I am going to say this- Kramnik was/is extremely overconfident by claiming that Kasparov "looked up to him". I do have to say though that Kasparov did state that a rematch was not necessary, but other than that, Kasparov didn't have a major impact on the disunity of the chess world. The PCA was created due to the corruption within FIDE during the '90s, which is well-known.
Kramnik interview gives interesting facts
Sort:
”Fabelhaft puts words in my mouth that I did not say about Kasparov. I never said he supported the ko”
The only thing I did was to quote Kramnik:
”if Kasparov and I have played that rematch we would now be playing a knockout World Championship with 30 minutes a game. I’m almost sure in that”
”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”
I wouldn’t say it was at least as good. The top players refused to play (Kasparov, Anand, Ivanchuk), among the eight invited players was Lutz, the format was first two mini tournaments and then knockout minimatches. Topalov had to play seventeen (17!) days in a row without rest days.
Why is the format of today not better than Dortmund 2002?
Great post and thread.
I'm probably too negative with regards to Kramnik, but there is so much talk about him being oh so principled etc, and all I can recall is how he has changed his principles at every occasion where he had something to gain by doing so.
First Kramnik is handpicked as one of only two players in the whole Candidates cycle 1998. He has nothing against that. After losing the match he declares that Kasparov isn't even the World Champion, Khalifman is. He adds that Shirov's beating him was an anomaly, and that he is the better player of the two.
Then Kramnik is offered the match after all, and he has nothing against Shirov being bypassed, and declares Kasparov the World Champion. After winning the match he says it is for the good of chess he is against the Champion being given a rematch. Khalifman is suddenly no longer the one and only World Champion, Kramnik is.
Kramnik signs the unification agreement in Prague, but later declares that he is no longer obliged to meet the agreement, and the match between Kasparov and the FIDE title holder falls through. Kramnik states that the agreement he signed had been worded in the way that the FIDE World Champion was Ponomariov, and not Kasimdzhanov who had succeeded him (and Kramnik had no hope would pose any problems for Kasparov).
Kramnik refuses to participate in the World Championship 2005 since tournament World Championships are unacceptable. When he can't find any challenger or arrange any cycle himself, he says a tournament is fine and plays in 2007. After having negotiated with FIDE so that he
is given a rematch for the title in case he loses it, which he did. The reunification match had been based on the winner unconditionally accepting the 2007 winner as World Champion, but Kramnik now declares that he will not recognise Anand as World Champion unless he is given a match against him. He says that it is for the good of chess that he is given this match, and that Anand had been lucky to win the title in 2007, and just has been allowed to borrow it from Kramnik.
Kramnik then demands to be given a spot in the Candidates 2011, and FIDE change the ongoing cycle to accomodate him. The longer Candidates match is skipped, and minimatches are played instead. Kramnik says that four game matches are quite sufficient. He also says that he can't even understand what Carlsen and Aronian were complaining about when they said the rules shouldn't be changed during the ongoing cycle, and that minimatches were a bad format.
After Gelfand has won, Kramnik states that he had been lucky with the draw, and that it was obvious that the format was obsolete.
These just a few of the occasions I can remember. Nothing particularly sinister or unusual, but not particularly principled or humble either. I recall someone writing that Kramnik is not just the most humble and unselfish of the World Champions in chess, but maybe in all sports, but to me he has been rather average in this respect :-)
I don't think you know what Shirov's record against Kasparov was. That's all I need to say.
That is all you need to say if you want to ignore the most important points of this thread.