<walker: Mexici will be boring. Without Toppalov it is like a World soccer (football) Cup without Brasil. OR Olimpic basketball tournament without USA. Hope they lose money and a guy from a civilized country becomes FIDE President. It is awfull 17 years after the Cold War the KGB still to run the chess show. >

The KGB is still running the chess show? Russia not a "civilized country"?

In any case, I will TRY to avoid posting any more political stuff in this Chess forum.

Hopefully, Walker will also.

Hi Kibitzers! Can't stay long. After reading the posts I must say I didn't like the tournament format for the World Championship in Mexico either.

But I didn't change my mind about it after the results came in. I routed for Kramnik or Gelfand to take the title.

Yet neither won. I have no complaints about accepting Anand as "THE PRESENT WORLD CHAMPION." He won it by being better than his opponents.

Not only that, he's World Champion according to the rules FIDE layed down prior to the tournament with agreement by "the then" world champion and other players.

Yes, monotitleism has defeated polytitleism!

If you consider the five major tournaments he participated in, counting just his major Soviet opponents: USSR ch. 51 (after a break on nearly three years from chess) - Keres 12/17, Geller & Petrosian 11.5, Smyslov 11, Botvinnik 10, Bronstein & Taimanov 9.5. Budapest 52 - Keres 12.5/17, Geller 12, Botvinnk, Smyslov & Stahlberg 11... Petroisian 9.5 USSR ch. 52 - Botvinnik & Taimanov 13.5/19, Geller 12... Bronstein & Smyslov 10.5... Keres 9.5 USSR ch. 55 - Geller & Smyslov 12/19, Botvinnik, Petrosian & Illivitsky 11.5, Keres & Taimanov 11 Moscow 56 - Botvinnik & Smyslov 11/15, Taimanov 10.5... Bronstein 9.5... Keres 8.5

In all five tournaments Botvinnik played, so did Smyslov and Keres, who were younger and considered stronger. But if you add up the results, he did better than they did! (although Smyslov did pass him twice). He also finished ahead of Bronstein and Taimanov in every tournament they played together (with Taimanov he had a tie-breaking match once). In the three tournaments Botvinnik and Petrosian played together, they got equal results (though Petrosian discreetly avoided Botvinnik's two best tournaments of the period).

Which leaves us with only Geller. In the four tournaments they played together, Geller hgad the edge (he didn't play at Moscow. He might have gotten 10 points there, to keep the score - but that would have been far from easy); he also had the advantage in their direct encounters. But however, Geller didn't do half as well in any other tournament he played at the time - including Interzonals (he did qualify to the Candidates twice, but never was in the very top) and Candidates tournaments. The USSR championsgip of 1954 was really pathetic - in fact, Petrosian did far better than Geller did over this period.

I think it will be balanced: Kramnik's age advantage will be neutralized by Anand's notorious speed of thought. They will both prepare very carefully and I expect a lot of theoretical novelties during the match with games being somewhat decided right from the opening. The outcome will be probably determined by he who makes a difference with Black.

The middlegame favours Anand while Kramnik will be superior in the endgame, especially if he can force early queen exchanges.

The biggest danger for Anand -IMHO-may reside in him trying unsound sharp tactics or suboptimal plans in an effort to upset Kramnik's deep and solid understanding of positions.

After reading a few posts of yours it is quite obvious what makes you miserable. And it is not Red October's avator for sure.

Well, they'll clear up <most> questions. The simplest outcome would be if Anand just won the match outright. It gets more complicated if Anand loses and people argue forever whether he was ever champion at all.

That's a no-brainer--who wouldn't want to have to defeat one player rather than two?>

Of course. It is quite clear why Botvinnik chose the two differing courses of action. In 1948, he was not qualified for a WC match (Euwe, Keres, and Fine all had higher prior claims). Thus Bot needed to organize a tournament for the title. (But managed to kept out all the young guns and other rifraf like Najdorf, Bronstein, Boleslavsky, Szabo, Eliskases, Stahlberg, ...) But in 1951, Botvinnik was the WC and nothing short of a match gave him as good a chance to retain the title.

They didn't. Alekhine was training for a title defense against Botvinnik at the time of his death. It had already been arranged.

AVRO was not a Candidates Tournament, so no claim for Keres or Fine. Besides, any claim that Keres might have had, he lost in the Soviet Absolute Championship.

Euwe, yeah, you could make a case for him. In fact, he was even named Interim World Champion for a few hours in 1946. They could probably have gotten away with an Euwe-Botvinnik match for the title after the war, rather than the tournament.

The Absolute Championship was a tournament held in 1941, to determine which Soviet Player would have the right to challenge Alekhine. Botvinnik was afraid that if he didn't win the Soviet Championship every year that whoever did have the title would try to challenge over him. The Absolute Championship was a 1-time thing that was supposed to settle once and for all, which Soviet player had priority. Botvinnik beat out Keres, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, and the two Soviet Champions, Lilienthal and Bondarevsky. As long as Keres stayed in the Soviet Union, he was behind Boyvinnik in line after that.

If anybody was going to be named champion without play, it should have been Euwe, as the last surviving champion. That's how the US title reverted to Showalter after Pillsbury's death.

Fine claimed that he had been willing to play in the Championship Tournament in 1947 (when it was originally scheduled).

<HWR: Do you think after the AVRO tournament, if Botvinnik had played Alekhine, he could have defeated him in a match?

Reshevsky: I don't think so. Alekhine was still too strong at that time. Especially if he was not drinking.

HWR: How about Keres. Do you think in 1938-1940, Keres could have defeated Alekhine?

Reshevsky: No.

HWR: Why not?

Reshevsky: I don't think he was strong enough.

HWR: Botvinnik has said in his autobiography that he never thought that Keres had what it took to become world champion.

Reshevsky: I would agree with him.

HWR: What do you think Keres lacked to become world champion?

Reshevsky: He was not a great fighter. He was a very strong player, but he was not a great fighter.

HWR: But he was famous for some of his attacking games.

Reshevsky: Yes, that is true, but taken alone, that is not sufficient. His strength lay in attacking, but I don't think he was as strong as some of the other players positionally.

HWR: You have just told me that in the 1938-1940 period, you don't think either Botvinnik or Keres could have defeated Alekhine for the title. How about Fine?

Reshevsky: Certainly not.

HWR: Why not?

Reshevsky: Fine was a fine player, but he was not in the same class with Alekhine.

HWR: That leaves you. And if you played Alekhine in the 1938-1940 period?

Reshevsky: I think at that time I might have had a chance.

HWR: What could you do differently that Botvinnik, Keres or Fine could not?

My apologies for not responding sooner. A 2008 Anand-Kramnik match under (and I rather not use this term but it seems appropriate, "Classic Match time controls") should settle the issue on Anand's talent for match play.