|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-30-12 | | parmetd: A glaring error in this WC summary, Kamsky quit chess to become A LAWYER! Not medical. |
|
| Jun-30-12 | | Shams: <parmetd> Negative, ghost rider-- Kamsky studied medicine for a year, then law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gata_K... |
|
| Jun-30-12 | | King Death: What <Shams> says is right, Kamsky retired from chess to become an M.D. even though he never got there. If the writer had said that Kamsky left chess "originally intending" to go into medicine I'd agree. |
|
| Jul-02-12 | | parmetd: the just makes a mistake in wikipedia as well shams. |
|
| Jul-02-12 | | King Death: < parmetd: the just makes a mistake in wikipedia as well shams.> It isn't a mistake in that Wikipedia article, they had it right. At the time I wasn't even an active player and I knew that Kamsky was leaving chess to become a doctor. He changed his mind, happens every day. There's no shame in not having the facts straight once in awhile, just own up instead of insisting that you're right about everything. |
|
| Jul-02-12 | | parmetd: He may have thought about going to med school but the fact is he never did. He went to lawschool so it should be updated to reflect that. |
|
| Jul-02-12 | | Jason Frost: <parmetd: He may have thought about going to med school but the fact is he never did. He went to lawschool so it should be updated to reflect that.> The fact is you're wrong.
<As I am sure you well recall, in 1996 Roustam Kamsky announced that Gata was quitting chess to go to medical school. This lacked credibility because Gata never even went to high school, so how could he go to medical school (he graduated from high school in Russia at the age of 13, before he came to America). Roustam Kamsky told me that in the intervening years Gata Kamsky had achieved very high scores on all the entrance examinations, had gone to Brooklyn College and completed his BA degree in just two years instead of the usual four, and had gone to medical school, but for only one year. So, he dropped out of medical school because he did not like being a doctor and went law school instead. Gata is right now in his final semester of Law School and will graduate in May.> (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...) |
|
| Jul-02-12 | | RookFile: Law School? Sounds very impressive to me. |
|
| Jul-02-12 | | SetNoEscapeOn: Except that he never went to Law School :) |
|
| Jul-03-12 | | parmetd: He did. He has a JD. |
|
| Jul-03-12 | | Jason Frost: <parmetd: He did. He has a JD.> What!? I thought he decided to become an astronaut, then crashed into the moon where he captained a 'yellow submarine' made of cheese ... before riding a comet back to earth and returning to his career as the most interesting man in the world. |
|
| Jul-03-12 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <parmetd: He did. He has a JD.> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c0h... |
|
| Apr-20-16 | | svBlond: <Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, president of the tiny Soviet republic of Kalmykia> <Kamsky was reluctant to play in a Soviet satellite> Did this match take place in an alternate universe in which the USSR still existed in 1996? |
|
| Apr-20-16 | | Olavi: A comment after nine years:
<Inf: boy gata sure looks young.> The picture is from Las Palmas 1994. |
|
| Apr-20-16 | | Olavi: Or even Manila Olympiad 1992, I now think, ven if I can't locate the exact picture. |
|
| Mar-05-19 | | amadeus: "The top 10 from the Interzonal were joined by 1993 FIDE World Champion Anatoly Karpov, 1993 FIDE runner-up Jan Timman, and 1993 Candidates semi-finalist Artur Yusupov (...) The format was a departure from all previous world championships, in that the reigning champion (Karpov) was not seeded directly into a championship match. Instead, he joined the competition at the semifinal stage." - from Wikipedia < First Round -- best of 8 games> Kamsky +3 -1 =3 vs. Van der Sterren
Game Collection: Match Kamsky! Anand +3 -1 =3 vs. Yusupov
Game Collection: WCC Index (Anand-Yusupov 1994) Salov +4 -0 =2 vs. Khalifman
Game Collection: WCC Index (Salov-Khalifman 1994) Timman +2 -1 =5 vs. Lautier
Game Collection: WCC Index (Timman-Lautier 1994) Gelfand +3 -1 =4 vs. Adams
Game Collection: WCC Index (Gelfand-Adams 1994) Kramnik +2 -0 =5 vs. Yudasin
Game Collection: Match Kramnik! <Second Round -- best of 8 games> Kamsky +2 -2 =4 (+2 -0 =0) vs. Anand
Game Collection: Match Anand! Salov +2 -1 =5 vs. Timman
Salov - Timman Candidates Semifinal (1994) Gelfand +2 -1= 5 vs. Kramnik
Gelfand - Kramnik Candidates Semifinal (1994) <Semifinals (Candidates Final) -- best of 10 games> Kamsky +4 -0 =3 vs. Salov
Game Collection: Match Kamsky! Karpov +4 -1 =4 vs. Gelfand
Game Collection: WCC Index (Karpov-Gelfand 1995) <Final (FIDE WCC) -- best of 20 games> Karpov +6 -3 =9 vs. Kamsky
Karpov - Kamsky FIDE World Championship Match (1996) |
|
| Aug-02-19 | | Chesgambit: hmm no Anand ? |
|
| Nov-29-20 | | fisayo123: This match was Karpov's last real effort after 25 years as either the #1 or #2 dominant player in the world. He held the #1 spot for about 8.5 years and the #2 spot for about 14 more years. Las Palmas 1996 saw the beginning of the inevitable decline of the epoch defining player. His accomplishments in this match is undervalued because it was a FIDE WC match and because some forget just how strong Kamsky was in those years. Kamsky was seen as in the same league as the likes of Anand and Kramnik and had beaten both in Candidates matches leading up to this. He crushed the likes of Kramnik, Short and Salov comprehensively (5.5 to 1.5) Karpov was 45 years old. Kamsky was young and ambitious and 22 years old. Yet Karpov makes it look easy with his trademark positional style characterized by extreme precision. I don't think such a victory has been seen before in the history of World Championship matches and certainly not in the modern era. |
|
Jul-15-21
 | | Raconteur: The paragraph introducing this match is wrong. Karpov was not ceded directly into the match, he was ceded into the semi-finals of the (Fide) world championship. The winners of the ten game matches Karpov-Gelfand (6-3) and Kamsky-Salov (5.5-1.5) qualified for the world championship match. It was in fact a very well run cycle, only stained by the absence of Kasparov and Short. The idea of inserting the defending champion in the semi-finals was a very good one, unfortunately since abandoned. One other small detail: Kamsky in Chess Gamer Vol. 1 repeatedly writes his position in the match was hopeless after losing the ninth game because it was only a sixteen game match. It wasn?t, it was a twenty game match, convincingly won by Karpov, who could rightly claim a (re)match with Kasparov after winning this FIDE cycle, it was a great feat. |
|
| Jul-16-21 | | Petrosianic: For "ceded", you mean "seeded". "Ceded" means to concede something, or give it away. It wasn't a good idea. It just made it possible for someone to become the new champion without beating the old one. They only got away with it because this wasn't really a world championship match, only for the FIDE Championship, and nobody cared. |
|
Jul-16-21
 | | beatgiant: <Petrosianic>
< It just made it possible for someone to become the new champion without beating the old one.>But if Gelfand had beat Karpov in the semifinal and Kamsky beat Gelfand in the final, Kamsky would be "the player who beat the player who beat Karpov," so I'm not sure I get your objection with the lineage. Would it help you in that scenario if FIDE declared that Gelfand was the champion between the end of the semifinal and the end of the final? <nobody cared>
I agree winning this match did not add a lot to Karpov's already awesome lifetime record. But if Kamsky had won it, I think it would have been a major career boost, and he would have been in a good position to seek a unification match with Kasparov. So, I think at least one person cared ;-) |
|
| Jul-17-21 | | Petrosianic: <But if Gelfand had beat Karpov in the semifinal and Kamsky beat Gelfand in the final, Kamsky would be "the player who beat the player who beat Karpov," so I'm not sure I get your objection with the lineage.> Not the same thing. There are player triangles where Player A beat B, who beat C, who beat A. <Would it help you in that scenario if FIDE declared that Gelfand was the champion between the end of the semifinal and the end of the final?> Yes, possibly.
<So, I think at least one person cared ;-)> Yes, I can't deny that beating Karpov under any circumstances at that time would have been a huge boost for Kamsky. I really meant to say that the public didn't care. Pretty much everyone at the time regarded Kasparov as the world champion. Why not? He beat FIDE's officially chosen challenger in 1993. These days, the FIDE Champions are nearly forgotten, since Carlsen can trace a line straight back to Steinitz (except for the hiccup of Alekhine's death). |
|
Jul-17-21
| | beatgiant: <Petrosianic>
<There are player triangles where Player A beat B, who beat C, who beat A.>You mean like Capablanca - Alekhine World Championship Match (1927), Capablanca - Euwe (1931) and Alekhine - Euwe World Championship Match (1935) ? This is precisely <nok>'s constant argument against using a match to decide the title. |
|
| Jul-17-21 | | fabelhaft: <This is precisely <nok>'s constant argument against using a match to decide the title> I think the problem is rather the idea that whoever wins the title must become the best player in the world. Players have good events and bad events. Matches, knockouts, tournaments are not always won by the overall best player. One can see that Carlsen has been the best player the last decade by looking at the rating list, tournament results, etc. But he doesn?t win every event, and the player that wins the events he doesn?t win doesn?t become the best player in the world just because of that. Anand wasn?t the best player in the world in 2012, Kramnik wasn?t the best player in the world in 2005, Spassky wasn?t the best player in the world in 1971 etc. The system today is at least much better than it was in 2000 or 1934 or 1910, but it will never guarantee that the best player and the World Champion are the same. |
|
Jul-17-21
| | beatgiant: <fabelhaft>
Carlsen withdrew from the 2012 cycle, Fischer withdrew from the 1969 cycle, Kasparov did not manage to make himself available for a unification match in 2005.Were Anand (2012), Kramnik (2005) and Spassky (1971) the best available and participating players? Kramnik and Spassky, clearly yes. Anand I think was outranked by one or two others besides Carlsen in 2012, but which one would have made a more worthy champion? But I do take your overall point. The champion is the person who makes it through all the qualifying events and wins the final. Since those are arduous, it's usually the best player, but it's not necessarily so. One of <nok>'s other arguments is that the system makes it a lot more arduous for a challenger than for a champion. Making the champion defend the title at the semifinal stage as here is something I can accept. If Gelfand had beat Karpov in 1995 and then Kamsky in 1996, he would have become champion after beating the old champion. If Gelfand had beat Karpov in 1995 and lost to Kamsky in 1996, we certainly wouldn't want Karpov to keep the title after that, and which of Gelfand or Kamsky should get it? Who else but the winner of the match between them? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
