Kramnik was living in Moscow until his marriage? He is one of the few players, along with Kasparov, who stayed on in Russia during the terrible years of the 90s I think.

Perhaps it must be bugging Kramnik that many people don't consider him stronger than Kasparov, in spite of that match win. Whatever the reason, and whatever was lost in translation (if there was any), his dislike of Gary comes through.

I also profoundly disgaree with his general thesis that something that is relatively better than in the past does not merit further improvement, and does not bare comparison with standards in other societies. I guess, as always, ones opinion will change when the existing situation is contrary to ones needs. So long as one fits into a specific segment that meets with approval, I guess its difficult to project ones thoughts to the existence of those outside that segment.

Mig, the Kramnik link is broken.
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=178

I assume the claim about "50% of educated Russians ... say they would emigrate if they could" comes from this:
http://www.acg.ru/english/news2.phtml?m=2658

Well, I don't think it is fair to jump to "50% of college education aged 24-35, only in 14 biggest cities of the nation, and to only those with a high per-capita income - 1,500 euros per one member of the family in Moscow, 1,000 euros in St.-Petersburg and 800 euros in other cities are willing to emigrate - for a while, or for good" to "50% of educated Russians who say they would emigrate if they could".

Besides, in Russian the question can be asked so that it is not clear if you are leaving the country for a vacation or to emigrate. I've heard it was this vague version of the question that they asked. So the high numbers probably don't tell the whole story. If you asked similar sample of Americans if they want "to go to another country", most of them would assume they are being asked about a vacation, so perhaps even more than 50% would respond "yes" - since Americans can afford vacations abroad more than Russians. To go from that to "Most Americans want to emigrate" would be a bit much, though.

A gallop poll mention below on that very page mentions that in Russia, the rate of potential migrants is 17 percent, which is smaller than in many other countries including Gemrnay and France.

Kramnik is pretty cagey no doubt. His comments in the press (about chess) are ultimately self serving, but I don't think this can be held against him. Kasparov was the same way.

All in all though, that's a pretty weak interview. Nothing new, little insight.

you have to have your basic needs met before you can even think about human rights (i.e. about other people). and often a few years of prosperity doesn't even come close to cutting it. it'll probably take a few generations, and a gradual change in mentality.

besides, if one's achievements (job, for example) aren't merit-based, the priviledged will want to stay priviledged, and they will not think issues of fairness are to be discussed.

i get the sense (at least in my eastern european country) that most people that are doing well now, even the non-cheaters, have a "got out of jail free" attitude - they got lucky, and they realize it. it's hard to develop a humanistic view out of that.

and then, of course, you need to actually *care*...

"Kramnik is pretty cagey no doubt. His comments in the press (about chess) are ultimately self serving, but I don't think this can be held against him. Kasparov was the same way.

All in all though, that's a pretty weak interview. Nothing new, little insight. "

I have to disagree. It is the first time I've heard Kramnik talk on Russian politics/economy. It is the first time I heard Kramnik discuss psychological tricks.

And, most importantly, in this interview Kramnik states for the first time what some of us have been saying all along: that classical title cannot be lost/won in a tournament and that he only agreed to put the title on the line as a compromise with FIDE and Mexico organizers. So, while he does consider Anand as the FIDE champion (as he did consider Kasimdzhanov the champ), he doesn't think Mexico win puts Anand in the line of match champs originated with Steinitz.

That is big deal if you ask me.

amen
for both posts r-bear

I can't believe the Indian author was so upset about the interview. Kramnik makes multiple mentions of Anand's strength and his earned right to play in a WC match (and feel it's valid).

Sensationalism and chess should not mix...uh, unless humor is present (erm, sorry Mig).

oh btw- This match is gonna kick a$$!

The number of deaths due to Western plundering of Russia are not incomparable to those caused by Stalin's purges. Kasparov's political opinions are is in fact common with a lot of Eastern Europeans immigrants in the US who are somewhat to the right of the republican party. Here is another link the different view post 89 Russia by the well-known expert Stephen Cohen:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/13/comment.russia

An except: "Fearful for their dubiously acquired assets and even for their lives, the new property holders were as determined as Yeltsin to limit or reverse the parliamentary electoral democracy initiated by Gorbachev. In its place they strove to create a political system devoted to and corrupted by their wealth, at best a "managed" democracy. Hence their choice of Vladimir Putin, a vigorous man from the security services, to replace the enfeebled President Yeltsin in 1999. And uncertain how long they could actually retain their immense property, they were more interested in stripping its assets than investing in it. The result was an 80% decline in investment in Russia's economy by the end of the 1990s - and the nation's demodernisation. Given such a record, it is scarcely surprising that Putin's attempt to reassert state control over Russia's oil and gas industries is so popular."

That was an interesting, but one of the lamest Kramnik's interviews. And that's coming from a guy who rooted for Kramnik for a long time, through all of his matches and will root for him in the upcoming match.

First, he is clearly dishonest in the political part. Obviously he doesn't want to upset the Russian establishment, so he kisses Putin's behind:
"Nowadays most of the people in Russia are better off than ever before. Maybe for the first time in several centuries the majority of the population in Russia lives as normal human beings, and they’re not afraid that they won’t have anything to give to their kids for supper."

Why is he dishonest? Because he is much too logical and analytical guy not to notice self-contradiction. Throughout the interview he clearly speaks from the "food first" viewpoint. Fine. From that standpoint people were better off in Brezhnev's times because food was guaranteed during that time much more so than it is nowadays. And in the next sentence "Nowadays, people in Russia are better off than ever before". Yeah, right. Let's compare the number of homeless, unemployed, living below the poverty limit in Russia now and under Brezhnev.

Then comes this lame "yes and no" answer to the question of Anand's championship. Yes, many people (me included) don't consider Anand a WC in the Steinitz line. But Vlad should have expressed all his reservations BEFORE losing Mexico. Once he agreed to the whole circus and lost, all he can do is shut up and quietly plot his revenge. Now HIS attempts to undermine Anand's credibility as a champ reek of a bad loser rants. It's probably part of pre-match mind games, still it's hardly a tactic to be proud of.

Oh, come on. I think we instead have to thank Kramnik for showing pragmatism to allow the title to be reunited. He says Anand is the World Champion, but he doesn't consider him the inheritor to Steinitz's line. There is no contradiction there.

I consider Anand the world champion because rules are rules and everybody agreed to them. You can assign to that world championship the value you want, that's a different matter entirely. The title is objective, the value you give it is subjective. I think Kramnik is allowed to have his opinion. I consider it a lot more reasoned than that knee-jerk jingoistic Times of India article was.

Though I am an Indian and an Anand fan, but I agree with Kramnik that Anand is not a World champion in the line of Steinitz. I would consider Anand a True World Champion, only if he defeats Kramnik in the ensuing Match, amd that too within the the 12 regular games.
Given Anand’s match record with the players whose names begin with ‘K’, this seems pretty tough as he has lost matches to Karpov (twice) and Kamsky, not to speak of Kasparov. He also has a worse record in head-to-head classical games against Kramnik. But he can take solace in the fact that Kramnik also has lost matches against Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov.

Hansie, "Kramnik also has lost matches against Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov." and drawn against Leko and Topalov.

"Though I am an Indian and an Anand fan, but I agree with Kramnik that Anand is not a World champion in the line of Steinitz."
Neither is Kramnik. One match does not a WC make!

And yes osbender, those comments of Kramnik reek of sour grapes. Frankly I didnt expect anything else.

Ironically Kramnik was far more circumspect in 2000 after beating Kasparov. That was because he had taken part in the 1999 KO, the one boycotted by Anand, and been knocked out by Adams in the quarterfinals. So it would have been a bit silly to rag on the KO so soon after. At that time he just said there is enough space for two champions.

"Oh, come on. I think we instead have to thank Kramnik for showing pragmatism to allow the title to be reunited. He says Anand is the World Champion, but he doesn't consider him the inheritor to Steinitz's line. There is no contradiction there."

Look, I do agree with what he says on the WC issue, but it's not up to him to say these things after the loss. If he wanted the world to know his opinion, he should have said all that before Mexico. In current circumstances a good sport (Federer comes to mind) would congratulate his opponent and go on quietly to prepare for the showdown that really matters, i.e. the Anand match.

Well balanced and sensible comments, osbender. Yes, this might be part of psychological onslaughts.

Kramnik is right. Kasparov was a "destructive" force in chess politics and he's a destructive force in Russian politics.

The world's greatest-ever chess player from the world's most powerful chess nation was in a unique position to influence the organization of chess for the better.

Instead, he trashed the the wonderful old zonal-interzonal-candidates matches system by decapitating it. Then he formed a rival organization, and when he couldn't put together a majority he simply bolted.

He was a GODAWFUL chess politician.

Unless I'm missing something, Kasparov's program in Russian politics is to:
--unite all anti-Putin forces regardless of their political beliefs
--depose Putin
--free elections
--we'll figure out the rest later, trust me.

His Russian program sounds an awful lot like his chess program and it'd probably have the same result.

I don't get the 'psychological onslaught' comments. I mean, hey, it COULD be.

But he didn't make any crazy or aggressive statements (about chess, at least). And when he talked about psychology, he only said "there must have been some psychology".

I've played in a few tournaments, and gotten nervous or distracted at times while doing so. That is psychology, not psychological warfare. And more to the point I am unaware of any mention of tricks except those that Kasparov allegedly pulled.

Kasparov's political view can be simple minded at times. He views his fight against Putin thru the same prism as his rivalry with Karpov. I am sure his political views will mature as he gains more experience in the political arena.

The truth is that Democracy is not a panacea in places that don't have a democratic tradition. You cannot jump from an authoritarian system to democracy overnight as we've learned painfully in Iraq. Stability takes precedence to democracy.

Russia is better off following the Chinese model for now but both China and Russia will fail if they don't plan the transition towards Democracy. Another possibility is that the transic will be triggered from the bottom once the basic needs of the people are met.

"Anand is the World Champion, but he doesn't consider him the inheritor to Steinitz's line. There is no contradiction there." -- mungono

My predictions...

If Anand defeats Kramnik in their late 2008 WCChamp MATCH, then the history books will say that Anand's reign as WCChamp began with the tournament Mexico 2007. But...

If instead Kramnik defeats Anand in late 2008, the history books will use an asterisk to exclude Anand from the Steinitz lineage of MATCH WCChamps.

Odd perhaps, but as paradoxes go in life, this is a small one.

I agree, Gene M. Anand loses in October, he'll end up like Topalov and Kasimdzhanov.

I don't see why Kramnik shouldn't say that's what he thinks, especially since he's right. And it seems pretty obvious to me that he was hardly in a position to say so before Mexico. One has to pay some consideration to the sponsors and organisers there.

Osbender, I think the 'and' in this sentence is disjunctive:

"Maybe for the first time in several centuries the majority of the population in Russia lives as normal human beings, and they’re not afraid that they won’t have anything to give to their kids for supper."

They both live as normal human beings (ie some political freedoms compared to Brezhnev's day) AND they have enough food to eat. He's saying that this combination has never existed before. I've no idea whether that's true, but it's not self-contrsdictory as you suggest, let alone dishonest.

I'm not sure I agree that his alleged dislike of GK comes through either. Clearly he dislikes GK's political views, but he's not particularly harsh about Kasparov's behaviour at the board. Others have said much harsher things, including Anand in 1995. Let's face it, GK's behaviour at the board was not entirely correct and VK says so only very mildly. You should read what Moskalenko says about a young Moro's (very similar) behaviour in The Flexible French.

Beautiful interview. Perfect description of the true Russian opinion on state of country.

Mig + Other Russia are not on the level at all - the destruction of russia can never be the best interest of russian people.

Why is the link not working? Do you not want people to read it?

http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=178

Its not formatted properly -

"Do you not want people to read it?"

The man just had his first kid, for chrissake. We should be grateful he's reporting at all. Tone down the conspiracy theories please.

"I don't see why Kramnik shouldn't say that's what he thinks, especially since he's right."

Because sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut even if you are right. This is precisely the case. I would understand this sort of interview if there was some sort of controversy or uncertainty: Anand hiding from the match, prior agreements breaking down, etc. As it stands, there is going to be a match that will connect all the dots, erase all the compromises, and produce a clear, undisputed classical champ in the Steinitz line. In such circumstances his interview will be seen by many
a) as sour grapes
b) as a dig at Anand
Why he felt the urge to do that is beyond me.

I agree with osbender about the Brezhnev era and the fact that Kramnik should have spoken up earlier. But I do think it is great that Kramnik says the Mexico "title" is not in the line of Steinitz match championships. It may be late for him to say this, but better late than never. And besides, he is right on this one.

"In such circumstances his interview will be seen by many
a) as sour grapes
b) as a dig at Anand "

Or
c) Kramnik's sincere opinion on the subject. God forbid that makes it into an interview!

Besides, it is actually better for Kramnik to say it NOW, before the match, than after, so that Anand knows exactly what his position is. If Kramnik went on to beat Anand and then said, "you know what, I don't think you were REALLY the champ after Mexico", THAT would be a (much worse) dig at Anand, because then Anand would not be able to do anything about it. But now that the match is coming up, it is actually the best possible scenario to get this out in the open so that Anand and the fans know exactly what is on the line - BEFORE it is too late for Anand to know/realize this and now that Anand still has a chance to change that.

Look, it's not up to Kramnik to determine Anand's place in history anyway. The history will sort itself.

As for explaining to Anand and his fans what Anand's place will be in case of a loss, it's again the job for the press, blogs, and us :), but not for Kramnik. I think deep in heart they all know...

Maybe it is not up to Kramnik to determine Anand's place in history. But it is up to Kramnik to answer interview questions. I don't think he volunteered himself to be the spokesman for future chess historians, but rather stated his own opinion. And stating one's opinion would not be out of place in an interview.

If Anand doesn't have enough humility to point out that the title he won in Mexico isn't exactly the world championship title the way the concept is understood since Steinitz, I don't see the problem with Kramnik saying it. It is something that needs to be said by a top player, be it Kramnik, or anyone else.

Yeah, it's up to Kramnik to answer interview questions. However, IMO it would be better for Kramnik to sidestep this question since he himself has a vested interest in the whole affair and all the important agreements are already reached, so there is nothing to be gained. You see, because of Kramnik's stake in the title all his statements will be viewed not as opinions of a private person, but as these of a rival party.

From this point of view this interview looks like a bit of pre-match trashtalking, which might please some boxing fans, but it leaves a bit of sour taste in my mouth.

It's not the end of the world and all and chess players routinely say much worse things. Still I would expect Kramnik to behave more intelligently.

Actually as far as pre-match trash talking goes, these exchanges (i'm referring to the earlier interviews, doubt if Anand will respond to this one) are quite sedate. Both players are temperamentally unsuited to turning up the volume before important games.
I doubt if there would be more of this - and I expect the match to pass without incident. It would very crazy if a scandal developed again.

GeneM,
Which history book are you refering to? Rumor has it Indian history books already have a "?!" against Kramnik's title and it appears it will not be removed until Kramnik stops using 50-50 lifelines i.e. taking cheap shots at fluke one match titles, properly qualifies and then take a shot at the real title.

Now, does your history book still show an asterisk next to Anand's title?? Could you please check your book again? :)

I wouldn't even call it trash-talking.

Anand implies that Bonn is just another FIDE WCC title, (he's won several already). Kramnik says the winner in Bonn gets a seat at Steinitz' table in chess heaven.

They're both entitled to their opinions and neither has been particularly disrespectful of the other in voicing them.

PircAlert it is all good to make things up, including supposed opinion of future Indian chess books but we already have history books and you can check them out for yourself on how they treat match versus non match champions. People who win match titles become chess immortals, people who win tournaments become the chess history footnotes, which is exactly what Anand will be in both India and outside of it if he fails to beat Kramnik in a match.

Remember Mattison? He was the FIDE champ in the times of Alekhine. Oh, you don't remember him? That's exactly my point.

I don't even know who Mattison is. How do you expect me to remember him? Does he play chess in Madison (64) Square Garden? :)

Those who think that Anand isn't already a part of the "chess immortals" are deluding themselves. His list of achievements is too long.

Obviously Kramnik is better than Kasparov..he crushed him in a match..no????????

j peters, are you trying to start a new world war??
pleeeease nobody start a flame war reply!!! We've heard it all before!

I was in St. Petersburg last week for a literary seminar...most of the indegenous writers I met there thought Kasparov was too radical. And personally I thought alomst all the people I met during my maiden visit to Russia were...well...satisfied. Maybe Kramnik has a point. Mig after all is a paid employee of Kasparov and has to agree with the boss. The boss is always right.

I dont think there is much to get excited about here. Anand needs to win the match to cement his place in chess history if he loses then the brutal truth is that the record will show Fischer Karpov Kasparov Kramnik and yep there were other FIDE champions who won the title by winning a tournament (Kahilfman, Ponomariov and Anand who did it twice)The question Anand needs to answer is: does he have the psychological strenght to take the title in a match? There is no doubt he has the chess ability. Thats the difference in their chess careers Anand was dominated by Kasparov - Kramnik never was.

I dont see any problem with the interview he merely stated what has been common knowledge. Namely he believes that its the match that really counts. A perfectly reasonable intelligent and acceptable comment not in any inappropriate before the match. This a professional sport and if Anand feels a molecule of pressure because of such a statement then he has a big problem. I think Anand should win the match provided he does not crack under the pressure. We all know kramnik can take the pressure.

I consider myself a big Kramnik-fan, but his position on Russian politics is absolutely disingenuous.

He says: "Western people don’t understand, they talk about democracy and about the competition of political parties. The fact is that the people in Russia support the President and the government. If the average income of USA households grew by three times in two years, believe me, a vast majority of Americans would wish Bush stays in office. So to me it is not a matter of democracy, it is a matter of how well you do your job as a President".

-Kramnik seems oblivious to the question of fair distribution of Russia's wealth. It does not seem to occur to him that the Russian people may actualy be far worse-off than they could be under a fairer distribution of resources.

-Kramnik seems all to ready to treat Putin's political practices as the price that must be paid for prosperity. On its own terms, his argument seems to justify 'wealth-generating' dictatorship as generally preferable to democracy that might deliver less wealth. But the background assumption that a genuinely democratic process (and a reversal of Putin's stranglehold over political life) would deliver worse resource outcomes is utter nonsense. In fact, the reverse is true: its intrinsic value as a mode of equal respect aside, democratic decision-making also affords a community the best chance of making the right decisions in the fields of economics and social policy.

In general, I find it deplorable that Kramnik treats democratic governance as a 'risky' chess variation that a player should forego in favour of a 'safer' variation that promises a smaller but clearer advantage. Russian people are not pawns on a chessboard. They should be free to consider all the variations without state inteference and make their own choice. Would Kramnik be happy if someone told him that he cannot consider some variations, on the ground that they are unsafe?

Emmanuel,

Maybe you should re-read the article.

Kramnik says that destruction of the present Russian government risks a return to the anarchic conditions of the 1990's.

Kramnik sides rather with those who work for incremental, constructive movement toward a fairer, more democratic state.

The words "oblivious," and "utter nonsense" fit your post a lot better than they fit Kramnik's remarks.

What will happen if the match Anand-Kramnik is tied and Anand get the title because of win the rapid-blitz tiebreak?....Will be Anand still considered a FIDE champion and will Kramnik claim he is still the classical champion (best chess player of the world according to him) because never been beaten neither by Leko Topalov Anand nor another human even when Kramnik never has beaten those 3 guys?.I think that is the next Kramnik trick to get another unified title against Anand-Topalov/Kamsky winner.The classical saga will continue.If a match,according to Kramnik, is the correct way to determine a real world champion why the championships of every country are mostly decided by tournaments and not matches? I have never seen a USA or Russian championship title decided by a match between a previous socalled champion and a challenger.The classical match Steinitz format is killing the competitive chess spirit by emulate the dirty boxing legacy.

Greg,

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. In particular, you seem to take at face value Kramnik's suggestion that Kasparov and like-minded persons aim at the 'destruction of the present Russian government'. I'm really interested to hear whether you regard calls for basic political freedoms and social justice, and the critique of the current administration as corrupt, as attempts to 'destroy' Russian government.

As to who is striving for peaceful and incremental change, I would encourage you to extend the charity you display towards Kramnik's viewpoint to that of Kasparov and 'The Other Russia'.

Kasparov interview in the 1/27/07 WSJ. His words in quotes:

"...if Putin goes, then who will be in charge? That's a big problem. Then it's instability. An authoritarian regime cannot have a successor while the big name [Mr. Putin] is still alive, much less well, young and strong."

As the new year unfolds, Mr. Kasparov predicts "a political crisis" in Mr. Putin's government, along with "less stability, more uncertainty." That's the opening for the Other Russia. "We should keep our group together, close to the wall, to get into the hall when it's broken. But not too close to be buried under the debris."

And then? "If the Other Russia wins, who cares? The victory of the Other Russia candidate destroys the legacy of any institution built under Putin. You have to start from scratch. You have to call new [parliamentary] elections. You have to introduce new laws. You have to undergo judicial reform. You have to destroy censorship." In short, you have to start over, back to where Russia was before Mr. Putin took over, building democracy, block by block.

----------

"I was in St. Petersburg last week for a literary seminar...most of the indegenous writers I met there thought Kasparov was too radical. And personally I thought alomst all the people I met during my maiden visit to Russia were...well...satisfied."

Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd? I lived in US and people there were rarely satisfied with politics. Now I live in Europe and "satisfied" is the last word that comes to my mind when I think of Europeans and politics. Germans are never satisfied with their government, French are never satisfied, Italians - same story, hell, even Swiss are never satisfied. And lo and behold, in Russia, in the country with a gap between rich and poor not seen anywhere else in Europe, people are satisfied. Hmm....

There is no corruption, wealth gap or dictatorial politics under American democracy. The US economy is strong and political discourse is polite. Heads of big companies never act to steal vast sums of money. Every American has enough to eat and uses a fair and sustainable share of world resources.

Kasparov can bring American style freedom to Russia. Except Russia will not attack various countries to steal their oil because under Kasparov Russia will be even more democratic than the US.

Heaven on earth is very close.

I think I agree with you in general, Osbender -- but, really, the Italians? It's a charitable viewpoint that treats their chronic political fiascos as a positive symptom of anything. Not a model for any political process that actually aspires to work...

"-Kramnik seems oblivious to the question of fair distribution of Russia's wealth. It does not seem to occur to him that the Russian people may actualy be far worse-off than they could be under a fairer distribution of resources."

I don't think Kramnik was giving a lecture on politics or economics. Fair distribution of wealth may well be an issue in Russia - indeed it is, but I don't think Kramnik was forgetting the regular people. The income of an average Russian may not have grown as fast as Russian GDP has, but it least it has grown, which is much more than can be said about the Yeltsin era, when things only seemed to go from bad to worse and when Russia experienced a sharp decline in living standards. A case can be made Putin hasn't made things much better for an average Russian, but he hasn't made them worse - which is a huge improvement over the Yeltsin and Gorbachev eras, when things seemed to become worse - economically - from year to year.

"-Kramnik seems all to ready to treat Putin's political practices as the price that must be paid for prosperity. On its own terms, his argument seems to justify 'wealth-generating' dictatorship as generally preferable to democracy that might deliver less wealth. But the background assumption that a genuinely democratic process (and a reversal of Putin's stranglehold over political life) would deliver worse resource outcomes is utter nonsense. In fact, the reverse is true: its intrinsic value as a mode of equal respect aside, democratic decision-making also affords a community the best chance of making the right decisions in the fields of economics and social policy."

It all sounds good in theory, but in Russia this liberal/idealistic approach has failed miserably in practice and perhaps as much as millions of people were starved to death due to policies of such free market idealism of the Yeltsin era. One things that needs to be stressed - and Kramnik tried to do it in the interview, but maybe he didn't do it enough- people in Russia have experienced nothing but economic decline in the Gorbachev and Yeltsin eras, and they are ecstatic about a leader with whom things don't seem to get worse, and maybe even get slightly better. Yeah, Putin may be all the things Kasparov & co. call him, but after 20 years of economic decline, people appreciate a little stability, it seems. If anything, it is precisely the Kasparov-like liberal idealism of the Yeltsin era that is responsible for the rise of Putin.

"In general, I find it deplorable that Kramnik treats democratic governance as a 'risky' chess variation that a player should forego in favour of a 'safer' variation that promises a smaller but clearer advantage. Russian people are not pawns on a chessboard. They should be free to consider all the variations without state inteference and make their own choice. Would Kramnik be happy if someone told him that he cannot consider some variations, on the ground that they are unsafe? "

- So many Russian pawns have already been sacrificed to economic gambits invented by Kasparov-like liberals, that the Russian public seems to have made its choice: they chose a degree of stability even if they have to give up some of their political rights. Political rights are not edible, and don't come in handy when you are about to starve to death. And yes, Putin is a dictator who took advantage of it. But make no mistake: he was/is supported by large segments of the population. It is all good to be like Mig and quote Clinton about how democracy and prosperity don't have to be opposing values. But to really understand the situation, one would have to remember that prosperity and what people like Kasparov (and Mig?) understand by "democracy" are not values that have been simultaneously available to Russians in recent history. In fact, in Russian experience, they are indeed opposite. And in any case, Americans didn't have anywhere near the economic problems of Russia, and yet they gave up their freedoms to the Patriot Act and the like. If the people of the supposed leading western country were compelled into giving up their freedoms citing as an excuse a single terrorist act, maybe one shouldn't be surprised that Russians have done so in a much more dire situation. Kasparovian "Democracy" has been Russia's 9/11 and Putin is its Patriot Act.

Granda Superb!

"perhaps as much as millions of people were starved to death due to policies ... of the Yeltsin era"

Russianbear, your posts are enlightening as ever. Perhaps it was billions of Russians who starved to death? Or quadrillions?

Eagerly looking forward to your further pearls of wisdom.

Whatever happened to both Ovidiu, Maliq Soter and Yuriy Kleyner? Anyone know why these 3 have been silent for several weeks? Have they run off together to start a commune? I am puzzled.

sorry. delete the 'both' before Ovidiu.

Russianbear,

although I am happy to defer to your experience of Russian social and political life, I disagree with the way you frame some issues.

You say: "the Russian public seems to have made its choice: they chose a degree of stability even if they have to give up some of their political rights".

-How do you know that people have indeed chosen so, when the Putin regime has systematically suppressed opposition? I think that the only reason Putin seems the only plausible choice is that the state apparatus spends a lot of effort making sure that no-one else can be heard.

You say: "Political rights are not edible, and don't come in handy when you are about to starve to death".

-This makes sense only if you buy into the idea that granting genuine political rights (free the media; allow more freedom to political organizations; make courts independent etc.)would destabilize Russia or undermine its economic boom. It would be very interesting to see the evidence for this.

More generally, I think that Kramnik's comments and your post may go some way towards explaining why people do not revolt again Putin, but they do not provide reasons why anyone should support his policies, much less why one would 'disagree' with Kasparov and The Other Russia. My dissapointment comes from the fact that Kramnik did not even say that he endorses their struggle for greater freedom, justice and accountability, even if he might reject the persons leading the party.

RB, it is wrong for the Russian people to blame what happened during the 90s on capitalism or democracy. I lived in Moscow from 1993-1997, and what was going on at that time was neither capitalism nor democracy; it more closely resembled Chicago of the 1920's IMO - gangsterism.

You guys make it sound as if Russia is one dangerous place to stay in or go have a holiday. It's a pretty normal place guys. So some guys in government want to make money...lots of it...so what?! Anybody in government anywhere is greedy. Russia did not feel to me as being under an authoritarian government when I recently visited.

Kasparov has a big talent for making average mistakes of someone else (like Putin) sound life threatening to other people (like russians). Putin and C0 are there to stay and the rest of the leaders in the developed world are unlikely to take Kasparov seriously.

But then Kasparov also has a big talent for prophecy...and his prophecies are usually spot on...if he thinks a crisis is in the offing I am not willing to put my money against him!

Thanks for the link, jonthebon. Cohen's amazing.

Theorist:
"I think I agree with you in general, Osbender -- but, really, the Italians?"

My argument is not that Italian politics is better than the Russian one (although it could, in fact, be the case). However, in normal countries people as a rule are dissatisfied with politics because they always want improvement, no matter how good the situation is, and everybody has his own ideas about what must be improved and in what way. If I hear that people somewhere are "satisfied" that raises a huge red flag for me.

Mehul, I'm wondering what your background is. "It's a pretty normal place guys. So some guys in government want to make money...lots of it...so what?! Anybody in government anywhere is greedy"

You see, in a "normal" place people wouldn't tolerate guys in the government using their position of power so blatantly. It is true that most politicians are greedy self-serving bastards. However, if a politician in a civilized country is caught using his position for financial gain, that usually spells the end of his political career. Yes, Italy is special :).

"Russianbear, your posts are enlightening as ever. ...
Eagerly looking forward to your further pearls of wisdom."

Not as much as I look forward to yours, dz.

"-How do you know that people have indeed chosen so, when the Putin regime has systematically suppressed opposition? I think that the only reason Putin seems the only plausible choice is that the state apparatus spends a lot of effort making sure that no-one else can be heard."

That is a fair thing to say. But the the question is: how do we know Americans have indeed chosen Bush, when the American system never lets anyone but the Republicans or Democrats be heard? Communists can at least get some airtime on national TV in Russia, for example, but what is the last time you saw a Communist on American TV? So it is debatable whether opposition has less opportunities to address the people in Russia than in the US.

"-This makes sense only if you buy into the idea that granting genuine political rights (free the media; allow more freedom to political organizations; make courts independent etc.)would destabilize Russia or undermine its economic boom. It would be very interesting to see the evidence for this."

Again, not a bad point, per se. But Russians don't think that way. Things have been so bad in Russia for the past 15 years or so that economy is by far the major concern now. People were so used to things getting worse than when Putin's arrival coincided with things suddenly not getting worse, they don't want to jinx it. They are reluctant to get things changed just because other people think changes wouldn't destabilize the economic boom. Russians have done too much dying and too little eating in the past 20 years for them to care about abstract "Genuine political rights" as much as they care about economy. As much as it may annoy a western armchair politics buff or a free market idealist, Russians have their own agenda. As a Russian proverb goes, "a fed one doesn't understand a hungry one".

"My dissapointment comes from the fact that Kramnik did not even say that he endorses their struggle for greater freedom, justice and accountability, even if he might reject the persons leading the party."

I think that may be because Kramnik doesn't endorse it, and in fact, considers it counterproductive. I also think Kramnik did explain why he thought Putin did enjoy a much greater degree of popularity than many are willing to admit. You just chose not to pay attention to it. Kramnik did stress the suffering that took place in Russia in the 90s. But you choose to either ignore it or dismiss it as an irrelevant footnote in a greater picture of the progress of political rights. But to Russians in the 1990s the suffering was real, and the political freedoms were next to meaningless. You may consider them wrong or misguided, but that is how that is, and they would probably think YOU are wrong and misguided.

"But then Kasparov also has a big talent for prophecy...and his prophecies are usually spot on...if he thinks a crisis is in the offing I am not willing to put my money against him!"

I thought every prediction about politics I've heard Kasparov make ended up being wrong. I remember him claiming Putin will not step down after the second term, among other things. So if Kasparov has predicted a crisis, it must mean the good times are coming :)

"Still I would expect Kramnik to behave more intelligently."

I wouldn't have done, even if I agreed with you about the wisdom of Kramnik making these observations. Expressing his opinion honestly is a pleasure he generally allows himself, far more so than he would do if his intention were to court popularity. Until recently Anand has always taken the opposite view, hence his general popularity.

"Not as much as I look forward to yours"

Russianbear, I am afraid, I might disappoint you. It could be amusing once in a while to peruse your ignorant drivel but, alas, no intelligent debate can be conducted with a person who stuffs his "theories" (FLOABW) with unsubstantiated (and, of course, unsubstantiatable) claims. I think we had this conversation in an earlier thread and the unambiguous conclusion still stands. The only real question still open is where your ignorance is more profound - in your discussions of Russia or America. That is a tough one.

I don't understand all this Kramnik bashing. The man has proven himself in every important match since 2000. He beat the "Unbeatable" Kasparov, organized a candidates tournament, defended his title against Leko and unified the chess crown by beating Topalov. He also saved Fide from another fiasco by playing in mexico when it was clearly not in his personal interest to do so. He has consistently walked what he talked. He has said all along that he prefers matches to tournaments for the world championship. If you don't like his chess, O.K. Style is subjective. To not approve of his ethics is another matter. In fact, He might be the most ethical champion since Euwe. He also has the power and desire to stand up to Fide. Something Anand would never do. I am looking forward to a great match and rooting for Kramnik!

Bones has some good points. Kramnik did go along with a lot that he was clearly not pleased about. He handled toiletgate ok (i.e. kept playing, accepted a loss, etc.) and still was there for Mexico when he new he wasn't in his best form. Yet, there is a lot of negative feeling about him, I think, because through it all he has been a big whiner. I don't think any (rational) person hates him, but it is easy to be annoyed by what he has to say.

Here is Anand's response which i first saw on ChessMind.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1178637

Suck that Bones : Kramnik the most ethical champion since Euwe, ja , a man who never won a cycle since Spassky times, a man who made everything the impossible to avoid face Kasparov in a rematch, (I will not play Kasparov because he needs to qualify to challenge me) that is ethical for you? ...In the Euwe times you only needed a bag of candies to challenge a reigning champion.

Thanks jaideepblue!! Anand's response is the personification of class, Kramnik could learn a thing or two by reading it. Some excerpts:

Q: "Kramnik claims to have saved the world chess from another split by taking part in Mexico."
A: "I don’t know if that is the popular opinion. I think analysing his games keeps me fairly occupied these days, I don’t want to start analysing his words."

Q: "Is it case of being a bad loser?
A: No comment. Kramnik is a world class player and he will be a tough rival in October and that is what I will be focusing on."

Q: "He cited your none-too-impressive record against Kasparov. He says you were out-foxed by the big K."
A: "Everyone has their nemesis. For me it was clearly Kasparov. I don’t think I want to make excuses for that. Kasparov, in spite of his explosive character, brought the game into the limelight. Now that we are not rivals I can say that Kasparov did try to promote the game on a global level."

I'm really curious as to what excuse Kramnik will come up with if he loses in Oct. Will he be big enough to say well played, the better man on the day won? I doubt it. Of course, he may never be in that position...

Granda, a small inaccuracy in your statement: "..a man who never won a cycle since Spassky times.."

Actually since Botvinnik's time. Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov all qualified through a rigorous cycle. Personally, I think the likes of Bronstein, Korchnoi and even perhaps Keres, have an equal claim to the title as does Kramnik

rdh, what did Moskalenko say about Moro? what was so "clearly" bad about Kasparov's about behaviour at the board? If it was anything unacceptable, surely the arbiter can take of any complaints?

Excellent, jaideep, thanks. I particularly enjoyed the line about how Anand had chosen to ignore Kramnik's remarks (especially fine in the context of him giving an interview about them), followed by bragging about how Anand hadn't whined about Kasparov's behaviour in 1995 (and to be fair I agree the word 'whine' would be inappropriate, 'justified complaint' being nearer the mark, but how do we know Gazza slammed doors and so forth? Right - because Anand mentioned it in interviews).

I do enjoy the Indian press on this topic. It has a refreshingly flagrant bias which is almost innocent in its lack of self-awareness.

Personally, d_tal, I think the moon is made of green cheese, but I'm not fool enough to imagine my views are of much general interest.

Moskalenko deplores Moro's habit of staring at his opponent, which he clearly regards as an ethical breach (and also of storming off after losing, but that is not the immediate point and no doubt has been rectified by time). Facial expressions were one of Gazza's many bad habits. I can't be bothered to list the rest - google or indeed youtube will show you some, as will study of Nunn's or Speelman's books, Anand's interviews after 1995, Kramnik's various interviews including this one, etc. etc.

The only sad thing about the Anand interview (and I am a fan of Anand) is that he seems perfectly content with the dumbing down of the world title. He doesn't mind it becoming irrelevant and worthless. I guess if FIDE decided the world title could be decided by speed chess or Fischer-Random then it would still be fine to call it the world championship.

Pathetic interview by Anand. He is still bitter about losing to Kasparov. And he pretends his "titles" are somehow comparable with the classical title - as laughable as that is. He says the champion should play all formats, but how many long matches has he played since Kasparov has spanked him in 1995? He did everything he could to avoid playing Kasparov and later Kramnik in a match. Anand doesn't even have the decency to admit the only reason he can even claim to have the FIDE title - as weak as that claim is compared to the real, classical title- is because Kramnik made an effort to unify the title and played in Mexico when he didn't have to. Perhaps this is a psychological attack on Kramnik and is part of a calculated plan.

Anand is not humble enough to acknowledge the limitations of his victories. He should learn a thing or two from people like Zukertort, who, even though he outdid Steinitz in a tournament, had the common sense and sportsmanship to acknowledge he could only prove his superiority over Steinitz in a match. Anand has once again shown he is a pathetic creature that lacks class or sportsmanship.

"Personally, d_tal, I think the moon is made of green cheese, but I'm not fool enough to imagine my views are of much general interest."

Why then do you post your views?

rdh, Gazza's facial expressions are well known. Many players have similar foibles, I thought for a moment that you had something new and interesting, my mistake.

I really enjoy this 'verbal' jousting. God bless Mig for providing this arena.

d-tal,Spassky was the first champion who qualified thru a candidate cycle of matches , Kasparov the last one. Before Spassky and after Kasparov the challenger was decided in a tournament or handpicked. A cycle of candidate matches is the best way to determine a match classic champion.

I post those of my views which I consider rational contributions, d_tal. 'Keres was just as much of a world champion as Kramnik' does not fall into that category and is of little if any general interest.

Sorry if you thought I meant to say anything new or interesting. I didn't. Nor did Kramnik. It is well known that Kasparov didn't behave correctly at the board. If you think that's a 'personal foible', presumably because Gazza was a daring attacking player and you like that, more fool you.

hey rdh, cool down man! You need to relax, any criticism of Kramnik and you blow your top!

Now, whenever have I given cause, in ANY of my posts to warrant the following? "If you think that's a 'personal foible', presumably because Gazza was a daring attacking player and you like that, more fool you."

I have repeatedly said I dont consider style to be anything but a personal, mostly irrelevant preference in the context of best player, tournament strategy etc, and I have repeatedly defended Kramnik's style! If nothing else, you owe me an apology for this.

"I post those of my views which I consider rational contributions, d_tal. 'Keres was just as much of a world champion as Kramnik' does not fall into that category and is of little if any general interest."

The thing is, you post what YOU (i.e. rdh) consider to be rational posts. Most of the time, its mindless drivel to me. I'm sure its valued by some others. Same applies to me. You are not the final arbiter of what's rational or not, if its anybody, its Mig.

oh sorry Granda, I took cycle to mean qualified through a structured approach, whether based on matches or tournaments. Which Kramnik didnt do.

Has it occurred to anyone else that Kramnik probably doesn't pay any attention to Russian politics? Why should he care? He lives in Moscow but spends most of his time trotting around the world to tournaments or shut up in his room studying. So why would he want upheaval? He probably doesn't really know or care what Kasparov is on about, and why should he?

On this point, if no other, I agree with Kramnik. Why rock the boat if you are happy with your life. Politics isn't life, it's just something to occupy annoying people.

Kramnik's preparations: searching for new and stultifying ways to suck the life out of every opening.

Grin.

I'd like to say I consider rdh to be a rational and knowlwedgable poster. To say most of the time he posts "mindless drivel" is just trolling in the same vein as "Keres is as much a champ as Kramnik".

the cavalry cometh, I expected no less. Bear in mind Mr Bear, other points of view exist.
It is my opinion that Keres is as much a champion as Kramnik. I consider Korchnoi and Bronstein to be more of a champion than Kramnik. Just my opinion old chap.

but nuff said...

There's an excellent line in a novel by Jilly Cooper (always a good source for spiritual enlightenment).

Silly woman (screaming): "I'm entitled to my opinion!"

Urbane and wicked hero: "Of course you are, darling. I just don't want to hear it, that's all."

now that sweetie, is trolling. Not answering any comments logically, but posting drivel. Again, you are not the arbiter of what is relevant, and what is not. Difficult to understand? I guess in the rdh world, your word is final. Oh well... Speaking of quotes, have you ever heard of this one: "Physician heal thyself"?

d_tal: not all opinions are equally worthy. Some opinions are outright wrong. And some are so laughable someone who posts them ends up looking like a troll. You may have an opinion that 2 times 2 is 5, but noone is required to value or respect that opinion simply because it is an opinion.

You may wish to get a logical answer to your comments, but let's face it, you have posted anything worthy of logical response. You posts are variation on one theme - how you dislike Kramnik, and as such, they don't lend themselves well to logical analysis or counterarguments. But whenever you post something completely outlandish or silly, don't be surprised if people scoff at your remarks.

d_tal: not all opinions are equally worthy. Some opinions are outright wrong. And some are so laughable someone who posts them ends up looking like a troll. You may have an opinion that 2 times 2 is 5, but noone is required to value or respect that opinion simply because it is an opinion.

You may wish to get a logical answer to your comments, but let's face it, you have NOT posted anything worthy of logical response. Your posts are variation on one theme - how you dislike Kramnik, and as such, they don't lend themselves well to logical analysis or counterarguments. But whenever you post something completely outlandish or silly, don't be surprised if people scoff at your remarks.

Granda,

Suck What? Anand basically said nothing. Why? Because, He will not defend a lost position. He knows that a match is worth more than a tournament. If not to him, Then to the chess public. He also knows that if he loses the match his place in chess history will be considerably lower than if he wins. How can you be one of the greatest without winning at least one really big match?
How did Kramnik make it impossible for Kasparov to get a rematch? By organizing a candidates tournament in which Kasparov was invited? By signing the prague agreement in which Kasparov was a participant? Or by honoring Kasparov's desire that a dethroned champion should not be entitled to an automatic rematch? If anyone kept Kasparov from getting a rematch it was Kasparov.
Regarding Euwe, He was Fide champion when he first played Alekhine. After winning, He realised that Alekhine was in poor form and gave him a rematch with no questions asked. He could have said some craziness like "The Fide Champion title is equal to the World Champion title" like Anand who it seems would be just as happy to get his title from a gumball machine.

rdh and Rbear--

I imagine a 16-year-old boy with nothing much to contribute, cranking out the most stupid and provocative things imaginable as his only means of attracting attention.

Animal trainers and parents of young children sometimes prosper by completely ignoring bad behavior and responding only to appropriate conduct.

Until Mig blesses us with an "ignore" button I don't see that there's much choice.

Hey Russian, I think your posts are generally well-written and thought out, but your latest Anand-bashing smells of Kramnik-bias to me...

"Pathetic interview by Anand. He is still bitter about losing to Kasparov."

Where do you infer this from the interview? If anything, he even refused to make excuses for his poor record against Kasparov.

"He says the champion should play all formats, but how many long matches has he played since Kasparov has spanked him in 1995?"

How many opportunities did he have to play a match? He played whatever FIDE organized, and FIDE wasn't organizing matches.

"He did everything he could to avoid playing Kasparov and later Kramnik in a match."

Sources please? From what I recall, he accepted to play Kasparov in a match in 1999 but Kasparov couldn't secure funding. In 2000 Anand decided he wouldn't take a risk anymore, so turned down the offer. His contract with FIDE precluded him from playing in the 2002 Dortmund qualifier. And there never was a serious proposal of a Anand-Kramnik match, until now, so I don't see where he dodged a Kramnik match.

"Anand doesn't even have the decency to admit the only reason he can even claim to have the FIDE title - as weak as that claim is compared to the real, classical title- is because Kramnik made an effort to unify the title and played in Mexico when he didn't have to. Perhaps this is a psychological attack on Kramnik and is part of a calculated plan."

Even if you are right about this, you think Anand should come up and say "My title is worthless, Kramnik is the one and true champion, I am the challenger in the coming match"? As a sportsman, devaluing one's own accomplishments is outright silly. Anand is behaving just like a normal sportsman -- I don't see any lack of sportsmanship here.

"Anand is not humble enough to acknowledge the limitations of his victories. He should learn a thing or two from people like Zukertort, who, even though he outdid Steinitz in a tournament, had the common sense and sportsmanship to acknowledge he could only prove his superiority over Steinitz in a match. Anand has once again shown he is a pathetic creature that lacks class or sportsmanship."

Unlike in the Zukertort days, these guys make a living out of playing chess. I don't see what is so unsportsmanlike about following the rules of the chess governing body. Not everyone is like Kasparov who has enough money stashed away that he can do whatever he wants.

Anand cannot come in defense of this "classical" title line, it is actually a "classical" hyphen if you ask me, the alpha and omega of it is Mr Kramnik. For this title to come into existance, Anand had to be sacrificed as a pawn in the Keene's Gambit which was Accepted by Kramnik. However, Kramnik knew this hand-pick gambit was dubious (and therefore the title thus obtained) so he ran away from it. Wonder if Kramnik ever spent any time to value his title before he sat on to weigh in on others title? While hand-picking itself is dubious, do we have a precedence for picking a disqualified challenger? To me it appears like Kramnik somehow managed to jump on the anti-fide propaganda wagon of that time and stealthly attached his title to the champion's line!

Bones,can you explain me how a SINGLE match where only 2 players are involved can determine who is the best chess player of the world?,in my opinion a match just determine who is best of the 2 players.I consider a cycle of matches (similar way Spassky Fischer Karpov? and Kasparov got their titles)the most acceptable way to decide who is the best match classic player. I disagree give a shot as a challenger a man who won a tournament because a tournament winner is not always a good match player, that is like mix apples and pineapples.The match champion-challenger should be the final stage of a match cycle.Kramnik has been lucky first getting a spot to the title without qualify, and second third and fourth defending his faded title against men who won tournaments to play him. Leko Topalov and Anand were produced winning tournaments. Another thing i don't understand is if a match is the correct format to determine a real champion why all the national chess federations never use it, when was the last time USA or Russian federations decided their annual titles with a champion-challenger match. Do i have to assume all the national chess federation champions are fake champions??.

Am I the only one who thinks both interviews were not particularly spicy stuff, and if this is what the chess world regards as "hostilities" etc we got a looooong way to go before people really notice chess? The rather pathetic efforts of Chessbase and the Indian media can't fan this spark, it wouldn't light petrol. And the two protagonists are very quiet, mild tempered people without very controversial opinions on much, who prefer just to play and study chess. Amen.
What we need is another Toilet.

Granda,
I agree that the best format includes candidates matches. You can ask Fide why this is not done. If you are saying Anand does not deserve a title shot because he only won a tournament, Your preaching to the choir:) Kramnik was very fortunate to get a title shot under the circumstances that he did, no question. I disagree that Kramnik's title is faded. In fact, I think it's strength grows with every World Championship tournament Fide organizes. Anand may have won in mexico but he drew both of his games against Kramnik. I don't understand how you can be the champ without beating the champ. As far as national championships are concerned, The problem is money and logistics. Very few federations have the means to have lengthy cycles for national titles. This does not mean that tournaments equal matches. How many former world champions would not have won the title if tournaments were held instead of matches. Certainly not Karpov. Probably not Capablanca either.Petrosian never. Now you want to devalue Kramnik's achievement? Matches are the most natural and logical way to determine who is better, Because chess is a two player game. Anytime you introduce more players you automatically randomize the results. The fact that many people don't understand this leads me to believe that there motives are not pure. This includes Anand.

"How many former world champions would not have won the title if tournaments were held instead of matches. Certainly not Karpov. Probably not Capablanca either.Petrosian never."

Karpov and Capablanca would not have won the title if it was based on tournaments? If you hadn't included Petrosian I'd have thought you were being sarcastic.

Karpov is the player with the largest number of major tournament wins of all time. Capablanca went undefeated from 1914 to 1924, I believe.

Bones,Kramnik title is faded and not strong since he has beaten nobody else before and after Kasparov.He tied Leko and Topalov in classic games,is he the best of the world because he proved not to be WORST than those guys?.Put that guy to play a cycle of matches to see how good is he(not to UNIFY his title with single tournament winners). The last time he tried a cycle of matches he was humiliated before play Kasparov.Is not hard to create a tournament of matches for any determined federation, just get a reduced knockout version with 8 or 16 best ranked players with 8 or 10 games per match and lets see who is the best.Playing against a single player is easier than play against 3 or 4 of them, can you imagine the quantity of energy and preparation you need to face different styles of games.

rdh, Russianbear and Koster, why dont you start up a blog, and invite yourselves, and then start posting in the following manner:
rdh: Kramnik is great
Russianboor: No, Kramnik is greater.
Koster: Are you kidding, Kramnik is the greatest.

And then Russian can indulge his taste for verbal diarrhoea
Russianbear: Kramnik is the best. He is the greatest. He is excellent. He is brilliant.. and so on

Once you get tired of that, you can start on another thread.
Koster: Kasparov is the worst.
rdh: Based on your wonderful logical analysis, I have to agree, thank you koster
Bear: Yep, I have to agree, Koster is such a wonderful poster.

and so on, and so on. Perhaps you can also get some guest bloggers. But on this blog, Mig's blog, none of you have the right to bully somebody else's opinion into submission just because you dont agree with it. Bare in mind that others may not have such a collectively high opinion of your intelects as you do. Praising Kramnik and his positional play as if somehow its more intellectual, attributing things they never said to others in order to refute strawmen arguments, and patting yourselves on your backs. How sad and pathetic.

ahem..."bear" in mind, d_tal. Chortle.

rdh, there are ppl with almost unlimited time, internet access and pathological need for arguing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
Can't do anything about that.

Or this one even fits better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PJzMHObabo&feature=related

I wouldn't call Anand's interview "pathetic". No need to stoop to the level of rabid Kramnik-bashers. Anand does a reasonable job of not attacking Kramnik directly despite the best efforts of the interviewer.

As for Anand trying to put an equality sign between his current title and classical title... What do you expect him to do? To rubbish his own title?

IMO Anand has done what was required from him to keep the classical tradition going: he signed the contract for the upcoming match without being too difficult. The fact that he likes to talk up his current title is such a minor fault in the grand scheme of things that it doesn't really deserve much criticism.

One strange aspect of the Anand interview is the english was quite poor - previously when I have read (and heard) comments by Anand his english has been excellent. The questions were really loaded as if the answers were written then questions fitted around them! A bit comic. I think its very misleading to say of the Kramnik Topalov match that it was tied when the result was 3-2 in classical games - you can hardly count the forfeit.

"One strange aspect of the Anand interview is the english was quite poor"
Since when the english people became poor? oh my poor english.. :)

Nice one PircAlert :)

Thx Andy. :)

d_tal:

Kramnik did not draw against Topalov. He won +1 in the classical games (without counting the rapid games).

"One match does not a WC make!"

Who said so? Smyslov, Tal, Spassky won one match each, and they are world champions. Besides, Kramnik won 2 matches, against Kasparov and Topalov.

Bones:
"How many former world champions would not have won the title if tournaments were held instead of matches. Certainly not Karpov. Probably not Capablanca either.Petrosian never."

Petrosian actually qualified from a tournament.
As for Karpov, I'd say in the 1970s there no better tournament player than him.

henry, In the case of Smyslov, Tal and Spassky, the match was preceded by a very structured series of qualifying tournaments. So it was not just the match that made them champion, it was winning the qualifying tournaments, plus the match. Look up some books that describe these times, I can recommend the life and games of Mikhail Tal.

No, Kramnik didnt beat Topalov you see, the rules state that a walkover counts as a win. There is a reason for that, otherwise people could just not turn up when then didnt feel like it. Who's to say that Topalov would not have won that game.

Pathetic. Topalov was the one who caused the situation that led to the forfeit, and what he did was completely unsportsmanlike. Kramnik certainly won on games of chess actually played, which is what counts in the minds of most rational people.

If it comes to that, the match rules also stated that extra games should be played if the score reached 6-6. They were played, and Kramnik won them, thus winning the match.

The whole Kramnik-didn't-beat-Topalov thing, while rather dull, does have this use: people who say it mark themselves immediately as people with whom rational debate is pointless.

Spassky, incidentally, won a series of candidates matches. But one match made Lasker, Capa, Alekhine and Euwe world champions, of course, and pretty much mere self-proclamation Steinitz. The Kramnik-isn't-a-real world champion argument is another useful signifier of absence of rationality.

And ironically enough, champs like Capablanca, Lasker, and Alekhine remain some of the most admired champions of all, despite the fact that they had no qualifiers, just final matches.

Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine may not have had qualifiers but they didn't lose qualification matches either.

If the Leko match is considered as well, no one called Botvinnik a loser after his drawn match with Bronstein, nor did anyone question Kasparov's championship after the drawn match at Seville 1987.

We should remember that Mig is a Kasparov hireling, and as such he admits without censure all forms of inanity and libelous invective aimed at Kramnik. Until the day Kramnik retires from chess there's no way to stop the bleeding that began in 2000. So don't engage them -- just open your umbrellas, let the seagulls fly blindly about the blog and be assured that they will contribute nothing.

Indeed, given that Kramnik has been Topalov in both classical (even though he had one less game with white) and rapid, an attempt to make it sound like Kramnik didn't beat Topalov is indeed irrational. Rules were violated much more than they were upheld in the game 5 decision, so appeal to rules doesn't really work. No matter which way you look at it, Kramnik won: or if you are a stickler for the FIDE (misapplication of) rules he won on tie-breaks, but if you only want to be serious and only look at classical part, he also won 3-2 there, despite having one less game with white.

Bones had made some good points, but the idea that Karpov, Capablanca or Petrosian wouldn't have been "champs" in tournaments is a little out there. Murali addressed that already. Btw, I believe Karpov won more tournaments than any other two world champs combined. Saying Karpov couldn't win tournaments is like saying Lasker or Kasparov couldn't win matches.

Now, to answer Murali himslf:

"Where do you infer this from the interview? If anything, he even refused to make excuses for his poor record against Kasparov. "

This wasn't inferred from this interview itself as much as from Anand's overall approach, his unwillingness to play matches and his willingness to pretend his non-match accomplishments can count as the real title.

"How many opportunities did he have to play a match? He played whatever FIDE organized, and FIDE wasn't organizing matches. "

That's the problem. He is a FIDE puppet, which is sad, because he gives them credibility they would lack otherwise. But he was offered to play matches outside FIDE: 1998 and 2000 come to mind, and so does he chance to play in Dortmund 2002 where he would be one of the favorites. Anand was once beaten by Kasparov and twice shy (or thrice shy) about playing in matches ever again.

"Sources please? From what I recall, he accepted to play Kasparov in a match in 1999 but Kasparov couldn't secure funding. In 2000 Anand decided he wouldn't take a risk anymore, so turned down the offer. His contract with FIDE precluded him from playing in the 2002 Dortmund qualifier. And there never was a serious proposal of a Anand-Kramnik match, until now, so I don't see where he dodged a Kramnik match. "

"couldn't secure funding", "decided he wouldn't take a risk anymore", "contract with FIDE precluded him from playing": these are just excuses. And these ammount to Anand dodging the top level match competition. Btw, you forget about the 4th opportunity: Anand declining to play Kramnik in 1998: Shirov wasn't even originally supposed to play Kranmik in 1998, Anand was. So, Anand dodged Kasparov/Kramnik on 4 occasions. I find it very hard to believe the excuses, I think he would/could have played if he wanted to. Maybe once or twice I could have believed the excuses, but not 4 times. Besides, some of these excuses are lame: "His contract with FIDE precluded him from playing in the 2002 Dortmund qualifier". That is weird, cause dortmund was part of Prague, which was FIDE-endorsed unification process. "decided he wouldn't take a risk anymore". Risking what? Making a million dollars or so? Or risking getting spanked again? If it is the latter, it is exactly what I implied in the first place, so we don't really disagree then. Sorry, these excuses are lame. He shouldn't have been a FIDE puppet in the first place, but even if he chose that, he still had his chances to play Kramnik/Kasparov if he wanted to.

"Even if you are right about this, you think Anand should come up and say "My title is worthless, Kramnik is the one and true champion, I am the challenger in the coming match"? As a sportsman, devaluing one's own accomplishments is outright silly. Anand is behaving just like a normal sportsman -- I don't see any lack of sportsmanship here. "

Actually, that would be the ultimate sportsmanlike act. It may not be in one's immediate financial interest to devalue one's own accomplishments. Why can Zukertort admit he didn't prove he was better than Steinitz even though he finished higher in a tournament? Why did Zukertort agree that match is the way to decide who is better? That is ultimate sportsmanship, not claiming whatever format you won happens to be the ultimate one. Anand's failure to achnowledge the limitation of his wins shows lak of sportsmanship.

"Unlike in the Zukertort days, these guys make a living out of playing chess. I don't see what is so unsportsmanlike about following the rules of the chess governing body. Not everyone is like Kasparov who has enough money stashed away that he can do whatever he wants. "

FIDE's incompetence makes it hardly sensible to appeal to them as the governing body. They are more like chess ruining body.

Let's face it, Anand is not poor. He could have done anything he wanted. And he might well have made more money if he kept taking those match opportunities versus Kasparov and Kramnik - even if he kept losing. So it is possible, perhaps even probable that Anand willingly chose to earn LESS money by avoiding tough matches. So, in a sense, Anand was paying not to face Kasparov/Kramnik.

Its really sad that we'll be seeing the World No. 2 against the world no. 6 (or maybe 8?) by the time the match starts. The live ratings paint a depressing picture. The cycles are so long that a rocket like Magnus loses out. We are in a different time, different era, tournaments are the best way, maybe with some characteristics of a match thrown in somehow.

Ratings are irrelevant. Chess functioned fine even before the ratings, let alone live ratings. The world wants to see Kramnik play Anand. That will be the match for the title. Anything else is really meaningless. Kramnik played Topalov in 2006, which was only 2 years ago. If the winner of the Bonn match will defend in 2010 and the system for selecting a challenger makes sense, chances are the candidate will be worthy, and it is not unlikely it will be Calrsen.

And I don't see how live ratings lead one to think tournaments are superior. A WC match may end up being #2 versus #6, but the winner can be claim to being the best match player in the world, and to be the best player in the world, period. A tournament win wouldn't prove anything; even people like Naidich and Bologan can win a tournament.

Kramnik lost game #5 , Fischer lost game #2 , both games lost by forfeit. Kramnik won the match in rapid games. If Anand or Kramnik win the match in rapids or blitz , Kramnik can not complaint still being the best because the rules of the game are agreed before the match, sometimes the rule is challenger has to win by 2 or 1 points, or whoever who wins the first 6 or 10 games, or whoever who wins the rapids or the blitz in case of the match ends tied. I spect no more stupidities from that dirty Russian who usurped Shirov right to play Kasparov.If he lose maybe he can challenge the loser of Kamskylov match if Kirsan still wants to help him under russian pressure.

Feedback on the article appeared in chess base on “Psychological warfare begins”- July 17, 2008.

Kramnik thinks only a 1-1 match should decide who the world champion is. He thinks or wants chess public to believe that only a 1-1 match will determine the best chess player. While there could be some logic behind this assumption, here are some arguments that show why a 1-1 match may not produce best chess or a true World Champion.

First of, a world chess champion need not play his best chess to become one. In other words, a 1-1 match format need not necessarily produce the best chess between the two.
Second, a worthy world champion has to be world #1 too, which is determined by his overall performance against everyone else in tournaments as well. Otherwise the title does not make sense. Consider tennis for example. Roger Federer has been #1 for over 4.5 years and is considered "world champion" because he has been beating everyone consistently until recently. He doesn't have to meet just the second best every time like Kasparov did against Karpov. To me that alone should not be used to determine who the best player is. Kasparov in his time was the best because he not only defeated the second best, but also consistently defeated everybody and was #1 for years. Kramnik hadn't achieved it, in fact he falls way behind. [He was third for many years behind Kasparov and Anand and now again in third place. Not to mention losing the World Championship last year. In contrast, Anand has been #2 for many years and currently #1 for over a year.]

Third, as often discussed in chess forums, sometimes, during a 1-1 match, the best player need not play his best chess because of psychological factors. So many ugly things can decide the fate of a 1-1 match. Anand lost to Kasparov not because he fell short of chess talent but because of psychology as Kasparov himself has stated on many occasions. If that's the case why would you want to conclude that who ever wins the 1-1 match is the best player? Staring at the opponent like Kasparov usually did, exhibiting strange and bad behavior during the match or the event; hiring managers who distract the scene and use unethical tricks are part of a 1-1 match. Some former Russian champions may be proud of such off-the board tactics, but they are not healthy for any sport. These kill the very spirit of any sporting activity. Winning at any cost by any approach was Kasparov’s mentality; Winning by playing well is Anand’s philosophy. He may not have won that many as Kasparov did, but he is way ahead of these cheap Russian champions for having kept the sport healthy and for staying at the very top without provoking anybody or getting into controversies. It is needless to say that such cheap off-the board tactics play little role in a tournament setting.
Fourth, it is easy to “fix” a match between two players as opposed to a tournament, which makes the unofficial title matches especially suspicious.

After all, a round robin tournament style world championship does involve 12 or more games only that they are against 7 other players as opposed to the same player every time. If people argue that luck is a part of such a system, then how come champions like Kasparov or Anand are able to win so many tournaments in their career? Kasparov won a record 9 titles at Linares and Anand 5 or more at Wijk An Zee. Kramnik won his share at Dortmund.
Also, ever since the chess organizations got broke because of Kasparov, the separate titles have muddied the water. The title that Kramnik won can also be called lucky because he got to play Kasparov for the championship in spite of losing to Shirov in the candidates and Anand the worthy challenger among the three had rejected the invitation to play. In fact, in another cycle, Anand defeated Shirov in a 6 game mini match and won the World Championship in the FIDE cycle. How on earth does Kramnik with all his superior brain power fail to recognize this? He wants to conveniently forget all these and merrily goes about mocking Anand’s title.

To me, Kramnik is an opportunist. Had he won the world championship in Mexico (in 2007), he would have announced that he is the best chess player ever because he won both the 1-1 match against Topalov in 2006 and the tournament-style championship against the elite. He failed and Anand won the world championship by 1 full point. That is the reality. If Kramnik is really the best chess player, he should have won the Mexican world championship and now is in a must win situation to equalize things. Otherwise he will have no credibility what-so-ever. Should Anand lose the title in October, it still does not erase the fact that he won the World championship by playing among the best where Kramnik participated but could not win. Having missed his chance already, Kramnik wants the chess world to ignore that and consider the result of this upcoming 1-1 match, which he hopes to win by bringing in the psychological factors in which Russians are so good at.

One message for Kramnik: Just shut up and play chess!

While there is this debate as to which is the best format to pick the 'best player' of an era, I think, we need an overall approach.
Just a 1-1 match conducted once in every few years may not be the correct way eventhough it mnay have been done for decades. There is no necessity that something done historically be the correct method.
A 1-1 match brings in too many factors other than chess talent. Also it takes too much time with seconds for preparing that makes them unavailable or play inefficiently in lot of tournaments; makes the cyclde too long for a champion to rest on his seat while the challenger has to do multiple prep within a short time. Stupid psychological factors- which could make even the mentally tough ones to go nuts.
A tournament format is also an extremely challenging because once it is labeled as World Championship match, it is going to become extremely competitive as all the best players get a shot at it, so everyone prepares. A stupid toilet issue or off-the-board tactics that occur months before the tournament will play little or no role. It will be more a test for chess skills and of course mental strength/stamina to face different opponents with different playing style to come out on top.
We may see multiple champions in a decade, but the best wins would win often enough to stand out among the rest.
All that I am saying is old method need not be the best and the new format need not be all that bad as conceived by some.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Like Mig once said, the match folks will never accept anything else to decide world championship. While nice, I think this format is probably too slow in today's fast-paced world -- but that is my opinion, I am not going to try to convince others of it.

Russianbear, your arguments on Anand being a coward are not at all compelling; Anand never refused to play any matches as long as they were organized within the FIDE cycle. It takes two to Tango: just like Anand did not participate in non-FIDE cycles, Kramnik & Kasparov chose not to participate in the FIDE ones either. I would go ahead and say that Kramnik and Kasparov were the ones dodging Anand -- they could have played Anand if they wanted (through the FIDE cycle), but chose not to.

The 1999 match Anand-Kasparov "couldn't secure funding" was real. Anand accepted the match, therefore forsaking his participation in the FIDE cycle (which Kramnik *did* participate in, losing to Adams in the quarter-finals), but the match didn't take place because Kasparov could not come up with the money. Where is he being a coward? Where did he dodge Kasparov? I can't blame him for thinking (in 2000) that Kasparov's match proposal was another vaporware, so that year he picked FIDE instead -- which at least managed to hold a tournament every year at that time.

Anand has clearly shown that he has no interest in politics. That is his personality, live with it. For all FIDE's problems, choosing to participate only in "official" cycles means Anand can shelter himself from all the politics, which suits him well. That doesn't mean he is a coward. Now that a Kramnik match is imminent, is Anand dodging it? Did he even *try* to come up with some "Now I am the champion, I don't need to play Kramnik who is #6 on the list" ? No, he said nothing of the sort, and he will play the match. True, he is "obligated" by contract to play this match; but according to Russianbear, respecting contracts is BS, and Anand could refuse to play the match if he wishes.

BTW, while I am naturally rooting for Anand, I do think Kramnik stands a better chance for being a better match player. I won't argue with that; but saying that Anand is a coward is something I can't agree with -- and curiously, I've never heard anyone say that before, which is a good indication that this is a pretty gratuitous attack from Kramnik's fans.

To be honest, I fail to see any rational in the "match format is probably too slow in today's fast-paced world". Match or Mexico-type tournament takes about the same time. The real question is qualification, but fundamentally, the tournament also requires proper qualification cycle.

The real difference is that a match is a simple mano-a-mano affair. Tournament simply does not offer the same purity of fight. Even if we disregard the possibility of game fixing, in the tournament the battle between Kramnik and Anand in fact is decided in their games against Moro. Hence the result depends not only on the respective qualities of Kramnik and Anand but also on a billion extra factors such as how well Moro slept on a given Saturday. Therefore, the tournament is simply unusable as a tool to determine WC. IMO even FIDE knockouts are better in this quality.

osbender, why not a tournament of matches to determine who is the best match player of the world. For example just get the 16 best ranked players and create a 16 players knockout with 8,10 or 12 games per match.
Tournaments and a single match( unless there was a candidates match cycle and the winner is facing the reigning champion) it makes no sense to me to determine a world match champion.A single match it seems to me that you are very selective with only 2 players of the elite.
After the match results you only know who is the best of the 2 players, in a tournament of matches you can show your superiority beating 3 or 4 players in a row , same as a candidates match cycle. The tournaments can be fixed as you say and some players could depends in results of others players like the case of Morozevich.
The swiss format also looks better than the roundrobin one and the fairest of all of them because let a huge quantity of players taking part in the competition and a drawish behavior player can not have success playing a swiss. The drawish behavior work well in matches.

Gosh, 'dirty Russians'? Must we have racism as well as idiocy?

"First of, a world chess champion need not play his best chess to become one. In other words, a 1-1 match format need not necessarily produce the best chess between the two. "

Neither does a tournament or KO winner needs to play his best champs to win tournaments with those formats. So this is not an argument against matches. It is not about just playing great, but playing great chess under tremendous pressure. And there is no more great pressure than facing the strongest player day after day. While match occasionally do produce bad blunders, often they force people to raise the level of the game and come up with masterpieces that would not be possible on "mere" superGM level. Kasparov-Karpov matches pushed chess to a new level, for example, but so have many other matches. Tournaments don't generally do it because the average level of play and preparation is much weaker.

"Second, a worthy world champion has to be world #1 too, which is determined by his overall performance against everyone else in tournaments as well. Otherwise the title does not make sense. "

Actually, ratings are irrelevant to wo is the best player. One can get a high rating by destroying somewhat weaker players, but failing to prove one's superiority over the toughest opposition. The only thing that can conclusively prove one top player is better than another is a match between the two. Kasparov may have beaten pretty much everyone in the world around 2000, but his match with Kramnik proved Kasparov's inferiority to Kramnik convincingly, even though Kasparov was a clear #1 due to his dominance over players weaker than Kramnik. So, ratings are overrated, I would say.

"Kasparov in his time was the best because he not only defeated the second best, but also consistently defeated everybody and was #1 for years. Kramnik hadn't achieved it, in fact he falls way behind. [He was third for many years behind Kasparov and Anand and now again in third place. Not to mention losing the World Championship last year. In contrast, Anand has been #2 for many years and currently #1 for over a year.] "

Actually, Anand and Kramnik used to switch between being #2 and #3 behind Kasparov. In any case, I addressed the rating issue above.

"Third, as often discussed in chess forums, sometimes, during a 1-1 match, the best player need not play his best chess because of psychological factors. So many ugly things can decide the fate of a 1-1 match. Anand lost to Kasparov not because he fell short of chess talent but because of psychology as Kasparov himself has stated on many occasions. If that's the case why would you want to conclude that who ever wins the 1-1 match is the best player? "

Because psychology is part of the game? If one can freek out by other player's behaviour, that is that player's problem, not that of his opponent. Besides, I don't think anyone doubted Kasparov's chess superiority over Anand, including Anand himself. Psychological factors may be brought up if one starts to explain just why Anand not only has a bad record against Kasparov, but horrible record. But Kasparov chess superiority over Anand was never in doubt - not even in tournaments, for that matter.

"Staring at the opponent like Kasparov usually did, exhibiting strange and bad behavior during the match or the event; hiring managers who distract the scene and use unethical tricks are part of a 1-1 match."

I don't think Kasparov hired people to distract their opponents, and whatever strange behaviour he may have had was apparently allowed by the rules, otherwise other people could have complained to the arbiter. So Kasparov dominance can't be explained by merely non-chess means.

"Some former Russian champions may be proud of such off-the board tactics, but they are not healthy for any sport. These kill the very spirit of any sporting activity. Winning at any cost by any approach was Kasparov’s mentality; Winning by playing well is Anand’s philosophy. He may not have won that many as Kasparov did, but he is way ahead of these cheap Russian champions for having kept the sport healthy and for staying at the very top without provoking anybody or getting into controversies."

Cheep Russian champions? That reeks of racism. If we examine Russian and non-Russian participants of the title matches, I don't think Russians have show tendency for unsportsmanlike behaviour more than non-Russians. And as much as I dislike Kasparov, he behaved nicely at the board. There is nothing unsportsmanlike about looking at the other player. So this whole this is probably made up to make excuses for Anand's failures, I think. Anand has been involved into his share of problems, including his recent statements, so there is no reason to make it seem like he is somehow morally superior to the Russian players. At least Kasparov wanted to play everyone (or anything) strong in a match. Anand dodged Kasparov and Kramnik for 13 years after getting spanked in 1995.

"It is needless to say that such cheap off-the board tactics play little role in a tournament setting. "

Is that so? Danailov's behaviour had apparently freaked out enough people in San Luis, even if

"Fourth, it is easy to “fix” a match between two players as opposed to a tournament, which makes the unofficial title matches especially suspicious. "

Actually, that is absolutely wrong. It is easier to fix the tournament. In a match you are playing one on one and it is absurd for someone to throw games, because it hurts their chances. But in a tournament, friends or countryman or whatever can theoretically throw games to each other if they are out of contention.

Throwing games doesn't even have to be intentional - it is built into the tournament format. For example, someone named A who is in the middle of the crosstable can play a game of his life against tournament leader B and win when A is still in contention himself, but after A loses all his chances to win after a couple of rounds, he may be upset and lose to the tournament co-leader C without putting up any resistance. So, right there player C gets a point odds compared to player B in their race for the title, merely because C was lucky to play A when A was already out of contention. Now imagine there is also a played D, who happens to have a headache when he plays C and loses, but draws B. So right there, just because of a couple of those things, B has falled 1.5 points behind C for the reasons that were outside of control of either player. B may be superior to C and will beat him, but still lose the tournament titles to C because C was lucky in getting some free points against weaker players. So tournaments are very much random - and inferior- compared to matches, because your result doesn't depend on you, but on many other factors that are outside of your control.

"If people argue that luck is a part of such a system, then how come champions like Kasparov or Anand are able to win so many tournaments in their career? Kasparov won a record 9 titles at Linares and Anand 5 or more at Wijk An Zee. Kramnik won his share at Dortmund. "

Yeah, but perhaps the question should be different: how come Kasparov or Kramnik or Anand don't win more tournaments? Kramnik may have won 8 Dortmunds, but he didn't win it this year. Naiditch and Bologan won Dortmund in past years. Anand didn't win Wijk in a couple of years. So maybe luck is more of a factor than you are willing to admit? The only reason favorites win more - well, because it is not totally luck-based. But it is too random to let the tournament be the format of the WC competition. In 120 years of match tradition, it hasn't produced as undeserving of a WC title as Naidich or Bologan.

"Also, ever since the chess organizations got broke because of Kasparov, the separate titles have muddied the water. The title that Kramnik won can also be called lucky because he got to play Kasparov for the championship in spite of losing to Shirov in the candidates and Anand the worthy challenger among the three had rejected the invitation to play. In fact, in another cycle, Anand defeated Shirov in a 6 game mini match and won the World Championship in the FIDE cycle. How on earth does Kramnik with all his superior brain power fail to recognize this? "

Shirov is the oldest argument in the book. It has been refuted too many times. Kramnik played KAsparov 2.5 years after he played Shirov. Saying failing to beat Shirov in 1998 somehow disquilified Kramnik from playing in 2000 is like saying losing in San Luis in 2005 has disqualified Anand from playing in Mexico in 2007.

Anand defeating Shirov in 6 game match is irrelevant because 6 games is too short a match to be meaningful.

"He wants to conveniently forget all these and merrily goes about mocking Anand’s title. "

He doesn't mock Anand’s title any more than Anand mocks classical title.

"To me, Kramnik is an opportunist. Had he won the world championship in Mexico (in 2007), he would have announced that he is the best chess player ever because he won both the 1-1 match against Topalov in 2006 and the tournament-style championship against the elite. "

That is just silly. Kramnik is enough of a realist to realize he is nowhere near the best ever (though he is probably much higher in the ranks than Anand).

"He failed and Anand won the world championship by 1 full point. That is the reality. If Kramnik is really the best chess player, he should have won the Mexican world championship and now is in a must win situation to equalize things. "

Yeah, but like I mentioned above, tournaments are random, so Kramnik could have been the best player and STILL failed to win Mexico. That is precisely the problem with tournaments. Hence all the hoopla.

"Otherwise he will have no credibility what-so-ever. Should Anand lose the title in October, it still does not erase the fact that he won the World championship by playing among the best where Kramnik participated but could not win. "

Actually, Kramnik had proven he could win tournaments. But Anand hasn't proven he could win a match against a top player. He played one in 1995 and embarassed himself. So, the opposite is the case: losing the october match won't heart Kramnik's accomplishment, but if Anand loses, it will hurt HIS, and it will put into a perspective the whole "match" title.

"Having missed his chance already, Kramnik wants the chess world to ignore that and consider the result of this upcoming 1-1 match, which he hopes to win by bringing in the psychological factors in which Russians are so good at. "

Can we avoid silly generalizations, please? Anand got owned by Kasparov, deal with it, not blame it on some unique Russia psychological know-how. Kramnik has hardly shown any less sportsmanship in his career than Anand. I am not a Kramnik fan, but I would argue he has shown way more, given Anand's lack of humility in pretending his accomplishments are more meaningful than they are.

"A 1-1 match brings in too many factors other than chess talent. Also it takes too much time with seconds for preparing that makes them unavailable or play inefficiently in lot of tournaments; makes the cyclde too long for a champion to rest on his seat while the challenger has to do multiple prep within a short time. Stupid psychological factors- which could make even the mentally tough ones to go nuts. "

Tournaments actually have much more factors other than chess talent. A large part of one's tournament performance will depend on such irrelevant factors that are not even related to one: such as what I described earlier. I don't see a problem with long preparation: it just means people are taking it seriously.

And the psychological factors are what makes matches more fun, not what makes them inferior. Besides, a tournament can have psychological factors on its own, except that unlike the ones in the match, the psychological factors in a tournament are often totally irrelevant: someone may go down in flames against one contender and beat another and the standings end up influenced by someone who wasn't even in contention. So psychology of one of the underdogs may hurt performance of one of the favorites even if the favorite may in fact be playing the best chess.

You think you are thinking up reasons for why matches may not be good, but pretty much all of these reasons are exactly what makes the tournaments inferior to matches.

This debate makes me wonder about national chess championships. Since in most countries the titles are awarded in a single round-robin or even Swiss system tournament (mostly for practical reasons, because a match cycle would be too lengthy and expensive to arrange), should we deduce that a national champion selected by such an "unworthy" system is a usurper? Sounds like a bit too extreme.
Of course I am thinking of nations where the best players actually compete for the title, not those where they stay away for financial or other reasons.

No, national championships can be done by matches or tournaments, whatever the national organization decides, because they are relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things in chess. Yes, they are important, but the only thing that is of utmost importance in chess is the world championship. That is the one that really requires the title to be truly meaningful.

"Anand has once again shown he is a pathetic creature that lacks class or sportsmanship.
Posted by: Russianbear at July 21, 2008 09:49"

...!!!! I think Russianbear has once again shown he is a pathetic creature that lacks class or sportsmanship. At least when it comes to discussing this current topic.

RB, you may not realize this but you are probably blinded by your patriotism. Unlike on the chessboard, things are not always in Black and White (unless of course if you are color blind too). So quit trying to convince us otherwise... at least try to be concise if you really must post.

Mig, you may wish to consider a word count limit...

I think Russianbear can reply my last comment if osbender can not, do you think your heroe Kramnik can success in a tournament of matches beating 4 players in a row the same way Spassky, Fischer, Karpov? and Kasparov did it to get the clasicc match world title? or he is only a single match player every 4 and 2 years?....After all he will face his 3rd tournament winner challenger. You very often devalue the tournament format, maybe Kramnik has been just playing very weak and fake match challengers those whose he can only tie.

I also don't see any problem and lack of logistic if any determined federation use roundrobins or swiss formats to produce an annual champion after all are fair systems were all the players start with the same posibilities to become champion. Chess and fighting bleeding sports are the only sports that want to have champions under the challenging match format, but I can understand boxing because after a fight both boxers need to recover of bleedings and injuries after several weeks so is impossible create a cycle for those sports.

You say nobody can judge Kramnik after 2.5 years he was beaten by Shirov, and who can judge Shirov or another possible challenger could not beat Kasparov in 2000?...thats why the value of the match cycle creating a fair competitive qualifying process.