Ruslan Ponomariov vs Gukesh Dommaraju: three months difference

[Jonathan Rogers]

Ponomariov was never *undisputed* wotld champion, Gukesh is. That is arguably the only thing that really matters.

And yet Kasparov was in the wings then, just as Carlsen is now. GK could have defended his "undisputed" title against Pono, and was in fact under an obligation to do so, but never did.

I know you're not a GK fan Nick, but this appears to be complete nonsense.

[NickFaulks]

I know you're not a GK fan Nick, but this appears to be complete nonsense.

That was what FIDE thought.

[Joey Stewart]

How many of the "undisputed" world champions were undisputedly the best player in the world?

Steinitz, lasker, capablanca, Fischer, Karpov , Kasparov and carlsen are the only ones that seemed to stand head and shoulders above their closest rivals - all the others existed in an era where there were a ton of equally matched strong players that could have potentially won the title, if gukesh dedicated his career primarily towards being a master of classical time controls he could potentially have a long reign too but those tests to his fortitude are yet to come.

[Paul Cooksey]

I could quibble with Joey's list. Botvinnik is fun because I think you can argue he is head and shoulders above his rivals but only before he was world champion. But I'll accept it and add two more tiers:

Regarded as legitimate world champion:
Botvinnik, Alekhine, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Petrosian

Considered a bit lucky to be world champion:
Euwe, Ding, Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov

I think we probably have to put Gukesh at the top of tier 3 for now. But arguably you could have said the same of Karpov in 1975.

[NickFaulks]

I know you're not a GK fan Nick, but this appears to be complete nonsense.

To expand on this, I believe my "complete nonsense" to be entirely and literally true. Perhaps I heard only one side of the story, what do you believe happened?

[Joey Stewart]

I could quibble with Joey's list. Botvinnik is fun because I think you can argue he is head and shoulders above his rivals but only before he was world champion. But I'll accept it and add two more tiers:

Botvinnik was certainly a multi time champion in a competitive era but isn't there some anecdotal evidence that the soviets stacked events heavily in his favour, funded him well above his contemporary grand masters as well as him getting multiple rematch clauses meaning he was never that far away from the title - he was definitely a legit champion but I have my doubts he would have beaten alekhine, and there were many other big names in his era who could (and did) defeat him consistently enough that I'm not sure whether he could be considered the clear best.

[NickFaulks]

Botvinnik is fun because I think you can argue he is head and shoulders above his rivals but only before he was world champion.

And at a time when the incumbent had the huge advantages of draw odds and rematch rights. Botvinnik was never more than first among equals.

Nothing wrong with that, anyway. If two historically great players happen to be born in the same year, does that mean neither of them can ever be top drawer?

[Paul Cooksey]

Botvinnik was indeed described as first amongst equals with draw odds and rematches. But in his forties and fifties.

The historic ratings people consider that Botvinnik in his late twenties and thirties was stronger than Alekhine and Euwe. But they were under no obligation to play him at all.

There is the famous story of Petrosian saying to Keres that when he played Botvinnik he felt like he was playing against a bulldozer and Keres replying "yes Tigran, but can you imagine what it was like playing him when he was young?"

[NickFaulks]

The historic ratings people consider that Botvinnik in his late twenties and thirties was stronger than Alekhine and Euwe.

So Botvinnik at his peak was stronger than Alekhine well past his peak.. These discussions lead nowhere.

[Paul Cooksey]

I concur we ought to be sequencing proteins or similar. But I'm taking the day off. I thought Joey was slightly too strict on his list of great champions and we could bump up Botvinnik and Alekhine.

Gukesh's challenge is perhaps to ensure classical champion still matters. We are about to start a season of top level rapid chess.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I concur we ought to be sequencing proteins or similar. But I'm taking the day off. I thought Joey was slightly too strict on his list of great champions and we could bump up Botvinnik and Alekhine.

Yes, that is a list that I can basically agree with. Even if only for a short period, Alekhine was almost as dominant circa 1929-31 as Fischer was four decades later. And there is very little doubt Botvinnik was clearly the world's best player in the 1940s.

(plus the extent to which he was "favoured" by the USSR establishment is exaggerated by some, rather as with Karpov in the 1980s)

[Nick Burrows]

You can definitely argue that Rubinstein was stronger than Lasker. Chess Metrics has him ahead between 1912-14

[Jonathan Rogers]

I know you're not a GK fan Nick, but this appears to be complete nonsense.

To expand on this, I believe my "complete nonsense" to be entirely and literally true. Perhaps I heard only one side of the story, what do you believe happened?

Late reply, and perhaps the person who holds what he seems to acknowledge is the minority viewpoint should go first, but this is what I believe:

1) that Kasparov has already lost what he regarded as his title to Kramnik by the time that Pono became FIDE Champion. There is therefore no sense in saying "GK could have defended his "undisputed" title against Pono, and was in fact under an obligation to do so, but never did" simply because GK had nothing to defend, and thus no possible obligation, at the material time.
2) naturally Kasparov preferred to play Kramnik again but was frustrated by the latter. I tend to think that Kasparov would have been prepared to play Pono first, helped by the latter's decent showing at Linares, if it would lead to a rematch with Kramnik and possible reunification; but it was moot because Pono's manager Danailov seemed to have no interest in this, for reasons which I do not pretend to understand, but with disastrous consequences for his client
4) Kasparov even reluctantly agreed to a possible match with Kasim when he in turn became FIDE champion, as a bridge to a match with Kramnik, even though he could barely believe that he would be asked to play the number 25 in the world.
5) Then it became clearer that Kramnik, having just held his title after his match with Leko, had little interest in agreeing to anything which would be likely lead to another kasparov; nor did he even wish to jeopardise his position by playing in San Luis. Although Kasparov mainly gave up chess earlier that year for (Russian) political reasons, he did also cite the impression that everyone else seemed to think that including the strongest player for the last twenty years was some kind of obstacle, and he had had enough of feigning interest in playing matches with the likes of Kasim.