Originally posted by stevetodd Who did you vote for Cludi?
I didn't vote yet - but I actually tend to agree with No1 that Kramnik is the legitimate champion until a match has been played. At the same time I do acknowledge Anand and his performance in Mexico which was an outstanding tournament victory against VERY tough opposition.
Originally posted by cludi I didn't vote yet - but I actually tend to agree with No1 that Kramnik is the legitimate champion until a match has been played. At the same time I do acknowledge Anand and his performance in Mexico which was an outstanding tournament victory against VERY tough opposition.
Is that diplomatic enough for you, Steve? LOL
LOL well I do not have a firm opinion to be honest, like I said above I am not sure of the reasons why a WC is more valid from match play as opposed to tournament play, I suppose in tournamment play it could possible be open to abuse (ie if someone very good blunders can't win the title, but could still influence who else wins the title). Although I am not sure that someone would do this.
Edit: But after Topolov made such a fool of himself in his match against Kramnik I think anything is possible.
Originally posted by stevetodd LOL well I do not have a firm opinion to be honest, like I said above I am not sure of the reasons why a WC is more valid from match play as opposed to tournament play, I suppose in tournamment play it could possible be open to abuse (ie if someone very good blunders can't win the title, but could still influence who else wins the title). Although I am not sure that someone would do this.
I don't think a WC is "more valid" from match play, but that's the way it's been determined historically.
One could argue, that tournament play is more about chess and match play is more about psychology and preparations.
And probably only a few would disagree...
But still - after 150 years of match play to find the champion, it's a bit difficult for me to let a tournament decide instead of a head to head between the undisputed champ and the contender...with all it's in-built psychology and drama! (Just think of the Kramnik-Topalov match a year ago!)
Originally posted by no1marauder I really don't care what Kramnik agreed to (under threat of having his FIDE title, not the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP stripped). FIDE can't dictate who is World Champion; that is decided by match play.
EDIT: Riddle me this; who was the World Champion during the 1990's?
Anand is the legitimate champion. However, if he fails to defend the title in his match against Kramnik (or if FIDE manages to once again prevent the match), his championship will be open to dispute.
For now, Kramnik's willingness to accept the terms legitimizes Anand's victory.
Topalov's absence from Mexico City serves only to assure that the games were played over the board, rather than in the bathroom.
This thread is a good example of the problems in the (chess)world. Everybody is trying to push through his/her 'holy truth', using reasonings that remind me of other types of fundamentalism. Despite all the problems inside FIDE, despite the many similar or not so similar difficulties around the title during chess history, why can't we all accept this tournament as a step made by FIDE into the right direction? Anand is the deserving worldchampion, and he will be until he gets beaten (or forfeits) in the future. This is not about being the best chessplayer of all times or not. This is about being the current worldchampion!
Originally posted by Korch Well - in both of their games there serious fight for a win. So I dont see the point to talk about "kind of agreeing to not spend all that much time on each other and concentrate on taking out the rest of the field".
Korch is right, these games weren't boring draws. Anyway, the way to maximize your score vs a particular opponent is to take a point from them directly...
Originally posted by Mephisto2 This thread is a good example of the problems in the (chess)world. Everybody is trying to push through his/her \'holy truth\', using reasonings that remind me of other types of fundamentalism. Despite all the problems inside FIDE, despite the many similar or not so similar difficulties around the title during chess history, why can\'t we all accept this to ...[text shortened]... g the best chessplayer of all times or not. This is about being the current worldchampion!
For those of us who think that the world championship ought to be decided by match play, a WC tournament can\'t be called a \'step in the right direction\'.
Originally posted by SwissGambit For those of us who think that the world championship ought to be decided by match play, a WC [b]tournament can\'t be called a \'step in the right direction\'.[/b]
I'm starting to agree that this format is not good to decide the WC. Tournament play and match play are indeed very different. The WC needs to be faced in a one on one match. This is almost as if you have the two best boxers and instead of fighting each other in a big battle, they fight everyone else. This seems illogical to me. Kramnik should not have participated in this tournament, he should only have faced the winner.
Originally posted by Korch If negotiations did continue it means that FIDE did not accept his resign and Fischer (as he continue negotiations) in fact did withdraw his resign. So he lost his title only after decision of FIDE.
Also Lasker did resign his title during negotiations with Capablanca before their match in 1921, but nobody (including Capa) did not accept that. And there are ...[text shortened]... d dont you know that Fischer called his match with Spassky in 1992 world championship rematch?
Fischer never withdrew his resignation. Lasker withdrew his by playing Capablanca.
Kramnik disagrees with me but only on the condition that he get a match within a year after Mexico City. If Anand is World Champion, why does he have to play Kramnik who he supposedly just beat? According to your logic, Kramnik would have to qualify like everybody else as all he would be is an ex-champion.
Don't care what Fischer called his 1992 match, just like I don't care what FIDE called the tourney in Mexico City.
Originally posted by Wulebgr By your reasoning, Fischer.
See above.
I don't agree that the champion can acquiese to a fundamental change in the way the World Championship is decided. The WC isn't his personal property; it belongs to the chess world.
Originally posted by exigentsky I'm starting to agree that this format is not good to decide the WC. Tournament play and match play are indeed very different. The WC needs to be faced in a one on one match. This is almost as if you have the two best boxers and instead of fighting each other in a big battle, they fight everyone else. This seems illogical to me. Kramnik should not have participated in this tournament, he should only have faced the winner.
the world championship in boxing is decided in tournament style. that's the real boxing, the one you can win olympic medals in. one sport, one tournament, one champion and no complications.
only the 'professional boxing' decides them 'match style'. which has lead to similar multi-champion problems with a ridiculous FOUR parallel organizations (well actually these are only the 4 'big' ones, then there's a countless number of smaller separate 'world championship organizations), and a web of confusing primadonna issues just like with chess. it's ridiculous, and any of the 'professional' champion is only the champion of a small subset of all the boxers. it's a complete farce, but the people behind it make loads of money so the show goes on.
I suppose it is a bit like that with some of the master titles that can be awarded. For instance, I could be a county master in England if I wanted to buy the title, however it is pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things.
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex I suppose it is a bit like that with some of the master titles that can be awarded. For instance, I could be a county master in England if I wanted to buy the title, however it is pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things.
30 Sep '07 13:16
New World Champion
Back to Top