Not that naturally. It was well known that Kramnik had ankylosing spondylitis, a rare and painful form of arthritis that made it uncomfortable to stay at the board. It's also well known that you can't use computer assistance without a computer.

You might want to complain to chessgames, because their own description of the match calls Karpov "the de facto winner".

Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1984/85)

Or like naming a winner after 6 innings because the game is rained out?

Sorry, that doesn't work. The match was called off because the players (really "the player") were exhausted, as I remember.

And as we know, it wasn't as if one player had won some and the other had won some and it was 5-3. Karpov won the first five decisive games, then Kasparov won the next three, including the final two games played.

The World Championship section is funny. Just try to make sense of the rematches and return matches. Alekhine vs Bogo II and Steinitz vs Chigorin II etc are called rematches just like Euwe vs Alekhine II and Kasparov vs Karpov 1986. Then there are also return matches, but the term is not used for the two latest matches. However, it is used for Botvinnik vs Smyslov 1957, while what they played in 1958 is called rematch.

One can also wonder why Kasparov vs Kramnik and Kramnik vs Leko were for the FIDE title, unlike the FIDE Championships being held at the same time. Or who decided why Zukertort became unofficial World Champion in 1879, when he didn’t even play any chess.

That's a head scratcher, but they probably based it on Zukertort winning Paris 1878 (where Steinitz wasn't present), and becoming #1 in the Chessmetrics rankings (although nobody knew it at the time).

Unofficial champions should really be champions by acclamation, people who were widely recognized as being the best of their era, even if people might not know precise dates or events that began or ended it.

Steinitz didn't hold an official World Championship until 1886 because too many people wouldn't have taken it seriously while Morphy was alive. It's widely agreed that Phiidiro, Deschapelles, and LaBourdonnais were the best of their eras. But it seems silly to Saint-Amant "won" it in 1842 and lost it in 1843. News travelled so slowly in those days that few knew he he even had it until he "lost" it.

I don't know about Danailov, but having read Topalov's Toilet War book, I think he really believed it, despite how ridiculous it was. Anybody really going off to use computer assistance might do it at a couple of key points during the game, not 40 or 50 times.

Topalov didn't believe Kramnik had any health issues, saying he'd known him for 20 years, and there hadn't been any (Kramnik was only diagnosed with ankylosing spondilitis in 2005, the year before the match). And, of course, to use computer assistance you have to have a computer. Topalov's entire evidence was that there was electrical wiring in the <ceiling> of Kramnik's restroom (Kramnik didn't have a ladder either, so far as we know). And Topalov is TOTALLY oblivious to the fact that he himself violated the rules horribly by trying to settle his dispute in the court of public opinion. Condemning Topalov for this was the only time in memory that Karpov and Korchnoi agreed on something.

The Toilet War book is a mixed bag. Topalov is petty, petulant, and extremely unobjective about anything to do with Kramnik. But in discussing the chess itself, he's actually a pretty good annotator. Here are some of Topalov's comments on Game 3:

<AFTER 7...Na5: The positions with the knight on a5 did not much inspire my confidence, but my seconds were adamant that Black is always fine.

AFTER 11...Bc5: This was our idea. Now after 12. Nxc6 Qxd3 13. exd3 Nxc6 the weakness of the white d-pawn is compensation for the bishop pair.

AFTER 12. Rd1: Here I realized that my opening choice had been wrong, as Black was not able to get a playable position. After [line given] and the ending reminds me of those we get from the classical line in the Nimzo-Indian with 4. Qc2.>