In article , John Swartz wrote:

snip

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 difference is that Kasparov didn't "withdraw". The WC match was
actually played on schedule in 1993 in the traditional fashion, according
to the WC match rules then in effect, by the champion and the qualified
challenger. Just not in FIDE's approved venue and for a lot more money
than FIDE's approved sponsor had been willing to pay. Had there been no
1993 match, then the situation would have been comparable to 1975:
Kasparov would have been stripped of his title; Short, as undefeated
challenger would have become the WC; and life would have gone on much as
after 1975. It was the presence of a "real" WC match in 1993 versus the
FIDE "losers match" between Karpov and Timman that fatally undermined
FIDE's claim to the continuity of the FIDE WC title.

Had Short had the courage to sit tight, as Karpov did in '75, rather than
going all bug-eyed at the prospect of the larger paycheck, then the chess
world could have been spared most of the mess that has ensued since '93,
and nobody would have questioned the legitimacy of FIDE's continuation of
the WC title.

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?

Similar to what? In 1946, the one and undefeated world champion died.
There were claims of varying validity among at least four potential
challengers. This remains a unique situation. In '75, there was a single
and undefeated challenger, who, by virtue of being undefeated and the
accepted challenger, was accepted also as World Champion and went on to
two victorious title defenses --the only the second and third such
defenses since 1934.

Euwe had already agreed to hand over the title to FIDE in 1937, in the
event he won the rematch with Alekhine. An attempt to arrogate the title
to himself nine years later, if such an unlikely course of action ever
occurred to him, would have lacked any credibility. Particularly since
contract negotiations with at least two other "official" challengers had
been entered into by Alekhine in the interim.



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?


Because no reigning World Champion ever handed custodianship of his
private World Championship title to FIDE. Euwe might have, but failed in
his preliminary title defense. FIDE simply arrogated the private World
Championship title to itself after Alekhine's death; why should not a
World Champion return the favor? FIDE and the World Championship were not
synonymous in the period 1921-1947. There is no compelling reason they
must be so now or in the future.

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

I think you're absolutely right on this one. History will remember them
all, even if the FIDE knockoutistas end up as the asterisked footnote that
nobody reads for the 1993-2004 period.

But what I want to know is, will the Great Unified World Champion of 2004
be called (in sources, e.g. Russian, that are obsessive-compulsive about
numbering these things) the Fourteenth World Champion (if Kramnik
prevails), the Fifteenth World Champion (if Leko makes it) under the
traditional numbering ...or the 16th (Pono), 17th (Kramnik or Leko) under
the FIDE numbering scheme? Kasparov stays thirteenth under either, so for
that reason alone we should cheer him on.

Or will the winner simply become the First Great Unified World Champion?
(Or 1st "New Style" World Champion, as opposed to the 14-or-so "Old
Style" World Champions?)

--Kevin