Author: Dagh Nielsen
Date: 05:54:04 03/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2006 at 22:26:10, Mark R. Anderson wrote: >On March 01, 2006 at 17:50:08, Dagh Nielsen wrote: > >>On March 01, 2006 at 17:01:34, Mark R. Anderson wrote: >> >>>On March 01, 2006 at 09:11:52, Tord Romstad wrote: >>> >>>>Taken from the ChessBase site: >>>> >>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2947 >>>> >>>> The classical World Chess Champion against the world's strongest >>>> computer program: In the WORLD CHESS CHALLENGE (WCC) 2006 classical >>>> chess World Champion Vladimir Kramnik (Russia) will play a match >>>> against the world's leading chess computer program, Deep Fritz >>>> (Germany). >>>> >>>>Calling Fritz "the world's leading chess computer program" is not just >>>>stretching the truth, it's blatantly untrue. I refuse to believe that >>>>ChessBase is unaware of the existence of chess programs stronger than >>>>Fritz. They are lying, plain and simple. >>>> >>>>It is also getting boring to always watch the same programs get the >>>>chance to play against the top GMs. >>>> >>>>Tord >>> >>>Tord, >>> >>>I agree. Speaking of untrue statements, what about the claim of Kramnik being >>>the "Classical Chess World Champion?" In my view, Kramnik was given the chance >>>to play and refused. He's played little lately, due to some health concerns, >>>and when he has, his results have been less than spectacular .... usually about >>>an even score. He's now rated, IIRC, about 7th or 8th in the world. World >>>Chess Champion? No way. Just like we now have Rybka and Fruit, both of which >>>can beat Fritz, and Hiarcs, which is also about even with Fritz. Fritz can no >>>longer claim to be solely best, and now yet another match for Kramnik to draw it >>>in all games .... I feel myself getting sleepy just thinking about it ... >>>(yawn). >>> >>>Based on the logic of Kramnik, if you don't play, then you're not beaten, and >>>then you're still champ. Didn't someone else use that same foolish logic? >>>Perhaps Bobby Fischer? Gee, with this logic, we might have lots of champs! (As >>>if we don't already have enough .....) >>> >>>Mark Anderson >> >>Kramnik defended his title in a match against Leko. Kasparov retired from chess, >>after FIDE had failed to arrange a match the winner of which would get to play >>the winner of Kramnik-Leko. Topalov refused to play Kramnik. These are just >>facts, so please don't say that Kramnik didn't defend his classical WC title (as >>opposed to the FIDE title, which Topalov won). >> >>Kind regards, >>Dagh Nielsen > >Dagh, > >No disrespect intended to you or Mr. Kramnik, but I don't see how he can say he >is world champ. Why didn't he play Kasparov? Why didn't he play at the recent >world championship? (He was invited.) > >It's not "his" title, not his personal property. There is no such thing as a >"classical world chess champion" title ... that is an invention of the press. >Kramnik clings to that so that he can say he is world champ. Yes, I know about >the various FIDE fiascos. This will unfortunately probably continue unless >Bessel Kok wins the election. > >As far as his match with Leko goes, he was very lucky to (barely) tie that match >in the last game. Note that Kasparov was interested in a return match with >Kramnik, but Kramnik found it inconvenient to grant that. Alekhine pursued this >strategy and would not give Capablanca a return match (a sad loss for all of >us). Instead, he played Bogolubov (a man he knew he could beat) several times >and Capablanca had to be left out. This type of thing, where a player thinks >they make the rules, that their title is their personal property and they can do >as they like .... that's the same way Kramnik has done it too. Don't want to >play #1 in a return match? Then play #4! (This almost backfired when he >narrowly avoided losing.) > >In six years, Kramnik has defended his title ONCE, and even then, he did not >win. So, if Kramnik refuses to play anyone now, he is world champ forever! >(Like Bobby Fischer claims) I don't mean to disrespect Kramnik, but us fans >like to see the champs and champ-contenders PLAY each other, and not avoid >playing. > >The Kramnik of 2000 seemed a worthy champion. He seemed powerful and sure of >himself. The Kramnik of 2006 has not played often, is too careful when he >plays, and usually finishes in the middle of the pack. Not exactly what one >would expect of a "champ". He just doesn't seem the same anymore. I have >played over most of his games, and it seems like the "fizz" has gone out of him >in the last 2-3 years. If this is due to Mr. Kramnik's health problems, then we >can all have great sympathy for him and wish him well, but then he should lay >down his "title" and let others fight it out ... those who relish the fight. > >Mark Mark, I agree in essence with most of what you say. But I think it is just wrong to blame Kramnik for not granting Kasparov a rematch. I think he had very good reasons for not doing that, mainly that it would be a dead-end with regards to actually building up a new solid cycle. Also, it's not like he wouldn't play him at all, in fact he was on an agreed track to play him granted Kasparov could win the match vs. the then current FIDE champ. But, as I said, I agree that the situation around "his" classical title has been far from perfect for the last 5 years, I just don't agree that that is reason enough to strip him from it and de facto destroy the classical lineage. A compromise involving some kind of reunification match seems much preferable to that. Kind regards, Dagh Nielsen
This page took 0.01 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.