Topalov is probably the only FIDE World Champion of that time that I'm willing to accept. He won a strong tournament in great style, scoring 6.5/7 in the first series of games.
Other 'World Champions' like Chalifman and Kasimdzjanov are just jokes, they are or have been very strong grandmasters, but don't come close to the level of play of Topalov or Kramnik.
Topalov is probably the only FIDE World Champion of that time that I'm willing to accept. He won a strong tournament in great style, scoring 6.5/7 in the first series of games.
Other 'World Champions' like Chalifman and Kasimdzjanov are just jokes, they are or have been very strong grandmasters, but don't come close to the level of play of Topalov or Kramnik.
Agreed, to me it's a big difference between knockout winners like Kasim and Khalif, and Topalov, who won a serious World Championship in classical chess, ahead of Anand, without rapid and blitz. Topalov is underestimated:
In the 2000s Topalov has nine (9) wins against Anand in classical chess.
Since 2005 Topalov has five (5) wins against Kramnik in classical chess (not counting the forfeit).
In 2005 Topalov won against Kasparov in the latter's final game (it was his third win against Kasparov).
Compare with for example Gelfand, who never won against Kasparov, and hasn't beaten any of Topalov, Anand or Kramnik since 1997, not even once. So Topalov has been a great player the last decade, and I recall that also Svidler, who is one of Kramnik's best friends, stated that he saw Topalov as World Champion no less than Kramnik after San Luis 2005.
I tend to recognize only the line starting with Steinitz and ending in Anand. It went Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand. The other junk was a distraction. Topalov is one of the top players in the world, but he never beat a reigning world champ. FIDE took away Kaspaorv's title... but that was a formality, we all knew who was the strongest player in the world... the line of world champs was unbroken.
Having an amazing tournament (which Topalov did) doesn't make a world champ. If it did there'd be candidates every year or so when we see these 2900+ performance ratings. (Anand still counts, he actually played a match with Kramnik later 
)
Topolov lost matches against both Kramnik and Anand. Topolov is an amazing player, but in my mind not ever greater than a #2.
My thoughts:
When you have 2 different organisations who hold tournaments to which members off the other organisation are excluded (such as FIDE and PCA), then you have exactly that.
The winner off such a tournament can be crowned FIDE-champion or PCA-champion, but in my opinion to call someone WORLD-champion, that player should be champion off the entire world.
I recognize Topalov as a real WC not only because of San Luis 2005 but also because he is one of few ever to break 2800 and since 2005 I dont believe he has dropped below the top 10 even briefly. ( havent checked this so could be wrong ) He also gave Anand a much tougher match than Kramnik did and both lost. In his last 4 games with Kasparov ( 2 in 04 and 2 in 05 ) he drew 3 games and won 1 .
Among the "chumpions" like Khalifman and Khazim lets not forget Ponomariov...
For the sake of argument, why not recognize Carlsen as a world champion too then?
For the sake of argument, why not recognize Carlsen as a world champion too then?
Maybe because he hasnt won a DRR tournament for the WC nor even played a match for it, let alone win such a match ? FIDE also hasnt recognized him as one yet..... this thread is about " FIDE " world champions during the split that Kasparov created, Carlsen isnt in the group ....
For the sake of argument, why not recognize Carlsen as a world champion too then?
Maybe because he hasnt won a DRR tournament for the WC nor even played a match for it, let alone win such a match ? FIDE also hasnt recognized him as one yet..... this thread is about " FIDE " world champions during the split that Kasparov created, Carlsen isnt in the group ....
Do I recognize Topolov as a former FIDE world champ? Yes.
Do I recognize him as having been the best in the world? Very possible but like Keres or Korchnoi history was unkind and in it was never proven to the world.
When Garry Kasparov split with FIDE and organized his 1993 World Championship match with Nigel Short, FIDE declared that they still controlled the World Championship title and staged their own championships. While the FIDE title did not carry the prestige of the classical World Championship, these players are still worth noting for historical perspective.
I agree Topalov is real WC. See the games when he fight Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand, very good game, the moves maybe not in our mind. But the top level of chess player, that is normal nature. Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Carlsen and new fighter Aronian is in one level upper than other player. Are you agree with me?
Having an amazing tournament (which Topalov did) doesn't make a world champ. If it did there'd be candidates every year or so
Topalov didn't become World Champion just by winning a tournament but by winning a World Championship. It's often said that if Topalov was World Champion then all other players that ever won a tournament or at least had a top result in one of them must also automatically be recognised as World Champions, but there is a difference there. No one calls Naiditsch a World Champion for winning Dortmund 2005 since it wasn't a World Championship. It's the same thing with matches, you don't become World Champion just by winning a match against another player.
Few top players didn't recognise San Luis 2005 as a World Championship so it did have some significance, and there would have been no reunification match unless it had been a World Championship since there would have been nothing to unify then. But most people of course see Kramnik's title as much more valuable since it was connected to a match, even if he didn't qualify for it and the title was Kasparov's private property to do with as he pleased. As showed when he picked Kramnik for his opponent even though he lost the match between the two (!) players Kasparov picked to participate in the Candidates.
Among the "chumpions" like Khalifman and Khazim lets not forget Ponomariov...
And let's not forget that they'd tear you a new one any day of the week. More importantly, why recognize Kramnik as a world champion when he didn't even win a proper candidates match to get there?
Having an amazing tournament (which Topalov did) doesn't make a world champ. If it did there'd be candidates every year or so
Topalov didn't become World Champion just by winning a tournament but by winning a World Championship.
I don't consider Kramnik or Topalov a WC until the reunification match which Kramnik won.
Why do you consider the tournament which Topalov won a genuine world championship?
-edit-
I could also agree that Kramnik and Topalov both were world champion.
Kramnik the "PCA"worldchampion, Topalov the "FIDE"worldchampion. However the word "world" seems redundant to me.
But World Champion or not, to Anand San Luis 2005 was a World Championship, and it hasn't been easy to beat Anand in events he considers World Championships: He is the favourite in 2012 vs Gelfand, won 2010 vs Topalov, won 2008 vs Kramnik, won 2007 vs Kramnik, Aronian, etc. Before 2007 he last participated for the "classical" title in 1995, when he scored 10-1 in wins in his Candidates matches. Four wins and one draw after five games against a strong player like Adams wasn't far from a Fischer result. He was also leading the title match against Kasparov after nine games. So finishing far ahead of him in San Luis 2005 was quite an achievement by Topalov, even if I don't think it ever will make him a World Champion to most people. A great result though.
For what it's worth I think there have definitely been times where Topolov was the best living player in the world. Even recently. Through no fault of his own he missed out on a unified title, and that's unfortunate.
Among the "chumpions" like Khalifman and Khazim lets not forget Ponomariov...
And let's not forget that they'd tear you a new one any day of the week. More importantly, why recognize Kramnik as a world champion when he didn't even win a proper candidates match to get there?
This kind of approach is always comical and very childish. Ofcourse the word "chumpion" is comparing them to "real" world champions and not amateur players like myself. Would you count everyone who can "tear me a new one" as a WC ?! If so there would be so many world champions that the title would lose all significance.
Why do you consider the tournament which Topalov won a genuine world championship? Because FIDE said so?
I don't know about genuine, but it was seen as a World Championship by most players, had a selection system that wasn't just based on handpicking, and was called a World Championship also by Kramnik's friends. I'm more against the idea that all tournament winners might be seen as no less World Champions if Topalov (or Anand in 2007) are recognised as World Champions after winning the FIDE World Championship in a tournament, but I guess no one really holds that opinion anyway. Anyway, if Topalov doesn't count he should definitely be mentioned among the greatest players to never become World Champion, he shouldn't be far behind Korchnoi and Keres on that list.
if Topalov doesn't count he should definitely be mentioned among the greatest players to never become World Champion, he shouldn't be far behind Korchnoi and Keres on that list.
+1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_World_Chess_Championship_2005
The San Luis event was billed as a tournament for the WC just as Mexico City was a few years later. While I prefer match play myself a DRR is far superior to the fast knock out tournies they had been having just prior to San Luis...
I know that during the rift with FIDE that many "fide world champions" arent accepted by all as "real world champions". I know that Topalov falls into this category. Where do you stand ? Do you recognize him as a ( former ) WC ? Why or why not ? I will give my own opinion later....