Fischer wants to play Topalav

Originally posted by flexmore
do you have an appropriate solution?

I guess everybody has an opinion on that, not necessarily better than someone elses. mine is, let FIDE hold the annual games, and whoever comes out on top is the current champion. former champion having a 'free ticket' to the tournament, but in the tournament playing just as many games as others. zero-tolerance for primadonnas who think they should decide themselves who to play and when. you either show up and prove you're the best, or join the line of former champions in history.

Originally posted by buffalobill
This 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 already said Topalov would be a heavy favorite, so the answer is I don't think Fischer could. But I'm not SURE, like you people are, that he couldn't for the reasons given. It would be intriguing. No one thought George Foreman could win the Heavywight boxing championship when he was in his mid-50's but he did. So who knows; you have to admit it would be a lot more interesting than a Topalov-Kramnik match (which I hope comes off).

Originally posted by no1marauder
I already said Topalov would be a heavy favorite, so the answer is I don't think Fischer could. But I'm not SURE, like you people are, that he couldn't for the reasons given. It would be intriguing. No one thought George Foreman to could win the Heavywight boxing championship when he was in his mid-50's but he did. So who knows; you have to admit it would be a lot more interesting than a Topalov-Kramnik match (which I hope comes off).

Yes, but what we'd all enjoy far more would be a Foreman-Fischer fight. Now that's something I'd pay to watch!

Originally posted by marinakatomb
If 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 [b]all of the best players in the World, bar Kramnik.

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 ...[text shortened]... y'll have to actually play a game first, which probably isn't going to happen any time soon...[/b]

ANOTHER person who doesn't know the history of chess! If Kasparov had been told in the 80's and 90's when he was reigning World Champion that he would have to play in a TOURNAMENT with 7 others as equals to continue to hold his title, what do you think his response would have been? He would have told FIDE to go sodomize themselves.

The World Chess Championship is decided by match play unless the title is vacant through death. That is how the Championship has been decided for well over a 100 years. Kramnik defeated the reigning Champion and so-called "greatest player ever" in a match without losing a single game. He defended his title against Leko (though barely escaping, but traditionally a drawn match leaves the Champion with the title; both Lasker and Botvinnik drew Championship matches and retained their titles). Kramnik would have dishonored the title to essentially abandon it to play in a tournament to decide a Champion when one already existed. The logical way to view San Luis is an elimination tournament to determine the no1 contender; Topalov having won it has earned the right to play Kramnik. Kramnik wants the match to happen; it should. If Topalov as the no1 contender is unwilling to play the Champion by the end of next year, then I'd say his claim would be forfeit.

Originally posted by no1marauder
ANOTHER person who doesn't know the history of chess! If Kasparov had been told in the 80's and 90's when he was reigning World Champion that he would have to play in a TOURNAMENT with 7 others as equals to continue to hold his title, what do you think his response would have been? He would have told FIDE to go sodomize themselves.

The World C ...[text shortened]... nwilling to play the Champion by the end of next year, then I'd say his claim would be forfeit.

Yeh, bla bla bla. For the last 100 years chess has been plagued with stupid morons who don't want to loose their frickin title! There have been countless players who have technically been the best but never got a shot at the title! Tell me a tournament isn't the best way to decide who's best. If Kramnik can't win the Fide championships it's because he isn't the best in the World, period. What's so hard to understand about that? He wouldn't have been putting his title on the line, just his pride! Guess he wasn't too confident...

Originally posted by marinakatomb
Yeh, bla bla bla. For the last 100 years chess has been plagued with stupid morons who don't want to loose their frickin title! There have been countless players who have technically been the best but never got a shot at the title! Tell me a tournament isn't the best way to decide who's best. If Kramnik can't win the Fide championships it's because ...[text shortened]... dn't have been putting his title on the line, just his pride! Guess he wasn't too confident...

Stupidity. Try reading a post and responding to the points in it next time.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
Yeh, bla bla bla. For the last 100 years chess has been plagued with stupid morons who don't want to loose their frickin title! There have been countless players who have technically been the best but never got a shot at the title! Tell me a tournament isn't the best way to decide who's best. If Kramnik can't win the Fide championships it's because ...[text shortened]... dn't have been putting his title on the line, just his pride! Guess he wasn't too confident...

In tournament play every player only plays each other once. Do you really think the outcome of one game is going to give you an accurate idea of who is the stronger player???

Originally posted by no1marauder
Stupidity. Try reading a post and responding to the points in it next time.

I did read it. I've stated already what i think about the 'candidates' system. Seeing as you obviously didn't read it, i'll restate what i said in a nutshell...

The champion has an unfair advantage because.
1. He is fresh for the match were as the challenger has played countless games to reach the 'final'

2. The champion can completely change his repertoire, as Kramnik did against Leko. Leko wouldn't have had time to do this. In fact, he was forced to do it half way through the match as Kramnik was obviously so well prepared which was a direct result of the extra time he had prepare and the fact that he had a sh;t load of recent Leko games to study. Leko didn't have anything to study of Kramniks as he'd been sitting pretty for 2 or 3 years before.

Had Kramnik played alongside Leko in the candidates tournament (if you can call it that), the two of them would have revealed what lines they favoured equally. Each would have played the same amount of games and expended the same energies prior to fighting for the title.

I accept that a tournament doesn't reflect a players best play. Each match up only takes place once so one player gets lumbered with the black pieces. Fair ehough i say! Look at Snooker, or darts, or tennis, or any other sport for that matter. When Goran Ivanisavitch won Wimbledon, did anyone claim he was the greatest grass court tennis player around? No! But they called him the champion none the less. If Sampras had had the luxury of sitting out every round of Wimbledon while everyone else fought it out to play him in the final, he'd still be the fricking champion now! In fact, he'd still be the champion in his 50's no doubt.

The Chess candidates championship is not a competition and hasn't ever been! The Fide tournament isn't perfect, but all the players are treated equally and you have to be bloody good to win it. I'll respect Kramniks claim to be best in the World when he wins this competition on a level playing field. If he can't do that, he is no champion, end of story!

Originally posted by marinakatomb
I did read it. I've stated already what i think about the 'candidates' system. Seeing as you obviously didn't read it, i'll restate what i said in a nutshell...

The champion has an unfair advantage because.
1. He is fresh for the match were as the challenger has played countless games to reach the 'final'

2. The champion can complet ...[text shortened]... his competition on a level playing field. If he can't do that, he is no champion, end of story!

By your logic, the Champion must not have EVER lost a match defending his title. Please check the history of chess.

Originally posted by no1marauder
By your logic, the Champion must not have EVER lost a match defending his title. Please check the history of chess.

Hey look, i know a little about the history of chess, but ain't talking about the history of chess! We're talking about the current World champion. Kramnik has beaten one player, Leko, last year in a match of 20 odd games. He won, but not very convincingly. He won by 0.5 points if memory serves me correctly. Topalov played just as many games against different opponents!

Which is more difficult? 20 games against multiple strong opponents who all have different openings and styles. Or 20 odd games against one person you've been preparing to play for 6 months?

Steven Hendry is the greatest Snooker player of all time. He's won the World championship some 7 times! However, he has also been knocked out in the first round by complete new comers, the year after winning it. Do you see what i'm getting at here? If he can't beat them, he can't be the champion. If Kramnik can't beat all the best players in the World, he can't call himself the fricking World champion. Topalov has beaten them, and therefore can call himself the World champion.

The Candidates tournament is a throw back to the Russian 'Chess Mafia' of the last century. It was designed so that a Russian could always be champion. Look at the list of champions dude! Take Fischer out and what's left?? I think you have to go back to Euwe for a non-Russian champion. This Championship is created and low and behold, what have we got? A non-Russian is what we've got! Topalov doesn't want to play Kramnik on Kramniks terms and that is the right damn thing to do! F*** Kramnik, if he is the champion he claims to be then let him prove it!

Originally posted by marinakatomb
I did read it. I've stated already what i think about the 'candidates' system. Seeing as you obviously didn't read it, i'll restate what i said in a nutshell...

The champion has an unfair advantage because.
1. He is fresh for the match were as the challenger has played countless games to reach the 'final'

2. The champion can complet ...[text shortened]... his competition on a level playing field. If he can't do that, he is no champion, end of story!

You forget that the champion himself had to play under the same conditions when he got his title.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
Hey look, i know a little about the history of chess, but ain't talking about the history of chess! We're talking about the current World champion. Kramnik has beaten one player, Leko, last year in a match of 20 odd games. He won, but not very convincingly. He won by 0.5 points if memory serves me correctly. Topalov played just as many games against d ...[text shortened]... ght damn thing to do! F*** Kramnik, if he is the champion he claims to be then let him prove it!

So far as I know, Topalov hasn't beaten ANY top players in a match. Kramnik beat Kasparov without losing a game. Who has a better claim to the title? You might as well say whoever wins Linares or Corus or any other super GM tourney is the Champion under your "logic".

Originally posted by no1marauder
So far as I know, Topalov hasn't beaten ANY top players in a match. Kramnik beat Kasparov without losing a game. Who has a better claim to the title? You might as well say whoever wins Linares or Corus or any other super GM tourney is the Champion under your "logic".

Were as under your Logic, once someone has won a match they can call themself the champion indefinately. When they don't like their chances they simply duck the challenge and remain 'undefeated'.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
Were as under your Logic, once someone has won a match they can call themself the champion indefinately. When they don't like their chances they simply duck the challenge and remain 'undefeated'.

I never said that. I was perfectly happy with the Candidates system that chess had from 1946 until the mid 1990's. Do you know what that was? Look it up.

EDIT: Let me amend that; I believe it was in the early 1960's that the system of Candidates matches was set up (before there was a single Candidates tourney) and the mandatory rematch if the Champion was dethroned was scrapped. That's the system I support; a set of Candidate matches and the Champion being required to defend his title periodically.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never said that. I was perfectly happy with the Candidates system that chess had from 1946 until the mid 1990's. Do you know what that was? Look it up.

EDIT: Let me amend that; I believe it was in the early 1960's that the system of Candidates matches was set up (before there was a single Candidates tourney) and the mandatory rematch if the Champi ...[text shortened]... rt; a set of Candidate matches and the Champion being required to defend his title periodically.

If you believe that's best, that's fine by me. I don't believe it to be a fair system though. The champion only plays one person. How does that make them the best in the World?