Author: Steve
Date: 19:34:19 03/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2000 at 19:06:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 17, 2000 at 19:04:16, Derrick Williams wrote: >[snip] >> If Khalifman is the world champion, then to be world champion is absolutely >>meaningless, since is has nothing to do with being the strongest player or best >>player in the world as the word "WORLD CHAMPION" itself implies. > >It has never been about that. Anyone who knows anything about mathematics is >aware that a contest -- even a 50 game contest between the two persons supposed >to be best -- does not really decide who the better player is. But a longer match gives a better approximation -- as the ludicrous knockout format does not. Leko beat Khalifman 4.5-1.5 in a match. Do you really think Khalifman would do any better against Kasparov? And if not, then calling Khalifman the "world champion" is a joke. > >If we are free to pick and choose whoever we like for world champion, then >Kenneth Chamberlain's claim that Bobby Fischer is world champion is just as good >as Kasparov. Who said we are "free to pick and choose who(m)ever we like?" The "world champion" is the player who demonstrates himself (or herself) to be the best -- i.e., Kasparov. In fact, I do hereby declare that Tina Long is world chess >champion. Makes as much sense as declaring that Khalifman is . . .
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.