IMJohnCox: Most chess fans choose favorite players because of the games, not beacuse of politics or personalities. Topalov plays attractive chess. That's why he has fans. (Kramnik also plays attractive chess, albeit in a different  style.)

Also, I don't think the San Luis style tournamnet is nonsense. The previous FIDE format with blitz games deciding most matches was nonsense. San Luis is also far better than hand-picking challengers. The best is probably the old format of interzonals et c to select a challenger, but that is not practical anymore.

I thought Ilyumzhinov had long ago suspended Kalmykia’s parliament? Actually, on reflection I think he only suspended elections to it – an important distinction.

In reply to various people, sure I don’t expect Topalov to come out and slag Ilyumzhinov the way he deserves. But he didn’t have to produce a statement in support of him at the recent elections. Anand didn’t. Leko didn’t. In fact, no-one else who matters did.

As to Topalov being a gentleman, I suggest any Topalov fans read Danailov’s comments (doubtless approved by his master) in his notorious post-San-Luis interview about Morozevich and Kazim. If they remain Topalov fans, good luck to them.

I’ve never understood this nonsense about Kramnik not ‘giving’ Kasparov a rematch and ‘dodging challenges’. First off, they signed a contract for the match which didn’t include a rematch clause, as it could have done. Secondly, Kramnik quite rightly in my opinion said that his priority was to reunite the titles after the 1993 schism. The only reason there wasn’t a rematch within the process that was agreed upon to achieve that is that for whatever reason Kasparov-Ponomariov and then Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov never happened. That wasn’t Kramnik’s fault.

Shirov of course was abysmally treated and indeed abysmally advised (indeed not advised at all, presumably) when he signed the contract for Caorle. In the end though if there is truly no-one who will sponsor a match then what can you do? I don’t know that any of us would have done much different from Kramnik, and I don’t know anyone either who seriously imagines that Shirov would have stood a chance against Kasparov.

Anyway the main reason to support Kramnik is that Topalov has made it clear that if he wins it’s the end of the classical match tradition, except for freak shows like his projected payday match with Radjabov. 

The position if Kramnik wins is less clear. Has he agreed to play Radjabov instead of Topalov? I don’t know. One has the impression that Kramnik too has agreed to participate in the next San Luis-style nonsense, but I live in hope. For one thing, Ilyumzhinov doesn’t seem too interested in arranging the matches to find out who’s going to play at the next San Luis. I suspect he’s hanging fire until he sees who wins. If Topalov does, Kramnik’s in the cold and Ilyumzhinov’s got the control he wants, and maybe we will see the candidates matches. If Kramnik wins I’m not sure things’ll be so clear. I hope not, anyway – if I was Kramnik I’d say you can arrange what tournaments you like (hey, let’s call them Candidates tournaments), and if the winner wants to play me for the title I’ll do it.

Did I read correctly that they play in parliament?
Not that it is in use anyway.

Chessy, 

You make some excellent points about the players' seconds.  I am more impressed with Kramnik's team than Topalov's.  I believe that Onischuk and Rublyevsky are excellent theoreticians who will definitely have a say in Kramnik's opening repertoire.

Onischuk was (briefly) a resident of Denver, Colorado.  So now I have a weak local tie to the World Champion!  Anyone who has followed world championship matches knows the importance of seconds that the player can trust and that has interesting insights into positions that complement the player's style.  

You're probably right to predict 1.e4 from Karmnik, at least some of the time.  You may also see some interesting Sicilians.  I think that Kramnik's choice of seconds makes it even less likely that we'll see the Berlin defense again.

I'd like to see some Slavs but I don't really expect it in this match unless the score gets lopsided.  

OK the seconds of both player are (mostly) e4 player with white.

Does this means we will see only e4 games?

Kramnik Secondas have all the slave in their repertour and are general rather Sicilian players than e5 players.

Does this mean we wont see a petrov?

Or is the opening repetoir of the seconds not that important and they just try to find new ideas in Kramniks/Topalovs repetoir?

MNb wrote on 09/15/06 at 20:54:08:


Why? OK, Alekhine should've given Capa a rematch - but given the troubles he had attaining the first match I don't think he owed Capa anything. While Vlad got his WC-match served on a silver plate...

Kasparov has had a big mouth over the years - but I think he should get credit for not ducking a challenge - well, okay he ducked Shirov, but he tried to play the strongest challenger to prove he was the strongest. Kramnik can't say the same...

TalJechin wrote on 09/15/06 at 16:56:25:


A funny remark for someone called TalJechin  .
Kramnik could have proven to have a really high moral standard by offering Sjirov a second match shortly after 2000. But that's probably asked too much.
I am on IM Cox' side here. I didn't like Kaspy's big mouth in 80's and I don't like Toppy's now. And I certainly don't like Mike Tyson types. But I have to admit: biting an ear certainly creams competition. Which WCh candidate will follow that example?

Despite what many may think Toppa's remarks about Kramnik add a little flavour to this match! I think the match will produce some fine games given that both players styles are very different.   

One potential major issue and perhaps a strategy that maybe used on Toppa's part is the issue of Kramnik's health. Will Kramnik be able to last under the huge strain of a prolonged WC match event? Could this be a repeat of KK 1? 

Another major issue which is a dead cert. is how will FIDE mess this whole event up???