Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 13:33:48 04/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2001 at 14:13:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 09, 2001 at 13:43:56, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On April 09, 2001 at 11:55:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On April 08, 2001 at 14:23:35, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>> >>> >>>>hi: in todays 'news of the world'(british newspaper)on pg 12 i read that the >>>>police are investigating the braingames company and its chairman for being a >>> >>>Braingames chairman is Raymond Keene. >>> >>>>front for the russian mafia; specifically about allegations of having laundered >>>>£3 million in dirty money. (it does n't say anything about the match being fixed >>>>although it does mention that the company ''braingames''which was created to >>>>organise the world chess championship was a front for money laundering by the >>>>russian mafia. >>>> >>>>sounds a bit fishy to me >>> >>>Many tournaments in this world, also non-chess tournaments >>>are getting sponsored and received in past sponsorship from >>>what we in western world call 'dubious grounds'. >>> >>>Let's just remember olympic games 1936 Berlin (Hitler), >>>world championships soccer 1972 in Argentina (Fidela), >>>Olympic games 1980 Moscow (SSSR), >>>match fischer around 1992 against his old opponent >>>and even close in the computerchess world we had >>>also our computerchess world championship in Jakarta >>>where i didn't go to for that reason. >>> >>>However, whereever the money came from, i'm sure that Kasparov didn't >>>lose intentionally. Instead he tried obviously hard to push for victory >>>and failed because Kramnik is simply a way better player in all respects >>>except opening preparement. >>> >>>>rajen >>> >>>Vincent >> >>First I think that this thread has had a humorous side to it, as it was so >>preposterous! >> >>But this last piece has me almost "rolling in the aisles", I think we can't put >>_any_ credibility in such rumors. Like the Russian Mafia etc. > >I don't find it funny at all those accusations but i will be the >last to deny them. In western world we hugely overestimate how >criminal the east has become under 80 years of communism, because >doing any legal business was for 80 years forbidden as everything >legal was stolen directly by the government, hence everything had to >be done illegally. > >>Hey I'll be the first retract if wrong doing at this level is found to be true. >>However, it's highly unlikely. > >Well sometimes i find rules of banks very criminal too you know :) > >>I do agree that Kasparov did'nt throw the match, he simply lost. >>As for Kramnik being a much better player is completely unfounded. >>It's the other way around, well almost, as Kramnik is an excellent player. >>It was Kasparov who was completely out prepared in the opening and hence his >>inevitable loss. >> >>Kramnik is Great....Kasparov is Best! > >Kramnik is by far the best. Except for an obvious Rxb7 novelty in Gruenfeld >Kramnik has not showed very good openings. I said he was better prepared against Kasparov, not that he is in general always so well prepared. >Like the second Berliner game they played kasparov was bigtime won as in >so many games, yet kasparov blew it game after game. sometimes in middlegame, >sometimes in endgame. Yes Kasparov blew some chances, it happens to the best, and it did! > >It's easy to conclude that Kramnik is technical the far superior player, >let's first agree on that! That's Bull and you know it! Or should! Explain Kasparov's comeback this year? Or even last year when all GM's thought Kasparov was lost, Kramnik too in games 4 and 6 he pulled near miracles and escaped! I'd like to see Kramnik do that! But to be fair Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand are to a class to themselves. > Then secondly it's clear that kasparov had large advantage in nearly >all games after opening, except that Gruenfeld game. That's simply not true. Kramnik is one who rarely loses, he's learned how not to lose more than how to win. It worked well for him last fall. >Kramnik showed however that if you're such a great player as Kramnik >is, that you can play very unsound lines against a worldchamp like >Kasparov. Are you delusional? Kramnik played very sound chess or his head would have been served up on a platter! >Hence the conclusion is obvious that though kasparov was surprised a lot, >he obviously got better out of his openingspreparement, but that he >was basically outplayed in the game and not in opening! > You are delusional, as Kasparov held the Berlin Defence in contempt and banged his head against it too many times. I looked at those games carefully, Kasparov was up like you said earlier then let his advantage slip away. First you say he was clearly ahead then he was outplayed, make up your silly mind! >On the other hand Kasparov is the far more aggressive prepared player >in openings. Some grandmasters like Shirov play very dubious lines sometimes >and even defend them by playing them. Then Kasparov strikes and gets a >free point again. This is why kasparov without doubt is the best >tournament player ever seen so far. > It stands to reason you would drag Shirov into this....need to fan the flames! > If you play very risky lines, then Kasparov has usually already won before >move 20. Then it takes a few moves to show it to the audience too and >you resign. > Of course if you play dubious moves Kasparov will kill like a lion! >Best regards, >Vincent > > >>Terry
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.