Author: Pete Galati
Date: 20:22:09 10/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2000 at 22:15:13, Mike S. wrote: >On October 24, 2000 at 19:20:26, Michael Cummings wrote: > >>On October 24, 2000 at 17:45:32, Pete Galati wrote: >> >>>On October 24, 2000 at 16:52:53, Michael Cummings wrote: >>> >>>>On October 24, 2000 at 16:45:23, Pete Galati wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 24, 2000 at 15:53:34, Torstein Hall wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In my view this is just a personal match between the two strongest players the >>>>>>last years and no championship match. Kasparov failed to defend his title and >>>>>>the world cup is now somewhere else. (...) >> >>I am not sure, but I suppose many opinions are floating around > >Just imagine Kramnik wins this match, and the relatively better >known-to-the-world Karpov wins the FIDE WCh. Who's the champion then? The chess >world knows who is Kramnik, but actually Kasparov can't pass on a Champion's >title to Kramnik. If he can't keep it, it's gone. IMO. > >Regards, >M.Scheidl I consider it rather comical. Whoever holds the FIDE title holds the FIDE title, it's really no more complicated than that IMO. But if Kramnik beats Kasparov in this match, I'm not convinced that he really wins any kind of legitimate title because my opinion is that Kasparov really maintain the value of the title by defending it. I'm just having a real hard time seeing the difference between Fischer giving away the title by not defending it, and Kasparov not really defending it. And I can understand how he'd maybe want the title maintained by someone other than FIDE, no complaints there, but at least with FIDE, when it's time to defend your title, it's time to defend your title. It's the one thing I know I like about them. Pete
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.