Did Spassky Get a rematch against Fischer? Did Tal get a rematch against Botvinnik? Did Smyslov get a rematch against Botvinnik? Did Lasker get a rematch against Capablanca?

<and then Kasparov, he does not need to pass on dortmund>

Well this is where we differ. Personally, I feel no player should be exempt from the rules. And so Kasparov shouldn't be given special privileges because of what he did in the past.

<And who said that "Kramnik "bragged" about being Kasparov in 2000?">

There is nothing wrong with kramnik. He's still very very expert in chess. Only that Anand is much better than kramnik.

Kramnik was not expecting to face 1. d4 as Black and Anand is successfully probing for weaknesses in his repertoire there, as in this game.

Also Kramnik was twice beaten with the White pieces against one particular variation of the semi-slav where Anand was obviously better prepared and more comfortable.

Rybka disagrees with you on Kramnik's first 2 losses, where he actually had the better position after the opening.

Here's Kramnik's take on opening preparation given just before the match:

Well you are certainly right here. I meant "beaten" and mistyped. Anyways, I'd still like to see evidence that Kramnik bragged about beating Kasparov-something you haven't backed up. or even why this is an issue.>

You have quite "Funny" remarks:

Don't you know that Fischer gave Spassky a rematch on 1992? Don't ask me why only in 1992...

Don't you also know that Botvinnik was actually ask for a rematch and not Tal because it was Tal who took the crown from Botvinnik on 1960? And a rematch was happened a year after on 1961?

Don't you also know that Smyslov and Botvinnik made several WCC match and rematch from years 1954, 1957 and 1958?

Don't you also know that Lasker was resigned his crowned to Capablanca even before the WCC started on 1921? Lasker wanted to retire his crown and Capablanca doesn't want to be a World Champion by default so he eagerly travelled from Cuba to Holland just to meet and talk to Lasker to play with him in this world championship match. He even produced a prize fund of USD 20K with division of 11k for Lasker win or loss and 9k for him just to convince Lasker to play with him. Lasker however declined to be called world champion as he said even if he wins he will offer to have a new world championship tournament match and he will not join for it as he is retired. But with prize fund of 20K and 11k for him he agrees to play but he will be called challenger and not World Champion and Capa agrees with the condition. And Capablanca beats Lasker on the match (Mar 15-Apr 21, 1921)and Lasker did not ask for a rematch as I already explained above. Did Karpov did that to Fischer? No way, Karpov was very happy to take the crown from Fischer without a fight on 1975. After that year he offered Fischer to play but in a condition that Karpov is the WC and Fischer as the challenger. He is not as generous as Capa right?

And if you say that no player shall be exempted then why Kramnik has to become an immediate challenger as his privelege after he lose his crown on 2007 even without passing into elimination round in World Cup 2007 that was won by Kamsky and why not it is not applicable to Kaspy and he needs to join dortmund?

And who said that he brags beating Kasparov? I don't think you understand the comment. I mentioned before that he brags about a "match" because he once beaten Kaspy that he never gave an opportunity for a rematch and NEVER he brags about beating Kaspy in a match. These two sentences have with completely different meaning. That is his belief the only way to be called a really world champion, he even mentioned that he only let Anand borrowed his title in a WCC tournament in Mexico just for making the chessworld as one again. He will only consider it really valid if Anand can beat him in a "match". That is the word I referred for he brags.

You are a kind of talking without knowing person so I suggest you have to make a lot of reading and good understanding first before making an out of sink comments and dont put words in other mouth because it will look like you are an ignorant.

The only right comment you have mentioned is your "mistyped" But in general you mistyped everything.

You're welcome.

I just started playing and studying chess recently, after being retired for 30 years!

I bought Kasparov's books "My Great Predecessors", Parts 1,2,3. I also bought Bronstein's book on the King's Indian. And today I sent away for a collection of Morphy's games and Steinitz's games.

I do not have too much time for chess, although this WCC match is indeed taking a lot of my time!

Bronstein suffered a lot in his time. His father was jailed in Siberia for 6 years and declared an "enemy of the people" for blowing the whistle on a corrupt local official. Botvinnik manipulated the authorities, and through the Russian Chess Federation, manipulated FIDE itself, to block Bronstein's way.

Bronstein was the one who suggested the idea of the digital clock, also Rapid Chess, and Active Chess...also the clock feature that adds 30 seconds per move, etc.

He does not get enough credit for his contributions.

Here are some quotes by Bronstein on the FIDE structure of qualification for the WCC:

"In the Interzonal Tournament of 1948 we were fighting for the first 5 places which would mean qualification for the Candidates' Tournament. When the tournament was finished, FIDE increased the number of qualifiers from 5 to 10, All five participants in The Hague/Moscow tournament of 1948 received the right to play in the next Candidates' Tournament. When in the Candidate's Touornament of 1953 Keres, Reshevsky and myself shared 2nd place, FIDE awarded us the right to play a tournament between us to decide who would play in the next Interzonal Tournament."

Only after my protest did FIDE change its mind and ask us to play for one place in the next Candidate's Tournament.

In he Interzonal Tournament in 1958, when I finished jointly half a point behind the winners, FIDE DID NOT INCREASE the number of players for the next Candidate's Tournament.

Meanwhile Botvinnik had created a rule, which was accepted by FIDE, that no more than three players from the USSR could qualify from the Candidate's Tournament. By introducing such a 'clever' idea he could narrow down his most dangerous opponents to only three. Another non-chess move by the "champion of all time"."

I have very little respect for Botvinnik and his off-the board manuvers.

You seriously consider Fischer-Spassky a rematch for title?

<Don't you also know that Botvinnik was actually ask for a rematch and not Tal because it was Tal who took the crown from Botvinnik on 1960?>

As <whatthefat> pointed out, don't you note the incredibly asymmetry of your line of reasoning?

<And who said that he brags beating Kasparov? I don't think you understand the comment. I mentioned before that he brags about a "match" because he once beaten Kaspy that he never gave an opportunity for a rematch and NEVER he brags about beating Kaspy in a match.>

Again. You comments are completely unclear. You said "Kramnik is so lousy in tournaments as everyone knows so he always brags about a match because he once beaten Kasparov in WCC." What do you mean "a match"? Kramnik so lousy that he brags about his match play? If so, where is the evidence for that? Or that he brags about his match with Kasparov? From the original comment, it is possible that one could find the former interpretation, but my guess, is, well I don't know what you mean anymore.

<You are a kind of talking without knowing person so I suggest you have to make a lot of reading and good understanding >

If you're going to smear another person, then, at the very least, please be clear and precise in your smears and lies.

<And if you say that no player shall be exempted then why Kramnik has to become an immediate challenger as his privelege after he lose his crown on 2007 even without passing into elimination round in World Cup 2007 that was won by Kamsky>

Because it was part of Kramnik's contract when the title was unified in 2006. He'd put in on the line in 2007, and if lost he'd play a match in 2008.

<and why not it is not applicable to Kaspy and he needs to join dortmund?>

Wrong way of reasoning. The burden rests on you to prove why the rules apply to everybody. If you want to make a person exempt from them, then you need to explain why they are not applicable to Kasparov. The responsibility is yours, not mine.

There is always a biased for every rule introduced by the champions so he can have a rematch. But if that is the set-up then everyone should follow and applicable to all. Let say if Kaspy is deprived of a rematch who was number one in the elo rating lists and tournaments, why not Kramnik should also be deprived for a special rematch who was never became number 1 in elo rating and quite so lousy in tournament games??

But unlike Kramnik and Alekhine, Anand is a fair champion is willing to give what it takes to prove himself so Admire this kind of champion.

There is always a biased in a rule unfortunately, like when Kramnik won his match with Leko with score 7-7 Kramnik retained the title. And why not have a tiebreak like Anand and Kramnik now?? Well Kramnik is a Russian and can dictate for their advantage while Anand is not. But Anand is a fair champion and is willing to give, tiebreak was never been in place before and even during Kramnik's time but he ensures that he got the privelege that if the score is equal then he retain the title. Kramnik should complain before his match with Anand that there should be no tiebreak but he can't due to it is in favor of the challenger which is him.

I am expecting that you will question it. Obviously you are really an ignorant, how can it be serious if Fischer was stripped of his title in 1975? And how can you actually ask in the first place why Fischer did not give a rematch if Fischer is not anymore the champion?? LOL

<As <whatthefat> pointed out, don't you note the incredibly asymmetry of your line of reasoning?>

I dont need to answer this again as I have already answered it separately.

<Again. You comments are completely unclear. You said "Kramnik is so lousy in tournaments as everyone knows so he always brags about a match because he once beaten Kasparov in WCC." What do you mean "a match"? Kramnik so lousy that he brags about his match play? If so, where is the evidence for that? Or that he brags about his match with Kasparov? From the original comment, it is possible that one could find the former interpretation, but my guess, is, well I don't know what you mean anymore.>

It is not my fault if you cannot read between the lines if you cant even understand a simple explanation.

<If you're going to smear another person, then, at the very least, please be clear and precise in your smears and lies.>

Lol, lies are for ignorant that keep insisting to cover up his ignorance.

<And if you say that no player shall be exempted then why Kramnik has to become an immediate challenger as his privelege after he lose his crown on 2007 even without passing into elimination round in World Cup 2007 that was won by Kamsky>

<Because it was part of Kramnik's contract when the title was unified in 2006. He'd put in on the line in 2007, and if lost he'd play a match in 2008.>

Of course, it is a champs privilege it is included and can you show me the contract between Kaspy and Kramnik? Kramnik should also somehow give courtesy to Kaspy who gave him an opportunity to challenge him even he is not really the qualified person to become a challenger but shirov on that time.

<<and why not it is not applicable to Kaspy and he needs to join dortmund?>

Wrong way of reasoning. The burden rests on you to prove why the rules apply to everybody. If you want to make a person exempt from them, then you need to explain why they are not applicable to Kasparov. The responsibility is yours, not mine.>

I dont have to take it as a burden, regardless of explanation, an ignorant can simply ignore it so why should I bother with the ignorant.

Thanks for not citing your other examples like Capa, smyslov etc... it saves my time. Make some research to update yourself with the history before you say something. LOL

True but still better than a champion having an advantage to retain the title as in the past rather than finding a better way so either of the champ or challenger will have a proof of beating his opponent whether another long game, rapid or blitz. These will force the champ to play better than just draw or equal points.

<There is always a biased for every rule introduced by the champions so he can have a rematch. But if that is the set-up then everyone should follow and applicable to all.> <But that hasn't always been the case at all. It wasn't the case when Spassky beat Petrosian, and it wasn't the case when Kramnik beat Kasparov.>

Well I disagree. I think the onus is on the challenger to prove that they are better than the champion at classical chess. If the match is drawn, then they have not proven that they are better. And tiebreaks under a different time control are no longer a measure of who is better at classical chess. You might as well use blindfold chess or pin the tail on the donkey. In fact, had the Kasparov-Kramnik match ended tied, I imagine Kasparov would have remained champion and there'd be no problem in your eyes.

<It's always but it also always depending on the next titleholder to avoid it like Alekhine to Capablanca. Also on 60s and 70s, the way they played it that time is by qualifying tournaments. Fischer keeps complaining because of the way Russians cooks each tournaments to ensure that WCC will only evolve with them.>

Really? Let me tell you what I really have in mind, the set up should be quite simple, first one to reach 6 or 10 points and draws not counted so where is the tiebreak in there?? You can jumped-off to your conclusion but dont create an argument what is a problem and no problem in my eyes because it is quite nonsense and generally BS. You got it or you will keep being BS!?