< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Apr-12-06|| ||badest: There will be a match between Topalov and Kramnik (an interview posted in www.topsport.bg from the russian sport express).|
Topalov says that he is almost certain that Kramnik will play, and that he himself definitely wants to have the match. The comment is: "the chess fans want the match to happen, so it must be played..."
This is good news for us all!
|Apr-12-06|| ||yalie: Kramnik? Why? If at all, the match should be between Topalov and Anand.|
|Apr-12-06|| ||badest: I agree, but there seems to be a lot of pressure on Topalov to play Kramnik. In the same interview he says that Anand is his main rival at this point. But the Kramnik-match is unavoidable...|
|Apr-12-06|| ||Four Corners: <Kramnik? Why? If at all, the match should be between Topalov and Anand.>|
Seeing as the titles are split, Kramnik having the classical title and Topalov having the FIDE title, it makes sense to unify them, right? I don't see how Anand enters this.
|Apr-12-06|| ||iron maiden: Topalov and Anand will meet again in the next FIDE championship tournament anyway.|
|Apr-12-06|| ||you vs yourself: <badest> Great news! I'm rooting for Topalov to become <the> World Champion!|
|Apr-12-06|| ||chancho: The important thing is that the title gets unified, and this who is the true champ crap, is put to rest.|
|Apr-13-06|| ||yalie: are topalov or anand playing in the french top 16 league by any chance?|
|Apr-13-06|| ||BishopBerkeley: Chessbase has a very nice picture of celebrated gymnast Nadia Comaneci on their page covering this match, though it isn't clear why the picture is there (presumably she attended the match?) |
Even so, I'm glad the picture is there, it is a very nice one:
"She is of course the Romanian gymnast who won five Olympic gold medals, and the first contestant to be awarded a perfect score of 10 in an Olympic gymnastic event. She is widely considered to be one of the greatest athletes in the 20th century and perhaps the greatest gymnast of all time."
And she was born in the same month and year I was! (Though I think she has held up a bit better, at least to all appearances!)
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|Apr-13-06|| ||euripides: she's quite good on the parallel bers.|
|Apr-13-06|| ||BishopBerkeley: <euripides> I had to laugh at the Chessbase comment, "My, we can only say, hasn't she turned out nicely?"|
Alas, it could be construed as an objectifying remark, but I do hope the years have been good to this inspiring athlete!!
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|Apr-13-06|| ||BishopBerkeley: It appears that Ms. Nadia Comaneci now lives in Oklahoma:|
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|Apr-14-06|| ||acirce: I guess only Bulgaria gets to join the EU now.|
|Apr-14-06|| ||badest: Sept 21 until Oct 13 Topalov and Kramnik will play 12 games. It should be official now (it is all over the BG newspapers).|
|Apr-14-06|| ||IMDONE4: Topalov vs Kramnik will be an interesting match. I predict that Topalov will win by a very small margin (maybe 6 and 1/2 to 5 and 1/2). This match however, Nisipeanu hasn't had as much experience among the Super GMs to be much of a challenge to Topalov, who in addition to being 100 points higher rated than him, has been in the world scene and among its top ten players for many years now.|
|Apr-14-06|| ||jamesmaskell: By the way, a discussion forum has been opened about the Kramnik-Topalov match.|
|Apr-28-06|| ||southpawjinx: < Four Corners: <Kramnik? Why? If at all, the match should be between Topalov and Anand.>
Seeing as the titles are split, Kramnik having the classical title and Topalov having the FIDE title, it makes sense to unify them, right? I don't see how Anand enters this.> |
Anand actually won the WCH. Same with Topalov. Kramnik beat Kasparov after FIDE stripped him of the title, so their match was just that a match(not a WCH match sanctioned by FIDE).
|Apr-28-06|| ||whatthefat: <Anand actually won the WCH.> So did Kasimdzhanov, Ponomariov, and Khalifman. The point is that these titles were earned under the rather laughable knock-out WC. The tournament format returns some credibility to the FIDE title.|
|Apr-29-06|| ||you vs yourself: <whatthefat> Can you explain why the knockout format is laughable? |
The way I see it, a player gets to play 2 games against his opponent, and he knows all the rules beforehand. If he loses that matchup, then it's his own fault. How does format has anything to do with a player not winning a knockout WC?
Do you think Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov winning the knockout WC is part of the reason it's a joke? Remember that kasparov, kramnik and anand didn't play in those knockout WCs. If they did, the chances of either of the lowly K's winning are nil.
|Apr-29-06|| ||whatthefat: The problem - to my eyes at least - is that it's not statistical robust. Giving only 2 games induces upsets. In a tournament (or longer match), a single bad loss can be offset by all the other games. In knockout, it's adieu.|
In fact, Kramnik did compete in 1999, where he got no further than the quarterfinals. And even Kasparov has never been immune to the occasional bad loss; so the 'lottery' nature of it remains.
|Apr-29-06|| ||you vs yourself: <And even Kasparov has never been immune to the occasional bad loss.>|
Everyone has bad losses. But the question is: Does Kasparov have bad losses when he knows beforehand that his next two games are very important? If I were to guess, I'd say highly unlikely.
I didn't know about Kramnik's participation in '99, but still it's just one top 3 player. If he loses, that's Kramnik's fault because he knew beforehand that he cannot lose his 2 game matchup. If Kramnik had a bad loss in either game 13 or 14 against Leko, we'd have a Topalov-Leko match right now. But he responded to pressure situation in Brissago, but failed in Vegas.
|Apr-29-06|| ||whatthefat: <you vs yourself>
I'm not disputing that it's the player's fault if they get knocked out - of course it is. My point is that it's an unreliable method of establishing a champion.
I don't really understand what you're getting at with Kramnik. You say that he responded in Brissago, but failed in Vegas, each time for 2 important games. Doesn't that just help to illustrate that over a small number of games, the performances can be erratic?
Even if your opinion is that the knockout format is acceptable, surely you agree that a tournament and/or long match format is far superior?
|Apr-29-06|| ||you vs yourself: <whatthefat> My opinion is that, with the right time control, more rest days, knockout format is superior to tournament format. |
In a tournament format, luck plays a bigger role than it does in a match format and a knockout format. Eg: If you're down by 1pt in the last round, you can still win the world championship even if you're not playing the leader. That is, your becoming a WC depends on whether a third player plays for a draw or a win in that tournament game. But in knockouts, destiny is in your own hands. You don't need to depend on anyone else.
I just wanted to know if you think knockout format by itself is laughable or the way FIDE organizes them.
|Apr-29-06|| ||whatthefat: <In a tournament format, luck plays a bigger role than it does in a match format and a knockout format. Eg: If you're down by 1pt in the last round, you can still win the world championship even if you're not playing the leader. That is, your becoming a WC depends on whether a third player plays for a draw or a win in that tournament game. But in knockouts, destiny is in your own hands. You don't need to depend on anyone else.>|
That's a strange way of interpreting things. In a tournament, you play each player at some point. If you're down by 1 pt going in to the last round, take a look at how you went in the earlier rounds. In knockout, the player you get drawn against may be strong or weak - in that sense, destiny is very much <not> in your hands.
<I just wanted to know if you think knockout format by itself is laughable or the way FIDE organizes them.>
When it's down to the last handful of candidates, a knockout scheme is fine with me, <as long as> there are proper time controls, and a sufficient number of rounds played to make it statistically meaningful. So yes, my problem is largely with the way FIDE organizes it.
|Sep-26-06|| ||acirce: This match was dedicated to the EU entrance of Bulgaria and Romania.|
<Bulgaria and Romania yesterday received the green light to join the EU in January, but the European commission imposed its toughest restrictions to force the two countries to intensify the fight against crime and corruption.
The former Warsaw pact countries were warned they would be excluded from core areas of the EU - in justice and home affairs - if they failed to introduce greater reforms of their criminal justice systems.>
<"The citizens of Rousse and Giurgiu will celebrate together the accession of their countries into the EU on January 1, 2007," Rousse District Governor Maria Dimova told Standart. The celebrations will take place on the Danube Bridge, which is the major link between the two neighboring countries. A competition for organizers of the spectacular show will be announced. According to preliminary plans, the bridge will be illuminated in the colors of the national flags of Bulgaria and Romania.
During his visit to Rousse, world chess champion Veselin Topalov said he was ready to join the celebrations probably with a simultaneous play session, the boards for which will be placed along the bridge.>
Topalov is also part of this "charm offensive" list of famous Bulgarians along with the inventor of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer and other great profiles:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·