Apparently FIDE is planning another world blitz championship after the World Cup KO in Khanty-Mansyisk finishes in December. Big qualifier then a final, like the last one in Israel in 2006, won by Grischuk. Several top players were invited directly into the final, befitting the FIDE tradition of entirely gratuitous favoritism. Okay, not entirely gratuitous. They want to guarantee a few big names in the final. But surely the potential for exciting upsets is worth something. But we hear that reigning blitz champ Grischuk was told he would have to qualify with the rest of the rabble, a suggestion he responded to with several choice epithets we can't reproduce in a family blog. Understandable. Either everyone qualifies, as it should be, or the defending champ should be in the final.
Sounds like a fun event, let's hope everyone plays and that they preserve the games. It takes some work to cover blitz games but they should have enough people there to handle it if the digital boards can't. The players like to feel free to experiment in blitz and often don't want the scores published. Tough. If a millionaire wants to have a great artist paint his portrait in private and then keep it to himself forever, fine. But if FIDE is running the event it's public.
Also worth noting is that the ICC was a sponsor of the last event, sending two online qualifiers to Israel for the big show. This time around FIDE hasn't even contacted them about sponsoring again. Who needs commercial sponsors when you can just make deals in those famous smoke-filled rooms? Couldn't they at least pretend they care?
something was lost in editation:
"It takes some work to The players like to feel free to experiment in blitz and often don't want the scores published."
>The players .. often don't want the scores published. Tough. If a millionaire wants to have a great artist paint his portrait in private and then keep it to himself forever, fine. But if FIDE is running the event it's public.>
Why apriori "public", isn't the same logic at work ?
Which means it should be subject to a prior negociation, free-agreement, betweem FIDE and the players just as is in between the millionaire and the painter ?
They can refuse to play if FIDE insists to publish the scores, and FIDE can refuse to let them play (and pay them) otherwise.
Blitz games are rather trivial in nature, but quite entertaining nevertheless.
In practice, it is no great loss if the Blitz games are not preserved.
Given that this is a FIDE event, there is a good chance that at least some of the game scores will not be preserved.
The players may not be thrilled about have their Blitz games published. On the other hand, they are getting a nice payday for not much work. I'll not condemn any top Blitz player who opts to skip the event out of Principle. However, once they make their choice, they ought to be gracious about it. Frankly, the Prize fund would have to be astronomical in order to justify burning serious preparation, and treasured novelties, just to gain an opening edge.
> Frankly, the Prize fund would have to be astronomical in order to justify burning serious preparation, and treasured novelties, just to gain an opening edge.>
They never do such things in blitz games for the reasons you gave.
I suspect that what bothers them is everybody seeing and making fun of their blunders and poor, mechanical, play under time constraints. It is (public) embarassment which they try to avoid.
The agreement between FIDE and the players already exists. They play and get paid to do so. The scores belong to the organizers as they always have. It's the agreement between FIDE and the public you are attempting to refer to. They have attempted to charge for scores before and it was an embarrassing disaster.
If an event takes place and the scores are not preserved, did it really take place? Perhaps, but who would care?
Kramnik acknowledges that Anand is the new world champion.
His website lists the world champion.
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/biography/index.aspx
Poor Grischuk,
Another chessplayer suffering from Asperger's Syndrome. tsk, tsk.
>The agreement between FIDE and the players already exists... The scores belong to the organizers ...>
If, as you say, the players have already signed such agreement about the scores there is nothing left about them they could "often don't want".
You can't make demands/complaints on something which is no longer yours by contract.
Ovidiu,
Apparently you didn't get the update. A vote was taken and you are no longer to blog here. I'm sorry, but it was unanimous.
>Kramnik acknowledges that Anand is the new world >champion.His website lists the world champion.
Kramnik has interesting ideas about himself and life. At his website he intoduces as :
"Vladimir Kramnik - Expert in the Art of Living, Strategist and Chess Genius".
One hopes that he knows Socrate's conclusion about life :
"To be alive is to be ill a long time"
and that :
"In September 2007 Kramnik defended his title fighting bravely against 7 very strong challengers"
It makes sense now why he lost, all the former WChs fought one at the time and it was still hard...but 7 at once ?
Corus Chess participants:
http://www.coruschess.com/article.php?s=n137
Korchnoi: Born 1931 and still over 2600. Simply amazing!
Corus Chess participants:
Nice lineup: Every player that I would like to see there is there. They got everyone from Mexico except Moro and Grischuk. Which ties in with the topic of this thread - once again Grischuk gets no respect.
Mig wrote:
"Who needs commercial sponsors when you can just make deals in those famous smoke-filled rooms? Couldn't they at least pretend they care?"
Why should FIDE care? FIDE is Kirsan - Kirsan is FIDE. Just like FIDE was Campomanes and Campomanes was FIDE.
"Professional" chess players have to accept ANY conditions set by whoever brings the money, in the absence of real corporate sponsorship. The alternative would be for players to abandon FIDE, organize their own tournament under their own conditions while finding the sponsorship money. They tried and failed miserably (the GrandMaster Association or whatever name it was).
Chess Pros must choose between freedom with little money or money with little freedom...
corus line up: nothing against adams, but moro should be there in his place. in the other hand, its difficult to put grischuk... we would have the top 9 (moro replacing adams), gelfand (2 in mexico), the prodigy, the girl, the b group winner and the dutch... we must admit they tried hard for the best line up, they only put one dutch this time...
cs has missed one - Svidler has also not been invited to Corus
"corus line up: nothing against adams, but moro should be there in his place."
Based on what? Adams will get a + score in this field, while Moro will likely be like a catfish... at the bottom.
Moro fans are about as irrational as ... well I think we found a new standard for irrationality.
so how exactly are blitz games recorded? are they filmed and then played back with one finger on the pause button?
>"Professional" chess players have to accept ANY conditions set by whoever brings the money, in the absence of real corporate sponsorship. The alternative would be for players to abandon FIDE, organize their own tournament under their own conditions while finding the sponsorship money. They tried and failed miserably (the GrandMaster Association or whatever name it was).>
right, FIDE is the only "corporate-sponsor" and the choice is betweem "whatever or its opposite Kirsan says" or "nothing at all".
And even FIDE isn't a "real", economically sound,
buyer since its money come not from business but from taxation via the dues of the national
federations and of the people of Kalmykia.
>>http://www.kramnik.com/eng/biography/index.aspx
"Expert in the Art of Living"
Nothing like a bit of modesty, is it? I suppose one could argue that we are all experts in the art of living, given that we are alive and many more people have shown their lack of talent by dying ;-)
@cs "once again Grishuk gets no respect"
When was the last time that Grishuk got a remarkable result in a classical tournament?
He never shows any ambition lately.
In Corus 2005, he played 10 draws, out of 13 games.
It is a good decision of the organizers not to invite Svidler and Grishuk. They should show some more fighting chess if they want to be invited.
The Corus field looks *very* promising.
Comparing this field with the one in Mexico,one can't help thinking wether they have mixed up the names of the two tournaments...
>"Expert in the Art of Living"
Nothing like a bit of modesty, is it?
He would like to be something of value (by his standards of course)... something more than a chess player.
These funny exaggerations : an expert in the 'art of living' and a 'strategist'.. are fancy overcompensations for what he judges as being an unwhorthy identity, i.e. a chess player.
"Art of Living" is a yoga course produced by the guru Sri Sri Ravishankar.
http://www.artofliving.org/
Presumably Kramnik is more than an adept at this course.
>Ovidiu< Don't be so hard on the chap. He has been through quite a bit, health wise and mental torture wise (thanks to Messrs Topalov and Danailov). He's not an arrogant sob like a certain Kimovitch. And he is capable of playing some of the deepest, silkiest chess on the planet. He lost his title in a tournament (must be the first to do that voluntarily) and cannot have been more gracious in defeat. Heck, he has every right to a little pomposity. I've known club champs to be more pompous than that
>Ovidiu
yep, but he could have cut the phoney part and let it only as "V.Kramnik, world chess champion" and that would have been that.
there is also the reverse, the "positive", interpretation : it shows that he is (in some sense) affected by the problem and, likely, he pushes himself to read and learn more besides chess.
He seem interested in art, not "of living" but in music and sculpture.
I doubt Kramnik even saw any of that silly stuff on his website (he's still responsible for it, of course) and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets re-written.
My blitz invitees, if I were God (or Kirsan):
Anand
Grischuk
Morozevich
Aronian
Mamedyarov
Radjabov
Carlsen
Karjakin
Nakamura
Gashimov
Double round robin. Moves relayed on Internet. Let 'er rip!
I think Greg is right about Kramnik and his Web site. Vlad got sold a bill of goods when he paid someone to put that thing together. His wife is a journalist--she should rewrite it. Or Mig should do some pro bono work and rewrite and redesign the whole thing.
Anyway, I guess Kramnik is too busy with chess and life to really care.
Flaneur: Thats a great list. I would add Shirov and Ivanchuck, but only of they are willing to set fire on the board.
cs has missed one - Svidler has also not been invited to Corus
-- Posted by: nigel freeman at October 3, 2007 23:39
Good. He is dead weight.
Based on what? Adams will get a + score in this field, while Moro will likely be like a catfish... at the bottom.
-- Posted by: parsnips at October 4, 2007 03:12
LMAO!
My blitz invitees, if I were God (or Kirsan):
Anand
Grischuk
Morozevich
Aronian
Mamedyarov
Radjabov
Carlsen
Karjakin
Nakamura
Gashimov
Double round robin. Moves relayed on Internet. Let 'er rip!
-- Posted by: Flaneur at October 4, 2007 11:24
If I was GOD, I would also include Capablanca and he would probably win.
Why not invite God to play? Actually, I'm not sure Ovidiu even plays chess...
>I doubt Kramnik even saw any of that silly stuff on his website ..>
you never know, maybe he never uses internet either and only listens to the news at the old soviet radio of his mother.
I am not a Grischuk fan but I still think that FIDE gave Grischuk a raw deal by making the DEFENDING CHAMPION(!) qualify for the event while giving other players (Aronian, Anand, Carlsen, Mamedyarov?) passes into the final.
I must say that even I am becoming quite disillusioned by FIDE's favoritism. If anyone should get a bye here it should be the defending champion Grischuk. And FIDE should make Topalov and Kramnik drag their assess to Khanty-Mansyick for the 2007 World Cup with all the other elite players (Mamedyarov, Ivanchuk, etc.).
Ivanchuk wins today again at the ECC. 2/2 so far. 2800, here he comes!
Go Chucky!
I think its fair to accept Anand as the 'true' "15th World Champion of Chess".
I gave it a long thought and perhaps I was wrong earlier...
With Ovidiu's last post, and for those of you outside the USA, now you know why the right to bear arms (aka gun control blaw, blaw, blaw) is such a major issue. The "man" is a real piece of work. Planet Neptune or not.
chesstraveler, you first post using my name and then you reply too...hmm...that's bizzare but perhaps you completely lack anyone to talk to there.
I would love to see Chucky go over 2800. You can say whatever you want about the guy, but when it comes to chess, per se, he epitomizes the game in a positive manner.
Give it up Ovidiu, if I got half the negative feedback, heck 10% being that it's daily on this blog, I would have packed my bags a long time ago. It's obvious that you crave attention, however desperately. If I, as well as the others who respond to your blather had more fortitude, we would just stop, and you could shrivel up and blow away on your own time. I can't say that I'm sorry that you are not well liked on this blog, but how else can one interpret the facts. If you want to continue to keep taking a beating here, then I would say that Masochism should also be considered in your case.
chesstraveler :
>If I had more fortitude, I would just stop responding>
show at least the "fortitude" needed to stop posting in my name, that's all
>I am becoming quite disillusioned by FIDE's favoritism... FIDE should make Topalov and Kramnik drag their assess to Khanty-Mansyick.. with all the other elite players (Mamedyarov, Ivanchuk, etc.)>
It isn't exactly favoritism. Topalov and Kramnik have an international-star status and their presence makes a tournament "important".
They are naturally in the position to demand more, to play tougher any negociation game with FIDE. And they do.
Few would notice, or care much of Grischuk's absence while Topalov's or Kramnik's presence would stir immediately the interest for the whole thing.
hmm..but on second thoughts, maybe only the World Champion (Anand) should be exempted. And Khanty Mansyick should be used as the qualifying tournament to play the loser of the Anand-Kramnik match.
Ovidiu,
Show at least the fortitude needed to stop posting in my name.
And stop posting in my name too.
Please,
And stop posting in my name too.
"Kramnik acknowledges that Anand is the new world champion.
His website lists the world champion."
That's classy, given the tendency of many in the chess world to Airbrush history, or Cherry Pick only the convenient facts.
Kramnik is a realist, and has become mentally tough. Assuming that he is in decent health, Anand will have his hands full in keeping the Title in next year's match.
Isn't Tkachiev supposed to be a blitz expert?
The new rating list has Shirov back in the top 10 (he is #10). yay. Go Shirov.
Off-Topic.
Reading latest chessbase article on the next chess events and I dont see the Tal memorial.
Any info about it?, thanks
Hi. Can anyone remind us why Shirov has not played in the last few editions of Corus? He's rated #10 now and he is more exciting than several invited players.
From Susan Polgars site
"New Delhi, Oct. 4 (PTI): Newly-crowned world chess champion Viswanathan Anand today ridiculed the championship rules that will require him to play the former champion Vladimir Kramnik in a few months' time to retain the title."
It begins. Hopfully this is just a statement of fact concerning FIDEs WC cycle (with which could could all agree) rather than an attempt pre-emtive stike) to avoid the match.
Hopefully its the former. But funny he never mentioned this before the tournament.
>"New Delhi, Oct. 4 (PTI): Newly-crowned world chess champion Viswanathan Anand today ridiculed the championship rules ...>..
>>It begins.
For the sake of the holy "reunification" of the eastern and western christian churches I hope that Kramnik will agree again.
He is a classy gentlemen, one who agrees to play with forfeited points, to put his title as prize in tournaments, to be insulted by Topalov without suing, to recognize Anand, and so on.
“These are ridiculous rules. It was decided by Fide during their elections last year in order to win a few votes. I hope it is not repeated in future,” Anand said.
“I am still enjoying the feeling. I will play a few club matches in Turkey now. I have not given a thought to the match against Kramnik. It is just a commitment,” he said.
Shirov Fan, he played there last year and finished last.
Off topic - Silman's review of Topalov's book on the Elista match: http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/Topalov_Kramnik.html
Silman doesnt (yet) regard Anand as the 15th !!
@Audioq: Vishy has openly criticized FIDE and the favoritism meeted out - especially to Topalov. This was after FIDE changed the rules to include Topalov in the cycle. This is not something new he has started saying after becoming the 15th World Champion.
Audioq:
Anand DID talk about the unfairness of Kramnik's and Topalov's seeding BEFORE the World Championships.
See for example,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=0e59d744-1ff1-4e83-8294-4d0ba6d7f63f
>Silman's review of Topalov's book on the Elista match....http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/Topalov_Kramnik.html .
Silman doesnt (yet) regard Anand as the 15th>
A faithful to truth rather than to the fashionable delusions of the unwashed masses, this Silman :
"...I don't consider Ponamariov or any of the other FIDE champions to be real World Champions. In fact, I never considered Topalov to be World Champion either since he didn't beat the real
Champion, Kramnik, in a match. Using that same stance, I can't fully accept Anand (a man I am very fond of, both as a true gentleman and player) as the 15th Champion either, until he beats Kramnik (the 14th World Champion) in their upcoming match. Here I feel as if I'm a single voice in the wilderness since the world has fully embraced Anand as the undisputed World Champion.
.....
.......
Anand was interviewed on TimesNow a few days ago, and was asked specifically about the match. He said that it was unfair but indicated that he would play.
Here is another interview:
http://www.rediff.com/sports/2007/oct/05inter.htm
I respect Silman's comments posted by ovidiu. Part of me agrees with his sentiments. The only question I have is about the cases where the championship has been passed on outside of a match against the reigning champion. I think that a few times in history events have been hectic enough to justify a compromise to get the next champion crowned. With the grand idea of unification and all the emotional disputes, isn't this one of those times?! Anand came out on top, even if only temporarily, but at least now there is a clear target--a defined person to beat. I think we should, like with Karpov, wipe the slate clean and go forward.
I stand corrected. Obviously I don't read the Hindustan Times etc regularly enough! :-)
Good to see, hopefully the match will go ahead and we can stop discussing WC v FIDE WC etc etc.
Does anyone know how many games/time controls etc or does this all have to be worked out.
>I respect Silman's comments .. but at least now there is a clear target--a defined person to beat.>
Even before now (after Elista) there was one clear target : kramnik...but as soon as unfication became real it also got also off rails.
The target remains, it is up to Fide to stop inventing new mexico-systems and start supporting the match system.
But Anand thinks that the Steinitz tradition is a fancy (his interview after st.louis) and that the requirement to play kramnik is ridiculous, unfair and "just a committmnent" ( how a commitement can be "just a c."" only he knows).
>hectic times>
There is no serious comparison between the present situation and the two occasions in the past when the title changed hands without the champion defeating his predecessor in a match. In the case of Botvinnik the death of Alekhin made such a transition inevitable, and Fischer's complete failure to defend his title (or even continue playing chess until 20 years after the event, when it was far too late) forced the hands of FIDE. The present chaos was created by Kasparov moving outside FIDE but continuing the tradition that goes back to Steinitz, and playing at a level that would devalue any title conferred by FIDE, coupled with the ridiculous tinkering with the format of the "World Championship" undertaken by FIDE. This has split the chess world into those who would do anything to preserve the glorious tradition of match play that has produced a roll call of champions of which any sport could be proud, and those who wanted an official body such as FIDE to confer legitimacy on the title. The Kramnik-Topalov match was meant to reconcile these two camps and restore the match tradition. FIDE messed things up again by simultaneously staging the Mexico tournament. If we finally want peace in the chess world it can only be by an Anand-Kramnik match, and for FIDE to stop tinkering thereafter.
roger :
> If we finally want peace in the chess world it can only be by an Anand-Kramnik match, and for FIDE to stop tinkering thereafter.>
Amen
though is not peace we want but the excitement of the great (with a lot at stake) matches..
>> In the case of Botvinnik the death of Alekhin made such a transition inevitable <<
It was not inevitable.
Fide could have conducted a match system in 1948, but did not, and still all match purists consider Botvinnik as having the championship in 1948.
Tech26, that's what they did in the very next cycle. In some sense, you may consider the 1948 match tournament a competition for the right to play in the 1951 world championship and get the draw odds in it. If you insist on match traditions being followed, it will just mean Botvinnik became a true champ not in 1948 but 3 years later. I wouldn't disagree. Botvinnik would have a major asterisk if his only claim of the title was 1948, and I would perhaps be inclined not to count him at all. But he played in matches eventually, so his title is not in question, even if its starting date may be.
"Anand" means "bliss."
He has got to be one happy dude right now.
If you consider that he did not become a true world champion, then when did he become? He just managed to draw the matches in 1951 & 1954 and lost it in 1957. So, if you put a question mark against his title in 1948, then did not deserve a revenge match in 1958 against Smyslov. Tal gave a revenge match even though he had not fully recovered from his illness.
Then again, Tal gave a return match to Botvinnik even though he had not fully recovered from his illness. The greatest ever gentleman chess player that he was, he just wanted to play chess and did not mind risking his title.
My point is that if one tries to put very strict conditions, then it becomes difficult to defend the Steinitz line.
Instead, if you think that a worthy person became a title holder, irrespective of whether it was a match or tournament, it becomes easier to accept such a title holder. After all, accepting Anand as the champion does not take away Kramnik's greatness, but shows his big heart.
Tech26 >
This is the point I was trying to make, but I couldn't put it so well. I never surprises me anymore how selective people are about which pieces of history they are willing to remember.
>My point is that if one tries to put very strict conditions, then it becomes difficult to defend the Steinitz line.>
Look at it by analogy with the US-Presidents line.
Nobody doubts that Johnson WAS the 36th US President and also that there is such as "democratic-tradition" which has to be respected for things to make sense, yet Johnson was never elected.
He became automatically the 36th-US-President after Kennedy was assasimated.
And in his first real democratic "match" afterwards he lost to Nixon.
Botvinnik and Karpov became WChs but in similar
exceptional conditions, Alekine's death and
Fischer's resignation, conditions which made the tradition of "democratic elections" de facto impossible.
Not the case with Kramnik.
You are confusing a few things, Ovidiu.
Johnson defeated Goldwater (democratically) in 1964 (and did so by a landslide). He then did not run again.
Ovidiu confuses a lot of things.
Tech26: "If you consider that he did not become a true world champion, then when did he become? "
I thought it was clear enough from my post. Botvinnik WON the 1951 match against Bronstein on draw odds. And he won the right to having draw odds in 1948 match-tournament. So if we are not willing to consider Botvinnik the real world champ after his victory in 1948, he was definitely one after the 1951 match. So the classical tradition makes sense even if we don't recognize Botvinnik's 1948 win as the real world championship.
After the 1948 event, in which Botvinnik defeated each of his five opponents in their individual mini-match, who had a better claim to being the world's best head-to-head player?
>You are confusing a few things, Ovidiu.
Johnson defeated Goldwater (democratically) in 1964 (and did so by a landslide). He then did not run again.>
Johnson was sworn in as President on November 22, 1963 following Kennedy's assassination.
But you are right that he won later, in 1964, in a normal election against Goldwater
My analogy centred on how that he succeeded to presidency.
>> Botvinnik WON the 1951 match against Bronstein on draw odds. And he won the right to having draw odds in 1948 match-tournament. So if we are not willing to consider Botvinnik the real world champ after his victory in 1948, he was definitely one after the 1951 match. So the classical tradition makes sense even if we don't recognize Botvinnik's 1948 win as the real world championship.<<
If Botvinnik did not really become the true champion, he did not have the draw odds in 1951. Then the above logic fails. He should have beaten Bronstein in 1951 & Smyslov in 1954, which he did not.
Actually I consider Botvinnik to be the successor to Alekhine, match or no match in 1948. I am just trying to point similarities between 1948 & now for the match purists.
Ovidiu,
While Johnson may not have been elected president like all others, he still was president, and is listed as the 36th President [immaterial of the outcome of the next election]. He still ruled the country, right?
Similarly, Anand may not have won the championship the historical / traditional way, but immaterial of the outcome of the slated match next year, Anand will and should be the 15th World Chess Champion.
- TR
Since the retards at FIDE get nothing done right - here is my proposal to determine WC. Though I still like the old match system I think this is interesting.
IRON MAN MATCH/Tournament.
The top players (like in Mexico) including the WC are selected to play against each other. The first pairings are selected using current tournament system. Howerver, instead of playing one game against the opponent, they must play 6 games! And if any player loses the 6game match they are knocked out of the tournament!
If two players tied, then they move on the next round, playing different players as they would in the torunament minus the players who lost.
This keeps repeating until only one player is left standing, undefeated and the new World Champ!!
If the players keep drawing they keep re-pairing and playing till someone drops.
Thus, if two players are left and constantly drawing - they keep playing 6game matches till someone loses..
It make take forever, but it should determine the WC.
On a less serious note: if they keep drawing maybe they could perhaps play a chess variant like Birds and Ninjas (see link), Fischer Random etc
or a round of golf or cribbage, maybe...
>Ovidiu, While Johnson may not have been elected president like all others, he still was president, and is listed as the 36th President [immaterial of the outcome of the next election]. He still ruled the country, right?>
right, that was my point, he could have lost to Goldwater but it would have not changed anything (or if Botvinnik would have lost to Bronstein and Karpov to Korchnoi)
>Similarly, Anand may not have won the championship the historical / traditional way>
Johnson was sworn because of the death of Kennedy, Botvinnik-1948 tournament was motivated by the death of Alekhine.
If Kramnik were dead a kind of Mexico-WCh would be necessary indeed but he is alive and is not retired from the chess arena (as Fischer in fact did after 1972 match).
How do you get over this fact ?
Is there always clearly that much of a difference between a match and a tournament or does it depend on the participants?
http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=980
Kramnik seems to think Mexico is not significantly different from a match. That may be the reason he was so quick to acknowledge Vishy as the WC.
Q: Okay. People know that you’re at the moment probably the strongest match player in the world, how do you feel you have your chance in such a tournament for the world championship?
A: I don’t think it’s such a big difference between tournament and match, especially since this tournament is going to be really really tough. I mean there is not a single player who is clearly inferior to the others. I mean the field is so level that it’s almost like a match you know. I cannot actually name one single person who clearly will manage on the bottom of the table. I really don’t know, I mean all are very strong, all are very very solid players, it’s difficult to beat all of the players so I think it’s going to be a very very tough tournament so in this sence it’s not so different to a match. Anway I think it’s… how to say… it’s a primitive to divide clearly a match and a tournament, it depends what match, it depends what tournament, you know, and if top players are playing it doesn’t make such a difference.
Ovidiu,
Nixon resigned and Ford became president [again, not a traditionally elected president]. And, Ford's number is up there surely and clearly.
Kramnik forfeits the title by not winning the Mexican tournament, and the tournament winner takes over as champion [again, not in a historical / traditional way]. So, his number is up there surely and clearly.
Does Ford not get his due, just because he didn't get "elected" the traditional way? The question is not if this is a perfect way to find out the best player on the planet. A way was defined and laid out to the contestants, and one winner emerged. Until the next election / re-match, he is the president / champion [immaterial of the result of the next election / match]!
-TR
>Kramnik seems to think Mexico is not significantly different from a match. That may be the reason he was so quick to acknowledge Vishy as the WC>
Depends on which Kramnik-interview you decide
to quote. How about this one from 01.06.2007 :
(but before going reading spend a precious second asking yourself whether what makes things being what they are is the wording we choose to use to label them)
R: So it is not unfair because Mexico is a tournament. But you do consider it to be the world championship?
Kramnik : It is called the world championship, so I do consider it to be that. For me personally I held this position, long before I was world champion: for me the world championship match – the title won in a match against the strongest opponent – had much more value than a tournament. But this is my personal opinion. There is nothing wrong with the Mexican tournament, and I really consider it a very serious event, and a world championship. But for me personally the title which I won against Kasparov and then defended two more times, is incredibly valuable. The next match which I will play, if I manage to keep my title or if I play to gain a title, for me – again I don’t want to insult anyone – for me it would be much more valuable than winning a tournament. But this is my personal view. And as far as the tournament is called a world championship it is a world championship. So I will take it much more seriously than any other event this year.
If you lose the tournament in Mexico, until the time you play the rematch, will you call yourself world champion?
No, no, of course not.
If Anand wins it, you would you would accept that he is world champion?
Of course. A rule is a rule. You might like one system or another system, but once a rule is established we have to respect certain laws. Again I would repeat that I think that a title which is won in a match to me is more valuable than the title which is won in tournament, but still it’s a title and of course if I don’t win Mexico I cannot call myself world champion. That is clear.
....
>>>> Botvinnik-1948 tournament was motivated by the death of Alekhine. <<<<
I have commented on this earlier and will repeat it (hopefully for the last time) again.
There was no necessity for a title tournament in 1948. Heavens would not have fallen if they had a candidates match or candidates tournament, followed by a title match between the two finalists. ( This is one of the criticisms of Bronstein on Botvinnik. According to Bronstein, Botvinnik came up with the elaborate system of Interzonals & Candidates for choosing the challenger, but he never participated in one himself). An extra 3 to 6 months gap to provide for such a system would not have altered anything, after all the title was vacant since 1946.
Such a system in 1948 would have given a chance for someone like Najdorf to participate. But they just ignored him for the 1948 tournament, making it Soviet heavy (3 Soviet players + Euwe + Reshevsky as R Fine did not participate).
Why is it that this nauseating debate regarding the proper competition
protocol in order to pass on the title became so acute only around
Kramnik? I don't remember such a harsh debate when Karpov inherited
the throne, even by those who loved Fischer. Perhaps because we didn't
have blogs back then, but isn't it more likely because it was obvious
at the time that Karpov was a dominant player, no matter the format?
Oh, and now that jewel -- hey, even the mere suggestion that Botvinik
became a champion only in 1951 is a compete lunacy -- it goes to show
just how spacey and out of touch can the mind of a self-centered chess
geek go. Such funny thoughts exist only in some blog, nowhere else in
reality.
D.
P.S. Ovidiu, G. Ford fits your example better than LBJ.
>>or a round of golf or cribbage, maybe...>>
Very Funny!
But the games I mentioned are a lot closer to chess - You need chess 'skills' to play them ..
Fischer Random - Same pieces/board shuffled start positions
Birds and Ninjas - two new pieces bigger board - same start position.
To add to my previous post, it seems kind of stupid and foolish that posters here talk about matches being different from tournaments when a guy who has played in both matches and tournaments (and more importantle, is the guy most affected by this discussion) appears to think there is not much difference. Is it because these so called "match purists" are disappointed that such a great guy and gentleman like Kramnik is no longer the World Champion? Well, Anand is no worse a gentleman and an equally strong player. He does not have to prove anything - least of all to the spammers here.
The good news here is that Anand has not said he wont play Kramnik. So it is all good. The more chess we see between the two best players on the planet the better it is. I do recognize that there may be some complicated negotiations about compensation, venue, draw odds etc. and there is a possibility that a match may not take place. But that is no reason to drag Anand down. Kramnik is too good a player and Anand too much of a conformist for Kramnik not to get a fair title shot sooner rather than later. In the meanwhile let us raise a glass to Mr. #15 - Vishwanta.. Anand. By the way, Anand is also #15 in the official FIDE line if Khalifman is #14.
And a thumbs up to the Corus organizers .. to have Anand AND Kramnik AND Ivanchuk AND Topalov all play is a great achievement.
FIDE's prior commitment to the Mexico tournament organizers clashed with the need to accommodate Kramnik's match title...thus, the ridiculous rules.
But despite the ridiculous rules, Anand and Kramnik signed on to FIDE's program, played in FIDE's tournament, and are taking FIDE's money.
Anand, who has the opportunity to secure his place in chess history by playing a big-bucks match with a three-time world champion, says, "These are ridiculous rules..."
Kramnik who cannot be happy about having lost a traditional match title in a tournament, says, "A rule is a rule. You might like one system or another system but once a rule is established we have to respect certain laws."
Kramnik was called upon to put his match title on the line in a tournament, and having lost his title
Anand's "punishment" is a huge money WCC match with Kramnik.
Whoops. Last line of my last post should be deleted.
>Nixon resigned and Ford became president [again, not a traditionally elected president]. And, Ford's number is up there surely and clearly...>
Absolutely.
For Johnson/Kennedy vs. Botvinnik/Alekhine my analogy was good but I didn't know enough US-history otherwise I would have used also this example of yours (Nixon/Ford) for the
Fischer/Karpov's case :
("I therefore resign my FIDE world chess champion title. Sincerely, Bobby Fischer." --Fischer's cable to Euwe.)
>Kramnik forfeits the title by not winning the Mexican tournament, and the tournament winner takes over as champion>
I will wait for you finding the political correspondent for the Kramnik/Anand case.
I have tried, I can't think of any.
Kramnik neither died, neither resigned his title and withdrew from chess...he merely changed the rules for WCh. He put his title at stake in a tournament.
It would be like Bush betting on his office in a card games with Rumsfeld, losing, and then
appearing on TV to tell people that they have a new president.
Despite being a big Vishy fan (he's easily India's greatest sportsman ever, in my book), I am not very pleased with his recent interviews. He still says that both wins (Delhi-Tehran in 2000 and Mexico 2007) are equally pleasing to him and the only good this about this win is that there is no rival claim. By such statements he not only shores up guys like Kasimdzhanov, Ponomariov but also puts in doubt his being the "15th World Champion". Kind of strange. Unless he has an extremely modern outlook (Wimbledon-style world championship tournaments, etc.) towards modern-day chess and doesn't care about 'purists'. But one never knows what the real reasons behind such statements might be..
>>> But one never knows what the real reasons behind such statements might be..<<<
I don't see anything wrong there. After all in 2000 too it was the same Fide which gave him the title. And people always cherish their 'first's (first win, first title, first kiss, first love ....). It is for people to judge which one is a bigger achievement.
>He still says that both wins (Delhi-Tehran in 2000 and Mexico 2007) are equally pleasing to him and the only good thing about this win is that there is no rival claim.>
Which only shows how deep into self-deceiving the guy has always been in spite of his otherwise phenomenal brain-chess-skills...but then Kramnik thinks about himself that he is first and foremost "an expert in the art of living"..oh,well.
Anand is consistent with what he has always said. He claimed that he
was a World Champion before. Kudos to him for sticking to his guns --
he has risen immensely in my eyes.
Towards the end of Gary's reign and during the entire Kramnik reign on
the so called Steinitz title lineage, everything had deteriorated into
a mess with unclear ins and outs. Thank God the Chess Globe did not
stop turning while Kramnik was ill.
Oh, and that silly line: "Kramnik graciously agreed to have his title
decided in a Tournament" -- IT WAS ALL IN THE CONTRACT PRIOR TO ELISTA
-- the winner plays Mexico!! Unfortunately, Kramnik used his divisive
power to blackmail FIDE (with the active help of Zhukov/Kremlin) for a
match if he loses Mexico... Then the entire rulebook went bizerk and
it's again a complete mess.
D.
The "political correspondent" for the Anand - Kramnik transition... How about Atatürk in Turkey? You had a long history of all-powerful rulers inheriting the "crown" by hook or by crook (kind of like the match tradition :-), and then he established the republic and got elected democratically (like a tournament!).
Yeah, there you go, so anybody who wants to say that Anand is not World Champion, why that's like saying Atatürk wasn't President, and you wouldn't want to fool around with a guy like that...
Good one, Danai......I mean Dimi...long on conjecture, short on facts, but it just doesn't stop you. Kudos to you for sticking to your guns.
Ok Drew, here we go -- true, I've got some conjectures and some
facts. But you don't even have that -- all you've got is a murmur
about Dimi.
Now, is it not a fact that Kramnik signed to play in Mexico as a part
of the Elista deal? Is not a fact that he tried to wiggle out of it
despite the contract? Is it not a fact that he got the match clause
in order to appease him? If I am wrong about something, you can
correct me.
D.
If Kramnik really has the infinite power to blackmail FIDE into a match with a winner of Mexico, why couldn't he just blackmail FIDE into having him omit Mexico altogether and simply play the winner?
The evil omnipotent Zhukov surely can not be stopped by a flimsy over a year old FIDE chess contract.
?!?!?
Because Mexico was sold already as the World Championship!!
C'mon Yuriy, I know you can do better that that.
D.
So was Libya 2004.
Without Kramnik's participation, Mexico would have been another tournament in a long line of FIDE competitions that did little to change the reality of who the world champion is.
The magical omnipotent version of Zhukov could have gotten Kramnik out of playing Mexico and simply had him face the winner. Vladimir would not have to risk his perception as champion in a round-robin and instead would essentially only defend his title against Anand or Leko or Aronian in a match setting--which was his preferred format according to every interview he gave.
Yuriy Kleyner: So was Libya 2004.
BUT KRAMNIK SIGNED FOR MEXICO2007 AS A PART OF THE UNIFICATION, not
for Lybia... Oh God, are you guys going retarted on me?
>Without Kramnik's participation, Mexico would have been another
>tournament in a long line of FIDE competitions that did little to
>change the reality of who the world champion is.
Could have, should have, would have, it's all BS. First of all,
Kramnik signed for it. Second, Mexico2007 proved clearly that Kramnik
is not particularly better than a number of other guys who won major
tournaments and that his major strength is only in the single
dimensional field of match play. In fact, curiously so, but Danailov's
prediction was right on the money -- compared to you nerds, he had it
all figured out -- Kramnik would be +2 and that wouldn't be enough
against Anand.
>The magical omnipotent version of Zhukov
Ohh, c'mon, this is getting irritating to someone who knows that
stupid system from the inside out, having lived through it, in
fact... There's nothing magical or omnipotent about Zhukov -- he's
just another typical Kremlin apparatchik who knows well which battles
he can take and which ones he should let go of. They did enough damage
already with messing the entire FIDE schedule with this stupid idea
that matches are the only way to go in order to suit Kramnik.
In fact, I'm starting to think that the omnipresence and verbosity of
old Soviet types is what creates this madness about the 'status quo'
of 'match play' as the only decisive format to reach the top in Chess,
while the rest of the civilized Sport World has found far more
efficient competitive formats in thids modern era. Good that Anand
doesn't seem to be a captive of it. Being a dumb stickler to antique
rules is very captivating to only the few confused people who form the
loud minority on this and a couple of other blogs...
---------------------
I've used language that I normally avoid, but considering the
audience, after a bit of thought, I still considered it
appropriate...
D.
>The "political correspondent" for the Anand - Kramnik transition... How about Atatürk in Turkey?>
Yes, you can very well say that in analogy.
Ataturk was the end of the long tradition of the Islamic Caliphate and the start of a new political system, the republic-president era for Turkey, alone however.
There was no "Turkish state" before Ataturk, there was only the Caliphate, the Muslim Empire --stretching from Bulgaria and Greece to Iran and Saudi Arabia and to Tunsia and Algeria -- and it had a tradition going back to the 7th century, to Mohammed and the first Caliphs.
Ataturk abolished ( 1923 ?)the Caliphate tradition (the Sultan as the Caliph of all Muslims).
By the same token, it may be that indeed we witness now the collapse, the end for good of a tradition and Vladimir Kramnik is the last World-Champion of the Steinitz-line.
Maybe we are now at the start of a new "era", the era of only Kalifman, Ponomariov and Anand style "tournament"-world champion.
As such I agree, but tell Anand-fans that "it ain't the same animal" what they got in their pocket.
I suspect that they are so happy when they utter "Anand-WCh" essentialy because they talk themselves into believing that Anand's mexico is Steinitz-stuff, whatever fraudulent may have been the way Anand got it.
In matches, there are several factors involved which are not strictly related to chess prowress.
One is “psychology”. Deep research is done into how to rile or unbalance one’s opponent and no punches are pulled. Another one is “preparation” where the players’ teams put together new lines in chess openings, the chess equivalent of a tennis ace. Kasparov was a pastmaster at this. Preparation has always been a part of chess but some, like myself, feel that it detracts from measurement of true ability. It is like having a Grandprix on a track which one driver knows like the back of his hand and the other is seeing for the first time. For this reason, Bobby Fischer invented “Fischer Random” chess, where opening analyses would be negated.
Match play has also been unfair to several players of undeniable ability. Botvinnik, the Soviet champ, had a virtual army of grandmasters to help him with opening and adjournment analyses. He hung on to his title way past his prime.
The point is, there is no objective reason to believe that a match-winning champ is superior to a tournament-winning one. Merely the fact that that has been the way it has been done is not enough for me.
>Preparation has always been a part of chess but some, like myself, feel that it detracts from measurement of true ability.>
It is not OTB-chess, it is enactment over the board of the result of hours spent at home studying the resources of a given, particular, position.
Deep preparation is standard nowdays --"Laptochess"-- Just recall the last two victories of Kramnik in Mexico (poor Aronian, he was dead meat after Nc5) or Anand's Botvinnik-slav against Kramnik (and Grischuk) which were prepared to the possible endgames.
The GM version of the club-player memorized tricks in Dragon or Evans but "enhanced and upgraded" by analyses of the positional and dynamic elements.
There is nothing to be done about it, "to have been there" is the sure way to get an advantage.
"There is nothing to be done about it". no? how about FR ?
Ovidiu wrote:
'The GM version of the club-player memorized tricks in Dragon or Evans but "enhanced and upgraded" by analyses of the positional and dynamic elements. There is nothing to be done about it, "to have been there" is the sure way to get an advantage.'
I couldn't agree more, Ovidiu.
(btw/I truly enjoy your posts - not always in agreement, but it is very refreshing to see smart posting and honest, independant thinking. Keep it up!)
Dimi,
You really don't seem to understand/or like to pretend that many "match purist" as they have been referred to have no love for Mr Kramnik. He's an ok guy I'm sure but will always have a cloud hanging over him to some extent for not granting Kasparov a rematch or resigning his crown if he was too ill to play. In addition to which his chess is often not the most exciting.
It is the format of the event that matters not who is World Champion.
I really did not want to go mentioning names directly but the fact is that this ridiculous tournament world championship has and will produce mediocre champions who have absolutely no business pretending to be World Champion.
To mention Khalifman in the same sentence as Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, karpov, Kasparov is almost the definition of an oxymoron. He is a decent player but simply not world class.
Your posts concentrate on the mess that has ensued as a result of the behind the scenes machinations involving FIDE - and you are correct is it a mess! and most "match purists" agree it is a mess.
The real question is whether you want a World Champion who is strong and unuiversally recognised by the chess world or you want a world champion who changes every year or so due to the results of games they are not even involved in.
All your agruments seem to center on the fact that the match system decended into a farce - but so did the tournament system since the first five of its "champions" are not universally recognised as World Champions.
The way I see it this time we were very lucky - we got Anand - a great player, but we could have gotten (genuinely without any offense to them) Grischuk or Svidler. If they had 100 matches with Anand or Kramnik (or Kasparov for that matter)they would be kucky to win 1 (particularly over the longer 24 game match) - but they could sneak by on tiebrakes in a close tournament. I sorry but I don't want a World Champion elect to sit waiting to see if the last game of the tournament between 2 other fellas is drawn to see if they take the crown. I know the above sounds a bit unfair to them and probably is but I would like to see a system where only the very best get the top and I think this is a match system.
Well, the two double round robins produced winners who deserved the World Champion title (with all disrespect towards Topalov as a person). That said, I'm nevertheless a strong supporter of (long) matches. These are just more exciting, and bear the tradition.
Audioq, thank you for the thoughtful post. I will respond when I return on Sunday evening.
D.
ovidiu,
The Bush/Rumsfeld bet analogy was nicely done.
As proloy puts it,
Anand undisputed champion!
Kramnik disputed non-champion!!
> I sorry but I don't want a World Champion elect to sit waiting to see if the last game of the tournament between 2 other fellas is drawn to see if they take the crown.
That refers to which tiebreak should be used and not to the question of the format (tournament vs. match). Last world championship match with long time control was decided by rapid chess - do you find this satisfactory ? I prefer Sonneborn-Berger (in case of rr tournament) but you could easily imagine using rapid/blitz/armageddon for third tiebreak. As I said it has nothing to do with the format per se. In fact looking at chess history my impression is that the probability that a match is tied is greater than two players having the same overall score and number of wins as well as tying their mini match in a tournament.
> this ridiculous tournament world championship has and will produce mediocre champions who have absolutely no business pretending to be World Champion.
Mediocre ? The two recent round robin world championship tournaments were won by players that at the time or shortly later were also leading the ELO ranking list with a >2800 rating...
I hate you all -- I am not going to post here any longer
Oh, BTW, I am a fake and fraud too :)
Nigel Short is playing at Corus. In the B Group. How the mighty fall. Only kidding, Nosher.
"Kramnik acknowledges that Anand is the new world champion.
His website lists the world champion.
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/biography/index.aspx"
Wow. That site is quite a hagiography.
Not that Kramnik doesn't deserve the praise, but still :)
For what little it's worth, his list of champions agrees with my own.
Regards,
zdrakec