|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1674 OF 1823 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-07-12 | | shach matov: <When something has been mathematically proven, it is no longer opinion> You have never proven anything mathematically. And as I said it can't be proven mathematically since the central issue is the definition of the word <fair>: what is fair for you can be unfair for others. So the 9-9 issue is pure opinion and has nothing to do with facts. The FACT is, you can't argue about the idea of fairness. The FACT is, your opinion about what is a fair match in not necessarily the same as the opinion of the next guy. So you have opinions which you decided to call FACTS. If you can show me why it is that your idea of fairness should be the same as my idea of fairness, then you can persuade me. |
 |
| Mar-07-12 | | JoergWalter: <shach matov: <It was a desperate Kasparov looking for an opponent after he unfairly refused to play Shirov>
If you want an honest and intelligent debate, lets not start lying. It is known universally that the match was canceled because there were no sponsors - nobody would pay for a foregone conclusion match.> bolschewiki and money. an old story.
Shirov was the challenger but Kasparov could not find sponsors. |
|
Mar-07-12
 | | KKDEREK: <JoergWalter: <shach matov: <It was a desperate Kasparov looking for an opponent after he unfairly refused to play Shirov> If you want an honest and intelligent debate, lets not start lying. It is known universally that the match was canceled because there were no sponsors - nobody would pay for a foregone conclusion match.>
bolschewiki and money. an old story.
Shirov was the challenger but Kasparov could not find sponsors.>He did find. But Shirov didn't accept the money prize.. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | shach matov: You can also say Shirov could not find a sponsor, or the chess world could not find a sponsor. It's fair to say that Kasparov had nothing to gain from canceling the match since Shirov was the most comfortable and risk-free opponent for him of all the top players. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | Riverbeast: Now, I will demonstrate what is OPINION, or speculation....As opposed to fact....So there's no confusion in our future dealings 1) I believe the Soviet authorities felt Karpov had almost no chance against Fischer in 1975, and couldn't beat him by ONE point, let alone two 2) I believe they and their cronies in FIDE (including President Euwe) made a big show of accepting all of Fischer's conditions EXCEPT ONE....In order to appear that they were being most conciliatory, and Fischer was the intractible one and the reason the match didn't take place 3) But of course, they made sure the ONE condition they rejected was one of the three that Fischer considered most important One of his non-negotiable reforms that Fischer had been talking about instituting for years.... And, I might add, they decided to reject a 'champion retains title on a tie' clause that is one of the most traditional, timeworn, and almost AUTOMATIC....In the history of the chess world championship Why?
Well you know what they say...If you can't beat 'em, you gotta cheat 'em I think they knew full well that Fischer would walk away....He had certainly done it plenty of times before....And that suited them just fine You see, those are what I would call SPECULATIONS of mine....OPINIONS of mine |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | JoergWalter: <KKDEREK:
He did find. But Shirov didn't accept the money prize..>right, Shirov thought ~500,000 € for a title match were an offense since he received nothing for the Kramnik match. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | shach matov: The idea that 9-9 condition is fair (or not fair for that matter) is also an opinion and nothing more. Both sides presented many reasons to CONSIDER it fair or otherwise and no conclusive agreement has been reached. This alone means that the question is not a fact and everybody has their opinions about it. Just saying that it's a fact <because I said so> is not going to change the reality. A FACT is the following: Fischer quit chess and never defended his title. Nobody can argue about it. But whether or not his many conditions were fair or not is for the most part just an opinion. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | timhortons: <so, eat your banana and take a rest.> lol. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | I play the Fred: <I can't accept your hypocritical position on this issue: if you accept one OPINION you have to also accept all others. You can't simply chose which OPINIONS you can accept when it's convenient for your argument.> THAT's hypocracy?!? |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | shach matov: <THAT's hypocracy?!?> I say yea since the opinions are on the same subject and part of the same argument. An argument should be based on facts anyway, not opinions. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | I play the Fred: <As I said you're being 100% hypocritical since you accept Kasparov's opinion when he says that the 9-9 condition was not unfair but then you refuse to to accept his opinion when he says that Fischer would not play the match anyway, whatever the conditions.> Let me break this down:
<Kasparov: The 9-9 clause is not unfair.
Hypocrite: I agree with that.
Kasparov: Fischer wouldn't have played in any case.
Hypocrite: I don't agree with that.>
That is NOT hypocracy. The poster found Kasparov's first statement agreeable but not the second. That's just simple judgment. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | AlanPardew: <1) I believe the Soviet authorities felt Karpov had almost no chance against Fischer in 1975, and couldn't beat him by ONE point, let alone two> True, but their self-interest doesn't mean that there wasn't a bigger principle at stake, one which explains the intransigence of many of the West European countries: that the world champion had no right to dictate the world championship match conditions. <I believe they and their cronies in FIDE (including President Euwe) made a big show of accepting all of Fischer's conditions EXCEPT ONE....In order to appear that they were being most conciliatory, and Fischer was the intractible one and the reason the match didn't take place> But the Soviets and many others never accept the unlimited game proposal. That only squeaked through 37 votes to 33 at the FIDE EGA in March 1975. The 9-9 drawn match condition was defeated by 35 to 32 with 3 abstentions. I'm wondering if there's any public record of how the countries voted. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | AlanPardew: <That is NOT hypocracy.> No, it's hypocrisy. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | shach matov: <I play the Fred: That is NOT hypocracy. The poster found Kasparov's first statement agreeable but not the second. That's just simple judgment.> What you're missing here is that the opinion was used as evidence of FACT, which is clearly unacceptable. But I compromised and said: if you're using opinion as facts then at least use the whole argument and not just one opinion which you found supporting your argument. Of course if the opinions of GK were used as mere support for your opinion, then there's no problem in picking and choosing which opinions to accept and which to reject. The whole issue would not even exist if they didn't use the opinion as fact. |
|
Mar-07-12
 | | keypusher: Here are the simple facts about Fischer:
He never defended his title.
He said he would play lots of matches after winning the title...but he didn't. He said he would abolish the champion's privilege...but he fought to increase it. Before, during, and after forfeiting the FIDE title, he could have set up his own competing world title system, as Kasparov did. If he'd been successful, he could have bent FIDE to his will. But he didn't. He just quit.
<I'm wondering if there's any public record of how the countries voted.> There must be. According to OMGP IV the Western Europeans and the East bloc voted no, the Third World voted yes. But it doesn't give any details. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | Marmot PFL: <You have never proven anything mathematically. And as I said it can't be proven mathematically since the central issue is the definition of the word <fair>: what is fair for you can be unfair for others. So the 9-9 issue is pure opinion and has nothing to do with facts. > It's been some time but my recollection was that the problem for FIDE was more the length of the match than its fairness. Fischer wanted an unlimited match while FIDE said 36 games was it. My 2 cents is that keeping the title on a 9-9 tie is fair, and that 36 games is plenty. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | I play the Fred: My own two cents is that the champion should retain the title in the event of a drawn match, but <he should be required to play a rematch with the same challenger.> Why should a challenger, who proved himself equal to the champion in a match, be forced to go back through the qualifying process? |
|
Mar-07-12
 | | TheFocus: In <Chess Notes>, a fourth Fischer - Gligoric Training Game 1992 is provided. See if you can figure out the moves of the game from Fischer's hand-writing in Note 7542. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | AlanPardew: <My own two cents is that the champion should retain the title in the event of a drawn match...> That's never really been a bone of contention. The issue is whether the challenger should be required to win by at least two points to take the title <Why should a challenger, who proved himself equal to the champion in a match, be forced to go back through the qualifying process?> What about the rights of other players? And from a practical point of view, it might be much tougher to raise significant sponsorship for a replay of the main event. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | I play the Fred: <That's never really been a bone of contention. The issue is whether the challenger should be required to win by at least two points to take the title> I wasn't addressing the current discussion specifically. <What about the rights of other players?> How are their rights being compromised? Anand-Gelfand is drawn in 2012, the rematch is played in 2013, and a new challenger plays the winner in 2014 at the end of the current cycle. <And from a practical point of view, it might be much tougher to raise significant sponsorship for a replay of the main event.> Depends on the players involved, but that's true of the first event. |
|
| Mar-07-12 | | matebay: <That is NOT hypocracy.> No, it's hypocrisy.> lol |
|
| Mar-08-12 | | matebay: <The 9-9 drawn match condition was defeated by 35 to 32 with 3 abstentions.> The result was tainted with malice.
A revote was casted with the following results:
< 9-9 is fair:>
1. matebay
2. riverbeast
3. rookfile
4. kasparov
5. marmotpfl
6. I play the fred
7. timhortons
8. jeorgewalter
<9-9 is unfair:>
1. keypusher
2. allanpardew
<Undecided>
1. shac matov
After days of deliberation, the jury has ruled in favor of the 9-9 rule- 8-2 with 1 undecided. Fischer is hereby absolved from the negative aspersions cast upon his person and character which would tend to diminish his greatness... Kasparov is hereby declared a hypocrite. His lone disciple <shacmatov> is given the same label bestowed upon his master. |
|
| Mar-08-12 | | positionalgenius: <Riverbeast> Karpov handily defeated spassky in their candidates; do you really believe he wouldnt have at least given fischer a run in 75? I don't believe he would have beaten him but for sure it would have been close.
Let me ask you this: Is kasparov greater than fischer? |
|
| Mar-08-12 | | positionalgenius: <Keypusher> Yes. Fischer demanded that everything be done his way and only his way :walked out of 67' tournament, and his ridiculous demands in 72 are all documented- spassky was too nice to him.
Also, this had a huge effect on the chess world after the failed match. Remember the 1984 K-K marathon match? That wouldn't have happened if fischer hadn't demanded unlimited games in his demands. That, in reality, denied Karpov a chance to hold the world title until at least 1990. Limited to 24 games, karpov wins 84 WCC undefeated. 1987 match was drawn , but Karpov probably would have won that one too if kasparov had so little experience against him. How much the list of world champions would be different... Kasparov gains the title in 1990 and for sure he wouldn't have burned out so easily. |
|
| Mar-08-12 | | positionalgenius: <SM> It doesnt matter that Shirov was an "easy" opponent for Kasparov; remember Spassky was undefeated vs fischer for over ten years before the 1972 title match. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1674 OF 1823 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
