Okay. Fair enough. I think the problem that we Kramnik fans have with this is that Vlad shouldn't bear the ENTIRE burden of blame.

I will grant you that Kramnik is partially to blame, but if Kasparov was going to go demanding a rematch and refusing to play qualifiers (even one-off qualifiers like Dortmund), then he shouldn't have demanded to have the rematch clause removed.

The fact is that GK didn't want to be seen as hording the classical title. He wanted the classical title to APPEAR as democratic and open as the FIDE title. I personally don't think he needed to do this, since the FIDE title was quickly becoming worthless by this point, but Garry was nonetheless worried that his title was being seen as a "Kasparov" championship rather than a "classical" championship, and he wanted to rectify that by eliminating the rematch clause.

Fair enough, but if you're going to do that, then you can't go off and DEMAND a rematch anyway. The whole POINT of removing the rematch clause was to make it so that someone else could conceivably get the classical title, who WASN'T Kasparov, and that Kasparov wouldn't automatically get it back each time, a la Botvinnik. It's just hypocrisy to have the rematch clause removed as a mere PR stunt, but when it actually becomes to an issue, to renege and demand it anyway.

That said, I agree that VK should've just given him his rematch. It would've been good for chess fans. And it was actually sort of a win-win for VK. If he plays and wins, then he cements his place in history as Kasparov's superior. If he plays and loses, then he's the nicest guy in top flight chess -- and he'll probably have chances to play for the title again. But WHATEVER happens, if he plays, he's in for a BIG payday. So, yeah, it's a pity VK didn't just give GK his rematch.

Count me in the poll.

Playing a sick Kramnik in 2004, GKK would have won. Then, again, if GKK had won the Dortmund 2002 Candidates, Kramnik might have immediately gone for medical treatment of his illness and gone to the hypothetical 2004 WC match with GKK fully healthy. In such a scenario, IMO Kramnik would have beaten GKK again in a match (although VBK would still have kept on consistently placing lower than GKK in tournaments.)

If GKK had not semi-retired in 2002 to 2004 and gone on to become the FIDE champion, and ended up playing Kramnik in a WC Match in 2006 instead of Topalov, IMO Kramnik would still have beaten Kasparov.

If Kramnik for any reason defended his Title in a WC Tournament in which GKK also participated in, that's another story. GKK most likely would have regained his Title.

Haha -- while it would be fantastic if he managed that, I don't think that's quite necessary to "equal" Kasparov/Karpov. Kasparov officially got the title in 1985. He played his last winning match in 1995. There's a bit of fudge room there, since he did play the 1984 match, but he was losing when it ended. And it's true that he was rated #1 between 1995 and 2000 (and beyond). But, I think if you're just counting the WCC match performances, Kramnik only needs to 1) beat Anand, 2) beat the winner of Topalov-Kamsky , and 3) beat the next guy in 2011.

1)Kramnik played matches before that and after that. He drew Leko and beat Topalov by 1 game. He lost to Shirov. In every match, opponents had a chance. But somehow Garry at his best didn't?

2)According to Schiller and Polgar, there was something that was bothering Kasparov during the match.

3)The actual games played didn't indicate that Kasparov was at his best. This was a guy that used to play for a win in meaningless games and rarely ever makes a big mistake. But here we have him blunder big time and give up fighting in such an important match.

<2)According to Schiller and Polgar, there was something that was bothering Kasparov during the match.> yes. it was the berlin defense.

<3)The actual games played didn't indicate that Kasparov was at his best. This was a guy that used to play for a win in meaningless games and rarely ever makes a big mistake.> dont you think its psychologically <much> easier to play for a win in a meaningless game? and as for garry not making "big" mistakes, well, you must be thinking of a different kasparov. deep blue anyone?

<But here we have him blunder big time and give up fighting in such an important match.> neither of these things in any way demonstrates that kasparov was in bad form entering the match. imagine you're a 27 yr old boxing champ, undefeated and in your prime. in your next big fight you swing at a lot of air in the first round and in the second you take one squarely on the chin and get decked. you might be psychologically changed for the rest of the fight.

1)Kramnik played matches before that and after that. He drew Leko and beat Topalov by 1 game. He lost to Shirov. In every match, opponents had a chance. But somehow Garry at his best didn't?>

Well, the simple explanation for that is that Kramnik played better against Gary than in his other matches.

<you vs yourself>

1) is easy. Kramnik played better in 2000 than he did in 2006, a whole lot better than he did in 2004, etc. At the time of the 2000 match, Kramnik was possibly at his peak form ever. So it's no surprise that in later (and earlier) matches he did worse against other players.

2) is also easy. Something may well have been bothering him. I don't know any details, you don't know any details. The relevant question is not that, but how much an impact this something had on his playing level.

3) has been dealt with a lot. I'd add that while you are right that he did make uncharacteristic mistakes/blunders, he never at any point of the match gave up fighting. Not at all. The early draw offers were of purely pragmatic nature. He judged, probably correctly, that far behind on the clock and with no advantage it was not worth the risk playing for a win. Then look at how, after a well-needed rest day, he gave Kramnik everything he could handle with Black in game 14:

Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2000

There was one WC Match in which there were no poorly played games IMO, the Lasker vs Capablanca 1921 WC Match. Except for one blunder by Lasker in the last game in an already inferior position, there were no outright blunders at all, and even in that last game, the rest of the game was very well-played and Capa had to outplay a stubbornly defending Lasker to gain the point. The two players were playing like computers throughout the match, with Capa seeing through more plies.

IMO, this is the WC match that sets the gold standard for what a WC match should be.

Kramnik lost the first game, and the second game was agreed drawn with Kramnik in a losing position.

1) is easy. Kramnik played better in 2000 than he did in 2006, a whole lot better than he did in 2004, etc. At the time of the 2000 match, Kramnik was possibly at his peak form ever. So it's no surprise that in later (and earlier) matches he did worse against other players.>

yes, it really appears as if Kramnik was afraid of meeting Garry once again, as if he knew what he did in London wasn't possible to do again... of course we wd never know what wd have happened. i think he will be called for many and forever coward or Drawnik, etc., because of the combined facts that, for any reason, he never gave Gazza a match again, he has never been a dominant player and many people never saw in him a real champion, and also for his pragmatic cautious style (not that he doesn't play exciting chess, it's only that he shows it so scarcely), i guess it's a matter of taste at the end.