Well, at least 75% of the voters got it right.

I demand a recount! These votes are always biased towards Anand and rarely correspond to whatever happens on the forum itself. I am not seeing the 75% majority opinion in the comments in this thread, for example. Several Anand fans seem to have multiple accounts so I have to question the integrity of the vote

For what it's worth, I voted for Anand but didn't feel a need to comment. While I can't really say I'm satisfied with the process it seems to me that Kramnik was willing to recognize the tournament as deciding the champion (although contingent on a subsequent match; and someone will correct me if i'm wrong, I haven't read this thread) so therefore Anand is the champion. Q.E.D.

I'm guessing those who disagree that Anand is the champion, or who find the process more contentious, are probably more likely to have strong opinions on the subject, and are therefore more likely to actually post in the thread.

Only those who don't think Anand is the World Chess Champion feel the need to explain.

Yes, either that or the percentage of those who think Anand is the champ is not as great as the poll indicates.

That's a good point. Just a general rule of being a good conversationalist is figuring out what the person you're speaking to is interested in and addressing that. Like if a non-chessplaying friend wanted to know what was the deal with the toilets last year, they wouldn't be asking for a blow-by-blow account of the whole messy business. They'd just want to know what was the deal with the toilets. An answer like "The guy who was losing decided his opponent must be cheating because he was spending too much time in the bathroom" is all you need to say. If they show more interest after that, then maybe you'd go into more detail.

I remember years back, three of us who were fairly into Star Trek were at a function, and someone who was really not into Star Trek asked a question about something. One of us started giving this detailed answer that started off with "Well, the technical manual says", and the other two of us just cringed. The "normals" don't want to hear about Tech Manuals and things. It was just a really casual question that deserved a really casual answer.

Same thing here. If a non-chessplyaing friend asks you who the world champion is, they do not want to hear about the history of match play. They just want to know who the champ is. You answer simply "Anand". If you feel so motivated, you might add "But some people disagree", and if you get any further interest, maybe go into that, otherwise, that's the end of it.


Soltis did a column years ago about how to discuss chess with non-chessplayers. I just checked my index of Soltis columns, and it looks like it was August 1987. I remember there was some mail afterwards that was critical of it for not being serious enough (he said things like if someone asks you what your favorite piece is, to say the Knight, because, for some reason, that's what non-players want to hear. I'm not sure why, I guess because that's the most well-known piece or something.)

Still, the basic principle is sound. Tailor your answer to the interest level of who you're talking to.


--------------------
"All this talk about more than one world champion is nonsense. Kasparov is the only real one. He proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To win the title you have to beat Kasparov in a match. It's as simple as that." -- Alexei Shirov, 1998

I'm frankly outraged that anyone could question the validity and integrity of our highly scientific and controlled survey. Outraged, I say.

Kramnik for champion! (Ken for mod!)

octal, perhaps I'm way too catholic on this one but I believe that the above reasoning frame does not necessarily hold without any restrictions, cf. my post about the shared private/public ownership of the classical title earlier in this thread. So the crucial point for me --using your wording-- is: " Was Kramnik entitled to be willing to ... at all? ". I have no definitive (personal, individual) answer to this question yet. I tend to stick to my preliminary "no" by now, while I am eager to learn the standpoints and the reasoning of others.

I am aware of the fact that the majority of the CN community (and most probably of the "chess public" in general) recognize Anand as the "undisputed" WCC by now. But I am not quite sure they have asked (and answered positively) the above question.

I am no jerk and I certainly don't want to be poisoning these message boards with some irritating stuff. As I wrote earlier the 2008 Vishy-Vlad match is imo the best thing that could happen to the chess world these days. I do not expect anyone questioning the winner of that match being the WCC. Actually, what I wish is to hear convincing arguments (conservative as I am) from fellow ninjas that things are fine. And I pray there are no dirty collusions or duress conditions behind Mexiko and/or the announced follow-up events that would render them a farce (and thus void in my eyes).

cb has good points, but I would add to them the fact that Kramnik was forced to have to 'put a title on the line (and it was NEVER mentioned that it was the FIDE or classical title; it is absurd to imagine he could put the classical match title on the line in a tournament)' by his need to play the match against Topalov. He had no choice under what FIDE was demanding. He is playing ball as a gentleman, trying to make the mess FIDE has made work, but I seriously doubt in his mind that he believes he has given up the classical match title.

Let me clarify, I don't think there's anything obnoxious or poisonous about debating the WCC process, not at all. I'm also certain that Kramnik would have preferred not to treat Mexico as a championship tournament, but deferred because of his right to a match with the winner, which in some ways makes it more like a candidates tournament. Perhaps he views it that way.

On the other hand, the whole purpose of the Topalov/Kramnik match was reunification. As flawed as that match may have been, it seems pointless to me to continue to distinguish between "FIDE" and "Classical" titles beyond that match. For bettor or worse (mostly worse at this point!) FIDE manages the championship process after the reunification, and Kramnik agreed to that, however he may choose to privately view it.

This is, of course, just my opinion, and certainly it all depends on how idealistically or pragmatically you define the idea of "chess world champion" in the first place, so it's not unreasonable that someone with a more idealistic view of it may question the "rights" of the champion. So by all means carry on

The only reason I posted originally was because I doubt that the relative distributions of posts in the thread vs. votes in the poll implies that Anand fans are rigging the vote, not that I think the dissenters are obnoxious or poisonous or anything like that. It just looks like self-selection bias to me.