Why does Kramnik get no respect?

Food for thought : http://www.ishipress.com/kk-match.htm

I normally don't like to be on the same side as Sam Sloan, but, despite his alledged insertion of himself into Kasparov's custody battle for Polina, Sloan called it right on this one.  But after  Kasparov's debacle with Kramnik, if I remember correctly, I think he did go on to win several important tournaments.

that's intersting

I respect Kramnik, and think he has more right to call himself world champion than anyone else does (INCLUDING Anand! which seems to be an unpopular view now but there it is).

Kramnik has won over Topalov with much controversy, clouds still haunt his win.that s the best reason i can remember

What controversy? Topalov is a nutcase...what does that have to do with Krammy?

Topalov is the nutcase?  I thought it was Kramnik that was accused of cheating?  Now, it seems it has been turned around and Topalov is the one accused. Which one was it that was making excessive WC trips during the game(s)? 

Topalov made a bunch of baseless accusations to try to disturb Kramnik mentally in a match he was losing badly (up to that point, the tactics worked). He has been found guilty by the FIDE ethics commitee along with his (equally diluted) manager Danailov.

The man has no class. 

Rex is absolutely right!People and media are now laundering the things, blaming Topalov...as Rex said, either Kramnik drinks too much water or either....Topalov reached once 2813 ELO, 2nd highest ranking.When Topalov has his rematch,now in Sofia, he will get back the title

Plenty of people respect Kramnik - but the haters make the most noise.

 

"Kramnik is the hardest player to beat in the world" - Kasparov. Thats something worth respecting for a start, is it not?

Enric if Anand doesn't have the right to call himself a world champion I think few would have that right, Anand has been among THE BEST chess players in the world for as long as I can remember, and yes there are many good indian chess players who kick butt all over the world including in Canada, I know this because I used to live close to niagara falls and used to go to tournaments in canada where most times the strongest chess players were of Indian decend

I don't think anybody who takes chess seriously has any qualms with Kramnik being called the world champion. Who else is there?

Anand can certainly call himself "A" world champion, but "The" world champion is a much more debatable title. I think there are plenty of chess enthusiasts who consider Kramnik the only current world champion. The idea of a world champion losing his title because he doesn't win a specified tournament lacks a certain integrity, and continuity to the great traditions chess has built up over the last 100 years.

I'm not saying it isn't fair. Kramnik knew this was a tournament for the FIDE World Championship. He knew he had to win, and I think it was sporting of him to play to win. But I think most chess purists such as myself feel you have to beat a world champion in a match to really take his title.

But there is one glaring chink in Kramnik's World Championship integrity: he ducked a rematch with Kasparov. I've heard every excuse there is as to why he did it, none have satisfied me. The ex-world champion wanted a rematch, and Kramnik wouldn't give it to him. Sam Sloan's article suggests Kasparov wasn't himself during the match - that isn't Kramnik's fault. Kramnik played well enough to win the match.. all you can ever ask of anybody. Kramnik's Championship title was legitimate, but not honorable in my view.

Kramnik is one of my favorite players to watch, and I still think in a match Anand will have a very difficult time beating him. But Kramnik's legacy will and should be tainted because he didn't give Kasparov what was Kasparov's rightful claim: another shot at the title.

I would just like to remind everyone that Anand has a plus record against both Topalov and Kramnik. On top of that he is now the #1 rated player in the world and was #2 , behind Kasparov, on many fide lists. Shirov also beat Kramnik in a match and should have played Kasparov but Kramnik played him instead. I dont understand why Kramnik got the match and Shirov didnt?  Shirov also has a plus record against Kramnik.  Ofcourse its entirely possible that Kramnik is the best match player in the world while Anand is the best tournament player in the world. Should there be two world championship titles in chess?  One for tournaments and one for matches?

"The idea of a world champion losing his title because he doesn't win a specified tournament lacks a certain integrity, and continuity to the great traditions chess has built up over the last 100 years."

 

The 1948 5-man tournament earned Botvinnik the right to call himself the World Champion, though it didnt deprive any current Champion of his title.  Do you think there is a distinction between the two things?

That tournament gets brought up a lot, and it's a valid point. Perhaps it is the fact that someone is losing his title (rather than the idea of someone winning the title in such a fashion) in a tournament format that doesn't feel right to me.

As time goes by, things change. Time limits have shortened... nowadays I don't believe untimed games could even be fathomed, and yet in the old days sometimes only a few moves were made in a single day in high stakes games. Perhaps some day a tournament to decide the world champion will simply "feel" right to everyone.

Until that day patzers like me will gripe and moan that "The world ain't right" and we'll long for the days of yore.

As a side note, Anand is a quality player who deserves the utmost respect. My previous post was in no way intended to take anything away from him or his accomplishment. It is the system that I find frustrating, NOT the player.

By the way, Batgirl, I will take a look at your site, but do you have on your site any kind of breakdown on the evolution of time limits in the game of chess. Anyone for that matter who has any good reading on the subject, please let me know.

Kramnik gets no respect because his chess is not an attacking and aggressive style such as players like Anand, Morozevich, and Topalov. But I have much respect for Kramnik and his Catalan which he has turned into a serious weapon in recent times.

"do you have on your site any kind of breakdown on the evolution of time limits in the game of chess."

 

hmmm.. not specifically.  A little bit here and there.  That might be a good area for investigation.  It's certainly an interesting idea.

What is it with you people and this need for respect, why should one waste energy caring what others think.  Just play the best chess you can, one's games are evidence of how good one is, not titles.

Politics is everywhere, including chess tournaments.  The best way to earn respect is to have a good attitude.  Just saying hello to your opponent and accepting defeat (if ever) when appropriate--you'll go a long way...   Whatever the reason, Kramnik is the champion.  Anand can disprove this, he has a chance; when you're up there everyone is hitting you.