Author: Michael Cummings
Date: 16:48:11 11/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2000 at 13:48:44, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On November 03, 2000 at 11:37:49, walter irvin wrote: > >>On November 03, 2000 at 09:17:06, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On November 03, 2000 at 08:29:25, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>> Kramnik won Kasparov; Shirov won Kramnik. So Shirov has more right to be >>>>called world champion than Kramnik, but it's still absurd. What about Anand? and >>>>the rest of strong players in the world?. That match means nothing but a match. >>>>Ok, Kramnik won a match to Kasparov: nothing more, nothing less. >>>> In my opinion, there's no world title nowadays. But that's another story... >>>> >>>> Just my opinion. >>>> >>>> José C. >>> >>>I agree with your opinions entirely, José. We have a rating list (BGN) champion >>>(Kramnik) and a FIDE champion (Khalifman), a couple of disgruntled champions >>>(Karpov and Fischer) and someone who feel cheated (Shirov). If you add a handful >>>of strong GM's that didn't get a chance, we have utter confusion. So you're >>>right, there isn't any unanimous World Champion. Take your pick, there's a >>>champion for everyone :o). >>> >>>Mogens. >> >>i still considder deep blue the world champion ,to me kasparov had no title to >>give away . > >That was an exhibition match. Everyone who participated in that match knew that >the world title was not at stake in that match. > >If someone is world champion of poker, they can go out and player poker with the >guys, secure in the knowledge that they won't lose their title if they lose a >pot. The title is on the line only if everyone agrees that it is on the line. > >In this case, nobody agreed. > >bruce When I was in school, chess was rarely, if ever played, but there was a dedicated group of us. I never lost a game in high school, it was always wins or draws. But to most, if I, or the other good players lost just one game, it was like our crown was taken away for good. Even though I won hundreds of games, and never lost. If I had lost once, I was given the impression that whoever beat me, even if I had beaten them 50 times before would think themselves better. In the end I was like Kasparov, played only who I knew I could beat. May have been weak and wrong to some, but in the end, when I left high school, I was still the best. Which in Australian Schools means very little anyway, but it did to me. So when deep Blue beat Kasparov, even though it was not for the title offically, the media makes the uninformed chess public think that Kasparov is now second best. And that kasparov losing to Kramnik, now makes Kramnik the undisputed world champ of the game of chess. Most people habe no idea about the polics thats goes on in chess, or that there is even a division in the game.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.