03 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderStill in denial on this issue? Anand is the Champion, get over it. No, I'm not attempting to reason with you here...it's been done repeatedly to no avail.
Your first two "points" are merely dodges. If you truly think that Mexico City had higher quality play than the Topalov-Kramnik match or that bringing in weaker players improves the quality of the chess, please say so. Then everybody can have a good laugh.
Topalov as already played and been defeated by Kramnik (remember?). I already expl ...[text shortened]... etely ignoring other people's points. HINT: Either one isn't a very good trait in a lawyer.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartIf you have an argument, state it. So far, all I'm hearing is a lot of "holding your breath until you turn blue" from you and the others who think it's possible for the World Championship to pass by a tournament. But they inconsistently state that Ponmariov and the other "champions" according to FIDE weren't really champions. Strange.
Still in denial on this issue? Anand is the Champion, get over it. No, I'm not attempting to reason with you here...it's been done repeatedly to no avail.
03 Oct 07
It's really quite simple; if Kramnik defeats Anand in a match, very few will bother to claim that Anand was the World Champion after Mexico City (as very few bother to claim that he was World Champion when FIDE said he was previously). If Anand wins the match, the whole issue will be moot. And if Anand doesn't play Kramnik, very few will recognize him as champion.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYour first two "points" are merely dodges. If you truly think that Mexico City had higher quality play than the Topalov-Kramnik match or that bringing in weaker players improves the quality of the chess, please say so. Then everybody can have a good laugh.
Your first two "points" are merely dodges. If you truly think that Mexico City had higher quality play than the Topalov-Kramnik match or that bringing in weaker players improves the quality of the chess, please say so. Then everybody can have a good laugh.
Topalov as already played and been defeated by Kramnik (remember?). I already expl ...[text shortened]... etely ignoring other people's points. HINT: Either one isn't a very good trait in a lawyer.
Just your claim without arguments
Topalov as already played and been defeated by Kramnik (remember?).
Doe anyone deny that?
I already explained several times using several different reasons why matches are preferable to tournaments in deciding the World Championship;
You did made only claims without serious arguments.
you're either incredibly thick or just like completely ignoring other people's points.
Are you talking with yourself? 😀
HINT: Either one isn't a very good trait in a lawyer.
If you would understand something about law and lawyers then maybe you learned to argue your opinion.
P.S. Can`t you understand that categoric claims (in which your opponent disagree) have zero value as arguments?
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2The outcome of that future match does not change the present.
It is really simple. Anand is the current worldchampion. The coming WC-match between Anand and Kramnik will determine the next worldchampion. The outcome of that future match does not change the present.
Exactly!
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchDo you mean a claim like, I don't know, better players play higher quality chess than weaker players? I see you are still dodging, but then you've yet to make a serious argument in this thread.
[b/]Your first two "points" are merely dodges. If you truly think that Mexico City had higher quality play than the Topalov-Kramnik match or that bringing in weaker players improves the quality of the chess, please say so. Then everybody can have a good laugh.
Just your claim without arguments
Topalov as already played and been defeated by Kramnik stand that categoric claims (in which your opponent disagree) have zero value as arguments?
03 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Mephisto2Because FIDE says so? Was Anand World Champion from 2000-2002 because FIDE said so?
It is really simple. Anand is the current worldchampion. The coming WC-match between Anand and Kramnik will determine the next worldchampion. The outcome of that future match does not change the present.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYour claim that games in Kramnik-Topalov match had higher quality than games in Mexico should be argued with examples from practic.
Do you mean a claim like, I don't know, better players play higher quality chess than weaker players? I see you are still dodging, but then you've yet to make a serious argument in this thread.
The fact that you are ignoring others arguments does not means that they haven`t been said.
03 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by KorchI see you continue to refuse to admit that better players play higher quality chess than weaker players. The fact you won't even concede such an obvious point shows the ridiculous depths your non-arguments have reached in this thread.
Your claim that games in Kramnik-Topalov match had higher quality than games in Mexico should be argued with examples from practic.
The fact that you are ignoring others arguments does not means that they haven`t been said.
EDIT: Actually it was YOUR claim that the level of play in some of the games in various World Championship matches was low. So it would be your burden to show that the level at Mexico City was higher (good luck - it was a snoozeathon).
And in response to my comment that better players play higher quality chess, you repeated a story (probably made up) about a schoolboy watching the Tal-Botvinnik match! You think that is an
"argument"??? Pathetic.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by HFRorbisRatings published as of october 1, 2007, the WC tournament included: Anand is ranked n°1 at 2801.
Anand is the most talented player of these last 10 years after Kasparov so in my opinion he deserves this title.
He may well be the next player to reach +2800 elo
Ivanchuck is n°2.
03 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Mephisto2I've given my reasons based on the history of chess.
Is it not because you don't like it? And again, whoever was or was not WC in 2000 has no effect on who is today.
Why don't you answer the question? Was Anand World Champion in 2000-2002? Was Karpov World Champion in 1993-98? Were Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov and Topalov World Champions?
I am trying to establish what criteria you are using when you say "Anand is World Champion".
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAny attempt to answer that question would lead to more discussion, and is irrelevant. Except for people who cannot accept a reality.
I've given my reasons based on the history of chess.
Why don't you answer the question? Was Anand World Champion in 2000-2002? Was Karpov World Champion in 1993-98? Were Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov and Topalov World Champions?
I am trying to establish what criteria you are using when you say "Anand is World Champion".
edit. which relevant chess body/authority does deny that Anand is the WC anyway?