|
|
wolfi
11/7/2008
|
now the match is over, we are all much clever than before (Mr. Kramnik was the best player for me, i still think he is the only one who can bring down programs if he has enough time and noone is bribing him to lose)...
But my questions are:
1.What was the idea, to choose seconds which are more or less playing a solid style like himself against such an opponent?
2.One of Anands seconds Kasimdschanow (former Fide champion) is known as aggressive player who uses Meran. Mr. Kramnik ran into the knife.
3.How could he waste the first game with white in such a short match. Even a Player with 2250+ should hold the exchange variation with black(give pawn, activate rook, win pawn back, aso). I dont know if it was his decision or his teammates.
|
shahrn
10/18/2008
|
Hello Kramnik',I'm your heavy fan from the remote region of Tropical country.I think you is the best chess player ever and could beat Anand in this match. So prove it to me that Im not wasting my time admiring your masterpieces. |
Shahrn
10/18/2008
|
Kramnik should prove to the world that he is one the world's greatest chess player by winning the match.There's no doubt that Vishy is a worthy opponent and he proved it by his good tournament results all this while.We can say lots of thing about Kramnik or even comparing him with the other great players but we just want to hear the result of the match.If he lost I personally will respect Vishy and have to admit that he is better than Kramnik. |
Drawnik Timakov
8/23/2008
|
Kramnik is currently rated number 6 in the world, he should play harder in tournaments because everytime he barely breaks even people question why he has the right to be in the title picture. Why not one of the other players,with better ratings than him and 'motivated' to perform? There is no room in the history books for draws, only fighting chess deserves to be remembered! |
neutrality-chess
8/22/2008
|
Kasparov is not a coward, he actually tried to have a rematch vs Kramnik but Kramnik is wise enough not to give him a rematch due to the possibility that Kasparov can regain his title. Kramnik is good in a match so I think if he get another opportunity to beat Anand with the help of his dozens of best seconds to analyze Anand's games, Kramnik should not play another format or tournament again other than a match due to he usually get lousy results. I do not know if its because he has less seconds if just tournaments or he cannot absorb the analyses of his seconds for different style of his opponents in a short period of time. Kramnik is not really a fighting champion that can play all formats but just a match player. The difference of Fischer compared to Kramnik is he can play a world championship match without any seconds or computer chess programs assistance whle Kramnik without his best seconds are almost nothing. If he wins the match with Anand, he for sure will not give Anand an opportunity for a rematch, instead he will pick up Leko again to ensure his winning streak. |
ALVIN
7/21/2008
|
I Think we cannot compare players the Past Chess Players or of todays game because they
Have different era. But every year is getting
Improve i think today games is great because
of technology! |
Alex Brown
7/11/2008
|
Ironic the Fischer fan is calling Gary a coward. You can say a lot of bad things about Gary, but he was a fighting champion. Unlike Fischer who ran from Karpov. Karpov had good winning chances.
Its annoying how someone going mental, and withdrawing from chess at his peak, seems to enhance his legend, when it should be the other way round. |
FISCHER FAN
6/14/2008
|
Gary Kasparov acknowledged that Bobby Fischer has the widest margin against his contemporaries compared to other champions. This acknowledgement from the so called "greatest chess player" (kasparov) means he is not the greatest after all. Fischer has no assistant grandmaster or coach when playing , he only beleved in his own analysis, much can be said for Kasparov who played against Anand with an array of more than a dozen grandmasters at his side. What a pity for Gary! a coward . |
Andrew
5/25/2008
|
Well, Kramnik was the only player in history to beat Kasparov in a match. If Kasparov was twice better than Kramnik then, I have no idea how Kramnik even managed to do that.
|
kasparov the king
5/13/2008
|
i like kramnik and thought he was a fully deserved champion but to compare him to kasparov is sheer madness. kasparov is twice the player kramnik is and will ever be. no offence to kramnik or kramnik fans |
i.r.shankar
3/5/2008
|
Since Kasparov has retired from the chess scene and his focus is on politics. He also has interests in arts,history,literature and other subjects.Now that he is focussed on politics and writing books I feel he is not ready for professional chess. I feel Krmanik was wise in adopting strategies to negate the strengths of Kasparov by adopting strategies which surprised Kasparov. So kramnik's forte is in beating Kasparov in a match which requires stamina and patience. So he should be given full credit for this unique achievement in the history of chess. The real quality of Kramnik will be seen when he fights to defend his title against challengers in the years to come. My instincts suggest that Kramnik's greatest achievement was in beating Kasparov for which he will be remembered. Kasparov will always be special for having a multifaceted personality in the history of the game. |
Aldrin Caraig
2/8/2008
|
Kasparov is the strongest ever... But he's out!
Whos next, Topalov, Anand or Kramnik? Kramnik I think... Kasparov is more of a character while Kramnik is of skills and strategies... |
adrian
8/29/2007
|
I feel the Kramnik is definitely the strongest out there at the moment, he seems to be getting stronger again after each tourament |
7/12/2007
|
I don't think Kramnik is stronger than kasparov. Their overall record including blitz is in favour of Kasparov by 22-21. Kasparov reached 2851 the highest in history, won countless Linares and Wijk tournaments with Kramnik and Anand present. If Kramnik was so strong why didn't he win most of these tournaments? Also, don't forget that Kramnik lost his match to Shirov in 1998, but Shirov has never defeated Kasparov in a single classical game!! Kramnik had a strong and annoying style against Kasparov, but Kasparov was and always will be more dominant. Kramnik is great but Kasparov is greater. Why did Kramnik avoid so many rematch opportunities with Kasparov? What was he afaid of? |
Cardinal
6/16/2007
|
...kramnik, he will head the Fide rating list in no time, but he will not beat kasparov's record. Kasparov has been ordained by the goddess Caissa....
But without kasparov, Kramnik will rule! |
Time Changes eveything
3/17/2007
|
Time changes every thing, including who is the best or was the best or will be the best, today's players are stronger than Capablanca, Ficher and the classics, but this does not mean Capablanca in his time was not the best, he surely was the best. All is relative you cant compare Bobby with Kasparov or Kramit it does not work that way.... They are all good.....
Today because of computers we can go deeper into the game. |
Anthony.R.Brown ( XBRAIN ) Prog
1/14/2007
|
SAVANT v Worlds Most Powerfull Chess Computer! I think this may be a DRAW! as with Noughts & Crosses! |
Jesse Munroe
12/11/2006
|
Much has been made of the blunder that Mr. Kramnik made in the second game against Fritz.
I don't see it as a blunder on his part. He was playing against the most sophisticated computer in the chess world and it would be totally unthinkable that the computer made such a blunder as to leave itself in such a postion. I don't think anyone would be expecting such a horendous move by the computer. So instead of a blunder by Mr Kramnik, it was a total unbelieveable move by the computer that one would not even comprehend from such a sophisticated?? machine. |
Kramniksuperfan
11/30/2006
|
How Kasparov can be considered the best of
all times?.Of course the numbers say he got the
highest rated ELO ever,but behind all his
success there were an army of coaches,analysts
investigators,in short people who sold ideas to
Kasparov.Fischer was completely a self-teaching
player,he always used his own analysis,Fischer
also never had access to use computers.
I doubt Kasparov could be the player he was
using the Fischer Methodology,and in the other
side i am sure if Fischer would have the
training that Kasparov had, Fischer would have
to move to the heaven to play against GOD!.
In my opinion Kasparov was like a GOOD SINGER
who sung songs written by OTHERS.
The century game was only played by Fischer.
Capablanca never spent a single hour reading
a chess book to be the best in the 1920's,
Capablanca was and will be the best NATURAL
chess players of all times,PERIOD.
|
Aaron Hofer
11/29/2006
|
I have posted this message on another message board, but in a few different words.
Is Kramnik the greatest player in the history of the game? There is not enough evidence that claims him to be; he still has many challenges and goals to go up against in the near and far future. So for now, with all due respect to Kramnik as the reigning World Champion, Gary Kasparov is the greatest player in the history of the game. The question towards Kramnik is if he will be able to live up to those standards set out for him by Kasparov.
Not only must the great last on the board, but they need to perform off of the board as well. Kasparov was very active and many find him as a role model, including myself.
Keep your head up, and your eyes on the horizon. You have a jourey in front of you Vladimir; MAKE US PROUD!!!!
Farewell to Gary Kasparov. Good Luck to Vladimir Kramnik. |
Anthony.R.Brown ( XBRAIN ) Prog
11/24/2006
|
The Greatest Chess Player of all time! has not been found yet! Somewhere out there is a SAVANT that will Never lose a Game! |
Heavy Hands
11/18/2006
|
Kasparov was a great champion but he still lost to Kramnik as well as their personal score. You can compare all you want but Kramnik is still better than Kasparov. Kasparov fought more, beat more people with higher ratings (Kraminik beat both Topolov and Kasparov who both had higher ratings than he did) and did better in touranments but he still could not beat Kramnik. Kasparov would be a great second place like Karpov but he still could not beat the champ. Kramnik has also done much better against computers and we may see him defeat one incredibly stornger than deep blue. No one else could beat Kasparov he crushed everyone but not Vlodya! |
Kramniksuperfan
10/31/2006
|
Kramnik has only defended his title once
after won to Kasparov.The match Kramnik-Leko
was a kind of semi-final to fulfill the
Praga Agreement,the 2nd semifinal had been
the match Kasparov-Fide WCC winner(always an
aborted match twice).So Topalov took the
place of the 2nd semifinal winner to
finally fulfill the Praga Agrement and
unify the Classical WCC.
This is the best explanation why Kramnik has
only defended his title ONCE.
I have no doubt Kramnik will defend his title
for second time after Fide get a winner from
Mexico 2007. |
qed
10/22/2006
|
Response to Alexander:
Kramnik has defended his title twice in 6 years.
The number of games has come down by necessity and is as much FIDE's fault as anyone else's.
If Kasparov wanted a rematch with Kramnik that badly he could have entered any number of qualification routes necessary for him to do so in a sensible way. In the end it was always either his own stubborness or FIDE poor negotiating abilities that prevented it from happening.
Kramnik is currently tied for 3rd in the world, and defended his title against the #1 rated player in the world. |
Smythe
7/7/2006
|
The reign of a Chess King had to end some day (referring to Garry Kasparov)...i personally heard him on NPR (over the internet), and i did not like his voice/attitude, so i am glad the guy quit/retired. On another note, that young lady Natalia Zhukova (nice woman)...maybe should date Kramnik. They would look great as a couple. |