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.

Briarroot wrote (Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:58:40 -0400):

The title of World Champion of Chess had existed since about
1866 (when Steinitz beat Andersson)

_
John Swartz wrote (Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:09:57 -0400):

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

_
Briarroot wrote (Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:03:26 -0400):

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

_
This has been discussed many times, and I have never seen
anyone produce any record of a quote from around the time
of the 1866 match with a claim that Steinitz was world
champion. What I HAVE seen is a discussion of the match
in an 1866 issue of the magazine, The Chess World, where
it was explained that "Mr. Anderssen was beaten, because
his day for match-playing is over." An 1866 claim that
Steinitz was world champion would have been the subject
of considerable discussion. I found no such discussion in
the 1866 Chess World.

The earliest references that I have seen to Steinitz supremacy
were six years later:

"At London 1872 he was first (+7=1), ahead of Blackburne
and Zukertort, and in September 1872 he decisively beat
Zukertort in match play (+7=4-1). At this time Loewenthal
wrote: 'Mr Steinitz may be fairly regarded as the present
occupant of the exceptional position formerly held by Mr
Morphy', and Burn wrote that Steinitz was 'now probably
the strongest living player'." - Oxford Companion

Briarroot wrote (Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:58:40 -0400):
The title of World Champion of Chess had existed since about
1866 (when Steinitz beat Andersson)

John Swartz wrote (Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:09:57 -0400):
Actually, it was the Steinitz/Zuckertort match in 1886 that was
the first match recognized to be for the title of "world
champion".

Briarroot wrote (Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:03:26 -0400):
After Steinitz beat Andersson, he was generally recognized as
World Champion. The Zukertort match may have been the
first officially recognized WC match.

I wrote (Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:11:55 -0500):
This has been discussed many times, and I have never seen
anyone produce any record of a quote from around the time
of the 1866 match with a claim that Steinitz was world
champion. What I HAVE seen is a discussion of the match
in an 1866 issue of the magazine, The Chess World, where
it was explained that "Mr. Anderssen was beaten, because
his day for match-playing is over." An 1866 claim that
Steinitz was world champion would have been the subject
of considerable discussion. I found no such discussion in
the 1866 Chess World.

The earliest references that I have seen to Steinitz supremacy
were six years later:

"At London 1872 he was first (+7=1), ahead of Blackburne
and Zukertort, and in September 1872 he decisively beat
Zukertort in match play (+7=4-1). At this time Loewenthal
wrote: 'Mr Steinitz may be fairly regarded as the present
occupant of the exceptional position formerly held by Mr
Morphy', and Burn wrote that Steinitz was 'now probably
the strongest living player'." - Oxford Companion


Briarroot now writes (Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:00:58 -0400):

From "The Encyclopaedia of Chess" by Anne Sunnucks,
published by St. Martin's Press in 1970:

"Opinions vary on the exact date of the origin of the World
Championship, Staunton, Andersson, Morphy and Steinitz
are sometimes spoken of as the World Champions of the
Nineteenth century, but Steinitz was the only one of these
players to use the title, which he did for the first time after
his victory over Andersson in 1866. His right to the title
was generally accepted by the chess world, and the matches
he played after that date are generally considered to have
been World Championship matches."

The above book has been my reference work for several
decades, has it now become outmoded by more thorough
scholarship?

_
My impression is that the Sunnucks book is not respected
today.

This matter HAS been discussed. See, for example, the
third issue of the Quarterly for Chess History. It should
not be hard to find references to a world championship
claim in 1866 if there was any claim that was "generally"
known. Such a claim would have been controversial
and received a lot of attention.

Louis Blair wrote:
_
My impression is that the Sunnucks book is not respected
today.

Shucks! It's been, more-or-less, my main source of chessic
lore. I guess I'll have to buy a more recent publication.


This matter HAS been discussed. See, for example, the
third issue of the Quarterly for Chess History. It should
not be hard to find references to a world championship
claim in 1866 if there was any claim that was "generally"
known. Such a claim would have been controversial
and received a lot of attention.

Uh, how widely available is the Quarterly of Chess History?
At any rate, what you're saying is that the title of WCC
entered common usage after 1872, rather than 1866. Is that
correct? Whichever year is proper, the date long precedes
the existence of FIDE, which was my point; but thanks for the
correction.

Briarroot wrote (Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:17:10 -0400):

Shucks! [the Sunnucks book has] been, more-or-less, my
main source of chessic lore. I guess I'll have to buy a more
recent publication.

_
My impression is that the Oxford Companion would be the
best choice for a book of this kind, although it, too, has some
faults.


Briarroot wrote (Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:17:10 -0400):

Uh, how widely available is the Quarterly of Chess History?

_
I have ordered it from Brandreth. I think that
www.chesscafe.com sells it, too.


Briarroot wrote (Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:17:10 -0400):

At any rate, what you're saying is that the title of WCC
entered common usage after 1872, rather than 1866. Is
that correct?

_
The truth is more complicated than that. Examples were
found by Lawson of people using phrases like, "PAUL
MORPHY, the Chess Champion of the World" in 1859.
An 1847 chess magazine claimed that Staunton was "the
greatest Chess player in the world". Awhile ago, Jeremy
Spinrad told us about a quote from 1840:

"To whom is destined the marshall's baton when De la
Bourdonnais throws it down, and what country will
furnish its successor? Will Gaul continue the dynasty
by placing a fourth Frenchman on the thrown of the
world? -- The three last chess chiefs having been
successively Philidor, Deschapelles, and De la
Bourdonnais."

The thing about all these quotes is that, as far as I can
tell, at the time, they were just simply talking about
people's opinions about who was the best player. In
those days, there does not seem to have been the concept
of the world champion as a title governed by rules and
transferred by matches held specifically for that purpose.
What is unique about the 1886 match is that it is the
earliest one where it is documented that there was an
agreement in advance that the winner (if there was one)
would be the holder of the world champion title.

I would be reluctant to pick any one date as the one
where the term, "world champion" entered common
usage. It seems safe to say that the term was common
after 1886 and that variations of the term containing the
words, "world" and "champion", go back at least as
far as 1859.

As for Steinitz, in his later years, he advocated the idea
that he had been world champion since 1866, and a
number of history books have gone along with this
idea. It is plausible in the sense that, in retrospect,
it looks as though the period of Steinitz dominance
started in 1866. However, this does not mean that
Steinitz was perceived as the best player in 1866.
What happened in 1872 were additional successes
of Steinitz that appear to have caused people to begin
to seriously consider that Steinitz was the best active
player.


Briarroot wrote (Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:17:10 -0400):

Whichever year is proper, the date long precedes the
existence of FIDE, which was my point; but thanks
for the correction.

_
Briarroot is welcome, and I agree that these details do
not have much to do with the main subject in this thread.

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