|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 445 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-30-08 | | hitman84: <Is it binding that only match-play should decide a world champion, not a tournament play? How to find a true World Champion is an enigma all chess players are very keen to solve. The tournament format seemed very just and interesting now we have a new format to find the World Champion. 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. There is no use of a title if you play badly.> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
That's the problem with matches probably when you have a match - you don't want to show your preparations which affects your tournament performances. Its even more difficult these days with the number of tournaments they have. If we have someone performing well in matches and not winning a single tourney then the title loses its value. Kasparov somehow managed to perform well in both formats, but he played fewer tourneys than the others. |
 |
| Sep-30-08 | | ksr: Any news about the other "semifinal"?
I don't think if can start in November with the current mess. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Petrosianic: <How to find a true World Champion is an enigma all chess players are very keen to solve.> There is no solution, if by "solution" you mean a formula to determine beyond any doubt which of two players is objectively stronger. That's a trap we fell into during Fischer's reign, with his idea that a 1 point victory shouldn't count because it's not "enough" to show true superiority. People sometimes think of a world championship as a laboratory experiment rather than a contest. A match won't determine absolute superiority any more than a tournament will, but at least it will have a winner and a loser. If you have a tournament where one player wins by a half point, and the difference in their scores is in how they fared against the last place player (the winner scored 2-0, while the runner up scored 1½-½), then neither one of them has really been defeated. In a match you'll have a winner and a loser. And the loser will have lost to the person who beat him out. That's not too much to ask for in a contest. Unless, of course, the Armageddon Game is drawn... Well, we'll have to deal with that some day... |
|
Sep-30-08
 | | SetNoEscapeOn: < DEEPERGRAY: I wonder who Kasparov is rooting for? His friendship I believe lies with Kramnik
But if Kramnik loses Garry (nolastnamenecessary) will come closer to regaining or concreting his title "the best player ever" > That title cannot be affected by the outcome of this match. <acirce: I have to wonder, do people really think he <literally> meant he simply lent the title? Have they never heard about metaphors?> Even if it wasn't, at this point I think it's not a problem at all. It means "he got the title but I expect to have it back soon". Certainly, I hope that after the match Anand will be able to ask Kramnik what he'll need to play him for the "late fees". |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Cactus: <Hitman84> How dare Kramnik use a metaphor! Well known people should never use metaphors, idioms, or expressions! The nerve! |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | hitman84: <Cactus>So you think I'm just another resident troll who likes bashing Kramnik? Please.. I'm admirer of his style and if you want I can analyse some of his games for you in depth for free. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Cactus: No, I don't. But your assertion that Kramnik shouldn't use metaphors is rediculous. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Petrosianic: <SetNoEscapeOn> <Even if it wasn't, at this point I think it's not a problem at all. It means "he got the title but I expect to have it back soon".> The only way it would really be a problem would be if he were literally trying to say that Anand is not currently the world champion. Everybody knows he's not saying that. His own website clearly says the exact opposite. Yet people keep trying to pretend that he is. Weird. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | square dance: <That's the problem with matches probably when you have a match - you don't want to show your preparations which affects your tournament performances. Its even more difficult these days with the number of tournaments they have. If we have someone performing well in matches and not winning a single tourney then the title loses its value. Kasparov somehow managed to perform well in both formats, but he played fewer tourneys than the others.> one problem now for the sitting world champion is that he has to defend his title about a year after winning it. this means that some form of preperations begin almost immediately after winning, or retaining the crown. its hard to show your preperation in tournaments like corus, linares, etc when you have an even more important event a few months down the road. if things go on as planned we'll have had world championship finals in four consecutive years. if kramnik happens to beat anand he'll have participated in all four of them. maybe its not so easy for him to show his preperation in regular tournaments. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | hitman84: Yes my mistake <Cactus>. Kramnik is as talented as TS Eliot. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Riverbeast: I think what Kramnik said is like a boxer trying to hype up a match....Talk like that helps to get the public interested....And maybe he wants to play some psychological games with Anand. Maybe he's hoping Anand will get steamed, and play overaggressively with him (like Topalov did) so he can exploit his mistakes. I don't think Anand has that kind of temperament though...He's a little more cool and collected....From the interview I read, I think he's just ignoring all that nonsense |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | micartouse: What we know about Kramnik matches is that the first 2 games are dangerous for his opponents. In his 3 matches combined, he had +4 -0 =2 in this part. And of all these 4 wins, only 1 was the result of any kind of opening advantage. The rest were all wins from a defensive posture. His preparation seems good, but it's not just the result of novelties. Maybe a plan for Anand is to try to make a few draws at first and tempt Kramnik into being overly aggressive. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | KamikazeAttack: Christ these discussions are boring. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | drnooo: It seems that Petrosianic is close to the bone here. Too many factors go into a worlds championship of anything unless its an absolute blowout, for enumeration here. And even there how do you determine who is the best in the world if so and so can always be beaten by two or three others and they can't beat five or six that he can. So far, there has never been a rider that couldn't be throwed and a horse that couldn't be rode. Fischer had three great years, otherwise look at the record, it was Spassky and Petrosian who were the best and even Tals unbeaten strings made him perhaps, at the right moment the best candidate for another go at the championships. Or was Botvinnik really the best in the 50s. Was Bronstein under such pressure that for four, five years the best. NOt to mention Keres, and the prospect of the gulags. Or in the 40s, early on Fine had a plus record against almost everyone and was every bit the rapid phenom that Fischer ever was...yet Reshevsky had a slight plus on him. And then the capper, was Alekhine REALLY the better player of the two against youknowwhom. Or was Lasker REALLY the better one against Rubenstein for five or six years in the latter's prime. And in a match, healthy, alert, Pillsbury might have beaten Lasker, their record is certainly clear on that. My own feeling is that Capa with the proper desire was still the best of all time: but wow, desire is at least 55 percent, and how do you measure that. In fact nobody seems to ever consider good ole desire much here: its all talent, talent, when usually it comes down to which guy wanted it the most, since the difference in talent at the top levels of this game or any sport is usually very tight. Cobb just wanted to be the best more: it wasn't enough, he was close but Ruth, with hardly any effort simply was a freak. He beat them all with a diet of beer and hotdogs and brothels. But chess, tennis, golf, and many others have never had anybody the equal of Ruth. The others had to outwork and outscheme the rest, and once the desire went, so did they. The only question in this match, however is pretty simple: are both of these guys past their prime. Are either of them really the best. Or with the right preperation , really intensive, could Carlsen beat them in a long match right now. Probably not, but he might
And I can already hear the howls go up, not experienced enough yet, give him a few more years, but what if he falls into the slot of never wanting it enough also. This much I can say for sure: none of the top ten have ever really wanted a decent tournament, say over a period of months to find out who is the best among them for that particular year. The best ten by ratings alone could have gotten together and formed their own tournament, found the backing and gone at it. Anything else is just whimpering and playing a lot of second level tourneys. But that, as they say, is another topic. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Ezzy: Talking about psychological warfare. It's not really Anand's style, but he probably realises that it is a waste of time, because Topalov went to the extreme of insults, and Kramnik came through it all with flying colours. A flame wars with Kramnik would have a more negative effect on Anand than it would on Kramnik. No, you wont get much bickering between these two giants. This will be one of the respectful World championship matches. I can't wait for this. On the official website, they have interviewed a few people, and not one of them have 'stuck their neck out' and predicted a winner. It seems nobody can seperate these two. I will stick my neck out and predict a Kramnik win. My heart wants Anand to be a match world world champion, but my head says that Kramnik will edge it. I think Kramnik will edge it only because he will handle the pressure and nerves a little better than Anand. Experience of more world championship matches may just be enough for Kramnik. But who knows. This match could be something really special in the history of chess. Two awesome greats meet head to head. It doesn't get much better than this!! |
|
Sep-30-08
 | | chancho: I wonder if Topalovsky will try psychological tactics of the Elista variety when he plays Kamsky... |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | ravel5184: Go Kramnik! |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Red October: < ravel5184: Go Kramnik! > but not to the bathroom :) |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Arkham: <chancho> No, at least he goes -2 |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | dumbgai: I'm rooting for Kramnik to win, and I would give him a slight advantage (although I also admire Anand). I think that his match experience will be the small decisive factor, and that he'll hold a tough draw in the final game to win 6.5-5.5. Not that my predictions are ever correct, of course. :) |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Petrosianic: <No, you wont get much bickering between these two giants. This will be one of the respectful World championship matches.> Enjoy it while you can because the next match will almost certainly be either Anand or Kramnik against Topalov (the Dick Dastardly and Muttley of the chess world). |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Cactus: <Hitman84> Who's TS Eliot? |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | ksr: <petrosianic> hang on.Is topa-kamsky mattch on? The good samaritan Kirsan guranteed the match with his personal finances . Now when the time has come to redeem his pledge probablt he is getting goosebumps. But he is a good chap. A trivia - Kirsan gifted Kamsky a baby camel when Kamsky visited Elista for the Karpov match. In 2007 when Kamsky revisited Elista for the Mexico candidates match a meeting was arranged between Kamsky and the camel (now grown up).Don't know if they recognized each other. |
|
| Sep-30-08 | | Petrosianic: <hang on.Is topa-kamsky mattch on?> No, I don't think anything definite has been settled, but I'm sure the match will happen, and, much as I'd like to be proven wrong, I'm pretty sure Topalov will win it. <Kirsan gifted Kamsky a baby camel when Kamsky visited Elista for the Karpov match. In 2007 when Kamsky revisited Elista for the Mexico candidates match a meeting was arranged between Kamsky and the camel> Good idea! Kamsky is old enough to smoke it now.
|
|
| Sep-30-08 | | ravel5184: Go Kramnik! |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 445 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
