|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 443 OF 445 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-09-10 | | fischer2009: now d berlin defense theory is in d white 's liking of things. |
 |
| Feb-14-10 | | Everett: Why does Topalov, after losing to Kramnik in 2006, get a crack at Anand in '10? It makes no sense outside of the twisted world of chess politics. |
|
| Feb-14-10 | | protean: <Everett><Why does Topalov, after losing to Kramnik in 2006, get a crack at Anand in '10? It makes no sense outside of the twisted world of chess politics.> Because he bitched about it very loudly. |
|
| Feb-15-10 | | Petrosianic: No, it had nothing to do with bitching. It was about the fact that Topalov was considered a "World Champion" of sorts after San Luis, and that FIDE brought back the rematch clause a few years back. Topalov lost his FIDE Championship in the (Godforsaken) Elista match in 2006, so he gets a rematch. Similarly, the Anand-Kramnik match was considered a "Rematch" for Kramnik after losing his (Undisputed) title at Mexico City. |
|
| Feb-23-10 | | Everett: So Topalov gets a rematch against the NEXT champion. Ridiculous. It's FOUR YEARS after the fact... |
|
| Feb-23-10 | | Petrosianic: It is ridiculous, but that's FIDE for you. Ridiculous is their middle name. |
|
Mar-25-10
 | | jamesmaskell: The stupid thing about this rematch idea is that both players signed the Elista 2006 Match contract saying that the loser would be out of the cycle, thus there would be no rematch clause involved since they both dispensed with them. That was the point of the match in the first place. I pray that Anand wins in Sofia. |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | Petrosianic: They put that in the contract when they thought the loser would be Kramnik. When it turned out to be Topalov, they immediately started going back on it, trying to get Topalov into Mexico City, for example. As you'll recall, Danailov claimed that Topalov was somehow entitled to an IMMEDIATE rematch, a mere 3 months after the first one had ended. The rules explicitly forbade this, as they prohibited any event within 6 months of Mexico City. Danalov predicted that that rule wouldn't matter, and when it did, started the move to get Topalov into Mexico City, claiming that he was entitled to a rematch under the 2700 Rule. This was not true, the 2700 Rule allowed 2700 players to issue a challenge, but gave FIDE the right to decide whether or not to accept the challenge (and as written, it literally gave FIDE the right to use the weather as an excuse for declining). But Kirsan went along with the fiction that Topalov was somehow entitled to a rematch under that rule, and when the effort to get him into Mexico City failed, he gave him a match with the winner of the next Candidates. Remember that Danailov had flat out accused Kirsan of cheating at Elista. Or of knowingly aiding and abetting it, at least. We can only imagine what kind of favor he would have gotten if he hadn't. |
|
Mar-25-10
 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <Petrosianic: No, it had nothing to do with bitching. It was about the fact that Topalov was considered a "World Champion" of sorts after San Luis, and that FIDE brought back the rematch clause a few years back.> What rematch clause are you referring to? And by "a few years back", what do you mean? A few years before the Kramnik-Topalov match? |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | Petrosianic: Yes, the rematch clause I was thinking of is the one they brought back for Karpov, long ago. As far as I know, they don't still have that, but Kirsan sometimes talks as though they did. The 2700 Rule gave no special right to ex-champions. It simply allowed any ex-world champion or player with a 2700 rating to issue a challenge, which FIDE would then decide whether or not to accept. |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | Mr. Bojangles: Radja did issue a challenge to Topalov, a plan that was scuppered by one V Kramnik. |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | Petrosianic: Not exactly. The Unification Match had been agreed to years before. But Radjabov's challenge did evaporate into thin air after Kramnik won. Topalov insisted that he was next in line for a rematch. I remember making the point several times that Radjabov was next, and trying to find out what was going on with that, but never turned up anything. |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | Mr. Bojangles: No, no, no. The unification match wasn't agreed until April 2006. By this time, Topalov had accepted Radja's challenge in principle. FIDE which was the facilitator for both matches gave preference to the unification match for obvious reasons and decided to put Radja's challenge on hold. Kramnik's Elista win scuppered the challenge as it made it redundant. |
|
| Mar-25-10 | | Petrosianic: The contracts weren't signed until then, but it was agreed to when they signed Prague. All the participants at San Luis knew that FIDE was contractually obligated to put their champion up in a Unification Match (though whether or not they would make good on the deal was unclear). I think you're right that no iron clad deal had been made with Radjabov. They had signed some kind of non-comittal Articles of Interest, or some such, but hadn't finalized a match. But FIDE had accepted his challenge, so something really should have come of it. He certainly should have been in line ahead of Topalov for match consideration, since Topalov had switched places with Kramnik, who had had no place in the cycle whatseover. By rights, Topalov really shouldn't be challenging now at all. But at least he's pretty clearly the best challenger. Carlsen might be a little stronger, but he's still improving, and might do better challenging later, while Topalov's strength is more fixed. This is the match I personally would most like to see. |
|
Mar-25-10
| | SetNoEscapeOn: <Petrosianic>
My feelings on Radjabov are sort of the inverse of your own on the Topalov-Anand match: the rule was in place and so the match "should have been" played, but I'm glad that it wasn't. The whole "2700 challenger" rule was a potentially huge step in the wrong direction. It defeats the whole purpose of having qualifying cycles. Radjabov should not be able to avoid fighting players like Anand, Carlsen, and Aronian for a title shot just because some rich person suffers from the delusion that Radjabov can win a world championship match against one of the 2780+ players :) I was relieved that they didn't rewind the clock all the way back to the days of Lasker-Janowsky and Lasker-Marshall. |
|
Mar-27-10
 | | thegoodanarchist: Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match. Chess is a mysterious game.... |
|
| Mar-28-10 | | Mr. Bojangles: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match. Chess is a mysterious game....>
The confusion would be complete if Topalov beats Anand. Those who speak in absolute terms vis-a-vis outcomes when discussing chess strength should bear this in mind. It speaks volumes. |
|
Apr-02-10
 | | Golden Executive: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match.
Chess is a mysterious game....>.
"The transitivity law does not hold for chess. That is, if player A usually beats player B, and player B usually beats player C, it does not imply that player A usually beats player C. In fact, sometimes it’s quite the opposite." Natalia Pogonina. I found interesting the whole article at http://www.chess.com/article/view/c...; |
|
| Apr-02-10 | | Petrosianic: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match. Chess is a mysterious game....>
Not that mysterious, if you remember that it IS a game, rather than a scientific experiment. The difference being that you don't always get the same results. If you did, it would be impossible for Smyslov to beat Botvinnik by 3 points then lose by 2 a year later. The idea of treating it as a scientific experiment seems to have originated with Fischer demanding that a challenger win by 2 points because a 1 point victory wasn't decisive enough (granted, Fischer wasn't the inventer of the concept, he's just the one who made it controversial, by forfeiting the world title over it). But a win is a win. You don't have to win so big as to "prove" yourself, in some scientific sense, to be better than your predecessor (as if that were even possible; Botvinnik proved that even a 3 or 4 point margin of victory might mean nothing). That would be asking too much. All we have to ask is that the challenger wins. |
|
Apr-02-10
| | SetNoEscapeOn: <"The transitivity law does not hold for chess. That is, if player A usually beats player B, and player B usually beats player C, it does not imply that player A usually beats player C. In fact, sometimes it’s quite the opposite." Natalia Pogonina.> A lot of people have said that besides Natalia... |
|
Apr-02-10
| | SetNoEscapeOn: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match.> The problem is that it should be "Anand did not beat Kasparov... Kasparov did not beat Kramnik..." etc. |
|
Apr-02-10
| | thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic:
Not that mysterious, if you remember that it IS a game, rather than a scientific experiment. The difference being that you don't always get the same results. If you did, it would be impossible for Smyslov to beat Botvinnik by 3 points then lose by 2 a year later.> Of course I remember that it is a game, that's why I said "chess is a mysterious game" and not "chess is a mysterious scientific experiment." The gist of your reply seems to be <The difference being that you don't always get the same results.> which is why I said what I said in the first place! Are you trying to agree with me? :D |
|
Apr-02-10
| | thegoodanarchist: <SetNoEscapeOn: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match.> The problem is that it should be "Anand did not beat Kasparov... Kasparov did not beat Kramnik..." etc.> I didn't mean that it wasn't possible, just that they failed in the attempt. Chalk it up to colloquialism. |
|
| Apr-02-10 | | SamAtoms1980: . Anand = paper
Kramnik = rock
Kasparov = scissors |
|
Apr-02-10
| | Golden Executive: <A lot of people have said that besides Natalia...> so smart comment !!! you are a genius.... |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 443 OF 445 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
