This win by Anand is more in the class of Botvinnik/1948 than those Khalifman/Ponomariov/Kasimz. efforts.

Match enthusiast, yup, thats me too.
Congratulations, Vishy boy. Finally, you made it

Whatever one's faith (Chess or Hinduism) he will still have to congratulate Anand for winning the Mexico 2007 and, just as Alekhine did in the New York 1927 tournament, becoming the one who will play the champion in "The Match".

Was thinking along the same lines last night, when in disgust I saw that Kramnik had a 13 move draw. Maybe the draw was due to the position and the strength of his opponent, but I certainly felt that he simply didn’t wanted to press because it didn’t really matter. After failing to convert a promising position against Anand in the previous round, he realized that he wasn’t going to win the tournament, and the match next year was always going to be there. I am a fan of Kramnik, but that draw was deplorable. (which does not mean that I am against the draw offer – rules do not need to be changed because of short draws; players attitudes and the publics opinion should)
As a match purist I don’t think Anand should get a star, nor for that matter should Anand 2001, Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimjanov. A match is a match; and Mexico 2007 together with all the previous FIDE ‘WCH’ tournaments were simply tournaments. A match with all the authority that it bestows on the winner should and, in my opinion, is the only way to decide who is the best, the strongest, the numerous uno. Ratings, in which so many people place so much trust, are just an accessory, and mean very little, especially at the top.
Moreover, I don’t really care if Mexico was the only ‘championship’ available for Anand to win (‘the only game in town’). There certainly were periods in chess history when the strongest player was not the one holding the championship title and I dont see anybody trying to put asterisks next to Capa, Rubinstein or Chigorin because they kept winning the only ‘game in town’.

>For now we can enjoy the fact that we only have to >give one name when someone asks us who the world >champion is. Until Saturday, or perhaps only until >Friday, that's Kramnik. After that, it's >Viswanathan Anand.

Mig, did you write this or Garry?

Well said, Mig. I'm a match enthusiast, and to some degree a purist, but I agree that this tournament has real legitimacy to it.

I'm greatly looking forward to the Anand Kramnik match next year and sort of hope that Anand wins it because I feel that is the outcome that will do the most to settle all controversies.

I too believe Vishy should be considered the next World Champion, and that this is a matter of degrees rather than an objective fact. What gets this debate heated up is when one side pretends not to see the arguments of the other. If there is to be a meaningful discussion on this topic it should start with acknowledging all the arguments -- pro and con -- and debating their relative importance.

I believe the players themselves (Kramnik, Anand at least) don't care whether a title is called 'classical', 'unified' or whatever, as long as they get a fair chance to play for it. It is just a minority of fans, who seem to have their egos riding on it....

playjunior, don't you think "Garry" has better things to do than write on blogs? :-)

Zigomar, you got the meaning of asterisk backwards. Asterisks in sports often denote some special condition that detracts from, rather than enhances, an achievement. In this case the asterisk would read as a footnote that these were somehow "illegitimate" champions who won tournaments rather than matches.

More to the point: how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin?

Following the only-matches purists, From 1946 to 1957 the world title was vacant due the fact that 1948 tournament winner was an impostor and could not win any regular match until 1958 !

On the other hand there is no asterik around his name...

IMO this tournament will not define Anand's place in history, but the upcoming match with Kramnik will.

Yes, the victory of Vishy is dominant, well deserved and glorious, but so was his victory in the knock-out championship in New Delhi. However, should he lose the match to Kramnik, it will be quickly forgotten. His place will be the same as that of Sen Luis winner (minus the reputation of a nutcase of course). How many people now are willing to put Topalov in the Steinitz line? Not many I presume. Now compare this to the general feeling in the aftermath of Sen Luis.

On the other hand, should Anand defeat Kramnik, I have no doubt that the end of Mexico championship will be put in history books as the beginning of Anand's rule.

The question really becomes interesting, in the case if Anand-Kramnik match will fail to materialize for some reason. Here I wouldn't dare to predict how the history will sort itself out. Still, I doubt Anand get his ticket to the Hall of WC Fame based on Mexico win alone. So I guess, that means that yes, Anand is a new champ, but still with an asterisk for now.

The winner of Mexico is the World Champion, because the Champion Kramnik agreed to put the title on the line. And only for this reason Anand (or whoever wins) will be The Champion. Anand's #1 position on the ELO list is absolutely irrelevant.

I am a match enthusiast myself and I am glad in the future the Champion is decided in a match between the Champion and the Challenger. As for the match in 2008, I think Kramnik deserved the rematch after agreeing to play in Mexico. The other choice he could have made was to tell FIDE to stuff their plans up their *** and just sit on his title. So kudos to Kramnik. Oh and one more thing: GO ANAND!

There are two lines:

1) "classical": Steinitz #1, .. Kramnik #14.
everyone knows this line
2) FIDE line (FIDE was established in 1924):
1924 Matisson, 1928 Euwe, 1929 Bogolyubow,
from 1948 to 1993 and in 2006 FIDE and
"classical" champions were the same.
1993, 1996, 1998 Karpov
1999 Khalifman, 2000 and 2007 Anand,
2002 Ponomorev, 2004 Kasimdzanov, 2005
Topalov; all this guys are FIDE World
Champions not more, not less;

Only the history will decide, on my mention
if Anand will beat Kramnik next year, no
matter, he is #15; if he will lost, sorry
Vishi, history will not count you.

Do not make mix it with 1948 tournament,
Alekhin was dead, Kramnik is still alive :))

And guys, Kramnik-Anand could be the
wonderfull match, these two boys the most
stronger active (Kasparov :( ) World players
for at least 15 years.

I am biased, but well written, sir.

osbender! I completely agree with you, only my typing skills are slower

Fischer lost his title by resigning it in writing. It's difficult to see why Kramnik couldn't lose his the same way. And the 1948 example shows that a tournament can be held to fill a vacant title.

Whether Anand will be "Classical" champion (or whether there even is a classical champion as such any more) may be debatable, but at the least Anand will be the *only* world champion if he wins this tournament. Whether the Classical title is held by Anand, or whether it's "vacant", at least we can be sure that Kramnik won't hold it any more than Fischer does.

Zigomar: "A match with all the authority that it bestows on the winner should and, in my opinion, is the only way to decide who is the best, the strongest, the numerous uno."

Agree. But the question is, what if such a match never takes place? What if a player is as strong as the world champion in tournament play, but never gets to participate in the champion's candidates cycle? The purist says (not for any chess-related reason, I think), "then the world champion is automatically stronger".

I believe, rather, that in this situation one can say nothing about the relative strengths of the players. The longer this situation persists, the legitimacy of the world champion becomes weaker. In that case, if there is a tournament world championship (which is labeled as such) involving both players, the outcome tells us which player is stronger. This is not as good as a match, but better than inertia.

Yes, Ali got a match to claim the world title against Foreman.

Chess, as the purists are happy to tell, is like boxing, just a little less boring.

By the way, let´s invite Don King to lead the chess Federation. He is one who could develop the true nature of chess: just gladiatorial duels for God´s sake!

This is silly -- Kramnick did not even qualify to play Kasparov; he lost to Shirov and for that was rewarded with a title match with Kasparov. And he defended it with a tie against Leko! And all this is supposed to be more legit than Anand winning by a mile and being the no.1 player at that time?

>>Following the only-matches purists, From 1946 to 1957 the world title was vacant due the fact that 1948 tournament winner was an impostor and could not win any regular match until 1958 !
>>

The difference between 1948 and now is that the title didn't change hands in 1948, a vacancy was filled.

That being said, though, Kramnik's "resignation" of the title creates a vacancy now also, which can also be filled via a tournament.

Just a theoretical fun:

Due to the "historically established rules", the present champ might as well be ... Levon Aronian!

Why? Well, Kasparov forfeited his title (like Fischer) by not playing against Shirov. Hence, Shirov was champ all the time till he lost the match in Elista to Aronian!

It would be great fun if Levon (or a clever manager in his name) would claim (best after the end of the matches Kramnik-Anand and its winner against Topalov/cupwinner) that a "real champion" would have to beat Levon in a match to be legitimate... :-)

OK,
Anand will be 2007 FIDE World Championship Tournament Winner (Champion)
Kramnik is the last traditional Match Champion,
who beat Kasparov, and defend the Title twice, the history will be decided next year or
Anand #15 (2007-..) or Kramnik #14 (2000 -..., (2000, 2004, 2006, 2008))

The history and the law court decisions could be different :-)

And lets look for Kramnik's World Champioship Match records: Kasparov, Leko, Topalov, Anand,
4 strongest opponents in 8 years (do not forget Leko in 2002-2005 was very strong, Dortmund, Linares and Weik-an-See winner). Impressive opposition!

Also do not mixed it with Fisher, Fisher was non-active, it is the main reason why the World decided that Karpov is undisputed Champion, just imagine if Fisher did not stop playing in 1972, but beat for example Korchnoi in 1975 and 1978 with a bigger margin than Karpov (as Karpov beat him only 3:2 and 6:5).

>>This is silly -- Kramnick did not even qualify to play Kasparov; he lost to Shirov and for that was rewarded with a title match with Kasparov. And he defended it with a tie against Leko! And all this is supposed to be more legit than Anand winning by a mile and being the no.1 player at that time?
>>

Um... yeah. Beating Kasparov is a more impressive accomplishment than winning this tournament.

Beating Capablanca in 1927 (which was also done by someone who hadn't qualified) is likewise, more impressive than winning this tournament.

But you're arguing points that don't make a lick of difference to this situation. Comparing Anand's (probable) win to 2000 or 1927, or whatever else we want to do isn't the issue. The issue is comparing an Anand's win in this tournament to an Anand win in the match next year. Which of *those* two victories would be the more meaningful? All this other stuff is irrelevant.

One can argue semantics like "Kramik's resignation of the title" till the cows come home. The history though doesn't care about semantics. Imagine that in 1949 Alekhine is undead. That would have put a huuuuge hole in the legitimacy of Botwinnik's title.

People will also recall Karpov's title in 1974, but they conveniently forget that there was a huge asterisk to his 1974 title in public perception. That's why Karpov went out of his ways to crush all the available opposition and erase that asterisk. In doing so Karpov won more than 100 tournaments during his career, a mind boggling number that nobody (including Kaspy) is even close to approaching. And of course, all the doubts were gone after the successful title defenses against Korch.

So if we look from historical perspective, erasing the doubts about legitimacy of your title required extraordinary feats. It's much easier to beat Kramnik in a match than to repeat what Karpov has done.

There's nothing semantic about it. Granted, the public perception of Anand's title may be in some ways shaky, but that's a completely separate question.

The fact is that Anand's title, like Karpov's, will be the only official one. Even the USCF didn't recognize Fischer as world champion in 1976. There were a few sulky references in Chess Life & Review to Karpov as "FIDE World Champion", but that's as far as their objection went.

But you can never silence all the critics. Lev Alburt still recognized Fischer as champion as late as 1986. Takes all kinds to make a world, huh?

If Anand wins, he'll have the only world title. Public respect is something you can't legislate.

Chess Blog Rank Zero:

Nice catch :-)), but Shirov lost match to Anand in Teheran, December 2000 (it was a separate match, after Delhi knock-out), so Anand is the Classical World Champion from 2000 :-))!!

Yes, it was a really bad story with Kasparov-Shirov-Kramnik in the 1998-2000, but IMHO it was Kasparov fault, but Garry was penalized for this.

One mitigating circumstance regarding Kramnik's spotty performance post winning the crown - he was fighting a painful and deadly illness, ankylosing spondylitis, if I'm right (this link http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2846)
Considering that it is a remarkable recovery and maybe his propensity to draw is somewhat linked to this ailment which apparently never goes away, though it can be controlled.

Graeme, sure, Anand will have the only world title. But what's the point of having a title that public doesn't respect. For example, there is a title of "academic of New York academy of science" that you can buy for $10 a year. I don't know anyone who actually did. And it's not about my, yours or Lev Alburt's recognition. It's about what majority of chess public thinks.

2007 Anand +4
2005 Topalov +6

If Anand in World Champion, better make him #16 and Topalov #15.

I say wait until next year to give him his number.

As Topalov-Kramnik showed, tournament chess is not match chess. I'm just glad we will finally get to see Anand-Kramnik. Should be fun.

Good Luck, Vishy!

Kramnik owes it to Kasparov. If kaspy was not such a monster, Kramnik would have been easily forgotten.

Also, Kramnik had to rely on draw odds to retain his title against Leko. Hardly an achievement comparing how Anand demolished Shirov in a 6-game match in 2000.

Consider :
a) Kramnik always gets knocked off very early in FIDE world cup tourney. This is not expected from a player who is supposed to have a "deep understanding" of chess
b) Anand has lost twice to Kamsky after latter's return to chess.
c) Kramnik is able to beat Kasparov in a match, but loses to players like Shirov.

(b) and (c) needs an analysis into role of pshychology in chess.

"Following the only-matches purists, From 1946 to 1957 the world title was vacant due the fact that 1948 tournament winner was an impostor and could not win any regular match until 1958 !"

Actually, coming to think about it, the training match between Smyslov and Botvinnik doesn't really count as a WC match. The rules stated back then that the defeated champion had the right to a return match, but since there WAS no defeated champion, this leaves us with the conclusion that Smyslov is in fact the undisputed World Champion as has been so for 50 years!

The training match between Smyslov and Botvinnik being the one in 1958, of course...

osbender stated:
One can argue semantics like "Kramik's resignation of the title" till the cows come home. The history though doesn't care about semantics. Imagine that in 1949 Alekhine is undead. That would have put a huuuuge hole in the legitimacy of Botwinnik's title.

Maybe, but of course the difference is not only that Kramnik is alive, but that he played in this tournament, and lost. If Alekhine was alive and either refused to play in a match tournament or lost to Botvinnik, I doubt any such "hole" would have been created...

Also, those questioning the legitimacy of Kramnik's title because of his drawn match with leko must rethink the the validity of the tenures of Kasparov (Karpov 1987) and Botvinnik (Smyslov 1954).

>>Graeme, sure, Anand will have the only world title. But what's the point of having a title that public doesn't respect. >>

Well, the only way he can win a title that everyone respects is to win this tournament first. His path is clear.

If he wins the tournament and the match both, then people will all agree that he's the next champion, and be less likely to quibble about exactly when his reign started. (Tal became World Champion immediately after Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade, didn't he?). If he wins the tournament and loses the match, then it will be knottier.

The "match purism" originates from nothing but tradition. This same tradition involves the World Champion title being a private poperty: until 1946, the titleholder had complete freedom in choosing his opponents (or not putting the title in line at all). So, if Kramnik acknowledges the winner of Mexico 2007 as the new World Champion, there should really be no open questions left.

That said, I'm a match enthusiast myself, and I'm extatic about the upcoming Anand-Kramnik match.

Posted by: bondegnasker at September 26, 2007 10:06
>>"Following the only-matches purists, From 1946 to 1957 the world title was vacant due the fact that 1948 tournament winner was an impostor and could not win any regular match until 1958 !">>

So your belief is that the match purists are unaware that there was a world title tournament in 1948?

That's so unlikely that there might be something obvious you're overlooking. You might want to double check that.

Zweiblum, its not that I got the meaning of the asterisk backwards. I don’t think that there should be an asterisk or a footnote. Chess is not a sport/game which can and should have categories. This is not boxing where you have categories which are justified - weight categories - under 50 over 120. Hence, in my opinion, no united or classical. Perhaps the only category I would consider recognizing would be the rapid, blitz…etc. Tournament is a tournament – lot of people involved, while a match clearly shows the dominance of one player over another.

In response to RR, ‘What if a player is as strong as the world champion in tournament play but never gets to participate in the champion’s candidates cycle?’ we as chess public actually had such a situation. There were at least two players in the late 70’s and early 80’s, which could ‘regularly’ beat Karpov (in the age when he was considered unbeatable) but could never reach the candidate matches themselves – Ljubo and Anderson. Are we going to consider them stronger or as strong the world champion or world tournament champions? Of course not!
Petrosian had terrible tournament results during his 6-year reign as world champion, but did anybody question his strength? No, what’s more, he actually defeated Spassky in 66. His title, in the publics eye, was never questioned despite finishing equal 6-7 in Santa Monica (a double round robin that certainly was as strong or perhaps even stronger, given the participants Spassky, Fishcher, Larsne, Portish, Unzicker, Petrosian, Reshevsky, Najdorf, Ivkov and Donner, then the candidates matches of the year before). Was then Spassky labelled, or should be now with these new classifications we are trying to artificially create, a World Tournament Champion?

I agree that there should be regulations in place, so we don’t get matches like in the Lasker era against Janowsky or Marshal, but until you put your opponent down on the canvas in a one on one fight I cant give you the WCH title.

The Fischer scenario doesn’t really count for anything in this debate because he never played after giving up his title (well to be honest he did against Spassky in Sv Stefan and Belgrade; in a match that was labelled as a WCh match – but I don’t think anybody took that seriously).

If Kramnik wins the match next year, then in 30 years or so, I don't think the next generation will put Anand in the Steiniz-Lasker-Capablanca-... line, regardless of what "every authority that has traditionally ever mattered in the chess world" thinks today.

I am yet another match purist. To become the Classical World champion - which is the only title I care about, Anand will have to beat Kramnik in a match. At the same time, I will not consider Kramnik a champion if he doesn't win Mexico! It will make little sense to consider him a champion when he resigned the title in favor of the Mexico winner. But it would make even less sense to say that the classical title, which is essentially a match title, can be won or lost in a tournament. So, if Kramnik doesn't win Mexico, I will consider the title vacant, pending the outsome of the Kramnik versus Mexico winner match.

This is kinda like Lasker resigning the title in Capablanca's favor, but then they played the match anyway.

From chessgames.com:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By 1920, Lasker recognized Capablanca's prowess, and resigned the title to him, saying, "You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery."2 Capablanca, having felt robbed of his chance to win the title in the traditional fashion, convinced Lasker to play, but Lasker did so only on condition that his resignation be accepted, and he be regarded as the challenger. Lasker's resignation was not widely recognized at the time, nor today, therefore this match is generally regarded as the one in which the title changed hands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Kramnik's resignation of the classical title in favor of the Mexico winner is similar to Lasker resignation in favor of Capablanca. But it will not be widely recognized in the future, just like Lasker's wasn't and the match will have to be held for the 15th world chess champion to be crowned as such.

Frankly, I find it somewhat amusing that people who consider themselves Anand fans want to claim the "undisputed and unified", and therefore, classical world chess champion title for Mexico winner(if it is not Kramnik) without giving Mexico winner a chance to play for it in a match. I think some fans should take a leaf out of Capablanca's book and instead of claiming Anand is the champion without playing the match, hunt Kramnik down like he was Jason Bourne and make sure the match of Kramnik versus the Mexico winner indeed does happen - the way Capablanca hunted down Lasker and made sure he didn't simply get the title by the virtue of Lasker's resignation or by the virtue of his own tournament success.

Kramnik himself will acknowledge Mexico winner if he won't win it himself. But it doesn't mean that us fans of classical match title have to go along with it. In any case, we can all agree that if Kramnik doesn't win Mexico, then the winner of the Kramnik versus Mexico winner match will be the world champ.

I think that the fans who say Mexico winner will also have the classical title just misunderstand the idea of a classical title and show disrespect to the Mexico winner by denying him the right to play for the classical title the way it is supposed to be done. Mexico winner will have the FIDE title - so he will be in the same line as Ponomariov, Khalifman, Topalov, etc - but seems clear that even if Kramnik chose to resign the title to the Mexico winner, he could only lose in Mexico what he won in a tie-break in Elista in 2006, not what he won in London in 2000.

I don't understand why there is this need to rob the Mexico winner out of the perfect opportunity to become the 15th world champ by claiming the Mexico winner will already be the 15th world champ by the virtue of winning this tournament. That is just all around robbery: it robs Kramnik of an opportunity to lose the (classical) title the way it is supposed to be lost and it robs the Mexico winner of a chance to win the title the way it is supposed to be won.

"Ljubo and Anderson could regurarly beat Karpov" where did you get that from?? both had a terrible record against Karpov...

>>So, if Kramnik acknowledges the winner of Mexico 2007 as the new World Champion, there should really be no open questions left.
>>

No real question about who the champion is (it would be ridiculous to call Kramnik the champion if he himself says he's not). The only real questions are a) about how much respect Anand's title gets (some, but not as much as he probably should until the match is held), and b) which "bloodline" he belongs to (which is a question a lot of people will ignore completely).

‘Regularly’ has (‘).
I thought about deleting the whole word but decided not to, that’s why it has ‘. I actually got that from Andrew Soltis, from his Chess to Enjoy column in Chess Life from, I would say, spring of 1995, when he was discussing talent vrs hard work.

Not sure about all that robbing, but I do agree with Russianbear

Well said Russianbear. FIDE, the fans and Kramnik himself may recognise Anand as world champion, but history will not agree unless Anand defeats Kramnik in the upcoming match.

The way Vishy is playing, he may just do that.

Assuming he wins, I will recognise Anand as the 15th World Champion and new member of the Steinitz line. I also recognise Kramnik's gesture in putting his title on the line (not resigning it) in a tournament, rather than the match he was entitled to.

I believe there are three criteria for deciding the lineage and believe that Anand meets them all:

1) Was the reigning champion able and willing to defend his title under agreed conditions? *
2) Did the reigning champion put his title on the line in the match/event?**

3) Did the new champion clearly defeat the reigning champion (and anyone else involved in a tournament) fair and square, according to the rules?

In each case we can answer "Yes" to Anand. Well doen Sir!

* i.e. was he alive (Alekhine) and was he willing (Fischer)? If not the championship was transferred to the winner of a match tournament involving the world's best players (Botvinnik) or the winner of the most recent cycle to find a challenger (Karpov) In both cases the Champions are considered by all reasonable people to be worthy holders of the crown.

** This covers non-title matches involving the World Champion e.g. Lasker-Schlechter.
To me, how the challenger got to challenge for the crown is irrelevant (there are plenty of hard luck stories (No match for Rubinstein and Shirov, no rematch for Capablanca) - the fact that the champ put his title on the line and the challenger won it from him has to be good enough.

Obviously Anand is the champion, but his place in history is something no one can legislate. Even among champions, there is a hierarchy: The public holds Karpov in higher regard than Spassky, though they both were legitimate champions. That might not be fair, but it's reality.

Kramnik's victories over Leko and Topalov might have been by the slimmest of margins, but the fact is that he took the title from the world's best player, and he defended it twice. That's something Anand cannot yet say. I have no view on the probability of him defeating Kramnik in a one-on-one match. But the long-term public perceptions of his title will be much lower if he fails to do so.

al, all this conditions are technicalities, the invention of a bureaucrat. The way you describe it, you can win a title by flipping the coin, if the former champ agrees to it.

Btw, I'm not a religious fan of match championship. It could be that in this time and age KO or a tournament are more progressive form. The problem is that people tried it very recently and it left a sour taste in the mouth of most.

The match title has an aura of exclusivity and respect because there were so few match World Champions. With tournaments and KO's you get a different champion every time and this severely eats into the respect the champion commands. And there is no getting away from the fact that this championship is (or will be) won in a tournament...

Anand is the highest rated player now and he is convincing winning the World Championship tournament. What more is required?

He has been one of the top 3 highest rated player for nearly a decade and a half, winner of many Super GM tournaments, which proves that he is not a shooting star and winning the title is not a fluke.

For how long did Smyslov and Tal hold their World Championship titles? Don't we consider them as genuine world champions - in the line of Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine?

Irrespective of what happens in the next match, I am sure chess fans will respect Anand as much as they respect Smysolv and Tal.

Winning a match requires more than chess skills and match play focus. It also requires the capability to deal with political/psychological maneuvering. I think if Anand gets an aggressive manager who is t home with these tricks, he will overcome a huge handicap he has (due to his being a gentleman).

You can put an asterik on Anand's upcoming WC title, but then again you should put one on Kramnik WC title(*).

(*) Anand, then second ranked player, never participed in a WC title that Kramnik won.

Really, it's not that difficult to grasp, and it's been stated here already many times: the title World Champion is de facto a match-play title. A century's worth of tradition dictates that, and the minor exceptions and even the statements of Kramnik himself can't alter that.

Anand's achivement is remarkable; he should be recognized as the fabulous chessplayer he is. I hope that he beats Kramnik next year (Kramnik's "pragmatic" approach to chess and life has become so unbearably negative, and so divorced from any regard for his many backers and well-wishers, that it's hard to root for him in such a situation). But until Vishy defeats the incumbent in THAT situation, he will simply have won a very strong tournament.

asterisk

I'm with Russianbear on all his points. The classical title has true gravitas. We look back at all of the classical champions with awe and deep respect. We do not have the same view of the FIDE 'champions'. The classical title has always been decided by a match, with the two exceptions of the champion dying with the title or the champion refusing to play the next match. We have neither of those cases here - Kramnik is alive and well and is willing to play the next match. Therefore the classical title can only be passed on with the results of next years match. What Kramnik gives up in the Mexico tournament is the fairly worthless FIDE title. People can disagree all they want, but history is pretty strict on these types of things in the long run. I like what someone said earlier about recalling how pumped most people were about Topalov after his huge win in San Luis only to compare that to now.

I agree with zarghev in the fact that both Kramnik and Anand titles cannot be considered legitimate because of the way they got them. Anand didn't participated in the "World Championship" that gave the title to Kramnik (who even lost the qualifiers for it); in fact he was the original opponent Kasparov chose to challenge in a match in 2000; Anand deprived himself from that opportunity and was consistent with his convictions on how a World Title should be.

To me, the only thing that makes the difference between Kramnik and Anand is that Kramnik has enjoyed the opportunities Anand didn't have, i.e, Kramnik has been a better chess burocrat.

Anand has not played a widely recognized match for the World Title since 1995!! (I do not count New Delhi), when he has been the best player of the World several occasions since then (ej. 1997, 1998, 2003, 2004) and for sure, he would have won the World Title at least in one occasion. I even dare to think that after 2000, chess burocrats have taking apart Anand of a chance he might deserved above players like Leko, for example.

I do still consider Anand a champion without crown, and not because of Anand's fault. And I don't consider at all Kramnik as WC 2000-2007. For me the title has been vacant since 2000 and I hope Anand will be the one who wins next year to get the first universally recognized World Champion since 1993.

After Anand/Mexico/2007 we will be back to Topalov/St.Louis/2006 for a while and then to a reunification "Elista"/2008.
And after that, if Vishy wins he will be able to start a schism of his own.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

From the chess Anand and Kramnik have played in this event, there is no doubting who the world champion is. Kramnik the world champion?? Oh yeah, like the monarchy rules in England. We finally have a unified world champion.

Given the sordid manipulations that have surrounded recent matches (from Kramnik being hand-picked over Shirov to play Kasparov, Kasparov being denied a return match, the collapse of the Ponomarov-Kasparov match, the sham that the Topalov-Kramnik match was, the idea of purchasing matches ... and the latest absurdity, Topalov being given a match out of the blue), it is not a bad idea to jettison the match format. There seems to be a lot of corruption and behind-the-scenes manipulation involved. The idea of a world champion being decided in 12 games involving two players - with the winner often hibernating till the next challenger appears, knowing he only needs to draw to retain the title, to say nothing of the rematch privilege - is looking increasingly outdated. Also, psychology plays as important a role in a match as chess skill, which is a minus point. Targeting weaknesses by employing narcotic openings like the Berlin may be effective, but does nothing for chess as a a spectacle. Two guys m*********** each other; that's a good description of a match. There is nothing sacred about the match tradition. If it's not working, out of the window it should go.

Let us savour Vishy's victory. The first non-Russian WC since Fischer. The first WC from a developing country (India, where the game was invented). His achievement comes despite his lacking the chess education of his Russian peers, something Short, for one, regretted having missed. Carlsen will probably be the next non-Russian WC. Could this be the beginning of the end for the Russians?

"For me the title has been vacant since 2000..."

...when Kasparov lost it to... sorry, dropped it somehow?

Well done, Russian Bear!

WE have to call Mexico 2007 a WCC to please the sponsors. And Kramnik will be gracious enough to refer to Vishy as #15. But neither of these factors will matter to chess historians twenty years from now.

In 2027, we'll read that Anand won the 2007 qualifier, then went on to defeat (or lose to) Classical champion Kramnik.

So let me get this straight about the article on Chess Life Online: Kramnik is saying that he thinks he still has chances to win the tournament? That would require 1/3 from Vishy in the final rounds and 3/3 from Kramnik... and then Vishy still has to lose the RAPID tiebreakers!

Much is made of Kramnik resigning the title, agreeing to respect the Mexico champion, or whatever. I think it makes a difference that he was likely coerced by FIDE in some way. Maybe it was a condition of the Kramnik / Topalov match. At the very least, it was a negotiated thing after the fact to keep the titles unified and to keep the Mexico organizers happy. Kramnik's rematch clause is basically a veiled admission by FIDE that the Mexico as a championship was a mistake. It's a compromise I favored before the rematch clause was publicized. I agree with those who say that Anand is unlikely to be recognized if he fails to defeat Kramnik.

In summary, I doubt very much that Kramnik's opinion of himself as world champion and his public (FIDE required) statements are in harmony.

"But neither of these factors will matter to chess historians twenty years from now."

I consider stup all this stuff about "what the chess historians would say in the future". For me is clear chess historians would talk about the schism and the multiple titles ... no chess historian (even the less serious ones) would say the incomplete story just because of personal opinions. The will mention Khalifman, Kasim, Topalov, etc, it is the people in the present who gives each one the credit and the attention they consider.

Like boxing, you could write a recent story telling all the details and all the possible divisions, but you will focus in the events that made biggest news; it does not matter if there was a legitimate title in paper or not. Until now, neither Kramnik or Anand has had a legitimate and universally recognized title of World Champions, but still Kramnik has produced biggest news than Anand by defeating Kasparov (sadly, just because he was a better chess burocrat as mentioned above) and I hope Anand can make those news in the future.

Sigh ... just when we thought we had a unified title, it's all slipping away. We now have two world champions: the real, unified world champion, Vishy, who has has clobbered the rest of the field, all of whom played in this tournament with their eyes open, acknowledging that the unified title was at stake; and the classical match world champion, Kramnik, who retains the title because he boasts a blood line dating back to King Arthur.

>>Anand is the highest rated player now and he is convincing winning the World Championship tournament. What more is required?
>>

If you want to know what the discussion is about, read the thread.

Paul, and don't forget me and people like me (if there are any) who think the (classical) title is vacant, pending the Anand-Kramnik match. But it will get better: after the Anand-Kramnik match, the winner will be universally recognized.

>So let me get this straight about the article on Chess Life Online: Kramnik is saying that he thinks he still has chances to win the tournament?

Did he say this ?
Hmm..maybe he is a bit overconfident, but true champs always have a big ego.
Now that he has no longer to fear the terrible Grischuk watch out how the roaring lion will unleash devastating Petroff's and Catalan's in the remaining games.
He will rip off all that stays in his way in 13 lucky moves.

Paul, you ought to not pay too much attention to these so called "traditionalists", "purists", etc. -- for they're most of all schismatics. They do not like to play by any rules, unless it fits their immediate cause.

Plus, who says that a match is a better way to determine a champion then a strong, declared in advance Tournament?

D.

Nice article, Mig!

"Match purists", fantastic.

[ Alas, in Russian it would sound less good, because "purist" is a somewhat less common word in Russian than in English... Still, it is similar: "matchevye puristy" ]

How would you call those who consider one month long chess matches as a slight distortion, but still can accept their existence, taken that so many people want matches?

:-)

If Anand manages to defeat Kramnik in a 2008 match, then he will become WC #15. Until then, the title is in some kind of Limbo. If Kramnik wins that match then his title reign will span from 2000 to 2008 and the player who finally beats him in a championship match (maybe Topalov?) will become #15 instead.
If someone asks who is the real World Champion after this tournament, the answer is Vladimir Kramnik. In fact I think he knows this, but will not say it himself to avoid a controversy with the Mexico organizers. Instead he will calmly wait until 2008 to prove it.

RUSSIANbear,

Any wonder why he thinks Kramnik will still be the world champion after a pathetic showing in mexico?

What will chess historians 20 years later say about Shirov being bypassed? About Kasparov being denied a rematch?

The classical match world champion is Robert James Fischer. Soviet manipulation robbed him of his title. That is when the pure blue blood line of the classical world champions got polluted. No amount of tournament victories by Karpov can undermine this historical fact, which will be recognized by all chess historians 50 years later. In fact, I think Fischer himself knows this, but he is so old now that nobody takes him seriously. However, he is preparing seriously and is calmly waiting for an opportune moment to prove it. And prove it he will.

FIDE, Kramnik, challengers all agree it is the world championship. No amount of crying from RUSSIANbear and other Kramnik/match fanatics will change that.

"For now we can enjoy the fact that we only have to give one name when someone asks us who the world champion is."

Technically that has been the case since Kramnik beat Topalov no? As far as this point is concerned, this match does not bring in anything new...

Mexico has to be classified as a candidate tournament. With the wrinkle, that the WC takes part , and if Kramnik wins, no WC Match would occur.
So Anand has won the candidate tournament and has the right to challenge the WC in a match. not #15 so far.

Kramnik gets a rematch and yet he refused to give one to Kasparov? I wonder how many people still remember this.

guest aim: "RUSSIANbear,

Any wonder why he thinks Kramnik will still be the world champion after a pathetic showing in mexico?"

guest aim, perhaps it would help to actually READ what I wrote. I think I wrote rather clearly that I don't think Kramnik will still be the champion if he loses Mexico. I said Anand (or anyone else, even the most russianest of Russians included) won't be the real/classical champion by winning it.

"FIDE, Kramnik, challengers all agree it is the world championship. No amount of crying from RUSSIANbear and other Kramnik/match fanatics will change that."

FIDE, Kramnik, challengers all agreed the winner will face Kramnik in a match in 2008, thus recognizing the match tradition. In a way, calling this tournament a championship is a concession to Mexico organizers and has very little to do with the championship the way the word is understood in the chess world. I am afraid that no amount of anonymous ad hominem attacks on me by you is going to change that.

Kramnik outsat Kasparov in a match, I grant you that; Ok, his narcotic Berlin and waiting for mistakes was a great match ploy. But a real world champion does more than squeak through matches by the skin of his teeth. He does more than hire professional managers to smoothen the way in negotiations with chess officialdom. He also dominates important tournaments. Can a player who was bumped to the top of the queue ahead of a legitimate candidate by a generous patron (who was later painfully stung by his protege for his pains), a player who specializes in one-on-one contests and lacks the hormones to dominate a big field in a tournament in which all parties (barring chess historians yet to be born)agree that the world title is on the line, be considered a legitimate world champion? (Errr... yes, I know there are few diehard monarchists in England, but they seldom open their mouths.) If poor Shirov knew the loser of the match would challenge Kasparov, he would have adjusted his match tactics suitably.

"What will chess historians 20 years later say about Shirov being bypassed? About Kasparov being denied a rematch?"

--They will say that Shirov was offered a rematch but declined it, and that Kasparov not unreasonably played a match with the highest rated player available.

--They'll agree with Kasparov's arguments that an automatic rematch for a WCC match loser is a poor idea.

The fact that Anand has a match with Vladdy coming about makes this all academic. If Vladdy beats Anand, then Anand was never WC. If Anand beats Vladdy, then Anand is WC, either from the match or from the Mexico tournament, that's up to history to decide.

Of course, if Vladdy and Vishy never play....................

RUSSIANbear,

If Kramnik is not the champion, why is it so hard to accept that Anand is the world champion?

"FIDE, Kramnik, challengers all agreed the winner will face Kramnik in a match in 2008" What a spin doctor. Give half truth and delude yourself. They agreed to that and also that the winner of mexico will be the real world champion.

Two words are all that are required to summarize this discussion: sour grapes.

It should really be like this:
Kasparov
Kramnik* (lost to Shirov, wasn't qualified to play Kasparov for the title)
Topalov
Kramnik* (Kramnik and Topalov drew, and Topalov should've retained the crown, since he was current champion)
Anand

Just two words. Wonderful article.

"If Kramnik is not the champion, why is it so hard to accept that Anand is the world champion? " - It is very easy for me to accept Anand as the champion. And once he wins the championship the way it is meant to be won (in a match), I will immediately do so. Noone is taking away from Anand's accomplishments, people are just making a very logical point that you cannot become a match champion in a tournament and classical World chess championship is by definition a match title.

Anyway, the fact that Mexico winner has a match with Kramnik coming makes this all academic, like John Fernandez wrote. If Mexico winner wins the match, he will be recognized as the world champ by everyone, including the match purists. And if he fails to win the match, then the classical tradition will continues with Kramnik being the champion #14, and whoever will beat Kramnik will be #15 - while Anand will be a two time FIDE champ in the line of Mattison, Euwe, Bogoljubow, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov, etc.

Chess purists are so anachronistic it's amazing.

Is there any other sport where the current classical WC gets such a free pass?

The champion picking a challenger is a holdover from another era should be done away with immediately(for example this was common practice in other sports such as Tennis where for example the Wimbledon champion simply played the challenger who'd emerged from a 64 man tournament)

If they had the same system today there would be an outrage. It is disrespectful to other players in the modern era.

Why does the champion deserve an automatic rematch?

I have no problems in a match deciding the winner.
But the champion should NOT get the TITLE shot by default.

Did FIDE specify which party (if any) will have draw odds in the upcoming match between Kramnik and the Mexico winner? (Hopefully, no draw odds for anyone.)

Russian Bear says "It is very easy for me to accept Anand as the champion. And once he wins the championship the way it is meant to be won (in a match), I will immediately do so."

Where is such a definition for the World Champion?

By this definition, when did Botvinnik become the Champion? He won a tournament in 1948, drew matches with Bronstein in 1951 & Smyslov in 1954 and lost to Smyslov in 1957 and got it back in 1958. So, by this definition, he won it only in 1958? If so, then who was the champion between 1948 & 1958?

To me the much more important question is, whether there will be a decent qualifying cycle. I hope whoever wins the upcoming match continues to push for candidates matches.

The last round of candidates matches were great to watch and they didn't even include many of the top players.

If they don't the world championship title the winner holds *will* lose its meaning.

If you just want to go with a series of tournaments (Grand prix) why not just go with rating points? Thats all ratings are anyway is torunament performance.

Having the "World Cup" winner play in a semi is just plain dumb. IMO the ordeal of the cross is preferable to that.

If Anand were to win this Mexico City WC Tournament, yet were to lose the Chess Match to Kramnik (next year), his achievement would not be deserving of an Asterisk. In no way would his claim to the title be tainted.

Yet, in terms of chess history, it would only be deserving of a footnote, given that his "reign" as Undisputed World Champion would have only last for a brief duration, and he will have failed to successfully defend his title.

Let's face it: If Anand wins against Kramnik in their upcoming match, he'll have ratified the result of his dominating Tournament World Championship Tournament Victory. If he loses the match against Kramnik, he'll have diminished the importance of his Tournament victory and brief stint as Champion. While there are some differences, people would be inclined to view his accomplishment as being roughly comparable in significance to Topalov's victoey at San Luis, in 2005.

Iy we have to consider this tournament a qualifier to play Kramnik for a 2008 WCC match,this means Anand has the opportunity to become the real 14th WC champion.To be a real classic champion a chessplayer needs to be a real classic challenger first.You can be the real Kasparov succesor.Lets remember Karpov 75 and Botvinnik 48 never beaten reigning champions to be declared official classic winners.So just beat the pathetic Kramnik the next year and get the 14th classic genuine crown.

"Where is such a definition for the World Champion?

By this definition, when did Botvinnik become the Champion? He won a tournament in 1948, drew matches with Bronstein in 1951 & Smyslov in 1954 and lost to Smyslov in 1957 and got it back in 1958. So, by this definition, he won it only in 1958? If so, then who was the champion between 1948 & 1958?"

Beautiful Tech26!.I would also like to ask to Russian Bear if you can be the best world chessplayer without have a "classical crown".

"Much is made of Kramnik resigning the title, agreeing to respect the Mexico champion, or whatever. I think it makes a difference that he was likely coerced by FIDE in some way."

I think there was a bit of coersion on both sides. Kramnik has said repeatedly that he thinks the world championship should be decided in a match. But all of the other top players had agreed to participate in the Mexico tournament, and to recognize the winner as the official world championship. The players' agreement also prohibited them from participating in any other world championship event.

So Kramnik could have refused to play in Mexico, but he would have been all by himself, with no sponsorship or infrastructure in place to qualify a new challenger. Some people would have continued to recognize him as champ, but without a mechanism in place to defend his title, what could he do with it?

Yet, FIDE knew it needed Kramnik for the Mexico torunament to be viewed as credible. Kramnik made just enough noises to make them worry he wouldn't show up. It therefore offered him a guaranteed re-match, to ensure he wouldn't be tempted to sit this one out.

Many of the players, by the way, actually favor the tournament format. In the first place, it's more money for them, since even the 8th-place finisher wins something. And in the second place, it increases the number of people with a realistic chance of being crowned champ. As Khalifman, Kasimjanov and Ponomariov proved, sometimes a player just gets hot at the right time. In a match format, that is less likely to happen.

"Kramnik's rematch clause is basically a veiled admission by FIDE that the Mexico as a championship was a mistake... I agree with those who say that Anand is unlikely to be recognized if he fails to defeat Kramnik."

I agree with all of this.

"By this definition, when did Botvinnik become the Champion? He won a tournament in 1948, drew matches with Bronstein in 1951 & Smyslov in 1954 and lost to Smyslov in 1957 and got it back in 1958. So, by this definition, he won it only in 1958? If so, then who was the champion between 1948 & 1958?" - Tech26, it seems obvious that it is rather difficult to win matches against a dead champion (Alekhine) or a retired one (Fischer). Last time I checked Kramnik was neither dead nor retired (even if I thought he should have been both after his draw yesterday). So it is not fair to compare Botvinnik's situation with Anand's. Botvinnik had no Alekhine around to beat. Anand does have Kramnik.

Anand's situation reminds me more of the Lasker/Capablanca situation that I mentioned above. Lasker resigned the title in favor of Capablanca, citing Capablanca's great tournament record, but Capablanca insisted on the match because he felt it was unfair for Lasker to deny him a chance to beat him in a match. Lasker wanted to be consistent and insisted on being called a challenger, but Lasker's resignation isn't recognized now and it is considered that the title changed hands after Capablanca has beaten Lasker in a match (1921), not when Lasker resigned the title (1920).

Russian Bear Sep-24-07 :"I believe that the influence of random factors (present to some degree in both formats) is vastly greater in influencing the outcome of any single tournmament than a match".

I really think this point is self-evident, not a "subjective value judgment",
That there may be or not be more random factors in tournaments as opposed to matches is an question of empirical fact. That's true. But whether those random factors are a good or bad thing is a subjective value-judgment. Whether those random factors are outweighed by other positive aspects of tournaments and negative aspects of matches is again, a subjective value-judgment.

But by all means, list the objective qualities of matches vs tournaments and then tell us why you prefer them (value-judgment).
Others may tell us-- as they have in numerous past posts-- the objective factors in tournaments that lead them to prefer (value-judgment) that format.
In the end, it will be value-judgment vs value-judgment-- a contest that cannot be decided by fact or logic.

A tournament will never prove who is best at Classical Chess Match-play, and a match will never determine who is best at Classical Chess tournament-play.>
Even a match will not determine who is at match play, but only who is at match play between the players in the match.

The best system is the one followed when Fischer became champion (a set of tournaments determines eight players to engage in knockout matches, culminating in a 24 game match between the last man standing and the current champion, with a drawn match allowing him to retain his title, the whole cycle taking two years).

In this case the reigning world champion has chosen to put his title on the line in a world class tournament sanctioned by FIDE, so even if matchplay is the normal and sound way to win and defend the world championship, the winner of this tournament will be the legitimate world champion, "full credentials in the lineage of Classic World Chess Champions" included. That is what matters as to the merits of this event.

Oops, I was a bit "Tournarettic", it seems! ;-)

The most unsatisfaying element of awarding a World Championship title on the basis of ...er, an event structured like this....is that is largely resembles other Elite level events. This field could easily comprise the next Linares, which also has a Double RR Structure, often with Top players participating. The results seem a bit random, depending on who is in form. Anand is clearly playing the best chess at this event. Yet, because of its arbitrary nature, it's hard to dervie the firm conviction that he is the best player.

While Leko and Topalov were worthy challengers to Kramnik's title, one always had the sense that Anand was still more worthy yet. Clearly, Anand vs. Kramnik is the Marquee Matchup, especially since most Chess fans now consider Kramnik to be one of the Top Two players in the World (after having had some recovery from the effects of his illness). Anand will be the Current FIDE World Championship Title holder, having the Top ranking, with a rating that will probably exceed 2800. Kramnik will be the previous championship, yet to be defeated in WC Final Match play, and will quite possibly be the 2nd ranked player in the world.

Leko and Topalov managed to draw* the Classical Games match segment, and only lost the matches due to Kramnik's "Draw Odds" (vs. Leko) or win in tie-breaker Rapid games (vs. Topalov).
So, this is the chance for Anand to demonstrate that he is better than all of the other "pretenders", by defeating Kramnik in a head-to-head match-up, and at the same time surpassing the accomplishements of Leko and Topalov.

If Anand beats Kramnik, to clarify and unify the Chess Title once and for all, what are the Chances that Kasparov will be induced to come out of retirement, and muddle up everything all over again?

* Well, if one includes (as FIDE did) Topalov's controversial forfeit win against Kramnik!

Mig is right: this is a religious debate.

In any case, consider that the next winner of a WC rematch (hence once Kramnik would have lost a rematch, eventually), will have the strongest claim at a WC title in chess history: WC tournament winner + WC match winner.

And something tell me, if it is not Anand or Topalov, some day not so far away, it has to be Magnus Carlsen.

I BET that Kramnik won't be jumping to claim he isn't the World Champ after the tournament. And why should he? You're not the world champ just because you play well in one tournament. Just imagine who many 'World Champs' we'd have if the Championship had to be decided in a tournament less than a year after a match had been played for it...

Still a Kramnik-Anand match will be interesting.

And about 'hunting down'... this seems to me to be a thing that Anand isn't SUPER KEEN to do. He'll play Kramnik for sure. But it's easier for him to demonstrate 'superiority' over Kramnik in tournaments.

Before the tournament and even a bit of the way through I thought Kramnik would be favourite in a match... maybe he still is, but if Anand can hit peak form like he is doing now it will be very close.

>>What will chess historians 20 years later say about Shirov being bypassed?
>>

They'll probably say that Shirov got bypassed because nobody was interested in paying money to see him play Kasparov. And that nobody was interested in paying because he has an 0-17 record against Kasparov.

>>About Kasparov being denied a rematch? >>

They'll probably say what they say about Alekhine-Capablanca 80 years later. It's a shame, boo hoo, but Alekhine still didn't lose the title until he dropped it to Euwe.

What is it you wish they would say? That tournament championships are somehow more credible because of it?

>>Mig is right: this is a religious debate.
>>

But what does that actually *mean*? That the issues are important to people? Kind of a facile observation, isn't it? Anybody who read this thread and didn't understand that much would have to be a bit dense.

How about this? One world champion for tournament play, decided by the world cup, and one world champion for match play, decided by a candidates-matches cycle. Everyone says that they are different types of chess, so why not have different champions? Kramnik is terrific in match play but is maybe #3 or 4 in tournament play. Aronian, Anand and Morozevich on the other hand are great at tournament play, but don't do as well in matches.

If Anand predictably wins "WCC Mexico 2007", India with one of the largest audience/following for chess will in its telling of history consider him an undisputed champion. There will be no asterisk in the biography of soon to be Padma Vibhushan maybe even Bharat Ratna Viswanathan Anand. This version of history will have the official stamp of approval of the governing body of chess, of Kramnik who lost his title, of all major contenders for the title, of all most all living former champions, of all most all active chess players (and their professional bodies) as well as an overwhelming majority of chess followers.

Anand's Chess World Champion tenure starts Thursday or Friday when he takes an insurmountable lead. This is what the widely accepted official histories of chess will state in thirty or a hundred years from now when chess would have been computationally solved for all practical purposes and probably cease to exist in its current form.

Opinions to the contrary expressed by some self proclaimed match purists are just that, opinions. They don't really matter.

Hope the resurgent India Inc. will do the right thing and bid for the "re-match" and hold it on Anand's home soil.

I used to be a match enthusiast but have changed my mind after San Luis and Mexico. I thought collusion would be an issue in tournaments for WCC but have been proved wrong. In a tournament we are likely to see at least one fighting game every day. This is good for chess enthusiasts and sponsors. In match play this is not always so. In match play it is boring to see the same two players every day. In tournament play there is lots of variety with 8 players. This variety shows up during the games themselves and more importantly during the post game interviews and analysis, especially now that cheap and fast internet connection allows easy access to video and stuff. Much better than having the same 2 players every day. For sponsors and internet public I have no doubt that tournament play is much more attractive. IMHO we should have a tournament for the WCC every 2 to 3 years. The World Champion would be contractually obliged to defend his/her title in the next tournament and would have to win the tournament to keep the title (no privileges such as draw odds in match play).

This world championship is boring, there is no clear world champion, but some matches. It is just silly and awkward. Some players have no charisma, and no passion- Mig’s reports put me to sleep.

RUSSIANbear,

it's obvious why you consider Botvinnik the world champion eventhough he won it in a tournament. There could've been a qualifier and the top 2 finishers could've played a match in 1948. But no, Botvinnik won it in a tournament but still is the classical world champion and RUSSIANbear has no problem with it. lol, I wonder why.

There is no such thing as match world champion. It's rubbish that you invented. The only title that matters is the world chess champion and the winner of Mexico is exactly that.

Unless FIDE and Kramnik decided to cheat the world, sponsors and challengers and you know it for a fact that they don't consider this the world championship and are just lying, you're deluding yourself. Wake up and accept the truth and you might become CHESSbear or WORLDbear.

Ah- hundred games of two people, every day playing each other are even more boring. This should go in 101 ways to kill chess (my new bestseller).

Well let's not forget that Anand has yet to win the tournament. We have 3 rounds to go and surprises do happen...

However much people go on about it the truth is Anand needs to beat Kramnik in the match next year to confirm that he is the World Chess Champion. This was another super tournament like several held each year. It is not clear that Anand can beat Kramnik in a match where +1 is enough to win - look at the evidence of the 2 games they played in this tournament. To put it another way it is quite clear that Anand is,currently, a better tournament player than Kramnik - his dynamic play in general and with the black pieces in particular is much more suited to tournament play. In terms of style I think Topalov was a more dangerous match opponent than Anand will be - but lets see.

Agree with Ed. As Rimfaxe nicely put, let's not sell the skin befofre the bear is caught.

Russianbear that is :-)

No offense RB, just kidding!

Of course we should be sensitive to traditions changing, perhaps even under our very noses. Examples abound from more familiar sports. Cricket, for instance is undergoing something similar at the moment (first one-day internationals, now Twenty20). The US Open tennis tournament hasn't always been played on hard courts. The Australian Open wasn't really considered much of a tournament until recently. The four "majors" of golf have shifted over time: they weren't always what they were today. This is mainly due, of course, to the fact that these terms mean only what they are taken to mean in common parlance. This can be changed by a single figure (Arnold Palmer is sometimes credited with changing the perception of which four golf tournaments were to be the four "majors" -- and this in a single year, 1960), or by corporations, advertising, etc. It's not a simple matter.

Correspondingly, there's no law that prescribes that the title "World Champion" in chess should apply only to the victor in match-play situations, and not to winners of tournaments -- such as Anand in the current tournament.

But I believe there are some good reasons why people are reluctant to give up on the tradition of match-play world champions, and they're (obviously) deep seated. Like it or not, I think that the general notion of chess is as a ne plus ultra of intellectual combat. It's about *depth* of thought, about the finest and most rarefied achievements of the human mind. It's also about psychological pressure, the ultimate duel of two minds: combat, as I say.

As such, only the match-play situations, in which players face each other time after time, with all the attendant psychological nuances and pressures, appear to provide the true testing ground of a champion. The "depth" of a genuine chess match, it's single-mindedness and focus, truly expresses what we think is special about chess itself, its own "depth".

No-one's saying that a tournament doesn't provide equally difficult challenges. But they are of a different kind (to put it crassly, tournaments emphasize the ability to cope with different situations, rather than the same one time after time), and these don't correspond in the same way to our deep-seated sense of what makes chess "chess".

As I've said at the beginning of this post, there's no reason to think that this is written in stone. Maybe all it takes is one particularly compelling situation or player to begin the process of reorientation (perhaps in the future, people will think it bizarre that it took so long for us to see tournaments as the perfect medium for testing "true" chess greatness). But we're not there yet (and I doubt Anand is the person to do it: he doesn't penetrate deeply enough into the popular psyche -- and this is nothing to do with his chess skills, incidentally). And until it does happen, most of us will be waiting for Kramnik to play Anand in a match to sort it all out *properly*...

Don't worry, Vishy will be fine. Kamsky's not playing!

Mig, I wonder what is Garry's take on this issue? Will he consider Anand the 15th World Champion after this tournament? What if he loses in the match with Kramnik next year?

This “depth” that Theorist insists on only a few people can understand. What about hundreds of thousands of people who are not interested in this so called “depth”, but in exciting competitions. Match of two people over and over could not be more boring. Such a mess with the world championship title is basically a product of fatal incompetence. Very simple -- have the World Cup each year or every second year to determine the world champion, and that’s it.

guest aim : you are again way off. The situation was very different for Botvinnik then than it is for Anand now. Botvinnik could have won 10 supertournaments in a row, but if Alekhine was alive, it wouldn't have made him the champ until he played Alekhine in a match. And I would prefer the matches instead of tournaments, but those were post-war years and I imagine they didn't have funds for the full cycle, and there were many strong contenders so they couldn't have just picked two for a match. Anyway, I don't insist Botvinnik became the champ in 1948 match-tournament(Note it was called match tournament, btw). Had that been Botvinnik's only claim to World championship, I would strongly consider not counting him at all. But Botvinnik definitely won the title in matches later on, so that is not the issue.

Again, accusing me of bias towards Russians is an ad hominem logical fallacy, which definitely doesn't nothing to strengthen your case, but only weakens it. It does nothing to disprove any of the points I was making and it definitely does not explain why a lot of people who are not Russians seem to agree with me and/or share similar views. And are you sure your argument doesn't work against you and if I were to ask Mig to trace your ip, it wouldn't trace to a country that would not -by your own (invalid) logic- be considered neutral in such debates? Anyway, for all you know, I am not even Russian. Or a bear.

In the past, there was World Championship System to determine the best player. In that, I think, there would be a series of tournaments followed by a series of matches, which would find the best at the end. There were exceptions but exceptions should make the rule. That term has been conveniently replaced by "match system" - a nice invention to play with words - so in the long run, you can interchange it simply with a single match - you all know how good that is, playing with the help of 10 seconds?? and doesn't prove much at the end - and call it a world championship, to mislead chess public.

When there was a split at the top level, we couldn't have possibly found the best even with the best system. So, we didn't have champion from 1993. With the chess world united now, we can truly find the best with a good system comprosing of tournaments and matches. The questions if FIDE has the will.

In the meanwhile, we can consider all champions from 1993 till now and until such a WC cycle as champions in the history books since it not any of these individual champion's fault!

No special privilege should be given to Kramnik and Topalov. If we can't avoid that, a one time arrangement could be, they can match with the one of the top finishers other than the champion and then match with the champion thereby eliminating any luck factor in playing one single match against the champion.

If you dont like any ideas and just want to make a mess in the chess world for whatever reasons, please go ahead and do it. Good luck!

One good thing is, players are at least now under one umbrella. Anand has good chance to prove himself finally. And indeed he is just doing that by being world #1 and playing strongly in what is considered to be a world championship.

Anand is a chess genius ever seen and a true world chess champion!!

San Luis & (so far) Mexico City are unusual in that these supertournaments produced a clear winner.

Other WC qualifiers--AVRO 1938 or Curaçao 1962--have been less clearcut.

A good event is long enough that the #1 player is likely to win; short enough that there's no guarantee. A 14-game match is long enough to fairly determine the better of two players, but a 14-game tournament isn't *usually* enough to fairly determine the best of eight participants.

Imagine Gelfand as WC--a very worthy titleholder circa 1993, a bit silly today, as he's only slightly stronger than Pono/Kasimjanov/Khalifman. Great GMs, but weak world champions. A couple lucky breaks, and it could have happened here.

I don't think it's horrible that there's a bit of randomness in the selection of the challenger, as long as the challenger's creds are confirmed in a match with the champ.

The World Cup is way too random for my taste.

On Karpov vs. Andersson and Ljubojevic:

Overall record: Anatoli Karpov beat Ulf Andersson 15 to 2, with 29 draws.*
* Based on games present in our database; may not be complete.

Total massacre.

Overall record: Anatoli Karpov beat Ljubomir Ljubojevic 31 to 14, with 28 draws.*
* Based on games present in our database; may not be complete.

While a commanding record for Karpov, one might say Ljubojevic did better than expected.

In my previous post, it should read "exceptions shouldn't make the rule".

As for asterisk, Kramnik should really be given a "?!".

Chess has, and always had, a way that two people can determine who is better at the game. They can sit down and play a chess match against eachother.

Why F___ that up?

When the question was put to Morphy and Anderssen did they both play Lowenthal Bird and Harrwitz to see who scored better? Doing that would be just as stupid then as it is now. But that is what we do when we play this tournament world championship. We miss out big time.

Anyone who doesn't want to see Kramnik and Anand play one on one to settle the question of who is better can't be a chess fan.

Every cycle players should have the RIGHT to settle who is better over the board one on one. Enough with the ducking and jiving. Answer it over the board and lets be done with it.

Fans have been frustrated long enough with lame arguments about so and so beat so and so, and then He won this tournament but she won that one and he beat him in 1997 but he has a +1 in the last 18 months. What a bunch of HORSE S_____!!!!

Sit everone down accross from the other in a sufficiently long match and sort it out over the board!

We all know that Vishy Anand makes just about everybody's short list of 'best ever' players, so its good to think that its about to be official: Anand IS on par with that elite group of world champions.

Now we can start arguing who he is stronger than. How about: Smyslov, Lasker, Sultan Khan (I mustn't miss him out), Korchnoi (ditto), Bronstein, Fischer (who mainly played weakies but gave himself good press), Kasim/Khalif/Pono, um Spassky, maybe Tal (who rarely played at his best), Petrosian (won less often than Vishy) - in fact just about anyone who hasn't cracked 2800 ...

Let's see

Anand

1. Likely wins WCC Mexico 2007 with a +4 (or more)
2. Is the highest rated player on the planet and soon (likely) the only 2800+ active player
3. Is the World Rapid Chess Champion
4. Has a better tournament (and one-one) record than any of the current crop of contenders and has not shied away from taking part in tournaments and putting his rating on the line
5. Has won more Chess Oscars (a fairly good measure of peer recognition) than his challengers combined and is a shoo-in for the next one

So by all objective measures that I can think of, for this moment in time Anand has scaled a peak that is higher than any of his active contemporaries. Anand > Kramnik > Topalov and as a weighted average of recent achievements, I do not see this changing very much in the coming few years. Most of the prior champions being held up as bechmarks that Anand is being compared against do not hold up to these objective measures during their World Champion tenures. Among players that Anand faced during his career only Kasparov peaked more (Topalov's 2814 ELO peak was too short lived to count). I am not sure there will be another dominant champion in chess like Kasparov.

A good argument can be made that all the so called line of WCC's from Steinz to Spassky even at their peaks would have found it hard to make it past the WCC 2007 candidates rounds by beating the likes of Aronian, Shirov, Gelfand, Kasim, Kamsky given the level to which Chess has developed.

To me Anand's WCC 2007 title, 2800+ rating, tournament wins and overall record against his contenders, is far more significant than whether he has this pseudo-unbroken connection to Steinz.

The so called "bloodline" of World Champions is as pure as the institution of the English monarchy (it's about the same as any other monarchy, i'm not aiming to enflame any Brits.). The FIDE processes to choose a World Champion were the first of their kind to choose a Champion via a somewhat repeatable process where Champions couldn't simply hand-pick who they wanted to play against (so arguably, everyone up to FIDE should just be called "strongest" players but not world Champions). Chess, as with every other social activity will bow down before whoever is "strong" (playing wise, politically etc.) enough to mold the process to his/her will. We were lucky enough that Kasparov did this so well during his "reign".

There's a much simpler solution to all of this. Abolish the world champion and go to a pure rating point system. Make players play a minimum number of tournaments of a certain type (similar to tennis) and just tally rating points. At any point, the world #1 can break open the bubbly and drink a toast to himself/herself. Perhaps that'll force some infrastructure to be put in place to calculate ratings dynamically after every game. Chess players are supposed to symbolize the intellectual cream of society. For all that, the sport is organized in an idiotic manner and the cream of the cream of the crop (the top 20) are happy to keep pushing wood. The shame of this is a heavy weight that they and their lesser colleagues bear alone.

Mexico is a huge step forward and I won't disagree that Anand is (okay, technically not yet) the World Champion. However this tournament, without Topalov and Ivanchuk, is far from perfect. It seems silly for Kramnik to be playing in a tournament to select his challenger. If we were going that route, then the loser of Topalov -- Kramnik should be playing in Mexico with the winner waiting. This leads me to suggest the following format going forward:

The winner of Kramnik -- Anand will be new WC
The loser and finishers 2-4 from this tourney qualify for next Mexico style candidates tournament. The next three qualifiers do so based on rating (this keeps someone at the top, that had a bad tourney in Mexico (sick, etc. or just not invited) in the running based on performance at the other super tournaments)
Finally, the eighth spot would come from the World Cup.
A two year cycle with candidates tourney in odd years and WCC match in even years is the result.
And, lets go ahead and have the Sophia rules, or Yaz's slight modification in the candidates tournament. Kramnik's short draw disgusts me, but he gets a match with Vishy no matter how he does here.

My two cents.

Another thought regarding Anand : If Anand wins the Anand-Kramnik match then he will be the only world champion ever in the history of chess to have won three different formats i.e. Knockout (twice as Karpov blitz win was a sham), Mexico round robin of highly rated peers and a match. Neither Kasparov nor any other champion can boast that. And if we add his absolutely crazy domination of rapid and blitz chess Anand will stand very high in the chess history. All that achieved without being arrogant or controversial. Wow! So in a way it is great that he gets the opportunity to defend his tournament title in a match.

Well Kramnik beat his daddy when he was only 8 years old, and Anand didn't beat his daddy until he was 9!

Yeah but Anand beat his daddy playing with one hand behind his back and Kramnik *never* in the history of the game did that!

Guys these two are going to play a chess match. We don't need to resort to this sort of argument with them.

Unfortunately, we need to resort to this sort of argument for Ivanchuck, Aronian, Grischuck, Gelfand, Morozevich, Radjabov, Jakovenko and the other top players who never had the chance to prove they could beat anyone in the world in a chess match.

What makes Anand (if he wins Mexico City) any inferior to Botvinnik in 1948? The fact that Kramnik is alive and Alekhine was dead? That is so bogus. Is it better to win the title with the defending champion playing and not winning or is it better to win a championship with the defending champion in a grave?

Mr. Russianbear is being hypocritical when he says he recognizes Botvinnik but not Anand. he has to recognize Botvinnik since otherwise his chess man Kramnik is not in the steinitz line. If you recognize Botvinnik, you cannot not recognize Anand since his achievement is superior, not inferior to Botvinnik. The sitting champ put the title on the line and has gone on record that he would accept the winner. The fact that he was not in a grave makes this victory for Anand superior, not inferior.

The Capablanca - Lasker comparison is also specious since they never played in a World Championship Tournament. Thus, there was no reason for people to call Capa a WC till he beat Lasker. The current situation is being equated to kramnik resigning, when the reality is that it is no resignation. In an official World Championship that he himself has acknowledged, Kramnik will be losing his World title to the winner.

Mig's original post is right on target and well meant. However, I notice that several of Kramnik fans have conveniently jumped on the bandwagon claiming to be match purists when, in reality, it is not the format, but actually the fact that their main chess person happens to no longer be the world champion and more importantly somebody else is going to be World Champion.

You cannot be a match purist and simultaneously claim Botvinnik was a Champ in 1948. You cannot be a match purist and forget that Kramnik lost a MATCH - yes a long MATCH to Shirov and hence had no qualification to be a challenger.

I happen to genuinely like Kramnik and hope a match with Anand will happen. he is principled and a credit to chess - far more than many of his fans. but to diminish Anand's ascent to the WC just to boost their chess man under the guise of being match purists is just being hypocritical.

Having said that, I must add that the posts of many rabid Anand fans is also clearly jingoistic and taunting. Guys - enjoy your hero's ascent to World Champ status - but dont go overboard in diminishing Kramnik, who in my mind is equally, if not greater, World Champion. Remember you cant claim your main chess person Anand is an undisputed World Champion without your first acknowledging that Kramnik is the current undisputed champion.

(note: I am assuming this is the same Russianbear who also posts on the message boards, a place I lurk often. I have seen that he is a die hard kramnik fan through and through and doesnt lose any opportunity to diminish the achievements of Anand or Topalov. If it is a different person, then ignore the part of my post talking about his being a Kramnik fan although the inconsistency in recognizing Botvinnik, but not recognizing Anand and the speciousness of the Lasker-Capa comparison remain).

FACT: Kramnik AGREED BEFORE THIS TOURNAMENT IN WRITING that the winner of this Mexican WCC will be the next WC.

FACT: That means, Kramnik PUT HIS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE ON LINE in this tournament.

FACT: The ONLY WC title he holds is the classical WC#14 title.

So SIMPLE FACT: whoever wins this Mexican WCC will take the title of the NEXT CLASSICAL WORLD CHAMPION.

FACT: Kramnik put his classical world title on line in this WCC tournament. It does NOT MATTER whether Kramnik played the eventual winner (most likely, Anand) 1-on-1 or along with others. THAT IS HIS CHOICE. Kramnik CHOSE TO DEFEND his title in THIS tournament format and LOST.

FACT: As a result, in the next year's rematch, he will the CHALLENGER, he will NOT BE THE DEFENDING WC.

Add up all the above FACTS. Only ONE CONCLUSION: Whoever wins this WCC at Mexico would be the next CLASSICAL WORLD CHAMPION #15. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

THAT IS GOING TO BE ANAND FOLKS, it is just a matter of few days for it to become OFFICIAL.

ANAND WILL BE THE NEXT CLASSICAL WORLD CHAMPION #15.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO FURTHER ARGUMENT ABOUT IT.

THIS is THE FIDE Rules and THIS IS HOW IT WILL BE.

It is TIME the "Kramnik-supporters" and "match purists" recognize and accept these FACTS.

Kaluga writes, "Do not make mix it with 1948 tournament, Alekhin was dead, Kramnik is still alive :))" Sorry Mr. Kaluga, this WCC IS VERY MUCH LIKE 1948 because Kramnik is ALIVE, put his title on the line in this tournament, PLAYED IN IT AND LOST !!!!! WAKE UP KALUGA.

Now, somehow Kramnik has got a "rematch" clause written into this match. Fine. AS AND WHEN IT HAPPENS, he will be the CHALLENGER to this WCC winner (most likely ANAND). KRAMNIK WILL NOT BE DEFENDING HIS TITLE in that match.

So the so-called "match purists" have to accept the reality, that Kramnik CHOSE TO DEFEND his classical title the way HE OPTED, via this tournament, he PARTICIPATED IN IT AND LOST. He will be the CHALLENGER next time around.

If Kramnik wins as the challenger, next year, then he can become classical WC #16, that is all.

Face up to the facts, Russianbear,Osbender and other incoherent losers :)

GREET THE CLASSICAL WORLD CHAMPION #15, V. ANAND :)

CONGRATULATIONS VISHY.

Conclusion: The world championship debate divides itself into two camps. Those who see the title as sacred (in that sense it is religious) to be achieved by arduous effort in single combat with a lone adversary, and those who don't mind seeing it passed around over the years among a handful of great players.

Russianbear,

Botvinnik became classical world champion in 1948 by winning a tournament eventhough the champion didn't play. Anand will become world(classical/real/unified/undisputed) by winning a tournament in which the world champion willingly risked his title.

Fact: Krisha's third fact is clearly wrong. The rest (after the third) are simply dubious. Plus the tone is childish, the text is overcapitalized, and there is a bit at the end which is slightly insulting (calling people "incoherent losers").

Boz: Seeing the World Championship passed around between semi-random top ten players and having a different champion every year or two would definitely offend my sensibilites. If that's a religious argument, so be it. But then you're grouping the so called match enthusiasts with the so called match purists as far as that religion is concerned.

Those who say that what we really need is a well defined challenger selection process are really getting at the heart of the matter. As long as the process is different for every World Championship, there is always going to be debate. Everybody accepts champions in various sports because they do it the same way every year. (That said, the most consistent thing over the years for World Chess Championships is ... matches.)

I await Vishy's match with Kramnik. He must certify this result with a match win, though it's difficult not to regard him as champ because of his #1 position.

Boz,

I don't see a title as sacred, that should be transfered only one way or the other. However, I see what works and what doesn't. The thing is that title passed in the KO's and tournaments held very little value de facto. Yeah, every time somebody like Anand, who could lay a legitimate claim to be the strongest in the World wins there is some excitement. However this excitement is short lived. In a couple of years these titles become just a footnote in history. We had this situation already twice (once with Anand, once with Topa).

Good one, aficianado. You hit right on the spot.

To Kramnik-fans, you just cannot have the cake and eat it as well!!

Either WCCT Mexico 2007 winner is the World Champion or the chess world has not had a World Champion since 1946 when Alekhine took the title with him to the grave.

On another Kramnik-fan argument that Kramnik did not lose the world title in a match, then Fischer has more claim as the current world champion because he is very much still alive. Now, would we want to start that argument all over again? Or does Kramnik fans want to argue that Fischer is really dead or that Fischer had lost a match to Kramnik that has so far not been publicly disclosed?

The contrast could not have been more striking: Kramnik agrees to a draw after a handful of moves and Anand goes for the kill against Morozevich in an unclear position(after knowing about the drawn games). What a lame-duck world champion we have! Sure, he still retains the title because he has been baptized in the Sea of Galilee, or blessed by the Bishop of Wessex ... take your pick. Mikhail Marin put it well in his Chessbase columns: "An important moment in modern chess history. Anand's most dangerous trailers, Kramnik and Gelfand, had finished their games hours earlier and a draw would have maintained his comfortable lead in the tournament. The ambitious decision to play on will lead to a slightly irrational position, without any safety net for White. Therefore, Anand deserves the highest praise for the way he chose to climb up to the highest peak of the chess pyramide. This is the kind of World Champion the public needs."

Even if Vishy beats Kramnik in 2008, I don't think that will settle the issue. There is always this illness that Kramnik suffers from. Illescas has already used that one here. Still, it'll be a match to look forward to, judging from their individual games here.

On another note, will we get another non-Petroff game in Svidler-Anand?

I'm not sure that comparisons between the 1948 FIDE Match Tournament and 2007 Mexico City hold up all that well. 1948 was called a * Match* tournament for a reason: The 5 players each played 5 rounds against each other, for a total of 20 games/player. That's longer than some of FIDE's Mini-Matches at the end of their KO world Championships.

So, there were fewer players, and thus fewer "dark horses" who could influence the final standings.

Instead if copying the Linares Double Round Robin format, FIDE could have created some real excitement by having Mexico City be either a Quadruple RR 6 Player event[each player would play 20 games in total], or a Sextuple RR Quadrangular (4 player) event [each player would play 18 games in total]. If Vishy and Kramnik had played each other 4 or 6 times, there would be a lot less open to debate.

Mexico City would have been better off without Svidler. Both Grischuk and Morozevich have added a lot of excitement, but they have demonstrated that they lack the solidity of play necessary to survive. Gelfand still sports a plus score, but he has lacked confidence to press.

In short, it would not have been a tragedy if just 2, or even none of those 4 had been given slots.

Indeed, an event with Anand, Kramnik, Aronian, Leko--and Ivanchuk....along with Topalov(!)--would hvae been epic!

But if FIDE wants to keep this WC Tournament Concept, they ought to change the format a bit: fewer players, and more rounds.

Still, perhaps the best result will emerge from this tournament: Anand will become the world Champion, and Kramnik will play him next year for the title It's the match that chess fans have wanted to see for at least the past 10 years. Before Kasparov retired, such a match would have determined who the 2nd best player in the World is. Now, it will be for even higher stakes.

I just hope that Kirsan doesn't ruin it by making it just 8 games long, or something. Hopefully, it will be at least 12 games in length, but I would not object if it was 16 games.

Then the winner of that will most likely get to play Topalov....

A thought experiment: would anything have changed if Short or Kamsky or Bacrot were in Vishy's shoes today? You bet! This board would have been ringing with hosannas and hallelujahs. Case in point: Dominic Lawson's book on Short's loss to Kasparov, which almost manages to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Argh. "Kramnik fan" this, "Kramnik fan" that.

In the couple of years I've been lurking on this and that chess forum I've seen very little Kramnik fanboyism. That isn't to say that Kramnik hasn't his defenders and the respect of many chess fans. He has plenty of both. But I have seen hardly any "kramnik is teh chest grandmaxt0rz GO VLADY!!1!!1" nonsense. "Topa" has, however, and now that he's fallen from grace, "Vishy" will probably take his place.

There's more than a little psychological projection going on in the minds of people who see drooling "Kramnik fans" in the shadows of every post they don't like.

This is definitely Off Topic (and it is curious Mig didn't mention that - or probably I missed his reference), but I found this excellent (and huge! article) about Kasparov:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/01/071001fa_fact_remnick

written by the widely known journalist and former Pulitzer Prize winner (precisely for his writings on Russia) David Remnick. I believe the article speaks by itself about assesing objectively Kasparov's real chances and what Russian people think about him.

On the other hand, I have the impression the courage, conviction, hard work, stamina, huge determination and adaptability that Kasparov showed in Chess might help him to suceed and put him as a driving force in Russian politics, even if he does not seem to be a very democratic person and people might not share his ideas. I think is not coincidence that politics and Kasparov found together; that profession seems to fit Kasparov's ego-driven, (perhaps) close minded and obsessive personality and bring him a new challenge outside the board.

I stated on this blog before the tournament began that I hoped that Anand would win. That said, with all this talk about Anand being crowned the new World Champion, I wonder if the same amount of passion would have been expressed here if say (with all due respect) Gelfand had won? I have the feeling that the scales would have been tipped in favor of Gelfand having to defeat Kramnik in next years match, before being considered a legitimate WC (#15) by the general chess public...regardless of what FIDE or even Kramnik himself have stipulated. That being said, we chessplayers can certainly be a fickle lot at times.

Lets get a sytem of matches say take the top 12 rated players. Have them play a 14 game match down to six. (14 games is no longer than a typical double round robin tourny) Another 14 game match down to 3. Throw in the WC for a 16 game semis and you have 2. Then a 24 game WC match!

Can you imagine the first set of these matches? It would be awesome watching these big guys battling it out head to head. If we are going to dream, why not dream big? Why this isn't tried I will never know. At the site of Wijk have the first set. At Linares have the second set. Or have the first set at Dortmund and the second at linares or Wijk, doesn't matter. They would get much more attention for thier tournament that way. Then you have your semis and your final. Its easy. You also have a WC no one would dispute.

So much has been said on this issue and there remains valid point on both the side.

I think after winning this Tournament - though it is not a match between Kramnik and Anand - stil Anand should be considered as the #15. The simplest of the reasons are:

1. Anand is currently the strongest player.
2. He held the Fide WC status before and thus is no more just a Fide guy.
3. Kramnik being the current world champion has decided to lay down his crown in this Mexico 2007 World Championship and also included a clause of "rematch" in 2008 - which technically means his challenge game to ANAND.
4. Though Topalov is not here but is very well understood that he lost his chance of winning the title and there is strong believe among the chess followers regarding his ability to be a real world champion.
5. We can actually take the argument of 1948 here too: because it gives the precedence of deciding WC in tournament plus it is the current world champion (yes he is alive and thats why his acts are counted) decided to make Mexico 2007 tournament as a deciding tournament for the World Champion.
6. If there happens no match between ANAND and KRAMNIK - it is KRAMNIK who is actually going to suffer of not having the chance to come back like Botvinnik to become WC. It is not the other way round.
7. Between Kramnik and Kasparov we saw things did not work out well after Kasparov lost his title and many of us were sorry to see that man (Garry) though playing superbly and being considered as the strongest chess player in the world was actually not the WC. The same thing happened with Capablanca after his loss to Alekhine.
8. So Kramnik once decided to lay down his title in this tournament the Purists or the chess enthusists has actually nothing more than a big zero to talk about the validity of the winner of the MEXICO 2007. One can continue to write thesises on this but surely that would not ch