30 Sep 07
Originally posted by KorchThe title was vacant in 1948 and 1975, the first because of Alekhine's death and the second because of Fischer's abandonment of the title. No such extraordinary circumstances exist at this time.
Not always - as we know in 1948 (when Botvinnik became champion) and 1975 (when Botvinnik became champion) there were no matches. It means that can be circumstances in which world champion can be decided in different way. And I dont see reason not to admit Anand champion, because Kramnik did agree with terms in which he did lose his title. Compare this situation with 1975 when Fischer disagreed with terms, refused to play and lost his title anyway.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by KorchI've tried that line of reasoning with him Korch. Perhaps you will have better luck than I did.
Not always - as we know in 1948 (when Botvinnik became champion) and 1975 (when Botvinnik became champion) there were no matches. It means that can be circumstances in which world champion can be decided in different way. And I dont see reason not to admit Anand champion, because Kramnik did agree with terms in which he did lose his title. Compare this situation with 1975 when Fischer disagreed with terms, refused to play and lost his title anyway.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen title was vacant in 1975? Fischer never resigned title himself. He still thinks that he is legitimate champion. Fishcer did lost and Karpov got title after decision of FIDE in 3rd April of 1975.
The title was vacant in 1948 and 1975, the first because of Alekhine's death and the second because of Fischer's abandonment of the title. No such extraordinary circumstances exist at this time.
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchYou are incorrect.
When title was vacant in 1975? Fischer never resigned title himself. He still thinks that he is legitimate champion. Fishcer did lost and Karpov got title after decision of FIDE in 3rd April of 1975.
http://members.aol.com/graemecree/chesschamps/world/world1975.htm
Fischer did resign the title by letter to FIDE on June 27, 1974. Granted that negotiations continued, but technically he did resign.
30 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf negotiations did continue it means that FIDE did not accept his resign and Fischer (as he continue negotiations) in fact did withdraw his resign. So he lost his title only after decision of FIDE.
You are incorrect.
http://members.aol.com/graemecree/chesschamps/world/world1975.htm
Fischer did resign the title by letter to FIDE on June 27, 1974. Granted that negotiations continued, but technically he did resign.
Also Lasker did resign his title during negotiations with Capablanca before their match in 1921, but nobody (including Capa) did not accept that. And there are no disagreements that Lasker lost his title in their match.
P.S. And talking about Kramnik - in fact he did agree that he will resign his title to winner of Mexico. So you have no real arguments not to admit Anand as world champion.
P.S.S. And dont you know that Fischer called his match with Spassky in 1992 world championship rematch?
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexThat is incorrect Anand was FIDE champ in 2000. This is his second time to win it. Now he can be called the undisputed champ.
It is nice to see anand finally getting the world championship, he would have been the best player never to have been world champion had ne not won.
The next stage will be the most crucial, holding off Kramnik in matches. I bet Kramnik is already preparing for that match right now.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexThat's your own opinion. Look at the history books and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_World_Chess_Championships_1998-2004
Yes, the REAL champion. That joke of a title he had before was worthless while kasparov was still active - this reunified championship will give him a true place in history.
even if you are to write your own book, you must include the part where Kasparov says he was wrong to break away from FIDE.
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIs the answer "I don't care"?
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.
EDIT: Riddle me this; who was the World Champion during the 1990's?
30 Sep 07
I don't see why some chaps are obsessed with Kramnik. He drew with Leko and only beat Topalov on tiebreak. Note that the old classical system had 24 games before any tie break. Before that you had to have something like 5 wins (regardless of if 100 games were played.)
Past champions did not only excel in the world championship they were on top of the rating list and also won many tournaments which Kramnik has hardly been doing.
30 Sep 07
great job anand, and better luck next time kramnik!
what? the world championship is no longer passed along how it used to be? you can't retain the title by refusing the match conditions anymore? the champ doesn't get the unfair advantage of not having to qualify against the top players anymore? the champ can't dictate his demands like a spoiled brat anymore? well boohoo. ain't that tough.