A junior chess prodigy finds himself in a heated debate—not over his moves on the board, but over the legitimacy of his world championship. Let’s unpack this moment in the chess world that has sent ripples across the community.
Kasparov’s Controversial Take
During the Sinquefield Cup broadcast last week, former World Champion Garry Kasparov weighed in on the state of modern classical chess. While acknowledging that Gukesh earned his title “fair and square,” Kasparov questioned whether it holds the same weight as those won by legends like Fischer, Karpov, Carlsen—or even himself.
“Gukesh won fair and square but you can hardly call him the strongest player in the world… Magnus ended the era of classical world champions. Gukesh’s world championship title is very different… Gukesh is yet to prove his superiority over others.”
Kasparov seemed to imply that without facing Magnus Carlsen, Gukesh’s accomplishments lack the same gravitas—a provocative position that ignited debate.
Polgar’s Commanding Rebuttal
Susan Polgar, herself a former Women’s World Champion, swiftly countered Kasparov’s implied dismissal in a post on X:
“Gukesh is a deserving World Classical Champion, period!
He went through the FIDE Candidates as an 18-year-old, the youngest in the tournament, and came out ahead of big stars like Fabiano Caruana, Hikaru Nakamura, Ian Nepomniachtchi, Alireza Firouzja, and Pragg, etc.
It was not his fault that Magnus Carlsen walked away from his title.
If we… delegitimise his title because he did not beat Carlsen, then we need to do the same for World Champions after Bobby Fischer, since he also walked away from his title! We cannot have different standards for players we like or dislike.”
Her defense shines particularly bright in its fairness and historical perspective—highlighting that many champions relinquished their titles without losing, yet are still celebrated.
Why This Matters
- Gukesh’s journey to the title was no walk in the park. At just 18, he emerged from a grueling Candidates Tournament, holding off some of the world’s top grandmasters.
- Historical echoes resonate strongly: Bobby Fischer famously walked away from defending his title in 1975, yet remains an undisputed legend—Polgar’s comparison underscores that prestige shouldn’t be selectively assigned.
- The debate touches on deeper currents in chess: what constitutes a valid championship, and whether the absence of a reigning titan dilutes a new champion’s glory.
Final Thoughts
While Kasparov suggests the classical championship era effectively ended with Carlsen’s exit, Polgar’s clarion call for consistency and respect for genuine achievement resonates as a mature and equitable voice in this debate.
Gukesh may now be buffeted by opinions around his title, but voices like Polgar’s remind us: true championship is earned on the board, regardless of who doesn’t take part.
Let me know if you’d like to dig into Gukesh’s path through the Candidates, compare past champions’ legacies, or explore the broader implications for the future of classical chess.
