|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Nov-27-03 |
| PinkPanther: I assume the player with the black pieces is none other than Alexander Grischuk, despite the spelling differences? |
 |
Nov-27-03
 |
| chessgames.com: It must be. (Grischuk would have been almost 12 here.) We'll list it under Grischuk. |
|
| Jun-24-04 |
| Whitehat1963: Quiet an exciting game for a couple of pre-pubescent little twerps! Of course, now each will contend for the world title for the next 10 years. |
|
| Jun-24-04 |
| PinkPanther: Ponomariov already won it. |
|
| Jun-26-04 |
| Whitehat1963: Until Pono beats Kramnik in a match rather than on some piece of paper authored by FIDE, I'll never acknowledge his "title." |
|
| Jun-28-04 |
| PinkPanther: And I'll never acknowledge Kramnik's, but since he doesn't have a "title", why are we even having this discussion? If you'd like me to go into the details one more time, I'd be happy to do so. |
|
| Jun-28-04 |
| Whitehat1963: At least Kramnik beat Kasparov in a match played to its end. He might not be the best player in the world, but he's the current champion in my eyes. I don't think Alekhine was a better player than Capablanca, but there was no denying his claim to the title. All Capablanca could do was shut his mouth and beg for a rematch. Same applies now. As for Ponomariov, I don't think he has a claim to the title at all. And, <PinkPanther>, you can feel free to go into the details if you like, I've never read your views on the matter. |
|
Jun-28-04
 |
| acirce: Sure, but what gave Kramnik the right to play Kasparov at all? His loss against Shirov? |
|
| Jun-28-04 |
| square dance: <acirce> from what ive been told shirov was offered a match with kasparov but rejected the terms of the deal, so kasparov moved on. kramnik was offered the match because he was the highest ranked player left. apparently anand had also turned down a match offer. ive not been entirely filled in on all of the details, but i believe that what i said here is accurate. also what gave kramnik "the right" to play kaspy is a moot point, he did and he beat him. if you want to go that route than what gave euwe the right to play alekhine? was it the fact that he lost to capa -2 in 1931? |
|
| Jun-28-04 |
| PinkPanther: Here are the reasons Kramnik is not a champion:
1. He didn't deserve to be there in the first place (see his match against Shirov). 2. Braingames has no jurisdiction in the world of chess, it is not their right to organize a "World Championship" match. 3. Garry Kasparov wasn't the legitimate "World Champion" at the time. You can't just branch away from the World Chess Federation, set up your own organization, beat the hell out of an inferior player (Nigel Short) and then declare yourself "World Champion". Shortly put, Kasparov had no title to lose, thus Kramnik had no title to gain. I'm sure there is another point I'm leaving out, and if I think of it I'll be sure to let you know. |
|
| Jun-28-04 |
| pawn52: <PinkPanther> Nigel Short?? INFERIOR??? You've got a lot of catching up with reality to do! |
|
| Jun-28-04 |
| PinkPanther: Nigel Short is far inferior to Kasparov, you're the one that needs to get a reality check. |
|
| Jun-28-04 |
| square dance: <pinkpanther> im surprised by some of your points. 1. if you believe your first point then you dont recognize euwe as the 5th WC. 2. bgn has every right to organize a WC match, just as any other organization does. it just so happens that the WC match they are organinzing includes the linear WC which gives their title the most credibility. its obvious by this farce in libya that fide cant organize a proper WC so im not sure why you view fide's title as being so legitimate. 3. your wrong, and kasparov proved you wrong with all of his title defenses throughout the 1980's and 1990's. short did win fide's candidates cycle so i dont understand why you would call him inferior. he was the legitimate challenger to the WC so there can be no disputing the validity of that match. kasparov didnt declare himself WC after he beat short in 1993; i believe his contention was that he already was the WC, and apparently nobody could prove him wrong. im surprised that you would let an obviously corrupt organization like fide tell you who the WC is. fide's title holders have been paper champions from 1994 on. karpov could never beat kasparov in a match so why should we believe he was the champion from '94-'99? actually the subsequent fide champs won their title's in KO tourney's with different time controls so im surprised that people even compare the two title's. the fide title has nothing at all to do with the classical WC because they use different time controls and a KO tourney instead of a match to decide the champion. i believe the different time controls and the formats that the two title's were decided by allows for both of them to exist. |
|
Jun-28-04
 |
| iron maiden: I agree with SD. The WC title should belong to a player, not an organization. If you don't think Kramnik was a legitimate challenger, think of the pre-FIDE years, when players like Marshall, Janowski and Bogojulbov could get a title match merely with sufficient financial backing. <im not sure why you view fide's title as being so legitimate>
You mean, other than the fact that it's Ponomariov's only claim to the WC? |
|
| Jun-29-04 |
| square dance: <i agree with SD.> ::sigh:: if only more people could see the light. |
|
Jun-29-04
|
| acirce: <If you don't think Kramnik was a legitimate challenger, think of the pre-FIDE years, when players like Marshall, Janowski and Bogojulbov could get a title match merely with sufficient financial backing.> That's what so good with the FIDE years. |
|
Jun-29-04
|
| iron maiden: Well, with the pre-1993 FIDE years. |
|
| May-13-05 |
| guitar2001: in my opinion, kramnik is the legitmate world championship simply because he defeated the strongest chessplayer in the world--Garry Kasparov--in a match. Let's not forget that a Shirov-Kasparov match would've been a massacre. It's a pity that it never took place and that Shirov wasn't compensated, but all the same that has no bearing on Kramnik's win. The title of world champion doesn't belong to an organization--it's belongs to the players. And Kramnik defeated the strongest player in the world--and possibly the strongest player of all times. It's not perfect, but it's the best that can be done with chess world in such disarray. Besides, consider the options of declaring Kramnik illegitimate--namely that you have to declare the FIDE knockout winner the world champion--someone who is clearly not the strongest player in the world. Like I said, it's not perfect, but it's the best solution for now. Kramnik is champion and I hope he is dethroned soon by someone more coloful. |
|
May-27-05
 |
| notyetagm: Damn, yet another <Greco mate>: 23  xg6+! hxg6 24  h4+  h6 25 xh6#. <That missing f-pawn is just critical>. Its absence extends the diagonal of the White c4-bishop down to g8, hence trapping the Black king in a corridor on the h-file.This Greco pattern has got to be one of the <most often missed mating patterns> there is. The other day I saw a 1900-rated player take on a strong computer on ICC and he lost 2 out of the 6 games that I watched to Greco mates. |
|
Feb-10-06
 |
| coastalferg: wow, 11.Qe1 sure looks like a great move. is this a standard location for the queen against the pirc?? Ponomariov also seem to have used his pawns way better then his opponent in this game. well i guess he used everything better, lol he won quickly |
|
| Nov-15-06 |
| syracrophy: This is almost as in the game Gruenfeld vs Carlos Torre, 1925 |
|
| Jan-28-08 |
| Nouvelle: wow i really enjoyed this game, but I am quite new in chess and I donīt see the purpose of 11.Qe1... can anybody explain, please? |
|
Jan-28-08
 |
| euripides: <Nouvelle> I think the main point is that the queen can go to h4 to join the king's side attack. In this game the queen never gets there because plans slightly change, but in the final position Black is facing 23...hxg6 24.Qh4 mate. A secondary point may be to allow Rd1 in some lines. The 'similar games' feature suggests that it's an unusual move. |
|
| Jan-28-08 |
| Nouvelle: yes, that rook part makes sense. thanks, euripides! |
|
| Jun-25-08 |
| Whitehat1963: It's funny to re-read this page today. Who is the "legitimate" world chess champion today? Kramnik or Anand? Or perhaps someone else? |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
