13 Nov 05
Originally posted by flexmoreWho knows?? It's doubtful that Petrosian would have beaten him in a rematch in 1972 (and that's who he would have played without Fischer being around). Spassky lost rather badly to Karpov in their Candidates match in 1975, though it's quite possible the loss to Fischer took a bit of the spirit out of him. At any rate, he would have been Champion probably for 6 years. does that make him "weak"? Tal held the title for one year, but is considered to have been a fairly strong champion, as was Smyslov in the 50's. spassky was still playing in the top one hundred in the world when he was in his late 50's, a 30+ year career of being a top player and a World Champion. Please define what a "weak" Champion is.
if fischer had never been born ... then how long do you think spassky would have dominated the rest of the chess world???
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderi think a weak champion is one who is hoisted up onto the shoulders of giants ... botvinnik was a giant ... capablanca was a giant ... morphy was a giant ... fischer was a giant ... karpov was a giant ... kasparov was a giant ... topalov may well be a giant(a little time and analysis will tell) ...spassky was not.
Who knows?? It's doubtful that Petrosian would have beaten him in a rematch in 1972 (and that's who he would have played without Fischer being around). Spassky lost rather badly to Karpov in their Candidates match in 1975, though it's quite possible the loss to Fischer took a bit of the spirit out of him. At any rate, he would have been Champion proba ...[text shortened]... ar career of being a top player and a World Champion. Please define what a "weak" Champion is.
tal was hoisted up as the tactical sacrificer on botvinnik's shoulders; petrosian was exactly tal's opposite and spassky was trying to mediate ... all on botvinnik's shoulders, and the soviet machine's shoulders.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by flexmore😴
i think a weak champion is one who is hoisted up onto the shoulders of giants ... botvinnik was a giant ... capablanca was a giant ... morphy was a giant ... fischer was a giant ... karpov was a giant ... kasparov was a giant ... topalov may well be a giant(a little time and analysis will tell) ...spassky was not.
tal was hoisted up as the tactical sacri ...[text shortened]... ky was trying to mediate ... all on botvinnik's shoulders, and the soviet machine's shoulders.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by flexmorePlease start at least trying to make sense rather than repeating a bunch of rubbish. The Soviets had to play each other, too; stop believing all the propaganda. Spassky dusted Tal in the 1965 Candidates match and also beat tough players like Geller, Keres and Larsen. Topalov a "giant"??? PLEEZE; 1/2 of a tournament does not a giant make; if he doesn't play Kramnik he still isn't champion as far as I'm concerned.
i think a weak champion is one who is hoisted up onto the shoulders of giants ... botvinnik was a giant ... capablanca was a giant ... morphy was a giant ... fischer was a giant ... karpov was a giant ... kasparov was a giant ... topalov may well be a giant(a little time and analysis will tell) ...spassky was not.
tal was hoisted up as the tactical sacri ...[text shortened]... ky was trying to mediate ... all on botvinnik's shoulders, and the soviet machine's shoulders.
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderhere we agree ... champions should not be a wimps ... i will have no respect unless they come out of their hidey hole and prove them selves.
... Topalov a "giant"??? PLEEZE; 1/2 of a tournament does not a giant make; if he doesn't play Kramnik he still isn't champion as far as I'm concerned.
topalov can never claim much if he does not take all serious contenders ... and kramnik is very serious ... he also now needs to prove his anti-silicone power ...
anti-silicone ability will surely become a new important measure of skill on the chess board.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by flexmoreTopalov is a contender; Kramnik is the Champion.
here we agree ... champions should not be a wimps ... i will have no respect unless they come out of their hidey hole and prove them selves.
topalov can never claim much if he does not take all serious contenders ... and kramnik is very serious.
13 Nov 05
I may be mistaken, but I believe Kramnik had the opportunity to compete in the World Championship but declined and his seat was filled by someone else.
Now he, and his supporters, seem to think he deserves a 1 on 1 match versus Topalov.
I don't blame Topalov for not playing him. I think a true champion can and will face all challengers, but not in any forum and circumstance a challenger sees fit.
He had his chance; he didn't take advantage of it. Topalov won the tournament Kramnik did not attend. This situation is of his own making.
13 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by tippedkingnot wanting to sound to much like no1 ... because there can only be one no.1 ...
I may be mistaken, but I believe Kramnik had the opportunity to compete in the World Championship but declined and his seat was filled by someone else.
Now he, and his supporters, seem to think he deserves a 1 on 1 match versus Topalov.
I don't blame Topalov for not playing him. I think a true champion can and will face all challengers, but not ...[text shortened]... of it. Topalov won the tournament Kramnik did not attend. This situation is of his own making.
... but ...
surely if kramnik was wrong in not proving himself against everyone ... then topalov is now becoming more guilty of worse?!
kramnik did not want to be "just one of many" ... kramnik had already beaten kasparov !!!!!!
kramnik wanted the rest of the world to find their best to play him ... a reasonable request from a defending champ.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by flexmoreMorphy was never World champion.
i think a weak champion is one who is hoisted up onto the shoulders of giants ... botvinnik was a giant ... capablanca was a giant ... morphy was a giant ... fischer was a giant ... karpov was a giant ... kasparov was a giant ... topalov may well be a giant(a little time and analysis will tell) ...spassky was not.
tal was hoisted up as the tactical s ...[text shortened]... ky was trying to mediate ... all on botvinnik's shoulders, and the soviet machine's shoulders.[/b]
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIf Kramnik is the strongest player in the World, why didn't he prove it? He was invited to play in the World championship, he turned it down. Topalov scored higher than all of the best players in the World, bar Kramnik.
Topalov is a contender; Kramnik is the Champion.
Kramnik was great when he beat Kasparov. Let's face it, he's the only person to beat him in a match. Many would say this makes him the best in the world. So why didn't he show up to the Fide WC?? I'll hazard a guess, he knew he couldn't win! Topalov might not be a convincing champion at the moment, he'd have to successfully defend his title to be that, but defend it he will! He has no choice.
Kramnik is doing what every frickin 'Classical' champion has done since the very beginning. Take the crown and hide. He's been hiding so long he's dropped in strength/sharpness. Topalov would beat him i feel, but obviously they'll have to actually play a game first, which probably isn't going to happen any time soon...
13 Nov 05
I think the situation is bit funny concerning the world championship in chess. in what other sport does the reigning champion get away with not showing up the next year (the same goes for contenders.)? show-wrestling comes to mind.
if somebody skipped the 100m run world championship final similarly, nobody would speculate wether the new champ is the real champ or if the former champ would've won had he shown up. not to even mention the hypothetical return of some former champion after decades of absense. you don't show up, you don't get the title. and if somebody has a bone to pick with the respective world federation of that said sport, well tough.
also, who is regarded 'the strongest' in a sport is not relevant. world championships are not decided on world records or season's high scores (in sports where such records are possible) etc, they are decided on being the best that day, that event, among the contenders who did show up. it's a title. it's ridiculous that a the champion could decide himself if he's still the reigning champ or how and when the contenders might get the chance to gain the title. it's like me declaring myself the emperor of the universe, isn't it.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by wormwoodyou are right thinking that the basic method is fundamentally flawed ...
I think the situation is bit funny concerning the world championship in chess. in what other sport does the reigning champion get away with not showing up the next year (the same goes for contenders.)? show-wrestling comes to mind.
if somebody skipped the 100m run world championship final similarly, nobody would speculate wether the new champ is the real ...[text shortened]... chance to gain the title. it's like me declaring myself the emperor of the universe, isn't it.
but comparing to a 100m sprint is not necessarily the solution ... chess and sprinting are quite different ...
do you have an appropriate solution?
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is getting tiresome. Yes, Spassky at about 67 is still a strong player with about a 2550 rating and obviously he is still capable of beating strong players, but that doesn't make him a candidate. In 1992, commentators agreed that both were past their best. By your reckoning what would Fischer's rating be if he played proper chess? Do you seriously, in your more lucid moments, believe he can come back and beat the best?
I discussed the evidence and relevant facts; you ignored them. That is why you are a loser.