01 Oct 07
Originally posted by Korch'Cuz he never beat the real World Champion in a match. So he wouldn't "lose" his title; just almost everybody would realize that he never won one in the first place.
If Anand wont be able to play match with Kramnik and he wont be guilty in that, why must he lose his title?
01 Oct 07
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderDont forget that you still did not prove that Anand is not champion.
'Cuz he never beat the real World Champion in a match. So he wouldn't "lose" his title; just almost everybody would realize that he never won one in the first place.
Who did entitle you to talk in the name of "almost everybody" ?
upd. Is there anyone in this forum who do agree with no1marauder that Anand is not World champion ????
01 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by KorchAnd don't forget that I said I can't "prove" such a thing like you "prove" a mathematical formula. Neither can you "prove" the contrary.
Dont forget that you still did not prove that Anand is not champion.
Who did entitle you to talk in the name of "almost everybody" ?
upd. Is there anyone in this forum who do agree with no1marauder that Anand is not World champion ????
I know you don't bother to read opinions that conflict with yours, but at least 4 other posters have including Cludi.
Cludi: but I actually tend to agree with No1 that Kramnik is the legitimate champion until a match has been played.
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHe tend to agree - it means that he is not so categoric like you.
I know you don't bother to read opinions that conflict with yours, but at least 4 other posters have including Cludi.
Cludi: but I actually tend to agree with No1 that Kramnik is the legitimate champion until a match has been played.
Anyone else?
And did you count how many posters disagree with you?
And I know that you have problems to argue your opinion.
01 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by KorchYou're hilarious. Whether he's as "categoric" as me or not, he does agree. Sonhouse, existensky and swissgambit do also.
He [b]tend to agree - it means that he is not so categoric like you.
Anyone else?
And did you count how many posters disagree with you?
And I know that you have problems to argue your opinion.[/b]
Most of the posters who disagree with me, like you, haven't given any type of reasons to support their views. Some contradict themselves. I respect Wulebgr's view, but don't agree that to accept Anand as a World Champion without him winning a match against the reigning champion (absent extraordinary circumstances which are not present here) isn't setting a bad precedent.
You are certainly in the minority in thinking a tournament is just as valid a way to pick a WC as a match. So by your "logic", you must be wrong.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're hilarious. Whether he's as "categoric" as me or not, he does agree. Sonhouse, existensky and swissgambit do also.
You're hilarious. Whether he's as "categoric" as me or not, he does agree. Sonhouse, existensky and swissgambit do also.
Most of the posters who disagree with me, like you, haven't given any type of reasons to support their views. Some contradict themselves. I respect Wulebgr's view, but don't agree that to accept Anand as a World Champion ...[text shortened]... is just as valid a way to pick a WC as a match. So by your "logic", you must be wrong.
Let it be so. but anyway - then you are "whole" 5 - is it called "chess world" ? 😀
Most of the posters who disagree with me, like you, haven't given any type of reasons to support their views. Some contradict themselves. I respect Wulebgr's view, but don't agree that to accept Anand as a World Champion without him winning a match against the reigning champion (absent extraordinary circumstances which are not present here) isn't setting a bad precedent.
Its you who should give a valid reason why round-robin tournaments cant be used to find out who is stronger. And did you count how many people disagree with you?
You are certainly in the minority in thinking a tournament is just as valid a way to pick a WC as a match. So by your "logic", you must be wrong.
Where is your majority? These 5 people? 😀
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchI feel like there are lots of semantics traps here, but I broadly agree with no1marauder.
upd. Is there anyone in this forum who do agree with no1marauder that Anand is not World champion ????
Anand might technically be the champion (and I don't want to take anything away from his excellent performance and deserved win in the recently completed tournament), but I think the truest comparison of two chess players is over an extended match, and until Anand beats Kramnik in that format, I don't think I'll really consider him World Champion.
01 Oct 07
I can understand the purist view. But if the champion agrees to the conditions it seems silly to go against it. Now if Kramnik did not agree and was stripped (which has happened in boxing and other sanctioned events) then I could understand the outrage. Whether under duress or not he agreed to the conditions.
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by mikenayI think the truest comparison of two chess players is over an extended match
I feel like there are lots of semantics traps here, but I broadly agree with no1marauder.
Anand might technically be the champion (and I don't want to take anything away from his excellent performance and deserved win in the recently completed tournament), but I think the truest comparison of two chess players is over an extended match, and until Anand beats Kramnik in that format, I don't think I'll really consider him World Champion.
OK. Its your opinion which I do respect. But I` cant understand whats wrong with strong round-robin tournament like Mexico?
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchSince you don't bother to read anything but what agrees with you, this is pointless. But many of the people who have said that they accept Anand as the World Champion NOW have also stated that they believe match play is the superior system. Go back and actually read the thread; I'm tired of doing your homework for you.
[b]You're hilarious. Whether he's as "categoric" as me or not, he does agree. Sonhouse, existensky and swissgambit do also.
Let it be so. but anyway - then you are "whole" 5 - is it called "chess world" ? 😀
Most of the posters who disagree with me, like you, haven't given any type of reasons to support their views. Some contradict themselves. I ...[text shortened]... your "logic", you must be wrong.
Where is your majority? These 5 people? 😀[/b]
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by Korchdouble round-robin
OK. Its your opinion which I do respect. But I` cant understand whats wrong with strong round-robin tournament like Mexico?
The quadruple round-robin of the Curacao Candidates tournament in 1962 is even better, but is nearly impossible to schedule these days, or so they say.
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderUntil someone will not give valid reason why double round-robin tournaments cant be used to find out who is stronger I will think that Anand is champion.
Since you don't bother to read anything but what agrees with you, this is pointless. But many of the people who have said that they accept Anand as the World Champion NOW have also stated that they believe match play is the superior system. Go back and actually read the thread; I'm tired of doing your homework for you.
You could not give it.