< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 185 OF 194 ·
|Jun-18-12|| ||FSR: <AVRO38 ... Fischer didn't always get his way before becoming champion, that's why he walked out of the 1967 Interzonal tournament while leading, that's why he abandoned the Reshevsky match, that's why he didn't participate in the 1966 championship cycle, that's why he refused to participate in the 1968 Olympiad, etc..So why are you surprised that when he didn't get his way in the match negotiations with FIDE he resigned his title?|
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.
<Many> people had to go to <extraordinary> lengths to get Fischer to play Spassky in 1972 - Ed Edmondson of USCF (who negotiated on Fischer's behalf for months), Benko (who stepped aside so Fischer, who had not qualified for the Interzonal, could play in it), the other players in the U.S. Championship (who had to agree to waive their right to play in the Interzonal when Benko stepped aside), Saidy (Fischer was staying in the Saidy family home, and Saidy persuaded him to go to Iceland and drove him to the airport), Spassky himself (he didn't demand, as the USSR Federation wanted him to do, that Fischer be forfeited when he didn't show up on time for the start of the match, and agreed to play in a different room in game 3), FIDE President Max Euwe (who bent the rules to accommodate Fischer), James Slater (who doubled the prize fund), Chester Fox (who removed the TV cameras that disturbed Fischer), even Henry Kissinger (who called Fischer to urge him to play). Donner correctly predicted that Fischer would not defend his title because all those people wouldn't jump through all those hoops for him again.
|Jun-18-12|| ||FSR: <BishopTakes: @FSR: alexmagnus was talking about undisputed world champions. I dont feel this FIDE world champion title so attractive even though I highly respect Topalov>|
That is a reasonable distinction. I consider Topalov a legitimate champion, and Khalifman/Ponomariov/Kasimdzhanov not, but that is just my view.
|Jun-18-12|| ||Petrosianic: Fischer was very inconsistent on such matters. When he really wanted to play, he would compromise, bend, or even flipflop entirely. When he preferred not to play, he was completely rigid.|
A lot of people predicted he would never play again after winning the title. Donner isn't the only one who figured that out.
|Jun-18-12|| ||Petrosianic: <That is a reasonable distinction. I consider Topalov a legitimate champion, and Khalifman/Ponomariov/Kasimdzhanov not, but that is just my view.>|
What do you mean "legitimate"? Do you mean plausible? (He had some plausible claim to being the best in the world?) A lot of people can say that who never became champion, including Topalov. There was nothing illegitimate as such about Khalifman's victory. He won the tournament fair and square.
|Jun-18-12|| ||Lambda: Khalifman/Ponomariov/Kasimdzhanov won what is effectively the FIDE world cup. Which is nice, but not world championship level. Topalov won what was effectively a strong candidates tournament, but couldn't beat the champion. He belongs in the same bracket as the likes of Bronstein, Korchnoi and Short.|
|Jun-18-12|| ||FSR: <Petrosianic> I agree with <Lambda>'s statement:|
<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.
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. (The toilet debacle was a huge black mark on the match and on Topalov, but OTOH Kramnik was extremely fortunate to score 2/2 in the first two games; 0.5/2 would have been a normal result.) 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.
|Jun-18-12|| ||BishopTakes: Kasparov was afraid of Vlady's opening preparation. Vlady knew Kaspy in and out. Even today if Kaspy challenges Vlady, we can see "who let the pawns out" kind of game.|
|Jun-18-12|| ||Petrosianic: <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.>|
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 don't have to argue it, I'm just trying to get you to explain it. I'm still thinking that by "legitimate" you merely mean "plausible", and your comments about how strong his victory were tend to reinforce that. I'm only pointing out that "legitimate" and "plausible" are two completely different things.
|Jun-18-12|| ||dx9293: As <alexmagnus> said, the FIDE World Championship events were NOT lotteries. Look at the results of Anand, Ponomariov, and also the much maligned Khalifman. Again, these events had all the top players except Kasparov and sometimes Kramnik/Anand, though both of the latter competed in some of the events.|
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.
I can't wait until the 2013 Candidates Tournament. When Carlsen doesn't win, I wonder what the excuses will be then?
|Jun-18-12|| ||BishopTakes: At any rate, Gelfy didn't become WC. However, people in general didn't want to see him as WC either. The reason is he doesn't quite belong to the class of Kramnik/Anand/Topalov. Yes he performs well in WC related events but you can't simply 'screw' Wijk aan Zee and Tal Memorial. Otherwise why Anand was criticised so badly? Kaspy was right when he told WC should also be the strongest player on the planet. You can't simply say "well I will focus on WC events alone. I don't care supertournaments. I don't care what my world ranking is"|
|Jun-19-12|| ||ahmadov: <BishopTakes> Then all this leads to the question "how should the world champion be identified". The solution should be rationale and fair, but different people may suggest different solutions. In general, I think FIDE's solution does not seem too bad.|
|Jun-19-12|| ||Petrosianic: <What the hell is all this stuff about "real" world champion?>|
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.
When the Cardinals won the World Series in 2006 with a .516 winning percentage, did anybody dare say "they're not really the champions because they didn't impress ME enough."? Nah. Because even sports fans don't take themselves that seriously. Some chess fans, on the other hand...
|Jun-19-12|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <To become World Champion, you have to win an official World Championship competition (Match, Tournament, or Knockout). >|
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.
(Counter note: Had Gelfand won it via rapids, then I would still say that he is World Champion, but that he is holding a 'devalued' Title.)
|Jun-19-12|| ||Petrosianic: <For me, the institution of the Chess World Championship is NOT a creation of FIDE.>|
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.>
Of course. One look at the champions they produced is enough to show that. Anything can happen in a Best of 2 match, which is the whole point. Everybody has a chance, the best players as well as the not best.
|Jun-19-12|| ||RookFile: Actually, the London Rules in the late 1920's laid the framework for world championship play, and this framework involved match play only and not tournaments.|
|Jun-19-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: <Of course. One look at the champions they produced is enough to show that. Anything can happen in a Best of 2 match, which is the whole point. Everybody has a chance, the best players as well as the not best.>|
Of course, except that Anand has already defended the title 3 times.
|Jun-19-12|| ||Shams: <Petrosianic><I half suspect that computers have killed match play. This most recent match lends some credence to that idea.>|
Why would engines be more of a threat to chess in match format than tournament?
|Jun-19-12|| ||BishopTakes: As noted by Vishy in his chessvibes.com interview, the real reason this WC match wasn't too intersting is that the style and preparation of both the participants were similar. In Bonn Vishy went for fireworks, in Sofia Topa pulled the trigger. Moscow was all about safe chess. But I don't think computers make the WC match boring. May be we can see fireworks in upcoming WC in case Chuky/Carlsen/Aronian qualify.|
|Jun-19-12|| ||alexmagnus: <One look at the champions they produced is enough to show that.>|
One look at their results in the nearby KOs is enough to refute that.
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).
Kasimdzhanov: the only disputable case. Many top players didn't take part in that KO. And the ones who did were eliminated directly by Kasimdzhanov.
|Jun-19-12|| ||alexmagnus: As for the world cups afterwards:
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.
All of them eliminated Ponomariov on their way :)
|Jun-19-12|| ||RookFile: In 1992, Fischer and Spassky played a match where time was added to the clock after each move. It was a novelty at the time.|
Today, it's commonplace.
|Jun-19-12|| ||Petrosianic: <Why would engines be more of a threat to chess in match format than tournament?>|
It might make it easier to focus on one player's playing style. That's the theory, at least. It might be wrong.
|Jun-19-12|| ||AVRO38: <RookFile:In 1992, Fischer and Spassky played a match where time was added to the clock after each move. It was a novelty at the time.|
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.
Take all these factors together and Fischer-Spassky II is really the starting point of the post-modern chess era.
|Jun-19-12|| ||alexmagnus: <That's correct, and the clock they used was invented and patented by Bobby Fischer.>|
Patented maybe, but it was not Fischer's idea. Fischer only popularized it. It's not certainly known who came up with the idea, but Bronstein is often called the original author of it.
|Jun-19-12|| ||Petrosianic: And even Bronstein didn't invent it. The idea derives from draughts time limits, and from Rapid Transit Chess (taking "so many seconds per move" and making it cumulative). But Fischer was the first one to have made a prototype clock that would actually use those limits under tournament conditions.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 185 OF 194 ·