1 edit
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexAah, apologies...
I already have: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getref.php?ref=240800E
Though, I notice there is no one with the name Steve who plays for crawley, aside from one historical reference back in 96
You gave a different name in your profile.
🙂
142 in rapidplay is quite tasty!
******
I only joined this month!
You can check up on my exploits here:
http://crawleychessclub.mysite.orange.co.uk/
(latest news)
The club website is due to be re-vamped - it is a free-hosting one at the moment.
Oh yeah, I am planning to get my chess grade named as Joey Cage sometime this year, either that or just start signing my games with it and getting a new rating entirely.
142 is ok for rapidplay, but it is my weakest discipline - I often miss out on the money in tournaments by half a point and creep slowly higher each year, forcing me into the harder sections.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou recall, of course, that several world championship matches were rematches after the champion was dethroned. In particular, Botvinnik twice regained the title after losing it.
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.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou don't even know what my preferences are. But that's not the point, I was making. When you wrote:
The only fundamentalism going on here is that you can\'t be bothered to hear any arguments for the position.
"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'.
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I have mentioned (which you did ignore) - Fischer did withdraw his resignation by continuing negotiations.
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 ...[text shortened]... her called his 1992 match, just like I don't care what FIDE called the tourney in Mexico City.
About Kramnik- Anand match: have you ever heard about return matches after champion have lost his title?
You also don`t care about facts if they are not comply with your opinion.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf rematch = match after champion have lost his title
This isn't a REmatch, is it?
then we can call it rematch.
The way how champion have lost his title does not matters if pretendent (in this case - Anand) did show that he is better than champion.
I still haven`t heard reasonable arguments why champions cant be decided in tournaments. Your argument "World Champions in chess are decided by matches." does not comply with facts (you can`t deny that in 1948 and 1972 champion was not decided by match) and does not explains why it should continue. - Why matches are so good and tournaments are so bad?
Originally posted by Korchlets suppose 10 players come from one political group, and 1 comes from another group ....
..... Why matches are so good and tournaments are so bad?
in a tournament scenario they can all play their best against the "enemy", find out who scores the best, then all resign agianst their favourite.
this is a hypothetical, and a little silly consideration .... i honestly think a tournament which thins out towards the end is better than an endless succession of cloistered crowned cronies.
Originally posted by flexmoreAfter disruption of USSR this problem is not actual.
lets suppose 10 players come from one political group, and 1 comes from another group ....
in a tournament scenario they can all play their best against the "enemy", find out who scores the best, then all resign agianst their favourite.
this is a hypothetical, and a little silly consideration .... i honestly think a tournament which thins out towards the end is better than an endless succession of cloistered crowned cronies.
Originally posted by KorchYour reading skills don't equal your chess ones - I directly addressed the resignation issue. Merely continuing negotiations is not a withdrawal absent the actual playing of the match.
As I have mentioned (which you did ignore) - Fischer did withdraw his resignation by continuing negotiations.
About Kramnik- Anand match: have you ever heard about return matches after champion have lost his title?
You also don`t care about facts if they are not comply with your opinion.
I addressed the silly claim that the Kramnik-Anand match will be a "REmatch" above - such a claim is contrary to the English language.
You don't bother to meaningfully respond to points that you don't like.
Originally posted by KorchAgain, that is not what the word "rematch" means.
If rematch = match after champion have lost his title
then we can call it rematch.
The way how champion have lost his title does not matters if pretendent (in this case - Anand) did show that he is better than champion.
I still haven`t heard reasonable arguments why champions cant be decided in tournaments. Your argument "World Champions in chess ar ...[text shortened]... oes not explains why it should continue. - Why matches are so good and tournaments are so bad?
I've already pointed out (something you keep ignoring) that the 1948 championship was decided by a tournament only because of the extraordinary circumstance that the championship was vacant because the champion was dead. And the 1975 championship was NOT decided by a tournament; you're simply in error AGAIN.
For 150 years, chess has decided that the way to decide who is the best player in the world is to have the two best players meet face to face in a match. It's up to people who went to change the system to come up with some compelling reason to alter it.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder"Merely continuing negotiations is not a withdrawal absent the actual playing of the match."
Your reading skills don't equal your chess ones - I directly addressed the resignation issue. Merely continuing negotiations is not a withdrawal absent the actual playing of the match.
I addressed the silly claim that the Kramnik-Anand match will be a "REmatch" above - such a claim is contrary to the English language.
You don't bother to meaningfully respond to points that you don't like.
Claim without arguments.
I addressed the silly claim that the Kramnik-Anand match will be a "REmatch" above - such a claim is contrary to the English language.
Formal argument which have nothing common with essence - many times champions has been given second chance if they are losing their title.
You don't bother to meaningfully respond to points that you don't like.
Some example please
5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAgain, that is not what the word "rematch" means.
Again, that is not what the word "rematch" means.
I've already pointed out (something you keep ignoring) that the 1948 championship was decided by a tournament only because of the extraordinary circumstance that the championship was vacant because the champion was dead. And the 1975 championship was NOT decided by a tournament; you're simpl to people who went to change the system to come up with some compelling reason to alter it.
Look at my previous post
And the 1975 championship was NOT decided by a tournament; you're simply in error AGAIN.
Learn to read - I did not say that in 1975 championship was decided by match
For 150 years, chess has decided that the way to decide who is the best player in the world is to have the two best players meet face to face in a match.
So what?
It's up to people who went to change the system to come up with some compelling reason to alter it.
Main target of competition is not form (match/tournament) itself but finding strongest player. If you cant prove that tournament cant reach this target than your arguments against Anand ar world champion are inconclusive.