@S: I wouldn't know, "chuck" will have to answer that himself ;) Anyway, sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it.

Karpov and Kasparov *did* dominate their rivals over a long period of time. The only current player capable of doing something similar is Carlsen, imho. Still some mountains to climb, of course.

@chessrobot: Kasparov's career score against Kramnik (from chessgames.com, including rapid and blitz games) is +22=79-21 - not exactly domination in their head-to-head games. After the WCh match, he won one classical game in Astana 2001 when he could finally tear down the Berlin Wall, the rest were draws.

Maybe you mean that Kasparov had better tournament results and (hence) kept a higher rating? But Kramnik's victory _in a match_ actually wasn't that surprising or 'accidental' ... .

@fgdfd

I see your point, but yes I would consider Euwe the best player in the world in 1936 and Kramnik the best in 2005. It's a matter of definitions. I call the standing world champion the best player in the world, and the only games that really matter are world championship games. By that measure, Leko in 2004 was technically equal to Kramnik, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Sure, Kramnik was sick and playing like crap in 2005. Morphy was hung over after a night of partying in those first games against Harrwitz. No player's strength is constant, so the question is how long an interval between championship matches is acceptable. Historically, a defense every three or four years is deemed acceptable.

@Thomas: I was hoping that Kasparov's wins against Kramnik were much higher than the losses. I cannot use my original example to argue my point about accurately predicting the outcome of the Kramnik-Carlsen and Topalov-Carlsen matches.

@fgdfd

Shirov did prove that he was better than Kramnik in 1998, in the only way to prove such a thing: a match of reasonable length. After winning the crown, Kramnik's first challenger should have been Shirov to settle that question. I'm not saying it was the case, but surely it is (and was) an imperfect system if champions can duck rightful challengers, so an organizing body like FIDE is required in theory.

Our key difference of opinion it seems is that you are looking to say who is the best "at the moment," and I don't think that's a greater measure of superiority than holding the world championship title. Anyone who loses a game will have to admit that his opponent was better than he was at that moment. There's a good chance that Kramnik would have lost a match if he had played in 2005; by saying this, I acquiesce to the idea that there were players at that "moment" who were probably stronger. A champion shouldn't have to constantly prove himself at our modern pace, but within reason when he's ready to defend the title.

Your alternative of just looking at rating is a different measure and a different definition of "best." That's fine, but I prefer the tradition of chess: like boxing, you don't say you're the best until you step in the ring with the current champion.

The thing I don't get with the reasoning that Kramnik proved that he was the best player in the world in 2002 and 2005 through the match against Kasparov 2000, is why Shirov didn't prove that he was better than Kramnik in 2002 by beating him in 1998?! That is, Kramnik was better than not only Kasparov every year in the 2001-2005 period, but also better than Shirov, and all other players, regardless of the actual results during all these years (or in 1998).

In Carlsen's case, Anand is supposed to have proved that he is better than Carlsen at the moment by winning the last game against Topalov. If Topalov instead had won the last game against Anand it would have been he who had proved that he currently is a better player than Carlsen. The only way for Carlsen to be the best player right now is to have won the Candidates in 2007, to begin with.

So proved tha Carlsen is the next World Chess champion!

@chessrobot: Well, your point is still valid for a potential, indeed rather likely match (candidates semifinal) between Carlsen and Kramnik. Even recently (2009-2010), Kramnik has an even score or a slight plus against Carlsen. Carlsen dominates many players nowadays - including Topalov in head-to-head score - but not Kramnik. Anand has decent scores against many players, but not against Aronian - which may be irrelevant now, but would have been an issue if he had lost his match against Topalov.

To return to the main discussion: Match and tournament play are different things. Carlsen currently dominates tournament play but still has to prove himself in matches - not that we can blame him, he didn't get the chance so far (after becoming "Carlsparov"). Anand recently focused on his match against Topalov, which affected quantitiy and quality of his tournament play.

During some periods in the past, the best match and the best tournament player were one and the same person. At the moment this is not the case, so all I would conclued is that Anand and Carlsen are both brilliant players - unclear who is the more brilliant one, and a two-game rapid match is IMO not even a tiebreaker.

It's hard to talk about who the best match player is when almost no matches are played, Carlsen's only match was more than three years ago. So I don't think there are any best match players and best tournament players, only best players. To me Kasparov was the best player 1985-2005, then maybe Topalov 2005-06, Kramnik 2006-07, Anand 2007-09, Carlsen 2009-10.

Bamse, thanks for posting, but the link does not work.

I agree it's best to decide the world champion by a match, but only when the championship is supported by fair process of candidate tournament.

As everyone who plays chess knows, any player has his nemesis, and it's possible lower rated player beat higher rated player in a match.

Therefore, a challenger should prove his superiority not only to the reigning world champion, but also to other top players, by winning a candidate tournament, preferably in match format as well.

It is interesting Kramnik called the outcome of his match against Shirov (in 1998) "an accident". Presumably he did not believe he was "inferior" to Shirov at that time. However, for some reason, Kramnik's win over Kasprov in 2000 was "legitimate", according to his own word.

Anand answers the question of what he thinks about the world number one spot (by rating) at www.schackstudion.se/ksk/bulletin5.pdf

Agreed, challengers have to be chosen fair and timely manner. Candidate tournaments are exciting for chess. With candidate matches we get to see more matches, at least, but I don't know that it's the fairest system. It seems that the top-rated player should have a shot at the title without having to go through so many hoops. But then, if it was all about rating they'd be guarded too much and we wouldn't see as many games.

What was the deal with Kramnik and Shirov after the 2000 match? I vaguely recall some talk of a match, but was it ducking or something else?