03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are no weak players with rating about 2700 and higher. There are strong players and stronger players. So calling participants of Mexico "weak players" are really childish.
I 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.
EDIT: Actually it was YOUR claim that the level of play in some of the games in various World Championship matches was ...[text shortened]... a schoolboy watching the Tal-Botvinnik match! You think that is an
"argument"??? Pathetic.
If you did study games of world championship then you should know that in these matches many (in compare with GM tournaments) silly mistakes were made.
About Tal-Botvinnik match - it was typical example of fact that strong player in world championship matvh may make so silly mistakes that even schoolboy could play better.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauder
I've given my reasons based on the history of chess.
irrelevant pre-FIDE history
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?
they were FIDE world champions and that's a fact.
I am trying to establish what criteria you are using when you say "Anand is World Champion".
hello? unification match ring any bells? there isn't any separate titles anymore. kramnik had the unified title, and lost it to anand. according to the rules that were set up for mexico world championship tournament, and and to which kramnik agreed. please keep up.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchLearn how to read - I said "weaker" players, not "weak" players. I suspect this little ploy was deliberate, so you should try to avoid such blatant dishonesty in the future.
There are no weak players with rating about 2700 and higher. There are strong players and stronger players. So calling participants of Mexico "weak players" are really childish.
If you did study games of world championship then you should know that in these matches many (in compare with GM tournaments) silly mistakes were made.
About Tal-Botvinnik match ...[text shortened]... in world championship matvh may make so silly mistakes that even schoolboy could play better.
Yes mistakes are made in World Championship matches. No s**t. But WC matches such as the ones I mentioned were played by the two best players at the time and it is reasonable to suppose that the games of weaker players wouldn't improve the quality of play. Are you really so stubborn that you refuse to concede such an obvious point?
03 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodYour first points contradict each other; if only post-FIDE history is relevant, then why not simply say the FIDE champions were THE World Champion? They won their "championships" under FIDE rules just as much as Anand did at Mexico City.
[i/]Originally posted by no1marauder[/i]
[b]I've given my reasons based on the history of chess.
irrelevant pre-FIDE history
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?
they were [i/]FIDE world champio for mexico world championship tournament, and and to which kramnik agreed. please keep up.[/b]
And to top it off, even the clowns at FIDE now concede that the WC should be decided by matches!
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderLearn how to read - I said "weaker" players, not "weak" players. I suspect this little ploy was deliberate, so you should try to avoid such blatant dishonesty in the future.
Learn how to read - I said "weaker" players, not "weak" players. I suspect this little ploy was deliberate, so you should try to avoid such blatant dishonesty in the future.
Yes mistakes are made in World Championship matches. No s**t. But WC matches such as the ones I mentioned were played by the two best players at the time and it is rea ...[text shortened]... ality of play. Are you really so stubborn that you refuse to concede such an obvious point?
Usual nit-picking to words and hypocritical morality. But what else I could expect from you....
Yes mistakes are made in World Championship matches. No s**t. But WC matches such as the ones I mentioned were played by the two best players at the time and it is reasonable to suppose that the games of weaker players wouldn't improve the quality of play. Are you really so stubborn that you refuse to concede such an obvious point?
You did misunderstand again - if these 2 stronger players play in tournament they will be able to create higher quality games, because they wont make so many silly mistakes as in match.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchYou deliberately twist what I say and then complain about my "morality"?????? That's takes a lot of gall, but it's what I would expect from an egotistical, dishonest blowhard like yourself.
[b/]Learn how to read - I said "weaker" players, not "weak" players. I suspect this little ploy was deliberate, so you should try to avoid such blatant dishonesty in the future.
Usual nit-picking to words and hypocritical morality. But what else I could expect from you....
Yes mistakes are made in World Championship matches. No s**t. But WC matc ...[text shortened]... to create higher quality games, because they wont make so many silly mistakes as in match.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2You and Korch are both either afraid to or incapable of making any arguments. You're both just "holding your breath till you turn blue". Grow up; the purpose of this, or any, forum is discussion.
Any attempt to answer that question would lead to more discussion, and is irrelevant. Except for people who cannot accept a reality.
edit. which relevant chess body/authority does deny that Anand is the WC anyway?
So answer the question, so I can understand what you mean when you say that Anand being World Champion is a "reality". Is it a reality in the same way as the others I mentioned were World Champions? Or some other way?
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderbecause like I said, the situation wasn't as clear as you're trying to force it to be. you can't force reality into your naive fantasy of 'traditional WC true, FIDE WC false'. you're trying to cut an unsortable knot open with a sword, and instead of ending up with two neat intact pieces of the rope, you're ending up with a pile of useless bits and pieces.
Your first points contradict each other; if only post-FIDE history is relevant, then why not simply say the FIDE champions were THE World Champion? They won their "championships" under FIDE rules just as much as Anand did at Mexico City.
And to top it off, even the clowns at FIDE now concede that the WC should be decided by matches!
for example, when you deny FIDE having the authority to decide how the WC should be decided, you're also implying kasparov joining FIDE before 1993 had no meaning. which is obviously false. when kasparov put the title on line pre 1993 in WC matches under FIDE, he already recognized the authority. you are implying he didn't.
on the other hand, he was the unbeaten champ in 1993, clearly still the best, and denying that would be just as silly. (had everybody else left FIDE as well, his WC line would no doubt be the relevant one. but it never happened. everybody else stayed with FIDE. the situation is a bit similar to "Q: when is treason lawful? A: when the opposition overthrows the government." )
these two aspects can't be rationalized into one of them being 'right' and the other being 'wrong'. when you try to do that, you're twisting facts. both things happened, we had two parallel WC titles, which were unified when kramnik won topalov in the WC match.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2Actually, even after messing up and taking the h-pawn, Fischer still had a draw but messed that up too...oh well
Yo mean taking the a-pawn and get locked in? Be careful, Fisher tried to justify that move afterwards. No1... may well use that argument against your example.😉