Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 22:55:36 11/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2004 at 01:26:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 11, 2004 at 00:53:10, Tony Nichols wrote: > >>On November 11, 2004 at 00:51:19, Tony Nichols wrote: >> >>>On November 10, 2004 at 21:21:27, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>On November 09, 2004 at 23:24:20, Peter Darin wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>He is running away. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>From what? >>>>>>>>>Tony >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>from playing Kasparov of course whom he is afraid to play. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't know what makes you think Kramnik is afraid to play Kasparov. After all >>>>>>>he beat Kasparov for the title. There is no evidence that he is afraid. There is >>>>>>>evidence that Kasparov does not want to play Kramnik. He declined to play in the >>>>>>>Dortmund qualifier. He went back to fide. If Kasparov wanted to play Kramnik so >>>>>>>bad he would have played in Dortmund. I think many people don't understand that >>>>>>>Kramnik is trying to reform chess. Kasparov instigated the mess we have now. I >>>>>>>too would like to see them play, but Kasparov should have to qualify. >>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>Tony >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm afraid I have to side with Peter on this one. Kramnik has been beaten by >>>>>>Kasparov since the title for one thing, and he also recently decided he would >>>>>>not play the superfinal against Kasparov despite the agreement that the winner >>>>>>of both matches would play to unify the titles. I don't think Kramnik is trying >>>>>>to reform anything at all and never heard one single word on his part suggesting >>>>>>that was his intention. Alekhine, move over, you've got company. >>>>>> >>>>>> Albert >>>>> >>>>>Hello Albert >>>>>Kramnik did not say he wouldn't play Kasparov. He said he had no commitment to >>>>>play Kasparov. He agreed to the Prague agreement yes, but that said he would >>>>>play the winner of Kasparov-Ponomariov. There will be no such match. >>>> >>>>No doubt Kramnik has lawyers capable of saying the same thing, but it's still >>>>bunk. Ponomariov was to play Kasparov as he was the official FIDE World >>>>Champion, and not because he was Ponomariov. >>>Agreed. >>>He then made things quite >>>>impossible so the match could not take place. Now there is a new FIDE World >>>>Champion who will correctly continue the process initiated and Kramnik has found >>>>a very convenient loophole. >>>> >>>I disagree. I think fide is as much to blame as Ponomariov. They were treating >>>Kasparov as if he was their champion. Kramnik has not said he won't play. He >>>said he's not obligated that's a big difference. >>>>>Kramnik has >>>>>said in NIC that he wants reform in chess. He also supports the ACP who want to >>>>>reform chess, so his intentions are clear. >>>> >>>>Reform should start by clarifying the state of the World CHampionship title, >>>>which has ceased being clear for the past years. When there is finally a >>>>possibility to close the rift, his reform desires are nowhere to be found. >>>> >>>In my opinion the title is very clear. Kramnik became champ by beating the >>>champ. He has now defended against a worthy qualified opponent. I believe he has >>>every intention of defending against all challengers who qualify to play him. >>>Let's not forget that Kasparov left fide in 1992 with the title. Coincidentally >>>he didn't come back till he lost it. Now he wants it back. Well, He's not >>>calling the shots anymore. Kasparov knows that he can't call himself champ again >>>unless he beats Kramnik or whoever beats Kramnik. Kramnik knows this also and >>>will not be pushed into a match under whatever conditions fide deems appropiate. >>>I think he wants to avoid a situation in which fide can dictate how championship >>>will be held without a long term system in place. I call that reform. >>>>>Kasparov's intentions are anything >>>>>but clear. He insisted that there be no rematch clause for his match with >>>>>Kramnik. Now he complains about not getting a rematch. I don't take Kasparov >>>>>seriously anymore. He is interested in politics and writing but not chess so >>>>>much. He plays very few games a year. Thus he is still the highest rated player >>>>>but not the strongest. Based on results Kramnik and Anand are playing better. >>>> >>>>Anand is certainly showing great results, but Kramnik ?? Aside from barely >>>>retaining the title by virtue of drawing the match (a truly bad rule), I'm not >>>>sure what these best-player-in-the-world results of his you are referring to. As >>>>to Kasparov's supposed weakness, I think he will shine in the upcoming Russian >>>>championship, and Kramnik fears that he will lose the strength of his bargaining >>>>position if he comes up short. I remember after the results in the mid 90s when >>>>Kasparov seemed to lose some steam then as well, and people were quick to >>>>announce his impending downfall. >>>> >>>I think Kasparov will continue to do well in tournaments for a long time. I dont >>>think he is as strong of a match player anymore. Just my opinion. Kramnik just >>>finished a tough match, so its not surprising he's skipping the tournament >>>I think a poor performance would give fide leverage. I hope Kasparov is just in >>>a slump like before. I really love his chess! His ethics however, I don't care >>>for. >>>>>I think the Kramnik-Leko match was more competitive than the Kasparov-Kramnik >>>>>match. Now Kasparov is 4 years older and weaker. This is why he doesnt want to >>>>>have to qualify. He might not make it. >>>>>Regards >>>>>Tony >>>> >>>>That reason you just gave is absurd, and I honestly don't believe you think >>>>that. The reason I think he doesn't want to go through a long drawn-out process >>>>is simply because he doesn't think he should need to. Whether or not that's >>>>right is another story, but I believe that to be correct. I think he still has a >>>>few years ahead of him to be number one, unless someone forces him out of the >>>>spot, but I agree that one shouldn't be able to sit on one's laurels for 3 years >>>>as the current rating system allows. There should be a required minimum per >>>>year. >>>> >>>> Albert >>>I absolutely believe he didn't play in Dortmund 2002 because he might lose. It >>>was a long tough tournament and there were a few players who could have won. I >>>would love to see a rematch between Kasparov and Kramnik. I think the greatest >>>thing Kasparov could give back to chess is to qualify to play Kramnik and help >>>heal the wound he created in 1992. >>>Regards >>>Tony >> >>P.S. The last time Kasparov played a qualifying match was in 1983!? > >Kasparov is going to play a qualifying match against the fide champion. > >Kasparov lost only one match against Kramnik. >When karpov lost his match against kasparov he got a rematch in a short time and >same happened with botvinik so I do not think that it is unfair if kasparov play >kramnik in case that he beat the fide champion. > >Kasparov needs now to win one match to qualify to play against kramnik. >It was not the case with karpov. > >Karpov after losing the world championship to kasparov needed only one match out >of 3 or 2 matches to win it back from kasparov and did not need to qualify(at >least for the first matche or the first 2 matches). > >I am not sure about the exact facts from that time. > > >Kasparov did not complain like kramnik that karpov needs to qualify at that time >so I see no reason for kramnik to complain that kasparov needs to qualify. > >Karpov also lost a big match of 24 games when kasparov lost a match with less >games so kasparov had more justification to refuse to another match against >karpov at the time that karpov lost his title. > > >Uri Kasparov did in fact complain about having to play Karpov. Kasparov was the one who instigated the no rematch clause not Kramnik. I'm sure he regrets it now. I think the rematch clause is unfair. It means the champion has a built in advantage. Smyslov had a plus score against Botvinnik in world championship play but he only won one match. Kasparov did not refuse a match with Karpov. Karpov had to qualify and was beaten by Nigel Short. As late as 1995 there was talk of another Kasparov-Karpov match, But Karpov's results were poor after Linares 1994 and so it was forgotten. Kasparov would have more of a claim to a rematch if he didn't run back to fide after loseing to Kramnik. He left it on Kramnik to organize a candidates tournament and keep his title legitimate. Kramnik has done just that. I can find no fault with Kramnik. Kasparov... Regards Tony
This page took 0.03 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.