< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 444 ·
|Sep-30-08|| ||micartouse: Kramnik is old school. He's a student of Botvinnik. He is mostly a nice guy, but he throws punches off the board as well as over the board. I'd love to see Anand talk some trash back, but everyone has their own style. haha|
|Sep-30-08|| ||acirce: I have to wonder, do people really think he <literally> meant he simply lent the title? Have they never heard about metaphors?|
Besides, what he said was not quite as strong as it seemed in Chessbase's strange translation - he said something like "let's say" I lent the title, and not the firmer "at present, I take the view that" I lent the title. It's just a nuance, but at least to me there is a difference.
Why focus on the negative anyway, though? I'm not happy with all of Kramnik's statements, and I'm not happy with all of Anand's statements. Anand is probably the one who's been closest to attacking the other guy personally. But those exceptions don't mean that they aren't both very nice guys who respect each other a lot. Let's not serve those who want it to seem like they are suddenly fighting off-board like some kind of enemies (rather than simply expressing different opinions).
|Sep-30-08|| ||actinia: <Petrosianic>
The crown isn't Kramnik's to lend to anybody. It's Anand's crown.
|Sep-30-08|| ||DEEPERGRAY: You know what would kick ass
Imagine this the final game of the match Anand by some miracle is only behind by a point and needs a win to go to rapid chess finale
Anand plays the Sicilian dragon defense (ergo Kasparov vs Anand world championship flashback) with black pieces AND WiNs!!!!!!!!!!!
Kramnik crushed by this loss then ends up losing on Anands home turf speed chess
The chess crowd goes crazy and hot chicks attracted by the overload of chess phermones put out for chess players all around the world :). :)
Anand would completley redeem himself in my eyes as fully deserving the world championship belt around his waiste (so to speak) and the chess world would flourish
|Sep-30-08|| ||ex0duz: <jamesmaskell: I suspect we can pretty much work out the teams already. Chessbase has some clues on that one in some of its recent reports on their tournaments.>|
Fill in these blanks please someone.
That team would be..? Said team/s would consist of..?
IIRC, Anands second is usually Peter Heine Nielsen right? Is that what you're talking about above?
Perhaps Anand should think about getting Ivan "Nxf7" Cheparinov on his team.. :)
|Sep-30-08|| ||klangenfarben: <Petrosianic>: It certainly wasn't Lev the NYTimes sent, as he was a prominent defector and would have be "gulaged" on arrival. A little more digging turned up this highly likely suspect:|
I remembered "Harold", but I thought my memory of "Schonberg" was coming from my music studies.
|Sep-30-08|| ||chessmoron: <Some history of the 'lent the title' comment>|
Alekhine said a very similar thing after the match with Euwe, and later went on to win the title back.
Take Kramnik's statement as a joke.
|Sep-30-08|| ||Lutwidge: I expect this match to be rife with hyperwacko TNs in openings I don't play.|
|Sep-30-08|| ||hitman84: <Why focus on the negative anyway, though? I'm not happy with all of Kramnik's statements, and I'm not happy with all of Anand's statements. Anand is probably the one who's been closest to attacking the other guy personally. But those exceptions don't mean that they aren't both very nice guys who respect each other a lot. Let's not serve those who want it to seem like they are suddenly fighting off-board like some kind of enemies (rather than simply expressing different opinions).
This has been dealt with numerous times. In every case of a verbal battle it's normally the initiator who draws criticism. BTW it was not just one comment, but his overall reaction that drew ctiticism. The most dumbest comment of all was beating the lower half part as though he played a different set of players. LOL!
But obviously I don't like to percieve it as some kind of fighting off the board although I must admit that it was amusing to see Kramnik act like a cry baby.
|Sep-30-08|| ||nikiml: <acirce: I have to wonder, do people really think he <literally> meant he simply lent the title? Have they never heard about metaphors?> |
Do you apply this logic only to Kramnik's statements? Cause I have the feeling you are not using it for everybody.
|Sep-30-08|| ||square dance: not nearly as amusing as seeing you act like a racist. now that was good entertainment.|
|Sep-30-08|| ||acirce: <hitman84> Hard to see there was an "initiator". They've been expressing their respective opinions since long before Mexico even started. Kramnik's statements were surely a reaction to some of Anand's. But I don't care. I'm just waiting for the chess to start.|
<nikiml> There is no particular "logic" behind recognizing the existence of metaphors and idioms. I'm sure I have been interpreting something too literally at many occasions, but did you have anything specific in mind?
|Sep-30-08|| ||square dance: <nikiml> this has actually been explained more than once. kramnik used a russian idiom when he said what was translated as "lending anand the title". in fact, it was apparently the same russian idiom that alekhine used when talking about his match revenge with euwe. it was surely a 'neat' sort of thing to say and an inside reference to those who know chess history more than an insult to anand.|
|Sep-30-08|| ||hitman84: <Hard to see there was an "initiator". They've been expressing their respective opinions since long before Mexico even started. Kramnik's statements were surely a reaction to some of Anand's. But I don't care. I'm just waiting for the chess to start>|
Look these guys are professionals. They need to act like professionals and Kramnik's comment was unprofessional because the title belongs to FIDE and not any of those players. That's why Anand used the term political patronage. If Kramnik thinks he can use those metophors then he can go back to times where no organization owned the title. As simple as that.
|Sep-30-08|| ||nikiml: <acirce: but did you have anything specific in mind? > The sport-express interview of Topalov. |
<square dance> I think I saw this remark on Kramnik's web site, where he should have full control over the translation.
And besides, I have no problem with him saying it. For me it only shows clear intentions for regaining the title.
|Sep-30-08|| ||hitman84: We have many anonymous thugs on this site.. Do we care about any of their comments?|
If I were a chess professional in Kramnik's shoes I wouldn't have passed comments.
But more importantly I'm hoping for a good match with less short draws.
|Sep-30-08|| ||Troller: <ksr: So who all are going to Bonn?>|
I am! Anyone else?
|Sep-30-08|| ||square dance: <nikiml> but dont you realize that there often isnt a good way to translate an idiom? so kramnik having "full control" over any translation is probably moot in this case. but i agree with your last sentence. he just meant that he plans on winning back the title.|
|Sep-30-08|| ||square dance: <We have many anonymous thugs on this site.. Do we care about any of their comments?> to whom do you refer? hopefully you're not besmirching anglo-indians again.|
|Sep-30-08|| ||nikiml: < square dance: but dont you realize that there often
isnt a good way to translate an idiom? >
Wouldn't it look bad for me if I say that I don't?
So, yes, I do realize!
|Sep-30-08|| ||square dance: very good! :-D|
|Sep-30-08|| ||thathwamasi: <acirce<Anand is probably the one who's been closest to attacking the other guy personally>> |
Just out of curiosity, please could you explain what do you mean by this? I just wanna know if Anand made any statement which attacks Kramnik personally.
|Sep-30-08|| ||Petrosianic: <actinia> <The crown isn't Kramnik's to lend to anybody. It's Anand's crown.>|
It's metaphorical sports hyperbole. You can dislike it if you want, but pretending it's a Kramnik invention is just silly. Ali said the same thing after losing his title to Leon Spinks. If you want to point out that Spinks didn't LITERALLY borrow the title, then okay, point noted. But I don't think any less of Ali for saying it.
|Sep-30-08|| ||acirce: <I just wanna know if Anand made any statement which attacks Kramnik personally.>|
I don't think he "attacked" him, but he blamed Kramnik for using his connections and "political patronage" to gain unfair privileges (the so-called "rematch"), and his statement in a certain interview <In my opinion a champion is someone who plays tournaments, shows his preparation, is unafraid of challenges and not too scared to put his title on the line> appeared given the context to hint that Kramnik did not do that. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, but he went more personal in the other accusations than Kramnik has done. Again, don't think I'm trying to make a big deal about it, the way some Kramnik detractors have gone mad about a couple of relatively harmless Kramnik statements. He is stating a legitimate opinion, and I'm just answering your question.
(Btw, what did he mean by "shows his preparation" in the first place? It's certainly not what he was doing in Bilbao, or should have, so...what? Was he misquoted?)
|Sep-30-08|| ||ravel5184: Go Kramnik!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 444 ·