< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 35 OF 35 ·
|Jul-12-04|| ||whithaw: I am referring to 87', and i apologize, it was a reti opening, the sicilian was played in 85' wcc as keene points out. I suppose kasparov won in two must win situations! |
|Jul-12-04|| ||mikejaqua: Given that boxing is fixed. Given that it is known that games have been fixed in just about every known sport (championships even in some cases). Why should everyone react so at the thought that chess games might be fixed? There's money involved and there's a world class scumbag heading up FIDE. Seems like all one needs to have the old payola flowing. |
|Jul-12-04|| ||Akavall: That's not right that Kasparov kept the title when the match was drawn, the champion's job is to prove that he is superior. |
I wonder if Kramnik has those privileges against Leko, I hope not.
|Jul-12-04|| ||PinkPanther: Yes, he does have draw odds against Leko. |
|Jul-12-04|| ||Everett: whitaw, despite the site that shows Kasparov on bottom, implying he played black in that last game in '87, he played the white side of the Reti against Karpov. Karpov is probably listed first for alphabetical purposes.|
See WMD's post for the game score
Akavall: The challenger needs to prove the superior, not the champion. The champion has already proven previously he is the best in match play. If the champion is not beaten outright, than he deserves to maintain his title. It's like this in boxing as well.
You have to beat the man, to be the man.
|Jul-12-04|| ||Akavall: I would rather have a championship match were draw is not an option, if the match is tied then they have to go to some kind of tie-breaks. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||Dionyseus: It's weird that the tiebreaks will beging 2 hours earlier than usual, it's like their being punished. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||kurathedog: silly to say that the champion should have an advantage.|
He already has an advantage that he doesn't need to qualify - just sit on his @#$@ and study while his challenger does real work.
The champion should be the one who plays better. It is about time that we rid the world of the notion of entitlements. Sports would be a good place to start.
Boxing is different since the scoring (except a KO) can be subjective. Chess is as objective as can be. 1-0, 0-1 or an agreed/forced draw.
|Jul-13-04|| ||iron maiden: So FIDE's so-proclaimed "world championship" will be decided by rapid tie-breaks... |
|Jul-13-04|| ||cu8sfan: <Immediately after they agreed to a draw, the officials came to the board and showed Adams Qe4. After seeing the sequence, Adams walked off with a @#$%* off look.> Is that to be found on the web somewhere? Or was it in the life feed and if you missed it you missed it? |
|Jul-13-04|| ||acirce: <I would rather have a championship match were draw is not an option, if the match is tied then they have to go to some kind of tie-breaks.> Me too. But draw odds for the champion is probably still the best solution. That way it's like it's always been and there is less room for endless fights about forms. Sure you can argue that it's not "fair" and so someone like Anand could withdraw for such a reason... but there was never any much fuss about that before the chaos started in 1993 and there was just one single recognized world chess centre. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||Dionyseus: Cu8sfan, ja, that was on the live feed. The officials came to the board and showed him the winning move. Kasim and Adams went through the sequence, and then Adams walked off with an angry look. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||cu8sfan: I think this 'loss' after struggling for so long will give Kasim the advantage for today. True, he too missed a win but after missing it he scored a minor win by drawing. So my prediction is that Kasimdzhanov will play Kasparov. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||ruylopez900: Poor Adams, having an official spot the win (though who knows if it was the official or PocketFritz?) seconds after the game and be shown it publicly :(|
I think Adams has an edge since he's looking for revenge of yesterday's "loss" (of a half point and the match), but Kasim cannot be underestimated. I like Adams to win, but since it's rapid, who knows?
|Jul-13-04|| ||acirce: He lost the first tiebreak game but surely there are still chances. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||AgentRgent: <tamar: Not playing this weekend though> Not surprising, with the tournament being at the opposite end of the state. ;-) |
|Jul-13-04|| ||Everett: Personally I enjoy the way tennis does it. Some prime tournaments, some head to head action, and then by rating points. Does not having a world champion tennis player hurt their popularity? I don't know.|
I just don't think the aggravation of getting a WC is all it's worth. It's nice to debate who's better from month to month, match to match and year to year. A WC is not going to change that. When the title was "legit" the WC often played not as well as others on the tour in tournaments during the champions "reign" (Petrosian and Botvinnik)
Let the debates of who's best continue. I do enjoy the fact that Leko and Kramnik are going to throw down, and Kasparov and Kasim. Whether they are part of some cycle or getting organized by a rich patron, it's all the same to me.
|Jul-13-04|| ||acirce: Tennis HAS world champions. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||kurathedog: as long as games like this go on, people will know that parts of chess matches are fixed. It is an unfortunate disgrace.
B Kvisvik vs M Carlsen, 2001 |
|Jul-13-04|| ||kurathedog: Tennis does not have a world champion in the sense that that person beat the others in a specific tournament. They are the Number 1 player of the year (note: not world champion) based on their overall results for the year.|
If they don't play the major tournaments that year, their rating goes down.
I think that is a fair system.
|Jul-13-04|| ||acirce: <They are the Number 1 player of the year (note: not world champion) based on their overall results for the year.> I thought they actually called it World Champion. Are you sure? |
|Jul-13-04|| ||kurathedog: At least in the US they are referred to as the number 1 player. In Europe they may be called something else. Their PR agency may also call them world champion.|
What is more important is that as far back as I can remember (20+ years) there was never any real dispute.
You get more points for winning the major 4 tournaments so you can't just win by playing all the minor tourneys.
It brings up a great analogy. If Kasparov cares about money wouldn't it make sense to try to get a yearly champion based on the results in that year?
Sure breaks tradition, but compared to other sports (except soccer and olympics perhaps) having a championship every 4 years is not good for low attention span people like me in the US
|Aug-02-04|| ||alexandrovm: hi kurathedog, whe just played chess only 10 minutes ago, nice knowing you. Keep in touch! |
|Apr-24-05|| ||LIFE Master AJ: If you go to my website for "downloads" (http://www.angelfire.com/games3/AJs...), you can get a free "e-book" on this match. I have deeply annotated all the games. (You MUST have a current CB product - like Fritz - to read these files!)|
|Dec-25-06|| ||acirce: <What was the first piece of music you played after you became world champion?|
<During the whole tournament I was listening to the Russian poet and singer Vladimir Vysotsky.> [given as Vissotsky]
Ah, preparing for Kasparov already...
<I have no idea about Kasparov's preferences but this was what I have been listening to during and after the tournament.>
What is your favourite Vysotsky line?
<It's difficult to translate it into English. It was what struck me during the sixth game against Adams. He has a song called The Song of the High-Jumper. He jumps and doesn't quite manage. He wanted to make 2.12 and fails. And he says, I will let you in on a small secret: such is the life of a sportsman or woman. You are at the highest point for only a moment, and then you fall down again. When I played Queen g8 and thought I was losing, this immediately rang in my ears. You are at the highest point for only a moment.>>
-- New In Chess 6/2004
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 35 OF 35 ·