On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:49:54 +0100, Andreas Walkenhorst
wrote:


I completely agree, IMO there's a simple reason for those demands: To
prepare for a match Pono needed to engage one or more good GM's for
training and a team for the match. He may have made contracts for
that. The GM's need to be paid. Their contracts have to be changed due
to the changed date of the match. And additional money is needed. The
reason is solely a FIDE matter, so they have to pay.

Why does FIDE have to pay? Chess events are organized by sponsors.
FIDE only sanctions the events. I doubt that Pono hired any GMs or, if
he did, he paid them a few hundred dollars tops.

Sam Sloan

Mr Sloan,
you are absolutely correct. I think this is just like 1975 all over
again.
It is time to move on, if Ponomariov does not want to play, then
Kasparov should win by default.
Also good luck to you in defeating Tim Hanke and the other members of
the Redman gang in your USCF championship match.



(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
Have you read the demands of Ponomariov?

Among other things, he is demanding to be paid $150,000 "damages" by
FIDE because his match in Argentina was cancelled when the sponsors
could not raise the money.

Never in chess history has a player demanded to be paid so much for a
match which was never played.

He also demands that his match with Kasparov be deemed a semi-final
match, not a match for the World Championship. What this means is that
even if he looses the match to Kasparov, he will still be World
Champion.

Who ever heard of such a thing? What sponsor will pay such a large
amount of money if the match is not for the World Chess Championship?

Remember that Ponomariov was also demanding draw odds from Kasparov.

If it were me in charge of FIDE, I would just ignore the crazy demands
of Ponomariov and forget about him.

Ponomariov seems to think that the title of World Chess Champion is
his personal property, not a title awarded by an international
sporting organization.

Sam Sloan

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 02:51:32 GMT, "Gunny Bunny"
wrote:

I do not think his demands are so unreasonable.

He wants to be paid the same as Kasparov, that seems to be the 'key' issue.

Perhaps, if Kasparov wants the fast-track back to the World Championship, he
should give a little and get the match under way. It should be an easy win
for Kasparov based on experience. His problem is 'time' he is aging now and
his mental form is decreasing as the years tick by.

A smart move would be to win the World Championship and retire from serious
play.

Hopefully, Garry will put his chess knowledge in print and share it with
generations to come !

Hopefully, but I hear he has just released a book detailing his
analysis of past masters : Lasker, Nimzovitch etc.

Lasker is one exceptional case who I rarely argue against, in that he
contiuned to beat masters well into his sixties.

Kasparov is showing an interest in politics after chess, so his exit
looks to be looming.
--

Jarto
s_jouanny-at-yahoo.co.uk
_jarto_-at-excite.com
"When writing about transcendental issues,
be transcendentally clear" - Descartes

wrote:

It sounds like you are describing kasparov to a tee. Remember
Ponomariov is the only one with a Title from a legitimate sporting
organization. He is FIDE Champion. Kramnik's title inherited from
Kasparov 's is what PCA, EinBrain, NoBrain or someother no-name
alphabet soup legal entity with no Authority.

You evidently think chess Authority (in caps yet!) is something
to be respected. I don't. Kasparov, the reigning WC, was never
defeated by any of the FIDE impostor WCs. Kramnik is the only
legitimate successor to the title.

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

Let's talk about Ponomariov some more! He's such an engrossing subject, and
his issues with FIDE are so heart-rending...

(now follows the big......giant......NOT!)

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

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

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.

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?

FIDE perhaps SHOULD be irrelevant, but as long as all the chess players
are going to follow them, FIDE is unfortunately NOT irrelevant.

As for "traditional time limits and lengthy enough to provide a real
test of the respective strengths of the two players", there is no fully
established standard for this. Note that even Kasparov/Kramnik was only
16 games, where the previous Kasparov/Karpov matches were 24 (not
counting of course the first 48 game marathon). In an age where faster
time controls are creeping into chess, what becomes "traditional time
limits" if the matches start also reflecting a creep in time controls?


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.

I absolutely agree. And if he beats Ponomariov, and negotiations for
the match between him and the winner of Kramnik/Leko fall through, I
think Kasparov will be happy to have FIDE behind him again to solidify
his claims that he is again "world champion". Will we all scream that
FIDE is irrelavent then?

John

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