04 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2Morozevich is a weaker player than Kramnik, one game notwithstanding. It seems absurd for Anand to win the "World Championship" because Moro (a fine player with a great style certainly) managed to take a game off Kramnik.
I thought Kramnik lost interest after losing to Morozevich. You know, that 'weaker' player.
Kramnik pressed hard against Anand in their second game; perhaps you should look at it.
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI watched all the games life. Wouldn't want to miss a worldchampionship game. 😛
Morozevich is a weaker player than Kramnik, one game notwithstanding.
Kramnik pressed hard against Anand in their second game; perhaps you should look at it.
04 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2If you watched the second Kramnik-Anand game, you can't possibly believe that Kramnik "lost interest" after losing to Moro. Thus, your statement is wrong. A sensible person would admit that they made an incorrect statement (you apparently wanted to make some snotty point about me making the true statement that Moro was a weaker player than Kramnik).
What a great lawyer you must be. How on earth could a sensible person derive that from my last post?
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat a load of crap! Kramnik playing for a win against Anand is not a contradiction to Kramnik having lost interest in the tournament win. There was also the symbolic value (in light of the upcoming match) of him playing Anand. Besides, I said "I tought", who are you to say my statement is wrong? On the same note, I had to laugh when you wrote :"about me making the true statement that Moro was a weaker player than Kramnik" . As if that was a universal truth. BS, yes.
If you watched the second Kramnik-Anand game, you can't possibly believe that Kramnik "lost interest" after losing to Moro. Thus, your statement is wrong. A sensible person would admit that they made an incorrect statement (you apparently wanted to make some snotty point about me making the true statement that Moro was a weaker player than Kramnik).
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchNothing embarassing about that.. That is what I would do if ahead.
Situation in match when champion wins only one game and then makes all games in draw due to his safe play is embarasing too. Main advantage of tournament is that you cant afford make draws after first win and you should continue to play for win if you wanna be the best.
For the final time:
The embarassing situation in the tournament is where the ex-champion loses because he draws the games against very determined opponents who do not want to lose against him. then these same players underrate this other player (A) and play risky against him and lose! The ex-champion plays player A and beats him! But he does not have as many wins as A (though he never lost ) and so places 2nd in tournament. That is fine but not to lose wc this way.
To beat the man you have to beat the man!
Your e.g. situation is not embarassing - You think the two players give a crap if you enjoy watching them play? They are playing to win. If I am ahead in a match I will play it safe and try to draw all the rest of the games,. That is perfect plan. I don't care if you don't find it exciting..
Look up in dictionary boring, exciting and embarassing. I agree that matches can be boring. Tournaments can be more exciting but not correct way to determine champion.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderAgree about Fisher-Spassky - the main reason was Fisher which tried to play for a win in each game (maybe except some extraordinary circumstances). But that was one of these qualities which made Fisher unique among world strongest players.
Your stubborn refusal to actually look at any viewpoint but your own continues.
The number of short draws in Kramnik-Kasparov was 2 for example. The number in Fischer-Spassky was 0 (I believe; I'll look it up). Some others had more (usually when the players wanted a rest day), but the point stands.
EDIT: Game #9 of Fischer-Spassky was a ...[text shortened]... 40 moves. So I think I've showed a world championship match without ANY short & boring draws.
Making common judgements by one particular anomaly is really silly.
About Kasparov-Kramnik thewe were 4 short&boring draws
[Event "Braingames WCC"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "2000.10.08"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Kasparov G"]
[Black "Kramnik V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5
8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Nc3 Bd7 10.b3 h6 11.Bb2 Kc8 12.h3 b6 13.Rad1 Ne7 14.Ne2 Ng6
15.Ne1 h5 16.Nd3 c5 17.c4 a5 18.a4 h4 19.Nc3 Be6 20.Nd5 Kb7 21.Ne3 Rh5
22.Bc3 Re8 23.Rd2 Kc8 24.f4 Ne7 25.Nf2 Nf5 1/2-1/2
[Event "Braingames WCC"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "2000.10.15"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Kasparov G"]
[Black "Kramnik V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Bg2 Nc6 6.Nc3 g6 7.O-O Bg7
8.Qa4 Nb6 9.Qb5 Nd7 10.d3 O-O 11.Be3 Nd4 12.Bxd4 cxd4 13.Ne4 Qb6
14.a4 a6 15.Qxb6 Nxb6 16.a5 Nd5 17.Nc5 Rd8 18.Nd2 Rb8 19.Nc4 e6 20.Rfc1 Bh6
21.Rcb1 Bf8 22.Nb3 Bg7 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 24.Nbd2 e5 1/2-1/2
[Event "Braingames WCC"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "2000.10.19"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Kasparov G"]
[Black "Kramnik V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g3 Qc7 7.Qd3 Nc6
8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.Bg2 e5 10.O-O Be6 11.Na4 1/2-1/2
[Event "Braingames WCC"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "2000.10.29"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Kasparov G"]
[Black "Kramnik V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5
Nf5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. Nc3 h6 10. h3 Ke8 11. Ne4 c5 12. c3 b6 13. Re1 Be6 14.
g4 1/2-1/2
So 4 games from 15 - about 26%.
So to show that in Mexico was higher percentage of short draws you may count short&boring draws in Mexico and number of all games played there.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauder1) Your wish to lower participants of Mexico has nothing common with their real strenght.
Guess you missed these facts which I previously posted:
1) There are no players playing there except Kramnik who would even be in the discussion of the 10 greatest players of all-time. The tournaments you mention had Lasker, Capablance, Rubinstein, Alekhine, Botvinnik, etc. etc. etc. Many of those tournaments had 3 or more of the greatest players of a ...[text shortened]... draw after 13 moves was shameful. Do you think players will find those games to be "classics"?
2) You are still ignoring fact I did mention - in other great exiting tournaments (New York 1927 Match-tournament 1948 and Zurich 1953 etc.) 1st place was determined before last round and winners did made short draws.
Also - In almost all world championship (except Fisher - Spassky) there were short draws and in some of world championship matches (Tal-Botvinnik and Petrosian-Botrvinnik for example) there were short draws in last rounds when winner had such large advantage that loser did not hope to revenge.
05 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by zin23If you would be ahead in tournament would not you make short draws if it would keep your lead? I dont think argument "That is what I would do if ahead." serious.
Nothing embarassing about that.. That is what I would do if ahead.
For the final time:
The embarassing situation in the tournament is where the ex-champion loses because he draws the games against very determined opponents who do not want to lose against him. then these same players underrate this other player (A) and play risky against him and lose! The e hes can be boring. Tournaments can be more exciting but not correct way to determine champion.
If he is pretending to be a champion he should be able to win his opponents if he need to to it for keeping his title. If he can`t - he does not deserve his title anymore.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchThe person who places second in the tournament is BETTER than the person who placed first because he does NOT Lose! The 'winner' lost a game to the second placed champion. He only won the tournament because he won more games.
If you would be ahead in tournament would not you make short draws if it would keep your lead? I dont think argument "That is what I would do if ahead." serious.
If he is pretending to be a champion he should be able to win his opponents if he need to to it for keeping his title. If he can`t - he does not deserve his title anymore.
Why can you not understand this hypthetical condition?
You think that winning alone (against weaker opponents who may have played risker against him) makes a champion?
There are 3 outcomes win lose draw. Nothing wrong with draws. Some good players draw more in their games. Matches determine the stronger player out of two. Tournament are for determining strong players from the field (1st is not necessarily the best player)
Real stupid. Tournaments cannot determine champions - it is too embarassing if the 'winner' drops a game to ex-champion and becomes champion.
Thats it - I am done arguing this crap.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by zin23The person who places second in the tournament is BETTER than the person who placed first because he does NOT Lose!
The 'winner' lost a game to the second placed champion. He only won the tournament because he won more games.
Why can you not understand this hypthetical condition?
You think that winning alone (against weaker opponents who may have played risker against him) makes a champion?
There are 3 outcomes win lose draw. Nothing wrong with draws. Some good ...[text shortened]... rops a game to ex-champion and becomes champion.
Thats it - I am done arguing this crap.
Why can you not understand this hypthetical condition?
According to your logic player who won 1 game and drew 13 games is playing better than person who won 5 games lost 1 games and drew 8 games.
If champion was able to make only 1 win against winner of championship, but winner could beat many other players which champion was not able to win - champion deserves to lose his title until he will learn to reach more wins.