In A Setback for Reunification, I noted (with dismay) FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov's abrupt declaration of a lack of interest in reunification (especially abrupt, considering that Silvio Danailov, his manager, had expresed just such an interest several days before); today, we have news of Classical World Champion Vladimir Kramnik's view on the matter: he's for it. Here's the upshot as presented in tonight's issue (CT-1810) of Chess Today, drawn from an interview with Kramnik in Rodnaya Gazeta (via Russian news sites):
Kramnik considers himself to be the legitimate Classical World Champion, and challenges Veselin Topalov to a match. In the opinion of Kramnik, the unification of the chess world now depends on FIDE and Topalov: they should give agreement for the unification match.
No surprise there, but whether this forthright, public declaration will any impact on Topalov remains to be seen. Interestingly, it is not only the principals who have weighed in; we also have comments from the two charters members of the (informal) Committee to Impeach Kramnik: Alexei Shirov and Garry Kasparov. Here's Shirov, from a brand new interview:
[Q:] Does Kramnik, in your opinion, have moral or juridical rights to challenge Topalov?
[Shirov:] Not a bit. It is sufficient to recall the year 1998.
Equally shocking, Kasparov (at least as reported by Mig), thinks Topalov shouldn't bother with Kramnik, either.
Shirov's gripe is entirely understandable: in 1997, he defeated Kramnik in a match for the right to play Kasparov for the title. Kramnik got paid for losing, while Shirov's big payday was to come from the title match. That match was supposed to occur in 1998, but it fell through and Shirov earned $0. If that's not bad enough, Kasparov decided, in 2000, to give Kramnik a shot at the title. Kramnik accepted, they played, and Kramnik won. (And, needless to say, was paid well for the experience.)
Kasparov's comment is another story. For years, he denounced FIDE and ridiculed their championships. He claimed his title was the genuine one, the true continuation of the line from Steinitz. He didn't believe he had forfeited this during the five years he failed to defend the title - even in 1998, when his results were rather mediocre. Further, he generally maintained, post-2000, that Kramnik was the (or at worst, a) true title-holder as well.
Before his match with Kramnik, Kasparov explicitly waived any right to a rematch; almost immediately after losing, however, he placed heavy pressure on Kramnik to offer the rematch he had willingly foregone. Kramnik did not comply, plumping, reasonably enough, for a qualification cycle. (This was won in mid-2002 by Peter Leko, who defeated Topalov in the final.)
Kasparov bypassed the qualifier, but found another way. In early 2002, all the relevant parties signed the Prague Agreement, according to which Kasparov was supposed to play then-FIDE champion Ruslan Ponomariov, Kramnik play official challenger Peter Leko, and then the winners of those matches play each other. Unfortunately, the match with Ponomariov fell through, but Kasparov's status as challenger-in-waiting was maintained through last year and early this year, and he was still supposed to play Rustam Kasimjanov - with the winner to play Kramnik (who retained his title by narrowly drawing the match with Leko). The Kasimjanov match wasn't coming off either, and between his frustrations and his political interests, Kasparov decided he had had enough and retired from the game.
Thus Kasparov, like Shirov, feels some resentment towards Kramnik, but Kasparov has far less of a leg to stand on. Shirov was deprived of what was rightfully his and was done a severe economic injustice (though Kramnik was the beneficiary of that injustice, not its perpetrator); Kasparov, on the other hand, was not treated unjustly: he wasn't entitled to a rematch, and he didn't get one.
But like his great predecessor, Kramnik too has the ability to shoot himself in the foot. Around the time of the Kasimjanov era, prior to Kasparov's retirement, Kramnik pronounced the Prague Agreement dead. His official reason was a concern for the future of the unified title: he wanted to make sure that a reasonable cycle would be in place rather than a continued series of knockout events. The more cynical interpretation was that this was a pretext: Kramnik took the first available opportunity to block a possible rematch with Kasparov, and since Ponomariov-Kasparov had fallen through, he could report that FIDE hadn't held up its part of Prague, so neither would he.
At that point, I was sympathetic to Kramnik's arguments, but then most of my sympathy left when he produced this statement in a recent (September 2005) interview
The Prague agreements enabled me to play against the FIDE champion. I am ready to fulfil this agreement and play for the absolute world title against the winner of San Luis. I hope that the other side will carry fulfil [sic] the agreement as well.
What?! Prague is dead when it's Kasimjanov-Kasparov instead of Ponomariov-Kasparov, but once Kasparov is out of the picture it's alive? Nice. Add to this the Danailov-Topalov about-face from this past week, and it's tempting to wish a pox on the whole lot of them. Even so, I believe that reunification is the best thing for chess, both for the fans and the good of the profession.
Is there enough good sense and delayed self-interest to make it happen?
