02 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchOOOOOOH, "most chess historians"!!! Impressive.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=53788
I will quote especially for you:
[b]In 1886 these two great chess minds [Steinitz and Zukertort] sat down to play what is now regarded by most chess historians as the first official World Chess Championship.[/b]
Read my edit.
02 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you are defending traditions (which is your main argument to argue your point in this thread) then you have no arguments against traditional opinion of most chess historians (and chess world).
OOOOOOH, "most chess historians"!!! Impressive.
Read my edit.
P.S. You are becoming hysteric 😀
02 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchPlease try to actually address the points I raised. You are making a logically fallacious argument, An Appeal to Authority, which is quite different from an argument from precedent (which is what I made). Since you claim to be a lawyer, you should know this.
If you are defending traditions (which is your main argument to argue your point in this thread) then you have no arguments against traditional opinion of most chess historians (and chess world).
P.S. You are becoming hysteric 😀
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI this thread you have referred to opinion of chess world as main argument that Anand is not champion. In this case you was not able to show how majority of chess world diclaims Anand`s championship.
Please try to actually address the points I raised. You are making a logically fallacious argument, An Appeal to Authority, which is quite different from an argument from precedent. Since you claim to be a lawyer, you should know this.
Talking about first official world championship match you are ignoring opinion of chess world which (due to your beloved traditions 😀 ) thinks that first official match was Steinitz-Zukertort in 1886. I dont know any chess player (except maybe you) who disclaims Steinitz as first official world champion.
So your opinion is contradictious 😀
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchYou point out another difference between chess tournaments and other sports tournaments. With chess, you have to face everybody twice because of the slight advantage in playing white. With other sports, you face everyone once, or at least an odd number of times. So in other sports, you face everyone only once, and a winner is always decided. In chess, a tournament is great at awarding a winner, or the best performer in that tournament. But it often doesn't determine who the best chess player is.
Whats would be the difference if Kramnik and Anand would have 1 win and 1 loss against each other?
My preference should be that the World Champion should be beaten in order to lose the title. That is the way most man vs. man sports are that have titles. Tennis doesn't have a World Champion. It just has awards for winning tournaments. Same with golf. Sports that have World Champions, like boxing and MMA, only allow the title to change hands by someone beating the champ.
I have no problem with Anand being champ. If Kramnik thinks it is fair, that's great. I just think match play is more accurate and exciting.
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchNo, the main argument I have presented is that Anand has not defeated the reigning World Champion in a match which is the way the championship has been decided for 150 years. That's an argument from PRECEDENT.
I this thread you have referred to opinion of chess world as main argument that Anand is not champion. In this case you was not able to show how majority of chess world diclaims Anand`s championship.
Talking about first official world championship match you are ignoring opinion of chess world which (due to your beloved traditions 😀 ) thinks that first off ...[text shortened]... who disclaims Steinitz as first official world champion.
So your opinion is contradictious 😀
Your "most chess historians say X" is merely an Appeal to Authority. That is fallacious reasoning. You must show why Stenitz-Zukertorf should be considered the first championship, not merely rely on somebody else's opinion that it was. I raised points saying why I think Morphy-Anderssen or Steinitz-Anderssen should be; you've raised nothing in return.
You couldn't get out of the first week of law school here making such grievious mistakes in argument and logic.
EDIT: Here's an article you badly need to read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by AProdigyI don`t see significant difference if champion is beaten in match or failed in tournament.
You point out another difference between chess tournaments and other sports tournaments. With chess, you have to face everybody twice because of the slight advantage in playing white. With other sports, you face everyone once, or at least an odd number of times. So in other sports, you face everyone only once, and a winner is always decided. In chess, a ...[text shortened]... mnik thinks it is fair, that's great. I just think match play is more accurate and exciting.
I agree that players can show different performance in match and in tournament, but how does it prove that match is better or tournament is worse?
02 Oct 07
I think it is not so important how the Champ is decided...they can use even a Swiss System tournament...
I am a football fan...for example the national champion team is decided by a tournament...the cup winner is decided by knowck-out one vs one...the world cup is beginning with tournament type groups and ending in a knockout game...Who cares about the system, a champion is a champion...
I think this should be decided more as per fans will and to increase the popularity of the game...and as I usually do not like the matches (too many draws, only one game at a time, a bit too boring) I would prefer tournament style. Or in case there is a match only, maybe they should decrease the time per player...
Make it more commercial!
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vipiuTournaments are far more boring than matches. In Mexico City for example, Anand had little incentive to take risks to win after he had the lead and the opponents he played who were further back had little reason to risk anything. As a result, 6 of Anand's games ended in draws in less than 22 moves.
I think it is not so important how the Champ is decided...they can use even a Swiss System tournament...
I am a football fan...for example the national champion team is decided by a tournament...the cup winner is decided by knowck-out one vs one...the world cup is beginning with tournament type groups and ending in a knockout game...Who cares about the system ...[text shortened]... ere is a match only, maybe they should decrease the time per player...
Make it more commercial!
Can there be any argument that ANY World Championship match, esp. the ones that were closely contested, like Fischer-Spassky, Tal-Botvinnik, Alekhine-Capablanca, even Kramnik versus Kasparov, Leko or Topalov were more interesting than this tournament?
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, the main argument I have presented is that Anand has not defeated the reigning World Champion in a match which is the way the championship has been decided for 150 years. That's an argument from PRECEDENT.
No, the main argument I have presented is that Anand has not defeated the reigning World Champion in a match which is the way the championship has been decided for 150 years. That's an argument from PRECEDENT.
Your "most chess historians say X" is merely an Appeal to Authority. That is fallacious reasoning. You must show why Stenitz-Zukerto e's an article you badly need to read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/
Really? Did you say nothing about tradition or opinion of chess world? 😀
our "most chess historians say X" is merely an Appeal to Authority. That is fallacious reasoning. You must show why Stenitz-Zukertorf should be considered the first championship, not merely rely on somebody else's opinion that it was. I raised points saying why I think Morphy-Anderssen or Steinitz-Anderssen should be; you've raised nothing in return.
Whats the difference between appealing to authotiry and appealing to precedent, tradition and other stuff like that?
You couldn't get out of the first week of law school here making such grievious mistakes in argument and logic.
You should learn manners and not be so hysteric 😉
EDIT: Here's an article you badly need to read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/
I will quote:
"Arguments from precedent and analogy are two central forms of reasoning found in many legal systems, especially ‘Common Law’ systems such as those in England and the United States"
I need to inform you than my country is in Europe and there are different law system 🙂
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchIs using smiley faces the predominant form of "legal reasoning" in your country? You present virtually nothing else.
[b/]No, the main argument I have presented is that Anand has not defeated the reigning World Champion in a match which is the way the championship has been decided for 150 years. That's an argument from PRECEDENT.
Really? Did you say nothing about tradition or opinion of chess world? 😀
our "most chess historians say X" is merely an Appeal to Auth I need to inform you than my country is in Europe and there are different law system 🙂
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by vipiuYou make an interesting point here: what appeals more to the public. It has nothing to do with the fact that Anand is the current legitimate worldchampion, but more with how the championship should be organised.
I think it is not so important how the Champ is decided...they can use even a Swiss System tournament...
I am a football fan...for example the national champion team is decided by a tournament...the cup winner is decided by knowck-out one vs one...the world cup is beginning with tournament type groups and ending in a knockout game...Who cares about the system ...[text shortened]... ere is a match only, maybe they should decrease the time per player...
Make it more commercial!
Matches certainly appeal to insiders. Provided that 'the match' is held between the two players who are seen as 'the best current players'.
Tournaments may be more attractive to a general public, and the fact that there are games running in parallel even enhances media coverage.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2I doubt if tournaments are more attractive to the general public; two players meeting head to head for supremacy is more of a compelling and interesting story line.
You make an interesting point here: what appeals more to the public. It has nothing to do with the fact that Anand is the current legitimate worldchampion, but more with how the championship should be organised.
Matches certainly appeal to insiders. Provided that 'the match' is held between the two players who are seen as 'the best current players'.
...[text shortened]... public, and the fact that there are games running in parallel even enhances media coverage.
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudergenerally true but not when 80% of the games are draws....
I doubt if tournaments are more attractive to the general public; two players meeting head to head for supremacy is more of a compelling and interesting story line.
(maybe at least if they force them to play by Sofia rules)
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderPerhaps (although even that is debatable) a more interesting story line to read in the newspaper, but certainly not more attractive to watch entire games with or without comments for a large world audience. One of the drawbacks of standard chessgames w.r.t. attracting public and sponsors is the lack of action per time unit. Parallel games certainly improve on that. So would faster games, but then you would also lower the quality of the games.
I doubt if tournaments are more attractive to the general public; two players meeting head to head for supremacy is more of a compelling and interesting story line.