Author: martin fierz
Date: 07:48:18 11/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2003 at 05:30:03, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On November 04, 2003 at 05:15:23, martin fierz wrote: > >>On November 04, 2003 at 04:39:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On November 03, 2003 at 21:12:15, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On November 03, 2003 at 19:51:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>- What KASPAROV is concerned we know that he is no longer the best human player, >>>> >>>>http://www.fide.com/ratings/top.phtml >>>> >>>>1 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2830 >>>>2 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2777 >>>>3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2766 >>> >>> >>>We can discuss the value of ELO rankings all day long but you won't succeed in >>>twisting the historical fact that Kasparov _lost_ his title match against >>>Kramnik! ELO rankings are a different thing. When Alekhine prepared his title >>>match against Capablanca the latter also was the tournament number one player >>>who almost NEVER lost a single game in his whole career! Still Alekhine managed >>>to win the match against Capablanca and from that moment on he was regarded as >>>the real champ. The same here with Kramnik. Kasparov is out, forget him, his >>>time is over. >> >>well, that certainly is a strange statement! kasparov has won the most >>super-tournaments over the past years, has the highest rating, plays the most >>brilliant chess (ok, this one is subjective), and you still think his time is >>over? yes, he lost that one match against kramnik, but that was mainly a >>psychological thing, not the chess (ok, subjective again...). >>one thing is sure: in the chess world, most people think kasparov is the >>strongest player, and not kramnik. all those world championship titles are >>getting rather meaningless since nobody is playing for them any more - so what >>else would you want to go on if not rating and supertournament results? >> >>cheers >> martin >> >>PS: your claim that fischer is the greatest is also very subjective of course. >>for me, and many others it's kasparov! but this is simply nothing that can be >>discussed - de gustibus non est disputandum :-) > > >You make a good P.S. - but then you call my opinion 'strange'. This is strange >IMO. hmm, ok, i admit :-) i wrote it as a PS and it occurred to me at the end of the post, but not in the beginning... >If you take a minute of thought you will understand what I meant. Kasparov >sure is the hysterical winner of tournaments but he has found his master. i don't agree. in this match, he found his master. but in a later tournament he tore down kramnik's berlin wall. for me, kasparov is the stronger player. kramnik came along to this match with a really cool anti-kasparov strategy. you can compare it to his anti-fritz-strategy in bahrain, except that in the real world championship he stayed true to his strategy until the end of the match... don't start about the why :-). and kasparov couldn't adapt to this in the short duration of the match. BTW, a player like anand is on a smilar level as kramnik IMO. well, these are all IMOs, so not worth discussing further :-) cheers martin
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.