< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·
|Jun-09-11|| ||Mr. Bojangles: <Of course it wasnt.. Kasparov could not win a single game out of 15
.... and as previously stated, he managed to win just 1 game in 100 (OMG) prior to the match. Looking back now, Kasparov should have been the underdog and his comprehensive defeat is testimony of this.
|Jun-09-11|| ||Mr. Bojangles: I see the blatant lie of Kramnik being Kasaprov's student is still being peddled moronically.|
We may be dealing with a retard here ... an obsessed and damaged retard.
|Jun-09-11|| ||The Rocket: <"you haven't read my comment carefully: I stated clearly that perhaps <subconsciously> he wanted to lose to free himself of this "burden". it's very different from the conscious state of one's mind. apparently reading is not the strong point of some people here:)">|
How can any serious thinking person believe this...
for god sake come up with better excuses than this... its getting quite pathetic
|Jun-09-11|| ||Everett: <why get personal?>|
Here's one of many...To <keypusher> <but that's what you always do: you steal other people's ideas! no surprise there. But it's probably better that way anyway since your personal ideas are usually pure nonsense. so continue stealing.>
And on a different topic, <it's hard to imagine kramnik not losing very badly indeed if the match took place in the late 80s or early 90s (granted it's a hypothetical scenario).>
You mean when he wasn't even 20 yet, against someone who has been champ for 5-8 years? BTW, Kramnik was number 1 on ELO back in '96, for a few months, beating Kasparov's record of youngest to reach number 1 ELO (since eclipsed by Carslen) So, it seems as soon as '96, Kramnik was on Kasparov's "level" and his style made things that much more difficult for Kasparov.
<Drik> Thanks for your response. Nice to hear that I make sense to some!
|Jun-09-11|| ||drik: <The Rocket: <drik:> by that reasoning shirov beats kasparov....>|
Of course not. I'm not claiming it as proof that Kramnik should win - but as a reply to 'it's hard to imagine kramnik not losing very badly indeed'. It is reason enough to think that Kramnik need not necessarily be 'losing very badly indeed' - especially as I don't recall Kramnik losing 'very badly indeed' to anyone.
|Jun-09-11|| ||shach matov: <The Rocket: <drik:> by that reasoning shirov beats kasparov....|
those types of comparisons dont work!>
exactly! <drik> is trying to project performances of different players and as almost everybody by now knows this is simply wrong.
indeed shirov's example is very apt.
|Jun-09-11|| ||shach matov: At this point it seems the subject has exhausted itself, most people will probably stick to their opinion; that includes myself as I personally will never change my opinion that Kramnik indeed ran away from a rematch which was a very shameful chapter in history of the game. |
it is also certain that if the match took place during the early 90s Kasparov would with certainty crush Kramnik in a long match (hypothetically scenario of course: if Kramnik was in his prime in the early 90s, which was not the case in reality).
it's time to change the subject and perhaps a discussion of the 2008 match with Anand could be of interest.
|Jun-09-11|| ||Petrosianic: Whether anyone will change their mind or not doesn't alter the facts. Kasparov promised the world he wouldn't have a rematch, that the rest of the world would be able to compete for that title after London 2000, and that he pointedly refused to allow a rematch clause to be written into the contract.|
Those are the facts. The opinion, that when he broke his promise, Kramnik should have helped him break it, is just that: an opinion.
I happen to agree that he should have played. If it were me, I'd have played the rematch, provided that Kasparov signed an agreement taking full responsibility for the breach of faith. It would have been better for his reputation, his bankbook, and his place in history if he'd played, even if he'd lost. But agreeing that he should have played doesn't change the facts about who avoided the match.
|Jun-09-11|| ||Akavall: Kramnik was obligated to play the winner of Dortmund and he did. Kasparov could've had the match had he won Dortmund, which he probably would have.|
Kramnik signed the Prague agreement where he was obligated (if he beat Leko, of course) to play the winner of Kasparov - Ponomariov.
There were very clear paths for Kasparov to play Kramnik, but he chose not to take them, certainly in the Dortmund case.
It is nonsense to say things like "Kramnik was hiding" or "Kramnik ran off"; it is completely at odds with the facts.
|Jun-09-11|| ||Petrosianic: <It is nonsense to say things like "Kramnik was hiding" or "Kramnik ran off"; it is completely at odds with the facts.>|
Maybe, but "Kramnik was unwise" hits closer to the mark. Kasparov was the greatest player in the history of the game, and everyone remembers the Capablanca-Alekhine fiasco. People don't like it when someone that big loses the title and never gets another shot at it. When that happens, they blame the champion (and in Alekhine's case, I think they should have, but that's another story).
Asking Kasparov to live up to his promise and re-qualify is all well and good... if he does it. Or if he tries and fails. But what if he doesn't try to qualify at all, and never plays for the title again? (Which is exactly what happened). Then guess who gets blamed, fairly or not. That's why I'd have played anyway, provided that Kasparov took the blame for the breach of faith. When the people who were promised that they'd get a shot at that title next get angry that they're being put off again, I'd want it in writing that it was Kasparov's fault. But if he did that, I'd have played.
|Jun-09-11|| ||Akavall: Maybe Kramnik would've been better off had he gave Kasparov an automatic rematch, especially considering that Kramnik probably had about 50-50 chance of retaining the title. Beating Kasparov twice would've been better than what he ended up achieving (defending the title against Leko and Topalov). But I still think Kramnik's decision to make Kasparov live up to his promise was reasonable.|
|Jun-09-11|| ||TheFocus: And the beat goes on. La-da-da-da-dee.|
|Jun-09-11|| ||Kaspablanca: Seriously shach matov; i havent heard or read that Kasparov was Kramnik`s teacher in the Botvinik school, there isnt a link, a source, something on that, in all Kasparov and Kramnik biographies and articles about them they dont say a word about GK teaching Kramnik.|
|Jun-09-11|| ||Akavall: I thought Kramnik was Kasparov's student when he was very young. |
In Kasparov's OMGP there is this photo:
And above it says:
A session in Botvinnik - Kasparov school. Among our students: Kramnik, Tiviakov, Shirov.
|Jun-10-11|| ||NGambit: <<KKDEREK>
Totally agreed. Better preparation paids off. As we saw with Anand - Kramnik. Krmanik was crushed not because Anand is much better. At least IMO Anand was just better prepared.>|
I keep reading this all the time from Kasparov/Kramnik fans. But hasn't this been always the case (at least since the 1950s)? Why don't you talk about the Anand-Kasparov match when Kasparov's huge novelty in game 10 and subsequent Dragons in the 2 black games sealed the match for him. One could say "He was just better prepared" even in that case.
<Each> player gets months to prepare for the match. The battle always starts a long way before the players move on the stage. And you have to be "better" , let's say smarter, to outwit your opponent in preparation. That is as creditable as OTB play. Kasparov did that for most part of his career and that is why he was better than his opponents. That is how it has always been in modern chess.
You can't have it both ways.
|Jun-10-11|| ||Rachit: Kasparov-Kramnik match was a sham. You cant have a challenger who failed to qualify to be a challenger. Its like Anand choosing his son to be his challenger and then loosing to him, thus keeping the title within the family. That match was not a World championship match but just an ordinary match between two chess players.|
|Jun-10-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <No, I believe it is not about that. Of course preparation gets deeper and deeper, but you know that chess is so complex you cannot win a match just because you are better prepared. That is a simple way of putting it for people who do not understand chess deeply. Any chess player will tell you that however good your preparation is you still have to play incredibly well, and in a World Championship match your opponent’s preparation is also very strong, so you cannot just win because of good preparation. Basically you must play better than your opponent in this particular match and at this particular moment. That is mainly why you win the match, and not because you are psychologically stronger or better prepared – those are all fairy-tales. Maybe there is five or ten percent truth in it, but the main truth is that you simply have to be better than your opponent, and that is what I am concentrating on.>|
A very clear example is Sofia 2010. You have to utilize an impressive mix of creativity and amnesia to claim that Anand outprepared Topalov in that match.
|Jun-10-11|| ||Akavall: <Rachit> Kasparov didn't chose Kramnik for London 2000 match. Rating was qualifier for that event, initially the offer went to Anand, but he refused because he wasn't satisfied with financial guarantees, then the offer went to the next highest rated player => Kramnik (though by the time the match took place Kramnik has surpassed Anand on the rating list). Kramnik accepted and the match took place.|
|Jun-10-11|| ||cormier: http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/i...|
|Jun-10-11|| ||fab4: No comments on these games? Just silly irrelevent posts peddling the same old dogmas..Oh Well...|
|Jun-10-11|| ||Eggman: <<Mr Bojangles: .... and as previously stated, he managed to win just 1 game in 100 (OMG) prior to the match. Looking back now, Kasparov should have been the underdog and his comprehensive defeat is testimony of this.>>|
I don't understand this quote. It sounds like it is being asserted here that Kasparov only defeated Kramnik once in 100 games leading up to their 2000 World Championship Match, but that isn't remotely true. So what does the winning of 1 game in 100 refer to?
|Jun-11-11|| ||coolchess1: @shach matov -- It seems you are a very egoistic person and at the same time insane one as well. Always, in every player page/game page, be it on Anand/kramnik/kasparov, you always bring futile arguments and your enlightened views/assumptions on ridiculous hypothesis and make that particular page a pure garbage.|
I hope you take these comments constructively and mend your ways. Get a life man and be humble. Sorry, I may appear rude but it was required to make you understand where you stand. If you still go on with your rants, then I cannot help you further.
Bye and have good day today and hopefully in future.
|Jun-19-11|| ||NGambit: <SPIEGEL: Computers are becoming more and more important. Has chess become a preparation game – whoever is better prepared wins?|
Anand: That was always the case. Today we analyse our games with the computer, in the 16th century people did it with a board. That is only a gradual difference. Preparation for a world championship was always an arms race, in previous times with books, then with seconds, today with computers.>
|Jul-30-11|| ||Lil Swine: anand is obviously better than shirov in this match|
|Jul-30-11|| ||Lil Swine: if i recall correctly, there was an accusation about cheating in the bathroom during kramnik- topalov world championship|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·