Fischer was always consistent. His refusal to defend his title on FIDE's terms is what anyone familiar with his career would expect. It should come as no surprise that when FIDE rejected Fischer's terms he simply told them to take a hike.>

Absolutely right. Fischer also refused to play in the 1958 Munich Olympiad because the USCF refused his demand to play first board ahead of Reshevsky. He also refused to play in some of the U.S. Championships when his demands weren't met.

<Khalifman/Ponomariov/Kasimdzhanov won what is effectively the FIDE world cup. Which is nice, but not world championship level.>

Topalov won under a completely different, and IMO much fairer, system. He decisively won a very strong DRR, by 1.5 points, undefeated, scoring 1.5/2 against six of the seven other competitors, and two draws against Anand. Kramnik was invited to play, but chose not to. Had Kramnik played, I doubt he would have won - though obviously we'll never know. Kramnik is of course an extremely strong player, but IMO his biggest strength is being the only top-level player whom Kasparov couldn't handle.

I agree with you in preferring the San Luis format over the FIDE Lottery, but you're losing me after that. Are you saying that the margin of victory was relevant to the legitimacy of the tournament? That Topalov was world champion because he won by 1.5 points, but might not have been if he'd won by only a half point, or something of that nature?

<Kramnik was invited to play, but chose not to.>

Why should he have? He had a signed agreement from FIDE calling for a completely different event. Reasonably, after Kasparov forfeited the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match, it should have resulted in a Kramnik-Kasimdzhanov unification match. I submit that FIDE's signing of the Prague Agreement calling for a completely different event <automatically> made San Luis illegitimate as a title event.

In the end though, it worked out all right. All they did was hold a tournament in which Kasim's spot was up for grabs. Kramnik didn't object, so I see no problem with that. It was a little unfair to Kasim, but he didn't object either, so I'm fine with it.

<When Topalov and Kramnik later met in the 2006 reunification match, I would say they played on roughly level terms, though Kramnik managed to win in the rapid games.>

He won in the Classical games too, despite having one less White. Not that it really matters. The title was unified in that match, and Kramnik became Undisputed Champion. Topalov never did.

I agree with you that Kramnik was lucky to win those first two games. But that's chess. The flipside to Topalov's brilliance is a tendency to self-destruct in positions like those.

<As I said, my opinion that Topalov is a somewhat legitimate world champion while Khalif/Pono/Kasim are not is just my view, and probably a minority one; I am not going to argue with those who disagree.>

You know, about a week ago I was talking to a strong master who I highly respect, and told him that I was rooting for Gelfand in this match, mainly because I wanted casual fans to think twice before worshipping the rating list. He said something that shocked me: if Gelfand won, he said, he would not be the "real" World Champion.

What the hell is all this stuff about "real" world champion? So if someone has a lower rating or is not popular, he can't be a real world champion?? Even if they win fair and square? This kind of logic sickens me. So we should simply open the WORLD Championship up to a handful of people, and let no one else in the WORLD compete for it. Ranked #20 in the world? Patzer! You don't have the "pedigree" to be champ!

It's all very simple: a World Championship competition has to be theoretically open to anyone in the world. The FIDE World Championships of 1997/98, 1999, 2000, 2001/02, and 2004 fit this criteria, though it is true in 2004 there was the Libya problem. The subsequent Championships had qualification spots for anyone in the World through the World Cup. That makes them 100% legitimate to me, even if the format was not ideal (which is debatable).

To become World Champion, you have to win an official World Championship competition (Match, Tournament, or Knockout). No extra credit for being popular or having a high rating.

The perception of Gelfand is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Yeah, he doesn't have the highest rating. But how many times has the guy proved himself in World Championship events? It's not a coincidence! It's not that Anand wasn't up to par! Gelfand peaks for the most important events; screw Wijk aan Zee and the Tal Memorial. But most people don't want to admit that.

Ego. People see themselves as the final arbiters, and the actual results merely suggestsions. Like this is college football, and they're the only writers who get to vote.

This is where we completely disagree with each other <dx9293>. We both know this already though (",). My stand on the institution of the Chess World Championship is found in my profile.

For me, the institution of the Chess World Championship is NOT a creation of FIDE. It has existed long before there was FIDE; and it has always been decided by a match. The match form itself came into being after nearly 400 years of chess history wherein various claimants vied for the status as being the top dog of chess. There are pertinent reasons why the match form came into being, after so many centuries, that cannot be ignored. I think the foremost reason is unalterably linked to the nature of chess itself- chess in its essence is a board mental game between two players, and two players alone. Given that essential nature of chess, the idea that the title of World Champion of the world must be given to a player who gains that title through one-on-one matchplay evolved and became reality in the late 1800s. Tournaments for the title of World Champion will not satisfy a chess world that has already evolved away from this format more than a hundred years ago.

FIDE in fact has tried to bring back this idea of a world championship tournament (which from a certain point of view has been atavistic for more than a century already), and failed. Resoundingly I would say, as can be seen from the reaction of most of the citizens of the chess world. I hope FIDE will never try to do so again; or engage in any action that would weaken the institution of the world championship.

<the FIDE World Championship events were NOT lotteries.>

To a certain degree, and IMO to a large extent, they were lotteries. Luck plays such a huge role in two rounder KOs. Naturally the better players will also tend to have more chances; I see this as your point. But it does not invalidate the previous point at all.

<a World Championship competition has to be theoretically open to anyone in the world.>

I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, IMO ideally the qualification process for the Candidates should not include seeded players at all, except for the possible exception of the previous loser of the WC match. Every one should be made to qualify for the Candidates via Interzonals or World Cup.

The problem IMO is that the World Cup, being mostly two-rounder KOs, does resemble to a certain degree a lottery. The old Interzonals were so much better. FIDE should go back to Interzonals, whether they comprise 3 big round robin tournaments or a large Swiss event.

<The perception of Gelfand> Again we agree here. As bad as the qualifier formats were, he did win through them, and had he beaten Anand in the WC match, I would deem Gelfand as the World Champion, and a very real one.

You say "for me", as though the statement is your own personal preference. But FIDE admits thehy didn't create the title. That's why why called Botvinnik the 5th champion, rather than the 1st.

<It has existed long before there was FIDE; and it has always been decided by a match.>

Before FIDE, it always had been, but there was never any rule stating that it had to be that way. When Lasker resigned his title in 1920, there was talk of having a tournament to replace him, which probably would have happened if he hadn't agreed to play the match after all. Matches are preferable, but not absolutely required.

However, from my own point of view (and this really is subjective) is that the whole point of a champion is having someone who's "The Man" to beat. If you can become champion without beating the man (as is the case in a tournament), I'd rather just abandon championship events altogether, and declare that the World #1 was automatically world champion, which is how half the public seems to see it already.

I half suspect that computers have killed match play. This most recent match lends some credence to that idea.

<To a certain degree, and IMO to a large extent, they were lotteries.>

One look at their results in the nearby KOs is enough to refute that.

Once more:

Khalifman: won 1999, lost <to the winner> in 1997 and 2000 (funnily, the winner in both cases was Anand who didn't play in 1999)

Anand: won twice, lost in the semis third time

Ponomariov: won in 2002, lost <to the winner> in <every> following KO competition (2004 he didn't take part).

Aronian - for him that World cup was the start of the big rise.

Kamsky: a peak of his comeback.

Gelfand: won as the top-seed.

Svidler: yet to see what he produces at the Candidates.

Today, it's commonplace.>

That's correct, and the clock they used was invented and patented by Bobby Fischer. That was one of the big stories surrounding the match at the time.

I believe it was also the first match without adjournments, another one of Fischer's demands for the match that has now become commonplace.

Add to all this the fact that the huge match prize was one of the reasons that Kasparov and Short left FIDE, falsely assuming that they could garner as much cash as Fischer and Spassky. What followed was 13 years of chess chaos.