03 Oct 07
Originally posted by zin23If I disagree with statements like "only matches should determine the champion" then it does not means that I agree with statement "only tournaments should determine the champion".
I think internet chess has clouded your reasoning ability. Idealy, you will have unlimited (or very large) number of games between two players to determine the better player (assuming perfect playing and health conditions) - FACT.
The question is how can you devise a knockout system of matches between all chess players?
Tournaments are the answer - they ...[text shortened]... tournaments only should determine the champion - i suspect something is wrong with you!
In my opinion. Matches and tournaments have their pluses and drawbacks and I think both of these competition systems may be used to determine champion. So I don`t see the reason to think than Anand is not chempion only because he won tournament not match.
03 Oct 07
In my opinion. Matches and tournaments have their pluses and drawbacks and I think both of these competition systems may be used to determine champion. So I don`t see the reason to think than Anand is not chempion only because he won tournament not matchAnand is champion according to FIDE, nothing will change that. Some people will have a problem with this until he faces Kramnik and beats him (or at least draws ) in a match.
Tournaments do have their pluses but determining the better player out of 2 is not one of them.
I see no problem with the torunament winner being a challenger in a match by the way. I just think the WC itself should be determined by a match and not tournament.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by zin23I don`t care if WC is determined by match or tournament - in my opinion the strongest player will manage to win anyway.
Anand is champion according to FIDE, nothing will change that. Some people will have a problem with this until he faces Kramnik and beats him (or at least draws ) in a match.
Tournaments do have their pluses but determining the better player out of 2 is not one of them.
I see no problem with the torunament winner being a challenger in a match by the way. I just think the WC itself should be determined by a match and not tournament.
04 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KaworukunHave you any reasonable argument why tournament can`t be used to determine world champion?
Ok Anand got pwned by Kasparov. Kramnik didnt. Also Kramnik has never been defeated in a world championship match ever. He is still the real world champion in my eyes. Anand is the fake fide world champion.
04 Oct 07
The embarassing situation where the 'winner' loses 1 game to the ex-champion but still wins by having more wins. The ex-champion having no losses but collecting fewer wins.
The reason could be that this challenger is underrated by all the other players who play harder against the champion and earn their draws but take more risks and lose to this new person.
Thus the challenger loses to the champion but still takes the title.
Luckily this did not happen, but could easily have happened. If Anand lost to kramnik and won the WC - it would be stupid very stupid.
Crap like this does not even happen in boxing - which is notoriously corrupt but at least retains the correct approach to championships
Keep arguing case closed.
04 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by zin23Situation in match when champion wins only one game and then makes all games in draw due to his safe play is embarasing too. Main advantage of tournament is that you cant afford make draws after first win and you should continue to play for win if you wanna be the best.
The embarassing situation where the 'winner' loses 1 game to the ex-champion but still wins by having more wins. The ex-champion having no losses but collecting fewer wins.
The reason could be that this challenger is underrated by all the other players who play harder against the champion and earn their draws but take more risks and lose to this new person. ...[text shortened]... orrupt but at least retains the correct approach to championships
Keep arguing case closed.
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchIn the last two "World Championship" tournaments at San Luis and Mexico City, the leader played for nothing but draws in the last half of the tournament. This fact refutes your claim. And most of the players he played had little incentive to aggressively challenge the leader as they had no chance to win the title anyway. Most played it safe jockeying to hold their positions rather than risk falling further back and losing prize money.
Situation in match when champion wins only one game and then makes all games in draw due to his safe play is embarasing too. Main advantage of tournament is that you cant afford make draws after first win and you should continue to play for win if you wanna be the best.
In a one on one match, the person trailing has an incentive to press for victory in his games. This produces more combative and interesting chess.
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderdo you attack like crazy when you have a won game?
In the last two "World Championship" tournaments at San Luis and Mexico City, the leader played for nothing but draws in the last half of the tournament. This fact refutes your claim. And most of the players he played had little incentive to aggressively challenge the leader as they had no chance to win the title anyway. Most played it safe jockeying to ...[text shortened]... centive to press for victory in his games. This produces more combative and interesting chess.
I thought so.
04 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIn San Luis and Mexico Topalov and Anand could afford draws after hard work resulted in more than 1-2 wins. So that fact refutes nothing.
In the last two "World Championship" tournaments at San Luis and Mexico City, the leader played for nothing but draws in the last half of the tournament. This fact refutes your claim. And most of the players he played had little incentive to aggressively challenge the leader as they had no chance to win the title anyway. Most played it safe jockeying to ...[text shortened]... centive to press for victory in his games. This produces more combative and interesting chess.
And can you show world championship match without short & boring draws?
04 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchYour stubborn refusal to actually look at any viewpoint but your own continues.
In San Luis and Mexico Topalov and Anand could afford draws after hard work resulted in more than 1-2 wins. So that fact refutes nothing.
And can you show world championship match without short & boring draws?
The number of short draws in Kramnik-Kasparov was 2 for example. The number in Fischer-Spassky was 0 (I believe; I'll look it up). Some others had more (usually when the players wanted a rest day), but the point stands.
EDIT: Game #9 of Fischer-Spassky was a draw in 29 moves and not a boring one. All the other draws went at least 40 moves. So I think I've showed a world championship match without ANY short & boring draws.
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by wormwoodGuess you missed these facts which I previously posted:
you just said today that you haven't seen the 'weak' games from mexico, and have no intention to do so.
once again you're claiming things with no facts supporting you whatsoever.
1) There are no players playing there except Kramnik who would even be in the discussion of the 10 greatest players of all-time. The tournaments you mention had Lasker, Capablance, Rubinstein, Alekhine, Botvinnik, etc. etc. etc. Many of those tournaments had 3 or more of the greatest players of all-time. I like Gelfand, Moroveich and a few others, but legendary players they are not.
2) The tournament was decided well before the last round and the winner had 6 short draws. There was a decided lack of drama as to the result plus Anand did not show much fighting spirit in many of his games (look at the last round game with Leko). Kramnik also seemed to lose interest after he failed to defeat Anand in their second game; the Grischuk draw after 13 moves was shameful. Do you think players will find those games to be "classics"?