New World Champion

Originally posted by Korch
If you really don`t care to convince your opponents then whats the point of your argumentation?

Comparing unofficial tournaments (where organizers can invitee what they want) with official competition (in which participants have been selected in previous competitions) is not serious. Also in official competition players are much more motivated to play th ...[text shortened]... tournaments you did number.

You still did not say why matches are better than tournaments.

You seem to have a reading problem; I suggest you re-read my post. I didn't say I didn't try to convince people; I said I recognized that it is futile to try to convince someone who has reached a position and won't listen like you. When you try to rewrite the English language and criticize other arguments as too "formal", it's obvious your mind is completely closed.

"Official" tournaments according to who? FIDE? As far as I know, "unofficial" tournaments like Linares and Corus are sanctioned by FIDE too. It's debatable whether Mexico had a stronger field than Linares or Corus. And as someone already pointed out, Kramnik had little incentive to play his best here.

I most certainly did say why matches were better than tournaments in deciding the World Championship; please read the last sentence of my prior post. Ironically, the field at Mexico was decided, in large part, by matches!

Originally posted by no1marauder
I know you are having problems following these arguments, but the claim (by wormwood) was that because the rules had changed, Anand was rightfully champion. The ones who changed the rules was FIDE now and when those two players were "champions". Therefore, if you accept the logic that FIDE can dictate the rules on who becomes World Champion than those pl whole post if the arguments in the first part support the latter part as was true in my post.

"I know you are having problems following these arguments"
Give me example please 🙂

The ones who changed the rules was FIDE now and when those two players were "champions". Therefore, if you accept the logic that FIDE can dictate the rules on who becomes World Champion than those players have has much claim as Anand that they were WCs.

If you know chess history, then you should agree that rules of world championship competitions have been dictated (and changed) by FIDE or world champion. In this case FIDE and World champion both agreeing with these rules. So - how do you think, who is allowed to change these rules?

Originally posted by no1marauder
AProdigy: First, the World Champion is a title awarded by a governing body.

I don't agree with this statement for reasons already given. If you believe this, you believe that Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were World Champions as they "won" the title according to the FIDE rules.

no1marauder,

I don't know the circumstances of the historic matches that you are talking about. And they don't matter. If, at those times, FIDE was not an internationally recognized authority that could difinitely determine the WC to the point that there was some contention, then maybe they weren't the champs. I don't know. I do know that today, FIDE is the authority, they award the title.

Your bringing up of historic occurances is an attempt to prove precedence. You are trying to show that the WC has always been proved by match play. You can use past arguments to say that the FIDE has unfairly changed the rules. You can use past arguments to say that Anand should not be the WC. But he is the WC. Perhaps he hasn't yet won the NIWC (No1marauder Imaginary World Champion) title...

Originally posted by wormwood
no it isn't.

wormwood: for better or worse, FIDE is the highest official international chess organization, and I see no better authority to decide on the title.

Then you are being inconsistent.

Originally posted by AProdigy
no1marauder,

I don't know the circumstances of the historic matches that you are talking about. And they don't matter. If, at those times, FIDE was not an internationally recognized authority that could difinitely determine the WC to the point that there was some contention, then maybe they weren't the champs. I don't know. I do know that today, FIDE ...[text shortened]... the WC. Perhaps he hasn't yet won the NIWC (No1marauder Imaginary World Champion) title...

I suggest you actually learn some of the history of chess before you enter into this argument then. FIDE claimed to be the authority in the 1990's and early 2000's when they claimed Karpov was champion rather than Kasparov and then Karpov was succeeded by a series of inferior players. Very few chess players took the claim that these players were "World Champions" seriously.

Some people just don't like Kramnik's playing style and don't want him to be World Champion. If the same situation existed and Kasparov had beaten Kramnik in 2000 and then successfully defended his title, very few would seriously claim that Anand was WC because he had finished ahead of Kaspy in a tournament, even one FIDE had decided was a "World Championship".

Originally posted by no1marauder
I suggest you actually learn some of the history of chess before you enter into this argument then. FIDE claimed to be the authority in the 1990's and early 2000's when they claimed Karpov was champion rather than Kasparov and then Karpov was succeeded by a series of inferior players. Very few chess players took the claim that these players were "World C ...[text shortened]... d ahead of Kaspy in a tournament, even one FIDE had decided was a "World Championship".

Studying chess history is not applicaple to this discussion. Are you trying to argue who the WC was in the 60's? Is that the discussion? Or is the argument who the current WC is? You believe that the WC rules in the 60's are still in affect. They aren't. They have been changed. I'm sure all of us agree that match play is the best way to determine the WC, and I'm not sure why the FIDE chose this method. I don't think the title should have been on the line here, but it was. It was obviously still a part of the growing pains involve with merging Classical Chess with the FIDE. The most important this here is that the players agreed to it.

So regarding your historical evidence, rules changed. They no longer apply.

The most hilarious part of you argument is that you still believe Kramnik is the WC, but he doesn't.

Originally posted by AProdigy
Studying chess history is not applicaple to this discussion. Are you trying to argue who the WC was in the 60's? Is that the discussion? Or is the argument who the current WC is? You believe that the WC rules in the 60's are still in affect. They aren't. They have been changed. I'm sure all of us agree that match play is the best way to determine the ...[text shortened]... larious part of you argument is that you still believe Kramnik is the WC, but he doesn't.

What is the problem with everybody in this thread??? Who is talking about the 60's? Please actually read what I'm posting for a change.

I've already addressed Kramnik's position; quite simply, the World Championship is not the personal property of the Champion or FIDE.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You seem to have a reading problem; I suggest you re-read my post. I didn't say I didn't try to convince people; I said I recognized that it is futile to try to convince someone who has reached a position and won't listen like you. When you try to rewrite the English language and criticize other arguments as too "formal", it's obvious your mind is comple ...[text shortened]... y prior post. Ironically, the field at Mexico was decided, in large part, by matches!

I suggest you to re-read your own posts what you have written.

I didn't say I didn't try to convince people; I said I recognized that it is futile to try to convince someone who has reached a position and won't listen like you.
Your text was "I really don't care if I can "convince" someone who has inalterably already made up their mind.".
So you dont care to convince me (your opponent). Is not it?

When you try to rewrite the English language and criticize other arguments as too "formal", it's obvious your mind is completely closed.
Then why other readers of this forum agrees with me not you? Do all people who disagrees with you have "mind completely closed"? 😀
And actually - Personal offenses are not argument.

I` dont feel guilty that you have problems to understand - meaning of word "rematch" does not affect fact that many times champions has been given second chance if they are losing their title.

"Official" tournaments according to who?FIDE?
According to negotiation between FIDE and World champion. These are 2 main forces in history of chess.

As far as I know, "unofficial" tournaments like Linares and Corus are sanctioned by FIDE too.
Did FIDE and World champion negotiate that winners of these tournaments are champions?

I most certainly did say why matches were better than tournaments in deciding the World Championship; please read the last sentence of my prior post.

You may repeat them if I did not notice them.

Originally posted by Korch
I suggest you to re-read your own posts what you have written.

[b]I didn't say I didn't try to convince people; I said I recognized that it is futile to try to convince someone who has reached a position and won't listen like you.
Your text was "I really don't care if I can "convince" someone who has inalterably already made up their mind.".
S ntence of my prior post.[/b]

You may repeat them if I did not notice them.[/b]

I'll put it in CAPS so you might be able to read it this time:

no1: MATCHES BETWEEN THE PLAYERS DIRECTLY DECIDE WHETHER A IS BETTER THAN B OR NOT.

As for the rest, I've already addressed them. For both you and AProdigy, I repeat what I said on page 5:

no1: I don't agree that the champion can acquiese to a fundamental change in the way the World Championship is decided. The WC isn't his personal property; it belongs to the chess world.

Originally posted by no1marauder
...very few would seriously claim that Anand was WC because he had finished ahead of Kaspy in a tournament, even one FIDE had decided was a "World Championship".

I think you have hit on a good point here. You say that back then "very few" would have made that claim. You justify who the WC is by what the majority of the chess communicate believes. I've not seen any professional chess authority deny the title to Anand. Legally, it is his, which is what you keep denying. Perhaps there are some folks out there that believe he shouldn't be, which I would agree with. No one is saying that he isn't, though. So, if majority rules, then you're wrong.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I addressed the silly claim that the Kramnik-Anand match will be a "REmatch" above - such a claim is contrary to the English language.

Then choose the word you wish. You have failed to deal with the point that Kramnik will be the rightful challenger in the WC match next year, and that there is precedent for a deposed challenger gaining the right to again play for the title.

I share your disdain for a tournament having been employed, and I have been a fan of Kramnik's since before he won the title from Kasparov. I have always referred to the string of posers as the "FIDE champions" to distinguish them from Kasparov, then Kramnik.

In the reunification match, I considered Topalov the challenger and believed that his victory would have forever stained (because it would appear to legitimize the string of frauds) the line of champions. Caissa protected her crown.

For all that, I agree with Kramnik: "Anand is the new World Champion" http://www.kramnik.com/default.aspx

If he regains the title in his match with Anand, Anand's current title will forever be World Champion 2007-2008.*

Although the tradition of matches deserves respect, the tradition has never had a fixed and stable format. Champions could duck challengers, tournaments were used to determine who played in matches, matches were used to determine the contestants in tournaments. The tradition has many flaws, and FIDE's activities since 1993 are among the most egregious. Anand's championship is cheapened by the process by which he earned it. But, to say that he is not the legitimate champion is too much.






* decided by a tournament

Originally posted by no1marauder
wormwood: for better or worse, FIDE is the highest official international chess organization, and I see no better authority to decide on the title.

Then you are being inconsistent.

no I'm not. you're trying to force me to choose from two stupid choices. I'm not going to give into that just because it would make the problem 'easy' for you. it's a complicated mess, and no amount of 'legal' nitpicking will ever sort that mess into nice little piles of 'corrects' and 'wrongs'. the fact that FIDE is the best authority to decide on the title does not imply that they have made no mistakes.

kasparov left FIDE, which I know you know he has recently admitted to have been a big mistake. and what could FIDE possibly have done in that situation, let an individual dictate how world championships should be run? clearly that's not an option, so they had to proceed without kasparov. which was bad for everybody.

the thing is, we've finally got a situation where it's possible to leave that horrible mess behind us, and continue with one title, one system, and no complications. is it totally just towards kramnik? no. but it is necessary for the good of everybody, and that's exactly why kramnik agreed to put the title on the line in mexico. and as a bargain for that compromise he got his extra opportunity to win the title back. it's not going to make everything right, but it's a good try, and obviously he thought it's good enough.

Originally posted by AProdigy
Studying chess history is not applicaple to this discussion. Are you trying to argue who the WC was in the 60's? Is that the discussion? Or is the argument who the current WC is? You believe that the WC rules in the 60's are still in affect. They aren't. They have been changed. I'm sure all of us agree that match play is the best way to determine the ...[text shortened]... larious part of you argument is that you still believe Kramnik is the WC, but he doesn't.

I agree. We can argue why FIDE chose this format, and is likely to make other changes in the future. But what were FIDE's alternatives: a match between which two players could have been accepted by everyone? They may have made mistakes in the past (and probably will make others), but they were not alone. Kasparov has taken a lot of the blame on him for the mess we are in.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Then choose the word you wish. You have failed to deal with the point that Kramnik will be the rightful challenger in the WC match next year, and that there is precedent for a deposed challenger gaining the right to again play for the title.

I share your disdain for a tournament having been employed, and I have been a fan of Kramnik's since before he won at he is not the legitimate champion is too much.






* decided by a tournament

I'll just repeat what I said on page 1:

no1: 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
What is the problem with everybody in this thread??? Who is talking about the 60's? Please actually read what I'm posting for a change.

I've already addressed Kramnik's position; quite simply, the World Championship is not the personal property of the Champion or FIDE.

What is the problem with everybody in this thread???
If you think that the problem is in everyone maybe its better to search problem in yourself?

I've already addressed Kramnik's position; quite simply, the World Championship is not the personal property of the Champion or FIDE.
And how do you think - what else without world champion or FIDE may apply rules of world championship?