Originally posted by paultopiaI'm pretty sure the whole reunification thing is still on - and that's such a mouth-watering prospect.
So what next? I lose track. Is the whole unification thing still going on? Will vlad play kasparov at some point? (if so, I must admit, I hope kasparov whops him)
Personally, I hope Kramnik beats Kasparov at his own game (and if game 14 proves anything, it's that Kramnik is no kid in the creativity department). Is Kramnik still the only GM with a positive W/L record against Kaspy?
Originally posted by paultopiaI think Kasparov has to get through some guy named something like Khazizidiminovoizimnovov. Then, whoever wins that play Vlad for the championship.
So what next? I lose track. Is the whole unification thing still going on? Will vlad play kasparov at some point? (if so, I must admit, I hope kasparov whops him)
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI agree,no rapid stuff.But why does the reigning champion get to keep the title when the match is tied?That's an unfair advantage!He has not shown he is better than the challenger,yet he is the winner.A match for the world title should be played 'till one has a certain amount,say 6 or 10,of wins.
No way! I'm a traditionalist on this one - no rapid stuff for the WCC.
Kasparov plays Kasimdzhanov.Winner plays kramnik.Wether or not that match ever happens remains to be seen.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotOk, maybe the rapid stuff was a bit ridiculous, but I agree. No match should end in a tie. This isn't hockey. If it's tied at the end, they should either do what SirLoseALot said or play for the next win is the winner.
I agree,no rapid stuff.But why does the reigning champion get to keep the title when the match is tied?That's an unfair advantage!He has not shown he is better than the challenger,yet he is the winner.A match for the world title should be played 'till one has a certain amount,say 6 or 10,of wins.
Kasparov plays Kasimdzhanov.Winner plays kramnik.Wether or not that match ever happens remains to be seen.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotIf I remember correctly they used to do this a long time ago but the problem was that matches went on for months with neither player willing to take risks there was draw after draw after draw.
[b]I agree,no rapid stuff.But why does the reigning champion get to keep the title when the match is tied?That's an unfair advantage!He has not shown he is better than the challenger,yet he is the winner.A match for the world title should be played 'till one has a certain amount,say 6 or 10,of wins.
No organiser/sponsor is willing to promote endless games for an indeterminate period of time.
Quick play is a bit like penalty shoot outs in soccer, not ideal but at least you get a result.
Well, the point is that Kramnik was, before the Leko match, world champion, the established best player in the world, because he beat Kasparov. Leko however is yet to defeat a world champion, so Kramnik, having the last actual win in a Classical Championship Match remains champion because he did beat Kasparov and Leko has never beat a world champion.
Originally posted by collemanLong ago?Not at all,I believe Karpov was the last to play a match to 6 wins,for the world title.Too lazy to look up against who,was it korchnoi?I think it was the first match he played for the title,not counting 'the match that never happened',against Fischer.
If I remember correctly they used to do this a long time ago but the problem was that matches went on for months with neither player willing to take risks there was draw after draw after draw.
No organiser/sponsor is willing to promote endless games for an indeterminate period of time.
Quick play is a bit like penalty shoot outs in soccer, not ideal but at least you get a result.
The endless duration of a match,when using this system,is a problem indeed.A solution might be to not allow quick draws.Let's say,a game has to be played out untill a drawn endgame is reached.Which endgames are drawn can be determined in the rules.Problem is,I don't think any top player would ever agree to that.
Gambitzoid,it is true that Leko never beat a world champion in a match.But the champion didn't beat Leko!Leko proved he's at least just as good.I just feel there has to be a result other than a tie.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotActually last such match was the first Karpov-Kasparov match. And it was literally endless😀
Long ago?Not at all,I believe Karpov was the last to play a match to 6 wins,for the world title.Too lazy to look up against who,was it korchnoi?I think it was the first match he played for the title,not counting 'the match that never happened',against Fischer.
The endless duration of a match,when using this system,is a problem indeed.A solution might ...[text shortened]... Leko proved he's at least just as good.I just feel there has to be a result other than a tie.