Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:47:33 03/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2006 at 08:54:04, Dagh Nielsen wrote: >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 I do not see a reason for a compromise. Ktamnik lost against shirov so he had no moral right to play against kasparov. In other words the result of the match kramnik-kasparov should be simply deleted from the history that we consider when we decide about the question who is the world champion. Uri
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.