Author: Albert Silver
Date: 16:42:57 11/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2004 at 18:39:25, Tony Nichols wrote:
>On November 11, 2004 at 07:36:56, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>
>>>Kasparov did a favour to kramnik by agreeing to play with him.
>>>Kasparov could say easily that kramnik does not qualify because kramnik lost
>>>against shirov and refuse to play against kramnik.
>>
>>You beat me to it. I was going to say that I don't remember Kramnik qualifying
>>to play against Kasparov at all. He was just handed the chance to play in the
>>final. He no doubt regrets this decision against Kramnekhine. I have the book by
>>Winter on Capablanca, and it is fascinating to see how many times Alekhine
>>seemed like he was giving Capablanca a fair chance, but somehow there was a
>>clause or paragraph that made the whole thing impossible at the last minute.
>>
>> Albert
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>This was only after karpov lost more than one match against Kasparov.
>>>
>>>Maybe it was unfair but kasparov had relatively worse conditions and needs to
>>>win 2 matches to get the title back.
>>>
>>>Kasparov already agreed to worse conditions then the condition that karpov had
>>>against him.
>>>
>>>Uri
>Hi Albert
>I think its unfair to compare Kramnik to Alekhine. The system was set up
>differently back then. Now we have chaos. Does anyone think that if Kasparov
>becomes champ again things will change? I think Kasparov will start to dictate
>orders like he has in the past.
I don't recall him dictating things in the past. As I recall, the ctructure and
matches went through. He had a problem with FIDE, and even went about founding
the GMA, so dictating was hardly the issue of the day.
>This is not good for chess.
If your misconception were true.
>Kramnik seems
>willing to work with all sincere parties and even fide.
Yes, by refusing to adhere to the agreement made with FIDE, he is clearly
showing his desire for reform and sincere work with all parties.
>Kasparov has only one
>interest in mind. His legacy. This is fine but the good of chess should come
>first.
Still, not sure what you are referring to when you say "the good of chess should
come first". I presume you think that Kramnik's refusal to acknolwedge the
agreement he made to help unify the title is for "the good of chess" ???
That there are two cycles is no doubt due to Kasparov, but that FIDE decided to
make the laughable claim the winner of some gigantic KO tournament is the WOrld
Champ, is FIDE's fault alone. Kramnik has made NO effort to help push the world
championship cycle forward, but I guess that's the difference between
willingness to work and actual work. Kramnik has no high moral ground on which
to stand in this. He has basically sat on his title (his results certainly were
lackluster after 2000 - to be kind), done nothing to help the cycle move
forward, and now backtracks on the one plan set forth to mend the rift in the
chess world. Great reform. Yes, I can sense great changes in the air now.
Albert
>Regards
>Tony
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.