Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 08:35:16 11/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2005 at 02:39:35, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 15, 2005 at 01:52:00, Tony Nichols wrote: > >>On November 15, 2005 at 00:53:10, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On November 15, 2005 at 00:04:18, Tony Nichols wrote: >>> >>>>On November 14, 2005 at 20:32:22, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2738 >>>> >>>>I hope Topalov does not go the way of Ponomariov. Big matches do not come your >>>>way everyday. >>>>Regards >>>>Tony >>> >>>I think that topalov is right not to accept a match against Kramnik but it could >>>be better if topalov say that it is not a question of money but a question of >>>justice. >>> >>>Kramnik does not deserve a match beacuse Shirov beated him so I do not count >>>Kramnik's match against kasparov(kramnik should never be there in the first >>>place) and I think that kramnik never was the world champion. >>> >> >> If you beat the world champion in a match, then you are world champion. > >I think that you need first to qualify for a match and kramnik did not qualify >for it. > >The only way to qualify in the past was by winning a match earlier and I see no >reason to do an exception for kramnik. > >> >> >>>Accepting a match against kramnik is simply against justice and I hope people >>>simply forget about kramnik(kramnik is simply too greedy and this is the reason >>>he refused to participate in the world championship that topalov won so I hope >>>that he earns nothing). >>> >> >> I don't think greed has anything to do with it. If he participated in the >>tournament he would in effect renounce his world title. > >I do not see kramnik has a person who had the world title. >Kasparov was the world champion from my point of view before topalov > >> >>>Based on what I read, >>>Kramnik got money for losing against shirov when shirov never got money for >>>winning because the prize was supposed to be a match against kasparov. >>> >>>This is clearly not fair and I think that justice says that Kramnik should pay >>>shirov at least the money that kramnik got for losing the match as compensation >>>because it is not logical that losing is better than winning and shirov could >>>win that money in case of losing the match against kramnik. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >> Is this a joke? You want Kramnik to give money to Shirov, Because Shirov beat >>Kramnik? > >Because Shirov got nothing for beating kramnik and this is not fair. >Usually I do not think that the loser need to pay the winner but usually we have >no case that the loser get money for losing and the winner does not get money >for winning. > >> I think you have your history wrong. Kramnik made sure he got financial >>guarantees before he played the match, Shirov did not. Shirov turned down at >>least one WC offer. Apparently, It wasn't enough money!? This is from the same >>man who just played a match for free! > >I did not know it. >What was the offer(was this an offer that kasparov accepted and did they offer >shirov more than the money that kramnik got for losing against him even in case >that he lose the match against kasparov?) The details are unclear. I have read that it was one million dollars total purse. Shirov seems unwilling to give details(based on interviews I read). I too think that Shirov should have got a chance to play. However, This is not Kramnik's fault. 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.