Kramnik - Message Boards

Showing messages from Kramnik - Topalov WCC Elista 2006 discussion Post a new message
KIBITZER 10/6/2008	the problem nowadays is... even if your better than kasparov fischer karpov kramnik alekhine or capablanca, you cannot topple plyers considered best if yo dont have sponsors to facilitate your quest. think about this...would fischer be able to play against top players of his time and prove he could beat them had he not have the cash from sponsors? Lucky are those talented players who have sponsors and sorry for those geniuses who lack them.
KIBITZER 10/6/2008	If legitimacy is one your topics Bulldozer and YK, i guess the real offical world chess champions line ended with alekhine.... the rest are just pretenders to it even Fischer. If lineage is you criteria , the title stops at Alehine's death. What you guys are talking about is probably the rightful king of FIDE Chess! and not the real world champion. ALekhines line came from champions who toured the world for worthy opponents. I guess FIDE should have selected national champions from each country and had them play a long series of what they used to call Zonal tournaments and have the ramaining 8 play matches. THis might take long but for sure only one will be left and crowned the rightful heir.
RR Asentista 11/4/2007	I don't think there is any difference between easy champions and hard champions. The fact is that as time changes, we can no longer consider ask that every manner of becoming champion should be the simply because one is harder than the other. Today, we have computer training, DVD's, etc. that were never available to Capablanca, etc. This seems unfair for them but the fact that their competitors never had them is itself a compensation. Fischer and Kasparov voluntarily decided not to play serious chess anymore. There is nothing we can do about it. It was their choice but they don't own the world championship. It is a title that requires a large amount of responsibility. (Responsibility of defending it is just one) (Responsibility of not damaging chess' image is another) For me, failure to stand up to those responsibilities like professionals is just the same as losing the title on a match, tournament,etc. Of course, you may not agree because of "pure chess" pride but that is life (baby), As what Champion Kramnik said, chess is a matter of daily training - it is something you hold on to everyday and not just in some match or tournament.
Graeme 8/31/2007	>>Fischer was legally beaten by forfeit. Fischer did not lose the title by forfeit, he resigned it in writing 5 months before Karpov even became the challenger. This is one of those historical myths, like that Columbus proved the world was round, that's almost impossible to correct now. While the odd death or retirement of a sitting champion every now and then may be undesirable, I don't see that that invalidates the whole process, or makes a match champion no better than a revolving door tournament champion.
Bulldozering Inc. 8/1/2007	My final words,thanks Kramnik for put Kasparov out of the chess world scene just because your gentleman competitive behaviour.Enjoy the tobacco Brissago and the toiletgate Elista money.
YK 7/24/2007	I don't write my comments with any agenda aside from making people more aware of the facts. I don't think pointing out that the system was not perfect and never was is denigrating to anybody--it is merely reality of things that no format of competition is perfect. I don't understand the NIK stuff at all--integrating?kingdoms?
Bulldozering Inc. 7/16/2007	When I read your comments y2k I realize you are trying to build a legitimacy to the Kramnik's diploma but at the same time you are denigrating him with your despective comments against Karpov and other socalled classic champions.In short you are saying Kramnik comes from a dirty line.KramNIK belongs to the BotvinNIK world,the NIK family(Never Integrating Kingdoms)in short easy champions.
YK 7/13/2007	I agree that Karpov was a legitimate champion, but he never faced and beat Fischer over the board. Just one more example of how pure chess lineage is not that pure.
Bulldozering Inc. 7/9/2007	Fischer was legally beaten by forfeit.If Fischer dicided no longer defends his title that was not a Karpov's fault.If we don't accept Karpov as an authentic champion that means the line died with Fischer and that is not true.
YK 7/9/2007	The point, Bulldozering Inc., is that the so-called Pure Classic Lineage was far from Pure. There were fixed draws, roulette spins, payoffs, champions who got infinite rematches, political pressures and qualifications based on ratings. It's a good era but an idealized one too. BTW, Karpov never beat a reigning champion.
Bulldozering Inc. 7/8/2007	Robert Fischer getting a "free spot" to demolishes 23 opponents in Palma de Mallorca,and after that bulldozers 3 candidates and 1 reigning champion is not equal to give a "free spot" to face and beat 1 reigning champion Y2K. That is the funniest and the most laxative comparison i have ever heard in my chess life. If Kramnik in the future does what Smyslov,Tahl,Petrosjan,Spasskij,Fischer,Karpov and Kasparov did before face and beat a reigning champion i will consider him the number 8th Pure Classic Lineage Champion,now he is the Botvinnik last son.
YK 7/3/2007	The reason I ask questions is because I am trying to understand your standards for legitimate champion, legitimate challenger, legitimate qualifier. For example, in one post you say that it's ok to pick somebody based on rating and capacity, in another that you have to prove your superiority. In one post you call Shirov-Kramnik a legitimate qualifier and Shirov a legitimate challenger, for virtue of him having beaten Kram, yet in another you say that you have to defeat all of the best of the rest of the players. If you insist that Kramnik had no right to play Kasparov without qualifier, why did Kasparov have a right to demand a match with Kramnik, did he win some sort of qualifier I am unaware of? First you agree that Kramnik was a champion for having beaten Kasparov, and then you call him "dinosaur champion" and "money bag"--terms, which I don't even understand as it relates to a description of a champion. My standard for champion is simple: 1) beat the champ and 2) defend your title against one of the very best every few years. Having a fair qualifier which includes everybody is nice, but not always possible or necessary. I agree that Kramnik's post championship approach to Kasparov wasn't very nice and he should have given Garry a rematch, but Kramnik defended his legitimacy with two successful defenses against Leko and Topalov, both of whom were easily at least in world's top 3 at the time they played him. Euwe and Bogolubov were not considered strong/top challengers, hence the Alekhin situation is different.
Bogo 7/3/2007	YK,you have the answers for your own questions,i still don't understand why you compare FISCHER and KRAMNIK,is like mix apples and pineapples.After Smyslov times the only way to be a legitimate champion is being a legitimate challenger before.To be a legitimate challenger you need to have a kind of qualifier were you need to prove your superiority over the opposition members of the Elite.SHORT 1993 and ANAND 1995 were authentic challengers,why?..because the way they qualified before the world eyes,nobody complained about that.Being Kramnik or Anand the challengers of the 2000 WCC then the title was a whole anarchy no matter who accepted the Braingames offer.But if we have to accept Kramnik just because he beat Kasparov there is no problem for me,is like to accept EUWE or another dinosaur champion,just a bag of money.When you beat a determinated player you show you are best than that player,but not over the rest of the world,every player is a different style it's because the need of the qualifier process.We don't need to talk about the way Kramnik avoided play Kasparov for 5 years or you have any coment YK?..I will not play Kasparov,he is not worth of me!..contract here,contract there!.
THE ONE 7/1/2007	YK: Good job on your facts about the Kramnik-Kasparov match!! You seem to be one of the very few who actually now the facts about the chess world. People are alaways tring to demean what they dont like. The FACTS are on your side,use them to punish those who only talk from emotion and have no clue on what they are talking about. BRAVO!!!!!!!
YK 7/1/2007	So, Bogo, you have no problem with Fischer being handpicked for Interzonal based on rating and capacity and you have no problem with Shirov and Kramnik being handpicked for a short candidates' final based on rating and capacity. But Kramnik gets picked for the championship final based on rating and capacity and wins--this you have a problem with, do I have this right? As for why Kramnik was handpicked, this was not because he lost to Shirov; this was because was the top player at the time who wanted to have a match and for whom a deal could be worked out. As the sponsorship for Shirov match fell through, Shirov was offered a chance to play for less money. He declined. At the time the new sponsor came along, Shirov's level slipped and BrainGames wasn't interested in having him play Kasparov. Or in having a fair competitive qualifier. They wanted a single match between champion and challenger. So the chance was offered to the top player in the world aside from Kasparov...no, not Kramnik, Anand. Anand declined. The next highest player was picked then, Kramnik. He accepted. "Kramnik tried everything in his life even FIDE world cups to become a champion,but everything failed to qualify" This is misleading. All players tried to win the championship. The FIDE battlegrounds are obviously not a good way to determine who was the best and the only other "cycle" to take place at the time that Kramnik was at his peak was the Shirov match. Again, I ask you my question. When it's impossible to have a fair competitive qualifier, would you rather have the champion face a good strong challenger or have champion retain his title by doing nothing? And if the latter, for how many years would you let this go on? You will note that I state no names--because my question is not about any specific situation but about creating an objective standard.
THE ONE 6/30/2007	BOGO: Go to this link-(mark-weeks.com)when there click on the world chess championship icon, once in there click on the link that says(Kasparov and the WCC)and you'll get the whole story on how kramnik got his shot.
THE ONE 6/30/2007	BOGO:(1st)The Shirov and Kasparov match didn't happen because no sponsor could be found to finance the match as no one thought that Shirov would be much of a challenge,and when a backer was found Shirov didn't want to settle for the money they were offering him as he felt it was an insult SO HOW IS THAT KRAMNIK'S FAULT!! (2nd)After the above match was dissolved Kasparov wanted Anand to be his opponent(Kramnik was no where in the picture)but Anand couldn't because he was under a contract by FIDE that prevented him from playing,which Shirov wrote about saying how unfair it was to him that Anand could even be considered at all. Next Kasparov went after the match with Anand a second time(and as before Kramnik's name was no where in the picture)but once again Anand didn't play and once again Shirov voiced his disapproval of anyone other than himself being given the match. By now 2 years had passed and Kasparov had finally stopped trying to get a match defense with Anand AND THIS IS WHEN KRAMNIK WAS APPROACHED WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY. SO Bogo it was Anand who was the one who was hand picked to play not Kramnik,who only played because Kasparov couldn't play Anand!! If you want to read the complete story of all this then just go to the chess championship history on the internet and you'll be able to read what happened including Shirov's offical letters of complaint to fide about what was going on.
Bogo 6/27/2007	YK wrote"when it's impossible to have a fair competitive qualifier, would you rather have the champion face a good strong challenger or have champion retain his title by doing nothing? And if the latter, for how many years would you let this go on?"...YK it was a fair competitive qualifier process before the match Kramnik-Kasparov and Shirov was the winner,got it?....If Fischer could why Kramnik not?...YK memorize this in your brainnut FISCHER NEVER GOT A FREE FINAL SPOT AS A CHALLENGER HE GOT A FREE SPOT TO PLAY AN INTERZONAL TOURNAMENT,A DIFFERENT MATTER OF DISCUSION.
Bogo 6/27/2007	YK,Fischer never got a free spot as a direct challenger for the Spassky crown.Fischer started fighting in Palma de Mallorca Interzonal,after that he played 3 matches of Candidates and was when he qualified to challenge Spassky.Kramnik was a part of a "fair" and short qualifier stage won by ALEXEI SHIROV,Kramnik was beaten by SHIROV outside of FIDE "unfair" controls,now DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY HE WAS HANDPICKED??.Kramnik tried everything in his life even FIDE world cups to become a champion,but everything failed to qualify,only the Kasparov gift made the difference YK.
YK 6/26/2007	Existence of international federation is irrelevant. There is no need to create an international federation if there is a fair competitive process. If there isn't one, the fact that a federation rather than an individual is in charge of the process, makes no difference. As far as Fischer, you miss my point. If you think Fischer can qualify based on his rating and skill as a chess player, why can't Kramnik? I did not say that Kasparov was right or wrong to pick a challenger. But the question I have for you is, when it's impossible to have a fair competitive qualifier, would you rather have the champion face a good strong challenger or have champion retain his title by doing nothing? And if the latter, for how many years would you let this go on?
Pex Pecquero 6/26/2007	I'm gonna beat kramnik!!
Bogo 6/8/2007	YK i know exactly the Benko history,But was the USA federation who convin$ed Benko to let Fischer fight for the world championship because they knew his real capacity.Even today some players get spots to world cups just because rating,but that it doesn't mean a final free spot as a challenger for a WCC.You are completely wrong saying Kasparov was right choosing his challenger,no champion can't do that in these times,its because every sport has an international federation to regulate a fair competitive process.To be a legitimate chess challenger you need some kind of qualifying process where the best players of the world had their chances to fight for the crown.Alekhine was the last champion who handpicked challengers before the "modern" Kasparov.Nonsense gap buddy.
YK 6/7/2007	"he [Fischer] got the Interzonal spot because his rating and his capacity" No, he did not, he got it because GM Benko gave up his spot and the other zonal winners declined their right to serve as replacement. On the other hand, if you don't have a problem with Fischer getting his interzonal spot because of his rating and capacity, it is unclear why you have a problem with Kasparov choosing his opponent on the same basis or with Kramnik playing Topalov on the much more objective basis of a round-robin tournament win. I am also wondering how anybody could have become champion in 1975 in a more deserving manner than Karpov did, once Fischer declined to play. After all, Karpov beat all challengers who were willing to play in match play that cycle. Can you retain the championship by refusing to play? If so, Robert I The Insane is still world champion.
Bogo 6/7/2007	Graeme,i do not accept the Fide titles over the Classical ones,i just disagree the way some classical champions have been produced.I completely disagree with Botvinnik and Kramnik.Botvinnik because he was produced in a tournament and when he lost the title he got free rematches twice and never won a cycle.Kramnik played Kasparov even when he lost a cycle,after 5 years refusing a rematch against him he defended his title against 2 players produced in 2 roundrobin tournaments instead 2 tournament of matches,situation that is not representative for Kramnik.If Kramnik defends his title against a Mexico tournament winner we will have the same flooke again.
Bogo 6/7/2007	Graeme,Fischer after Palma de mallorca beat and mopped the floor with everybody who was playing against him,he got the Interzonal spot because his rating and his capacity.Different thing is give to Fischer a direct spot to challenge Spassky just because a rating,he needed to prove his superiority over the opposition in the cycle before plays Spassky.After Smyslov times only a champion produced from a cycle was completely legitimate.Is nonsense say Karpov was the first Fide champion because he was Classical first,but if we have to add it the line for you is BOTVINNIK-KARPOV-KHALIFMAN.......

Next 25 messages

Post a new message