It did not take long before the off the board battle between Anand and Kramnik begins. Here are some of Anand’s comments after he read the comments by Kramnik.
B Shrikant, Hindustan Times
Mumbai, November 03, 2007
First Published: 02:08 IST(3/11/2007)
Last Updated: 03:53 IST(4/11/2007)
Kramnik says he has lent Anand the crown; champ laughs it off
Long after the bitter days of rivalry between Kasparov and Karpov, another chess star war seems to be in the offing.
Vladimir Kramnik, dethroned as the FIDE world chess champion by Viswanathan Anand, has passed disparaging comments against the Indian star, who has retaliated strongly.
In a recent interview to the Russian newspaper Izvestia, Kramnik said that he has “lent the title temporarily to Anand”. He added that he would accept Anand as the champion only if Anand wins their rematch next year.
“OK, on paper Anand may be world champion, but from my point of view, there is a difference in significance between a title won in a match and in a tournament,” Kramnik said. “For me, the forthcoming match with Anand is more important. If I lose that, I will accept completely the fact that I have lost the title.”
Kramnik’s comments re-ignite the debate over the best format for the event, apart from showing Kramnik in a poor light, for he had acknowledged Anand as the champion soon after the World Championship in Mexico in late September.
Anand has suggested that Kramnik’s argument was based on mere technicalities.
Anand reacted strongly to Kramnik’s comment and told HT: “He is trying to make the most of the political patronage he enjoys from the FIDE. Kramnik’s position seems like a legal explanation of a situation arising from the political patronage.”
“Who the best player in the world is decided on the board,” Anand said over the phone from Chennai. Kramnik also claimed that his rematch with Anand – a gift guaranteed to the Russian by the FIDE even before the Mexico event – would be played in September 2008 in Germany. Kramnik told Izvestia that sponsors and organisers were already in place and contracts would be signed within a month. Anand refuted these claims and said nothing had been decided as yet.
Source: Hindustan Times
Go Anand! Show him who’s King!
“It did not take long before the off the board battle between Anand and Topalov begin.”
Priceless introduction of this post.
I tend to agree with Kramnik that a MATCH is what should determine the World Champion. I saw this tournament as having exactly this unfortunate potential to UN-unify the title. Only a Kramnik win in the tourney followed by a fresh candidates cycle, etc., would have kept the title unified. However, once the “rematch” is over, I think we may finally have some clarity (unless FIDE messes it up again with elimintation tourneys and fast time controls).
I agree with Kramnik.
Winning the world title through a standard tournament is a farce of gigantic proportions. Why not just take the winner of Linares or wijk to be the world champion?
If Anand beats Kramnik in a match then only then will I consider him to be the world champion.
It doesnt matter what you and me feel, champions are not decided by what people think or rather ‘feel’.
Thats why we have official governing bodies, which all players have to adhere to.
If Kramnik doesnt agree, then he should go the Kasparov (1993) way.
Then why did he participate in the championship tournament in the first place.
Either you obey (FIDE) or break away, it doesnt make sense to pass comments after everything is over and you lose your crown.
-Asim
It’s likely many of the top players participate in less-than-optimal WCC formats for several reasons: 1) for the money, 2) for the fans [we all want a unified champ, right?], 3) the “Kasparov (1993) way” is hardly popular, etc..
Just because we have been doing things in a certain manner does not mean that is the best way to do it. Russians have seen a long history of dictatorship and czarist type of rules, continuing on to the current policies of Putin. I suspect this mentality of having one leader replaced by another come naturally to them.
It is high time to change this mentality to the more democratic system, where a champion is determined in a tournament amongst leading players. We have countless examples of extremely successful and well praised systems (soccer, tennis, basically all Olympic sports). Professional boxing maybe the only exception and taking recourse to this one bad example does not justify the old-match format for chess champions.
It is time to change our thinking for the better and adopt the Mexico championships as the best ideal format for a World Championship.
– cube.
Kramnik has stirred a hornet’s nest with his comments. He should have kept quiet instead of saying Anand is a paper champion. If you are quiet and dignified, Anand usually plays to avoid controversy. Now looks like Kramnik has woken a sleeping tiger. No match now.
Chess MUST be returned to CLASSICAL with 4 year reigns of champions, with adjourned games. Who cares about chess engines, they can’t even see proper mates, and tablebases are rumored to be flawfull. Only then will dignity be restored fully.
“*It did not take long before the off the board battle between Anand and Topalov begin.*”
Classic example of a Freudian slip.
Susan, now you’ve got explaining to do. It seems that thing you had for Topalov was not just about his chess afterall (wink)
That is really funny! I was going over Topalov’s game vs. Karpov and I guess his name stuck in my head. Thanks for pointing it out.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.ChessDiscussion.com
Kramnik has stirred a hornet’s nest with his comments. He should have kept quiet instead of saying Anand is a paper champion.
I forecasted all this last year, right after Kramnik defeated Topalov.
The setup was a “given”. Why would Kramnik, who didn’t recognize the FIDE world champs BECAUSE they were the result of round robin tournaments, and not one on one matches, recognize the winner in 2007?
Let’s just hope that Anand will play Kramnik next year and this absurd illogical setup could end once and for all.
Too much lamentation from both sides. What the next steps would be was already made clear and agreed on before Mexico. Now lets hope it really does happen, and neither Anand (who semms reluctant) nor FIDE (whom I consider as unreliable as always) mess everything up again.
And while Kramnik’s remark about the value of Anand’s title was probably a little undiplomatic, he’s basically simply right.
They said the winner of Mexico is the new champ.
All players accepted.
Anand won.
Anand is champion.
It’s quite easy. 🙂
So many people not accepting a champ found in a chess world championhip tournament…
For you I have some new ideas of finding the champ:
* elections
* or drawing lots
* or playing ludo
What do you think?
We don’t need new ideas. We need to get back to the tried-and-true. 🙂
If Kramnik wanted to be WC today he should have scored more points in Mexico. Why should Anand have to win two events to become ‘real’ WC?
Kramnik couldn’t win in Mexico, so Anand took away the title.
I hope this is just some posturing for the Indian press. The entire format for reunification of the title and return to match play is based upon the winner of the Mexico tournament playing a match soon after the tournament. Either with Kramnik as the automatic challenger, or with kramnik as the tournament winner having to defend in a match immediately against Topalov.
If Anand tries to back out of this he is no longer champion in any real sense of the word. The entire reunification map accepts that matches are superior to tournaments, that is what Kramnik said and that is what Anand must accept until the match is played.
The entire chess world should be grateful to Kramnik for agreeing to jump-start reunification and play in Mexico. Clearly, had Mexico not being scheduled already as a WC tournament, it would have been changed to a Candidates Tournament and the winner would be the first challenger to Kramnik for the first undisputed WC match in many years. Due to Kramnik’s good will Anand may be called WC and not The Official Challenger, but in reality we are in fact in an odd period and Anand will need to win a match to be taken seriously by all.
-Ken
blah blah…
btw: the interview was in russian…
tons of natural born russians here around, aren’t they? lol
Kramnik talked about his OWN psychological preparation for the upcoming match with Anand in this interview …
Those who can read should read – it helps – for sure – and not only sometimes!
I must agree with Toileter Kramnik.
Anand has to play him.
Matter of fact he doesn’t have to
beat him at all (but he will,don’t you worry about that).
Drawn match will also sequre his title,becouse now it’s the Toileter who has to beat him and regain the title.
Kramnik has enough time to perfect his ‘Toilet’ tactics. For a start he has commenced talking ‘shit’. I respected Kramnik but now that is fading away. Also can someone tell me by what qualification did Kramnik get the right to challenge Kasparov in the first place. That right belonged to Shirov. But it seems that Kramnik was to be the next WC by default. Probably all prearranged as Kasparov wanted time off to dance with Putin.
I personally prefer a match system to determine the WC but when it comes to relevancy of who is the real champion between Kramnik and Anand I will have to go against Kramnik. His only claim to fame is beating Kasparov after he lost to Shirov. There was no proper candidates match with all the top players involved. Anand on the other hand was involved in a system which included all the top players which he won fair and square.
Read opinions from several GMs here – http://www.e3e5.com/article.php?id=1496
Sorry Anand, but Kramnik is simply right, a match is a match, any top player could win a “WC tournament”.
The Tournament and the Match formats prove the same thing. If Bobby Fischer had won the title in a tournament that Spassky was in it would have generated the same interest around the world. The tournament format would have ensured that Fischer’s antics would have stopped as the tournament would have gone on without him.It also prevents the likes of Alekhine avoiding a match with the clearly superior Capablanca. In a match there can be luck as one of the opponents feels ill it will effect the score. In a tournament the luck is spread out and plays no factor!
Viva Anand! Boo to Kramnik, may he rot in the toilet!!!
(soccer?)
That’s a team. Not an individual. Nor are football, baseball, badmitton or volleyball, good analogie’s to chess. Not even close.
Boxing describes Chess.
Perhaps Tennis. You stand head to head and bash it out. Climb to the top, or descend into the glacier when you fail.
Annand didn’t beat the world champion, but only drew him. Now he is World champion because he beat some other guys in a tournament, but he didn’t beat Kramnik a single game. They had “gentlemen’s” agreements, contracts, deciding all kinds of things, okay. We all know this. But he also agreed to play Kramnik next year. I don’t like FIDE either, but they both agreed.
One on one is the only way to determine the better player in the final result. The rules should not be easy as the modern day cry baby wishes. It should be tough. Cramer rules. 9-9, or how about the 1983 rules? Hard, the cruel way. No faking, but crying. Just fight and see if you have it.
More luck involved in a match vs a tournament? Huh?! Even in a double-round robin, you’re only playing the guy you’re trying to dethrone twice. And what if the champ wins both his games against the tournament winner? Indeed, it seems to me the shorter match lengths that have been creeping in are also an affront to the statistics. Tournaments are good for choosing challengers by indicating who’s hot. And a WCC placing second is, of course, always news, but it’s hardly proof the victor is stronger.
Blazerdoodle your point that Anand did not beat the world champion Kramnik runs both ways. Kramnik did not beat Anand.
Also legitimacy of Kramnik’s crown is in question. Was Kramnik ever the WC.
I am so sick of hearing “only a match will determine the champion” blah blah blah. The quality of tournament games is much higher than match games. I really do not want to see a bunch of draw lines.
The “proper method” for determining champion? Nothing. Chess does not need a champion. Tennis and golf do just fine without one. Tournaments are exciting and produce good quality play where people actually do something other than try to make draws with Black.
Every couple of years we go through this garbage of trash talking between would-be champions. Enough of this nonsense!
-Justin Daniel