< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Feb-28-19|| ||fabelhaft: By the way, it's difficult to interpret Petrosianic's post as if Kramnik's reputation was in the dump after this match, since he does write the exact opposite :-)|
<Kramnik's reputation was somewhat in the dumps before it. People were mad at him for not playing Kasparov again, he'd only managed to draw with Leko, his rating was a bit down, while Topalov was playing exciting chess and turning in great results. It was Topalov who reversed all that, and unwittingly turned Kramnik into a hero again by making him the Good Guy in a Good vs. Evil match>
|Feb-28-19|| ||RookFile: Good old Kasparov. He made Karpov go through the Candidates cycle again, but when he was the ex-champion, thought there should be special rules for him.|
|Feb-28-19|| ||fabelhaft: <Good old Kasparov. He made Karpov go through the Candidates cycle again, but when he was the ex-champion, thought there should be special rules for him>|
Karpov had a rematch clause when he lost the title, Kasparov abolished the rematch clause.
|Feb-28-19|| ||fabelhaft: That is, the rematch he abolished was his own, not Karpovís, in case it could have been interpreted as that :-) Karpov didnít have to go through any Candidates to get his rematch against Kasparov.|
|Feb-28-19|| ||ughaibu: Karpov had to qualify, to become the challenger to Kasparov, at least thrice. Once he didn't manage it.|
|Feb-28-19|| ||fabelhaft: <Karpov had to qualify, to become the challenger to Kasparov, at least thrice>|
Difficult to see Karpov as non-privileged or somehow unfairly treated by Kasparov there. To begin with he got one rematch after losing the title, and in the next cycle he was seeded directly into the final Candidates match. In the cycle after that he was ĒonlyĒ seeded into the quarter final. If Kasparov <made Karpov go through the Candidates cycle> I wonder what he was supposed to do. Rematch the following cycle and seeded into the Candidates final in the cycle after that is not a bad deal for Karpov. Iíd rather say Kasparov would have made it more difficult for Karpov if he had had any say in the matter.
|Feb-28-19|| ||RookFile: So the point is that Kasparov made it difficult for Karpov, but was offended because Kramnik wouldn't give him an automatic rematch. I think they call that hypocrisy.|
|Feb-28-19|| ||fabelhaft: <the point is that Kasparov made it difficult for Karpov>|
How did Kasparov make it difficult for Karpov? He was given one rematch and was seeded into the Candidates final the cycle after that, and into the quarter final the cycle after that. Kasparov certainly regretted abolishing the rematch in 2000, but how things were made difficult for Karpov is something I would like to know more about.
|Mar-01-19|| ||RookFile: It's a little more difficult to win at the Candidates than it is to have a rematch without having to qualify.|
|Mar-01-19|| ||alexmagnus: Karpov had a <rematch without having to qualify>, in 1986.|
|Mar-02-19|| ||RookFile: Yes, indeed. You're making my point for me. And Kasparov whined and moaned about it and said that the champion's right to a rematch should be removed, it was unjust, etc. etc. The only way Karpov got to play Kasprov in the future was by first qualifying from the Candidates. |
Yet somehow when Kasparov lost to Kramnik, he thought he was entitled to a rematch.
|Mar-02-19|| ||fabelhaft: <Good old Kasparov. He made Karpov go through the Candidates cycle again>|
<It's a little more difficult to win at the Candidates than it is to have a rematch without having to qualify>
<The only way Karpov got to play Kasprov in the future was by first qualifying from the Candidates.>
But how many rematches do you think he should have been given? First he did have a rematch without having to qualify, then he was seeded into the Candidates final match the cycle after his rematch. And the cycle after that he was seeded into the quarter final. If the ex Champion would have an endless number of rematches no other players could ever compete for the title
|Mar-03-19|| ||RookFile: I think you're missing the point. I'm not in favor of any rematches for a champion who loses. What I'm saying is that Kasparov felt the same way right up until he lost - then somehow thought this principle shouldn't apply to him.|
|Mar-03-19|| ||beatgiant: <RookFile>
Can you cite any example where Kasparov "whined and moaned" or "made it difficult for Karpov," like maybe an actual quote by Kasparov?
|Mar-03-19|| ||fabelhaft: On the subject of going through the Candidates after losing the title, neither the player Kasparov won the title from nor lost it to had to do it. Kramnik was given a title match without having to qualify for it after losing the title, as was Karpov. |
Anand had to get himself another title match by winning the Candidates. He is the only ex-Champion to qualify for an undisputed title match in an equal start with the other Candidates.
|Mar-03-19|| ||HSOL: <fabelhaft>: What's so wrong entering in the Candidates quarterfinal after losing a World Championship match? I can't see how that is preferential treatment compared to Anand getting into the Candidates tournament. Karpov had an easier path first time around though. |
I would say Kramnik got the preferential treatment, first qualifying by losing in qualifying vs Shirov and then second, refusing to take part in the FIDE World Championship 2005 and then still get a World Championship match on older merits.
|Mar-03-19|| ||Olavi: <HSOL I would say Kramnik got the preferential treatment, first qualifying by losing in qualifying vs Shirov>|
The loss to Shirov had no relation or connection to the 2000 match against Kasparov.
|Mar-03-19|| ||Nerwal: <refusing to take part in the FIDE World Championship 2005 and then still get a World Championship match on older merits.>|
San Luis 2005 happened only because FIDE had failed to fulfill its part of the Prague agreement. There was no reason for Kramnik to take part in this.
|Mar-03-19|| ||fabelhaft: <What's so wrong entering in the Candidates quarterfinal after losing a World Championship match? I can't see how that is preferential treatment compared to Anand getting into the Candidates tournament>|
Maybe not a huge difference, but Anand didnít get a head start vs other Candidates, as Karpov did. For exempel Korchnoi won an Interzonal and qualified that way, but had been eliminated when Karpov entered the event.
<I would say Kramnik got the preferential treatment>
Yes, being one of only two players to be picked for the 1998 Candidates. Then getting the 2000 and 2008 title matches without participating in some qualification event, etc.
|Mar-04-19|| ||alexmagnus: <and 2008>
Which fell onto his back. Remember, the "I lent the crown to Anand" interview, where he basically said he is a match superstar and will easily deal with the "paper champion" Anand, bringing out a Federer-Nadal comparison...
Joke's on him - both Federer and Nadal are still around, having been number one as recently as 2018. Kramnik retired...
|Mar-04-19|| ||perfidious: The 'paper champion' enjoyed a fair career.
While Anand was not quite in the class of the very greatest champions, the man can play a little and has been nothing but a credit to the game.
All hail an outstanding player and gentleman!
|Mar-04-19|| ||csmath: Must be a slow day here when this is still debated.|
|Mar-04-19|| ||HeMateMe: one of my favorite matches. VK had to come back from a point down because of the toilet controversy, one game, one point forfeit. He won back the lost point and won later, to close out the match. |
Strange how bad VK fell apart in the Anand match, a couple of years later.
|Mar-09-19|| ||dehanne: Toiletgate was a riot.|
|Mar-10-19|| ||HeMateMe: paper covered rock|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·