02 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't use a specific term. You made it specific by extracting the two words and making a specific term of them. I corrected myself meanwhile to accomodate for the narrowminded readers.
You denied you used a specific term, so I quoted when you did. Korch simply left out all the reasons why I thought Mexico City was boring. If you can't see the difference, you need help.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2Mephisto2: Tournaments may be more attractive to a general public, and the fact that there are games running in parallel even enhances media coverage.
I didn't use a specific term. You made it specific by extracting the two words and making a specific term of them. I corrected myself meanwhile to accomodate for the narrowminded readers.
LMAO! "General public" isn't a specific term?
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSome readers would not laugh their ass off themselves by reading this same sentence in the spirit that I intended (and corrected meanwhile to accomodate cetain other readers). English is not one of my first languages, but I doubt that 'a general public' is a very specific term.
Mephisto2: Tournaments may be more attractive to a general public, and the fact that there are games running in parallel even enhances media coverage.
LMAO! "General public" isn't a specific term?
edit. all this fuzz about the terms is off little value in comparison with the content of the remark I commented on
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2True enough, but you denied you used it and then got bitchy when I pointed out you had.
Some readers would not laugh their ass off themselves by reading this same sentence in the spirit that I intended (and corrected meanwhile to accomodate cetain other readers). English is not one of my first languages, but I doubt that 'a general public' is a very specific term.
edit. all this fuzz about the terms is off little value in comparison with the content of the remark I commented on
Anyway, I don't agree with your restatement for the reasons given.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchBecause it seems questionable that a champion can lose his title to a challenger without being beaten by the challenger.
I don`t see significant difference if champion is beaten in match or failed in tournament.
I agree that players can show different performance in match and in tournament, but how does it prove that match is better or tournament is worse?
Let me try to come up with an analogy, although it is difficult to think of something else that allows draws.
Lets say you have 10 gladiators in ancient Rome. They are all going to get thrown in there together, and after 10 minutes, whoever is left standing splits the prize money. Okay?
Now after the ten minutes, two men are left standing, Kramnik and Anand. During those 10 minutes Anand killed 5 gladiators and Kramnik killed only 3. The last two minutes of the battle were just between Anand and Kramnik, but neither was able to get an advantage (it was a draw).
Who should be considered better? Maybe Anand was a better attacker thus killing more people, but could he beat Kramnik? He didn't in that battle, so we don't know yet.
Kramnik didn't kill as many people, but that may be because he would wait for the attack before counter-attacking.
The question of who is better can only be determined if the two gladiators fight it out.
Same with chess. Did Anand beat Kramnik in the tournament? Yes, he scored more points. Could Anand beat Kramnik in chess? We don't know, because he didn't. This leaves a question as to whether Anand deserve the title. After they have a match, there will be no question. That is why I like matches better. It leaves no doubt.
P.S. I suggest you carry on a friendly civilized conversation with me and let that other guy carry on his conversation with himself.
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vipiuHey fellow football fan. Go Sooners! Don't lose again!
I think it is not so important how the Champ is decided...they can use even a Swiss System tournament...
I am a football fan...for example the national champion team is decided by a tournament...the cup winner is decided by knowck-out one vs one...the world cup is beginning with tournament type groups and ending in a knockout game...Who cares about the system ...[text shortened]... ere is a match only, maybe they should decrease the time per player...
Make it more commercial!
Anyway, chess and football are very different for one reason as I've stated before. Chess often ends in a draw. Football doesn't. The US college football (American football) system of voting for ranking has had its share of controversy from third-place finishing teams who had a perfect season and feel they should get a shot at the title. Imagine how much worse if the games usually ended in draws. It wouldn't work.
Knock-out tournament require someone to get beaten to be knocked out. Round-robin is different and not comparable. I tourney would work if after the first two rounds, the top four moved on to play two more rounds, and after that, the top two moved on to play each other. But draws would make this last forever because of continuous tie breaks.
Editted for spelling. I know I misspelled a lot more, but I don't feel like checking all of it.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by AProdigyIf 2 gladiators are equal against each other then better is gladiator who did kill more people.
Because it seems questionable that a champion can lose his title to a challenger without being beaten by the challenger.
Let me try to come up with an analogy, although it is difficult to think of something else that allows draws.
Lets say you have 10 gladiators in ancient Rome. They are all going to get thrown in there together, and after 10 min ...[text shortened]... vilized conversation with me and let that other guy carry on his conversation with himself.
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI seriously doubt that the quality of play at Mexico City was better than at say Fischer-Spassky, Tal-Botvinnik, Kasparov-Karpov, etc. etc.
I seriously doubt that the quality of play at Mexico City was better than at say Fischer-Spassky, Tal-Botvinnik, Kasparov-Karpov, etc. etc. etc. etc. The reverse is true; where you have weaker players, you'll have lower quality play. Not matter what you say, it is fairly obvious that the three strongest players in the world are Kramnik, Topalov and Anand City was a "boring" tournament (unless you're fond of short draws by your "Champion"😉.
If you did check games of these matches then you could see that quality of some games are very low. From latest examples check games of Kramnik - Topalov match.
The reverse is true; where you have weaker players, you'll have lower quality play.
Have you heard well known story about Tal ?- In his match with Botvinnik he did not notice move which (during the game) was noticed by schoolboy. When others did tell it to Tal he said "I would fin this move too if i was a schoolboy".
Not matter what you say, it is fairly obvious that the three strongest players in the world are Kramnik, Topalov and Anand; even someone as stubborn as you should surely admit that having the strongest players play each other is the way to get high quality chess.
You could not explain why these strongest players should be only 2 not
8 (like in Mexico).
The "specific opponent" should be the strongest player in the world next to the champion. If you are better than the second best player, that means you're the best even if the second best player might have a better record against the 25th best one. That again is pretty obvious.
How can you call player the strongest if he can`t show good result against all his opponents?
EDIT: You have the annoying habit of selectively quoting. Please try to quote my points in full and address them; I gave specific reasons why Mexico City was a "boring" tournament (unless you're fond of short draws by your "Champion"😉.
You have annoying habit to see annoying habits in others. And your manner of discussion is annoying in general.
I will quote what I want and let others judge how "selective" it is. Short draws is not argument - or show me world championship matches where were no short draws.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThe fact is it "main" argument is irrelevant - more important is fact that you are in conflict with arguments you did use before and it does not matters was these arguments "main arguments" or not.
Sure I did. But it wasn't my "main argument" as you falsely claimed.
02 Oct 07
2 edits
Korch,
Well lets say you make claim that the gladiator Anand is the better gladiator Kramnik. The next day, they decide to match the gladiators together and gladiator Kramnik beats gladiator Anand in three minutes. This would prove that Anand was never truly better, he was just a faster killer. Therefore your claim after the first group battle that Anand is a better gladiator than Kramnik was inaccurate.
My point is that in a round robin tournament, the results can be less difinitive. In a match, its always difinitive.
Editing for typos
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by AProdigyThis would prove that Anand was never truly better, he was just a faster killer.
Korch,
Well lets say you make claim that the gladiator Anand is the better gladiator. The next day, they decide to match the gladiators together and gladiator Kramnik beats gladiator Anand in three minutes. This would prove that Anand was never truly better, he was just a faster killer. Therefore your claim after the first group battle that Anand is a ...[text shortened]... round robin tournament, the results can be less difinitive. In a match, its always difinitive.
Strongly disagree - the fact that Kramnik could kill Anand later does not prove that Anand was not stronger before.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchYeah, but that's not the point. This is a hypothecial, so lets assume a consistant skill level. If their skill level's were exactly that of the large group battle, gladiator Kramnik may still beat gladiator Anand.
[b]This would prove that Anand was never truly better, he was just a faster killer.
Strongly disagree - the fact that Kramnik could kill Anand later does not prove that Anand was not stronger before.[/b]
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by AProdigyWhy it is hypotetical if Anand have showed better results before Kramnik kills him?
Yeah, but that's not the point. This is a hypothecial, so lets assume a consistant skill level. If their skill level's were exactly that of the large group battle, gladiator Kramnik may still beat gladiator Anand.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchHmm?
Why it is hypotetical if Anand have showed better results before Kramnik kills him?
The hypothetical part is the gladiator analogy. Not the fact that Anand won. I think the argument about varying skill levels is dogding the issue, so I wanted you to assume consistant skill levels.
Thus, if gladiator Anand killed 5 and gladiator Kramnik killed 3, you would say that Anand is better than Kramnik. But if Kramnik then kills Anand, your first claim would have been proven false. You can't get a perfect view of who is better until they fight each other.
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AProdigyThus, if gladiator Anand killed 5 and gladiator Kramnik killed 3, you would say that Anand is better than Kramnik. But if Kramnik then kills Anand, your first claim would have been proven false. You can't get a perfect view of who is better until they fight each other.
Hmm?
The hypothetical part is the gladiator analogy. Not the fact that Anand won. I think the argument about varying skill levels is dogding the issue, so I wanted you to assume consistant skill levels.
Thus, if gladiator Anand killed 5 and gladiator Kramnik killed 3, you would say that Anand is better than Kramnik. But if Kramnik then kills An ...[text shortened]... been proven false. You can't get a perfect view of who is better until they fight each other.
If Kramnik killed 3 and Anand killed 5 then Anand is stronger at that moment. If Kramnik kills Anand later then Kramnik is stronger at that moment.