|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Aug-28-09 |
| shach matov: <Everett> Wrong. For Kasparov it was a matter of principle: After being #1 for 20 years, and doing more for chess than anybody else, he definitely deserved the rematch without any qualifiers. <Kasparov lost his confidence>, that's a pretty ignorant statement, just consider that in 2001 he played an unprecedented in history simul against a team of Czech Grandmasters and basically crushed them. You sound like a patzer on Garry's page who just claimed that his six year old nephew sees mating combinations better than Kasparov. |
 |
Aug-28-09
 |
| boz: It sounds as if you guys are asking Kramnik to fix the mess Kasparov created. |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| Everett: <Matter of principle> Right. If one is "principled," they must be consistent, something Kasparov's behavior cannot be considered. To me, it was a matter of pragmatism, or, better yet, a matter of typical Kasparov capriciousness. Read the post again. I said "may have" lost confidence. It may help you to pay attention and quote properly. English is a great tool, allowing us the ability to communicate with great specificity and nuance. You may want to question why you have become so invested in defending Kasparov. We all have our favorites, but it does not need to descend into insults. You're responding as if I slapped your mother. <boz> good point. |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| drik: shach matov: <treatment of Shirov> Shirov was simply unlucky: Whilst this is true - why did Kasparov hand pick Shirov as Kramnik's opponent? Since he did this, surely he has an ethical obligation? Should he not have paid Shirov for winning the match against Kramnik? All in all ... it seems pretty shoddy organisation for someone so scathing of FIDE. |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| Petrosianic: <If by <Kasparov's Machiavellian politics> you mean his mistake of not demanding a rematch clause,> Not merely not demanding one, but promising the world that there wouldn't be one, and that if he lost, he'd try to re-qualify like everyone else, then going back on his word and demanding a direct rematch as soon as he lost. If you don't consider that an ethical lapse, I can't imagine how anything Kramnik said or did could possibly qualify as one. I agree Kramnik should have played the match, but not because Kasparov deserved it. He should have played because the world deserved it. |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| shach matov: <Everett> The problem is there is lack of respect from you as though Kasparov has slapped and kicked your mother and then check mated you. You like to make speculations, disrespecting a great player. Also ignoring facts: Kapsparov plays a TEAM OF GRANDMASTERS in 2001 simul (and crushes them) and you feel that he lost confidence. It's a joke, how can I accept your comments as legitimate. |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| shach matov: <Petrosianic> <Kramnik should have played the match because the world deserved it.> True, so Kramnik slapped the world of chess in the face, spat in the faces of his fans, and his fans, like an abused and battered girlfriend, continue to be devoted to him. And you feel he did nothing unethical. |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| KamikazeAttack: Let it out ... let it out ... let the pain out ... very therapeutic. |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| Kaspablanca: Matov and Petrosianic: I also wanted to see the rematch but Kasparov had to earn it playing the Dormund qualifier. For you is easy to say that Kramnik should give him a rematch despite the no rematch clause. It isnt a question on principle to fulfill the contract? Kasparov thought he could beat Kramnik in the match so he wouldnt have to face him again in the rematch and so he had the idea of the no rematch clause but the things happened the other way. So the no rematch clause was a double edge weapon for Kasparov. What if Kasparov won the match? No rematch then? but as the winner was Kramnik then the rematch should be played? Is that what Matov and Petrosianic wanted? |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| Kaspablanca: Now, if you tell me that there was a rematch clause and Kramnik would avoid to play Kasparov again then Matov is right to call Kramnik a coward. |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| Everett: I can speculate all I want <sm>. Better than claiming I know the absolute truth, as you do. Kasparov is a great player, but he is not principled, and he made his own bed when signing the various contracts for the championship match. He deserved only to be placed high into the following candidates cycle. All of your rage and blind adoration for Kasparov doesn't change his actions, and he must bear the responsibility for those actions. |
|
| Aug-28-09 |
| Everett: Beating inferior GMs in a simul, impressive though it is, means nothing compared to facing one's nemesis. It is not a worthy comparison. |
|
| Aug-29-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: Kasparov and Kramnik played a short 4-game match under classical time controls in the Botvinik Memorial event in 2001, and so it's not entirely true that they never played another match after 2000. However, I would have loved to see a World Championship re-match between Kasparov and Kramnik. The above does not make me change my mind - it is my very strong opinion that Kramnik was totally correct to insist that Kasparov go through a Candidates event, a Qualifier that Kasparov himself pledged the chess world. Had Kramnik given way and allowed an automatic re-match, not only would it have been dishonorably reneging on his (and Kasparov's) pledge, but it would have had potentially dire consequences on the World Championship cycle itself. In effect, Kramnik would have continued the slide back into the pre-WW2 condition wherein the Champion, after all is said and done, chooses his Challenger. We could have ended up in a worse situation today regarding the World Championship cycle. This is what basically happened during Kasparov's reign. For the sake of World Championship chess, I was glad when Kramnik took the Title from Kasparov AND stuck to their joint pledge for a Qualifier. What else has Kramnik done?
1. Kramnik proceeded in his World Championship match with solely FIDE world champion Topalov, in spite of the fact that he could have justifiably walked out with the support of most of the world's top GMs after getting accused of cheating just because he was frequently going to the bathroom. The good result is the re-unification of the traditional Steinitzian classical Title with the FIDE Title. 2. Kramnik agreed to play in a World Championship TOURNAMENT, as opposed to a Match, in order to facilitate the re-unification process. No other living World Champion has made such a concession. It was during Kramnik's 2000 to 2007 reign that the institution of the chess World Championship began to stabilize. IMO Kramnik has done more than any other person in trying to fix the mess that Kasparov made. I wonder what would have happened if Kasparov suddenly retired while still Champion? He would have quadrupled his original mess, and could have killed the traditional World Championship succession permanently. No doubt at least a dozen contenders would have sprang forth, each claiming to be the legitimate heir to Kasparov's traditional Title; and consequently none would be. |
|
| Aug-29-09 |
| shach matov: Excuses for Kramnik do not change the simple fact: the guy ran away from the challenge of facing Kasparov. And that WILL NEVER CHANGE. Folks I am moving to Anand-Kramnik 2008 match page, there is zero left to talk about on this page. |
|
| Aug-29-09 |
| Hesam7: <shach matov: Excuses for Kramnik do not change the simple fact: the guy ran away from the challenge of facing Kasparov. And that WILL NEVER CHANGE. > I don't remember Kasparov challenging Kramnik to a rematch. Or do you think Kramnik should have organized and paid for the rematch as well? |
|
| Aug-29-09 |
| shach matov: <Kasparov and Kramnik played a short 4-game match under classical time controls in the Botvinik Memorial event in 2001> Actually the match consisted of 4 classic, 6 rapid and 10 blitz games: the first two ended in a draws, the last part ended in Kapsarov beating Kramnik, score: 6.5-3.5. |
|
| Aug-29-09 |
| Everett: <schach matov> All the excuses for Kasparov do not change the simple fact that he agreed to participate in the next cycle and refused to do so. |
|
| Aug-29-09 |
| Atking: <the last part ended in Kasparov beating Kramnik, score: 6.5-3.5.> So what? that blitz... Even this result was the opposite I will not consider Kramnik stronger. The first 2 matchs have clearly more significance and it was draw. I'm sorry to say that but the way you act doesn't make better your hero. I thought Kasparov was a great man when he congratulate Kramnik after his match in London. Eventually I was thinking that Kasparov's latter provocative reaction was a message to the new champion. Don't relax yourself on the title fight and improve. But the argument about Dortmund and Prague don't convice me. My opinion is Kasparov kept his title during mostly 20 years with a considerable amount of work and couldn't not keep on that. He wasn't as young anymore. He has also a family (That could also explain his failure at London) and also a civic life (That could explain his latter commitment in politic). I really doubt that Kasparov could be world champion during 30 years (20 years is already a magnific performance). Clearly the next were Kramnik and Anand. But Anand lost in New York... |
|
| Aug-29-09 |
| Kaspablanca: Matov only wanted the rematch to please Kasparov`s interest and no the insterest of the chess championship. He is obviously mad when everytime some member gives true facts about the good things Kramnik have done to chess and about his win in this match and get very mad when somebody says all the mess Kasparov have done but his anger, his blind admiration to GK and his hate to Kramnik is so big that he simply cant stand the facts and decided to go to the Kramnik-Anand match, i am sure he goes there to continue the Kramnik bashing and claim that the match was a massacre from Anand:)He cant deny the facts visayabraindoctor had put. |
|
| Aug-30-09 |
| Hesam7: There is a simple argument: if Kasparov wanted an immediate rematch outside of rules he had to secure funding for it himself and only after this challenge Kramnik publicly and he <never> did that. Kasparov did not participate in Dortmund qualifier and he did not make a formal challenge, I think Kasparov was the one avoiding Kramnik not the other way around. |
|
Aug-31-09
 |
| Open Defence: <if Kasparov wanted an immediate rematch outside of rules he had to secure funding for it > good point.... unless he expected the mess of an association he left behind to do it.. Kasparov.. great player possibly the greatest ever .. but he did cause a bad mess after the split |
|
| Sep-03-09 |
| KamikazeAttack: Kasparov will run into Putin's men soon ... very soon. |
|
Sep-05-09
 |
| SetNoEscapeOn: <Kaspablanca>
<Kasparov thought he could beat Kramnik in the match so he wouldnt have to face him again in the rematch and so he had the idea of the no rematch clause but the things happened the other way. So the no rematch clause was a double edge weapon for Kasparov. What if Kasparov won the match? No rematch then? but as the winner was Kramnik then the rematch should be played?> No, that doesn't make any sense. The hypothetical rematch clause could only be triggered by a Kasparov loss. Challengers are never granted rematch privileges, so obviously there could have been no rematch if Kasparov had won. To be honest, there was nothing "double edged" about it- it was a concession by Kasparov. <Everett>
<Only Spassky and Smyslov overcame their competition two cycles in a row. The prospect of fighting through the other top players is so difficult, both Karpov and Kasparov tried hard to avoid it.> I disagree. Well, for most of his career Kasparov never had the need. Karpov did receive privileges, but in 1990 he got what the loser of Topalov-Anand will supposedly get- a spot in the quarterfinal. I think it's important to remember that both of them actually did win full blown cycles, "when it was their turn". Is it really fair to compare the traditional cycle with an event like Dortmund 2002 in the first place? How about the upcoming world cup? More to the point: if the traditional cycle was still in place in 2002, do you think Kasparov would still have pushed for a rematch? Incidentally, Korchnoi also won two cycles in a row (or two and a half). |
|
| Sep-05-09 |
| Jim Bartle: I suppose Kasparov not wanting a rematch clause for the Kramnik match was similar to a trapeze artist performing without a net. |
|
| Sep-06-09 |
| Kaspablanca: Setnoescape: With Kasparov all is possible:) |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Kasparov-Kramnik World Championship Match (2000)
