Reb,again you with your capuccino and nes caffee. ZzZzzZzzz

Not to mention Topalov was never really the world champion.

And Cup of tea with milk

Anand is really dominating by game 5 now..

Anand is working much more than all them.Kramnik think much about Topalov and can't sleep good because he thinks Topalov could jump into his room trough the window and take his the best chess material.

Kramnik is star which didn't continue shining.Afther matches with Kasparov I didn't see nothing from him only amazing blunders for one World Chess Champion.

It's Anand in a rout! He leads 4.5 to 1.5 after 6 games.

Wonder if Kramnik is completely healthy? He looks gaunt whereas Anand glows!

JC

Reb: You are correct. According to the great wikipedia, the winner of this match is the 2008 World Champion. The winner of the Topalov/Kamsky match will play the 2008 World Champion for the title of 2009 World Champion.

So, in a sense, Topalov is not playing in this cycle, and in another sense, Topalov/Kamsky and the current match are both semifinals to the 2009 championship. I have no idea how they reached this convoluted structure, but I'm ok with it as long as we see some good chess. Currently, Kramnik is not obliging in this regard.

I agree that Kamsky is an underdog, but being a Cubs fan, I am used to this.

I disagree that there is some sort of a transitive theory of chess, somehow just because Kramnik def Kasparov and Anand def Kramnik (looking forward a bit), that Anand would def Kasparov.

NM, while I agree that there is no "transitive theory" of chess, it seems more like:

Kramnik thrashed (not merely beat) Kasparov (First time a WC lost without winning even one game)

Anand is thrashing (not merely beating) Kramnik (3 wins and no losses after 6 games)

On this basis, one would have to favor Anand in any matchup with Kasparov.

Having said that, I would probably say that a match between Kasparov at his peak and Anand at his peak (which is probably now) would be likely even, and possibly the match between the two strongest players in history.

JC

You're drunk.

Anand has a long way to go before he can be mentioned in the same breath as Kasparov. Kasparov has a large plus score against Anand in classical chess, he beat him in a match in 95, and he was rated #1 for 20 years in a row...by a generally gigantic margin.

Shirov beat Kramnik in 98....so naturally shirov must thrash kasparov! Even though Shirov never once beat Kasparov in classical chess...makes sense.

I want some of whatever you are smoking if you think Anand 1995 is the same as Anand 2008. The way Anand is demolishing Kramnik has likely never before been seen in a WC match. And Kramnik is not some accidental WC like Spassky who never really was good enough to be WC. Kramnik is one who has been WC for many years now. Face it, Anand in his current form would likely demolish any opposition.

I am not talking about performance over an extended period of time, not "he was rated #1 for 20 years in a row". I am talking about the strength of a player at a point in time, as in Anand now (his peak) and Kasparov at his peak (which he probably reached when he beat Anand in 1995).

JC

Kramnik is the second best match player in the world now. Topalov is the only other player who comes close.

Anand is thrashing the second best player. Topalov would likely fare even worse.

Kasparov barely managed to beat the second best player (Karpov).

I really don't think Kasparov would be able to withstand Anand in his current form.

JC

All of this is impossible to prove and therefore dumb to even bring up. Have you entertained the idea that Kramnik could just be in really bad form? His opening prep seems completely nonexistent for one thing.

Also, you're assuming that Kramnik is in the same form now that he was when he beat Kasparov. Again, all this "who was better when" stuff is purely opinion...we can look at the achievements though! In those Kasparov is clearly king.

If your position about a Anand (2008) - Kasparov (1995) match is "we can't know who would win", that's fine with me.

Achievements over a lifetime, yes... Kasparov is king.

Strength of a player in a WC... Anand (2008) looks like a cut above the rest.

Yes, I have thought about Kramnik playing badly... but bad play can also be caused by superior opposition! As Kasparov himself said "Anand has kicked sand on Kramnik's face". It seems Anand has destroyed Kramnik's confidence.

JC

If I was 3-0 down I would certainly feel like my confidence was gone.  3-0 is huge when you only have a 12 game match.

I do agree this match should have taken place to decide the "real champ" as the title has passed through masters through the years with the last one being Kramnik.  Once Anand wins this (as he looks certain to do) he will be the proper world champion and hold the same title passed along from champ to champ.

I think the reason he does not complain is that he knows by winning this there will be no doubt and he can join the other masters from the last 130 years or so.

Kramnik winning if the match is drawn is unfair and neither master should have that right in this match.

 Spassky was never really good enough to be WC ?!  Sheeesh ! I completely disagree on this !  Spassky's record speaks for itself, both his match record and his tournament record. Fischer had never beaten Spassky until the 1972 match, this alone is a testament to Spassky's strength. I have always been a bit suspect of Kramnik's "credentials" myself though as the best "match player" and Anand is showing that Kramnik is NOT all that his fans make him out to be. Kramnik's only great claim to fame is his match win against a Kasparov that was clearly NOT trying to win their match ! Kramnik has lost matches to Shirov, Kamsky, Gelfand and now looks to lose BADLY with Anand........he drew matches with Topalov and Leko.......so who has he beaten in a match I ask?! The match with Anand is turning into an embarrassing farce for Kramnik if you ask me.

I agree with a poster above that Kramnik's preparation seems to be FAR inferior to Anand's. Add to this an absolute blunder (missing ...Ne3) and he really has no chance. I would characterize him as out-of-form with bad preparation. Not a good combination.

Go Kamsky!

 And why is that?

In Kramnik's defense I would say that if you don't include the forfeit he beat Topalov outright (before beating him in the tie-break). And Topalov is definitely a better player than the others you mention (Shirov, Kamsky, Gelfand and Leko).

Wait till Anand demolishes whoever is next (Topalov or Kamsky) and then you will think better of Kramnik.

JC

 I think many people dont accept the tourney format for producing a "world champion" and only recognize those who win it through match play. There is some logic to this as the tourney format has produced some very questionable "champions" ,  Khalifman and Kazimzadov (spelling? )  come to mind . In fact many Kramnik fans dont recognize Anand for this reason......I guess after this match though they will pay Anand a bit more respect ?