|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 58 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-05-23
 | | keypusher: <RookFile: Don't be too had on Euwe, he lost a rematch to Alekhine. No disgrace ever in losing a match to Alekhine.> He's probably just found better ways to spend his time, but I hope RookFile is OK. This is his most recent post. |
|
| Jan-06-24 | | Messiah: This match is not presented in the History of the World Chess Championship. |
|
| Jan-06-24 | | goodevans: <This match is not presented in the History of the World Chess Championship.> I didn't know that page existed but, yes, an update is a little overdue. Oh, and while you're at it...
<† indicates a FIDE Championship during the period of the split title.> ... you might want to check which tournaments have been thus marked. |
|
| Jan-06-24 | | Messiah: <goodevans: <This match is not presented in the History of the World Chess Championship.> I didn't know that page existed but, yes, an update is a little overdue. Oh, and while you're at it...
<† indicates a FIDE Championship during the period of the split title.> ... you might want to check which tournaments have been thus marked.> Even more amazing is the fact that I posted that 2+ hours ago and I'm still not b&! Very permissive mods! |
|
| Jan-09-24 | | Messiah: Still not presented there. 😎
Each and every bucks went to the best possible place. 😎 |
|
Jan-09-24
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Messiah,
It appears the powers that be have lost interest in that page since Carlsen quit. |
|
| Jan-09-24 | | Petrosianic: <MarcusBierce>: <I have heard no worthy or legitimate rebuttal. Kramnik lost the original qualifying match vs Shirov, then was gifted a spot in the WC only because his betters (Shirov’s match play, Anand’s rating) declined/refused to contest the match.> Your argument is like saying it was unfair for Smyslov to play for the title in 1954 when he was eliminated in the 1950 Candidates. Surely you have heard it rebutted and just haven't listened. If you believe Kasparov should never again have defended his title after Shirov couldn't get backing, and should have remained champion for life without play, you're entitled to think so, but you're not going to get many takers. And saying Kramnik was unworthy to play is like saying Euwe was unwilling to play, even after his result proved that he was. Calling Euwe unworthy in 1934 is maybe reasonable, calling him unworthy in 1936 is willful ignorance. |
|
Jan-10-24
 | | Williebob: The History series on this site ends with the 2014 Carlsen - Anand Rematch, so we are missing three of Carlsen's title defenses in addition to Nepo - Ding.
With the garish frequency of these bouts nowadays, I can hardly blame Chessgames for failing to keep up.
Magnus played five matches from 2013 - 2021!
FIDE is determined to turn the WCC into something like a NASCAR race. |
|
Jan-10-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi WillieBob,
History of the World Chess Championship ends with the 2021 match, Messiah was wondering why Nepo v Ding from last year was missing. |
|
| Jan-10-24 | | fabelhaft: <Your argument is like saying it was unfair for Smyslov to play for the title in 1954 when he was eliminated in the 1950 Candidates> Smyslov played for the title in 1954 because he won the latest Candidates in the format that was agreed before the cycle started. If Shirov played the title match in 2000 I doubt a single person, including Kramnik's mother, would have said that Kramnik was the rightful challenger. Even if it was claimed that it was a "new cycle" and "Shirov had bad results against Kasparov" and "wasn't supposed to win the Candidates" etc. |
|
| Jan-10-24 | | fabelhaft: <<† indicates a FIDE Championship during the period of the split title.> ... you might want to check which tournaments have been thus marked> That page has rarely been updated. Those <† indicates a FIDE Championship during the period of the split title> are placed quite randomly, and the use of <rematch> and <return match> is not particularly logical either. |
|
Jan-10-24
| | Williebob: OH, well I feel silly... I missed that Overview page. Thank you. My impression was based on the navigation which allows you to scroll through each match; that appears to end with 2014. |
|
| Jan-10-24 | | Messiah: Still not presented. 😎 |
|
Jan-11-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Messiah,
I think they think that because the then current world champion did not play it does not count - what do you think? |
|
| Jan-11-24 | | Lambda: <Smyslov played for the title in 1954 because he won the latest Candidates in the format that was agreed before the cycle started.> And Kramnik played for the title in 2000 because he had the highest rating of potential challengers and no better system was available at the time. It would have been better if there was a proper candidates cycle there, but Kramnik cannot be blamed for its absence, or for getting the highest rating of potential challengers.And at least it's better than the arrangement of every pre-war match. <If Shirov played the title match in 2000 I doubt a single person, including Kramnik's mother, would have said that Kramnik was the rightful challenger.> So? If Tarrasch had played Steinitz in 1894, nobody would have claimed that Lasker was the rightful challenger. But he didn't, and this isn't Lasker's fault, and nobody blames Lasker for the lack of a Steinitz-Tarrasch match. |
|
Jan-11-24
 | | plang: Kramnik was hand chosen by Kasparov to be his challenger and was given a match with Shirov to give the process a veneer of respectability. Then Kramnik lost the match but was given the title shot anyway. That is about as bogus as you can get. In what other sport would such a qualification process be accepted as legitimate? (boxing maybe?). |
|
| Jan-11-24 | | Lambda: <Kramnik was hand chosen by Kasparov to be his challenger and was given a match with Shirov to give the process a veneer of respectability. Then Kramnik lost the match but was given the title shot anyway. That is about as bogus as you can get.
In what other sport would such a qualification process be accepted as legitimate? (boxing maybe?).> The complaint about a champion choosing their challenger would be that they would choose someone easy to beat. However, if Kasparov did choose Kramnik specifically, he instead chose the person with the best chance of beating him. Which happened. |
|
Jan-11-24
| | plang: I am not aware of anyone claiming that Kasparov choosing Kramnik because he thought he would be easy to beat. If Kasparov wanted to play a match with Kramnik he had every right to set one up and if people wanted to give it a sense of legitimacy that is their right. My gripe is that the Kramnik-Shirov match shouldn't have been played if the result was going to be ignored if the result was not popular. |
|
| Jan-11-24 | | Olavi: Kasparov did not choose Kramnik. The sponsor BrainGames did. |
|
| Jan-11-24 | | Olavi: And BrainGames was not involved with Shirov - Kramnik in any way. There was nothing wrong with Kramnik being invited. |
|
Jan-11-24
 | | MissScarlett: <Kasparov did not choose Kramnik. The sponsor BrainGames did.> Kasparov chose Braingames. |
|
| Jan-11-24 | | Olavi: <MissScarlett> Are you saying he turned down a match with Shirov? No, he did not. |
|
Jan-11-24
| | MissScarlett: <Are you saying he turned down a match with Shirov?> In a word, yes. |
|
Jan-11-24
| | plang: Kasparov had no interest in a match with Shirov. |
|
| Jan-12-24 | | Petrosianic: <plang: Kasparov had no interest in a match with Shirov.> Not for the paltry sum that was being offered, no. Fortunately, Shirov was the one who refused to play. If Shirov had been smart he'd have played for free if necessary, and made Kasparov be the one to walk out. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 58 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
