|Oct-14-08|| ||just a kid: A recently added page to WC saga.Thanks CG!|
|Jan-28-09|| ||amadeus: <Ten years ago, and I bring this up here because it became a chat topic on the ICC during the round, Garry Kasparov introduced a new term into the vernacular of the game: "chess tourist." It was in an article on the Las Vegas FIDE KO championship written for the website that was still called Club Kasparov, later to become KasparovChess. The quarterfinals were about to begin and Kasparov, who spent most of these pieces analyzing games, added a preview. I'll include the whole section for context:|
<So, what do we have now? 3 tourists - Akopian, Movsesian and Nisipeanu. Due to the fact of the match between first two one tourist will travel to the semifinal. Great trip to Las Vegas and good reason to visit Disneyland!
Unpredictable and spontaneous Judith, who is always dangerous for her opponents and sometimes for herself.
Two very strong players Adams and Khalifman both capable of upsetting any favorite.
And on top the main favorites of the event Kramnik and Shirov. The possibility of new match between them looks now quite feasible though on the way to the final no victories are easy in KO championship.>>
|Apr-15-09|| ||WhiteRook48: OK, where are the other knockout games?|
|Oct-03-09|| ||amadeus: Game Collection: 1999 - FIDE World Championship KO Tournament|
|Oct-07-12|| ||Conrad93: How many World Chess Champions are there? Geez!|
|Oct-08-12|| ||dx9293: From 1993 until 2006 there were two World Champions, Classical and FIDE. Kasparov and Short created the Professional Chess Association to rival FIDE, but this and subsequent organizations collapsed. FIDE continued to hold World Championship events. The controversy was that FIDE didn't have the lineal World Champion (Kasparov) competing in their events, but on the other hand after 1995 Kasparov personally picked his Challenger, and there wasn't a fair cycle open to other players to compete for his Classical title.|
Some fans recognize only one line or the other, but others (including me) recognize both.
Since 2006 the titles have been unified again:
|Nov-17-13|| ||Monocle: <dx9293: Some fans recognize only one line or the other, but others (including me) recognize both.>|
For me, the dilemma isn't whether to recognise one line or the other, it's whether to recognise the classical title or view the entire period as an interregnum. I don't know how anyone can recognise the likes of Khalifman or Ponomariov as world champion. The FIDE title was a joke.
|Nov-17-13|| ||Petrosianic: Pono was more credible than Kasim, who was the World's #54 player when he won his FIDE Title in a tournament that was missing 7 of the top 10 players.|
You have to recognize that the FIDE Title existed, and that the world's #1 organization called its holder "World Champion".
And it's a fact that from 1993-2006 there was no Undisputed World Champion; a title holder whose claim was recognized by all GM's.
It's also a fact that FIDE didn't create and doesn't own the World Championship title. Kirsan claims that they do, but the proof that they don't is the fact that they labeled Botvinnik as the 5th World Champion (not the 1st). They admit that they were continuing a title that already existed, not creating a new one.
At the very least, it can be stated with certainty that none of the FIDE Champions were ever the Undisputed World Champion. Conversely everyone in the Steinitz Line was (although Kramnik only was for one year of his reign.
|Nov-17-13|| ||dx9293: As <Petrosianic> says, one must recognize the existence of the FIDE title, especially because there was no chance to obtain the Classical title fairly, since Kasparov personally selected his challenger after the 1994-95 PCA cycle won by Anand.|
If Kasparov had been able to keep a PCA Candidates cycle going for his lineal title, claims that "the FIDE title was a joke" would have more merit.
The point is, both the FIDE and Classical titles had their problems.
|Nov-17-13|| ||Shams: <especially because there was no chance to obtain the Classical title fairly, since Kasparov personally selected his challenger> |
By this logic Steinitz, Lasker et al shouldn't be recognized.
|Nov-17-13|| ||Petrosianic: Well, let's see. In 1993, Kasparov played FIDE's duly selected challenger (Short).|
In 1995 he played the winner of the PCA Candidates (Anand).
In 2000 there was no candidates, but he went first to the highest rated player available (Anand again). When Anand wasn't interested, he eventually played the highest rated player available. Hard to get too worked up about that.
This is where FIDE made their big mistake. When Kasparov and Short jumped, they reacted legalistically, forfeited them both, and tried to hold a "championship match" between two losers. But one of the reasons Kasparov made a successful break is that he defended against the winner of the FIDE Candidates.
What FID should have done is to just allowed Kasparov and Short to play their match, and retained their right to select Kasparov's NEXT challenger. In that case, if Kasparov had refused to play their challenger, it might have looked very bad for him.
|Nov-17-13|| ||dx9293: <Shams> The days of Steinitz and Lasker were the "Wild West"...it's not a fair comparison. FIDE really didn't gain power over World Championship events until Alekhine's death. And thank God they did.|
<Petrosianic> Kasparov's matches with Short and Anand were legitimate, as you say. The problem was "in 2000 there was no candidates." You cannot then just go to the highest-rated players and make a match...that's not a WORLD Championship anymore.
I agree that FIDE could have handled things better...but they were in quite a difficult position, and from their perspective acting "legalistically" was probably the best way to maintain control over the title. They understood very well that Kasparov's influence wouldn't last forever, and that they could take steps to ensure that no one in the future could do what he did.
Your point about FIDE selecting Kasparov's next challenger (after Short) is a very interesting one...I have to give it some thought.
|Nov-17-13|| ||nok: Also, the term "classical" was popularized by Kramnik iirc but it's a bit misleading. Both PCA and FIDE titles were classical until 1999 in that a challenger had to "beat the man". Then FIDE stopped final-seeding the champ.|
|Nov-19-13|| ||Monocle: <dx9293: As <Petrosianic> says, one must recognize the existence of the FIDE title, especially because there was no chance to obtain the Classical title fairly, since Kasparov personally selected his challenger after the 1994-95 PCA cycle won by Anand.>|
One must recognise that FIDE treated the world championship like a brand name, and slapped it on some worthless knockout tournament, but that does not mean acknowledging the winners of such a tournament as peers of Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Fischer, et al.
|Nov-19-13|| ||RedShield: < Petrosianic: Well, let's see. In 1993, Kasparov played FIDE's duly selected challenger (Short).|
In 1995 he played the winner of the PCA Candidates (Anand).
In 2000 there was no candidates, but he went first to the highest rated player available (Anand again). When Anand wasn't interested, he eventually played the highest rated player available. Hard to get too worked up about that.>
<What FID should have done is to just allowed Kasparov and Short to play their match, and retained their right to select Kasparov's NEXT challenger. In that case, if Kasparov had refused to play their challenger, it might have looked very bad for him.>
Problem was that FIDE, especially before the rise of Kirsan, were financially dependent on their 20% cut of the world championship prize fund (an obligation that Short, in particular, objected to). I don't know what sponsorship arrangements were made for the Karpov-Timman match in 1993, but FIDE's financial hit must have been substantial. I doubt they could have bankrolled the next Candidates cycle, especially in opposition to the PCA's own, simply in the hope that Kasparov of all people would throw back his lot in with them.
|Nov-19-13|| ||perfidious: <Monocle>: It is an old story, in that <dx9293> goes into paroxysms of ecstasy whenever Khalifman's name is invoked, ignoring the reality of the quote from the very man himself which is cited above.|
|Nov-24-13|| ||dx9293: <perfidious> You seem to be obsessed with me for some reason, so let me explain this again:|
1. The Knockout tournaments were not the ideal way to select a World Champion. Everyone, including the knockout winners, acknowledges this.
2. After the 1995 Intel/PCA match Kasparov-Anand, there was no chance for anyone except Kramnik, Anand, and (if Kasparov is not lying) Shirov to obtain Kasparov's lineal title. HOW IS THAT A "WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP" WHEN ONLY A MAXIMUM OF THREE PEOPLE CAN CHALLENGE FOR IT?
3. You, me, or anyone else had a chance to become World Champion under FIDE's knockout system if we qualified and earned it. Again, it was not ideal, but it was a true WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, and I don't think it was nearly as awful a format as many people believe.
4. FIDE's format got way more criticism because of who won. Anand did not get nearly the hate for winning in 2000 that Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kasimdzhanov got when they won because in the absence of Kasparov playing, Anand was considered the best player (along with Kramnik).
A lot of fans judge by result and who they think "should" win, and complain about something when upsets happen.
In summary, I think FIDE's system was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of people take the opposite view, that the main thing was to beat Kasparov in a match, process be damned. But I think such handpicked matches in the early 20th century damaged the history of the World Championship much more than adding Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kasimdzhanov to the list of World Champions in a less-than-ideal way. It's a travesty Schlecter had to win by 2 in 1910; that Rubinstein didn't get a chance to play; that Capablanca didn't get to challenge sooner; that Flohr or Nimzowitsch didn't get to participate in a Candidates process; that Fine and Keres were denied the chance to go for Alekhine's crown. Hell, Botvinnik's rematch clauses were dubious at best.
Maybe you can address my arguments, <perfidious>, instead of thoughtlessly tossing out insults.
|Nov-24-13|| ||perfidious: <dx9293: <perfidious> You seem to be obsessed with me for some reason.....>|
Perhaps in your narcissistic world.
In point of fact, our views largely agree, but I refuse to take offensive commentary from others.
|Nov-24-13|| ||Archswindler: I like to view Kramnik's victory in the 2006 reunification match as the victory of the classical line over the FIDE line and thus, as members of the defeated line, the FIDE champions should be struck from the record.|
Either way, Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kazimdzhanov and Topalov will always be second-class champions because, unlike Kasparov and Kramnik, they were never undisputed champion.
<3. You, me, or anyone else had a chance to become World Champion under FIDE's knockout system if we qualified and earned it.>
There has to be something seriously wrong with any format where I have a chance of becoming world champion. The world chess championship shouldn't be conflated with democratic idealism. The riff-raff should simply be excluded, because it devalues the title if one of them flukes their way through and wins it, which is exactly the problem with the FIDE knockout champions.
|Nov-24-13|| ||dx9293: <perfidious> Offensive commentary? And I'm the one who lives in a "narcissistic world?"|
|Nov-24-13|| ||dx9293: <Archswindler: There has to be something seriously wrong with any format where I have a chance of becoming world champion>|
Why? Such formats have been in place from 1948 to 2013, including the cycle that just ended with the Anand-Carlsen match. Anyone could qualify from their zone to the World Cup, and from there the Candidates; a chance to show their stuff even if they aren't rated 2770+. Andreikin and, to a lesser extent, Wei Yi among others showed their caliber whereas they never would have gotten a chance by blindly going by the rating list.
<Archswindler> Please define, in your view, what constitutes "riff-raff" or a "fluke." Then I can address the rest of your post.