Originally posted by zakkwylderThere have always been players with a reasonable possibility of beating the then reigning World Champion. It is certainly quite possible that Topalov would defeat Kramnik in a match, but it is Topalov who is indicating that he won't play Kramnik and not vice versa. This may be (and I hope it is) mere gamesmanship.
Topalov 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.
"World championship and tournament performance are two entirely separate entities. In chess history the World Champion has not always scored brilliantly in tournaments. One could even go as far as to say that this is rather more an exception than a rule. Petrosian, Spassky, and Botvinnik never won too many tournaments, but nobody ever had any doubts as to the legitimacy of their titles." Vladimir Kramnik
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2694
It is as if the champion read my comments here at RHP earlier this morning.
Hmm, this is all news to me. I haven't bothered following chess for years, beginning with the PCA split. Now it's clear that I was correct not to bother. There is utterly no romance in having a tournament decide the champion. I don't give a bleep who's world champion cause they all look the same to me with different names attached. The last champion was kasparov. Everybody afterwards is just a super gm.
A match is the only way. If you don't like candidates matches, eliminate them and have a candidates tournament to decide the contender. And I don't give a bleep about unfair advantages. The champion is entitled to the privilege.
Originally posted by RegicidalIn other words, you agree with Kramnik. He's the one that defeated Kasparov without a loss in 2000.
Hmm, this is all news to me. I haven't bothered following chess for years, beginning with the PCA split. Now it's clear that I was correct not to bother. There is utterly no romance in having a tournament decide the champion. I don't give a bleep who's world champion cause they all look the same to me with different names attached. The last champion wa ...[text shortened]... r. And I don't give a bleep about unfair advantages. The champion is entitled to the privilege.
The claim for who is the world chess champion - tournament champion (Topalov) or match winner (Kramnik) is just the semantic question of question definition, like who is the best runner, 100 meter winner or marathon winner.
Match for title is a marathon that consumes huge quantities of psychic energy: take first match Steinitz against Zukertort, first half was won by Zukertort, but then he began to lose point after point lost (Steinitz won), eventually became sick and died three years later , when many claim that he was so exhausted that true reason of his death was not pneumonia itself, but the great disappointment of the defeat.
Another match - the first duel of Karpov and Kasparov (unlimited number of games, till 6 wins). AT certain point, Karpov lead 5:0 and was short 1 win from defending his title , but he never did.
Kasparov began methodically make draws, using an interesting system, he played exactly the same openings against Karpov, that Karpov played against him, forcing him either to show the best defence to his own analyses or leave the lines. Anyway, a run of more than 20 consecutive draws came, then Kasparov won, again draws, again Kasparov won and when the score was 5:3 match was cancelled ( Karpov already was playing not like himself, and most commentators think, that if the match would be continued, Kasparov would win then, year earlier than it happened in fact ).
So I think that Kramnik wouldn't win in tounament, but he is a better match player than Topalov, and Topalov knows that, take even his results in San Luis - first half 6 wins, one draw and second half 7 draws.
May be he just preserved the more than enough gap, maybe he was more concerned of not losing and finishing without losses at all ( by the way a well-known symptom of chess champions, and a good explanation why he doesn't want to play Kramnik), and may be he just got a bit tired ( then, of course he is not ready for chess marathons).
Originally posted by no1marauderI suspect that Topalov wants to play Kramnik, but now that's he's the FIDE champ, his advisors (who helped get him there) have a lot of influence. They are the ones putting the latest spin on the possibilities of a Kramnik-Topalov match.
This statement by Kramnik says it all:
Should anyone, like Topalov, believe that he is stronger, let him beat me in a match.
Will the flavor of the month have the ballsz to do so???
The whole charade is likely an effort to raise the cash level required to put together the event.
FIDE will do all it can to derail the event if anyone bills it as a reunification. Unless Topalov wins, should the event occur, FIDE will dispute the meaning of the result. The field of chess politics remains as tilted as it was in the Soviet era.