PDA

View Full Version : world champions (split from "check, mates ...")



pax
04-09-2004, 09:22 PM
Thought we went round this block before - Kramnik, because FIDE has forfeited the ability to run a credible WC through loss of support of the leading players, inadequacy of format, and sacking of a former champ (Kasparov) for reasons unrelated to chess.

The organisation that arranged Kramnik's WC match doesn't even exist anymore, and Kramnik hasn't exactly shown any ability to find another route to organising a defence. It's nearly four years now with no defence.

I hereby declare the World Chess Championship vacant. All parties interested in the position should assemble at my place tomorrow to determine the title.

Pax

Garvinator
04-09-2004, 09:52 PM
The organisation that arranged Kramnik's WC match doesn't even exist anymore, and Kramnik hasn't exactly shown any ability to find another route to organising a defence. It's nearly four years now with no defence.

I hereby declare the World Chess Championship vacant. All parties interested in the position should assemble at my place tomorrow to determine the title.

Pax
you dont follow this too closely do you :doh: kramnik and leko are playing very soon for the first part of the reunification matches. The bidding process has also begun for kasparov v kasimdzhanov.

then the winners of these two matches play off for the classical official world championship.

Then after the classical world championship has been won, the cycle returns to the 3 year cycle of old.

Rincewind
05-09-2004, 12:28 AM
The organisation that arranged Kramnik's WC match doesn't even exist anymore, and Kramnik hasn't exactly shown any ability to find another route to organising a defence. It's nearly four years now with no defence.

I hereby declare the World Chess Championship vacant. All parties interested in the position should assemble at my place tomorrow to determine the title.

Pax

What are you talking about? Leko and Kramnik are playing later this month in Switzerland.

Garvinator
05-09-2004, 12:59 AM
What are you talking about? Leko and Kramnik are playing later this month in Switzerland.
i posted a very similiar quote before you ;) :P

Rincewind
05-09-2004, 01:55 AM
i posted a very similiar quote before you ;) :P

Yes, but I was more specific on timeframe and venue. If fact, if I had bothered to look it up at TWIC I could have been even more specific...


The Classical World Chess Championship takes place at the Centro Dannemann in Brissago, Switzerland September 25th - October 18th, 2004.

ursogr8
05-09-2004, 07:59 AM
Thought we went round this block before - Kramnik, because FIDE has forfeited the ability to run a credible WC through loss of support of the leading players, inadequacy of format, and sacking of a former champ (Kasparov) for reasons unrelated to chess.



Apologies, Kevin. It was a rhetorical question. If I had thought for one minute you would address the question I would have re-phrased
the original
Btw, who is the world chess champion, in your opinion.

like this
Btw, who claims to be the chess world champion?

starter
ps Have we been around this block?

jay_vee
08-09-2004, 08:31 AM
The guru isn't the only one puffing. From the All India Chess Federation homepage:

"We (AICF) have among our players the world champion (...)". I'm not sure, but which Indian player is currently the world champion?!.

Of course, the same article gives a new meaning to this thread's title a little later, when it states, that the AICF state federations and academies "conduct more than 35 National Championships every year in addition to numerous state championships(...)".

35 national championships every year! Anyone with less than 100 of those to his name need not bother mentioning them... Really, the guru is just a small fish :-)

ursogr8
08-09-2004, 08:43 AM
The guru isn't the only one puffing. From the All India Chess Federation homepage:

"We (AICF) have among our players the world champion (...)". I'm not sure, but which Indian player is currently the world champion?!.

Of course, the same article gives a new meaning to this thread's title a little later, when it states, that the AICF state federations and academies "conduct more than 35 National Championships every year in addition to numerous state championships(...)".

35 national championships every year! Anyone with less than 100 of those to his name need not bother mentioning them... Really, the guru is just a small fish :-)

All

It is still an open invitation to give your best answer to the question I raised in quote #437, repeated here
Btw, who claims to be the chess world champion?

starter

Rincewind
08-09-2004, 08:43 AM
The guru isn't the only one puffing. From the All India Chess Federation homepage:

"We (AICF) have among our players the world champion (...)". I'm not sure, but which Indian player is currently the world champion?!.

Perhaps the article is old. Anand was the bona fide world champion a couple of years ago. Some could argue he currently still has as much claim to that title as many of the people currently touting it.


Of course, the same article gives a new meaning to this thread's title a little later, when it states, that the AICF state federations and academies "conduct more than 35 National Championships every year in addition to numerous state championships(...)".

35 national championships every year! Anyone with less than 100 of those to his name need not bother mentioning them... Really, the guru is just a small fish :-)

35 per annum. That is a good ratio. However, considering the population differential winning just one of those "national" championships is more noteworthy than winning the Aust. Champs. :eek:

jay_vee
08-09-2004, 09:21 AM
Perhaps the article is old. Anand was the bona fide world champion a couple of years ago.


No, it's a recent article, posted maybe a few days ago.

Ian Rout
08-09-2004, 09:44 AM
Is Anand still at the top of the Rapid rating list? Also I think at one point he headed, and perhaps still does, a combined rating list incorporating both forms.

Of course top of the rating list is not the same as "world champion" - though at a time when there is no universally accepted champion it's a bit easier to get away with trying to equate them.

Another possibility, perhaps more likely, is simply that when it was first written Anand was the FIDE knockout champion and it just hasn't been edited.

jay_vee
08-09-2004, 10:07 AM
Another possibility, perhaps more likely, is simply that when it was first written Anand was the FIDE knockout champion and it just hasn't been edited.

Here's the article (http://www.chessindia.org/chess_news/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094487880&&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

It really doesn't seem to be written earlier, it's in reply to a very recent complaint at a tournament about a newly instated 10% prizemoney deduction that goes to the AICF

Ian Rout
08-09-2004, 10:15 AM
In that case we come back to the same explanation as the original subject of this thread, either deliberate misrepresentation or marketing puff depending on your viewpoint. (In fairness to Anand he isn't the one making the claims.)

Rincewind
08-09-2004, 10:30 AM
In that case we come back to the same explanation as the original subject of this thread, either deliberate misrepresentation or marketing puff depending on your viewpoint. (In fairness to Anand he isn't the one making the claims.)

Aren't we jumping to conclusions? We are assuming they are talking about Anand, but he is not mentioned by name. Perhaps they have someone else in mind. :D

Seriously though, I think it is just an editorial mistake. They probably mean a World Champion, in the sense that Khalifman and Ponomariov are World Champions (once held the crown) rather than current World Champions.

I think part of the problem with FIDE's KO format of World Champion it tends to make too many World Champions and people tend to throw the title around a little too liberally. Of course, multiple claims to the crown from different lineage certainly exacerbates the problem.

ursogr8
08-09-2004, 10:35 AM
Of course, multiple claims to the crown from different lineage certainly exacerbates the problem.

One would hope that the GURU does not find some way through the 7 layers of separation; lest he add a new title.

Ian Rout
08-09-2004, 10:52 AM
Aren't we jumping to conclusions? We are assuming they are talking about Anand, but he is not mentioned by name. Perhaps they have someone else in mind. :D

Seriously though, I think it is just an editorial mistake. They probably mean a World Champion, in the sense that Khalifman and Ponomariov are World Champions (once held the crown) rather than current World Champions.

It did occur to me that "the world champion" meaning the current champion was a nuanace that might escape a non-native English speaker, but it is a convenient error (and I'm sure there are more people who speak and write excellent English in India than there are in Melbourne).

A good point about it not being Anand; perusal of the FIDE site reveals that none of the 2003 age champions are Indian but Anand did in fact win the 2003 World Rapid Championship in France, so I think that may be the one they are claiming. Not "the" world championship but a world championship.

pax
08-09-2004, 10:55 AM
What are you talking about? Leko and Kramnik are playing later this month in Switzerland.

Fact remains it took four years for it to happen, and it hasn't happened yet. I was responding to the comment that because FIDE can't organise it's way out of a paper bag that Kramnik was the default champion. I simply point out that two organisations responsible for organising Kramnik defences folded, and it is now four years since his match win. It's hardly a rock solid position for a world champion in anything. And anyway, we all know Anand would kick all their arses;)

Pax

pax
08-09-2004, 11:17 AM
Ok, speaking of six degrees of separation, it's time for some exaggeration and marketing puff.

Can anybody here calculate their "Kasparov distance"? That is the length of the chain of players which results in you beating Kasparov.

If you have beaten Kasparov, you have a K distance of 1. If you beat someone who beat Kaspy, it's 2 and so on.

I can claim a K distance of 3. Beat that :) Actually a few of you probably can, if you can work out the key link..

Ok, the chain with 3 (I can do it two different ways) requires a blitz game and a rapid game. I'm pretty sure I can eliminate the blitz for a chain of 4, but I'm not sure about the rapid.

Pax

ursogr8
08-09-2004, 11:21 AM
but it is a convenient error (and I'm sure there are more people who speak and write excellent English in India than there are in Melbourne).

.

And I'm sure there are more taxi-drivers who speak English in Peking than there are in Sydney. :rolleyes:

Ian Rout
08-09-2004, 11:35 AM
And I'm sure there are more taxi-drivers who speak English in Peking than there are in Sydney. :rolleyes:
No doubt. I meant that there were plenty of locals who could point out the inexactitude relative to the number who might to do the same for Melbourne's national champion, not being rude about Melbourne (well not principally, but in passing).

Rincewind
08-09-2004, 09:01 PM
Fact remains it took four years for it to happen, and it hasn't happened yet. I was responding to the comment that because FIDE can't organise it's way out of a paper bag that Kramnik was the default champion. I simply point out that two organisations responsible for organising Kramnik defences folded, and it is now four years since his match win. It's hardly a rock solid position for a world champion in anything. And anyway, we all know Anand would kick all their arses;)

Actually it is not FIDE's job to organise the Leko/Kramnik match or any rematch for Kramnik post his win of "the title" from Kasparov. This is because it is not a FIDE title.

It is FIDE's job to organise a match between Kasparov and Kasimdzhanov. Let's see if that is more successful than the Ponomarios/Kasparov match.

ursogr8
08-09-2004, 09:17 PM
Actually it is not FIDE's job to organise the Leko/Kramnik match or any rematch for Kramnik post his win of "the title" from Kasparov. This is because it is not a FIDE title.

It is FIDE's job to organise a match between Kasparov and Kasimdzhanov. Let's see if that is more successful than the Ponomarios/Kasparov match.

Baz
Perhaps you can help.
pomo, Kaspo, leko, kasi, Anand, k, k, k ?????

Can you list those who claim to be world champion?


starter

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2004, 03:01 AM
Ok, the chain with 3 (I can do it two different ways) requires a blitz game and a rapid game. I'm pretty sure I can eliminate the blitz for a chain of 4, but I'm not sure about the rapid.

I think we should make it rapid games only and see how we go.

I reckon my chain will be about 6, maybe I can get 5 somehow. I can get to Darryl in three and I assume it's easy to get from Darryl to Kasparov in three.

Has George Xie beaten any GMs yet?

Rincewind
09-09-2004, 08:23 AM
Perhaps you can help.
pomo, Kaspo, leko, kasi, Anand, k, k, k ?????

Can you list those who claim to be world champion?

I don't know who claims to be world champion (it is probably just Kramnik and Kasimdzhanov at the moment) but I could make a non-exhastive list of those with some sort of claim to the title...

Anand - He should have played Kasparov for the title not Kramnik as he came second in the candidates (refer Shirov below).

Fischer - never defeated after winning 1972 and successfully defended the title in 1992.

Kasimdzhanov - Beat Adams in an exclusive event with a format designed to make it as hard as possible for the top seed to win in a field strength equivalent of a strong-ish European Zonal.

Kasparov - Kramnik never offered him a rematch after taking the title.

Kramnik - Defeated Kasparov to claim the classic WCh crown

Ponomariov - Should have played Kasparov as a part of the reunification but wouldn't agree to terms because FIDE failed to deliver on other parts of the Prague agreement

Shirov - He should have played Kasparov for the title not Kramnik as he won the candidates.


Hope this helps. I didn't double check all the facts so I might have a few things wrong but that is pretty much as I remember it. ;)

As an aside, I ran a poll on my website as to who was the strongest player in the world at the moment. The results were (30 votes)

Kasparov 37%
Anand 33%
Kramnik 10%
Fischer 7%
Shirov 7%
Leko 3%
Ponomariov 3%

ursogr8
09-09-2004, 08:37 AM
I don't know who claims to be world champion (it is probably just Kramnik and Kasimdzhanov at the moment) but I could make a non-exhastive list of those with some sort of claim to the title...

Anand - He should have played Kasparov for the title not Kramnik as he came second in the candidates (refer Shirov below).

Fischer - never defeated after winning 1972 and successfully defended the title in 1992.

Kasimdzhanov - Beat Adams in an exclusive event with a format designed to make it as hard as possible for the top seed to win in a field strength equivalent of a strong-ish European Zonal.

Kasparov - Kramnik never offered him a rematch after taking the title.

Kramnik - Defeated Kasparov to claim the classic WCh crown

Ponomariov - Should have played Kasparov as a part of the reunification but wouldn't agree to terms because FIDE failed to deliver on other parts of the Prague agreement

Shirov - He should have played Kasparov for the title not Kramnik as he won the candidates.


Hope this helps. I didn't double check all the facts so I might have a few things wrong but that is pretty much as I remember it. ;)

As an aside, I ran a poll on my website as to who was the strongest player in the world at the moment. The results were (30 votes)

Kasparov 37%
Anand 33%
Kramnik 10%
Fischer 7%
Shirov 7%
Leko 3%
Ponomariov 3%

Well, thank you Barry. (Btw the way, can you repeat the URL of your useful web-site...with the free ratings calculator...so that a few more can vote).

Not exactly the answer I was looking for. I was interested in those who claimed to be World Champion; not those who generally may be considered to have some claim on the title. But anyhow, your response serves my purpose.

So, 7 it is with a claim on the WORLD title.
Not the certainty of 1.
Seven !!!!!
7 world champions.
Current claimants !!!

Now who is the next Welsher or Banana-bender who is going to step up to the plate to criticise the GURU for a bit of marketing puff when he claims an odd AUS. title or two.
It is the way of the real WORLD.

starter

Rincewind
09-09-2004, 09:15 AM
So, 7 it is with a claim on the WORLD title.
Not the certainty of 1.
Seven !!!!!
7 world champions.
Current claimants !!!

I made it clear in my message that I was listing possible claims not those who are making claims. Several of these players are definitely not claiming the title. At least one (Shirov) has to my knowledge never claimed to be a WCh.

As I said at the start, sensible analysis of the claims reveal two sensible claimants to the throne, Kramnik and Kasimdzhanov. Although both of these claims are less than 100% convincing, they are a class above the next level of claims.

Regarding the poll, it is interesting that more people thought Fischer was currently stronger than Leko. That is a big call, IMHO.

Anyway, you asked for the website to be shamelessly plugged yet again. Here it is: http://www.bjcox.com ;)

The current poll is on the result of the forthcoming Kramnik Leko match. However, past polls are also able to be viewed and even voted on.

pax
09-09-2004, 09:28 AM
Actually it is not FIDE's job to organise the Leko/Kramnik match or any rematch for Kramnik post his win of "the title" from Kasparov. This is because it is not a FIDE title.

Did I mention FIDE?

pax
09-09-2004, 09:41 AM
Ok, the chain with 3 (I can do it two different ways) requires a blitz game and a rapid game. I'm pretty sure I can eliminate the blitz for a chain of 4, but I'm not sure about the rapid.

I think we should make it rapid games only and see how we go.

I reckon my chain will be about 6, maybe I can get 5 somehow. I can get to Darryl in three and I assume it's easy to get from Darryl to Kasparov in three.

Has George Xie beaten any GMs yet?

Ok here's the secret link. All three Polgar sisters played in the 1986/87 Adsteam Lidums Australian Open. Judit was (I think) 10 at the time, and a little easier to beat than she is today ;)

Judit beat Kasparov in a rapid game in 2002 (but I don't think has ever beaten him in standard). Among the players to beat Judit in the Adsteam tournament was one of Australias chess legends, IM Trevor Hay. I don't know if any other Aussies beat her in the tournament (Djuric and Mednis did), but I know of at least one other that beat her in the blitz (was there a rapid tourney? I don't know). Unfortunately, Trevor Hay hasn't played much competitive chess at all in the last 20 years or so.

Pax

Rincewind
09-09-2004, 09:46 AM
Did I mention FIDE?

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. You made a comment that "because FIDE could not organise their way out of a paper bag Kramnik is the default WCh" (my paraphrasing). I took this to mean you thought FIDE had to organise the Kramnik rematch.

Actually I think FIDE's organising of events to fall in line with the Prague agreement has been a little slow but generally better than the Mindgames/Einstein TV fiasco. The Ponomariov situation and resulting complications certainly didn't make their job easy but I think we will still get there in the end.

pax
10-09-2004, 10:23 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. You made a comment that "because FIDE could not organise their way out of a paper bag Kramnik is the default WCh" (my paraphrasing). I took this to mean you thought FIDE had to organise the Kramnik rematch.

Nono, that was the comment I was replying to (or a paraphrase of it). I was arguing that Kramnik is not the default WC simply because FIDE can't organise a proper match.

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2004, 12:02 AM
Fact remains it took four years for it to happen, and it hasn't happened yet. I was responding to the comment that because FIDE can't organise it's way out of a paper bag that Kramnik was the default champion. I simply point out that two organisations responsible for organising Kramnik defences folded, and it is now four years since his match win. It's hardly a rock solid position for a world champion in anything.

Maybe we ought to hop in a time machine and come back in 2100 AD and see how chess history looks on these concerns.

Consider the history of the title the last time there was no world body capable of running it (before WWII). In this time there were five world champions - Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe. On average matches were held every three years but after first winning the title Lasker took ten years to defend it, while Capablanca took six. (The others took two or three). Kramnik's four does not seem unreasonable.

Bill Gletsos
15-09-2004, 12:10 AM
Maybe we ought to hop in a time machine and come back in 2100 AD and see how chess history looks on these concerns.

Consider the history of the title the last time there was no world body capable of running it (before WWII). In this time there were five world champions - Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe. On average matches were held every three years but after first winning the title Lasker took ten years to defend it, while Capablanca took six. (The others took two or three). Kramnik's four does not seem unreasonable.
Also Kasparov took five I think to defend it against Krammnik.

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2004, 12:58 AM
Also Kasparov took five I think to defend it against Krammnik.

Yes, I forgot about Kasparov post-FIDE in that reckoning. If you see the PCA as just a front for Kasparov's world championship ambitions the Anand match could also be considered a private match. Then after that it was five years until he played Kramnik.

Garvinator
15-09-2004, 01:10 AM
Yes, I forgot about Kasparov post-FIDE in that reckoning. If you see the PCA as just a front for Kasparov's world championship ambitions the Anand match could also be considered a private match. Then after that it was five years until he played Kramnik.
there would have been a title defense by kasparov if shirov's match could have raised the required funds. That would then have been about a four year span.

On the point about four years between Kramniks braingames win and his match against leko, i think you are comparing apples and oranges.

the match against leko is not technically a world championship title defence. It is a semi-final match. kaspa- kasim has equal billing by rights. Also if the prague agreement wasnt agreed to, then it is unlikely kramnik would be playing this match against leko.

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2004, 05:28 AM
there would have been a title defense by kasparov if shirov's match could have raised the required funds.

That is true. IIRC it was Alexei who piked because the prizemoney was not to his liking, only to be left out in the cold when poor form and the passage of time eroded his marketability.


On the point about four years between Kramniks braingames win and his match against leko, i think you are comparing apples and oranges.

the match against leko is not technically a world championship title defence. It is a semi-final match. kaspa- kasim has equal billing by rights. Also if the prague agreement wasnt agreed to, then it is unlikely kramnik would be playing this match against leko.

The match is for a title which is called the "Classical Chess World Championship" which was agreed to be the title Kramnik now holds. Since the only other title is the FIDE World Championship, which has no credibility, I am regarding this as a match for the world championship, fullstop. If the unification proceeds and the winner of this title subsequently defends it in something that is called the Unified World Championship I shall accept that as a world championship match too. It still remains to be seen whether this will actually occur.

It is true that Leko's participation comes out of the now formally defunct Prague Agreement but since then he has demonstrated that he is a top four player and a serious WC threat.

ursogr8
16-09-2004, 08:08 AM
That is true. IIRC it was Alexei who piked because the prizemoney was not to his liking, only to be left out in the cold when poor form and the passage of time eroded his marketability.



The match is for a title which is called the "Classical Chess World Championship" which was agreed to be the title Kramnik now holds. Since the only other title is the FIDE World Championship, which has no credibility, I am regarding this as a match for the world championship, fullstop. If the unification proceeds and the winner of this title subsequently defends it in something that is called the Unified World Championship I shall accept that as a world championship match too. It still remains to be seen whether this will actually occur.

It is true that Leko's participation comes out of the now formally defunct Prague Agreement but since then he has demonstrated that he is a top four player and a serious WC threat.

Guys

Thanks for all these 35 posts on this spin-off thread.
The topic came from me trying a tack to defend the GURU's claim to titles by arguing> since WORLD titles are debatable then it is little wonder that a young commercial bloke would think he could follow the international practice.

I asked the LITMUS question "Who can claim the world-title".

Bill was having none of that argument anyway, and said so.

I think it is time to stop the thread, as we all know who the current world champion is after reading the 35 posts. I will speak to the GURU and see if he can be more accurate in the future.

starter

pax
16-09-2004, 10:03 AM
I think it is time to stop the thread, as we all know who the current world champion is after reading the 35 posts.

Do we? I don't think there will be any agreement on the WC until reunification. And even then, many won't be happy until another full cycle has passed allowing other legitimate contenders such as Anand to challenge.