LIVE rating:
| 01 | Carlsen | 2824,1 | +11,1 | 8 | 1 | 1990 |
| 02 | Topalov | 2803,4 | -8,6 | 12 | 1 | 1975 |
| 03 | Anand | 2799,8 | +10,8 | 13 | 2 | 1969 |
| 04 | Kramnik | 2790,0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1975 |
| 05 | Aronian | 2783,0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1982 |
| 06 | Mamedyarov | 2761,4 | -1,6 | 13 | 1 | 1985 |
| 07 | Grischuk | 2760,0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1983 |
| 08 | Eljanov | 2754,9 | +3,9 | 16 | 2 | 1983 |
| 09 | Shirov | 2748,6 | +6,6 | 7 | 1 | 1972 |
| 10 | Karjakin | 2746,6 | +7,6 | 11 | 1 | 1990 |
| 11 | Gelfand | 2744,0 | +3 | 21 | 2 | 1968 |
| 12 | Radjabov | 2743,1 | +3,1 | 21 | 2 | 1987 |
| 13 | Ivanchuk | 2738,7 | -2,3 | 25 | 3 | 1969 |
| 14 | Svidler | 2734,2 | -0,8 | 18 | 3 | 1976 |
| 15 | Leko | 2734,0 | -1 | 13 | 1 | 1979 |
| 16 | Malakhov | 2732,1 | +10,1 | 16 | 3 | 1980 |
| 17 | Navara | 2731,4 | +13,4 | 9 | 1 | 1985 |
| 18 | Ponomariov | 2729,6 | -3,4 | 21 | 2 | 1983 |
| 19 | Nakamura | 2728,8 | -4,2 | 10 | 1 | 1987 |
| 20 | Wang Hao | 2725,8 | +3,8 | 38 | 6 | 1989 |
| 21 | Jakovenko | 2725,6 | +0,6 | 27 | 3 | 1983 |
| 22 | Vachier-Lagrave | 2723,4 | +13,4 | 12 | 4 | 1990 |
| 23 | Movsesian | 2723,1 | +6,1 | 2 | 1 | 1978 |
| 24 | Vitiugov | 2722,1 | +15,1 | 18 | 2 | 1987 |
| 25 | Wang Yue | 2720,4 | -31,6 | 27 | 4 | 1987 |
| 26 | Bacrot | 2720,3 | +10,3 | 11 | 4 | 1983 |
| 27 | Gashimov | 2718,7 | -15,3 | 17 | 3 | 1986 |
| 28 | Almasi | 2717,3 | -7,7 | 2 | 1 | 1976 |
| 29 | Dominguez | 2715,8 | +2,8 | 10 | 1 | 1983 |
| 30 | Morozevich | 2715,0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1977 |
| 31 | Kamsky | 2712,9 | +10,9 | 10 | 1 | 1974 |
| 32 | Jobava | 2710,4 | -4,6 | 17 | 2 | 1983 |
| 33 | Tomashevsky | 2708,0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1987 |
| 34 | Adams | 2706,1 | +9,1 | 15 | 2 | 1971 |
| 35 | Nepomniachtchi | 2706,0 | +11 | 10 | 1 | 1990 |
| 36 | Onischuk | 2700,6 | +1,6 | 21 | 2 | 1975 |
| 37 | Nielsen | 2700,2 | +2,2 | 2 | 1 | 1973 |
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
King Magnus! King Magnus! King Magnus!
Carlsen is the true Great Successor in the line Lasker-Capablanca-Alekhine-Botvinnik-Fischer-Karpov-Kasparov.
Kramnik, Topalov and Anand don’t count.
Had Kramnik given a proper means for Kasparov to qualify to challenge him, Kramnik’s reign would have been about as short as Euwe’s.
Why? Kramnik’s record against Kasparov was pretty even. Kramnik and Anand definitely do count! Carlsen isn’t a World Champion yet, but most likely will be.
The difference in ratings among the top 5 is statistically so insignificant that it doesn’t really determine the best among them.
I don’t really agree with anonymous who disqualifies Kramnik, Topalov and Anand as proper champions. I would say that the chessworld should be happy to have such a nice and decent champion like Anand.
I also find it hard to judge a thing like this… I mean I am a rather weak amateur with a rating just above 2000 (about which I am rather proud, mind you! :P)… if I were to say who should and who should not count as the proper champion… that would be an awful instance of hubris, don’t you think!?
But maybe you are much, much stronger and can judge these things… such a thing is of course always possible.
To anon “Kramnik,Topa,Anand don’t count. Anyone who thinks in this way must surely be a poor chess player with a poor personality. Of course Carlsen is a great talent and most possibly a future world champ. But irrespective of ratings he must wrest it from the incumbent world champ in a match. And do give respect for the present world champ. One remembers that, when Carlsen could terrorize almost anybody he was still unable to get the better of Anand for a long time. As for the great Alekhine,he tarnished his image by refusing to give that super talent Capablanca a rematch! And last but not least the last of the truly great chess players was undoubtedly ‘Bobby’!!
My list was of those I consider ‘Super Champions’. You will note that I also left out ‘ordinary’ ‘first among equals’ champions Euwe, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky as well.
[Tal is a bit of an oddball case, but dominated for too short a period, and had far too many dreadful results of a type the ‘Super Champions’ hardly ever had. It may be that he had health issues, but I believe that also his somewhat unsound style was ‘found out’.
Botvinnik dominated hugely in the period 1941-1948. In this period, he won outright EVERY tournament he played in – amazing! True, his results in the fifties were not as good (though still decent), but it should be remembered that he was already 40 when he first defended his title in 1951.]
Anand is undoubtedly a nice and decent person (I agree), but in terms of lifetime playing strength is not on the same level as Kasparov, Fischer, etc.
The mediocre quality of the play in the matches of Anand, Topalov and Kramnik against each other does not bear comparison with the superb quality in the Kasparov-Karpov matches.
‘Kramnik’s record against Kasparov was pretty even’. Maybe so, but his record against everybody else was much less than Kasparov’s. This is why we have ratings – to measure overall performance. Kasparov’s top rating was 2851; Kramnik’s was 2811 – not even close!
Geller’s record against Fischer was 5 wins, 3 losses and several draws. So do we consider Geller as great a player as Fischer? No. Neither was his rating.
Also, Kasparov pretty well sussed out Kramnik after their match; in classical games, he beat him once and never lost to him (and also beat him in their ‘mini-match’ in Moscow 2001). Every time Kramnik had white, he did not even attempt to win, agreeing a quickie draw every time. After their match, Kramnik grew afraid of Kasparov!
Kramnik’s match win was a fluke, like Euwe’s over Alekhine in 1935. After that match, Alekhine worked Euwe out, too, and beat him handily in the return match. The same would have happened to Kramnik.
Kramnik knew this and avoided a return challenge by Kasparov by holding a mickey mouse knockout ‘challengers’ event in Dortmund [which was little better than Ilyumzhinov’s rubbish ‘world championship’ knockout events] instead of holding proper Candidates matches.
Had he held these, Kasparov would likely have become Kramnik’s challenger with the likely result that Kramnik would have been ex- champion by 2003.
This happening, Kasparov would likely not have retired [his retirement being prompted by Kramnik’s refusal to honour his signing of the Prague agreement, thus making it clear Kramnik was intending to duck another match with Kasparov in perpetuity], and therefore it is unlikely Topalov and Anand would ever have become Champions, Kasparov holding on until Carlsen took over.
The difference of Carlsen’s rating over the others now is already statistically significant. And at only 19, Carlsen must still be improving.
Barring a loss of interest, or development of Fischer-like psychological problems, or Ilyumzhinov messing things up [whom has made a good start doing just that by these intended ridiculous randomised mini-matches for the Candidates], Carlsen must surely become World Champion, and soon, and likely a ‘Super’ one.
One has the same sense about the rise of Carlsen that one had with the rises of Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov; a sense one certainly didn’t have about Kramnik, Topalov or Anand!
To anon – ‘my list was of those I consider ‘super champions’ – wow! such a long explanation!. I wonder if anyone is truly interested in your ‘list’. Anyway I give Anand his due. Among the top 3 to 5 in the chess world for over a decade,he has won the World Championships in tournament format and defended his title against the mane who ousted Kasparov and the bad boy of chess Topalov. Full marks to a deserving champion.
Well, I find it pretty amazing that when one only draws a 2700 + player he LOSES Rating points! That has to say something.
All the World champs were great but the true measure of their greatness is how much better they are than their contemporaries, matching them against other generations is a skewed way of thinking.
Carlsen is certainly dominating right now…I just hope he doesn;t lose interest because of the rinky dink FIDE system…which I think is a possibility. I could see him just not bother competing for the crown. Why should he?
The burden of being a nice guy! Can’t have killer instinct, do not have confidence (!), ‘suspect’ under pressure; can never, ever… be a “great”. With this kind of discoveries one should not remain anonymous. And please, Topalov is not a “bad boy” but an amazingly ‘heroic’ player if you discount the antics of his manager (a lot more rational soon after a bitter defeat- compared to our biased commentator). Do remember that it was Kasparov, Kramnik and Carlsen (as opponents) who gives Anand the stature he so deservedly hold. Fischer could not live until the Anand era of chess, nor was Karpov anything spectacular since Anand’s arrival.
Every player on my list has had absolute domination at some stage for a considerable time; and in addition their mediocre/bad results [apart from when they were old] you can pretty well count on the fingers of one hand – these are my criteria.
Those not on my list do not meet these criteria [except for Morphy and Steinitz, who could also be on it – I did not go back that far].
I fully recognise Anand as the current World Champion – he deserves it.
I am simply saying that Anand is not a ‘Super Champion’. He is a ‘first among equals’ – not dominant. He does not win tournaments by massive margins.
Kramnik was not as strong when Anand beat him as he was when he beat Kasparov. Topalov was not a ‘Super Champion’ either, so beating him, while a good result, is not that big a deal chess strength wise.
I maintain that had Kasparov not retired, it is unlikely that Anand would be World Champion today.
I also believe that if Carlsen played Anand in a match now, Carlsen would win. Anand ceased being a bogeyman for Carlsen some time ago.
‘Among the top 3 to 5 in the chess world for over a decade’. (So were Keres, Korchnoi, etc.) And rarely first. At best, a ‘first among equals’, exactly my point. A good performance, but NOT DOMINANT.
Champion is a Champion.! There are no super or proper champions.
Anyway there aren’t that many world champions to break them into categories, so every one of them is extraordinary.
Well, for what it’s worth, I don’t believe Carlsen would beat Anand (or Kramnik for that matter) in a match right now. This is all fantasy – who knows?
Neither Kramnik or Anand have ever reached Topalov’s rating.
…or Magnus’ rating. The King is coming for his crown!
“Champion…every one of them is extraordinary”.
The ones not on my list are no more extraordinary than several players who never became World Champion.
Rubinstein never got a chance.
Over their lifetimes, Reshevsky, Fine and Keres were better than Euwe.
Keres was at least the equal of Smyslov. Korchnoi was at least the equal of Petrosian and Spassky.
Oftentimes these lesser Champions became World Champion due to sheer luck or skulduggery as much to their strength:
[1] Euwe had the good fortune to be picked by Alekhine because the latter was avoiding Capablanca. Had a proper system been operating, he would have been shut out by Capa, Botvinnik; probably Reshevsky and Fine as well.
He had the additional good fortune of Alekhine being on a big downslide at that time due to alcoholism.
Euwe never won an important tournament. By his own statement, his best tournament performance was his second place at Groningen 1946. A best ever tournament performance is a second place?? What sort of World Champion is this?!
[2] Smyslov was given a Soviet ‘helping hand’ at the Zurich 1953 Candidates. Had it been a system of proper-length matches, Reshevsky, who had more raw talent, may well have won through. Would Smyslov ever have been World Champion then?
[3] In the 1959 Candidates, Tal has the very good fortune that (due partly to ridiculous restrictions on the number of Soviet players allowed into the Interzonal) four relatively weak non-Soviet players got into the Candidates – just the type of players to suit Tal’s style – whom he duly destroyed to the tune of 14.5 out of 16. Tal actually had a MINUS overall score against his fellow Soviets. What if the tough Soviets Spassky, Korchnoi and Geller [the first two of whom were already able to give Tal a very rough time in the years before he became World Champion] had been there instead of Benko, Olafsson and the 16 year old Fischer? Tal’s victory would have been by no means guaranteed then.
[4] As is well known, Petrosian organised the ‘drawing conspiracy’ at the Curacao 1962 Candidates Tournament, giving himself, Geller and Keres 8 extra rest days in a 28 round tournament. It’s anybody’s guess who would have become Challenger had it been a system of matches.
[5] Fischer disqualified himself from both the 1965 and 1968 Candidates. Had he played, he probably would have been World Champion in 1966. Would Spassky ever have been World Champion then? Spassky was lucky here.
[6] Kramnik was given three free shots at the Title (in 2000, 2006, and 2008). Had he actually had to qualify, he probably would never have become a Challenger. His qualification attempts were abysmal – Loss to Gelfand in 1994; utterly destroyed by Kamsky in 1994; loss to Shirov in 1998; eliminated in the Las Vegas knockout in 1999.
[7] Only Kasparov’s retirement in 2005 allowed Topalov and Anand to become Champions.
Both Anand and Topalov are now weaker than Carlsen. Small wonder that their World Championship match attracted little media attention.
The only guy who would now be competitive with Carlsen in a match is Kramnik. In a 16-game match, I think Carlsen would probably prevail here, too.
However, the upcoming 4-game mini-match system of course randomises everything – anything could happen. If the Candidates has to be held as a single event, then it is blindingly obvious that it should be a double round-robin tournament – what an incredible twit Ilyumzhinov is! In fact, it is so obvious that one has to wonder if Ilyumzhinov going for mini-matches is a politically motivated decision (on whose behalf, I wonder? – I can come up with a good guess). No wonder Carlsen is supporting the Karpov campaign.
Also inexcusable is the inclusion of a host country wildcard (for a country that’s supposedly only going to hold half of if anyway!). This spot should go to Ivanchuk, who for no good reason was excluded from both Dortmund 2002 and San Luis 2005.
THE SOONER WE ARE RID OF ILYUMZHINOV, THE BETTER!!
After Kasparov became world champion they did not hold a world championship match evey year, or every alternate year like it is being done now. Our “anonymous” friend still rues the fact that Kasparov was unable to (not allowed to) perpetrate the “sport” of ‘holding title’ after he was dethroned by Kramnik. Kramnik himself was so gracious in his defeat in Bonn, but our commentator finds that he suddenly became a weak player. Though Topalov’s ELO has been great, he isn’t (great). A unified championship is a unified championship. Please do not forget the two world champion challengership battles of Anand (on and off- board) and many of his fine tournament victories such as Reggio Emilio. Magnus Carlson is a gem of a player and a fine human being. He is also quite lucky to be playing in an era of chess, among truly sporting heroes of the game. Notably, Anand would never agree to unfair privileges (such as return match) as champion as it lowers the dignity of the title he holds. All despite the fact that he earned his place among great champs battling a “corrupt” (morally- or in a sporting sense) world chess organisation. Heartening is the fact that the entire crop of great players of our times (future champs) is steadfast in their commitment to these core values despite their fierce competitiveness and great rivalries. The benchmark is set and it is glorious time for chess.
A very strange post, Anonymous 4:46.
Holding a title match every alternate year is not a good thing, I think. It means that the World Champion is most of the time either preparing for a WC match, recovering from one, or hiding his opening novelties. We thus hardly ever get to see him give his all in a tournament. A 3-year cycle is better.
“still rues the fact that Kasparov was unable to perpetuate the “sport” of ‘holding title'”
?? I actually have no idea what you are talking about. Never rued in the first place by me. Of course it is better for an organisation like FIDE to run the title PROVIDED sane and decent people with integrity are in charge of it – which is why Ilyumzhinov MUST be got rid of.
I did not say that Kramnik “suddenly became a weak player” at Bonn. I said he was weaker at this period of time than in 2000. Both Kramnik’s tournament results and rating show this.
Regarding the next part of your comment, do remember that Anand beat only mediocre ex-Champions in 2008 and 2010. The only time he faced a ‘Super Champion’ in a WC match (Kasparov in 1995), he got badly beaten.
“Notably, Anand would never agree to unfair privileges (such as return match)”. Quite right! This is the preserve of immoral, scheming types like Kramnik and Topalov who unfortunately gained Ilyumzhinov’s ear.
“and it is a glorious time for chess”
Only possibly so if Karpov gets in. If Ilyumzhinov is “reelected”, The World Championship will remain a mess for years to come.
My earlier comment, mercifully, appeared in the right place(No. 17). The author of the comment on 16th place seems to suffer also from selective amnesia. While listing the history of conspiracies and skulduggery in the WCCs, he is blind to the most unjust of all the episodes that had unfolded in the recent times- attempted systematic victimisation of one of the game’s greatest natural talents coming from a (then) relatively unknown chess nation. These truths make the Anand story an amazing legend in sporting history. This is not to forget team Anand- a wonderful bunch of sportsmen and chess lovers some whom have been with him for a very long time, a team with character, a legend on its own already. The story would not fit into the pattern of other stories because of the happier ending. Why do I write this? Craze? Adulation? Neither. For the genuine admiration due for the extraordinary sportsmanship of a magnificent champion of our times.
The bias of the previous commentator becomes obvious when we look at his ambivalent remarks on Kramnik. However his true intentions become clear when we look at his closing remark. Magnus does not deserve this, it is unethical, using the young Norwegian for a political campaign. However noble the intentions are purported to be.
Like Anand says, let it be decided on the board, that who is a winner and a champion.
To Anonymous 9.01 AM CDT.
First, I am sorry if you felt I attacked you personally. My intention was purely to counter your arguments a bit more vigorously. Your first sentence regarding the frequency of the world championship matches is absolutely right- and this is what exactly I wanted to highlight. Anand’s tournament victories when he was free of (or excluded from) the WCC cycles bear testimony to this. My contention is also that Anand did not conspire or wrangle to delay the emergence of a challenger to his title, even at the cost of his tournament record that is already fabulous. Kasparov, though the greatest chessplayer ever, has often been accused by observers of “holding the title” (of WCC), for some irregular intervals of time, by unfair means of “selecting” his challenger etc. (We cannot pin the responsibility for the PCA fiasco entirely on Kasparov; as the FIDE of the era was never above board. Besides Kasparov had a hell of a time fighting all sorts of unjust situations until he emerged a champion. This has also shaped his early chess persona and attittudes in spite of his genius)
Karpov, a fair official? After his ‘FIDE TITLE’ ‘defence’ of 1999? (Which we can never, ever imagine Anand or a Carlsen doing). We are not sure, but we have no real choice here. (Counting on the third candidate to win may be a pipe dream). Hope lies in the integrity of the players; certainly can’t count on the organization in its present throes.
?? What on earth are you talking about??
I am certainly not aware of any systematic victimisation of Anand. Please elaborate.
The main victimisation of Anand I am aware of is Kramnik and Topalov scamming free [or in Topalov’s case, nearly free] World Championship matches against him.
I would have thought my comments on Kramnik (backed by good evidence) were pretty unambivalent. Do you actually understand what you are writing?
“Magnus does not deserve this”. ?? Deserve What?? Again, what on earth are you on about?
My understanding is that at least a large part of the reason Carlsen is supporting the Karpov camp is his dissatisfaction with Ilyumzhinov’s actions in regard to the World Championship system.
If not, then what is your take on his reason for supporting Karpov?
Please do try to write a bit of sense next time.
continued from previous post-
Coming back to FIDE, the responsibility of all fiascos in chess world post year 2000, should sqarely rest on the shoulders of its leaders- as Kasparov’s ability for mischief had considerably lost steam by then. When some top players connived or conspired, to gain privileges, with the powers that be, I am not sure who is to be blamed more. That should not make us blind to the class of Kramnik and Topalov chesswise. The remarkable thing about the FIDE officials is that none ever expressed regret or acknowledged shame for any of the outrages but just openly called them “politics”. Or blamed it on ‘circumstances’ like true leaders! All the intrigues in the FIDE and illegitimacies of the period is well documented by the Russian GM Evgeny Bareev (if I remember correctly) in this same blog last month- in an article in response to the Karpov Candidacy. That post apparently looks very unbiased in suggesting Anand’s role in restoring the legitimacy of the WCC title- having come from a Russian himself and a top GM.
And finally, regarding Carlson. He does not deserve to be a pawn in a political game. He is whiff of fresh air in the chess world and a true Anand heir, whenever the crowning may happen. His choice of Kasparov as trainer is magnificent. He had responded to the latest outrage from FIDE, of changing the rules midstream in a challenger cycle, by breaking out and by becoming the number one chess player in the world. No wonder, it is his match with Anand that is the most awaited event in the chess world.
As I said before, we can count on the new generation players for the brighter tomorrow of Chess.
Truth must prevail.
Thank you for your reply. Some of your comments are good and make sense; others are puzzling.
I doubt Susan will throw us off her blog. Indeed, she is probably delighted to have a discussion that goes on for more than about 2 days. Unfortunately, you and I will probably be the only people still checking back on this thread. Susan needs to have some way to keep the interesting discussion topics that attract comment at or near the top of her blog, while letting those that attract only one or two comments to ‘go invisible’.
Your comments as to the degree of Anand’s exclusion seem to be exaggerated or misinformed.
You state “from year 2000 until 2007, Anand was never ever considered to be part of the competitions planned or actually held”. This is hardly correct to put it mildly!:
[1] Anand was a participant at the San Luis World Championship 2005. How did you miss this one!? Had Anand won this he would have been World Champion pure and simple. Topalov played better, so took the Title. [Kramnik’s ‘Braingames’ title had long in effect lapsed; he basically cannot be considered World Champion after 2002, and certainly not after his refusal to take part in San Luis.]
[2] In 2001 [which is after 2000], Seirawan promoted a very good Title Unification proposal (‘A Fresh Start’) which involved 8 top players playing proper-length quarterfinal matches, etc. This would have allowed room for Anand, who certainly would have been invited.
It was nearly all set up and agreed. Kasparov had agreed to play a quarterfinal match [putting the lie to those lying Kasparov haters who invariably claim that Kasparov only ever demanded a rematch with Kramnik]; Ilyumzhinov had agreed that the ‘FIDE Champion’ would play a quarterfinal match; …but it was all scuppered by Kramnik who refused to play.
This forced the perversion of ‘A Fresh Start’ into the Prague Agreement of 2002. Braingames ‘Champion’ Kramnik refused to play lower than a semi-final match, and ‘FIDE Champion’ Ponomariov refused to do so if Kramnik didn’t. This pretty much meant that there was no room for Anand, but there was now no other way that unification could be achieved. Anand has a legitimate beef here and the blame can be laid fair and square at Kramnik’s door.
And then, after all this, Kramnik refused to honour this agreement anyway!! – thus delaying things another 3 years.
Of course, it was highly unfortunate that Ponomariov had become ‘FIDE Champion’ instead of Anand, but seeing that Anand had consistently supported this idiotic way of deciding the ‘Title’ since 1997, then really he has only himself to blame if he got randomly knocked out.
It was Ilyumzhinov who would not allow Anand to take part in Kramnik’s Dortmund 2002 ‘Candidates’. Not that such a travesty was worth taking part in!
Again, seeing that Anand had supported Ilyumzhinov since 1997, he really only had himself to blame again.
[to be continued]
[continued from previous post]
Anand was certainly a big victim in Ilyumzhinov’s ‘World Championship’ Final versus Karpov at Geneva 1998. It is amazing that Anand continued to support Ilyumzhinov’s version of the Title after this scandal! [Karpov’s part in this is certainly a black mark against him. It is a measure of how bad Ilyumzhinov is that in spite of this and several other highly questionable Karpov actions, Karpov is still much the preferable candidate.]
Kasparov offered Anand a match versus Kramnik in 1998; winner to play him for the REAL Title – turned down by Anand.
Kasparov also offered Anand a straight out Championship match in 1999 – again turned down by Anand.
Anand was offered plenty of chances by Kasparov! Where is the victimisation of Anand, or Kasparov’s unfairly ‘playing title’ or ‘mischief’ here? [In the Shirov case, the bottom line is that Kasparov DID offer Shirov a match in California (for which Kasparov did some serious opening preparation), but this was turned down by Shirov.]
One would have to suppose that Anand was afraid of playing Kasparov again and preferred to go for the easier version of the ‘Title’ where Kasparov was not a participant.
So Anand stupidly supported Ilyumzhinov in the second half of the Nineties, at a time when his support for Kasparov’s and Kramnik’s efforts to topple Ilyumzhinov may well have done so.
For his loyalty to Ilyumzhinov, Anand was backstabbed by him, being virtually totally ignored by him at Prague 2002 and being prevented by him by playing in Dortmund 2002.
Anand was very naive. He should have understood what type of person Ilyumzhinov was – as soon as Ilyumzhinov found someone of more political value that he could ‘deal’ with than Anand, Anand’s loyalty counted for nothing – he was just ignored! Anand has paid a very high price for this very serious misjudgment.
I still don’t see why saying Anand would very likely not have become Champion had Kasparov not retired is quixotic.
I firmly believe that had a match between Kasparov and Anand taken place in the period 2005-2010, Kasparov would have won pretty much as in 1995. After the 1995 match, Anand never won a single classical game against him, not one!! While losing many. Kasparov had Anand’s number, and I don’t see any particular reason that this would have turned around.
The Karpov/Fischer case is different. Karpov proved himself to be one of the ‘Super Champions’; Anand didn’t.
In fact, I believe that had Fischer played in 1975, Karpov would have probably have won [which is why Fischer chickened out]. Although I think the Fischer of 1972 was probably a bit stronger than the Karpov of 1975, I don’t think the 3-years-out-of-practice and even more deranged Fischer of 1975 was.
Even had Fischer remained active after 1972, I think a match in 1978 would have been a toss-up.
[to be continued]
[continued from previous post]
Responsibilities for fiascos in the chess world since 2000 (and before) certainly do belong to the FIDE leaders (Ilyumzhinov, Makropolous, Azmaipashvili, etc.) Kramnik also has to be given a great deal of the blame for his inexcusable actions after 2000.
Probably the three worst things ever to happen to chess are, in order, Ilyumzhinov, Campomanes, Kramnik.
Topalov has to take a bit of the blame, too, though he has some excuse in that he was almost certainly unjustly accused of cheating at San Luis 2005.
I am not sure why you accuse Kasparov of ‘mischief’. His 1993 breakaway had justification – Campomanes was blatantly breaking FIDE’s own rules by deliberately not keeping Kasparov and Short informed of the World Championship negotiations.
To say nothing of Campomanes’ illegal stoppage of the 1984/5 World Championship match.
Campomanes and FIDE at the time were just a disaster!
Kasparov defended his Title against legitimate Challenger Anand in 1995, and offered him chances in 1998 and 1999.
Bareev’s article is certainly not to be trusted. It is very biased and downright dishonest in parts.
As Mig Greengard pointed out, Bareev did a ‘deal’ with Ilyumzhinov some time ago.
Bareev is also a Kramnikphile (and was Kramnik’s second in the 2000 match). His article thus also has a very anti-Kasparov, pro-Kramnik slant.
I suspect that Kramnik secretly supports Ilyumzhinov [after all, Ilyumzhinov gave him a free shot at the title in 2008; and may have made the upcoming Candidates as randomised mini-matches because Kramnik would have little chance of winning a proper Candidates Tournament…], but is afraid to say so openly as this would cost him friends and influence in Germany and France.
Kosteniuk’s absurd 35th birthday greetings to him is further evidence of Kramnik’s orientation.
I don’t see why you say Carlsen is a pawn in a political game as if he is helpless and has no say in the matter.
Carlsen was a deliberate, active contributor in the Karpov New York fundraiser. And, frankly, making a Rook-sized contribution.
Finally, you say that Carlsen’s match with Anand is “the most awaited event in the chess world”.
Sorry, but not by me it isn’t. For me, it has already lost most of its sporting interest. Were such a match of 12 games to be held today, I would expect Carlsen to win comfortably by 2 or 3 points. In 2012, the margin would probably be even greater.
The only guy now causing Carlsen any trouble (apart from Nakamura…!?) is Kramnik. And the Carlsen-Kramnik Candidates mini-match is to be 4 games only!! This is simply criminal.
Ilyumzhinov must be got rid of immediately and then hopefully this utter nonsense can be reversed in time.