New World Champion

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your idea that some FIDE tournaments are "official" and some are "unofficial" is simply untrue. If you think I need better arguments to refute falsehoods, that is again, your problem.

Corus had a stronger field than Mexico City including the three top players in the world. And the competition there was fierce. But no one would assert that the winner of Corus was World Champion.

Have you heard that Tal won many tournaments in the beggining of 70ties, but he did not qualifie to pretendent matches in Interzonal tournament in 1973? Actually have you heard about zonal and interzonal tournaments (that kind of tournaments I would call "official" ) to select players to world championship and other tournaments in which players were not selected?

Edit: Don`t you know that Ivanchuk who have won many tournaments last time did not play in candidates matches in Mexico? Because he did not play too well in official FIDE tournament in which were selected players for these matches.

Originally posted by no1marauder
They are obviously. Kramnik and Anand both played at Dortmund in June; Kramnik finished first. Three months later, Anand finishes a point ahead of Kramnik in a different tournament and he is "World Champion"?

yes, and how did you deduce that this variability is greater than in match play?

Originally posted by wormwood
yes, and how did you deduce that this variability is greater than in match play?

Figure it out.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Figure it out.

so you just guessed without any grounds. well that's not much of an argument.

Originally posted by Korch
Have you heard that Tal won many tournaments in the beggining of 70ties, but he did not qualifie to pretendent matches in Interzonal tournament in 1973? Actually have you heard about zonal and interzonal tournaments (that kind of tournaments I would call "official" ) to select players to world championship and other tournaments in which players were not sele ...[text shortened]... ot play too well in official FIDE tournament in which were selected players for these matches.

There has always been some system to winnow out players to decide who faced the Champion in a MATCH. Obviously you can't have every chess player in the world play matches to eliminate it down to one contender. Nonetheless, it has always been accepted that the World Championship is decided by a match. Even FIDE now agrees; this "World Championship" tourney is supposed to be the first and last of its kind to be replaced by matches every two years after Kramnik-Anand and the winner of that against the Topalov-World Cup winner.

Originally posted by wormwood
so you just guessed without any grounds. well that's not much of an argument.

It's annoying to have to spell out the obvious. Mikenay has already spelled out the arguments why match play is superior in deciding a World Championship and those arguments have been accepted in chess for 150 years. And again even the blockheads at FIDE now agree.

Originally posted by pimpsandwich
This was agreed upon.

I'm sure you didn't read what I wrote I page 1, so I'll repeat it:

If a few people want to accept Anand as champion even though all he has done is win a tournament, go ahead and do so. But it is disrespectful to the history of the game. For 150 years there is a straight line of succession for World Champion decided by matches. Kramnik defeated Kasparov and has twice successfully defended his crown. Winning a tournament, no matter what the clowns at FIDE call it, is not winning the World Championship.

AND

I really don't care what Kramnik agreed to (under threat of having his FIDE title, not the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP stripped). FIDE can't dictate who is World Champion; that is decided by match play.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There has always been some system to winnow out players to decide who faced the Champion in a MATCH. Obviously you can't have every chess player in the world play matches to eliminate it down to one contender. Nonetheless, it has always been accepted that the World Championship is decided by a match. Even FIDE now agrees; this "World Championship" tourne ...[text shortened]... ry two years after Kramnik-Anand and the winner of that against the Topalov-World Cup winner.

Can you explain why this system cant be used to winnow players to decide who will play in CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT?

Arguments "It`s always been accepted....blablabla" cant be reason.

If you still dont understand I may explain my position: I have nothing against match as instrument to find out who is champion, but also i dont see serious reason why tournament format cant be used too.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm sure you didn't read what I wrote I page 1, so I'll repeat it:

If a few people want to accept Anand as champion even though all he has done is win a tournament, go ahead and do so. But it is disrespectful to the history of the game. For 150 years there is a straight line of succession for World Champion decided by matches. Kramnik defeated Kasparo ...[text shortened]... IONSHIP stripped). FIDE can't dictate who is World Champion; that is decided by match play.

Its really silly trying to make Kramnik champion against his will.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm sure you didn't read what I wrote I page 1, so I'll repeat it:

If a few people want to accept Anand as champion even though all he has done is win a tournament, go ahead and do so. But it is disrespectful to the history of the game. For 150 years there is a straight line of succession for World Champion decided by matches. Kramnik defeated Kasparo ...[text shortened]... IONSHIP stripped). FIDE can't dictate who is World Champion; that is decided by match play.

I read it, and understand. I just disagree. Unlike some I am not trying to prove you are wrong. You are looking at the championship as something a sanctioning body does not own and can only change hands when the 'true' champion is beaten in a WC match. The fact that has been stated earlier is this is not the only time the current champion has not beaten the previous champion to gain the championship. It just seems silly to me for people to argue against the terms that the champion agreed to. You feel more strongly about it than he does apparently.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's annoying to have to spell out the obvious. Mikenay has already spelled out the arguments why match play is superior in deciding a World Championship and those arguments have been accepted in chess for 150 years. And again even the blockheads at FIDE now agree.

And you did "forgot" that I did mention drawbacks of matches in reply to Mikenay`s post.
Traditions itself are arguable argument (except for conservative morons).

P.S. Learn history and other posts - as I did mention in this thread, if these arguments have been accepted by 150 years we would live in 2036 as first official world championship match was played in 1886 😀

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm sure you didn't read what I wrote I page 1, so I'll repeat it:

If a few people want to accept Anand as champion even though all he has done is win a tournament, go ahead and do so. But it is disrespectful to the history of the game. For 150 years there is a straight line of succession for World Champion decided by matches. Kramnik defeated Kasparo ...[text shortened]... IONSHIP stripped). FIDE can't dictate who is World Champion; that is decided by match play.

Who would dictate the championship if Kramnik failed to defend it?

Originally posted by Korch
And you did "forgot" that I did mention drawbacks of matches in reply to Mikenay`s post.
Traditions itself are arguable argument (except for conservative morons).

P.S. Learn history and other posts - as I did mention in this thread, if these arguments have been accepted by 150 years we would live in 2036 as first official world championship match was played in 1886 😀

I consider the first World Championship match to have been Morphy-Anderssen in 1858. Others say Stenitz-Anderssen in 1866. I see no reason to consider Stenitz-Zukertort as the first World Championship match. I know the history of chess and respect it even if you don't.

Originally posted by pimpsandwich
Who would dictate the championship if Kramnik failed to defend it?

Then we'd be in "extraordinary circumstances" time again with Kramnik resigning the title either de jure or de facto.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then we'd be in "extraordinary circumstances" time again with Kramnik resigning the title either de jure or de facto.

Who?