Rapidly in Mainz

Vishy for some reason ignored the others and really put the kibosh on Moro.

Looks like Carlsen is lost in game 1 after his exchnage sac Rxc3...

Vishy 2-0 up. shades of Fischer-Tal 1959?

Anand has won Mainz again!

Going 1-3 vs Anand sounds like Carlsen has played a little too much chess lately (especially the last two events only hours apart). Even young people need to rest!

It could also be that Anand is a better rapid player than Carlsen is.

Anyway, congratulations to Vishy. I was not so sure he'd win this time. Amazingly, before Mainz started he was -2 in rapid games this year!

Hmm, current World Champ, #1 rated player and the guy who is universally recognized as the best rapid player beats someone 3:1 in rapids and people react as if it's not supposed to happen...

3-1 isn't the whole story. Anand could have won the third game if he wished - it seemed that he was just being nice to Carlsen.

Saying that Anand is "universally recognised as the best rapid player" is pushing it a bit. The Monaco rapid tournament this year was very convincingly won by Aronian with Anand in 8th place and Ivanchuk won the rapid tournament in Leon Spain, beating Anand in the final.

Anand was universally recognized as the best rapid player... until Aronian started turning in such good results. Actually, I know Anand said in an interview that he thought Aronian was the strongest of his peers at the beginning of the year. This was before Carlsen debuted as a "real" chess player in Corus.

I think Anand genuinely likes the kid (the lopsided plus score probably helps - 90% of chess conflict is sour grapes). Hence the draw in game three, etc.

But still "universally recognized as the best rapid player" argument is a whole lot better and meaningful than "universally recognized as the best match player" argument about you-know-who! ;)

Anand was only 8th in the rapid part of Melody Ambers this year. How universally best is that?

You have to tell me, henry. Who is better then?

You have to tell me, PircAlert. Who is better than?

Vishy's rapid play has stood the test of time. I am not sure there is any other player that has dominated this form of the game like he has for so long. Yes he had a few bad results. So did Kaspy on the classical side. Few doubt his dominance. The same rules should apply to Vishy's rapid chess performance as well.

1 year of bad form, reversed this year, against numerous years of being the best. Anand IS universally recgnised as being the best rapid player. Its about results.

It is a shame Ivanchuk and Aronian couldn't play in Mainz as they were in the Grand Prix.
Therefore I am afraid that this year Anand has not proved he is the best in rapid. True he is the best over many years, but this year he might have proved it too if Ivanchuk and Aronian were in the unofficial rapid world championship, but as it is those two still have claims this year.

Not to mention Ivanchuk seems up there with Anand in the last year in rapid (where he won a match) and blitz (where he won the world championship).
Ivanchuk is also not too far off in classical the last year!

I am one of Ivanchuk's biggest fans, but his performances are so flaky, its hard to imagine he will ever find the consistency to be called the best at any form of the game.

I don't think Anand has anything to prove against Aronian and Ivanchuk in rapid, but as always, different opinions make for lively conversations!

Hardly relevant, but a very interesting and revealing article from the past about Gata Kamsky in the NY times y Fred Waitzkin called a Father's pawn. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDA133BF930A25756C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Aronian played last year in Mainz and was beaten by Anand in the final.

@d_tal, interesting article. All the greats, Kasparov, Fischer, Anand, Kramnik and now Carlsen, Karjakin et al studied intensively during their growing years but they all did it because of the love they had for the game. I don't think anyone pushed them into it. But there is something to be said for the monastic life - for all his flair Anand blew a 2 point lead and came a cropper against Kamsky in the 1994 Sanghinagar match precisely because of this quality of his opponent.

Nice contribution, d_tal.

Kasparov v. 15-year-old Kamsky:

"After the match, Kasparov was extremely blunt about Gata Kamsky: 'He has no potential to be world champion. There are many strong grandmasters, but to be world champion you need that last component. I don't think Kamsky has it.'"

"When Kasparov's advantage was overwhelming, the champion picked up a queen from the side of the table and shook it at the admiring crowd."

Now THAT'S Class!

Kasparov vs 15 year old Radjabov

"The prize for most beautiful game was announced with Teimour Radjabov the winner for his win over Garry Kasparov in round two. Kasparov stunned the crowd by immediately rising and walking to the stage and speaking into the microphone: "How could you give the beauty prize to a game in which I lost a piece because of a stupid mistake? It has been selected only because it was the only game that I lost and I consider this to be a public insult and humiliation."

That is pretty classy too!

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=851

Kasparov vs 15 year old Radjabov

"The prize for most beautiful game was announced with Teimour Radjabov the winner for his win over Garry Kasparov in round two. Kasparov stunned the crowd by immediately rising and walking to the stage and speaking into the microphone: "How could you give the beauty prize to a game in which I lost a piece because of a stupid mistake? It has been selected only because it was the only game that I lost and I consider this to be a public insult and humiliation."

Kasparov then stormed out with his mother and trainer.

That is pretty classy too!

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=851

Stop it! Stop it!

jaideepblue, indeed, extreme self discipline seems to be very important. Makes you wonder anew at the genius of Tal. Tal and Spassky were perhaps the least 'monastic' of the WCs. There were definitely the most sportsmanlike I think, and perhaps two of the happiest!

Meant to say "They" not "There" at the start of the last sentence.

jaideepblue, Vishy has often mentioned the media at home playing a role in his loss to Kamsky..too much hype and very little privacy given to him..no excuses, but I guess that was his first big match at home and he probably wasn't ready for all that..

Kasparov was a boor & several people knew it. Yet it was that same competitive streak- the fire in the belly - (that made him a boor) that was responsible for his amazing chess. Also, he had one trait that I appreciate - it is his generosity in complimenting his opponents when they did play well and he lost. Unfortunately the latest ex-undisputed world champion, Kramnik, has never had that - 1. if he loses to Shirov in a match, it is by accident 2. if he fails to win Mexico City, it is because he can only do well in matches .. unlike Anand, he cant win against tailenders 3. if anand wins mexico city it is Anand was lucky while Kramnik was not (not because Anand played well). 4. I just realized he played the Vegas FIDE KO himself, yet he denigrates it at every opportunity since he won the 'other' title. Unlike Kramnik, at least Kasparov had the honesty to not take part in a KO so he can criticize it all he wants.

I think the four undisputed world champions who probably are true gentlemen and best ambassodors of the sport (I am not much of a chess historian to know of pre-Alekhine days):

1. Tal
2. Smyslov
3. Spassky
4. Anand

I think Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov were pretty good gentlemen too .. but were not undisputed WCs or to make the list.

jake, I think you have a typo there: "the latest ex-undisputed world champion, Kramnik". Did you mean: "the latest ex-disputed world champion, Kramnik" by any chance??

What about Capablanca? He was supposed to be the parfait gentleman, and a lady killer as well.

jake--

1) "Yet it was that same competitive streak-fire in the belly--(that made him a boor) that was responsible for his amazing chess."

Nonsense. You can be a jag without being a champion. And you can be a champion without being a jag. You don't think Tiger Woods has a competitive streak--fire in the belly?

2) Hope you won't mind supplying the quote where Kramnik calls Anand's Mexico City win "lucky."

Didn't Capa dodge a Lasker rematch?

I thought Lasker dodged a Capablanca match. He even resigned the title in favor of Capablanca. But Capablanca felt compelled to play him for it anyway. Some old champs and contenders had class, which is more than can be said about certain modern players, that are willing to claim they are champions after winning a mere KO or a tournament.

greg koster,

that is why I called him a boor right upfront. you are right. one is not necessary for the other. there are exceptions - Tiger Woods being a notable one. More power to him. But if you take someone like Ali or Michael Jordan .. you will see a lot of parallels with Kasparov -

the same trash talking, personal faults, the same unwillingness to even lose a pickup game etc.

as to the link for the specific Kramnik quote:

"(Q) Second place can't satisfy you, of course, but looking at your pace in last rounds, if there was a third lap, you would pass Anand.

(A) If there was a third lap, all participants would finish in a hospital. The tournament was a very tough one. Regarding the second place I took... In such an event the only place which is important is the first one. Are you second or eighth - is not that different. Of course, I am displeased with my failure to win. But I guess that my playing level was on par with Anand's. He just collected everything he could, as usual. He takes chances, he is always lucky a little, as I noticed. He played 1-1 with both the 2nd and 3rd players and had no winning chances in any of these games. This is very usual for him as a real tournament fighter."

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/10/wch_flashbacks.htm

if you want links for the other comments I attributed to Kramnik, I can furnish them too.

Jake, this is quite typical of Kramnik. His long time second, Bareev, says in the book "From London to Elista" that Kramnik has tended to "whine" for as long as he can remember; i.e. if its not one thing, its another.

I used to think very highly of Kramnik ... but when I go through his comments post 2002, I see now he is more opportunistic than anybody else. He claims to have sacrificed to play in Mexico for the sake of unification. Since Topalov was a more impressive Champion and Kramnik realized his inability to raise money (Kramnik Leko was played for < 700,000 dollars) and FIDE had already agreed to Mexico City, he had to compromise to stay relevant. It was Kramnik who was keen to play Topalov .. not the other way round. That was no sacrifice for Kramnik. Actually Topalov put a lot more on the line for peanuts - or 500,000, to be more exact. If you see Kramnik's comments immediately after "beating" Leko, he actually wanted to deep six unification efforts, by claiming he wouldnt play the Kasparov - Kasimdzhanov winner. For all his distaste for tournaments, he wanted to have a four player tournament to pick the winner. Kramnik is whiner pretending to be an angel.

Kasparov, while no angel, at least did not pretend to be one.

Yes, and as I showed conclusively in another thread, using an unambiguous algorithm, Kasparov was as deserving a challenger as Kramnik was when he was selected over Shirov; actually more so. Hypocrisy and pussilanimity are not endearing qualities. However he can play Chess, lets not forget that. Quite a few WCs were not angels either.

jake, I think it was slightly different from outright saying Anand was lucky. The main point was that Anand takes chances, and more often than it, it works out for him - so he is a little lucky in that sense.

Also, you leave out the continuation that makes clear Kramnik probably didn't consider Anand's victory lucky. The full thing goes:

"In such an event the only place which is important is the first one. Are you second or eighth - is not that different. Of course, I am displeased with my failure to win. But I guess that my playing level was on par with Anand's. He just collected everything he could, as usual. He takes chances, he is always lucky a little, as I noticed. He played 1-1 with both the 2nd and 3rd players and had no winning chances in any of these games. This is very usual for him as a real tournament fighter. I had an understanding that it will be very tough to keep up with him in this. Only a win in our face to face game could decide things in my favor. Both games went under my control but unfortunately, both were drawn."

So, a little luck or not, Kramnik made it clear that before the tournament he thought Anand would be a favorite unless Kramnik himself could beat him in a head-to-head game, so when he couldn't do it, he wasn't surprised about the tournament result.

Also, I disagree with your opinion that Kramnik's participation in a KO means Kramnik has no moral right to criticize the KO as a way to decide the world championship. Hell, I am a huge pro-match, anti-KO guy but I would play in a KO if given the chance. Just because I don't think it is the real championship doesn't mean I should not play in it f I feel like it.

d_tal, I think only YOUR hypocrisy was exposed in that other thread. I am afraid you will have to put your "unambiguous algorithm" in a more reader friedly form if you expect people to take it seriously.

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.

The hypocrisy is obvious. The pussilanimity is evident in his refusal to confront the argument.

russiangreg, you gotta read my post first, and understand it, I confonted your argument and refuted it. In a nutshell, applying the same criteria that made Kramnik a suitable qualifier, Kasparov turns out to be an even better qualifier.

jake--nicely done.

j--Kramnik never refused to play the reunification match. He did ask...what's the point of playing a FIDE-reunification match if none of the FIDE-promised mechanism for determining the next challenger had been arranged.

j--Given the opposition of the governing body and the most prominent player of a minor sport, there weren't the resources for the sort of qualifier one might have wished for. But in 2002 the Dortmund tournament format had been modified so that the event ended in a series of four-game matches.

d_tal,

Please don't try to obscure what is really a very simple issue:

1) Do you advocate a WCC qualifier?
2) Did Kramnik implement a WCC qualifier?
3) Do you accuse Kramnik of cowardice for implementing a WCC qualifier?

If you could confront it and refute it, you would also be able to put it in a more readable form.

As for the criteria for qualifying for WC matches, Kasparov insisted on no-rematch and Kramnik did the honorable thing and lived up to his end of the bargain. In any case, like greg koster pointed out, if you don't believe in handpicking, you shouldn't have a problem with Kramnik moving away from it. And if you do believe in handpicking, you shouldn't have a problem with Kramnik being hand picked. In any case, handpicking was part of the chess WC tradition in the past, so you argument that Kramnik has somehow less of a status than the earlier champs doesn't really make sense.

Your hypocricy is obvious. You should pick the chess format/cycles you prefer and then bash people based on that. Otherwise your one argument contradicts your next one and it all ends up looking very biased and silly. You can't blame the same guy for not qualifying through a cycle and then blame him for allowing other a chance to qualify through a cycle. And if you do, it becomes obvious you just want to attack that one guy and not really stand up for some sort of principles you pretend to have or you think he should have.

Greg, your repetitious comments have begun to bore everyone.

"1) Do you advocate a WCC qualifier?"

d_tal most certainly does that.

"2) Did Kramnik implement a WCC qualifier? "

Yes, that is an objective fact.

"3) Do you accuse Kramnik of cowardice for implementing a WCC qualifier? "

Yes he does.

Hm, I wonder if d_t is being reasonable.

Also, suggesting Kasparov should win Dortmund or worse, beat Ponomariov, or (the horror!) beat Kasimdzhanov somehow shows Kramnik was scared of Kasparov. Surely, beating Kasimdzhanov would be such an impossible feat of chess heroism for Kasparov, that the very fact that such an unwinnable match was suggested for Kasparov proves just how much Kramnik was scared of him.

"Greg, your repetitious comments have begun to bore everyone."

Nice try, d_tal. Please go back to posting under your regular handle.

Zimba,

Even me. Sorry.

Greg, regret if I might have offended you. Your response was graceful.

Clubfoot,
My answer is Anand!
He has won Mainz* 11 times. This is the 9th consecutive victory.
2001- against Kramnik
2002- against Pono
2003- against Polgar
2004- against Shirov
2005- against Grischuk
2006- against Radjabov
2007- against Aronian
2008- against Carlsen
Do you need more?
This is what is sheer skill!
This is what is King of the Hill!!

PircAlert

Interesting. So you believe Anand is a better rapid player than Anand?

And about this:

"universally recognized as the best rapid player" argument is a whole lot better and meaningful than "universally recognized as the best match player" argument about you-know-who! ;)

Could you explain why you believe the first argument is a "whole lot better and meaningful" than the second?

Club,
As you can see Anand qualified himself, played every year, and proved himself against the strongest opposition!

More play and less talk!!

Can you say the same thing of... :)

PircAlert:
"You have to tell me, henry. Who is better then?"

Tell me PircAlert, what makes Anand ** universally better ** at present than, say, Aronian? I'm talking about the present.

In case you insist on talking about lifetime results, I'd say Kasparov is better. His personal score against Anand was positive in rapid games.

Also notice that refusing the term "universally the best" doesn't logically mean proposing that another person is better. There could be several equally good players, none of which is "universally the best".

It's worth reading that link from d_tal above. I actually see Kasparov's behaviour in a different light to Greg K, since he takes the event completely out of context. Kasparov was right to say that there was another layer of personality required to become world champion, and it isn't necessarily to be a nice guy.

I think that this year in rapid there is a clear best 3: Anand, Ivanchuk and Aronian.
You can't say more than that. Anand lost a match to Ivanchuk so he can hardly be seen to be clearly better than him, and Aronian won a rapid event where Anand came low in.

In fact Ivanchuk and Aronian might even be said to be more successful at rapid this year than Anand, but Anand benefits because Mainz is the one considered the rapid world championship which Ivanchuk and Aronian didn't play in.

Over the year Anand has consistently done well in rapid and is clearly the best over the last 5 years or more, but not just in this year.

Ivanchuk has a good claim to be atleast as good as Anand in rapid and blitz just on the last year- winning the blitz world championship and beating Anand in a match- however if you were to guess who was currently the best rapid player the consistency of Anand over many years would mean yopu would give him the edge- but it is not clear that he is best right now.

Russianbear, I am not remotely as pathetic as you and NEVER post under any name other than d_tal. In the beginning, I used the handle d, but I found it was too common, and I changed to d_tal, a few years ago.

Secondly, I am sumpremely indifferent as to whether or not you understand any of my arguments. You defy all rules of logic when debating, and use interpretations that only make sense to you. I have long given up expecting any semblance of reason from you, and couldnt care less whether or not you understand me.

Koster, in 2, he didn't implement a qualifier that can reasonably be called a qualifier, including reasonable time frames. The details are in my earlier post in another thread, go and read it.

I am right, everybody else are stupid and evil.

sorted!

-Q

Btw, in the same spirit as my earlier link, have a look at this pretty amazing footage from 1959 of a fit looking Tal, Petrosian, Smyslov and Fischer. If only it were longer.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj5oiglNsWY&feature=related

d_tal is quite right, of course this has been shown many times previously.
Kramnik's "qualifier", which even Kramnik supporter acirce called ridiculous, was merely a device (by being made unacceptable to Kasparov) to avoid the very great danger (for Kramnik) that Kasparov would become his challenger.

Already, less than 2 months after its announcement, Kasparov very impressively had Kramnik's motives well sussed, motives that still do not seem to be realised by some people (or wilfully glossed over by a certain gang of posters on this blog):

"As we analyze the BGN offer, it is transparently calculated to obtain a quasi-legitimate challenger for Kramnik. Somebody ranked between #4 and about #12 in the world. Let's be blunt: no effort is being made to find the top challenger... every effort is being made to ensure that Kramnik does not have to face the world's number one ranked player!... Compare Kramnik's not-so-subtle avoidance of the top challenger with the actions of Garry Kasparov from 1985 to 2000 when he consistently played the strongest and most dangerous opponents." (Owen Williams press release 6 September 2001.)

And for the poster on a previous thread who couldn't understand why there is still 'Kramnik bashing':
"...and this will haunt Kramnik as he searches for future respect."

One other thing - if Kramnik is such a nice guy, how come he has made so many bitter enemies - Shirov, Kasparov, Topalov, and now Anand - no smoke without fire, I say.
On the other hand Anand, who gave such a 'pathetic' interview, never seems to have made any serious enemies (apart from Kramnik making himself one)in his whole lifetime - so who is the pathetic one?

Pathetic, as is a certain cowardly gang of Kramnik fanboys (or actually fanatical Kasparov haters, Kramnik therefore being their hero) on this blog who bully, use personal attacks, and try to drown out opposing voices - who try to take over the best written (and therefore influential) blog in an attempt to sway public opinion with their misleading half-truths, trying to defend the indefensible Kramnik.

Chris B -- your post is a more pointed attempt to "drown out opposing voices" with "personal attacks" than any effort from your imaginary "cowardly gang" of Kramnik boosters/Kasparov haters.

It doesn't take a Kramnik fan or a Kasparov critic to see that you're in deep with the bitter-teary posters who continue labelling Kramnik an evil opportunistic loser for the sin of his decimation of Kasparov eight years ago.

And you honestly believe you can prove malice aforethought in the terms of the Dortmund qualifier simply by furnishing an Owen Williams quote??

You guys are getting too easy to slap around.

As one of my university thesis readers wrote on my thesis 32 years ago: "Marcuse's quote is not proved simply by attributing it to him."

personally I'm sick of Kramnik's whining. No other player whines as consistently as Kramnik.

face it guys -

a. he had no moral issues in taking the rightful place of the man who beat him in a match after apparently saying Kasparov has the moral obligation to play Shirov and only Shirov for the world title (quote in Europe Echecs 1999 according to posts on chessgames.com).
b. he held a challenger designed to keep the top guys out in a format he publicly despises himself.
c. as pointed out earlier, he claims the moral high ground of sacrificing for the sake of unification when all he has done is be opportunistic and highly self preservation oriented. And yes taking part in a KO and criticizing it afterward count as opportunistic in my book.
d. as pointed out on the Kramnik page on chessgames.com, he (or rather, his manager) has gotten an undeserved nice shot at a World Title for the second time at Bonn 2008 (first time was Braingames 2000). Contrary to popular opinion, the match between Kramnik and the Mexico City winner was NOT a pre-condition to unification through Elista, but rather a result of shady dealings between Henschel and Kirsan post - Elista. Apparently, this-post Elista deal for Kramnik has been criticized by the mild mannered Anand and even Magnus Carlsen himself.
e. finally, his comments post Mexico City have been nothing have been classless and just reek of plain sour grapes.

Clubfoot,

If you have followed the history of earlier exchanges, you will notice that I had several personal attacks first made on me before I gave any back.

What makes the Owen Williams press release so brilliant is that it so exactly predicted the general theme of Kramnik's actions into the future. For years afterwards Kramnik stuffed Kasparov around hoping, as Kasparov said a year or two after the Williams release, that by the time Kasparov got a match, he would be too old to contest it properly. As it happened, Kasparov retired from chess out of frustration - the greater part of the blame for this great loss to chess belongs to Kramnik, the rest to FIDE.
No doubt to Kramnik's great delight; and surprise, surprise, Kramnik suddenly started becoming very accomodating about playing a real World Championship match!

As I already noticed on the earlier thread, you have a very strange notion of why you think Kasparov came to hate Kramnik. Your notion seems to be:
"Kramnik had the temerity to win a WC match from Kasparov and take his title. This outrageous 'crime' is the reason that Kasparov and Mig regard Kramnik as the 'great enemy' to be torn down at every opportunity."

This is plainly ridiculous and you should look at why you believe this.
If you followed Kasparov's interviews, etc. at the time you will see that virtually no animosity was expressed towards Kramnik for several months afterwards. The closest that came to criticism was a bit of concern that it was taking Kramnik so long to announce a qualifier.

However, with the announcement of the ridiculous "qualifier" (July 2001), there was a very marked change of tone, and justifiably so.
It was Kramnik not giving Kasparov a reasonable qualifier that earned Kasparov's hatred, not the losing of the Title.

The same certainly goes for me - I was mildly pleased with Kramnik's win of the title and had nothing against him. Totally astounded and disgusted was I with his "qualifier". Kasparov did not always behave perfectly, but for Kramnik to deliberately deprive the world of a probable return Kramnik-Kasparov match was an unforgivable crime.
So I certainly do not label Kramnik an 'evil opportunistic loser' for the 'sin of his decimation of Kasparov eight years ago'. But I certainly don't forgive him for something else that he did.
For any others, I cannot speak.

"a. he had no moral issues in taking the rightful place of the man who beat him in a match after apparently saying Kasparov has the moral obligation to play Shirov and only Shirov for the world title (quote in Europe Echecs 1999 according to posts on chessgames.com)."

That is a lie. Shirov right place was not taken by anyone. Shirov missed his chance, and him beating Kramnik in 1998 didn't mean Kramnik was disqualified forever. There was 2.5 years in between Shirov-Kramnik and Kasparov-Kramnik matches. That is more than say, the time between San Luis and Mexico tournaments, but people like Anand had no moral issues in playing in Mexico 2007 even though they lost to Topalov in 2005.

"b. he held a challenger designed to keep the top guys out in a format he publicly despises himself. "

That doesn't even make any sense.

"c. as pointed out earlier, he claims the moral high ground of sacrificing for the sake of unification when all he has done is be opportunistic and highly self preservation oriented. And yes taking part in a KO and criticizing it afterward count as opportunistic in my book. "

Your book is not the only book. Kasparov played in FIDE and criticized it afterwards. There is nothing opportunistic in playing in an event you don't think is the real world championship and then saying you don't think it is the real world championship. Playing in something is not a guarantee that you endorse that thing as the ultimate achievement in the sport.

" as pointed out on the Kramnik page on chessgames.com, he (or rather, his manager) has gotten an undeserved nice shot at a World Title for the second time at Bonn 2008 (first time was Braingames 2000). Contrary to popular opinion, the match between Kramnik and the Mexico City winner was NOT a pre-condition to unification through Elista, but rather a result of shady dealings between Henschel and Kirsan post - Elista. Apparently, this-post Elista deal for Kramnik has been criticized by the mild mannered Anand and even Magnus Carlsen himself."

Actually, it was in the interest of the sport for Kramnik to arrange a match between him and Mexico winner. Mexico was a compromise that was never really considered to be the championship by Kramnik himself and was only agreed to to please the MExico organizers and not cause another split. So, the match against Mexico winner isn't an afterthought, it is the Mexico itself that is a compromise; the tournament itself was irrelevant in the big picture.

"finally, his comments post Mexico City have been nothing have been classless and just reek of plain sour grapes. "

I found Anand's comments about matches to be much more pathetic and a much worse case of sour grapes.

d_tal, the very fact you choose to attack me shows you know you've lost the actual argument. You've always shown the preference for personal attacks, but don't be surprised if I keep ignoring you until you actually put together at least a semblance of an argument again.

ChrisB, noone has attacked you here - at least I don't remember anything recently, and you are the one who calls other side "cowardly gang of Kramnik fanboys".

But I will address a couple of minor points you did make:

Kasparov had very little reason to complain about Kramnik not allowing him to get a chance at a rematch. Kasparov could play in Dortmund 2002. He got a match versus Pono. He kept whining. Then it changed to a match versus Kasimdzhanov. All Kasparov had to do was beat Kasimdzhanov. But Kasparov preferred whining to actually playing, so it is only fair he didn't get to play.

"if Kramnik is such a nice guy, how come he has made so many bitter enemies - Shirov, Kasparov, Topalov, and now Anand"

You are exaggerating. Shirov was screwed by Kasparov much more than by Kramnik, who only agreed to play after waiting for a reasonable amount of time (as Shirov himself indirectly indicating by suggesting Kamsky should be forfeited from the Topalov match and he, Shirov should be granted a spot - even though Kamsky didn't even wait half the time Kramnik gave to Shirov). Anand is hardly a bitter enemy of Kramnik, in fact there is a lot of mutual respect between the two. Topalov indeed has chosen to make an enemy out of Kramnik, but it was all Topalov's decision and/or paranoia and in the process he turned Kramnik into a hero and himself into the most hated player of post-Kasparov era. And the remaining one is Kasparov, who has made enemies out of everyone: Karpov, Campomanes, Vladimirov, Ilyumzhinov, Shirov, Kramnik, Putin, etc. I won't name them all because I might forget someone. He even managed to do ugly things to Polgar, 15 year old Radjabov, etc. So I think you overstate just how hated Kramnik is.

Oh, let's not forget the "Chess tourists" comment made by the classy 13th champ. If I remember correctly, people like Movsesyan took offense. I knoew I would forget someone. I am sure I am still forgetting people.

"but for Kramnik to deliberately deprive the world of a probable return Kramnik-Kasparov match was an unforgivable crime."

Actually that is not correct. Kramnik didn't deprive the world of a probable return Kramnik-Kasparov match. Kasparov did. Yes, Kasparov deprived himself of the rematch when he insisted on the no-rematch clause for the London match. So once again, Kasparov is to blame.

Hm, I've just remembered more enemies of Kasparov: the Deep Blue team! How could I forget them!

ChrisB, I haven't seen you comment for a while, and I think you had given up trying to debate with the rabid gang. I can only apologise for being at least partly responsible for getting you involved in all this blah again. You are of course 100% right.

I myself resolve to give up the ghost quite often, but I allow myself to be goaded by the insufferable smugness of the rabid gang, who paint Kramnik as the biggest patron saint of Chess to walk the earth since the game was first played. And everybody who plays against him is inferior in incalculable ways. One thing to be wary of, as you yourself no doubt discovered to your cost some time back, is that they are not short of time.

I tried to explain the point of the qualifier in an unambiguous fashion; i.e. using the same criteria that accomodated the lack of qualification of Kramnik in achieving WC status, Kasparov was easily at least as good a challenger. Never mind that the actual "qualifier" that was eventually used was a rank disgrace.

Despairing of the never-ending verbal jousts from the rabid gang that forever changed the content of the arguments when faced with an uncomfortable question, thus precluding any satisfactory resolution, I took the step of articulating as an algorithm the "acceptability" of a challenger, based on the same criteria that Mr. Koster put forward to support his thesis that Kramnik was wholly acceptable despite losing to Shirov. This is dismissed as being "reader unfriendly".

The funny thing is, I don't particularly dislike Kramnik for grabbing as much as he can for himself, and grasping every opportunity to further himself. Most WCs in the past the same kind of behaviour although in different flavours. I like his playing style and look forward to him playing someone with a markedly different style.

As I said, what really gets my goat is the rabid gang's portrayal of him as a saint. However I will make yet another good resolution not to waste my time on this.

"but don't be surprised if I keep ignoring you until you actually put together at least a semblance of an argument again."

Please feel free to ignore me regardless. That will be equivalent to Christmas, promotion and a birthday coming at once.

And if we are going to pretend that Topalov's accusations of Kramnik reflect negatively on Kramnik, we might as well remember that Fischer accused Kasparov of arranging games, and of stealing Fischer's own ideas to manufacture new, staged games, and, if I remember correctly, he called Kasparov something along the lines of "the worst kind of cheating lowlife". I am paraphrasing from memory, but I got the gist of it just right, I think. Kasparov' list of enemies just keeps growing and growing. Kramnik couldn't make this many enemies if he tried, I am afraid :)

"I took the step of articulating as an algorithm the "acceptability" of a challenger, based on the same criteria that Mr. Koster put forward to support his thesis that Kramnik was wholly acceptable despite losing to Shirov. This is dismissed as being "reader unfriendly"."

And indeed, it is. Koster, myself or other people haven't addressed you in C+++ or Java, and there is no reason why you should pretend it is a valid method of communication that is understood by everyone. I might respond to someone's argument in Russian or some other language they don't know and pretend I thouroughly refuted their reasoning, but it won't be true. Just like it isn't true that the algorithm form is readable to everyone here. It is assumed we are addressing each other in English here and if you fail to do so, you can hardly claim you've refuted someone - at least not anymore than if I typed something in Ukrainian in response to your own posts.

Chris B. "One other thing - if Kramnik is such a nice guy, how come he has made so many bitter enemies - Shirov, Kasparov, Topalov, and now Anand - no smoke without fire, I say.
On the other hand Anand, who gave such a 'pathetic' interview, never seems to have made any serious enemies (apart from Kramnik making himself one)in his whole lifetime - so who is the pathetic one? "

What a joke.

Anand hating Kramnik. I should think not. Topailov hating Kramnik - that would be a honour for Kramnik, considering Topailov behaviour in EListra. Kasparov hating Kramnik -sure why not -he hates anybody who beats him.

I hesitate to enter this debate in view of the violence directed against anyone who says anything in support of Kramnik. I am not a "rabid supporter of Kramnik", but I have been impressed by the stand he has taken throughout this sorry mess. At the time of the Kramnik- Kasparov match, I was greatly looking forward to Kasparov earning a second match and (probably) regaining the title. But i was disgusted by Kasparov's prima donnaish behaviour (I'm the greatest, the hell with the rules, I deserve a rematch0, and astonished with the vituperation heaped on Kramnik's head for just saying that it was only fair to the rest of the top grandmasters that whoever challenged him would have to qualify.

What I am reminded of is the situation with Bobby Fischer. In an interview at the Siegen Olympiad (1970), Spassky said (I'm quoting from memory, but what he said was so striking that I'm confident about the gist of it): "Bobby considers himself, with justice, to be the world champion, but to gain the title, he must pass through the door" (i.e. qualify for a challenge). No-one, not even Fischer, contemplated the possibility of him simply saying, "I'm the greatest, I'm entitled to a match": everyone recognized that he had to prove his case by going through a candidate's process.

Hi, d-tal, thanks.
Yah, lack of time is the problem, I'll probably try not to get too involved this time either?!

Of course, in strength terms, Kasparov was a much MORE deserving challenger than Kramnik was.
Personally, I was sort of pleased to see Kramnik get that challenge - for the rather selfish reason that it was the most interesting possible match; a Shirov match held little interest for me. Of course, one felt bad for Shirov, not nice, but I suppose he was offered a match which he turned down, and Kasparov did prepare seriously for a match with Shirov. So bit of a grey area that one, for me anyway.
What really grates with me about this is Kramnik's hypocrisy in his complete lack of acknowledgment in later negotiations that he got a free ride here.

Playing style: I quite like Kramnik's style with white (especially pre-2000, when he played interesting stuff), but with black (Petroff), it's just horrible; you must be only playing for result (and the selfish benefit {money} it gets you), not for love of the game. Just to suck all the life out of a game - Kramnik is a destroyer of chess on the board as well as off it!

Russianbear,

The first attacks were quite some time ago; particularly snide ones from rdh, also Greg Koster.
You yourself heavily criticised me some time ago for 'continuously whining that Kasparov was entitled to a rematch'. When I pointed out that I never said this (only that he should have been given a decent qualifier), you said 'and neither did I say you said this'. Upon producing your offending remarks, complete silence on it and no apology.
Also, when some time ago, I criticised Kramnik in uncomplimentary terms, but not as bad as you criticised Anand, you called it 'a cowardly attack'. But you call your attack on Anand as 'being entitled to express an opinion on a blog'. Some inconsistency here?
But I am prepared to let bygones be bygones and conduct discussion in a civil tone if you are.

Kasparov's enemies: Some of what you say is valid; though Kasparov has had a much longer career in which to make them! I don't agree with everything he has done; probably Kasparov's main failing is that he is on too short a fuse.
Anyone who is an enemy of Campomanes and Ilyumzhinov can't be all bad - I'll even give Kramnik (oops, more Kramnik enemies!) some credit here!
Kaspy was not having a go at Radjabov, he was condenming the judges for the ridiculous decision of awarding a brilliancy prize for a game decided by a blunder.
Karpov used influence to stop a match he was probably going to lose - I would say that's fair justification for considering him an enemy.
It's not Kasparov's fault if Fischer mouths off like an idiot. Kasparov did not consider Fischer an enemy.

Since 2000 (when winning the Championship went to his head), I would say Kramnik has made more chess enemies than most. Certainly compared with Anand; it's quite surprising you criticise someome who 'has a lot of mutual respect' with Kramnik so harshly.

"Kasparov could play in Dortmund 2002". Yeah right. Of course the top-rated recent ex-champ can accept playing in a rubbish event designed to maximise his chances of an accident. This is not honest argument, RB.

"but for Kramnik to deliberately deprive the world of a probable return match Kramnik-Kasparov match was an unforgivable crime." Actually, it is correct. Kasparov did not have a rematch clause because he considered such unfair (having suffered himself re 1986 match with Karpov). How ridiculous to blame Kasparov for such integrity!
I said probable. Had Kramnik offered a proper qualifier, Kasparov would have been obliged to play [and probably win], in it otherwise he would have lost all credibility.

Pono/Kasimndzhanov:
*Sigh* Not this again.
What 'whining' did Kasparov do over the Pono match? What are you talking about? Pono did the whining and pulled out. How was this in any way Kasparov's fault? You seem intent on insisting that Kasparov had a chance to play Pono. How could he if Pono wouldn't play? You do not make sense on this.

"All Kasparov had to do was beat Kasimdzhanov". What's the point if Kramnik in effect says he won't play the winner?
I suppose I will have to post the following again:
Vasiliev interview with Kramnik October 2004 -
Vasiliev: In your opinion how will his [Kasparov] match with Kasimdzhanov end?
Kramnik: The problem is this. Kasimdzhanov, of course has earned the match against the great player Kasparov. But what's very unclear is for what reason will they be playing a world championship match?!
Vasiliev: Vladimir, but didn't you place your signature under the very fact of such a match!
Kramnik: Excuse me. I signed under the match Kasparov-Ponomariov.

So, because Pono wouldn't play Kasparov and had to be replaced, this makes the Prague agreement invalid?! Pathetic excuse by Kramnik to not honour this agreement. Just pathetic. This is the reason why Kasparov didn't play Kasimdzhanov and retired.

Mexico:
Kramnik agreed to play in this without special favours when he signed up for Elista. Of course, it's not an ideal way to decide the World Championship. But Kramnik signed to it. He should honour what he signs to, shouldn't he? Small wonder that he comes under criticism by even such unimpeachable people like Anand and Carlsen.

Have to go. Busy. Probably won't be back for 36 hours.

"...Some inconsistency here?
But I am prepared to let bygones be bygones "

It is all your interpretation. I am sure I wouldn't agree and would find it to be quite the reverse if I bothered to read the archives.

"Anyone who is an enemy of Campomanes and Ilyumzhinov can't be all bad - I'll even give Kramnik (oops, more Kramnik enemies!) some credit here!
Kaspy was not having a go at Radjabov, he was condenming the judges for the ridiculous decision of awarding a brilliancy prize for a game decided by a blunder."

I don't think Kramnik was ever an enemy of Campomanes or Ilyumzhinov, though I would say Kasparov was at some points, at least. Besides, with such logic, someone who is the enemy of Kasparov and Topalov (that is, Kramnik) can't be all bad. And if you assume Kasparov mouthed off at judges (note the plural) and not Radjabov (note the singular), that only increases Kasparov's list that I mentioned earlier, not shortens it.

"Karpov used influence to stop a match he was probably going to lose - I would say that's fair justification for considering him an enemy."

Actually, Kasparov himself used influence to stop a match he was probably going to lose. The score was 5-3 Karpov, remember? Karpov reprinted documents that support this view, which I cited earlier. So no, Kasparov propaganda is not a good reason for me to think there were objective reasons to consider Karpov an enemy.

"It's not Kasparov's fault if Fischer mouths off like an idiot. Kasparov did not consider Fischer an enemy."

Well, it is not Kramnik's fault Topalov (or Kasparov) mouths off like an idiot. Kramnik probably doesn't consider Kasparov, or for that matter Shirov, an enemy either. I am not even sure he considers Topalov an enemy. And yet you've chosen to mention all of them as the supposed enemies of Kramnik.

"Since 2000 (when winning the Championship went to his head), I would say Kramnik has made more chess enemies than most. Certainly compared with Anand; it's quite surprising you criticise someome who 'has a lot of mutual respect' with Kramnik so harshly."

Well, being the world champion since 2000 sure helped it. It doesn't help one's popularity to be a champ, even less so during such difficult time in chess history, with the split and FIDE being run by morons and everything else.

Just because Kramnik and Anand have a lot of mutual respect doesn't mean I have to have the same for Anand.

"Yeah right. Of course the top-rated recent ex-champ can accept playing in a rubbish event designed to maximise his chances of an accident. This is not honest argument, RB."

Actually I would argue it is much more honest than your very next argument I quote. In any case, Dortmund offered decent chances for the best player to win, it was not a horrible way to pick a challenger, given limited time and all. It wasn't a great way, but there are worst ways, some of which are still in consideration by FIDE (like World Cup).

"Actually, it is correct. Kasparov did not have a rematch clause because he considered such unfair (having suffered himself re 1986 match with Karpov). How ridiculous to blame Kasparov for such integrity!"

Kasparov and integrity in the same sentence? Really? Kasparov may have indeed considered a rematch clause unfair. But that only highlights the hypocricy of his when he begged for rematch AFTER his loss. It is easy to be a principled anti-rematch guy when you win a match. I think that if one even pretends Kasparov's hypocricy on this issue can be turned into some sort of "integrity" - that is not an honest argument.

"Had Kramnik offered a proper qualifier, Kasparov would have been obliged to play [and probably win], in it otherwise he would have lost all credibility."

What IS a proper qualifier? Dortmund was ok. In any case, after Dortmund Kasparov still had the Pono match. And after that he still had Kasim match. 3 chances at the classical title in only a few years is more than most top players ever gotten under Kasparov's post 1993 reign.

"Not this again.
What 'whining' did Kasparov do over the Pono match? What are you talking about? Pono did the whining and pulled out. How was this in any way Kasparov's fault? You seem intent on insisting that Kasparov had a chance to play Pono. How could he if Pono wouldn't play? You do not make sense on this. "

And how could Kramnik played Kasparov when Kasparov himself made Kramnik sign no-rematch clause, and then didn't play in all the qualifiers, all 3 of which (Dortmund, Pono, Kasim) offered great chances for getting a shot at Kramnik?

"What's the point if Kramnik in effect says he won't play the winner?
I suppose I will have to post the following again:
Vasiliev interview with Kramnik October 2004 -
Vasiliev: In your opinion how will his [Kasparov] match with Kasimdzhanov end?
Kramnik: The problem is this. Kasimdzhanov, of course has earned the match against the great player Kasparov. But what's very unclear is for what reason will they be playing a world championship match?!
Vasiliev: Vladimir, but didn't you place your signature under the very fact of such a match!
Kramnik: Excuse me. I signed under the match Kasparov-Ponomariov."

And *I* suppose I will have to say THIS again:
nowhere there Kramnik claims he won't play the winner of the Kasparov-Kasim match. Being very unclear about the match doesn't translate into refusal to play in one. There is a huge difference between saying you won't play and that Prague is over and between not saying it. Kramnik was careful enough not to say he won't play or that Prague agreement was cancelled.

"So, because Pono wouldn't play Kasparov and had to be replaced, this makes the Prague agreement invalid?! Pathetic excuse by Kramnik to not honour this agreement. Just pathetic. This is the reason why Kasparov didn't play Kasimdzhanov and retired. "

Again, this is just poor logic. Kramnik has shown himself to be the most consistent proponent of Prague (this should also be mentioned in respone to your previous point I quoted). He stuck with it the longest and it was largely thanks to him that the chess world was unified by 2006. And (I don't think) he never claimed Prague was invalid - at least he clearly didn't say it in the interview you cited.

"Mexico:
Kramnik agreed to play in this without special favours when he signed up for Elista. Of course, it's not an ideal way to decide the World Championship. But Kramnik signed to it. He should honour what he signs to, shouldn't he? Small wonder that he comes under criticism by even such unimpeachable people like Anand and Carlsen."

When/how did Carlsen criticize him?

How do you know what was in Kramnik's contract for Elista? How do you know it even had Mexico in it? And I don't think Kramnik got any special favors in Mexico, unless you refer to the match against the winner, but that was for after Mexico. In any case, I doubt the Elista contract excluded of possibility of a rematch against the Mexico winner. Even if Mexico was in the Elista contract, it was more like a vague statement "the winner agrees to play in Mexico" - which Kramnik did. It is funny how you pretend Kramnik somehow didn't live up to the signed agreements in this case and conviniently forget him living up to the pre-London no-rematch agreement when you criticize him for not giving Kasparov a rematch. You are stuck with a d-talian logic booboo: either you think Kramnik should stick to his signed agreements or you don't. So you either get to criticize Kramnik for not sticking to them when he does not, but not when he does (like not giving a rematch to Kasparov right away), or you shouldn't complain about things like Elista/Mexico contracts (which Kramnik probably didn't violate, anyway).

And by the way, even in the absolutely unlikely event Kramnik's Elista contract mentioned he should not get a rematch versus a Mexico winner - after FIDE made a joke of their own rules and violated their contract with Kramnik during the whole game 5 fiasco, Kramnik had all the right in the world to forget about any FIDE contract he ever signed.

Russianbear – I’m sorry verbal diarrhoea doesn’t an argument make.

Me:
"a. he had no moral issues in taking the rightful place of the man who beat him in a match after apparently saying Kasparov has the moral obligation to play Shirov and only Shirov for the world title (quote in Europe Echecs 1999 according to posts on chessgames.com)."

You:
That is a lie. Shirov right place was not taken by anyone. Shirov missed his chance, and him beating Kramnik in 1998 didn't mean Kramnik was disqualified forever. There was 2.5 years in between Shirov-Kramnik and Kasparov-Kramnik matches. That is more than say, the time between San Luis and Mexico tournaments, but people like Anand had no moral issues in playing in Mexico 2007 even though they lost to Topalov in 2005.

Me:
First it was less than 2.5 years. Second, Kramnik accepted the match in March 2000 which makes it less than two years since his loss in June 1998. Third, in 1999, when Kasparov – Anand was being discussed, Kramnik went on record stating that the moral right was Shirov’s. However, when his turn came barely a year later, he apparently forgot his fine moral upstanding comments. So it was Shirov’s rightful place according to Kramnik himself. What’s good for the goose apparently was not good for the gander anymore. Fourth, I make no arguments about Anand .. yet you draw him into this argument and denigrate him. It appears your hatred for Anand is comparable to even you blind adoration of everything Kramnik. Fifth, even if Anand’s situation is a fair comparison, last I knew, Anand did not usurp Topalov’s place in the World Championship. So why should he have moral issues?

Me:
"b. he held a challenger designed to keep the top guys out in a format he publicly despises himself. "

You:
That doesn't even make any sense.

Me: Wasn’t Dortmund 2002 a double round robin tournament in the league phase and short KO’s after? Arent these the very things the match purist Kramnik and his shrill backers are so against? Sometimes blind adoration appears to deprive people of sense and consistency in argument.

Me:
"c. as pointed out earlier, he claims the moral high ground of sacrificing for the sake of unification when all he has done is be opportunistic and highly self preservation oriented. And yes taking part in a KO and criticizing it afterward count as opportunistic in my book. "

You:
Your book is not the only book. Kasparov played in FIDE and criticized it afterwards. There is nothing opportunistic in playing in an event you don't think is the real world championship and then saying you don't think it is the real world championship. Playing in something is not a guarantee that you endorse that thing as the ultimate achievement in the sport.

Me:

I guess our definitions of morality and Opportunism differ. Although, given Kramnik's moral stance of sacrifice, he should be held to the higher standard.

Me:
" as pointed out on the Kramnik page on chessgames.com, he (or rather, his manager) has gotten an undeserved nice shot at a World Title for the second time at Bonn 2008 (first time was Braingames 2000). Contrary to popular opinion, the match between Kramnik and the Mexico City winner was NOT a pre-condition to unification through Elista, but rather a result of shady dealings between Henschel and Kirsan post - Elista. Apparently, this-post Elista deal for Kramnik has been criticized by the mild mannered Anand and even Magnus Carlsen himself."

You:
Actually, it was in the interest of the sport for Kramnik to arrange a match between him and Mexico winner. Mexico was a compromise that was never really considered to be the championship by Kramnik himself and was only agreed to to please the MExico organizers and not cause another split. So, the match against Mexico winner isn't an afterthought, it is the Mexico itself that is a compromise; the tournament itself was irrelevant in the big picture.

Me:
Oh yes the philanthropic Mr. Kramnik doing things for the good of the sport. This is the same guy who takes part in the World Championships, loses it and calls the winner lucky, calls him a champion on paper, calls him a guy who can win only against tail enders. I’m sure all this was done for the good of chess.

Me:
"finally, his comments post Mexico City have been nothing have been classless and just reek of plain sour grapes. "

You:
I found Anand's comments about matches to be much more pathetic and a much worse case of sour grapes.

Me: Ah, Anand again. Of course, Kramnik suggesting a unification round robin tournament with Anand, Kasparov, Topalov and Kasimdzhanov was a match in disguise. Dortmund 2002 a RR + KO was also a match in disguise.

Anyway, finally I guess you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Like Chris, I doubt I too will be back in these pages for a while.

"Russianbear – I’m sorry verbal diarrhoea doesn’t an argument make. "

Exactly, so you better try harder in the future.

"First it was less than 2.5 years. Second, Kramnik accepted the match in March 2000 which makes it less than two years since his loss in June 1998. Third, in 1999, when Kasparov – Anand was being discussed, Kramnik went on record stating that the moral right was Shirov’s. "

Well, it was roughly 2 years - whether it is less doesn't make any difference. I presume Anand and others didn't sign up for Mexico tournament on the opening day, either. So I still see how what Kramnik did is any different.

Care to provide a link to that record?

"However, when his turn came barely a year later, he apparently forgot his fine moral upstanding comments. So it was Shirov’s rightful place according to Kramnik himself. What’s good for the goose apparently was not good for the gander anymore."

I don't see a contradiction, even if Kramnik did say it. Kramnik may well have thought Shirov still had the right in 1999 (and btw by doing that he would show more class than Shirov himself, who wanted FIDE to forfeit Kamsky so that Shirov himself could take his place in the topalov match), but thought it was fine for him to play Kasparov himself in October of 2000. There is no contradiction there. I doubt Kramnik said in 1999 that Shirov had the eternal right to play Kasparov and that the chess world should have waited forever until Shirov found sponsors.

"I make no arguments about Anand .. yet you draw him into this argument and denigrate him. It appears your hatred for Anand is comparable to even you blind adoration of everything Kramnik. Fifth, even if Anand’s situation is a fair comparison, last I knew, Anand did not usurp Topalov’s place in the World Championship. So why should he have moral issues? "

I don't denigrate Anand, I offer my opinion. some people here have said they think Kramnik is not a saint he is made out to be, I happen to think the same about Anand. And I post accordingly.

And yes, Anand DID usurp Topalov's place. Even if it was indirectly, he (and others) did. Last time I checked Topalov finished ahead of Anand in San Luis. Kramnik can at least claim he beat Topalov in a match and earned his right in MExico tournament that way. But usurping Topalov's place is exactly what Anand (and other Mexico participants) have done, - at least if we follow the logic of Kramnik supposedly usurping Shirov's place in 2000 match.

"Wasn’t Dortmund 2002 a double round robin tournament in the league phase and short KO’s after? Arent these the very things the match purist Kramnik and his shrill backers are so against? Sometimes blind adoration appears to deprive people of sense and consistency in argument."

Sometimes blind hate deprive people of sense and consistency in argument. Kramnik never insisted on the match system for determining the challenger. The classical tradition implies the match between the champ and the challenger, but it doesn't really restrict the ways of selecting a challenger - it could be matches, could be handpicking, could be tournaments, etc. So just because Kramnik says he is in favor of WC matches doesn't mean he is inconsistent when(if!) he suggest a candidates tournament.

"I guess our definitions of morality and Opportunism differ. Although, given Kramnik's moral stance of sacrifice, he should be held to the higher standard."

He IS being held to a higher standard. Read some comments in this very thread, including your own.

"Oh yes the philanthropic Mr. Kramnik doing things for the good of the sport. This is the same guy who takes part in the World Championships, loses it and calls the winner lucky, calls him a champion on paper, calls him a guy who can win only against tail enders. I’m sure all this was done for the good of chess. "

Sounds like someone is bitter. Yes, as a fan of classical tradition, I think it is good the Mexico paper champ will play a match against the last real champ (Kramnik). So, even Kramnik wasn't completely selfless, I am willing to look past that as the match itself is in my own interest as a fan.

He didn't call Anand lucky. I've addressed the "luck" comment above. And he certainly didn't say Anand can win only against tail enders. Kramnik gave Anand full credit for the win and for being a very dangerous opponent. Sounds like you project some of your own feelings about Anand onto Kramnik.

"Me: Ah, Anand again. Of course, Kramnik suggesting a unification round robin tournament with Anand, Kasparov, Topalov and Kasimdzhanov was a match in disguise. Dortmund 2002 a RR + KO was also a match in disguise. "

This was addressed above. Just because Kramnik says he is in favor of WC matches doesn't mean he is inconsistent when he suggest a candidates tournament. WC is the ultimate title, a challenger is not. So some people - including Kramnik, (as well as some past champs) may feel candidates matches are not really necessary as long as there is another way to select a challenger. It could even be handpicking, or a tournament. As long is a challenger is reasonable a tournament is fine. And there is little reason to doubt that Kramnik's suggestion would produce a reasonable challenger - most likely Kasparov.

So this "Kramnik being in favor of matches when a title is decided means he must be in favor of the matches when it is not" is a logical fallacy.

Russianbear,I was following your arguement and reasoning with those two guys.Frankly I can not but say under the guise of powerful arguement the content of yours is actually silly.

My conclusion is you love matches and only matches.Kramnik seems to be good at them and hence you like hime whatever else he does or says.Similarly you hate KOs and hence hate Anand for the same.

no no flower power. you got it the other way round, I think. If this is the same Russianbear who also posts on the ninja message boards, then you got it all wrong. He likes Kramnik and hates Anand. Hence he loves matches and hates other formats. A few years ago, he was holding category XX double round robin tournaments to be the holy grail of chess. He pointed out several times that Kramnik does very well in them (Is that true by the way?) while Anand has won only once - 1998 Linares. We have not heard that argument from him lately .. since Kramnik finished last in MTEL 2005 and 2nd in Mexico City. Anand, in contrast, has won the past three category XX double round robin tournaments he has played in - Linares 07, 08 and Mexico City 2007.

MS, I didn't follow his mails.May be you are right,I don't know.

"Russianbear:
But usurping Topalov's place is exactly what Anand (and other Mexico participants) have done..."

Russianbear, could you please explain how the place of ONE person be usurped by THREE other people?

(I'm assuming that you are alleging the usurpation to have been done only by the three people who were promoted from San Luis, because the remaining four came from a dedicated qualifier.)

russianbear is a kramnik fanboy

"My conclusion is you love matches and only matches.Kramnik seems to be good at them and hence you like hime whatever else he does or says.Similarly you hate KOs and hence hate Anand for the same."

I don't think of Kramnik as an embodiment of matches or Anand as an embodiment of KOs. I don't like or hate anyone. I just think matches are the way to decide the championship, and it appears to me Kramnik has been the most consistent proponent of that view in the top level chess. I don't "like" Kramnik because of that, I just happen to agree with him on a lot of things (yes, there is a difference). And I don't hate Anand, I just happen to think he is wrong on many of the most important things.

"no no flower power. you got it the other way round, I think. If this is the same Russianbear who also posts on the ninja message boards, then you got it all wrong. He likes Kramnik and hates Anand. Hence he loves matches and hates other formats. A few years ago, he was holding category XX double round robin tournaments to be the holy grail of chess. "

That is a lie. I did say DRR tournaments are harder to win and and higher in the food chain of the formats of chess events than single RRs. But never have I said they are the holy grail of chess. I always made it clear WC matches are by far the most important events in chess.

"Russianbear, could you please explain how the place of ONE person be usurped by THREE other people?"

Easy: all those guys got to played in the 2007 "championship" and Topalov didn't - even though he finished ahead of all of them. The parallel with Shirov/Kramnik situation is obious. In fact it is even worse, it is as if Shirov beat Kramnik and the other two guys, and then Kramnik and the other two guys got to play for the title. the other poster suggested Kramnik usurped his place, however it seems to me that "usurped" (in the context of Shirov/Kramnik situation) implies
getting to play instead of the other guy even if the other guy outddoes you. So, since Kramnik beat Topalov, one can hardly said he usurped a place in Mexico tournament, but it can be definitely said of Anand, who finished behind Topalov in San Luis, but got to play in Mexico anyway, along with other San Luis losers, even though the San Luis winner had to sit out.

"russianbear is a kramnik fanboy"

Playing the man, not the ball, eh? So very typical of my "opponents" here.

I find it ironic that those who deride Kramnik the most for not 'properly' qualifying to play Kasparov are the same people who seem to think Kasparov should simply have gotten to play Kramnik again, while they deride the very qualification tournament (poor as it may have been) that WAS used. Like to have it both ways as long as it suits them, I guess.

"Kramnik's style...with black (Petroff), it's just horrible; you must be only playing for result (and the selfish benefit {money} it gets you) not for love of the game."

The main difference between d_tal--ChrisB and Russianbear--rdh--Clubfoot--gregkoster is that of perspective.

The former are adolescent boys (I'm guessing 15-16 years old), with
--a black-and-white world view untempered by any significant life experience,
--raging hormones interfering with the ability to distinguish cowardice from prudence, and
--the money-scorn typical of creatures supported by their parents.

I remember watching the end of a Chicago Bulls practice many years ago (before they were good). One of the players hung around shooting jumpshots and I stepped out on the court to rebound. I peppered the guy with frisky, enthusiastic questions, ("which player is the most fun to play against?!!) until he finally just looked at me and said, "It's a JOB, man."

"The former are adolescent boys (I'm guessing 15-16 years old), with
--a black-and-white world view untempered by any significant life experience,
--raging hormones interfering with the ability to distinguish cowardice from prudence, and
--the money-scorn typical of creatures supported by their parents."

Koster, does it it give you satisfaction to thus display your own adolescent immaturity? Just because somebody has a different view to yours doesn't mean they are immature. Perhaps if you get some life experience, you will learn this.

Also, just out of curiosity, how is my enjoyment of Kramnik's style indicative of my adolescence?

Knight_tour, don't you find it ironic that Kramnik who never qualified, afterwards insisted on qualification?

Russianbear have you ever checked your iq ?

What is so ironic about that? He played under the rules that were there at the time (handpicking), and after he got his own say in the matter, he went for the much more popular way - qualifying, which is an idea that is supported by the likes of d_tal.

Besides, don't you find it ironic that Kasparov, who wasn't handpicked ended up handpicking people? Kramnik was simply fixing what Kasparov had broken.

oh man, russianbear you promised to ignore my posts! What went wrong with that plan?? Please do ignore my posts. Thanks in advance.

"Russianbear have you ever checked your iq ?"

Yes I have, and I am quite proud of the results. Thanks for asking.

"oh man, russianbear you promised to ignore my posts! What went wrong with that plan?? Please do ignore my posts. Thanks in advance."

Bad logic strikes again. I didn't promise you anything. I told you not to be surprised if I ignore you if you keep making ad hominem attacks.

@d_tal's last post:

I don't find it ironic, because I truly believe that Kramnik always thought a cycle was the best way to run a world championship. That he took an opportunity to be a part of a broken system doesn't strike me as odd, after all it would still be broken whether he played or not. Rather I see it as him realizing that if he won he would have at least a chance of attempting to get the broken system fixed. I didn't like the type of qualifier that was used for the next phase, but it was better than nothing, and a decent start. At the time I thought it was a way of basically granting Kasparov a free rematch, because he would have easily won that event; that he decided not to participate was what caused the problems. So it should be Kasparov who is to blame there, not Kramnik.

@knight_tour:

Thanks for clarifying, its a reasonable position, if slightly misinformed. Now to answer your prev question, I don't find it ironic because I truly believe that Kramnik always considered the best way to run a WCC is the way that's best for him, and manipulated everything in a cynical and opportunistic manner that ensured Kasparov could NOT reasonably participate in a qualifier. That's what caused the problem here, so its Kramnik to blame, not Kasparov.
All the best.

"Kramnik ... manipulated everything in a cynical and opportunistic manner that ensured Kasparov could NOT reasonably participate in a qualifier." This is complete nonsense: were Leko, Topalov, Adams and the rest unreasonable? What makes Kasparov so special. Basically he had a tantrum, regarding going through a qualifier as an indignity that was beneath him: I didn't predict that and I don't suppose Kramnik did.
My understanding was that Dortmund 2002 took the form that it did because of the difficulty of finding sponsors for a candidates, and this was the best that could be arranged. Speculation about ulterior motives on Kramnik's part seem wild - particularly the idea that the thought crossed his mind that this would rule Kasparov out.

Roger, its a dreary task to rehash the arguments of years. Perhaps you could look over the various posts of people like Chris B from a long time ago to understand the facts. You could also perhaps look over my posts from the Kramnik has started his prep thread. If you still believe what you posted above after that, we will agree to disagree. All the best!

roger white, d_tail is kidding. If you bother to read the archives, you'll find that the rabid, anti-Kramnik folks hardly made any more sense then than they do now.

gosh, I have a stalker!

@Koster:

"The former are adolescent boys (I'm guessing 15-16 years old), with
--a black-and-white world view untempered by any significant life experience,
--raging hormones interfering with the ability to distinguish cowardice from prudence, and
--the money-scorn typical of creatures supported by their parents."

Koster, does it it give you satisfaction to thus display your own adolescent immaturity? Just because somebody has a different view to yours doesn't mean they are immature. Perhaps if you get some life experience, you will learn this.

Also, just out of curiosity, how is my enjoyment of Kramnik's style indicative of my adolescence?

"Playing the man, not the ball, eh? So very typical of my "opponents" here."

its kinda boring discussing with somebody who thinks that the Dortmund 2002 thing (without the 3 best players in the world Kasparov, Anand, Ivanchuk) was a proper qualifier.

1) Pick a thread, any thread, slam Kramnik.

2) Once the discussion gets going, declare that you
----a) have already addressed the issue in another thread, or
----b) are tired of the subject and aren't going to post any more about it.

3) Rinse and repeat ad nauseam.

jean--

We're pretty much okay that Kasparov couldn't find funding for a match involving the biggest name in chess playing a (Shirov) WCC match.

But Kramnik's a jerk because he couldn't find funding for a long-match event which lacked Kramnik, Kasparov, Anand, and Ivanchuk and which would have been a mere qualifier.

If Anand, Kasparov and Ivanchuk had agreed to participate you just might have been able to find sponsorship for a long-match qualifier. They didn't. And you weren't.

"its kinda boring discussing with somebody who thinks that the Dortmund 2002 thing (without the 3 best players in the world Kasparov, Anand, Ivanchuk) was a proper qualifier."

I remember Kasparov and Anand being invited to Dortmund. You can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink. You can invite Kasparov and Anand to a qualifier but you cannot make them play. Kramnik is not responsible for Kasparov and Anand declining to play, just like we can't blame Leko for only beating people who did play.

Besides, if you criticize me for saying Dortmund was not a horrible qualifier earlier in this blog entry, you should have at least noticed I've spoken of Dortmund from the point of view of Kasparov's participation. We were discussing the quality of Dortmund qualifier A PRIORI as opposed to a posteriori. That is - we were discussing whether Dortmund was a good enough event for Kasparov to play in, not whether it was a good enough event after Kasparov declined to play. The latter is a different argument.

it is well known that Kasparov was not in good terms with the Dortmund organisers so the decision to stage the qualifier there was... "interesting". of course greg koster and Russianbear know that very well.

Jean,

That particular aspect of Kramnik's evil genius slipped by even the ever-vigilant d_tal and ChrisB.

Good catch!

Good one, greg koster.

Jean, good point by you. But you have to admit, if Kasparov was only to do things which dealt with people he was on good terms with, there would be little, if anything, for him to do.

"Jean,
That particular aspect of Kramnik's evil genius slipped by even the ever-vigilant d_tal and ChrisB."

greg koster you are "refuting" what i wrote by saying that d_tal and ChrisB didn't mention this before? comical

"But you have to admit, if Kasparov was only to do things which dealt with people he was on good terms with, there would be little, if anything, for him to do."
what is that supposed to mean? Kasparov had no problems playing in Corus or Linares for example and everywhere else too. basicaly the only tourney he refused to play at the time (that i'm aware of) was Dortmund. lets put it this way: if you were interested in having Kasparov in your qualifier i don't think that Dortmund was the best choice.

"if you were interested in having Kasparov in your qualifier i don't think that Dortmund was the best choice."

I don't disagree. But if Kasparov was interested in playing in a qualifier, refusing to let refusing to let bygones be bygones (as far as his supposed problem with Dortmund organizers went) - if that was a factor in his reasoning- would also not be the best choice.

"Russianbear have you ever checked your iq ?

Yes I have, and I am quite proud of the results. Thanks for asking."

If you are then stop talking nonsense, your arguments reflect double digit iq.

People argue whether a chess player was "good and chivalrous" in doing certain things. I think everyone is just doing what is best for themselves -- Kramnik and Anand included. They are professional chess players with bills to pay.

I cannot at this time think of anything either of them did due to being "nice". I don't buy that Kramnik promoted reunification for the greater good of chess; if he didn't, he would be stuck trying to secure sponsorship for a separate cycle, something Kasparov had a hard time with. And with other top players unwilling to defect FIDE (i.e. Anand and Ivanchuk) that would make his task even harder.

Kramnik is for reunification for selfish reasons. And what he did pre-2000 was selfish as well. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

"Jean:

if you were interested in having Kasparov in your qualifier i don't think that Dortmund was the best choice."

IF.

@Koster:

"The former are adolescent boys (I'm guessing 15-16 years old), with
--a black-and-white world view untempered by any significant life experience,
--raging hormones interfering with the ability to distinguish cowardice from prudence, and
--the money-scorn typical of creatures supported by their parents."

Koster, does it it give you satisfaction to thus display your own adolescent immaturity? Just because somebody has a different view to yours doesn't mean they are immature. Perhaps if you get some life experience, you will learn this.

Also, just out of curiosity, how is my enjoyment of Kramnik's style indicative of my adolescence?
Posted by: d_tal at August 7, 2008 13:41

still waiting for your answer koster.

"If you are then stop talking nonsense, your arguments reflect double digit iq."

I strongly doubt that. But I do know that attacking your opponent instead of addressing their argument is ad hominem logical fallacy.

d-tal:
"stiil waiting for your answer".

one swallow doesn't make a summer.

Russianbear,

You ask "What IS a proper qualifier?"
To me, it would be a match or matches of at least 10 games in length (and if more than one, each match at least 2 months apart).
A long tournament is also perhaps possible, but is less satisfactory as it can be subject to manipulation (as at Curacao 1962).
Therefore Dortmund with a mini-tournament (6 games) followed by mini-matches of 2 game semi-final [in the original proposal] and 4 game final is not "ok". It is little better than the FIDE knockouts.

Kramnik claimed he wanted his qualifier to be more "inclusive". Probably the more or less ideal way do this is Interzonal + Candidates Matches as Kasparov organised in 1993-4. I believe this is Greg Koster's recommended method too, so it's strange when it is Kramnik's turn to implement this, it's a different tune from Greg.

The claim, of course, is that Kramnik did not have the resources to do this. Maybe not. In that case, unfortunately you have to compromise on your ideal.
So what is better, leave out some who have no real chance of taking the title to ensure a proper qualifier for those that do; or have a mickey mouse "inclusive" event that has a high probability that the best player will be knocked out by an accident? The former, obviously.

Therefore Kramnik should have done what Kasparov did in 1998 when funds were short - offer to play the winner of a match of the two players apart from himself who were streets ahead of the rest at the time: In Kasparov's case Kramnik and Anand; in Kramnik's case Kasparov and Anand.

I think Kramnik's funding could perhaps have extended to semi-final matches too. In that case have Kasparov, Anand, Shirov, plus a qualifier (with Kasparov and Anand in opposite halves of the draw).

I believe that had Kasparov been offered any of these three scenarios and refused to play, he would have lost all credibility and would never have been able to secure the Prague agreement.
The very fact that Kasparov did have enough backing to secure the Prague agreement shows that Kasparov did NOT lose credibility by refusing to play in Kramnik's "qualifier".

Kramnik and Ilyumzhinov not enemies? Well, I was on earth in 2000 to 2006. Perhaps you were on Mars?

"In any case, after Dortmund Kasparov still had the Pono match. And after that he still had the Kasim match. 3 chances at the classical title"
So you are saying that Kasparov had two SEPARATE chances at the classical title from Prague. This is just completely absurd. Are you trying to take the mick?
Kasparov had ONE and only one chance from Prague. It consisted of EITHER
(a) A match with Pono. In this case Kasim would never have come into the picture.
OR (not and)
(b) A match with Kasim. Occuring because Kaspy could not get a match with Pono through no fault of his own.
In BOTH mutually exclusive cases that's ONE chance, not two. 1 + 0 = 1, not 2.
You seem to have a complete blind spot here.
I doubt if even Greg Koster, rdh, acirce, or clubfoot would support you on this one.

"Kramnik was careful enough not to say he won't play or that Prague agreement was cancelled".
Boy, you said it! Exactly!
Of course. Kramnik couldn't say it straight out. He wouldn't be able to justify himself then. He had to talk in code. But the chessworld was pretty used to Kramnikspeak by now and knew exactly what he meant.
Kasparov certainly did. Do you really think he would chuck 4 years of hard effort to get a Kramnik match by not playing Kasim if he thought he had a decent chance of said match if he beat Kasim? Seriously??

Also, why would Kramnik say "Excuse me, but I signed under the match Kasparov-Ponomariov" if he was not claiming that the validity of the Prague agreement was in question? Why on earth else would he say this?

Mexico:
Ok, look at 'Daily Dirt' 29 January 2007.
Vasiliev report on Wijk aan Zee 2007 included the following:
"Kramnik told me he will definitely play in Mexico...Vladimir told me he knows nothing about being guaranteed a rematch in case of his failure in Mexico."

This certainly validates iguana's comment that "Contrary to popular opinion the match between Kramnik and the Mexico City winner was NOT a pre-condition to unification through Elista."

So Kramnik said in January 2007 that he would DEFINITELY play in Mexico regardless of a rematch condition.
So why was he given the rematch? This was surely the last thing FIDE wanted to do, was very embarrassing for them and alienated people like Anand.
Obviously pressure was applied. It is now well understood that Kramnik would not have played in Mexico unless he got this condition.
Once again, Kramnik says one thing while actively pursuing something quite different.

Have just seen in the comments to the 29 Jan 2007 thread that there was a mistranslation and that "Mexico" was supposed to be "Monaco". So the very last part of my post can be disregarded.
However, this does not invalidate my comment on iguana's comment.

In general, when Kramnik signed up to Elista, the chessworld understood there to be no special rematch condition.

Nice one Chris B.

Koster, you attribute various qualities to me, based on comments I never made. Would it be too much to ask you to clarify the following derogatory comments you made:

"The former are adolescent boys (I'm guessing 15-16 years old), with
--a black-and-white world view untempered by any significant life experience,
--raging hormones interfering with the ability to distinguish cowardice from prudence, and
--the money-scorn typical of creatures supported by their parents.""

Could it be that you hero worship Kramnik, and you feel compelled to attack whoever criticises him in any way, by lashing out, paying no heed to who said what?

Do you understand why its difficult to conduct a logical argument with you?

d_tal,

--I have offered my opinion as to why it may be difficult for you to conduct a logical argument with me or anyone else. (Check your last post.)

Your habitual practice of declaring
--that you've already addressed the issue in another thread, or
--that are tired of the subject and aren't going to post any more about it (until you bring it up in another thread)

is tedious in the extreme.

"It's a JOB, man."

Some people like their work, try to do their best, and even occasionally, if possible, make an art form of it (Kasparov, Anand, Ivanchuk).

Certain others don't like their work and regard it as a grind to be got over with as soon as possible. In their dissatisfaction, they are often very selfish, me, me, me, I'll take what I can get, hang everybody else. Sometimes, too, they take to ripping off their employer and fellow employees any way they can.

Okay, lemme get at this from an earlier Chris B post:

"As I already noticed on the earlier thread, you have a very strange notion of why you think Kasparov came to hate Kramnik. Your notion seems to be:
"Kramnik had the temerity to win a WC match from Kasparov and take his title. This outrageous 'crime' is the reason that Kasparov and Mig regard Kramnik as the 'great enemy' to be torn down at every opportunity."

I have no idea what Kasparov thinks of Kramnik beyond a sort of contempt for VK's chess. I do know he was upset at being asked to get back in line for another shot at the title, but that's normal for the dominating champion he was.

I aimed the shot not at Kasparov or Mig; it was intended for the aforementioned Kramnik-bashing posters who have tried for years to graft scientific formulae to their belief that Kramnik is a pretender champion. For some the argument centralizes around circumstances occurring BEFORE Braingames 2000, while other prefer to wax dissimulation on more recent events.

So as to your entreaty around this: perhaps the notion that Kramnik is being punished for knocking a hero off the throne stems in part from the fact that the single item no one touches nor disputes is Kramnik's 2000 win. In the absence of a hoped-for result, obsessives and conjectural retards will often attempt to discredit everything else -- the winner, the rules, the circumstances -- whatever possible in order to salve wounded expectations.

I'm not a huge Kramnik fan -- for example, Russian Bear would walk ten miles barefoot over broken glass in a blizzard to redeem Kramnik's honor -- but I can recognize a negationist argument at ten paces. And while no one likes being proven wrong, the tactic of returning fire in a golden stream of ad hominem invective (not unlike what G.Koster and Russian Bear have endured over the past week) is a transparent pose having no effect on a won argument any more than it can change the outcome of Braingames 2000.

So if pointing out the pointless and preventing people from getting away with ridiculous dead arguments makes me a rabid dog, then let me know where rabies shots are happening and I'll bring coolers and deck chairs.

Hey club,
I, for one, dispute Kramnik's 2000 title. That was a private championship. And we don't have precedence for a disqualified person being picked up for a world championship!

Clubfoot,

Well I'm glad you cleared that up. It's just when you said:
"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" (Kramnik: I've already started my preparations thread 10:19, July 23),
it did rather seem aimed at Kasparov and Mig as well.

Yes, naturally Kasparov (nor would have anyone else) didn't want to get in line for another shot at the title. But he didn't rule it out either until it was clear that Kramnik wasn't going to give him a proper one.

For me personally, I had no problem with Kramnik winning that match (as I already said). I still don't. It still seems to me that Kramnik was a fairly ok guy up to then. Winning the title seemed to go to his head and change his personality.

"for example, Russian Bear would walk ten miles barefoot over broken glass in a blizzard to redeem Kramnik's honour"
Ha ha. Yes I must give it to you - d_tal is right when he says you can be humourous at times.
Such a contrast to Russianbear's claim: "I am not a Kramnik fan" (Kramnik I've already started my preparations thread 10:13 July 24) - one of quite a few rather unbelieveable claims that Russianbear has made.

Regarding the question of whether rematch was guaranteed pre Elista, here is Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's interview a few months AFTER Elista.

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

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

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

No rematch.

Kramnik appears to have gotten his rematch because Alexander Zhukov threatened to fry Kirsan's you-know-what otherwise. Zhukov also apparently insisted on Kramnik participation in the olympiad. Why else would a guy who would take a two month break after every 10 games suddenly play in the olympiad 12 days after Bonn for no monetary consideration? What suddenly he got love for Mother Russia? By the way, this fact also explains Kramnik's recent interview in favor of the current Russian Regime and against Kasparov.

MS, you can't have a rematch if there wasn't a match in the first place.

You can come up with conspiracy theories if you like (though I'd guess you're about 20 years out of date when it comes to Russian politicians caring about chess), but the simple and dull explantion's much more likely to be correct: Kramnik, as the undisputed (ok, save a few guys on here) unified champion simply refused to put his title on the line in a tournament unless he was guaranteed the chance to win it back in a match. Fide (in a rare display of common sense) agreed as otherwise the Mexico winner still wouldn't be considered the world champion and we'd be back to square one.

p.s. if you're looking for underhand political maneuvering you'd be much better off asking how Topalov ended up getting to play a match against the World Cup winner.

mishanp,

The term 'rematch' has long been used loosely in this context. Everybody knows very well what is meant.

Plainly, and according to Kramnik's own comment, there was no 'rematch' clause at Elista.

It is stretching belief that Kirsan did not obtain Kramnik's agreement to play in Mexico (if he won Elista) when Elista was agreed to (remembering that Kramnik was far keener, almost desperate, for this match than the other side).

"Fide (in a rare display of common sense) agreed". Why wasn't it agreed at Elista then? Wouldn't Kramnik have insisted then?

Ilyumzhinov interview: "Then in 2008, this challenger will play a match for the world championship". This refutes the assertions of Kramnik supporters that it was Kramnik's obtaining his match that returned the WC to a match system - it would have happened anyway.

"you'd be much better off asking how Topalov ended up getting a match against the World Cup winner". So how did he? Well, Kramnik had set the precedent by getting his match. Without that, Topalov almost certainly couldn't have got his.

Using the term "rematch" still strikes me as nonsensical if it doesn't refer to two players who previously played a match, but nevermind.

Having re-read the interview MS quotes from above... Kirsan says that after the reunification match FIDE was working on a plan for the next world championship, suggesting that pre-match the whole thing hadn't been arranged. So I've no idea what exactly Kramnik agreed to, but in any case the unified champion (Kramnik or Topalov) was always going to be able to negotiate terms.

Kramnik's intransigence may have forced FIDE's arm a little, but I doubt too many Kramnik supporters would want to take any credit for the new system. Especially given the knock-out formula of the qualifier.

Agreed that if Kramnik didn't get a match Topalov would have found it harder. But most of the credit goes to Danailov's scheming with the implausible rematch challenge & subsequent legal threats - plus FIDE's usual ineptitude (not wanting to use a more libelous word).

" Ilyumzinov interview: "Then in 2008, this challenger will play a match for the world championship". This refutes the suggestion of Kramnik supporters that it was Kramnik's obtaining his match that returned the WC to a match system - it would have happened anyway."

This misses the whole point, at least for me. The issue wasn't just "a" match system, but restoring the tradition that stems back to Steinitz, and which has been one of the glories of chess until it was plunged into chaos by Kasparov and FIDE. The basic idea was that someone became a World Champion by defeating the reigning World Champion in matchplay. This tradition was disrupted only by the death of Alekhine and the defaulting of Fischer. But here we have in Kramnik an undefeated World Champion who is willing to defend his title in a match. In that situation, there could only be reunification if FIDE's champion played Kramnik.

A new match tradition that did not include Kramnik could never work, and never be universally recognized as "the" World championship. It was that which Kirsan eventually came to recognize: there is no need to scrabble about for conspiracy theories to explain why the Anand-Kramnik match was arranged.

Incidentally, if I am a kramnik supporter, it is not primarily support for him personally but because I believe in the match tradition, and I support his unrelenting defence of it.

Okay, let's look at this on Kramnik's own website:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=131
Interview given by Kramnik right after Wijk aan Zee 2007.

Kramnik says that he would play in Mexico regardless of any "rematch" provision.
This means that according to his own statement, he HIMSELF had abandoned upholding the "reigning WC must be beaten in a match" tradition.

If Kramnik was really maintaining an 'unrelenting defence' of this tradition, why did he sign up to Elista where he signed this away, and where there was no talk of any "rematch" provision? He should not have signed to Elista if this was true.

So why did he? The reality is is that Kramnik was pretty desperate for this Elista match (because of his fading WC credibility). So it was an act of opportunism, and hang any 'principles' about match tradition.

This 'Kramnik is a white knight in shining armour defending the match tradition' claim, not consistently carried out by Kramnik himself, is a convenient device used by his supporters to try to justify his obtaining this "rematch".

There is no way that after Elista FIDE suddenly "got sensible" and wanted to give Kramnik this match when there had previously been no mention of it.
Kramnik gained leverage from FIDE's unethical conduct at Elista and this was almost certainly used to apply pressure. I feel virtually certain that Kramnik gained this "rematch" either by directly threatening not to play in Mexico (contary to what he said in his interview) or by threats from Zhukov.

I, too, support the match tradition, but not by any means.
Anand was screwed and has every right to complain about it.

Elista was a standard world title match - signing up to that hardly constitutes throwing away the match tradition. Sure, the contract might have involved agreeing to play in Mexico, but 1) it doesn't pay to look too far into the future with chess (see the Prague agreement), and 2) whether or not Kramnik was going to get a match against the winner he'd still be the de facto champion for many (and have negotiating power), until he was defeated in a match.

I don't (and I wonder who exactly your opponents are who do!??) see Kramnik as some sort of paragon of virtue. Of course he wanted conditions that suit him, he used all the leverage being world champion gave him, and he didn't want to throw away the title to suit the pseudo-commercial whims of FIDE. Seems fair enough to me. The idea that he was desperate to play Topalov is just an attempt to rewrite history.

I don't see how Anand was screwed. He's now got another chance (after the Kasparov match) at becoming the undisputed world champion. Without the match he's the holder of a title with little more prestige than the one also won by Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov.

Koster, it is funny though, that you consider completely unwarranted personal attacks fair game when you carry them out isnt it?

Yes, Elista was a standard WC match - no problem there. But the conditions Kramnik signed up to for it do constitute throwing away the match tradition for the future. Or does signing something mean nothing? You just break what you sign when you have a convenient opportunity? Hitler was pretty good at signing things not "looking too far into the future", too. 1938 Munich. 6 months later, broken. So is it just a case of 'Might is Right'?

So does Kramnik currently regard himself as a 'de facto' Champion even though he specifically recognised Anand? Probably, but this is rather hypocritical.

If you have followed this blog for any length of time, it should be pretty obvious whom regard Kramnik as a paragon of virtue: Greg Koster, Russianbear and rdh. Acirce does mainly too, but to his credit has criticised Kramnik's actions a couple of times, if mildly.

If Kramnik was not desperate to play Topalov, then why on earth did he agree to the idiotic condition that he would be totally out of the next cycle (ie denied a place in Mexico) if he lost? Surely no self-respecting World Champion who was not desperate would agree to such a condition!? [Topalov agreed because he and Ilyumzhinov were trying to 'bury' Kramnik and Topalov was certain he would win the match.]

I think holding a title that was won by winning a double round-robin of 8 top players holds a bit more prestige than winning a randomised mickey-mouse knockout!
Also his title is undisputed (except by a few die-hard Kramnik fans). It was universally recognised by everybody who matters, including Kramnik.

Anand was screwed because he now faces, within a short time, having to defend his Title twice, first against Kramnik, then against winner of Topalov-Kamsky. But for Kramnik's action, he would only be having to defend it once, against Kamsky.

Clubfoot: "I have no idea what Kasparov thinks of Kramnik beyond a sort of contempt for VK's chess."

From what I have read from various commentators on the subject, such as seconds from both camps, Kasparov seemed to have had an exaggeratedly respectful view of VK's chess. For example, there are stories of how in London, after games he would come back and say that VK kept finding only moves and played incredibly well for various forcing sequences, only to find out in home analysis that this was not so. This view of VK's chess appears to have had a profound impact on his ability to play Kramnik in that match.

"I aimed the shot not at Kasparov or Mig; it was intended for the aforementioned Kramnik-bashing posters who have tried for years to graft scientific formulae to their belief that Kramnik is a pretender champion. For some the argument centralizes around circumstances occurring BEFORE Braingames 2000, while other prefer to wax dissimulation on more recent events."

I wonder who these bashers can be. The simple fact of VK playing a match after disqualifying to play it, however out of his control subsequent events were, seems to me to present a straightforward dilution of the legitimacy of the title claimed after his victory in the match. Cause and effect, causality of the universe, game, set and match.
That he afterwards turned the prematch circumstances on its head and played a game brilliant enough to challenge his best OTB efforts shows he's definitely not a man of 1 dimension, and is also a fact.

"the tactic of returning fire in a golden stream of ad hominem invective (not unlike what G.Koster and Russian Bear have endured over the past week)"

Steady on clubby, ole buddy, remember your (hilarious) recent reply to somebody who initiated a similar thread in a more solid stream? We really dont need to know about any fetishes you, Koster and RB endure or indulge in your own time, each to his or her own I say.

Chris B, we don't know what Kramnik signed (though unlike Topalov he at least seemed to stick to it re: Mexico), so it's perhaps a little rash to compare him to Hitler. In any case, in the absence of an established system "might is right" isn't actually such a bad principle when what's at stake is picking the "mightiest" chess player, not international politics.

re: the de facto title - perhaps I stated that a bit strongly. I'm sure Kramnik just thinks what he's implied: that there's a hiatus - he's not the world champion, and though Anand is nominally he won't be the genuine champion until he wins a match against his predecessor. An arguable position, but I wouldn't bet against the majority of chess fans (ok, the size of the Indian population might be a problem!) agreeing.

I don't know Kramnik's thought processes re: Mexico, but he doesn't strike me as a desperate guy. I'm sure he was pretty confident of winning (Topalov's style and historical record versus Kramnik made him a convenient opponent), and in any case a tournament qualifier wasn't something he'd be especially sorry to miss out on. Or, as it's all just speculation, he might simply have been planning to retire.

"I think holding a title that was won by winning a double round-robin of 8 top players holds a bit more prestige than winning a randomised mickey-mouse knockout!"

Hey, Anand considered himself World Champion when he won that mickey mouse knockout! You could argue it either way. The knock-out tournament (though absurdly accelerated) had the virtue that to win you needed to beat, or beat someone who had beaten, your strongest rival. In the round-robin you can win without being able to beat your rivals if you beat the weaker players efficiently (also a talent, but not quite what the title's about). Both systems have a low chance of picking the best player, though neither's too bad as a qualifier for matches.

mishanp,

Well, if Kramnik didn't actually sign, he certainly did say in the interview that he would play in Mexico regardless. To me, this still constitutes an abandonment of "the reigning WC must be beaten in a match" principle.
And soon after, out of the blue, we get this "rematch", something FIDE most certainly could not have wanted to give him. I'm not impressed.

Well actually, Kramnik had already accepted FIDE's 'established system' in his interview, so there was no absence of one. But if the overriding 'principle' is to pick the "mightiest" chess player, what a pity Kramnik did not operate this way when Kasparov wanted another match! How come the 'principle' only applies when Kramnik wants a match and not when Kasparov wants one?

Can't imagine that Kasparov or even Anand would have agreed to such a condition!
I'm not sure Kramnik could have been too confident of winning as he was stiil recovering from his illness. His recent results had been terrible and he had latterly suffered some pretty bad losses to Topalov.
And the match really was a close run thing - Kramnik actually did not win a single classical game without the aid of a massive Topalov blunder.

Your "tournament qualifier" was of course actually the World Championship and I'm sure Kramnik would have been quite happy to have accepted the Title in this fashion had he won. Anyway, better that than back to square one where Kramnik really would have had to qualify, and given that so far Kramnik has not been able to qualify for anything, that could represent a serious problem!

Yeah, don't agree with Anand on that one. I do think he is rather silly about this.

Well the RR's have so far produced Topalov and Anand - pretty respectable candidates for being the best player.
On the other hand the KO's in 3 times out of 4 have come up with someone who quite obviously wasn't anywhere near the best player of the time.
Cannot agree that the KO's are "not too bad as a qualifier for matches". I think they are; they're vile and should be banned as any sort of qualifier.
Jeff Sonas once did an analysis of all these various formats. KO's came way down the list as a good method of determining the best player [as did Kramnik's Dortmund "qualifier"]. 8 player double RR's on the other hand scored quite highly.

C'mon, guys, the discussion is over. You never heard of Godwin?

Yeah, I know :)

All I'd add is that Kasparov, as the title holder (might is right & all that!), specifically decided against a rematch clause when he played Kramnik. Perhaps for similar reasons to Topalov's camp being happy the loser was excluded from Mexico. It backfired both times.

It's Kramnik's prerogative as the winner to use the leverage he has. Though in hindsight it probably failed, insisting on some sort of cycle/qualifier - which Kasparov would be favourite to win - was reasonable.

I actually agree with d_tal when he says that Kasparov had as much right (i.e. pretty much none) to a rematch as Kramnik had to play him previously. I just don't see how that in any way impacts on the validity of the title match. However it comes about, the gold standard is always a match where the champion agrees to put his title on the line against a challenger. Kasparov did and he lost. Kramnik took the title. QED.

(if there's space for argument, it's only about the current title situation)

Typical distraction comment from rdh when his side is losing the argument and he has nothing constructive to say...

Had Kasparov known Kramnik's intentions and that he was going to come up with such a stupid qualifier, he would have made very sure that there was a rematch clause...

It was only AFTER it was clear that Kramnik would not give Kasparov a proper qualifier that Kasparov started talking about a rematch - with justification, obviously. Of course this is the period I am referring to, as you well understand.

As for your "gold standard", Kramnik avoided the strongest challenger like the plague. Matches against Leko and Topalov are not in the same league - more like a bronze standard.

Had this upcoming Anand match of Kramnik's been an isolated incident, I might have had one or two doubts. But it is part of a far too familiar pattern:

2000. Kasparov gives Kramnik a free challenge for his Title. Kramnik wins.
2001. In an act of utmost ingratitude, Kramnik backstabs Kasparov and refuses to give him a proper qualifier.
2002. In an attempt to heal the rifts Seirawan put forward a Unification plan ('A Fresh Start') that would have given us a far better WC system than the awful thing that Ilyumzhinov has now foisted upon us. Every significant party except Kramnik agreed to it. Kramnik refused and this delayed Unification by 4 years.
2002. Kramnik's intransigence over 'A Fresh Start' forces the considerably less satisfactory Prague Agreement. Even this Kramnik only signed because his own(!) sponsors threatened to drop him if he didn't.
2004. Kramnik waits until he has retained his 'title' against Leko. He then welshes out of the Prague agreement citing various absurd 'problems' that had arisen with it, problems which if genuine he had loads of time previously to articulate.
2005. Kasparov therefore retires, it being plainly obvious he will never get a match with Kramnik.
2005. Ilyumzhinov proposes San Luis, an 8 player double round-robin to unify the Championship. Everybody except Kramnik agrees that this is a reasonable if not perfect idea, and Kramnik is the only invitee who refuses to play. Topalov wins and is at the time generally recognised by the chessworld as World Champion [a recognition many retrospectively withdrew as a result of his actions at Elista, but this does not alter the fact he was generally recognised at the time].
2006. With Kasparov out of the picture, Kramnik starts begging for a Unification match (with Topalov) - a stark contrast with his attitude previously. With Kramnik having refused to play in San Luis, Topalov and Ilyumzhinov see no real reason why Kramnik should be entitled to one. However, they eventually relent, but impose hard terms: Kramnik must agree to play in Mexico without further conditions if he wins, and to be totally out of the next cycle if he loses. Kramnik, in no position to argue, agrees.
2006. Kramnik wins at Elista.
2007. Kramnik uses the sympathy vote gained at Elista in an underhand way. He leverages/Might is Right/blackmails FIDE into giving him the "rematch" clause against the Mexico winner, something that was not heard of at Elista.
2007. Kramnik fails to win Mexico and specifically acknowledges Anand as undisputed United World Champion. However, soon after, he starts whining that Anand is not a "real" World Champion.

How anybody (apart from those who hate Kasparov and Topalov, and therefore support him as an eneny's enemy) can support this guy is beyond me.

There are so many half-truths, misrepresentations and blatant lies there that it would really be pointless to try and address them all. If you actually believe all that you've reached Topalov heights of paranoia. Talking of which - so now Topalov (who you claim was the acknowledged World Champion, and #1 on the rating list), wasn't a reasonable challenger for Kramnik? (Leko was no slouch either)

Just to rehash - Kasparov didn't want a qualifier (which he might lose), he simply demanded a rematch. He could have played in Dortmund with excellent chances (sure, it wasn't the qualifier most of us would like to see, but I'm not sure how you expected Kramnik to organise the whole chess world single-handedly). Later it was hardly his fault if the Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov matches fell through.

People seem to be capable of liking and supporting Kasparov and Topalov, so surely it's not so hard to imagine people liking the, ahem, more human Kramnik? Throw in the fact that while you might not think he's handled himself like an all-conquering champion, there hasn't been a player around during his career who could convincingly claim to be stronger(perhaps Carlsen will be).

"there hasn't been a player around during his career who could convincingly claim to be stronger(perhaps Carlsen will be)."

Seriously, what?? Are you talking about VK?

If you're talking about matches, how about Gelfand, Kamsky, Shirov, Leko and Topalov?
If you're talking about tournaments, how about Kasparov, Anand, and Topalov?
If you're talking about ratings, how about well half a dozen?

"Just to rehash - Kasparov didn't want a qualifier (which he might lose), he simply demanded a rematch."
Just to rehash, there was no way Kasparov could have played in this pathetic excuse of a renamed existing tournament of a qualifier, he simply demanded a reasonable qualifier, which Kramnik avoided like the plague.

mishanp,

There is not one 'half-truth, misrepresentation or blatant lie' there that I am aware of. So no paranoia.

Kasparov was ambushed in 2000. (Even Kramnik's second, Bareev, said 'we were lucky') In addition Kasparov had serious distractions like child custody and lawsuits over his website, etc. As he said, everything went wrong at the same time, and he played way below his usual level. In addition, Kramnik prepared like never before or since.
In a rematch, Kasparov would have been very well prepared, and extremely motivated, determined, and focused. In other words he would have been a much more formidable opponent than Topalov or Leko.

If you can't understand or acknowledge the key point that Kasparov only started going on about a rematch AFTER Kramnik denied him a proper qualifier, there is not much point in discussing things with you.

As for the rest of your paragraph there, these points have already been well answered further up this thread in my last reply to Russianbear. If you are not going to take these answers on board, and then repeat the same rubbish that has already been answered, again there is not much point in discussing things with you.
It WAS Kramnik's fault that he strongly implied he would not play the winner of Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov.

Your absurd claim that "there hasn't been a player around during his career who could convincingly claim to be stronger" shows your bias.
Kasparov's top ever rating was 2851, Kramnik's was 2811. Even if you allow for a little bit of inaccuracy in the rating lists, the difference is indisputable. Not convincing?
Also Kramnik has NEVER been a clear first on the rating list. For a World Champion (let alone the 'strongest' player), that's a pathetic record.

Wow, at times I feel as though I might have touched a nerve :)

Just to restate the case - point out the player who's dominated Kramnik, or would be a clear favourite against him in a match?

Kasparov's the only plausible candidate for being a better player, but Kramnik matched him before and after the title match (while Anand, Shirov, Topalov and most other players fell apart). And he won the match about as convincingly as it's possible to win a match at that level.

I agree Kasparov would still have been the most dangerous opponent, but looking at their records Kasparov's chance of winning a rematch would still be no better than 50%. (For the record, I don't buy the historical revisionism of Kasparov being a shadow of his former self, or Kramnik being stunningly well-prepared, but that's another argument).

Who else would you say is stronger? Anand? Look at their head-to-head record, or records against Kasparov, and so on.

Topalov? He spent about a decade being entertaining but always in a slightly lower class that Kramnik, Anand & Kasparov - a brief spurt in form isn't enough - oh, and he lost the match.

You want me to go through Gelfand, Shirov and co.? To cut the argument short, let's just say that I don't think even you're going to claim that they're definitely stronger than Kramnik.

If you're only interested in ELO, then yeah, you can make a case for marginally stronger players (though Kramnik, when fit, hasn't struggled to keep his rating fairly stratospheric), but I'd say it's just a matter of style and desire. Kramnik doesn't have a particularly efficient approach for beating up tailenders, or the frenzied desire to win every tournament of Kasparov, but he does ok without them. In the end ELO has never been what counted in chess.

"Just to restate the case - point out the player who's dominated Kramnik, or would be a clear favourite against him in a match?"

How about the folks who DID beat him in a match, Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov? I guess the fact that they beat him in a match means they would have been favourite before the match?

"Kasparov's the only plausible candidate for being a better player, but Kramnik matched him before and after the title match (while Anand, Shirov, Topalov and most other players fell apart). And he won the match about as convincingly as it's possible to win a match at that level."

So let me see.. Kasparov's the only plausible candidate for being better than Kramnik, but Kramnik beat him in a match, therefore VK is better. OK. I mean there is at least a clear criterion for your definition of best, winner of matches between them. And your final sentence seems to imply that if A beats B "convincingly" (whatever that may be) then A is better than B forever. I mean the two don't need to play again right? OK.

Now I find it a bit more difficult to understand why "Anand, Shirov, Topalov and most other players" are not "plausible candidates". Based on their falling apart, how? Against who? When, after which title match? Dare we apply the same criteria you applied for deducing Kramnik is better than Kasparov, namely winner of matches between the players in question? But doesn't that make Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov Kramnik's superiors, and Leko and Topalov Kramnik's equal? I know that some people think forfeits don't count; if you belong to that category, please scratch Topalov. How about the rest?

Well, when I've answered a question or pointed something out, and that answer is not even acknowledged, let alone addressed; and then the same question is asked again, it does get a bit irritating...!
[Greg Koster is good at doing that, too, as d_tal knows; then when d_tal points him to previous thread(s) where the question was answered, hear the whine from Greg.]

I'm not really sure what this discussion of Kramnik's strength has got to do with the previous discussions, which were about Kramnik's ethics [you still haven't acknowledged my points by the way], but anyway:

Of course Kasparov is the candidate as I already did indicate.
In my opinion, Kramnik and Anand have been fundamentaaly about the same strength since the mid-nineties, second equal in the world well behind Kasparov.

You don't believe Kramnik's own second, Bareev, about Kramnik being stunningly well prepared then?
And Kasparov agreeing draws with white in about 15 moves is pretty good evidence to me that something was wrong...

Kramnik won the match by +2. Not that big a deal in scoring terms. WC matches have been won by much more than that, eg Fischer beat Spassky by 4 (or 5 if you don't count the forfeit). Botvinnik-Tal matches.

Flukes do happen where a stronger player loses the match (otherwise we could go to the bookies and always put our money on the stronger player). Euwe beat Alekhine. Short beat Karpov. Shirov beat Kramnik. Kramnik beat Kasparov.

True Kasparov did not have superior personal head-to-head record over Kramnik. But head-to-head does not always, or even usually, indicate OVERALL strength. And these things can change.
eg For well over a decade Portisch dominated Petrosian head-to-head. Petrosian couldn't win a single game while losing several. Then in their 1974 match, Petrosian won!
Fischer was 0-3 down to Spassky going into their 1972 match. Guess who won? (This same type of doubt was raised then, too, by the way.)
Fischer ended up with a minus score against Geller. Did that stop people regarding Fischer as a far more dominating player than Geller? Nope.

Kramnik matched Kasparov before the title match only in personal head-to-head count. In terms of OVERALL results Kasparov certainly DID dominate. In this period, he won 10 strong tournaments in a row. That's not domination? And in the year after the match, Kasparov won all 3 events in which both he and Kramnik played and had a plus personal score against him as well.

I think Kasparov would have been clear favourite in a rematch (to me, something like 65-35).
I think Kramnik thought so too - which is why he avoided him.

"How about the folks who DID beat him in a match, Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov? I guess the fact that they beat him in a match means they would have been favourite before the match?"

Curious idea you have of how probability works :) Again, would Kamsky, Gelfand or Shirov be the favourites if they were to play a 16-game match starting tomorrow? I'm not saying he would necessary win(despite his improvement since he played them), but would they be expected to win?

"So let me see.. Kasparov's the only plausible candidate for being better than Kramnik, but Kramnik beat him in a match, therefore VK is better."

You might think that, but sadly I never said it (and don't think it). As I said, I simply think Kramnik's Kasparov's equal, no more and no less.

"OK. I mean there is at least a clear criterion for your definition of best, winner of matches between them."

You might think that, but you'll notice I referred to all their other games with each other, and games between them and other players and...

"And your final sentence seems to imply that if A beats B "convincingly" (whatever that may be) then A is better than B forever. I mean the two don't need to play again right? OK."

You might think that, but I don't. My point was simply that Kramnik, on a reasonable amount of evidence, wasn't worse than Kasparov. I think winning the title over 16 games without losing a single one is fairly impressive and certainly does Kramnik's case no harm. I'm not suggesting, and don't think, that anything's decided for ever. Note I didn't claim Kramnik was better, or that Kasparov wouldn't have a coin-flip chance of winning back his title (&, as I've probably said before, I'd love them to have played again).

"Now I find it a bit more difficult to understand why "Anand, Shirov, Topalov and most other players" are not "plausible candidates". Based on their falling apart, how? Against who?"

Kasparov.(To varying degrees, I agree)

Shirov and Topalov have performed (taking everything into account) at a lower level than Kramnik throughout their parallel careers. I don't see it as plausible that despite that either of them are actually stronger than him (note, my argument would allow them to be his equal). That's just my opinion based on following their careers, of course, but I don't think it's an outrageously bold one.

Anand is another matter, but note again it's a question of whether he's a clearly better player than Kramnik. I agree with ChrisB that they've been pretty equal throughout their careers. I'd say Kramnik has a slight edge (for a number of reasons, though you could include the Kasparov factor), but the hypothesis that Anand's always been superior all these years but just never quite shown it does strike me as implausible...

"Dare we apply the same criteria you applied for deducing Kramnik is better than Kasparov, namely winner of matches between the players in question? But doesn't that make Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov Kramnik's superiors, and Leko and Topalov Kramnik's equal?"

Again, I might be in logical knots if I'd said the things you'd imagined. It doesn't hurt the argument that Leko drew with Kramnik. All I asked was whether Leko was the one who'd be the favourite in a future match. To take it one stage further, even if Leko beat Kramnik it wouldn't be enough to prove anything. Matches are the best, and by far the most dramatic, test we've got, but sadly they're not going to the settle the question of relative strength. So we can argue ad infinitum :)

Chris, I'd love to read that book by Bareev but haven't got hold of it yet. Kramnik gave an interview after the match claiming that he was hanging on for dear life in the openings and was unprepared, but I'd also take that with a big pinch of salt. That said, however much work you do you're not going to get much of an edge against Kasparov when it comes to opening preparation.

As I said I don't buy that Kasparov was suddenly a wreck. Sure, when we'd got into the match and he'd had the nasty shock of the Berlin and gone behind it must have been psychologically hard for him, but that's credit to Kramnik. Of course he might have had other problems, but he's not alone (think of the Brisago match).

Anyway, as you said Kasparov was in great form before and after the match, so he made a quick recovery if he had a temporary problem. You claim that Kasparov dominated before the match, but in terms of matchplay Kramnik had gone an absurd number of games without a loss, so not losing in the match wasn't a bolt from the blue. I'd submit you're not being dominated in a game where the big prize is determined by match play if you're never getting knocked out.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree. For the record, 1) I don't think Kasparov would have been the favourite in a new match, 2)I don't think Kramnik thought anything of the sort and 3)I don't think he avoided him.

& 4) that's definitely enough for today!

Just to clarify - I mean Kramnik hadn't lost in a huge number of games in all competitions, not specifically in matches. Just that you can't lose a match if you don't lose a game.

"Curious idea you have of how probability works :)"
Its not probability son, its certainty when you have hindsight.

"Again, would Kamsky, Gelfand or Shirov be the favourites if they were to play a 16-game match starting tomorrow?"
Well, let me see... YES, based on prev match record.

"You might think that, but you'll notice I referred to all their other games with each other, and games between them and other players and..."
Oh I see! So there is no clear criteria, its all in your head, you cant quite explain it. In that case, we needn't have bothered. I can't mind read. When I ca, I'll continue this argument with you.

'"Curious idea you have of how probability works:)"
It's not probability son, its certainty when you have hindsight.'

That's just silly: by that logic, if there had been a Fischer-Reshevsky match in 1972, it would probably have ended in a draw.

The point is, why rely on probability when an actual event exists? Nobody becomes a WC on probability. Kramnik beat Kasparov, and he gets all the credit in the world for that. Who's to say what would have happened if they played again? By the same token, Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov beat Kramnik. Applying the same criteria that mishanp, rdh, acirce, RB and clubfoot apply, surely they are better than Kramnik? Why change the rules when discussing Kramnik's losses, as opposed to his solitary win?

sorry, I forgot that he also beat Yudasin in a match, so two wins.

["Again, would Kamsky, Gelfand or Shirov be the favourites if they were to play a 16-game match starting tomorrow?"
Well, let me see... YES, based on prev match record.]

Thanks for clarifying the absurdity of your position. Actually, I've always assumed you were just an intelligent guy having fun defending ridiculous statements, but from your recent posts, and the infamous algorithm, I get the feeling you might genuinely be terrified by the complexity of the world and feel compelled to reduce everything to simple, if nonsensical, formulae - hence the aversion to probability (doubt, randomness, shades of meaning), or taking more than one measure into account when assessing players.

If it needs to be said - so what if Kramnik lost two candidate matches against good players when he was 18, and another at 22? No, losing a match to someone doesn't make you a worse player than them for eternity - or vice versa. No-one said it did. Did beating Kasparov, the reigning champion, prove Kramnik was the better player? No. Did it make him the World Champion? Yes.

It's also a little absurd to say that Kramnik did not win the match with Topalov. Either you give him the toilet game back or acknowledge that he won the tiebreaker.

mishanp, why the personal attacks? If you can answer anything in points do so. What about the formula is nonsensical? It clearly shows that Kasparov was at least as good a challenger as Leko, and VK wheedled out of playing him. The reason I formulated it in this manner is because RB and Koster keep applying changing criteria depending on what point they argue. First its the two years since the Shirov match that makes Kramnik's match against GK in another "cycle". But the 2 years from the Dortmund qualifier to the match are not relevant. Next its the prize money, that is acceptable for a match thay makes a qualifier legitimate. etc etc. When you try to pin them down, they backtrack and talk about something else. Putting all this together is what I did in the algorithm, and showed conclusively that applying any criteria they see fit, always assuming of course that the SAME RULES apply to both VK and GK, VK doesnt have a leg to stand on, he cut and ran. Fine, no problem, he's got to look out for Numero Uno, but that's the reality.

And if somebody cant understand that, I find it difficult to take any criticism about my intelligence from the same person seriously.

Incidentally, you argue in EXACTLY the same way. When I try to pin you down to some objective criteria, you cant articulate any that proves your point, so you resort to phrases like "the complexities of the world". Koster also made a similar personal attack when he had exhaused his logical arguments:

"The former are adolescent boys (I'm guessing 15-16 years old), with
--a black-and-white world view untempered by any significant life experience,
--raging hormones interfering with the ability to distinguish cowardice from prudence, and
--the money-scorn typical of creatures supported by their parents.""

Dearie me, its my silver spoon that's making me so questioning of Kramnik's motives, not to mention my tender years.

So OK, you are arguing the point that beating Kasparov made Kramnik the WC. I guess so, if you apply the "historical rule". To me, What happened 100 years ago is less relevant than the framework that was put in place 60 years ago and ran till London 200. i.e.

WC = Qualify + beating the incumbent
Unless incumbent is dead, when put in place other arrangement.

Is that algorithm a little difficult to understand? I'm sorry, I cant make it any simpler.

VK not only didnt qualify, but he "disqualified". Was it it his fault? Not in the slightest. However, to paraphrase Bareev and Litvikov, he will always remain the "accidental" champion to me. Karpov was also in the same position to some extent when he first became WC, due to no fault of his own, but he did something about. He showed the world that he may have been become WC by default, but by golly, he deserved to be there.

VK was in a much worse position, because AK had actually won through to the final match in impecable fashion, but by golly, he sure didnt show anything much.

Personally, I can understand that he wanted to make the maximum of his opportunities, I mean life is hard, and its a tough world. But when RB, Koster, acirce, rdh sermonize about how he is an archangel, and also how he's the best match player around etc, I feel compelled to point out that by any OBJECTIVE measures, its actually not so, and get some pleasure from showing how ridiculous their stands are. (What really gets my goat is when rdh goes on about "class". Yeah, most of us attended class at some point.)

DP, I have to referred to the classical match. If you bring rapids in, many other events also need to be considered. Or have you forgotten that for the moment?

The classical match was drawn. Otherwise why did they play a tie breaker?

Another case in point about double standards, its OK to accuse Topalov of cheating without a SHRED of evidence, when he turned in the performance of his life, any number of snide remarks, villification, jokes in poor taste, downright defamation is FINE. But when Kramnik is accused of same, gasp, what a travesty. Of course he didn't cheat. But neither did Topalov.

mishanp, one last point. You talk about "probability" as a metric in deciding whether or not a credible challenger exists for VK? Yet by your own arguments, historically, "probability" has not been of much use right? So that's why for example Shirov beat Kramnik in their match. So by what logic can you say abut VK that "there hasn't been a player around during his career who could convincingly claim to be stronger"?

See, all these nebulous criteria that exist in your head confuse me. Could you please, bearing in mind your superior intellect, explain to me how you came to that conclusion? If you use "probability" as a metric, please do define how you calculate it. (If you don't know what probability means, or how to calculate it, and want something better than Wikipedia, I can recommend Feynman's lectures on physics)

"What about the formula is nonsensical? It clearly shows that Kasparov was at least as good a challenger as Leko, and VK wheedled out of playing him."

As I think I said - sure, Kasparov would have been fine as a challenger as well. But if they're as good as each other surely Kramnik would have "wheedled" out of playing Leko (or whoever won) if he'd played Kasparov. Personally I think attempting to go the qualifier route was the right decision, though in hindsight with the mess it became I'd rather we could have had another Kramnik-Kasparov match. But I don't see anything unethical in Kramnik's conduct, certainly nothing you're going to "prove with an algorithm".

"WC = Qualify + beating the incumbent
Unless incumbent is dead, when put in place other arrangement.

Is that algorithm a little difficult to understand?"

Fine, I simply disagree qualifying is essential to becoming WC. It's preferable if there's a decent system in place, but it always comes down to a match where the holder agrees to put his title on the line. I hate the FIDE idea of any 2700+ player being able to buy a match, but if Kramnik agreed and lost I'd accept the winner was the champion. So I guess we can agree to disagree.

"Yet by your own arguments, historically, "probability" has not been of much use right? So that's why for example Shirov beat Kramnik in their match."

That's still a weird argument. At the time of their match Kramnik wasn't at the level he reached he later. If you look at his other tournaments that year he was losing a lot of games and putting in average performances (except his 8.5/10 in the blindfold in Monaco). But yes, he was favourite against Shirov, say something like 60/40. But that still means he'd lose 4 times out of 10 - so how does it invalidate anything if that happens?

"So by what logic can you say abut VK that "there hasn't been a player around during his career who could convincingly claim to be stronger"?"

You still seem to be saying - Kramnik lost one match to Shirov, therefore he's a weaker player than Shirov, which I'd submit is nonsense. Look at their whole careers, all their individual games, records against Kasparov, average ratings, and so on. It's not weak-minded to try and take as much information as possible into account. Likewise if you claim Kasparov is the better player despite losing the match to Kramnik that's a perfectly reasonable position (though I'd disagree).

"See, all these nebulous criteria that exist in your head confuse me. Could you please, bearing in mind your superior intellect, explain to me how you came to that conclusion? If you use "probability" as a metric, please do define how you calculate it."

You'll note I in no way claimed to have a "superior intellect", and mentioned your intelligence. I just think you've got an unusual outlook on the world (think Spinoza trying to treat ethics like a mathematical proof). I wrote in plain English, and you come back with statements about "using probability as a metric" & asking for a definition of probability. I don't see anything that goes beyond normal usage and requires explanation.

All these topics - whether Kramnik became a true world champion, if he conducted himself ethically, and who's the strongest player - aren't amenable to any simple formula or unique criteria (it's just like asking who's the best boxer of all time). Sorry if that strikes you as overly nebulous.

p.s. at least we share a love of Feynman :)

OK, never mind what I'm saying or not saying. Please explain, how do you describe Kramnik thus: "there hasn't been a player around during his career who could convincingly claim to be stronger"?

I mean there has to be some basis for saying that right? Please do explain in your wonderful plain English!

d_tal, there's no point rehashing. As I said in my last post: "look at their whole careers, all their individual games, records against Kasparov, average ratings". That was about Shirov, but go through a similar process with the others putting all the available info together for the whole period they've been rivals. Who dominated Kramnik?

If you think you can answer then scroll up to where I already responded to individual players you suggested. Again, I'd say only Kasparov could genuinely stake a claim - but I think Kramnik's record against Kasparov is enough to refute it.

If no-one's been clearly better than Kramnik over his career all I'm saying is that makes him a fairly worthy world champion. The Kasparov match and the response in must-win positions against Leko & Topalov also demonstrated a champion's will-to-win that might have previously been in doubt. In any case, he was world champion :)

p.s. not related but just a curiosity - Kramnik's official website does list Anand as the current World Chess Champion: http://www.kramnik.com/eng/biography/index.aspx

Ah, now I've got it!

For any player in Kramnik's generation Do
----over entire career, consider
----------head-to-head
----------games against every known chess player
----------record against Kasparov
----------average ratings
----end
end

See, an algorthm isn't so bad is it? In the next few paragraphs, I use the term metric a lot. I use it to mean a figure of merit, to compare two things in a relative way. For example, bottle of wine A is £100, bottle B is £50 therefore on the basis of cost, B is better. The metric there is price. Bottle A however is of better vintage than B, therefore using the metric of vintage, A is better. I hope that's clear.

I don't have time to consider every chess player of Kramnik's generation, but there are quite a few who have a slightly better, equal or slightly worse record against him (such as Anand, Adams, Shirov, Kamsky, Ponomariov etc).
There are also enough players with a better average rating over any reasonable amount of time you want to consider. Games against every other player can also reasonably be considered to be captured by rating. If you consider all of the above metrics, you can come up with many players, such as Anand, Topalov, Ivanchuk, who are in the same ball park. Of course you can always tweak your metrics, such as if you adjust the rating to be the rating between Nov 1, 2005 to April 2nd 2006 or something (I just made those dates up), or consider only games played in the afternoon, or games where Kramnik's weight was under x kg when he played white etc to make Kramnik come out on top. But I'm assuming you are not interested in the Koster/RB/rdh style of reasoning.

You could also more reasonably give more weight to individual head to head than to rating for example, or some other adjustment, but until you articulate this yourself, I won't try to second guess you.

So that leaves one final metric.

This final one is the most intriguing. Why is a player's record against Kasparov so important? If he is the yardstick, then surely, straight away thus proves the point that Kasparov is the best player of Kramnik's generation? But never mind.

I also notice you haven't used an oft cited metric, Kramnik's match strength (could it be that I have shown it up to be the red herring it is?), or another that might be considered important, tournament victories, but again, never mind.

Anyway, clearly, Kramnik is one of an extremely small minority to have a plus score against Kasparov. Of course, nobody contests his London match was an outstanding achievement. But really, all your metrics boil down to this one. So its the one match, the +1 score against Kasparov in around 50 to 60 classical games, that establishes he is the best player of his generation.

To be honest, I think that's a bit weak, as is my opinion of the statement "nobody dominated Kramnik, therefore he is the best".

In history, you can find many such players. Have you heard of Efim Geller? Contemporary of Botvinnik, Fischer, Tal, Petrosian, Smyslov among others. He had a plus score against 5 World champions, beat 3 others, and nobody dominated him, but yet never became the WC. It was the qualification that was beyond him. Not many consider him to have been the strongest of his generation on the basis that nobody dominated him and he had a plus score against 5 WCs.
Qualification was a very, very difficult thing, used to require incredible amounts of energy, concentration over a cycle of 2 or 3 years, expenditure of all ones theoretical novelties, and then the final match awaited... Some others who missed out are Paul Keres, Bent Larsen, and then there is David Bronstein, who actually qualified and tied in the final! How about Korchnoi, who won innumerable candidates matches and came so close to toppling Karpov? Does history judge them to be the best players of their generation? Surely every one of them did far more than Kramnik based on your thesis above? People who go on ad nauseum about matches and tradition and history conveniently forget about that other tradition in the glorious history of Chess, qualification.

d_tal, that list (just a copy & paste from a comment on Shirov that seems to have lost "and so on" in the pasting) was illustrative, not exhaustive - the point I keep making is that you take everything you possibly can into account. But nevermind.

"This final one is the most intriguing. Why is a player's record against Kasparov so important? If he is the yardstick, then surely, straight away thus proves the point that Kasparov is the best player of Kramnik's generation?"

The comment was about Shirov, hence Kasparov was pretty decisive there. But it also works with Anand, Topalov, Adams and others - they were clearly dominated by Kasparov. So they can't say what Kramnik could - that he was never dominated by another player. It's a useful feather in his cap when you're claiming he wasn't a worthy champion.

I don't know enough about e.g. Geller to comment on his absolute strength - though at a glance it seems like Spassky was his nemesis (dominated him) - but if he had won the world championship would he have been a worthy champion - absolutely. If Korchnoi had won would he have been a worthy champion - absolutely. So was Kramnik.

But Kramnik didnt win a WC, see the difference? He won half a championship, without the necessary prequisites. Korchnoi won half a championship twice, the other half. To me, this other half is equally important, and its shown to be so in history. It was an incredibly difficult thing to qualify. Uf you could count on losing your qualification matches/tourneys and still challenging for the WCC, we would have had 3 times as many champions by now.

As for Geller, hmm... yes, Spassky did win a few more, but remember that he was in his prime quite a bit earlier. I'm sure if Kramnik keeps playing into his 50s, quite a few will dominate him. But I'm not arguing about Geller pe se, there are enough examples like him.

"the point I keep making is that you take everything you possibly can into account"

The funny thing is, most guys who carry out this argument pick and choose according to what suports their argument. You for example, disregard qualification. Doesn't that come rather high up on the "everything" list?

Nothing was disregarded. If you think losing two matches aged 18 (given the chaos at the time not even amounting to two separate cycles) and one at 22 is of vital importance, fine. I disagree.

If you think Kramnik didn't become WC, despite Kasparov and perhaps 99% of chess players and fans feeling he did, that's also your prerogative. You know all the arguments as well as I do.

As you're an advocate for rematches it'd be tempting to get into politically-engineered rematches and the havoc Botvinnik wreaked on the chances of guys like Geller... But let's not.

mishanp....
As you're an advocate for rematches it'd be tempting to get into politically-engineered rematches and the havoc Botvinnik wreaked on the chances of guys like Geller... But let's not.

Oh yes, let's ! Please! I'm really enjoying this debate. And want more arguments, hopefully invective-free!

Hardy Berger:
"And want more arguments, hopefully invective free!"

Here is what I believe to be the case against re-matches: that they give an unfair advantage to the champion. Let us suppose that the challenger is significantly stronger than the champion - which we can represent say by supposing that the challenger has a 60% chance of winning, the champion a 30%, and there is a 10% chance of a draw. Let us also suppose we also have "Botvinnik" rules: the champion retains his title in the event of a drawn match, and has a right of a return match if he loses. Then the probability that the champion will finally retain his title is (30 + 10 + 60 x 30/100)% = 58%. In fact, you have to make the challenger quite a lot stronger than the champion for the probabilities to tip in his favour (if say the challenger has a 60% chance of winning, there is a 30% chance of a draw and a 10% chance of the champion winning): now the challenger is favourite to come away with the title, but only just (he has a 54% chance of doing so). These figures may be artificial, but they illustrate the point.

Nor is this purely theoretical, when you consider the three Botvinnik-Smyslov matches. The first was drawn, the second Smyslov won, the third and Botvinnik took back the title, even though by the time that the matches were played Smyslov was, if anything the stronger player, and that he actually won more games in these matches than Botvinnik. The result: Botvinnik has the title; Smyslov back at square one.

The rematch clauses were introduced at a stage when the champion could decide which challenges he would accept, and therefore he could dictate terms: champions naturally included this strong safety net in these terms. When FIDE took over, the power of the Soviet Union was such that they could insist on the retention of this iniquitous rematch clause, because they wanted to ensure that Botvinnik, who from their point of view was a safe pair of hands and a good communist. The rematch clause was finally abolished for the Botvinnik-Petrosian match. Although this was the right decision, it looks very much it was political skullduggery again, with Petrosian's entourage gaining the ascendancy in the Soviet Chess Federation.

In the light of all this, I conclude that for whatever reason, Kasparov was right to insist that there should be no rematch clause for his match with Kramnik. (I think it was a principled stand that I approved of, but it might have been made when Kasparov did not seriously entertain the possibility that Kramnik might beat him.)

It also follows that Kramnik was right to make Kasparov stick to what he had signed up to: this was both fair to Kramnik himself, but even more to other potential challengers. (Why should Kasparov, for all his chess strength, be allowed to jump the queue: he could show that strength by knocking out those other challengers.)

roger,

I agree with much of what you say.
I also agree that Kramnik was correct in principle to insist on a qualifier.
HOWEVER, insisting on a qualifier carries the responsibility that it is a REASONABLE one. It is not good enough to say 'Here's a rubbish qualifier guys. Take it or leave it. If you don't like it, tough.' If this is what is insisted on, then it's a different ball game.

So the key questions are: Was the qualifier reasonable, and was Kasparov justified in rejecting it?

Kramnik/Keene's Dortmund qualifier consisted of the following:
(1) Mini-tournament of 6 games; 4 players with top 2 progressing [2 groups of these].
(2)Mini-match Semi-final of 2 games [in the original proposal; later amended to 4 under severe pressure].
(3) Mini-match Final of 4 games.

Is this a reasonable proposal?
In 'Championship Chessmetrics Analysis' [ http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=260 ] Jeff Sonas analysed 13000 different formats of all shapes and sizes.
Kramnik/Keene's Dortmund came in at 10945, and the FIDE knockouts came in at 12671.
About the only reason the FIDE knockouts come in even worse than Dortmund is that there are more rounds to be knocked out in (about 5 for FIDE versus 3 for Dortmund).
Also Sonas' analysis implies that Dortmund would actually have been improved by replacing the mini-tournament bit by another 4-game knochout match! In other words, Dortmund is identical to the FIDE knockouts except for a bit where it is even worse.
Kramnik himself had condemned the FIDE knockouts, so there can be no excuse for this.

But don't just take my word for it that this was a rubbish qualifier. Here are some of the reactions at the time:

"This is almost a copy of the FIDE system" - Mark Crowther
"Why a bad idea [FIDE KO's] for determining the world champion should be duplicated by a rival set-up [Braingames] is beyond my understanding...Just as with FIDE's format, the Dortmund system of short matches was fundamentally flawed...I could not understand how chess grandmaster Keene, with his great experience and intimate knowledge of world championship cycles, could have proposed such a silly format." - Seirawan
"The format has come under severe criticism because the round-robin preliminaries and the subsequent two round of four-game matches are periously short." - Sonas
"Kasparov was incensed and reacted angrily." - Seirawan. Why would Kasparov react angrily if he was not intending to play in a qualifier anyway? Wouldn't he be delighted to have an excuse to avoid playing in one?
Mig also had some choice comments about it, but there is no point in posting these as he is a 'Kasparov hireling' and will therefore be 'biased'.
Acirce has decribed the format as 'ridiculous' and also said: "This is one thing where Kramnik can genuinely be faulted -- for endorsing the Dortmund format as unproblematic".
But surely the clincher is this admission from Keene of Braingames, Kramnik's fundraiser, himself: There was a "GENERAL NEGATIVE REACTION".

So plenty of evidence that Kramnik's qualifier was not satisfactory, and was considered as such at the time.

I don't buy the 'not enough funding' argument. There would have been many better formats with the same funding (as the Sonas analysis indicates). I think with a reasonable effort funding could have been found for proper-length semi-final matches for Kasparov + Anand + Shirov + a qualifier. This would have been a monumentally better system.

So was Kasparov justified in rejecting this event?
Yes, he could have played and would have had the best chance of anybody of winning. But his chances of not winning in this format would have been relatively high [as Sonas analysis indicates];in my view unacceptably so. Why should the recent ex-world champion and world's highest rated player be forced into taking an unnecessarily high risk of being knocked out, and thus having to wait another 3-5 years to get a challenge?
Additionally, Kasparov had previously heavily criticised the FIDE KO's, they were anathema to him. Kramnik knew this. So how could he have reasonably expected Kasparov to play in what is virtually an equivalent?
No. Kasparov was definitely justified in rejecting this event.

So, roger and mishanp, in light of all this, do you agree or not that:
(1) Kramnik's qualifier was unreasonable?
(2) That Kasparov was justified in rejecting it?
If your answer to (2) is even just a 'maybe', then just exactly what WAS Kasparov supposed to do?

Well, I get a bit sick of the Kasparov bashers who endlessly repeat the lie that Kasparov only ever demanded a rematch.
Here's what Kasparov DID do:
When Seirawan proposed 'A Fresh Start', Kasparov agreed to playing in QUARTERFINAL matches. Not only that, he ALSO agreed to give his opponent draw-odds in the Semi-final match if that opponent happened to be one of the 'World Champions' at that time, Kramnik or Ponomariov. It seems to me that Kasparov is not given nearly enough credit for this forgotten episode.

It was Kramnik who insisted on an unreasonable qualifier. It was Kramnik who alone vetoed 'A Fresh Start'. So who's the bad guy here?

Chris - I agree, as I've said before, that Dortmund wasn't perfect. But bear in mind that 1) Kramnik was contracted to a commercial company & wasn't in a position to dream up any system he wanted (funding, as always in chess, WAS an issue - see Kasparov's comments below), 2) It was better than the FIDE knockouts (you acknowledge this, then contradict yourself), or the tournaments like Mexico and San Louis that still took place, despite it being obvious to you and me that long qualifying matches are the best solution, 3) If you look at the tournament it gave us the matches Topalov-Bareev, Shirov-Leko, and then Leko-Topalov. Adams, Morozevich and others also had a chance. There's a good case for it selecting the best challenger. The fundamental flaw was just the absent players, but Anand was never going to take part given he was tied to FIDE.

Besides which, if you read Kasparov's press release/response to the Dortmund organisers it turns out the format wasn't even the main issue: http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/owenbrain.html

He mentions, 1) he doesn't get on with the Dortmund organisers, 2) there's not enough guaranteed money on the table (elsewhere he says he wanted to see the $2,000,000 contract for the title match before playing the qualifier), & 3)the Braingames guys missed a deadline to offer him something immediately after the 2000 match (I take it he was contracted to play if something had been set up then).

If it was the particular format that was a problem Kasparov would presumably appeal for a change of format rather than simply demanding a rematch - as he does: "In light of the foregoing for BGN and Kramnik not to voluntarily offer Kasparov a rematch is reprehensible". [my understanding is that Kasparov was asking for a rematch before the Dortmund proposal was made, but that's by the by]

The two alternatives you mention strike me as worse than the offer that was on the table.

1) "I think with a reasonable effort funding could have been found for proper-length semi-final matches for Kasparov + Anand + Shirov + a qualifier." Anand was unlikely to play in a rival event to FIDEs & Shirov getting a guaranteed place might have some historical merit but would be nonsensical if you just want to find the best challenger.

2) "Kasparov agreed to playing in QUARTERFINAL matches" - fine for Kasparov, but you expected Kramnik simply to give up his title (equated with Ponomariov's) and play as a quarter finalist rather than playing a match to defend his title against the qualifier. That was always going to happen...

Kasparov later had the chance (without qualifying) to play the FIDE champion and then a unification match with Kramnik (or anyone who beat him). It's not down to Kramnik that that didn't ultimately happen.

mishanp,

The 'commercial company' that Kramnik was contracted to was Braingames - a virtually one man outfit operated by Keene and a very shonky one at that (as exposed by Levy). By the time the qualifier was announced, Kramnik was virtually its only 'asset', so was in a position to say whatever sort of qualifier he wanted.

I indicated that IF the FIDE KO's had been 3 rounds, they would have been better than Dortmund (this is clear from the context). And I said that BECAUSE the FIDE knockouts were about 5 rounds, they were therefore worse than Dortmnud. So there is no contradiction.
And Dortmund is most certainly NOT better than Mexico and San Luis, nor anywhere close. This is patently obvious from the Sonas analysis.

At Dortmund Adams and Morozevich were in a much stronger group [with Leko and Bareev; while all Topalov and Shirov had to do was come ahead of Gelfand and Lutz] and fell at the first stage after a desperate struggle. Indeed ultimate winner Leko was all but knocked out at this stage. In other words, just about anybody could have won this thing - it was virtually random.
An immediately obvious and simple improvement at this stage would have been to have all 8 players in a single round-robin rather than in two unequal groups.
Even if Kasparov, Anand and Ivanchuk had been in this event, it still would have been a highly unsatisfactory and considerably randomised way to select a challenger. The format WAS the fundamental flaw.

From the document 'Keene responds to Kasparov criticism' [ http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/even2001.html ], it is clear that Kasparov must previously have appealed for a change of format (or at least seriously complained about it) because Keene changed the semi-final from 2 games to 4 games saying he felt he had 'bent over backwards to keep Kasparov on board'.
[As if such a minor change could make the thing acceptable, and don't you just love Keene's pathetic exaggeration?]

Kasparov contract: Seirawan says: "As part of the BGN 2000 contract, both Kasparov and Kramnik had committed themselves to accepting a candidates' qualifier event to determine a Challenger for the winner in the next cycle...BGN had a limited period to set up its qualifier for the second cycle, the company delayed the announcement of its qualifier, and the period expired. Kasparov was no longer contractually obliged to participate in the BGN qualifier."

Kasparov's claim for rematch:
Apart from a couple of suggestions from Kasparov very shortly after the match (ie in the first flush of defeat) that he would like a rematch, (which Kramnik was within his rights to refuse), I have never come across any instance of Kasparov asking for a rematch before the Dortmund proposal was made [15 July 2001]. This is with following all the interviews etc. that Kasparov gave on his website etc. at the time. If you can find one, I'm all ears. Nor did Kasparov ever rule out playing in a qualifier before this time. Even Keene is not able to claim he did before the Dortmund announcement.

In regard to Kasparov's rematch claim on the Owen Williams document [I don't entirely agree with Kasparov's language here by the way; I don't consider that Kasparov behaved 100% perfect in all this - however I think Kramnik behaved a great deal worse.], my take is as follows:

I think my previous post demonstrates that Dortmund was a great deal worse than your "wasn't perfect" (10945 out of 13000. Come on. 'A Fresh Start' was 345 by the way...). So much so, that it is very difficult to come to any conclusion other than that Kramnik was avoiding Kasparov (as Kasparov says). With Kramnik thus refusing to defend his Title properly, it loses its legitimacy (especially as it is not an 'official' title [like FIDE's], but one by public recognition.) This being so, Kasparov therefore claims parity with Kramnik by virtue of having been the previous Champion, his current form, and his top rating. Hence claim for a rematch. As I said in my previous post, if a rubbish qualifier is insisted on, then it's a different ball game.

As for my alternatives:

1) If Anand would'nt play (well he won't play in anything in that case, so not an argument for saying that Dortmund is better), then just have another qualifier to replace him.
Shirov not only beat Kramnik in 1998 (surely worthy of some recognition), but was also runner-up to the then current FIDE Champion, Anand. However, if you really insist that he should'nt be there, replace him with another qualifier - no problem.
These changes do not affect this being a far better proposition than Dortmund.

2)We are probably agreed that Candidates Matches are a better qualifier than a Candidates Tournament such as Curacao 1962. But there is one problem with Candidates matches - after 3 tough matches, the Challenger arrives at the WC Match exhausted, and with his opening repertoire laid bare. This is not fair.
Hence there arose the idea that the Champion himself should have to participate in some lead-up matches. This concept was certainly 'in the air' at the time of 'A Fresh Start' and indeed already had a precedent: To get to his WC match against Kamsky in 1996, FIDE Champion Karpov already had had to win a Semi-Final match against Gelfand.
Thus the concept of Kramnik playing in a quarterfinal is not as outlandish as it seems.
In his introduction to 'A Fresh Start', Seirawan says "In reading the solution I put forward below, please bear in mind that all parties will have to show a spirit of goodwill and compromise. Otherwise, any [in italics] solution will fail."
Reasons that I think that Kramnik should have compromised are:
(1) He was not undisputed Champion. There was also a FIDE one.
(2) Kramnik should have been prepared to give some leeway in recognition of having got a free challenge to Kasparov's title.
(3) Kramnik had severely weakened the legitimacy of his Title by in effect refusing to defend it against Kasparov by insisting on an unacceptable qualifier. Kasparov therefore had justification in claiming parity; and therefore Kramnik should have agreed to come in at the same level as Kasparov [quarterfinals]. Kramnik would still have had draw-odds in both the quarters and the semis.
(4) It is the best and fairest system for deciding the WC.
(5) If you're a decent person, don't you make some goodwill compromise for the overall good? (unification)
But as you say "That was always going to happen..."

Re Prague, you still haven't taken any notice of what I said. Well, here it is again:
Kramnik in Vasiliev interview: "Excuse me, but I signed under the match Kasparov-Ponomariov." What is this if it is not a coded message saying that he will not play the winner of Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov? Please explain this statement then!
Had Kramnik instead unequivocally said he WOULD play the winner of Kasparov-Kasim, then I'm quite sure Kasparov would have moved heaven and earth to play the Kasim match.
It WAS therefore indeed down to Kramnik that another Kasparov-Kramnik match didn't happen.

Chris B:

The substantial disagreement between you and me is that you place a sinister interpretation on Kramnik's actions in a way that seems to me unwarranted and to go way beyond the evidence offered in its support.

1. Almost everyone, including me, agrees that Dortmund fell lamentably short of what one wanted from a candidates match/tournament. That is a million miles away from saying that Kramnik engineered a candidates series to be such that Kasparov would be bound to refuse to participate: but that is what is required to support the claim that Kramnik was avoiding Kasparov. I believe that the most you could say Kramnik was guilty of naivety in teaming up with Keene and believing Keene could get something like this right. The blame for the inadequacy of Dortmund lies on Keene's shoulders, and it seems to me special pleading to transfer the blame - let alone a sinister motive to Kramnik.

2) As for Kramnik saying "Excuse me, but I signed under the match Kasparov-Ponomariov": that's just part of the rhetoric that champions and challengers have always come out with in the run up to a match. Kramnik would have known, and Kasparov would have known, that, had the Kasparov-Ponomariov match occurred, there was no way that Kramnik could have avoided the winner of that match and still be regarded as WC: if he had refused to play, he would have been regarded throughout the chess world as having lost his title by default. To suppose that this remark deterred Kasparov from playing the Kasimjanov match strikes me again as fanciful.

roger--

A World Champion approaching a title match is naturally concerned that he have a return-route to a WCC match if should lose the title. For that reason Kasparov entered into a pre-match agreement with Kramnik respecting a vaguely-defined post-London candidates process.

In the runup to the (semi-final) Kasparov-Kasim non-match, Kramnik had the same return-route concern.

Kramnik had a winning record against Kasparov. He had decisively defeated GKK in a match played at the height of Kasparov's powers. (Observe Kasparov's results immediately before and immediately after the 2000 match.) At their respective ages; Kramnik nearing 30, Kasparov nearing 40, the passage time would favor the younger man. And Kasparov had publicly predicted that Kramnik would succeed him. That Kasparov had achieved a higher rating by defeating lesser players in non-WCC events always impresses chess illiterates but it probably did not overly impress Kramnik.

Kramnik's main concern was not that Kasparov would defeat him (although that was certainly possible), but that there would exist no return-route to a WCC match.

If Kramnik lost his title the candidates selection process would rest in the unreliable hands of Kasparov and FIDE. Kasparov had bolted FIDE (and its candidates system) for trivial reasons in 1993 and had stiffed his own chosen candidate in 1998. While FIDE had completely ignored its promises under Prague to set up an equitable candidates process.

Reasonably concerned about a return-route to the title, which was non-existent in the run-up to Kasparov-Kasim, Kramnik simply and accurately declared he was not contractually bound to play the winner, a position simplemindedly interpeted as a "refusal" by our 15-year-old friends.

Kramnik said, in effect, 'why should I put my title on the line when FIDE has broken its promise and there is no established candidates system for me (or anyone else).'

Kramnik's position obviously implies that he would play the GKK-Kasim winner if his concerns about the candidates system were addressed. If GKK had beaten Kasim, the logical outlook would have been pre-match negotiations between VBK, GKK, and FIDE regarding a post-match candidates system. Negotiations of the same sort that had taken place between Kasparov and Kramnik leading up to the 2000 match. Hopefully the lessons of 2000 would have been learned and a more specific candidates process would have been contracted for.

Chris,

Roger White basically said all I'd want to say. I'm not going to defend Dortmund as anything other than a poor qualifying system, but there's no logical justification for claiming that Kramnik was avoiding Kasparov. Kasparov simply didn't want to risk losing (which is, as d_tal pointed out, likely in any qualifying system). Hence why Botvinnik pushed for rematches & champions since then have tried to keep the privilege.

Kasparov decided it was less of a gamble just to try and force his way to a match by forgetting his pre-match comments and trying to leverage his position as the strongest tournament player. That's his prerogative, but it was perfectly reasonable not to give in to him.

A couple of other points: You said,

"The 'commercial company' that Kramnik was contracted to was Braingames - a virtually one man outfit operated by Keene and a very shonky one at that (as exposed by Levy). By the time the qualifier was announced, Kramnik was virtually its only 'asset', so was in a position to say whatever sort of qualifier he wanted."

I quite agree it was a shoddy company, but if anything that meant there were far less options open to Kramnik. Only a well-run company with cash to spare (willing to accept losses) would be likely to put up the cash to host a decent qualifying system, probably stretching over months - especially given you're doing it in a split chess world where the governing body won't acknowledge you, and you can't guarantee players' involvement.

I share your opinion of Keene, but reading the press releases/interviews of the two of them (as quoted in this thread) I'd reluctantly say that Keene, if anything, comes off better.

I think you protest a bit too much about the idea of making the champion a quarter finalist. If you really believe that Kasparov, as champion, would consider accepting something like that in a million years, then I suppose you're justified to use that as a criticism of Kramnik - but I think you'd be living in cloud cuckoo land.

The "Prague is dead" comment is perhaps the only thing Kramnik could be really criticised for. But then,

1) the statement had some truth to it (if Kasparov wants to claim something as concrete as Kramnik's title can expire in a couple of years - didn't Kasparov go 5 years without a challenge? - then surely a disputed agreement also can) &

2) as Roger White said, it was probably just posturing that would have been forgotten if Kasparov had put himself in place to play a match with Kramnik.

In any case, Kasparov's claim that he didn't want to play Dortmund because there wasn't a contract in place for the challenge match with Kramnik was posturing of a much more blatant kind. He knew as well as anyone else that if he won the sanctioned qualifier Kramnik would play, or else genuinely lose his title in the eyes of the chess public. The finances would, as always, be negotiated when the challenger was known.

roger and mishanp,

I'll deal with Prague first.

To say that the comment "Excuse me, but I signed under the match Kasparov-Ponomariov" is pre-match pysch rhetoric is a pretty funny thing to say when Kasparov was at this stage not even known to be Kramnik's opponent!
And frankly this comment does not make any sense on any level [other than an excuse to get out of Prague]. What on earth can be the objection to playing the winner of Kasparov and the person who qualified to replace Ponomariov if Ponomoriov refused to play?
And if somehow this was a genuine objection, why did Kramnik not voice it at the time? Pono withdrew from the match in August 2003. Kramnik did not voice his 'objection' until October 2004. That's a year and 2 months! And after all the trouble of Tripoli, etc. Simply doesn't add up.
Kramnik's comment was in fact not prematch rhetoric, but a serious statement that caused quite a stir at the time, a stir that Kramnik did nothing to dampen.
See 'Levy on Reunification' [ http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2019 ] for a very good analysis on all this. Also Mig's thread 'When In Doubt' (25 October 2004) is worth a look, too.
Similarly with the claim of Kramnik that FIDE was supposed to have done something (re Greg Koster's post). Prague Agreement was in May 2002. Kramnik's 'objections' came in October 2004. That's two-and-a-half freaking years for chrissake! If Kramnik was GENUINE, why did he not issue an ultimatum to FIDE after, say, 6 months, saying something like 'Show me concrete evidence within 2 months that you're doing something, or I will declare the Prague Agreement invalid'? Instead he did nothing. By leaving his 'objections' so long, Kramnik's claims lose all their credibility - they become just an excuse.
And do you really think that Kasparov would have chucked 4 years of effort to get a match if Kramnik's comment didn't have the most serious implications?

Thank you guys, for finally having the integrity to say that Dortmund was "lamentably short" and "a poor qualifying system". I do get a bit sick of Kramnik people saying it "wasn't perfect" (a whitewash with the translation: "but it was alright anyway") and was "ok".
This of course brings up the question I asked a couple of posts ago: Was Kasparov therefore justified in rejecting it, and if so, just exactly what WAS he supposed to do? Answers, please?
Yes, of course Kasparov didn't WANT to play in a qualifier and 'risk losing'. Name me one player that would. That doesn't mean that Kasparov should be forced into playing in a rubbish qualifier where his chances of losing are much higher than are legitimately to be expected.

"believing that Keene could get something like this right". Actually I would consider Keene's ability to raise money for, and organise such events as one of his stronger points. [suspect financial deals, flooding the market with crap books for a quick buck, and ridiculous exaggeration and hyperbole are things I would criticise him for.]
And as Seirawan said: "I could not understand how chess grandmaster Keene, with his great experience and intimate knowledge of world championship cycles, could have proposed such a silly format."
So I don't think Kramnik was naive about Keene at all. Keene knew exactly what he was doing. And I'm sure this wasn't suddenly thrust upon an unsuspecting Kramnik. Kramnik would have been fully aware of, and given his approval to, every step along the way. The very most charitable interpretation that can be given is that Kramnik turned a blind eye. But even this is doubtful, given Kramnik's determined inflexibility over the format after it was announced, despite heavy criticism. As acirce says "This is one thing where Kramnik can genuinely be faulted -- for endorsing the Dortmund format as unproblematic".
That a format which was virtually a copy of the FIDE KO's was insisted on when both Kramnik and Kasparov had heavily criticised these is incomprehensible.

Yes, funding may have been tight. But there were about 10,000(!) better formats than Dortmund. I'm sure the funding would have been good for at least 1,000 of these. Anybody with half a brain cell could have come up with something better than Dortmund if they were for real. I offered my own idea of Semi-Final matches. If this is too much, then have Kasparov-Anand. If Anand won't play, then Kasparov versus a qualifier. Surely not too difficult? Finding the best challenger takes precedence over including lesser players in a thoroughly discredited knockout system.

The situations of Kramnik in early 2002 and Kasparov before 2000 in respect of being World Champions were quite different. In particular, Kramnik's title had already lost its legitimacy because he was in effect refusing to defend it against Kasparov (through his 'qualifier'). Kramnik therefore now had no right to be higher in the pecking order than Kasparov.
Your skepticism of 'A Fresh Start' was shared by very many when it was first mooted by the way. But to general disbelief both Kasparov and Ilyumzhinov agreed to it. Seirawan obviously thought he must have had a reasonable chance with it from Kramnik too, otherwise he would not have gone to so much trouble. It had great support from the general public and nearly succeeded. Only Kramnik killed it.

Kramnik made the effort of a lifetime to beat Kasparov. Like Alekhine with Capablanca after 1927, Kramnik didn't want to have to face that prospect again anytime soon.
All in all, the bottom line is that had Kramnik been GENUINELY interested in finding the strongest challenger, another Kasparov-Kramnik match would very likely have happened. That it didn't leaves a conclusion not too difficult to be guessed at.

Chris,

You earlier dismissed Kasparov's requests for a rematch as being merely "in the first flush of defeat" after losing his match with Kramnik, but now you take as gospel an interview Kramnik gave in Brissago immediately after retaining his title!?

It's a fun interview & I've got to admit to taking pleasure in seeing Kramnik abandon his customary tact for Kasparov-like invective. Most of it strikes me as fair comment (however bad Dortmund might have been the idea of a FIDE knock-out tournament held in Tripoli - of all places - providing a player who then has to play Kasparov, is worse, at least for all of the elite other than Kasparov), but I doubt Kramnik would have voiced the same points in the same manner if he wasn't still in the "first flush of victory" (and perhaps the odd drink or two). Even then he points out that everything's up for negotiation.

David Levy's article merely appears to be blatantly pro-Kasparov to me (I prefer him on robotic sex).

I'd slightly reverse your final comment and say that... if Kasparov had GENUINELY been interested in qualifying another Kasparov-Kramnik match would very likely have happened. He wasn't. He gambled on using his name, prestige and rating to force a match without having to qualify. It pretty much worked, though in the end the political/bureaucratic risks he took probably outweighed the risks he could have chosen on the chess board.

mishanp,

Kramnik couldn't have made that sort of stuff up in "the first flush of victory" (also he didn't contradict it later). He obviously had it prepared before the Leko match, but was making sure he retained his title first.
As I said (and as Levy says), Kramnik already had had years to voice most of this stuff if he was genuine. Why didn't he, then? Huh?

Kasimdzhanov qualified by the same system that Ponomariov did. So that's not an excuse not to play the winner of Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov.

Levy's article is very well argued and I can see no bias in it. No doubt if a jury found in favour of Kasparov, you would say they are "blatantly pro-Kasparov" as well.

If Kasparov was playing the 'rematch game' you claim he was, why didn't Kramnik call his bluff by offering a proper qualifier? Kasparov would have had no leverage then; he would have had to have played. Why give Kasparov a perfect excuse?

You said Dortmund was "a poor qualifying system". You still haven't answered my question: Was Kasparov therefore justified in rejecting it? Yes or no? Was Kasparov supposed to play in a qualifier that would have given him maybe 3-4 times greater likelihood of being knocked out than, say, a 14 game match against Anand?
If yes, just exactly what WAS Kasparov supposed to do? Answers, please.

"Kramnik couldn't have made that sort of stuff up in "the first flush of victory" (also he didn't contradict it later)."

He didn't repeat it either, as far as I know. There's a difference between "making something up" and saying things bluntly and haphazardly that you might otherwise keep to yourself or phrase differently.

"As I said (and as Levy says), Kramnik already had had years to voice most of this stuff if he was genuine. Why didn't he, then? Huh?"

Huh? He'd made his objections to the Prague deal clear before and afterwards. He signed it because it was a lesser evil than allowing the chess world to stay divided. He also doesn't need to voice, especially not in the run up to a world title match, something as obvious as the fact that a contract doesn't remain binding if one of the parties fails to meet their obligations. That said, I'm sure it was just an opening gambit to keep FIDE in check when genuine negotiatons opened for the unification match.

"Levy's article is very well argued and I can see no bias in it."

I'd suggest that's because it reflects your own bias, but I don't want to go into textual analysis.

"If Kasparov was playing the 'rematch game' you claim he was, why didn't Kramnik call his bluff by offering a proper qualifier? Kasparov would have had no leverage then; he would have had to have played. Why give Kasparov a perfect excuse?"

It wasn't up to Kramnik to pander to Kasparov's whims or force him to play a qualifier, though it sounds as though Keene at least tried (if it's true e.g. that Kasparov vetoed a double round robin). Anyway, neither of us knows all the details of how the Dortmund tournament was concocted (I'd guess it was just dictated by finances and the aim of giving the top 10 players a chance).

"You said Dortmund was "a poor qualifying system". You still haven't answered my question: Was Kasparov therefore justified in rejecting it?
Yes or no?"

Odd question. Kasparov had as much right to reject to participate as Leko, Topalov or any of the other players who were invited. The only sensible "justification" question would be something like, having rejected to play was he justified in demanding a rematch without a qualifier - to which I'd answer, no.

"Was Kasparov supposed to play in a qualifier that would have given him maybe 3-4 times greater likelihood of being knocked out than, say, a 14 game match against Anand?"

Replace the word Kasparov with Leko and that question makes just as much (or as little) sense. Of course any qualifier involving more players reduces an individual player's chance of winning. So? If I was Kasparov might I gamble on getting an easier route to a title match - sure, perhaps. So? (I know it's just an example, but I think a long match with Anand might well have been a harder prospect at that time than qualifying in Dortmund without him)

"If yes, just exactly what WAS Kasparov supposed to do? Answers, please."

If yes, he was supposed to play in the qualifier, then yes, he was supposed to play in the qualifier :) Seriously, he could have accepted the Dortmund invitation. If he really had issues with the format but wanted to play I suspect he could have negotiated something more to his liking (for financial reasons sponsors would put up with a fair amount to get him to play). Failing that, perhaps he could have pulled out all the stops to play Ponomariov, or stuck around to play Kazhimzhdanov (spelling?). Anyway, Kasparov didn't and doesn't need my advice :)

"Just exactly what WAS Kasparov supposed to do?"

"Dear Vlad,

Your sucky Dortmund announcement got me thinking.

As you must know I am a most formidable politician who will exhaust every reasonable possibility to get a title shot, so here goes:

Disregard the rematch demand. I've been a life-long foe of rematches and, more importantly, a life-long supporter of democratic principles. The time for posturing is over.

I understand Braingames crapped out on you and that without FIDE, Vishy, or I you'll have no chance of attracting sponsorship for a decent Candidates event. Heck, I couldn't even find decent sponsorship for Kasparov-Shirov.

But with me on board you could surely find sponsorship for something reasonable. I'd qualify (as ex-champion) for inclusion into old-style Elite Eight candidates matches but we don't have time or money for that. So if you'll seed me into the Final Four and if the matches go at least six or eight games, count me in.

Love, Garri."

mishanp,

Kramnik's 'comment' caused quite a stir, which he would have been well aware of. If he had said it 'under the influence', or whatever, and hadn't meant it, he could have corrected himself later. He didn't. So he meant it.

Kramnik may not have liked certain aspects of the Prague agreement, but he signed it. He should stick to what he signs. But as with Elista, what he signs isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Kramnik had two and a half years to get FIDE to sort this stuff out. Why didn't he? Why start whining as late as October 2004? He was just playing a waiting game hoping Garry would get fed up (which succeeded, unfortunately).

And what's this talk of a 4-way tournament of Kasparov, Kasimdzhanov, Anand and Ponomariov instead of a Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match? Such an extension of the FIDE side of things was one of the very things Prague didn't allow (whether rightly or wrongly) - and Kramnik signed up to that. Having signed to this, Kramnik had no business suggesting such stuff.

Another example of the quality of Kramnik's talk is his claim that 'Ponomariov was thrown out'. That is manifestly untrue. Although FIDE caused problems, it was Pono who took the decision to withdraw - it was his decision.

What stops Kasparov could have pulled out to play Ponomariov given Pono's attitude beats me and, I suspect, just about everyone else. You are beginning to sound like Russianbear.

I have read Levy's article again. Of course he does not like what Kramnik did. But I still cannot see any bias in his actual argument. Methinks it is you who is biased, not being able to accept a rational argument that exposes the poverty of your position.
Perhaps others can comment on this.

Kasparov rejected a tournament because, as he said, people could 'gang up on him' (like Curacao 1962). Therefore, it had to be proper-length matches (as Kasparov himself organised for defending his Title).

It's not a matter of "pandering to Kasparov's whims". It's a matter of having something you can actually call a real qualifier, whoever is or isn't involved, and however it is arrived at.
Having knockouts (a format Kramnik himself had condemned) doesn't cut it. Period. End of story.
Kramnik stubbornly refused to change it or negotiate about it. Therefore Kasparov is fully justified in not playing. Kramnik is in effect refusing to defend his title. Therefore Kasparov has every right to claim parity, and Kramnik's Title is not valid from 2002.

Chris B:

I hadn't realized that Kasparov was offered a double round robin instead of the format actually adopted in Dortmund, and had rejected it. With that my residual feeling that there was something to be said on his side goes.

The idea that there might have been a "ganging up" seems pure paranoia: not because the other players would not want to knock Kasparov off his pedestal but because it is hard to imagine what form such ganging up might take (we're not talking about the players making faces at him while he's trying to concentrate on his move.) The situation here is quite different from Curacao: whether Fischer (and Korchnoi, who made the same accusation, though it was less widely reported) was in the right or not, it's clear enough what the idea was. You had a gruelling 28 round tournament played in the tropics, so that any player playing all out would be liable to burn themselves out - as indeed happened to Korchnoi. Three players, all Soviet, coped with this situation by in effect giving themselves 12 additional rest days by playing non-games against each other. That at least is comprehensible as arguably unfair collusion.

If however Kasparov turned down a double robin, he was in effect rendering himself inelligible as a candidate.

With that, your talk of Kramnik forfeiting his title by "refusing to play Kasparov" loses all credibility. He had no more obligation to play Kasparov until he qualified than he had to play you or me.

"He was just playing a waiting game hoping Garry would get fed up (which succeeded, unfortunately)."

Oh come on. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for Kasparov's propaganda. The only "waiting" was on FIDE's side - for all their manifest incompetence even Kramnik couldn't have expected that they wouldn't manage to arrange a match between their champion and Kasparov, with a lucrative unification match at stake.

There's also more than a whiff of hypocrisy in your complaints about Kramnik reneging on contracts. He merely pointed out that there were question marks over the validity of a contract when both the timeframe had been exceeded and the terms had changed.

The hard-done-by Kasparov, meanwhile, completely threw out the contract of his match with Kramnik, ignoring the provisions ruling out a rematch and obliging the loser to play in a qualifier.

Sure, he had the legal right to do that as the timeframe had been exceeded, but quite how that makes him any better than Kramnik I find it hard to fathom.

mishanp,

What makes this whole argument so absurd is that there is not a single statement or suggestion by Kasparov or anyone closely associated with him (Owen Williams, etc.) stating or implying that GKK would have participated in ANY qualifier.

Mig says GKK felt his rating and status entitled him to a straight rematch. It's Mig's opinion that (barring unforseen circumstances) GKK would NOT have played in any qualifier.

Our youngsters argue that they know GKK's mind better than Mig does, and unfortunately that's not the silliest thing they've ever argued.

I think it may have gone more this way:

Dear Vladimir,

Time for us to get a few things straight.

You're may be the champion now, but I'm the draw. That's the bottom line. So without my involvement in your plans you'll get a percentage share of nothing. If you happened to notice the way I seduced the Intel financiers with my masterful tact and charm, you must also know that your championship is but an inert marker in a shell game and I'm still holding your balls.

You also know that I've walked away from everything I couldn't control and got away with it every time. So ultimately it won't matter that you dominated me in our match. I was a remote island far from the FIDE archipelago, and now it's your turn to drift. But the difference is that your name couldn't attract a fly to a cowflop convention. So you need me, Vlad. You need me so much that you may as well be asking for my permission to go to the can.

Want proof? Just try organizing a qualifier -- I will reject it (even though we both know I'd blast through it like my breakfast beluga). You think the Prague orgy has anything to do with you?? Try making one single comment that even sounds like a negotiating tactic and you'll be isolated in a heartbeat. You think the "chess street" will embrace you?? I have enough soulless publicists on my payroll to practically win my title back for me by convincing the public that Braingames never really happened. You think I don't have any power now?? Don't ever forget that I'm the guy who dispatched bodyguards to "discuss" a sticky divorce detail with my ex-wife, which solved the problem nicely. So are you beginning to get the picture? I may not always win, but I won't ever lose.

And so it must be clear to you now that I signed the no-rematch clause because I can't lose either way. We both know you outplayed me, but they'll only say I practically gave it to you. And now your career is shot. I could live without FIDE, but you don't have a prayer. I'll just make nice with Kirsan and you'll always be the wandering loser.

But don't lose hope, Volodya! There's one way out for you. Cancel the qualifier and announce that you wish to waive the no-rematch clause and play me right away. Yeah yeah, I know -- you'll be called a loser, but it's a different kind of loser. Wouldn't you rather be a capital calf submitting to the slaughter instead of an ostrich champion? It's a tough call, but it's also one you're going to have to make very soon.

And hey, remember I can do without a repeat of the Braingames experience. If you agree to throw the match (which we both know is the least you can do after stealing my title), I'll publish an additional My Great Predecessors and say one or two nice things about you. You have my word on that.

Talk to you soon, champ.

xoxo

Garri

That sounds about right :)

Chris B,
I had another look at Levy's article. If it's bias you want you don't need to venture further than the first paragraph:

"On February 15th 1985, Florencio Campomanes stopped the Karpov-Kasparov match in Moscow in order to save Karpov from defeat at the hands of the world’s strongest chess player."

Nevermind that Karpov was winning 5:3 & still only needed one more game to win, or that at the time he was clearly at least Kasparov's match in terms of strength. Even if you accept the argument (Kasparov's version of events), you've got to admit it's a gross oversimplification.

There's no point running through all the other biased statements Levy makes (most covered in this thread), but I think the caliber of the man is clear when he gets to: "In my opinion Kramnik is chicken." Levy and Keene were made for each other.

p.s. I noticed something odd. Levy quotes Kramnik's eccentric post-Brissago interview:

“Why should Kasparov, who hasn’t won a single tournament this year, play in this match?”

I thought it was Levy's mistake, but it's the same in the Chessbase translation, whereas in the original Russian Kramnik said Kasparov hasn't won a tournament in TWO years. Make of that what you will :)

For anyone curious about the 1985 debacle: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/termination.html

mishanp,

Kasparov's Braingames contract had a time limit that wasn't met by Braingames. So he was 100% free of it.
Kramnik's signings at Prague and Elista certainly hadn't expired before he reneged on them. That's the difference.

I have not "fallen for Kasparov's propaganda". I was not referring to the Pono [which delay was mainly Pono's fault anyway] and Kasim matches; why do you pretend I was? As you well know, I was referring to the other stuff Kramnik was on about.
Five months after Prague was the FIDE congress at Bled in October 2002. Five months is long enough for FIDE to show they were serious. Yet Kramnik couldn't even be bothered going to Bled to make a statement or an ultimatum. Or Kramnik could have gone to Garry and said 'Here's what Prague says, you agree?, unless you help me get FIDE to do this, I can't play FIDE winner, agree?' Instead, he did nothing until the October 2004 moan. Yes, a waiting game.

I will agree you have a marginal point with the Levy comment you quote [though by the time the match was stopped, Kasparov probably was the stronger anyway, having scored +3 -0 =14 in the previous 17 games]. However, you are only attacking Levy's preamble. If you could show biased or faulty reasoning in the actual argument itself [which is what I referred to in my previous post], it would be more convincing.
Levy is not calling Kramnik "chicken" just for the hell of it out of bias. It is a conclusion he comes to as a result of a well argued article, a conclusion that looks all too reasonable.

What to make of the comment "Why should Kasparov, who hasn't won a single tournament in two years, play in this match?"
This is in fact a very good demonstration of the dishonest sort of way Kramnik argues. His aim here, of course, is to try and give the impression that Kasparov is barely strong enough anymore to be a credible challenger to Kramnik, thus trying to undermine Kasparov's legitimacy to be playing in this match.
Let's look at the facts:
Yes, it's true Kasparov hadn't won first prize in a single tournament for TWO WHOLE YEARS. (Gasp, horror! Kaspy must be now as weak as.) But Kasparov had only played in two tournaments in this whole period! Linares 2003 and Linares 2004. Both times he was but half a point off first place. Hardly a collapse! And it is to be noted he was suffering the Ponomariov frustration at this time as well.
Meanwhile, what was Kramnik doing? Although he was first or 1= in the aforementioned two tournaments (by only '+2', and extremely fortuitously in the second of these), he was doing very badly elsewhere, eg at Corus. So badly, in fact, that his rating was going down even faster than Kasparov's.
In January 2003 (the start of Kasparov's bad period), the ratings were Kasparov 2847, Kramnik 2809. In October 2004 (at the time of Kramnik's comment), the ratings were Kasparov 2813, Kramnik 2760. A similar pattern can be seen on Chessmetrics.
So for Kramnik to try and give the impression that Kasparov was barely strong enough for him anymore is very dishonest.
Moreover, Kasparov recovered strongly at this stage, winning a strong Russian Championship and Linares 2005 handily - showing what the real Kasparov would have done to a fading Kramnik!

roger,

While a double round-robin is vastly better than what Kramnik did end up offering; and the situation was not as bad as in Curacao times, Kasparov still had a point in principle - who's to say drawing agreements or throwing games couldn't happen?
Another example is Zurich 1953 Candidates where possibly the strongest player in the world at the time, Reshevsky, probably never had a real chance. And who is to say that in 30 years time, the Chinese, with massive state support, won't dominate like the Soviets did in the fifties? What price a tournament then?
This is the reason Candiates matches were instituted in 1965. So why change from the last 30 years? Although I don't think the double round-robin suggestion was too bad, I think Kasparov had reasonable justification to reject it.
Also, after November 2000, Kramnik and Keene never consulted Kasparov on what sort of qualifier would have been acceptable to him. Why didn't they?
It's ironic, too, that Kramnik people moan like hell that Anand is not a 'real' World Champion because he won the Title from that format. Why should that format be much better for choosing a Challenger?

Greg,

Let's get one thing sorted out once and for all:
Date: 15 July 2001
With the announcement of Kramnik's 'qualifier' on that date, we could be pretty damn sure that after that date we were not going to get a real qualifier from Kramnik.
Therefore this date is the great dividing line for this debate in deciding what was reasonable for Kasparov to say and do and what wasn't, a dividing line as fundamental as BC and AD are to Christianity.
Comments by Kasparov that would be completely unreasonable before 15 July 2001 are not so after that date. Yet you have a tendency to take a post-15 July 2001 comment and imply Kasparov had said it over the pre-15 July 2001 period as well. This is not reasonable or fair.

Now, let's take some quotes from a Kasparov interview held after Wijk aan Zee 2001:
"Kramnik made all the necessary statements about the necessity of establishing a correct qualification cycle...that is his right...Kramnik has to support the legitimacy of his title by means of creating a system that would provide the strongest candidate with a right to challenge him."
Thus already here, in January 2001, we can see some skepticism on Kasparov's part that Kramnik is going to come up with a proper qualifier. Thus it would have been madness on Kasparov's part to follow your suggestion that he should have declared that he would participate in ANY qualifier (including any rubbish one).
No, the key point is that BEFORE 15 July 2001, Kasparov had never stated that he would definitely refuse to play in ANY qualifier. Even Keene (no doubt much as he would like to) can not claim this. Mig's comment almost certainly applies only to the period AFTER 15 July 2001 (though possibly he could confirm). This is underlined by Kasparov's comment above "that is his right", not a comment from someone who is saying he is refusing to play in any qualifier.
However, this comment comes with the proviso that it has to be a "system that would provide the strongest candidate with a right to challenge him". This Dortmund manifestly adequately fails to do.

Had Kramnik offered say Semi-Final matches, I feel Kasparov would have played, if only because he would have had to. He would have had zero credibility otherwise and would never have got Prague (and I certainly wouldn't have agreed with a decision by him to refuse to participate). But Kramnik didn't, so we'll never know.

The bottom lines are:
(1) Kramnik insisted on an unacceptable qualifier.
(2) Kasparov never said until AFTER he was only offered an unacceptable one that he would refuse to play in a qualifier.
1-0 to Kasparov.

In an interview given in April 2005, Kasparov said "But I said it after the match in London that he would make it his goal in life never to play Garry Kasparov again".
And bingo, Kramnik insists on a qualifier that he can be 99.99% sure Kasparov will reject. Kasparov's prediction turned out to be very, very true...

"Therefore this date is the great dividing line for this debate in deciding what was reasonable for Kasparov to say and do and what wasn't, a dividing line as fundamental as BC and AD are to Christianity."

Chris, it's over. You've just totally lost it. You've got to get back to whatever life you had before you decided you wanted onto Kasparov's payroll.

In your earlier chronological post, you made a case for Kramnik as a weakling, a welsher, a grasping opportunist, a beggar, a hypocrite and a whinging loser. Yet directly afterward you attempt ed to paint the painter as a brutal and pitiless negotiator preying on poor little GKK. I just don't buy it. With your every post we learn more about the unhappy effect of bipolar disorder on the spirit of rational argument.

Kramnik was under no obligation to allow Kasparov to dictate terms of the qualifier any more than he was obliged to lose Braingames 2000. None whatever. And the moment Kasparov refused to play ball and take his chances without a featherbed semifinal bye, he should have kept his big fat toilet of a lying mouth shut. But then again, why be classy when he could count on people like you to take his side?

Give it up and move on. Even Kasparov did.

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2005/03/kramnik_interview.htm

please note greg koster's remarks on Kramnik's whining. I thought he was just a kramnik fanboy, but I guess I was wrong.

Clubfoot,

A World Champion has to agree to defend his Title in a reasonable way. If he doesn't, his Title can be considered forfeit. Kramnik's Title after 2002 has little more validity than Fischer's after 1975.

Man, you must be about the world's sorest loser. As usual with a sore loser who doesn't have an argument, you descend to personal abuse. Your post says far more about you than it does about me. You're talking about losing it!?

Anyone who fails to realize that JULY 15, 2001 was to Chess what the birth of Christ was to Christianity is sadly out of place in this discussion.

But Chris,
1) Did any previous world champions forfeit their titles because of a failure to provide a reasonable defense? Or does your "rule" start with Kramnik?
2) Fischer beats Karpov in 1975, then defends his title against the winners of
a) a Dortmund-style qualifier (which AK boycotts) and
b) a San Luis-style qualifier.
Karpov never plays another match and retires.
Who's your post-1975 world champion?

"However, you are only attacking Levy's preamble. If you could show biased or faulty reasoning in the actual argument itself [which is what I referred to in my previous post], it would be more convincing."

Ok, I'll bite - the problem is there's really not much argument amid all Levy's obsessive verbiage. [http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2019 for the masochistic]

When Kramnik, in his rambling post-match interview, points out he signed an agreement to play the winner of Kasparov-Ponomariov, not Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov, I can accept you might consider it unhelpful or ill-timed, but it's hardly a difficult point to grasp. Levy resorts to manic rhetoric:

"If Kasparov had qualified for a title match by playing and beating FIDE’s “World Champion” Ponomariov, then Kramnik would be willing to play Kasparov for the reunified title. But if Kasparov, the very same Kasparov, the one who would have qualified if he had played and beaten Ponomariov, not some other Kasparov, if this same Kasparov qualifies by playing and beating FIDE’s “World Champion” Kasimdzhanov, then Kramnik is not willing to play him. Have we really understood Kramnik correctly, or are we missing something?"

Not exactly what I'd call a reasoned argument. And no, however much he protests, it's something quite different for FIDE to select another challenger in a highly controversial qualifier (the Ponomariov-Kasparov "solution" was only accepted to allow a swift unification before implementing a better system). Note that all along Kramnik is just pointing this out. The fact that he's not legally bound to the contract doesn't mean he won't play the match.

Perhaps the most irritating manipulation running through Levy's article is the way he uses the ACP and Lautier's comments. Perhaps sensing that the Prague contract itself isn't up to much he points out that Kramnik should be bound by the ACP (he's on the board).

Lautier said at the end of a long address at the opening ceremony of the Kramnik-Leko match [http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1644]:

"If nothing definite is announced by FIDE by the end of October 2004, the ACP will seriously consider taking part in the reunification process".

It's fair for Levy to pick up on this, though bizarrely, and I'd suggest this tells you something about the man, he gives a direct quote from Lautier but paraphrases: "… set FIDE a deadline for October to organise the match between Kasparov and the winner in Libya, or they would have to look at other reunification options." [and then he even more bizarrely directly quotes this paraphase in the next paragraph]

Anyway, fair enough. He then points out that FIDE met this deadline, as they apparently did: on October 13, they announced a match to be held in Dubai in January 2005 for $1.2 million. Levy is very taken by this evidence of FIDE's organisation and even waxes lyrical about the "great" Dubai sponsors and the money guaranteed even to the loser.

Sadly we know that in reality FIDE had organised nothing and the press release was at best economical with the truth. Don't believe me - in the same month Kasparov wrote an open letter to FIDE protesting about the lack of any concrete proposals. So let's say if the ACP contacted FIDE at this time the deadline for "[something] definite" was unlikely to have been met.

Ok, we can cut Levy some slack for not having the benefit of hindsight, but still, anyone who's observed chess for the past 20 years knows enough to take anything FIDE says with a pinch of salt. To use a hypothetical match as a stick to beat Kramnik with was at best crass.

That's not the main point about the ACP, though. Levy says of the Lautier quote above: "The meaning of this statement is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS." [Levy's underlining didn't paste so I switched it to capitals] You might detect a hint of protesting too much here. Or again: "And why ride roughshod over the words of the ACP, as expressed by its President, extolling [a rhetorical Freudian slip??] FIDE to make an announcement, not later than October, about the match for its own half of the reunification process?"

Of course if you actually turn to Lautier's statement you'll find it's not quite so unambiguous about FIDE and reunification:

"Once their match will be over, we shall know the name of the Classical World Champion and this part of the Prague Agreement, at any rate, will have been fulfilled. FIDE’s part of the Prague deal, however, is not likely to be delivered very soon. At the moment, FIDE is experiencing serious difficulties in attracting the best players in its World Championship knock-out event that will be staged in Libya in June-July. All the FIDE World Champions since 1993, all four of them – Karpov, Khalifman, Anand and Ponomariov, have refused to play in Libya. On top of that, out of the best 16 players in the world, 9 have declined to play in Libya, not counting Kasparov who is granted a direct match for the FIDE title against the winner from Libya. This basically means that FIDE has already failed in its avowed attempt to reunify the chess world. It also means that in the current state of things, FIDE’s World Championship title cannot be considered legitimate if so many top players are missing from the competition."

So Lautier's closing ultimatum to FIDE is an ambiguous and grudging acceptance of a future Kramnik-Kasim/Kasparov match, while expressing doubts (which proved correct) over FIDE's ability to fund the match. Despite Levy's protestations, Kramnik wasn't at odds with his fellow professionals here - his "insult" to Kasparov (that he didn't deserve special treatment) was just the same thought that motivated a number of players to avoid Tripoli. Levy mentions that he "would be amazed if Anand did not want a title match with Kasparov, played inside FIDE". Odd that, as Anand had already declined to take part in Tripoli as the championship was reduced to a FIDE qualifier to play Kasparov.

Levy's shameless castagation of Kramnik for risking the income of Kasimdzanov is perhaps the nadir (though the competition's tough) of the article. Where was Levy to complain when FIDE staged the tournament in a country Jewish/Israeli players couldn't even travel to? But Kramnik is depriving Kasimdzhanov of "a great windfall" merely by suggesting the unification match isn't set in stone, despite the fact that everyone in the chess world knew that there would be negotiations before a final match.

A more general irritation is Levy's fawning attitude to Kasparov. The opening paragraph sets the standard, and throughout there's an implicit insistence that the chess world still revolves around Kasparov e.g. he sums up the Prague agreement as: "The idea of a reunification process, to do away with the dissent and to bring Kasparov and the World Championship title back into the FIDE fold...".

He ends with the comical, if absurd:

"[Kramnik] does not have to decide now, he can wait until after the Kasimdzhanov-Kasparov match in January and then confirm his acceptance of the current reunification plan. But when that match is over, and if Kasparov wins, if Kramnik does not demonstrate a change of heart the ACP should say to its board member: “Come out and fight, chicken.”

Somehow, despite being able to imagine Levy using these words, they would have been unlikely in the mouth of any ACP representative. But there's a serious point here - Levy ends by (needlessly insultingly) pointing out that if a Kasp-Kasim match did take place and Kramnik played the winner that would be fine. And in all probability, negotiating hard to keep FIDE in check, that's what would have happened.

The one thing that emerges clearly from trawling through all of this is that ChrisB and others are trying to rewrite history. The case seems to be - Kasparov was going to play Kasimdzhanov but Kramnik gave an interview questioning reunification and it forced that match to be cancelled.

It's neat, but nonsense. FIDE simply couldn't organise the match - in hindsight maybe that ridiculous four-way idea of Kramnik's would have been more commercial than a mismatch [I suspect a lot of Levy's vitriol was motivated by the fact that his former friend, Ray Keene, strangely came out in support of the idea - http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1976]. FIDE were in trouble, as Kasparov pointed out after his retirement, before Kramnik's interview. The interview, besides blatantly not being a well-prepared statement, also wasn't Kramnik's last word on the subject. As far as I can tell (it's not in the archives) the 2005 interview MS references above has Kramnik still talking about playing Kasimdzanov/Kasparov. Heck, after his retirement even Kasparov firmly laid the blame at FIDE's feet.

Sorry for the length of this... but it all just boils down to what most of us have known all along. Kramnik is only really guilty of the great "crime" of not granting Kasparov a rematch. The chaos in the chess world and FIDE's incompetence is enough to explain the rest.

Greg,

Quite how you manage to translate "this debate in deciding what was reasonable for Kasparov to say and do and what wasn't" into "Chess" I don't understand, so I presume it's an attempt at parody in your own inimitable style.

Your 1): I really cannot understand why you cannot see the answer as Fischer. You know, the 9-9 thing. But perhaps this is another attempt at parody. If so, I'm afraid this one's way over my head.

Your 2): I'm afraid I didn't study rocket science at university; I'm also still trying to figure out the point of this question.

----------------

mishanp's post: This is going to take some digesting and I've got a full-on day tomorrow, so I may not be back for 36 hours [also this is all starting to take way too much time].
So any comments by anybody else welcome in the meantime.
It could be that in any case the wheel is being reinvented here: I refer people to Mig's thread 'Official Bash Kasparov Thread' Dec 13, 2004 [ http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2004/12/official_bash_kasparov_thread.htm ]. Levy article stuff starts about halfway down and has some spot-on comments by Mig.

I'm with you on reinventing the wheel and taking too much time, Chris! I'm heading off on internet-free travels sometime soon, so don't take offence - or claim victory :) - if I don't post again.

"I'm afraid I didn't study rocket science at university; I'm also still trying to figure out the point of this question."

No problem, Chris B.,

If you have a reasonable theory about the legitimacy of world chess champions then you can apply it to champions other than Fischer and Kramnik, and to hypotheticals situations.

If you're just Kramnik-bashing then you probably can't.

p.s. just realised Levy directly quotes the Chessbase summary of Lautier's statement. It's still poor form to place so much emphasis on a paraphrase when the actual words used are on the same page, but at least it's explicable.

mishanp,

I respect the amount of work you put into the Levy post.
On the whole, though there are perhaps some grey areas, it still seems to me that it is mostly derived from an anger that Levy actually dares to support Kasparov (if somewhat sarcasticaly). I thinks Mig's comments of 17 Dec 2004 13:14 and 17 Dec 2004 15:03 in the thread I mentioned sum up the situation fairly well.

Trying to cover most of what you said, I think I would say the following:
The Prague agreement mentioned Ponomariov's name simply because no one envisioned at the time that he wouldn't be playing Kasparov.
It is obvious that the INTENT and the PRINCIPAL POINT of the agreement was that the winner of Kramnik and the Dortmund winner was to play THE WINNER OF THE FIDE SIDE. For Kramnik to claim that Prague might be invalid because he might have to play someone else than was actually named in the agreement is about as lame a legal excuse as some of the 'technicalities' that obviously guilty criminals get off on.

Kramnik's brief from Prague was to sort out a winner from himself and the Dortmund winner. As far as determining the opponents in the final match is concerned, THAT IS ALL. He and ACP had NO BUSINESS poking their nose into how the FIDE side determined their guy, no matter how unsatisfactorily. And such nose poking is mainly what your post is about.
Kramnik signed to Anand's exclusion at Prague. So he has no business in bringing this up later as an excuse.

Yes, FIDE were making a grand old mess of organising the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match. This was the straw that broke the camel's back. With maybe a 10-20% chance of a Kramnik match even if he did win said match, Kasparov just couldn't be bothered anymore (especially as a prospect of a Kramnik match was about the only thing keeping Kasparov in chess). If, however, Kasparov had thought he had a 80-90% chance of a Kramnik match if he beat Kasimdzhanov, then this straw would certainly not have broken the camel's back and I'm sure Kasparov would have sorted something out.

You talk about rewriting history. Didn't know it was written yet. Oh, hang on, the winners write the history don't they? Must be Kramnik's history then. So perhaps it needs rewriting!

Please don't (as with Russianbear) imply I said stuff I never did. I have never said that Kramnik was guilty of the "crime" of not granting Kasparov a rematch. His crime, and the original cause of all the trouble, was, as I have said many times, not granting him a proper qualifier. That's a very important distinction.

"On the whole, though there are perhaps some grey areas, it still seems to me that it is mostly derived from an anger that Levy actually dares to support Kasparov (if somewhat sarcasticaly)."

I suppose you'll have to believe me, but I've got no problem with Kasparov, or anyone supporting him. All I had a problem with was Levy and the obnoxious tone he adopted towards Kramnik. He's of no import, though, and I'd just have brushed aside the article if you hadn't drawn me into really analysing it. All I'd say, though, is that the more you look into it the more contemptous a piece of work it is.

"For Kramnik to claim that Prague might be invalid because he might have to play someone else than was actually named in the agreement is about as lame a legal excuse as some of the 'technicalities' that obviously guilty criminals get off on."

I disagree. FIDE fundamentally failed to meet almost all of their obligations relating to Prague. Kramnik's not alone in pointing it out e.g. Seirawan: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1650

"I placed the failure of the Prague Agreement squarely upon the shoulders of FIDE and its officials. They broke the Agreement. FIDE also broke its own rules".

I still think it's comical to accuse Kramnik of trying to get out on a technicality if you're not going to apply the same standards to Kasparov, who signed a contract stipulating he'd play in an 8-player qualifying tournament if he lost to Kramnik. In that case it really was only a technical issue of a passed deadline.

"He and ACP had NO BUSINESS poking their nose into how the FIDE side determined their guy, no matter how unsatisfactorily. And such nose poking is mainly what your post is about."

My post wasn't about that at all (call me an ACP agnostic) - I was just responding to how Levy misrepresented the ACP and Kramnik's relationship to it. That said, I think it would have been odd if the ACP didn't get involved in an issue involving the players they represented.

"Kramnik signed to Anand's exclusion at Prague. So he has no business in bringing this up later as an excuse."

You're repeating Levy's claim that Kramnik is somehow culpable for only making comments after Brissago. Again though, as with almost everything Levy says, it turns out to be rubbish. Kramnik expressed all the doubts he expressed in that interview during the Prague negotiations and after they'd been completed (he also suggested alternative qualifiers, pointed out FIDE had broken the contract etc.) e.g.

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=573
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=473
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=340

I suppose anyone who thinks Kramnik is the devil incarnate will doubt the sincerity of his wanting to give Anand and others a chance, but I see no reason to doubt it. It's also a reason why it's much more than a technical issue that FIDE failed to meet their side of the bargain. Anand ended up being excluded for much longer than foreseen, and regretted, in Prague.

"Yes, FIDE were making a grand old mess of organising the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match. This was the straw that broke the camel's back. With maybe a 10-20% chance of a Kramnik match even if he did win said match, Kasparov just couldn't be bothered anymore (especially as a prospect of a Kramnik match was about the only thing keeping Kasparov in chess). If, however, Kasparov had thought he had a 80-90% chance of a Kramnik match if he beat Kasimdzhanov, then this straw would certainly not have broken the camel's back and I'm sure Kasparov would have sorted something out."

I guess I can't really disprove your comments, though I find it odd that, as far as I know, Kasparov never suggested that the problem with the Kasimdzhanov match was a doubt over Kramnik. And it seems he tried fairly hard to make it happen. Oddly enough the match Kasparov almost certainly could have made happen was the Ponomariov one, at a time when there was no question over Kramnik playing the winner. I'd also put the chances of Kramnik having played Kasparov at 80-90%. Again, Levy was taking an interview which was a prelude to negotiations as a fait accompli.

"His crime, and the original cause of all the trouble, was, as I have said many times, not granting him a proper qualifier. That's a very important distinction."

Ok, I don't want to go in circles, but the more I think about Dortmund the less I'm inclined to agree with you that it was somehow appallingly bad. Even that Sonas article doesn't particularly criticise it. Sure, we can all point out better options, but most of them aren't commercially viable. He gives that format as having a 50% chance of picking the strongest player for world champion (not just challenger), compared to thirty-something for FIDE's system. The theoretical maximum is 70%, but probably at best we'd have come up with a system with a 60% chance. So it could have been marginally better, but any qualifying tournament gives even the strongest player a good chance of losing. I really think that's all Kasparov was thinking about. Ironically he was probably the player most suited to the qualifier, so if his tournament results hadn't been so good as to make him believe an automatic match was possible we would probably have seen Kramnik, Kasparov, part II.

Anyway, I really am going away and don't want to discuss Dortmund again as long as I live! :)

"contemptuous" should be "contemptible"

Greg,

I am not just Kramnik-bashing, so I think I probably can.

As you are probably aware, there has never been a 100% satisfactory system in place to decide the World Champion (and obviously won't be for some time yet, either). Therefore, it is a matter of reasonable common sense case-by-case judgement; and having regard to the systems and authorities that were in place at particular times.

Up to 1946, the World Championship was pretty well universally regarded as the personal property of the Titleholder and so the results more or less have to be accepted, and are. It did lead to some rather unsatisfactory situations, but on the whole I would say the Champions defended their Title satisfactorily with the exception of Alekhine. In today's climate, his refusal to defend his Title against Capablanca would surely see him forfeited from, say, 1934 (the time of his second match against Bogoljubov).

Next comes the pre-Karpov era up to 1972 when all the World Champions defended their title at the proper time under preagreed conditions.

Now comes Fischer in 1975, obviously a special case. Most (including me) regarded his 9-9 draw demand as unreasonable. Fischer could not be deemed as agreeing to defend his Title in a reasonable way and so was forfeited. [Technically, he resigned first, but only in anticipation.]
Why did Fischer insist on such a ridiculous demand? I believe he just did not feel up to making the effort that a Karpov match would have required, so used this as a face-saving excuse to opt out.

After Fischer, up to 1990, there is no real dispute that the Champion defended his Title properly (the cancellation of the first K-K match being a somewhat different issue).

In 1993 came the Kasparov-Short break with FIDE. With FIDE having illegally stopped the first K-K match in 1985, and breaking their own rules about consulting the players in 1993, the legality of FIDE being the custodian of the Title any longer is questionable. Additionally, Kasparov defended his Title against the legitimately qualified challenger. So I think Kasparov can be fairly regarded as the legitimate WC from 1993.
And there can be few complaints about Kasparov's defence of the Title in 1995.

In 1998, Kasparov clearly intended to defend his Title against the winner of the best two players other than himself. This seems reasonable to me. Then came the Shirov fiasco. I think the bottom line here has to be that Shirov was offered a match in California and turned it down.

Then came Anand twice declining to play in 1999 and 2000. So really Kramnik was the only credible guy left. Whatever else one thinks of Kasparov, he certainly went to some trouble to play the strongest available opponent. So therefore I think Kasparov's Title 1993-2000 can overall be considered as valid.

And therefore Kramnik's win of it in 2000 as well[and I know some anti-Kramnik people will disagree with me on this; you might also note that I have never accused Kramnik of computer cheating at Elista. If I was a blind Kramnik-basher with no regard for the truth, I could easily have done so. So give me some credit.]

Now to Kramnik's defence of his Title. As a qualifier, he offers knock-outs little better than FIDE KO's. Can you honestly (really) regard this as satisfactory? Is this really an acceptable way to defend a Title? Yes or no? With the best will in the world, I really don't think so. If Kramnik really couldn't fund a proper qualifier, then he should have done the decent thing.
So why did Kramnik do this? My theory (which you will no doubt violently disagree with) is that, like Fischer, he simply did not feel up to the effort another Kasparov match would have required. It's tough at the top. You've made the effort of a lifetime. You want a life. Playing another Kasparov match isn't going to give you one.
So avoid Kasparov by offering a qualifier you know he won't play in, while pretending you're legitimately defending your Title. Great idea! Kaspy might complain of course, but possession is nine-tenths of the law isn't it?
Only trouble is, the Title is no longer regarded by the public as a personal possession. So forfeit in my book.

FIDE's KO's certainly cannot be regarded as legitimate Title events either. So there is an interregnum 2002-2005.
Then comes San Luis 2005, not perfect, but generally accepted as a reasonable way of deciding the Champion (as good as the WC event of 1948, seeing that Kramnik is no longer Champion in 2005).

So the list from 1985 goes:
1985-2000 Kasparov
2000-2002 Kramnik
2002-2005 interregnum
2005-2006 Topalov
2006-2007 Kramnik
2007- Anand

Chris B:

At the risk of introducing red herrings into the discussion, both your historical precedents of cases where the title ought to be forfeit are highly disputable.

In the case of Alekhine: (a chess historian may correct me, if my understanding of what went on is wrong.) When Capablanca accepted the challenge from Alekhine, he laid down a series of conditions that Alekhine had to accept. Most relevantly, there was a return match clause, and Alekhine had to have his backers deposit the prize money on gold. Alekhine was annoyed at having been made to jump through hoops, and when he won, he simply insisted that Capablanca could have the return match if he jumped through the same hoops (i.e. deposited the prize money in gold). Because of inflation, Capablanca was unable to comply. Alekhine may not have been a pleasant person, and the Bogolubov matches may have been against the ideal challenger, a case can be made out that Alekhine was in the right, but that Capablanca was better at PR.

Fischer: How unreasonable was the 9-9 clause? What Fischer was asking for was draw odds - whatever you think of "draw odds" this is something that has been granted to every WC (Kramnik-Topalov is only an apparent exception, since neither was undisputed WC). The only question is "Was 9-9 unreasonably high draw odds?" By my calculations, the answer is No: the chances of a 9-9 score (draws not counting) in an open ended match is in fact lower than the odds of a 12-12 score in a 24 game match. Here once again the opposition had the better PR, and the Soviet Union seized on this clause as a way to solve the "Fischer problem". My understanding is that Karpov, left to himself, would have accepted the clause and played.

"How unreasonable was the 9-9 clause?"

Pretty unreasonable.

Draw-odds in a draws-counting match sensibly requires the challenger to win by the smallest possible margin: 1/2 point.

Draw-odds in a draws-not-counting match senselessly requires the challenger to win by double the smallest possible margin: 2 points.

After his 1972 antics, the Soviets probably figured that RJF would present dozens of problematic demands and the 9-9 issue was as good a place as any to draw the line.

Greg:

I don't believe things are anything like as simple as your argument suggests. At the time, a large number of people argued the way you do, but I don't believe it is the right way.

The point is that there is a big difference between an opened ended match (draws not counting) and a closed 24 game match, and if you want to ask what draw odds amount to in the two cases, you have to ask what are the odds of a 9-9 score in the one case over against the odds of a 12-12 score in the other: it's quite tricky to figure out, but at the time I found that on reasonable assumptions the 9-9 score was less likely, so that Fischer was asking less than had traditionally been granted World Champions. (This of course ignores imponderable psychological factors, if the challenger feels he is put at a greater disadvantage).

The real issue is whether the draw-odds provision was itself ever reasonable, after all Bronstein, Smyslov and Leko (and Schlechter, if the Lasker match was a WC match): but that cannot be made a specific point directed against Fischer. I would favour a system in which in the event of a draw, the Champion retained the title, but the challenger had earned the right to a return match within a year.

I completely agree with your last paragraph. The real problem was RJF's unwillingness to negotiate meant that the Soviets had only to find one of his provisions unacceptable to scupper the whole match.

Well Greg, the smallest margin in a draws-counting match is one point, if you think about it.

Roger,

The "point" of draw odds was not to give the champion an advantage but to answer the question "what do we do if a draws-counting match ends up tied?"

In a draws-not-counting match, on the other hand, the first guy to get to six, nine, or ten wins should win the match and there is no reason whatever to have a "tie-breaker."

It might be easier to win by two in a 10-win draws-not-counting match than to win by one in a 24-game draws-counting match, but that's no reason to insert an entirely unnecessary "champion's advantage" into a format that works quite well without one.

Fischer's "win-by-two" demand was unsporting and pathetic.

Zombre,
Right.

Greg:

I find your last e-mail persuasive. What I was objecting to was the widespread assumption that Fischer was demanding an unreasonably *large* advantage, whereas I believe it was no greater than the advantage previous champions had had.

In fact, if I had been the Soviet negotiators what I would have objected to is the length of match that Fischer's proposal would have entailed. Given the rarity of losses on the part of both players, the match could easily have lasted over 100 games. Arguably this too would have been to Karpov's disadvantage as the physically less robust player.

But I still think the real problem was Fischer's intransigence. If Fischer's proposal had been an opening bid in a process of negotiation between FIDE, the Soviets and Fischer, I would have no problem with it. It was Fischer's take it or leave it attitude that led to the inevitable collapse of the match.

Chris B.,

"Up to 1946, the World Championship was pretty well universally regarded as the personal property of the Titleholder and so the results more or less have to be accepted, and are."
--Yep, Chris. And in 1993 the World Championship became the personal property of Kasparov; in 2000 the personal property of Kramnik. Alekhine-Capablanca is comparable to Kramnik-Kasparov.

"In today's climate, [Alekhine's] refusal to defend his Title against Capablanca would surely see him forfeited..."
--In the 1930s there were scores of Capa-fans shrieking for a rematch. In the 2000s there were scores of GKK fans shrieking for a rematch. Sounds like the same climate to me. The main climatic difference appears to be that a certain overwrought Kasparov fanboy was not around in the 1930's, but IS around in the 2000's.

"Fischer could not be deemed as agreeing to defend his Title in a reasonable way and so was forfeited."
--Well, that's half the story. The other half is that Karpov had just won a long match with Korchnoi. Once Fischer drops out of the process, the man with the best claim to being the world's best long-match champion is obviously Karpov.

"In 1993 came the Kasparov-Short break with FIDE. With FIDE having illegally stopped the first K-K match in 1985, and breaking their own rules about consulting the players in 1993, the legality of FIDE being the custodian of the Title any longer is questionable."
--An eight-year-old beef and a trivial complaint about consulting the players in 1993 justifies bolting FIDE??? That's fanboys like Levy talking. Kasparov himself has said that bolting FIDE in 1993 was one of the greatest mistakes of his life.

"And therefore Kramnik's win of it in 2000 [was valid] as well."
--Bravo! Now why don't you and d_tal go into a corner and straighten this one out.

"If I was a blind Kramnik-basher with no regard for the truth..."
--No. You are a blind Kasparov-fan whose hero-worshipping gets in the way of his search for truth.

Chris B.,

"Now to Kramnik's defence of his Title. As a qualifier, he offers knock-outs little better than FIDE KO's."
--FIDE knockouts: two games. Dortmund knockouts: four games. That’s 100% better. With equal fairness Dortmund could be compared to the 1990 cycle, in which Karpov, loser of the previous WCC match, won in a six-game knockout match to advance to the next round.

"Can you honestly (really) regard this as satisfactory? Is this really an acceptable way to defend a Title? Yes or no?"
--Yes, given the sponsorship constraints.

"If Kramnik really couldn't fund a proper qualifier, then he should have done the decent thing."
--He did the decent thing. A handful of players had more-or-less equal results, head-to-head, with Kramnik: Leko, Shirov, Anand, Kasparov, et.al. Kasparov had turned in one of the most pathetic title defenses in chess history; behind in a match, giving up two 13-move draws with white. It was better to give the candidates four-game head-to-head shots against each other than to hand-pick one of them and deny the rest.

"So why did Kramnik do this?"
–With no available sponsors, so you have to work with a tournament that's already in place.
--Dortmund demanded seeding for the local guy. A four-player or two-player format including the local guy would be absurd, so you must have eight players.
--A tournament format a) would give an advantage to tounament-type players (Larsen, More) as opposed to match-type players (Petrosian, Kramnik) in what is, after all, the qualifier for a MATCH event, and b) would allow Curacao-type problems. So you must have matches. But having only so much time and money, you can only have four-round matches.
–All of which adds up to the Dortmund format.

“My theory... is that, like Fischer, he simply did not feel up to the effort another Kasparov match would have required. It's tough at the top. You've made the effort of a lifetime. You want a life. Playing another Kasparov match isn't going to give you one.”
–That’s the one-sided fanboy perspective. Apply exactly the same analysis to Kasparov there is: You’ve held the title for fifteen years. Your pushing forty. You want a life. Playing another Kramnik match isn’t going to give you one. You can always call yourself the “World’s Number One” and your fans will forever argue that one off-match means nothing. Losing another Kramnik match, however, would forever confirm his one-to-one superiority over you. You owe it to yourself to play a Kramnik match, but you’ll only do so under absolutely ideal conditions: i.e. a rematch.

Chris B.,

“So avoid Kasparov by offering a qualifier you know he won't play in...”
–The Kasparo-centric universe. From the other perspective you have: “Renounce your Candidates participation agreement for the trivial reason that two years have elapsed, never hint that you might agree to a six or eight-game candidates match because those terms might be agreed to, slam the door on any eventual Dortmund format changes with your rematch demand, do anything to avoid Kramnik.”

“...but possession is nine-tenths of the law isn't it?”
–Right. We’re agreed that in October 2000, Kramnik had the strongest claim to being the world’s long-match player and Steinitz champion. Leko didn’t establish a superior claim in 2004. Topalov didn’t establish a superior claim in 2006. And neither Kasparov nor anyone else at the top played another long match. So Kramnik’s 2000 claim remains good through those years.

“Only trouble is, the Title is no longer regarded by the public as a personal possession.”
–Much of the non-ChrisB.public regarded the title as a personal possession from 1993 to the 2006 reunification match.

“Then comes San Luis 2005, not perfect, but generally accepted as a reasonable way of deciding the Champion.”
–A tournament has nothing to do with the question of who has the strongest claim to being the world’s best match player.

“as good as the WC event of 1948.”
–San Luis was two-game mini-matches among the top players; best overall score wins.
–1948 was FIVE-game mini-matches among the top players, best overall score wins.
After the 1948 tournament no one had a better claim that Botvinnik to being the world’s best match player. He won each of his five-game “mini-matches.”

So the list from 1985 goes:
1985-2000 Kasparov
2000-2007 Kramnik
2007-2008 Not worth arguing about.

mishanp,

Some of the things you said cannot go unchallenged, so for when you get back...

Yes, FIDE behaved criminally stupidly and badly. This was probably to be expected and Kramnik knew this too, which is why he knew he'd have an 'out' when he signed Prague. (I don't believe he ever intended to carry out the main provision of Prague - to play the winner of the FIDE side [if it turned out to be Kasparov] - when he signed it.)
That is why I said further up this thread that if Kramnik was serious and genuine about this FIDE stuff, he should have issued an ultimatum after about 6 months. He didn't, so it could not really have meant that much to him. Instead he let it go another two years to be brought up as an excuse at a handy time.
Kramnik's hypocrisy in this is further evidenced in that he rejected Seirawan's 'A Fresh Start', which contained perfectly good such proposals.

I cannot find anywhere that Kasparov agreed in his Braingames contract to play in an 8-player qualifying tournament. This was just a suggestion by Keene at a lunch after the match (and seeing the informal setting, probably not a formal proposition).
The Braingames contract [which expired in January 2001 at the latest] simply committed Kasparov to accepting a candidates' qualifier, something which Kasparov did not formally repudiate, even after the contract expired, until after 15 July 2001, when Kramnik virtually forced him to by insisting on an idiotic one.
So as far as contracts are concerned, there is no comparison between the Kramnik and Kasparov cases.

"Oddly enough the match Kasparov almost certainly could have made happen happen was the Ponomariov one". Man, where are you guys coming from with this one?? The Pono problem was wholly an argument between Pono and FIDE. Nothing to do with Kasparov. So what could Kasparov have done? Suggestions, please!

Sonas article/Dortmund:
"Even that Sonas article doesn't particularly criticise it". It is not Sonas' intention to criticise it, but to present an analysis and let the reader decide. Even so, he says: "The format has come under severe criticism because the round-robin preliminaries and the subsequent two rounds of four-game matches are perilously short." Note in particular the last two words. Also: "For instance, the pair of 4-game knockout matches is hazardous. Even in a four-game match, it is very difficult to recover from a loss." So much for no criticism.

Love the way you try to slant the thing to make the FIDE system look more bad than Dortmund than it actually is. Your "thirty-something" for FIDE is 38%. No doubt if it was 32%, you wouldn't have this down as "thirty-something". A Kramnik type way of twisting things - he has a good disciple!
"The theoretical maximum is 70%, but probably at best we'd have come up with a system with a 60% chance". Yeah, yeah. 'A Fresh Start', which Kramnik poleaxed, comes in at 67%.
"So it could have been marginally better". Within a context of 38% to a theoretical maximum of 70%, the difference between 50% and 67% is HUGE.

"Sure, we can all point out better options, but most of them aren't commercially viable". In regard to formats that could have been fitted into the Dortmund time-frame (of which Sonas gives several examples of better ones), Sonas says "There were 208 different formats, and the Einstein Group approach ranked 148th, placing it in the bottom third".

To be honest, I am rather disappointed that you could so misrepresent what Sonas says.

roger,

Your Alekhine history does not seem quite right to me.
The condition of the money that had to be raised was agreed at the London 1922 Tournament [hence being known as the 'London Rules'] among several of the top players there, including Capablanca and... Alekhine! So Alekhine could hardly complain about that.
Obviously, such a severe depression could not have been forseen, so allowance should have been made by Alekhine for that.
But the real cruncher is that Alekhine did not insist on this condition to Bogojubov and Euwe for their matches with him - he allowed them to have a match for a much lower raised sum. So he was discriminating solely against Capablanca. So maybe, technically, Alekhine could legally claim a case; certainly not in any other way.
Additionally, Alehine refused to play in any tournament Capablanca was in (until after Alekhine had lost the Title), which is further evidence that Alekhine was avoiding Capablanca.

You and Greg seem to have come to a pretty reasonable conclusion about the 9-9 clause. I think it was the fact that if the Champion got to 8 wins, the Challenger had to win by 10-8 (2 whole points) was what stuck in everybody's throats.

My understanding is that the Soviets did not 'draw the line on the 9-9 issue'. They drew it far earlier, but did not have the numbers to get this line-drawing through FIDE. The USCF managed to arm-twist enough of their allies (against their better judgement) to get the absurd 'first to 10 wins' condition through, but even these allies balked at the 9-9 condition and Fischer's ridiculous demands fell at the last hurdle.
I was astonished that this 'first to 10 wins' condition went through. Jokes went around (without the benefit of hindsight of the first K-K match) that the match would go to 60 games, and then both players would end up in hospital!

I am not sure that 'if left to himself' Karpov would have accepted this condition. I think you are thinking of later Karpov-Fischer negotiations (in 1976-7), almost certainly without any 9-9 clause, where Karpov would have played Fischer. But the Soviet Establishment said nyet.

All-in-all, though Fischer's 9-9 demand may not in itself have been completely unreasonable, I think his overall package of demands was, and he should already have been forfeited at an earlier stage. Really, in saying '9-9' in my earlier post, I was abbreviating a bit to save time. So to me, overall, his forfeit was deserved.

Certainly, at any rate, the heavy weight of opinion has come down against Alekhine in 1934, Fischer in 1975, and at the time [as shown by me earlier in this thread (somewhere!)], the format of Dortmund. In this respect, I think the three cases are comparable.

Greg,

I have not heard of the WC Title becoming the personal property of Kasparov and Kramnik after 1993 (has anyone?). More like being held in public trust. Before 1947, the WC could do what he liked, and the public be damned. Not so after 1993. The WC knew he had to defend his Title within a reasonable time-frame and in a reasonable manner, otherwise public recognition would be withdrawn. So the climate is different.

Yes, bolting FIDE turned out to be not a good idea in practical terms (one problem being that Kasparov thought Short could bring the British establishment with him, but in fact he couldn't). Oh, yes, so easy to be wise in hindsight, Greg. Fact is, Campomanes was a diaster for chess, and any attempt to curtail his power has to be commendable in general terms, other things being equal.

No two people are going to agree 100% on everything. The fact that I may slightly disagree with d_tal's take on Kramnik's legitimacy in 2000 is no big deal. This simply shows that we think independently, post independently, and are not sycophants of each other. Unlike you, Russianbear and rdh. All we get from you is:
"Russianbear!"
and:
"rdh!"
and:
"acirce!"
In fact, I think d_tal actually has a pretty reasonable point when he queries Kramnik's 2000 legitimacy because he never qualified; and that this is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is just that for me, I allow the fact that in strength terms, Kramnik was the only credible guy around willing to play (plus other factors) to give him the nod. But not completely. Maybe Kramnik only has a 60% legitimacy in 2000. In fact, if you are going to make capital out of such a minor point, maybe I should rethink this...

Actually, here is a test of your integrity in this respect:
Further up this thread, Russianbear claimed, in effect, that Kasparov had TWO, SEPARATE chances to play Kramnik from Prague, first from playing Ponomariov, and then ADDITIONALLY from playing Kasimdzhanov. So do you agree or disagree with him on this? Does 1 + 0 = 2? Yes or no?

"No. You are a blind Kasparov-fan". You don't pay much attention sometimes, do you? I have twice said in earlier threads that at the time [which was before 15 July 2001], I was mildly pleased that Kramnik had won the Title in 2000. Would I say that if I was a blind Kasparov-fan?
Actually, I have the greatest respect for Kasparov's play (his saving, at the age of 21, of the first match against Karpov after being 4 down after 9 games must rank as one of the greatest feats in chess history). I have not always been comfortable with all of his other actions, but on the whole, I think he has done much more good than harm, and he certainly did not deserve Kramnik's backstab in 2001.
Actually, I would be interested to know why you hate Kasparov so much. What is it that he did that was so terrible?

"You want a life. Playing another Kramnik match isn't going to give you one...Losing another Kramnik match, however, would forever confirm his one-to-one superiority over you...do anything to avoid Kramnik". You think Kasparov was avoiding Kramnik?? JOKE!! You guys sure think weird. Bit like Clubfoot claiming Kasparov and Capablanca didn't want rematches!! Jeez, is there any point arguing with you guys?

"And neither Kasparov nor anyone else [other than Leko and Topalov] at the top played another long match [after 2000]. So Kramnik's 2000 claim remains good through those years". Pretty difficult for Kasparov to do so if Kramnik wouldn't let him!!

"-San Luis was two-game mimi-matches among the top players; best overall score wins.
-1948 was FIVE-game mini-matches among the top players, best overall score wins.
After the 1948 tournament no one had a better claim that Botvinnik to being the world's best match player. He won each of his five-game "mini-matches".
What a load of tripe. There were no formal "mini-matches". All you're talking about is the personal head-to-head scores. ONLY tournament points counted. This gives no indication as Botvinnik's prowess as a match player (as opposed to being a tournament player). Besides, this tournament may well have been rigged.
If we're going to go this way, well then Topalov won 6 of his 7 "mini-matches" at St Luis (drawing the other), and did this with only TWO games, not FIVE. Meanwhile, what had Kramnik done since 2000? Drawn a match with Leko. So "therefore" after San Luis, no one had a better claim than Topalov to being the world's best match player.

You've split your diatribe against me into three posts. So to avoid this post being too long, I'll pause here and continue next post.

ChrisB,

I'm still here, alas! :)
---
Yes, FIDE behaved criminally stupidly and badly. This was probably to be expected and Kramnik knew this too, which is why he knew he'd have an 'out' when he signed Prague. (I don't believe he ever intended to carry out the main provision of Prague - to play the winner of the FIDE side [if it turned out to be Kasparov] - when he signed it.)
---
While I can't suppress a certain perverted admiration for the way you contrive to move from criticism of FIDE to a character assassination of Kramnik, there aren't any particular grounds for your belief, so there's nothing to respond to. Maybe Kramnik has me fooled and has no ethics at all, but frankly he'd be the last person I'd have doubted at that table in Prague.

---
Kramnik's hypocrisy in this is further evidenced in that he rejected Seirawan's 'A Fresh Start', which contained perfectly good such proposals."
---
Sorry, but if you're going to make claims like that you need to back them up. How was Kramnik hypocritical? When did he previously come out and say the chess world needed the World Champion to become a quarter finalist rather than for there to be a cycle that would choose a challenger for him (giving all the elite players a chance)? Besides which, he was contractually unable to accept the Fresh Start proposal, which Seirawan accepted before moving on to the Prague Agreement.

---
I cannot find anywhere that Kasparov agreed in his Braingames contract to play in an 8-player qualifying tournament.
---
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's false or that you can make up the details, downplay the contract and try and excuse Kasparov's conduct on that basis. Here's the source: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=473

Kramnik: ...Also I must tell you that we both signed contracts before playing in London in 2000, that if we lose we play in a qualification, an eight-player tournament, as a seeded player with seven others, and the winner plays the world champion. We signed it, you know.

---
So as far as contracts are concerned, there is no comparison between the Kramnik and Kasparov cases.
---
Well quite, but how you can possibly deny Kramnik comes off better here I don't know.

---
So what could Kasparov have done? Suggestions, please!
---
Seirawan's suggestion was that Kasparov should never have got involved in playing Deep Junior (to trump Kramnik), with FIDE and Kasparov diverting all of their attention away from Prague and Ponomariov (sowing bitterness in the process). But ok, I'd accept it was 80% FIDE's utter incompetence.

RE: Sonas
1) I never claimed Sonas didn't criticise Dortmund, I said he didn't particularly ("to an unusual degree") criticise it. Of course everyone knows a match length of 4 games isn't ideal, but it's better than e.g. FIDE's 2-game match length (which Kasparov was happy to let pick his challenger). Sonas pointed that out.

2) I said thirty-something because I didn't want to recheck Sonas' article, but I knew the figure was in the thirties! It's not typical of Kramnik but simply typical of your argumentation that you always assume others have the worst possible motivation.

3)
---
The theoretical maximum is 70%, but probably at best we'd have come up with a system with a 60% chance". Yeah, yeah.
---
I reread Sonas and given the contraints of Dortmund (time limit & 8 players) 60% is the maximum he came up with. The bottom third comment you quote is in the absence of the 8 player requirement. It's not simply a technical issue. As well as the "effectiveness" of a format you have to think of its inclusiveness, as Sonas points out.

4)
---
'A Fresh Start', which Kramnik poleaxed, comes in at 67%.
---
Sadly it has nothing to do with Dortmund or the qualifying tournament envisaged in the match contract. Remember it involved a huge Swiss tournament, 10-game quarterfinals, 14-game semifinals and a 20-game final.

"So it could have been marginally better". Within a context of 38% to a theoretical maximum of 70%, the difference between 50% and 67% is HUGE.

38% is the FIDE format but certainly isn't the theoretical minimum, if you're going to quibble over statistics. I'd accept 50% instead of 60% is a fair difference but again, Dortmund was flawed, not "idiotic".

Greg, (continuing)
Re second of your 3 posts (Dortmund)

"A tournament format a) would give an advantage to tournament-type players (Larsen, More) as opposed to match-type players (Petrosian, Kramnik) in what is, after all, the qualifier for a MATCH event, and b) would allow Curacao-type problems. So you must have matches...you can only have four-round matches. -All of which adds up to the Dortmund format".
Um...,err...,the initial stage of Dortmund was a 6-round TOURNAMENT. So I guess that blows that theory out of the water.

"With no available sponsors, so you have to work with a tournament that's already in place. --Dortmund demanded seeding for the local guy. A four-player or two-player format including the local guy would be absurd, so you must have eight players".
This is exactly the same lie you were caught out in about a year ago, Greg [or else you have very bad memory and research skills]. Must be nice to know that people forget, and then you think you can repeat the same stuff.
Dortmund never initially demanded a local guy. So this had NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the number of players decided upon. Only much later (when 8 players had already been well decided on) was Ivanchuk denied permission to play by FIDE and replaced by local guy Lutz.

Now, sorting out a small thing from the Sonas article to enable better comparison:
Sonas says (in relation to Dortmund and the follow-up WC match): "If it were necesary to include eight candidates, plus the champion (as is the case in Dortmund), the 30 days would be better spent in three rounds of 4-game knockout matches, followed by an 18-game match against the defending champion". In other words, Sonas is saying that Dortmund would be a better event if in the initial stage, the 6-round tournament is replaced by another 4-game knockout match. So I will use this slightly improved version of Dortmund [which is what you seem to think it is anyway] for comparison.

"FIDE knockouts: two games. Dortmund knockouts: 4 games. That's 100% better".
As I said earlier, Dortmund is only better than FIDE because there are less rounds to be knocked out in. So if we reduce FIDE to [the final] 3 rounds, what do we get? A quarter-final of 2 games, a Semi of 4 games, and a Final of 6 games Increased by FIDE to 8 in 2001-2). That's about equivalent to the 4-4-4 of Dortmund. So Dortmund is not a 100% better; in fact, it probably isn't ANY better. In fact it's worse, because the initial part of Dortmund is worse than a 4-game knockout.
But the real point is that Dortmund followed FIDE in the PRINCIPLE of short knockout matches - an unacceptable one.

"With equal fairness Dortmund could be compared to the 1990 cycle, in which Karpov, loser of the previous WCC match, won in a six-game knockout match to advance to the next round".
In the first place, two wrongs do not make a right.
Secondly, this is pretty much clutching at straws. You are referring to the Karpov-Hjartarson match Seattle Jan-Feb 1989. The rest of this Candidates series went Semi - 8 games; and Final - 12 games. A hell of a lot better than 4-4-4. So hardly "with equal fairness" at all.

Let us compare Dortmund with a real qualifier, say a Candidates series of 10 game quarterfinal, 12 game Semi, and 14 game Final (or 10-10-12 as it was in the 1960's). What is the comparison with 4-4-4? It's obvious that at each stage there is a much greater chance of the better player being knocked out in 4-4-4. And this is repeated three times. Overall, the chance of the better player being knocked out is increased to a ridiculous degree. There is no way that Kasparov can be expected to put another 3 years of his life on the line with this degree of risk.
As Mig said at the time: "From BGN we've gone to BTN (Better Than Nothing), but nothing would actually be better than dragging the traditional title down to the FIDE KO level".

No, the bottom line is that Kramnik refused to offer something reasonable, and therefore refused to defend his Title in a reasonable way. Forfeit in 2002.

"[Who is World Champion] 2007-2008 Not worth arguing about".
Well, it is actually. You can't just sit on the fence and decide retrospectively after the Anand-Kramnik match. Who do you recognise NOW? Your Kramnik says it's Anand. Who do YOU say it is? Anand or Kramnik? Put your money where your mouth is.

Chris McB -- you did not refute a single one of GK's arguments.

"I have twice said in earlier threads that at the time [which was before 15 July 2001], I was mildly pleased that Kramnik had won the Title in 2000. Would I say that if I was a blind Kasparov-fan?"

Yes. And you give it away beautifully.

"...on the whole, I think he has done much more good than harm, and he certainly did not deserve Kramnik's backstab in 2001.
Actually, I would be interested to know why you hate Kasparov so much. What is it that he did that was so terrible?"

He doesn't hate Kasparov: he just doesn't share your unconditional man-boy love for him. Kasparov has achieved and maintained very little in his career without bullying, lying or cheating. When he was finally crashed -- first illegitimately by IBM, then in a legit decimation at the hands of Kramnik, like all bullies he cowered and cried out to be treated with the same respect he had never accorded anyone else.

He stuck a knife in the side of world chess in 1992 because he didn't wish to play by anyone's rules but his own -- and suddenly he's crowing that Dortmund is "not a proper qualifier"...?! Are you beginning to get the message? Kasparov lost his title over the board, but for the rematch he cut his own throat in keeping with his own rules of spite-to-infinity. All Kramnik really had to do was wait by the side of the brook long enough for the bully's corpse to float on by.

So you can twist Sonas and Mig all you like. You can pretend that Kramnik had all the cash in the world to put on a supershow to shame a century of world chess playdowns, but rigged the proceedings (like in 1948, right? LOL!!) to dodge poor little hapless Garry. That's fine if you feel that way -- just don't insult people by claiming that Kramnik forfeited the title simply because Kasparov sucked out of the qualifier. Even if your invincibly stupid sour-grapes world came true, Kasparov would have played Dortmund -- because after all, with Kramnik in forfeit, the Dortmund winner would now be the new world champion! And you can bet Garry would have accepted those odds, which meant never having to face his conqueror again.

A few more irresistible bits:

"one problem being that Kasparov thought Short could bring the British establishment with him, but in fact he couldn't."

You heard it here, people: it's Nigel Short's fault that Kasparov sent the chess world into a tailspin! Not even K-hireling Mig would twist that far, so here you get the kudos for showing the backward mental agility of a cult member.

"Oh, yes, so easy to be wise in hindsight, Greg."

In fact, a lot of people predicted disaster at the time. But you either weren't listening or you weren't born yet. Probably a bit of both.

"Fact is, Kasparov was a diaster for chess, and any attempt to curtail his power has to be commendable in general terms, other things being equal."

Yeah, that was me -- I changed the name from "Campomanes". It just seemed so obvious.

"As I said earlier, Dortmund is only better than FIDE because there are less rounds to be knocked out in. So if we reduce FIDE to [the final] 3 rounds, what do we get? A quarter-final of 2 games, a Semi of 4 games, and a Final of 6 games Increased by FIDE to 8 in 2001-2). That's about equivalent to the 4-4-4 of Dortmund."

You're missing the fact that the final of the Dortmund cycle was 14 games (Kramnik-Leko). So the comparison of the last 3 rounds would be 2-4-6 for FIDE to 4-4-14 for Dortmund.

mishanp,

Oh dear, alas indeed, just when I thought I was going to get my life back! :)

I gave my reasons further up this thread as to why I thought Kramnik should have agreed to 'A Fresh Start' (particularly that seeing he hadn't qualified for his Kasparov match, he should have been prepared to make some concessions in the interest of unity).
All the elite players would have had a chance in 'A Fresh Start'.
I think Einstein was prepared to quash Kramnik's contract if they got the Final [ie World Championship] match in 'A Fresh Start' in return. But Kramnik refused to pursue that option.

I am quite surprised by that Kramnik quote and do genuinely wonder if he is mixing this up with Keene's after match lunch suggestion. It does not make sense. If this was a signed contract, why didn't Braingames hold Kasparov to it while they still could? More particularly, why is Keene making this suggestion at a lunch AFTER the match as if nothing had yet been agreed? I think I would need to see corrobative evidence before I can really believe this.

Kasparov has his own take on this Deep Junior match at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1642 (near the end). It would seem that FIDE were very much at fault here. Don't really see how this affects Pono anyway.
Well I'm not sure what attention Kasparov could have devoted to Ponomariov (that's FIDE's job). And surely it's Pono's fault if he starts playing funny buggers by insisting on the mickey mouse time controls used in the FIDE knockouts, etc.

RE: Sonas
Your 1): 4-game Dortmund matches vs 2-game FIDE matches. See my post above to Greg Koster.

Your 2): I accept your explanation over thirty-something. So I apologise.
Your 3) and 4): I'm not really talking about Dortmund and its constraints. I'm talking about a decent system as a whole. If the constraints of Dortmund cause such trouble, then the whole thing should have been seriously rethought.
I think Kramnik should have had the decency to agree to 'A Fresh Start', to which everyone else had agreed, and which would have been almost maximally effective; and far better than the Dortmund disaster.

Clubfoot,

Your post is so absolutely stupid and beyond reason that it is not worth replying to. So I'll leave it for others to comment on.

One thing's for sure - you've proved you hate Kasparov every bit as much as Greg Koster does.

Kramnik signed the contract, so it's hard to imagine he didn't recall the details. Perhaps the contract simply stipulated an 8-player tournament and then they still had to work out the details. i.e. do you have a round robin, or a knockout, or the strange mixture of the two they ended up with.

I don't see any mystery about missing the deadline - they simply didn't manage to organise and fund the tournament in time. More the rule than the exception with these things, sadly.

I think Seirawan's argument with the Deep Junior match was that it meant FIDE were treating Kasparov like their champion instead of Ponomariov, which the latter wasn't too pleased about. And that instead of devoting their time and resources to a human-computer match they could have gone ahead with the pre-unification match.

I still don't see any earthly reason why anyone should have expected Kramnik to give up his title (the only one that mattered) and become a mere quarter finalist. Kasparov would never have dreamt of doing anything of the sort.

Hey Chrissie -- my post contained more of your words than mine, so your label of "absolutely stupid" is all right with me. Anyhow it was established long ago that the truth upsets you a great deal. You're more at home with fantasy, so have at it.

mishanp,

re Kramnik-Leko being final of Dortmund cycle: Good point. I was thinking in terms of the suitability of an event in itself (ie just the Dortmund qualifier) to determine the best player of those playing in the event. Obviously Greg was too.

Pono thing. Ok. Still, Pono only got there via a mickey-mouse system and everybody knew that Kasparov was still much stonger. Pono was a huge, more or less accidental winner from Prague and should have been grateful for that; it was pretty uncalled for of him to start adopting airs and graces. Really no more than a marginal reason to blame Kasparov.
What a huge pity that Anand was not still FIDE Champion at the time of Prague!

Kudos for spotting that Kramnik's statement doesn't necessarily imply a double RR - I missed this in my haste. I agree with what you then say.
It does, though, still seem very strange that Kasparov would then reject the best version of an 8-player event.

However, greatly adding to the mystery is the following post from Eric Schiller on 17 December 2005 on chessgames.com, Topalov page (page 135) [ http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=12089&kpage=135 ]
In this, Schiller is saying a 6-player double RR, etc was agreed - contradicting Kramnik's statement.
So it all seems very mysterious. Is the actual text of the contract available anywhere? Perhaps we shall never know the full answers unless people like Kasparov, Mig, Keene and Schiller divulge them to us.

Also noticed elsewhere on chessgames.com that Schiller says: "Kasparov did not *demand* a rematch. He claimed that the public wanted one". :)

"My post contained more of your words than mine".
Actually, Clubbie, if you had any counting skills at all, you would realise that about 75% of the words in your "absolutely stupid" post are yours.
Still, we are starting to get used to Clubfoot 'truths' by now.

"Chris B--you did not refute a single one of GK's arguments".
Ah, so the initial stage of Dortmund was a 4-game knockout match, then? Funny, because I was sure that Topalov and Shirov qualified from one of the 6-round tournaments, and Leko and Bareev from the other...well, I guess that must have been part of my fantasising.
You heard it here, people: another Clubfoot 'truth'. I can hardly hold back the tears, Clubbie, I'm a great deal upset.

And, oh yes, of course, Lutz was invited to Dortmund right from the very start. How did Ivanchuk get an invite then? Where would he fit in? Oh, silly me, of course, 8 + 1 = 8. Better be in quick to get the patent for the 'New Mathematics' before Russianbear beats you to it!

'Kasparov didn't want a rematch with Kramnik; and Capablanca didn't want a rematch with Alekhine'. Yep, I'm sure more at home with the fantasies that Kasparov did want a rematch with Kramnik; and that Capablanca did want a rematch with Alekhine. Guess I'm just not in the real world at all. Sob. Sob. Sob.

Chris,

nothing really to add - but I agree it's all a bit mysterious with the Kramnik-Kasparov contract.

Probably the less said the better about Kasparov not "demanding" a rematch :)

No mishanp, let the kid keep calling us all liars until he pops a blood vessel online! Without a block-user option, we sure could use the entertainment.