Thanks, Peter - just kidding, of course. Terrific game!

The almost Champions -

Keres, Bronstein, Korchnoi, Deep Blue, Fritz, Deep Junior, Shredder, Rybka, Khalifman, Kamsky, Tartakower, Kasimzhanov, Magnus Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Ponomariev

@ supergrobi

Ooooh, I hadn't seen that one. Typos that are not simply typos but "make sense" in a twisted way are the most beautiful ones. Leaves the question open if they are Freudian... ;) I actually love it when I do them myself.
;)

(Yes yes, I know, I'm spamming this thread, I'll stop now)

Congrats Topalov for a good win. As for Topalov getting this privilege,
1. Topalov (and Kramnik) sigining the agreement that the loser of VT - VK (2006) would not play in Mexico City 2007.
2. Topalov deserving to be in Mexico City (based on any number of factors that his fans will gladly point out - losing finalist, #1 in list, etc etc)

If you ask any neutral observer, #1 shd override #2 and thus the backdoor manipulation for him to get the match with Kamsky shd not have been possible.

But, similarly, Kramnik getting the match with Anand 2008 shd not have been possible.

The only difference is VK negotiated that as a condition to participate in 2007 - **before** the match - while VT/Danailov negotiated match with WorldCup winner, much after they had lost their title.

So, it doesn't matter what happened, we are here, and I guess the match Topalov-Anand shd happen. Otherwise, it would create a situation somewhat similar to 93 where the WC and FIDE are not in agreement.

So, principles don't matter (when has it, with respect to FIDE?) - moving forward in the interest of not damaging chess further does.

Not intended to stir up more dust around this topic. Just sharing my thoughts in the spirit that each of you are as entitled to your opinions/thoughts as I do.

Topalov is certainly a worthy challenger who plays in an uncompromising and exciting style, but please, Caissa, goddess of the Royal Game, when it's time for ultimate match with the Great Indian, let him leave his handlers at home so that we may be spared the toilet sleuthing and other irritating histrionics unworthy of the WC.

to Brian Wall,
... and Shredder, because I payed 50 euro to get it.

@me: Thanks for the info (if you could give the exact issue of Europe Echecs it would be perfect). Topalov indeed never said that thing about Kramnik, and I agree that it was quite off topic (and perhaps bad humour indeed, popuscu). My point was actually that your own post was pretty much off topic. Why would a 1999 statement by Kramnik about Karpov being the official WC at the time be relevant to decide the correct WC lineage? I mean, why would it matter more than a quote from any other champion at any other time? Even if true, it serves no purpose but to get you another excuse to bash Kramnik once more, this time for inconsistency, I guess.

There isn't a "correct" WC lineage, anymore than there is for the various boxing world championship where there have been 4 competing titles.

The idea of a correct lineage is meaningless because how can you resolve it ? By taking a vote ? By choosing an infallible person who decides ? By making up your own mind ? By agreeing to differ ? There is no satisfactory decision procedure.

My point was exactly what shy_guest said - there is no "correct" lineage. Putting down FIDE champions and overglorifying the PCA/Classical champions is just dumb. They all had to work hard to get there, nobody handed them the win. Statistically speaking it is much much harder to win a KO tournament or round-robin tournament than a match. In match chances are 50-50 if opponents are equally strong. In KO the chances are much less. But thats another story - let's not go there.

There just isn't any "correct" lineage when even players don't agree, or are (like in Kramnik's case) changing their minds.

And in case you all forgot, from winning San Luis in 2005 until Elista match in 2006 it was Topalov who was considered as a "true" champion by great majority of the public. Only small minority considered Kramnik as the "true" world champion.
Result of the Elista match, and specially the "toilet gate", changed peoples perception in retrospective, and all of the sudden Topalov was pushed in the same basket as all other FIDE champions before him.

P.S.: Unlike some people here, I don't bash grandmasters - not Kramnik, not Topalov, not Kamsky, or anybody else.

"And in case you all forgot, from winning San Luis in 2005 until Elista match in 2006 it was Topalov who was considered as a “true” champion by great majority of the public. Only small minority considered Kramnik as the “true” world champion."

Of course this might be true, but I still wonder all the time about the sources of such claims including terms like "great majority" and "only small minority".

Oh, come on. Is your memory that short? Topalov was very dominant in that period - he was even hailed as the next Kasparov. Nobody talked about Kramnik.

Funny how I was described as "jelous Russian" when I argued that he has a lot of miles before him until we can start to compare him with Kasparov. I said that only time will tell if he can mantain that dominance. And the time did tell. Ironically, now I'm often described as Topalov fan. Go figure. :) (By the way, I'm neither Russian or Bulgarian.)

There is one more thing that people generally don't differenciate, but I do. I differentiate between terms "World Champion" and "best/strongest player in the world". So if you ask me who was the strongest player on the world, then my (purely subjective) list would be.

1965-1970 Spassky
1970-1972/3 Fischer
1973-1975 unclear
1975-1985 Karpov
1985-2005 Kasparov (there have been some short periods where others were better or considered equal, but generally speaking he was dominant)
2005-2006 Topalov
2006-2009 unclear

If Topalov does well in the next super GM tournament he plays in (having convincingly won the last two), I will consider him as the best player on the world again.

If you ask me about World Champions, then my (again purely subjective) list would be:
1948-1957 Botvinnik
1957-1958 Smyslov
1958-1960 Botvinnik
1960-1961 Tal
1961-1963 Botvinnik
1963-1969 Petrosian
1969-1972 Spassky
1972-1974 Fischer
1974-1975 vacant
1975-1985 Karpov
1985-1993 Kasparov
and then I recognize two lines.

PCA line:
1993-1996 Kasparov
1996- title defunct

FIDE line
1993-1999 Karpov
1999-2000 Khalifman
2000-2002 Anand
2002-2004 Ponomariov
2004-2005 Kasimdzhanov
2005-2006 Topalov
2006-2007 Kramnik
2007-20?? Anand

As you can probably see, I don't recognise "private" titles. A World Championship title is not something any individual could own. Kasparov ceased to be anykind of champion for me when PCA collapsed.
Everything before WW2 I don't recognize it as official because it was all on informal basis. There is nothing wrong with that, thats how all sport competition started (on informal basis) but it can not any circumstances be counted as official. At least in my book.

So there, here you have it. MY views on the matter.

I'm sure many don't agree with me and are shaking their heads at home :)

I forgot to mention. A World Champion for me is a person who wins the World Championship and defends it under the valid rules of the governing organization. Period. No but's or if's.

In case you wonder what my last post is all about:

It is an addendum to the long post which is currently pending approval by the moderator. So you will have to wait a little to see it.

@me: After San Luis 2005, it was quite clear for everybody that counts (with the notable and understandably biased exception of Kasparov) that although Topalov was the new FIDE world champion, he still had to beat Kramnik in order to be recognized as the one and only world champion. Had it not been the case, the 2006 WC match in Elista would have had not reason to ever take place.

@me:
"I argued that he has a lot of miles before him until we can start to compare him [Topalov] with Kasparov. I said that only time will tell if he can mantain that dominance. And the time did tell."
IMO, time did NOT tell, at least not yet. Looking at the most recent FIDE rating lists, Topalov become #1 (again) in October 2008 [four players within striking distance of 10 points] and maintained this spot in the January 2009 list [Anand only five points behind]. Things look more convincing in the live rating list, and will do so in the next FIDE list (including his Nanjing result), but that's still a far cry from "maintaining dominance" - I think most people, including Topalov himself, do not argue with such facts.

Concerning your shorter follow-up post, I have my own "buts and ifs": First, who is the "governing organisation"? During a certain period there were two, FIDE and PCA. Second, what (exactly) are the "valid rules"? - if they keep changing, not only between cycles but even during an ongoing cycle. Third, for me it is (and will always remain) legitimate to distinguish between tournament or match and KO lottery champions.

Thomas, now you confused me. I said that the time did tell (that he is not as dominant as Kasparov). And you are saying....what?

Only for a brief period (between 1993 and 1996) there were two governing bodies. Only in that period there have been two World Champions for me. At all other time there was only one governing body - FIDE. Valid rules are the rules that are curently in effect. Frequent changes of rules are bad, changes during the cycles are unheard of. Still it doesn't change anything. The one who wins the match/tournament/game/coin flip/whatever called "World Championships" is the world champion. It's like that in any sport. Whoever wins the World championships is the world champion, irrespective of what he does at all other competitions.

Concerning you first paragraph, yep I got you wrong - I thought you wanted to imply that Topalov now _is_ as dominant as Kasparov was in the past. So that's cleared up, now all I can say is "I agree with you (on that point)".

But you confused me with something else: "changes during the cycles are unheard of". ????? Did you miss lots of discussions here and elsewhere? Changes DID occur during the ongoing cycle - well, maybe all changes announced during the Dresden Olympiad will be nullified again. "Ongoing cycle" here refers to the one that will determine the challenger of Anand or Topalov (whoever wins their upcoming match - whenever/wherever that one happens, time, location and sponsors are not yet known ....).

@me: with such a relaxed definition of what is a world champion, the FIDE board could announce tomorrow that the new world champion has been decided by a vote (in compliance with the "whatever" rule you mention above), and that its recipient is the great Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.

OK, maybe I used the wrong word - I am not a native speaker. I perfectly aware of all the changes in the past and current world championship cycles. I am totally against those kind of changes. However this doesn't change anything at all. Like it or not FIDE is the only worldwide chess organization, and is thus the only governing body that can crown a World Champion. What I or you think about it, is totally irrelevant.

And to answer Guillaume: Yes, they can do that. Ilyumzhinov would be World Champion then. However I would most likely stop following professional chess in that case.

To explain my last paragraph, I give you a counter question: Can a Senate/Parliament (or whatever it is called) in your country change the constitution and declare themselves as the absolute rulers for life?

The answer is YES. They can do that by 2/3 (or whatever it is prescribed) majority of votes. However there will probably be uprising of the people and they will depose them soon. By force.

It's the same concearning FIDE and Ilyumzhinov. They CAN do that. But it probably wouldn't end well for them.

@me: so there is a limit to your acceptance of what FIDE decides to call a world champion after all?

@ me

On a off-topic side note, that's completely wrong (at least in my country, no idea about yours).
The answer to your question is NO (as said, at least in my country). There is certain parts of constitution, and the "principle of democracy" and "principle of rule of law" are two of them, that can't be changed by a vote; they are written down in the constitution as "unchangeable" (and that is "unchenageable" too) by any means.
The only way to change them would be by undemocratic means, eg military force.

I don't even need to argue that a Law can be contested at the constitutional court, because it doesn't matter. No matter if 2/3, 4/5 or all of the parliament would vote for such a thing: It is NOT possible (as said, at least in my country) to declare yourself as absolute ruler for life through a vote in parliament.
The guys who wrote the constitution of my country were smart enough declare certain principles as unchangeable even by vote. You're free to think that's good or bad, but your statement above is wrong in my country.

Completely off-topic and not important for your point, I know, but still...