Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:30:03 11/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2003 at 05:15:23, martin fierz wrote: >On November 04, 2003 at 04:39:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On November 03, 2003 at 21:12:15, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On November 03, 2003 at 19:51:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>- What KASPAROV is concerned we know that he is no longer the best human player, >>> >>>http://www.fide.com/ratings/top.phtml >>> >>>1 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2830 >>>2 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2777 >>>3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2766 >> >> >>We can discuss the value of ELO rankings all day long but you won't succeed in >>twisting the historical fact that Kasparov _lost_ his title match against >>Kramnik! ELO rankings are a different thing. When Alekhine prepared his title >>match against Capablanca the latter also was the tournament number one player >>who almost NEVER lost a single game in his whole career! Still Alekhine managed >>to win the match against Capablanca and from that moment on he was regarded as >>the real champ. The same here with Kramnik. Kasparov is out, forget him, his >>time is over. > >well, that certainly is a strange statement! kasparov has won the most >super-tournaments over the past years, has the highest rating, plays the most >brilliant chess (ok, this one is subjective), and you still think his time is >over? yes, he lost that one match against kramnik, but that was mainly a >psychological thing, not the chess (ok, subjective again...). >one thing is sure: in the chess world, most people think kasparov is the >strongest player, and not kramnik. all those world championship titles are >getting rather meaningless since nobody is playing for them any more - so what >else would you want to go on if not rating and supertournament results? > >cheers > martin > >PS: your claim that fischer is the greatest is also very subjective of course. >for me, and many others it's kasparov! but this is simply nothing that can be >discussed - de gustibus non est disputandum :-) You make a good P.S. - but then you call my opinion 'strange'. This is strange IMO. If you take a minute of thought you will understand what I meant. Kasparov sure is the hysterical winner of tournaments but he has found his master. What you call, as if it were unimportant, the psychological factor, this is exactly the most important thing in the world of chess. No matter if you play third league or in a Wch match. Don't forget. Kramnik beat Kasparov with two victories to none. But you are also right. Kasparov's chess doesn't suck. It was just not strong enough against the brilliant Kramnik. And then Kramnik is very comparable to a company like ChessBase. It has an old Soviet tradition. Outside title matches you can well let have your buddies have their hypes. You remain still the champion. Do you really believe that you can compare Anand, Leko or who cares, with Kramnik??? Kramnik is not just 'one' title holder. He's the Greatest, at least right now. Aren't you happy that he doesn't need all the unfairness and crazy ideosyncrasies of a Kasparov? Can you spell Linares? Or mother Klara? Rolf
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.