Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:48:44 11/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
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
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.