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.

So, the challenger can go all the way through FIDE's approval process
for determining a a challenger, and then pull out of FIDE's juristiction
to play for the World Title? What did you *expect* FIDE to do?

And I'm not sure that had Kasparov only been stripped of his title, that
we would have had the same situation as 1975, because I assume Kasparov
would still be playing (and winning) chess.


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.

Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Karpov. Don't forget that
Botvinnik, after retaking his title after losing matches to both Smyslov
and Tal was denied by FIDE the opportunity to do so against Petrosian
when FIDE removed the rematch clause.



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?)


Good question. Maybe we'll have to go back and label Steinitz through
Alekhine as the "Pre-FIDE World Champions", Botvinnik through Kasparov
'93 as the "Undisputed FIDE World Champions", Kasparov from '93-2000 and
Kramnik as "Non-FIDE World Champions" (maybe we can even throw Fischer
1975-1992 in there?), Karpov '93 through Ponomariov as "FIDE World
Champions", and then start a new cycle of "Unified World Champions" - at
least until the next time someone breaks with FIDE...


John