30 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderJust because something is unprecedented doesn't make it less credible. Every established norm was a new idea at some point.
It is impossible to do this IMO; such a thing has never happened before.
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
1 edit
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartJust because an idea is new doesn't mean it isn't stupid.
Just because something is unprecedented doesn't make it less credible. Every established norm was a new idea at some point.
If everyone really believed that a tournament should decide the WC, they wouldn't have agreed to go back to match play after this one. It's all politics.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderNo it wasn't, but I have no interest in reducing this to a personal argument. FIDE recognizes Anand as Champion. Kramnik recognizes Anand as Champion. Anand is Champion. What you individually choose to believe about it is really irrelevant.
That post is a proper response to yours.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartLast I checked this was a FORUM i.e. a place for individuals to express their opinion. If you're not interested in anybody else's opinion, then you should read something else. I'm sure there's some coloring books at your house you could study.
No it wasn't, but I have no interest in reducing this to a personal argument. FIDE recognizes Anand as Champion. Kramnik recognizes Anand as Champion. Anand is Champion. What you individually choose to believe about it is really irrelevant.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by stevetoddIf you saw the crosstables you noticed Kramnik and Anand drew both of their games, kind of agreeing to not spend all that much time on each other and concentrate on taking out the rest of the field, which Anand did one better than Kramnik this time. So they have to have a different mindset to play when there are a relatively large # of players if for no other reason that there are so many different playing styles to counter. When they play a match, they have one opponent and have a thorough knowledge of just about all the games the other one ever played so concentrate on discovering subtle weaknesses and can probe for these weaknesses in what they and their team can find in the other guy's play or play for opening variations not tried by the opponent. They would have on hand every game ever played by both guys from the time they started tournaments and matches, hundreds of games each and the teams responsibility is to try to find patterns of weakness not obvious to anyone at this point in time. It's more like a boxing match in that they have seconds who analyze previous games of just the one guy. You can't do that kind of in depth analysis on the whole top 50 players whom you might meet in an OTB match.
I'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.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by stevetoddQuite simply put: in a match you play against one and the same opponent. In tournament you play against many, so you can aim to win against the "weaker" and draw against the "tough" to maximize your result - besides you have different styles, etc., so it is easier to shine against some opponents and lose against other.
I'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.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderOut of intelligent things to post, eh?
Last I checked this was a FORUM i.e. a place for individuals to express their opinion. If you're not interested in anybody else's opinion, then you should read something else. I'm sure there's some coloring books at your house you could study.
I never said that I wasn't interested in other people's opinions, I just said that your belief that Anand isn't Champion doesn't change the fact that he is indeed Champion. Please try to follow the point a little, or at least make sense when you attempt to insult me...
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by sonhouseWell - in both of their games there serious fight for a win. So I dont see the point to talk about "kind of agreeing to not spend all that much time on each other and concentrate on taking out the rest of the field".
If you saw the crosstables you noticed Kramnik and Anand drew both of their games, kind of agreeing to not spend all that much time on each other and concentrate on taking out the rest of the field, which Anand did one better than Kramnik this time.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauder
Until Kramnik is defeated in a match, I consider him champion.
So what's your thoughts on the Kramnik-Shirov match that Kramnik lost, but yet still qualified to play Kasparov? It wasn't the match that decided the best player, but instead the usual politics played their part.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartI really don't care what FIDE says and neither do most chess players. FIDE said Karpov was champion in the 90's and Topalov was champion after San Luis. So who is champion is just an opinion until the reigning champion is beaten in a world championship match. Anand hasn't won a WC match, so he can't be champion. QED.
Out of intelligent things to post, eh?
I never said that I wasn't interested in other people's opinions, I just said that your belief that Anand isn't Champion doesn't change the fact that he is indeed Champion. Please try to follow the point a little, or at least make sense when you attempt to insult me...
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ilywrinIt is really hard to think of players in that field as being weaker. I know that it is all relative, but any of them are capable of thoroughly punishing a mistake. Tournament play requires more general preparation, and probably a better understanding of chess. Match play requires thorough analysis of your opponent, as has already been stated. Despite my debate with no1marauder, I prefer the match system for title events.
Quite simply put: in a match you play against one and the same opponent. In tournament you play against many, so you can aim to win against the "weaker" and draw against the "tough" to maximize your result - besides you have different styles, etc., so it is easier to shine against some opponents and lose against other.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by VarenkaMy opinion is that Shirov should have played Kasparov, but apparently funding could not be found and other problems intervened. My opinion is also that Rubinstein should have gotten a shot at Lasker's championship, too.
However, that doesn't change the fact that Kramnik did play and defeat Kasparov in a match (without losing a game) and thus won the World Championship. The chain of WC's continues through Kramnik, not through FIDE.
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderNot always - as we know in 1948 (when Botvinnik became champion) and 1975 (when Botvinnik became champion) there were no matches. It means that can be circumstances in which world champion can be decided in different way. And I dont see reason not to admit Anand champion, because Kramnik did agree with terms in which he did lose his title. Compare this situation with 1975 when Fischer disagreed with terms, refused to play and lost his title anyway.
PFFT!!! World Champions in chess are decided by matches. If Vishy can beat Kramnik (who vanquished Kasparov) then he's WC.