Tweet
...and you can read all about it on www.chessbase.com , as tournament coverage comprises of the most recent articles. Other chess players on this site take note!
The condensed version of the World Chess Championship politics is this: In 1993, citing abuses by FIDE (the international governing body of chess, responsible for organizing the modalities to determine the world chess champion and his challenger, among other things), Garry Kasparov (then-current champion and considered strongest player in history) and Nigel Short (British challenger for the chess throne) decided to thumb their collective noses at FIDE and play for the title outside their jurisdiction. FIDE answered by striking Kasparov from their roster and organizing their own World Chess Championship sans him (which Karpov, champion before Kasparov, won). Since then there have been two parallel chess cycles--what FIDE runs to determine "champion" and who Kasparov chooses to challenge him for the title. Due to his gravitas in the chess world the later has almost always been considered more valid. Kasparov defended his title in '93 (vs. Short), '95 (vs. Anand), but lost in 2000 against Vladimir Kramnik. In the past five years there have been numerous attempts to re-unify the chess championship cycle, but matches and promises by FIDE kept falling through due to lack of sponsorship, red tape, and general incompetence , including a chance for Kasparov to get a re-match w/Kramnik (who many considered to have merely "loaned" his title to Kramink until having gotten a chance to brush up on his technique and win it back). Disenchanted and drifting towards other interests, Kasparov officially retired this year in March after a final tournament in Linares.
Finally, after a lot of disappointment from players and fans alike, FIDE finally decided to just hold a double round-robin chess tournament in San Luis, Argentenia with the top eight players in the world to determine the world champion, lock, stock, and barrel. There is precedent for this--Hague 1948 was a similar tourney to determine the chess champion after Alekhine's death. Kramnik declined because he felt the winner of this tournament should be his "challenger," (such as ARVO 1938), and he shouldn't need to bother competing because, after all, he beat the invincible Kasparov in a match. FIDE disagreed. The chess public is mixed, because Kramink's results in international tourneys haven't been too impressive lately, and he played Kasparov in 2000 based on getting hand-picked rather than outstanding results. Frankly I'm glad it's all over, and Veselin Topalov is a fighting player who is a worthy heir to the crown, and didn't lose a single game in 15 rounds.
Also, he's willing to play both Kramnik and Kasparov in matches, which shows he won't back down behind a shield of chess politics and entitlement.
The condensed version of the World Chess Championship politics is this: In 1993, citing abuses by FIDE (the international governing body of chess, responsible for organizing the modalities to determine the world chess champion and his challenger, among other things), Garry Kasparov (then-current champion and considered strongest player in history) and Nigel Short (British challenger for the chess throne) decided to thumb their collective noses at FIDE and play for the title outside their jurisdiction. FIDE answered by striking Kasparov from their roster and organizing their own World Chess Championship sans him (which Karpov, champion before Kasparov, won). Since then there have been two parallel chess cycles--what FIDE runs to determine "champion" and who Kasparov chooses to challenge him for the title. Due to his gravitas in the chess world the later has almost always been considered more valid. Kasparov defended his title in '93 (vs. Short), '95 (vs. Anand), but lost in 2000 against Vladimir Kramnik. In the past five years there have been numerous attempts to re-unify the chess championship cycle, but matches and promises by FIDE kept falling through due to lack of sponsorship, red tape, and general incompetence , including a chance for Kasparov to get a re-match w/Kramnik (who many considered to have merely "loaned" his title to Kramink until having gotten a chance to brush up on his technique and win it back). Disenchanted and drifting towards other interests, Kasparov officially retired this year in March after a final tournament in Linares.
Finally, after a lot of disappointment from players and fans alike, FIDE finally decided to just hold a double round-robin chess tournament in San Luis, Argentenia with the top eight players in the world to determine the world champion, lock, stock, and barrel. There is precedent for this--Hague 1948 was a similar tourney to determine the chess champion after Alekhine's death. Kramnik declined because he felt the winner of this tournament should be his "challenger," (such as ARVO 1938), and he shouldn't need to bother competing because, after all, he beat the invincible Kasparov in a match. FIDE disagreed. The chess public is mixed, because Kramink's results in international tourneys haven't been too impressive lately, and he played Kasparov in 2000 based on getting hand-picked rather than outstanding results. Frankly I'm glad it's all over, and Veselin Topalov is a fighting player who is a worthy heir to the crown, and didn't lose a single game in 15 rounds.
Also, he's willing to play both Kramnik and Kasparov in matches, which shows he won't back down behind a shield of chess politics and entitlement.
.
Pekka considers his opponent's argument convincing only, if he gets a bloody nose in the process of opinion-building.
by Pekka's standards.
Comment