<cultural reference alert>
Darmok, with eyes glazed over....

I disagree with this. Note that I think that in a proper cycle it will always be one of the very best who wins it, but I disagree that the WC must the top player. Why have a WC title if that is the case? Just use ratings and say so and so is the best. A WC title is for honoring one of the very best who at a given moment in time seperates him/herself from the pack in a WC match. It doesn't mean that the person is the very best; but it does mean that person did something spectacular and amazingly difficult and is at least one of the best.

Hey, I'll second that. He's one sexy dude!

Well, if a non-chessplaying person would ask me who the current World Champion is, I would say something like this:

"Well, Viswanathan Anand is the current Tournament World Champion of Chess, which is the least important Title.

However, the MOST important title, the Classical World Champion of Chess Title, is currently NOT held by anyone at all."

Then, if they asked more questions, I would explain the current situation to them.


Chess Fan

One thing everyone seems to have missed. All this uncertainty is the fault of three men (no women).

1.Kirsan Ilyumshinov
2.Silvio Danailov
3.Carsten Hensel

They made the arrangements, and the latter two have always had strict control over what their players do and say.

If Kramnik is saying he is no longer WC, it is because Hensel thinks it is in his best interests - money wise.

All three of these men do everything with the aim of making money.

The first two also have big egos and want to be mentioned in the press and on the internet as much as possible. They don't care if it is in a good or bad light.

I think Anand is the best player in the world at the moment, but because of these three men, he is not really THE World Chess Champion. If it weren't for these three men, he would be.

I predict Anand will win the match against Kramnik unless these three men do something to ruin it.

You can also tell him that if he now starts learning how to play chess, he can take a 'shot' at that title in 2009

Kasparov seems to be root-cause-owner .

I completely agree. You list some very valid disadvantages of hand-picking the challenger. But I never said I was in favor of hand-picking the challenger. I only said that I consider the "WC line" more important than the challenger qualification system.

Ideally we have both (like between 1948 and 1993), but if I had to chose between a "King of the Hill" WC with a flawed challenger system, or a tournament WC with a fair challenger system I would chose the former.

IMO, the "King of the Hill" character is what makes the Chess WC stand out, and it is no small part of the reason why we still know who was WC 100 years ago (it was Pascal Charbonnier's great grandfather)

You know, that's a good point. And I had a look at that Soltis article in question last night, and it deals with the same sort of issues. I think I'm going to scan it and post it in a different thread, because it would make for a very interesting conversation, especially after you gave this example.

The Madrasi is very happy that he become world champion you can read it here madrasi


http://www.rediff.com/sports/2007/oct/05inter.htm