I was web surfing today, and came upon a site that was arguing who the “real” World Champion in chess is. Some say Kramnik, some say Topalev, some say Anand, others ay Khasimdanov. some even say Fisher since he never defended.
There is also an argument about the best way to determine a champion in terms of the tournament. A round-Robin, Swiss, knockout, match tournamnet?? Or should it be completely determined on who has the highest rating, or best record in the year?
Thoughts anyone?
The knockout gave us Khalifman … that only proves any Grand Master can be world champion. Kasimdzhanov only became world champion, as anyone without an ethical spine would play in Libya.
It should be the top ten in rating, just to play out a tournament like the one that gave us Botvinnik. After that, go back to the challenger tournaments not the match tournaments.
Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, players have been walking out of matchs and tournaments before they are to start. FIDE has been a joke for years, as they cannot control the players and the players want to control FIDE. Now its’ I’m not going to play or I see you in court. The cold war world championship matchs … can we recall the good old days.
The World Championship … like Kasparov said … the match system does not matter any more. Its’ all about who has the best FIDE rating. FIDE will not get all the best players in any tournament. Just like the tournament in Libya. In the end it will just be by rating only, as matchs and tournaments just has to much fighting to make anyone care.
In shogi and go (as I understand it) they don’t have a ‘world champion’, but a series of prestigious tournaments whose winners are remembered. In chess we are getting to the same point because FIDE is becoming irrelevant - at least as far as trying to hold a world championship. We remember the Corus (or Wijk aan zee) champions as well as Linares and so on … Maybe that’s all that matters.
This question is unanswerable until after the asker has given a more specific definition to the vague term that is the heart of the question. Here the vague term in ‘World Champion’.
FIDE has no ability to award a title of ‘World Champion’, nor has it ever had that ability. Instead, it declares someone the FIDE champion. Then it is up to the consensus of chess players around the planet to decide whether the FIDE champion deserves to be considered the World Champion.
In some eras the world consensus, though always intangible, is nonetheless crystal clear and emphatic. For instance, when Vassily Smyslov defeated Mikhail Botwinnik in 1957 there was no sane chess player who doubted Smyslov had fully earned the title of World Champion.
There was some doubt in 1975 when Karpov was declared the FIDE champion, but most people understood Fischer was an inherently uncooperative man who was behaving in an excessively uncooperative manner. By 1978 Karpov was undoubtedly the consensus World Champion, even though most people felt Fischer had the chess skill to defeat Karpov if only Fischer’s other mental shortcomings could be overcome.
In 1993 when N.Short and champion G.Kasparov competed in what they unilaterally billed as a World Champship title match, there was no doubt Kasparov’s victory meant he was still the consensus World Champion regardless of FIDE.
But then two things happened.
By 2000 Kasparov had gone a long 5 years without defending the WC title. Lasker and Capablanca got away with that, but after decades of 3 year cycles the public is less willing to tolerate such delays. The price paid is that the WC title is held less convincingly.
A few people began to give credibility to the FIDE champions. More tellingly, in late 2000 when Kramnik defeated Kasparov it became clear that while nearly everyone agreed Kasparov was no longer the WC, some of those people did not feel Kramnik was therefore the new WC.
Kramnik hurt his cause greatly by taking too long to defend is tenuous title (vs P.Leko in 2004). And then Kramnik only achieve a tie against Leko (draws have ruined the public’s interest in chess). The negative result is that now many people do not feel Kramnik is any longer the WC, and indeed that nobody is really the WC now.
On the positive side, both Kasparov and Kramnik offer title challenges to very worthy opponents. We can talk about the Shirov debacle that led to Kramnik’s opportunity against in Kasparov in 2000, but Kramnik was with Shirov among the very elite and indeed Kramnik proved that against Kasparov. Besides, Shirov ruined his own chances by pressing for money more than for the opportunity. Leko was also among the super elite and by tying Kramnik also proved his worthiness. If Kramnik were to defend his title next time against say the 10th best grandmaster, Kramnik’s claim to the WC title would be weakened even if Kramnik won.
Personally I still consider Kramnik the WC. But if he waits until 2008 or later to defend again, at some point I will feel that nobody currently holds the WC title. In the meantime, to me and to most chess players the WC title Kramnik now holds enjoys less prestige than the WC title held in the days of Botwinnik and Petrosian and Karpov. The zonal - interzonal - candidates matches cycles that led to each WC title defense gave the WC title much more prestige than it has today.
Kramnik has received some criticism recently because he has been unenthusiastic about a WC title reunification match against FIDE next annual champ. But Kramnik makes a very strong point that reunification should occur only after the conditions that led to the split are fixed first.