Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 20:59:24 04/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2001 at 16:33:48, Terry McCracken wrote: >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 I'd like to apologize for bieng harsh and sarcastic. To disagree is one thing, to be arrogant and rude is another, which I was. My post lacked any respect for your opinion. For that I'm sorry. We may not share the same views and I felt a little offended. Hopefully you'll accept my apology. Best Regards, 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.