Go back
New World Champion

New World Champion

Only Chess

T
Mr T

I pity the fool!

Joined
22 Jan 05
Moves
22874
Clock
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Get an ECF grade first, chap!
😛
I already have: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getref.php?ref=240800E

Though, I notice there is no one with the name Steve who plays for crawley, aside from one historical reference back in 96

S

Joined
14 Jul 06
Moves
20541
Clock
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
I already have: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getref.php?ref=240800E

Though, I notice there is no one with the name Steve who plays for crawley, aside from one historical reference back in 96
Aah, apologies...
You gave a different name in your profile.
🙂
142 in rapidplay is quite tasty!

******

I only joined this month!
You can check up on my exploits here:
http://crawleychessclub.mysite.orange.co.uk/
(latest news)

The club website is due to be re-vamped - it is a free-hosting one at the moment.

T
Mr T

I pity the fool!

Joined
22 Jan 05
Moves
22874
Clock
30 Sep 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Oh yeah, I am planning to get my chess grade named as Joey Cage sometime this year, either that or just start signing my games with it and getting a new rating entirely.

142 is ok for rapidplay, but it is my weakest discipline - I often miss out on the money in tournaments by half a point and creep slowly higher each year, forcing me into the harder sections.

W
Angler

River City

Joined
08 Dec 04
Moves
16907
Clock
01 Oct 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Kramnik disagrees with me but only on the condition that he get a match within a year after Mexico City. If Anand is World Champion, why does he have to play Kramnik who he supposedly just beat? According to your logic, Kramnik would have to qualify like everybody else as all he would be is an ex-champion.
You recall, of course, that several world championship matches were rematches after the champion was dethroned. In particular, Botvinnik twice regained the title after losing it.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wulebgr
You recall, of course, that several world championship matches were rematches after the champion was dethroned. In particular, Botvinnik twice regained the title after losing it.
This isn't a REmatch, is it?

S
Caninus Interruptus

2014.05.01

Joined
11 Apr 07
Moves
92274
Clock
01 Oct 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Mephisto2
As I said: fundamentalism
The only fundamentalism going on here is that you can\'t be bothered to hear any arguments for the position.

M

Joined
12 Mar 03
Moves
44411
Clock
01 Oct 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The only fundamentalism going on here is that you can\'t be bothered to hear any arguments for the position.
You don't even know what my preferences are. But that's not the point, I was making. When you wrote:

"For those of us who think that the world championship ought to be decided by match play, a WC tournament can\'t be called a \'step in the right direction\'."

the "can\'t" clearly indicates that you are not open to anything else than your position. So far for 'hearing arguments'.

K
Chess Warrior

Riga

Joined
05 Jan 05
Moves
24932
Clock
01 Oct 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Fischer never withdrew his resignation. Lasker withdrew his by playing Capablanca.

Kramnik disagrees with me but only on the condition that he get a match within a year after Mexico City. If Anand is World Champion, why does he have to play Kramnik who he supposedly just beat? According to your logic, Kramnik would have to qualify like everybody else ...[text shortened]... her called his 1992 match, just like I don't care what FIDE called the tourney in Mexico City.
As I have mentioned (which you did ignore) - Fischer did withdraw his resignation by continuing negotiations.

About Kramnik- Anand match: have you ever heard about return matches after champion have lost his title?

You also don`t care about facts if they are not comply with your opinion.

K
Chess Warrior

Riga

Joined
05 Jan 05
Moves
24932
Clock
01 Oct 07
4 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
This isn't a REmatch, is it?
If rematch = match after champion have lost his title
then we can call it rematch.

The way how champion have lost his title does not matters if pretendent (in this case - Anand) did show that he is better than champion.

I still haven`t heard reasonable arguments why champions cant be decided in tournaments. Your argument "World Champions in chess are decided by matches." does not comply with facts (you can`t deny that in 1948 and 1972 champion was not decided by match) and does not explains why it should continue. - Why matches are so good and tournaments are so bad?

f
Quack Quack Quack !

Chesstralia

Joined
18 Aug 03
Moves
54533
Clock
01 Oct 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Korch
..... Why matches are so good and tournaments are so bad?
lets suppose 10 players come from one political group, and 1 comes from another group ....

in a tournament scenario they can all play their best against the "enemy", find out who scores the best, then all resign agianst their favourite.

this is a hypothetical, and a little silly consideration .... i honestly think a tournament which thins out towards the end is better than an endless succession of cloistered crowned cronies.

K
Chess Warrior

Riga

Joined
05 Jan 05
Moves
24932
Clock
01 Oct 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by flexmore
lets suppose 10 players come from one political group, and 1 comes from another group ....

in a tournament scenario they can all play their best against the "enemy", find out who scores the best, then all resign agianst their favourite.

this is a hypothetical, and a little silly consideration .... i honestly think a tournament which thins out towards the end is better than an endless succession of cloistered crowned cronies.
After disruption of USSR this problem is not actual.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
01 Oct 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Korch
As I have mentioned (which you did ignore) - Fischer did withdraw his resignation by continuing negotiations.

About Kramnik- Anand match: have you ever heard about return matches after champion have lost his title?

You also don`t care about facts if they are not comply with your opinion.
Your reading skills don't equal your chess ones - I directly addressed the resignation issue. Merely continuing negotiations is not a withdrawal absent the actual playing of the match.

I addressed the silly claim that the Kramnik-Anand match will be a "REmatch" above - such a claim is contrary to the English language.

You don't bother to meaningfully respond to points that you don't like.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
01 Oct 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Korch
If rematch = match after champion have lost his title
then we can call it rematch.

The way how champion have lost his title does not matters if pretendent (in this case - Anand) did show that he is better than champion.

I still haven`t heard reasonable arguments why champions cant be decided in tournaments. Your argument "World Champions in chess ar ...[text shortened]... oes not explains why it should continue. - Why matches are so good and tournaments are so bad?
Again, that is not what the word "rematch" means.

I've already pointed out (something you keep ignoring) that the 1948 championship was decided by a tournament only because of the extraordinary circumstance that the championship was vacant because the champion was dead. And the 1975 championship was NOT decided by a tournament; you're simply in error AGAIN.

For 150 years, chess has decided that the way to decide who is the best player in the world is to have the two best players meet face to face in a match. It's up to people who went to change the system to come up with some compelling reason to alter it.

K
Chess Warrior

Riga

Joined
05 Jan 05
Moves
24932
Clock
01 Oct 07
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your reading skills don't equal your chess ones - I directly addressed the resignation issue. Merely continuing negotiations is not a withdrawal absent the actual playing of the match.

I addressed the silly claim that the Kramnik-Anand match will be a "REmatch" above - such a claim is contrary to the English language.

You don't bother to meaningfully respond to points that you don't like.
"Merely continuing negotiations is not a withdrawal absent the actual playing of the match."

Claim without arguments.

I addressed the silly claim that the Kramnik-Anand match will be a "REmatch" above - such a claim is contrary to the English language.

Formal argument which have nothing common with essence - many times champions has been given second chance if they are losing their title.

You don't bother to meaningfully respond to points that you don't like.
Some example please

K
Chess Warrior

Riga

Joined
05 Jan 05
Moves
24932
Clock
01 Oct 07
5 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Again, that is not what the word "rematch" means.

I've already pointed out (something you keep ignoring) that the 1948 championship was decided by a tournament only because of the extraordinary circumstance that the championship was vacant because the champion was dead. And the 1975 championship was NOT decided by a tournament; you're simpl to people who went to change the system to come up with some compelling reason to alter it.
Again, that is not what the word "rematch" means.

Look at my previous post

And the 1975 championship was NOT decided by a tournament; you're simply in error AGAIN.

Learn to read - I did not say that in 1975 championship was decided by match

For 150 years, chess has decided that the way to decide who is the best player in the world is to have the two best players meet face to face in a match.
So what?

It's up to people who went to change the system to come up with some compelling reason to alter it.
Main target of competition is not form (match/tournament) itself but finding strongest player. If you cant prove that tournament cant reach this target than your arguments against Anand ar world champion are inconclusive.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.