Madrid Candidates 16th June to Tue 5th Jul 2022

[Graham Borrowdale]

Not that Carlsen will need to play in the candidates'. If at some point after he gives up the title* he wants a match against a "World Champion" he'll get one. FIDE World Championship or otherwise.

This is the thing that would worry me most, that we go back to the dark days of the best player trying to hand pick challengers, or bypassing the official qualification cycle, and people disregarding the official champion by using “ ”.

I agree it’s not the best of all possible worlds. But it is not disregarding. Just facing reality.

The title of World Champion means little to nothing if it is not held the established best player in the World

It’s not much different to the time I won our club championship. The first team players never entered and one year I won it. It was an achievement (by my standards), sure, but it meant nothing to anybody else. It certainly had no relevance to the question of who was the best player in the club.

Trust me when I say nobody - not even me - remembers which year it was that I was the “club champion”.

I don’t disagree with any of that, Jonathan, but I would not relish a return to that era, where the chess public were split about who was world champion. I can foresee a situation where Carlsen is the strongest player, but Nepo/Ding is world champion but not really recognised as such. Let’s hope he continues, and it doesn’t end up like boxing.
I do think that everybody deserves a shot at being club champion at least once, though, but I do remember exactly when I won mine!

[Ian Thompson]

The title of World Champion means little to nothing if it is not held the established best player in the World

In that case there's little point in having a World Championship match. You'd be better off declaring the World Champion to be the highest rated player, or whatever other criteria establish a player as the best in the world.

If this view also holds for team events then that's bad news for the recent winners of the World Senior Team Championships.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Strictly speaking you are correct, but you also surely know what was meant by the previous comment.

Nobody claims Kramnik wasn't a "proper" champion because Kasparov was still the "stronger" player in 2000, do they.

(or Euwe in 1935, come to that)

But the indisputably best player in the world basically abdicating, but unlike Fischer post-1972 still continuing to play - that would be a totally new situation and maybe not one the chess world is terribly well equipped to deal with.

[Gerard Killoran]

Nobody claims Kramnik wasn't a "proper" champion because Kasparov was still the "stronger" player in 2000, do they.

(or Euwe in 1935, come to that)

The edochess ratings for 1934

1 Alekhine, Alexander 2640 (33) 54
2 Euwe, Machgielis 2606 (36) 39
3 Reshevsky, Samuel 2600 (43) 32

And 1935 including the WC match.

1 Alekhine, Alexander 2615 (35) 68
2 Euwe, Machgielis 2612 (40) 39
3 Flohr, Salo 2606 (34) 63

Which indicates that Euwe was both a worthy challenger, and champion.

[Nick Ivell]

Malcolm Pein, in his column today, backs up some of the comments made in this thread.

The level of play was lower than any he can remember.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Nobody claims Kramnik wasn't a "proper" champion because Kasparov was still the "stronger" player in 2000, do they.

(or Euwe in 1935, come to that)

The edochess ratings for 1934

1 Alekhine, Alexander 2640 (33) 54
2 Euwe, Machgielis 2606 (36) 39
3 Reshevsky, Samuel 2600 (43) 32

And 1935 including the WC match.

1 Alekhine, Alexander 2615 (35) 68
2 Euwe, Machgielis 2612 (40) 39
3 Flohr, Salo 2606 (34) 63

Which indicates that Euwe was both a worthy challenger, and champion.

How did you imagine that wasn't the point I was making?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Strictly speaking you are correct, but you also surely know what was meant by the previous comment.

Nobody claims Kramnik wasn't a "proper" champion because Kasparov was still the "stronger" player in 2000, do they.

(or Euwe in 1935, come to that)

But the indisputably best player in the world basically abdicating, but unlike Fischer post-1972 still continuing to play - that would be a totally new situation and maybe not one the chess world is terribly well equipped to deal with.

I tend to agree but it is hard to know. Carlsen is the first champion required to defend his title every two years ad infinitum. Anand did it for a bit but he had a different work ethic and he too looked the worse for it. Suppose Carlsen did abdicate, then got hungry to play a match again after a break of (say) three or four years - and was a better player for it? Would the chess world be poorer in that situation?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Nobody claims Kramnik wasn't a "proper" champion because Kasparov was still the "stronger" player in 2000, do they.

(or Euwe in 1935, come to that)

The edochess ratings for 1934

1 Alekhine, Alexander 2640 (33) 54
2 Euwe, Machgielis 2606 (36) 39
3 Reshevsky, Samuel 2600 (43) 32

And 1935 including the WC match.

1 Alekhine, Alexander 2615 (35) 68
2 Euwe, Machgielis 2612 (40) 39
3 Flohr, Salo 2606 (34) 63

Which indicates that Euwe was both a worthy challenger, and champion.

Perhaps. People have always tended to downgrade Euwe's achievement. Partly because Alekhine took a big lead early on and probably relaxed, was reeking of drink in some games and moving around Holland like a backpacker, and, worst of all, might not have had the full benefits of the milk from his cow (and still almost defended his title). But perhaps also because it is not so obvious how his games changed or developed chess culture. The image is rather that of a strong practical player. But on the latter point, Kasparov analysed his career and games and seems ready to acknowledge him as a great predecessor, albeit obviously not among the greatest.

[Nick Ivell]

All the world champions were, by definition, great players.

I was interested to read Kasparov's opinion that Euwe had a relatively poor intuition. So far, so good. But along with Euwe, Kasparov included Botvinnik and even Fischer! That got me thinking.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Strictly speaking you are correct, but you also surely know what was meant by the previous comment.

Nobody claims Kramnik wasn't a "proper" champion because Kasparov was still the "stronger" player in 2000, do they.

(or Euwe in 1935, come to that)

But the indisputably best player in the world basically abdicating, but unlike Fischer post-1972 still continuing to play - that would be a totally new situation and maybe not one the chess world is terribly well equipped to deal with.

I tend to agree but it is hard to know. Carlsen is the first champion required to defend his title every two years ad infinitum. Anand did it for a bit but he had a different work ethic and he too looked the worse for it. Suppose Carlsen did abdicate, then got hungry to play a match again after a break of (say) three or four years - and was a better player for it? Would the chess world be poorer in that situation?

Well if Carlsen wants to move to a 3 year cycle as was the case for over half a century, then I for one would agree with it and think that FIDE should agree to that if it is the price for him continuing in their remit. Its the occasional comments from MC along the lines of "the classical world title doesn't matter that much anyway" which do concern me rather more tbh.

(though as ever, you never know quite how serious he is and he undoubtedly has genuine respect for chess history)

[Jonathan Bryant]

]
In that case there's little point in having a World Championship match. You'd be better off declaring the World Champion to be the highest rated player, or whatever other criteria establish a player as the best in the world.

Well I disagree with your premise that in every case the higher elo proves the better player.

And it’s also worth noting that many sports don’t have specific ‘world championship’ tournaments. Golf and tennis for example.
Carlsen in the past specifically said he valued being World Number 1 higher than being World Champion.


But in general I find the argument that somehow the best player(s) choosing not to enter a championship somehow isn’t a problem for that championship not worth discussing. If you feel that’s true ... well it’s a free country

[Jonathan Bryant]

... I would not relish a return to that era, where the chess public were split about who was world champion. I can foresee a situation where Carlsen is the strongest player, but Nepo/Ding is world champion but not really recognised as such

I'm not sure I'm thrilled about it either. But I'm quite sure that's exactly what will happen if Carlsen decides not to play. Well, I suppose whoever it is will still be World Champion and will be called that. It just won't mean anything. That's assuming you could actually get somebody to pay for a match that everybody knows means jigger all. I'm sure there'll always be unsavoury cash available from unsavoury people somewhere. But with Russian money verboten for the minute, maybe the title match will just fall away. Which is an unpleasant prospect certainly.

As for the previous split. Has there ever been a serious dispute as to who was the 'real' champion?

If you exclude the fanboys and others who had vested interests in pretending Topalov, say, was really World Champion - or whoever won the 1993 match between Karpov and Timman - I don't think there's ever been any real doubt as to who's been the World Champion from Steinitz onwards.


As for the other Jonathan's point about the interest in a future World Championship match involving Carlsen - I agree. Any time he chooses to play a match against another top contender it will be fascinating. It's just question of whether he ever chooses that.


One last thing - if FIDE are going to rejig things to try to keep Magnus onboard, I'd much rather they revert to a 3-year cycle. Which is what it should have been anyway.
Allowing a champion to choose the format of the match to match their personal strengths is a step too far, I think.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I think after Topalov's highly impressive performance in 2005 (which coincided with a poor spell from Kramnik) there was genuine doubt as to who was the "real" WC. I have little doubt that was a major driver behind the unification match, and the rest is of course history.

[Mick Norris]

One last thing - if FIDE are going to rejig things to try to keep Magnus onboard, I'd much rather they revert to a 3-year cycle. Which is what it should have been anyway.

Absolutely, giving up 1 year in 3 for preparation is a lot different than every other year; I assume the change was because of the money generated by a world championship match

It may depend who is running FIDE

[Chris Rice]

Carlsen loses a little of his air of invincibility as he takes a pasting in just 19 moves from a mother of two.