Cycle? What Cycle?

Next in line to challenge the champion, Joop van Oerstrum perhaps?

When I saw this for the first time, I thought for sure it had to be a joke. Wasn't April 1st more than six weeks ago?

I urge every national chess federation to vote for Bessel Kok in the upcoming FIDE presidential election. This madness must stop.

I don't give a flying fig what the format for the WCC Cycle should be, we just need some stability here!

When is the vote?

-Matt

You've gotta hand it to Topalov's managers. The current WCC format makes it rather easy for him to be dethroned next time; so, he's cashing in while he can.

I'm saving my pennies for my own match against Topalov!
What's next, auctioning the title to the highest bidder?

Sorry to say it (given that Mig and others are so upset over this), but the whole thing is quite hilarious.

The only solution I see is to make Bobby Fischer FIDE President...

Well, if you've got a minimum of $2,000 (or was it $12,000 - i forget) you can challenge Kasparov in that charity simul they auctioned on Ebay a while back. But the catch is, to even be eligible to bid, you must have a FIDE rating and it's gotta be below 2000. Maybe they should implement some similar concept for the WC? (After all, at the rate things are going, pretty soon Topalov will have so many challengers that he'll have to play them simultaneously, just to fit all the matches into his schedule!)

Wasn't Topalov moaning earlier about the 'unworthiness' of Kramnik given that he was 70pts below him?
That didn't stop him from playing Nisipeanu and now Radjabov. If he is so keen on matches why not play Anand??

I can't believe it. Could chess sink any lower? Topalov has surely lost any respect he might have had.

The mess in the chess world has made me depressed before, but never angry. The ONLY way for chess to become a modern sport with a decent media profile and better money at all levels is for the game to have a well-run world governing body (and national bodies) and an established and universally recognized structure for determining the World Champion.

I don't give a damn who wins the match between Topalov and Kramnik (if it ever takes place). All that matters is that Kirsan is kicked out asap. For goodness sake, get rid of him!

"Wasn't Topalov moaning earlier about the 'unworthiness' of Kramnik given that he was 70pts below him?"

He did indeed, but most people interpreted that as mere posturing. Obviously, once the right conditions were in place, he was only too happy to agree to the match. It's the rare professional chess player who will turn down a big payday.

"That didn't stop him from playing Nisipeanu and now Radjabov. If he is so keen on matches why not play Anand??"

It's all about money. Details are still murky, but somehow Radjabov managed to secure funding. I assume it's a source in Baku, where he comes from. If someone floats enough cash, Topalov would play Anand too.

C'mon, you missed one important point. Azerbaijan is Azmaiparashvili's country of origin.
Kirsan gives money for match with Kramnik (but rejects money from independent source), and Zurab - for match with Teimour. What a farce.
This is just one more attempt to show that FIDE delivers on promises to bring some sponsorship in sight of future elections, IMO.

C'mon, you missed one important point. Azerbaijan is Azmaiparashvili's country of origin.
Kirsan gives money for match with Kramnik (but rejects money from independent source), and Zurab - for match with Teimour. What a farce.
This is just one more attempt to show that FIDE delivers on promises to bring some sponsorship in sight of future elections, IMO.

This might be good news in a roundabout way. Kirsan's supporters were pointing to his (alleged) creation of a viable cycle as a reason why we should keep him atop FIDE. Guess that line of reasoning goes in the toilet, and I'm glad it's happening now instead of one week after a Kirsan re-election.

Kasparov is the sugar daddy backing TR's match. He's going to give TR his secret opening database, too. Look for the book on the openings revolution of the 70s and 80s to get pushed back to a Summer 2007 release.

I don't see why anyone should lose respect for Topalov over this. He's just playing by the rules that FIDE set down for him. They're crappy rules, but they are what they are.

One question I have about this: If Kok gets elected, is there anything he can do about this cycle, and the matches that are currently scheduled? I don't see where he would have any choice but to honor the commitments. It will stink having to honor the prior regime's commitments when the prior regime didn't bother with such triffles, but I don't see how Kok could establish credibility without honoring these agreements. Or am I missing something obvious?

What's so wrong with matches between the world champion and a top GM for the title? My only change would be to slightly elevate the requirements (top six GMs in the world should be allowed only or so). But honestly in the absence of a legitimate cycle set up a "Any legitimate contender can play for the title" is not such a bad standard.

Matches are great, I don't think Radjabov is the most deserving player to get a match with Topalov (Kramnik?), but it's better than nothing. But why hasn't some rich Indian sugardaddy come forth with the money for the match everyone wants: Topalov-Anand?

As ugly as it seemed, the Topalov-Kramnik match had a chance to unify the title with at least some logical argument as to why the two participants were there. This new Radjabov match announcement makes a total farce out of the whole concept of candidates matches. That path is now the slow and tortured "beggar's way" to get to the WC.

If it wasn't so tarnished, I think Kasparov might consider coming out of retirement to regain the title again. He's got the ability to get sponsorship for at least an attempt or two, and can easily suppliment the rest (if needed) from personal funds. Unless there is public interest in only one boy from Baku at a time, of course.

I'm shocked the Radjabov has that kind of financial backing and pull behind him. If/when more comes out on this, I will be interested to know who is putting up the money. Someone is THAT into Radjabov that they are willing to hand him half a million and a free pass to the WC? Incredible. I'll laugh hardest if it's another "Madam" with special needs like Kramnik's sugar mommy.

Just when things seemed like they were coming together in chess, inevitable reality slaps all in the face. Boxing is cleaner and makes more sense than chess at this point. Anyone who is considering a career in chess is an absolute fool who does not care to control his own destiny.

The match which everyone wants is Topalov - Kramnik.

Can't you guys read? The money is coming from the Azeri government. They want to accelerate the progress of Radjabov and they're just throwing the money in.

What's so hard to understand?

Too bad for Kamsky that he immigrated to the US instead of Azerbaijan ;-)

Bah.

Kudos to Topalov for being willing to play strong opponents and put his title on the line. Phooey on FIDE for not organizing a decent cycle.

I rather like the match for cash concept. No one is saying they auction the title, but if someone above 2700 (maybe it should be 2750 these days but let's not quibble) can put a match proposal for big money together why -shouldn't- they get a shot? If nothing else this will put the onus (and give the power to) on the sponsors and the players, where it belongs, rather than FIDE.

It's like the PCA redux, but not as dependent on Kasparov.

"Can't you guys read? The money is coming from the Azeri government. They want to accelerate the progress of Radjabov and they're just throwing the money in."

If the funding is coming exclusively from the governement without a peep of protest from the citizens about wasting money, then either chess in the East is bigger than I thought, or the governments are still as ass-backwards as ever.

Maybe that is the link to save chess - Soviet style governments who are totally out of touch with what is important to their people (see Kalmykia, Lybia, etc.) and still believe in the concept of proving superiority to the world via sport (when no one cares about this other than similarly deluded governements).

I still think that if Right Move and Kok defeat Kirsan Ilyumzhinov in the FIDE elections, instead of ushering in a new era of vast corporate sponsorship in chess, all it would do is definitively reveal that there is no sustainable interest from "real" money, and that Kirsan and Friends' control of governmental coffers are the only thing keeping chess artificially alive.

I made the analogy long ago that chess is like the WNBA and Kirsan is like NBA commish David Stern. A totally busted business model that is ignored by the public, cannot sustain itself, and is being artificially propt up by one man's delusion - but still keeping WNBA/chess players employed as long as it lasts. As much as I find current FIDE totally incompetent and directionless, I wonder if Right Move is really the Suicidal Move in chess.

And without a qualifying cycle. FIDE must provide a legit cycle to allow those who don't have a few million in sponsorship to get a fair shot. That is one of the main reasons they exist.

As long as a cycle is operating effectively I don't mind these challenge matches. But they are coming at the expense of the cycle right now and serving as a bait-and-switch distraction.

Stern,

Yes, in some eastern countries chess is indeed bigger than you might think. Players like Topalov, Anand, Radjabov have strong support by their governments.

Every country has a national budget for sport activities. Why shouldn't chess get some part of this budget? Even in Greece, chess is funded by some 800,000 USD every year by the Sports Ministry. Sports, like culture and education, is a social benefit for the people.

The real question is why Western governments (with a few exceptions) do not support chess. Is it lack of interest by the politicians or lack of ability of the Western chess federations to attract government funding?

We knew the rules were absurd - now their consequences materialize and it becomes obvious for everyone. I agree with whoever said it is kind of good that FIDE shows its cards so clearly. Kind of like Bush would say "Oh, and btw, it IS about the oil".

By all means Evan Shelton!, if you are 2700+ and have the money, issue the challenge!
Sorry, but I honestly cannot see what is SO wrong with this challenges.
But I think this should not be the ONLY way to have a shot at the title.
In other words it would be nice to have a "poor man´s road" to the title.

"In other words it would be nice to have a "poor man´s road" to the title."

There are several, e.g., qualify by rating for a FIDE WCC tournament. Indeed, that's probably how most people will get in. It's too late for the current cycle, but study hard and you might make it to the next one.

Actually (Kamsky_sceptic), the match I want to see is Topalov - Anand.

I think a very clear distinction needs to be drawn between FIDE and Topalov. It is absolutely FIDE's fault that the chess world is in the mess it is. The fact that Kirsan Ilyumzhinov throws his money around at chess (admittedly generously), but at his whim and at the expense of any order, organisation or structure in the chess world is NOT a good thing. It presents a clear conflict of interest with his duties as President of FIDE.

All Topalov (or anyone in his position) can do is make the most of the "framework" (I use the term very loosely) provided by FIDE - in this case he might as well play as many matches against 2700 players as possible because who knows when the "regulations" (term also used very loosely) will be changed again.
I think it is very sad that in 120 years, we had 14 World Chess Champions. Everyone has their favourites, but who can deny that there was something awesome and prestigious about every single player who held that title? Now we have a new "World Champion" every couple of years or so and unless something is done to change the system very soon, I suspect the awe and prestige will have gone from the title forever.

I am curious, who the hell is gonna pay one million dollars for that crappy match?? I definetely want to meet him...

Does greek government funding chess by that amount ?? I am curious where these money is?? I havent a clue...

Epixorigisi ESO gia to 2005: 680,000 euros

>"One question I have about this: If Kok gets elected, is there anything he can do about this cycle, and the matches that are currently scheduled?"

Bessel Kok will reinstate a proper cycle. By the time this cycle produces a challenger for the title, this match with Radjabov will be over and whoever won that match can continue in the proper cycle. Right now, Radjabov would not yet be considered a worthy contender for the title, but if he beats Topalov...

This whole thing however makes a travesty of the Chess World Championship. It should not be that the richest player - or the one with the most money behind him - get's a shot at the title. That is just plain wrong. We have Kirsan to thank for it. Anybody who still votes for Kirsan in the next elections has to be out of his mind.

Btw: is this Topalov's contingency plan in case Kirsan loses and the match with Kramnik disappears?

FIDE just makes it up as it goes along, but Kok is also proposing a radical change to the World championship.

He has published on the Right Move website a "position paper" on the World Championship. It suggests there will be a Grand Prix style annual competition for the World Championship. There will be 8 World Chess Festivals each year; the first six festivals will be the “FIDE World Chess Championship Season;” the seventh the “FIDE World Chess Championship Playoffs;” and the eighth the “FIDE World Chess Championships.”

15 "Premier" players will compete for the title. Each will play in 4 of the 6 "regular season" Festivals. Each festival will have a ten-player round robin tournament, with players earning World Chess Championship Grand Prix Points according to their final standing in each tournament. All very reminiscent of the old GMA Grand Prix that Kok was heavily involved with.

But now the extra ingredient, which produces a World Champion. The four players with the most Grand Prix Points will go on to the seventh (Playoff) Festival, which will be a quadruple-round round robin tournament (that means a total of twelve games for each player). The top two players qualify for the eighth Festival, which will have a World Championship match of 13 games. Yes 13. If there is a tie, the player who had one extra game with Black wins. The winner of the Quadrangular has the right to choose whether to play the Championship Match with one extra White or one extra Black.

The Festivals will feature a variety of other events, including qualifying events which will decide the fifteen Premier players for the following cycle.

Ok, so everybody agrees that we must kick the ass of Kirsatan. So my point will be, what concrete action can we carry out?

Last year, I wrote to my federation president (Jean-Claude Moingt) to allow me to quit my fide ratings and licence. He refused, saying that the french federation would do their best to fight legally against the FIDE, adding that the best way to fight against FIDEs presidential team was to try to take control of the FIDE.

He said that the french chess federation would send a candidate (which they did), and they did even better when this candidate (Mr Battesti) decided to quit the elections to not interfere with Kok's candidacy.

BUT. But this changes nothing to the fact that in the case Kirsatan is reelected, the problem will remain the same. Therefore, here is my concrete proposal :

In the case Kirsatan is reelected, let's all write to our respective chess federations. Let's talk about this to all the chess players we know. Let's make as much noise as possible, and let's ask for a brand new chess federation.

You know, when I wrote to my president (president of a federation with 40000 members), he did read my mail, and answered to it. His answer was quite long. So, even if you may think that this kind of action may be useless, well ... it is just not the truth.

The only truth is that "Gens NON una sumus". We are not like Illumjinov. Most of us are honnest. Most of us are simple chess lovers. Most of us wouldn't want to have anything to do with a murderer (see Larisa Yudina on Wikipedia). Most of us wouldn't want to give more power to a tyrant (see Illumjinov on Wikipedia).

Complaining day after day is just useless. What we need now is new solutions to get rid of this mafia. Everybody do your best, stand up for your dignity.

"If Topalov loses that one maybe Radjabov will try to get a discount to play Kramnik."

Kramnik had the good fortune to meet an out-of-form Kasparov and he may get lucky again and meet an out-of-form Topalov. This mopey, invalid, mediocre chessplayer with the bad haircut will probably never see his name in this blog without it being attached to a putdown from his self-proclaimed fan, but retaining the title, (such as it is), would be some consolation.

Greg,

I've been talking about this in another thread but...
Kramnik has a record of 80 games at top level without any loss.
Kramnik has won Linares 3 times.
Kramnik has won Dortmund 6 times in a row.
Kramnik has defeated the strongest player of all times in a match.
Kramnik's head to head results :
5-4 against Kasparov
5-3 against Anand
12 - 5 against Topalov
Kramnik's results against Topalov from 2000 till today : + 5 = 5 - 2
Kramnik's best rating : 2nd best rating ever achieved in chess history.

Conclusion : not too bad for a mediocre player. I know that I've already asked this question in a preceding thread (and nobody answered me), but apart from defeating the WC in a match, apart from winning a bunch of cat 19-20 tournaments, apart from dominating his main opponents in head-to-head results, what can a player do to prove that he's a deserving world champion?

By the way, when Kasparov said, a few years ago, that 2300 rated players were weak (quite similar to "mediocre"), a lot of people reacted saying that Kasparov was an idiot. But to say that, at least Kasparov was rated 550 more than those players. Therefore, would you be rated 550 more points than Kramnik, a lot of people would still say that you're an idiot. But you're probably more than a thousand elo ratings points away from this idiot status...

Greg,

I've been talking about this in another thread but...
Kramnik has a record of 80 games at top level without any loss.
Kramnik has won Linares 3 times.
Kramnik has won Dortmund 6 times in a row.
Kramnik has defeated the strongest player of all times in a match.
Kramnik's head to head results :
5-4 against Kasparov
5-3 against Anand
12 - 5 against Topalov
Kramnik's results against Topalov from 2000 till today : + 5 = 5 - 2
Kramnik's best rating : 2nd best rating ever achieved in chess history.

Conclusion : not too bad for a mediocre player. I know that I've already asked this question in a preceding thread (and nobody answered me), but apart from defeating the WC in a match, apart from winning a bunch of cat 19-20 tournaments, apart from dominating his main opponents in head-to-head results, what can a player do to prove that he's a deserving world champion?

By the way, when Kasparov said, a few years ago, that 2300 rated players were weak (quite similar to "mediocre"), a lot of people reacted saying that Kasparov was an idiot. But to say that, at least Kasparov was rated 550 more than those players. Therefore, would you be rated 550 more points than Kramnik, a lot of people would still say that you're an idiot. But you're probably more than a thousand elo ratings points away from this idiot status...

You know it took me about three readings to figure out whether "mopey invalid mediocre chessplayer with bad haircut" referred to Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov or Radjabov. But you two Kramnik fans don't need to feel bad for him, he will soon have another 700 thousand consolations. And he won't even have to win a single chess game to get them.

Something is very odd here. The report only mentions Danailov and the minister from Azerbaijan, yet the match will be played under the "auspices of FIDE", in accordance with FIDE rules and for the title of FIDE world champion, so where is FIDE in all of this?

Did Azmaiparashvili participate in the negotiations? Why did he not consider the possibility that Kramnik would become the new FIDE champion who would then in turn be obliged to play Radjabov, according to FIDE rules? (Or do those rules mean nothing to FIDE...?). Shouldn't FIDE be interested to organize such a match in accordance with its own rules no matter who the champion is? Doesn't this lucrative match contract create a massive conflict of interest for an organization that is supposed to be neutral and evenhanded? Both Topalov ($1,000,000 instead of $400,000) and FIDE ($300,000 instead of expenses of $800,000) now have an incentive to scrap the Kramnik match altogether.

Something is very odd here. The report only mentions Danailov and the minister from Azerbaijan, yet the match will be played under the "auspices of FIDE" (I suppose), in accordance with FIDE rules and for the title of FIDE world champion, so where is FIDE in all of this?

Did Azmaiparashvili participate in the negotiations? Why did he not consider the possibility that Kramnik would become the new FIDE champion who would then in turn be obliged to play Radjabov, according to FIDE rules? (Or do those rules mean nothing to FIDE...?). Shouldn't FIDE be interested to organize such a match in accordance with its own rules no matter who the champion is? Doesn't this lucrative match contract create a massive conflict of interest for an organization that is supposed to be neutral and evenhanded? Both Topalov ($1,000,000 instead of $400,000) and FIDE ($300,000 instead of expenses of $800,000) now have an incentive to scrap the Kramnik match altogether.

Ruslan,

To answer your question: "what can a player do to prove he's a deserving world champion?" Let's see, for starters he could have put his title on the line more than once in a six year period. He could have maintained a rating worthy of a world champion during this time frame. He could have continued to have the kind of overall tournament results he had prior to winning the World Championship. You know, something along the lines of what Kasparov and Karpov many other "great" world champions did when they held the title. Little things like that.

Martin,
It is obvious Azmaiparashvili had influenced this decision. And ChessBase provides pictures proving this.

In complete agreement with chesstraveler. Kramnik was a worthy champion in 2000 for all the reasons Ruslan mentions. None of those reasons however are valid in 2006. As of 2006, Kramnik is no more a World Champion than Fischer was a World Champion in 1978.

Chesstraveler,
2000-2004-2006.

Ruslan argues that Kramnik has been a great player. CT argues he hasn't done so hot lately. You're both right, of course.

Greg,

In 2000 when he met Kasparov, he didn't have the title at that time to "put on the line" and 2006 hasn't happened yet, although I certainly hope it does. So that leaves 2004 or once in six years.

This new match with Radjabov certainly gives Topolov that much more of an incentive to defeat Kramnik in their supposed upcoming match. Knowing that there's even a bigger payday waiting down the line with only the once great Kramnik in the way, Topolov must be counting his blessings. The rub is what if Radjabov wins, stranger things have happened.

Then the USCF and or the USA can financially back Kamsky and we can have a World Champion once more. Oh wait a minute, the USCF is broke and the USA does't give a .... about chess. Oh well. :(

Alex,

Fischer
--Demanded that his challenger defeat him by two games.
--Dropped out of chess when FIDE refused his condition.

Kramnik
--Declared he would play the winner of the Dortmund 2002 tournament; invited the world's top players; Leko, Topalov, and others accepted, Kasparov and Anand declined.
--Defended his title, in 2004, against the Dortmund winner.
--Contracted to defend his title, in 2006, against the world's top-rated player and FIDE WC.

Therein lies Kramnik's claim to being the world's best long-match player. Who has a better claim?

CT--
He won the title in late 2000. He defended in late 2004. Looks like four years to me. What am I missing?

Alex,

Kindly let us know your standards for retaining one's Classical WCC title.

--Did Kramnik forfeit his title because of middling results in non-WCC tournaments?
--On what date did he forfeit the title?
--Who became the new champion?
--Did Botvinnik forfeit his title for skipping non-WCC tournaments altogether for long periods of time?
--Did Petrosian forfeit his title because his tournament results were inferior to those of other players?

Are Ruslan and Russianbear the same person?

Since Kramink's title never had particular validity TO BEGIN WITH (he was handpicked as a challenged despite losing to Shirov and all that jazz), the onus was on Kramnik to prove the worth of his title.

Any comparisons to Botvinnik and Petrosian do not hold water. Both won the title as part of FIDE system, and defended it within the FIDE cycle, that ran once in 3 years like clockwork.

Since Kramnik was essentially the champion of a "world" that included only him and Kasparov, the demands of him are far more rigorous.

Kramnik:
- never qualified to the WCC match to begin with.
- refused a direct rematch to the previous champion, something that was part of the WCC tradition since Steinitz.
- put the Dortmund tournament outside FIDE auspices, thus contractual agreements prevented Anand from participating - very clever!
- took over 2 years to bask in his glory before playing the eventual Dortmund winner.
- In 2005, his only title defense coming in the shape of a 7-7 tie against the world's #6 player, he refused to play in San Luis.

As of 2006, he has mismanaged any credit he had of the 2000 match, and has no claim to the WCC. The Topalov match is a huge bundle of cash that fell into his lap, probably unjustifiably so, as many feel. Oh well, may the best player *coughtopalovcough* win.

Imagine how ridiculous it would've looked if, in 1978, FIDE would suspend the candidates cycle (the one Korchnoi ended up winning) only to accomodate Fischer's desire to come out of retirement and play Karpov for a huge bundle of cash.

I have no problem with Kramnik playing Topalov (hey, it's Topa's title, he can squander it if he wants), but the fact the money comes at the expence of the candidates cycle, is outrageous.

It is great to see this, because it underscores what FIDE has been doing to screw up chess as badly as they can. Hey, we can have a different world champion each month! You can be the absolute best player in the world, but if you come from a poor country and have no rich friends then you are out of luck as far as challenging, while someone way down the chart from you gets to fight for the 'title' (worthless as it has become).

Greg,

You hanging out with Ruslan? 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 match with Leko, 2005, 2006. That's one time in six years. Now I'm beginning to wonder about you?

Alex,

It was interesting to me that you brought up Fischer's name in regard to the world championship. I really hadn't thought about it until today, but Fischer as great as he was, once he obtained the title of World Champion, he was a complete failure as one. You really can't count the circus in Yugoslavia in 92. So...sad but true.

Chesstraveler, compare Kasparov

1993, 1994, 1995 match with Anand, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

One defence in 7 years and then a series of failed attempts to get a hand-picked challenger. Sh!t happens to everyone. Get over it. At least Kramnik organised a cycle of sorts.

As Mig says, once the candidates series went to the wall, that was it. I've just been reading Kasparov on Korchnoi (and Korchnoi on Korchnoi) and the drama involved in these matches is very much missing from the rounds of Super GM tournaments.

The problem is Kirsan and the trouble is that everyone who thinks kirsan won't win is living in cloudcuckooland. He'll twist the arms of the 3rd world officials with a bribe here or there. Who will do the vote counting?

Kok has run a professional, excellent campaign, with a vision for the future but is going to get stuffed a la Gore.

"he could have put his title on the line more than once in a six year period." The same ridiculous trick. Are people supposed to buy this? If he defends his title in 2004 and then in 2006, it is 2 times in 6 years, that is, the same as when the champions defended it every 3 years under FIDE.

Before the 1981 match, Karpov had only put his title on the line "once in a six year period" as well, according to the same reasoning. I guess that just sounds more dramatic than "once every three years".

Of course everyone who has followed chess politics since 2002 know very well that Kramnik has offered to defend his title even more often than that, but that it hasn't happened mostly due to FIDE. I'm not sure why people keep blaming Kramnik for FIDE's failures.

Since he's neither died, retired nor refused to play any legitimate challenger, his title claim is exactly as valid today as it was the moment he won in 2000. Anyone can argue that the match lacked WC legitimacy for this or that reason. It's when people recognize that Kramnik became World Champion, but at the same time believe that somehow he has lost the title later (!), it is simply too absurd to be taken seriously any more. It's at this point we leave any kind of rational discourse.

Kirsan is a Genius and you guys are all grumpy old men who cannot smile like Kirsan can.

The grin of Kirsan has all nations locked to vote for him. No one has this tallent except Kirsan. He has brought the Big Bucks back to chess. Something everyone has failed at, but Kirsan.

Kirsan is the best, he knows how to run a government and chess AT THE SAME TIME.

Putin loves Kirsan, maybe he is molding Kirsan to be leader of Russia. This would be great. Then Kirsan can get back at Kasparov for being a jerk. Pollitical Purge has always been popular in Russia anyway. It can be strickly political.

Kirsan is the man now and all you haters can just stop reading the internet because you will cry when election time comes and Kirsan is once again elected president of chess. They should stop having costly elections for chess president since Kirsan is going to win until he dies or decides to let someone else take over which will only happen when he becomes president of Russia, and that all depends on when Putin decides he wants to retire, which will be LONG LONG LONG TIME from now.

Putin and Kiran both rock.

Kirsan Fan

This is yet another easy loophole in so many rules done by FIDE. At least they are consistent in keeping the world championship as a farce.

1. If money is $1.5M and Topalov gets $1M. So how much does FIDE and Radjabov get? Surely something fishy here.

2. Don't blame Topalov for his actions. He is just following the rules.

3. Kirsan is so desperate to please anyone for the elections that he is continously shooting himself in the foot. So now it's not how good you are in chess but how much money you have!

4. To Kirsan Fan:
Your email shows a desperate tone and it seems that you too know that Kirsan will lose the elections. In fact Kirsan and friends are so scared that they asked Leong to send that open letter (do you have it Mig) to try and join tickets putting Kirsan as Chairman and Kok as President.

Now why would Kirsan with 75 "supporting" countries want this unity. 75 is already a majority. This shows how scared they are, it shows what a lie that number 75 is.

And moreover Bessel's team refused this offer stating (rightly so) that it would be unfair for those real supporting countries (39 each with an attached letter) to accept this deal.

That shows confidence in Bessel's team and I am certain that in a month's time we would be thanking Kirsan for his efforts and welcome Bessel to try and arrange all this mess.

Duncan

This is the open letter and reply for those who didn't read it yet.

http://www.rightmove06.org/index.php?set_language=en&cccpage=articleview&set_z_articles=151

Duncan

Do the rules preclude that the challenger can simply issue another challenge if he/she loses?

"2. Don't blame Topalov for his actions. He is just following the rules."

Well, he is at least partly to blame as it was his manager who created those rules together with Azmaiparashvili.

I expect FIDE to get a "fee" of 20%, i.e. $300,000. Topalov gets 66.6% and Radjabov 13.3%. Just comparing the share of the players Topalov gets 83.3% and Radjabov just 16.6%, even if he wins.

I think Radjabov has as much claim to a WC match as Kramnik. Probably more, because he hasnt lost any qualifiers yet..

Topalov is simply being pragmatic. He is making all the money he can before he gets beaten by Anand or someone. I would do the same thing in his position.

Ruslan (Kramnik' record): "5-3 against Anand"

This can hardly be correct .. unless you are talking about some selected period of time. He has surely lost more than he has won against Anand even in classical chess.

A fighting champion. My hat is off to Topalov. Why is he getting such abuse? Those that think Radjabov weak are really out of line.

Wish Kramink had played a little more and ducked Kasparov less.

stringtheory,
No, he hasn't. Although I'm not sure about the exact figures at the moment, he has a plus score against Anand in classical chess just like against Kasparov.

Alex,

Now you've got me confused on a few points.

First you post:
"Kramnik was a worthy champion in 2000."

Then you post:
"Since Kramink's title never had particular validity TO BEGIN WITH..."

Are you arguing that in 2000, Kramnik was a worthy champion whose title had no particular validity? What am I missing?

BTW, what is "particular validity"? Something's either valid or it's not, right?

Al,

Actually, Kasparov played a match in 1993 with GM Short in London...remember? So that's 2 defences in 7 years. Even at that, during that time frame, he also could have done better in defending his title. Probably another reason I'm not a fan of arguably the greatest chess player ever. As far as getting over it, I would if people would get their facts straight. Yours included.

Kramnik's claim to being the world's best long-match player:

"--Declared he would play the winner of the Dortmund 2002 tournament; invited the world's top players; Leko, Topalov, and others accepted, Kasparov and Anand declined."

Hell, I can declare I will play a tournament winner and invite top players. That does not make me any better as a long-match player.

"--Defended his title, in 2004, against the Dortmund winner."

Drew in a long-term match against a person ranked #6 in the world at a time. Never had the lead in the match.

"--Contracted to defend his title, in 2006, against the world's top-rated player and FIDE WC."

So did Radjabov. Does that make him a better long-match player?

"Therein lies Kramnik's claim to being the world's best long-match player."

Kramnik's record in long-term (by Kirstan standards) matches is as follows:

+1-1=1 Very impressive. He beat Kasparov six years ago. That pretty much is the extent of his winning long-term matches.

Kramnik may be considered the best long-term match player by default (he is the only one to have had two or more in the past 8 years). But let's not make his record sound more impressive than it really is.

"Those that think Radjabov weak are really out of line."

No one has said that Radjabov is a "weak" chess player. He is a top-15 player who could beat the pants out of 99.99999% of humanity. However, as good as he is, Radjabov is below the level that historically would have had the opportunity to challenge for a title.

And it is especially galling that this match has been scheduled, while the candidates matches already promised by FIDE have not been.

"Wish Kramink had played a little more and ducked Kasparov less."

Except when he was sidelined by illness, Kramnik has played plenty, and he often appeared in tournaments where Kasparov was also present. He *did* refuse a direct rematch, although he was under no obligation to offer one. Kasparov could have played in the Dortmund qualifier, and then perhaps he, not Leko, would have faced Kramnik in 2004.

(If Kasparov had taken seriously the possibility he might lose in 2000, he could have made an automatic re-match part of the match contract. It is as much his failure to consider the possibility.)

Alex,

You complain that Kramnik "was handpicked as a challenged despite losing to Shirov and all that jazz), the onus was on Kramnik to prove the worth of his title."

A few questions. When Kasparov refused to play his rightful challenger, Shirov, what was the status of Kasparov's title? Did Kasparov forfeit the title to Shirov? Did the title go vacant? Or did Kasparov retain the title?

If, after he "stiffed" Shirov, Kasparov's title nonetheless remained valid, Kasparov's valid title pass to Kramnik in 2000?

I see that Kirsan Fan is back! Good, this thread could use some absurity...I mean levity.

"absurdity": I could use some lessons on proof reading.

Chesstraveler

I was using the exact format you used. Kramnik played for and won the title in 2000. Kasparov played for and won the title in 1993.

As others have pointed out Karpov only defecended his title twice every 6 years.

Kramnik is no different. He also had to find sponsors for a cycle himself, whereas Karpov and Kasparov had FIDE or PCA to help them.

I'm not defending Kramnik - just looking for objectivity.

Cheers,
Al

Alex,

Assuming Kasparov passed a valid title to Kramnik in 2000, let's try to determine when Kramnik lost that title.

"Kramnik refused a direct rematch to the previous champion, something that was part of the WCC tradition since Steinitz."

Defeated champions who played a rematche:
Steinitz, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Karpov

Defeated champions who did not play a rematch:
Lasker, Capablanca, Euwe, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky.

Did tradition demand that Kramnik offer Kasparov a rematch or forfeit his title? I don't think so.

It's finally funny to read the thread and not to take part in it. Most of you, guys, are just trolls. You could easily replace "kramnik" by Linux and "Topalov" by Windows, and lead the same kind of discussion for years.

Whatever you may think about this subject, there are only two truths.

The first one : we'll see in Elista who will reunify the title.

The second one : all this is far, far away from the initial subject of the thread, which was Kirsatan's wise actions.

Whatever you may think, or say, I guess that unfortunately FIDE will remain as it is, as a bunch of mafiosi. And therefore, we'll have this match in Elista.

Two things can happen after this match : either Topalov wins, and it's the end of the world champion tradition, or Kramnik remains world champion ("remains" in my opionion, of course. You may say "becomes" if you wish, I don't want to provoke any more sterile debate on this subject).

If Kramnik prevails, then I guess that he will never take part in any kind of 8-players double round robin tournament in the future and he'll recover enough weight to counterbalance Kirsatan. He'll probably accept to "replace" Topalov against Radjabov, but I strongly doubt he'd go further.

Therefore, wether you like Kramnik or not, wether you consider him as world champion or not, he's amongst the very rare top chess players who are not contributing to Illumjinov politics. And this is quite enough, (again, this is JUST my opinion) to show him some respect.

And to answer a question that was already asked to me, no I'm not RussianBear.

Marc,

I believe "if Kasparov had taken seriously the possibility he might lose in 2000" we wouldn't be having all these discussions about Kramnik. When you look at the bigger picture, Gary really screwed-up a lot of stuff during his 15 year reign, but still arguably the greatest player ever.

"Any comparisons to Botvinnik and Petrosian do not hold water. Both won the title as part of FIDE system, and defended it within the FIDE cycle, that ran once in 3 years like clockwork."

Alex, are you arguing that a non-FIDE title is invalid? Then Kasparov's title was invalid after 1993. Were Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimjanov valid world champions? What if, instead of knockout tournaments and quick time controls, FIDE had awarded the WCC to the winner of a super blitz tournament? Valid champion?

Or are you arguing that a title must be defended every three years? Then Kasparov's title became invalid after 1998.

I think that our MAIN hope for the future is to see Kramnik's victory against Topalov (and maybe Radjabov), and then forcing Kirsan to play against the winner of the future 8-round double robin tournaments (who would become ex-world championships, like the world cup today).

Most of you are deserving trolls. It won't take long before we reach the Godwin point...

Before the match:

Kasparov: "So, after this match we are going to have a proper qualification system again..."

World: "Great! No more chaos and handpicking!"

Kramnik: "So, after this match we are going to have a proper qualification system again..."

World: "That's good news! At last some order!"

After the match:

Kramnik: "So, now we are going to have a proper qualification system again..."

World: "BOO!!! Coward!"

"[Kramnik] put the Dortmund tournament outside FIDE auspices, thus contractual agreements prevented Anand from participating - very clever!"

Given Anand's contractual obligation to FIDE, what was Kramnik obliged to do to keep his title?
Was it sufficient that he agreed to play the winner of a tournament featuring the world's best available players?

Or was Kramnik obliged to pry Anand loose from FIDE or forfeit his title? Remember, however, that if reconciliation with FIDE is a qualification for a WCC, then bye-bye Kasparov after 1993.

I am not arguing that a non-FIDE title is necessarily invalid. I am arguing (and I believe it's only common sense) that an unorganized title inherently carries less validity than one earned under the auspices of a global organization -- therefor the burden of proof is always on the carrier of an unorganized title to prove his title's worth.

There was never an obligation for Botvinnik or Petrosian to 'prove they are real world champions' because they won, and defended the title within a championship cycle of a global organization.

There was such burden for Kasparov after 1993 -- and he succeeded brilliantly, convincingly staying at the top of the rating lists and winning tournament after tournament. After 1993 he wasn't an official champion of an organization, but few could argue he was the champion de-facto.

After 2000, a similar burden of proof fell on Kramnik - a champion of a 2-person organization has to prove he is the real champion of the world. Where Kasparov succeeded, Kramnik failed miserably. The argument of "beating the strongest player in a match" can only carry you so far, when:
- the match wasn't under the auspieces of any organization other than the made-up Braingames
- you never qualified to the match to begin with
- your chess strength after said match can be represented by a fat arrrow pointing down
- you 'defend' your title by holding the #6 player in the world to a 7-7 tie

TROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLS EVERYWHERE !!!! Trolls, trolls, trolls...

Al,

I think I understand your train of thought. You're nixing the FIDE World Championships with Karpov to get those numbers. What your saying is, even though is was champion, he wasn't. IMM, kind of like statisics, lies, damn lies and statisics. Gotta go, and in Ruslan's words, to all us trolls...have a good day!

he: damnit!

And finally, Alex,

"...he refused to play in San Luis."

Where chess' governing body (with knock-outs, quick time-controls, or a tournament format), deviates from the traditional slow-time, long-match WCC format, is the champion justified in skipping such events and putting his title on the line only in a slow-time, long-match format?

Chesstraveler,

All I was saying is that Kramnik's rate of defence (assuming the Topalov match goes ahead) is no greater or less than Kasparov's or Karpov's for significant parts of their reigns.

Have a good day yourself

Cheers,
Al

As Greg said, Kramnik could do nothing about Anand's contractual obligations.

But Anand (and Ivanchuk) were only prevented from participating by FIDE at first. Then Kirsan changed his mind and allowed them to.

When Seirawan told Anand about this, he said that he still didn't want to participate. As for Ivanchuk I don't know.

"Vishy’s view was very clear: he had declined Dortmund and didn’t want to play there, even in the obviously changed circumstances. Full stop. He considered his position in the chess world not to be so different from Kasparov’s. Okay, a bit less, but why should he have to play in a qualifier event? He was a former World Champion and felt that he should be treated more respectfully. His major point, and he made it repeatedly, was that unity was an absolute necessity for chess, that this had to come first. That he would not be involved in this first cycle but would rather take his chances in the second cycle."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=323

What Alex is also forgetting is that Kramnik fought hard to get exactly Anand and Ivanchuk included on the FIDE side of the unification process instead. Eventually, he had to give up that struggle.

Hmmm... Black or white? Yin or Yang? Linux or Windows? Staline or H____r ? (oops, that was quite close to Godwin !!!) Laurel or Hardy? Tea or coffee? Chess or Go? Finally, a lot of subjects can lead to the same kind of discussion you're all guys having there.

When a championship is conferred by a governing body, the credibility of the championship is determined by the governing body's rules.

Since no governing body sanctions Kramnik's title, there are no rules. He is credible if a sufficient number of people are willing voluntarily to take his title seriously.

Clearly, at some point Kramnik would become irrelevant, but I agree with Greg that we're not there yet. As of this fall, he will have had two title defenses in six years, which is reasonable by historical standards.

The match with Topalov will go a long way towards determining Kramnik's place in history. If he loses, his victory against Kasparov starts to look like a lucky break. (No one will dispute that his defence against Leko was one of the more tepid match victories in history.)

Should he defeat Topalov, Kramnik will prove to all doubters (okay, nearly all) that he belongs with the greats.

... and last but not least, Sukhoi or Mig? By the way, Mig, where are youuuuu ????????????? Back in jail ? Are you nuts? Don't you know already by experience that any thread concerning the world championship will necessary end up as a troll? How can you start such a thread and not look at it any more ? :o)

... I think that the Sukhoi 27 is far superior to the Mig 31. Its radar has greater range, avionics are far superior, and in terms of manoeuvrability and canon fight the Sukhoi is quite ahead.

On the other hand, the Mig 31 is much faster and can virtualy escape from any difficult situation.

Which plane is the best one? Wait till september and see in Elista !!!

From my records,
Kramnik - Anand is +5-5=37 for classical games in years 1989-2005, and +2-2=... in 2000-2005 (Kramnik had won in 2000 and 2001, Anand - in 2004 and 2005).

When Kasparov and Anand, being invited, do not participate in Dortmund, you blame Kramnik, because Anand had obligations before FIDE, and Kasparov - before his ego.
When Kramnik does not participate in San Luis, having obligations before himself and before those who belive San Luis was a farce WC, you again blame Kramnik, because he was invited.

"Should he defeat Topalov, Kramnik will prove to all doubters (okay, nearly all) that he belongs with the greats."

He has already proved himself to be one of the all time greats. Even if he retires tomorrow due to illness, he would be counted as one of the all time greats. Kramnik fans like acirce et al can recite his numerous accomplishments.

In fact, post - Fischer list of all time greats

I would rate

1) Kasparov
2) Karpov
3) Korchonoi
4) Anand
5) Kramnik

The match with Topalov is only required to determine who is the undisputed world champion.

Alex,

A title is valid to the extent that it's owner satisfies that title's conditions.

FIDE declared the winner of San Luis to be the FIDE WCC. Topalov won San Luis. Topalov is the (valid) FIDE WCC. If Topalov lost his next thirty games to 1600 players, he'd no longer be considered a very good player, but he'd still be the FIDE WCC because he fulfilled the necessary conditions. He'd hold that title until the next FIDE WCC event.

The conditions for being the classical WCC have been, traditionally:
--beat the old champ
--slow-time control
--long match
--provide reasonable access to WCC challengers.

These were the conditions before pre-FIDE. FIDE substantially continued these traditions 1948-1993. Then FIDE a) lost control of the champion, and b) deviated from the slow-time and long-match standards.

From 1993 on, Kasparov, then Kramnik, continued to uphold the classical traditions that had prevailed in the years before FIDE: beat the old champ, provide reasonable access to a challenger, slow time-controls, a long match.

It is not a requirement of the classical tradition that the champion excel in non-WCC tournaments. The tradition doesn't even require that he play in them. The classical tradition does provide a simple remedy for the unwanted presence of a declining champion...his challenger beats him.

Call Kramnik an "unworthy" classical champion all you want. (I don't.) But if you're claiming Kramnik is not the classical champion at all, please let me know:
--the standards for the classical WCC's title
--the date on which Kramnik failed to fulfill those standards and lost the classical title
--the name of the current classical world chess champion.

When Kasparov and Anand, being invited, do not participate in Dortmund, you blame Kramnik, because Anand had obligations before FIDE, and Kasparov - before his ego.
When Kramnik does not participate in San Luis, having obligations before himself and before those who belive San Luis was a farce WC, you again blame Kramnik, because he was invited.

Good list, peach. I personally would have Kramnik ahead of Anand, but I can forgive you for that. ;-)

Mig-31 and Su-27 comparizon is meaningless, because they were created to handle totally different tasks. For the same reason, even Mig-29 should not be compared to Su-27, while being much closer to it.
Would you compare Porshe 911 Turbo with (original) Hammer? 911 consumes less fuel, is faster, smaller, has better maneuvrability and higher level of comfort (for those who are not big enough). Does this mean it is better?

There is something Kramnik certainly could and should have done if he knew Kasparov and Anand would have been unable and unwilling to play in the conditions he set up. It's called negotiating and Kramnik's approach to it in the most recent match was "I will settle for anything". If you set up a blitz ladder as a way to qualify for a championship match and that leads to top players declining, this is your fault. If you set up a tournament which you know two top contenders are legally prevented from participating in, you change the rules or you come to talk the contracted parties, such as FIDE, to see if anything can be done to accomodate them. The spring of 2002, the time when Dortmund was set-up was an era of mass negotiations between all powers over world championship cycle. Prague came out of it. Had the Dortmund announcement waited a few months, Anand would have been able to accept the invitation. Had Dortmund waited a few months, Kasparov would have been placed in a solid isolation status had he declined to participate. If the tournament had been staged better as far as allowing rest days and tiebreaks, he would have had a weaker case for declining.

It is easy to say "So and so declined." But one should negotiate to include the world's two best players in the moment in the tournament. This is 2002. Topalov is not at his peak. Leko is just another GM.

Greg, Marc et. al.,

Again, my point is that Kramnik was never really a champion of the "world" in the common English-language sense of the word "world". He was the champion of a 2-person organization. The burden of proof was on Kramnik, not FIDE, to show himself as a real world champion. He chose to dance around this burden with legalese hand-waving.

See, I don't HAVE TO give Kasparov a rematch.
See, I don't HAVE TO participate in San-Luis.
See, I don't HAVE TO defend his title more.
See, I don't HAVE TO play more or show better tournament resutls.

Considering all that, no one HAS TO consider him a champion. He's just a 2729 player, ranked #9 in the world, below Topalov, Anand, Aronian, Svidler, Leko, Ponomariov, Ivanchuk and Morozevich. That's all he is to me, the #9 player in the world who got a lucky break to play the #1 player for a lot of cash. Well, good luck to both of them and may the best man win.

Greg asks for "the date on which Kramnik failed to fulfill those standards and lost the classical title."

Although I consider Kramnik's title to be just barely valid, there is a reasonable argument that it is not. As far as I know, every professional chess player except for Kramnik has agreed that the current FIDE system is the one and only world chess championship. Indeed, it appears even Kramnik himself has acquiesced in this, as I believe he is committed contractually to put his title on the line in FIDE's next 8-person tournament, should he defeat Topalov.

So, some professionals have argued that whatever validity Kramnik's title may have had, it went out the door when he declined his invitation to San Luis. Kramnik has no mechanism to qualify challengers to his title, so he must accept the FIDE mechanism--no other being available.

Alex,
Why FIDE champion should be considered a real champion? 2 best players of last decades never give up their titles by competing in FIDE Championships (Fischer and Kasparov), current FIDE Championships have nothing in common with long time chess tradition...
And what is FIDE by itself? Organization which unites 160 or so countries, most of which do not have a single rated player! Whom do they represent?

Marc,
Here is my view: every top chess player, including Kramnik, agreed that the title belongs to FIDE, and FIDE should be responsible for proper Championship organization. The difference is that nobody except Kramnik tries to do something to force FIDE to do it's job. Anand, Topalov, etc. are willing to play whatever FIDE brings to the table if this transforms to some cash for them. For them the Championship is no different from another Linares or Sofia.

I agree with both Greg and Alex, more so with Greg.

Kramnik is the champion.
Kramnik never lost the championship status.

It seems to me that the disagreement stems from the idea of:

"Champion=best player, and proving so."

Kramnik has not proven himself to be the best player since his victory over Kasparov. Since his draw with Leko, he hasn't even proven himself to be among the elite.

Therefore, there is greater pressure on him to defend his title, as there would in fact be on any champion in any sport who is retaining the title simply by the virtue of not having played anybody recently.

When Kasparov did not play a championship match for a while after 1995, people did not worry as much because there was little doubt he was the world's best player: winning tournaments, playing brilliantly, etc.

The idea of "champion=best player," accurately reflects what we expect of champion. We don't merely want him not to lose the title, but to be one of the best. We don't want the champion who saves all of his skill and energy for one month every three years. We want to be proud of him and see him play well from tournament to tournament.

Vlad,

Please point me to a post in which I argue that the FIDE champion "should" be considered the real champion. You can't, because such a post doesn't exist. You are arguing with a strawman. What I said was that any organized champion automatically has a major plus compared to an unorganized champion, not that the organized champion is automatically the valid one.

Neither Kramnik, nor Khalifman, Ponomariov or Kasimjanov "should" be considered real champions. Kramnik is the one that came closest of them all, but just could not make the last steps to validate his title.

As far as I'm conserned, this is the lineage of champions:

1985-1993 Kasparov both de facto and on paper
1993-2000 Kasparov de facto, even if not on paper
2000-2003 Kramnik (probationary champion pending further validation)
2003-2005 Kramnik or paper, but de facto no champion
2005-2006 Topalov (probationary champion pending further validation, which may be given in September)

Hope that clarifies my position on the subject.

Yuriy puts the nail on the head.

"The idea of "champion=best player," accurately reflects what we expect of champion. We don't merely want him not to lose the title, but to be one of the best. We don't want the champion who saves all of his skill and energy for one month every three years. We want to be proud of him and see him play well from tournament to tournament."

The problem some people have is that they are confusing two things - who the champion *is* and who they would *want* the champion to be.

But a World Championship isn't just about picking one's favorite. "Chess is a sport and has objectively measurable results." Should be easy to grasp, but for some, it still isn't.

"The difference is that nobody except Kramnik tries to do something to force FIDE to do it's job."

How has Kramnik "forced" FIDE into doing something? I must have missed that.

He did not force, he tries to.

Alex, you should replace work 'champion' with 'best' to make your list meaningful. But 'best' and 'champion' is not the same.

"2000-2003 Kramnik (probationary champion pending further validation)"

This seems to me an awfully peculiar standard. There have been a number of world champions who won the WCC just a single time, such as Boris Spassky, or for that matter Bobby Fischer. Their championship is valid at the moment they won it.

What Spassky and Fischer *didn't* do, was to turn their championships into dynasties, the way Botvinnik, Karpov, and Kasparov did. They were still legitimate winners at a given moment in time.

There was nothing "probationary" about Kramnik's 2000 victory over Kasparov, and for a while at least, he played top-calibre chess in other venues, showing that his victory was no mere fluke.

Similarly, Topalov's accomplishment at San Luis is valid. What we *don't* yet know is whether it's a one-time feat, or a dynasty.

Kramnik ain't no Spassky, don't give me those comparisons. Spassky won a qualification cycle within FIDE for the right to even sit across the board from Petrosian. Kramnik was handpicked for a match w/Shirov, lost that match, and was handpicked yet again to sit across the board from Kasparov. Yes, he won. Good for him. He won the championship title of a 2-member organization. The other member of the organization of which Kramnik is the champion is now retired. Having no further validation of his title, Kramnik is now the champion of nothing; the #9 player in the world. That's all.

The idea of "who" you would "want" the champion to be is not what I meant. The idea is "WHAT" you would want the champion to be. If you like Topalov you want him to be champion is one thing. If you believe that Topalov is undisputedly the best player in the world, and therefore should have a clear and fair path through which he may obtain the title is another. An objective standard for who the best player is does exist, though one can not always find one who meets this standard. By objectively measured results, you may say Kasparov was the best player, say 1984-2003, Anand 2003-2005, Topalov 2005-since present moment. On the other hand, there is some dispute about these years, for example dominance in 2002-2004 is not as clear cut, and there are moments such as mid-60s when the best player is hard to establish. The idea of who the best player is however is not merely a matter of who you would want the champion to be.

Listen, you are ALLLLLLLLLL totally right. You are all saying usefull things. You are all ... the worse bunch of trolls I've ever met.

Vlad and acirce and Marc are correct.

Alex confuses "best" and "Classical Champion."

"The best chessplayer" is a vague and subjective term. Best in matches or tournaments? Best in this tournament or the next one? Best against the elite or against the tail-enders. Who's "best" in 2003 and 2004, Anand, who won the Chess Oscar both years, or Kasparov, whose prior accomplishments left him with the higher rating in 2003 and 2004?

"Classical World Champion" is commonly understood to be
--the guy who beat the old champ
--in a long match
--at slow time controls
--who provided a reasonable opportunity to challengers.

By this definition, let's say Fischer unretired in 1995 and for a decade beat the living snot out of everyone (including Kasparov). If Fischer doesn't beat the sitting WCC in a long, slow match, he's obviously the best player, but he's not the WC.

Now let's say Botvinnik wins a WCC match every three years, and plays no other games, or he loses all his other games. He's unlikely to be the best player, but he is the WC.

Alex, I've given you my criteria for defining a WCC. I don't think you've set forth any specific criteria to determine who is the champion on any given specific date. And if you won't or can't set up specific criteria for determining a WCC, then your discussions on this subject can't help but be a hopeless muddle.

"Kramnik was a worthy champion in 2000."

"Since Kramnik's title had no particular validity TO BEGIN WITH..."

I am not confusing anything, greg. Since 1993 the WC title is split. Therefor, objectively pinning a player with the "champion" badge is not possible. Just as in determining who's the "best player", there are shades of grey in determining who the world champion is since 1993. You may call that a "hopeless muddle" if you like to think it strenthens your point somehow, but the fact is, there was no objective world chess champion for the last 13 years, only players whose claim to the throne was colored in various shades of grey. An attempt to set 'objective criteria' in a system that has lost all objectivity 13 years ago makes you look like the last of the Mohicans. I am very glad YOU were able to set those criteria, but I'm afraid they aren't much of a help for the rest of us. Whoever meets those objective criteria will have to satisfy himself with being the undisputed champion of Greg Koster, and hardly anything more.

As per 2000, Kramnik was a worthy champion... well, the worthiest of all persons who had a claim to the title at that time. Sure, his title was not 100% valid, but it was more valid than that of Khalifman & co. His shade of grey had the most color in it.

Now, his title is much less valid than it was in 2000.... up to the point of being not valid at all. There still are some shades of grey in Kramnik's title of course, which is why I can't really "prove" the Kramnik supporters are wrong, but a simple visual examination of Kramnik's title reveals it's mostly pale and burnt out now. there's hardly any grey left there.

By the way, Greg, in your post above you brought two of my quotes. Firstly, thanks for the time you took to research and cross-reference my writings. I can only assume that you cut-and-pasted those quotes because you assume they invalidate my argument somehow, probably because you see them as a contradiction, or as you stated, a "muddle".

Alas, that is not the case. There is no contradiction. I suggest you research the meaning of the words "valid" and "worthy" in a dictionary. They mean quite different things. Hence no contradiction. Thanks again for taking the time to research though.

The myth of best in matches vs best in tournaments continues to persist on the basis of the fact that Kramnik keeps the title while performing miserably in tournaments. Please, what matches did Topalov and Anand lose that their results can be treated as inferior to tournament play? What tournaments were Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, etc. losing in while winning match after match? The GMs who won the match contender tournaments have historically also proven themselves effectively in tournament play during those years.

To say that there can be no best player because the same player does not win every tournament is as ridiculous as saying Detroit Pistons can not be the best team in the league because they don't win every game.

Against the elite vs. against the tail-enders? Well, of course, against both. Smashing through tail-enders means little when you squander against best players and conversely, being able to win consistently against #10-20 when your results against 1-10 are similar to other players also matters. There really is no record of somebody being good against elite without also being good against tail-enders, and those who smash through tail-enders while floundering against elite never put forth a good claim to being the best.

"Best in this tournament or next one?"

Just like a world champion is not determined on the basis of one game, best player is not determined on the basis of one tournament. For example, Topalov finished in top 2 in every major tournament of the past year. Usually first or tied for first. Had he slipped to #3 once, that also wouldn't have taken away from his status.

"Who's "best" in 2003 and 2004, Anand, who won the Chess Oscar both years, or Kasparov, whose prior accomplishments left him with the higher rating in 2003 and 2004?"

In other words, who was better in 2003 and 2004, the person who played best in 2003 and 2004 or the player who was best in the preceding years? I don't think I need to answer that.

Again, best player does not always exist. But to say that one does not ever exist or can be determined using objective standards is ridiculous.

Alex,

Those who share my standards (or have similar ones) call the classical WCC --Kramnik.

Those with different standards call the classical WCC --Topalov.

A small minority, with yet different standards, call the classical WCC --Fischer.

And there must be those whose standards point them toward other names.

The advantage that all these folks have over you, Alex, is that having standards, we all can name our classical WCC on any particular date. This is very helpful if, say, you're arranging a WCC match.

Without standards all one can do is say, "I can't really prove Kramnik supporters are wrong" and talk about "various shades of grey", and which "shade of grey had more color to it".

Go Radjabov!

I have standards. Unfortunately, my standards were not tailor-made to make a particular point. I noticed, for example, that a very important criteria -- "qualified to play the match against the previous champion*" is conspicuosly missing from your standards - a sure sign that your standards were cut in a very specific way that'd make Kramink fit them to the hilt.

This is known as "error-free archery", where you first shoot, and then draw the target around wherever the arrow hit. You first determined Kramnik as "your" champion, then designed your standards in a way that would make him "pass" and everyone else "fail". Any criteria that Kramnik doesn't fit, is absent from you list of objective criteria. Whatever works for you.

Since my standards were, again, not tailor-made to elevate a particular individual (Kramnik, Topalov, Fischer, Nisipeanu, whoever) to the World Champion status, I cannot easily win this argument with you -- I had handicapped myself, while your way to victory is clear - "Kramnik fits A,B,C, he is teh winnah!". Ok, I can live with that.

* Please don't tell me Capablanca never qualified to play against Lasker. We're in a whole different era now. Example from THIS era only, ok?

Greg, this made me LOL:

"The advantage we have over you, is that having standards, we can all name our classical WCC on any particular day. This is helpful if, say, you're arranging a WCC match"

a. How exactly is that an advantage, since according to your own admission YOU ARE ALL NAMING DIFFERENT PEOPLE?

b. Indeed, if I am ever to arrange a WCC match, the only thing that might get in the way is my lack of criteria!

Again, since the people with the "standards" are all naming different players as their World Champions, isn't this in fact the best proof that all those "standards" are in fact near-worthless, and everything there really is right now in the WCC field is shades of grey?

Doesn't your own post, Greg Koster, from May 16, 15:20, perfectly prove the validity of my point about "shades of grey" and completely invalidate any notion of "objective standards"? You tell me.

"* Please don't tell me Capablanca never qualified to play against Lasker. We're in a whole different era now."

This matters ...why? What is the difference?

Yuriy--

Top results in matches and tournaments usually go together. Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov.

But Petrosian was much better in matches than in tournaments. And Larsen was much better in tournaments than in matches. Fischer, in his early years routinely wiped out bottom-enders and then got stomped by the Soviet elite.

Yes, once you've defined your standards of what it means to be "best" it is simple to identify the best player.

Kramnik and Topalov play a quad round robin tournament. Topalov loses four times to Kramnik but is +4 against every other player. Kramnik beats Topalov four times but is only +1 over the other players. Topalov wins the tournament decisively and piles up tons of rating points.

Looking forward, who is the "best" player? Who do you want to put your money on? It depends upon your standards. If the test is another tournament you'll bet Topalov; if the test is a head-to-head match, maybe you'll bet Kramnik.

Alex,
In professional box, WC title is split for decades. Therefore, objectively pinning a player with the "champion" badge is possible. They have 4 legitimate world champions, and from time to time - an absolute champion :-)
Also, I like your idea of talking about our particular era. The current era is era without even slightly legitimate FIDE Championship cycle, therefore, the only legitimate Champion is Kramnik, who managed to beat the previous Champion in long match, and to defend the title vs. Leko in another match less than 2 years ago. This pattern very organically reflects the pre-FIDE era. We came back to roots ;-)

Greg's standards are grey too. What's a long match? How slow do the time controls have to be? What's a reasonable opportunity to provide to challengers? It's hard to come up with an objectively justifiable standard for those.

acirce, I don't quite understand what you are saying. I thought it was an axiom that the world we live in is very much different than that in which the sentiment of Gens Una Sumus was only a glitter in Alexander Rueb's eye. I thought it was plainly obvious that the way things were done in 1921 should have little to no bearing upon the way they are done in 2006. I guess it's not an axiom. Oh well.

1921 = no organization to regulate chess tournaments exists. Lasker and Capablanca regulate the match among themselves, with no qualification cycle for the challenger, because, well, that's what there is.
2000 = an organization to regulate chess tournaments exists. Kasparov and Kramnik deliberately choose to play outside the framework of such organization, with no qualification cycle for the challenger, for reasons of mutual commercial benefit.

Surely you can see the difference?

Anyway, I see that according to your perception qualification doesn't matter. If I'm reading you correctly (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), qualification, to you, is a non-criteria for evaluating Kramnik. Whatever, we can agree to disagree and all that. Yet another proof that there can be little to none objective criteria in the WCC biz as of now.

Still friends?

Is Botvinnik legitimate Champion?
He drew his match vs. Davik, his match results vs. Smislov (+1-1=1) and Tal (+1-1) are equal, and he lost the only match vs. Petrosian.

Is Euwe legitimate Champion? Or just a borrower?

Alex,
2006 = an organization to regulate chess world championship does not exist. The only organization I know about just calculates ratings.

Well, Vlad, it sort of exists -- they even regulated two very major tournaments in the last 9 months. Although I guess its existance falls under "shades of grey" too. So maybe it doesn't exist. Who knows? It's a frigging Twilight Zone out there.

The Knight still moves in an L-shape, doesn't it?

"Again, since the people with 'standards' are all naming different people as their World Champions, isn't this in fact the best proof that all those "standards" are, in fact, worthless...."

I insist my kid plays on the sidewalk. A neighbor insists his kid plays in the street. Another wants his kid to play on the expressway.

This difference of opinion doesn't prove that child-care standards are worthless. Applying these three sets of child-care standards will likely prove that my child-care standard is best.

We can't apply your standards for chosing a WCC because you haven't any. Or if you do, they are mysterious gray phantoms. So let's apply the standards of other people.

Standard #1.
"To be the champ you have to beat the champ. Period."
Reigning champ: Fischer.
Advantage: Certainty.
Drawback: Problems when your champion stops playing.

Standard #2.
"The real champ is the champ recognized by the governing body of chess."
Reigning champ: Topalov.
Advantage: Certainty, organizational/funding advantages.
Drawback: Subservience to potentially whacky organizational rules..."random"-looking champions.

Standard #3.
"The real champ beats the old champ in a long, slow match, and provides reasonable opportunity to challengers."
Champion: Kramnik
Advantages: Tradition.
Drawbacks: Ambiguity...how long is long? how slow is slow? what's a reasonable opportunity? what if the old champ won't or can't play? Sponsorship problems. Having to wait around for a declining champion's title defense.

Pick your poison.

I don't want to pick my poison. And I certainly won't let anyone else pick one for me.

Also, I commend you on your superior parenting skills, although I'm not quite sure why they were dragged into the argument.

Greg,
Let me point you to the fact that Fischer, Topalov, and Kramnik can't be considered as Champions, because the last real Champion we had is Alekhine. Forever ;-)

No, I did not include "qualified to play the match against the previous champion."

This wouldn't disqualify Kramnik in any case.

If you believe Kasparov, Kramnik did qualify... by virtue of his rating. By Kasparov's account no sponsor could be found for a match with the qualifier, Shirov. Kasparov then invited #2-rated Anand, who declined. Then invited #3, Kramnik, the highest-rated available player.

The point is, that requiring a "qualifier" would leave many of the pre-FIDE matches out of the "circle." Did Bogolyubov really qualify over Capablanca for his matches with Alekhine?

greg,
if you replied to my post, then i meant that Alekhine passed away unbeaten, and in accordance to Standard 1, he is Champion forever.

Vlad--

oops

Probably the only solution to all the disagreement is for the greatest player ever (when he has finished his current writing project) to launch into "My Great Successors" and keep us up-to-date with who the "real" World Champion is. Either that or wait until he has a spare moment and is a bit bored, find a sponsor with $1m and become World Champion again...

Probably the only solution to all this disagreement is for the greatest player ever (when he has finished his current writing project) to launch into "My Great Successors" (or will he call it "My 101 Successors"?!) and keep us up-to-date with who the "real" World Champion is. Either that or wait until he has a spare moment and is a bit bored, find a sponsor with $1m and become World Champion again...

Well the real value of the FIDE classical champion title, is that actually, it gave EVERYONE a chance to play. Including Fischer, to the despair of Soviets.

Kramnik's title has no value now also because the #2 player (and #8 player of all times, if you look to http://www.chessmetrics.com/) was never included in the cycle: Anand. This would have been true even Kasparov had beaten Kramnik: people would have said, "ok, now, but what about Anand?".

But to his credit, Kasparov geniunely looked to play the opponent he thought would be the strongest against him: he didn't settle for a WC match with Shirov, even though that made a joke of the previous agreements, and was unbearably unfair to Shirov. Kasparov felt he was still superior to Anand ; Kramnik was the only player who had a plus score against him.

In contrast, Kramnik pointed out his own contract obligations, that he could only play ONE one-to-one WC match, and didn't seem to be much concerned when this resulted in a format where the #1(#2) best player ever (Kasparov), and the #8 best player ever (Anand) would not play. This is where Kramnik's Braingames WC title lost a huge chunk of his value. The lame resulting match against Leko is where it lost most of its residual value.

Remember, Kramnik was picked because Anand would not play Kasparov due to his contractual obligations (maybe because Anand was FIDE World Champion at the time). As a result Kramnik beat Kasparov (one of the biggest chess achievement ever), and cashed in a nice cheque. But it is not to Anand to personally apologize to Kramnik, or go thru Kramnik hops - Kramnik had less legitimacy playing a match with Kasparov for starters. Unification without Anand has always been a complete joke.

Well the real value of the FIDE classical champion title, is that actually, it gave EVERYONE a chance to play. Including Fischer, to the despair of Soviets.

Kramnik's title has no value now also because the #2 player (and #8 player of all times, if you look to http://www.chessmetrics.com/) was never included in the cycle: Anand. This would have been true even Kasparov had beaten Kramnik: people would have said, "ok, now, but what about Anand?".

But to his credit, Kasparov geniunely looked to play the opponent he thought would be the strongest against him: he didn't settle for a WC match with Shirov, even though that made a joke of the previous agreements, and was unbearably unfair to Shirov. Kasparov felt he was still superior to Anand ; Kramnik was the only player who had a plus score against him.

In contrast, Kramnik pointed out his own contract obligations, that he could only play ONE one-to-one WC match, and didn't seem to be much concerned when this resulted in a format where the #1(#2) best player ever (Kasparov), and the #8 best player ever (Anand) would not play. This is where Kramnik's Braingames WC title lost a huge chunk of his value. The lame resulting match against Leko is where it lost most of its residual value.

Remember, Kramnik was picked because Anand would not play Kasparov due to his contractual obligations (maybe because Anand was FIDE World Champion at the time). As a result Kramnik beat Kasparov (one of the biggest chess achievement ever), and cashed in a nice cheque. But it is not to Anand to personally apologize to Kramnik, or go thru Kramnik hops - Kramnik had less legitimacy playing a match with Kasparov for starters. Unification without Anand has always been a complete joke.

So yes, Kramnik has the Braingames WC champion title, and Topalov is the FIDE WC champion, and Anand is the ACP Tour 2005 winner (http://www.chess-players.org/), and also Kasparov is probably still the best player alive, Fischer is a legend, Carlsen is the fastest ascending star of chess, Aronian/Radjabov are WC potential...
Of all those "titles," maybe the Kramnik's one is the less valuable.

Given the direction taken by FIDE, I hope that ACP Masters will take place, and could give *some* title of *some* value.

Zarghev,

1) You give Kasparov credit for conduct which "made a joke of the previous agreements" and "was unbearably unfair to Shirov" ??! Strange standards!

2) A title does not become "invalid" because great players do not contest it. After defeating Capablanca, Alekhine played Bogolyubov and Euwe instead of Capablanca. And it's surely unfair to impose upon Kramnik an absolute obligation to ensure the participation of Kasparov and Anand in the Dortmund 2002 qualifier. Both were invited, both declined.

3) Kramnik-Leko featured the classical champion versus the winner of a tournament to which the chess' greatest players had been invited. It had it's share of excellent, exciting games, and it's share of dull ones. You can't expect ten great games in a fourteen-game match. In any case, simce when does the "excitement value" of a WCC match have anything whatever to do with its legitimacy? Since Capablanca-Alekhine?

First, yes, I gave credit to Kasparov for a conduct that made a joke of previous agreements. He had two choices: follow the rules and play Shirov who he thought he would beat hands down (even though Shirov was #4), or break them and play the player who proved the most dangerous to him. (this is assuming Kasparov is responsible for the demise of Shirov-Kasparov, which I think he is, but only partly). He made the choice that made the "World Champion" title most meaningful. No one says you always face win-win situations in life.

Second, I, like many others, have never said that Kramnik's title is "invalid". It's just that it has no worth, and no value. If Mike Tyson's contractual obligations were that he must fight next against some female top models, then of course, he could win and claim he is champion, and it would be valid, and maybe even a few sadistists would enjoy seeing him beating up some bimbos, but at the end of the day, his new title would have zero value.

Kramnik can go on and play with penguins in Antartica if such feat it is allowed by his contract. A title in which the #1 and #2 players in the world did not participate has little value, especially since Kramnik was handpicked over the #2 in the first place. This is irrespective of whether or not Kramnik is responsible for this. Personally, I'm rather unhappy with a situation which resulted into one of the best players ever being entirely denied a shot at the WC at his peak (Anand), and the maybe best player ever being retired (Kasparov) - and have a lousy Kramnik-Leko match for compensation.

Zarg,

"No one says you always face win-win situations in life."
--But I have heard it said that one ought to keep one's promises.

"A title in which the #1 and #2 players in the world did not participate has little value..."
--Mike Tyson challenges the #1 and #2 fighters. They decline. A competition is arranged between fighters #3, #4...etc. and Mike fights the winner. Mike's title has no value?

"I'm rather unhappy with a situation which resulted into one of the best ever players ever being entirely denied at shot at the WC at his peak..."
--Anand had a Dortmund 2002 invite. And a win in San Luis wouldn't have hurt him either. But yes, everyone wants to see Anand in a championship match.

"...a lousy Kramnik-Leko match..."
How many exciting games do you expect from a 14-game match, Zarg? Or is it just that you didn't like the Kramnik-Leko match because Kramnik and Leko were playing in it?

Zargev,
Before the match, Kramnik had an equal score to Kasparov, not the plus one.
Also, even the classical FIDE title can have many objections, like limited number of allowed participants from one country during 1960th, or controversial decisions during Spassky-Fischer and Karpov-Kasparov matches which fell against FIDE rules, etc.
About Botvinnik's title validity. He had lost 3, and had drawn 2 matches as Champion (no single win), plus have won 2 match revenges. Is he a 'real' WC?
Let's be strait. If somebody holds the title, this is real, no matter what the public says.

By the way, I believe, Anand does not want to play a match. And he never did. This is too much overload for his mind, he always felt very uncomfortable and couldn't concentrate under so electrified pressure. Even friendly match with Kasparov was very tough challenge for him, as he admitted.

Now when Kasparov is out, Krammik agrees to play for title..what a piece of crap. Maybe if Topalov beat Krammik, he agrees to play against Kasparov...good idea...i guess

Kramnik would play Kasparov after Garry beats Pono or Kasim in accordance to Praga.

===== Lifetime scores
"Before the match, Kramnik had an equal score to Kasparov, not the plus one."
Ok, equal score. Before the match, Kasparov had a score like +9 =11 -0 to Shirov.

"Greg: [....] But I have heard it said that one ought to keep one's promises.".
This is a "World Chess Champion" title, not a "World Good Morality Champion" title.

===== The value of a World Championship title
Greg: >

As a *World* champion, it has little value, especially when the #1 and #2 are so much better than the rest of the pack. Make it Kramnik is "Braingames Champion of the World-except-for-Anand"

To see how ridiculous it is, let's assume I challenge all the top 100 GMs and my sister to play for a World Championship in Barcelona (no prize money, sorry, participation fee $1000). The GMs decline. I play my sister. I win. According to your logic I am now a legitimate World Champion.

===== Anand "declined"
I'm amazed at the Anand "declined" arguments, which culminate in:
Vlad: "By the way, I believe, Anand does not want to play a match. And he never did. This is too much overload for his mind, he always felt very uncomfortable and couldn't concentrate under so electrified pressure."

Anand, is a chess professionnal. Anand is the #8 best chess player ever (right after Alekhine, but over the like of Kramnik, Ivanchuk [another all times great, denied a shot], Smyslov, Petrossian, Tal, Keres, Spassky, Bronstein). He had played all World Championships he could. All that is missing in his career is a Classical World Champion title. So it is extremely dubious to claim that people made an offer to Anand: "Hello, do you want to play a match for the WC with a paycheck greater than all you make in one year ?", and then Anand said "no, I'd rather not have a shot at the WC title, and stay poorer".

Anand declined in 1998, because his FIDE contract forbad him to play in another World Championship. Hence Kramnik-Shirov.
In 1999, Anand had to decline to play in the FIDE World Championship because a Kasparov-Anand match was scheduled. That match failed to materialize (and Khalifman went on to win FIDE World Championship).
In 2000, with new match offer from Kasparov, Anand demanded a contract that guaranted an advance on the prize fund (in view of the previous two failures in a row: Kasparov-Shirov, Kasparov-Anand), especially since he didn't know the organizers or the sponsors. No agreement was found, and Kramnik signed in instead. Anand went on to win FIDE World Championship 2000.
In 2002, Kasparov declined to play Kramnik, saying he should rematch him directly. Kramnik choosed to nicely pocket money from on his title (with million$ computer matches for instance), rather than have guts and match the strongest player ever.
In 2002, Anand (and Ivanchuk) "declined" to play in the Dortmund qualifier, because initially they both had contracts with FIDE that forbad them to do so. In addition, Anand was not consulted for the during discussions for the "Unification", and was put in the situation of "we have made a plan discussing with other GMs, you, you just sign here". On the other hand, people were thinking that by losing to Ponomariov in the FIDE World Championship 2002, they lost their claim at this cycle candidate match. So Anand being in disagreement, reasonned and said he would participate in next cycle instead. Which never happened, after the failure of a Kasparov-Ponomariov match and the failure of a Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match.
Anand did participate in San Luis, won by Topalov.

But nowhere in his entire career, Kramnik had earned on the board a justification for his claim of a World Champion title over Anand.

==== Lifetime scores
"Before the match, Kramnik had an equal score to Kasparov, not the plus one."
Ok, equal score. Before the match, Kasparov had a score like +9 =11 -0 to Shirov.

==== Morality
"Greg: [....] But I have heard it said that one ought to keep one's promises.".
This is a "World Chess Champion" title, not a "World Good Morality Champion" title.

==== The value of a World Championship title
Greg: >

As a *World* champion, it has little value, especially when the #1 and #2 are so much better than the rest of the pack. Make it Kramnik is "Braingames Champion of the World-except-for-Anand"

To see how ridiculous it is, let's assume I challenge all the top 100 GMs and my sister to play for a World Championship in Barcelona (no prize money, sorry, participation fee $1000). The GMs decline. I play my sister. I win. According to your logic I am now a legitimate World Champion.

==== Anand "declined"
I'm amazed at the Anand "declined" arguments, which culminate in:
Vlad: "By the way, I believe, Anand does not want to play a match. And he never did. This is too much overload for his mind, he always felt very uncomfortable and couldn't concentrate under so electrified pressure."

Anand, is a chess professionnal. Anand is the #8 best chess player ever (right after Alekhine, but over the like of Kramnik, Ivanchuk [another all times great, denied a shot], Smyslov, Petrossian, Tal, Keres, Spassky, Bronstein). He had played all World Championships he could. All that is missing in his career is a Classical World Champion title. So it is extremely dubious to claim that people made an offer to Anand: "Hello, do you want to play a match for the WC with a paycheck greater than all you make in one year ?", and then Anand said "no, I'd rather not have a shot at the WC title, and stay poorer".

Anand declined in 1998, because his FIDE contract forbad him to play in another World Championship. Hence Kramnik-Shirov.
In 1999, Anand had to decline to play in the FIDE World Championship because a Kasparov-Anand match was scheduled. That match failed to materialize (and Khalifman went on to win FIDE World Championship).
In 2000, with new match offer from Kasparov, Anand demanded a contract that guaranted an advance on the prize fund (in view of the previous two failures in a row: Kasparov-Shirov, Kasparov-Anand), especially since he didn't know the organizers or the sponsors. No agreement was found, and Kramnik signed in instead. Anand went on to win FIDE World Championship 2000.
In 2002, Kasparov declined to play Kramnik, saying he should rematch him directly. Kramnik choosed to nicely pocket money from on his title (with million$ computer matches for instance), rather than have guts and match the strongest player ever.
In 2002, Anand (and Ivanchuk) "declined" to play in the Dortmund qualifier, because initially they both had contracts with FIDE that forbide them to do so. In addition, Anand was not consulted for the during discussions for the "Unification", and was put in the situation of "we have made a plan discussing with other GMs, you, you just sign here". On the other hand, people were thinking that by losing to Ponomariov in the FIDE World Championship 2002, they lost their claim at this cycle candidate match. So Anand being in disagreement, reasonned and said he would participate in next cycle instead. Which never happened, after the failure of a Kasparov-Ponomariov match and the failure of a Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match.
Anand did participate in San Luis, won by Topalov.

But nowhere in his entire career, Kramnik had earned on the board a justification for his claim of a World Champion title over Anand.

Zarghev--

If, (for the sake of argument only), Shirov's version of the failed Kasparov match is accurate:
a) Unwilling to make a good faith effort to find Shirov match sponsorship, Kasparov should never have had a Candidates process involving Shirov. Kasparov should have simply signed onto a match with the top-rated available player.
b) Shirov got screwed...playing the Kramnik match for nothing and denied his slim, but real chance of winning a title match.
c) Kasparov-Kramnik was a better match than Kasparov-Shirov would have been.

We probably agree on all this.

"...I, like many others, have never said Kramnik's title is invalid."

Good, we agree on that, too. Kramnik beat the old champ in a slow, long match, and he offered a reasonable opportunity to challengers. So I agree he's the valid champ.

So the only point remaining is the "value" of Kramnik's valid title.

What is the value of any championship title? --The world championship of anything is a SYMBOLIC, not actual, claim to being the world's best player.

Thus
--The Alekhine-Bogolyubov matches did not prove Alekhine's superiority over Capablanca.
--The drawn matches of Lasker, Botvinnik, Kasparov, and Kramnik obviously did not prove the winner's actual superiority over his opponent.
--The Karpov-Korchnoi matches did not prove the WC's superiority over Fischer.
--The Kramnik-Topalov winner will not have proven himself superior to Anand2006, or to Kasparov2006, or to Fischer2006, for that matter.

Except for A) about which you know nothing. If Kasparov were today still looking for such sponsorship, would that be enough faith? Your own point makes it clear. Had Kasparov not planned to play the winner, he wouldn't have bothered with the candidates match. He was DYING to play Shirov. He didn't need the money, he needed to validate his title. He and his agent spent many months looking for sponsorship. He would have played Shirov for zero prize money by that point.

Of course Shirov got screwed. There were no prior guarantees in place and there wasn't available sponsorship money adequate to satisfy him. You can say all you want that Kasparov should have never played another game as long as Shirov didn't get a match, but if so, remember that one low offer was declined by Shirov. That was his right, but don't make this into some bizarre Kasparov conspiracy to avoid Shirov.

As soon as they thought it was clear that they weren't going to find enough money to please Shirov, they started looking for money to play Anand. I thought, and think, that Garry handled the entire thing terribly, from the fly-by-night WCC to semi-publicly going after a match with Anand. But that doesn't mean money was going to appear for a Shirov match if he worked at it for another six months or another year or another six years. More likely it would be even harder to find. Perhaps, and only perhaps, Alexei would have eventually swallowed his pride and his debts and played for small change, but he's a proud man.

Mig,

By saying "FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY" I had hoped to avoid rehashing this mess.

Responsibility for the Kasparov-Shirov fiasco can be determined only by someone who knows the details...and I know nothing.

Your comments about Kasparov (during the pendency of the Shirov-match efforts, I assume) "semi-publicly going after a match with Anand" tend to confirm one of my suspicions: that Kasparov was not acting responsibly, or in good faith. My other suspicion is that in demanding more money than Kasparov was offering, Shirov overestimated his value.

Obviously, the failed match
--doesn't mean Kasparov feared Shirov,
--doesn't invalidate Kasparov's title
--shouldn't put the entire chess world "on hold" until Kasparov-Shirov is finally played.

And finally, (I hope), Zarg,

You complain that Kramnik offered a match to neither Kasparov nor Anand. And the "validity" of the title is surely diminished where the rest of the chess elite has no shot at qualifying for a title match.

But given Kasparov's refusal to play a qualifier and Anand's contractual obligations, it was impossible to simultaneously honor the claims of Kasparov, Anand, and the rest of the elite.

You can't have everything. Kramnik chose, not unreasonably, to give everyone a shot, at Dortmund, and he defended his title against Leko...roughly #4 or #5 (after Kasparov, Anand, and Kramnik) during the period.

Fast-forward to 2006: FIDE ties up all the top players, the only available candidates remaining are penguins and your sister, and Kramnik made the not unreasonable choice to play Topalov; putting the classical title in FIDE's highly suspect hands and hoping for the best.

Greg: " '...I, like many others, have never said Kramnik's title is invalid.' Good, we agree on that, too. Kramnik beat the old champ in a slow, long match, and he offered a reasonable opportunity to challengers. So I agree he's the valid champ. "

I do not agree that he is *the* valid champ. I agree that he is the valid Braingames World Champion (with a failed unification with FIDE). I agree that Topalov is the valid FIDE World Champion. I agree that Anand is the winner ACP Tour 2004-2005 ( http://www.chess-players.org/ ), and in absence of a proper ACP Masters tournament this year, might even considered as the ACP Champion.

As for Shirov, I gave him the benefit of doubt over Kasparov. I personally doubt Shirov was made an offer "Ok, Shirov, now it is the very very last offer you'll get OR Kasparov will play Anand. Choose now". I personally think that Kasparov was rushing to defend his title also because his arch-rival Karpov had just earned a FIDE champion title again (over Anand, no less), and Shirov became a collateral damage.

As for the value of the World Champion title,
Greg: "What is the value of any championship title? --The world championship of anything is a SYMBOLIC, not actual, claim to being the world's best player."

All the cases you have cited resulted in more or less valuable titles indeed.
- Karpov's title was under heavy fire, because he didn't get it by playing Fischer. On the other hand, because he won the candidate matches, no one had another valid claim.
- Karpov 2nd title over Korchnoi is of dubious value, because the Soviet were holding Korchnoi family "in hostage" (as in, for instance, in USSR, Korchnoi's son was promised to freed to West if he gave up his passport, which he did - only to find out that he was then drafted to soviet army, and later was arrested for evading army service - he was finally sentenced 2 years in jail, and served them).
- Likewise the drawn matches didn't prove superiority, so yes they give titles which have a little less value, but on the other hand, the challengers cannot come and claim they are "the" champion, while they failed to beat him - and the rules were clear before the match started.
- and same for the Topalov title (won with Anand, but without Kasparov or Kramnik) and even for the Topalov-Kramnik match winner. However I personally think Topalov's FIDE title has more value than Kramnik one right now.

You are just proving the point that World Championship titles have more or less value.

My ranking of the values of the world "titles" is 1) Topalov, FIDE title; 2) Anand, ACP Tour winner; 3) Kasparov, still probable number #1; 4) Topalov and Anand, ratings over 2800; 5) Kramnik's title renewed by beating Leko; 6) Fischer's title (renewed by beating Spassky in 1992); 7) the World Championship title that I won over my sister, in which the top 100 GMs failed to participate.

I even think that 5, 6 and 7, are close to have the same value at the current time.

"You can't have everything. Kramnik chose, not unreasonably, to give everyone a shot, at Dortmund, and he defended his title against Leko...roughly #4 or #5 (after Kasparov, Anand, and Kramnik) during the period."

Greg, I never blamed Kramnik for not following the rules. I just say that following the rules made his Braingames World Championship title both valid and worthless. Especially 4 years after having last defending it.

Also you forget to mention that Kramnik's match with Leko was understood to be part of the unification process - and Kramnik should have played the winner of Kasparov-Kazhim., and won this part by forfeit.

zarghev,
If Kramnik's title became worthless 4 years after having last defending it, what can we say about FIDE title, which was a pure farce since Karpov-Anand "match"?
regarding your comments on Anand, I repeat: he is not willing to play in a _MATCH_. All he participated in were tournaments with no more than 4 serous games vs. one player.

Zarg,

Glad you're not blaming Kramnik. There's yet another point we agree on.

On the question of whether an offer was made in terms of "OK, Shirov, now it is the very last offer you'll get OR Kasparov will play Anand," we'll just have to ask Shirov, or Kasparov, or Mig.

I suspect that calling Kramnik's title "worthless", or equating it with Fischer-Spassky 1992, or Zarghev-sister 2006, may be a slight exaggeration. But just in case....

--Spassky in 1992 was rated 2560, #101 on the FIDE list. How many GMs could have whipped Spassky in 1992? Probably a lot.
--Is your sister by any chance named "Polgar?"
--How many GMs could have beaten #1 in 2000, then drawn a match with #4 or #5 in 2004?

There's a reason why folks who remember the 14 World Champions may not recall the winner of
--London 1883
--Hastings 1895
--San Sebastian 1911
--New York 1924
--Bled 1931
--Zurich 1952, etc.

--The winner of a double round-robin WCC (e.g. San Luis)is diminished every time that champion falters in a subsequent double round-robin event.
--The player carrying the highest rating is diminished when his rating slips, or inactivity.
--A classical WCC is diminished by declining ratings, mediocre tournament results, or inactivity. But such a gentleman bashed heads over a 24-game, 20-game, or 16-game match to attain his title. And as long as he keeps defending that title in a long match, history will forgive his intervening "sins".

As for Anand not wanting to play a match, he had signed a contract in 1999 to play a match against Kasparov. Which failed.

As for Kramnik's title, the problem is his defense: what he did exactly is draw a match against Leko, not an extraordinary feat, and became WC by forfeit of the next match due to failure of unification by FIDE.
Moreover Leko was never part of a candidate cycle which eliminated Anand and Kasparov - that's what the unification was for.

Now the situation is a little similar to Karpov-Fischer when Fischer wouldn't play in 1975 - except that here, it's like the *FIDE* would be disagree that Fischer play a match. What would be Karpov title's value if Fischer had really agreed to play a World Champion match with Karpov, and the FIDE failed to organize a match such a match and claimed victory of Karpov by default?