05 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYour evaluation was the players of Mexico (except Kramnik and Anand) are not great players.
My 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.
Btw. How old are you? Don`t you know that boys under 13 are not allowed to play here?
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchThat is a patent falsehood. My claim was that they would not be considered among the ten greatest players of all-time. Learn how to read and/or stop lying.
Your evaluation was the players of Mexico (except Kramnik and Anand) are not great players.
Btw. How old are you? Don`t you know that boys under 13 are not allowed to play here?
EDIT: From page 23: )\
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 all-time. I like Gelfand, Moroveich and a few others, but legendary players they are not.
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchWell let's see:
You have problems to read - my argument was that in tournaments there are usually no more short draws than in world championship matches
Number of draws under 25 moves:
Last World Championship match - 0%
Mexico City - 16 of 56 or 29%
And that's counting games that had no bearing on who would win the tournament.
EDIT: And your claim was:
Korch, p.25: 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.
Maybe you forgot.
05 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat about this one?
That is a patent falsehood. My claim was that they would not be considered among the ten greatest players of all-time. Learn how to read and/or stop lying.
EDIT: From page 23: )\
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 Laske ...[text shortened]... rs of all-time. I like Gelfand, Moroveich and a few others, but legendary players they are not.
Originally posted by Korch
In your opinion Leko, Anand and Morozevitch are not great players which people will remember after their death???? And that Aronian have no chances to become legendar?
Zurich 1953 was decided before last tournament. to say nothing about
New Yourk 1927 and Match-tournament 1948.
And result of Mexico was not so 100% decided even before last round. Dont you ...[text shortened]... ames? Tragedy`s of Aronian and Leko who seemed to be pretendents to 1st place before tournament?
Why don't you actually read what I write? Are ANY of those players in the same league as Capablanca, Lasker or Alekhine? Of course not. They may be "great" players, but they aren't and won't be placed in the same category as those players.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou did forgot to compare with Kasparov Kramnik match in which percentage are similar with Mexico.
Well let's see:
Number of draws under 25 moves:
Last World Championship match - 0%
Mexico City - 16 of 56 or 29%
And that's counting games that had no bearing on who would win the tournament.
EDIT: And your claim was:
Korch, p.25: Main advantage of tournament is that you cant affo ...[text shortened]... u should continue to play for win if you wanna be the best.
Maybe you forgot.
And if you are not informed - Anand had more than one win.
05 Oct 07
5 edits
[/i]Originally posted by Korch[i]LMAO! You really think that quote supports your claim?
What about this one?
[i/]Originally posted by Korch
[b]In your opinion Leko, Anand and Morozevitch are not great players which people will remember after their death???? And that Aronian have no chances to become legendar?
Zurich 1953 was decided before last tournament. to say nothing about
New Yourk 1927 and Match-tournament 1948.
And result of Mexi o at" players, but they aren't and won't be placed in the same category as those players.[/b]
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by Korcher, look here..
[b]The person who places second in the tournament is BETTER than the person who placed first because he does NOT Lose!
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 on ...[text shortened]... as not able to win - champion deserves to lose his title until he will learn to reach more wins.[/b]
Let me just add this to clarify (and correct a small mistake):
The person who places second in the tournament is BETTER than the person who placed first IF he beats him in a match - FACT!
>>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. >>
YES! He COULD be IF he beats him in a match. How long does it take for you to understand this in your thick head.
Thus, to determine the BETTER player - you must have a match.
If you really want a damn tournament to determine the best player have a knock out tournament where each person plays 6 games with the other.. Loser gets knocked out . If they draw they re-pair until someone loses the 6game match. This could take forever so they don't want to do it.
The 'winner' must learn to take the title away from the champion by winning against the champion not by beating John Doe who drew with the champion.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by zin23Your logic is based on one main premise - champion must be determined in match. But can you understand that its premise for you not for your opponents?
er, look here..
Let me just add this to clarify (and correct a small mistake):
The person who places second in the tournament is BETTER than the person who placed first IF he beats him in a match - FACT!
>>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. >>
YES ...[text shortened]... champion by winning against the champion not by beating John Doe who drew with the champion.