Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 16:58:46 11/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2004 at 19:42:57, Albert Silver wrote: >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. > Kasparov left fide. He formed various organizations. When he didnt get his way the organizations collapsed. >>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. > Fide failed to adhere to the agreement not Kramnik. >>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" ??? > His desire to stand up to the selfish Kasparov and the corrupt fide is in my opinion very good for 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 > Kramnik single handedly organized a candidates tournament. What has fide or Kasparov done? It's funny that you say Kramnik has done nothing to move the cycle forward. In fact he is the only one who has done anything. We are still waiting for the Kasparov-whoever match. Even Kasparov is worried about fide. You can read his open letter on chessbase. If and when the title is unified we should all hope that fide has nothing to do with it. >>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.