01 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauder'player A scoring more points in a match than player B'
You're ridiculous. I've already presented the arguments why matches are superior to tournament in deciding the World Championship;...
'player A scoring more points in a tournament than player B'
I don't see much difference. both of them play against exactly the same opponents in the tournament, so it's not like one of them could have easier opposition.
and in fact, the opposition being a group of players with different styles will measure the overall strength of the player. where as a match against a single opponent will measure only his strength against that single style of that specific opponent.
in theory, in match play we could have a situation where a 'kramnik killer style' would do very well against him, but the same player would do very poorly against everybody else.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by AProdigyKramnik agreed to compete in Mexico to resolve this mess once and for all. I don't think he should have. FIDE threatened to strip him of the FIDE title if he didn't but agreed that he would automatically get to play against the winner in Mexico if it wasn't him. FIDE also agreed that in the future the championship would be decided solely by matches.
From the beginning I have agreed that this wasn't a good way to determine the WC. But the title was awarded. Was it "absurd and pointless". Maybe in your opinion. I would just say that I don't think it was the best way.
I understand the delima, though. Can someone tell me why Kramnik had to compete in this? It would have made much more sens ...[text shortened]... Kramnik to put his title on the line in a tourney. [b] BUT HE DID, SO ANAND IS THE WC[/b]
I suppose that Kramnik decided it was worth whatever risk was involved in someone claiming the title of World Champion for a few months to get the system back on track. I don't think he really believes that he has been dethroned because Anand won this tournament though he is saying the PC things. He knows he'll play Anand very soon and the issue will be decided on the board.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by WulebgrWho's play is more exciting is entirely an opinion. Anand and Kramnik have different styles.
I disagree. Kramnik's style is more exciting. Players have switched to 1.d4 because he has sucked the life out of 1.e4. What could be more exciting than that. He was a champion in the style of Smyslov--advancing the quest for chess truth.
Anand is an attacker. Players who are attackers as well will find Anand exciting and Kramnik boring.
Kramnik is a defender. A player who can appreciate positional chess and counter-play will find Kramnik more exciting.
This is why, I feel, the tournament did not prove that Anand was better than Kramnik. Anand's style would tend to rack up more points against the weaker players than Kramnik's would.
The question of can Anand beat Kramnik is yet to be decided. Is Anand's attack better than Kramnik's defense. It will be exciting to see. Can't wait
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauder
Kramnik agreed to compete in Mexico to resolve this mess once and for all. I don't think he should have. FIDE threatened to strip him of the FIDE title if he didn't but agreed that he would automatically get to play against the winner in Mexico if it wasn't him. FIDE also agreed that in the future the championship would be decided solely by matches.
I suppose that Kramnik decided it was worth whatever risk was involved in someone claiming the title of World Champion for a few months to get the system back on track.
I agree
I don't think he really believes that he has been dethroned because Anand won this tournament though he is saying the PC things. He knows he'll play Anand very soon and the issue will be decided on the board.
I wouldn't presume to know Kramnik's private thoughts, but prefer to think that his character is of such quality that they likely line up with his public statements a bit better than you believe.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by WulebgrI'm a "purity" kind of guy.
Your arguments are neither absurd nor pointless. Your basic point that matches are the best way to decide the championship is clear and correct, and the history is strong.
But to claim that Anand is not the true champion applies these principles wrongly. This application assumes a purity and consistency in the tradition of matches that is simply not there ...[text shortened]... mption of the tradition of matches, now once again administered by FIDE, as it it was 1948-1993.
To say that Anand is now World Championship is to say that the WC can pass by a tournament when there is a reigning World Champion. I cannot agree with this given the history of chess. You are correct (unfortunately) that "The history of the World Championship is full of variances, gaps, and corruptions" but to establish this as a precedent would be most dangerous IMO.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by AProdigyThose that criticize Kramnik's defensive style tend to overlook how before he was champion he infused new life into the Sveshnikov Sicilian (part of an attacking repertoire for the black player). He switched to the Berlin Wall Spanish, and the Russian Defense as he was reaching the summit.
Anand is an attacker. Players who are attackers as well will find Anand exciting and Kramnik boring.
As expected, others are following him in his opening choices.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by WulebgrBut a "pure" one; like Perry Mason all my clients are completely innocent!
I thought you were a lawyer. 😉
Seriously, don't you think a precedent where Anand is recognized as World Champion for winning a tournament when there is a reigning World Champion will haunt chess if it is accepted?
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrI've gone through some of his earlier games, and I really liked them. but the last few years he's been almost forcing games into a draw, even when he's had an advantage.
Those that criticize Kramnik's defensive style tend to overlook how before he was champion he infused new life into the Sveshnikov Sicilian (part of an attacking repertoire for the black player). He switched to the Berlin Wall Spanish, and the Russian Defense as he was reaching the summit.
As expected, others are following him in his opening choices.
this tournament was different though (excluding that sad, sad 13-move draw), at least in my opinion, and I hope he will continue on this more lively road.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderIt has been accepted. Its done.
But a "pure" one; like Perry Mason all my clients are completely innocent!
Seriously, don't you think a precedent where Anand is recognized as World Champion for winning a tournament when there is a reigning World Champion will haunt chess if it is accepted?
However, I do feel that his championship may be tainted unless he beats Kramnik in the match.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by AProdigyIf it is not accepted by the chess world, it's not accepted. You don't accept it or you wouldn't say "However, I do feel that his championship may be tainted unless he beats Kramnik in the match." If he's the legit WC now, merely losing to Kramnik in a match wouldn't affect the "reality" that Anand had been WC.
It has been accepted. Its done.
However, I do feel that his championship may be tainted unless he beats Kramnik in the match.
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI've already presented the arguments why matches are superior to tournament in deciding the World Championship; I can't "prove" it like a mathematical formula. The fact that chess has traditionally always considered it the best way is strong evidence in support of that view.
I've already presented the arguments why matches are superior to tournament in deciding the World Championship; I can't "prove" it like a mathematical formula. The fact that chess has traditionally always considered it the best way is strong evidence in support of that view.
I think of myself as part of the chess world. And unlike a lot of t it was Kramnik, not them, who defeated Kasparov and has sucessfully defended the title.
I dont accept tradition as evidence, if there are no other evidences.
I think of myself as part of the chess world. And unlike a lot of others, I don't base my opinion on a dislike of somebody's playing style. Sure, Anand and Topalov and others have more exciting styles than Kramnik, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Kramnik, not them, who defeated Kasparov and has sucessfully defended the title.
Where did I say that I dont like Kramnik or his playing style?
P.S. Actually I like Kramnik more than Anand. but it does not make me biased.
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf it is not accepted by the chess world, it's not accepted.
If it is not accepted by the chess world, it's not accepted. You don't accept it or you wouldn't say "However, I do feel that his championship may be tainted unless he beats Kramnik in the match." If he's the legit WC now, merely losing to Kramnik in a match wouldn't affect the "reality" that Anand had been WC.
How can you declare that its not accepted by chess world? I have read different internet forums and can say that even in Russian language forums (chesspro.ru and kasparovchess.com for example) people like you are minority - so I don`t see how majority of chess world does not accept Anand as world champion.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWow, correcting you over and over again was fun a first, but it is getting old.
If it is not accepted by the chess world, it's not accepted. You don't accept it or you wouldn't say "However, I do feel that his championship may be tainted unless he beats Kramnik in the match." If he's the legit WC now, merely losing to Kramnik in a match wouldn't affect the "reality" that Anand had been WC.
I do accept the title change. I don't think it was the best. But I accept it. The chess world, with the exception of you, accepts it. More importantly, Kramnik accepts it. It was accepted.