FIDE is a johnny-come-lately in the chess world. The only
authority they possess is that which they have usurped.

Johnny-come-lately? They've been organizing the world title (albeit
sometimes badly) since 1948!

The title of World Champion of Chess had existed since about
1866 (when Steinitz beat Andersson), long before FIDE existed.
It will continue to exist long after FIDE disappears.

Actually, it was the Steinitz/Zuckertort match in 1886 that was the
first match recognized to be for the title of "world champion".

Yes, the "title" has existed long before FIDE, but FIDE is still (for
the moment) the recognized organization for world chess. You may say
the title will continue to exist, but of course we are in the very
situation where there is NOT a single recognized-by-everyone "world
champion". You can argue about succession from Steinitz to Kramnik, but
the entire world does not necessarily agree (we won't even throw Fischer
into the equation). That's why we're (hopefully) going through this
whole "reunification" process. That's why FIDE is kissing Kasparov's
ass too - they realize that if Kasparov becomes "FIDE World Champion"
(i.e., he beats Ponomariov - a likely scenario), then whether or not he
plays Kramnik, there will be a much more legitamite "world champion"
from FIDE's perspective. It's not right, but I could easily see
Kasparov becoming "world champion" again solely by defeating Ponomariov
(maybe even by default if Pono refuses to play?), and Kramnik could be
left out it the cold. It's not right, but Kramnik (or Leko if he beats
him) would likely have much less credibility as "world champion" - he's
having enough difficulty now.


While I would agree that Kramnik is to be
considered a successor to the title, I also recognize that that title,
originally held by Kasparov, was obtained via the process established by
FIDE. Extending the logic of succession gives credibility to the notion
that Bobby Fischer still has some claim to the title.

If Fischer were still playing and had defeated all challengers
in traditional match play, I would still consider him to be WC,
whatever FIDE might have to say about it.

This somewhat goes to my point about Kramnik above - he's not exactly
playing any matches these days, and isn't very active.

And then of course we must define "still playing" - Fischer did play one
match in 1992 - certainly 1 match in 20 years is probably extreme in
this era (although several years passed between world championship
matches in the days of Steinitz/Lasker/Capablanca), but what would be
the cutoff? Who would determine it - you? FIDE? The "champion"?


But he quit and the
situation became similar to that after the death of Alekhine.

So, it was o.k. for FIDE to step in after the death of Alekhine, and the
withdrawal of Fischer, but not the withdrawal of Kasparov (in 1993)?

The new champions (Botvinnik and Karpov) never got a chance to
face their predecessors; regrettable, but unavoidable.

And had Euwe argued that HE should have been world champion after
Botvinnik's death and went on to play his own "world title" matches
(let's say with Keres, Reshevsky, or Fine, for example), wouldn't we
have a similar situation?


However,
that is not what happened after Kasparov broke with FIDE. He was
alive and active, defeating Short and then Anand and retaining
his title until deposed by Kramnik.

Kasparov won his title under FIDE - why should he have the right to
break away from FIDE and keep the title?

FIDE's world champion was
determined by a match between the *losers* of the last full cycle.
The legitimate challenger, Short, went with Kasparov. The recent
FIDE WC knock-out tournaments, with ties broken by speed chess, make
their claims even more farcical.


The recent FIDE champions (Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariov), IMHO, are not
"imposters" because they did not defeat Kasparov. They are, however,
tainted in that FIDE implemented a widely-criticized process of
determining the World Champion. Ponomariov is not considered by some to
be "world champion" due to the fact that he didn't beat Kasparov or
Kramnik as much by the fact that he won his title via a knock-out
tournament.

I disagree. I don't consider that FIDE has any authority
when it comes to the title of World Champion. As far as I
am concerned, and I'm not alone, these GMs have no right to
call themselves World Champion of Chess. I'd have no
objections if they wish to call themselves FIDE Champions,
but they certainly have never been the best players in the
world.

This topic has been repeatedly thrashed over in r.g.c.m,
I guess we're in for a new go-round. ;-)

Yeah, and I'm getting off, as much fun as it's been... Final point
though - you are right that you are not alone in your opinion of who is
"world champion". Others though fully recognize the FIDE world
champions. I (and I am not alone in this) recognize that there are
multiple "world champions" right now (all of which will be recognized in
history - even if the period of 1993 to 2004 has an asterisk next to it)
and that there really needs to be a reunification so that we have one
that is recognized by everyone (or nearly everyone - sorry Bobby).

John