05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchThe first two games were longer than 6 of Anand's games at Mexico City (that's 43% of his games). You also ignored Kramnik-Topalov, which had no games shorter than 31 moves.
Agree 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.
Making common judgements by one particular anomaly is really silly.
About Kasparov-Kramnik thewe were 4 short&borin co and number of all games played there.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2You're a complete idiot.
What 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 ...[text shortened]... ent that Moro was a weaker player than Kramnik" . As if that was a universal truth. BS, yes.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchI was "quiet" about Mexico City because I did not regard it as that important except to determine who would challenge the real World Champion. So whether Kramnik won it or not was irrelevant to me.
Why people who thinks that winner of Mexico cant be world champion were quiet before tournament and started to complain only after Kramnik lost his title? Would they complain if Kramnik managed to win?
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou forgot to count all games - not only Anand`s games.
The first two games were longer than 6 of Anand's games at Mexico City (that's 43% of his games). You also ignored Kramnik-Topalov, which had no games shorter than 31 moves.
Absence of short draws in Kramnik-Topalov match is "compensated" with really low quality games to compare with other world chamiponship matches during last 50 years.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchWhy would we count all the games? The argument is that the player leading will take a large amount of short and boring draws, not that two players in a late round with no chance of winning will. I'm amazed by your inability to actually follow an argument.
You forgot to count all games - not only Anand`s games.
Absence of short draws in Kramnik-Topalov match is "compensated" with really low quality games to compare with other world chamiponship matches during last 50 years.
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHave you written before (or during) Mexico that result of this competition cant determine champion?
I was "quiet" about Mexico City because I did not regard it as that important except to determine who would challenge the real World Champion. So whether Kramnik won it or not was irrelevant to me.
If not - then your attempts to low Anand and other participants of Mexico (except Kramnik) seems like based on your personal sympaties to Kramnik.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderId say that top players now are capable of playing at a higher standard more consistently, but if you look at the quality of games in respect to the time and knowledge of the game id say the standard remains the same- and the best classics can come from old master's games, or newer ones. If you mean quality in regards to improvements in knowledge which is used by the masters then yes but in regards to making the best of positions and having good games with small or infrequent errors id say the best games in this respect can come from any period.
My statement remains correct and only someone ignorant of chess history would dispute it.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchHolding your breath till you turn blue, eh? Typical childish behavior.
Just your claim.
Find someone with any knowledge of chess history who thinks that Leko and/or Grischuk are among the top ten players of all time (besides Leko and/or Grischuk's mother). Find someone with any knowledge of chess history who thinks Capablanca and/or Alekhine AREN'T.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchI don't even like Kramnik's style as I've already pointed out. You really are ridiculous.
Have you written before (or during) Mexico that result of this competition cant determine champion?
If not - then your attempts to low Anand and other participants of Mexico (except Kramnik) seems like based on your personal sympaties to Kramnik.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderFind someone with any knowledge of chess history who will agree with your evaluation about "weaker" participants of Mexico.
Holding your breath till you turn blue, eh? Typical childish behavior.
Find someone with any knowledge of chess history who thinks that Leko and/or Grischuk are among the top ten players of all time (besides Leko and/or Grischuk's mother). Find someone with any knowledge of chess history who thinks Capablanca and/or Alekhine AREN'T.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have problems to read - my argument was that in tournaments there are usually no more short draws than in world championship matches
Why would we count all the games? The argument is that the player leading will take a large amount of short and boring draws, not that two players in a late round with no chance of winning will. I'm amazed by your inability to actually follow an argument.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchMy evaluation was and is that the players at Mexico City were weaker than Kramnik, Anand and Topalov (besides Kramnik and Anand). Who doesn't agree with that? I can't help it if you can't understand such a simple point; ask your mommy to explain what the word "weaker" means to you.
Find someone with any knowledge of chess history who will agree with your evaluation about "weaker" participants of Mexico.