PLAY !
give him time ... i hope topalov will change his pathetic response and play kramnik ... through victory, kramnik represents a direct descendence to the best human player of chess ever: kasparov ... kasparov deserves this respect.
topalov has just played a long exhausting tournament ... his brain must be rattled ... as he says he can win easily and shine in glory of being the clear knig of chess!
the tournament organisers can influence events here ...
MY SOLUTION: for the next world champ cycle: have two pools of players ... one pool with the players with legitimate claims: kramnik and topalov ... the other pool contains the rest of the world .. the winner of each pool plays for the title.
Originally posted by rhbKramnik hold another world title that he got from beating Kasparov...
Definitely not! What sort of lunacy would that be?
I dont believe in the fide world championship anymore so I still see kramnik as the world champion but I think Topalov has earned the right to challenge Kramnik.
Topalov wil most likely beat Kramnik but that has nothing to do with it.
I think Topalov is totally right!! Kramnik isn't in the same league anymore. It's about bloody time they sorted this out. He was invited to play in the World championship tournament and he turned down the offer, that was his mistake. If he genuinely believes he is the strongest player in the world, why the hell didn't he play? This 'Classical' world champion title should be scrapped altogether! There is only ever one person at the top, that is the nature of this game. Topalov has beaten the absolute best players in the World to gain his crown, that makes him the best in the World, end of story!
If Kramnik feels he can top Topalov, there is only one place to do that, and that is in the World championship! Fide have had there head up their arses for decades but i genuinely believe that this tournament is a new beginning! All this stuff with the champion sitting back while these rest of the World scrap it out in an extended Candidates knock out is cr@p! All play all, winner takes all is the correct way to decide who is best! Topalov won, he is the best in the world! End of Discussion.
Originally posted by marinakatombI tend to agree with most of what you say. One remark though: playing tournaments and playing matches are two different things. And Kramnik's record in match play is better than Topalov's.
I think Topalov is totally right!! Kramnik isn't in the same league anymore. It's about bloody time they sorted this out. He was invited to play in the World championship tournament and he turned down the offer, that was his mistake. If he genuinely believes he is the strongest player in the world, why the hell didn't he play? This 'Classical' worl ...[text shortened]... correct way to decide who is best! Topalov won, he is the best in the world! End of Discussion.
Having said that, if they had to play (I read about a target next fall) Topalov is who I would have my bet on. Even against Kasparov.
The World Championship title has a clear line from Steinitz to Kasparov, and is accepted by nearly everyone except Bobby Fischer, who still considers himself the champion. (He earned it in 1972, and defended it in 1992.)
Then it becomes murky: Kasparov claims that he held the title until 2000, when he lost it to Kramnik. Now he claims that Topalov has won it through the FIDE system. However, FIDE claims that Kasparov forfeited his title in 1993, leading to a line of champions that succeeded Kasparov--Karpov (1993-1999), Khalifman (1999-2000), Anand (2000-2002), Kasimjanov (2002-2005), and now Topalov. Khalifman and Kasimjanov have never been near the top of the rating list. Topalov, if the ratings came out today, would become the third player to breach the 2800 barrier: Kasparov and Kramnik are the only others.
Kasparov claims that winning the FIDE title and having the highest rating gives the title to Topalov. However, this recent statement undermines much of what he has said in the past, and it undermines the credibility of several assumptions that underlie his My Great Predecessors. Does Kasparov mean to suggest that the world champion has a weak claim to the title any time his rating is not at the top, despite earning the title through a match with the prior champion? Or does the claim to the title lack substance only when the champion falls to number 7?
Topalov does not consider Kramnik in the same league, now, because of the 60 point rating difference. However, before the San Luis event he stated, "Everyone is dangerous. Anyone can win." This statement was in response to the questions, "Which are your favourite players among your seven opponents? And who will be the toughest?" These questions were among the set of ten that all participants answered in a series of interviews prior to the event. The 118 point rating difference between the top players (Anand and Topalov were both 2788 going in) and the bottom (kasimjanov was 2670 going in) was not a critical factor then.
It makes a lot of sense for Topalov, now that he is the FIDE World Champion, to embrace the FIDE system. But the implications of doing so are perilous. For Topalov, it has already produced inconsistencies.
If Topalov is so certain that 60 points puts Kramnik in another league, then accepting the match (if enough money is put forth) offers no risk. He'll crush Kramnik, and the reunification match will solidify his title, giving Topalov another claim to immortality. I suspect that Topalov, or his manager, is scared. "What if I lose to Kramnik?" is a terrible prospect.
Originally posted by marinakatombSo you never considered Kasparov world champion after 1993?
I think Topalov is totally right!! Kramnik isn't in the same league anymore. It's about bloody time they sorted this out. He was invited to play in the World championship tournament and he turned down the offer, that was his mistake. If he genuinely believes he is the strongest player in the world, why the hell didn't he play? This 'Classical' worl ...[text shortened]... correct way to decide who is best! Topalov won, he is the best in the world! End of Discussion.
Originally posted by Mephisto2I agree, an extended match between two players is definately the best way to decide who is best. However, the system that was in place before with the candidates knockout allowed the Holder of the title far too much advantage. A contender has to play lots of games against very strong opposition. Anyone who has sat opposite the champion to play for the World title is at a disadvantage because the champion is a) fresh as a daisy after sitting out for a year before the match and b) has had months to prepare for his opponent who has used up a lot of their theoretical opening novalties to reach the final in the first place. The champion gets o prepare a completely different opening repertoir if they so choose (as Kramnik did against Leko!) This put Leko at a big disadvantage, he didn't have the same sort of time to prepare (Kramnik literally didn't play for a year before the title match).
I tend to agree with most of what you say. One remark though: playing tournaments and playing matches are two different things. And Kramnik's record in match play is better than Topalov's.
Having said that, if they had to play (I read about a target next fall) Topalov is who I would have my bet on. Even against Kasparov.
In an all play all tournament, players (champion included) have to out play multiple opponents. Could it be any fairer than that? Everyone is on a level playing field, winner takes the title. Simple.
Topalov's new found claim that Kramnik isn't in his league is ridiculous. In the Chessbase database there are 62 games played between the two; Kramnik leads 19-9 with 34 draws. They split their six games played in 2005, by far Topalov's best year. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=3&pid=12295&pid2=12089&playercomp=either&movescomp=exactly
The World Championship of chess has been traditionally decided by match play which is, after all, the best indication of who is better as between two players. Kramnik's claim to the title is solid as he defeated Kasparov, the so-called "greatest player of all time", without losing a game. Topalov played an impressive first half of a tournament in San Luis, but a match against Kramnik would be a far different kettle of fish. I understand that many people don't like Kramnik's playing style but that has nothing to do with who is a legitimate champion. Put the two players in a match next year and see who wins; as far as I'm concerned Kramnik is champion until defeated in a match as that is how he and every other champion won the title (except when vacant) - it was an insult to Kramnik to sugest he play in a tournament to determine the "World Championship" (such was never asked of any other Champion). If Kramnik is willing to play Topalov and the latter refuses, he is no Champion.
Originally posted by no1marauderyeah yeah...Topalov is the champion, Kramnik just a strong GM...
Topalov's new found claim that Kramnik isn't in his league is ridiculous. In the Chessbase database there are 62 games played between the two; Kramnik leads 19-9 with 34 draws. They split their six games played in 2005, by far Topalov's best year. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=3&pid=12295&pid2=12089&playercomp=either&movescomp=exactly
...[text shortened]... ther Champion). If Kramnik is willing to play Topalov and the latter refuses, he is no Champion.
Originally posted by no1marauderTopalov defeated Kramnik, logic could suggest he has the ability to beat "the so-called "greatest player in history" in a match without losing a game". Not a guarantee, but one could infer there's a possibility.
Topalov won a tournament, Kramnik defeated the so-called "greatest player in history" in a match without losing a game. Who has the better claim to the World Championship of Chess?