Credibility and the World Title
It
may seem churlish to bring this up before people have even finished offering
Vishy Anand his most well earned congratulations on winning a hard-fought FIDE
World title, but as we stand at the end of the year 2000, recent developments
have made the title of World Chess Champion a genuinely confusing affair.
Previously, ever since Garry
Kasparov and Nigel Short broke away from FIDE in 1993, there had been a degree
of confusion over the title, but never as much as there is now. For most the
situation had been clear enough: the FIDE title lacked credibility and
Kasparov, clearly the best player in the world, was regarded as the true
champion. Things have changed.
First Kramnik defeated Kasparov in the Brian Games Network match in London and then Anand won the FIDE title, defeating Shirov in Tehran.
There
are now three players who stand out as a cut above the chasing pack. I list
them in no particular order:
-
Vladimir Kramnik – The Brain Games World Champion and the man that just defeated Garry Kasparov +2 =13. He has only lost one slow time-limit game in his last 100 outings. Normally this would be more than enough to make him regarded as the top player in the world, but questions remain since he did not pass through any legitimate qualification hurdle to play his match against Kasparov (and he failed in his earlier attempts to qualify, most notably when he was defeated by Shirov in 1998). In terms of playing strength he may feel he has little to prove at this moment, but he may find that Anand has an equal claim to the title in the public’s perception.
-
Viswanathan Anand – the Indian player is on the top of his game and is clearly stronger than when he lost to Kasparov in New York, 1995. His impressive victory in the FIDE knockout and his fine record in general make the ‘official’ FIDE champion a most credible proposition. Many will now regard him as the true World Champion.
-
Garry Kasparov – until his disappointing showing in London in October, Kasparov was widely regarded as the strongest player in the world and the greatest player of all time. His rating is still right up there and it is far too early to write him off. He did lose fair and square to Kramnik so currently he has no claim on the title, but his previous record and reputation must earn him a place in any clarification/unification contest. More simply stated, such an event would lack credibility without him. As an ex-employee of KasparovChess I can assure you that I am not writing this out of any misplaced sense of loyalty but because, in my opinion, that is just the way it is.
Two out of three isn't bad and it's a
nice trophy but
Anand did not compete in London
(photo Jon
Levitt)
The chasing pack is not that
far behind either, with the likes of Peter Leko, Alexander Morozevic, both
still developing players, the steady Michael Adams and the unpredictable
Alexei Shirov (who sadly looked a touch exhausted in Tehran) all breathing
down the neck of whoever might lay claim to the ‘true’ world title.
What can be done? The public
deserves some sort of clarification. Publicity and sponsorship will presumably
flow more easily if there is just one champion. A further hurdle is that it
will be difficult for BGN and FIDE to reach a mutual understanding (I can only
hope I am wrong). Both sides will have a problem recognising the legitimacy of
the claim of the other’s representative as World Champion and there are
economic considerations that make it even harder for the two sides to
compromise. I wish them the best of luck! It should ultimately be in
everybody’s interests for the chess world to unite, but it will take
statesmanlike leadership and behaviour from all involved to make it happen.
My suggestion for a possible
unification: I would like to see a four-player contest decided by means of two
12 game semi-final matches and a 16 game final. A fourth player needs to
emerge to join the three listed above, either as the best-placed player in
some super-tournament (where such a qualification has been agreed in advance,
of course) or, better, by means of a special open (BGN internet?) event. I
would also arrange it so that Kasparov could not play Kramnik at the
semi-final stage.
This is just one idea in a
sea of possibilities. Agreement of all the interested parties (the three
players, FIDE and BGN) will be essential for whatever does transpire. Kramnik
and Anand may both need (and certainly deserve) a little time to enjoy their
success and relax before facing the unpleasant reality that they cannot both
be World Champion simultaneously!
Why not just have a match
between Anand and Kramnik? They would prefer that to what I am suggesting,
since then they would have a better chance of becoming the unified champion
(given they would ‘only’ have to win one match not two). But the
four-player system has three main advantages:
1) It gives a new player a chance to shine. More open and more ‘democratic’.
2) Kasparov is included. He does not get a ‘rematch’ for the title, but he gets a ‘last four’ situation.
3)
Most importantly, credibility. Say Anand and Kramnik play a match and
say Anand wins. He would then hold the unified title having never overcome
Kasparov. Questions would still remain, which is exactly what we do not want.
Anyone who came through the four-player system I am proposing would deserve
the recognition of everybody as the true World Champion. The tradition of the
World Title could be honoured and some sort of continuity regained.
Of course a match between
Kramnik and Anand would be much better than no resolution at all, but somehow
it would not entirely settle the issue for many in the chess world who would
want to wait for the cycle after that (with Kasparov involved) before
believing in the world title with conviction once again.
For now all eyes will be focussed on the forthcoming tournament in Holland, where all of the key players face each other over the board. Wijk aan Zee starts on January 13th.