Anand replies to Kramnik's latest comments
Kramnik has been in the habit of devaluing the Mexico City tournament as a world championship event, more or less declaring that the only way to conduct a "real" world championship is in a match. At the very least, this is an ungracious thing for Kramnik to say, but at least he was saying it before the tournament actually started. At worst, it's rather condescending to Anand. Kramnik seems to be saying something like this: "Anand isn't really the champ yet, even though (friendly pet on the head), Anand did a nice job in Mexico and since everyone is calling it a world championship, well, shucks, I guess I'll call it one too. (Aren't I nice?)"
You can (re-)read Kramnik's comments here, and you can read Anand's slightly testy but mostly restrained comments in this interview (HT: Brian Karen). The interviewer tries really, really hard to get Anand to lash out (something I've noticed more than once when the Indian press interviews him), but he mostly declines the bait - to his credit.
Is there something poisonous about becoming the world chess champion? Topalov turned into a trash-talking jerk with respect to Kramnik after the former won the (FIDE) title in 2005, and now Kramnik seems to be following suit (though of course he's not the champion anymore). Since no one not in his cell phone's speed dial is likely to care about Kramnik's rationalizations (in fact, I've gone from rooting for Kramnik to rooting for Anand this fall), one might wonder why he's doing it.
Here's a hypothesis. As Kramnik rightly noted, Anand did terribly against Kasparov. Why? In part because Kasparov was the better player, no doubt, but he wasn't that much better. One possibility is that he was simply intimidated by Kasparov - not only (or not so much) by his chess but by his manner, by his intensity. Likewise, he has struggled with Kamsky over the years, even when he seemed the significantly stronger player over the board. Kamsky, or rather his father, tended to generate an edgy atmosphere wherever Gata played. Anand seems to play at his best when everything is calm and normal, and when he's confident he's able to build on his successes. When things are a bit tense off the board and he's not playing his best, he plays well below his best. My suspicion then is that this is more strategy on Kramnik's part than anything else. He wants to generate as much agitation and aggravation in Anand as he can, in the hopes of throwing the champion off his game.
Will it work? I hope it backfires, but based on Anand's track record it's probably a good strategy. Is it admirable? I say no, at least not if he's doing it deliberately.
You can (re-)read Kramnik's comments here, and you can read Anand's slightly testy but mostly restrained comments in this interview (HT: Brian Karen). The interviewer tries really, really hard to get Anand to lash out (something I've noticed more than once when the Indian press interviews him), but he mostly declines the bait - to his credit.
Is there something poisonous about becoming the world chess champion? Topalov turned into a trash-talking jerk with respect to Kramnik after the former won the (FIDE) title in 2005, and now Kramnik seems to be following suit (though of course he's not the champion anymore). Since no one not in his cell phone's speed dial is likely to care about Kramnik's rationalizations (in fact, I've gone from rooting for Kramnik to rooting for Anand this fall), one might wonder why he's doing it.
Here's a hypothesis. As Kramnik rightly noted, Anand did terribly against Kasparov. Why? In part because Kasparov was the better player, no doubt, but he wasn't that much better. One possibility is that he was simply intimidated by Kasparov - not only (or not so much) by his chess but by his manner, by his intensity. Likewise, he has struggled with Kamsky over the years, even when he seemed the significantly stronger player over the board. Kamsky, or rather his father, tended to generate an edgy atmosphere wherever Gata played. Anand seems to play at his best when everything is calm and normal, and when he's confident he's able to build on his successes. When things are a bit tense off the board and he's not playing his best, he plays well below his best. My suspicion then is that this is more strategy on Kramnik's part than anything else. He wants to generate as much agitation and aggravation in Anand as he can, in the hopes of throwing the champion off his game.
Will it work? I hope it backfires, but based on Anand's track record it's probably a good strategy. Is it admirable? I say no, at least not if he's doing it deliberately.
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on
Sunday July 20, 2008 at 8:06pm
But perhaps your first point is correct: power corrupts. If you consider world chess champion power.
To answer the implicit question at the end of your comment, I would consider it power. Of course there are degrees of power, and that of the world chess champion is miniscule compared to that of the leader of a country. But it is power nevertheless, as the champion can wield economic and political influence over organizers and peers, as both Karpov and Kasparov demonstrated on multiple occasions.
Personally, I don't believe in necessarily rooting for the nice guy - but I'm rooting for Anand, just as I rooted for Topalov :)
here is a poll idea, if Kramnik wins the match, how many people will give much credit to Anands title? he will be considered just another fide champion and Kramnik will be considered to of never really lost the classical title. I think the match wont be close, whoever win will win by 3 or 4 games and thats if it gets played out. Also if Anand wins it, then how many people will also say, Anand has proven he clearly is the world champ. If the tourney title was legit by everyone, then nobody should say this but i am thinking many will
I'm not sure what American you're referring to. The Anand interview is by an Indian, the Kramnik interview was picked up by ChessBase, which is a German site, and then there's me - but I've long been a big Kramnik fan and, whenever possible, defender. So I'm either missing your point or you're off on a red herring.
Your poll idea, or one that's similar to it, could be interesting. Since there's only the FIDE championship now, it doesn't work to say he was "just" the FIDE champion. But if Kramnik wins, one might ask whose title was more impressive/more meaningful/better showed who was the world's best player, Anand's from Mexico City or Kramnik's from the match.
"Kramnik became World Champion in 2000 and 7 years later it turned him into a trash-talking jerk? Frankly, this is all about bias, and I'm not talking about Monokroussos specifically, but the entire trend. They are just exchanging opinions. Difference is, everything Kramnik says is put under the microscope so that any imagined hint of sinister intent can be thoroughly detected, while Anand can say what he want. If Kramnik calls the tournament format ridiculous, it's psychological warfare. If Anand calls Kramnik's right to a so-called "rematch" ridiculous, and blames him for acquiring this "unfair privilege", it's just his opinion. If Kramnik says the same thing about the various WCh formats as he has done for many years, it's off-board tactics. If Anand does the same, he's a gentleman.
I'm not criticising Anand, obviously, just calling for an end to the double standards. Blame both or none, preferably none. It's sad when people are trying to drive a wedge between them, propping up one of them as the good guy and the other one as the bad guy."
For the record, I am not saying that nothing Kramnik said has been wrong or questionable. Neither am I saying that about Anand. But they have the right to their opinions. Kramnik himself stated clearly that he has no problem with it. I really believe Anand doesn't, either. The big "conflict" is mostly a media/fan issue.
1) The world champion is the one who wins the wc-cycle consisting of 1on1 matches.
2) The currently strongest player is first on the rating list (which obviously fluctuates all the time and is currently very close at the top).
3) Then there are the tournaments in which 1 &2 above obviously will do well.
Three different things and you can't just equate them as being equal &the same just like that. Throw in rapid, blitz &blindfold as well why don't you.
Kramnik has a valid point and Anand fans have difficulty accepting that, especially considering Anand has never before in his life won any serious match.
So I don't know that Kramnik should talk too much about matches given that he's never demonstrated any significant superiority in that field even over "generic" Linares-circuit players like Leko and Topalov.
Now I'm not going to take sides here, but I will say that top flight athletes in all circles tend to be surrounded by syncophants (ahem. Danailov.) who will reinforce the "I'm the best" worldview and encourage that worldview in the player. Tends to lead itself to reality denial in the Fischer/Kasparov/Kramnik vein; history is -their- story.
Anyway, so far Anand seems mostly immune, probably because he's happily married.
Kramnik just lost to Arkady Naiditsch.
First of all, I don't like being lumped in with some "trend". I was quite specific and didn't put Kramnik under any "microscope". His comments were quite straightforwardly disparaging. Further, as friends of mine can attest (and it would be nice if they did), as well as anyone who has been paying attention to this blog over the years, I was completely in Kramnik's camp. So it's absurd to think I was looking for something to criticize in Kramnik's remarks.
Second, Kramnik didn't just turn now, seven years after becoming champion. For one thing, Kramnik has acted out of convenience more than once as champion. When Kasparov was still trying to regain the title by means of the Prague Agreement, Kramnik was happy to say that "Prague is dead" when the deadlines had passed. When it was time to persuade Topalov to play the unification match, on the other hand, he appealed to the "spirit of Prague" as a genuine argument. For another thing, while Kramnik had one of the titles from 2000 until last year, he didn't have the undisputed title until 2006 and there were various challenges to the legitimacy of that title over the years. (Not giving Kasparov a rematch, the fairly long time between the Kasparov and Leko matches, and his very poor results in the mid-2000s.) Whether those challenges were completely fair or not, Kramnik had something to prove and a strong motivation to unite the titles (especially once Kasparov stepped out of the picture). He had a lot to gain as well as to lose, so he was more flexible and accommodating. After defeating Topalov, he no longer had anything to gain, so it's not surprising that he evinced a new attitude.
Third, even if Anand has also made objectionable remarks, it doesn't make Kramnik's comments any better. That said, complaining about the rematch privilege doesn't seem to be in the same category to me as what Kramnik has recently said.
Kevin: Nothing said here was at all relevant to one's nationality, whether the person is Russian, Indian, American or whatever. If it applies to comments on other blogs, make them there.
Anand's opinion is different, and he is also consistent.
Journalists are trying to make from this controversy more, while it is just different opinions about preferred format, and nothing else.
I think it goes beyond opinions about the preferred format when he says questions whether Anand really is the world champion. As for the consistency argument, it would be a lot more impressive if he didn't have such an obvious vested interest before unification and if he hadn't gone to Mexico City. (It doesn't help that he had no real objection to playing in LV 1999, but maybe he hadn't thought the issues through by that point. [Cough, cough.]) Once he agreed to play, he should have kept quiet about it. This was no "huge compromise" on his part, as he was guaranteed a match the next year (now this year) no matter what, and without the champion (Anand) even getting draw odds.
That said, I don't think it much matters. Since 2000, Kramnik hasn't had consistently good results, and I don't expect he'll have much chance in a match with Anand, who has been in relatively good form throughout.
The answer is that someone first cited this post. As you say, why else should I comment on it there? Anyway, I simply disagree on the main issue here; Kramnik is just expressing his opinions, so does Anand; I agree more with Kramnik's opinions than with Anand's, but neither is particularly disrespectful. Like Mr. Golubev I also don't see why Kramnik should all of a sudden keep quiet about a view it is well known that he has long had. Especially when he is specifically being asked the question?! That would seem pretty silly and even hypocritical to me.
And what about him playing in Las Vegas -99? Is there anything inconsistent in this? I don't see why.
Mikhail: "At least Kramnik is not claiming that he is a world champion"...are you sure he's not? If he can't give a straight answer to the question of whether Anand is WC, then he either thinks that in some sense the title is void or that he's still champ. As for the remark about amateurs, I can't really see the basis for that desire. Amateurs are far less qualified to respond to matters of chess content, but when it comes to matters of sportsmanship, chess history and politics and the like, there is no intrinsic difference between a world champion and a player with a 3-digit rating. In fact, the amateur may be at an advantage, because he or she may lack the top player's vested interest.
acirce: Good reason! A URL would have been nice though (if it didn't require premium membership), as it's a pretty colossal site. The point about LV 1999 is that he didn't seem to have any problems recognizing that as a world championship (though I might be misremembering); it's only now, when it's in his best interest, that he's fastidious about the value of the title won in a match.
You can see at the Kramnik official page a title "World Chess Champion 2000-2007".
If someone, even Kramnik himself, thinks that he is a "real" world champion, it is more a play of words. One can say with a same success that Kasparov is a real world champion, or maybe Alekhine, or anything else.