Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 03:08:46 04/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2001 at 00:26:17, Mike S. wrote: >Is it normal methodology, to "retroactively" declare London 2000, or Paderborn >1999, having been a qualifying for a Kramnik match? AFAIK Braingames isn't >related to the ICCA (to FIDE neither). If Deep Shredder plays the BGN qualifying >and does not win (I would expect a very narrow outcome in each case), Shredder >keeps the WCCC title IMO. Everything is very easy to understand. Either they go with the titleholder, whether it is Champion vs. Champion or Kramnik vs. "Strongest", or find a legitimate way to challenge that title. A few handpicked contestants doesn't accomplish that. That is fact. Personally, I prefer the open qualifier, because I feel that it should have been known that the winner would have a shot at Kramnik, if that was a certainty (which I doubt). OTOH if there's agreement that Shredder is the proper representative then it isn't necessary. It's all about making titles and challenges legitimate compared to how they're presented. In this case, it's how BGN choose to present the event. Mogens.
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.