See here and here. The first document, from the Topalov team, is simply maddening - especially in its first reason for rejecting Kramnik's match offer:
1. [1] We do not recognise Mr. Kramnik as a champion. [2] The World Champion’s title belongs by law to FIDE and, after his refusal to participate in the official World Championship in San Luis, Mr. Kramnik automatically lost his right to be designated the World Champion. [3] However, by the looks of it, he has decided to seize the title for the rest of his life. [4] Let us remember that he’s only 7th in the World Ranking list, scoring quite mediocre results recently. [5] At the same time, in addition to being the official World Champion, Veselin Topalov is Number 1 in the World Ranking List of 1 January 2006. [Sentence numbers added.]
It's like shooting fish in a barrel, but let's critique this anyway, just for fun.
Let's start with [2]. Appropriately enough, it is plagued with two serious problems. First, what "law" is this that conferred ownership of the World Championship title on FIDE? Did FIDE fail to sue the PCA in 1993 and 1995, BrainGames in 2000 and Dannemann in 2004 - all claiming to run world chess championships - solely out of the goodness of their organizational hearts? And what about the Accoona "World Championship" in New York earlier this year?
Worse still, [2] is at least implicitly self-contradictory. The suggestion at least seems to be that Kramnik had the right to be called "World Champion" prior to San Luis, even though Kramnik's title had nothing at all to do with FIDE. Go figure.
Now let's briefly consider the peerless thinking displayed by [3]. It's strange that Danailov would blame Kramnik for trying to possess the World Championship title for the rest of his life. For one thing, Kramnik doesn't have a title - doesn't Danailov remember his previous sentence? Second, should we infer from this that Topalov's aim is to lose the title as quickly as possible?
Let's be charitable and assume Topalov's manager really means to say that Kramnik is going to try to keep what the latter wrongly thinks is his title, without bothering to defend it, for as long as he possibly can. That's at least coherent, but is it plausible? Hardly. It was just one year ago that Kramnik defended his title, and it has been Kramnik, not Topalov, who has been pursuing the unification match.
Finally, sentence [4] is true but not obviously relevant (and partially addressed by yours truly in an earlier post), while [5] is also irrelevant and - I think - false. My understanding is that Kasparov won't drop off the rating list until he has been inactive for an entire year, and that doesn't occur until March.
I'm sure this is a P.R. attempt to seize the high ground in future negotiations for the title, but it would be better, in view, if the participants and organizations stopped trying to emulate pro boxing and wrestling. If I'm Topalov, I want to show the world that I'm the champion, period. It would increase his stature, please the chess world, do wonders for his legacy and raise the prestige of the game by dissolving the factions. And as an added bonus, he gets a nice payday and the chance to cash in by beating up on Kramnik, the merely 7th-ranked player with the mediocre results.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on the Failed UEP Kramnik-Topalov Match
- A Setback for Reunification
Kramnik would have to be accepted as World Champion de facto after the Kasparov match and provided a qualification cycle which culminated in the frankly disappointing Leko match. Since then Kramnik has done nothing to produce a legitimate cycle of qualification matches and there seems little or no prospect of one.How long can he go on claiming to be world champion in these circumstances?
The problem is that he has now opted out of the Fide cycle which was in a format that was both enjoyable and seemed to provide a legitimate champion??[ I realise the issues with that last statement].
The truth is that top class chess desperately needs a recognised champion in the post Kasparov era and I concur in the hope that a Topalov-Kramnik match is on the cards.
(I don't know why Kasparov says that Kramnik is history and Topalov the new champion. Maybe he is tired of writing books on that topic and doesn't want to make more money with a "my great successors" series? This is of course a rhethorical question. Everybody knows how frustrated Kasparov is because he didn't get a rematch vs. Kramnik. Sadly enough this is his own fault by relinquishing the rematch clause. Btw, sorry for my poor English, I'm not a native English speaker.)
People putting this argument forward never explain why Kramnik would produce a cycle of his own while unification is still an issue. That would be an act of sabotage.
Two quick responses. First, Topalov isn't qualifying for Kramnik's half of the title, either, which is the main point. It's not because Kramnik is tall or popular that he's got a stake in reunification, but because he's a title-holder. Both Topalov and Danailov have recognized Kramnik's title as legitimate, and not once in the history of chess has a title been stripped based on "recent mediocre results". Second, even if there is a good argument to be had in this neighborhood, it wasn't made by Danailov in the passage I cite.
For more on this, see today's post, here.
The current system, as you describe is akin to professional boxing where the challenger has to fight a slew of opponents before getting a chance to fight the current title holder. The way I describe is more like the tough man competitions where no matter who wins what, for each competition every competitor starts at point zero. I view that as the more correct way to do it as it results in a more robust determination of the winner.
Your desire to see the title determined by tournaments is reasonable. It also has nothing to do with either the Topalov/Danailov argument against Kramnik nor their proposal to defend the title by matches with 2700s willing to pony up the dough. The attacks on Kramnik are also misplaced: if avoiding competition makes one a "weenie", as you put it in a comment I deleted, then it may be time to wrap Topalov in a bun.
Finally, Topalov recognized the legitimacy of Kramnik's title when he competed in that cycle, Danailov repeatedly recognized it, even after San Luis, before Topalov induced his current state of amnesia. Further, FIDE had intended reunification for at least the last three years. So whatever virtues San Luis had, it doesn't make Kramnik's title magically disappear: it never rested on that event, and participation therein was never part of any agreement.
On the other hand, Kramnik has allowed that the title will be unified under FIDE after such a match takes place, when FIDE will decide if the title will be awarded via a tournament, match, or a bake-off with the Iron Chef. So the only impediment to a happy ending is Topalov, who would rush to play such a match, I think, if his career score vs. Kramnik wasn't so horrible.
a kramnik match-if his career score vs. Kramnik wasn't
so horrible-is exactly right Dennis.( chicken feather
syndrome ? )