02 Oct 07
you are wrong though - he said assume constant skill levels.. It just means Anand can kill weaker opponents faster -- between the two of them the Kramnik gladiator is the stronger. The spectators at Rome would always want to see the two gladiators fight each other as well.
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by zin23In Mexico there was fight between them and Kramnik did not show ability to "kill" Anand. So if they cant "kill" each other then decisive factor in comparing their strenght is ability to "kill" others.
you are wrong though - he said assume constant skill levels.. It just means Anand can kill weaker opponents faster -- between the two of them the Kramnik gladiator is the stronger. The spectators at Rome would always want to see the two gladiators fight each other as well.
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AProdigy*sigh*
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 vilized conversation with me and let that other guy carry on his conversation with himself.
Kasparov killed Anand in 1995. How can he be playing today?
02 Oct 07
If they can't kill each other, they keep fighting till one dies. That is mortal combat - no point in arguing how many others they kill ..
Tournaments are best to determine the stronger players from a large field. ..The strong players then play each other in matches and the winner faces the champion. This is the ideal case, but FIDE, and a few people just can't grasp this simple concept.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by zin23If they can't kill each other, they keep fighting till one dies. That is mortal combat - no point in arguing how many others they kill ..
If they can't kill each other, they keep fighting till one dies. That is mortal combat - no point in arguing how many others they kill ..
Tournaments are best to determine the stronger players from a large field. ..The strong players then play each other in matches and the winner faces the champion. This is the ideal case, but FIDE, and a few people just can't grasp this simple concept.
Don`t you know that there were world championship matches which did finish draw? It mismatches your "mortal combat philosophy".
To avoid them we can have:
1) unlimited matches in which physical stamina (instead of chess skills) may become deciding factor.
2) Tie break - match decides in rapid/blitz which is more gambling.
Tournaments are best to determine the stronger players from a large field. ..The strong players then play each other in matches and the winner faces the champion. This is the ideal case, but FIDE, and a few people just can't grasp this simple concept.
I advice you to state your arguments instead of claims which you should argue.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2
You don\'t even know what my preferences are. But that\'s not the point, I was making. When you wrote:
\"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\\\'.\"
the \"can\\\'t\" clearly indicates that you are not open to anything else than your position. So far for \'hearing arguments\'.
the \"can\\\'t\" clearly indicates that you are not open to anything else than your position. So far for \'hearing arguments\'.
-Mephisto2
Wrong.
Nothing in my statement rules out hearing opposing arguments. If they persuaded me, I would cease to be part of the group who thinks the WC ought to be decided by matches, and the \'can\'t\' wouldn\'t apply anymore.
Strongly held opinions aren\'t necessarily fundamentalism.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou were rejecting my statement (about a step into the right direction) quite firmly ("can't" etc. ...). If you were open to arguments, you might have wondered what was meant with that, or what arguments were in favour. Perhaps I was referring more to the process of reunification than to the final format?
[bWrong.
Nothing in my statement rules out hearing opposing arguments. If they persuaded me, I would cease to be part of the group who thinks the WC ought to be decided by matches, and the \'can\'t\' wouldn\'t apply anymore...... [/b]
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2But I didn\'t object to reunification. I specifically objected to the idea of deciding the World Championship via tournament.
You were rejecting my statement (about a step into the right direction) quite firmly (\"can\'t\" etc. ...). If you were open to arguments, you might have wondered what was meant with that, or what arguments were in favour. Perhaps I was referring more to the process of reunification than to the final format?
It\'s possible to support reunification and yet oppose the format used to reunify. I suspect many would protest a reunification blitz tournament for the title. You may think the example absurd, but remember that FIDE used to run WC knockout tournaments with much faster time controls.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitOf course you didn't object reunification since it wasn't even mentioned. My point was that I considered this tournament as being a step in the right direction because of the reunification. Was it 'the' right step, I don't know. Did FIDE have many other options to get out of the mess (that they were partially but not entirely responsible for), I don't know, but I followed the recent history close enough to believe that no match between two players could have been setup and lead to a reunification. Was it better to have this step than to keep the mess, I strongly think so. Is there a need to further adapt the format, yes I think so, and so does FIDE. Taking too strong positions on the format may be an obstacle to the overall process. The world is full of people with opposing truths, and this is true in chess too. A peace process cannot be based on 'rational' elements only.
But I didn\'t object to reunification. I specifically objected to the idea of deciding the World Championship via tournament.
It\'s possible to support reunification and yet oppose the format used to reunify. I suspect many would protest a reunification blitz tournament for the title. You may think the example absurd, but remember that FIDE used to run WC knockout tournaments with much faster time controls.
03 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchYour first two "points" are merely dodges. If you truly think that Mexico City had higher quality play than the Topalov-Kramnik match or that bringing in weaker players improves the quality of the chess, please say so. Then everybody can have a good laugh.
[b/]I seriously doubt that the quality of play at Mexico City was better than at say Fischer-Spassky, Tal-Botvinnik, Kasparov-Karpov, etc. etc.
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 p is not argument - or show me world championship matches where were no short draws.
Topalov as already played and been defeated by Kramnik (remember?). I already explained several times using several different reasons why matches are preferable to tournaments in deciding the World Championship; you're either incredibly thick or just like completely ignoring other people's points. HINT: Either one isn't a very good trait in a lawyer.