|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-23-12 | | Ragh: GO Anand!! |
 |
| Apr-23-12 | | voyager39: Kasparov's comments on WCC 2012 are a bit sour to say the least and also reflect on his selective amnesia (but for obvious reasons). Here is what he has to say... <The uniqueness of the forthcoming match, as I see it, is in the fact that for the first time in the modern World Chess Championships history, the match between the legitimate world champion and a legitimate candidate won't be a fight for the title of the strongest chess player of the world> Now here are some hard facts...
In the candidates tournament that ran through 1991-1993, Nigel Short (ranked #15 in 1991, #4 in 1992 and #13 in 1993 as per the FIDE lists of Jan) emerged as the winner. Many stronger players like Karpov (#2 throughout that period) and rising stars like Ivanchuk (#3 to #4 in that period), Gelfand (#3 to #6 in that period), Anand (emerging and rising from #14 to #3 by 1993)... all fell at various stages of the candidates. A very similar replica of the current cycle? In 1993 Garry Kasparov (2805) beat Nigel Short (2655) and became the <Disputed World Champion>. Look at the damn rating difference! Karpov was 2760 then. Anand, Ivanchuk were around 2725. Kramnik had put his foot in at 2710. And Fischer (apparently 2780) was still alive and beat Spassky in 1992 for a match worth $5 Million. So did we find the strongest chess player here?? In 1995 Garry Kasparov (2795) beat Anand (2725) ranked #3 to retain the Disputed title (door slamming included). Anand gained 13 rating points after that match and Kasparov lost 32! The actual World #2 Karpov was simply getting old. This was still fairly legitimate though we perhaps didn't find the strongest player yet again. Till 2000, Garry Kasparov tried to find opponents for the next bout. He finally ended up with Kramnik who put an end to the misery by beating him. Kasparov refused to participate in a candidates tournament to challenge Kramnik. He lost a rapid match to Karpov in 2002! Matches were planned against Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov but fell through. Eventually he retired in 2005. So Mr Kasparov, when were we trying to find the strongest player? Were you the one? We are simply trying to find a World Champion and at least we will find an undisputed one here. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | Jim Bartle: Good answer, voyager. So Kasparov is saying this is the first time the winner of a "legitimate" world championship match (presumably meaning in the line of champions going back to Steinitz) won't automatically be considered the world's best player. As voyager points out, that's not necessarily true, plus of course perceptions will change if a lower-rated player wins a WCC match. Short's reputation would have skyrocketed had he defeated Kasparov, Anand's as well, but would either have been considered clearly if he had won? Was Euwe considered the best after he defeated Alekhine? The reason Kasparov can make this claim is that the top-rated player chose not to participate, and the other most highly-rated players lost in a qualifier to Gelfand. So if Anand-Gelfand isn't the dramatic all-world battle everybody associates with a championship match, it certainly isn't their fault. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | Skakalec: <MrMensa> Even better, they should choose a partner for a 2 games of bughouse THEN go over to chess960 etc... according to your brilliant proposal |
|
Apr-23-12
 | | Sneaky: <So Mr Kasparov, when were we trying to find the strongest player? Were you the one?> When he played Karpov he would like to believe that the #1 and #2 best players on earth were playing. And maybe they were, but as long as Bobby Fischer was alive there was an argument to the contrary. This is Garry's sly way of saying "no, there is no argument to the contrary!" without actually saying it. |
|
Apr-23-12
 | | Sokrates: As always, Kasparov has his own agenda in the chess world, and he has never been an impartial observer. However, that doesn't mean that he can't be right occasionally, and he may not be totally wrong in his valuation of the Anand-Gelfand match. Both of them were in their best years when GK was at the top and they never came close to beating him. Perhaps Anand a bit, but Gelfand? Never! Evidently this fact colours the valuation by GK, and it's not fair in today's situation. Both players have matured and refined their playing style and especially Gelfand has become a sly, clever old fox, who is not to be under-estimated. Except for the fact that Anand is the world champion and Gelfand has qualified for a match (but the word "except" is hardly usable here), none of them have proved their supremacy of late. Gelfand's position in the FIDE rankings is a bit pathetic for a candidate for the world championship, and Anand's merits in open, serious tournaments haven't been impressive for a long time, to say the least. When seated for the first game, some of us can imagine Aronian, Carlsen and a couple of others as ghosts watching the game, silently claiming they could also sit at the table offering at least equal quality of chess. But this match will take place in the real world, and it's certainly not the contestants' fault that the others have failed to qualify. So my thoughts are these: Let them play their match without anybody's reservation. They have both earned their right to be where they are, and neither Kasparov nor we should detract a iota of the validity of the match. Let's just hope it will be a memorable match with fine games, where the two veterans will show their talent and skills to the fullest. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | penarol: <voyager> and <sneaky>. We cannot say whether Bobby was #1 in the 80's and 90's just because he simply avoided facing top players after 1972. When he accepted to play against Spassky in 92, what was Boris rank? . In that instance there was a lot of money on the board but very little chess quality. |
|
Apr-23-12
 | | HeMateMe: I wonder if Korchnoi was still world No. 2, when he played Karpov for the title in 1981. Perhaps by ranking, but was Korchnoi the second best tournament player in the world in 1981? Karpov beat him easily, 6-2. For that matter, was Petrosian the best (or second best) player in the world, when he played Spassky in 1969? The title match is never perfect. GK should shut his yap and start playing again, if he wants to have an influence on the title. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | NGambit: Let's take a closer look at Kasparov's statement again:
"The uniqueness of the forthcoming match, as I see it, is in the fact that for the first time in the modern World Chess Championships history the match between the legitimate world champion and a legitimate candidate won’t be a fight for the title of the strongest chess player of the world." 1)<voyager> Your example of Kasparov vs Short WCC match clearly shows the contradiction in Gary's statement. You are bang on as far as that is concerned. But, I'm not sure your the arguments for events after 1993 are relevant to the point of contention here because GK uses the word "legitimate" (as <Jim> correctly pointed out). 2)The term "strongest chess player of the world" is too vague/subjective anyway just as the term "modern World Chess Championships history". 3) As Anand mentioned in one of his interviews some time back, World championship in chess is a very specific challenge (quite a big one at that). And has it's own prestige and rich history. Does it resolve the
who is "strongest chess player of the world" debate. No! It would be naive to think on the contrary. That debate is unlikely to find a conclusive answer unless there is an all dominating player (like Kasparov himself). But such times have been relatively rare in history. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | BadKnight: Kasparov has a point. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | NGambit: <Sokrates: As always, Kasparov has his own agenda in the chess world, and he has never been an impartial observer.> I would agree with that. Another instance of this was when Nakamura won Tata Steel 2011. At that time Kasparov poured lavish praise on Naka for the achievement (I was a bit surprised at that time as to why Kasparov was going out of his way in doing so) only for us to find out months later that he was Naka's coach at the time :P |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | Lambda: <We cannot say whether Bobby was #1 in the 80's and 90's just because he simply avoided facing top players after 1972> The fact that he avoided facing top players after 1972 means he was no longer #1, or anywhere close. The #1 chess player in the world needs to be capable of playing and beating the other top players. Someone who cannot do this is not #1. Even if the reason for this is psychological. It crippled him just as surely as being prone to making misjudgements would have done. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | Lambda: The WCC is supposed to identify the best player in the world. And indeed at times when there has been a best player in the world for a decent stretch of time, it has done so quite well. But, rather unsurprisingly, it fails to do this when there isn't really a best player in the world. (How could it?) In the current era, the top players are too close in ability for the notion of "the best player in the world" to make much sense. So it's just a challenge. But back when the two super-K's were fighting, it did determine the best player in the world, then for the next few years, it continued to affirm that judgement. Go back to the 50s and 60s, and again, it's a challenge, the top players are too close together. |
|
Apr-23-12
 | | Check It Out: I suppose this has been covered elsewhere, but Anand hasn't exactly been horrible over the last couple of years. Some make it sound as though his results have been abyssmal since 2008, but let's take a look: 2008 Linares 1st
2008 Defeats Kramnik in match for world title
2008 world #1 rating
2009 Defeats Leko in rapid match 5-3
2009 Goes +3 -0 =4 on 1st board in The World vs. Azerbaijan 2010 Defeats Topalov in match for world title
2010 World #1 rating
2011 Defeats Shirov 4.5-1.5 in Leon Chess Tournament for 1st 2011 Botvinnik Memorial 1st
2011 Corsica Master Rapid 1st
2011 Defeats Kasimdzhanov 3.5 - .5 in rapid match
2011 Tata Steel, 2nd place ahead of Carlsen, Aronian and Kramnik. Score: +4 -0 =9 2011 World #1 rating
2011 All while having a baby with wife in April! |
|
Apr-23-12
| | Sneaky: Well stated Check It Out. Some people make it sound like Anand won the world title in a raffle or something! |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | Petrosianic: <Good answer, voyager. So Kasparov is saying this is the first time the winner of a "legitimate" world championship match (presumably meaning in the line of champions going back to Steinitz) won't automatically be considered the world's best player.> But with Kasparov, the good news is that if you don't like what he's saying, wait a few days. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | NGambit: <Check It Out> The objection, I gather, is that he hasn't <won> any classical tournaments since Linares 2008. So for them all these wins, even, 2011 Tata Steel, 2nd place ahead of Carlsen, Aronian and Kramnik. Score: +4 -0 =9
<counts to nothing>. Yeah, he has been #1 on FIDE rating list multiple times during this time (which obviously has to be a result of consistent high performance in classical tournaments ) but even that <counts to nothing> |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | Assa S. Sin: How did Gelfand became the contender, anyway?
Who among the NOT so strong GM candidates were in the cycle? ( If Gelfand is not that strong , how about those losers? And that includes Aronian?) When the champion is from Russia, he's supposed to be the strongest? Only in this sport where the champion is not regarded as the No. 1 just because of that rating brouhaha. What is the rating of Arpaud Elo, anyway?
Go Anand! Go Gelfand! |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <Assa S. Sin> It's a shame that many people feel this will be a boring encounter as Anand and Gelfand have some history playing some pretty excellent games against each other. Anand is a tremendously exciting player of the tactician ilk. While Gelfand - at least in the games I have seen of him - comes across as a very powerful, solid/positionally aware player. This will be a good match.
The best to both of them, agreed!
LTJ |
|
Apr-23-12
| | HeMateMe: Wasn't it Kasparov himself who muddied the waters so badly, when he left FIDE in the 90s, and ruined clear recognition of "World's best Player"? He should follow Karpov's lead and just be a happy retiree. Perhaps GK is just a bit jealous of Anand who has been very steady in his chess middle age. I don't think it's fair of Kasparov to claim that Anand isn't the world's best player. No one has beaten him in a match. Certainly Kasparov, when he was active, would never have accepted someone saying "I'm better than Kasparov", who had never defeated him in a match. The world chamionship rewards the best match player, not the best tournament player. |
|
Apr-23-12
 | | waustad: Kasparov is 49. If he had continued playing he might have been be lucky enough to have a gradual decline like Smyslov, Reshevsky, Lasker or Korchnoi, but there is no guarantee. It isn't clear that his ego could deal with not being the best anymore, so leaving may have been his best move. |
|
Apr-23-12
 | | SCUBA diver: I think that Gelfand is more like Reshevsky in many ways. Good but not good enough to be World champion. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <HeMateMe: Wasn't it Kasparov himself who muddied the waters so badly, when he left FIDE in the 90s, and ruined clear recognition of "World's best Player"?> The only player until about 1996 that would have had any claim to be considered of the ilk "World's best" aside from Kasparov would have been Karpov. The problem is that Karpov played a whole slew of matches against Kasparov, in the 80's and in 1990, and was never able to regain his crown; therefore, with the exception of Linares 1994, it would not be unfair to say that Kasparov was the best player in the world for the entire duration of the 90's. LTJ |
|
Apr-24-12
| | Sokrates: <waustad: ... It isn't clear that his ego could deal with not being the best anymore, so leaving may have been his best move.> Well said. The shock of losing to Kramnik may have led GK to the conclusion that he'd better leave chess when at the top. I can't see GK, like Karpov, playing in tournaments getting middle placements and losing to players who previously never had a chance against him. He wouldn't be able to accept a 5th place - Garry Kasparov were, is, and will always be the very incarnation of Nike, goddess of victory. Personally, I lament his departure from the active chess scene. I think GK is the strongest player in chess history and one of the most entertaining. It would be a delight to see him among the players today, and although he may not be able to uphold the dominance, he had in his best years, he would still be a mountain to climb for all, yes: all players on the chess stage today. |
|
Apr-24-12
| | HeMateMe: It is a shame that GK stopped playing. Even if he was finising 3rd, 4th in a tournament, he would have continued to create some beautiful games. His aggressive style v. Carlsen's more positional style would have given us some great games. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
