John Swartz wrote:

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".

After Steinitz beat Andersson, he was generally recognized as
World Champion. The Zukertort match may have been the first
officially recognized WC match.


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.

Kramnik hasn't retired, though I agree he could be more active.


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)?

But Kasparov played Short, who *was* the official FIDE
challenger before the pair of them defected. FIDE staged
a sham match between the pair who had *lost* to Short. The
important point is that continuity was maintained and the
title was kept by Kasparov until he lost it to Kramnik.
I am of the opinion that the title belongs to he who holds
it, not an organization of usurpers. Organizations such as
FIDE should confine their activities to producing challengers.


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?

Yes, which illustrates how silly it is for FIDE to claim that
they *own* the title. Euwe lost his title to Alekhine. In 1993,
Karpov likewise lost to Short, who was the legitimate challenger.
Why would anyone consider the subsequent match a WC match, merely
because FIDE sanctioned it?


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 is irrelevant. Who cares which organization chooses the
challengers, as long as the WC match takes place at traditional
time limits and is lengthy enough to provide a real test of the
respective strengths of the two players?


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).

Here's a question for you: do you think that Kasparov would now
be courting FIDE if he had beaten Kramnik? I don't think so.
Kasparov sees an easy way (he's spooked about Kramnik!) to regain
his title. He would like the world to forget Kramnik, just as he
preferred everyone to forget that Shirov should have had a match
before Kramnik, regardless of the monetary reward.