< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 474 OF 477 ·
|Oct-08-07|| ||Softpaw: I'm not sure who the "ignant" one is... but about Walker: if you read his posts you will see he has a very distorted, anger-driven view of the world-- and not surprisingly, he is a rabid Topalov fan and apologist. |
<walker: Mexici will be boring. Without Toppalov it is like a World soccer (football) Cup without Brasil. OR Olimpic basketball tournament without USA. Hope they lose money and a guy from a civilized country becomes FIDE President. It is awfull 17 years after the Cold War the KGB still to run the chess show. >
The KGB is still running the chess show? Russia not a "civilized country"?
In any case, I will TRY to avoid posting any more political stuff in this Chess forum.
Hopefully, Walker will also.
|Oct-08-07|| ||hovik2003: Oh man another cold war !
|Oct-08-07|| ||Nepa Pugna: <SatelliteDan: Who liked or dis-liked the format used prior to the start of the tournament but changed there mind after the result was in?>|
Hi Kibitzers! Can't stay long. After reading the posts I must say I didn't like the tournament format for the World Championship in Mexico either.
But I didn't change my mind about it after the results came in. I routed for Kramnik or Gelfand to take the title.
Yet neither won. I have no complaints about accepting Anand as "THE PRESENT WORLD CHAMPION." He won it by being better than his opponents.
Not only that, he's World Champion according to the rules FIDE layed down prior to the tournament with agreement by "the then" world champion and other players.
There should be no dispute when it comes to "THE TITLE" because now there is only "ONE TITLE."
|Oct-08-07|| ||hovik2003: <Nepa Pugna>
Now I know for sure that you enjoy very much the arguments and discussions on this forum. Because you never give up.
|Oct-08-07|| ||Softpaw: <There should be no dispute when it comes to "THE TITLE" because now there is only "ONE TITLE.">|
Yes, monotitleism has defeated polytitleism!
Let us rejoice! All is good!
|Oct-08-07|| ||Hafen Slawkenbergius: <keypusher> Although Botvinnik was not as dominant in the 50's as in the 40's, he still had as good a right as anyone to be considered first among equals - even in tournaments.|
If you consider the five major tournaments he participated in, counting just his major Soviet opponents:
USSR ch. 51 (after a break on nearly three years from chess) - Keres 12/17, Geller & Petrosian 11.5, Smyslov 11, Botvinnik 10, Bronstein & Taimanov 9.5.
Budapest 52 - Keres 12.5/17, Geller 12, Botvinnk, Smyslov & Stahlberg 11... Petroisian 9.5
USSR ch. 52 - Botvinnik & Taimanov 13.5/19, Geller 12... Bronstein & Smyslov 10.5... Keres 9.5
USSR ch. 55 - Geller & Smyslov 12/19, Botvinnik, Petrosian & Illivitsky 11.5, Keres & Taimanov 11
Moscow 56 - Botvinnik & Smyslov 11/15, Taimanov 10.5... Bronstein 9.5... Keres 8.5
In all five tournaments Botvinnik played, so did Smyslov and Keres, who were younger and considered stronger. But if you add up the results, he did better than they did! (although Smyslov did pass him twice). He also finished ahead of Bronstein and Taimanov in every tournament they played together (with Taimanov he had a tie-breaking match once).
In the three tournaments Botvinnik and Petrosian played together, they got equal results (though Petrosian discreetly avoided Botvinnik's two best tournaments of the period).
Which leaves us with only Geller. In the four tournaments they played together, Geller hgad the edge (he didn't play at Moscow. He might have gotten 10 points there, to keep the score - but that would have been far from easy); he also had the advantage in their direct encounters. But however, Geller didn't do half as well in any other tournament he played at the time - including Interzonals (he did qualify to the Candidates twice, but never was in the very top) and Candidates tournaments. The USSR championsgip of 1954 was really pathetic - in fact, Petrosian did far better than Geller did over this period.
Once again, Botvinnik wasn't head and shoulders above anyone else in the 50's, but no one else could claim he was better.
And by the way, I personally agree with <Softpaw> who wrote on Anand's page (if I remember correctly) that he prefers not to have one clearly dominant player. I was hoping Kramnik will win Mexico, for no other reason than to avoid the whole annoying arguments of who is the legitimate champion; but I would rather have a situation like was in the 50's.
|Oct-08-07|| ||SanChess: <Laserlight: Speaking of stamina, do you think that age will be a factor at all? After all, Kramnik has more match experience against other top players and is somewhat more youthful than Anand.>|
I think it will be balanced: Kramnik's age advantage will be neutralized by Anand's notorious speed of thought. They will both prepare very carefully and I expect a lot of theoretical novelties during the match with games being somewhat decided right from the opening. The outcome will be probably determined by he who makes a difference with Black.
The middlegame favours Anand while Kramnik will be superior in the endgame, especially if he can force early queen exchanges.
The biggest danger for Anand -IMHO-may reside in him trying unsound sharp tactics or suboptimal plans in an effort to upset Kramnik's deep and solid understanding of positions.
|Oct-08-07|| ||hovik2003: <Yes, monotitleism has defeated polytitleism! >|
But it never could overcome bititeleism!
|Oct-08-07|| ||KamikazeAttack: <Softpaw: I'm not sure who the "ignant" one is... >|
Ignant = Ignorant:)
|Oct-08-07|| ||southpawjinx: All arguments aside, Anand and Kramnik will clear up any questions with their match. Does anyone know how many rounds it will be?|
|Oct-08-07|| ||chessmoron: <southpawjinx> The same format as the recent WCC match in 2006.|
|Oct-08-07|| ||walker: <Softpaw> You are saying this on the one year aniversery of the Politovskaya(spelling) murder....good for the former KGB agent and now Russia's President Putin....Yes, under him Russia is a very civilazed country....are you a former agent ot what???? And avatars of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler,Pinochet KKK...all should be banned from public forums IMHO...
Lets talk abou chess....the troll Red October has a political agenda...a democrat would.t have used swastica or nooose or soviet symbol as an avatar.|
|Oct-09-07|| ||Jim Bartle: "And, three years latter, when he was asked to play a 3-way title defense match-tournament against Bronstein and Boleslavsky, Botvinnik flatly refused. He insisted on defending in a match against only one of the two! (Thus Bronstein and Boleslavsky had to first square off in their playoff match.)"|
That's a no-brainer--who wouldn't want to have to defeat one player rather than two?
|Oct-09-07|| ||Hafen Slawkenbergius: Well, considering their respective scores against each other at the time (Botvinnik - Boleslavsky 9-2, Boleslavsky - Bronstein 4-3, Bronstein - Botvinnik 1.5-0.5) - it would have been resonable for Botvinnik to prefer a three-way match, rather than run the risk of meeting Bronstein.
I guess Botvinnik insisted, because he wanted to be a champion in the "Steinitz tradition". Alekhine's death was to him an unfortunate accident, since he was sure he would have beaten Alekhine at any time after 1938, and he might have felt without a direct match, his title would lose some of it's aura.|
|Oct-09-07|| ||su24: <walker: <Red October> your avatar make me miserable. >|
After reading a few posts of yours it is quite obvious what makes you miserable. And it is not Red October's avator for sure.
|Oct-09-07|| ||Petrosianic: <All arguments aside, Anand and Kramnik will clear up any questions with their match.>|
Well, they'll clear up <most> questions. The simplest outcome would be if Anand just won the match outright. It gets more complicated if Anand loses and people argue forever whether he was ever champion at all.
|Oct-09-07|| ||Gypsy: < Jim Bartle: "And, three years latter, when he was asked to play a 3-way title defense match-tournament against Bronstein and Boleslavsky, Botvinnik flatly refused. He insisted on defending in a match against only one of the two! (Thus Bronstein and Boleslavsky had to first square off in their playoff match.)"|
That's a no-brainer--who wouldn't want to have to defeat one player rather than two?>
Of course. It is quite clear why Botvinnik chose the two differing courses of action. In 1948, he was not qualified for a WC match (Euwe, Keres, and Fine all had higher prior claims). Thus Bot needed to organize a tournament for the title. (But managed to kept out all the young guns and other rifraf like Najdorf, Bronstein, Boleslavsky, Szabo, Eliskases, Stahlberg, ...) But in 1951, Botvinnik was the WC and nothing short of a match gave him as good a chance to retain the title.
What it all highlights, however, is the extraordinary level of accommodation and good will towards the unification process that Mr. Kramnik gave by agreeing to put the WC title on line in a tournament. Not a single other WC agreed to that. In fact, most WC challenges were played under two-match contracts : the challenge match and, if successful, a rematch.
|Oct-09-07|| ||Petrosianic: <In 1948, he was not qualified for a WC match (Euwe, Keres, and Fine all had higher prior claims).>|
They didn't. Alekhine was training for a title defense against Botvinnik at the time of his death. It had already been arranged.
AVRO was not a Candidates Tournament, so no claim for Keres or Fine. Besides, any claim that Keres might have had, he lost in the Soviet Absolute Championship.
Euwe, yeah, you could make a case for him. In fact, he was even named Interim World Champion for a few hours in 1946. They could probably have gotten away with an Euwe-Botvinnik match for the title after the war, rather than the tournament.
The tournament was a nice way to get some more of the top contenders into the picture, but not strictly necessary. If they'd added Fine, Najdorf, and oh, I don't know, maybe Flohr (he was FIDE's "Official" Challenger in the late 30's), and had a three round set of matches, similar to the Candidates Matches, that would have been even better.
|Oct-09-07|| ||chancho: Petrosianic> Fine felt that he and Keres should have been named co champions after 1946-1948, because of their result at AVRO 1938. Any validity whatsoever to that claim? |
|Oct-09-07|| ||Petrosianic: AVRO is a tournament that was set up, with the idea that the winner might be Alekhine's next challenger, but halfway through the tournament, Alekhine announced that he'd feel no obligation to play the winner.|
The Absolute Championship was a tournament held in 1941, to determine which Soviet Player would have the right to challenge Alekhine. Botvinnik was afraid that if he didn't win the Soviet Championship every year that whoever did have the title would try to challenge over him. The Absolute Championship was a 1-time thing that was supposed to settle once and for all, which Soviet player had priority. Botvinnik beat out Keres, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, and the two Soviet Champions, Lilienthal and Bondarevsky. As long as Keres stayed in the Soviet Union, he was behind Boyvinnik in line after that.
If anybody was going to be named champion without play, it should have been Euwe, as the last surviving champion. That's how the US title reverted to Showalter after Pillsbury's death.
Fine claimed that he had been willing to play in the Championship Tournament in 1947 (when it was originally scheduled).
Flohr had been named as the "Official Challenger" in 1937.
|Oct-09-07|| ||Petrosianic: Incidentally, here's an (admittedly biased) viewpoint of Reshevsky, from the 1990's:|
<HWR: Do you think after the AVRO tournament, if Botvinnik had played Alekhine, he could have defeated him in a match?
Reshevsky: I don't think so. Alekhine was still too strong at that time. Especially if he was not drinking.
HWR: How about Keres. Do you think in 1938-1940, Keres could have defeated Alekhine?
HWR: Why not?
Reshevsky: I don't think he was strong enough.
HWR: Botvinnik has said in his autobiography that he never thought that Keres had what it took to become world champion.
Reshevsky: I would agree with him.
HWR: What do you think Keres lacked to become world champion?
Reshevsky: He was not a great fighter. He was a very strong player, but he was not a great fighter.
HWR: But he was famous for some of his attacking games.
Reshevsky: Yes, that is true, but taken alone, that is not sufficient. His strength lay in attacking, but I don't think he was as strong as some of the other players positionally.
HWR: You have just told me that in the 1938-1940 period, you don't think either Botvinnik or Keres could have defeated Alekhine for the title. How about Fine?
Reshevsky: Certainly not.
HWR: Why not?
Reshevsky: Fine was a fine player, but he was not in the same class with Alekhine.
HWR: That leaves you. And if you played Alekhine in the 1938-1940 period?
Reshevsky: I think at that time I might have had a chance.
HWR: What could you do differently that Botvinnik, Keres or Fine could not?
Reshevsky: It was not a question of what we did, it was a question of the type of fighter one was. I think I was very strong in that area. I gave it my all when I played in a tournament. I do not think they did.>
|Oct-09-07|| ||chancho: I remember that interview in chess life magazine. (1991?) It had Sammy on the cover of the issue.|
|Oct-09-07|| ||keypusher: <Gypsy> Very interesting, thanks! Given his score against Boleslavsky, you might think Botvinnik would prefer the three-way match tournament. No doubt he was afraid that Bronstein and Boleslavsky would gang up on him.|
|Oct-09-07|| ||Nepa Pugna: <hovik2003: Nepa Pugna
Now I know for sure that you enjoy very much the arguments and discussions on this forum. Because you never give up.>
My apologies for not responding sooner. A 2008 Anand-Kramnik match under (and I rather not use this term but it seems appropriate, "Classic Match time controls") should settle the issue on Anand's talent for match play.
Until then we the chess world will have to wait, wonder and watch these two talents and speculate. Great stuff. History may be in the making
|Oct-10-07|| ||hovik2003: <Nepa Pugna>
I really hope so, being only a humble chess fan, by not having any particular direction toward any of this two great champions, I really wish for Anand to do his best and win that upcoming match, and then beside legalizing his title as 15th Classical World Champion, also he will bring home this great chess trophy to old continent of Asia, where chess game was designed in and originated from.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 474 OF 477 ·