30 Sep 07
Originally posted by sonhouseYeah, there will follow a match with Kramnik so I guess the WC title for Anand isn't yet completely official.
Of course its still a battle between those three now that Kaz has left the scene but I was just asking about Vishys rating now, if that +56 will run him back over 2800.
Also, why does this tourney give Vishy the world championship? Doesn't have to play an official match with Kramnik now? This doesn't seem to me the same thing as a match.
Seems to me the t ...[text shortened]... story to do so without a match, except maybe the very first championship back in the 1800's.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderOn the one hand you suggest that the governing body of organized chess in the world can't decide upon the rules of the World Championship title, and on the other you suggest that a player can arbitrarily proclaim him/herself World Champion. Yes, I said arbitrarily. Riddle me this...if FIDE is not the recognized authority when it comes to the World Championship, then how was Karpov World Champion (and therefore Kasparov)?!
I really don't care what Kramnik agreed to (under threat of having his FIDE title, not the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP stripped). FIDE can't dictate who is World Champion; that is decided by match play.
EDIT: Riddle me this; who was the World Champion during the 1990's?
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartThere were World Champions before FIDE existed. I never suggested "a player can arbitrarily proclaim him/herself World Champion" and you know it. I said the World Championship has been decided by matches in an unbroken string for 150 years (except for 1948 which was unavoidable because of Alekhine's death). If you deny this, you aren't dealing with reality.
On the one hand you suggest that the governing body of organized chess in the world can't decide upon the rules of the World Championship title, and on the other you suggest that a player can arbitrarily proclaim him/herself World Champion. Yes, I said arbitrarily. Riddle me this...if FIDE is not the recognized authority when it comes to the World Championship, then how was Karpov World Champion (and therefore Kasparov)?!
Is it your position that Kasparov was not World Champion in the 1990's?
30 Sep 07
Kramnik seems like a far better match player than tournament (I haven't heard about him winning a tournament in a while, but obviously I could be wrong). Anand seems like a better tournament player, and can use draws to his advantage more (it seems). But Kramnik's game as white is dangerous, and if he plays the Petroff (sp? sorry), all he probably needs is a win or two as white.
So, what happens if Kramnik beats Anand? When would the next World Title match be? Could Topalov earn a re-match in the semi-immediate future after the match?
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI consider Kasparov as World Champion in 1990's, but
There were World Champions before FIDE existed. I never suggested "a player can arbitrarily proclaim him/herself World Champion" and you know it. I said the World Championship has been decided by matches in an unbroken string for 150 years (except for 1948 which was unavoidable because of Alekhine's death). If you deny this, you aren't dealing with reality.
Is it your position that Kasparov was not World Champion in the 1990's?
FIDE considered Karpov World Champion 1993-1999?!
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldI don't think so.
Kramnik seems like a far better match player than tournament (I haven't heard about him winning a tournament in a while, but obviously I could be wrong). Anand seems like a better tournament player, and can use draws to his advantage more (it seems). But Kramnik's game as white is dangerous, and if he plays the Petroff (sp? sorry), all he probably needs ...[text shortened]... ld Title match be? Could Topalov earn a re-match in the semi-immediate future after the match?
On the other hand, I don't know how the next cycle is planned, if planned at all...?
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderKasparov was indeed World Champion, and I am a huge fan of his games. The point is that he became World Champion by beating a World Champion, you agree on this. But in agreeing, you acknowledge that a World Champion can be won through a tournament instead of a match. You know very well the point that I am making, Karpov was Champion by default. He was the Champion, and deservedly so, but by default nonetheless, because Fischer abandoned Chess (due to disagreements with FIDE, sound familiar?).
There were World Champions before FIDE existed. I never suggested "a player can arbitrarily proclaim him/herself World Champion" and you know it. I said the World Championship has been decided by matches in an unbroken string for 150 years (except for 1948 which was unavoidable because of Alekhine's death). If you deny this, you aren't dealing with reality.
Is it your position that Kasparov was not World Champion in the 1990's?
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartKarpov did not win the title by winning a tournament; he won it because Fischer abandoned the title rather then defend the title against him.
Kasparov was indeed World Champion, and I am a huge fan of his games. The point is that he became World Champion by beating a World Champion, you agree on this. But in agreeing, you acknowledge that a World Champion can be won through a tournament instead of a match. You know very well the point that I am making, Karpov was Champion by default. He was ...[text shortened]... nonetheless, because Fischer abandoned Chess (due to disagreements with FIDE, sound familiar?).
Kramnik has not abandoned the title.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldKramnik won at Dortmund in June 2007 against a field that included Anand.
Kramnik seems like a far better match player than tournament (I haven't heard about him winning a tournament in a while, but obviously I could be wrong). Anand seems like a better tournament player, and can use draws to his advantage more (it seems). But Kramnik's game as white is dangerous, and if he plays the Petroff (sp? sorry), all he probably needs ...[text shortened]... ld Title match be? Could Topalov earn a re-match in the semi-immediate future after the match?
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by cludiI remember someone posting that if Kramnik lost this tourney, that he would be the automatic candidate for the next cycle which will be match play. If Kramnik won, then I believe Topalov was supposed to be the candidate. I'm not altogether sure on the credibility of this though, so someone else may be able to confirm.
I don't think so.
On the other hand, I don't know how the next cycle is planned, if planned at all...?
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, Karpov did win the title by winning a tournament, the 1974 candidates tournament that preceeded his match with Fischer.
Karpov did not win the title by winning a tournament; he won it because Fischer abandoned the title rather then defend the title against him.
Kramnik has not abandoned the title.
No, Kramnik did not abandon the title, he lost it in tournament play.
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartKramnik gets an automatic match against Anand next year to try to win back his title. He would have played Topalov had he won the WC tournament.
I remember someone posting that if Kramnik lost this tourney, that he would be the automatic candidate for the next cycle which will be match play. If Kramnik won, then I believe Topalov was supposed to be the candidate. I'm not altogether sure on the credibility of this though, so someone else may be able to confirm.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartIt is impossible to do this IMO; such a thing has never happened before.
No, Kramnik did not abandon the title, he lost it in tournament play.
I'll concede that Kramnik has already stated he feels differently but that's his opinion. Kramnik and Anand will play a match; that is part of the agreement - if Kramnik had won the tournament, he would have played Topalov. Until Kramnik is defeated in a match, I consider him champion.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not that experienced at otb play (although I am working on it) what are the essential differences between match play and tournament play? Niavely initially I thought, well it's all chess, but I then sensed that there is a difference, and obvioulsy there is when you read the comments on this thread. But what are the differences, I'm interested to know.
Kramnik won at Dortmund in June 2007 against a field that included Anand.