Kramnik:It is not a question of simply yes or no. Anand won the tournament, which was called the World Championship Tournament, and I competed in that tournament as well. The International Chess Federation FIDE agreed to do it this way, so I have no right not to consider him the World Champion. A question is, however: what is the value of such a title? Similary I considered Kasimdzhanov to be a FIDE Champion, after winning the knock-out tournament in Libya. However I did not consider him to be the real champion. He had won a tournament and by FIDE’s definition he was a FIDE World Champion. But the value of this title was lower compared to the classical title won in a one-to-one match by Champions like Lasker, Spasski, Kasparov or me. The winner of the match Kramnik-Anand won’t be World Champion only from a legal point of view, he will be considered to be the World Champion and best chess player by the entire public.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
Dirt wrote:Changed his opinion? Sure, by now he's realized that you can't have a real championship match in only twelve games!
Time to go back to the old format of 24 games.
How about a format where you keep playing and playing until suddenly the underdog looks like he's started to turn the tide at which point you abrubtly terminate the tournament and ....
Phew! There's something to be said for both these formats!
Time to go back to the old format of 24 games.