Originally posted by no1marauderDo you think that before Morphy-Anderssen 1858 match there were no matches between strongest players? So why exactly Morphy-Anderssen 1858 or Stenitz-Anderssen in 1866?
I consider the first World Championship match to have been Morphy-Anderssen in 1858. Others say Stenitz-Anderssen in 1866. I see no reason to consider Stenitz-Zukertort as the first World Championship match. I know the history of chess and respect it even if you don't.
Reason why consider Stenitz-Zukertort as the first World Championship match is simple - this was first OFFICIAL match - after that match Steinitz was OFFICIALLY proclaimed as the World champion.
Originally posted by KorchI advice you to let it go. That man is incapable of reasoning.
Do you think that before Morphy-Anderssen 1858 match there were no matches between strongest players? So why exactly Morphy-Anderssen 1858 or Stenitz-Anderssen in 1866?
Reason why consider Stenitz-Zukertort as the first World Championship match is simple - this was first OFFICIAL match - after that match Steinitz was OFFICIALLY proclaimed as the World champion.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderit doesn't take a genius to realize you haven't done any calculations on the variability of tournament vs. match results. there's no body of 'arguments' that have been accepted for 150 years (and by who exactly?). you just make things up as you go.
It's annoying to have to spell out the obvious. Mikenay has already spelled out the arguments why match play is superior in deciding a World Championship and those arguments have been accepted in chess for 150 years. And again even the blockheads at FIDE now agree.
2 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodMatch play appeals to many peoples emotions that a champion can only lose his title to one direct challenger, and several sports like boxing (for the most part) adhere to this. However, track and field, fencing, volleyball, cricket, auto racing, archery, polo, x-games, baseball, tennis, golf, rugby, basketball, swimming, sprints, marathons, Olympics, ping-pong, badminton, hockey, soccer, football, bridge, poker, pool, spelling bees, backgammon and many other competitive games, and sports choose tournaments to determine a champion and would laugh at the notion of a champion only having to face one rival every two years or more but still remaining champion maybe even with rematch stipulations. I have no problem with match-play, but to say it is the only fair way to determine a champion is ludicrous, and disingenuous.
it doesn't take a genius to realize you haven't done any calculations on the variability of tournament vs. match results. there's no body of 'arguments' that have been accepted for 150 years (and by who exactly?). you just make things up as you go.
Originally posted by pimpsandwichI have previously stated my opinion that I prefer match play to tournament play in order to determine the WC.
Match play appeals to many peoples emotions that a champion can only lose his title to one direct challenger, and several sports like boxing (for the most part) adhere to this. However, track and field, fencing, volleyball, cricket, auto racing, archery, polo, x-games, baseball, tennis, golf, rugby, basketball, swimming, sprints, marathons, Olympics, pi ...[text shortened]... play, but to say it is the only fair way to determine a champion is ludicrous, and disingenuous.
I understand that many other sports/competitions use tourney style, but there is one key difference that, I believe, separates chess from these. In chess, most games end in draws. No other sport, that I can think of, is like that. If there were no draws in chess, a tourney style would be more acceptable. The question, "Can Anand beat Kramnik in chess?" was not determined because both of they're games ended in draws. That doesn't happen in other sports frequently enough to be a factor, so you can't compare them.
Originally posted by AProdigyWhats would be the difference if Kramnik and Anand would have 1 win and 1 loss against each other?
I have previously stated my opinion that I prefer match play to tournament play in order to determine the WC.
I understand that many other sports/competitions use tourney style, but there is one key difference that, I believe, separates chess from these. In chess, most games end in draws. No other sport, that I can think of, is like that. If there w ...[text shortened]... doesn't happen in other sports frequently enough to be a factor, so you can't compare them.
Actually in matches players can afford to play more draws - you should not worry if your opponent did better in this round, because he would have draw too.
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchOfficial by who? There was no governing body remember?
Do you think that before Morphy-Anderssen 1858 match there were no matches between strongest players? So why exactly Morphy-Anderssen 1858 or Stenitz-Anderssen in 1866?
Reason why consider Stenitz-Zukertort as the first World Championship match is simple - this was first OFFICIAL match - after that match Steinitz was OFFICIALLY proclaimed as the World champion.
Morphy-Anderssen is a good starting point because from then on the participants played against the next champion in succession. That cannot be said for matches prior to that one.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=53788
Official by who? Your ignorance of chess history is abdominable. Why Stenitz-Zukertort and not Steinitz-Anderssen for example?
I will quote especially for you:
In 1886 these two great chess minds [Steinitz and Zukertort] sat down to play what is now regarded by most chess historians as the first official World Chess Championship.