New World Champion

Originally posted by AProdigy
Wow, correcting you over and over again was fun a first, but it is getting old.

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.

You keep "correcting me" by contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]If it is not accepted by the chess world, it's not accepted.
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.[/b]

That's your biased perception. I guarantee you that if and when Anand loses to Kramnik in the totally unnecessary match (according to you we should just have another tournament), very few people will say that Anand was the World Champion (as very few say he was World Champion for winning the FIDE championship after Karpov and Khalifman).

Originally posted by no1marauder
You keep "correcting me" by contradicting yourself.

Alas, I am done...

You may not be very clever, but you sure are stubburn. I'll bet you never resign a lost game, do you?

Originally posted by AProdigy
Alas, I am done...

You may not be very clever, but you sure are stubburn. I'll bet you never resign a lost game, do you?

The one being stubborn is you; you keep saying you "accept" that Anand is now World Champion but say that if he loses the match to Kramnik his "Championship" will be "tainted". These positions are contradictory but you won't admit it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's your biased perception. I guarantee you that if and when Anand loses to Kramnik in the totally unnecessary match (according to you we should just have another tournament), very few people will say that Anand was the World Champion (as very few say he was World Champion for winning the FIDE championship after Karpov and Khalifman).

Quoting yourself - Its your only biased perception.

I`m not Anand`s fan - as I did mention I like Kramnik much more (you may notice that if you would check posts I have made in other threads). So you do look much more biased.

Can you show how chess world does not accept Anand as World champion?

Originally posted by no1marauder
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?

yes

Just as Lasker's avoidance of match with Pillsbury haunts chess.

Originally posted by Korch
Can you show how chess world does not accept Anand as World champion?

It appears they do:

http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/forums_thread_show_one_posteronleftstyle.asp?forumid=27&ThreadID=7723741#message7727668

Originally posted by Korch
Quoting yourself - Its your only biased perception.

I`m not Anand`s fan - as I did mention I like Kramnik much more (you may notice that if you would check posts I have made in other threads). So you do look much more biased.

Can you show how chess world does not accept Anand as World champion?

If you want to deny that there are fierce debates on virtually every chess site and blog regarding the issue, fine. For an "undisputed Champion" there seems to be a lot of "dispute".

Originally posted by Wulebgr
yes

Just as Lasker's avoidance of match with Pillsbury haunts chess.

The difference is the mistake that occurred 100 years ago can't be repeated.

Suppose FIDE changes it mind and says that Anand doesn't have to play Kramnik in a match (you never know with these fools). Would you still say that Anand is the World Champion?

EDIT: I put that question to everyone else posting here.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you want to deny that there are fierce debates on virtually every chess site and blog regarding the issue, fine. For an "undisputed Champion" there seems to be a lot of "dispute".

There are debates between minority (like you in this forum) and others who accepts Anand as champion.

Originally posted by Korch
There are debates between minority (like you in this forum) and others who accepts Anand as champion.

Your claim that it is a minority is unimpressive.

Please answer the question I posed in my last post: if FIDE now decides that Anand doesn't have to play Kramnik after all, would you still regard Anand has the World Champion?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The difference is the mistake that occurred 100 years ago can't be repeated.

Suppose FIDE changes it mind and says that Anand doesn't have to play Kramnik in a match (you never know with these fools). Would you still say that Anand is the World Champion?

EDIT: I put that question to everyone else posting here.

Suppose FIDE changes it mind and says that Anand doesn't have to play Kramnik in a match (you never know with these fools). Would you still say that Anand is the World Champion?

If match wont be played due to Anand`s fault then I won`t accept him as champion anymore. If it will be FIDE or Kramnik fault, then I would still accept Anand as champion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your claim that it is a minority is unimpressive.

Please answer the question I posed in my last post: if FIDE now decides that Anand doesn't have to play Kramnik after all, would you still regard Anand has the World Champion?

Your claim that it is a minority is unimpressive.

You can`t deny that in this forum you are minority - you also cant show how chess world does not accept Anand. Discussions itself proves nothing, because there always will be some individuals who will have different opinion than majority.

Please answer the question I posed in my last post: if FIDE now decides that Anand doesn't have to play Kramnik after all, would you still regard Anand has the World Champion?

Look at my previous post.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]Suppose FIDE changes it mind and says that Anand doesn't have to play Kramnik in a match (you never know with these fools). Would you still say that Anand is the World Champion?

If match wont be played due to Anand`s fault then I won`t accept him as champion anymore. If it will be FIDE or Kramnik fault, then I would still accept Anand as champion.[/b]

So FIDE could say tomorrow, "Anand you don't have to play Kramnik after all" and you would still say that Anand was World Champion? Unbelievable. By what "logic"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
So FIDE could say tomorrow, "Anand you don't have to play Kramnik after all" and you would still say that Anand was World Champion? Unbelievable. By what "logic"?

In this case Anand will still have chance to play Kramnik independently what FIDE would say. but if FIDE will make everything to dissarange that match and Anand wont be able to play with Kramnik, why must he lose his title if he is not guilty in that?