Chess politics - DUMP Kramnik

Author

DUMP Kramnik

Angelo DePalma

2004-10-22, 12:45 am

Kramnik has evidently pulled out of the Prague agreement, which he signed
onto only reluctantly. I don't want to say "I told you so" but I did predict
the unification was a fantasy.

Now Krumnutz wants to dictate the terms of his next match. Specifically he
wants Pono, Anand, Kasparov, and Kasim to play a 4-person tournament to
determine his challenger.

None of these guys, with the possible exception of Kasimdzhanov, has any
legitimate claim to a preferred position vis-a-vis the world championship.

1. Kasparov has not played a sanctioned match in a decade; all his opps were
hand-picked. Plus he's been relatively inactive.

2. Kramnik beat Kasparov what...3 years ago? Is he the Russian Bobby
Fischer, who believes he retains his title forever? Is he better than Leko?
Also see point #1.

3. Based on the last 2 years' performance Anand is probably the best player
in the world right now. He has pretty much kept quiet about being left out
of this current cycle. He deserves a spot, but that's how it goes.

It's obvious at this point that you can count on everyone involved in this
sorry world chess scene to act as disgracefully and stupidly as possible.
Kramnik signed on to this deal, now he wants out. Too bad he had draw odds
in his match.

What I fear most from this is that Ilumzhumobobovich will simply declare the
winner of Kasim-Kaspy to be world champion, and we'll be right back where we
were 4 years ago.

What a mess.

adp

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2004-10-22, 6:45 am

"Angelo DePalma" wrote:

quote:

> What a mess.

One has to agree with that very precise statement. It took some effort to
get there, but many contributed. I just want to emphasize two points:

1. Kramnik plays very fine chess, when he is in the mood. He succeeded in
rehabilitating the Berlin Defense, he beat Kasparov (I for one never did)
and those last two games (well, out of 14) against Leko were really
impressive, demonstrating both skill and a will to fight.

2. The FIDE championships are worth nothing for a number of reasons that are
too evident even to state.

Hans J

Lonnie

2004-10-22, 9:45 am

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:07:23 +0200, "Hans Jørgen Lassen" <hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote:

}
}"Angelo DePalma" wrote:
}
}> What a mess.
}
}One has to agree with that very precise statement. It took some effort to
}get there, but many contributed. I just want to emphasize two points:
}
}1. Kramnik plays very fine chess, when he is in the mood. He succeeded in
}rehabilitating the Berlin Defense, he beat Kasparov (I for one never did)
}and those last two games (well, out of 14) against Leko were really
}impressive, demonstrating both skill and a will to fight.

but everyhting was agreed upon and after he just BARELY one (tied) he renigs. Guys a
stiking disgrace to chess. Drawnik,DrawnikDrawnik

a coward and a lazy, unmotivated person who has his own crazy agenda.

I say lope the bastard off like we did Ponomiv or whatever the young kid's name is
}
}2. The FIDE championships are worth nothing for a number of reasons that are
}too evident even to state.
}
}Hans J
}

Angelo DePalma

2004-10-22, 5:45 pm

My guess is that Kramnik is going where the money is, or where he believes
it will be. At this point I don't believe anyone's "professional" or
"ethical" motives because as far as I can see top chess players have none.

If a sponsor came forward guaranteeing him $2 million for playing the winner
of Kasim-Kaspy, and if FIDE promised him another big payday 2-3 years hence
in a title defense, I'm sure he'd play.

The question are:

How does ACP plan to finance their ambitious hijacking of the Prague
agreement?
Is the world -- and are top chessplayers -- not tired of the current
fragmented, disjointed title system?
How many of them will play along with ACP?
Can any of the 3 current participants really lay claim to anything
resembling a true world championship title *without* reuinification?

Kramnik-Leko was a WC only in name. I believe that FIDE recognized this
latest match as a WC only for purposes of reuinification. Now that Krum-nutz
has apparently pulled out it should revoke its peculiar designation of Kram
as WC and get on with it.

adp

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" <hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:4178b1b1$0$251$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...

quote:

>
> "Angelo DePalma" wrote:
>
>
> One has to agree with that very precise statement. It took some effort to
> get there, but many contributed. I just want to emphasize two points:
>
> 1. Kramnik plays very fine chess, when he is in the mood. He succeeded in
> rehabilitating the Berlin Defense, he beat Kasparov (I for one never did)
> and those last two games (well, out of 14) against Leko were really
> impressive, demonstrating both skill and a will to fight.
>
> 2. The FIDE championships are worth nothing for a number of reasons that
> are too evident even to state.
>
> Hans J
>

Don C. Aldrich

2004-10-22, 5:45 pm

Uh, no. Prague was killed by Pono. You can say Kramnik is using a
weenie technicality, but remember that Prague was really fragile, and
the agreement was very specific as to what happened. When Pono
refused to play, it was dead.

One of the big gripes was that it would take too long, and kept folks
like Anand out. Now we are way past the deadlines in the agreement,
and FIDE has still not conducted their side of it.

Now I can see Kaspy saying I ain't playing in no qualifying tmt. But,
if the ACP organizes it, and Anand takes part, it is going to be very
credible. And don't forget, Kramnik has NAO money behind him...

Dondo

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:17:15 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

>
>Kramnik has evidently pulled out of the Prague agreement, which he signed
>onto only reluctantly. I don't want to say "I told you so" but I did predict
>the unification was a fantasy.
>
>Now Krumnutz wants to dictate the terms of his next match. Specifically he
>wants Pono, Anand, Kasparov, and Kasim to play a 4-person tournament to
>determine his challenger.
>
>None of these guys, with the possible exception of Kasimdzhanov, has any
>legitimate claim to a preferred position vis-a-vis the world championship.
>
>1. Kasparov has not played a sanctioned match in a decade; all his opps were
>hand-picked. Plus he's been relatively inactive.
>
>2. Kramnik beat Kasparov what...3 years ago? Is he the Russian Bobby
>Fischer, who believes he retains his title forever? Is he better than Leko?
>Also see point #1.
>
>3. Based on the last 2 years' performance Anand is probably the best player
>in the world right now. He has pretty much kept quiet about being left out
>of this current cycle. He deserves a spot, but that's how it goes.
>
>It's obvious at this point that you can count on everyone involved in this
>sorry world chess scene to act as disgracefully and stupidly as possible.
>Kramnik signed on to this deal, now he wants out. Too bad he had draw odds
>in his match.
>
>What I fear most from this is that Ilumzhumobobovich will simply declare the
>winner of Kasim-Kaspy to be world champion, and we'll be right back where we
>were 4 years ago.
>
>What a mess.
>
>adp
>

David Kane

2004-10-22, 5:45 pm

"Don C. Aldrich" <dondo@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:btgin0p0p8vb64n924ofjm6b4aqd0qhm7l@4ax.com...

quote:

> Uh, no. Prague was killed by Pono. You can say Kramnik is using a
> weenie technicality, but remember that Prague was really fragile, and
> the agreement was very specific as to what happened. When Pono
> refused to play, it was dead.
>
> One of the big gripes was that it would take too long, and kept folks
> like Anand out. Now we are way past the deadlines in the agreement,
> and FIDE has still not conducted their side of it.
>
> Now I can see Kaspy saying I ain't playing in no qualifying tmt. But,
> if the ACP organizes it, and Anand takes part, it is going to be very
> credible. And don't forget, Kramnik has NAO money behind him...
>

I'm no particular fan of Kramnik, and of course have
zero insight into his motives. However, he did refer
to "corporate sponsors and civilised European
countries" in his rational. Ultimately anything that
deligitimizes these dictator showcase events in
closed repressive countries (FIDE Libya etc.) is a
step in the right direction.

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2004-10-22, 5:45 pm

A crazy thought just entered my mind: Is it really necessary to have a world
champion? Why cant those guys (and Polgar) just play chess and give us some
good games?
Hans J

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2004-10-22, 5:45 pm

"David Kane" wrote:

quote:

> I'm no particular fan of Kramnik, and of course have
> zero insight into his motives. However, he did refer
> to "corporate sponsors and civilised European
> countries" in his rational. Ultimately anything that
> deligitimizes these dictator showcase events in
> closed repressive countries (FIDE Libya etc.) is a
> step in the right direction.

I noted that point too, but if pursued consequently, there wont be much
left. The US of course is ruled out because of its illegal attack on Iraq,
and so are all its allies, England, Australia, Denmark, Spain and for other
reasons Israel, Russia, Libya (as you mention), and a number of Arab
countries. Germany and France might be possibilities, but thats about it.

Hans J

Larry Tapper

2004-10-22, 5:45 pm

"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message news:<CsCdnbv7CvTvg-TcRVn-vw@garden.net>...

quote:

> Kramnik-Leko was a WC only in name. I believe that FIDE recognized this
> latest match as a WC only for purposes of reuinification. Now that Krum-nutz
> has apparently pulled out it should revoke its peculiar designation of Kram
> as WC and get on with it.

Angelo,

To see where you're coming from, it would help to know whether you
felt the same way about Kasparov-Kramnik. Was that, too, "a WC only in
name"?

For my part, I don't care for the view that the world title is the
personal property of the title-holder, to be disposed of as he sees
fit, but the series of FIDE spectacles we've been seeing lately have
been even less inspiring, if the legitimacy of the title is what you
care about. So I agree with what Hans Jørgen Lassen is saying here.

BTW, where did you learn that Kramnik is reneging on the Prague
agreement? I haven't seen this reported in TWIC.

Larry T.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> adp
>
> "Hans Jørgen Lassen" <hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote in message
> news:4178b1b1$0$251$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...

Isidor Gunsberg

2004-10-22, 5:45 pm

"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message news:<CsCdnbv7CvTvg-TcRVn-vw@garden.net>...

quote:

> My guess is that Kramnik is going where the money is, or where he believes
> it will be. At this point I don't believe anyone's "professional" or
> "ethical" motives because as far as I can see top chess players have none.
>
> If a sponsor came forward guaranteeing him $2 million for playing the winner
> of Kasim-Kaspy, and if FIDE promised him another big payday 2-3 years hence
> in a title defense, I'm sure he'd play.

This is probably true. It is probably also the case that Kramnik has
withstood the challenge of his most dangerous rival, Peter Leko.

Kramnik claims that he is not bound to play a Unification match
versus the winner of FIDE's Kasimzhanov--Kasparov match. On a
technical basis, he does have a point, since the Unification plan tha
Kramnik signed **Specified** that he would play the winner of a match
between Kasparov and Ponomariov. He's probably just fed up with
dealing with FIDE. Remember that the WC Title which Kasimzhanov won
was tainted by the fact that the FIDE WC KO tournament was played in
Libya.

Sure, I'd like to see him play the winner of the
Kasimzhanov--Kasparov match. But with FIDE, it is an open question as
to whether the match will actually take place.

Certainly, a 4 way candidates tournament between Kasparov, Anand,
Kasimzhanov, and Ponomariov would produce a strong challenger.

Let's face it: as long as FIDE is run the way it is, there will
always be chaos, discord, and controversy regarding the World
Championship...

Delicate negotiations might be within a hair of creating an
agreement for a meaningful unification match, and then FIDE will run
another of its lottery World Championships, sponsored by some
repressive regime, and some guy who is not even ranked in the Top 20
will get lucky and win...

[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The question are:
>
> How does ACP plan to finance their ambitious hijacking of the Prague
> agreement?
> Is the world -- and are top chessplayers -- not tired of the current
> fragmented, disjointed title system?
> How many of them will play along with ACP?
> Can any of the 3 current participants really lay claim to anything
> resembling a true world championship title *without* reuinification?
>
> Kramnik-Leko was a WC only in name. I believe that FIDE recognized this
> latest match as a WC only for purposes of reuinification. Now that Krum-nutz
> has apparently pulled out it should revoke its peculiar designation of Kram
> as WC and get on with it.
>
> adp
>
> "Hans Jørgen Lassen" <hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote in message
> news:4178b1b1$0$251$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...

bia34

2004-10-23, 12:46 am

Fide always had problems, even back to time of Bobby fisher, and it will
continue to have problems, it never stop to have problems, too much conflict
of interest. Should eliminate high speed, cheap knockout tournament. Chess
championship road is a long fight, not wimbledon tennis knockout. Winning
one knockout tournament definately not enough credential to claim as world
champion.

"Isidor Gunsberg" <gunsberg@kasparovchess.com> wrote in message
news:ce29ddd3.0410221206.1ed793d0@posting.google.com...

quote:

> "Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message

news:<CsCdnbv7CvTvg-TcRVn-vw@garden.net>...[vbcol=seagreen]
believes[vbcol=seagreen]
none.[vbcol=seagreen]
winner[vbcol=seagreen]
hence[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> This is probably true. It is probably also the case that Kramnik has
> withstood the challenge of his most dangerous rival, Peter Leko.
>
> Kramnik claims that he is not bound to play a Unification match
> versus the winner of FIDE's Kasimzhanov--Kasparov match. On a
> technical basis, he does have a point, since the Unification plan tha
> Kramnik signed **Specified** that he would play the winner of a match
> between Kasparov and Ponomariov. He's probably just fed up with
> dealing with FIDE. Remember that the WC Title which Kasimzhanov won
> was tainted by the fact that the FIDE WC KO tournament was played in
> Libya.
>
> Sure, I'd like to see him play the winner of the
> Kasimzhanov--Kasparov match. But with FIDE, it is an open question as
> to whether the match will actually take place.
>
> Certainly, a 4 way candidates tournament between Kasparov, Anand,
> Kasimzhanov, and Ponomariov would produce a strong challenger.
>
> Let's face it: as long as FIDE is run the way it is, there will
> always be chaos, discord, and controversy regarding the World
> Championship...
>
> Delicate negotiations might be within a hair of creating an
> agreement for a meaningful unification match, and then FIDE will run
> another of its lottery World Championships, sponsored by some
> repressive regime, and some guy who is not even ranked in the Top 20
> will get lucky and win...
>
>
Krum-nutz[vbcol=seagreen]
Kram[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
did)[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]

Alberich@somewhere.com

2004-10-23, 12:46 am

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:45:57 +0200, "Hans Jørgen Lassen"
<hj.lassen@privat.dk> wrote:

quote:

>A crazy thought just entered my mind: Is it really necessary to have a world
>champion? Why cant those guys (and Polgar) just play chess and give us some
>good games?
>Hans J
>

Remember the Anand Polgar rapid 8 game blitz match? That was awesome.
Both of them going at it and every game decisive! That kind of setup
in my opinion, is the way of the future. No more boring 6 hour
matches, since all the moves to the various openings have been
memorized down practically to checkmate.

Kramnik is the World Memorized Opening Theory World Chess champion.
What a disgrace. I like Bobby Fischer's proposal for scrambling the
opening setups. This way opening theory knowledge gets thrown out the
window. Not to mention, with all opening setups different for every
game...there'd be no need for someone like Kramnik to hire seconds to
help him anymore.

Judit Polgar should be invited to a World Championship cycle, damnit!
She seems to be the only one willing to play risky, bold chess
fighting it out to the bitter end. We didn't get this with Kramnik vs
Leko. And in my opinion, that's a shame. Ask yourself why didn't
either Kramnik or Leko offered to play a Sicilian? What's wrong with
the Sicilian Defence for a World Championship match? Too boring?!

Oh yeah...Kramnik won the first game using a Petrov. Ugh! What a
boring way to win a game! No...I'll take a mach between Morozevich and
Judit Polgar anyday.

Come to think of it...I think a Polgar Morozevich match would be a
great way to show the "draw" masters like Kramnik just what it takes
to play "real" chess. Uncompromising, bold, risky and wild chess. In
my book Judit Polgar and Morozevich as well as Shirov deserve kudos
for giving the world wild heathen chess, the kind that allows us chess
fans to truely enjoy their creations.

Kramnik is a human computer. Not willing to risk anything unless there
was a way to ensure absolutely no chance of counterplay by tough
adversaries. Exchange off the queens and things get boring real quick
in a 6 hour broadcast. That's Kramnik's style.Works for him...but for
the chess world...it's boring.

I wish FIDE would do the right thing and give the world a Anand vs
Kasparov semi final match while Morozevich takes on Judit Polgar. The
winner of this four way tournament should be the real challenger to
Kramnik to reunify the title. Not Ponomariov and Kashimadinov.

Angelo DePalma

2004-10-24, 5:45 pm

I think they're all pretenders. Kasim won a knockout; Kasp lost to Kramnik;
Kramnik has clearly not been the best player in the world recently; he won
his bogus "title" 3 years ago as the hand-picked opponent of a guy who'd
been doing that for 10 years; he has not defended his title; he continues to
demand he pick his opponent.

Picking your opponent, designating yourself as WC is self-validation. It
doesn't work in the real world. Only in chess (and religion).

adp

"Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a1fe0ee8.0410221147.21a87a0b@posting.google.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
> news:<CsCdnbv7CvTvg-TcRVn-vw@garden.net>...
>
> Angelo,
>
> To see where you're coming from, it would help to know whether you
> felt the same way about Kasparov-Kramnik. Was that, too, "a WC only in
> name"?
>
> For my part, I don't care for the view that the world title is the
> personal property of the title-holder, to be disposed of as he sees
> fit, but the series of FIDE spectacles we've been seeing lately have
> been even less inspiring, if the legitimacy of the title is what you
> care about. So I agree with what Hans Jørgen Lassen is saying here.
>
> BTW, where did you learn that Kramnik is reneging on the Prague
> agreement? I haven't seen this reported in TWIC.
>
> Larry T.
>

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2004-10-26, 5:46 pm

"Angelo DePalma" wrote:

quote:

> What a mess.

Lonnie

2004-10-27, 12:46 am

Isidor Gunsberg

2004-10-27, 12:46 am

"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message news:<CsCdnbv7CvTvg-TcRVn-vw@garden.net>...

quote:

> My guess is that Kramnik is going where the money is, or where he believes
> it will be. At this point I don't believe anyone's "professional" or
> "ethical" motives because as far as I can see top chess players have none.
>
> If a sponsor came forward guaranteeing him $2 million for playing the winner
> of Kasim-Kaspy, and if FIDE promised him another big payday 2-3 years hence
> in a title defense, I'm sure he'd play.

Larry Tapper

2004-10-27, 12:46 am

"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message news:<CsCdnbv7CvTvg-TcRVn-vw@garden.net>...

quote:

> Kramnik-Leko was a WC only in name. I believe that FIDE recognized this
> latest match as a WC only for purposes of reuinification. Now that Krum-nutz
> has apparently pulled out it should revoke its peculiar designation of Kram
> as WC and get on with it.

Graeme

2004-10-28, 9:45 am

>Picking your opponent, designating yourself as WC is self-validation. It

quote:

>doesn't work in the real world.

Tell that to Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine and Capablanca. You sound like the
mathematician who proved that butterflies can't fly.

Angelo DePalma

2004-10-28, 5:46 pm

100 years ago there was no international chess governing body and there were
relatively very few very strong players. I think one of the justifications
for founding FIDE was Alekhine's refusal to give Capablanca a rematch

Today we have a slew of good players, travel, communication, and a pretty
accurate rating system (although it surely rewards inactivity). Kasparov's
decade-long charade of proclaiming himself WC worked as long as he was
clearly the strongest player. Alekhine's refusal to play Capa again was also
in part justified by the former's dominance of the chess world.

It's not so certain that Kramnik is the strongest -- certainly not from his
recent match, results, or anything else he's done. His claim of special
priviledge is ludicrous.

Eventually the public won't buy into various claims of championship status
without some external, objective validation of the whole process. I believe
the relative lack of interest on the part of sponsors is, to a large extent,
a result of the lack of such validation.

Your position is not really that butterflies fly, which is verified by
flying butterflies. What you claim is the equivalent of me declaring that
*you* can fly and demanding that I believe it without proof.

Angelo
"Graeme" <graemecree@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20041028083132.16411.00004886@mb-m14.aol.com...

quote:

>
>
> Tell that to Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine and Capablanca. You sound like
> the
> mathematician who proved that butterflies can't fly.

Kevin Croxen

2004-10-28, 5:46 pm

On 2004-10-28, Angelo DePalma <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

>
>
> 100 years ago there was no international chess governing body and there were
> relatively very few very strong players. I think one of the justifications
> for founding FIDE was Alekhine's refusal to give Capablanca a rematch
>

Since FIDE was founded 3 years before the Alekhine-Capablanca match, this
would have required an unusual degree of prescience.

Angelo DePalma

2004-10-29, 6:45 am

Sorry, I thought FIDE was founded after WW II.

Regardless, it obviously did not govern the championship if it allowed
Alekhine to duck Capablanca. You think there's nothing wrong with champions
hand-picking match opponents? I don't know of any other serious form of
competition where that's allowed.

adp

"Kevin Croxen" <klcroxen@ls01.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnco2jlm.ocb.klcroxen@ls01.fas.harvard.edu...

quote:

> On 2004-10-28, Angelo DePalma <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:
>
> Since FIDE was founded 3 years before the Alekhine-Capablanca match, this
> would have required an unusual degree of prescience.

Mike Murray

2004-10-29, 5:46 pm

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:00:31 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

>Regardless, it obviously did not govern the championship if it allowed
>Alekhine to duck Capablanca. You think there's nothing wrong with champions
>hand-picking match opponents? I don't know of any other serious form of
>competition where that's allowed.

Boxing ?

Kevin Croxen

2004-10-29, 5:46 pm

Actually, during the early, pre-WWII years, FIDE did manage to put forward
its own champion as a World Championship opponent for Alekhine. The FIDE
champion was Bogoliubov.

What FIDE failed to do was convince any holder of the private World
Championship to cede this private championship to FIDE's control. Euwe was
persuaded to do so, but felt obligated to defend his title in the rematch
with Alekhine first.

Only after Alekhine's death while in preparation for a match with
Botvinnik for the privately-held, not FIDE controlled, World Champion's
title did FIDE feel sufficiently empowered to arrogate to itself all
rights pertaining to the title of "World Chess Champion", since there was
not currently any surviving or previous holder of the private title able
and willing to defend his rights. Euwe was unwilling to do so, as could
have been predicted from his actions in 1937.

But does this mean the privately-held title of World Chess Champion ceased
to exist after 1946? Fischer thought not, but did not have his FIDE
challenger bail out with him and, furthermore, stopped playing completely.
Fischer could be, and was, safely ignored. The Challenger was crowned
Champion by default, and life went on.

Kasparov, unfortunately, took his Challenger with him, since Short was
evidently more concerned with securing the quick financial score of his
life than anything else. What gave Kasparov's grab of the private World
Champion title legitimacy was that a World Championship match took place
just as it was scheduled to, with exactly the two players it was supposed
to have --just FIDE was not on board. If Short had stuck to his guns and
had refused to bail on FIDE in '93, Kasparov couldn't have bailed either,
since that would have resulted in a simple Fischer-esque stripping of the
WC title with Short being named Champion. Kasparov realized that no amount
of shilling for the existence of a private title would have meant anything
without the existence of a Kasparov-Short match, just like the FIDE
machinery had set up.

But that's the solution for dealing with Kramnik. If FIDE comes to its
senses and adopts a serious match format for the World Championship cycle
after Kasparov-Kasimzdhanov, with a serious match-tournament or set of
matches for producing a challenger, then Kramnik may safely be ignored
once he refuses to participate in the Reunification match with the winner
of Kasparov-Kasimdzanov. Kasparov/Kasimzdhanov is simply declared Unified
World Chess Champion by default, and there's an end to it. Kramnik is not
the highest-rated player in the world, seems to be on the way down, plays
scarcely two live tournaments a year, and does not have the charismatic
personality or playing style to simply shake sponsors out of his sleeve
the way Kasparov at his peak did 12 to 15 years ago. Kramnik will be
isolated, sponsorless, and left playing Deep Fritz all day.

All FIDE has to do is reform its current aberrant World Championship
process so that it stops randomly spewing up the 40-something-th player in
the world as though anyone is going to accept such a player as a "World
Champion".

But do you think FIDE will be ready or able to reform is World
Championship process? I hope they do, but I don't believe it. And if they
don't, then Kramnik (or future Kramniks) will win.

Cheers,

--Kevin

On 2004-10-29, Angelo DePalma <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

>
> Sorry, I thought FIDE was founded after WW II.
>
> Regardless, it obviously did not govern the championship if it allowed
> Alekhine to duck Capablanca. You think there's nothing wrong with champions
> hand-picking match opponents? I don't know of any other serious form of
> competition where that's allowed.
>
> adp
>

Fifiela

2004-10-29, 5:46 pm

<<<Sorry, I thought FIDE was founded after WW II.>>>

You're kinda right. FIDE assumed control the championship after WW II.

Fifiela

2004-10-29, 5:46 pm

>>I don't know of any other serious form of
competition where that's allowed.

quote:

>Boxing ?

Boxing is no longer a serious form of competition.

Graeme

2004-10-31, 9:45 am

quote:

>100 years ago there was no international chess governing body and there were
>relatively very few very strong players. I think one of the justifications
>for founding FIDE was Alekhine's refusal to give Capablanca a rematch
>

Well, you're wrong again. FIDE was founded in 1924, three years before Capa
lost the title. The Imperial Championship continued another 22 years after it
was founded without hindering the existence or operation of the Imperial
Championship.

Graeme

2004-10-31, 9:45 am

>Actually, during the early, pre-WWII years, FIDE did manage to put forward

quote:

>its own champion as a World Championship opponent for Alekhine. The FIDE
>champion was Bogoliubov.

Seriously? I've never heard that before. Bogo was FIDE Champion in those two
matches? Do you have any links where I can read up on that further? Was Bogo
simply named FIDE Champion, or did he win a tournament or something?

quote:

>What FIDE failed to do was convince any holder of the private World
>Championship to cede this private championship to FIDE's control. Euwe was
>persuaded to do so, but felt obligated to defend his title in the rematch
>with Alekhine first.

Euwe was insanely generous. Sure, he was obligated to give a re-match, but so
was Alekhine, so we saw how much that obligation is worth. Even if he wanted
to do it, his contract said nothing about WHEN. If I'd been Euwe, I'd have
first offered a match to Lasker, then Capablanca, and only then, if I still had
the title, would Alekhine get his rematch.

quote:

>Only after Alekhine's death while in preparation for a match with
>Botvinnik for the privately-held, not FIDE controlled, World Champion's
>title did FIDE feel sufficiently empowered to arrogate to itself all
>rights pertaining to the title of "World Chess Champion", since there was
>not currently any surviving or previous holder of the private title able
>and willing to defend his rights.

The 1927 match had a clause saying that in the event of illness preventing the
Champion from playing, the title would pass to the challenger. It would have
made an interesting situation if the 1946 match had had the same clause.
Botvinnik might well have refused to participate in the 1948 tournament and
claimed himself champion already.

quote:

1937.[vbcol=seagreen]

And as a reward he was named World Champion for a single day, only to have it
taken back by the Soviet delegation. There's really no reason why he shouldn't
have been interim champion. In US Championship play, the principle of a vacant
title reverting to the last surviving holder has been seen several times.

[vbcol=seagreen]
>But does this mean the privately-held title of World Chess Champion ceased
>to exist after 1946? Fischer thought not, but did not have his FIDE
>challenger bail out with him and, furthermore, stopped playing completely.
>Fischer could be, and was, safely ignored.

Fischer was wrong, no matter how you slice it. Even if a separate title did
exist, the fact is, he never won it. Since he denied FIDE's right to
administer such a title, then he could never have won it in a FIDE event. He
played no other events in which he could have won it.

So, if that title did still exist, where was it? Well, two options spring to
mind. 1) As a piece of property, it passed to Alekhine's next of kin at his
death. That would be Alexander Alekhine, Junior, a man who is still alive. In
fact, his picture appeared on chessbase recently, as a spectator at the
Kramnik-Leko match. He might have the title. (I wonder if he knows how to
play chess?)

OR, you could argue that, as with the 1927 match, the title passed from
Alekhine to Botvinnik when Alekhine didn't fulfill his obligation to play that
match. Botvinnik never defended that title. He defended the FIDE title he won
in 1948, but never defended the Private Title he won by forfeit in 1946. He
couldn't have, since he only played FIDE matches, and FIDE doesn't control that
title. The only way Botvinnik could have defended it would be to have played a
match outside of FIDE, which he never did. In this case, the World Champion in
1975 and 1992 would have been Botvinnik, not Fischer. Since it's Fischer's own
position that one can sit on this title for decades and still hold it, there's
no particular fault he could find in the concept.

So, take your pick. Either the Private Title didn't exist, or it did exist,
but Fischer never had it. Either way, he's out in the cold, because he
resigned the only World Title he ever had, in 1974.

quote:

>Kasparov, unfortunately, took his Challenger with him, since Short was
>evidently more concerned with securing the quick financial score of his
>life than anything else. What gave Kasparov's grab of the private World
>Champion title legitimacy was that a World Championship match took place
>just as it was scheduled to, with exactly the two players it was supposed
>to have --just FIDE was not on board. If Short had stuck to his guns and
>had refused to bail on FIDE in '93, Kasparov couldn't have bailed either,
>since that would have resulted in a simple Fischer-esque stripping of the
>WC title with Short being named Champion. Kasparov realized that no amount
>of shilling for the existence of a private title would have meant anything
>without the existence of a Kasparov-Short match, just like the FIDE
>machinery had set up.

Yes, even if he had remained active, and obviously the best player in the
world, if he had played no one in 1993, the credibility of his title would have
taken an almost irreparable hit. Especially if FIDE had set up a Short-Karpov
match or something. In that case, he would have dropped out of the process,
rather than moving the process elsewhere.

quote:

>But that's the solution for dealing with Kramnik. If FIDE comes to its
>senses and adopts a serious match format for the World Championship cycle
>after Kasparov-Kasimzdhanov, with a serious match-tournament or set of
>matches for producing a challenger, then Kramnik may safely be ignored
>once he refuses to participate in the Reunification match with the winner
>of Kasparov-Kasimdzanov.

IF they do that. IF they are able to do it, because I'm not convinced FIDE has
the administrative ability to organize a garage sale any more. If they put
their title on Kasparov and come up with a serious and credible way of
defending it, Kramnik's title won't be worth much. Unfortunately, Kramnik's
title has the succession from Steinitz behind it, so I'd hate to see that
happen.

quote:

>All FIDE has to do is reform its current aberrant World Championship
>process so that it stops randomly spewing up the 40-something-th player in
>the world as though anyone is going to accept such a player as a "World
>Champion".

Kasim was actually #54 when he won the FIDE title, but he's up to 45 now. I
guess being World Champion really has him pumped.

quote:

>But do you think FIDE will be ready or able to reform is World
>Championship process?

Nah. I don't think they're ready, able, or willing. They've already got plans
on the table for another Knockout Lottery Championship in 2005.

Graeme

2004-10-31, 9:45 am

> This is probably true. It is probably also the case that Kramnik has

quote:

>withstood the challenge of his most dangerous rival, Peter Leko.

Has he, really? Was the World's #6 player really his most dangerous rival? He
won a qualifier, yes, but that's not the same thing. Wouldn't the World's #1
and #2 players be more dangerous to Kramnik (who's #3)?

quote:

> Delicate negotiations might be within a hair of creating an
>agreement for a meaningful unification match, and then FIDE will run
>another of its lottery World Championships, sponsored by some
>repressive regime, and some guy who is not even ranked in the Top 20
>will get lucky and win...

Yeah, that's the rub. The credibility of Kramnik's title is pretty poor, but
as long as the FIDE title's is 10 times worse, Kramnik will still be the best
game in town.

John Fernandez

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

>Seriously? I've never heard that before. Bogo was FIDE Champion in those

quote:

>two
>matches? Do you have any links where I can read up on that further? Was
>Bogo
>simply named FIDE Champion, or did he win a tournament or something?

Mattison also was a FIDE World Champ back then, IIRC.

John Fernandez

Graeme

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

>Mattison also was a FIDE World Champ back then, IIRC.

quote:

>
>John Fernandez

Hmmm, I've found this link:

http://www.x3dworld.com/x3dEvents/A...ssMVM/FIDE.html

Which talks about Mattison winning a tournament in 1924 described as being the
*Amateur* World Championship, but that the term amateur wasn't well defined.

Reinfeld and Fine's (wafer-thin) book on the 1934 Championship match doesn't
make any mention of Bogo being FIDE champion. Itr seems unlikely that they'd
dare call somebody *World* Champion, but there very well might have been a FIDE
Champion.

Bogo's Playing record is in this book, but the tournaments are just listed by
Year and location. I don't see anything that might be a FIDE Championship, but
here are his 1st place finishes prior to the 1934 blowout:

1933 Bad Pyrmont
1933 Aachen
1931 Swinemunde (tied)
1928 Berlin
1928 Bad Kissingen
1927 Bad Homburg
1927 Bremen
1926 Berlin
1925 Moscow
1925 Breslau
1925 Leningrad
1924 All-Russian

There were some first places prior to 1924, but they obviously weren't FIDE
events. All-Russian 1924 is probably the 3rd Soviet Championship. Leningrad
1925 would be the 4th Soviet Championship, so no FIDE title could have been at
stake in those.

joe mccarron

2004-11-01, 5:46 pm

kevin you are right that gettign a real match system is "the solution
for dealing with Kramnik." But that is because that is waht Kramnik
is insisting on! Kramnik said he will play he just wants to know FIDE
is going to do this. He doesn't want to unifiy the title then find
FIDE wants to continue with stupid Rapid games to decide the
championship. So if FIDE decides to have a match system it will solve
everythign not because Kramnik is out of the loop but because that is
what is requiring them to do.

[vbcol=seagreen]
>snip<
> But that's the solution for dealing with Kramnik. If FIDE comes to its
> senses and adopts a serious match format for the World Championship cycle
> after Kasparov-Kasimzdhanov, with a serious match-tournament or set of
> matches for producing a challenger, then Kramnik may safely be ignored
> once he refuses to participate in the Reunification match with the winner
> of Kasparov-Kasimdzanov. Kasparov/Kasimzdhanov is simply declared Unified
> World Chess Champion by default, and there's an end to it. Kramnik is not
> the highest-rated player in the world, seems to be on the way down, plays
> scarcely two live tournaments a year, and does not have the charismatic
> personality or playing style to simply shake sponsors out of his sleeve
> the way Kasparov at his peak did 12 to 15 years ago. Kramnik will be
> isolated, sponsorless, and left playing Deep Fritz all day.
>
> All FIDE has to do is reform its current aberrant World Championship
> process so that it stops randomly spewing up the 40-something-th player in
> the world as though anyone is going to accept such a player as a "World
> Champion".
>
> But do you think FIDE will be ready or able to reform is World
> Championship process? I hope they do, but I don't believe it. And if they
> don't, then Kramnik (or future Kramniks) will win.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Kevin
>
>
> On 2004-10-29, Angelo DePalma <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

Kevin Croxen

2004-11-01, 5:46 pm

On 2004-11-01, joe mccarron <joemccarron@msn.com> wrote:

quote:

> kevin you are right that gettign a real match system is "the solution
> for dealing with Kramnik." But that is because that is waht Kramnik
> is insisting on! Kramnik said he will play he just wants to know FIDE
> is going to do this. He doesn't want to unifiy the title then find
> FIDE wants to continue with stupid Rapid games to decide the
> championship. So if FIDE decides to have a match system it will solve
> everythign not because Kramnik is out of the loop but because that is
> what is requiring them to do.
>

First reunify, then set up the match system/candidates sysstem for
subsequent cycles. Kramnik does not necessarily see that the only time to
get this done is this cycle. He can't command the resouces any longer to
select another challenger for the private World Championship, nor does
FIDE have the ready resources any longer to mount another knockout should
Kasimzdhanov self-destruct the way Ponomariov did. FIDE's waning ability
to force the format of the World Championship into a knockout is perhaps
nowhere better illustrated than by the fact that the FIDE Champion for the
reunification will be determined by a _classical_ (not rapid) match
between Kasparov & Kasimdzhanov.

Of course, if FIDE were to try to reimpose a rapid knockout on the
reunified champion, what would prevent him from taking his private
championship and returning to the situation we've had for the last 10
years? If this were Kramnik, as the Reunified Champion, then one would
expect his position in that scenario to be better than now; after all, he
would have already defeated all his rivals, including his FIDE ones.
FIDE's position would be still weaker than it is now, and it would be
Kramnik, not FIDE who would have better access to sponsorship. After 10
years and many millions of dollars, FIDE certainly would't squander
everything to land back exactly where they were in '93.

So either Kramnik doesn't see the value of reunification any longer
because he expects to lose to the FIDE champion Kasparov (I don't think
Kasimzdhanov worries him), and therefore doesn't want to be left out in
the cold as just another candidate in the next cycle. Or, Kramnik is just
saying what he's saying now in order to let Kasparov ice for another year
before the rematch, because he wants to give Kasparov's skills another
year to erode.

Kramnik's position of Prague being voided after Ponomariov's ouster makes
little sense. After all, what difference should it make to Kramnik if he
plays a match versus a Kasparov recently victorious over Kasimdzhanov,
rather than a match versus a Kasparov recently victorious over Ponomariov?

Kevin Croxen

2004-11-02, 6:46 am

On 2004-10-28, Angelo DePalma <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

>
>
> 100 years ago there was no international chess governing body and there were
> relatively very few very strong players. I think one of the justifications
> for founding FIDE was Alekhine's refusal to give Capablanca a rematch
>

Since FIDE was founded 3 years before the Alekhine-Capablanca match, this
would have required an unusual degree of prescience.

Graeme

2004-11-02, 9:46 am

> This is probably true. It is probably also the case that Kramnik has

quote:

>withstood the challenge of his most dangerous rival, Peter Leko.

quote:

> Delicate negotiations might be within a hair of creating an
>agreement for a meaningful unification match, and then FIDE will run
>another of its lottery World Championships, sponsored by some
>repressive regime, and some guy who is not even ranked in the Top 20
>will get lucky and win...

Yeah, that's the rub. The credibility of Kramnik's title is pretty poor, but
as long as the FIDE title's is 10 times worse, Kramnik will still be the best
game in town.

John Fernandez

2004-11-02, 9:46 am

>Seriously? I've never heard that before. Bogo was FIDE Champion in those

quote:

>two
>matches? Do you have any links where I can read up on that further? Was
>Bogo
>simply named FIDE Champion, or did he win a tournament or something?

Mattison also was a FIDE World Champ back then, IIRC.

John Fernandez

Mike Murray

2004-11-02, 5:46 pm

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:00:31 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

>Regardless, it obviously did not govern the championship if it allowed
>Alekhine to duck Capablanca. You think there's nothing wrong with champions
>hand-picking match opponents? I don't know of any other serious form of
>competition where that's allowed.

Boxing ?

Kevin Croxen

2004-11-02, 5:46 pm

quote:

>
> Sorry, I thought FIDE was founded after WW II.
>
> Regardless, it obviously did not govern the championship if it allowed
> Alekhine to duck Capablanca. You think there's nothing wrong with champions
> hand-picking match opponents? I don't know of any other serious form of
> competition where that's allowed.
>
> adp
>

Fifiela

2004-11-02, 5:46 pm

<<<Sorry, I thought FIDE was founded after WW II.>>>

You're kinda right. FIDE assumed control the championship after WW II.

joe mccarron

2004-11-04, 6:46 am

Kevin Croxen

2004-11-04, 5:47 pm

On 2004-11-01, joe mccarron <joemccarron@msn.com> wrote:

quote:

> kevin you are right that gettign a real match system is "the solution
> for dealing with Kramnik." But that is because that is waht Kramnik
> is insisting on! Kramnik said he will play he just wants to know FIDE
> is going to do this. He doesn't want to unifiy the title then find
> FIDE wants to continue with stupid Rapid games to decide the
> championship. So if FIDE decides to have a match system it will solve
> everythign not because Kramnik is out of the loop but because that is
> what is requiring them to do.
>