Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:55:45 11/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2004 at 03:23:41, Tony Nichols wrote:
>On November 12, 2004 at 09:09:25, 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.
>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>Hi Uri
>>>Kasparov definitely needed the match more than Kramnik. He was in danger of
>>>losing creditability as champion. He went 5 years without defending his title.
>>>After the Shirov match fell thru he tried to play Anand. When Anand declined he
>>>tried to play Karpov. When that fell thru he was in big trouble. If Kramnik had
>>>also refused Kasparov would have had to play a much weaker player. The chess
>>>world probably would not accept this. In reality Kramnik helped Kasparov more
>>>then Kasparov helped Kramnik.
>>
>>I wonder whether you wrote that with a straight face. Kramnik helped Kasparov
>>more than.... I actually laughed out loud when I read that.
>>
>>"Your honor, the alleged "victim" suffers from obesity, and high blood pressure,
>>so when my client stole the victim's Mercedes-Benz, forcing the victim to walk
>>and adopt a new healthier life-style, he was helping him more than he was
>>helping himself. He deserves a medal in my book."
>>
>> Albert
>>
>>I agree that Kasparov agreed to worse(fair!?)
>>>conditions than he had against Karpov. He should be applauded for this. But this
>>>is no reason to just hand him a rematch.
>>>Regards
>>>Tony
>
>:) Let's not forget Kasparov asked Kramnik to play chess not the other way
>around.
Kramnik was ousted from the World Championship cycle by Shirov, and as far as he
was concerned, was out of the loop to realize his ultimate ambition. Kasparov
basically came to him, handed him a check for $800,000 (I forget the exact sum
the loser would get), and a chance to become World Champion with an extra
$400,000 if he did. Somehow, you wish to convince me that Kasparov is indebted
to him. Lots of luck.
>Of course Kramnik benefited, but Kasparov was in danger of not being
>considered champion anymore. Mainly because he failed to organize a candidates
>tournament. Something Kramnik has done.
For the Nth time, Kramnik never organized a thing. Nada. Zilch.
As to Kasparov failing to organize a candidates tournament, I have no idea what
you are referring to. What candidates tournament was Kasparov supposed to have
organized and didn't?
>I would love to see a rematch but not if
>fide is going to continue like they have been. If they have the unified title
>under their rule they can do whatever they want.
That has always been true. You present this as if this were some sort of new and
shocking idea. If you hand it to another entity, then that entity will have
control over it. However, as far as I know, the Prague agreement does not state
that the subsequent unified World Championship will be under their dictatorial
control. The ACP, under whose auspices the Kramnik-Leko match was held, does
have their say, and they are supportive of the unification process. Furthermore,
they are supportive of Kazimdzhanov as the match opponent of Kasparov. I quote:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1644 (bottom of the page)
"The ACP position is the following: FIDE should be given some time to stage its
match between the winner in Tripoli and Kasparov."
Kramnik's withdrawal from the agreement is NOT in accord with "working with all
parties" as it not only breaches his personal agreement, but the one supported
by the very federation/association he is supposedly supporting.
Albert
>Can you say KO championship. I
>like classical chess and classical champions. Kramnik is the only one carrying
>that legacy.
>Regards
>Tony
>P.S. If your posts continue to be that funny I might have to concede defeat!
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.