Why did you get the result so wrong?
Two basic reasons: First, completely misjudging the quality of pre-match preparations by the players, and second, being unable to predict the transformation of Kramnik from match bumbler to man of steel. Both of these miscalculations were due to playing the percentages, and I would guess that only Kramnik and his closest friends had any idea of how different things would be.
Why did Garry Kasparov lose?
He was completely unable to ambush Kramnik in the opening, and he refused to adapt to this in a sensible way. He became mesmerized by trying to refute Kramnik's chosen strategy, when he should have readjusted, and tried to enforce his own. Rather than trying to beat Kramnik on Kramnik's chosen turf, he should have admitted that he could not necessarily surprise him in the opening and simply resolved to forget about preparation and aim for positions that suited him more than his opponent.
By Kasparov's own admission he used all of his energy trying to rebuild his opening repertoire during the match. By saying: if I can't get anything concrete I will at least play positions I like, he would have regained some psychological strength, and been able to fight on better terms.
Finally, Kasparov also seemed to be out of form - he did not show any sign of the energy and brilliance that made him an historic champion, and neither Kramnik's clever strategy nor fine play can completely explain this.
Why did Vladimir Kramnik win?
First he had a profound match strategy, which he carried out perfectly. When playing black, he did not aim to prove total equality - instead he plumped for openings that offered him two things: positions that suited him far better than Kasparov, and variations that offered Kasparov absolutely no chances for detonating theoretical bombshells.
The worst that could happen was that Kramnik might to have to be a bit more careful to keep a disadvantage within the "drawing zone", and he did this to perfection. He was almost never in serious danger, particularly with the black pieces, and did not lose a game.
Kramnik was also better prepared psychologically. His assessment that neither player managed to bring considerable opening weaponry to bear on the match strikes me as being more accurate than Kasparov's feeling of being completely outgunned. Kramnik almost never made much of a theoretical impact with the white pieces, but he was ready to just play and fight with whatever he got. Kasparov just got depressed and offered draws.
The main reason Kramnik won is that he was tougher and played closer to the limits of his ability, something he has never managed to do in a match before. He was only in real danger in the late stages of the event, when fatigue and certainly nerves understandably became a factor. And even then he handled this crisis better than Kasparov.
Is Kramnik the legitimate champion?
Yes. No. It still depends on whether you rate a private match as a legitimate forum when there is an official international chess body (FIDE). The match pitted the top two rated players in the world, and the tantrum-prone Kasparov calmly recognizes his conqueror as the 14th world champion.
FIDE holds an annual random knock-out tournament and were quick to send emissaries to ask Kramnik if he would be interested in having a reunification match with their titleholder. These circumstances imply that even FIDE looks up to the winner of this match as the world champion.
Is Kramnik the best player in the world?
Yes. No. He has beaten the top player in the game in a title match but Kasparov remains the highest rated. Kramnik will have to follow this result up with corresponding tournament success to come out of Kasparov's shadow entirely. Kasparov's merits and standing will not be swept away overnight, even if this does not detract from Kramnik's full and fair claim to be the current king of the game.
One problem facing Kasparov in the near future may be that even if he manages to regain his status as the world's more or less undisputed strongest player, Kramnik may be such an unpleasant opponent for him personally that getting the title back in a match may prove harder.
Is Kasparov over the hill?
Don't be silly. He's 37 and the greatest player ever. He needs to have a quiet think and get a bit angry. Perhaps the most important result of this match is that Kasparov's confidence is likely to have been dented, and this is often the first stage of a champion's decline - though one might say that Deep Blue started this process.
What happens next?
Good question. For a look at some public opinion, visit our poll page. For some interesting speculation about this match and some possible permutations between the BrainGames Network and FIDE, read this.
There are far too many intangibles to venture anything resembling an answer to this question and until the future unfolds this is just an entertaining topic of debate.
Who are you again?
Grandmaster Jonathan Tisdall, reporter of world championship matches since 1981. Have watched a frighteningly high number of Karpov and Kasparov title games.
