New World Champion

Originally posted by Korch
[b]"Merely continuing negotiations is not a withdrawal absent the actual playing of the match."

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 ...[text shortened]... n't bother to meaningfully respond to points that you don't like.[/b]
Some example please[/b]

LMAO! When someone makes an argument based on undisputed definitions of English words, they're being too "formal"! I could point out that in law that a written communication is binding on the one sending it unless expressly withdrawn by a second communication, but I'm sure that would be too "formal" too. In any event, Fischer's refusal to defend his title made the title vacant de facto.

It's useless to discuss these matters with someone who is so illogical.

Originally posted by no1marauder
...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.

you're too late, it has already changed.

Originally posted by Korch
[/b]Again, that is not what the word "rematch" means.

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 wor ...[text shortened]... cant reach this target than your arguments against Anand ar world champion are inconclusive.

Kramnik defeated Kasparov in a match, while Anand lost badly to Kasparov. Until Anand or someone proves, on the board, that they can defeat Kramnik in a World Championship match I consider him Champion.

I won't bother to get into the arguments as to why a match is superior to a tournament in deciding a chess champion; sufficient to say that that argument has been closed in reality for 150 years. "So what" is a really convincing counter argument.🙄

Originally posted by wormwood
you're too late, it has already changed.

If you assume the clowns at FIDE own the World Championship, that's semi-true (though they are going back to match play). I don't assume that FIDE can dictate who is WC and unless you think that Karpov, not Kasparov, was WC through most of the 90's neither should you.

EDIT: Do you think that Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were World Champions?

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO! When someone makes an argument based on undisputed definitions of English words, they're being too "formal"! I could point out that in law that a written communication is binding on the one sending it unless expressly withdrawn by a second communication, but I'm sure that would be too "formal" too. In any event, Fischer's refusal to defend his titl ...[text shortened]... o.

It's useless to discuss these matters with someone who is so illogical.

That shows your lack of ability to discuss.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Kramnik defeated Kasparov in a match, while Anand lost badly to Kasparov. Until Anand or someone proves, on the board, that they can defeat Kramnik in a World Championship match I consider him Champion.

I won't bother to get into the arguments as to why a match is superior to a tournament in deciding a chess champion; sufficient to say that ...[text shortened]... as been closed in reality for 150 years. "So what" is a really convincing counter argument.🙄

Anand did prove over the board in Mexico that at this moment he plays better than Kramnik.

If you cant argue your opinion and wont bother to get into opponents arguments, then don`t feel surprised if you can convince none of your opponents.

Your "reality of 150 years" (perhaps you are living in 2036, because Steinitz became official world champion only in 1886) ) is not argument for your opponents. so you may repeat it as many times you want.

You still cant understand that main purpose of these matches was not match itself, but establishing the strongest. To convince your opponents (including myself) you should prove that tournaments cant establish the strongest, but matches can.

Originally posted by no1marauder
EDIT: Do you think that Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were World Champions?

No - because of following reasons:

1) World champion did not take part in competitions in which they won (Kramnik did take part in Mexico)
2) In my opinion knock-out tournaments with unequal participants are more gambling than round-robin tournaments with more or less equal and strong participants (like Mexico).

Originally posted by Korch
Anand did prove over the board in Mexico that at this moment he plays better than Kramnik.

If you cant argue your opinion and wont bother to get into opponents arguments, then don`t feel surprised if you can convince none of your opponents.

Your "reality of 150 years" (perhaps you are living in 2036, because Steinitz became official world champion only ...[text shortened]... ing myself) you should prove that tournaments cant establish the strongest, but matches can.

I really don't care if I can "convince" someone who has inalterably already made up their mind.

And Kramnik proved at Dortmund 3 months ago he was a better player than Anand. That's the problem with tournament based arguments; the results in tournaments are variable. You might as well say the winner of Corus or Linares or MTel etc. etc. etc. is "playing the best" at the time and therefore should be considered World Champion.

Matches between the players directly decide whether A is better than B or not.

Originally posted by Korch
No - because of following reasons:

1) World champion did not take part in competitions in which they won (Kramnik did take part in Mexico)
2) In my opinion knock-out tournaments with unequal participants are more gambling than round-robin tournaments with more or less equal and strong participants (like Mexico).

I know you are having problems following these arguments, but the claim (by wormwood) was that because the rules had changed, Anand was rightfully champion. The ones who changed the rules was FIDE now and when those two players were "champions". Therefore, if you accept the logic that FIDE can dictate the rules on who becomes World Champion than those players have has much claim as Anand that they were WCs.

EDIT: It's generally best to quote a whole post if the arguments in the first part support the latter part as was true in my post.

Originally posted by Korch

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.

no1marauder, Korch and all,

This arguments in the forums are always fun to watch, especially when one of them is obviously in the wrong (no1marauder, that would be you).

But for the sake of civility, and because I can't help myself, I'm going to try to settle this down.

First, the World Champion is a title awarded by a governing body. Regardless of whether you agree with the awarding, it has been awarded. You can say that you don't think Anand should be WC, you can say it was unfair, but he holds the title, is the WC. To argue that he isn't the WC, is like saying the world isn't round. I'm sorry, but it is, and HE is. You might want to instead say that you don't believe Anand is the legitimate WC. That would make more sense.

Second, regarding the match vs. tournament, I agree with you, no1marauder, that the WC should be decided by match play. Although Anand is the current WC, I also don't believe that the way he won it proves that he is the "Worlds Best Player".

Kramnik may very well beat him in the match. It was obvious in the tourney that Kramnik was not putting it all on the line to win this. He knew that he was playing the next WC match regardless.

Anand had much greater motivation. Only a first place finish would get him the title. If he had finished second, the WC match would have been Kramnik vs. Topalov.

I believe that Kramnik is much happier with this outcome because otherwise he would have had to play Topalov again, with all the drama that would bring. Mind you, I'm not saying he finished second on purpose...well, maybe.

Anyway, Anand's aggressive style worked well in the tourney, but may not work well against Kramnik in the match. Kramnik's defensive style ended is too many draws in the tourney, but beat Topalov (possibly the most aggressive player out there) in the last WC match.

So I agree and disagree with no1marauder, Anand is the WC, but has not yet shown than he can beat the former WC.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you assume the clowns at FIDE own the World Championship, that's semi-true (though they are going back to match play). I don't assume that FIDE can dictate who is WC and unless you think that Karpov, not Kasparov, was WC through most of the 90's neither should you.

EDIT: Do you think that Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were World Champions?

for better or worse, FIDE is the highest official international chess organization, and I see no better authority to decide on the title. and really, that should be pretty obvious. I mean, who else? some guy on the internet?

Originally posted by wormwood
for better or worse, FIDE is the highest official international chess organization, and I see no better authority to decide on the title. and really, that should be pretty obvious. I mean, who else? some guy on the internet?

Is that a "yes" to my question?

Originally posted by AProdigy
no1marauder, Korch and all,

This arguments in the forums are always fun to watch, especially when one of them is obviously in the wrong (no1marauder, that would be you).

But for the sake of civility, and because I can't help myself, I'm going to try to settle this down.

First, the World Champion is a title awarded by a governing body. Regardle ...[text shortened]... no1marauder, Anand is the WC, but has not yet shown than he can beat the former WC.

AProdigy: First, the World Champion is a title awarded by a governing body.

I don't agree with this statement for reasons already given. If you believe this, you believe that Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were World Champions as they "won" the title according to the FIDE rules.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I really don't care if I can "convince" someone who has inalterably already made up their mind.

And Kramnik proved at Dortmund 3 months ago he was a better player than Anand. That's the problem with tournament based arguments; the results in tournaments are variable. You might as well say the winner of Corus or Linares or MTel etc. etc. e
Matches between the players directly decide whether A is better than B or not.

If you really don`t care to convince your opponents then whats the point of your argumentation?

Comparing unofficial tournaments (where organizers can invitee what they want) with official competition (in which participants have been selected in previous competitions) is not serious. Also in official competition players are much more motivated to play the best as they can. And you did "forgot" that Mexico have much stronger and equal participants than tournaments you did number.

You still did not say why matches are better than tournaments.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is that a "yes" to my question?

no it isn't.