Picture by our friends at Europe Echecs
Juett and Topalov ended draw
(Sofia, 6 May 2008) The demonstrative game between Veselin Topalov and Jason Juett ended in a draw on the 51st move. In this match the 19th World Champion played without seeing the board against the American that won last year’s edition of the game Play like Topalov on the web site of the super tournament M-Tel Masters http://www.mtelmasters.com/.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
I’m a little surprised that Topalov couldn’t win.
Topa was blind folded he couldn’t see Danailov give him hints.
Silly rabbit!
On a serios note, Topalov was never the “World Champion.” He was the FIDE champion. Everyone who knows about chess knows what Kasparov’s break from FIDE meant. And, everyone knows that at that time in the early ’90’s, Kasparov was the strongest player in the world.
So, only those that defeated Kasparov can be considered legitimate “World Champions.” All the others were “FIDE Champions.”
I mean, do you really think that GM Karpov was the reall and true “World Chess Champion” in the 1990s’ when he held the FIDE title?
Seems rather strange doesn’t it.
I’ve seen on this blog Topalov described as the “FIDE Champion” only, while Kramnik was considered the “World Champion” prior to the unification match.
I have nothing against any of the FIDE champs…nor the heirs of Kasparov. But, for the sake of history, this needs to be cleared up.
In the 1300’s we had multiple Popes both claiming utlimate authority and that their “side” was right.
Even in many current chess books the author(s) make a clear distinction between the FIDE champions and the “heirs of Kasparov.”
So, for this blog, who is correct since I have ove the past two years seen contradictory statement concerning this old “battle” as to who was the true WCC in the 1990’s.
Can we clear this up for the sake of those that only began keeping up with chess news AFTER the events that led to the Kasparov/FIDE split.
I know GM Polgar– will not answer nor give an opinion–…as she rarely does. But, the many readers can tender their opinions….but, I hope, sincerely, if anyone answers this to do it in a polite manner.
Thank you.
Topalov was never the world champion. He was only the FIDE Champion for a short time period. Yet, there’s no confusion now…we have a single WCC and everyone realizes, despite FIDE politics, that only those that could defeat Kasparov in the 1990’s can ever be considered the true World Chess Champion.
All the others were just FIDE Champions and that is a completely different level than defeating Kasparov during the early 1990’s.
For Karpov to be considered the true WCC (though he wast he FIDE champ) in the early to mid ’90’s he would have had to have another match against Kasparov and DEFEAT him….but he didn’t, he couldn’t, and it’s all FIDE’S fault for causing that terrible mess tto begin with.
In very simple terms: the “FIDE” champs were never, never the true World Chess Champions. Only those that came after defeating Kasparov were the true and definitive World Chess Champion.
And that’s just the way it is.
“bla-bla-blah-blah-blah-world champion-bla-bla-blah-FIDE champion-blah-bla-bla….” is my concise and extremely accurate summary of the two posts above. glad i could help the blog readers by making it succinct and crystal clear for them.
Leave it to an anonymous dolt to bring down the conversation to American Idol levels.
blah-blah-blah. I’m sure that is what your spouse hears every time you spout off on some subject you know nothing about.
Now this was a fascinating discourse of various opinions.
It seems to me that following the logic the last World Champion in the lineage from Steintz ended with Alekhine, then we had FIDE world champions ending with Bobby Fischer. Then we had Karpov who became the first de facto FIDE champion since he won the title politically and not over the chess board and was followed by Kasparov and Kramnik who eached defeated the previous FIDE champions in over the board play at least. When Kasparov broke away from FIDE and played Short/Anand FIDE had their string of FIDE champions. I personally do not put Anand and this string of FIDE champions in the same league and the Steinitz to Alekhine string and then FIDE Botvinnik to Fischer string. I would thirdly put Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik as the last string with some sort of lineage to Steinitz. Hopefully after the Kamsky/Topalov and Kramnik/Anand matches and their respective winners meet we shall again have a World Champion we can respect.
Besides the blindfold, was he given a cigarette?
Frank W. Lawrence
Maybe if he hadn’t had the head injury, Topolov could’ve won.
Sam in Lubbock
I agree. I think he wanted to come back too soon after his forehead surgery. But a draw is not such a bad result. Let’s see what he does in the Mtel masters.
I couldn’t agree more with the two entries saying that Topalov was never World Champion. I mean, 19th world champion….! It’s a complete joke! In this logic, I guess Khalifman was the 14th world champion and several others that noone ever remembers were in between…
As has already been said, there are exactly 14 (or 15, if you are willing to accept Anand) world champions in the history of chess and that’s it! I REALLY cannot understand why some people try to destroy the glorious history of chess by inflating it with dummy world champions… It’s not good for the game we all like!
1) The article has very litle to do with the “FIDE champion vs. World champion” discussion.
2) What is your authority to decide who was and who wasn’t the “real” champion? If you have no authority, then keep your opinion to yourself because we don’t care what you, “an average Joe”, think who is and who isn’t the world champion.
3) Define what it means to be a champion (in ANY sport). If you don’t know, I will tell you. The world champion is always the person who wins the game/match/tournament/race/whatever that is named “world championship”. The world champion is always the one who was best AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT in that precise game/match/tournament/race/whatever. Get it? you don’t have to be generally the best, you only have to be best at that moment to become the world champion.
What led me to bring this topic up is the description of Topalov as the “19th World Champion.” He was not. Also, whenever GM Khalifman is mention on this blog he is NEVER referred to as a former “World Champion.” By no means whatsoever do I mean any disrespect towards Topalov. I’m merely stating that many chess authors clearly make a distinction between “FIDE Champions” and “World Chess Champions” after Kasparov.
So, why should Topalov be considered the 19th “World Champion” and not Khalifman be called a “Former world champion” rather than just GM Khalifman?
This is an important topic for the sake of history. I am not making it up when I say that in certain chess books that list all the World Champs, they list the FIDE champs in a different category.
And for “Anon” May 6 7:41pm….why use such childish responses? I said nothing bad about any of the FIDE Champions. I merely said they should not be called “World Champions.” And, I believe most would concur that the string of FIDE champs in the ’90’s are not real “World Champions.”
And to “anon” May 7 3:35am, using your definition of “World Champion,” tell me, who is the real World Heavyweight Boxing Champion right now? You have so many organizations in that sport that have a “World Champion” how do you choose which is the real and true World boxing champ?
So, Topalov was the former FIDE champ. If he is to be considered “World champion” then the other FIDE champs should all be call “former World Champs,” also…yet you don’t see this here on this blog.
Topalov was not the 19th “World Champion.” he was the “FIDE Champion” and even during the Topalov/Kramnik match he was referred to as FIDE Champ.
Tehnically and legaly there is no other chess world champion except the FIDE world champion.
You need a worldwide accepted organization which governs the competition called “world championship”. There is and never was any kind of worldwide chess organization except FIDE. Champion’s title is not something any player can own and dictate how, when and against whom he is going to defend it. It just doesn’t work this way.
So technically and legaly Kasparov ceased to be world champion in 1993 (thus Kramnik couldn’t win any championship). Kasparov could have (and did try) to organize another worldwide chess organization whose champion he could have been (or was), but at best he ceased to be anykind of world champion when PCA collapsed. Again, the world champion title is not something a chess player can own. A worldwide organization is needed. He was just “lucky” that he was worldwide recognized as the best player. something Kramnik failed to do. Kramnik’s claim would have no value if Kasparov wasn’t such a superstar.
So technically and legally there have been just 13 (FIDE) world champions: Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov and Topalov.
Everything that was before that was unofficial and on informal basis. There were no rules (although some attempts were made) who, how and when could challenge the world champion. Nothing wrong with that, and most experts agree that this informal system did on the whole produce “world champions” that were trully the best players of that time, but you have to undersand that everything was informal and can’t be official. It’s not like they had another choice anyway, since no worldwide organization existed at that time.
Oh yes, about boxing.
They are all world champions (each under different organization).
Who is the best? I really don’t know, because I don’t follow boxing that much.
But again – you don’t have to be the best to be a world champion. there are lots of examples when some athlet dominated, but never won the world championship (or olympic games).
For example: Hicham El Guerruj dominated the 1500 m race, broke the world record multiple times and was practically undefeated from 1995 to 2001. I believe the only two races he lost in that period were in Atlanta 1996 and Sydney 2000 – yes both Olympic races.
So he was by a large margin the best 1500 m runner of that time, yet he wasn’t an Olympic champion.
Thats what I’m talking about. You don’t have to be the best, ou only have to win at the right moment to become a world or olympic champion. And vice versa, being the best, doesn’t necessarly mean that you are/will be the world champion.
It’s the same in chess. Was Khalifman the best chess player in 1999. Most likely not, but he was the (only) world champion because he won the tournament that was called “world championship”.
P.S.: Luckilly for Hicham, he managed to crown his career in 2004 when he was past his prime.
One more thing.
As I mentioned, and if you like it or not, FIDE is the only organization that can crown a world champion.
Fact that FIDE is more like Kirsan’s private organization, incompetent, corrupt, biased, and that it can’t come up with a decent cycle that would satisfy everybody – thats a whole new story for another discussion 🙂
You make a good argument and I respect your opinion. Yet, why do so many authors make such a clear distinction between FIDE Champs and the heirs of Kasparov. For example, GM Patrick Wolf on page 301 in his book “Idiots Guide to Chess” states that: “Between 1993 and 1995 the PCA had lined up a prestigious sponsor in the intel corporation. During that time, the PCA held TWO World Championship matches….but most chess players regarded the PCA World Championship as the ‘true’ cycle, because Garry Kasparov was indisputably the best player in the world.”
OK. For at least 2 years you had the PCA which was recognized by many of the chess elite, including Super-GM’s. Even though the PCA collapsed, many in the chess world regarded Kasparov and his followers as the World champ.
A championship title is only as good as the faith people, as a whole, have in it. More people had faithin Kasparov and his opponents..thus, they were the true world champs.
It’s listed as such in dozens of books. I’m not making it up.
Or, is it possible that in reality there were no “true” world champions during the mid-90’s? I don’t think hardly anyone would agree with this. It’s just a matter of agreeing upon who the WCC really was.
I have no doubt that it was Kasparov’s chess ability, popularity and his famous contenders during the life of the PCA that led many to regard him and his opponents as the true WCC and WCC contenders.
It’s akin to how people perceive things. In geo-politics the government of China does not recognize the government of Taiwan as “legitimate.” Yet, most all nations today recognize Taiwan’s government as it’s true governemnt.
At least for two years ’93 to ’95 the PCA was official and recognized and had two WCC cycles. It was legitimate in the eyes of many in the chess community. It doesn’t matter why but there are people far more knowledgeable than me that agree that only those that followed Kasparov were the true World Chess Champion.
There were no “unofficial” champions in the ’90s. You had the World Champion and the FIDE champion until the unification match between Topalov and Kramnik. If Topalov had truly been the “world champ” then there would never have been a need for a unification match. Thus, it’s obvious that lot’s of people didn’t recognize FIDE champs as the true World Champ. So, if there was a true WCC in the ’90’s it was those that defeated Kasparov.
That’s my interpretation along with many others in the chess community, GM’s, and chess authors (who are often GM’s themself).
I don’t know is the “glass half full or half empty?”
But, I do look forward to your response. You make sound arguments and it is such discussions that make forums such as this fun. That is, it’s OK to “agree to disagree.”
Many Thanks,
Jason did fantastic job staying in the game. Topalov playing blindfold is at least 2200 FIDE strength.
Michael Langer
I have to agree with the blah blah blah guy.
Has anyone found a link to the actual game?
It would be nice to see the moves and the final position.
Umm, faust333 why don’t you try the official MTel site???
I can ask you the same thing: Why did we need the unification match if Kramnik was regarded as the true world champion?
Yes, Kasparov was PCA world champion from 1993 until 1995 or 1996 when PCA colapsed. But then his title ceased to exist together with PCA. He was still widely recognized as the best chess player, but he had no title. It’s obvious that the whole “Classical world champion” title was only based on his persona – there was no organization behind it. Like in the “good old days” he decided when, where and against whom he will defend his “title”. Kramnik didn’t inherit anything when he defeated him in a match. And since he was nowhere near as dominant as Kasparov was, his “title” quickly lost it’s glance too. Kramnik’s biggest achievement is that he is the only person on the world who managed to beat Kasparov in a match. A remarkable achivement, but that alone doesn’t make you a world champion.
Where can we see the game?
Yesterday it was on the official site. Now I can’t find it anymore.
You still don’t explain why so many chess authors clearly delineate between “FIDE Champions” and “Classical World Champions.”
If there is no truth that the heirs of Kasparov were the true WCC, then just answer why so many authors (I mentioned GM Patrick Wolff but there are many other I can list that show the “FIDE Champion” and the “Classical World Champion.”
IF there is no truth to the thesis that FIDE champs were not World champs, then why do many chess authors make this distinction? I mean, these are authors far more advanced than myself in chess, so I ask you: What is your explanation?
So are you saying that Susan Polgar is the last true Women’s World Champion since everyone else after won knockout tournaments? Then Ponomariov, Khalifman, Anand (2000), and Topalov are not World Champions. They’re just FIDE puppet champions.
Because they are confused and don’t seem to differenciate between world champion and best chess player in the world.
Ask them what this “classical world champion” is and they won’t be able to explain without draging the names Kasparov and Kramnik into their definition. A definition of FIDE champion is very simple: “It is a person who won the last world championship.”
The “classical world championship” bases only on the tradition that for one to become a champion one has to defeat the champion in a match. But that “rule” has huge flaws, because if we follow it to the letter the world championship died together with Alekhine. If we modify this “rule” so that champions death is counted as if he had lost the title, then we still have problem with Fischer. In this version Fischer was champion from 1972 to 2008 and Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik weren’t really the world champions. Ask the “classical world championship” followers those questions and they wont be able to answer you consistently. They will have huge difficulties in explaining all this without changing their position from left to right and back again.
Besides where does it say that one has to defeat the champion to become one? It was traditionally done this way (how else it was supposed to be when there was no official body), but it doesn’t mean it always has to be so. Time goes on and things change, sometimes to the better, sometimes to the worse, but they change.
I’ve just went through 17 books that list the names of all World Chess Champions since the first “official” champion, Steinitz (though, Morphy was far better….that is another topic).
All authors, when it gets to the 1990’s, clearly state that there was a “FIDE Chamption” and a “classical World Champion.” So,
I guess it really comes down to interpretation of hisory, which is subjective. If one wants to consider any of the FIDE champions of the 90’s and, afterwards, Topalov as a “world champion” above and beyond the classical world champion, then it is a personal choice and based upon emotion and personal ideals rather than logic and history.
The true World champions, and contenders are those that followed Kasparov…not FIDE in the ’90’s. And, as GM Patrick Wolff stated, the majority of the chess community accepted only those of Kasparov followers as REAL contenders and, eventually, when Kasparov was defeated, the REAL and only WCC.
All the others were mere “FIDE champions.” That is the consensus amongsy chess historians. I accept their interpretation. You are free to accept any other or that the sky is green. You can believe, for example, that the sky is really green, but that doesn’t make it true. It’s only your belief.
So, FIDE champs were never true World Chess Champions. That’s it and that’s all I’ve got to say about it. Almost everyone would agree that “FIDE Champions” weren’t real “world champions.”
But, we have one now…Anand. So, regardless, the issue is now settled.
But, Topalov was never THE world champion….he was the FIDE champion only. That’s it and good for him.
You say that it is setled but it is not. Just the other day I had an argument here with a guy and his followers (or maybe it was one guy pretending that others agree with him) who doesn’t recognise Anand as the true World champion as long as he doesn’t defeat Kramnik in a match. I believe he said that anand won a tournament of “unqualified losers”.
People are not consistant in their views. The only consistant line of world champions is the FIDE line.
As I explained, there are big flaws in the “classical line”. If you are consistant then the classical line either died with Alekhine, or Fischer was champion until his death (meaning that Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik weren’t champions) or that a champion can forfeit the title without a fight. If last is the case, then Kasparov de facto forfeited in 1993 and Karpov is still the world champion because nobody defeated him in a match from then on 🙂
There is absolutely no consistant way to explain why Kramnik would be anykind of champion.
If it is then please show me. If your explanation will be consistent then maybe I will accept it.
Why people recognized Kasparov and not FIDE champions is because they don’t differ between the terms world champion and best player. Those are two independent terms, but people tend to mix them.
Juett vs. Topalov
1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Nge2 a6 6. Ng3 Nbd7 7. Be2
c5 8. Be3 cxd4 9. Bxd4 O-O 10. O-O b6 11. Nd5 h5 12. Bf3 e5 13. Nxf6+
Nxf6 14. Be3 Be6 15. Qd3 Qc7 16. Rfd1 Qxc4 17. Qxc4 Bxc4 18. b3 Be6
19. Bxb6 Rfc8 20. Rxd6 a5 21. Rad1 a4 22. Rd8+ Rxd8 23. Rxd8+ Rxd8 24.
Bxd8 axb3 25. axb3 Bxb3 26. Kf1 Nd7 27. Ne2 Bc4 28. Ke1 Bf8 29. Kd2
Bc5 30. Ke1 Bb4+ 31. Kf1 f6 32. Kg1 Kf7 33. Nc1 Nc5 34. Bb6 Na4 35.
Be3 Bc5 36. Bxc5 Nxc5 37. g3 Ke7 38. Bg2 Kd6 39. f3 Ne6 40. Bf1 Kc5
41. Bxc4 Kxc4 42. Kf2 Nc5 43. Ke3 g5 44. Ne2 Nb3 45. h3 Nd4 46. Nc1
Kc3 47. Na2+ Kc4 48. Nc1 Nc2+ 49. Kf2 Nb4 50. Ke3 h4 51. g4 1/2-1/2
First, it isn’t “my” argument. I am merely saying that many chess historians, chess authors, and others did not recognize FIDE Champions as the World Champion. This is a fact. Now, whether it is right or wrong is a matter of interpretation.
My argument is that a person is considered a “champion” if the vast majority of people recognize that person as such. Right or wrong, the majority of the chess community recognized Kasparov as the WCC after he split from FIDE.
It all comes down to this. Oh, and I agree with you that I don’t know how anyone could argue that Anand isn’t the WCC right now. That is just absurd.
It’s akin to paper money. What gives a $50 bill its worth? After all, it’s just a piece of paper. The U.S. is no longer on the Gold standard. Hence, every dollar bill printed is not “backed up” by gold. What gives that piece of paper it’s value is the “faith” people place in it that when they want to spend it, it will be accepted. If this “faith” didn’t exist, then paper money would be just that: Paper.
Also, in politics. I used the example of Taiwan’s government. It is recognized by the world community as the legitimate government of taiwan (except China, of course). That acceptance by the vast majority of nations is what gives the government of Taiwan its legitimacy.
So it is in chess. In the chess community during the ’90’s, the majority of people recognized and accepted Kasparov and his heirs as the “True world champions” not the FIDE Champions.
Ultimately, it is the historians that decide. But, thankfully all the mess from the ’90’s and having competing champions is over. We have only one WCC at the moment: Anand.
You are not being consistent 🙂
It all comes to this:
Either you have “faith” in a traditional system that you can only become world champion by defeating the reigning champion in a match, or you don’t.
The whole “classical world championship” is based on that.
If you are a “believer” then you can’t recognise Anand 😉