For me, the best scenario in chess would be for Anand to win the upcoming world championship tournament in Mexico followed by an Anand-Kramnik match. I'd love to see these two giants (and good guys) play a big-time world championship match.

Kasparov's Banja Luka result leads me to two interesting questions, neither of which has much to do with Carlsen...

1. I only recognize 4 names from this tournament (the top 4 finishers, though actually Browne and GGC also look familiar come to think of it). Was this tournament much stronger than today's fan might realize from looking at the names?

2. According to chessmetrics, Kasparov was expected to finish second. Does this substantiate my theory that chessmetrics is not a good way to measure young prodigies from the past' relative progress/standing/expected results (because we are so much more familiar with them than with anybody else they play at this point in their career, maybe?) or was Garry really expected to finish so close to the top?

The average rating for Banja Luka was 2469. For Linares 2007 it was around 2750. The field was much stronger at Linares. Yes, there seems to be some rating inflation, but at Linares there were 6 of the top 10 players in the world + the #12 (and Carlsen). Banja Luka was not at all comparable to Linares--more like a Corus group C.

All you dirt bloggers get to the message board and vote for the most beautiful game of the 2007 Morelia/Linares chess tournament, voting stops next saturday winner will be announced and receive the presitigous award on sunday.

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001485#000001

Quite funny. When you see moro's result from linares (on the chessbase site) you immediately notice that he scored 3 wins against the 3 lowest placed players of the linares part. 'Classic Moro' I instantly thought. Scores well against the bottom players but struggles against the top. Of course then I noticed who the 3 bottom players were: Topalov, Leko and Chuckie.
Fantastically well done by Moro. I really hope that he can build on this and maybe take a further step up and really compete with the big boys on a regular basis.

It is about time Anand got the #1 ranking. He played terribly when he was close to getting the #1 ranking at least twice earlier - once in Dortmund 2002 and then in the recent chess olympiad. However he has shown the resilience to bounce back (as also after being demolished by Kasparov in the PCC match).

It is interesting that he gets #1 in a tournament when his opening play was below par and in most games was at a disadvantage coming out of the opening.

Kapalik

Hmm, it seems like Mexico is becoming a great chess place (with the World Championship being held soon, and maybe future Linares tournaments). Can we expect some Mexican players to make a run to the GM title and maybe even go further to the elite class?

Anand again shows that he is a classy guy and a great player.

If Mexico continues to be a site of major international tournaments, perhaps it will have a spill over effect. More FIDE norm tournaments would be possible for Mexican, US and Canadian players as well as those from central and south america - I'm guessing travel to Mexico would be easier than to Europe.

Do you think Anand would be the stoutest number 1 of all time?

Thank you very much for the translation, Mig!

I hope to see Anand and Kramnik play a match for WC title.

To me the Mexico tournament is nothing better than a candidates tournament with the WC tagging along for political reasons.

If Anand wins in Mexico, I will consider him a FIDE World Candidate's Tournament Champion. But I will still consider Kramnik the overall World Champion.

For anyone to become world chess champion he must beat the reigning world champion who is Kramnik in a proper match.

Its good that the Topalov philes will no longer be able to drone on about the no 1 rated player in the world. He isn't anymore and I doubt he ever will be again. Although I hope he bounces back and regains his confidence. Perhaps time for a change of trainer? I did miss Radjabov in the tournament if only because I enjoy the KID debate. Anand deservedly won but it was not a dominant performance by any means. His 2nd win against Carlsen though was a beauty - a modern classic. However did anyone else find Anand's insistence that he had been world chess champion ie FIDE wold champion a bit odd? Overall the games left me with the impression that not only is Kramnik the most formidable match player in the world but he seems, at the moment, the player most in control of his game.

I think Anand´s reminder about winning in Delhi was on spot to that stupid reporter´s question.

I haven't seen it remarked that it is an oddity of the new World Championship proposals that if Kramnik would prefer a match with Anand rather than face another match with Topalov, it would be in his interests, and he could go out of his way to lose at Mexico - even to throw his games against Anand, or whichever other candidate he would prefer.

"Do you think Anand would be the stoutest number 1 of all time?"

I don't know. Alekhine plumped up a bit in his later years; I guess that a quart of hard liquor a day will do that to you. It's too bad; he was quite a handsome lad in his youth (but then, so was his rival Bogoljubov, who aged even worse.)

It has been remarked. But why on earth would Kramnik give up his World Champion title willingly just to get a match against Anand (or Leko, or Svidler, or...) instead of Topalov? It's a possibility, but not a realistic one.

Steintz wins hands down!

Steinitz. Also an older Rubinstein.

acirce is probably right. Kramnik has a better head to head record against Topalov than against Anand or Leko. Additionally, he would be as confident of winning against Topalov as against Anand or Leko. Needless to say, he wouldn't be playing in Sofia.

Anand seems the most likely of current players to beat Kramnik in a match (especially with a quick play tiebreak). So even assuming Kramnik thinks like that, it would seem an unlikely scenario that Kramnik would throw the tournament to Anand to avoid a Topalov match.

Actually I seem to remember that Anand doesn't like playing matches - he said it was boring to play the same player each time. Is my memory playing tricks on me?

Andy, I think that you've misunderstood the #1 concept that was discussed, despite several decent attempts to articulate it. It has nothing with Topalov. It has to do with it being the best, most up to date measure of Chess performance. Now if they manage to rescue the World Championship and make it a predictable, regularly scheduled event then it will regain its currency. Otherwise, the title faded a lot with the fact that the best player of the generation and more, Kasparov, couldn’t get a rematch for 5 years (while continuing to play at the top and be #1).

D.

P.S. Whether Topalov will regain it or not is a separate matter. Oh, we also mentioned it in regard to Mexico – I think it's pretty clear to you that missing #1, or #2, or #3, whatever is not the best idea. Right? Although that it's a done deal and one can have better things to think about.

let us say the WC tournament is not going well for Kramnik ... he is -3 after 7 rounds. If he is out of it, it is in his interest to throw matches to weaker opponents to get an easy rematch later on. Amazing how FIDE manages to shoot itself in the foot every time.

About the possibility of Kramnik throwing matches, it is just that, a theoretical possibility. I'd like to think a professional of his calibre and class would never consider it.

Andy, Anand's response also seemed a bit curious to me, more angry than fanatical though. Perhaps he's been asked this same question many times already.

Throwing a game may not be something which I think Kramnik would do either, but he could easily allow any opponent he wanted to win (if he was himself out of the race) to get away with easy draws against him... if he thought it would help him in some way... and maybe try harder to win against those he wanted not to face

knowing kramnik, he'll not do an unsporting thing. but the theoretical possibility is there.

imagine anand and carlen are leading till the penultimate round. Carlsen needs a win in the last round to win the tmt (and become WC), and he is playing Kramnik in the last round...

Indeed, this was a point the ACP made. The structure presently proposed is impossible for this reason; you cannot have a situation where a player advantages himself by losing. There are worse scenarios too than just Kramnik trying to pick his own next opponent. Those who think professionals would not behave in such a way should be aware that in bridge it is an accustomed sight and it is set down in the proprieties of the game that throwing games for the advantage of your team later in the competition is not unethical.

Interesting Anand didn’t mention Karjakin. Wonder if he’s forgotten him or genuinely considers him less promising than Radjabov.

Anand will be happy to win, of course, but looking at this event I think Kramnik will be pretty happy. Anand was very fortunate to make the score he did. If he doesn’t play better than that in a match then Kramnik will beat him for sure. Kramnik will hardly be afraid of Carlsen (yet) or Moro, and Svidler, Leko and Topalov are clearly each having troubles in their own way.

The WCCT rule of include Kramnik in a challenge in case he lose in Mexico is nonsense because Kramnik is not "obligated" to win or tie a single game.Even a score 0/14 will be enough for him to defend his classic title.His results could affect or determinate who will be 1rst,2nd,3rd.....Other point is that Elista candidates could produce 1 or 2 more russians to the mexican list and in that case 3,4 or 5 russian players in the same tournament could repeat the Curacao Phenomenon to fix a final between Kramnik and another russian.Why this man has so many benefits if to become a classic champion he won no cycle to challenge Kasparov?, his title is a big aberration supported by a russian FIDE president.

"knowing kramnik, he'll not do an unsporting thing. but the theoretical possibility is there."

Lets all try not to die laughing... What a sportsmanlike honourable man he is..

I think Vishy agrees with my opinion about Karjakin...about they being destined to only get as far as being the bridesmaids...like the Englishmen...the Shorts, Adams, etc..

Or indeed the Anands.

Although frankly the image of any of the above as bridesmaids is one I'd prefer not to dwell upon.

yes, in some ways Anand too...but then unfortunately for him, he happened to be at his peak when the all-time greatest was at his best..and being in the top-3 for about 15 years puts him leagues above everyone else of his era (except Kasparov, of course)...

But, yes, I agree with rdh...lets enjoy what chess these players have on offer rather than dismissing their inabilities to win the big ones..

I think its pretty naive to dismiss anyone of Karjakin's age, especially when he's so strong already.

It's very hard to predict who will improve and who won't. There are too many factors involved.

In 2002 Aronian was rated 'only' 2581, and he was 20!

http://www.fide.com/ratings/toparc.phtml?cod=39

Quite so, MD - in 2002 Aronian was drawing with punters of my rating. Imagine.

Bit rich to say Anand is leagues ahead of Kramnik, anand, or are you saying they're different generations?

It was actually the physical image of Nigel in a white dress and tiara I was trying so hard to shake off, but of course you're right about belittling great players as well.

"If he doesn’t play better than that in a match then Kramnik will beat him for sure".

true. but if Kramnik doesn't play better than the match he played against Topalov, Anand will beat him for sure.

Granda:The WCCT rule of include Kramnik in a challenge in case he lose in Mexico is nonsense because Kramnik is not "obligated" to win or tie a single game.Even a score 0/14 will be enough for him to defend his classic title.His results could affect or determinate who will be 1rst,2nd,3rd.....Other point is that Elista candidates could produce 1 or 2 more russians to the mexican list and in that case 3,4 or 5 russian players in the same tournament could repeat the Curacao Phenomenon to fix a final between Kramnik and another russian.Why this man has so many benefits if to become a classic champion he won no cycle to challenge Kasparov?, his title is a big aberration supported by a russian FIDE president.

Granda you clearly have not looked at the FIDE rating list in recent times or for that matter in the last ten years. Kramnik currently ranks 3rd in the world...So the chances of Kramnik going 0/14 in Mexico is simply impossible. Secondly your comment that he does not deserve the title because he didn't qualify is nonsense. The match happened, Kasparov placed his title on the line ... and lost, Leko challanged Kramnik ... and lost, Topalov put his title on the line and also lost! Pehaps you are a fan of Topalov and still bitter about his loss? Thirdly, I do not see how he is "supported" by the Kirsan, if anything there was bias against him in Elista. He was the one who was harrassed and lost a point in game 5, if you can remember! Additionally, I think it is offensive to suggest that all the Russians will go there to fix games and throw games to other players. All the players in the tournament are very strong grandmasters and with good reputations and your insinuations are simply misplaced. Finally, you are implying that Kramnik would throw games so that he can get a desired opponent in a mathc later on seems very strange, Kramnik is not afraid of anyone in that field, if anything the other participants should be afraid of Kramnik.

Imagine.

izmailov, you havent addressed the very legitimate point that Granda has made

I think the most problematic result would be Kramnik to win the mexico tournament with anand second. Then Topalov has the right to match with Kramnik and not Anand. Obviosly tht would be unfortunate if anand is the highest rated player and has come 2nd behind Kramnik oin the WC tournament. However all these anomolies drop our after this 1st phase thereafter there will be matches evry 2 years with the challenger determined in a reasonably fair way with no right of return to the loser.To have a WC match every 2 years recognised by all is a good result.

Izmailov:to be a legitimate classic champion you need to be a legitimate challenger,Kramnik in a handpicked situation could had beaten Kasparov a million times in a match but his title has no value.In my opinion Kramnik broke the classic tradition started by Botvinnik and well kept by Fischer,Karpov and Kasparov. $$ was the only reason Kasparov accepted a socalled WCC match against Kramnik.I remember Fischer was recognized the champion not only because he beat Spassky,but Petrosian,Larsen,Taimanov,Palma de Mallorca...The point that Kramnik could affect the results of Mexico 2007 is true because he can do whatever he wants,nobody having control of his score,and for sure after that he will play a WCC match in the 2008 against a virtual Mexico 2007 winner.Completely nonsense my friend.Kramnik resuscitated the tradition of handpick challengers started by Alekhine with Euwe.We are returning to the prehistory times.We need cycles where all the Elite have the same chances to become champions starting from zero.

d_tal

I recognize the point that you and granda are making. However, it seems to me that it is not a strong argument, to assume that Kramnik would throw games to opponents he can beat, I think both you and I can agree on this. Kramnik is, from what I know a very honourable athlete, who has competed for many years and repeatedly shown his worthiness as a top competitor. I think that dismissing that and simply saying that, there is a possibility that he will throw games and therefore this format is bad, is not correct. I personally, was very pleasently surprised by the new format I like the match system and I agree with the fact that Kramnik should get a chance to win back his title if he does not win in Mexico. I may be biased because I am strong supporter of Kramnik, but I do believe that this is fair compensation for the fact that he is competing in the Mexico championships (I believe this compensation is necessary, since he is stepping away from the match system, which he clearly prefers to the tournament system, his results show this - if this compensation was not provided he may have insisted on a match system, which would mean more delays and embarrassment for FIDE, more time wasted, etc.). Some people may see this as favoritism to him because Kirsan and Kramnik are both Russians; I do not agree with this, once again I refer back to Elista, where the decision was taken against Kramnik in the questionable game 5; I think this is clear evidence that Kirsan does not favour Kramnik, even if many individuals continually claim this.

I hope this addresses your comment d_tal, if not then please specify, what I did not address and I will try to answer your comment to the best of my ability.

Let's assume that Kramnik is an honourable man. Now let's assume that with one round left, the position is Svidler has half a point ahead of Anand for the lead and has the tiebreak edge.

We know that Kramnik and Svidler are friends, and we have assumed Kramnik is an honourable man, but can you honestly expect him to try to defeat his close friend in the last round in a situation like this?

The flaw of round-robins like this is that ultimately the person who is playing somebody that has nothing to gain in the last round can expect an easy draw or at least for his opponent not to push him too hard. And it's not just Kramnik. The honourable Topalov, or at least the not-much-less-honourable-since-they-are-really-the-same-person Danailov offered Kazim a draw several times prior to their game in the second round of San Luis.

Exactly. I assume Kramnik would indeed try to win, actually, but even so, subconsciously he might not do his best. It's not about Kramnik. It's one of the fundamental flaws about using tournaments to decide the World Champion. Tournaments are quite fine, by all means, I like tournaments; but a World Championship tournament is abhorrent, the most important title in all of chess shouldn't be degraded in that horrible manner. It's disgusting and we can really hope that the current plan holds, for once, so that the shameful event that is Mexico 2007 will only be a temporary interruption and a footnote in tomorrow's chess history books.

I also read Kasim talking about Danailov's attempt at game-fixing. Is there an independent account?

Mexico is making a big effort to sponsor chess events and all it gets its a shameful event.

Thanks Acirce.

Ideal scenario would be if Kramnik withdraws from Mexico on health grounds and is replaced by Topalov, provided
1. Kramnik plays the match against the Mexico winner, and
2. Acknowledges the Mexico winner as the Undisputed WC for the interim period.

I don't think that you can expect honour (or honor, if you prefer). What you can expect from a professional chess player is 1) to play by the rules; and 2) to do what's in his/her best interest. (In science, this is referred to as maximizing one's utility.) The entire branch of mathematics called Game Theory is based on this premise.

I can think of two, possibly three times, in the past 20 years where a professional chess player tried to do something that may not have been in his best interest, but was intended for the good of the game.

At the risk of reopening an argument that won't seem to end, my list consists of the Kasparov-Short breakaway from a corrupt organization in an attempt to start something better. We probably all agree that serious mistakes were made in that attempt, dooming it to failure, but a key factor was the deafening lack of support from the GM community (who were, after all, only doing what they thought was best for themselves -- at least in the short run).

The second item on my list is Kramnik's agreeing to play with the title on the line in Mexico. He has more to lose than gain -- even with the flawed system. I suppose this is mitigated by the guarantee of a match against the winner, but it's still a better deal for chess (hoping, of course, that our worst fears don't come to pass).

The third item (the iffy one) is Seirawan's Prague proposal. It was certainly diplomatic, but honorable? I don't think so.

Mr. Hernandez, would all love to laud Mexico for adding some new sponsorship and interest to chess, but it would be much easier to do if the organizers (and people like you) demonstrated a minimum of respect for the match tradition of championship chess, instead of flat-out ignoring it and expecting us all to be pleased about it. It is a desecration of everything chess stands for, at least to many of us. They could have won our hearts by simply negotiating to change the Mexico tournament into a qualifier while retaining the rights to hold the world championship tournament in Mexico also.

I meany 'world championship MATCH', Naturally.

If Mr Granda is so extraordinarily ignorant of chess history as to think that handpicking opponents for world championship matches started with Alekhine, we can safely ignore his views. The truth is that historically what is an anomaly is not handpicked opponents but a rigorous qualifying cycle: from Steinitz-Zukertort until the death of Alekhine there was no other method than the champion picking opponents, regulated only by public opinion and market forces.

Mind you, if that was ignorant I can’t find words to describe the characterisation of Short’s actions in 1993 as altruistic. Ask them what they think in Manchester. About the only familiarity Short would have with the word is being able to look up how to spell it and toss it gratuitously into one of his columns under the impression it makes him look clever.

It’s strange how often these ‘hand-picked’ opponents give trouble, Tschigorin, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Schlechter, Kramnik……hell, there’ve been fourteen champions. I make it six of them won the title by qualifying for and winning a match against the incumbent.

Izmailov,
"I recognize the point that you and granda are making."

No you dont. Kramnik is unique, because he has a unique rematch clause, which none of the other players do. That's the point.

"However, it seems to me that it is not a strong argument, to assume that Kramnik would throw games to opponents he can beat, I think both you and I can agree on this."

I'm not arguing about what you think or believe. I'm arguing about facts. I also dont have the abaility that you have, of ESP, or divination. Hence I am unqualified to speak about what you think Kramnik will do. I certainly dont agree that Kramnik will not allow his play to be dictated by expediency or other considerations. See YK's post above.

"Kramnik is, from what I know a very honourable athlete, who has competed for many years and repeatedly shown his worthiness as a top competitor."

I wish that was the case, but I have a slightly different opinion. In all his behaviour in Chess matters (in my opinion) he has demonstrated nothing but self interest. Mind you I dont blame him for this, but saying otherwise is ridiculous.

"I think that dismissing that and simply saying that, there is a possibility that he will throw games and therefore this format is bad, is not correct."

There is nothing to dismiss, since your basic premise is a fallacy. It follows logically, that the question of "correct" or "bad" is non existent.

"I personally, was very pleasently surprised by the new format I like the match system and I agree with the fact that Kramnik should get a chance to win back his title if he does not win in Mexico. I may be biased because I am strong supporter of Kramnik,"

Yes you are biased, and this is probably indeed the reason you like the new format.

"..but I do believe that this is fair compensation for the fact that he is competing in the Mexico championships (I believe this compensation is necessary, since he is stepping away from the match system, which he clearly prefers to the tournament system, his results show this - if this compensation was not provided he may have insisted on a match system, which would mean more delays and embarrassment for FIDE, more time wasted, etc.)."

On the contrary, my opinion is it would have been incumbent upon him to show some sort of recompense for the fact that he never qualified to play Kasparov. (In fact, he was actively disqualified. Ask a gentleman called Alexei Shirov about that.) Heaping yet more advantages on him is not the way to go.

So to summarise, no, you havent addressed my point. Best, d_tal

I’m sure that if Kramnik were out of contention in Mexico and Svidler needed a draw to guarantee victory Kramnik wouldn’t press him too hard for victory. I doubt he would even if his own opponent in the forthcoming match weren’t a consideration: why should he? I certainly wouldn’t put in the enormous effort required to try and defeat a strong and motivated opponent, perhaps using up my precious openings ideas, when all that’s in it for me is denying my friend his goal. And I doubt most of us would. This isn’t a criticism of Kramnik, merely one of the obvious reasons why tournaments are not the way to decide world champions. You don’t need to postulate absurd Curacao wicked-Russkie conspiracy theories to see that.

Dtal, old chap, your points have been addressed endlessly. It’s time to accept that Kramnik became the world champion in 2000 and has defended the title since. Kind of, y’know, move on?

I think these conspiracy theories are a little ridiculous.

I think self-interest would ensure that Kramnik, having won the undisputed title, would want his reign to remain unbroken from all possible viewpoints. It is harder to regain a title and he would have less rights (say if he lost the subsequent match) than if he went into a match as champion.

If I was Kramnik, I'd rather not play Svidler who will probably know all my opening theory, meaning I'd have to start from scratch.

Also, in chess terms only (playing Topailov in Bulgaria would not be pleasant) I think any truly top-level players would fear nobody and would not even consider stopping a particular opponent from qualifying for a match.

I dont quite follow all this whining about Kramnik getting a match in 2008. Nobody is commenting on whether the system is a good one. The Kramnik factor will be irrelevant after 2008 so what is the view of the tournament format determining the challenger in a match the following year? Actually I have forgotten what is the basis for determining qualification for the tournament? Anyway way its a throw back to the old candidates tournaments but with shorter match length and quickplay tie breaks. Bottom line we get WC matches every other year and candidates in between that's got to be good for chess. I would like to see Anand win the candidates in Mexico as the no 1 rated player in the world it would be good to see him challenge Kramnik in a match

BTW, it's almost been forgotten in the thread- congratulations to Anand- the purists may not like the fact that he reached worse positions, but as one who appreciates tenacity and battling in those situations (as opposed to trying to create play in sterile positions and then losing), the way he overcame worse positions was very pleasing. Also,the second game against Carlsen was a beaut.

Very glad to see him finally reach No 1 and not too disappointed to see Topalov fall down :-)

Andy - Bottom line we get WC matches every other year and candidates in between that's got to be good for chess. I would like to see Anand win the candidates in Mexico as the no 1 rated player in the world it would be good to see him challenge Kramnik in a match

I'd second all of that. Despite wanting Anand to win, I think Kramnik would. From left field, I think that Adams may be Kramnik's most difficult opponent.

First, I strongly believe Kramnik wants to win Mexico. Thinking he would be -3 at any point is ridiculous.

It is in Kramnik's best interest as a chess player to win Mexico and take Topalov on in a rematch. To think he would 'throw games' to give himself an easier opponent via the winner of Mexico is also ridiculous.

Look at the past behavior of Kramnik. He has been highly professional in all his chess endeavors. I see no reason to believe he would suddenly change tack and jeopardize his reputation as a World Champion in the same vein as Topalov by trying a whole spectrum of unsavory tricks.

He has far too much class for that.

rdh, squire, that kind of move on is convenient, but doesnt right a wrong, begging your grace's pardon. You surely must appreciate old son, that when somebody demonstrates an abject lack of the grasp of these essential facts, they need to be informed. Surely your lordship remembers the old adage, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

Acirce, I doubt there could be an independent account since there probably was nobody else present when the offer was made. If you mean whether Kazim has made a pubic statement about the draw offer, yes, he has, in response to a Danailov article.

rdh--good addendum. Throw in a little piece of self-interest favoring the easy way and no honourable/honorable man would take the hard route.

al--I think like many chess fans Kramnik doesn't make much of the FIDE version of title lineage. The WCC setup already pretty much acknowledges him as world champion seeding him into the title match after Mexico, regardless of result. And the way the cycle is setup right now, there are no rematch provisions. An interesting point though is the draw rights. If Kramnik loses Mexico, he would presumably not win the FIDE title in a drawn match--nothing has been said about tiebreaks, so perhaps they are non-existent.

Nonetheless, given a choice of that or putting up with Danailov and his crap, once again, like many chess fans, would probably rather choose broken lineage and slightly lower odds.

Of course it doesn't right a wrong. Shirov WAS grievously wronged, not by Kramnik but by Kasparov and/or whoever contracted with Shirov in 1998 to organise a world championship match for him if he won Caorle. Kramnik could have seen fit to play Shirov to right that wrong, or he could have seen fit to grant Kasparov a rematch as so many wanted, or he could have done his best to institute a qualification cycle as he did. I've never seen any sort of rational case made against his decision to do the third of those: plenty of fatuous hate-spitting, obviously, but no reasoned case, which is not surprising since one could hardly be made.

It's a mistake to think we don't remember how Shirov was wronged. But that wasn't your point.

Your point, as far as one can distinguish it, is that it's wrong to say that Kramnik should now play the winner of Mexico if it's not him because he never qualified to play Kasparov seven years ago. (how much wronger to say Topalov should get to play Kramnik again if Kramnik wins Mexico, surely, but anyway).

My point is that there's got to come a time where talking about Kramnik's legitimacy as champion ceases to have any merit, and we've long since passed that point. He beat Kasparov and has twice defended the title. It's clear he's the champion - let's face it, nobody else is - and it's time to stop complaining about the past.

rdh old son, dont speed read, but read.

"Your point, as far as one can distinguish it, is that it's wrong to say that Kramnik should now play the winner of Mexico if it's not him because he never qualified to play Kasparov seven years ago."

Nope. That's not my point. Try again.

>>However did anyone else find Anand's insistence that he had been world chess champion ie FIDE wold champion a bit odd?>>

There's no greater indictment of the FIDE title than that you have to remind people that you won it. Nobody would have to be reminded that Capablanca and Alekhine were world champions.

Granda wrote:
>>in the same tournament could repeat
the Curacao Phenomenon to fix a final between Kramnik and another russian.>>

There was no "Curacao Phenomenon". Nobody these days believes Korchnoi was made to throw any games in that tournament (if he had, he'd surely have complained long and loud about it after his defection). Even Fischer himself backed away from the claim fairly quickly and had good relations with Korchnoi for years afterwards (which was Fischer's way of saying "I was wrong, but don't want to talk about it").

There may be format problems with this tournament, but using Fischer's sour grapes to illustrate them may not be the most effective strategy.

rdh--

Confronting these stale arguments is like battling a beat-up old hydra. When you knock it down in one thread it staggers along in eight others.

Why not just admit you're wrong and have done with it?

Kramnik could defeat Anand, Topalov, Leko, Radjabov and Carlsen in long matches and take over the #1 rating slot for the next decade. But he'll never be a "real" champion until he turns the clock back and
a) defeats Shirov in 1998,
b) qualifies for the 2000 Kasparov match,
c) defeats Kasparov in a 2002 rematch, and
d) wins (none of that "shared first" stuff) every tournament he plays.

Granda wrote:
to be a legitimate classic champion you need to be a legitimate challenger... Kramnik resuscitated the tradition of handpick challengers started by Alekhine with Euwe.
>>

Is it your opinion then that Smyslov was the first legitimate champion (since he was the first to win a Candidates)? You imply that's so, but don't come out and say it in so many words. But if that's not what you mean, then saying that Kramnik's title is no more valid than Alekhine or Euwe's doesn't seem like much of a slam.

Factually, of course, you're wrong in saying that Kramnik brought back the handpicked challenger. In fact, it was Kasparov who did that. Since 1993, Anand, Leko, and Topalov, all won qualifying events of one stripe or another before challenging for the title.

>>We need cycles where all the Elite have the same chances to become champions starting from zero. >>

Who decides who the "Elite" are? The only handpicked challenger since 1993 was Kramnik himself, but he was the top-rated opponent. Is it your opinion that Kasparov is still champion?

Bronstein, surely, Graeme?!

Of course, that Candidates event was fixed as well, it seems.....

Sorry, first CHAMPION, not challenger. See what you mean. But after all how can you ever have a first champion, since he can never beat the existing champion?

A champion chess title is not a property,is not a monarchy,a champion chess title is the right to show you are the best of the world,Kramnik before beat Kasparov beat nobody else.A champion has to show a real superiority over the rest of the opposition the same way Fischer,Karpov and Kasparov did it.Why Kramnik wants "fair" qualifier processes to get his "challenger",just get out FIDE rules,handpick your opponent.

>>Granda wrote:
A champion chess title is not a property,is not a monarchy,a champion chess title is the right to show you are the best of the world,Kramnik before beat Kasparov beat nobody else.
>>

That answer is not very clear. Are you saying that you DO recognize Alekhine, Capablanca and Euwe as champions, or you don't?

In my humble opinion the situation of WCC is even worse, than pointed out by the eloquent, well informed and in a greek sense logically educated chess experts here around.

Please recall: the chess entity Robert James Fischer has never been defeated in a regular WCC match or tournament!

Considering this fact, the winner of Mexico should face Fischer, because he is last really undisputed chess champ... ^^

I recognize a champion when he was produced from a qualifier stage.Before Botvinnik there were "monarchies".After Kasparov we have a "Kalmyk circus".

"However did anyone else find Anand's insistence that he had been world chess champion ie FIDE wold champion a bit odd?"

Odd is one word. Absurd is another. My respect for Anand, always about as high as it could go, has just dropped considerably. That he would consider such jokes to be in the great Steinitz line is an insult to the history of chess and the real World Champions.

Yes, I do feel very strongly about this, and my words are perhaps harsh, but Anand is smart. He should certainly know better. He can't REALLY consider winning some speed tournament or whatever the World Championship. If he does, he's an idiot, and no way is he an idiot. I don't know his motives, but it's not fully honest, and I don't respect that. I was always under the impression that he took those FIDE KO tournaments for what they were, and nothing more. Now it looks like he's ... well, I don't know what, exactly, but whatever it is, it's a step down for someone of his high character.

It's strange that someone would find that odd. I would have found it very odd indeed if he had denied it. Look at all his statements since he won the FIDE WC, he considered himself the World Champion, he still considers himself an ex-World Champion.

---

"Metz: In this open letter they use numbers 12, 13 and 14 to identify the different world champions. Which numbers would you use for them, for Chalifman and for yourself?

Anand: I am the current world champion, Chalifman was the previous world champion."

"Metz: This means you don't see any chance of a 'reunification' match against Kramnik because there is no other world champion?

Anand: Reunification won't solve anything."

"Metz: Did you ever discuss with Kramnik who is the 'real' world champion? Or is there no point in arguing because you both have different opinions on the topic?

Anand: I think it is quite silly to discuss this at all."

"Metz: In the past you were irritated by answering questions in the never ending tale of matches against Kasparov and who might be or is the 'real' world champion. Now you are the world champion. Has anything changed or do you still hate to discuss this?

Anand: I am the world champion. I do not need to discuss anything with anybody."

http://www.chesstigers.org/alte_daten/chesstigers_alt/ChessClassic2001e/champs/anand.htm

well well ... so far we have:

Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca
(all together world chess champs by fortune - no fair qualifiers for contenders, so no world champs at all...)

Alekhine - the brave
Euwe - Alekhine the coward ... uuups
Alekhine - the nazi... *harrumph * harrumph

From here on, under the fair regiment of FIDE (^^)

Botvinnik - the young one
Smyslow - ?
Botvinnik - the elder one
Tal - the wizard of Riga
Botvinnik - the rematched one
Petrosian - Kramniks real predecessor
Spassky - the one who called it a french day ...
Fischer - the only true and .... bla bla bla
Karpov - the one who accepted the gift (german - gift = english - poison)
Kasparov - the menetekel of chess
Kramnik - the Berlin wall
Khalifman - the wit champion
Kramnik - the one and only
Anand - "an idiot, and no way is he an idiot. I don't know his motives, but it's not fully honest, and I don't respect that."
Kramnik - the one and only
Kazimdshanov - the accidental world champ
Kramnik - the one and only
Topalov - the Topailov entity
Kramnik - the cheater, the coward, the drawmaster...

great stuff here around ^^

without any doubt: Alois Alzheimer rules...

The title of World Champion is meaningless if the FIDE ratings has someone higher rated than the 'World Champion'. The highest rated player is the best player in the world and these ratings should be updated on a regular basis based on active play and inactive players removed from the list - similar to Tennis ATP Rankings.

People don't want to wait 2 years to see a world champion, they want to know who the best is every few months.

>>The title of World Champion is meaningless if the FIDE ratings has someone higher rated than the 'World Champion'.
>>

By the same reasoning, isn't the rating system meaningless if a lower rated player ever beats a higher one in a match, or even an individual game?

People have a hidden bias towards the rating system because it purports to show an exact measurement, not just of two players against each other, but of everyone against everyone else, even though everyone knows it really doesn't make good on its claims and that a 2803 player isn't really better than a 2802 in any meaningful way.

>>
Granda wrote:
I recognize a champion when he was produced from a qualifier stage.Before Botvinnik there were "monarchies".After Kasparov we have a "Kalmyk circus".
>>

Okay, so you DON'T recognize Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe, though you still seem a bit uncomfortable about saying so directly, rather than in a roundabout way.

The problem is that your system, while trying to make things better actually makes them worse. In the old systems, the winner was the person who won, even in a flawed system. In your version, results don't count unless you personally consider them to have been achieved under ideal conditions. Since *everyone* has their own personal preferences, all you've given us is a recipe for confusion.

I mean look at what you've told us. You've got a situation where Capablanca was never the World Champion because he didn't win it under the auspices of an organization with a candidates system you like. Even when the organization does exist and names a single unified champion, it still doesn't count. You're entitled to the view, but it's obviously not one that anyone else can make use of.

I cannot understand the rationale behind the strong words and all that criticism dished out at, at various times, Anand, Kramnik and Topalov for calling themselves world champions.
Clearly, the players themselves have been more pragmatic than ideological and that should be just fine since it is understandable for one to act for his best interest without playing foul.
Why would any player play in a world championship tournament/match if he doesn't believe that winning it would give him bragging rights? Given this it is pointless to say things like "that he would consider such jokes to be in the great Steinitz line is an insult to the history of chess and the real World Champions."
Anand played both the PCA and the FIDE cycles. As did Kramnik (he played the FIDE cycle in 1994, losing to Gelfand along the way). Do you think Kramnik would've politely declined being the world champ had he won the FIDE cycle in 1994? Do you think Anand would've done likewise had he beaten Kasparov in 1995?
If you are harping ideology/history, remember that the very act of turning up to play in a rival cycle or being willing to negotiate with the rival cycle, or acknowledging the presence of the rival cycle in any way should be a no no.

>>
Considering this fact, the winner of Mexico should face Fischer, because he is last really undisputed chess champ... ^^
>>

Not really. Fischer resigned his title in writing, 33 years ago. It made things nice and neat.

@graeme - so everything depends on a little piece of paper? i can not believe ... ROFL

I'm fairly sure Kramnik would not have gone around sounding off about being the world champion if he'd beaten whoever it would have been (did they reinstate Karpov, I suppose?!) in 1996. He was fairly unequivocal in interviews at the time that Kasparov was the true champion.

Yet another metamorphosis of Godwin's Law - any time you talk about the world championship, some clown comes along and thinks it's funny to say Fischer's still the world champion. Nature's way of telling you it's time to call a halt.

>>I cannot understand the rationale behind the strong words and all that criticism dished out at, at various times, Anand, Kramnik and
Topalov for calling themselves world champions.
>>

Not sure what your point is. Certainly Anand, Topalov and Kramnik have all competed for both the Classical and FIDE titles, and in so doing, "saluted" both titles, so to speak. What Anand would have done if he'd won the Classical Title, or what Kramnik would have done if he'd won the FIDE is anybody's guess.

But by saluting both titles, they all recognized that multiple titles existed. As fans, we, for years wanted them to do something about it and go back to having just one title, and therefore criticized those who impeded that.

As for why all these people have drawn criticism, it's not too hard to understand.

Topalov drew criticism, not for calling himself world champion, but for flip-flopping. Immediately after San Luis he announced that he wanted to play a reunification match, because, after all, Kramnik was a world champion too, and one week to the day later, said he DIDN'T want to play a match because he didn't recognize Kramnik's title. Granted, arm twisting by Kirsan and Danailov may have been ultimately responsible for the flip-flop, but the buck still stops with Topalov.

Anand doesn't get criticism for any ethical failings, only for low ambition. Some people think he has it in him to become the one and only undisputed world champion, and should have done so a long time ago, but was satisfied to hold merely the less well regarded of the two world titles. The one that people have to be reminded that he won at all. Anand doesn't really get much in the way of bragging rights from Delhi. Winning mini-matches with Bologan, Lputian, Macieja, Adams, and Shirov, and a Rapids match with Khalifman is nice, but everyone knows he's capable of a lot more. You certainly don't become world champion by beating people like that.

Kramnik gets heat because he didn't play a rematch with Kasparov, pure and simple. Never mind that it was largely Kasparov's fault, for reneging on a deal to play in a candidates event if he lost. The public wanted to see that match and so the buck stops with Kramnik for the fact that it didn't happen, just as it stops with Topalov for flip-flops comitted by others in his name.

Please dont lump Anand (at Groningen and Delhi) & Khalifman (at Vegas) with Pono (Moscow) and Kasim (Libya) as "some sort of speed tournament". The first three were at standard controls. It is only the last two that were at accelarated controls. Also, other than Kasparov, all the World elite were present including Kramnik (in Vegas) when Khalifman won. Anand beat Shirov 3-0 in a six game match final.. and Kramnik couldnt even win a single game against Shirov. This is not a Kramnik hating post since I like the guy and consider him the undisputed WC ... but please dont try to change history.

When Anand won the World Championship, they were the only avenue for top players to play in a WC ... since Kasparov was cherry picking challengers. Back in late 2000, early 2001 there were two World Champs - Kramnik after beating Kasparov and Anand after beating the rest of the elite. Go back and read kasparovchess reports at the time and one can see that both champs were treated on par.

Of course, subsequently FIDE accelarated time controls, reduced the price fund and made the KO a farce, but please dont make the mistake of lumping the first three KOs with the last two.

Anand is absolutely correct when he says he was World Champ once. Compare that tournament to the Kramnik-Leko cycle and you will find that the former was superior to Kramnik's defence.

>

Josh, can you please explain the grounds for which one would consider a 14 gamer between Kramnik and Leko, decided by a +0 score, a true world championship, whereas a 10 game match played against Adams+Shirov (whose average rating equals that of Leko) won by a +4 score would be a speed-game victory? As far as I remember, Anand was undefeated in all the classical games (twenty odd games) played in the 2000 KO-WC, and only on a sole occasion against Khalifman did he require a rapids tie-break.

...Go back and read kasparovchess at the time and you will find that both champs were treated on par.....

ROFL! Right. And obviously Gazza didn't have any sort of, you know, axe to grind at all.....

As for it being the only route for top players to fight for a WC, this is true to an extent of course, but Anand could have played Kasparov in 2000 if he'd wanted to (and lost again, I expect). He chose not to; Kramnik took the opportunity Anand let slip, and the result is what we see today.

Anand is no more a world champion than Khalifman or any of the rest of them, and the sadness people feel about him, criticism they make of him, whatever, is that really he didn't want it enough and thus wasn't up for taking this chance in 2000.

@rdh - i can not take you serious any longer, because you are not gifted to destinct between sarcasm and not sarcasm - well - have a nice living in your own ebony world...

*shaking my head

PS: somtimes reading helps - and sometimes catchwords unmask the non reader

>>Please dont lump Anand (at Groningen and Delhi) & Khalifman (at Vegas) with Pono (Moscow) and Kasim (Libya) as "some sort of speed tournament". The first three were at standard controls. It is only the last two that were at accelarated controls.
>>

Well, Anand drew his match with Khalifman +0-0=2, and then won a playoff +1-0=3. I don't remember the time controls, but if you're saying the playoff was at classical time controls, thast's okay. In that case, Anand beat Bologan, Lputian, Macieja, Khalifman, Adams, and Shirov, all in classical mini-matches.

It's nice, but obviously not as nice as if he'd beaten Kramnik or Kasparov in title matches. You wouldn't have to remind journalists that a victory like that had happened at all, and you wouldn't have wholesale discussions about whether he'd ever been world champion afterwards. Anand may have held a world title before, but he's never been the one and only undisputed champ. He's good enough to hold that honor if he only sees the need, and doesn't kick back and feel like he's "done that already". Maybe he will. Maybe getting the #1 rating will light a fire under him.

Vohaul wrote:
@graeme - so everything depends on a little piece of paper? i can not believe ... ROFL
>>

Well gee, if even resignations don't count, how can anyone ever beat anyone. By that argument, Fischer was never champ at all, since he achieved all his victories by resignations, nof checkmates. Clearly something's wrong with that argument.

I think it is a bit sad Anand considers himself the ex-World Champion. After the spanking he recieved from Kasparov in 1995 World Championship match, you would think Anand would know the difference between the world championship and a FIDE KO. There have been 14 world champions in history and to even call that was the FIDE KO the world championship is ridiculous. Corrupt FIDE leadership tried to make a little bit more money by applying the words "World championships" to KO tournaments that have very little in common to what is historically and commonly considered the chess world championship. It is sad to see people like Anand refuse to recognize the obvious just because it is in their self interest not to do so. When someone like Anand says he was a chess world champion, he misleads the public.

Several things become apparent from this thread.

1) Unless the so called World Champion is a playing entity who stands at the top of the ranks, preferably #1, the entire concept may become obsolescent. In this fast paced world what happened N years ago loses its meaning very quickly. And traditions are Ok to a certain extent, but this is not the Church. More contemporary approach has been applied in all other sports. If the champion is ill or indisposed that is not going to make the World stop turning and events not played, while he sits on that title.

2) Ultimately the thing will be driven by marketing forces and in that respect the title "World Champion" is a good brand. That means that for it to have any meaning the events should be held more frequent and certainly be predictable, unlike the 1995-2005 (non-FIDE) period.

3) Now that he's being perceived as the main threat, Anand may emerge as the next target of the Kramnik PR machine and fan club. This is partially a joke, but jokes tend to be rooted in reality... Never mind his lifetime achievements, Anand has every right to call himself a World Champion because the events that led to that title were far less arbitrary than in the other case.

4) We’re coming out of a very messy period and I believe that clarity will triumph at the end.

D.

1) The classical system worked fine for chess for 120 years and the 14 World champions were pretty much the best players players of their generations. Chess doesn't need to look at other sports. Chess World championship is a proud tradition that every sport would like to have.

2) the 1995-2005 (non-FIDE) period was a period dominated by market forces. I loved the FIDE cycles of 1950s to 1980s, but they were all based on USSR money. 1995-2005 is remarkably a period of a much bigger influence of market forces - "no money for Kasparov-Shirov? Let's try Kasparov-Kramnik" etc.

3)Anand has no right to call himself a champion and it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that " the events that led to that title were far less arbitrary than in the other case". There is nothing more arbitrary than Kirsan's whim. FIDE KO tournaments: 1997-2004 RIP. Arbitrary format held at random years won by random people - and now it is dead. There is nothing more arbitrary than that. At least, in the other case there is definite tradition and logic (you have to beat the previous champion unless he dies/retires), and it consistantly produced worthy winners.

Like the grandmaster title, I believe that Fide's purpose was to dummy-down the WC title with its KO system, break the traditional lineage and have absolute control over it's "subjects." Fide is first and foremost a political body and then perhaps a promoter of chess to a lesser degree. It's much easier to call the shots when your recycling new "champions" every two years. Like most things Fide trys, it didn't come to fruition but I'm sure they will try some other asinine way in the future.

I like Anand, but to claim that he was a World Champiom does a disservice to himself and the chess world in general.

here is TWIC's view on the FIDE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS that Mr. Anand won:

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/even2000.html

at the bottom of the page, see how Mark Crowther clearly shows the schism in the chess world by calling the Kasparov-Kramnik match NOT THE world chess championship, but the BRAINGAMES WCC.

So Mr. Russianbear and Mr. Graeme's posts misinformed posts notwithstanding, Anand is absolutely right to call himself "(former) World Champ."

>>3) Now that he's being perceived as the main threat, Anand may emerge as the next target of the Kramnik PR machine and fan club. This is partially a joke, but jokes tend to be rooted in reality...
>>

Not in this case. The Kramnik PR Machine has been about as elusive as Elvis and UFO's. People want to believe in it so as to be able to spread the blame for Elista out more evenly. Not necessarily to support Topalov, but just to avoid seeming one-sided. Susan Polgar's blog was especially funny. Every time Topalov released another attack article, she'd write "I wish those two would knock it off." She couldn't bear to just blame one of them, no matter what the circumtances showed.

>>Never mind his lifetime achievements, Anand has every right to call himself a World Champion
>>

Yes. He *does* have the right to call himself that. He won it in good faith from a recognized organization; the same one that administers the unified title now.

He has the right to call himself that, but he doesn't have the right to be satisfied with it. He's capable of winning a lot more than that dinky little FIDE Lottery. He can beat up on the Bologans, Lputians, and even Shirovs of the world all day, and it doesn't mean much.

>>because the events that led to that title were far less arbitrary than in the other case.>>

In what way? There were no qualification events for New Delhi. People were simply invited on the basis of rating. In other words, they were hand-picked. How is that any different from Kasparov picking the top-rated player as his challenger?

If the rating system is as great as people say (and some here have even suggested that it outweighs even the world title, then how can they then turn around and scream foul if Kasparov uses that same rating system as the basis to pick a challenger?

In other words, what sense does it make to suggest that the rating system outweighs the world title, and then turn around and deny that the rating system outweighs the candidates system?

here is a direct quote from Mark Crowther in the article above:

"Having put himself in a position to win World titles on a number of occasions this now relieves the pressure on Anand. He has used his experience of the past to win this title and now whatever happens has his place in history."

clearly i view Mark Crowther writing in 2000-2001 to be a more authoritative source on whether Anand is a past champ or not than the "blind" Kramnik acolytes seen here.

This is not to diminish Kramnik's stature. After all, he beat Garry to become the Braingames WORLD Champ, defended it against Leko and did win the unified title against Topalov. So Kramnik was "A" World Champ from 2000-2006 and is "THE" World Champ from 2006 onwards. These things are known to everybody but please dont pull down someone else's place in history as a World Champ just to make your man look better.

Yes, of course, Anand WAS a world champ. Kinda. Sorta. I would be a world champ too if I played in a "world championship" event against my dog. But, of course, my world title or Anand's world title is worth very little if it stands against everything that is commonly understood to be the Chess World championship competition. They just call a KO event "World championship" and that confuses the issue. They could call the winner of the KO by so many titles: the "World Cup winner" , the "KO Champion", the "Yokozuna", the "FIDE Immortal" - but they chose to steal the title that was actually taken in the chess world already by the classical tradition of "World Chess Champions". So, yes, Anand WAS a world champion, he just was never THE world champion, not in the sense the title is used for 120 years in the chess world. That is why Anand's bragging about being an ex-World champ isn't cool.

Leave Yokozuna alone, bear, the man is dead.

"Fischer resigned his title in writing 33 years ago. It made everything nice and neat."

For the record, Fischer carefully worded his "resignation" as a a resignation of the title "FIDE world champion", but making it clear that he still considered himself world champion, so that in this respect his position was no different from Kasparov's. If Fischer's title may be considered lapsed, the only disanalogy with Kasparov is the length of time before he was prepared to defend it.

k:
"clearly i view Mark Crowther writing in 2000-2001 to be a more authoritative source on whether Anand is a past champ or not than the "blind" Kramnik acolytes seen here." - Sorry, but appeal to authority is not going to help. With all due respect to Mark Crowther, he is wrong on this one. As for "blind" Kramnik acolytes, I can just as easily call people who don't agree with me "blind Anand(Khalifman/Pono/Kasim) acolytes", and it would as irrelevant.

"please dont pull down someone else's place in history as a World Champ just to make your man look better." - Nope, I am not doing that. I think YOU are doing that. And ANAND is doing that. You are making Anand look better by saying he was the World champion, as that implies he was in the line as Steinitz, Lasker, etc. the simple fact is - and he was not. And it is not even the worst part. Calling Anand the (ex)World Champ means Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were also the world champs. So THEY TOO were in the same line as Steinitz, Lasker, and all those guys. AND THAT is an insult not only to my intelligence, but also to the 100+ years of World championship tradition (no disrespect intented to the KO winners, by the way). I don't know which of the above mentioned FIDE KO winners is the one you are a fan of, but it definitely seems like YOU are the one who tries to "pull down someone else's place in history as a World Champ just to make your man look better." You are pulling down 14 players just to make someone else look better.

This "World's #1-rated" stuff is way, way overblown. In the January list, #1 is four points higher than #2.

What does that four-point spread actually mean? That in one out of hundreds of rated games #1 defeated a 2700? 2650? 2600? and #2 only drew him?

Whoop-de-do.

Anand had every right to call himself the ex-World Champion because he won it and earned it. People especially Russians can't accept that. Just as San Luis was organized by FIDE as chess worldchampionship, the same FIDE conducted the then worldchampionships. If Topalov could call himself the World Champion eventhough shortlived, he still was an ex-worldchampion. If It was not Anand who split the chess community into two. It was done by a Russian. Anand was faithfully participating in both cycles and after being tricked by FIDE based Russians favoring Karpov in the 1998 Final, he finally managed to earn it in 2000 in a decent and spectacular way. Kramnik couldn't have beaten Shirov with such a huge margin in classical chess. Not even Kasparov coud have done that. While Kasparov was a chess politician, Kramnik was a coward unwilling to accept a rematch offer. All of them-Topalov, Kramnik and Anand has rights to claim to be Worldchampions (in some cases add ex-~). No one stopped Kramnik or Kasparov from participating in that 1998 or 2000 matches. Kramnik lost to Gelfand once in FIDE, then couldn't beat Shirov and let Khalifman win the other. If, Kramnik who was out of the scene for so long, who wouldn't give a rematch to Kasparov (bitten by his own politics) has any right to beat Topalov who by the way earned the title by cheating in San Luis has any right to claim to be the World champion, then Anand has more reasons to be called as ex-world champion. After all, he doesn't say that he is the current champion, he only says he has won it before. What is wrong about that- if he is wrong let FIDE correct him. Why do you worry? They won't because they organized it just as they are organizing every event now and had done so in the past.

>>For the record, Fischer carefully worded his "resignation" as a a resignation of the title "FIDE world champion", but making it clear that he still considered himself world champion,
>>

What other title *besides* the FIDE title did Fischer ever win? You're right, he did word his resignation in that way, but considering that he resigned the only title he ever won, the distinction seems meaningless.

Incidentally Fischer may have talked about himself as world champion before he ever played Spassky. When discussing his refusal to play in the 1969 Zonal, he used another interesting wording, saying "...I will lose my possibility of becoming **official World Chess Champion** in 1972," (my emphasis), which, if you parse his words the same way, might mean that he thought he already had an unofficial title of some kind. Maybe this is the title he thought he was keeping when he resigned his official one, but goodness only knows what that other title is or where he won it.

>>
so that in this respect his position was no different from Kasparov's.
>>

It's different in one very important way. In fact, three very important ways.

1) Fischer resigned his title, while Kasparov didn't.
2) Kasparov did in fact play FIDE's duly designated challenger, Fischer didn't.
3) Fischer didn't defend against anyone else either. He retired, while Kasparov remained active.

Nevertheless, you could make an argument that Kasparov lost the title in 1993 and Karpov became champion again, but almost nobody seems to want to do that. FIDE made a big mistake trying to disqualify both players. In so doing, they merely forfeited their right to name Kasparov's future challengers. If they had bit the bullet, accepted the situation, and gone on and selected Kasparov's next challenger normally, they'd have had a lot more leverage if he refused to play that guy.

If Fischer had played a title defence against Karpov in 1975, even if he said it was outside of FIDE, then we'd have something to discuss. You know what? He'd probably still have been recognised as World Champion. But by never defending the title, more than anything, he gave it up. Wasn't Karpov even willing to leave FIDE to play?

Calling Fischer World Champ, well, what if Smyslov had said "this rematch clause is BS, there's no way I'm playing this corrupt game", and refused to accede to the rematch clause. Since FIDE wouldn't have bent on the issue, he would forfeit the title back.

NOW, supposing Smyslov never played again. Fischer expects people to still recognise him as World Champion, but would he have recognised in 1972 that he was not World Champion, if Smyslov had done the same thing? Would he? You know he wouldn't have accepted the same argument from someone else. Nor do we accept it from Fischer.

Now if he'd played Karpov in '75, and FIDE had put up a match between losers in the candidates' cycle (say, Korchnoi vs. Spassky "world championship"), I'd follow the same arguments toward the winner of that, as I do now with regards to Anand claiming to be "world champion": BULL &*$%. The winner of Fischer-Karpov 1975 would have been recognised by most, just as the winner of Kasparov-Kramnik is.

I wrote:
>>You're right, he did word his resignation in that way,>>

Actually, not quite right. Fischer did NOT make it clear at the time that he still considered himself World Champion. His resignation was worded in such a way as to make that a possibility, but he didn't actually come out and say it.

The relevant wording is: "FIDE has decided against my participation in the 1975 FIDE World Chess Championship. I therefore resign my FIDE World Chess Champion Title."

He did NOT go on to say "But I'm still a kind of World Champion anyway", though he did leave the possibility open. Though again, we must ask what other world champion title beside the FIDE one did Fischer ever win?

The classical champion is the player with an unsurpassed claim to being the world's best long-match player. Having little or nothing to do with this concept are:

--The FIDE "world championships" 1993-2005,
--Russianbear's upset victory over his dog.

>>If Fischer had played a title defence against Karpov in 1975, even if he said it was outside of FIDE, then we'd have something to discuss. You know what? He'd probably still have been recognised as World Champion. But by never defending the title, more than anything, he gave it up. Wasn't Karpov even willing to leave FIDE to play?
>>

He was, the way he tells it. In Karpov on Karpov, he discusses the negotiations with Fischer to play a match outside of FIDE. The way Karpov tells it, it got as close as Campomanes putting a contract in front of Fischer, and getting the pen into his hand. At the last minute, Fischer balked over the issue of what to call the match. The contract didn't say. Fischer wanted to call it "The Professional Chess Players World Championship", which would have been dicey for Karpov, since the official Soviet Party line was that their players were amateurs, not professionals.

Campomanes said look, just sign the contract and we'll come up with a mutually agreeable name later, but Fischer said no, he couldn't do it that way, in stages. It was then that Karpov says he knew that Fischer would never sign.

Just because Fide initiated the KO system, it doesn't mean squat as far as the World Championship is concerned.

Next time around, let's say, they decide to have a Bullet Chess KO Tournament and the winner will be claimed World Chess Champion, so everyone is expected to think of the winner to be heralded in the same light as Steintz thru Kramnik. In its own self interest Fide put forth a bogus system that shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. It's sad to think that there are chessplayers who feel justified in accepting this travesty as if it were somehow written in stone.

"Yes of course Anand WAS a world champ. kinda. sorta. I would be a world champ too if I played in a "world championship" event against my dog." - Russianbear

Right. I like your thinking!

But don't you agree, you can also make your dog a "World Champion"? kinda. sorta. All you have to do is just lose. Right? Also, it is unlikely your dog would have played any chess against anybody to be qualified to play you. May you would have tried to arrange one match at the most. And your dog would have failed miserably. Public interest out of curiosity in a man vs dog and therefore the money.

So, there you go, you and your dog. You play a chess match in "wwe style", lose to your dog and your dog becomes the "classical undisputed WWE style once in a life time lifetime world chess champion"!

PircAlert

Hey RB, do you permit Anand to call himself a World Chess Champion when/if he wins Mexico?

D.

A solution to solve the problem of Mexico 2007: A tournament of Matches.8 player 4 quarterfinals of 8 games the match plus tiebreaks,2 semifinals of 8 games the match plus tiebreaks,1 final of 8 games the match ,total one undisputed champion beating 3 opponents in a row in 24 classic games. Kramnik can not complain playing in his beloved match format against 3 challengers instead one.The winner would play for a WCC match against the next World Cup winner every 2 years and problem solved.

There are lots of solutions to solve the problem of Mexico. The simplest and easiest was to replace Kramnik with Topalov and have the winner play a match against Kramnik.

That would be greatly preferable to a situation where Kramnik would have the opportunity to have an influence over who his challenger will be. (The same situation could have arisen at A.V.R.O., had not Alekhine announced midway that he wouldn't feel obligated to play the winner).

Kramnik might not be able to comlain about your suggestion (for that matter, he's not complaining about the current one), but the rest of us could. You seem to be under the misconception that the match format is sacred to Kramnik. It doesn't appear to be, he's playing in Mexico without a complaining. Like most players, he's probably most interested in what advances his own career. It's the rest of us who know something about chess history, who hate to see a century of tradition overthrown just because some people don't like one guy.

Anand is pretty dishonest in pretending his "World Championship" was a legitiate one.

To -solve the unsolved- could have many -solutions- but what is the problem that Kramnik wants to play only against one challenger?.A tournament of matches is his best chance to prove he is the best match player.Kramnik considers a match is the only legal way to be a world champion,so why he expect challengers produced in a tournament format?.

Viva Linares!

It was a sweet sixteen party for Carlsen.

Moro played like a maniac and it payed off.

There was some karmic pay off for Topa.

Anand did excellently well in typical Anand fashion.

What a great tournament!

We talk about this lineage of World Champions that started with Steinitz and continued with Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, through to Kasparov.

Beg your pardon?

Steinitz just declared one day: "I'm the World Champion!" after beating one player, Zuckertort. IIRC, Zuckertort's lasting contribution to chess history was that he was the one player Steinitz beat to claim the first World Champion title. Nicely circular.

THIS is a World Champion? You just say you're the World Champion and that's the end of it?? And what sort of qualification system was in place for Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Euwe? Not a very strenuous system; nothing at all like beating two or three opponents in match play before playing a World Championship match. Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, and Short accomplished a great deal more than the group of champions and challengers starting with Steinitz and ending with Botvinnik.

If the lineage is Smyslov-Kasparov, then fine - comparatively, Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariov, and Topalov doesn't rate as well as the Smyslov-Kasparov line. But, compared with the Steinitz-Botvinnik line, Khalifman and company at least had some kind of structure, some kind of process to their titles. They weren't at the mercy of a World Champion arbitrarily deciding who has the right to compete with him.

I would love to see the Candidates system return, with one minor modification: if you win the candidates cycle and draw a match with the champion, the challenger is granted an automatic rematch to be played within six months. Why should the challenger, who has gone through a rigorous candidates cycle and proven himself to be the equal of the world champion, have to start all the way at the beginning? That seems unfair to me.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that if you are going to discredit Kahlifman and company's FIDE titles, you should realize that the Steinitz-Botvinnik line deserves a similar sort of discredit. How did Frank Marshall deserve to play for a World Championship match? He had better backing? Please.

"Kramnik considers a match is the only legal way to be a world champion"

Kramnik has NEVER said that.

You've got some odd ideas here, Ricardo. You seem to think that the world championship succession is a private argument between you and a few other internet geeks. On the contrary, without exception, every book you pick up on the subject will tell you that, yes indeed, Steinitz, Lasker, and all the rest were World Champions. This is not just you against some of the people here, it's pretty much you against the world.

>>Anyway, the point I'm making is that if you are going to discredit Kahlifman and company's FIDE titles, you should realize that the Steinitz-Botvinnik line deserves a similar sort of discredit.>>

Not really. The point you're missing is the lack of dissent. Steinitz had a title that nobody disputed. Khalifman had a title that nobody remembers. See the difference?

>>How did Frank Marshall deserve to play for a World Championship match? He had better backing? Please.

How do you think he GOT backing? Backers don't generally flush their money down the toilet. They back something that they think has a reasonable chance of success. Marshall's tournament successes plus his (slight) winning score against Lasker convinced people that he had a reasonable shot. And unlike you or I, those people put their money where their mouth was; surely that makes them more credible than us, not less. You might say that Steinitz through Botvinnik weren't really champions, but I bet you wouldn't put a plugged nickel on your chances of convincing anyone.

You've got some odd ideas here, Ricardo. You seem to think that the world championship succession is a private argument between you and a few other internet geeks. On the contrary, without exception, every book you pick up on the subject will tell you that, yes indeed, Steinitz, Lasker, and all the rest were World Champions. This is not just you against some of the people here, it's pretty much you against the world.

>>Anyway, the point I'm making is that if you are going to discredit Kahlifman and company's FIDE titles, you should realize that the Steinitz-Botvinnik line deserves a similar sort of discredit.>>

Not really. The point you're missing is the lack of dissent. Steinitz had a title that nobody disputed. Khalifman had a title that nobody remembers. See the difference?

>>How did Frank Marshall deserve to play for a World Championship match? He had better backing? Please.

How do you think he GOT backing? Backers don't generally flush their money down the toilet. They back something that they think has a reasonable chance of success. Marshall's tournament successes plus his (slight) winning score against Lasker convinced people that he had a reasonable shot. And unlike you or I, those people put their money where their mouth was; surely that makes them more credible than us, not less. You might say that Steinitz through Botvinnik weren't really champions, but I bet you wouldn't put a plugged nickel on your chances of convincing anyone.

Who cares who was or is "World Champion?" Why waste time discussing such matters when you can be out getting laid?

So Anand was not preceeded by Khalifman and succeeded by Ponomariov as FIDE World Champion? How confusing.

On World champion = number 1 in rating list; very dependent on the sport. Example (always football for me), when French became FIFA world champion, Brazil was number one in the FIFA rating list; and people care more about world champions than number ones in the rating list.

"Who cares who was or is "World Champion?" Why waste time discussing such matters when you can be out getting laid?"

Totally immature. And yet, the best answer I've ever seen on this topic!

Pardon, I meant France, not French.

Ricardo, you gotta be kidding. Before you post these things, how about doing at least a little research so that your claims don't look so, hmm, peculiar.

"Steinitz just declared one day: "I'm the World Champion!" after beating one player, Zuckertort. IIRC, Zuckertort's lasting contribution to chess history was that he was the one player Steinitz beat to claim the first World Champion title. Nicely circular." - That's the thing. He didn't just decide one day to declare himself the champ. First, he beat everyone he played for 20 years.

In 1866, he beat Andersen who was considered by many the best at the time. In 1866 he also became worlds #1 ranked player according to chessmetrics historical ratings. Then he played pretty much anyone he could and continued winning. In 1876 Steinitz played a match against Joseph Blackburne who was ranked #2 in the world according to chessmetrics. 7 games were played and Steinitz won all 7. In London, 1883 they put together a huge tournament where pretty much all the best players of the time met - including top 7 players in the world according to chessmetrics. It was a 14 player double round robin, so they played 26 rounds (they replayed the draws, which were rare at the time). Result? Zukertort scored +18 and Steinitz finished second with +12. Blackburn finished 3rd with +8 and Blackburn was also beaten by Zukertort in a match earlier with a +5 score. When they played the first world championship match in 1886 Steinitz and Zukertort established themselves as by far the most dominant players of that time.

Perhaps you should check out some stats before you post things.

Here is summary of Steinitz's career:

http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=186510SSSSS3S126127000000141000057100000010100

If anyone could some day sit down and say "I will play the strongest player there is in the world other than me and let that be a start of Chess World championship", Steinitz certainly was the right guy to do it.

"THIS is a World Champion? You just say you're the World Champion and that's the end of it?? And what sort of qualification system was in place for Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Euwe? Not a very strenuous system; nothing at all like beating two or three opponents in match play before playing a World Championship match. Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, and Short accomplished a great deal more than the group of champions and challengers starting with Steinitz and ending with Botvinnik."
I am not going to go into details and refute this utter nonsense and explain why Lasker, Capablanca and others deserved to be world champions even without FIDE and without consistent WC cycle. The quote like that is so ridiculous that to answer it seriously would not be right. I am just going to mention that FIDE had pre-Botvinnik world champions, too. You just don't remember them because noone gives a damn about them anymore. Hell, I love chess trivia and even I barely remember those guys. One of them was Bogolyubov. Another may have been Euwe, but I am not sure. As soon as Alekhine died FIDE was the first to forget about those so-called champions and chose to align themselves with the Steinitz tradition and number the champions accordingly. I think 60 years from now people will once again only remember the Steinitz traditional/classical line when they think of our time. Noone will remember Kasimdzhanov and other FIDE winners. Time will tell :)

I like rematch clauses.

I think the champion ought to get a rematch clause. That way we'd get a Wch match every year and only have to schedule the qualifying over two years (since the Q seems to be such and issue). Then we could have proper candidates matches. And we'd get to see the fascinating development of mano-a-mano chess over two matches in the rematch situation.

I'm all for handpicked challengers too. Kasparov's score against Shirov after the Kramnik match was something like 80%.

"Yes of course Anand WAS a world champ. kinda. sorta. I would be a world champ too if I played in a "world championship" event against my dog." - Russianbear

Hey russianbear. Lets match my WC dog against your WC dog for the unified wc chess title. However be forewarned, my WC dog has Heavyweight Boxing WC dogs as friends.. so your dog better not mess with my dog.

"Who cares who was or is "World Champion?" Why waste time discussing such matters when you can be out getting laid?"

Or trolling websites. That really impresses the chicks.

:-)))) truffaut, you have a point!! How true...

D.

gmc, how can you possibly like rematch clauses? Where do they end? If a new world champion has to play a rematch and then loses, why does that person not then get an automatic rematch, or was that person not a 'real' world champion, i.e. only the other champ gets a rematch. A rematch clause gives too much of an advantage to the champion and it is completely unwarranted. A losing champion can simply join in the next cycle and try to win the title back.

Bovinnik kept having rematches... Does anyone know why the other world champion such as Tal, Petrosian & Smyslov didnt have rematches??

I'd like to buy a round of drinks for truffaut and charles! "Hear, hear!"

World Championship matches are history like marxism, communism and other old Soviet concepts.Good in theory but not practical in 21st century. Russians guys cannot handle other nations guys being chess champs and start to discredit them. For this reason I would rate Fisher and Anand as best chess exponents of the free world ..who cares what they think..

@zzz

Tal and Smyslov could not have rematches as they lost their titles back to Botvinnik in rematches before having the right to claim a rematch themselves, i.e. before keeping their worldchampionship titles longer than one year. If they had they won the rematches vs. Botvinnik and after that lost their titles again in a new worldchampionship, they would have had the right to demand a rematch as well.
The rematch regulation was abolished from 1963 on, that's why Botvinnik could not demand a rematch vs.. Petrosian and neither could Petrosian vs. Spassky. The regulations were changed again by FIDE in 1985 to give privileged Karpov the right for a rematch vs. Kasparov.

From FIDE site:
'Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and Vladimir Kramnik exchanged the opinions in respect of time control and concurred that it is necessary to keep the 7 hours control for top level events and some traditional chess tournaments. For all other tournaments a new time control of 1 hour plus 10 seconds from move 1 for each player will be set up. The World Champion supported the idea. This proposal will be considered by the next Presidential Board meeting.'

WTF??? Kramnik really supported this?

First of all, to everyone - I wasn't suggesting Steinitz and others weren't deserving champions. If this is what you took from what I wrote, it is either due to insufficient skill with reading comprehension or a deliberate act of ignorance stemming from a reflexive dislike of anything resembling a dissenting opinion.

The world champions before 1950 could, in fact, hand-pick their challengers. If there is something sporting about that, I'm an airplane.

Graeme,

You claim patrons don't flush their money down the toilet? Ever hear of the Rice Gambit? Would any governing body ever waste their time and sponsor's dollars on that? What of other tournaments devoted to a single opening? Are those serious events if White isn't permitted to play 1 d4? Is Melody Amber a serious event now?

Russianbear,

Steinitz was regarded as the strongest player in the world in the 1870's. Why is he the first world champion, then? Was not Adolf Anderssen regarded as the strongest before Steinitz? Or Morphy? LaBourdonnais? Why does the lineage begin with Steinitz if history tells us there were others before him? Because he said so? Because the history books tell us this and for crying out loud, we dare not oppose them? The orthodoxy must remain unchallenged?

My point (and I'll try this again, slower this time) is that champions and challengers from 1950-1995 proved more than their predecessors. The candidates process of that era meant that a player competing for the championship had earned his way there.

In 1977, Korchnoi defeated Petrosian, Spassky, and Polugaevsky in match play to earn the right to play against Karpov. In 1907, Marshall only needed financial backing to play a match with Lasker. They may have both been championship challengers, but only one man truly worked for that honor.

But thank you, Russianbear, for not taking the time to refute a claim I didn't make. That would have been a spectacular waste of time on your part.

I Dont think Anand was bragging about he being World Champion.

People seem to have not noted the frustration of Anand at being asked that question. Yes it was frustration and certainly not bragging.

Imagining someone ask him " Why did you not beat Garry?" What do they expect as an answer?
" I got killed thats why? " I think Anand's answer was indication that he did not want to talk about it. If you asked him that whether he was World Champion he'd say "Yes" , he won it in Tehran, BUT HE VERY WELL KNOWS THAT the title is not the REAL World CHampion. Nobody asked him that.
Anand himself said that to be World Champion, you need to beat existing WC in a match. So even though he might have played for fun in DElhi, i think there is nothing wrong in claiming that he WAS World Champion, after all Garry was there and chose not to participate, Can you blame Anand for that? If Kramnik refused to play in Mexico and if there were confusion prevailing still, as to a WC match and classsical World Champion woudn't play or the Talks with immediate challenger failed and someone like Anand won a FIDE organised WC even be it 5 mins games, i think they can claim that they WERE WC !!

Ask him whether it was the true WC, and i'm sure he'll say 'ofcourse not '.

I've to agree with Ricardo here. This supposed line from Steinitz to Kasparov is absurd. Lets take Lasker for example, he avoided a match with Tarrasch for a long time and played only when he Tarrasch was way past him prime. He played against Schlechter and didn't manage to win (in fact he would have lost if not for the unfair condition that Schlechter need a 2 points margin to win), then Lasker avoided Capablanca for like 10 years, he played meaningless matches against Janowski or Marshall, he avoided Rubinstein altogether and so on..
And what about Alekhine? he never gave Capablanca a rematch and played against Bogo.
Even after ww2 with FIDE things weren't any better. We all know that in the match-tourney in 1948 Keres was forced to threw his games to Botvinnik then Brostein wasn't allowed to win against Botwinnink... and so on. Then the absurd rules which gave Botvinnik the right for a rematch. (btw i've never quite understood why weren't Smyslov and Tal granted a rematch after they lost the tittle too, its not like they were less valid champions than Botvinnik). Oh and what about the ridiculous regulation that the champion keeps the title in case of a draw?
This supposed line of "champions" from Steinitz to Kasparov is purely a fictional myth.
Khalifman, Anand and Pono deserve all credit they were real world championship, those events they've won were fantastic!

Lots of pointless semantics in this thread, and thousands of dead horses screaming with pain.

Well, that's a point. The Rice Gambit was an exception to the general rule that losers don't get backing (though Rice did "win" at his real objective of getting his name on something that GM's played). Backing a tournament or format isn't the same thing as backing an individual.

Oh for goodness' sake. If we must have historical reminiscences can we have less of these ludicrous Schroeder-style canards?

Everyone knows that Lasker spent long periods away from chess; that's why, alone among the world champions, he achieved something which means his name lives on in other intellectual disciplines.

The myth that Schlechter needed a two-point margin was exploded long ago. See Winter, Heidenfeld, et al.

Lasker avoided Capablanca for ten years - you must mean 1911 to 1921, I suppose? First of all, in 1911 Capablanca was by no means the most obvious challenger. Secondly, during 1914-1918 there was a certain amount of international upheaval - you may have heard of it - which meant that the climate for staging world championship matches was not favourable. Third, after the war, far from avoiding Capa, Lasker resigned his title to him. It was Capa who wanted the match.

As to Rubinstein, you will recall that negotiations for a match were well advanced when the international disharmony I mentioned prevented it.

We do not 'all know' that Keres was forced to lose to Botvinnik. Many people would like to believe this, true, but I've never heard anyone close to the scene at the time say so (Bronstein, for example) and others who were denying it (eg Averbakh).

The same in 1951. What is common knowledge is that Boleslavsky did not fight as hard as he might have done to let Bronstein qualify instead of him, but Bronstein himself never came out and said he was ordered to lose.

If you could be bothered to read the thread you would see Graeme explaining the rematch rule. Boxing has the same 'absurd' rule of the champion keeping the title in the event of a draw. I would be interested, actually, if you could name a sport where an existing champion defends in a head-to-head which doesn't have this 'absurd' rule.

As to the line of champions from Steinitz to Kasparov being 'pure fiction'; I think the only appropriate reply would be, 'yes, of course it is, sweetie.' I never understand why people see fit to post such utter drivel. One can only suppose that you simply lost sight temporarily of the fact that words have meaning, as opposed to being simply nice vehicles for emitting emotion. Of course it isn't "pure fiction".

>>The regulations were changed again by FIDE in 1985 to give privileged Karpov the right for a rematch vs. Kasparov.
>>

Not quite. The regs were changed in 1977. But not to give Karpov a privilige, to cut a deal with him. Lots of people, the US especially, still wanted to see Fischer's unlimited match rules tried out, but Karpov wanted to go back to the old Best of 24. In order to get him to agree to play an unlimited match, they gave him the rematch clause. It was the US and Ed Edmondson himself who helped him get it.

rdh you have written a lot of nonsense.
First Schlechter indeed needed a two-point margin it is a well known fact, further proof of it is that the negotiations of the Lasker-Capa match fell coz Lasker insisted on the same unfair rule.
Keres threw the games to Botvinik there is no question about that. Their score before was more or less equal but at the most convinient time for Botvinik Keres suddenly losses 4 games in row playing like a patzer? right. The rematch rule was simply unfair and stupid. period.
and has Boxing to do with chess?

>>The world champions before 1950 could, in fact, hand-pick their challengers. >>

Not entirely. Again, you still could only choose from people who were powerful enough players to get somebody to back them.

Really, the ONLY champion ever who truly hand-picked his opponent was Steinitz in 1889. The Havana Club came to *him* (rather than to a challenger) saying they wanted to sponsor his first title defense, and that he could pick anyone in the world as his challenger. He picked Tchigorin, since Tchigorin had a winning record against him that he wanted to erase.

Would you care to post any evidence for your suggestions about negotiations for the Lasker-Capa match, Jean? They are absent from Winter's Capablanca biography AFAIR; generally considered the most reliable (secondary) source.

I'm afrai