he really saved the World Chess Championship.
Kramnik likes to talk about himself like that :-) He states that if he had given Kasparov a rematch "we would now be playing a knockout World Championship with 30 minutes a game". I don't know why there would be any reason to believe that, or if Kramnik saved the World Championship rather than himself from a rematch against Kasparov, but his motives always sound a bit too unselfish to be true :-)
Very nice one. Go Vlad!
he really saved the World Chess Championship.
Kramnik likes to talk about himself like that :-) He states that if he had given Kasparov a rematch "we would now be playing a knockout World Championship with 30 minutes a game". I don't know why there would be any reason to believe that, or if Kramnik saved the World Championship rather than himself from a rematch against Kasparov, but his motives always sound a bit too unselfish to be true :-)
Don't take this the wrong way because it is really just a sincere question.
Were you following chess leading up to and after the 2000 match between Kasparov and Kramnik?
I think those of us who were following chess know that the World championship was a shambles. Kasparov originally broke off with short to play a match in 1993. This wasn't so bad since Short had qualified pursuant to the FIDE qualifiers. In1993 FIDE had a world chess championship with the 2 players Short beat. So the short kasparov match was seen as the real world championsip. But as time went on things got far less clear.
Over the next 7 years both Kasparov and FIDE proved that they were horrible caretakers of the world championship. FIDE was worse than Kasparov but I think it was Kasparovs actions which made FIDE bad.
FIDE did not want a strong world champion that would challenge their authority. And their authority was threatened. No doubt about it. Kasparov and others tried to replace FIDE. So FIDE purposefully decided to make world championship events that no one would really care about. No offense to Khalifman Ponomariov or Kasimdzhanov but no one was going to follow them if they split from FIDE. Kasparov proved that a rogue champion could be a real problem for FIDE.
Meanwhile Kasparov was acting like a typical priss with certain shady characters who promised the world but often couldn't deliver. Shirov turned down an offer (perhaps not a great offer but an offer none the less) Anand turned down the match. Think about that. The championship was in such a shambles that Anand turned down the chance to play in it. Kramnik was the only one truly interested enough and self confident enough to take on Kasparov. Like he said he really was ready to sign anything to get a chance to play. Unfortunately for Kasparov Kramnik tends to keep his word. But Kasparov's loss was good for chess.
If Kramnik as champ just played whoever he wanted and did not at least agree to stick to the terms of the contract and keep a qualifying cycle - the classical world championship would become more and more of just a private affair. This would have let the farcical fide championships continue to gain ground. (and they were gaining ground let me tell you.) If that continued I think Kramnik is right we would have ko tournaments today.
If kramnik was the type to just choose challengers instead of trying to unify the title and get a legitimate cycle then he never would have agreed to play in the "world championship tournament." Please name a single world champion in the classical line that would do that.
So the rematch would have either kasparov or Kramnik. If Kasparov won he would have just retired with the title. The FIDE KOs would be all we have. If Kramnik was not the type to insist on having a proper cycle and he won the match then the classical title would have continued to decline.
You can't have it both ways. Kramnik was either going to prove he keeps his word and use his clout as champion to get a proper cycle going, or he was going to continue to drive the title into the ground for his short term greed. Kramnik was the one who used his clout to bring some semblence of decency back to this title. He proved he would keep his world and worked to bring FIDE back into WCC matches instead of their silly tournaments. He mended a rift that was likely the biggest and worst the title had ever been through.
As far as Kasparov. Kramnik said he gave the green light to the organizers to do whatever they could to get kasparov to compete in the qualifier Kasparov said he would compete in. They could pay him more money than everyone else and kasparov could even pick the format. Still Kasparov backed out.
Then kasparov would have had a shot at the title again if only he would have played and beat Ponomariov in a match. (The winner of the Leko Kramnik match was to play the winner of the Ponomariov kasparov match.) Again Kramnik saw his side of the bargain through. He had the dortmund qualifier set up and played the winner.
Kasparov somehow couldn't get the match with ponomariov off the ground. (Does anyone see a pattern here?) Sure kasparov will blame FIDE and ponomariov for this. But really I don't buy it at all. If kasparov wanted a shot at the title again he would not have that match die due to a dispute about rest days. But he did let it die.
Kasparov never reached out and just said "enough with this lets just get it done." Instead he just sort of faded back and said well the issue is between FIDE and ponomariov. But really he let those issues stand instead of stepping up and getting this done right. Ponomariov had a contract shoved down his throat. He had no input in how it was shaped. I doubt the same was done to kasparov. Ponomariov wanted some minor changes regarding rest days and a few other minor details and FIDE acted like idiots. Kasparov just sat back and watched the match die claiming to be powerless to save it. What a joke.
But again during this time Kasparov was such a darling of the chess media, Kramnik was the scapegoat for all that was wrong in chess.
You guys hate Kasparov so much. He declined the offer because he believed he deserved a match against Kramnik because of his tournament winnings. FIDE denied him this so he didn't play a rematch. So what? Kasparov would have most likely won the rematch anyway.
Kasparov was in a position to demand rematch clause before his match with Kramnik. Vlad would have signed anything to get the opportunity. It's a bit rich for Kasparov to talk about "deserving" a match, when he could have guaranteed one. I've often wondered if a little self-doubt began t creep into Kasparov's mind after losing his title. It was a terrible shock. A confident Kasparov wouldn't have hesitated to re-enter the championship chase instead of whining about what he deserved
Still, he decided to not enter the tournament. You don't have to hate on Kasparov. For anything, it is Kramnik who is acting salty for prolonging this subject for so many years, even going out to say Kasparov admires him. He is saying that one of the greatest chess players of all time (if not the greatest) admired him. Kramnik is definitely not in a position to say that.
I don't hate Kasparov. he is one of the greatest champions and his games are an endless source of pleasure and instruction. But he sure could have tried to get his title back. I think his chances would have be excellent
Fact check: Shirov did not turn down a match with Kasparov. Quite the contrary, it was Kasparov who reneged on their agreement. Shirov defeated Kramnik in the Candidates final, but then had a poor tournament showing (in Linares, if memory serves me right) and Kasparov just decided that Shirov wasn't worthy, and that he'd rather face Kramnik in a match for the World Championship. While I'm not sure Kramnik is 100% honest in his assessments, it's quite clear that Kasparov bears at least part of the responsibility for the chaos in the world of chess in the 1990s and early 2000s. He's a fractious character, and easily falls out with people.
The Cat is correct. Shirov actually defeated Kramnik is a match that was supposed to select a challenger. Kasparov more or less reneged on that. To be fair, he had a pretty good reason. Kasparov's record against Shirov was so ridiculously one-sided (12 wins, 12 draws, 0 losses) that it would have been very difficult to find anyone interested in financing the match.
Laskersnephew: Exactly. Shirov had a terrible score against Kasparov, but it's just not done to treat the challenger that way. Part of me can't help feeling that Kramnik's refusal to give Kasparov a re-match served Gary right for shafting Shirov.
I agree with you in principle, but it is probably true that raising significant money for a Kasparov-Shirov match would have been pretty tough! Also, Kasparov clearly regarded himself as the god-emperor of chess in those days, and he alone was entitled to decide who was a worthy challenger.
PS: Kramnik would have signed a match agreement with a rematch clause in two seconds!
”it's quite clear that Kasparov bears at least part of the responsibility for the chaos in the world of chess in the 1990s and early 2000s. He's a fractious character, and easily falls out with people”
Certainly. I do think, however, that Kramnik’s stating that he saved the chess world from the knockout World Championships that he claims would have been the standard if Kasparov got what he wanted, kind of forgets the simple fact that Kasparov never played or supported knockout World Championships. It was Kramnik who played the World Championship in the knockout format, and even went as far as claiming that Khalifman was the only player that could be called World Champion. Kasparov didn’t have any position except for being the best player, according to Kramnik, who later also supported the minimatch format in the Candidates, something Kasparov never supported either.
After he was given the match against Kasparov he quickly changed opinion on what position Kasparov had had, and Kramnik invented the term ”classical World Champion”. That wasn’t many months after claiming that Kasparov was no World Champion of any sort :-)
fabelhaft and Laskersnephew: Agree! It's safe to say that neither of the two Ks are painting a truthful picture of events.
A couple of points since someone dug this thread up again not too long ago.
Yes I imagine Kramnik would have signed a contract that allowed Kasparov a rematch. There is nothing to suggest that the contract was not written however Kasparov wanted and Kramnik would do anything to simply get a match against him.
And everything suggests Kramnik would have honored whatever contract he signed. But the contract he signed his name to said a rematch could not not happen so he kept his word by not allowing it and following through with the candidates cycle required by the contract. Don't forget Kasparov was all bent at Karpov for the automatic rematch he had. And do you think Kasparov would give Kramnik an automatic rematch?
Kasparov then refused to play in the candidates tournament format his own contract required.
I gave many facts in my original posts. One opinion I offered was that if Kasparov remained champ the title would continue to be degraded. History is the evidence that supports my view. The title was likely as valuable as it ever was when he took it over and it was still pretty strong @ 1993 for the Nigel Short match and 1995. But as he held on and different deals fell through it was losing validity fast. No money for Shirov to play him and Anand was not even interested in playing him. Kramnik played him won and turned that train around by enforcing a principled candidates cycle. No Dortmund wasn't ideal but it was the best idea at the time and it is at least as good as what we have now.
Fabelhaft puts words in my mouth that I did not say about Kasparov. I never said he supported the ko. I said he devalued his title by not following any principled approach for a candidates match - unlike Kramnik. By not having any principled approach for his title the silly FIDE KOs gained in reputation.
Moreover the fact that Kramnik played in FIDE KO does not mean he feels that is the ideal format for the WCC.
As far as Kramnik saying Khalifman was the only one who had a claim to the championship I would be interested in the context of that comment. Most likely it was meant as a negotiating tactic to get Kasparov to finally defend his title that he was sitting on for many years with not even a candidates cycle in place.
Kasparov didn't degrade the title. I would argue Kramnik likes to think of himself as the greatest chess player of all time and thus he claims he saved the world championship. Kasparov left FIDE because he disagreed with it. FIDE crumbled as most no longer considered the FIDE "champion" as the real world champion. Kasparov ran into money problems, which led him straight back to FIDE. I think the ultimate problem in the 90's was the lack of sponsorship and money. A Shirov-Kasparov match would have how many viewers?!
Kasparov didn't degrade the title. I would argue Kramnik likes to think of himself as the greatest chess player of all time and thus he claims he saved the world championship. Kasparov left FIDE because he disagreed with it. FIDE crumbled as most no longer considered the FIDE "champion" as the real world champion. Kasparov ran into money problems, which led him straight back to FIDE. I think the ultimate problem in the 90's was the lack of sponsorship and money. A Shirov-Kasparov match would have how many viewers?!
LOL why would there be problems with sponsorship? Lots of computer companies would be a natural match with chess. There were even a huge matches between machines and chess players! But then when the machine won was it a great publicity event with a good sportsman? Or did the player claim the company was cheating and attack them as dishonest? So who wouldn't want to throw their brand in with chess players?!? Intel was a big sponsor for Kasparov how did that work out?
What is amazing to me is that Kasparov is still being listened to as to how to get sponsorship for chess. It just shows how blinded chess players can be about the flaws of those who happen to be good at chess.
The Shirov Kasparov match would have been watched by plenty. Shirov earned the match and if he had agreed to play for the money that was on offer he likely would have had his shot.
Kramnik was not intimidated by Kasparov and could focus on the board. And some players just have an easier time with others. Both he and Kasparov were obviously amazing players with different styles. This is not about who was technically better at the game of chess but rather who did more for the sport as whole and who did the most damage.
http://chess-news.ru/en/node/4521
This is an interesting interview by Kramnik. Not only are the facts he gives in this interview consistent with other things I have read, they explain why he really saved the World Chess Championship.
I wonder if Kasparov would deny that Kramnik basically told his manager (keene) that he could pick any sort of qualifier he wanted.