heard."

That is a fair thing to say. But the the question is: how do we know Americans have indeed chosen Bush, when the American system never lets anyone but the Republicans or Democrats be heard? Communists can at least get some airtime on national TV in Russia, for example, but what is the last time you saw a Communist on American TV? So it is debatable whether opposition has less opportunities to address the people in Russia than in the US.

"-This makes sense only if you buy into the idea that granting genuine political rights (free the media; allow more freedom to political organizations; make courts independent etc.)would destabilize Russia or undermine its economic boom. It would be very interesting to see the evidence for this."

Again, not a bad point, per se. But Russians don't think that way. Things have been so bad in Russia for the past 15 years or so that economy is by far the major concern now. People were so used to things getting worse than when Putin's arrival coincided with things suddenly not getting worse, they don't want to jinx it. They are reluctant to get things changed just because other people think changes wouldn't destabilize the economic boom. Russians have done too much dying and too little eating in the past 20 years for them to care about abstract "Genuine political rights" as much as they care about economy. As much as it may annoy a western armchair politics buff or a free market idealist, Russians have their own agenda. As a Russian proverb goes, "a fed one doesn't understand a hungry one".

"My dissapointment comes from the fact that Kramnik did not even say that he endorses their struggle for greater freedom, justice and accountability, even if he might reject the persons leading the party."

I think that may be because Kramnik doesn't endorse it, and in fact, considers it counterproductive. I also think Kramnik did explain why he thought Putin did enjoy a much greater degree of popularity than many are willing to admit. You just chose not to pay attention to it. Kramnik did stress the suffering that took place in Russia in the 90s. But you choose to either ignore it or dismiss it as an irrelevant footnote in a greater picture of the progress of political rights. But to Russians in the 1990s the suffering was real, and the political freedoms were next to meaningless. You may consider them wrong or misguided, but that is how that is, and they would probably think YOU are wrong and misguided.

"But then Kasparov also has a big talent for prophecy...and his prophecies are usually spot on...if he thinks a crisis is in the offing I am not willing to put my money against him!"

I thought every prediction about politics I've heard Kasparov make ended up being wrong. I remember him claiming Putin will not step down after the second term, among other things. So if Kasparov has predicted a crisis, it must mean the good times are coming :)

"Still I would expect Kramnik to behave more intelligently."

I wouldn't have done, even if I agreed with you about the wisdom of Kramnik making these observations. Expressing his opinion honestly is a pleasure he generally allows himself, far more so than he would do if his intention were to court popularity. Until recently Anand has always taken the opposite view, hence his general popularity.

"Not as much as I look forward to yours"

Russianbear, I am afraid, I might disappoint you. It could be amusing once in a while to peruse your ignorant drivel but, alas, no intelligent debate can be conducted with a person who stuffs his "theories" (FLOABW) with unsubstantiated (and, of course, unsubstantiatable) claims. I think we had this conversation in an earlier thread and the unambiguous conclusion still stands. The only real question still open is where your ignorance is more profound - in your discussions of Russia or America. That is a tough one.

I don't understand all this Kramnik bashing. The man has proven himself in every important match since 2000. He beat the "Unbeatable" Kasparov, organized a candidates tournament, defended his title against Leko and unified the chess crown by beating Topalov. He also saved Fide from another fiasco by playing in mexico when it was clearly not in his personal interest to do so. He has consistently walked what he talked. He has said all along that he prefers matches to tournaments for the world championship. If you don't like his chess, O.K. Style is subjective. To not approve of his ethics is another matter. In fact, He might be the most ethical champion since Euwe. He also has the power and desire to stand up to Fide. Something Anand would never do. I am looking forward to a great match and rooting for Kramnik!

Bones has some good points. Kramnik did go along with a lot that he was clearly not pleased about. He handled toiletgate ok (i.e. kept playing, accepted a loss, etc.) and still was there for Mexico when he new he wasn't in his best form. Yet, there is a lot of negative feeling about him, I think, because through it all he has been a big whiner. I don't think any (rational) person hates him, but it is easy to be annoyed by what he has to say.

Here is Anand's response which i first saw on ChessMind.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1178637

Suck that Bones : Kramnik the most ethical champion since Euwe, ja , a man who never won a cycle since Spassky times, a man who made everything the impossible to avoid face Kasparov in a rematch, (I will not play Kasparov because he needs to qualify to challenge me) that is ethical for you? ...In the Euwe times you only needed a bag of candies to challenge a reigning champion.

Thanks jaideepblue!! Anand's response is the personification of class, Kramnik could learn a thing or two by reading it. Some excerpts:

Q: "Kramnik claims to have saved the world chess from another split by taking part in Mexico."
A: "I don’t know if that is the popular opinion. I think analysing his games keeps me fairly occupied these days, I don’t want to start analysing his words."

Q: "Is it case of being a bad loser?
A: No comment. Kramnik is a world class player and he will be a tough rival in October and that is what I will be focusing on."

Q: "He cited your none-too-impressive record against Kasparov. He says you were out-foxed by the big K."
A: "Everyone has their nemesis. For me it was clearly Kasparov. I don’t think I want to make excuses for that. Kasparov, in spite of his explosive character, brought the game into the limelight. Now that we are not rivals I can say that Kasparov did try to promote the game on a global level."

I'm really curious as to what excuse Kramnik will come up with if he loses in Oct. Will he be big enough to say well played, the better man on the day won? I doubt it. Of course, he may never be in that position...

Granda, a small inaccuracy in your statement: "..a man who never won a cycle since Spassky times.."

Actually since Botvinnik's time. Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov all qualified through a rigorous cycle. Personally, I think the likes of Bronstein, Korchnoi and even perhaps Keres, have an equal claim to the title as does Kramnik

rdh, what did Moskalenko say about Moro? what was so "clearly" bad about Kasparov's about behaviour at the board? If it was anything unacceptable, surely the arbiter can take of any complaints?

Excellent, jaideep, thanks. I particularly enjoyed the line about how Anand had chosen to ignore Kramnik's remarks (especially fine in the context of him giving an interview about them), followed by bragging about how Anand hadn't whined about Kasparov's behaviour in 1995 (and to be fair I agree the word 'whine' would be inappropriate, 'justified complaint' being nearer the mark, but how do we know Gazza slammed doors and so forth? Right - because Anand mentioned it in interviews).

I do enjoy the Indian press on this topic. It has a refreshingly flagrant bias which is almost innocent in its lack of self-awareness.

Personally, d_tal, I think the moon is made of green cheese, but I'm not fool enough to imagine my views are of much general interest.

Moskalenko deplores Moro's habit of staring at his opponent, which he clearly regards as an ethical breach (and also of storming off after losing, but that is not the immediate point and no doubt has been rectified by time). Facial expressions were one of Gazza's many bad habits. I can't be bothered to list the rest - google or indeed youtube will show you some, as will study of Nunn's or Speelman's books, Anand's interviews after 1995, Kramnik's various interviews including this one, etc. etc.

The only sad thing about the Anand interview (and I am a fan of Anand) is that he seems perfectly content with the dumbing down of the world title. He doesn't mind it becoming irrelevant and worthless. I guess if FIDE decided the world title could be decided by speed chess or Fischer-Random then it would still be fine to call it the world championship.

Pathetic interview by Anand. He is still bitter about losing to Kasparov. And he pretends his "titles" are somehow comparable with the classical title - as laughable as that is. He says the champion should play all formats, but how many long matches has he played since Kasparov has spanked him in 1995? He did everything he could to avoid playing Kasparov and later Kramnik in a match. Anand doesn't even have the decency to admit the only reason he can even claim to have the FIDE title - as weak as that claim is compared to the real, classical title- is because Kramnik made an effort to unify the title and played in Mexico when he didn't have to. Perhaps this is a psychological attack on Kramnik and is part of a calculated plan.

Anand is not humble enough to acknowledge the limitations of his victories. He should learn a thing or two from people like Zukertort, who, even though he outdid Steinitz in a tournament, had the common sense and sportsmanship to acknowledge he could only prove his superiority over Steinitz in a match. Anand has once again shown he is a pathetic creature that lacks class or sportsmanship.

"Personally, d_tal, I think the moon is made of green cheese, but I'm not fool enough to imagine my views are of much general interest."

Why then do you post your views?

rdh, Gazza's facial expressions are well known. Many players have similar foibles, I thought for a moment that you had something new and interesting, my mistake.

I really enjoy this 'verbal' jousting. God bless Mig for providing this arena.

d-tal,Spassky was the first champion who qualified thru a candidate cycle of matches , Kasparov the last one. Before Spassky and after Kasparov the challenger was decided in a tournament or handpicked. A cycle of candidate matches is the best way to determine a match classic champion.

I post those of my views which I consider rational contributions, d_tal. 'Keres was just as much of a world champion as Kramnik' does not fall into that category and is of little if any general interest.

Sorry if you thought I meant to say anything new or interesting. I didn't. Nor did Kramnik. It is well known that Kasparov didn't behave correctly at the board. If you think that's a 'personal foible', presumably because Gazza was a daring attacking player and you like that, more fool you.

hey rdh, cool down man! You need to relax, any criticism of Kramnik and you blow your top!

Now, whenever have I given cause, in ANY of my posts to warrant the following? "If you think that's a 'personal foible', presumably because Gazza was a daring attacking player and you like that, more fool you."

I have repeatedly said I dont consider style to be anything but a personal, mostly irrelevant preference in the context of best player, tournament strategy etc, and I have repeatedly defended Kramnik's style! If nothing else, you owe me an apology for this.

"I post those of my views which I consider rational contributions, d_tal. 'Keres was just as much of a world champion as Kramnik' does not fall into that category and is of little if any general interest."

The thing is, you post what YOU (i.e. rdh) consider to be rational posts. Most of the time, its mindless drivel to me. I'm sure its valued by some others. Same applies to me. You are not the final arbiter of what's rational or not, if its anybody, its Mig.

oh sorry Granda, I took cycle to mean qualified through a structured approach, whether based on matches or tournaments. Which Kramnik didnt do.

Has it occurred to anyone else that Kramnik probably doesn't pay any attention to Russian politics? Why should he care? He lives in Moscow but spends most of his time trotting around the world to tournaments or shut up in his room studying. So why would he want upheaval? He probably doesn't really know or care what Kasparov is on about, and why should he?

On this point, if no other, I agree with Kramnik. Why rock the boat if you are happy with your life. Politics isn't life, it's just something to occupy annoying people.

Kramnik's preparations: searching for new and stultifying ways to suck the life out of every opening.

Grin.

I'd like to say I consider rdh to be a rational and knowlwedgable poster. To say most of the time he posts "mindless drivel" is just trolling in the same vein as "Keres is as much a champ as Kramnik".

the cavalry cometh, I expected no less. Bear in mind Mr Bear, other points of view exist.
It is my opinion that Keres is as much a champion as Kramnik. I consider Korchnoi and Bronstein to be more of a champion than Kramnik. Just my opinion old chap.

but nuff said...

There's an excellent line in a novel by Jilly Cooper (always a good source for spiritual enlightenment).

Silly woman (screaming): "I'm entitled to my opinion!"

Urbane and wicked hero: "Of course you are, darling. I just don't want to hear it, that's all."

now that sweetie, is trolling. Not answering any comments logically, but posting drivel. Again, you are not the arbiter of what is relevant, and what is not. Difficult to understand? I guess in the rdh world, your word is final. Oh well... Speaking of quotes, have you ever heard of this one: "Physician heal thyself"?

d_tal: not all opinions are equally worthy. Some opinions are outright wrong. And some are so laughable someone who posts them ends up looking like a troll. You may have an opinion that 2 times 2 is 5, but noone is required to value or respect that opinion simply because it is an opinion.

You may wish to get a logical answer to your comments, but let's face it, you have posted anything worthy of logical response. You posts are variation on one theme - how you dislike Kramnik, and as such, they don't lend themselves well to logical analysis or counterarguments. But whenever you post something completely outlandish or silly, don't be surprised if people scoff at your remarks.

d_tal: not all opinions are equally worthy. Some opinions are outright wrong. And some are so laughable someone who posts them ends up looking like a troll. You may have an opinion that 2 times 2 is 5, but noone is required to value or respect that opinion simply because it is an opinion.

You may wish to get a logical answer to your comments, but let's face it, you have NOT posted anything worthy of logical response. Your posts are variation on one theme - how you dislike Kramnik, and as such, they don't lend themselves well to logical analysis or counterarguments. But whenever you post something completely outlandish or silly, don't be surprised if people scoff at your remarks.

Granda,

Suck What? Anand basically said nothing. Why? Because, He will not defend a lost position. He knows that a match is worth more than a tournament. If not to him, Then to the chess public. He also knows that if he loses the match his place in chess history will be considerably lower than if he wins. How can you be one of the greatest without winning at least one really big match?
How did Kramnik make it impossible for Kasparov to get a rematch? By organizing a candidates tournament in which Kasparov was invited? By signing the prague agreement in which Kasparov was a participant? Or by honoring Kasparov's desire that a dethroned champion should not be entitled to an automatic rematch? If anyone kept Kasparov from getting a rematch it was Kasparov.
Regarding Euwe, He was Fide champion when he first played Alekhine. After winning, He realised that Alekhine was in poor form and gave him a rematch with no questions asked. He could have said some craziness like "The Fide Champion title is equal to the World Champion title" like Anand who it seems would be just as happy to get his title from a gumball machine.

rdh and Rbear--

I imagine a 16-year-old boy with nothing much to contribute, cranking out the most stupid and provocative things imaginable as his only means of attracting attention.

Animal trainers and parents of young children sometimes prosper by completely ignoring bad behavior and responding only to appropriate conduct.

Until Mig blesses us with an "ignore" button I don't see that there's much choice.

Hey Russian, I think your posts are generally well-written and thought out, but your latest Anand-bashing smells of Kramnik-bias to me...

"Pathetic interview by Anand. He is still bitter about losing to Kasparov."

Where do you infer this from the interview? If anything, he even refused to make excuses for his poor record against Kasparov.

"He says the champion should play all formats, but how many long matches has he played since Kasparov has spanked him in 1995?"

How many opportunities did he have to play a match? He played whatever FIDE organized, and FIDE wasn't organizing matches.

"He did everything he could to avoid playing Kasparov and later Kramnik in a match."

Sources please? From what I recall, he accepted to play Kasparov in a match in 1999 but Kasparov couldn't secure funding. In 2000 Anand decided he wouldn't take a risk anymore, so turned down the offer. His contract with FIDE precluded him from playing in the 2002 Dortmund qualifier. And there never was a serious proposal of a Anand-Kramnik match, until now, so I don't see where he dodged a Kramnik match.

"Anand doesn't even have the decency to admit the only reason he can even claim to have the FIDE title - as weak as that claim is compared to the real, classical title- is because Kramnik made an effort to unify the title and played in Mexico when he didn't have to. Perhaps this is a psychological attack on Kramnik and is part of a calculated plan."

Even if you are right about this, you think Anand should come up and say "My title is worthless, Kramnik is the one and true champion, I am the challenger in the coming match"? As a sportsman, devaluing one's own accomplishments is outright silly. Anand is behaving just like a normal sportsman -- I don't see any lack of sportsmanship here.

"Anand is not humble enough to acknowledge the limitations of his victories. He should learn a thing or two from people like Zukertort, who, even though he outdid Steinitz in a tournament, had the common sense and sportsmanship to acknowledge he could only prove his superiority over Steinitz in a match. Anand has once again shown he is a pathetic creature that lacks class or sportsmanship."

Unlike in the Zukertort days, these guys make a living out of playing chess. I don't see what is so unsportsmanlike about following the rules of the chess governing body. Not everyone is like Kasparov who has enough money stashed away that he can do whatever he wants.

Anand cannot come in defense of this "classical" title line, it is actually a "classical" hyphen if you ask me, the alpha and omega of it is Mr Kramnik. For this title to come into existance, Anand had to be sacrificed as a pawn in the Keene's Gambit which was Accepted by Kramnik. However, Kramnik knew this hand-pick gambit was dubious (and therefore the title thus obtained) so he ran away from it. Wonder if Kramnik ever spent any time to value his title before he sat on to weigh in on others title? While hand-picking itself is dubious, do we have a precedence for picking a disqualified challenger? To me it appears like Kramnik somehow managed to jump on the anti-fide propaganda wagon of that time and stealthly attached his title to the champion's line!

Bones,can you explain me how a SINGLE match where only 2 players are involved can determine who is the best chess player of the world?,in my opinion a match just determine who is best of the 2 players.I consider a cycle of matches (similar way Spassky Fischer Karpov? and Kasparov got their titles)the most acceptable way to decide who is the best match classic player. I disagree give a shot as a challenger a man who won a tournament because a tournament winner is not always a good match player, that is like mix apples and pineapples.The match champion-challenger should be the final stage of a match cycle.Kramnik has been lucky first getting a spot to the title without qualify, and second third and fourth defending his faded title against men who won tournaments to play him. Leko Topalov and Anand were produced winning tournaments. Another thing i don't understand is if a match is the correct format to determine a real champion why all the national chess federations never use it, when was the last time USA or Russian federations decided their annual titles with a champion-challenger match. Do i have to assume all the national chess federation champions are fake champions??.

Am I the only one who thinks both interviews were not particularly spicy stuff, and if this is what the chess world regards as "hostilities" etc we got a looooong way to go before people really notice chess? The rather pathetic efforts of Chessbase and the Indian media can't fan this spark, it wouldn't light petrol. And the two protagonists are very quiet, mild tempered people without very controversial opinions on much, who prefer just to play and study chess. Amen.
What we need is another Toilet.

Granda,
I agree that the best format includes candidates matches. You can ask Fide why this is not done. If you are saying Anand does not deserve a title shot because he only won a tournament, Your preaching to the choir:) Kramnik was very fortunate to get a title shot under the circumstances that he did, no question. I disagree that Kramnik's title is faded. In fact, I think it's strength grows with every World Championship tournament Fide organizes. Anand may have won in mexico but he drew both of his games against Kramnik. I don't understand how you can be the champ without beating the champ. As far as national championships are concerned, The problem is money and logistics. Very few federations have the means to have lengthy cycles for national titles. This does not mean that tournaments equal matches. How many former world champions would not have won the title if tournaments were held instead of matches. Certainly not Karpov. Probably not Capablanca either.Petrosian never. Now you want to devalue Kramnik's achievement? Matches are the most natural and logical way to determine who is better, Because chess is a two player game. Anytime you introduce more players you automatically randomize the results. The fact that many people don't understand this leads me to believe that there motives are not pure. This includes Anand.

"How many former world champions would not have won the title if tournaments were held instead of matches. Certainly not Karpov. Probably not Capablanca either.Petrosian never."

Karpov and Capablanca would not have won the title if it was based on tournaments? If you hadn't included Petrosian I'd have thought you were being sarcastic.

Karpov is the player with the largest number of major tournament wins of all time. Capablanca went undefeated from 1914 to 1924, I believe.

Bones,Kramnik title is faded and not strong since he has beaten nobody else before and after Kasparov.He tied Leko and Topalov in classic games,is he the best of the world because he proved not to be WORST than those guys?.Put that guy to play a cycle of matches to see how good is he(not to UNIFY his title with single tournament winners). The last time he tried a cycle of matches he was humiliated before play Kasparov.Is not hard to create a tournament of matches for any determined federation, just get a reduced knockout version with 8 or 16 best ranked players with 8 or 10 games per match and lets see who is the best.Playing against a single player is easier than play against 3 or 4 of them, can you imagine the quantity of energy and preparation you need to face different styles of games.

rdh, Russianbear and Koster, why dont you start up a blog, and invite yourselves, and then start posting in the following manner:
rdh: Kramnik is great
Russianboor: No, Kramnik is greater.
Koster: Are you kidding, Kramnik is the greatest.

And then Russian can indulge his taste for verbal diarrhoea
Russianbear: Kramnik is the best. He is the greatest. He is excellent. He is brilliant.. and so on

Once you get tired of that, you can start on another thread.
Koster: Kasparov is the worst.
rdh: Based on your wonderful logical analysis, I have to agree, thank you koster
Bear: Yep, I have to agree, Koster is such a wonderful poster.

and so on, and so on. Perhaps you can also get some guest bloggers. But on this blog, Mig's blog, none of you have the right to bully somebody else's opinion into submission just because you dont agree with it. Bare in mind that others may not have such a collectively high opinion of your intelects as you do. Praising Kramnik and his positional play as if somehow its more intellectual, attributing things they never said to others in order to refute strawmen arguments, and patting yourselves on your backs. How sad and pathetic.

ahem..."bear" in mind, d_tal. Chortle.

rdh, there are ppl with almost unlimited time, internet access and pathological need for arguing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
Can't do anything about that.

Or this one even fits better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PJzMHObabo&feature=related

I wouldn't call Anand's interview "pathetic". No need to stoop to the level of rabid Kramnik-bashers. Anand does a reasonable job of not attacking Kramnik directly despite the best efforts of the interviewer.

As for Anand trying to put an equality sign between his current title and classical title... What do you expect him to do? To rubbish his own title?

IMO Anand has done what was required from him to keep the classical tradition going: he signed the contract for the upcoming match without being too difficult. The fact that he likes to talk up his current title is such a minor fault in the grand scheme of things that it doesn't really deserve much criticism.

One strange aspect of the Anand interview is the english was quite poor - previously when I have read (and heard) comments by Anand his english has been excellent. The questions were really loaded as if the answers were written then questions fitted around them! A bit comic. I think its very misleading to say of the Kramnik Topalov match that it was tied when the result was 3-2 in classical games - you can hardly count the forfeit.

"One strange aspect of the Anand interview is the english was quite poor"
Since when the english people became poor? oh my poor english.. :)

Nice one PircAlert :)

Thx Andy. :)

d_tal:

Kramnik did not draw against Topalov. He won +1 in the classical games (without counting the rapid games).

"One match does not a WC make!"

Who said so? Smyslov, Tal, Spassky won one match each, and they are world champions. Besides, Kramnik won 2 matches, against Kasparov and Topalov.

Bones:
"How many former world champions would not have won the title if tournaments were held instead of matches. Certainly not Karpov. Probably not Capablanca either.Petrosian never."

Petrosian actually qualified from a tournament.
As for Karpov, I'd say in the 1970s there no better tournament player than him.

henry, In the case of Smyslov, Tal and Spassky, the match was preceded by a very structured series of qualifying tournaments. So it was not just the match that made them champion, it was winning the qualifying tournaments, plus the match. Look up some books that describe these times, I can recommend the life and games of Mikhail Tal.

No, Kramnik didnt beat Topalov you see, the rules state that a walkover counts as a win. There is a reason for that, otherwise people could just not turn up when then didnt feel like it. Who's to say that Topalov would not have won that game.

Pathetic. Topalov was the one who caused the situation that led to the forfeit, and what he did was completely unsportsmanlike. Kramnik certainly won on games of chess actually played, which is what counts in the minds of most rational people.

If it comes to that, the match rules also stated that extra games should be played if the score reached 6-6. They were played, and Kramnik won them, thus winning the match.

The whole Kramnik-didn't-beat-Topalov thing, while rather dull, does have this use: people who say it mark themselves immediately as people with whom rational debate is pointless.

Spassky, incidentally, won a series of candidates matches. But one match made Lasker, Capa, Alekhine and Euwe world champions, of course, and pretty much mere self-proclamation Steinitz. The Kramnik-isn't-a-real world champion argument is another useful signifier of absence of rationality.

And ironically enough, champs like Capablanca, Lasker, and Alekhine remain some of the most admired champions of all, despite the fact that they had no qualifiers, just final matches.

Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine may not have had qualifiers but they didn't lose qualification matches either.

If the Leko match is considered as well, no one called Botvinnik a loser after his drawn match with Bronstein, nor did anyone question Kasparov's championship after the drawn match at Seville 1987.

We should remember that Mig is a Kasparov hireling, and as such he admits without censure all forms of inanity and libelous invective aimed at Kramnik. Until the day Kramnik retires from chess there's no way to stop the bleeding that began in 2000. So don't engage them -- just open your umbrellas, let the seagulls fly blindly about the blog and be assured that they will contribute nothing.

Indeed, given that Kramnik has been Topalov in both classical (even though he had one less game with white) and rapid, an attempt to make it sound like Kramnik didn't beat Topalov is indeed irrational. Rules were violated much more than they were upheld in the game 5 decision, so appeal to rules doesn't really work. No matter which way you look at it, Kramnik won: or if you are a stickler for the FIDE (misapplication of) rules he won on tie-breaks, but if you only want to be serious and only look at classical part, he also won 3-2 there, despite having one less game with white.

Bones had made some good points, but the idea that Karpov, Capablanca or Petrosian wouldn't have been "champs" in tournaments is a little out there. Murali addressed that already. Btw, I believe Karpov won more tournaments than any other two world champs combined. Saying Karpov couldn't win tournaments is like saying Lasker or Kasparov couldn't win matches.

Now, to answer Murali himslf:

"Where do you infer this from the interview? If anything, he even refused to make excuses for his poor record against Kasparov. "

This wasn't inferred from this interview itself as much as from Anand's overall approach, his unwillingness to play matches and his willingness to pretend his non-match accomplishments can count as the real title.

"How many opportunities did he have to play a match? He played whatever FIDE organized, and FIDE wasn't organizing matches. "

That's the problem. He is a FIDE puppet, which is sad, because he gives them credibility they would lack otherwise. But he was offered to play matches outside FIDE: 1998 and 2000 come to mind, and so does he chance to play in Dortmund 2002 where he would be one of the favorites. Anand was once beaten by Kasparov and twice shy (or thrice shy) about playing in matches ever again.

"Sources please? From what I recall, he accepted to play Kasparov in a match in 1999 but Kasparov couldn't secure funding. In 2000 Anand decided he wouldn't take a risk anymore, so turned down the offer. His contract with FIDE precluded him from playing in the 2002 Dortmund qualifier. And there never was a serious proposal of a Anand-Kramnik match, until now, so I don't see where he dodged a Kramnik match. "

"couldn't secure funding", "decided he wouldn't take a risk anymore", "contract with FIDE precluded him from playing": these are just excuses. And these ammount to Anand dodging the top level match competition. Btw, you forget about the 4th opportunity: Anand declining to play Kramnik in 1998: Shirov wasn't even originally supposed to play Kranmik in 1998, Anand was. So, Anand dodged Kasparov/Kramnik on 4 occasions. I find it very hard to believe the excuses, I think he would/could have played if he wanted to. Maybe once or twice I could have believed the excuses, but not 4 times. Besides, some of these excuses are lame: "His contract with FIDE precluded him from playing in the 2002 Dortmund qualifier". That is weird, cause dortmund was part of Prague, which was FIDE-endorsed unification process. "decided he wouldn't take a risk anymore". Risking what? Making a million dollars or so? Or risking getting spanked again? If it is the latter, it is exactly what I implied in the first place, so we don't really disagree then. Sorry, these excuses are lame. He shouldn't have been a FIDE puppet in the first place, but even if he chose that, he still had his chances to play Kramnik/Kasparov if he wanted to.

"Even if you are right about this, you think Anand should come up and say "My title is worthless, Kramnik is the one and true champion, I am the challenger in the coming match"? As a sportsman, devaluing one's own accomplishments is outright silly. Anand is behaving just like a normal sportsman -- I don't see any lack of sportsmanship here. "

Actually, that would be the ultimate sportsmanlike act. It may not be in one's immediate financial interest to devalue one's own accomplishments. Why can Zukertort admit he didn't prove he was better than Steinitz even though he finished higher in a tournament? Why did Zukertort agree that match is the way to decide who is better? That is ultimate sportsmanship, not claiming whatever format you won happens to be the ultimate one. Anand's failure to achnowledge the limitation of his wins shows lak of sportsmanship.

"Unlike in the Zukertort days, these guys make a living out of playing chess. I don't see what is so unsportsmanlike about following the rules of the chess governing body. Not everyone is like Kasparov who has enough money stashed away that he can do whatever he wants. "

FIDE's incompetence makes it hardly sensible to appeal to them as the governing body. They are more like chess ruining body.

Let's face it, Anand is not poor. He could have done anything he wanted. And he might well have made more money if he kept taking those match opportunities versus Kasparov and Kramnik - even if he kept losing. So it is possible, perhaps even probable that Anand willingly chose to earn LESS money by avoiding tough matches. So, in a sense, Anand was paying not to face Kasparov/Kramnik.

Its really sad that we'll be seeing the World No. 2 against the world no. 6 (or maybe 8?) by the time the match starts. The live ratings paint a depressing picture. The cycles are so long that a rocket like Magnus loses out. We are in a different time, different era, tournaments are the best way, maybe with some characteristics of a match thrown in somehow.

Ratings are irrelevant. Chess functioned fine even before the ratings, let alone live ratings. The world wants to see Kramnik play Anand. That will be the match for the title. Anything else is really meaningless. Kramnik played Topalov in 2006, which was only 2 years ago. If the winner of the Bonn match will defend in 2010 and the system for selecting a challenger makes sense, chances are the candidate will be worthy, and it is not unlikely it will be Calrsen.

And I don't see how live ratings lead one to think tournaments are superior. A WC match may end up being #2 versus #6, but the winner can be claim to being the best match player in the world, and to be the best player in the world, period. A tournament win wouldn't prove anything; even people like Naidich and Bologan can win a tournament.

Kramnik lost game #5 , Fischer lost game #2 , both games lost by forfeit. Kramnik won the match in rapid games. If Anand or Kramnik win the match in rapids or blitz , Kramnik can not complaint still being the best because the rules of the game are agreed before the match, sometimes the rule is challenger has to win by 2 or 1 points, or whoever who wins the first 6 or 10 games, or whoever who wins the rapids or the blitz in case of the match ends tied. I spect no more stupidities from that dirty Russian who usurped Shirov right to play Kasparov.If he lose maybe he can challenge the loser of Kamskylov match if Kirsan still wants to help him under russian pressure.

Feedback on the article appeared in chess base on “Psychological warfare begins”- July 17, 2008.

Kramnik thinks only a 1-1 match should decide who the world champion is. He thinks or wants chess public to believe that only a 1-1 match will determine the best chess player. While there could be some logic behind this assumption, here are some arguments that show why a 1-1 match may not produce best chess or a true World Champion.

First of, a world chess champion need not play his best chess to become one. In other words, a 1-1 match format need not necessarily produce the best chess between the two.
Second, a worthy world champion has to be world #1 too, which is determined by his overall performance against everyone else in tournaments as well. Otherwise the title does not make sense. Consider tennis for example. Roger Federer has been #1 for over 4.5 years and is considered "world champion" because he has been beating everyone consistently until recently. He doesn't have to meet just the second best every time like Kasparov did against Karpov. To me that alone should not be used to determine who the best player is. Kasparov in his time was the best because he not only defeated the second best, but also consistently defeated everybody and was #1 for years. Kramnik hadn't achieved it, in fact he falls way behind. [He was third for many years behind Kasparov and Anand and now again in third place. Not to mention losing the World Championship last year. In contrast, Anand has been #2 for many years and currently #1 for over a year.]

Third, as often discussed in chess forums, sometimes, during a 1-1 match, the best player need not play his best chess because of psychological factors. So many ugly things can decide the fate of a 1-1 match. Anand lost to Kasparov not because he fell short of chess talent but because of psychology as Kasparov himself has stated on many occasions. If that's the case why would you want to conclude that who ever wins the 1-1 match is the best player? Staring at the opponent like Kasparov usually did, exhibiting strange and bad behavior during the match or the event; hiring managers who distract the scene and use unethical tricks are part of a 1-1 match. Some former Russian champions may be proud of such off-the board tactics, but they are not healthy for any sport. These kill the very spirit of any sporting activity. Winning at any cost by any approach was Kasparov’s mentality; Winning by playing well is Anand’s philosophy. He may not have won that many as Kasparov did, but he is way ahead of these cheap Russian champions for having kept the sport healthy and for staying at the very top without provoking anybody or getting into controversies. It is needless to say that such cheap off-the board tactics play little role in a tournament setting.
Fourth, it is easy to “fix” a match between two players as opposed to a tournament, which makes the unofficial title matches especially suspicious.

After all, a round robin tournament style world championship does involve 12 or more games only that they are against 7 other players as opposed to the same player every time. If people argue that luck is a part of such a system, then how come champions like Kasparov or Anand are able to win so many tournaments in their career? Kasparov won a record 9 titles at Linares and Anand 5 or more at Wijk An Zee. Kramnik won his share at Dortmund.
Also, ever since the chess organizations got broke because of Kasparov, the separate titles have muddied the water. The title that Kramnik won can also be called lucky because he got to play Kasparov for the championship in spite of losing to Shirov in the candidates and Anand the worthy challenger among the three had rejected the invitation to play. In fact, in another cycle, Anand defeated Shirov in a 6 game mini match and won the World Championship in the FIDE cycle. How on earth does Kramnik with all his superior brain power fail to recognize this? He wants to conveniently forget all these and merrily goes about mocking Anand’s title.

To me, Kramnik is an opportunist. Had he won the world championship in Mexico (in 2007), he would have announced that he is the best chess player ever because he won both the 1-1 match against Topalov in 2006 and the tournament-style championship against the elite. He failed and Anand won the world championship by 1 full point. That is the reality. If Kramnik is really the best chess player, he should have won the Mexican world championship and now is in a must win situation to equalize things. Otherwise he will have no credibility what-so-ever. Should Anand lose the title in October, it still does not erase the fact that he won the World championship by playing among the best where Kramnik participated but could not win. Having missed his chance already, Kramnik wants the chess world to ignore that and consider the result of this upcoming 1-1 match, which he hopes to win by bringing in the psychological factors in which Russians are so good at.

One message for Kramnik: Just shut up and play chess!

While there is this debate as to which is the best format to pick the 'best player' of an era, I think, we need an overall approach.
Just a 1-1 match conducted once in every few years may not be the correct way eventhough it mnay have been done for decades. There is no necessity that something done historically be the correct method.
A 1-1 match brings in too many factors other than chess talent. Also it takes too much time with seconds for preparing that makes them unavailable or play inefficiently in lot of tournaments; makes the cyclde too long for a champion to rest on his seat while the challenger has to do multiple prep within a short time. Stupid psychological factors- which could make even the mentally tough ones to go nuts.
A tournament format is also an extremely challenging because once it is labeled as World Championship match, it is going to become extremely competitive as all the best players get a shot at it, so everyone prepares. A stupid toilet issue or off-the-board tactics that occur months before the tournament will play little or no role. It will be more a test for chess skills and of course mental strength/stamina to face different opponents with different playing style to come out on top.
We may see multiple champions in a decade, but the best wins would win often enough to stand out among the rest.
All that I am saying is old method need not be the best and the new format need not be all that bad as conceived by some.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Like Mig once said, the match folks will never accept anything else to decide world championship. While nice, I think this format is probably too slow in today's fast-paced world -- but that is my opinion, I am not going to try to convince others of it.

Russianbear, your arguments on Anand being a coward are not at all compelling; Anand never refused to play any matches as long as they were organized within the FIDE cycle. It takes two to Tango: just like Anand did not participate in non-FIDE cycles, Kramnik & Kasparov chose not to participate in the FIDE ones either. I would go ahead and say that Kramnik and Kasparov were the ones dodging Anand -- they could have played Anand if they wanted (through the FIDE cycle), but chose not to.

The 1999 match Anand-Kasparov "couldn't secure funding" was real. Anand accepted the match, therefore forsaking his participation in the FIDE cycle (which Kramnik *did* participate in, losing to Adams in the quarter-finals), but the match didn't take place because Kasparov could not come up with the money. Where is he being a coward? Where did he dodge Kasparov? I can't blame him for thinking (in 2000) that Kasparov's match proposal was another vaporware, so that year he picked FIDE instead -- which at least managed to hold a tournament every year at that time.

Anand has clearly shown that he has no interest in politics. That is his personality, live with it. For all FIDE's problems, choosing to participate only in "official" cycles means Anand can shelter himself from all the politics, which suits him well. That doesn't mean he is a coward. Now that a Kramnik match is imminent, is Anand dodging it? Did he even *try* to come up with some "Now I am the champion, I don't need to play Kramnik who is #6 on the list" ? No, he said nothing of the sort, and he will play the match. True, he is "obligated" by contract to play this match; but according to Russianbear, respecting contracts is BS, and Anand could refuse to play the match if he wishes.

BTW, while I am naturally rooting for Anand, I do think Kramnik stands a better chance for being a better match player. I won't argue with that; but saying that Anand is a coward is something I can't agree with -- and curiously, I've never heard anyone say that before, which is a good indication that this is a pretty gratuitous attack from Kramnik's fans.

To be honest, I fail to see any rational in the "match format is probably too slow in today's fast-paced world". Match or Mexico-type tournament takes about the same time. The real question is qualification, but fundamentally, the tournament also requires proper qualification cycle.

The real difference is that a match is a simple mano-a-mano affair. Tournament simply does not offer the same purity of fight. Even if we disregard the possibility of game fixing, in the tournament the battle between Kramnik and Anand in fact is decided in their games against Moro. Hence the result depends not only on the respective qualities of Kramnik and Anand but also on a billion extra factors such as how well Moro slept on a given Saturday. Therefore, the tournament is simply unusable as a tool to determine WC. IMO even FIDE knockouts are better in this quality.

osbender, why not a tournament of matches to determine who is the best match player of the world. For example just get the 16 best ranked players and create a 16 players knockout with 8,10 or 12 games per match.
Tournaments and a single match( unless there was a candidates match cycle and the winner is facing the reigning champion) it makes no sense to me to determine a world match champion.A single match it seems to me that you are very selective with only 2 players of the elite.
After the match results you only know who is the best of the 2 players, in a tournament of matches you can show your superiority beating 3 or 4 players in a row , same as a candidates match cycle. The tournaments can be fixed as you say and some players could depends in results of others players like the case of Morozevich.
The swiss format also looks better than the roundrobin one and the fairest of all of them because let a huge quantity of players taking part in the competition and a drawish behavior player can not have success playing a swiss. The drawish behavior work well in matches.

Gosh, 'dirty Russians'? Must we have racism as well as idiocy?

"First of, a world chess champion need not play his best chess to become one. In other words, a 1-1 match format need not necessarily produce the best chess between the two. "

Neither does a tournament or KO winner needs to play his best champs to win tournaments with those formats. So this is not an argument against matches. It is not about just playing great, but playing great chess under tremendous pressure. And there is no more great pressure than facing the strongest player day after day. While match occasionally do produce bad blunders, often they force people to raise the level of the game and come up with masterpieces that would not be possible on "mere" superGM level. Kasparov-Karpov matches pushed chess to a new level, for example, but so have many other matches. Tournaments don't generally do it because the average level of play and preparation is much weaker.

"Second, a worthy world champion has to be world #1 too, which is determined by his overall performance against everyone else in tournaments as well. Otherwise the title does not make sense. "

Actually, ratings are irrelevant to wo is the best player. One can get a high rating by destroying somewhat weaker players, but failing to prove one's superiority over the toughest opposition. The only thing that can conclusively prove one top player is better than another is a match between the two. Kasparov may have beaten pretty much everyone in the world around 2000, but his match with Kramnik proved Kasparov's inferiority to Kramnik convincingly, even though Kasparov was a clear #1 due to his dominance over players weaker than Kramnik. So, ratings are overrated, I would say.

"Kasparov in his time was the best because he not only defeated the second best, but also consistently defeated everybody and was #1 for years. Kramnik hadn't achieved it, in fact he falls way behind. [He was third for many years behind Kasparov and Anand and now again in third place. Not to mention losing the World Championship last year. In contrast, Anand has been #2 for many years and currently #1 for over a year.] "

Actually, Anand and Kramnik used to switch between being #2 and #3 behind Kasparov. In any case, I addressed the rating issue above.

"Third, as often discussed in chess forums, sometimes, during a 1-1 match, the best player need not play his best chess because of psychological factors. So many ugly things can decide the fate of a 1-1 match. Anand lost to Kasparov not because he fell short of chess talent but because of psychology as Kasparov himself has stated on many occasions. If that's the case why would you want to conclude that who ever wins the 1-1 match is the best player? "

Because psychology is part of the game? If one can freek out by other player's behaviour, that is that player's problem, not that of his opponent. Besides, I don't think anyone doubted Kasparov's chess superiority over Anand, including Anand himself. Psychological factors may be brought up if one starts to explain just why Anand not only has a bad record against Kasparov, but horrible record. But Kasparov chess superiority over Anand was never in doubt - not even in tournaments, for that matter.

"Staring at the opponent like Kasparov usually did, exhibiting strange and bad behavior during the match or the event; hiring managers who distract the scene and use unethical tricks are part of a 1-1 match."

I don't think Kasparov hired people to distract their opponents, and whatever strange behaviour he may have had was apparently allowed by the rules, otherwise other people could have complained to the arbiter. So Kasparov dominance can't be explained by merely non-chess means.

"Some former Russian champions may be proud of such off-the board tactics, but they are not healthy for any sport. These kill the very spirit of any sporting activity. Winning at any cost by any approach was Kasparov’s mentality; Winning by playing well is Anand’s philosophy. He may not have won that many as Kasparov did, but he is way ahead of these cheap Russian champions for having kept the sport healthy and for staying at the very top without provoking anybody or getting into controversies."

Cheep Russian champions? That reeks of racism. If we examine Russian and non-Russian participants of the title matches, I don't think Russians have show tendency for unsportsmanlike behaviour more than non-Russians. And as much as I dislike Kasparov, he behaved nicely at the board. There is nothing unsportsmanlike about looking at the other player. So this whole this is probably made up to make excuses for Anand's failures, I think. Anand has been involved into his share of problems, including his recent statements, so there is no reason to make it seem like he is somehow morally superior to the Russian players. At least Kasparov wanted to play everyone (or anything) strong in a match. Anand dodged Kasparov and Kramnik for 13 years after getting spanked in 1995.

"It is needless to say that such cheap off-the board tactics play little role in a tournament setting. "

Is that so? Danailov's behaviour had apparently freaked out enough people in San Luis, even if

"Fourth, it is easy to “fix” a match between two players as opposed to a tournament, which makes the unofficial title matches especially suspicious. "

Actually, that is absolutely wrong. It is easier to fix the tournament. In a match you are playing one on one and it is absurd for someone to throw games, because it hurts their chances. But in a tournament, friends or countryman or whatever can theoretically throw games to each other if they are out of contention.

Throwing games doesn't even have to be intentional - it is built into the tournament format. For example, someone named A who is in the middle of the crosstable can play a game of his life against tournament leader B and win when A is still in contention himself, but after A loses all his chances to win after a couple of rounds, he may be upset and lose to the tournament co-leader C without putting up any resistance. So, right there player C gets a point odds compared to player B in their race for the title, merely because C was lucky to play A when A was already out of contention. Now imagine there is also a played D, who happens to have a headache when he plays C and loses, but draws B. So right there, just because of a couple of those things, B has falled 1.5 points behind C for the reasons that were outside of control of either player. B may be superior to C and will beat him, but still lose the tournament titles to C because C was lucky in getting some free points against weaker players. So tournaments are very much random - and inferior- compared to matches, because your result doesn't depend on you, but on many other factors that are outside of your control.

"If people argue that luck is a part of such a system, then how come champions like Kasparov or Anand are able to win so many tournaments in their career? Kasparov won a record 9 titles at Linares and Anand 5 or more at Wijk An Zee. Kramnik won his share at Dortmund. "

Yeah, but perhaps the question should be different: how come Kasparov or Kramnik or Anand don't win more tournaments? Kramnik may have won 8 Dortmunds, but he didn't win it this year. Naiditch and Bologan won Dortmund in past years. Anand didn't win Wijk in a couple of years. So maybe luck is more of a factor than you are willing to admit? The only reason favorites win more - well, because it is not totally luck-based. But it is too random to let the tournament be the format of the WC competition. In 120 years of match tradition, it hasn't produced as undeserving of a WC title as Naidich or Bologan.

"Also, ever since the chess organizations got broke because of Kasparov, the separate titles have muddied the water. The title that Kramnik won can also be called lucky because he got to play Kasparov for the championship in spite of losing to Shirov in the candidates and Anand the worthy challenger among the three had rejected the invitation to play. In fact, in another cycle, Anand defeated Shirov in a 6 game mini match and won the World Championship in the FIDE cycle. How on earth does Kramnik with all his superior brain power fail to recognize this? "

Shirov is the oldest argument in the book. It has been refuted too many times. Kramnik played KAsparov 2.5 years after he played Shirov. Saying failing to beat Shirov in 1998 somehow disquilified Kramnik from playing in 2000 is like saying losing in San Luis in 2005 has disqualified Anand from playing in Mexico in 2007.

Anand defeating Shirov in 6 game match is irrelevant because 6 games is too short a match to be meaningful.

"He wants to conveniently forget all these and merrily goes about mocking Anand’s title. "

He doesn't mock Anand’s title any more than Anand mocks classical title.

"To me, Kramnik is an opportunist. Had he won the world championship in Mexico (in 2007), he would have announced that he is the best chess player ever because he won both the 1-1 match against Topalov in 2006 and the tournament-style championship against the elite. "

That is just silly. Kramnik is enough of a realist to realize he is nowhere near the best ever (though he is probably much higher in the ranks than Anand).

"He failed and Anand won the world championship by 1 full point. That is the reality. If Kramnik is really the best chess player, he should have won the Mexican world championship and now is in a must win situation to equalize things. "

Yeah, but like I mentioned above, tournaments are random, so Kramnik could have been the best player and STILL failed to win Mexico. That is precisely the problem with tournaments. Hence all the hoopla.

"Otherwise he will have no credibility what-so-ever. Should Anand lose the title in October, it still does not erase the fact that he won the World championship by playing among the best where Kramnik participated but could not win. "

Actually, Kramnik had proven he could win tournaments. But Anand hasn't proven he could win a match against a top player. He played one in 1995 and embarassed himself. So, the opposite is the case: losing the october match won't heart Kramnik's accomplishment, but if Anand loses, it will hurt HIS, and it will put into a perspective the whole "match" title.

"Having missed his chance already, Kramnik wants the chess world to ignore that and consider the result of this upcoming 1-1 match, which he hopes to win by bringing in the psychological factors in which Russians are so good at. "

Can we avoid silly generalizations, please? Anand got owned by Kasparov, deal with it, not blame it on some unique Russia psychological know-how. Kramnik has hardly shown any less sportsmanship in his career than Anand. I am not a Kramnik fan, but I would argue he has shown way more, given Anand's lack of humility in pretending his accomplishments are more meaningful than they are.

"A 1-1 match brings in too many factors other than chess talent. Also it takes too much time with seconds for preparing that makes them unavailable or play inefficiently in lot of tournaments; makes the cyclde too long for a champion to rest on his seat while the challenger has to do multiple prep within a short time. Stupid psychological factors- which could make even the mentally tough ones to go nuts. "

Tournaments actually have much more factors other than chess talent. A large part of one's tournament performance will depend on such irrelevant factors that are not even related to one: such as what I described earlier. I don't see a problem with long preparation: it just means people are taking it seriously.

And the psychological factors are what makes matches more fun, not what makes them inferior. Besides, a tournament can have psychological factors on its own, except that unlike the ones in the match, the psychological factors in a tournament are often totally irrelevant: someone may go down in flames against one contender and beat another and the standings end up influenced by someone who wasn't even in contention. So psychology of one of the underdogs may hurt performance of one of the favorites even if the favorite may in fact be playing the best chess.

You think you are thinking up reasons for why matches may not be good, but pretty much all of these reasons are exactly what makes the tournaments inferior to matches.

This debate makes me wonder about national chess championships. Since in most countries the titles are awarded in a single round-robin or even Swiss system tournament (mostly for practical reasons, because a match cycle would be too lengthy and expensive to arrange), should we deduce that a national champion selected by such an "unworthy" system is a usurper? Sounds like a bit too extreme.
Of course I am thinking of nations where the best players actually compete for the title, not those where they stay away for financial or other reasons.

No, national championships can be done by matches or tournaments, whatever the national organization decides, because they are relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things in chess. Yes, they are important, but the only thing that is of utmost importance in chess is the world championship. That is the one that really requires the title to be truly meaningful.

"Anand has once again shown he is a pathetic creature that lacks class or sportsmanship.
Posted by: Russianbear at July 21, 2008 09:49"

...!!!! I think Russianbear has once again shown he is a pathetic creature that lacks class or sportsmanship. At least when it comes to discussing this current topic.

RB, you may not realize this but you are probably blinded by your patriotism. Unlike on the chessboard, things are not always in Black and White (unless of course if you are color blind too). So quit trying to convince us otherwise... at least try to be concise if you really must post.

Mig, you may wish to consider a word count limit...

I think Russianbear can reply my last comment if osbender can not, do you think your heroe Kramnik can success in a tournament of matches beating 4 players in a row the same way Spassky, Fischer, Karpov? and Kasparov did it to get the clasicc match world title? or he is only a single match player every 4 and 2 years?....After all he will face his 3rd tournament winner challenger. You very often devalue the tournament format, maybe Kramnik has been just playing very weak and fake match challengers those whose he can only tie.

I also don't see any problem and lack of logistic if any determined federation use roundrobins or swiss formats to produce an annual champion after all are fair systems were all the players start with the same posibilities to become champion. Chess and fighting bleeding sports are the only sports that want to have champions under the challenging match format, but I can understand boxing because after a fight both boxers need to recover of bleedings and injuries after several weeks so is impossible create a cycle for those sports.

You say nobody can judge Kramnik after 2.5 years he was beaten by Shirov, and who can judge Shirov or another possible challenger could not beat Kasparov in 2000?...thats why the value of the match cycle creating a fair competitive qualifying process.

Granda, what's your point? Very few people doubt that a match qualification cycle would be best. (I exclude loons like, say, those presently in charge of FIDE, and Topalov, obviously). But present economic conditions in the game don't allow it.

I'm not sure many would have declared Topalov in 2006 as a 'very weak and fake challenger', but hey, you carry on. Whatever.

stringTheory, you have posted a personal attack. I am allowed to post my thoughts about Anand, but I doubt you can be as critical of me without violating the standard posting etiquette of these boards. If you have to ask, I am one of the least patriotic guys I know. And if you don't want to read too much of what I wrote, you can always stop.

Granda, Kramnik is not my hero. Can't one just think Anand isn't all that he is made out to be without being a fan of the other top players?

Granda,

what do you mean by your last point? As I understood it, you propose a KO system with long matches, where the champion starts not in the final, but say at the quaterfinal stage.

IMO it would be an OK system if one can set up it so that quaterfinal matches are long indeed (not less than 12 games). I don't think this system would be implemented any time soon because one would need to finance 4+2+1=7 long matches instead of one, but it would probably be more fair than the current system.

Say Mig, are you a historian? How much do you know about Russian history? What have you read about the history of democracy? Of totalitarianism?

From the quoted segment below, your knowledge of Russia appears to have come from "Mapquest" and "Wikipedia." Thus it appears preposterous that you endeavor to depict yourself as a Russian politics PhD. My only suggestion to you is to keep this blog reserved to chess and to stick to what you know, however little.

"I won't delve much into his comments on Kasparov and the political situation in Russia since I work with Garry and The Other Russia and obviously disagree strenuously with much of what Kramnik has to say. To paraphrase Bill Clinton of all people, democracy and prosperity don't have to be opposing values. (If you really want a primer on this, here's a good place to start.) Nor is a desire for free and fair elections equivalent to absolutism or demagoguery. Anyway, Kramnik is already ahead of the 50% of educated Russians who say they would emigrate if they could."

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
No knowledge is even more dangerous.

Btw, I like thousands of others am really looking forward to the match, and its obviously going to be close if both play anything close to their full potential. I am not a betting man, but I was very curious about the opinion of people who put their money where their mouth is. So I googled and found the following:
Paddypower gives odds of 8-11 for Anand and even odds for Kramnik.
PinnacleSports (a US based site I believe) gives many odds, and outright winning is divided into 4 outcomes:
Anand winning with "over 1.5 games" -- odds of 1.952
Anand winning with "under 1.5 games" -- odds of 1.952
Kramnik winning with "over 1.5 games" -- odds of 2.070
Kramnik winning with "under 1.5 games" -- odds of 1.855

If you are like me, and have no idea what betting odds mean, here is an explanation, again from googling. Punters please correct me if I'm wrong!

Fractional odds of the sort 4/1 means that you get £4 back for every £1 you bet, plus your initial stake. What these odds mean is that you have a 1 in 5 chance of winning. in other words, if you bet 5 times, you will lose 4 times.
The same odds expressed as decimal odds is 5. i.e. odds of 4/1 are the same as odds of 5. 5 describes the full return for every 1 you bet, i.e. 1 gets you 5, which comprises winnings of 4, plus your original stake.

So clearly, PaddyPower consider Anand to be the favourite, as a stake of 11 will get you only 9 winnings, whereas the same stake will give you 11 winnings with Kramnik.

PinnacleSport is more complicated, as it describes 2 margins of victory. I don't quite understand what "over 1.5" games mean, but obviously it relates to the winning margin. What I dont understand is the '0.5' part, i.e. how can you be half a point ahead in a match, but I'm sure somebody will happily instruct me as to the exact meaning. If you look at the odds above for PinnacleSport, Kramnik is the favourite to win by a small margin, but Anand is the favourite to win by a large margin. If you consider all combinations, Anand is the favourite by a whisker.
Does anybody know of any other available odds?

"..as a stake of 11 will get you only 9 winnings.." should read "as a stake of 11 will get you only 8 winnings"

if you want to be pedantic, "..will get you only 8 IN winnings.."

Also, what does the "games handicap" in PinnacleSport mean, anyone?

Just read my statement again, and this seems confusing "If you look at the odds above for PinnacleSport, Kramnik is the favourite to win by a small margin, but Anand is the favourite to win by a large margin."

What I meant was, if the outcome you are betting on is somebody winning the match by a small margin, then Kramnik is the favourite. If the outcome is somebody winning the match by a large margin, Kramnik is the favourite. Here 'small' and 'large' are separated by a hard threshold, i.e. '1.5' games.

"From the quoted segment below, your knowledge of Russia appears to have come from "Mapquest" and "Wikipedia." Thus it appears preposterous that you endeavor to depict yourself as a Russian politics PhD. My only suggestion to you is to keep this blog reserved to chess and to stick to what you know, however little."

How about a little evidence of this, and correction of Mig's erroneous views with your superior insight, rather than this nasty, generalized attack? If you have something to say about Russia which refutes what Mig says then we're all ears.

Everybody on this blog seems to assume that Kramnik is the better match-player.

On what basis? if we consider the pre-2000 record, Anand won matches against various players in Candidates (also one match against Ivanchuk) and lost matches to Karpov, Kasparov and Kamsky. Kramnik lost to Gelfand, Kamsky and Shirov pre-2000.

Anand obviously lost to a higher class of player pre-2000 so, one could argue he was the better match player then?!

Maybe pre-2000 shouldn't count?

Ok, 2000 and post 2000 records.

Kramnik has won one match vs Kasparov, drawn two matches vs Leko and Topalov, or edged Topalov, if you prefer to ignore the default.

Anand has neither won nor lost matches post 2000; he simply hasn't played any at classical controls.

If you say Kramnik's win vs GK back in 2000 counts for a lot, the counter-argument would be that his draws against Leko and Topalov, which are more recent, should count for even more.

AFAI can figure out, the whole argument that VK is the better match-player seems to be based on the fact that Kramnik has a higher draw ratio in tournament play.

On that basis, Boris Spassky was a weaker match player than Tigran Petrosian and Fischer was a weaker match player then either. And GK was a weaker match player than Karpov.

Oh Wait! Spassky beat Petrosian and Fischer beat both Spassky and Petrosian. And GK beat AK. Hmmm..

To assume that VK is a good match player on the basis of a higher draw ratio in tournament play seems to be absurd. And, as I've pointed out, nobody has a clue whether Anand is a good match-player post 2000 or not.

So the question of using form to judge if VK is the "better" match player than Anand doesn't arise.

pangodas, I've been arguing pretty much the same point you make about VK's reputation as a match player based on facts ad nauseam, and have come up against what can only be called rabid Kramnik supporters who don't bother to read or listen to any fact at all, or any semblance of reason, but prefer to smother you with invective, argue against 'strawmen', bully you into submission, and/or drown you with quantity, all the while revelling in their own high opinions of themselves. For example, most people assume I dont like Kramnik's playing style or I don't consider him to be a very strong player, neither of which are remotely true. Watch out for same.

correction: "..most people assume.."
should read: ".. the rabid gang assume.. "

It's pretty simple, surely? Kramnik beat Gazza in a match, which most people subjectively regard as something that would have been beyond Anand. He beat Topalov (spare me...) at the peak of his powers, also a considerable feat. You're right that the present-day Anand is pretty much an unknown quantity as a match player (I suspect he'll be quite good), but it doesn't seem too hard to work out why people would regard Kramnik as a more formidable proposition in a match than a tournament. Ask Gazza.

@rdh - VK beat GK in the 20th century.

Suppose I asked Leko for his 21st century opinion instead? After all, VK didn't beat PL 2 years ago.

It's pretty simplistic (not simple) to "subjectively" assume one match result eight years ago proves much at all.

I'd say that there's simply no rational basis to judge who is the better match player circa 2008 - VK has a spotty record, VA has no record at all.

Toaplov at the peak of his power? What a laugh. He was a shell of his self, completely convinced (wrongly I believe) that Kramnik was cheating. Even then, he managed to tie the classical part, helped by a forfeit no doubt, but he can only play if somebody turns up.

Serious, disinterested people in any type of subject, will begin by reading the classics first and then turn to historians for their interpretations. It is preposterous for Mig Greengard to fashion himself a scholar on democracy and totalitarianism when in fact he has not a modicum of training on any of these subjects, let alone take a patronizing tone with, "I won't delve much into his comments on Kasparov and the political situation in Russia" and "If you really want a primer on this, here's a good place to start."

I also think chess is totally irrelevant to business and that anything that says otherwise is charlatanism. Kasparov is just raking in the money from public speaking engagements from companies that have been tricked into believing otherwise. Kasparov may be a nice person and a great chess player, but I would not trust him with my finances, just as I would not seek advice on these matters from Carlsen or Ponomariov. It is akin to Bill Gates doing a lecture tour on the Sicilian Defense.

Greengard is just spouting nonce sentences in order to appear intelligent and relevant. ("[D]emocracy and prosperity don't have to be opposing values.") There is nothing to refute here.

****
Chesshire Cat:

How about a little evidence of this, and correction of Mig's erroneous views with your superior insight, rather than this nasty, generalized attack? If you have something to say about Russia which refutes what Mig says then we're all ears.

"From the quoted segment below, your knowledge of Russia appears to have come from "Mapquest" and "Wikipedia." Thus it appears preposterous that you endeavor to depict yourself as a Russian politics PhD. My only suggestion to you is to keep this blog reserved to chess and to stick to what you know, however little."

Points:

1. Late 2006 was not "the peak of Topalov's powers", it was well into the decline in his results which has persisted to this day. San Luis 2005 was Topalov's peak.

2. Lumping together Kasparov's political ambitions and business speaking careers is a mistake. Kasparov is a respected speaker on a number of business subjects and has more than a little actual business experience to draw on in addition to his chess history. But my point is not that you should hire him for your decision making seminar; only that you shouldn't disrespect (or respect) his political ambitions on the basis of a nonassociated speaking career. To be honest, I have few opinions on either. I think his chess was brilliant.

3. Russia IS becoming more authoritarian and Socialist all the time, and IS a basically nondemocratic country. The experience of the Yeltsin years was uncomfortable for many Russians, and to my mind, a little respect for people's choices is in order even if they don't choose freedom and democracy.

"stringTheory, you have posted a personal attack. I am allowed to post my thoughts about Anand, but I doubt you can be as critical of me without violating the standard posting etiquette of these boards."
-- Russianbear

And you think you have the RIGHT to call Anand a "pathetic creature that lacks class or sportsmanship."?? And that is not a personal attack at all but a logical argument or something??

Yeah right!

With respect, Chess Auditor, it is difficult to assert that Mig claims expertise on democracy. Also the thought that only accredited experts can speak their minds on such topics is both dangerous and paradoxical. Kasparov's finances were not referred to, either. Good for him if he makes megabucks from CEO mugs at after dinner speeches. Whether one like him or not, he was actively harassed on the campaign trail in Russia, which is surely enough reason for both concern and debate.
I personally would neither vote for him nor hire him, but the man, like any of us, is entitled to his rights.

"'Though I am an Indian and an Anand fan, but I agree with Kramnik that Anand is not a World champion in the line of Steinitz.'

Neither is Kramnik. One match does not a WC make!"

So, d_tal, you do not consider your namesake Tal to have a World Champion -- nor Capablanca, Euwe, Smyslov, Spassky, or Fischer? They each won only one WC match, and in Capablanca and Euwe's cases, there was no formal method for determining the challenger, any more than with Kramnik. Also, Kramnik held his title in two further matches against Leko and Topalov. Seriously, I don't see your point.

Topalov was rated 2813 in October 2006, which is the highest rating of his career and had continued to increase following San Luis. d_tal is right that he didn't play very well in the match, but people often don't. Matches are tense and extremely tiring.

I don't know about Kramnik having a 'spotty' record, pangodas - in the physical state he was in, and having given away the Marshall game without playing a move, I reckon he did pretty well in Brissago. But you're right of course that no-one knows how good Anand is in matches; all it's possible to say is that Kramnik is more formidable in a match than a tournament. If you don't agree, good luck to you.

Is 2000 really the 20th century? I'd have thought it was the 21st. But we can agree it was eight years ago.

Kramnik the match player is undoubtedly better than Kramnik the tournament player. But you have no idea whether the same holds for Anand.
It may not of course.

Physical fitness is part and parcel of sport just like psychological health. VK was distracted in 2000 by a long-distance custody battle. Kramnik struggled to beat Topalov and struggled to equalise versus Leko in his last two matches

If that was due to physical problems and he cannot improve his health too bad. Tal lost in 1961 with kidney trouble - Alekhine reputedly drank his way to a loss in 1935, too bad.
Ditto for Anand if he isn't in physical shape.

The 20th century consists of 1901-2000 because the first century consisted of 1-100 - the zero had not become common knowledge.

"Kramnik struggled to beat Topalov and struggled to equalise versus Leko in his last two matches"

You know, the only thing that really counts is that he did beat Topalov and he did equalize against Leko against all odds. You make it sound like a knock on Kramnik, but in reality Kramnik beat a huge pre-match favorite (Topalov). When we try to assess odds in Anand-Kramnik match, winning that last game against Leko probably counts for more than winning half a dozen Linareses. And it's not a fluke either: he won against Topa too when he had to win.

It's clear that chess-wise Kramnik and Anand are on the same level or very close. This match will hinge on psychology and form of the moment. Form is very hard to predict, but due to the psychology factor one has to like Kramnik's chances.

It could be that Anand would match Kramnik's resilience in the face of adversity, it is definitely possible. However, so far Kramnik came through when it mattered in all of his Championship matches and Anand's only try gave him a rep of a softy. We have no other basis for speculation except for the prior history...

Guys, if you look at what he has to say in the interview closely, especially the things he says or means like "one-on-one match", "the title", "the taunting", "I-am-champion-you-aint-no-champion", you could see some resemblense between WWE championships and his previous and upcoming match(s), I think Kramnik wants to introduce some novel ideas or ok at least some borrowed ideas to promote chess like WWE. I think we all should appreciate that. And can we call Kramnik - with something more than a champion, a founder or - the Vince McMahon of Chess?

No way.

Kirsan = Vince McMahon
Bessel Kok = Eric Bischoff
Danailov, Topailov, Cheparainov = nWo
Kramnik = JBL
Carlsen = CM Punk
Morozevich = Rob Van Dam

Mig, any chance of asking Garry what he thinks of the respective chances/strengths vs. weaknesses of Anand vs. Kramnik, since he's played matches w. both?! For that matter, I think we'd all be interested in his views on Topalov vs. Kamsky as well. And whether he's planning on a collected games of Kasparov book, perhaps w. selected ones annotated, now that he's officially retired?!

Guess Garry's take--

"Anand has always been a fighting player, has consistently displayed superior overall results, and is a worthy champion...but the other player may again be fortunate."

semipatz,
"Neither is Kramnik. One match does not a WC make!"

So, d_tal, you do not consider your namesake Tal to have a World Champion -- nor Capablanca, Euwe, Smyslov, Spassky, or Fischer? They each won only one WC match, and in Capablanca and Euwe's cases, there was no formal method for determining the challenger, any more than with Kramnik. Also, Kramnik held his title in two further matches against Leko and Topalov. Seriously, I don't see your point."

I'll explain. Up until Botvinnik, there wasn't a very satisfactory system of qualifying, it was almost a case of being perceived as very strong, and being able to put together a satisfactory prize fund. As you may perhaps know, Alekhine died while being Champion, and the qualification system changed. Firstly, it was necessary to find a new champion, and the 1948 world match tournament was organised by FIDE, with Mikhail Botvinnik, Vassily Smyslov, Paul Keres, Samuel Reshevsky, and ex WC Max Euwe (Rueben Fine withdrew, hence the 5). Botvinnik won this match.

Afterwards, a rigorous three-tiered qualifying structure was introduced. This consisted of zonal, interzonal and cadidates tournaments. Briefly, the world was divided up into zones, and the first step was to qualify through a zonal tournament. This was almost always through placing highly enough in the designated National championship; i.e. once every three years, the National championship was also the zonal qualifier. The qualifiers from each zonal would then play in a interzonal tournament, which would typically have from 20 to 24 players, and be of single round robin format. The top placed finishers (ranged from about 9 to about 6 I think in different years), would qualify to play in the candidates tournament, where they be joined by typically about 2 players who would be seeded in, although it was 7 in 1954, with Bronstein, Boleslavsky, Smyslov, Keres, Najdorf (from previous Candidates), and Reshevsky and Euwe (from the 1948 tournamen) being seeded in. The Candidates was either a double round robin or a quadruple round robin tournament.

My point is, such a rigorous qualification ensured that it was genuinely the best player in the world from all chess players except the WC, who qualified to play the final.

You mention Tal. Tal won an extremely tough USSR championship, then the Interzonal at Portoroz, and finally an incrdibly strong quadruple round robin candidates tournament, which included Gligorić, Petrosian, Benko, Olafsson, Fischer, Smyslov and Keres!

So Tal, Smyslov, Spassky and Fischer all conclusively proved they were the best players in the world by firstly qualifying, secondly beating the incumbent. So you see it wasnt a single match that made them WC, it was a one match + (i.e. plus) an exhaustive qualification. Do you see the difference?

In the case of Capablanca, Lasker etc, I do consider them to be WCs, but admittedly the system was different. One major difference with Kramnik I guess is that not only did he fail to prove he was the best player in the World other than the incumbent, he actually proved that he was not the best player by losing the candidates match! I hope I have made myself clear.

semipatz, you have completely misunderstood me. When I said "one match does not a WC make" I meant that just turning up and winning the one match (however much of an individual achievement that is) does not make a WC. Read above.

GK thoughtfully adds:

"It's Anand's match to lose, but if he does lose, it will not be his fault. In fact, whatever the outcome, Anand's will be the only result worth having."

d_tal, it is nice to give such an explanation, but I have to disagree with your conclusions. First, IMO the situation with the title after GK left FIDE was quite similar to the situation you speak about prior to FIDE's involvement with the title, and thus it is proper that the world champion would be able to play a legitimate match with any of the strongest players, even if this is not entirely satisfactory to the chess fans. Kramnik was certainly one of the very top players and proved it by beating the strongest player of all time.

"My point is, such a rigorous qualification ensured that it was genuinely the best player in the world from all chess players except the WC, who qualified to play the final....So you see it wasnt a single match that made them WC, it was a one match + (i.e. plus) an exhaustive qualification."

"In the case of Capablanca, Lasker etc, I do consider them to be WCs..."

Right.

"Kramnik was certainly one of the very top players and proved it by beating the strongest player of all time."

I never contested that. Only somebody blind to Chess can deny Kramnik's strength, or his achievement in beating Kasparov. Personally, I quite enjoy his style as well, it throws down a gauntlet to his opponents to play in a certain way to beat him.

Its just that I believe his standing is not the same as the WCs in that proud tradition. I also don't see how he can help that, after all any player would do the same given the same opportunity (well perhaps I can think of one exception..), but I cant help myself when the rabid gang go on and on about how "classy" he is, and how altruistic he is, and how when he whines (as he frequently does) its really not whining, and how he is the champion because he beat the WC in a match and upholds "tradition"... I feel compelled to correct them..

So we're no longer bashing VK's playing style. And we're no longer blaming VK, the highest-rated challenger in October 2000, for accepting an invitation to play a WCC match. That's progress indeed. Now...

Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe handpicked their challengers; the victor carrying forward the tradition.

Kasparov handpicked his challenger, who won the match and claims to carry forward the tradition.

"It's just that I believe his [Kramnik's] standing is not the same as the WCs in that proud tradition."

The difference is?

Why glow from reflected light (of Kasparov's achievements)?

The best in the world is fairly easy to discern from live ratings. Magnus will be King! Vishy is barely holding on and Chucky drives me nuts for getting so close and not sealing the deal.

I for one don't care about these monikers. If you are a professional worth your salt, get out there and beat other professionals on a regular basis to prove you are the sharpest knife in the drawer. Kramnik is most certainly not.

Sometimes we use the everyday knives for cutting ham sandwiches and save the sharpest for carving the Christmas turkey.

ecksherly, though this rating thing is rather stale, i'd be interested to know how much the top 5/10 play per year, (compared to "normal" GMs) and what they do the rest of the time. prep prep prep?? 40 hours a week 9-5 plus cigarette break? must be damn tedious. and yes i am far too lazy to research it myself. (anyone got stats off the cuff?) but caco is right, there's some truth in the idea of proving yourself through regular performance.

"i'd be interested to know how much the top 5/10 play per year, (compared to "normal" GMs) and what they do the rest of the time. prep prep prep?? 40 hours a week 9-5 plus cigarette break? must be damn tedious."

It's an elusive tedium. Musicians, boxers, soccer players, novelists, chefs and others are usually in a rehearsal state longer than the average 40-hour week, largely because they aspire to above-average careers. The higher one goes, the more hours make the difference. Chess grandmasters are no different, but work-ethic stories aren't sexy unless honoured in the breach (Capa and Spassky, for example).

To different degrees, "there's nothing happening in action that hasn't already happened in practice -- except, with luck, the bad bits." Kasparov played this way in stark contrast to, say, Tal, who intuited sacrificial lines; Kasparov would enter sacrificial lines whose outcomes had already appeared during analysis with Dokhoian. And he probably practised more than his contemporaries by half, so hours made a lot of the difference.

So the difference between "normal" GM's and the top 5/10? I'd say continual backbreaking sore-ass work. Knife skills.

I'm not sure about that, Clubfoot. Neither Anand nor Kramnik were remarkable for their work ethic as youngsters, and in both cases it was apparent from a very young age that they were the chosen ones. Carlsen too certainly doesn't strike me on the couple of occasions I've been at a tournament with him as someone whose success could be attributed largely to hard work. These guys were just made to play chess better than the rest of us.

"It's just that I believe his [Kramnik's] standing is not the same as the WCs in that proud tradition."

The difference is?

Read my comment. For the linguistically challenged questioner, I repeat: "One major difference with Kramnik I guess is that not only did he fail to prove he was the best player in the World other than the incumbent, he actually proved that he was not the best player by losing the candidates match!"

Its also another era, things have moved on since. Stenitz laid down the marker, things gradually improved afterwards.

"So we're no longer bashing VK's playing style. And we're no longer blaming VK, the highest-rated challenger in October 2000, for accepting an invitation to play a WCC match. That's progress indeed."

Poor old chap, the strawmen arguments are now put to bed, what can he do? I guess fallback to the old faithful, criticise Kasparov for all the failings in the world.

As I have said in the past, if anybody can find any post of mine, anywhere, that criticises Kramnik's playing style, or the fact that he accepted the challenge to GK, please post the link.

"And we're no longer blaming VK, the highest-rated challenger in October 2000, for accepting an invitation to play a WCC match."

By the way, its great when somebody can have his cake and eat it too isn't it? ELO is not important when propounding certain arguments, its all about matches buddy, it aint ELO, get with it! But in certain other arguments, it ain't the match buddy, forget the loss to Shirov, its the ELO!

Hilarious.

Hey rdh, I agree that raw talent is the indispensible starter, but the sorbet courses thereafter are blood, toil, invitations and heartache before the super-GM main course can appear at the table. Moreover I don't buy the "chosen one" view, which suggests metaphysics over dedication. As regards Carlsen, whom you observed up close, how did you arrive at the conclusion that he is more savant than workhorse?

What's not to buy? When Kramnik was 17 he was in the Russian Olympiad team rolling drunk with Khalifman every night and scoring 8/9 in the day. That's not hard work, it's raw ability.

Carlsen - mainly the fact that he spent most of this time during the games talking to girls and looking at his friend's games, and still racked up a 2750 performance. But there's also the fact you can catch him on ICC playing blitz at 12.30 in the morning during Linares. 'Course, he could be working like a dog all the other hours God sends.

Those who revere ELO ratings (not I, maybe you) can't complain that after the Shirov debacle Kasparov chose Kramnik.

Raw ability brought VK to the threshhold and blood and toil got him through the door.

d_tal,

So your problem is not that Kramnik was handpicked; many challengers have been handpicked. Your problem is that Kramnik lost the 1998 qualifying event.

The following world champions lost qualifying events before winning the title:
Smyslov: 1950
Petrosian: 1953, 1956, 1959
Spassky: 1956
Fischer: 1959, 1962
Kramnik: 1994, 1998

When the Shirov match was aborted the 1998 cycle was terminated.

No reasonable person believes that an individual who loses in one cycle (e.g. 2006-Topalov) should be excluded from the next (e.g. 2007-Mexico City).

No reasonable person believes that Kramnik's loss in the 1994 or 1998 cycles should bar him from participating in the 2000 cycle.

No reasonable person believes that losses in qualifying events earlier in their careers diminishes the World Championship status of Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, or Kramnik.

Omigawd! Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky and Fischer subsequently WON through the qualifying stage in order to challenge the incumbent WC. Kramnik didnt. Therefore their earlier losses were made irrelevant, that's why there were recurring cycles, in fact that's why there were multiple WCs. By your argument (rather the argument you're trying to foist on to me), anybody who ever lost a game was rendered illegitimate. Ridiculous.

Why dont we give this a rest? You continue to believe what you want to believe, and we'll agree to disagree. I have done my bit for the logically challenged.

All the best.

"Those who revere ELO ratings (not I, maybe you) can't complain that after the Shirov debacle Kasparov chose Kramnik."

Why speak for others? I was asking about yourself. You have frequently dissed ELO as an indication of playing strength, most recently when you ridiculed Carlsen's rating and basically stated he would get thrashed in a match with Kramnik. But ELO is OK as a metric when you want to point out Kramnik's strength?

Its great isn't it, when you can selectively use various matrics, in order to justify your arguments at any given point in time? So ELO was OK in 2000, but not in 2008, as an indicator of playing strength?

The inability for find sponsorship for a Shirov WCC match killed the 1998 cycle.

Kramnik's loss in the 1998 cycle surely would not have excluded him from a 2000 candidates event.

So why should Kramnik's loss in the 1998 cycle exclude him from being handpicked in the 2000 cycle?

Speaking of the "logically challenged", d_tal's continuing exercise in regressive logic is impressive in its rapacious drive to claim victory whenever proven wrong by anyone taking the time to address his contentions.

-his argument is based on a pathological hatred of Kramnik, yet he asserts periodically his great admiration for Kramnik (not unlike the time-tested adage "I am not anti-Semitic, yet I do dislike Jews")

-he excuses Kasparov for his break with FIDE but condemns Kramnik for accepting a match challenge outside FIDE

-he insists that the match with Topalov was drawn, which is demonstrably untrue

-Kramnik is condemned for a drawn match with Leko, which tarnished the office of the world championship (yet how could the office be tarnished if Kramnik is an impostor in the first place?); however, no such contempt is extended to Lasker, Botvinnik and Kasparov, who played to drawn matches during their title reigns

-ad hominem abounds: those who disagree with d_tal's fatuous arguments in defense of the indefensible are summarily likened to packs of rabid animals or, in one memorable case, stand accused of being the same person posting under different tags to undermine the unassailable logic of d_tal

-among those who would disagree is the person whom Kramnik defeated without dropping a single game in 2000: even with the benefit of razor-sharp hindsight akin to Alekhine at his most cunning, Kasparov averred that Kramnik is next in the Steinitz line.

-finally, the beauty of the line "one match does not a WC make" must be duly appreciated. The 2000 Braingames match was agreed upon to take place with the world chess championship on the line, and the winner was crowned new world champion. To advance an argument with intent to void the result a posteriori is no less than a bid to dehumanize the upset winner of the match -- a negationist tactic at best.

At least one airtight conclusion may be drawn from this demonstration: d_tal hasn't yet learned to veil his hatred with the finesse of a logician, possibly because he's 15 years of age. But when he turns 16 -- watch out, old chaps.

Well, having zero interest in non-chessboard matters, I hesitate to wade into in this poo-flinging match at all -- let alone on the side of d_tal. And yet....

Parts of the preceding two comments do sound a bit faulty.

For instance, greg koster's equation of "handpicked" and "cycle" in relation to the 2000 match. I thought it's pretty clear those two words are considered mutually exclusive, opposites, in discussions of a WCC selection process. If the "cycle" for choosing a WCC challenger can consist solely of being handpicked by the incumbent champion (or indeed, by anyone), then what possible meaning can the term have?

And surely Kramnik's having lost in 1998, the formal selection cycle closest in time to the 2000 WCC match that greg (arbitrarily, it seems to me) assigns to the next "cycle" - counts for far more than those other champions' losses in one or more previous cycles before winning in a rigorous formal qualification process in a later cycle.

And Clubfoot's concluding point that Kasparov agreed to put his title on the line in 2000 is little more than a legalism. Yes, if we make the reasonable assumption that Kasparov "owned" the title in some legal sense (better him than FIDE, I guess), then his assent assures Kramnik's legal right to be recognized as WCC. But that isn't what anyone is debating here, is it? Isn't it really a moral right rather than a legal right that we're all talking about?

Jon Jacobs,

quite honestly, whether it's a moral right under discussion or a legal right, I fail to see how one can argue against Kramnik's 2000 title.

First, we are all old enough here to actually remember 2000, and after Kramnik's triumphant victory neither his moral or his legal right was disputed. So all this discussion is a direct product of Kramnik's non-dominance after 2000. Which is, of course, completely ridiculous and illogical since the history knows plenty of examples of non-dominant World Champions.

Now if we talk about rights to the title, beating the title holder in a match billed as World Championship by the said title holder surely gives both a legal and moral right to the title: it's been that way throughout the whole chess history.

"Now if we talk about rights to the title, beating the title holder in a match billed as World Championship by the said title holder surely gives both a legal and moral right to the title: it's been that way throughout the whole chess history."

Given how fast-paced the world has gotten, and how quickly players improve (or worsen), is this model of one-match-every-few years the best to determine the World Champion? Here we are, discussing Kramnik's merits based on how he played 8 years ago. Ok, the Topalov and Leko matches have been more recent, but curiously, neither Kramnik nor Topalov nor Leko appear to be doing that well lately.

Agreed that ratings change quickly. Maybe so should the "champion" title, like in tennis.

"-his argument is based on a pathological hatred of Kramnik, yet he asserts periodically his great admiration for Kramnik (not unlike the time-tested adage "I am not anti-Semitic, yet I do dislike Jews")"

Ah, the clubfoot method of argument, predicated on an incorrect medicinal dosage and an infallible ability to read minds.

"-he excuses Kasparov for his break with FIDE but condemns Kramnik for accepting a match challenge outside FIDE"

Where did I do that?

"-he insists that the match with Topalov was drawn, which is demonstrably untrue"

Future match players, pray take heed, match rules are to be discarded at your whimsy! Every time you dont't feel like playing, don't turn up! Any forfeit will not subsequently count against you in the deluded minds of the rabid gang!

"-Kramnik is condemned for a drawn match with Leko, which tarnished the office of the world championship (yet how could the office be tarnished if Kramnik is an impostor in the first place?); however, no such contempt is extended to Lasker, Botvinnik and Kasparov, who played to drawn matches during their title reigns"

This is a fact that is relevent in the analysis of Kramnik's strength as a match player. i.e. the rabid gang consider him to be an expetionally strong match player. Based on 2 wins, 3 losses and 2 draws in classical matches? Oh wait, you KNOW it to be so! Sorry, I was dealing in facts.

"-ad hominem abounds: those who disagree with d_tal's fatuous arguments in defense of the indefensible are summarily likened to packs of rabid animals or, in one memorable case, stand accused of being the same person posting under different tags to undermine the unassailable logic of d_tal"

Clubfoot, you are rabid, mostly you spout off vituperative personal attacks. Sometimes I find some humour in it when you can keep off the visceral hatred, and as I have said previously, I consider the tone of your posts to be a barometer for whether or not you are on your prescribed dosage.

As for posting under different names, I think Mig sometimes deletes posts on that basis, nothing to do with me.

The rest of your post is just a personal attack, intersperesed with random text.

"Now if we talk about rights to the title, beating the title holder in a match billed as World Championship by the said title holder surely gives both a legal and moral right to the title: it's been that way throughout the whole chess history."

Not it hasn't, not since 1948.

"Not it hasn't..."

Now he's really getting silly.

I, too, sense that hero-worship heavily influences his "reasoning" respecting WCC legitimacy.

Most amusing is his dogged insistence that:
a) pre-1948 titles are legitimate regardless of qualifiers
a) But Kramnik's title is illegitimate because he didn't win a qualifier in the previous "cycle."
c) And yet there should NOT have been a qualifier after the 2000 match; Kasparov should have been hand-picked.

Make sense of that!

Jon,

Whether the 2000 match was
a) a continuation of the 1998 cycle or
b) a new entity
doesn't matter.

a) Once a Shirov match is off the table (through his untimely demise, failure of sponsorhip, whatever), then the logical place to look for a WC challenger is the next highest finisher in that cycle...Kramnik.

b) If the entire 1998 cycle is in the trash heap, and you don't have time to run another cycle, and you're starting fresh, then the only legitimate way to handpick a challenger is to look to the usual suspects who've been atop the rating list since 1995: Anand (who declined) and...Kramnik.

I just want to correct one statement of Greg Koster's. Kramnik's loss to Shirov in 1998 was not the previous cycle but part of the same cycle which made him challenger to Kasparov in 2000. Anand declined because he anticipated being shortchanged like Shirov was. Of course, Kramnik's loss in 1994 had no bearing on whether he should be a challenger in 2000 or not.

This misrepresentation of facts is an attempt by Koster to make Kramnik look holier than he is .

This is not to say that Kramnik was not a deserving challenger in 2000 or that he should have declined when he was made an offer of a championship match.

"I, too, sense that hero-worship heavily influences his "reasoning" respecting WCC legitimacy."

Thank you Koster, I really needed a laugh! Whether intended or unintended (as I suspect), the irony is delicious!

Btw, Koster, you still haven't replied to this:

Why was ELO good in 2000 as an indicator of playing strength, but not in 2008?

Elo is a useful but imperfect tool. (See Kasparov-Kramnik 2000; Kramnik-Leko 2004; Kramnik-Topalov 2006)

Anand or Kramnik would probably be at least slightly favored in a 2008 Carlsen match, even if the latter took over the top rating spot. Leko might play an even match against any of the three even though he's rated 50 points beneath them.

In 2000 and in 2008 one would prefer an old-fashioned system of Candidates matches, if one had the time and sponsorship.

In 2000 and in 2008, if one didn't have time or sponsorship for Candidates matches there might be no reasonable alternative to Elo ratings for handpicking a challenger.

"Most amusing is his dogged insistence that:
a) pre-1948 titles are legitimate regardless of qualifiers
a) But Kramnik's title is illegitimate because he didn't win a qualifier in the previous "cycle."
c) And yet there should NOT have been a qualifier after the 2000 match; Kasparov should have been hand-picked. Make sense of that!"

Can you help me make sense of the following first please? If being handpicked for the first time since 1937 is perfectly OK for Kramnik in 2000, why isn't it OK for Kasparov in 2001, 2002, 2003, etc? Never mind Leko, he could either have been accomodated, or not, as the case may be, after all Kramnik owns the title. Was Kasparov not a worthy challenger? And on what basis was he not a worthy challenger? Was his ELO too high, was his tournament record too poor, was his match record unacceptable? Or was the public's perception of his strength too low? Surely its nothing to do with qualifiers right, based on your "handpicking" arguments so far? Or was Kramnik too principled to stoop so low as to offer a match to somebody who hadn't qualified?

Let me understand this: ELO is no indicator of who would win a match, but its a good indicator of a suitable candidate when candidate's matches are unavailable? So Shirov won the candidate's match in the cycle in which Kramnik replaced him, and this replacement was by virtue of being handpicked, the justification for which is in the following: No sponsorhip could be found for the Shirov-Kasparov match, time had run out for organising said match, Kramnik was highest but one on the rating list of potential challengers, and the highest rated had refused. Does this sum up your position please? I don't have the power to mind read, so I'm going by your statements, please correct me if I'm wrong.

"Can you help me make sense of the following first please?"

I'll try.

While he held the Steinitz-title, Kasparov could
--rely on FIDE to run a qualifier,
--run his own qualifier,
--handpick an opponent,

But in any case, Kasparov would remain Steinitz-champion until someone established a better claim to being the world's best long-match player.

In October 2000, Kramnik stepped into Kasparov's shoes and could:
--rely on FIDE to run a qualifier,
--run his own qualifier,
--or handpick an opponent.

The BEST method for selecting a challenger is to run a qualifier. This is so obvious that every reasonable human being has agreed to it with the exception of:
--Botvinnik when Botvinnik wanted a rematch,
--Karpov when Karpov wanted a rematch, and
--Kasparov and d_tal when Kasparov wanted a rematch

Kramnik cannot be criticized for accepting the only title shot available in 2000. (With this, d_tal agrees.)

And Kramnik cannot be criticized by d_tal for employing a method which d_tal strongly favors: a qualifier.

"Was Kasparov not a worthy challenger?"
--Yes, as were Anand, Leko, Topalov, and several others.

"Or was Kramnik too principled...?"
--Kramnik set up a qualifier; something advocated by d_tal and all rational chess enthusiasts. If d_tal calls Kramnik a coward for following d_tal's advice, then Kramnik's not the one looking silly.

The two principals of Bonn, Anand and Kramnik have so far, been polite and civilised.
Neither has mounted a personal attack on the other. At worst, they have expressed a difference of opinion on how they feel the title should be contested.

That is only a footnote in terms of personal opinion since they WILL be contesting it under a specific set of rules and conditions that both have agreed to.

Why on Earth are you guys freaking out and calling each other and them, unprincipled and cowards, etc?

It's a tight match to call and I'm sure the action on and off board will heat up.

Does it have to go into this kind of absurd name-calling? It makes a rational argument impossible.

Both are great players and the poo-slinging does not demean them - it demeans you.

while koster accuses d_tal of being biased against Kramnik, it appears it is greg koster who is irrationally pro-Kramnik.

Let's put this old stuff aside. Kramnik gave some pro-putin statements, and now Gazprom is sponsoring the match. That should be interesting enough.

Pangodas, your self-appointment as arbiter of the demeaning behavior of your peers makes no significant contribution nor difference outside your own head.

The mercurial heat of debate, with its shifting planes and angles of reason and emotion, isn't for everyone. So if you're getting burned, for goodness' sake navigate away from the page! I'd hate to think your baby feelings are being hurt.

@ Clubfoot,
This is the "mercurial heat of debate" - accusing great chessplayers of being cowards and unprincipled on the basis of zero evidence to try and score a point over some other poster?
It has "shifting planes and angles of reason and emotions"?
The latter sure, but show me some of the former please!
You're "my peers" and I am an "arbiter"?
And I have "baby feelings"?
What does that make you, my Byronic peer - Miglet's kid sister, I guess.
Only much more incontinent and incoherent.

"This is the "mercurial heat of debate" - accusing great chessplayers of being cowards and unprincipled on the basis of zero evidence to try and score a point over some other poster?"t

But posters at least believe there IS evidence for such contentions, so shouldn't that be allowable as long as other posters can come forward in opposition or agreement to the contention? A first-principle argument is as good as the rest, isn't it? I believe THIS, here's WHY, and we toss it out in to the open. That way all's fair over the chessboard and the message board.

'It has "shifting planes and angles of reason and emotions"? The latter sure, but show me some of the former please!'

There's reasoned evidence to be found here -- if there weren't, would you really have complained about what you perceive to be the lack of it?

'You're "my peers" and I am an "arbiter"? And I have "baby feelings"?'

Yes, not really, and seemingly.

"What does that make you, my Byronic peer - Miglet's kid sister, I guess. Only much more incontinent and incoherent."

NOW we're talking!!

"I believe THIS, here's WHY, and we toss it out in to the open."
Where's the WHY in the posts where random accusations have been thrown around?

"There's reasoned evidence to be found here -- if there weren't, would you really have complained about what you perceive to be the lack of it?"

No reasoned evidence in the posts I was complaining about.

You're "my peers" - "Yes" - You said it

I am an "arbiter"? "not really" - You said it, now you're retracting it

And I have "baby feelings"?'

"seemingly" - nope kids love poo - I don't. I'm complaining about the diaper overload you've contributed to. Look around you - adults do that, kids just sniff appreciatively.

"NOW we're talking!!"

Nope we're trolling.

"Where's the WHY in the posts where random accusations have been thrown around?"

The WHY is everywhere, even in the most brief and dismissive of posts, as people advance or prolong arguments from their own systems of reason. If it's not how you would reason, that's a tragedy. But that doesn't make it an exercise in the practice of excremental bombardment with which you seem to be somewhat obsessed.

"No reasoned evidence in the posts I was complaining about."

Oh my, another ex cathedra decision rendered by the self-appointed Chair for the Preservation of Chessninja Dignity. Again, whoever handcuffed you to your computer and Ludovico'd your eyes should be apprehended at once! Either that or...if your baby feelings are hurt by the direction of the Kramnik-Anand thread, perhaps you could just navigate away from the page and come back again another time.

"I am an "arbiter"? "not really" - You said it, now you're retracting it"

Easy now Pangodas -- I retracted nothing. "Not really" was an iteration of my earlier observation that you had appointed yourself "arbiter of the demeaning behavior of your peers."

"kids love poo - I don't. I'm complaining about the diaper overload you've contributed to."

Look Pangodas, there's an awful lot of talk here about bodily fluids from your end -- is this not demeaning? I have neither contributed to "diaper overload" nor was I a big fan of scat as a child; your own "reasoned evidence" is missing here. As for the "sniffing" comment, I don't think it's very difficult to see that you've now pulled the thread to the gutter while accusing others of behavior demeaning to Chessninja.

So if you have nothing to bring to the table, we don't need a live simulcast from the outhouse. Now let's return to our regularly scheduled Anand-Kramnik debates.

ROFL. I'm sorry, do I have a character flaw that I find Clubfoot funny? I'm going to regret saying this again, but I do! (Not to THE question, that was a Koster to Clubfoot query, which resulted in a happily ever after scenario in bucolic heaven)

I started composing a reply to Koster but I can't stop laughing at Clubfoot's post. His last is a classic, it really is. It reminds me of a passage from a Tom Sharpe novel, I can't quite remember what it is. The specific scene is a prison visit, and the recommendation that some incarcerated chap study EM Forster for self improvement or something. The subsequent discussion, after he stumbles upon some of Forster's creative suggestions for the use of a mirror is hilarious.

OK, here we go..
"In October 2000, Kramnik stepped into Kasparov's shoes and could:
--rely on FIDE to run a qualifier,
--run his own qualifier,
--or handpick an opponent."

The thing is Koster, I'm trying to quantify this and you keep introducing new variables. I think your argument is broadly as follows (in pseudo code, with c-style comments):

var qTime = time final candidates match ends
/* you have to enlighten us as to whether you consider a qualifying tournament valid, in which case the above needs to be modified */
var fMoney = money available for the final match
var acceptableMoney = amount acceptable to participants
var acceptableTime = maximum period before qualifiers are considerd invalid.
var minELO = minimum ELO acceptable for a challenger
var n = 1 /* index */

while ( (currentTime-qTime) = acceptableMoney then
challenger = winnerOfCandidatesCycle
else
while(ELO>minELO) do
ELO = ratingList(n)
offerMatch to ownerOfRatingList(n)
if (acceptance) then
break
end
n=n+2
end
end

I think you will find that if you apply this formula (which is what you have told me is the correct method to select the challenger) you will need to define all those variables very carefully in order to make sure Kramnik is a legitimate challenger, while at the same time ensuring Kasparov is not.

However much you argue, its shades of grey. There is a logical argument for saying that Kramnik was not the legitimate challenger in 2000, and there is a logical argument for saying Kasparov was at least equally legitimate at some point post 2000. (Actually the reason he didnt participate in a qualifier was that the timing broke the terms of the contract he signed at the time).

And no, I don't have any problem with Kramnik accepting the gift of a match. And it was a gift btw, perhaps you can invest in an excellent book called "From London to Elista" co-authored by Bareev, one of Kramnik's long time seconds. There is a chapter in the beginning called "Gift from the Gods". Guess what this refers to..

I do have a problem with the legitimacy of the title he subsequently won, for those reasons which I have exhaustively articulated. I don't quite buy the history argument, because it represents a regression, not an advancement.

I have a serious problem with the fact that he to all purposes ducked a rematch. I apply the cynic's version of the principle of Occam's Razor here, and think that less worthy motives are more likely than laudable motives, because of the weight of many things I have discussed here.

I really don't care that you and rdh and various others disagree with me, at least I have set out my arguments, which frankly is more than the name calling and ad hominems you lot have resorted to.
This really is the last word I will post on this thread, even if a particularly needling comment makes it very difficult.

Forgot that Mig employs an angleBracket and leading white space filter. Here's another try for the algorithm.

var qTime = time final candidates match ends
/* you have to enlighten us as to whether you consider a qualifying tournament valid, in which case the above needs to be modified */
var fMoney = money available for the final match
var acceptableMoney = amount acceptable to participants
var acceptableTime = maximum period before qualifiers are considerd invalid.
var minELO = minimum ELO acceptable for a challenger
var n = 1 /* index */

. while ( (currentTime-qTime) lessThan
. acceptableTime) do
fMoney = max(available deals)
. end

. if fMoney greaterThan acceptableMoney then
. challenger = winnerOfCandidatesCycle
. else
. while(ELO greatterThan minELO) do
. ELO = ratingList(n)
. offerMatch to ownerOfRatingList(n)
. if (acceptance) then
. break
. end
. n=n+2
. end
. end

1. d_tal advocates a WCC qualifier.
2. Kramnik implements a WCC qualifier.
3. d_tal accuses Kramnik of cowardice for implementing a WCC qualifier.

Hard to defend such nonsense.

"Pathetic interview by Anand."

Finally RB shows his true face. Something probably caused by him rimming Kramnik and the blog-owner simultaneously for too long.

Am listening repeatedly to Bruce Springsteen's "Girls in Their Summer Clothes" and am sure he has encrypted profound chess messages in the lyrics.

Am disclosing this publicly in the spirit of fairness, so that both Anand and Kramnik camps can begin their own decoding work.

Will apprise with further updates.

Larry,

Must be an interesting life walking around with images like that in your head.

But I also don't think Anand deserves such criticism.

Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik had better chess temperaments. They cared deeply about their place in chess history and viewed the prospect of losing a WC match with dread and horror; which emotions energized their chess-lives and made them more interesting, maybe even Shakespearean.

Anand flows along smiling and more-or-less content from one event to the next. He defends the status of his past and current titles, but doesn't seem to have thought very deeply about it, and doesn't make a huge deal of it. One senses that if he lost the Bonn match he'd get over it in a few days, if not a few hours.

He's always stepped back from chess-world political turmoil. It wasn't unreasonable to shift back and forth between FIDE and non-FIDE events as the opportunities presented. After the Shirov fiasco it was surely reasonable to insist that the loser's share be placed in escrow.

He's a reasonable, pleasant, well-balanced person and a phenomenal chess talent. I prefer the other guy, but I think it's really hard to find anything bad to say about Anand.

Kasparov'scomments, continued:

"It is not without a hint of nostalgia that I will view the battle of the men who alternated the #2 and #3 spots in the chess world for so many years."

well put mr koster, although i favor Anand, these are the two best players in the world currently and would enjoy a 24 game match. I JUst wish they would play already and stop with the bickering.

more excerpts from "Kasparov on Anand-Kramnik"

"I will be watching with perhaps more than passing interest the clash of two great minds in the board game I mastered and abandoned for loftier challenges."

Who will win the prize for best comment about Kramnik's sponsorship by a cement company?

that reminds me of some film where a mafia guy kicks a guy into wet cement house foundations. "Now we got a relationship we can build on"

I have been away from the blog for a while. Nice to see it has been active.

"Finally RB shows his true face. Something probably caused by him rimming Kramnik and the blog-owner simultaneously for too long."

Well, I feel it is totally appropriate for me to express my opinion about Anand's interview on a chess blog. If you disagree with my opinion, too bad. But it didn't take YOU too long to show YOUR face :) Nice job representing Anand fans, by the way.

Anyway, I see greg koster has already exposed the hypocrisy and inconsistency of d_tal's arguments (and I use the term "arguments" loosely), so I guess I am too late.

I have a question. Why did Kramnik start his preparations so early? Does he think he is weak compared to Anand and needs extra hours of preparation??

PA,

Good point.

After the 2000 match, GKK said that Kramnik had out-prepared him. He's probably up to the same crap again, the dirty cheater.

Koster :)