Anand Era Ends In Mainz

I don't think anybody objective would have considered Anand the best rapid player in the last couple of years since the rise of Aronian and Carlsen.

I am more concerned with his inability to win anything classical in the last couple of years except the match against Kramnik.

¨Let's hope it actually happens.¨
Wow ,Mig , do you know something you are not sharing with us? :)

Aronian is Anand's waterloo. Just like Kamsky
whenever Aronian plays Anand sinks. He has
undergone a psychological trauma against Aronian.

Same with Nakamura and Aronian. You will find
from now on Aronian losing to Nakamura

These things have nothing to do with Chess.

It just shows - some people are intimidated
by some people.

This was a never ending era! Finally organizers have to pitch in and change the format. :(

Mamedyarov wins Ordix Open. I guess it's harder for his opponents to cheat in rapid.

Someone throw in the towel!! Aronian is beating Nepo to a pulp!!

susanpolgar.com --> "This site has been suspended."

@Chess Auditor
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com works anyway.

In an interview some months ago, Anand said that losing the tournaments before the match with Kramnik would be OK if he could win the World Championship.
He just had a strategy not to betray any secrets in the openings etc.
The World Championship is the ultimate target for all chess players.

Remove the World Championship events from the picture, and it's true that Anand's overall classical results the last 2-3 years have not been all that convincing by his standards. Won Linares 2007 and 2008, but didn't show much else.

BUT as Mig says, he played some of his best chess ever in the Bonn match, and people said pretty much the same thing about Mexico.

It's not like he was simply lucky. It indicates an impressive ability to be at his very best in the events that matters not just the most, but by far the most. The ones that really count when all is said and done.

Nothing I know of indicates that he will not be in great form against Topalov.

Congratulations to Aronian, who guaranteed victory by a draw in the third game against Nepomniachtchi. He really dominated this event from beginning to end.

Could have been a brilliant win in the fourth game, had he found 24..Na5!! -+

Amazing Black can afford quiet moves being down two full rooks. But White is helpless, for instance 25.Kb1 Qb3! 26.Qe1 Nc4! 27.Qe2 Nxa3+ 28.Ka1 Nc2+ 29.Kb1 Nb4! with mate to follow. Wow.

Not completely off-topic because Aronian is one of the participants: Chessdom mentions that the 5th FIDE Grand Prix will take place in Jermuk, Armenia from 8th-24th August 2009.
Oops, that's next week already - I hope the players were informed a bit earlier than the general public!?

http://previews.chessdom.com/jermuk-grand-prix

"We're talking about the second greatest player in the world of the last 15 or more years."-acirce

Kramnik? Seriously, Anand has no claim to being second best in the world for that time period. Maybe, after he defends his title twice. For now, Kramnik must hold that spot.

¨I remember "Internet rumors" that Anand will never again play in a glass cube.¨

Can you quote those rumors ?
So we (and by we i not only mean the entire Dirt community but also the little green inhabitants of Mars)can see if this is not just another of your delusional calls for attention or something more serious.

LevON ChampiON, hip hip hooray! After winning two Ambers in a row, Aronian is the brand-new World Rapid Champion. Pity he didn't want to defend his Chess960 title :))

My reasoning is that Kramnik has played in four World Championship matches with a record of 2-1-1. In the same time span Anand has played in two with a record of 1-1. I would think that regardless of other accomplishments(tourneys, ratings), This would give Kramnik the nod.

By the way, Aronian is making chess history - winner of the first FIDE World Cup (2005), leading (no doubts he'll finish clear first, far behind others) in the very first Grand Prix series (Sochi, Nalchik).

Since 2006 he has won Linares, Tal Memorial, twice Weik-an-Zee, twice Amber, twice Chess Olympiad, twice Chess960, European championships. I do bet he's the next classical Champion.

Found it (more quickly than I thought):
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/2nd-grand-slam-masters-final-in-bilbao-announced-this-year-with-just-four-players/#more-11766

Comment by "chessfan" (May 27th 6:48pm): "In interview that give it not long time ago Anand stated that he don’t play in glass cube again."

I remember Anand complaining about the heat (i believe they had problems with the air conditioning at the begining) , but him saying that he wont be playing again sounds more like a lie to me (meaning the poster made it up , not Vishy).
Luckily we have you to spread this kind of rumors all over the net.

Considering what he has been responding to, Thomas has shown exceptional restraint. Applause.

Whatever Anand really thought or said concerning the glass cube, it is odd (though not surprising) that Manu makes an issue out of it. It seems that Vishy wasn't comfortable playing under such circumstances, for whatever reason: heat, noise (apparently it wasn't quite as soundproof as the organizers claimed or promised), overall "big brother atmosphere". So what? I would say otherwise Anand is as cooperative and obliging to media and fans as any other top player.

Within the overall discussion, I just mentioned it as yet another explanation for Anand's poor result in Bilbao - exceptionally poor, even if WCh events are excluded from the picture.

But for Manu, the slightest suggestion that the glass cube isn't a perfect setting is outrageous and a personal insult against Danailov!?

Where is all the deserved praise for Mamedyarov winning the Ordix Open, defeating Mig's hero and undefeated co-leader Nakamura in the penultimate round? Had Naka beat Mamed in that game, he'd have won the tourney. Instead he lost, then lost again.

That should have read "and Euwe much better than Capablanca after 1921". :)

I did not intend to imply I am a fan of Mamedyarov, and I am well aware of his BS complaints vs Kurnosov. I am just tired of all the cheerleading for Naka, which does not give equal weight when he fails. He was way ahead on the clock when Mamedyarov dismantled him, tactically, so all Naka's strong points were present, and he did not come through. Yes, it happens to the best of them, I agree. I am just trying to tweak his supporters, who cheer his positive points and ignore the negative.

gg - "...if you include also candidates matches, ratings, Chess Oscars or anything else he is well ahead of Kramnik."

I don't. See my previous post. I don't think my reasoning makes Kramnik better than Kasparov. Since 1990 Kasparov has played in 3 World Championship matches with a record of 2-1. Surely, every other performance category must fall well below championship matches? Chess Oscars? That's like saying actor A is better than actor B because he won an award. 15 years was the time frame stated by acirce, probably to avoid having to consider Karpov.
If your an Anand fan, fine. I like him too. But his accomplishments do not measure up to Kramnik's.

What is this BS about "world championship" this "world championship" that in Mainz? Three random dudes plus one legitimate qualifier play a mini tournament and we get a world champ? Anand is the nicest guy in the world, I agree, but what if he doesn't win Mainz next year? Another wild card? Just do away with the matches and give him the title. maybe have him play an exhibition match against Karpov, or something...
Okay, I feel better now, back to work.

Anand's decline is rapids started from last year's Amber. Till that time, he was the best rapid player in the world for over a decade by a big margin. The slide has started and continues in Mainz this year. Besides, he does have a complex against Aronian (and Kamsky before) in all forms of chess as shown by their recent match-ups.

Kapalik

Regarding the WC of rapids, I think Amber has a better claim to that. If only they'd replace the stupid, blunder-prone blindfolds with rapid, it would be the indisputable rapid WC given that almost all the top players are there and there is nothing remotely close.

Kapalik

All the naysayers with regards to Anand's recent rapid performances would do well to remember Mark Twain... "Rumors of my death have been greatly exagerated." You can't claim someone's in decline until the decline is proven evident and not enough time has passed to be certain of that.

gg-
Well, First of all Kasparov played three title matches after 1990. His record is 2-1.
Second, Kramnik is not my favorite player and if he was how does that affect my reasoning?
Third, In this context it is absurd to invent future results in order to evaluate the past.
Fourth, what evaluation method is better than world championship matches? Rapid games? Blitz games? Roshambo?
I think the best evaluation must come after a player has stopped playing. Any other criteria is obviously incomplete, but I didn't suggest the "last 15 years" time frame, I just responded to it.

I would never use title matches and only title matches as the defining criteria though, and that doesn't mean that I see blitz games as more important than title matches.

Kasparov won Linares nine times, but between 1996 - picked a good year now - :) and 2005 he was still a weaker player than Leko because of title match results.

Euwe after 1921 had 1-1 in title matches, Capablanca 0-1, still Capablanca was the better player of the two until he died. So I think it isn't just a question of title matches when players are to be evaluated.

I agree that title matches shouldn't be the only criteria used to evaluate players. I do think it should be the first one used but it assumes equal opportunity. Before Botvinnik became champion there was no equal opportunity. Capa never getting a rematch is an example of lack of opportunities.
We could create all kinds of crazy distortions by playing with certain time frames. This just shows that players should be judged by their entire careers.
For now, If we are just comparing Kramnik to Anand then clearly Kramnik's achievements are superior to Anand's. This might not always be the case but it is for now.
"forgot about Short :)"
You should read "End Game" by Lawson. You will never forget Short again.

"Endgame"? wasn't it "The Inner Game", or have they retitled it?

after a bit of googling it appears to be the same book.

I put absolutely no significance into Anand's rapid chess achievements. Nor any other forms of chess other than classical.
Anand beating Kramnik in a match does not make his career achievements better than Kramnik's. Just like Kramnik beating Kasparov in a match doesn't.

1. So you will not count rapids, 2. you will not count Bonn and 3. you never bothered to comment on Anand behind ahead, in head to head vs Kramnik (classical and rapid). 4. And you will not consider Fide knock out wch championships, 5. you will not count wch tournaments. 6. You will not count oscars (which are given for best play in the year). 7. Oh yes, dont bother to consider corus , linares, biel etc.

I guess the only things you can consider is Dortmund and and the 2-1-1 vs 1-1 record you mentioned and claim Kramnik has got better achievements that Anand.

And ofcourse you will not consider candidate matches leading to wch matches, because its not in your favor. Kramnik got seeded to play Kasparov on rating even though he lost his match with Shirov. Well yes, he defended against Leko (still a draw) and won against topalov (well according to your point, still a draw since you dont count rapids).

Some good points, and some not so good. Among those not so good, or at least arguably not so good:

He did count Bonn.

Anand ahead of Kramnik in classical is a matter of definition. It's 7-7 in decisive games but Kramnik has had significantly more Whites. So yeah.

Your results and your playing level is what it is no matter if you get an Oscar for it or not. It's nothing that a jury decides on.

And yeah, of course Kramnik did beat Topalov in the classical part of the match.

@acirce

"And yeah, of course Kramnik did beat Topalov in the classical part of the match."

Not true. Harish is right. Kramnick beat Topolov in the tiebreak, which was at 25m per game control. Which by Bones criteria should be given - to quote him directly - "absolutely no significance". So, Kramnick's match record is really 1-2-1, which is the same.

Kasp beat Anand who beat Kramnick who beat Kasp. That's a total wash. On top of that Kramnick got 2 draws against Leko and Topalov. That doesn't really improve his match record, in fact, makes it slightly worse.

I can't find any sound basis for Bones statement that "Seriously, Anand has no claim to being second best in the world for that time period."

Harish, nice quick summary! No need to convince anyone though, as the records speak for themselves. Everyone will have their preferences (biases), and I guess even scientifically presenting data isn't going to make much of a difference. Of course Kramnik is a great himself and has a great career he can be proud of as well, but when it comes to career achievements, I think it is beyond debate.

A good sign of true bias - for instance nationalist bias - is when someone claims that this or that claim regarding a complex issue like this one is "beyond debate" or similar.

This argument is getting silly. By what accomplishments are we to judge the best chess players in the world? Certainly, Matches for the title would have to rank pretty high, no? Major tournaments should also be considered. Rapid, Blitz and blind events, to me, show nothing of a players true strengths.
If we were to have had this debate before the Anand-Kramnik match, How strong would Anand's case be? Well, I think there would be no case at all. Now that he has finally won a championship match, some people want to catapult him ahead of the man he beat. Imagine if Kramnik fans had done the same after the Kasparov match?! They would have been laughed off this blog!
One players achievements do not subtract from the other players achievements. Anand has not achieved anywhere near as much as Kramnik even though he beat him in a match.
I fail to see a good reason to argue the opposite.

and to Bob - Yes I'm old:)

to Bones

if you only compare those favourable to kramnik we cannot compare him to anybody. silly you say kramnik was ch was 8 yrs. anand was never in that cycle. if you are to claim these, then what abt fide ch 1998 and 2000. the only wch tourn/ch where both were involved was mexico 07 and bonn and kramnik was second to anand in both.

head to head anand his ahead by 2 in classical. not 7-7.

@Bones
You could also take into account who was World no 2 for more years than the other. Well now, you can say that does not count. Right, anything in favor of Anand does not count for you. I am not saying this is critical, but even this is not in favor of Kramnik.

Kramnik is a great player, but it was crazy how you dismissed the fact that Anand is the 2nd best to Kasparov in that time period so casually in your first post.

What is this nonsense about Kramnik being world champion for 8 yrs?

He only became official champion by winning the unification match vs. Topalov. He then immediately lost it in additional reunification in Mexico City to Anand (confirmed via the match).

The history is:

1. Steinitz (though he claimed Zukertort was the titleholder in their match and he was the challenger -- sadly Zukertort is almost forgotten yet people put Morphy on this list)
2. Lasker
3. Capablanca
4. Alekhine
5. Euwe
4. Alekhine
6. Botwinnik
7. Smyslov
6. Botvinnik
8. Tal
6. Botvinnik
9. Petrosian
10. Spassky
11. Fischer
12. Karpov
13. Kasparov
12. Karpov
14. Khalifman
15. Anand
16. Ponomariov
17. Kazhimzinov
18. Topalov
19. Kramnik
15. Anand

As for this Kramnik or Anand debate -- IMHO Anand clearly has been dominant. Yes, he lost his 1995 exhibition match vs. Kasparov (I have a poster from the exhibition on my wall)...and Kramnik won his exhibition match in 2000.

But aside from that...Anand is the modern Capablanca -- lightning fast play, dominant tourney results over a decade or more.

Kramnik has shown ... what? That he could defeat Kasparov after being hand-picked to do so? Yes, he has a stellar record vs. Kasparov, but that doesn't make him automatic # 2 over the period.

Outside of Kasparov...there is no other player who dominated the others (emphasis OTHERS) like Anand. He must be the favorite vs. Topalov (and I am rooting for Topalov).

chesspride, that's a silly WC list. In another 20 years or so, non-WC Zuckertort will be more widely known and have a better claim to the title in his time than do non-WCs Khalifman, Kazhimzinov, and Ponomariov in their time.

One critical piece no one has talked about is how one Garry Kasparov felt about these players. When he retired from professional chess, Kasparov made it very clear that he considered Anand to be taking his place as the world's strongest player. Kasparov respected Kramnik, but he did NOT consider Kramnik a dominant force.
Anyway, as far as I know, Anand's and Kramnik's chess careers are works in progress. Assessing their place in chess history as far as accomplishments go must wait until such time when both have retired from professional chess.

This is in response to Uff Da's comment that the official lineage is "silly"...

Did you know that in American football...the Pottsville Maroons "won" the 1925 National Football League championship?

Of course you don't...because the NFL stripped them of their title and awarded it to the Chicago Cardinals....the team that the Maroons defeated in individual play.

They were stripped of their title because they disobeyed league rulings and played an exhibition match vs. a team of college players.

My point is that if the "league" is strong, then the league's chronology becomes the official chronology.

If the league is weak, then there is debate.

FIDE is weak primarily because silly chessplayers allow it to be weak...by supporting private title claims.

Thank goodness that private title claims are dead -- at least for now.

However, if you think it is a good idea for players to be able to walk away with title properties that belong to everyone (via FIDE)...then you probably believe that the Pottsville Maroons are the 1925 NFL champs.

The stronger FIDE becomes, the stronger their chronology becomes. And as there is no more private title line, it seems that the "list of 19" will be the official list. I predict that Magnus Carlsen will be the 20th champion of chess, BTW.

@Bones, i understand that beating a World Champion does not necessarily make the winner's record better, butare you going to disagree with Kramnik himself when he said that the winner of the Bonn match will be considered to be greater over the last 15 yrs?

chesspride,
if you're going to promote a ridiculous list like that, you may as well include a second occurrence of "12.Fischer" when he defeated Spassky the second time, when he re-confirmed his status as undefeated world champion.

Both your list and this fact about Fischer have a similar, uh, mad but endearing quality..., and you should include Fischer again just to show what kind of list this really is.

My comment above should be taken not so seriously, though doubtless Thomas will reply.

You guys must really enjoy these fruitless arguments of opinions. Is it national pride or is it living vicariously through these major talents that drives you on?

Why would I include Fischer a second time? He was stripped of the title in 1974-75 (point of fact he resigned it in a telegram to FIDE).

For the same reason one would not include Kasparov a second time -- he essentially resigned his title that he won under FIDE. Thus, the line passed back to the winner of Karpov-Timman.

Titles that are won under FIDE are governed by FIDE and cannot be the property of any one person -- this is the final verdict of the Topalov-Kramnik-Anand unification.

Bones forgot to mention Kramnik's other achievements - matches against Kamsky and Shirov.

Kramnik has other achievements as well, for instance:

a) is the ultimate drawmaster
b) lost to Shirov and successfully took his place
c) has never qualified in his life to get a spot in a final match

Hmm, I predicted that acirce's rather casual statement would lead to prolonged and heated discussions. I am a bit surprised that it turned out to be "bones against the rest" - not surprising that some of the most eloquent 'rest' bloggers seem to be from India. I am also surprised that, until now, noone claimed a spot for Topalov.

I won't give my own opinion because I don't have one. I agree with Bob that both Anand and Kramnik are great players (rajeshv said the same while having a clear preference for one of them). I also agree with tjallen's latest comment - adding that this presumably applies to _any_ 2500+/2600+ GM!?

My three cents on other points that came up:

1) If one WCh match in 2008 is used as sort of a tiebreaker, Anand vs. Kramnik must be a close call for the rest/earlier part of the last 15 years?

2) I am not so sure about the Chess Oscars. The outcome of such a poll reflects not only playing strength or achievements in any given year, but also a player's popularity among the jury. And here Kramnik may be at a certain disadvantage compared to Anand - for various reasons (some his own faults or choices, some beyond his control). Else the Oscar could be automatically awarded to the current WCh [but what if there are several ones?], the highest-rated player or, recently, the winner of Bilbao.

3) While I agree that Anand's and Kramnik's chess careers are "work in progress", I don't think they have that much time left at the absolute top. Maybe five or ten years until the younger generation will take over (Carlsen, Karjakin, Caruana?, Nakamura??).

"If we were to have had this debate before the Anand-Kramnik match, How strong would Anand's case be? Well, I think there would be no case at all. Now that he has finally won a championship match, some people want to catapult him ahead of the man he beat. Imagine if Kramnik fans had done the same after the Kasparov match?! They would have been laughed off this blog!"

I had Anand just ahead of Kramnik before the match, I don't just place Anand ahead because he won the match. He did better than Kramnik in the cycles where they both participated, 1993-95 and 2007 (and then also 2008), he was sole winner of Linares three times, had a couple of classes better results in Wijk, did much better in knockouts (17-1 in wins, scoring 5-0 in minimatch wins against the Shirov that won against Kramnik around the same time) and won lots of matches against strong opponents, 4-0 in wins against Adams for example.

This debate would probably never have become a debate at all if it hadn't started with statements abot Anand having NO claim to be second best in the world the last 15 years, and that Kramnik MUST hold that spot. It's at least a question one can debate, as it showed rather quickly :)

"Kramnik beated Kasparov , though if they had replayed that match ten times he wouldn't have won another single time..."

Really? Kramnik went almost two years without losing a game before that match, and had matched Kasparov in their previous games. There was nothing anomalous about the result.

One thing to bear in mind with the Anand - Kramnik comparisons is that Anand's 6 years older, which becomes relevant if you want to compare their performance in e.g. 1993, when Kramnik's 18 and Anand's already 24.

¨Really? Kramnik went almost two years without losing a game before that match, and had matched Kasparov in their previous games. There was nothing anomalous about the result.¨

I agree that there was nothing anomalous about the result , a question though (if you know it , if not i´ll search it): How many games did he played in that period ?(the almost 2 years) and how many times did he played Garry (i believe one and it was a draw but maybe you know better).

I don't have a database up my sleeve, but I think you'll find Kramnik was playing as regularly as the other top players at the time. I remember he lost one game to Adams in the middle of his long undefeated sequence.

With Kasparov I'm talking about all the games they'd played against each other before the match. I don't know how many they played exactly, but it was enough to be significant. Kasparov himself made the point that Kramnik was the most difficult opponent he could come up against.

The unbeaten sequence was apparently: "Kramnik 82 games from Jan. 12 1999 Euro club ch. Belgrade until he lost 4th round to Adams at Dortmund 2000"

http://www3.sympatico.ca/g.giffen/records.htm

I think he was unbeaten after that until sometime after the Kasparov match (that game Kasparov won against the Berlin?), though I might be wrong.

You can see how evenly they traded blows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_games_between_Kasparov_and_Kramnik

I remember hearing a very old Argentinian GM pointing that Kramnik benefited of the fear that everyone had for Garry , after beating him there were very few who dare to attack him seriously.
Don´t know this its right , it sounds very logical to me though.

To refresh people's memories: It's well known that Kirsan actually WANTED to MAXIMIZE the impact of chance in selecting World Champions. He was quite explicit about that, in many published interviews: he viewed it as desirable to "open up" the championship process, so that as many GMs as logistically possible would get not only a chance to compete for the crown, but a realistic chance of actually WINNING it. Kirsan stated that his goal with this approach was to make chess more "democratic."

The clearest presentation of his WCC philosophy (specifically in justifying knockout events with very short "matches") was I think in J.C. Hallman's The Chess Artist. Hallman got to interview Kirsan one-on-one in Kalmikiya, and also attended the 2004 KO WCC in Libya.

What????? Euwe had a silly wreath draped around his neck??? He won his title fair and square, by beating the great Alekhine. If Botvinnik hadn't excelled at Machiavellian machinations, he should also have been declared the champion after Alekhine died.

Won the title by defeating the champion and/or the perceived strongest players:
Steiniz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe,

Won the title in a tournament and defended it twice through an extremely unfair rematch clause:
Botvinnik

Won the title by qualifying through a gruelling process that proved you were truly the worthiest challenger, and then defeating the incumbent:
Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov

Won the title by disqualifying and then beating the incumbent in a match anyway:
Kramnik

Won the title by a two stange process of winning a tournament and a match:
Anand

"Won the title by a two stange process of winning a tournament and a match:
Anand" (d_tal)

Did you mean "too strange"?

Or perhaps, "two stage"?

What did you meen? I mean "mean"?

To actually consider Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kazhimzinov world chess champions at a time when the likes of Kasparov and Kramnik were still very active is an insult to our intelligence and our knowledge of chess history. While these three players are very good GMs, they hardly of the same class as Kasparov or Kramnik

Look -- if the "stronger" players refuse to participate in the cycle, then you can't fault the winners.

Bad behavior gets zero sympathy in my world-view.

The stronger player doesn't always win these matches that you idolize. I can imagine you would have had a lot of fun saying "world champion Leko" had he not fumbled his final game.

See my point? Khalifman = Leko.

To actually consider Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kazhimzinov world chess champions at a time when the likes of Kasparov and Kramnik were still very active is an insult to our intelligence and our knowledge of chess history. While these three players are very good GMs, they hardly of the same class as Kasparov or Kramnik

I should add that folks who deride the KO format should see which players made it to the final 8 and the final 4.

Anand had very good runs in the KO format -- making the finals vs. Karpov, winning the format vs. Shirov and so forth. Khalifman's streak was amazing -- he was stopped by Anand (twice if memory serves) and won the year that Anand didn't play.

A playoff format is best evaluated by who qualifies...and how far the top teams/players can go in the cycle...not by who actually wins. If you don't allow for upsets, then you are annointing a king, not having a cycle. Ask Paul Keres whether he might have preferred the former (rather than the latter which he got).

and the debate continues...

I still haven't heard a good reason that Anand should be considered above Kramnik. Nor do I expect to hear one. If we base are evaluations on objective performances and not nationalism, favoritism, or just not liking a particular person.

"If Botvinnik hadn't excelled at Machiavellian machinations, he should also have been declared the champion after Alekhine died."

I agree Euwe absolutely deserves his place among the champions, but you're not being fair to Botvinnik. There was no obvious reason to declare Euwe champion again after he'd subsequently lost to Alekhine. Alekhine had accepted a challenge from Botvinnik, so another option would have been to declare him champion. But surely the best solution was what actually happened - a "match" tournament with the players playing as many as 5 games against each other.

Imagine, somewhat morbidly, that Anand died today. Would you really want to declare either Kramnik or Topalov champion without a match or some other qualifying system!?

Here is what a visitor to this site would find:

Bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla Bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, Petrosian, bla, bla, Euwe, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, Kasparov, bla, bla, bla, Kramnik, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, bla, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla Bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, Petrosian, bla, bla, Euwe, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, Kasparov, bla, bla, bla, Kramnik, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, bla, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Smyslov, Tal, Capablanca, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, bla bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, Petrosian, bla, bla, Euwe, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, Kasparov, bla, bla, bla, Kramnik, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, bla, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla Bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, Petrosian, bla, bla, Euwe, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, Kasparov, bla, bla, bla, Kramnik, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, bla, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Smyslov, Tal, Capablanca, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, Kasparov, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla Bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla Bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, Petrosian, bla, bla, Euwe, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, Kasparov, bla, bla, bla, Kramnik, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, bla, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla Bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, Petrosian, bla, bla, Euwe, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, Kasparov, bla, bla, bla, Kramnik, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, bla, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Smyslov, Tal, Capablanca, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, bla bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, Petrosian, bla, bla, Euwe, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, Kasparov, bla, bla, bla, Kramnik, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, bla, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla Bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla , bla, bla, Botvinnik, bla, bla, bla, Tal, Spassky, bla, bla, bla, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, bla, bla, bla, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, Petrosian, bla, bla, Euwe, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, Kasparov, bla, bla, bla, Kramnik, bla, bla, bla, Anand, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, bla, Alekhine, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Smyslov, Tal, Capablanca, Fischer, bla, bla, bla, bla, Steinitz, Kasparov, Karpov, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, Capablanca, Anand, bla, bla, Lasker, bla, bla, Kasparov, bla, Spassky, bla, bla, Smyslov, bla, bla, Anand, bla, bla, Tal, Lasker, bla, bla, bla……

Hmm. Anand vs. Kramnik?

Let us see:

1. Anand won the WC in three different formats. Kramnik took part in three different formats, but could win only in one. In two of those, he went head to head with Anand and lost. Many Kramnik fans are quick to denigrate the WC KOs but forget that Kramnik was a willing participant at Las Vegas in 1999.

2. Anand qualified for every match he played. Kramnik was handpicked for three matches (Shirov,Kasparov, Anand).

3. Even in matches, Anand has a better record than Kramnik. To quote Kasparov (admittedly not an unbiased commentator) - he stands alone with Leonid Yudasin as the only players to suffer the ignominy of a defeat to Kramnik in a match. All the bias notwithstanding, there is more than a grain of truth to that statement.

4. Anand won the WC in rapids and blitz too. Kramnik did not.

5. Anand has been higher rated than Kramnik for a majority of the past 15 years.

6. Anand has more Oscars (6-2!!)- especially useful since the WC title was in limbo from 1993-2006.

7. Finally, Kramnik himself has said (in New in Chess) that, as on date, Anand has had a better career than him. He had gone on record before Bonn also saying that Bonn would decide which of the two Anand or Kramnik was the greater.

This is not to say that Kramnik is not a great player, but there is just no comparison to Anand.

You are absolutely right , of course.
Didn´t know about how he got his match with Shirov ,though.

Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam:

"You had said that this match was going to determine how we were going to look back at your generation, which of the two of you would be seen as the best player of your generation. Do you think that in the years ahead you will still have a chance to revise that opinion?"

Kramnik:

"Could be. I will have to do a very good job, because otherwise I understand that he will be considered a bit greater because of this match. After all it's not the most important. I mean, I am not so selfish as to think about history. I am just living my life and doing what I can. But I understand very well that if I want to overcome him historically, I need to win the world championship once more, that's clear. But my role is also considerable. I mean beating Kasparov is also quite something, at least something that nobody else ever managed to do. I am not jealous or something, he also deserves a big place in history, he is a good chess player. But I have not given up yet [...] I have so many years to come, you know. It's still not over."

(New In Chess 2008/8)

Regarding Kramnik's interview. I don't think it hurts my case too much. For him to say anything else right after losing the match would, at best, sound like sour grapes.
I think some people are misinterpreting my position. I don't think Kramnik is significantly stronger than Anand. I think that his career achievements are significantly better. To be World Champion for eight years and defend your title successfully twice is, in my opinion, more important and impressive than anything Anand has done.
If the goal of a professional chess player is to become World Champion(as I'm sure for Anand and Kramnik it is), then Kramnik wins hands down. If the goal is something else, than I don't think they qualify for this discussion. This includes FIDE knockout Championships, rapid championships, blitz championships, awards, ratings, popularity etc.
I guess the whole debate boils down to what people think are significant achievements and what are just window dressing for a resume.

One more point. Anand is 6 years older than Kramnik. This, in my opinion makes the comparison even more favorable for Kramnik. He has done more in less time.
Ok, I'm done for now:)

Bones still hasn't figured out that the Shirov match is the kryptonite to his Super-Kramnik.

Impressive, @acirce! The way you add to the debate without unreasonably swaying one extreme or the other, and calling things like they are! For my part I'll concede that "beyond debate" is perhaps a stretch!

well, as for bones, his position is clear: "I would think that regardless of other accomplishments(tourneys, ratings), This would give Kramnik the nod."
well, if tourneys, ratings don't determine the strength/achievements of a player -- it is hard to engage with such a position.. but I'll try, since the topic is dear to me..

"I don't think Kramnik is significantly stronger than Anand. I think that his career achievements are significantly better. To be World Champion for eight years and defend your title successfully twice is, in my opinion, more important and impressive than anything Anand has done"

.. "anything Anand has done.." and that includes beating the man himself in 2 events back to back (space of 1 yr) for the world title! ha!

.. and 8 yrs, defend twice.. i.e. even if 1 of the defense is after "4 yrs", and against a challenger selected thru an "exclusive process", where all players aspiring for the world title never have a chance ("goal of a professional chess player is to become World Champion"- while this is true, this is ignorable when it results in an achievement for Kramnik), ha!

"I guess the whole debate boils down to what people think are significant achievements and what are just window dressing for a resume."
First part agreed - but the notion that career achievements of any of these players for a decade (pre-2000) can come remotely close to a "window dressing" is nothing but trivializing a good part of their life's work - and achievements.

Winning title thru direct matches - and defending twice, would have as much importance in my book as you attach if we have a "fair" (not even necessary to be perfect) system where a good number of aspirants have a fair chance to compete.
That is historically not the case, with past champions known to take advantage of the incumbency to the max.

I wish chess championships were as simple as tennis championships!!

Bones showing the objective measure of Kramnik's advantage over Anand to a world of shallow subjectivists and nationalists :)

http://www.lyyn.com/news/newsletter/images/mcenroe_not_serious.jpg

Anand's classical record against Kasparov:

+3, -15, =30

Kramnik's classical record against Kasparov:

+5, -4, =40

QED :)

Kramnik's match record against Shirov
3.5 - 5.5 (Cazorla 1998)
Anand's match record against Shirov
3.5 - 0.5 (Teheran 2000)

QED :)

Kramnik's match record against Anand

4.5 - 6.5

:)

Now if you could find statistics showing that Shirov and Anand have a dominant record against Kramnik in classical games I'd truly be impressed :)

Acirce, well said. Re Kramnik's matches against Lautier and Illescas, weren't they exhibition matches? Perhaps Kasparov referred to matches within some competition?

Mishanp, I agree and concede your point re Botvinnik.

I agree with Bones. Anand will have to defend the title a couple more times (in matches, of course), if he is to be put in the same league as Kramnik. Kramnik played 4 other best players of his time (Kasparov, Leko, Topalov, Anand) and ended up being a 3-time world champ. Anand still has ways to go before he can claim something as big as that.

He's easily in the same league. The league only has 5 active players, with 2 or 3 moving up, plus one retired geezer.

Anand isn't even in the same league as Kramnik :) So if Anand beats Topalov in 2010 and then maybe Kramnik again in 2014 he is maybe in the same league as Kramnik, but still of course rated behind him :)

Some people like to make jokes.

Russianbear & Bones were claiming before Bonn that Anand wouldn't even have a ghost of a chance so its nice to see them back after a year. Recovery time :)

Russianbear forgets Yudasin another best player of all time like Leko.

@Russianbear

I suppose you felt left out and sad as not being involved in this conversation from the beginning. And I must say, it was a fairly successful attempt to restart this topic :)

For that purpose, you could have also tried with alternative, but equally ridiculous statements like "Kramnik is the greatest world champion ever", even things like "not only in chess but also in .... blah blah".

jaideepblue: leave to Anand fans to post the obvious lies, like the idea that I claimed "Anand wouldn't even have a ghost of a chance". And if you think Yudasin is in the same league as Leko, perhaps you shouldn't (attempt to) ridicule chess judgements of others.

Harish Srinivasan: let's not pretend to know each other motives. And I think it is much more ridiculous to claim Anand's accomplishments are not inferior to those of Kramnik. It is quite obvious Kramnik should be rated higher - just cause he is a 3 time world champ, while Anand only won 1 (The idea that 3 is greater than 1 may be offensive to the sensibilities of Anand fans, but it is a mathematical fact). I haven't said Kramnik was the best ever, so there is no need to fallaciously post that my position is somehow equivalent to the strawman you made up.

I'll invite to consider the following. Forget Anand and Kramnik for a moment. Perhaps they are too close in time for many to make an objective judgement. Let's think of Kasparov and those who came before him. Consider history: how many non-WCs (that is, people who have won 0 Wc titles) would you be willing to say had better careers than the guys who did win at least one title? If you are anything like me, you consider the WC title (the match/classical one, of course) to be the principal accomplishment of one's career - in fact that is what defines a career of a top player. As great as people like Rubinstein or Keres or Korchnoi were they are not considered to be in the same league as the WCs, simply because the have failed to win a WC Match. Now onto the champs themselves: I'd say there is a very strong correlation between the number of world titles a player won and their respective greatness - as judged by both myself and the general public. That is, the multiple time WCs are a "greater" group than the single-time WC, etc. Now, it is not totally like that, because there were some problems that would undermine this in pre-FIDE era: some WCs played opponents that were less than the best, some dodged a strong contender, some didn't defend for a long time because they were dominant, so they have less titles than they could have, etc. But one can always adjust for those things. In any case, since Botvinnik, when the title matches have been regular and have always been conducted against a reasonable challenger, the number of world titles a guy won strongly corresponds to his relative greatness compared to other WCs. So, many, like myself, and apparently, Bones feel that the number of match titles is the most reliable measure of relative chess greatness that is available to us. So, coming back to Kramnik versus Anand issue: it is only logical to use this approach and arrive at the conclusion that -given that Kramnik has 3 times the classical titles Anand has- he is a greater player than Anand. That is not to say Anand can't still catch up with Kramnik or even surpass him - but it is only reasonable to go with the results we have up to now.

Anyway, not that I've made my point - that IMO Bones' position is the most reasonable one, if one keeps the (career accomplishment) priorities straight- I'll withdraw from conversation, because I don't think the Anand fanboys are worth any more of my time in this thread. Have fun.

Russianbear -

Kramnik and Anand are truly great players.

Botvinnik won the title 3 times. Kasparov and Fischer only won it once each. Ergo, Botvinnik was the greater player. Is that your argument?

Have fun.

"It is quite obvious Kramnik should be rated higher"

If you want something bad enough you may also be able to convince yourself that it's true.

"Facts are inconvenient things." (Ronald Reagan)

@Russianbear

"Perhaps they are too close in time for many to make an objective judgement."

You could have stopped writing after this statement.

It is a different period now. You cannot use the same metric that was once used to measure greatness. There was no such thing as fide cycle and alternate cycle before. The candidate matches to find a challenger is supposed to be comprised of the top players. Right or wrong, the governing body was FIDE and certain players dint choose to play in the classical qualification cycle found by kasparov. For eg. Anand never contended for that part of cycle after 1995. In 95, both anand and kramnik were present, and Anand was the winner of candidate matches.

In 2000, if there were no split, then Anand and Kramnik would have played a match to find challenger to Kasparov. But instead Kramnik and Shirov (the next person in the then rating list -May June 98 rating list was used) played and Kramnik got to play even though he lost. So basically, the alternate cycle was a mess, not that fide cycle was so great (seeding karpov directly into the final of 1998 knock out was crazy). In 2004, again Anand was never in the qualification cycle.

When Anand got is chance to play Kramnik under the unified title, he beat him. When you look back into history, the world ch stand out from the others because there was just one cycle then. When the current period is looked back after say a 100 yrs from now, it cannot be viewed without considering both cycles. And according to that Anand has won the ch 3 times 2000, 2007 and 2008. And none of those wins were decided by draw odds (kramnik-leko) or rapid games (kramnik topalov).

Also in the past, there was no such thing as world rapid championship etc. But it has been there for the last couple of decades. People dont compare current champions to older champions because they are of different time period and just cannot be compared (like lasker vs kasparov). You can only compare contemporary players, and that too using the then governing factors.

"And according to that Anand has won the ch 3 times 2000, 2007 and 2008." (Harish Srinivasan)

Ha ha ha. 2000? Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. You sound desperate.

Consider history: how many non-WCs (that is, people who have won 0 Wc titles) would you be willing to say had better careers than the guys who did win at least one title? If you are anything like me, you consider the WC title (the match/classical one, of course) to be the principal accomplishment of one's career - in fact that is what defines a career of a top player. As great as people like Rubinstein or Keres or Korchnoi were they are not considered to be in the same league as the WCs,

????

This is silly.

Rubinstein, Keres, Korchnoi, Chigorin, Zukertort, Morphy, Schlecter, Bronstein, Portisch all come to mind as players who are superior to at least one title-holder (Euwe), if not several others (Steinitz).

Chigorin was one blunder away from tying the second match vs. Steinitz -- he was a piece up and *bam* allowed mate and everyone went home. Gunsberg lost 8-6...not exactly domination.

Korchnoi vs. Euwe? No contest.

Keres vs. Khalifman is a closer match.

Those who say Kramnik has three title wins need to think long and hard about how the phrase "World Champion Leko" would roll off their tongues if the miracle last-game hadn't occurred.

It makes zero-sense to denigrate the world championship titles of Khalifman or Ponomariov if you are going to allow even the *possibility* of "world champion Leko" -- because if you allow that possibility, then it makes no sense to argue that equivalent players can never have the title.

Go back and read Khalifman's interviews after he became world champion -- he said clearly that he didn't think he was the strongest player in the world...but he clearly considered himself to be world champion because he won the cycle.

And he was right.

That is what is so maddening about chess -- without a clear structure for the title, there is no way for the "lesser players" those # 11 thru # 30 on the list -- to reasonably ever claim the title. Winning a tournament? "Oh, he was just lucky -- he's not the REAL champion." Winning a match? "Oh, that pales in comparison to what so-and-so has done in his career."

We are spoiled by having three recent dominant titleholders: Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov.

During the 50s/60s it wasn't like this...as Botvinnik showed by losing matches to Smyslov and Tal. You didn't have more legitimate contenders than today -- what you had was a sense that -- by process -- those contenders could BECOME worthy.

Today, you have to be worthy before you even enter the process.

Or to put it succinctly: Magnus Carlsen has already been determined to be forever worthy. He could win the title on the spin of the roulette wheel and folks would nod their heads approvingly "Yep, Magnus is the winner."

Radjabov probably never will be deemed worthy unless he wins and wins and wins a dozen title matches.

That only shows the weakness of our chess systems...not the players. We already know who should win. Unfortunately, that eliminates the sporting element.

The more that people rally behind FIDE and the FIDE line of champions, the sooner this problem gets fixed.

###

Chesspride, as d_tal pointed out before - there's no excuse for considering Euwe a lesser champion. He beat Alekhine in a 30-game match!

I'd also have no problem whatsoever with "World Champion Leko". He's a very strong player and who knows how he would have gone on to play if he'd won the title.

I think you're unnecessary confusing two issues. One is the world championship and the other is the question of the absolute strength/career performance of different players. No-one disputes that Anand is the world champion - a great achievement - but of course people can still debate if he's stronger than Kramnik. Just as you can with Tal and Botvinnik, Kasparov and Karpov and so on. Where's the problem?

- Or to put it succinctly: Magnus Carlsen has already been determined to be forever worthy. He could win the title on the spin of the roulette wheel and folks would nod their heads approvingly "Yep, Magnus is the winner."

That's just not true - Carlsen wouldn't be considered a champion any more than Anand, though obviously "worthy", was for winning the FIDE Championship in 2000. We need long matches and a proper qualifying cycle to make the title a sporting achievement worth attaining.

Yes, some hyperbole slipped in, and I wouldn't disregard Anand's 2000 win as a good chess achievement - for the record he beat: Bologan, Lputian, Macieja, Khalifman (2 game matches), Adams (4) and Shirov (6). I was simply making the point that the problem is the knockout system, not who wins it.

Anyway, if I haven't made it clear before I think Anand and Kramnik are both extremely good players who've been at a similar level during their careers. Personally I think Kramnik's achieved more, to date, but it's obviously debatable.

I would argue that their records against Kasparov were a key factor, when Kasparov was still active and dominant. When he retired it became a whole new ball game. But these days Anand is clearly ahead. He has proved himself more than once. As for their lifetime records, maybe they could have a boasting competition over a beer.

Anand is better than Kramnik right now, and over the course of their careers, but only by a small margin. Both are great players. They are both better than Topalov, but again, only by a small margin.