New World Champion

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll put it in CAPS so you might be able to read it this time:

no1: MATCHES BETWEEN THE PLAYERS DIRECTLY DECIDE WHETHER A IS BETTER THAN B OR NOT.

As for the rest, I've already addressed them. For both you and AProdigy, I repeat what I said on page 5:

no1: I don't agree that the champion can acquiese to a fundamental change in the way th ...[text shortened]... Championship is decided. The WC isn't his personal property; it belongs to the chess world.

MATCHES BETWEEN THE PLAYERS DIRECTLY DECIDE WHETHER A IS BETTER THAN B OR NOT

As I did mention - It`s just your claim which you should prove

no1: I don't agree that the champion can acquiese to a fundamental change in the way the World Championship is decided. The WC isn't his personal property; it belongs to the chess world.

look at answer in my previous post

Originally posted by Korch
[b]What is the problem with everybody in this thread???
If you think that the problem is in everyone maybe its better to search problem in yourself?

I've already addressed Kramnik's position; quite simply, the World Championship is not the personal property of the Champion or FIDE.
And how do you think - what else without world champion or FIDE may apply rules of world championship?[/b]

No, when I talk about the 90's and a poster says I'm talking about the 60's, they have the problem.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What is the problem with everybody in this thread??? Who is talking about the 60's? Please actually read what I'm posting for a change.

I've already addressed Kramnik's position; quite simply, the World Championship is not the personal property of the Champion or FIDE.

I'm sorry you are right. You weren't talking about the 60's. You were talking about the 40's, the 70's, the 90's, the early 2000's. Oh wait, you were also talking about the last 150 years, so I guess that does include the 60's. I suggest YOU read what you wrote. I bet you'll get a kick out it. It's funny stuff.

You also said...

I've already addressed Kramnik's position; quite simply, the World Championship is not the personal property of the Champion or FIDE.

This is a baseless opinion that I find this hard to believe. We all know that Kramnik has stood his ground in the past and would again if he felt he was being wronged. Again, I don't think he should have put his title on the line, but he must have had reason to agree to it. If the FIDE tried to cheat him, I think he chould protest and have everyone's support. The FIDE would give him what he wants because it can't afford another split.

You also said...
What is the problem with everybody in this thread???

Everyone in this thread is thinking the same thing about you...

Edited for spelling.

Originally posted by Korch
And how do you think - what else without world champion or FIDE may apply rules of world championship?

N°1Marauder of course.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]MATCHES BETWEEN THE PLAYERS DIRECTLY DECIDE WHETHER A IS BETTER THAN B OR NOT

As I did mention - It`s just your claim which you should prove

no1: I don't agree that the champion can acquiese to a fundamental change in the way the World Championship is decided. The WC isn't his personal property; it belongs to the chess world.

look at answer in my previous post[/b]

Matches between players DON'T decide whether A is better than B according to you? Interesting claim. I really shouldn't have to "prove" something which is self-evident.

You gave no "answer" in your previous post. FIDE and the World Champion must remain true to the basic traditions of chess when they set the rules or the chess world is free to disregard their claim as to who is the World Champion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Matches between players DON'T decide whether A is better than B according to you? Interesting claim. I really shouldn't have to "prove" something which is self-evident.

You gave no "answer" in your previous post. FIDE and the World Champion must remain true to the basic traditions of chess when they set the rules or the chess world is free to disregard their claim as to who is the World Champion.

Matches between players DON'T decide whether A is better than B according to you? Interesting claim. I really shouldn't have to "prove" something which is self-evident.

NOT ONLY matches can decide who is better. If you cant prove that ONLY matches can decide who is better then you wont be able convince anyone.

FIDE and the World Champion must remain true to the basic traditions of chess when they set the rules or the chess world is free to disregard their claim as to who is the World Champion.

Are you think yourself as "chess world" ? 😀

Originally posted by Korch
[b]MATCHES BETWEEN THE PLAYERS DIRECTLY DECIDE WHETHER A IS BETTER THAN B OR NOT

As I did mention - It`s just your claim which you should prove[/b]

No1marauder has painted a big red target on himself by making an obsurd and pointless argument.

But I do agree with him on this point. I feel, and let me clarify that this is my opinion, that tournament play did not determine who is better.

Well, this is tough. Let me rephrase to say that it did not prove that Anand could beat Kramnik. I feel that for someone to take the title, they should have to beat the current title holder.

I'm going to quote myself from an earlier post. I said that Anand's aggressive style worked well for him in the tourney, but may not work well against Kramnik in the match. Kramnik's defensive style ended in too many draws in the tourney, but he beat Topalov (possibly the most aggressive player out there) in the last WC match.

Anand knew that if he didn't win, he could not compete in the match. It would have been Kramnik vs Topalov again (heaven forbid). Kramnik new he would get another shot regardless, so he took a lot of draws. In the match, they will have equal motivations.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
In the reunification match, I considered Topalov the challenger and believed that his victory would have forever stained (because it would appear to legitimize the string of frauds) the line of champions. Caissa protected her crown.

I fully agree. as much as I'd have liked topalov's agressive chess to win over kramnik's passive defensive style, it was good for everyone that kramnik won. well, maybe not for topalov, but for the chess world in general.

and about what somebody said about kramnik not giving his best in mexico, well, kramnik really doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would not give his ultimate best. the guy is the embodiment of work ethic. his opening preparation was clearly outstanding, and a lot of his games were just amazing. and for once, I was truly happy to watch his games. it just wasn't enough, and anand took the title from him.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]Matches between players DON'T decide whether A is better than B according to you? Interesting claim. I really shouldn't have to "prove" something which is self-evident.

NOT ONLY matches can decide who is better. If you cant prove that ONLY matches can decide who is better then you wont be able convince anyone.

FIDE and the World Champion must ...[text shortened]... claim as to who is the World Champion.

Are you think yourself as "chess world" ? 😀[/b]

I've already presented the arguments why matches are superior to tournament in deciding the World Championship; I can't "prove" it like a mathematical formula. The fact that chess has traditionally always considered it the best way is strong evidence in support of that view.

I think of myself as part of the chess world. And unlike a lot of others, I don't base my opinion on a dislike of somebody's playing style. Sure, Anand and Topalov and others have more exciting styles than Kramnik, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Kramnik, not them, who defeated Kasparov and has sucessfully defended the title.

Originally posted by AProdigy
No1marauder has painted a big red target on himself by making an obsurd and pointless argument.

But I do agree with him on this point. I feel, and let me clarify that this is my opinion, that tournament play did not determine who is better.

Well, this is tough. Let me rephrase to say that it did not prove that Anand could beat Kramnik. I feel t shot regardless, so he took a lot of draws. In the match, they will have equal motivations.

AProdigy: I feel that for someone to take the title, they should have to beat the current title holder

It seems you agree with my "absurd and pointless argument".

Originally posted by no1marauder
AProdigy: I feel that for someone to take the title, they should have to beat the current title holder

It seems you agree with my "absurd and pointless argument".

From the beginning I have agreed that this wasn't a good way to determine the WC. But the title was awarded. Was it "absurd and pointless". Maybe in your opinion. I would just say that I don't think it was the best way.

I understand the delima, though. Can someone tell me why Kramnik had to compete in this? It would have made much more sense for him to skip this and just compete in the WC match.

I had said before that I don't think Kramnik should have put it title on the line, but that isn't right. If Kramnik played, his title had to be on the line. What if Anand had beat him both games? What if everyone had beaten him? It would be hard to keep him as the WC if he had finished last place.

I think it is too ambiguous for Kramnik to put his title on the line in a tourney. BUT HE DID, SO ANAND IS THE WC

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sure, Anand and Topalov and others have more exciting styles than Kramnik, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Kramnik, not them, who defeated Kasparov and has sucessfully defended the title.

I disagree. Kramnik's style is more exciting. Players have switched to 1.d4 because he has sucked the life out of 1.e4. What could be more exciting than that. He was a champion in the style of Smyslov--advancing the quest for chess truth.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I disagree. Kramnik's style is more exciting. Players have switched to 1.d4 because he has sucked the life out of 1.e4. What could be more exciting than that. He was a champion in the style of Smyslov--advancing the quest for chess truth.

I thought the great majority of games in Mexico were e4s.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It seems you agree with my "absurd and pointless argument".

To clarify, your argument is that Anand isn't the WC. He is. He was awarded the title by the FIDE AND the world chess community. Therefore your claim is absurd and pointless.

My argument is that he shouldn't be, because he hasn't proven that he can beat Kramnik. But he is. And I accept that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It seems you agree with my "absurd and pointless argument".

Your arguments are neither absurd nor pointless. Your basic point that matches are the best way to decide the championship is clear and correct, and the history is strong.

But to claim that Anand is not the true champion applies these principles wrongly. This application assumes a purity and consistency in the tradition of matches that is simply not there. The history of the World Championship is full of variances, gaps, and corruptions.

Anand will defend his title in a resumption of the tradition of matches, now once again administered by FIDE, as it it was 1948-1993.