"Shirov Calls Anand A Thief"
Gilbert Palmer
Shirov - "I consider Anand a thief, taking what by no means
belongs to him", Shirov stated flatly. "He goes for it
cynically knowing that he can't be sued. I don't see much
difference between this and, for example, stealing a wallet
from somebody's pocket and leave it unnoticed.[sic]"
He was seemingly talking about Anand perhaps playing Kasparov:
The full article is very interesting and can be seen at:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~chesswd/ianr1605.html
Gilbert
Adamski
<gilb...@virgin.net> writes
I'm glad Shirov is forcing the issue. Has any chess magazine
unreservedly and openly criticised Kasparov yet?
If Staunton ducked Morphy, and Alekhine ducked Capa then by this
logic Kasparov is wearing brown trousers.
Don't hold your breath though. It'll be more of how 'regrettable'
the whole is situation, how, though Shirov is 'understandably' annoyed,
the realities of the market dictate... etc.etc.
This is all pretty embarrassing for Mig, what with his old pal Shirov
being shafted by his new mate.
Perhaps we should start a RGCM petition, DEPLORING Kasparov and Anand's
conduct, and DEMANDING that Shirov be granted his due right to contest
the championship of the world, in accordance with the moral teachings of
Jerry Springer and other world religions.
JBDes1
the title shot, regardless if Anand is rated higher, he defeated Kramnik and
derserves it. Kasparov thinks that the public would want to see an Anand match
more then a Shirov, but Kasparov is wrong. It's not what the public wants,
it's what the chessplayers deserve. And Garry is thinking with his "image" in
mind rather then chess.
I do feel sorry for Alexei. Within the last year he has really bulked up his
play and is playing much better then he was 3 years ago.
Hope Alexei can bounce back. :)
Adamski
writes
>x-no-archive: yes
>entirely arbitrary now anyway. You're the champ if the majority of
>chessplayers out there say you are. That's the only mechanism for
>calling someone a wc nowadays, so let's just jump on the Shirov
>bandwagon.
>
>Shirov is world champion. There.
>
>Tell two friends about it. And tell them to tell two friends about
>it....
I haven't got two friends......to rub together.
Wire76
>Shirov is world champion. There.
>
I definitely think chessplayers all over the world would like to see Shirov get
his due by having the opportunity to challenge Kasparov for a title match.
Kasparov is ducking Shirov, who has the tactical prowess and brilliant
imagination to make a very interesting match!
To Garry Kasparov I say, "More and more chessplayers no longer regard you as
the premier player on this planet. You haven't defended `your title' since
1995. There is a whole new generation of players rising to wrest that
crown--and Alexei Shirov is at the fore-front!"
Vadim Boguslavsky
Chesspride
>unreservedly and openly criticised Kasparov yet?
>
I urge the USCF leadership (and candidates) to take a strong stand and demand
that Shirov's rights be respected.
We gain far more by standing for what is right...than for publicizing any
substitute match.
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>get
>his due by having the opportunity to challenge Kasparov for a title match.
Pointless...because Kasparov is not the world champion.
Karpov is...at least until later this summer.
But I agree with the sentiment that Shirov has specific rights under the WCC
banner...rights that must be respected...and that if any "substitute affair" is
played...the participants should come under harsh and well-deserved criticism.
Eric C. Johnson
Charles Blair
donations from the chess public at large, rather than be dependent
on the idiosyncracies of a few wealthy sponsors.
If, say, 20% of the USCF membership were prepared to pay $20 each
toward a Kasparov-Shirov match, would that be an
amount comparable to purses in recent matches?
Perhaps Shirov could commit to writing a booklet of annotations
of games of the match, with copies mailed free to the sponsors.
I don't think Anand should be blamed if he has agreed to play
Kasparov. Grandmasters have such a hard time finding income that
they have to take significant monetary opportunities where they
can find them. Also, Shirov would not have had his match with
Kramnik except for Anand passing up a previous Kasparov challenge.
hy...@tamu.edu
c-b...@staff.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair) writes:
>
>
> I don't think Anand should be blamed if he has agreed to play
> Kasparov.
I certainly would not call him a thief. But it is
clearly Shirov's right to play first, and if Anand
plays without something being done for Shirov his
squeaky-clean image will suffer.
Grandmasters have such a hard time finding income that
> they have to take significant monetary opportunities where they
> can find them.
This is emphatically not true for the very best.
After his match with Kasparov and second place
finish in the FIDE championship Anand should be
reasonably well off. Mere 2500 players may have
trouble making decent money, 2770 players have no
such problems.
Also, Shirov would not have had his match with
> Kramnik except for Anand passing up a previous Kasparov challenge.
Quite irrelevant.
A player of Anand's stature should understand the
concept of touch-move. He bowed out of this cycle
and to bow in again is a rather dubious act.
Recall that he declined to play on principle:
I'd say that the principle of giving Shirov
his rights should be at least as strong as that of
loyalty to FIDE.
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Alvah Mayo
>
> > definitely think chessplayers all over the world would like to see Shirov
> >get
> >his due by having the opportunity to challenge Kasparov for a title match.
>
> Pointless...because Kasparov is not the world champion.
He most certainly is.
>
> Karpov is...at least until later this summer.
No, Karpov is the *FIDE* Champion, not the World Champion. He might hold
onto FIDE's title for longer than "until this summer" if he can continue
to threaten lawsuits and use other tricks to hold onto that which he can
no longer (if he ever did, which is debatable) earn by skill.
>
> But I agree with the sentiment that Shirov has specific rights under the WCC
> banner...
If the USCF doesn't even recognize Kasparov as World Champion, then
why do they even care? Of course, the USCF keeps changing its'
collective mind about who is World Champion. Back in 1995, the last
issue of Chess Life I bought continued to refer to Kasparov as World
Champion and Karpov as FIDE World Champion.
So perhaps someone could explain just when after 1995 Kasparov
stopped being World Champion and Karpov became such, at least according
to the USCF.
PMG
it might even lend credibility to that particular world champion title. Of coarse
who created the title and holds the cards? Could someone refresh my memory as to
why Kasparov is generally still considered Chess world champion.
Pete
Octopovich wrote:
> William Hyde wrote, in his usual erudite fashion:
> >A player of Anand's stature should understand the
> > concept of touch-move. He bowed out of this cycle
> > and to bow in again is a rather dubious act.
> > Recall that he declined to play on principle:
> > I'd say that the principle of giving Shirov
> > his rights should be at least as strong as that of
> > loyalty to FIDE.
>
> Excellent argument! I would like to lend my voice to the growing sentiment that
> Shirov deserves a title match against Kasparov!
>
> I feel at Shirov-Kasparov would be more exciting than Kasparov-Anand II. I hate
> to say this but Anand is psychologically unprepared to face a player of
> Kasparov's emotional intensity. Shirov, on the other hand, is excellently
> placed to be the first World Champion of the Third Millenium!!
>
> My best wishes to Alexei!
>
> Rick A
Octopovich
Alvah Mayo
>
> I'm guessing that the vast majority of the world wants to see Shirov in that match,
I wouldn't go that far. Personally I think we'd see better chess from a
Kasparov Anand match than from a Kasparov Shirov match.
> it might even lend credibility to that particular world champion title.
The World Chess Championship currently held by Kasparov is the only one
that has credibility right now.
Of coarse
> who created the title and holds the cards?
The World Chess Championship came about via general public acclaim
back in the 19th century, and was first held by the winner of the
Steinitz Zukertort match.
As for your second question, I suppose Kasparov, being World
Champion, holds most of the cards at the moment.
In my opinion, Shirov should have taken the $600 000 US offer and
then, once owning the title, could name his terms and "hold the cards".
That is unless he reasoned that he could not beat Kasparov for the
World Championship, when naturally he would want a really big loser's
share of the purse.
Could someone refresh my memory as to
> why Kasparov is generally still considered Chess world champion.
The reasons probably differ, but some of the more popular reasons
probably include:
1. Kasparov is currently the highest rated chess player in the world by
a significant margin.
2. He beat Karpov for both the FIDE and World Titles, and has never been
beaten in a World Title Defense.
3. Kasparov continues to play in and demonstrate his superiority in just
about every tournament he plays in.
4. Consider the FIDE alternative :)
>
> Pete
Shirov's recent results have hardly been awe inspiring... On what do you
base this confidence in Shirov's abilities to do what no one else in
history has been able to do?
Greg Kennedy
>> why Kasparov is generally still considered Chess world champion.
>
> The reasons probably differ, but some of the more popular reasons
>probably include:
>1. Kasparov is currently the highest rated chess player in the world by
>a significant margin.
Very true.
>2. He beat Karpov for both the FIDE and World Titles, and has never been
>beaten in a World Title Defense.
This is a very strained way of not admitting that in
more than one match, Garry did not win against Karpov.
Nevertheless, he is superior now and the above
statement is technically correct. :-)
>3. Kasparov continues to play in and demonstrate his superiority in just
>about every tournament he plays in.
Bingo!
>4. Consider the FIDE alternative :)
You already made your point- why weaken it by
bringing up a better alternative? :-)
- Greg Kennedy
a31...@hotmail.com
> William Hyde wrote, in his usual erudite fashion:
> >A player of Anand's stature should understand the
> > concept of touch-move. He bowed out of this cycle
> > and to bow in again is a rather dubious act.
> > Recall that he declined to play on principle:
> > I'd say that the principle of giving Shirov
> > his rights should be at least as strong as that of
> > loyalty to FIDE.
>
> Excellent argument! I would like to lend my voice to the growing
sentiment that
> Shirov deserves a title match against Kasparov!
IMHO, a Kasparov-Shirov match has no credibility whatsover.
1) Shirov got to play only because Anand, who has greater
business sense, refused to be part of Kasparov's latest
brainwave to find himself a challenger. Kasparov's
idea, needless to say, was of highly dubious character.
It would have been more appropriate (and credible) to
organise a championship, where at least the top 20
players got to play against each other, and the winner
to challenge Kasparov.
2) Shirov, though talented, is hardly in the same class (chesswise)
as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
>
> I feel at Shirov-Kasparov would be more exciting than Kasparov-Anand
II. I hate
> to say this but Anand is psychologically unprepared to face a player
of
> Kasparov's emotional intensity. Shirov, on the other hand, is
excellently
> placed to be the first World Champion of the Third Millenium!!
>
> My best wishes to Alexei!
>
> Rick A
Another example of people letting their emotions get in the
way of their thinking.
A Shirov/Kasparov match would be the most one-sided match in
championship history. Shirov has NEVER beaten Garry under
normal tournament conditions, indeed never looked remotely
capable of beating him at all.
Why is Shirov blaming Anand for the current state of affairs ?
He should be blaming Kasparov, his own lack of business sense,
and perhaps his own greed.
indeed, calling Anand a thief only smacks of hyprocrisy and
double standards. Lots of other chessplayers (Adams, Ivanchuk,
et. al.) have every right to call Shirov the same.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Deeprabbit
to be promoted by Don King Promotions?
Garry is keen to promote chess/himself in America. To this end I
suggest a more credible opponent than Anand would be Hulk Hogan.
Chao
Deeprabbit
In article <7i906l$nfa$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>,
"Gilbert Palmer" <gilb...@virgin.net> wrote:
> In GM Rodgers chess column from the Sun Herald (Australia):
>
> Shirov - "I consider Anand a thief, taking what by no means
> belongs to him", Shirov stated flatly. "He goes for it
> cynically knowing that he can't be sued. I don't see much
> difference between this and, for example, stealing a wallet
> from somebody's pocket and leave it unnoticed.[sic]"
>
> He was seemingly talking about Anand perhaps playing Kasparov:
>
> The full article is very interesting and can be seen at:
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~chesswd/ianr1605.html
>
> Gilbert
>
>
dott...@ualberta.cax
> IMHO, a Kasparov-Shirov match has no credibility whatsover.
>
> 1) Shirov got to play only because Anand, who has greater
> business sense, refused to be part of Kasparov's latest
> brainwave to find himself a challenger. Kasparov's
> idea, needless to say, was of highly dubious character.
> It would have been more appropriate (and credible) to
> organise a championship, where at least the top 20
> players got to play against each other, and the winner
> to challenge Kasparov.
You can't have it both ways: on one hand Shirovs title shot has no credibility
because of the way it was obtained, but Anands, which was obtained in even more
dubious fashion, IS credible? I think from most peoples points of view, Shirovs
acquisition of a title shot was not the best, but certainly preferable to the
current Kasparov method. Of course, I suppose even if Anand accepts, Kasparov could
wait a year or so, then claim "no sponsors are interested" and then move on to
whoever he wanted to play next (or pretend to want to play).
> 2) Shirov, though talented, is hardly in the same class (chesswise)
> as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
> results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
Well, at the current Sarajevo tournament, he finished ahead of your Adams and
Morozevich. You may also consider that the ongoing dispute about the WC non-match
is affecting him. To Kasparov I doubt it is that big a deal; after all, its not
HIM who prepared to play Kramnik, was not paid, and had his title shot ripped off.
> A Shirov/Kasparov match would be the most one-sided match in
> championship history. Shirov has NEVER beaten Garry under
> normal tournament conditions, indeed never looked remotely
> capable of beating him at all.
I think many past WC matches have proven that a WC match is not "normal tournament
conditions". That said, I also suspect this match would be grotesquely one sided.
However, if Kasparov wants to take control of the WC, he must prove that he has the
integrity and responsibility to manage that control. His actions towards Shirov are
simply underlining how important it is to have a neutral (FIDE haters will
undoubtedly comment here) overseeing body. Kasparov has tried and tried to destroy
FIDE and every time, whatever he has tried to replace it with has failed utterly.
The GMA. The PCA. The WCC. All so promising. All gone. Simply because Kasparov
could not separate his conflicts of interest.
> Why is Shirov blaming Anand for the current state of affairs ?
> He should be blaming Kasparov, his own lack of business sense,
> and perhaps his own greed.
I think he places most of the blame on Kasparov, and I think hes disappointed that
Anand is going to help Kasparov in screwing him over.
> indeed, calling Anand a thief only smacks of hyprocrisy and
> double standards. Lots of other chessplayers (Adams, Ivanchuk,
> et. al.) have every right to call Shirov the same.
How so? Shirov did not take anything that was owed to them. Those players may all
be worthy of a title shot but it is not OWED to them or PROMISED to them, and they
did not do anything that they were told would DIRECTLY lead to a title shot. To put
it simply, Shirov was told that if he beat Kramnik, his prize would be the losers
(lets be realistic) share in the next WC match. Who is going to get that share now?
Anand. Shirovs money is being taken by Anand. Sounds like thievery to me.
--
*********************************************************************
David Ottosen
dott...@ualberta.ca
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dottosen
*********************************************************************
Gilbert Palmer
<7ij791$d90$1...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...
>>However, if Kasparov wants to take control of the WC, he must
prove that he has the integrity and responsibility to manage
that control. His actions towards Shirov are simply underlining
how important it is to have a neutral (FIDE haters will
undoubtedly comment here) overseeing body. Kasparov has tried
and tried to destroy FIDE and every time, whatever he has tried
to replace it with has failed utterly. <<
Well said. It is Kasparov's title after all that they are
talking about a match for, if he resigned his title it wuld not
exist.
>>The GMA. The PCA. The WCC. All so promising. All gone. Simply
because Kasparov could not separate his conflicts of
interest.<<
Kasparov (for all his faults) has repeatedly tried to raise the
profile of the game of chess and not just the name Kasparov,
and for that I salute him.
But chess is split in two and while Kasparov might have a
sizeable proportion of the world's most influential chess
journalists in his back pocket I would like to see one or two
of them seriously asking the question of whether this continued
feud is doing the game any good at all.
The previous poster a31...@hotmail.com said that
>>Kasparov-Shirov match has no credibility whatsoever<< well
the fact is that a World Championship without the inclusion of
the world's best active player and Kramnik as well lacks
credibility as well.
The situation is as I see it:
1. Kasparov lacks credibility because he has no credible
organisation or qualifying programme for an opponent and he
also lacks the backing of the World Governing Body.
2. The World Governing body lacks credibility for their
(genuine) attempts to organise a World Championship because
Kasparov - the greatest player in the whole history of the game
they govern - will have nothing to do with them.
Kasparov for all his talent now must realise that he can't go
it alone, and Fide must realise that they can't do without
Kasparov (and to a much lesser extent Kramnik) - surely those
that are influential in the game should start to try and get
the two sides together and work out some sort of solution,
because the present situation is not working.
Gilbert Palmer
A Chess Fan
michae...@my-deja.com
ma...@nospamnorth.nsis.com wrote:
> PMG wrote:
> >
> > I'm guessing that the vast majority of the world wants to see
Shirov in that match,
>
> I wouldn't go that far. Personally I think we'd see better chess from
a
> Kasparov Anand match than from a Kasparov Shirov match.
I would go that far.Take a poll i bet there is a majority that would
prefer a Shirov vs Kasparov match.
> > it might even lend credibility to that particular world champion
title.
>
> The World Chess Championship currently held by Kasparov is the only
one
> that has credibility right now.
His PCA/WCC/etc./etc./etc. has no credibility,Because he is in
charge.Have you ever heard of conflict of interest.
> Of coarse
> > who created the title and holds the cards?
>
> The World Chess Championship came about via general public
acclaim
> back in the 19th century, and was first held by the winner of the
> Steinitz Zukertort match.
Hello that title ceased to exist after Alekhine's death.Because of the
abuse's by the champions,an organization was formed called
Fide.Unfortunately this organization was more corrupt than the
champions were.
> As for your second question, I suppose Kasparov, being World
> Champion, holds most of the cards at the moment.
> In my opinion, Shirov should have taken the $600 000 US offer and
> then, once owning the title, could name his terms and "hold the
cards".
> That is unless he reasoned that he could not beat Kasparov for
the
> World Championship, when naturally he would want a really big loser's
> share of the purse.
I MUST FLAME YOU If you get your head out of Kasparov's ass for a few
minutes and get some oxygen to your brain,you might want to read what
Shirov has to say about this subject.After you wipe all that brown
stuff out of your eye's and nose go and read the whole article to get
his side.Maybe after reading his side you might come away with a
different prospect on things.Go here Chessplanet international,ltd
http://www.chessweb.com
> Could someone refresh my memory as to
> > why Kasparov is generally still considered Chess world champion.
>
> The reasons probably differ, but some of the more popular reasons
> probably include:
> 1. Kasparov is currently the highest rated chess player in the world
by
> a significant margin.
He is definitely the highest rated player in the world,But when he
abandoned FIDE.He gave up the title.Instead of trying to destroy this
organization he should have help to make it better.
> 2. He beat Karpov for both the FIDE and World Titles, and has never
been
> beaten in a World Title Defense.
I don't know where this World title came from ,maybe i was sleep during
this one.
If Kasparov can abandon FIDE and still remain Champion,I guess Fischer
could still be called Champion because he was fighting with them when
Kaspy was still shitting green.
> 3. Kasparov continues to play in and demonstrate his superiority in
just
> about every tournament he plays in.
> 4. Consider the FIDE alternative :)
>
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > Octopovich wrote:
> >
> > > William Hyde wrote, in his usual erudite fashion:
> > > >A player of Anand's stature should understand the
> > > > concept of touch-move. He bowed out of this cycle
> > > > and to bow in again is a rather dubious act.
> > > > Recall that he declined to play on principle:
> > > > I'd say that the principle of giving Shirov
> > > > his rights should be at least as strong as that of
> > > > loyalty to FIDE.
> > >
> > > Excellent argument! I would like to lend my voice to the growing
sentiment that
> > > Shirov deserves a title match against Kasparov!
> > >
> > > I feel at Shirov-Kasparov would be more exciting than Kasparov-
Anand II. I hate
> > > to say this but Anand is psychologically unprepared to face a
player of
> > > Kasparov's emotional intensity. Shirov, on the other hand, is
excellently
> > > placed to be the first World Champion of the Third Millenium!!
>
> Shirov's recent results have hardly been awe inspiring... On what do
you
> base this confidence in Shirov's abilities to do what no one else in
> history has been able to do?
Shirov has what Anand lost when it comes to Kasparov,a will to
fight.Anand lost it in game 11 in the 95 match ever since then he's
been scared.Shirov has never beaten Kaspy,But Fischer never beat
Spassky until there match.
Ps.I lost all respect for Anand.He doesn't have any integrity or
character.Negotiating to play a championship match that he doesn't
deserve to play. REALLY PATHETIC
> > >
> > > My best wishes to Alexei!
> > >
> > > Rick A
>
>
a31...@hotmail.com
dott...@ualberta.caX wrote:
> You can't have it both ways: on one hand Shirovs title shot has no
credibility
> because of the way it was obtained, but Anands, which was obtained in
even more
> dubious fashion, IS credible?
NEITHER is credible. Whether this one is "more credible" than the
other is irrelevant.
> > 2) Shirov, though talented, is hardly in the same class (chesswise)
> > as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
> > results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
>
> Well, at the current Sarajevo tournament, he finished ahead of your
Adams and
> Morozevich.
You perhaps missed the fact that Morozevich beat Shirov ? OR that
Shirov comes out distinctly second best in every tournament
that Anand and Kramnik play in.
> > Why is Shirov blaming Anand for the current state of affairs ?
> > He should be blaming Kasparov, his own lack of business sense,
> > and perhaps his own greed.
>
> I think he places most of the blame on Kasparov, and I think hes
disappointed that
> Anand is going to help Kasparov in screwing him over.
I put the whole blame on Kasparov. I dont see why Anand should
be obliged to Shirov in any way.
> > indeed, calling Anand a thief only smacks of hyprocrisy and
> > double standards. Lots of other chessplayers (Adams, Ivanchuk,
> > et. al.) have every right to call Shirov the same.
>
> How so? Shirov did not take anything that was owed to them. Those
players may all
> be worthy of a title shot but it is not OWED to them or PROMISED to
them, and they
> did not do anything that they were told would DIRECTLY lead to a title
shot. To put
> it simply, Shirov was told that if he beat Kramnik, his prize would be
the losers
> (lets be realistic) share in the next WC match.
Argued, very much like a lawyer :) Whether they were DIRECTLY told or
not, the fact remains that they were equally worthy of a "title"
shot. I would feel cheated if I were any of those players. Yet,
Shirov did'nt seem to think about their welfare ? Why then,
should Anand be concerned about his ?
Who is going to get
that share now?
> Anand. Shirovs money is being taken by Anand. Sounds like thievery to
me.
Shirov's money is being GIVEN to Anand (it takes two to
quibble :) Frankly, one can argue about this topic, endlessly,
depending on whose side one is on.
One way, I see out of this mess, is Anand declining to play Kasparov,
winning the FIDE championship, and then accepting to play Garry (or
perhaps Shirov doing the same )
Cheers,
Santosh.
hy...@tamu.edu
a31...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
> 2) Shirov, though talented, is hardly in the same class (chesswise)
> as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
> results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
This is obviously absurd. If you strain your memory
you might recall that just this week Shirov finished
ahead of Adams and Morozevich. Should you exert yourself
further it might come to you that Shirov actually beat
Kramnik in a match. It's hard to imagine how he could
win a longish match against a player a class above him.
Sure, I think Anand has a better chance against Kasparov
than does Shirov. But he didn't play in the qualifier.
And though it is irrelevant to the main issue here recall
that Anand has already had a match against Kasparov, in
which he showed little fighting spirit in what was the
most boring world championship match since... ever.
Shirov might well get wiped out as did Short, but he'll
fight to the end. Let's face it, based on his recent
form nobody has a real chance against Kasparov.
> Why is Shirov blaming Anand for the current state of affairs ?
Because Anand seems to want to step into a cycle from
which he withrdrew. If he wanted to play Kasparov he
should have played the match with Kramnik that he
was offered. At the time he said he wouldn't play
out of principle. What happened to that principle?
> He should be blaming Kasparov,
He is.
his own lack of business sense,
> and perhaps his own greed.
Now that is an absurd accusation.
> indeed, calling Anand a thief only smacks of hyprocrisy and
> double standards.
Why?
Lots of other chessplayers (Adams, Ivanchuk,
> et. al.) have every right to call Shirov the same.
Why?
Your comments on Shirov seem rather unbalanced.
Calling Anand a thief is a bit much, but what
Shirov wants is no more than his due.
Pompeo Silingardi
>> William Hyde wrote, in his usual erudite fashion:
>> >A player of Anand's stature should understand the
>> > concept of touch-move. He bowed out of this cycle
>> > and to bow in again is a rather dubious act.
>> > Recall that he declined to play on principle:
>> > I'd say that the principle of giving Shirov
>> > his rights should be at least as strong as that of
>> > loyalty to FIDE.
>>
>> Excellent argument! I would like to lend my voice to the growing
>sentiment that
>> Shirov deserves a title match against Kasparov!
>
> IMHO, a Kasparov-Shirov match has no credibility whatsover.
>
> 1) Shirov got to play only because Anand, who has greater
> business sense, refused to be part of Kasparov's latest
> brainwave to find himself a challenger. Kasparov's
> idea, needless to say, was of highly dubious character.
> It would have been more appropriate (and credible) to
> organise a championship, where at least the top 20
> players got to play against each other, and the winner
> to challenge Kasparov.
The technical credibility of the former WCC cycle was undoubtedly
questionable on terms of number of players involved but not on their
playing strenght.
A completely different matter is the credibility of a Gazza Kasparov-
Shirov match which is , at least , plausible.
Don't forget we're talking about one of the 5 best players in the
World...and got the "right " to play Kasparov by beating Kramnik ...
>
> 2) Shirov, though talented, is hardly in the same class (chesswise)
> as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
> results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
So he's not of the class of a player ( Kramnik ) who he beated in a
match .. Hmm ..Interesting point of view my friend ..
Morozevich has still a long way to go before achieving the status of a
title challenger and Adams , well .. though he lately showed signs of
improvements , he has definitely not the strenght to be a challenger.
> Another example of people letting their emotions get in the
> way of their thinking.
>
> A Shirov/Kasparov match would be the most one-sided match in
> championship history. Shirov has NEVER beaten Garry under
> normal tournament conditions, indeed never looked remotely
> capable of beating him at all.
Ohohoho ... My cool headed friend , you seem to forget the
Kasparov-Short match .
Do you regard it as an exciting World Championship match ?
Do you regard Adams , or (heheh ..) Morozewitch as more resilient
contenders ?
You're very original indeed ..
> Why is Shirov blaming Anand for the current state of affairs ?
> He should be blaming Kasparov, his own lack of business sense,
> and perhaps his own greed.
WHAT ?
Shirov didn't get a single dollar out from the Spanish organizer of
the Cazorla Match ( Rafael Rentero ) He was then refused to play the
match he got the right to play by a highly dubious person as Kasparov
and you say he has to blame HIMSELF ?!!!
You are an industrial producer of bullshit !
> indeed, calling Anand a thief only smacks of hyprocrisy and
> double standards. Lots of other chessplayers (Adams, Ivanchuk,
> et. al.) have every right to call Shirov the same.
Shirov's declaration maybe is not up to a gentlemanly standard but
what you write is really revolting.
Pompeo Silingardi
"E' la mia opinione , e io la condivido."
Henry Monnier- Memorie di Joseph Proudhomme-
Dennis Skidmore
> as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
> results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
Your evaluation of Shirov is not borne out by the current ratings
(post-Sarajevo), the objective measure of playing strength.
1. Kasparov,Garry RUS 2838 140
2. Shirov,Alexei ESP 2727 171
3. Kramnik,Vladimir RUS 2724 124
4. Anand,Viswanathan IND 2724 125
5. Morozevich,Alexander RUS 2719 166
Also keep in mind that Shirov's match results have been excellent and that
match and tournament play emphasize different strengths and weaknesses.
Anand and Kramnik haven't impressed with their match results so far.
I don't believe anyone can defeat Kasparov in a match at this point in time,
or even come close. He is simply far too strong in every respect. I do,
however, respect Shirov's ability and bellicose playing style very much and
I admire his creativity. I think a world championship match between him and
Kasparov would produce highly exciting chess and be well worth watching.
Everyone has his own version of a 'fair' method of determining a challenger,
so these arguments are generally fruitless. Kasparov is universally
recognized as by far the strongest player (even tacitly so by his
detractors). The fact that two potential challengers, Shirov and Anand, are
less than eager to play a world championship match against him speaks
volumes. The fact that Shirov declined to play a world championship match is
astonishing. It's easy to complain that Kasparov is setting the terms, but
Shirov had the opportunity to earn the right to set his own terms and passed
it up. That Anand declined to play Kramnik and now appears to be dragging
his feet on a world championship match casts doubt on his psychological
readiness to enter such a hard-fought contest.
hy...@tamu.edu
Alvah Mayo <ma...@nospamnorth.nsis.com> writes:
> PMG wrote:
>>
> I wouldn't go that far. Personally I think we'd see better chess from a
> Kasparov Anand match than from a Kasparov Shirov match.
We might indeed. But the last Kasparov-Anand match
was hardly inspiring.
> In my opinion, Shirov should have taken the $600 000 US offer and
> then, once owning the title, could name his terms and "hold the cards".
We've gone over this before. There is no way he could sell
his rights to a promised $2,000,000 match for that sum.
He is owed prize money for the Kramnik match, he spent
time and money preparing for that match and for the
WC match that never happened, missed opportunities to
make cash while doing this. In this context the $600,000
offer is vastly insufficient. Kasparov could and should
have bulked this offer up. He chose not to do so.
We now know what his word is worth.
> Shirov's recent results have hardly been awe inspiring...
Nobody's results have been awe-inspiring lately, except
Kasparov's. So should we have no match at all?
On what do you
> base this confidence in Shirov's abilities to do what no one else in
> history has been able to do?
I would say he'll probably lose, though almost certainly
he will play more interesting chess than Anand did in
1995.
But that is irrelevant. Kasparov promised him a match,
and Anand declined to play in the cycle. If they play
a match now they are both breaking their word, though
I'd place more blame with Kasparov.
If the Shirov match never happens it will be a disgrace
worse than any other in the less than honourable history
of the world championship. I can't think that Anand
wants to be associated with anything like that.
Chesspride
>>beaten in a World Title Defense.
>
There is no such thing as a "WORLD" title...there is only the world
championship as administered by FIDE. Otherwise...under this analysis...
Fischer still holds this mysterious WORLD title as he has never been defeated
in a match.
Logically...this reasoning holds no water.
This "split" of the concept of the title into a FIDE title and WORLD title is
simply puffery.
In 1948...FIDE assumed control over the one and only world championship.
In 1985...Kasparov won this title under FIDE.
In 1993...he was stripped of this title.
After 1993...any claims he may have...are just that...CLAIMS...based on his
series of new organizations...PCA...and WCC.
As of today..there are no such organizations...ergo...no claims.
Eric C. Johnson
Adamski
writes
>Shirov has what Anand lost when it comes to Kasparov,a will to
>fight.Anand lost it in game 11 in the 95 match ever since then he's
>been scared.Shirov has never beaten Kaspy,But Fischer never beat
>Spassky until there match.
Of course, Alekhine had never beaten Capablanca either. Matches follow
their own rules. One shouldn't forget that Kasparov was there for the
taking in New York, notwithstanding Anand's gutless display. Short
put on a more admirable display than Anand; he at least gave it
everything. Kasparov took some heavy shots in the first half of that
match. Shirov has an outside chance, say 30%.
>Ps.I lost all respect for Anand.He doesn't have any integrity or
>character.Negotiating to play a championship match that he doesn't
>deserve to play. REALLY PATHETIC
As Shirov puts it: 'He who first didn't recognise the semi-final
of this cycle, now suddenly wants to play the final?'
gStr...@houses.com
>I'm guessing that the vast majority of the world wants to see Shirov in that match,
increasingly so.
>it might even lend credibility to that particular world champion title. Of coarse
and refined as well.
>who created the title
Steinitz?
>and holds the cards?
Kasparov
>Could someone refresh my memory as to
>why Kasparov is generally still considered Chess world champion.
Because people nowadays choose who they think is the strongest player
at any one time to be world champion at that time. It's no longer a
matter of who shows up to win a match.
I'd say Karpov was world champion again after Linares 1994 when he
outclassed everyone, including Kasparov on his way to setting the
highest ever elo performance record.
I mean, we are choosing the strongest player at any one time to be the
champion at that time don't we?
gStr...@houses.com
> 2) Shirov, though talented, is hardly in the same class (chesswise)
> as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
> results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
Besides Kasparov, who among the current contenders has proven
themselves better at match play?
gStr...@houses.com
> Sure, I think Anand has a better chance against Kasparov
> than does Shirov. But he didn't play in the qualifier.
Yes, but nowadays, we just choose our own champions based not on who
plays what match but on who we perceive as the best player. This is
why we think Kasparov is the world champion.
Now, if we think that Anand is better than Shirov, and then Shirov
defeats Kasparov in a match, then we declare Anand champion, right?
In general, the guy who shows up, plays the match and wins it should
be called world champion, regardless if he's not viewed as the best by
way of results subsequently.
People should stop just "choosing champions" based on recent results.
gStr...@houses.com
<honeyb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Is there any substance to the rumour that the Kasparov/Anand match is
>to be promoted by Don King Promotions?
>
>Garry is keen to promote chess/himself in America.
I believe a Canadian is organizing and arranging the match.
JBDes1
Kasparov was going to face the winner of the Shirov and Kramnik match, Shirov
defeates Kramnik, so Kasparov faces Shirov.
Everything else doesn't exist. :)
DAVID GRANIK
Chesspride wrote in message
<19990527154015...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>>>2. He beat Karpov for both the FIDE and World Titles, and has never been
>>>beaten in a World Title Defense.
>>
>
>There is no such thing as a "WORLD" title...there is only the world
>championship as administered by FIDE. Otherwise...under this analysis...
>Fischer still holds this mysterious WORLD title as he has never been
defeated
>in a match.
>
Euwe were not World Champions after all? Your "logic" is absurd.
>Logically...this reasoning holds no water.
>
>This "split" of the concept of the title into a FIDE title and WORLD title
is
>simply puffery.
>
>In 1948...FIDE assumed control over the one and only world championship.
>
Or usurped "control", depending on one's perspective. And Botvinnik
became the FIDE champion.
>In 1985...Kasparov won this title under FIDE.
>
>In 1993...he was stripped of this title.
>
So now he is no longer FIDE champion. But if people view him as the
World Champion,
>After 1993...any claims he may have...are just that...CLAIMS...based on his
>series of new organizations...PCA...and WCC.
>
Darn good claims, in most people's view.
>As of today..there are no such organizations...ergo...no claims.
Er, what were the organizations on which the first 5 World Champions
based their title claims.
>
>Eric C. Johnson
a31...@hotmail.com
Unfortunately, none of them. Anand has been pretty good, except
when it really counts. Shirov hardly has any match experience.
Kramnik has been awful :(
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
a31...@hotmail.com
>
> The technical credibility of the former WCC cycle was undoubtedly
> questionable on terms of number of players involved but not on their
> playing strenght.
>
> A completely different matter is the credibility of a Gazza Kasparov-
> Shirov match which is , at least , plausible.
> Don't forget we're talking about one of the 5 best players in the
> World...and got the "right " to play Kasparov by beating Kramnik ...
Yes, the Kasparov-Shirov match is plausible, but at least in
my eyes, NOT credible.
> >
> > 2) Shirov, though talented, is hardly in the same class (chesswise)
> > as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
> > results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
>
> So he's not of the class of a player ( Kramnik ) who he beated in a
> match .. Hmm ..Interesting point of view my friend ..
Yes. IMHO, Kramnik is a much better player. Why he does not do
well in matches is a mystery to me, and is perhaps worthy of
discussion in a separate thread.
> > A Shirov/Kasparov match would be the most one-sided match in
> > championship history. Shirov has NEVER beaten Garry under
> > normal tournament conditions, indeed never looked remotely
> > capable of beating him at all.
>
> Ohohoho ... My cool headed friend , you seem to forget the
> Kasparov-Short match .
> Do you regard it as an exciting World Championship match ?
No. But that is irrelevant to the fact that a Shirov-Kasparov
match would be one-sided. Which one is "more" boring would be
a matter of opinion.
> > Why is Shirov blaming Anand for the current state of affairs ?
> > He should be blaming Kasparov, his own lack of business sense,
> > and perhaps his own greed.
>
> WHAT ?
> Shirov didn't get a single dollar out from the Spanish organizer of
> the Cazorla Match ( Rafael Rentero ) He was then refused to play the
> match he got the right to play by a highly dubious person as Kasparov
> and you say he has to blame HIMSELF ?!!!
Okay, I concede that "greed" was perhaps too strong a word, but
opportunism ? Yes, he should blame himself for not reading the
fine print of the contract.
>
> You are an industrial producer of bullshit !
My pompous friend, please stick to attacking the arguments, not
the person who made them.
[snip]
Chesspride
> Er, what were the organizations on which the first 5 World Champions
>based their title claims.
I do not dispute that the first five world champions (Steinitz, Lasker,
Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe) held their titles through personal right...
...however...in 1948...this line of champions then passed to FIDE control.
FIDE administered the one and only world championship title.
Botvinnik gained his title through this process...as did
Smyslov...Tal...Petrosian...Spassky...and Fischer.
In 1974/75...Fischer retired from this process...FIDE again asserted its
rights...and so we had Karpov...then Kasparov.
In 1993...Kasparov...was stripped of his title over a dispute over
conditions....a matter which he could easily have avoided but instead sought
and encouraged. Thus...from 1993 we have had Karpov as the world champion.
Mr. Granik's claim...that because the first 5 champions held titles outside of
FIDE...that somehow this "world" title had some meta-existence througt the 45
years of FIDE title matches (Botvinnik to Kasparov)...only to reappear because
a titleholder decided to ASSERT it...is laughable.
Laughable.
Again...I stress...if this logic is true...then Mr. Fischer...whose telegram to
FIDE said he resigned the "FIDE title" (sic)...would seem to be living proof
that in 1974/75 this world title and the FIDE title split apart.
If this is Mr. Kasparov's claim...then he needs to play Mr. Fischer....for this
ancient and mysterious "world" title.
But no! Mr. Kasparov claims that ...yes...indeed...despite Mr. Fischer's
"retirement"...apparently the real FIDE title and this mysterious "world" title
were unified up to and unitl that very moment in 1993 when he ASSERTED it.
Odd.
Ludicrous.
FIDE has managed the world championship since 1948...there was no dispute over
this for nearly 50 years...and in 1993...FIDE asserted it's proprietary rights
and stripped the titleholder.
If FIDE has no right to strip a titleholder of the title in 1993...then Mr.
Fischer is the world champion....for surely it had no right to force his
resignation in 1974/75.
If FIDE does have such a right...then Mr. Karpov is the world champion.
Either way....Mr. Kasparov's claim is nonsensical.
He's the strongest player...but that is no guarantee for being world champion.
The world champion is one who holds the title as granted by the administering
organization...as in all other sports.
FIDE is that organization...and Karpov is the world champion.
PCA and WCC no longer exist...and so their "titles" no longer exist.
Pray tell...what organization grants the title Mr. Kasparov now claims?
Or does he plan to play a match against Mr. Alekhine's bones?
Eric C. Johnson
DAVID GRANIK
a31...@hotmail.com wrote in message <7ijreq$spm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7ij791$d90$1...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
> dott...@ualberta.caX wrote:
>
>> You can't have it both ways: on one hand Shirovs title shot has no
>credibility
>> because of the way it was obtained, but Anands, which was obtained in
>even more
>> dubious fashion, IS credible?
>
> NEITHER is credible. Whether this one is "more credible" than the
> other is irrelevant.
>
>> > as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
>> > results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
>>
>Adams and
>> Morozevich.
>
> You perhaps missed the fact that Morozevich beat Shirov ? OR that
> Shirov comes out distinctly second best in every tournament
> that Anand and Kramnik play in.
>
game, a game in which Morozevich had the advantage of being White. Likewise,
Shirov has had his successes against the players you named. He had a plus
score vs. Kramnik BEFORE he beat him in the match. He finished ahead of
Kramnik in the Linares '98 tournament. As of today, the WCC's own rating
list ranks him 2nd behind Kasparov, but AHEAD of Anand, Kramnik, etc.
Moreover, Shirov has consistently done better in matches than either Anand
or Kramnik. Your statement that Shirov "is hardly in the same class
(chesswise) as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk, and now Morozevich" is
simply absurd.
>> > Why is Shirov blaming Anand for the current state of affairs ?
>> > He should be blaming Kasparov, his own lack of business sense,
>> > and perhaps his own greed.
>>
>> I think he places most of the blame on Kasparov, and I think hes
>disappointed that
>> Anand is going to help Kasparov in screwing him over.
>
> I put the whole blame on Kasparov. I dont see why Anand should
> be obliged to Shirov in any way.
>
>> > indeed, calling Anand a thief only smacks of hyprocrisy and
>> > double standards. Lots of other chessplayers (Adams, Ivanchuk,
>> > et. al.) have every right to call Shirov the same.
Shirov at least "earned" his right to play Kramnik in the match by
being the highest placed finisher from the Linares '98 tournament who was
willing to play in the WCC candidates cycle
>>
>> How so? Shirov did not take anything that was owed to them. Those
>players may all
>> be worthy of a title shot but it is not OWED to them or PROMISED to
>them, and they
>> did not do anything that they were told would DIRECTLY lead to a title
>shot. To put
>> it simply, Shirov was told that if he beat Kramnik, his prize would be
>the losers
>> (lets be realistic) share in the next WC match.
>
> Argued, very much like a lawyer :) Whether they were DIRECTLY told or
> not, the fact remains that they were equally worthy of a "title"
> shot. I would feel cheated if I were any of those players. Yet,
> Shirov did'nt seem to think about their welfare ? Why then,
> should Anand be concerned about his ?
>
Your argument seems like a desperate grab at straws. Ivanchuk had an
unsuccesful Linares'98. Adams didn't even play in Linares '98, as he didn't
"make the cut" to receive an invitation. Even Morozevich would probably
concede that prior to his string of great results he ought not be considered
to be in the same class as Adams, Ivanchuk, Topalov, etc.
> Who is going to get
>that share now?
>> Anand. Shirovs money is being taken by Anand. Sounds like thievery to
>me.
>
> Shirov's money is being GIVEN to Anand (it takes two to
> quibble :) Frankly, one can argue about this topic, endlessly,
> depending on whose side one is on.
>
> One way, I see out of this mess, is Anand declining to play Kasparov,
> winning the FIDE championship, and then accepting to play Garry (or
> perhaps Shirov doing the same )
>
> Cheers,
> Santosh.
>
>
>--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
JBDes1
:)
The rest (99%) of the world's population will call Kasparov the champion.
Okay, just wanted to make that clear. :)
a31...@hotmail.com
"DAVID GRANIK" <dgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Well, at the current Sarajevo tournament, he finished ahead of your
> >Adams and
> >> Morozevich.
> >
> > You perhaps missed the fact that Morozevich beat Shirov ? OR that
> > Shirov comes out distinctly second best in every tournament
> > that Anand and Kramnik play in.
> >
> Maybe you are putting a bit too much emphasis on the result of
1
> game, a game in which Morozevich had the advantage of being White.
I am not. The previous poster made the point about Shirov's
result and I made a counter-point. My point is tournament results
should not be taken as a criteria for choosing candidates. ALL
deserving candidates should be given an oppurtunity. I am not
happy with a system that arbitrarily chooses candidates.
Shirov is a deserving candidate, yes, but so are at least
6/7 others.
Likewise,
> Shirov has had his successes against the players you named. He had a
plus
> score vs. Kramnik BEFORE he beat him in the match. He finished ahead
of
> Kramnik in the Linares '98 tournament. As of today, the WCC's own
rating
> list ranks him 2nd behind Kasparov, but AHEAD of Anand, Kramnik, etc.
The difference in the ratings is negligible, indeed practically
non-existent. ALso,
I have my reservations about the WCC rating list and the means by
which the ratings are calculated. For instance, even the results
of the blitz matches seem to be included, the added weightage
given to black etc.
> Moreover, Shirov has consistently done better in matches than either
Anand
> or Kramnik.
Really ? Better than Kramnik, yes! Better than Anand, no. How
many matches has Shirov played, anyway ?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
a31...@hotmail.com
Adamski
>In article <7ild1f$t03$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> "DAVID GRANIK" <dgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Well, at the current Sarajevo tournament, he finished ahead of your
>> >Adams and
>> >> Morozevich.
>> >
>> > You perhaps missed the fact that Morozevich beat Shirov ? OR that
>> > Shirov comes out distinctly second best in every tournament
>> > that Anand and Kramnik play in.
>> >
>> Maybe you are putting a bit too much emphasis on the result of
>1
>> game, a game in which Morozevich had the advantage of being White.
>
> I am not. The previous poster made the point about Shirov's
> result and I made a counter-point. My point is tournament results
> should not be taken as a criteria
(sic)
> for choosing candidates.
> ALL
> deserving candidates should be given an oppurtunity. I am not
> happy with a system that arbitrarily chooses candidates.
> Shirov is a deserving candidate, yes, but so are at least
> 6/7 others.
>
>Likewise,
>> Shirov has had his successes against the players you named. He had a
>plus
>> score vs. Kramnik BEFORE he beat him in the match. He finished ahead
>of
>> Kramnik in the Linares '98 tournament. As of today, the WCC's own
>rating
>> list ranks him 2nd behind Kasparov, but AHEAD of Anand, Kramnik, etc.
>
> The difference in the ratings is negligible, indeed practically
> non-existent. ALso,
> I have my reservations about the WCC rating list and the means by
> which the ratings are calculated. For instance, even the results
> of the blitz matches seem to be included, the added weightage
> given to black etc.
Blitz matches seem to be included!? Do you know this for a fact or
is it but a hunch? Why are you averse to the practice of weighting
black points? Where's the evidence that any of this would tend to
favour Shirov's rating over that of his rivals?
>
>> Moreover, Shirov has consistently done better in matches than either
>Anand
>> or Kramnik.
>
> Really ? Better than Kramnik, yes! Better than Anand, no. How
> many matches has Shirov played, anyway ?
>
Shirov's press release: 'I have won all the matches I played since 1991
with a high score, so I feel ready to beat Kasparov in match play.'
Olivier Renet 1991 (5.5 - 0.5)
Simen Agdestein 1992 (3-1)
Jeroen Piket 1995 (5.5 -2.5)
Vladimir Kramnik 1998 (5.5 - 3.5)
Zbynek Hracek 1998 (5.5 - 0.5)
Given your admitted ignorance, do you really consider yourself
best qualified to be commenting on the merits or otherwise of
Shirov's challenge to Kasparov?
Pompeo Silingardi
[..]
>> > 2) Shirov, though talented, is hardly in the same class (chesswise)
>> > as Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Ivanchuk and now Morozevich. His
>> > results, of late have been nothing to rave about.
>>
>> So he's not of the class of a player ( Kramnik ) who he beated in a
>> match .. Hmm ..Interesting point of view my friend ..
>
> Yes. IMHO, Kramnik is a much better player. Why he does not do
> well in matches is a mystery to me, and is perhaps worthy of
> discussion in a separate thread.
Playing Tournaments or matches is a completely different matter , some
players simply can't stand the tension ...Take as an example Frank
Marshall : a very talented chess player who got numerous victories in
Tournaments but lost in a disastrous way almost all the matches he
played in ..
>> > A Shirov/Kasparov match would be the most one-sided match in
>> > championship history. Shirov has NEVER beaten Garry under
>> > normal tournament conditions, indeed never looked remotely
>> > capable of beating him at all.
>>
>> Ohohoho ... My cool headed friend , you seem to forget the
>> Kasparov-Short match .
>> Do you regard it as an exciting World Championship match ?
>
> No. But that is irrelevant to the fact that a Shirov-Kasparov
> match would be one-sided. Which one is "more" boring would be
> a matter of opinion.
I think that before expressing such kind of drastic opinions one
should get the empirical results of a Shirov-Kasparov match, keeping
in mind how one-sided was the Short Kasparov one.
>> > Why is Shirov blaming Anand for the current state of affairs ?
>> > He should be blaming Kasparov, his own lack of business sense,
>> > and perhaps his own greed.
>>
>> WHAT ?
>> Shirov didn't get a single dollar out from the Spanish organizer of
>> the Cazorla Match ( Rafael Rentero ) He was then refused to play the
>> match he got the right to play by a highly dubious person as Kasparov
>> and you say he has to blame HIMSELF ?!!!
>
> Okay, I concede that "greed" was perhaps too strong a word, but
> opportunism ? Yes, he should blame himself for not reading the
> fine print of the contract.
Ah , at last you spmehow admit to have written some kind of absurd
statement .. But then you create another little gem of the same
kind ....
Which sort of fine print you are talking about ?
Rentero for sure hadn't written in the contract in fine print " Hei ,
Alexey , be aware that i'll not pay you "....
You are the kind of guy who never admits to be wrong eh ? Even if in
order to defend absurd statements you have to write down every time
bigger and bigger ones ..
>
>> You are an industrial producer of bullshit !
>
> My pompous friend, please stick to attacking the arguments, not
> the person who made them.
No problem , kindergarden boy , since your statements are so weak that
it's too eay to meet them ..
Saludos
Chesspride
Yes...yes...and there was a time when the majority of the world's people
thought the Earth was flat.
Fortunately...a poll of the population did not make it so.
Karpov is the one...and only...titleholder today (1999).
Eric C. Johnson
a31...@hotmail.com
>
> Blitz matches seem to be included!? Do you know this for a fact or
> is it but a hunch? Why are you averse to the practice of weighting
> black points? Where's the evidence that any of this would tend to
> favour Shirov's rating over that of his rivals?
It obviously would'nt. I am not sure about blitz ratings being
included, perhaps someone could clarify that.
There seems to be a fair amount of difference in the FIDE
ratings and the WCC one. I think the FIDE list in July
might show Anand/Kramnik as number 2. On the other hand,
a scientist of Ken Thompson's repute is associated with the
creation of the WCC list, so perhaps it may be "more correct".
> >> Moreover, Shirov has consistently done better in matches than
either
> >Anand
> >> or Kramnik.
> >
> > Really ? Better than Kramnik, yes! Better than Anand, no. How
> > many matches has Shirov played, anyway ?
> >
>
> Shirov's press release: 'I have won all the matches I played since
1991
> with a high score, so I feel ready to beat Kasparov in match play.'
>
> Olivier Renet 1991 (5.5 - 0.5)
> Simen Agdestein 1992 (3-1)
> Jeroen Piket 1995 (5.5 -2.5)
> Vladimir Kramnik 1998 (5.5 - 3.5)
> Zbynek Hracek 1998 (5.5 - 0.5)
Thanks for the info. A pretty impressive record. But,
should I point out the fact that
other than Kramnik, none of these opponents are rated above
2650 ? Anand has beaten Kamsky, Adams, Ivanchuk, and yes
Shirov too.
>
> Given your admitted ignorance, do you really consider yourself
> best qualified to be commenting on the merits or otherwise of
> Shirov's challenge to Kasparov?
>
Never said I was. I am just an average chess fan.
And I presume you are a 2700 GM ?
a31...@hotmail.com
> > Okay, I concede that "greed" was perhaps too strong a word, but
> > opportunism ? Yes, he should blame himself for not reading the
> > fine print of the contract.
>
> Ah , at last you spmehow admit to have written some kind of absurd
> statement .. But then you create another little gem of the same
> kind ....
> Which sort of fine print you are talking about ?
>
> Rentero for sure hadn't written in the contract in fine print " Hei ,
> Alexey , be aware that i'll not pay you "....
Let me clarify.
Anand and Kramnik are invited to play a match. Anand refuses,
citing loyalty to FIDE. The real reason is he does'nt want
to get into a match where Kasparov is pulling all the strings
(hes already had a bad experience before).
Shirov gets his chance and grabs it with both hands, without
caring about who hes getting involved with, namely Kasparov,
and the Andalucian govt. (who were supposed to shell out
the money). In his eagerness to play a match, he does'nt pay
too much attention to the business aspect of it, and the
rest, as we all know, is history.
A very sorry state of affairs for which Kasparov should take
all the moral responsibility. Shirov, I'm sure must be kicking
himself for having relied on Kasparov too much.
Alvah Mayo
>
> In article <374CE7...@nospamnorth.nsis.com>,
> ma...@nospamnorth.nsis.com wrote:
> > PMG wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm guessing that the vast majority of the world wants to see
> Shirov in that match,
> >
> a
> > Kasparov Anand match than from a Kasparov Shirov match.
>
> prefer a Shirov vs Kasparov match.
Well the original poster said VAST majority. Once we hammer out just
what constitutes a vast majority, the question to be asked, an
independent polling company, etc, we might be ready to see if what the
original poster claimed is actually so.
> > > it might even lend credibility to that particular world champion
> title.
> >
> > The World Chess Championship currently held by Kasparov is the only
> one
> > that has credibility right now.
> His PCA/WCC/etc./etc./etc. has no credibility,
Whatever initials Kasparov chooses to affix to the name of the
World Chess Championship does not instantly take away the credibility of
the World Chess Championship.
To me, a World Title that has been in existence for about 110 years
obviously has credibility. If you disagree, so be it.
Because he is in
> charge.Have you ever heard of conflict of interest.
Completely irrelevant. The World Champions such as Steinitz,
Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe were all "in charge" of the World
Chess Championship when they held it. They had the exact same "conflict
of interest" as Kasparov.
History still regards these men as World Chess Champions. If the
basis for your claim that Kasparov's title has "no credibility" is that
he was in charge and has a conflict of interest, then you must also hold
that the aforementioned World Champions had no credibility.
I think you'll find that you would be in the minority in such a
stance.
> > Of coarse
> > > who created the title and holds the cards?
> >
> > The World Chess Championship came about via general public
> acclaim
> > back in the 19th century, and was first held by the winner of the
> > Steinitz Zukertort match.
>
> Hello that title ceased to exist after Alekhine's death.
Hello, it did not cease to exist. Another event was held ala
Steinitz Zukertort (no reigning champion) to fill the vacancy. Legal
opinion at the time held that the last surviving World Champion Max Euwe
had a legal claim to the title, but Euwe did not claim it.
If the title had "ceased to exist" as you suggest then Euwe would
have had no legal claim as the title would have been non existent.
Because of the
> abuse's by the champions,an organization was formed called
> Fide.
Perhaps you should bone up on your chess history. FIDE was NOT
formed "as a result of abuse by the Champions". In fact, FIDE was formed
about 20 years before the death of Alekhine as an amateur organization.
Unfortunately this organization was more corrupt than the
> champions were.
I would disagree with that. The organization itself was not overly
corrupt, just some of the leaders. Fredrick Olafsson and Max Euwe were
both fine FIDE presidents, for example.
>
> > As for your second question, I suppose Kasparov, being World
> > Champion, holds most of the cards at the moment.
> > In my opinion, Shirov should have taken the $600 000 US offer and
> > then, once owning the title, could name his terms and "hold the
> cards".
> > That is unless he reasoned that he could not beat Kasparov for
> the
> > World Championship, when naturally he would want a really big loser's
> > share of the purse.
> I MUST FLAME YOU
Yes, I suppose having failed in civilized debate the next logical step
for you would be a flame. For the record, I do not have my head up
Kasparov's ass. I have read Shirov's claims and Kasparov's claims on the
matter. My opinion as originally posted above remains unchanged.
If you get your head out of Kasparov's ass for a few
> minutes and get some oxygen to your brain,you might want to read what
> Shirov has to say about this subject.After you wipe all that brown
> stuff out of your eye's and nose go and read the whole article to get
> his side.Maybe after reading his side you might come away with a
> different prospect on things.Go here Chessplanet international,ltd
> http://www.chessweb.com
> > Could someone refresh my memory as to
> > > why Kasparov is generally still considered Chess world champion.
> >
> > The reasons probably differ, but some of the more popular reasons
> > probably include:
> > 1. Kasparov is currently the highest rated chess player in the world
> by
> > a significant margin.
> He is definitely the highest rated player in the world,But when he
> abandoned FIDE.He gave up the title.
No, when he left FIDE he gave up the FIDE title, not the World Title.
You see, FIDE has no legal jurisdiction over the World Chess
Championship. Never did, never will.
Instead of trying to destroy this
> organization he should have help to make it better.
> > 2. He beat Karpov for both the FIDE and World Titles, and has never
> been
> > beaten in a World Title Defense.
> I don't know where this World title came from ,maybe i was sleep during
> this one.
See the original post again- the World Title came about after the
Steinitz Zukertort match. As to whether you were sleeping or not, no
comment.
> If Kasparov can abandon FIDE and still remain Champion,I guess Fischer
> could still be called Champion
Sure you could call Fischer Champion, but it wouldn't change the
facts. Fischer abandoned chess altogether and forfeited his
contractually obligated match with Karpov. A forfeited match is a lost
match, so Karpov got both the World and FIDE Chess Championships in
1975.
In 1993, Kasparov abandoned FIDE but STILL played his contractually
obligated match with Short. Kasparov won that match and thus retained
the World Chess Championship.
because he was fighting with them when
> Kaspy was still shitting green.
> > 3. Kasparov continues to play in and demonstrate his superiority in
> just
> > about every tournament he plays in.
> > 4. Consider the FIDE alternative :)
> >
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > Octopovich wrote:
> > >
> > > > William Hyde wrote, in his usual erudite fashion:
> > > > >A player of Anand's stature should understand the
> > > > > concept of touch-move. He bowed out of this cycle
> > > > > and to bow in again is a rather dubious act.
> > > > > Recall that he declined to play on principle:
> > > > > I'd say that the principle of giving Shirov
> > > > > his rights should be at least as strong as that of
> > > > > loyalty to FIDE.
> > > >
> > > > Excellent argument! I would like to lend my voice to the growing
> sentiment that
> > > > Shirov deserves a title match against Kasparov!
> > > >
> > > > I feel at Shirov-Kasparov would be more exciting than Kasparov-
> Anand II. I hate
> > > > to say this but Anand is psychologically unprepared to face a
> player of
> > > > Kasparov's emotional intensity. Shirov, on the other hand, is
> excellently
> > > > placed to be the first World Champion of the Third Millenium!!
> >
> > Shirov's recent results have hardly been awe inspiring... On what do
> you
> > base this confidence in Shirov's abilities to do what no one else in
> > history has been able to do?
> Shirov has what Anand lost when it comes to Kasparov,a will to
> fight.Anand lost it in game 11 in the 95 match ever since then he's
> been scared.Shirov has never beaten Kaspy,But Fischer never beat
> Spassky until there match.
> Ps.I lost all respect for Anand.He doesn't have any integrity or
> character.Negotiating to play a championship match that he doesn't
> deserve to play. REALLY PATHETIC
>
> > > >
> > > > My best wishes to Alexei!
> > > >
> > > > Rick A
> >
> >
>
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Alvah Mayo
> > Kasparov Anand match than from a Kasparov Shirov match.
>
> was hardly inspiring.
Agreed.
>
> > In my opinion, Shirov should have taken the $600 000 US offer and
> > then, once owning the title, could name his terms and "hold the cards".
>
> We've gone over this before. There is no way he could sell
> his rights to a promised $2,000,000 match for that sum.
We've gone over this before, and with the same debate as before. If
Shirov wanted to play Kasparov that badly, then he would have taken the
$600 000 purse, defeated Kasparov and then named his terms for the next
match.
To me, the only reason Shirov won't do this is because, like most
posters here, I believe Shirov knows he has no realistic chance of
beating Kasparov. Therefore, he wants as much money as possible for
losing to Kasparov.
> He is owed prize money for the Kramnik match, he spent
> time and money preparing for that match and for the
> WC match that never happened, missed opportunities to
> make cash while doing this. In this context the $600,000
> offer is vastly insufficient.
Shirov didn't accept the $600 000 offer and as a result has now in
all likelihood found himself minus one World Title match and with no
money at all. In this context $600 000 is a heck of a lot better than
$0.
Kasparov could and should
> have bulked this offer up.
I disagree. Kasparov is under no obligation to toss his money away.
Kasparov did not agree to be the financial backer for the title defense
with Shirov.
You say there is no way Shirov could have accepted a $600 000
purse. I disagree. I suspect neither one of us is going to convince the
other.
He chose not to do so.
> We now know what his word is worth.
Considering that Kasparov never promised to put his own money up
for this title match, on this issue the worth of Kasparov's word is a
non issue.
>
> > Shirov's recent results have hardly been awe inspiring...
>
> Nobody's results have been awe-inspiring lately, except
> Kasparov's. So should we have no match at all?
>
> On what do you
> > base this confidence in Shirov's abilities to do what no one else in
> > history has been able to do?
>
> I would say he'll probably lose, though almost certainly
> he will play more interesting chess than Anand did in
> 1995.
Could be, although the drawfest in the match with Kramnik hardly
inspires me.
Alvah Mayo
>
> >>2. He beat Karpov for both the FIDE and World Titles, and has never been
> >>beaten in a World Title Defense.
> >
>
> championship as administered by FIDE.
No, the World Title and the FIDE Title are indeed two seperate
entities.
Otherwise...under this analysis...
> Fischer still holds this mysterious WORLD title as he has never been defeated
> in a match.
Fischer forfeited a contractually obligated match to Karpov. A
forfeited match is a lost match.
>
> Logically...this reasoning holds no water.
>
> This "split" of the concept of the title into a FIDE title and WORLD title is
> simply puffery.
No, trying to merge FIDE's laughing stock of a title with the
original World Title, that is puffery.
>
> In 1948...FIDE assumed control over the one and only world championship.
No they did not. Perhaps you could explain by what legal process
FIDE was able to assume control over the World Title. Let me guess, just
because "FIDE says so"?
Don't skimp on the details here, because you would be the first
person in 50 years to identify the legal process by which FIDE "assumed
control" of the World Chess Championship.
>
> In 1985...Kasparov won this title under FIDE.
Kasparov won both the World and FIDE titles in the 1985 match with
Karpov.
>
> In 1993...he was stripped of this title.
In 1993, Kasparov was stripped of the FIDE title.
>
> After 1993...any claims he may have...are just that...CLAIMS...based on his
> series of new organizations...PCA...and WCC.
No, the FACT that Kasparov is World Champion is based on the fact
that he won the World and FIDE Titles and has yet to lose a World Title
match.
Even FIDE itself has expressed interest in a "title unification
match". If your CLAIM that Kasparov is not the World Champion and that
the FIDE Title is the only one that matters is true, why would FIDE care
about Kasparov?
Exactly what title is FIDE interested in unifying if Kasparov has,
as you state, "no claim"?
Why did the official organ of the USCF recognize Kasparov as World
Champion (not World Champion claimant, just World Champion) up until at
least 1996, if the FIDE title is the "one and only" title?
>
> As of today..there are no such organizations...ergo...no claims.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
Alvah Mayo
>
> David Granik writes...
>
> > Er, what were the organizations on which the first 5 World Champions
> >based their title claims.
>
> I do not dispute that the first five world champions (Steinitz, Lasker,
> Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe) held their titles through personal right...
>
> ...however...in 1948...this line of champions then passed to FIDE control.
Again you stick to this nonsensical claim, ignoring the requests
for even the smallest shred of evidence that backs up your assertion.
Again I ask, by what legal process did control of the World Chess
Championship pass to FIDE?
> FIDE administered the one and only world championship title.
FIDE administers the FIDE title, not the World Title.
>
> Botvinnik gained his title through this process...as did
> Smyslov...Tal...Petrosian...Spassky...and Fischer.
And they all permitted FIDE to run a cycle which would determine a
challenger. However, the right of the Champion to select his challenger
as already established was never "signed away" or forfeited.
FIDE also had a FIDE title, the title which it in fact
administered, but at no time did the World and FIDE titles "merge".
>
> In 1974/75...Fischer retired from this process...FIDE again asserted its
> rights
Nope, FIDE had no rights vis a vis the World Chess Championship in
1975 or at any other time.
Fischer lost the FIDE title when he resigned it, and lost the World
Title when he forfeited his contractually obligated match with Karpov.
The public at large also recognized Karpov as World Champion, ala
Steinitz and Botvinnik.
...and so we had Karpov...then Kasparov.
>
> In 1993...Kasparov...was stripped of his title
Kasparov was stripped of the FIDE title, not the World Title. FIDE
cannot take away what it does not own.
over a dispute over
> conditions....a matter which he could easily have avoided but instead sought
> and encouraged. Thus...from 1993 we have had Karpov as the world champion.
No, since 1993 we have had Karpov as the FIDE Champion. Since
Kasparov has never lost a World title match, he remains World Champion.
>
> Mr. Granik's claim...that because the first 5 champions held titles outside of
> FIDE...that somehow this "world" title had some meta-existence througt the 45
> years of FIDE title matches (Botvinnik to Kasparov)
Sure FIDE organized the matches, but to claim that organizing World
Title matches gives the organizer control of the title is completely
ridiculous.
...only to reappear because
> a titleholder decided to ASSERT it...is laughable.
No, not laughable. A legal right doesn't stop being a legal right
just on a whim. The power of the World Champion to select his challenger
has been well established. If World Champions choose not to exercise
that right for 47 years, that does not mean that the right simply goes
away.
>
> Laughable.
>
> Again...I stress...if this logic is true...then Mr. Fischer...whose telegram to
> FIDE said he resigned the "FIDE title" (sic)...would seem to be living proof
> that in 1974/75 this world title and the FIDE title split apart.
>
> If this is Mr. Kasparov's claim...then he needs to play Mr. Fischer....for this
> ancient and mysterious "world" title.
>
> But no! Mr. Kasparov claims that ...yes...indeed...despite Mr. Fischer's
> "retirement"...apparently the real FIDE title and this mysterious "world" title
> were unified up to and unitl that very moment in 1993 when he ASSERTED it.
>
> Odd.
>
> Ludicrous.
>
> FIDE has managed the world championship since 1948
No it has not. It organized the matches and cycles with the consent of
the World Champions. It has not managed the title just because Mr
Johnson says so.
...there was no dispute over
> this for nearly 50 years...and in 1993...FIDE asserted it's proprietary rights
> and stripped the titleholder.
They asserted their rights and stripped Kasparov of the title they
actually control, the FIDE title.
The World Chess Championship is still held by Kasparov.
>
> If FIDE has no right to strip a titleholder of the title in 1993...then Mr.
> Fischer is the world champion
Mr Fischer forfeited his contractually obligated match to Karpov.
....for surely it had no right to force his
> resignation in 1974/75.
You are indeed correct. Fischer lost the World Title by forfeiting
his match to Karpov.
>
> If FIDE does have such a right
They don't.
...then Mr. Karpov is the world champion.
>
> Either way....Mr. Kasparov's claim is nonsensical.
Only if you forget Fischer's 20 year hiatus, the forfeited match to
Karpov, and just about all the other salient facts.
>
> He's the strongest player...but that is no guarantee for being world champion.
>
> The world champion is one who holds the title as granted by the administering
> organization...as in all other sports.
This is laughable. By Mr Johnson's definition, Steinitz, Lasker,
Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe were NEVER World Chess Champions. We
should all write the chess historical publications and inform them of Mr
Johnson's revelations.
>
> FIDE is that organization...and Karpov is the world champion.
>
> PCA and WCC no longer exist...and so their "titles" no longer exist.
>
> Pray tell...what organization grants the title Mr. Kasparov now claims?
Pray tell, what organization granted the title to Steinitz?
Clearly, an organization is NOT required to have a World Chess Champion.
This fact is indisputable, no matter how Mr Johnson protests. Once this
premise falls, then so does the rest of Mr Johnson's position, like a
house of cards.
>
> Or does he plan to play a match against Mr. Alekhine's bones?
If there is no reigning champion, then an event is organized and
the winner becomes World Champion. After all, how do you think Steinitz
won the title? There was no previous World Champion for him to beat. He
beat Zukertort and the public recognized him as World Champion.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
Adamski
>
You wouldn't seriously be equating two game mini-match victories over
Adams and Shirov in that Mickey Mouse competition with set matches?
Shirov is clearly in the top 4, however one chooses to rank him, Anand
and Kramnik. Kasparov committed himself to playing the winner of the
WCC semi-final. Anand declined to take part. Shirov beat Kramnik, so
this entitles him to play Kasparov. That's the sole incontestable
argument in my opinion; you can disregard everything else. Personally
I was expecting and hoping Kramnik would come through, but you've got
to accept the result.
>> Given your admitted ignorance, do you really consider yourself
>> best qualified to be commenting on the merits or otherwise of
>> Shirov's challenge to Kasparov?
>>
> Never said I was. I am just an average chess fan.
> And I presume you are a 2700 GM ?
2716 on one list, but another says only 2686. As you say though,
you don't know what to believe these days.
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
hy...@tamu.edu
Alvah Mayo <ma...@nospamnorth.nsis.com> writes:
> hy...@tamu.edu wrote:
>>
>
>
> Shirov didn't accept the $600 000 offer and as a result has now in
> all likelihood found himself minus one World Title match and with no
> money at all. In this context $600 000 is a heck of a lot better than
> $0.
Wrong. Shirov's costs in fully preparing for and playing
in a WC match are not much less, perhaps even are more,
than the proposed loser's share of that purse. While he
no doubt wants to win, he must be aware of practicalities.
Nor is it clear that the 600k ever really existed as an offer.
> Kasparov could and should
>> have bulked this offer up.
>
> I disagree. Kasparov is under no obligation to toss his money away.
He most certainly is. He left FIDE, he claimed that he could
and would organize a better world championship series, he
took the responsibility on himself.
If he cannot find a sufficent backer he both can and should
raise the prize fund to an appropriate level, or guarantee
Shirov a respectable minimum.
Alternately he could declare a sort of bankrupcy, resign
his title and win it back in the FIDE affair, ugly as
that is. But this would be to admit his failure, and
this he will not do.
>> We now know what his word is worth.
>
> Considering that Kasparov never promised to put his own money up
> for this title match,
Yes he did. He *unilaterally* took the responsibility
for organizing a credible world championship cycle.
He did this precisely once, then alienated his sponsors,
Intel, largely by playing, for his own profit, against
IBM machines.
Such slight credibility as he had left after destroying
the GMA, world cup, and PCA has vanished in this
Shirov affair.
While I regard Kasparov as champion, he is, by his own
standard, not champion. In 1992 he claimed that everyone
would know the real champion, as he would play for more
money than the pretender. By that standard, considering
the prize fund for the last FIDE championship, Karpov
is champion.
michae...@my-deja.com
ma...@nospamnorth.nsis.com wrote:
> michae...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <374CE7...@nospamnorth.nsis.com>,
> > ma...@nospamnorth.nsis.com wrote:
> > > PMG wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing that the vast majority of the world wants to see
> > Shirov in that match,
> > >
> > > I wouldn't go that far. Personally I think we'd see better chess
from
> > a
> > > Kasparov Anand match than from a Kasparov Shirov match.
> >
> > I would go that far.Take a poll i bet there is a majority that would
> > prefer a Shirov vs Kasparov match.
>
> Well the original poster said VAST majority. Once we hammer out just
> what constitutes a vast majority, the question to be asked, an
> independent polling company, etc, we might be ready to see if what the
> original poster claimed is actually so.
with 4 or 5 different title.What if Short won would Kasparov say OH
you won the PCA/GMA/ETC.ETC. Championship but i still have the world
title.This is getting worse than boxing.
> > > Of coarse
> > > > who created the title and holds the cards?
> > >
> > > The World Chess Championship came about via general public
> > acclaim
> > > back in the 19th century, and was first held by the winner of the
> > > Steinitz Zukertort match.
> >
> > Hello that title ceased to exist after Alekhine's death.
>
> Hello, it did not cease to exist. Another event was held ala
> Steinitz Zukertort (no reigning champion) to fill the vacancy. Legal
> opinion at the time held that the last surviving World Champion Max
Euwe
> had a legal claim to the title, but Euwe did not claim it.
> If the title had "ceased to exist" as you suggest then Euwe would
> have had no legal claim as the title would have been non existent.
> Because of the
> > abuse's by the champions,an organization was formed called
> > Fide.
>
> Perhaps you should bone up on your chess history. FIDE was NOT
> formed "as a result of abuse by the Champions". In fact, FIDE was
formed
> about 20 years before the death of Alekhine as an amateur
organization.
control of the title.Whether you like it are not.That's a fact.
> Unfortunately this organization was more corrupt than the
> > champions were.
>
> I would disagree with that. The organization itself was not overly
> corrupt, just some of the leaders. Fredrick Olafsson and Max Euwe were
> both fine FIDE presidents, for example.
>
> >
> > > As for your second question, I suppose Kasparov, being World
> > > Champion, holds most of the cards at the moment.
> > > In my opinion, Shirov should have taken the $600 000 US
offer and
> > > then, once owning the title, could name his terms and "hold the
> > cards".
> > > That is unless he reasoned that he could not beat Kasparov
for
> > the
> > > World Championship, when naturally he would want a really big
loser's
> > > share of the purse.
>
> > I MUST FLAME YOU
>
> Yes, I suppose having failed in civilized debate the next logical step
> for you would be a flame. For the record, I do not have my head up
> Kasparov's ass. I have read Shirov's claims and Kasparov's claims on
the
> matter. My opinion as originally posted above remains unchanged.
did it because of this idiotic stance your taking with this world
title/fide title crap.Give it a rest.
> If you get your head out of Kasparov's ass for a few
> > minutes and get some oxygen to your brain,you might want to read
what
> > Shirov has to say about this subject.After you wipe all that brown
> > stuff out of your eye's and nose go and read the whole article to
get
> > his side.Maybe after reading his side you might come away with a
> > different prospect on things.Go here Chessplanet international,ltd
> > http://www.chessweb.com
> > > Could someone refresh my memory as to
> > > > why Kasparov is generally still considered Chess world champion.
> > >
> > > The reasons probably differ, but some of the more popular
reasons
> > > probably include:
> > > 1. Kasparov is currently the highest rated chess player in the
world
> > by
> > > a significant margin.
> > He is definitely the highest rated player in the world,But when he
> > abandoned FIDE.He gave up the title.
>
> No, when he left FIDE he gave up the FIDE title, not the World Title.
> You see, FIDE has no legal jurisdiction over the World Chess
> Championship. Never did, never will.
never seen or read about a match for the world title other than the one
Botvinnik won in 48 that was for the newly formed chess championship of
the world.You can have it both ways.
> Instead of trying to destroy this
> > organization he should have help to make it better.
> > > 2. He beat Karpov for both the FIDE and World Titles, and has
never
> > been
> > > beaten in a World Title Defense.
> > I don't know where this World title came from ,maybe i was sleep
during
> > this one.
>
> See the original post again- the World Title came about after the
> Steinitz Zukertort match. As to whether you were sleeping or not, no
> comment.
> > If Kasparov can abandon FIDE and still remain Champion,I guess
Fischer
> > could still be called Champion
>
> Sure you could call Fischer Champion, but it wouldn't change the
> facts. Fischer abandoned chess altogether and forfeited his
> contractually obligated match with Karpov. A forfeited match is a lost
> match, so Karpov got both the World and FIDE Chess Championships in
> 1975.
HAHAHAHAHA Fischer didn't sign a contract so there is no contractual
obligation.I wonder if Fischer or Karpov knew they had 2 titles.What a
joke.
Deeprabbit
himself is on record as saying that the legitimate World Champion is
the one who plays for the most money.
All hail Bobby!
;-)
Deeprabbit
In article <19990528021612...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:
> David Granik writes...
>
> > Er, what were the organizations on which the first 5 World Champions
> >based their title claims.
>
> I do not dispute that the first five world champions (Steinitz,
Lasker,
> Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe) held their titles through personal
right...
>
> ...however...in 1948...this line of champions then passed to FIDE
control.
> FIDE administered the one and only world championship title.
>
> Botvinnik gained his title through this process...as did
> Smyslov...Tal...Petrosian...Spassky...and Fischer.
>
> In 1974/75...Fischer retired from this process...FIDE again asserted
its
> rights...and so we had Karpov...then Kasparov.
>
> In 1993...Kasparov...was stripped of his title over a dispute over
> conditions....a matter which he could easily have avoided but instead
sought
> and encouraged. Thus...from 1993 we have had Karpov as the world
champion.
>
> Mr. Granik's claim...that because the first 5 champions held titles
outside of
> FIDE...that somehow this "world" title had some meta-existence
througt the 45
> years of FIDE title matches (Botvinnik to Kasparov)...only to
reappear because
> a titleholder decided to ASSERT it...is laughable.
>
> Laughable.
>
> Again...I stress...if this logic is true...then Mr. Fischer...whose
telegram to
> FIDE said he resigned the "FIDE title" (sic)...would seem to be
living proof
> that in 1974/75 this world title and the FIDE title split apart.
>
> If this is Mr. Kasparov's claim...then he needs to play Mr.
Fischer....for this
> ancient and mysterious "world" title.
>
> But no! Mr. Kasparov claims that ...yes...indeed...despite Mr.
Fischer's
> "retirement"...apparently the real FIDE title and this
mysterious "world" title
> were unified up to and unitl that very moment in 1993 when he
ASSERTED it.
>
> Odd.
>
> Ludicrous.
>
> FIDE has managed the world championship since 1948...there was no
dispute over
> this for nearly 50 years...and in 1993...FIDE asserted it's
proprietary rights
> and stripped the titleholder.
>
> If FIDE has no right to strip a titleholder of the title in
1993...then Mr.
> Fischer is the world champion....for surely it had no right to force
his
> resignation in 1974/75.
>
> If FIDE does have such a right...then Mr. Karpov is the world
champion.
>
> Either way....Mr. Kasparov's claim is nonsensical.
>
> He's the strongest player...but that is no guarantee for being world
champion.
>
> The world champion is one who holds the title as granted by the
administering
> organization...as in all other sports.
>
> FIDE is that organization...and Karpov is the world champion.
>
> PCA and WCC no longer exist...and so their "titles" no longer exist.
>
> Pray tell...what organization grants the title Mr. Kasparov now
claims?
>
> Or does he plan to play a match against Mr. Alekhine's bones?
>
> Eric C. Johnson
DAVID GRANIK
Chesspride wrote in message
<19990528021612...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
From what I've read, I doubt that Fischer would agree to play Garry
Weinstein aka Kasparov!
IF Kasparov were to play and defeat Fischer, it would, in fact add a LITTLE
bit more legitimacy to Kasparov's title claim. Of course, Kasparov's claim
is already so good, that there is no need for him to go through the hassle
of playing Fischer.
If Fischer would have remained active as a chessplayer, and continued
to participate in tournaments, and achieved good results in those
tournaments, THEN he would still be considered to be the World Champion.
Ultimately a World Champion MUST be:
1) One of the best Chessplayers
2) An active AND successful participant in the World chess tournament scene.
3) Take on and defeat (or at least not lose to) challengers in a match of
length and substance
Lets compare:
Kasparov:
1) Yep, his rating is the highest in the World, even on FIDE's rating list.
And he has increased the gap between him and the rest of the pack in the
last few months.
2) Yep, he plays in at least 2-3 tournaments a year, and in 1999, he has
played in 3 tournaments in the first 5 months.
3)True, he's beaten Karpov, Short, and Anand, but it has almost been 4 years
since his last WC match. Plus he is avoiding a legitimate challenger
(Shirov), although it can't be claimed that the putative substitute, Anand,
will be an easier opponent.
FIDE--Karpov
1) Karpov will probably drop fron the top 10 in FIDE's next rating list.
2) He's active enough, but has enjoyed scant success since Linares '94, 5
years ago.
3)He beat Timman in a match of length, but not of substance. He beat Anand
in a match that lacked both length AND substance.
>
>But no! Mr. Kasparov claims that ...yes...indeed...despite Mr. Fischer's
>"retirement"...apparently the real FIDE title and this mysterious "world"
title
>were unified up to and unitl that very moment in 1993 when he ASSERTED it.
>
Claims to legitimacy don't last forever. One's claims to be a champion
must be continually supported by tournament and match play. Else one's
legitimacy as champion begin to diminish. If one's legitimacy as champion
diminishes too much, then sooner or later a majority of people will conclude
that another player has more legitimacy, and hail him/her/it as the new
champion
>Odd.
>
>Ludicrous.
>
>FIDE has managed the world championship since 1948...there was no dispute
over
>this for nearly 50 years...and in 1993...FIDE asserted it's proprietary
rights
>and stripped the titleholder.
Um, I believe Fischer would passionately disagree with your statement.
>
>If FIDE has no right to strip a titleholder of the title in 1993...then Mr.
>Fischer is the world champion....for surely it had no right to force his
>resignation in 1974/75.
>
>If FIDE does have such a right...then Mr. Karpov is the world champion.
>
>Either way....Mr. Kasparov's claim is nonsensical.
>
>He's the strongest player...but that is no guarantee for being world
champion.
>
>The world champion is one who holds the title as granted by the
administering
>organization...as in all other sports.
>
>FIDE is that organization...and Karpov is the world champion.
>
Other sports have several administrating bodies....
FIDE's legitimacy as THE World Chess Federation is diminishing. You say
that FIDE has the absolute right to name their champion. Suppose they
randomly picked FIDE ID #s and the winner was declared to be World Champion?
What if FIDE NEVER holds another WC? Will you still consider Karpov to be
the World Champion in 10 years? What if FIDE decides to speed up the time
controls in its World Championship Match/Tournament to Game/30? What if FIDE
experiences a shortage of funds, and can only offer a prize fund of $50? How
many of the best players would participate? What if FIDE overturned 100
years of tradition by doing away with a long match as the method of
determining who is the World Champion. Oops, I guess they've already done
that! What if they held a World Championship every month?
Please answer the questions, Mr. Johnson.
Many people are beginning to question FIDE's legitimacy as a World
Chess Organization. Even more people believe that the title of (FIDE) World
Champion is becoming increasingly meaningless. The method for determining a
WC, a 6 game match, followed by rapid and blitz chess if necessary, seems to
inadequate in most people's eyes. The short WC match preceded by even
briefer (2 games) Candidates matches, have definitely debased the status of
the FIDE WC. Don't get me wrong...the KO WC is fun and exciting, but it is
also nearly meaningless.
What stupid action involving its World Championship would FIDE have to
take before YOU would begin to question their "right" to determine who will
be the World Champion?
DAVID GRANIK
a31...@hotmail.com wrote in message <7ilma1$702$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7ild1f$t03$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> "DAVID GRANIK" <dgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Well, at the current Sarajevo tournament, he finished ahead of your
>> >Adams and
>> >> Morozevich.
>> >
>> > You perhaps missed the fact that Morozevich beat Shirov ? OR that
>> > Shirov comes out distinctly second best in every tournament
>> > that Anand and Kramnik play in.
>> >
>> Maybe you are putting a bit too much emphasis on the result of
>1
>> game, a game in which Morozevich had the advantage of being White.
>
> I am not. The previous poster made the point about Shirov's
> result and I made a counter-point. My point is tournament results
> deserving candidates should be given an oppurtunity. I am not
> happy with a system that arbitrarily chooses candidates.
> Shirov is a deserving candidate, yes, but so are at least
> 6/7 others.
>
>
previous poster. YOUR point was trifling. The fact that Shirov finished
ahead of Morozovich in a 9 round tournament proves little about the
superiority of Shirov over Morozevich, or vice versa. The fact that
Morozevich beat shirov in a single game proves even less.
What do you mean that tournament results should not be taken as a
"criteria" for choosing candidates? Tournament results determine rating and
ranking. If a player wins tournament after tournament--as Kasparov has
done--it is generally indicative of great chess skill. No matter how many
candidates you have for a World Championship (say 100, like FIDE has for
their KO WC), I'm sure that there is somebody left out that feefs that they
were "deserving". Even though FIDE has more candidates participate in their
WC "cycle", I think that their system is very arbitrary. If you view Linares
'98 as an ad hoc candidates tournament, then most of the main contenders (eg
Topalov, Ivanchuk, and Svidler) had their chance and muffed it. Your
objections DON'T change the fact that shirov earned the right to play
Kramnik (Kramnik + Anand should NOT have been given free rides, but that is
moot now). By the way, hust how do you think that candidates were selected
under FIDE? By qualifying fro Interzonal Tournaments!
>Likewise,
>> Shirov has had his successes against the players you named. He had a
>plus
>> score vs. Kramnik BEFORE he beat him in the match. He finished ahead
>of
>> Kramnik in the Linares '98 tournament. As of today, the WCC's own
>rating
>> list ranks him 2nd behind Kasparov, but AHEAD of Anand, Kramnik, etc.
>
> The difference in the ratings is negligible, indeed practically
> non-existent. ALso,
> I have my reservations about the WCC rating list and the means by
> which the ratings are calculated. For instance, even the results
> of the blitz matches seem to be included, the added weightage
> given to black etc.
>
But YOUR contention was that Shirov wasn't even in the same class as
those players. I NEVER contended that Shirov was better than any or all of
them. Do you NOW concede that Shirov is in the same class (chessplaying
strength) as Anand, Kramnik, and the others
>
>> Moreover, Shirov has consistently done better in matches than either
>Anand
>> or Kramnik.
>
> Really ? Better than Kramnik, yes! Better than Anand, no. How
> many matches has Shirov played, anyway ?
>
>
>
>
JBDes1
happen) but for the sake of the argument he does... and beats Karpov, the world
title will hold much credibility now.
I think many people believed Fischer could have been world champion in 1970, 2
years before he actually went for a title shot, remember the withdrawl of the
tournament? Larsen won it with Korchnoi coming in 2nd.
Chesspride
>Clearly, an organization is NOT required to have a World Chess Champion.
>This fact is indisputable, no matter how Mr Johnson protests. Once this
>premise falls, then so does the rest of Mr Johnson's position, like a
>house of cards.
>
>
>>
>> Or does he plan to play a match against Mr. Alekhine's bones?
>
> If there is no reigning champion, then an event is organized and
>the winner becomes World Champion. After all, how do you think Steinitz
>won the title? There was no previous World Champion for him to beat. He
>beat Zukertort and the public recognized him as World Champion.
>
>
>>
>> Eric C. Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mr. Mayo:
Pray tell then how...in 1948...did Botvinnik acquire this mysterious and
ethereal "world title" of which you speak?
For you, sir...YOU...are making the most tenuous claim that there are or
were...two such objects... a FIDE title and a "world" title...and moreover that
such two title coexisted in the persons of the same line of succession until
1993.
I dispute this...and have shown clear evidence for only one such title.
The interruption in the line of succession in 1948...is very good proof indeed.
Mr. Hyde, where are you???
Alekhine was dead. The line of succession had stopped. The old line ended.
The new line started. Euwe was awarded the new title for a day...by the FIDE
congress...but then plans were made for the tournament that was held in 1948.
Botvinnik...won the only existing title...which was the one administered by
FIDE. This same line of succession culminated in Kasparov in 1985...and then
with Karpov in 1993.
Unless you are claiming...that after winning the event sponsored by FIDE in
1948...the winner of said event just ASSERTED some mysterious claim to
Alekhine's property? You will not be able to find any such assertion by any of
the titleholders (a fact which very much hurts your claim) until Fischer's
retirement in 1974/75...and so he would remain vested with said mysterious
"world" title...if such a thing exists.
Where...pray tell...can you find evidence that his 20 year hiatus in any way
invalidated his claims? Moreover...since this "world" title is a point of
personal property (in your view)...how could he ever lose it?
Preposterous!
Because...you clearly are asserting some type of personal property right...a
claim that is denied by FIDE...by me...and even by the U.S. Chess Federation
(in the McCrary motions).
The title of world champion is not personal property...it does not adhere to
the individual...but instead is property administered by a governing body.
If you wish to produce evidence for another such administering body...besides
FIDE...I await your claims. All such other bodies have ceased to exist as of
1999.
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>in a match that lacked both length AND substance.
>
>>
Mr. Granik...your bias is showing.
Mr. Karpov not only defeated Jan Timman in 1993...he also defeated Boris
Gelfand in 1996...Gata Kamsky in 1996...and Anand in 1998.
The Gelfand and Kamsky matches were particularly hard-fought...and it is
important to note that the Gelfand-Karpov match was a semi-final. If Gelfand
had won...he would not have become world champion...but would have faced Kamsky
for the vacant title.
Thus...Mr. Karpov...is the only title-holder in the history of chess to have
placed his title at risk...not in just a world championship match...but in a
*preliminary* for a final match.
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>Champion (not World Champion claimant, just World Champion) up until at
>least 1996, if the FIDE title is the
Mr. Mayo is in serious error here.
Since at least 1994...the USCF position has been to recognize the FIDE
titleholder and the PCA titleholder on a separate but equal basis. A dual
recognition policy.
They have recently merged the WCC into the PCA mix.
When they use the term world champion in Chess Life...they are referring to
this dual recognition policy.
Often...the proofreading of Chess Life is sloppy on this point....especially
when articles appear under various outside bylines. They don't seem to edit
outside material for consistency on this point.
But clearly the USCF is holding to this dual recognition policy as of early
1999.
I oppose this policy.
Eric C. Johnson
hy...@tamu.edu
Alvah Mayo <ma...@nospamnorth.nsis.com> writes:
> Chesspride wrote:
> Fischer lost the FIDE title when he resigned it,
Yes.
and lost the World
> Title when he forfeited his contractually obligated match with Karpov.
No. The Karpov match was a FIDE construction. Fischer
never signed any contract to play that match.
One could just as easily (actually, far more easily)
say that Kasparov has lost whatever title he lays claim
to for not playing Shirov.
You cannot have it both ways. If Fischer lost his
"world" title for not playing Karpov, then Kasparov
lost his for not playing Shirov.
Of course it hardly matters. Kasparov is overwhelmingly
the strongest player in the world today. He has played
many matches since gaining the title, has never been
defeated, and is active in tournament chess. The
bulk of the public rightly regards him as champion.
> No, not laughable. A legal right doesn't stop being a legal right
> just on a whim.
There is no legal right to the world championship
title. I could call myself world champion and there
isn't anything Karpov or Kasparov could do about
it, except to laugh. But I could not call myself
FIDE champion. I suspect they have trademark
on that.
The world championship title is not a property
or copyright, it is simply the force of public
opinion which will not usually let the title change
hands unless the preceeding champion is defeated.
But when the champion will not play, the public
can award his title to another, which is why
rational people do not regard Fischer as
champion, undefeated though he is.
As long as FIDE organized credible championships
world opinion was that the FIDE titleholder was
*the* champion. When Kasparov left, whatever the
rights or wrongs of that, public opinion still
considered him as the champion, for the simple
reason that he is clearly the strongest player
in the world.
The power of the World Champion to select his challenger
> has been well established.
No, it is only the power of public opinion that
let the champions get away with that.
If we accept your logic, then Fischer is indeed
champion, as he chose not to play Karpov in
1975, but to play Spassky in 1992. A right
is a right, after all.
Or are you taking Fischer's "legal right" away on a whim?
If World Champions choose not to exercise
> that right for 47 years, that does not mean that the right simply goes
> away.
What right? The first of the world champions you mention
was Botvinnik. He won the "FIDE" title in 1947, but
when did he win this "world" title you talk about?
It seems to me that you wish to recognize FIDE events
(1947 ch, Karpov match in 1975) when it suits your
purposes, and not otherwise. Hardly consistent.
>> FIDE has managed the world championship since 1948
>
> No it has not. It organized the matches and cycles with the consent of
> the World Champions.
There was no world champion in 1947 to consent.
Summary of my point of view:
(1) Kasparov is champion by virtue, and only by
virtue, of his strength. As long as he dominates
the public will not accept another champion.
(2) This "world" title you mention has no legal
existence.
(3) If it did, and if it had the properties you claim
it did then Fischer would without doubt be champion.
hy...@tamu.edu
jbd...@aol.com (JBDes1) writes:
>
> I think many people believed Fischer could have been world champion in 1970
I think you mean 1969.
, 2
> years before he actually went for a title shot, remember the withdrawl of the
> tournament?
That's a big unknown. Fischer would have had to beat
both Spassky (in the Candidate's match) and Petrosian
(in the world championship match) to become champion.
I'd guess that winning the Candidates match against
Spassky (who was at his peak) might very well have
been harder than beating Petrosian. Certainly he didn't
have much trouble against Petrosian in 1970 or 1971,
but in 1969 the psychology might have been better for
Petrosain. On the other hand Fischer lost to Spassky
in 1970 at Siegen.
It's probably a good thing he withdrew. If he'd
won that world championship cycle he'd have quit
chess in 1969, not 1972.
PMG
gStr...@houses.com wrote:
> >The rest (99%) of the world's population will call Kasparov the champion.
>
> Too bad a match doesn't make for wc anymore - it's public opinion now.
I've noticed that going by popular vote does not put the best man on the job.
Pete
Dennis Skidmore
> I am not sure about blitz ratings being
> included, perhaps someone could clarify that.
> ratings and the WCC one. I think the FIDE list in July
> might show Anand/Kramnik as number 2. On the other hand,
> a scientist of Ken Thompson's repute is associated with the
> creation of the WCC list, so perhaps it may be "more correct".
>
www.clubkasparov.ru. He devised this new rating formula via statistical
analysis, proving it a more accurate predictor of results than the Elo
formula. Since computers were unavailable when professor Elo came up with
his original formula, it had to be simplified to facilitate paper-and-pencil
calculations. Dr. Thompson's work on the new ratings calculation is designed
to take advantage of the hardware and software available today.
Could you specify the basis for your speculation that blitz games are
included? It should be very safe to say that only classical games (not blitz
or active) are included in the WCC list, although only someone in an
official capacity could state this authoritatively.
> A pretty impressive record. But,
> should I point out the fact that
> other than Kramnik, none of these opponents are rated above
> 2650 ? Anand has beaten Kamsky, Adams, Ivanchuk, and yes
> Shirov too.
Not to disparage Anand, but he has also lost matches to Kamsky, Kasparov,
Karpov (1991 quarter-finals) and drew the classical portion of his FIDE
championship match with Karpov. Really, we can debate endlessly based on
selected samples of match and tournament play. Simply relying on the
numerical rating systems is far more objective.
Big Bad Bear
Octopovich wrote in message
<19990527000202...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
>William Hyde wrote, in his usual erudite fashion:
>>A player of Anand's stature should understand the
>> concept of touch-move. He bowed out of this cycle
>> and to bow in again is a rather dubious act.
>> Recall that he declined to play on principle:
>> I'd say that the principle of giving Shirov
>> his rights should be at least as strong as that of
>> loyalty to FIDE.
>
>Excellent argument! I would like to lend my voice to the growing sentiment
that
>Shirov deserves a title match against Kasparov!
>
hate
>to say this but Anand is psychologically unprepared to face a player of
>Kasparov's emotional intensity. Shirov, on the other hand, is excellently
>placed to be the first World Champion of the Third Millenium!!
>
>
>
>Rick A
Well said. And a further observation could be made:
Remember, Anand was slated to play Kramnik for the right to face Kasparov,
but he declined (could he have beaten Kramnik(?) is another question). So
now, by accepting to play Kasparov for the title, he has "beaten" not only
Shirov, but especially Kramnik! Without having to play either one of them !
Same can be said for Kasparov, who managed to "clear" his most difficult
opponent, Kramnik (besides the most exciting one, Shirov...)
And no, I'm not as interested in seeing Anand play.
JBDes1
> was Botvinnik. He won the "FIDE" title in 1947, but
> when did he win this "world" title you talk about?
>
There was a tournament a long time ago in the Soviet Union I believe where they
called a "Universal Champion" one who came out on top of both tournament and
match play and I believe Botvinnik won it.
This may have nothing to do with the argument but I would like to get more info
on it. :)
gStr...@houses.com
<dgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ultimately a World Champion MUST be:
>1) One of the best Chessplayers
>2) An active AND successful participant in the World chess tournament scene.
>3) Take on and defeat (or at least not lose to) challengers in a match of
>length and substance
In that case, by article (3) above, I submit that the title is not
held by anyone right now.
gStr...@houses.com
<honeyb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Excuse me folks but what is the point in this discussion when Kasparov
>himself is on record as saying that the legitimate World Champion is
>the one who plays for the most money.
This is a dangerous position for Kasparov to take given that Fischer
could command one heck of a higher paycheque than could Kasparov for a
chess match.
gStr...@houses.com
Deeprabbit
which made the purses for Kasparov-Short, Kasparov-Anand and Karpov -
Kamsky look like loose change.
A number of correspondents suggest that the only way that one can lose
a world title is in a match. Presumably this means only official (what
does that mean?) matches. If any matches counted then Karpov would
have lost his title to Adianto and Kasparov to Deep Blue.
Therefore, Kasparov's claim to being world champion is that his lose
was "unofficial", as is Karpov's, the only difference being that in
Karpov's case it was someone other than himself who made this
distinction.
Another correspondent claimed that Kasparov is champion because 99% of
the world think he is. This is not true, since I would suggest at
least 70% of the world now think a computer is.
Tournament successes can't the legitimising factor since Kasparov, when
interviewed in New in Chess, made it quite clear that success in
tournaments was not sufficient to determine the strongest player - he
claimed only matches will do that. I recall this interview took place
sometime after Karpov finished on 11.5/14 at Linares 1994 - a couple of
points ahead of Garry.
If one had to lose an offical match to lose the title is Alekhine
therefore still the champ? He can't have lost it because FIDE arranged
a play-off tournament after the War since Garry repeatedly states the
title of World Champion is not FIDE's property.
If a governing boby is unable to strip a champion of his title then
does that mean Ali was still World Boxing Champ when he came out of
prison - if so why did he challenge for the title? If Tyson wins the
world boxing title before his next trip to the big house will that
means he's champion when he comes out - even if he is 98 years old when
it happens?
Cheers
Deeprabbit
Don Fong
> Kasparov is overwhelmingly
> the strongest player in the world today. He has played
> many matches since gaining the title, has never been
> defeated, and is active in tournament chess.
Kasparov was defeated by deeper blue.
Big Bad Bear
hy...@tamu.edu wrote in message <7in5o6$am0$2...@news.tamu.edu>...
I hope you're joking ;-)
In 1972, he wouldn't have come up against Karpov most likely,
so someone else would've had to be the challenger... If Spassky, or
Korchnoi,
for example, were to be that challenger, the title-defense match might've
taken place anyway. :)
You also can't know for sure what effect winning in 1967-69 would've had on
Fischer--
very possibly he might not have won as convincingly, if at all.
Can't always assume all other things being equal...
DAVID GRANIK
Chesspride wrote in message
<19990528182143...@ng-fl1.aol.com>...
>>3)He beat Timman in a match of length, but not of substance. He beat Anand
>>in a match that lacked both length AND substance.
>>
>>>
>
>
>Mr. Karpov not only defeated Jan Timman in 1993...he also defeated Boris
>Gelfand in 1996...Gata Kamsky in 1996...and Anand in 1998.
>
>The Gelfand and Kamsky matches were particularly hard-fought...and it is
>important to note that the Gelfand-Karpov match was a semi-final. If
Gelfand
>had won...he would not have become world champion...but would have faced
Kamsky
>for the vacant title.
>
>Thus...Mr. Karpov...is the only title-holder in the history of chess to
have
>placed his title at risk...not in just a world championship match...but in
a
>*preliminary* for a final match.
>
>Eric C. Johnson
The Gelfand semi-final match and especially the Kamsky WC matchcare to
Karpov's credit. That ONE cycle was run the way a WC cycle SHOULD be
run...Karpov, by his victory over Kamsky in a match of length and substance,
enhanced the legitimacy of his claim to be World Champion. However, the way
he was immediately given another crack at the FIDE WC title in 1993 was a
sham. He had been eliminated by Short in the Candidate's semi-finals. Yet he
was given the opportunity to have a match against Timman for the FIDE WC
title, despite the fact that Timman had only been eliminated by Short in the
FINALS of the Candidate's cycle. The 1993 "WC" match was an organizational
fiasco, and consequently, the results can only be considered to be tainted.
All of that pales in comparison to last year's FIDE "WC" . Kirsan
unilaterally decided to do away with over 100 years of WC match precedent by
doing away with a lengthy World Championship match. Never has a WC match
been as brief as a mere 6 games. Likewise, the Candidates "matches" were cut
down to a pathetic 2 games. This overturned 50 years of precedent for FIDE
candidates competitions. FIDE, by its farcical handling of the WC, has ceded
any moral authority it might have had in granting the status of World
Champion to ANYONE. IF FIDE succeeds in holding its Knock-Out World
Championship Tournament in Las Vegas, the winner of the tournament ought not
even be consider FIDE World Champion, but merely FIDE Knock-Out Tournament
Champion, the winner of perhaps the most important tournament of the year,
but a mere tournament nonetheless.
Now, Mr. Johnson, would you be so kind as to answer my questions
posted in the article to which you responded? Your snip job neatly excised
them. You ignore my questions--which I think are pertinent--and instead
choose to launch into ad hominum attacks against me. The decline in the
legitimacy of the FIDE title is there for everybody (but you, apparently) to
see. How much more of a debasement of the FIDE WC title will YOU accept
before it loses significance to you? Again, what if, hypothetically, FIDE
ceases to hold WC matches? Or is unable to come up with a prize insufficient
to induce the participation of any of the World's top 50 highest rated
players. What if Kirsan decides to award the FIDE WC title to a crony from
Kalmykia? What if FIDE has a new World Championship Tournament every month?
How about if the winner of the next FIDE WC tournament plays a match with
Kasparov--unauthorized by FIDE--and loses? What if another World Chess
federation (one not controlled by Kasparov) is created, and the national
chess federations of all of the World's countries opt to join that, and quit
FIDE?
Mr. Johnson, in your opinion, is there anything that FIDE could do that
would damage the credibility of the WC title they "control" so much that
you would cease accepting the legitimacy of their selected champion? If
there is, do tell us. All you see is Black and White--you are blind to the
myriad of grays. Luckily for the chess world, your opinion isn't that
important....
Greg Kennedy
>>1. Kasparov is currently the highest rated chess player in the world
>> by a significant margin.
>> He is definitely the highest rated player in the world,But when he
>> abandoned FIDE.He gave up the title.
>
>No, when he left FIDE he gave up the FIDE title, not the World Title.
>You see, FIDE has no legal jurisdiction over the World Chess
>Championship. Never did, never will.
This is a very strange viewpoint. On what is it based,
apart from opinion? When the federations of the vast
majority of countries had joined FIDE, did this not give
FIDE jurisdiction over the world championship title?
Kasparov's own federation was a member of FIDE, as
was Short's.
snip
>> If Kasparov can abandon FIDE and still remain Champion,I guess Fischer
>> could still be called Champion
>
> Sure you could call Fischer Champion, but it wouldn't change the
>facts. Fischer abandoned chess altogether and forfeited his
>contractually obligated match with Karpov. A forfeited match is a lost
>match, so Karpov got both the World and FIDE Chess Championships in
>1975.
Confused or attempting to cloud the issue? There was only
one title at that time, which Fischer "resigned". Even so,
that title was assigned to him for several more months by
the controlling organization, FIDE, until their deadline came
at which time they stripped him of it and it was forfeited to
the next in line, Karpov.
> In 1993, Kasparov abandoned FIDE but STILL played his contractually
>obligated match with Short. Kasparov won that match and thus retained
>the World Chess Championship.
Wrong. Kasparov did not play his contractually
obligated FIDE match. FIDE took a $beating$
precisely because Garry and Nigel wanted all the
money and violated any such contract, playing
instead another match they chose to call the world
championship. They might just as well have called
it the Absolute championship, or the Real Deal
championship, or the Kasparov Chess Association
championship. They (or rather he, Garry) got the
money, the glory, the independence, but forfeited
the title as a result. The rest was hype, swallowed
hook, line, and sinker by the masses.
A bit of logical thinking is all that's required to
decipher this mess. You cannot enter the World
Open, win all your games up to the final round, and
then the top two players decide to go to the moon
and play the final round for another organiser for
more money, and then claim to have won the World
Open! You get the money (from the moon-people),
but you lose the title. Elementary.
Now if FIDE's cycle is so bad, why not organise
a better one? That is not what happenned here,
folks. Greed. Greed is what happenned here...
- Greg Kennedy
Greg Kennedy
> He most certainly is. He left FIDE, he claimed that he could
> and would organize a better world championship series, he
> took the responsibility on himself.
Garry's series is better- _for him_. No chance of
losing if he doesn't play. ;-)
> Such slight credibility as he had left after destroying
> the GMA, world cup, and PCA has vanished in this
> Shirov affair.
I love the fact that it takes some people two decades
to comprehend what I understood after "only" one decade
of reading Garry Kasparov swill!
> While I regard Kasparov as champion, he is, by his own
> standard, not champion. In 1992 he claimed that everyone
> would know the real champion, as he would play for more
> money than the pretender. By that standard, considering
> the prize fund for the last FIDE championship, Karpov
> is champion.
No, by that standard, isn't Bobby-$3 million-Fischer the
real-deal? And isn't Boris-$2 million-Spassky number
two in the world? LOL! Garry seems to have a chronic
case of foot-in-mouth disease...
- Greg Kennedy
Pompeo Silingardi
>
>
>> > Okay, I concede that "greed" was perhaps too strong a word, but
>> > opportunism ? Yes, he should blame himself for not reading the
>> > fine print of the contract.
>>
>> Ah , at last you spmehow admit to have written some kind of absurd
>> statement .. But then you create another little gem of the same
>> kind ....
>> Which sort of fine print you are talking about ?
>>
>> Rentero for sure hadn't written in the contract in fine print " Hei ,
>> Alexey , be aware that i'll not pay you "....
> Let me clarify.
>
> Anand and Kramnik are invited to play a match. Anand refuses,
> citing loyalty to FIDE. The real reason is he does'nt want
> to get into a match where Kasparov is pulling all the strings
> (hes already had a bad experience before).
> Shirov gets his chance and grabs it with both hands, without
> caring about who hes getting involved with, namely Kasparov,
> and the Andalucian govt. (who were supposed to shell out
> the money). In his eagerness to play a match, he does'nt pay
> too much attention to the business aspect of it, and the
> rest, as we all know, is history.
>
> A very sorry state of affairs for which Kasparov should take
> all the moral responsibility. Shirov, I'm sure must be kicking
> himself for having relied on Kasparov too much.
If you describe the matter in this way it sounds , IMO , far more
acceptable than before.
I personally don't blame a player for his desire to play for the
highest title and for having trusted a colleague and World Champion.
I bet that , had both of us been in his shoes , we'd have behaved the
same way.
What is shameful and incredible is that he even didn't get the prize
money while Kramnik got it , maybe because he's Kasparov's close
friend...
It comes out from all this sad story that the strongest player in the
world is really a bad person , as much proficient at the chessboard
as is deficient as a human being.
As far as Mr Rentero i think every comment is superfluous ..
All the best.
Pompeo Silingardi
"E' la mia opinione , e io la condivido."
Henry Monnier- Memorie di Joseph Proudhomme-
Tim Mirabile
> Kasparov was defeated by deeper blue.
Yes, but as we all know, computers cheat at chess. :)
--
Long Island chess -> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ TimM on ICC and A-FICS
Webmaster, tech support - Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine and vice versa.
Rolf Tueschen
<374ff7d5...@enews.newsguy.com>:
>df...@dfong.com (Don Fong) wrote:
>> Kasparov was defeated by deeper blue.
>Yes, but as we all know, computers cheat at chess. :)
As I have understood Kasparov, he did never accuse the computers for
cheating. If I have understood it right Kasparov accused and still
accuses the DB team or IBM for doing him wrong. He seems to think that
the team or IBM did something wrong so that he lost the show event. But
he did never accuse the machine itself.
So, both of you seem to be wrong here.
Tim Mirabile
>If one's legitimacy as champion
>diminishes too much, then sooner or later a majority of people will conclude
>that another player has more legitimacy, and hail him/her/it as the new
>champion
This is the key. The public (with the opinions of the chess players, chess
journalists', and national chess organization leaders having somewhat greater
weight) decides whose World Championship claims are valid and whose are not.
The legal arguments are nonsense - where are these laws written?
At first, the public accepted that the winner of the Steinitz-Zukertort match
would be champion. It also accepted that the only way to take the title would
be to defeat the current titleholder in a long match, and that the title holder
had the right to select his challenger. This caused a problem as some title
holders went for too long without playing any title matches, and some very
strong contenders did not get a chance at a title match.
Then, for 45 years, FIDE provided a convenient framework for determining who
would be the challenger, and the timing and conditions of each title defense.
The public returned the favor when, in 1975, Fischer refused to defend his title
against the FIDE selected challenger, Karpov. After this, aided by Fischer's
complete absence from high level chess, the credibility of Fischer's claim to be
champion vanished and Karpov was recognized by the public as the legitimite
champion.
When Kasparov played Short in 1993 outside of FIDE, he played the legitimite
FIDE selected challenger under proper title match conditions, so his legitimacy
as title holder in the eyes of the public did not suffer at all. After this,
things get complicated. The public's recognition of the PCA cycle resulting in
Kasparov-Anand in 1995 was strong but not quite universal. Meanwhile Karpov's
claim, backed by FIDE, was improving as he defeated Kamsky under a proper FIDE
cycle. Now, since FIDE has selected a system where luck can easily overwhelm
the slight differences in chess skill of some of the contenders, Karpov has
little chance of being recognized as world champion by anyone but a few staunch
legalists.
Kasparov now is starting to have his own problems. Someone here mentioned Deep
Blue, but this claim is easily dismissed. The title in that second New York
match was not at stake - surely Kasparov would not have agreed to play a six
game title match, and against an opponent who had not qualified to play for the
title, and in a match which was organized by the opponent's team. Kasparov also
has not played a title defense in four years, which is getting too long for the
tastes of today's chess public. He has selected a challenger (through a system
with its own legitimacy in question but was still better than nothing), but has
not played that challenger, and has even indicated willingness to play someone
else instead. Yet Kasparov still maintains the highest rating, excellent
tournament results, and the opinion of the top players that he and only he is
the man to beat for someone who wants to be recognized as the true world
champion, so the public generally forgives these transgressions and continues to
recognize Kasparov as de facto world champion.
PMG
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
That's pretty much it, he claims I believe that there was human
intervention because he felt that some strategies & moves could not have
been conceived by a computer program. Tim Mirabile was probably just
teasing Don because of some somewhat hysterical posts that he's known for.
Pete
Alvah Mayo
>
> big snip
>
> >>1. Kasparov is currently the highest rated chess player in the world
> >> by a significant margin.
> >> He is definitely the highest rated player in the world,But when he
> >> abandoned FIDE.He gave up the title.
> >
> >No, when he left FIDE he gave up the FIDE title, not the World Title.
> >You see, FIDE has no legal jurisdiction over the World Chess
> >Championship. Never did, never will.
>
> This is a very strange viewpoint. On what is it based,
> apart from opinion?
What is so strange about it? Steinitz had legal jurisdiction over
the World Chess Championship, as did Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and
Euwe after him. Thus it was established at that time that the World
Champion has clear legal jurisdiction over the World Chess Championship.
This fact is undisputed.
Next, is there any legal process available and was there in fact
any legal process used by FIDE or on FIDE's behalf to "take over"
jurisdiction of the World Title? No.
If you know of any, I will repeat the challenge I made to Mr
Johnson (which he ignored) and ask you to post such evidence to this
newsgroup. The fame of being the first to find such evidence in 50 years
will be yours.
Since it was established that the World Champion has jurisdiction
over the World Chess Championship, and since FIDE did not and could not
take any legal action to usurp that authority, then the World Champion
still has that jurisdiction over the World Chess Championship today.
Now, upon what, other than opinion, do you base your belief that
FIDE controls the World Chess Championship?
When the federations of the vast
> majority of countries had joined FIDE, did this not give
> FIDE jurisdiction over the world championship title?
Based upon what? What legal principle or law would allow FIDE to
usurp jurisdiction over the World Title just because most countries in
the world belong to FIDE? None that I am aware of, perhaps you will
enlighten me.
> Kasparov's own federation was a member of FIDE, as
> was Short's.
>
> snip
>
> >> If Kasparov can abandon FIDE and still remain Champion,I guess Fischer
> >> could still be called Champion
> >
> > Sure you could call Fischer Champion, but it wouldn't change the
> >facts. Fischer abandoned chess altogether and forfeited his
> >contractually obligated match with Karpov. A forfeited match is a lost
> >match, so Karpov got both the World and FIDE Chess Championships in
> >1975.
>
> Confused or attempting to cloud the issue? There was only
> one title at that time,
No, there were two titles at that time. FIDE instituted a FIDE
title in 1948. The World Chess Championship was instituted in 1889. Now,
when and how exactly do you claim that the titles were merged? What
legal process was used?
In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the status
quo of seperate World and FIDE titles remains.
which Fischer "resigned".
Actually if you read his letter of resignation published in the
USCF's magazine, Fischer specifically resigns the FIDE title by name.
Even so,
> that title was assigned to him for several more months by
> the controlling organization, FIDE, until their deadline came
> at which time they stripped him of it and it was forfeited to
> the next in line, Karpov.
FIDE can do whatever it likes with the FIDE title. After all, the
FIDE title is the property of FIDE.
>
> > In 1993, Kasparov abandoned FIDE but STILL played his contractually
> >obligated match with Short. Kasparov won that match and thus retained
> >the World Chess Championship.
>
> Wrong. Kasparov did not play his contractually
> obligated FIDE match.
No, I did not say contractually obligated FIDE match, I said
contractually obligated match. Show me the contract, either implied,
verbal or written, that says that Kasparov agreed to defend both his
World and FIDE titles only under the auspices of FIDE.
Nice attempt to alter my previous post, better luck next time.
FIDE took a $beating$
> precisely because Garry and Nigel wanted all the
> money
Not all the money, just a larger portion. Short also claimed that
he had not been consulted about the playing site and dates.
and violated any such contract, playing
> instead another match they chose to call the world
> championship. They might just as well have called
> it the Absolute championship, or the Real Deal
> championship, or the Kasparov Chess Association
> championship. They (or rather he, Garry) got the
> money, the glory, the independence, but forfeited
> the title
He forfeited the FIDE title. FIDE stripped him of it because they
have jurisdiction over their own FIDE title. They have no jurisdiction
over the World Title, thus they have no authority to strip Kasparov of
it.
as a result. The rest was hype, swallowed
> hook, line, and sinker by the masses.
>
> A bit of logical thinking is all that's required to
> decipher this mess. You cannot enter the World
> Open, win all your games up to the final round, and
> then the top two players decide to go to the moon
> and play the final round for another organiser for
> more money,
Seeking to back up your faulty position with a faulty analogy makes
a certain amount of sense, but has little if anything to do with logical
thinking. Your analogy has absolutely nothing in common with the World
Chess Championship and the FIDE Title situation.
Kasparov and Short did not play their contractually agreed upon
match outside FIDE for the FIDE (in your faulty analogy World Open)
title, they played it for the World Chess Championship which is a
different title from the FIDE championship.
Thus your analogy simply doesn't hold any water.
and then claim to have won the World
> Open! You get the money (from the moon-people),
> but you lose the title. Elementary.
No one is claiming that Kasparov is still FIDE Champion, but if you
find comfort in beating up on a straw man, so be it.
Alvah Mayo
>
> > He most certainly is. He left FIDE, he claimed that he could
> > and would organize a better world championship series, he
> > took the responsibility on himself.
>
> Garry's series is better- _for him_. No chance of
> losing if he doesn't play. ;-)
Well I wouldn't go THAT far. There is certainly precedent in both
the cases of Botvinnik and Steinitz that public support can be an
important perhaps even essential component of being World Chess
Champion. If the vast majority of people get sick of Kasparov and regard
someone else as Champion...
Alvah Mayo
>
snip
> Now, Mr. Johnson, would you be so kind as to answer my questions
> posted in the article to which you responded?
Well Mr Granik I wouldn't hold my breath on that if I were you. I
answered his questions, refuted his arguments and posted queries of my
own to him in two consecutive posts. He neglected to answer any of my
questions yet posted more new ones of his own.
Mr Johnson also posted intentionally false statements such as, "Mr
Mayo is wrong, Chess Life recognized both Karpov and Kasparov as World
Champions". Well, my original statement was that Chess Life recognized
Kasparov as World Champion, and as such was clearly NOT wrong, but Mr
Johnson was probably hoping that people wouldn't read what I actually
wrote and just believe his bogus "rebuttal".
Then again, if I had to defend his laughingstock of a position, I
wouldn't want to spend too much time having people scrutinizing my
arguments either. I would advise you to do as I am doing, that is to
refuse to debate further with Mr Johnson until he has the common
courtesy to answer questions and stop lying.
If you get any worthwhile responses to your queries I will be
pleasantly suprised.
Rolf Tueschen
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
Not true. Kasparov also claimed other points. The few re-bootings.
Indeed a serious allegation. Then the lack of evidence of the output of
DB. NB all that not MY inventions or messages. All original Kasparov.
Don Fong
>df...@dfong.com (Don Fong) wrote:
>
>> Kasparov was defeated by deeper blue.
>
>Yes, but as we all know, computers cheat at chess. :)
i didn't say it was a fair match; nevertheless it was
a match and Kasparov lost. therefore Hyde's statement
was inaccurate.
JBDes1
chess" and everyone took it the wrong way.
Of course they "don't" cheat. :)
Don Fong
they just do things that would be cheating if a human did them.
Deep Blue had access to gigabytes of RAM and disk space during
play; whereas it was forbidden for Kasparov to even take notes on
a scrap of paper. Deep Blue had access to a humongous opening library;
whereas it would have been cheating if Kasparov had so much as cracked
an MCO during a game.
the basic problem here is that the rules of chess were defined
for human players. they eliminate all forms of outside assistance
for humans. but when computer competitors came along, the rules
were rigged in such a way that just about anything goes.
the human contestant is well defined. a human has a limited
corporeal existence with a standard number of the various body parts,
and a continuous identity from moment to monent. but a "computer"
can be have any amount of RAM, any number of processors, disk
drives, etc, and can run completely different software from
one game to the next. you can't add hardware to a human, but
you can to a computer.
the upshot is that one side is subject to all sorts of
constraining rules, and the other side isn't.
the match conditions were patently unfair. nevertheless Kasparov
agreed to the match, and he lost.
li...@ork.net
> Deep Blue had access to gigabytes of RAM and disk space during
> play; whereas it was forbidden for Kasparov to even take notes on
> a scrap of paper.
Humans have access to any amount of parallel programming during play. They
can even reprogram their own CPU's during the game.
Deep Blue had access to a humongous opening library;
> whereas it would have been cheating if Kasparov had so much as cracked
> an MCO during a game.
A human has access to his vast memory storage capacity. It's not the
computer's fault if half of it is filled with mechanism's for pursuing the
opposite sex or that it is somewhat faulty.
> the basic problem here is that the rules of chess were defined
> for human players. they eliminate all forms of outside assistance
> for humans. but when computer competitors came along, the rules
> were rigged in such a way that just about anything goes.
The comptuer does not use outside assistance. It has whatever it came with
at the start of the game.
> the human contestant is well defined. a human has a limited
> corporeal existence with a standard number of the various body parts,
> and a continuous identity from moment to monent.
Really. Can you prove that the "I" of a human is same from momeny to
moment? Regardless, the computer is well defined also. Just because a
computer does not die does not violate the laws of chess.
> but a "computer"
> can be have any amount of RAM, any number of processors, disk
> drives, etc,
A human can be stupid, smart, hung over, focused, etc...
> and can run completely different software from
> one game to the next.
A human being can reprogram his brain, learn new concepts, and of course
learn new opening moves, from one game to the other. He can decide to play
"correct" chess for one game, or "anti-computer" chess for the next, or
any combination thereof. And he does not have to disclose which strategy
he will be playing next game.
> you can't add hardware to a human, but
> you can to a computer.
Really? Humans do not get better at chess, as they learn new concepts,
learn to think more efficiently? This is news to me.
PMG
Tim Mirabile wrote:
> df...@dfong.com (Don Fong) wrote:
>
> >On 29 May 1999 21:22:32 GMT, jbd...@aol.com (JBDes1) wrote:
> >
> >>I think Tim was being a little "sarcastic" when he said "computers cheat at
> >>chess" and everyone took it the wrong way.
> >>
> >>Of course they "don't" cheat. :)
> >
> > they just do things that would be cheating if a human did them.
> [...]
>
> I suspected I would send this thread spinning off on yet another tangent with
> this. Interesting that my little one line joke has generated seven responses
> within 10 hours, yet my more serious post which I spent a couple of hours
> writing has had no response.
>
> --
> Long Island chess -> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ TimM on ICC and A-FICS
> Webmaster, tech support - Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
> The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine and vice versa.
Tim,
Amazing huh? Sometimes you never know what people will run with, and then in our
minds it'll be the most important thing in the world when we're running with it.
If you stay serious everyone will ignore you so it'll eat up allot less bandwidth
:-)
Pet
Tim Mirabile
Greg Kennedy
> What is so strange about it?
It doesn't make any sense- that's what.
> Steinitz had legal jurisdiction over
>the World Chess Championship, as did Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and
>Euwe after him. Thus it was established at that time that the World
>Champion has clear legal jurisdiction over the World Chess Championship.
>This fact is undisputed.
No, it isn't. I am disputing it. Pay attention!
> Next, is there any legal process available and was there in fact
>any legal process used by FIDE or on FIDE's behalf to "take over"
>jurisdiction of the World Title? No.
Legal process. What legal process? Are you saying
FIDE must sue Alekhine's estate for legal control of the
title you have described? You don't make any sense.
In what court? In what country?
> If you know of any, I will repeat the challenge I made to Mr
>Johnson (which he ignored) and ask you to post such evidence to this
>newsgroup. The fame of being the first to find such evidence in 50 years
>will be yours.
The fact that there was no need to sue Alekhine's estate
is evidence against your position, not in support of it.
> Since it was established that the World Champion has jurisdiction
>over the World Chess Championship, and since FIDE did not and could not
>take any legal action to usurp that authority, then the World Champion
>still has that jurisdiction over the World Chess Championship today.
He is dead. His heirs probably don't give a hang
about this nonsense.
> Now, upon what, other than opinion, do you base your belief that
>FIDE controls the World Chess Championship?
Pay attention this time: The countries of the world
mostly all belong to FIDE, via their national federations.
The chessplayers in turn, belong to these federations
and are citizens of those countries which belong to FIDE.
Still clueless? I'll give you a hint- when you step back
and look, you will see that by belonging to FIDE and
participating in FIDE's zonals, etc., these federations
are supporting FIDE's control of the world championship
cycle. Hence the name, "world championship"- and not
"Garry's private championship."
> When the federations of the vast
>> majority of countries had joined FIDE, did this not give
>> FIDE jurisdiction over the world championship title?
>
> Based upon what? What legal principle or law would allow FIDE to
>usurp jurisdiction over the World Title just because most countries in
>the world belong to FIDE? None that I am aware of, perhaps you will
>enlighten me.
I doubt that- you seem to be happily in the dark.
Legal. Jurisdiction. And you also seem to be able to
think ONLY in terms of law, which is fine but you have
failed to describe the authority you believe oversees
such matters as this one.
>> Kasparov's own federation was a member of FIDE, as
>> was Short's.
>>
>> snip
Not a good answer, but at least you didn't twist
what I wrote like some folks. :-)
>> >> If Kasparov can abandon FIDE and still remain Champion,I guess
Fischer
>> >> could still be called Champion
>> >
>> > Sure you could call Fischer Champion, but it wouldn't change the
>> >facts. Fischer abandoned chess altogether and forfeited his
>> >contractually obligated match with Karpov. A forfeited match is a lost
>> >match, so Karpov got both the World and FIDE Chess Championships in
>> >1975.
>>
>> Confused or attempting to cloud the issue? There was only
>> one title at that time,
>
> No, there were two titles at that time. FIDE instituted a FIDE
>title in 1948. The World Chess Championship was instituted in 1889. Now,
>when and how exactly do you claim that the titles were merged? What
>legal process was used?
Clouding, eh. Okay. I do not claim when or how any
imaginary title was merged with the title of world champ.
You get all the "credit" for that.
> In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the status
>quo of seperate World and FIDE titles remains.
Yes, yes- of course Alekhine is still in possesion
of your imaginary "World" title. It couldn't have
happenned to a nicer guy.
> which Fischer "resigned".
>
> Actually if you read his letter of resignation published in the
>USCF's magazine, Fischer specifically resigns the FIDE title by name.
Yes, and he specifically addressed people by their
names, too. But there was only one Tal. Only one
Spassky. Not two. Are you then saying Bobby was
clarifying WHICH "GM Larry Evans" he was writing to
when he mentioned Larry _by name_ in his letter to
the Chess Life collumnist in 1975? LOL!
You are confusing Bobby's preciseness with a
nonexistant declaration that he was resigning ONLY
one of his many titles (world's best 1e4 player, world's
best 1...c5 player, world's funniest chess champion,
world's best blitz player, world's most paranoid 2700,
world's best chessplayer, world's highest rated
chessplayer ever, ad infinitum...)
> Even so,
>> that title was assigned to him for several more months by
>> the controlling organization, FIDE, until their deadline came
>> at which time they stripped him of it and it was forfeited to
>> the next in line, Karpov.
>
> FIDE can do whatever it likes with the FIDE title. After all, the
>FIDE title is the property of FIDE.
I was mistaken to believe you had no sense of
reality. You just seem to drift in and out.
>> > In 1993, Kasparov abandoned FIDE but STILL played his
contractually
>> >obligated match with Short. Kasparov won that match and thus retained
>> >the World Chess Championship.
>>
>> Wrong. Kasparov did not play his contractually
>> obligated FIDE match.
>
> No, I did not say contractually obligated FIDE match, I said
Nor did I state that you did. Strawman...
>contractually obligated match. Show me the contract,
It was here a minute ago- Rolf, what have you done
with that contract? I know it was you, Sean is glued to
his monitor, perusing the XXX sites, and Larry is busy
with his spell-checker. (frantically searches desk)
Well I'm sorry, but you'll have to get it from Rolf /
Prof.Dr.Graue / DerUberstench- he must have grabbed
it off my desk when I wasn't looking. Confounded
psychobabbling prankster...
> either implied,
>verbal or written, that says that Kasparov agreed to defend both his
His? You can prove legal possession? Well then-
possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the law is all
you care to discuss, so out with it- you are holding
back proof of Garry's legal possession of said titles.
There could be juridicial consequences. You have
my professional warnings...
...Rolf, stop that! Get away from my keyboard.
>World and FIDE titles only under the auspices of FIDE.
> Nice attempt to alter my previous post, better luck next time.
>
>
>FIDE took a $beating$
>> precisely because Garry and Nigel wanted all the
>> money
>
> Not all the money, just a larger portion. Short also claimed that
>he had not been consulted about the playing site and dates.
Just a larger portion? Like maybe, 100%?
You are right about FIDE screwing up by not
contacting Short about his preferences, but
they _claimed_ he was unreachable or did not
respond.
> and violated any such contract, playing
>> instead another match they chose to call the world
>> championship. They might just as well have called
>> it the Absolute championship, or the Real Deal
>> championship, or the Kasparov Chess Association
>> championship. They (or rather he, Garry) got the
>> money, the glory, the independence, but forfeited
>> the title
>
> He forfeited the FIDE title.
What I said. Not Garry's other titles, silly!
> FIDE stripped him of it because they
>have jurisdiction over their own FIDE title. They have no jurisdiction
>over the World Title, thus they have no authority to strip Kasparov of
>it.
Of course not. You have already proven that
Alekhine still has your imaginary title, so how
could anyone "strip" Garry of it? Sheesh.
Try to remember where you last put your
imaginary friend.
>as a result. The rest was hype, swallowed
>> hook, line, and sinker by the masses.
>>
>> A bit of logical thinking is all that's required to
>> decipher this mess. You cannot enter the World
>> Open, win all your games up to the final round, and
>> then the top two players decide to go to the moon
>> and play the final round for another organiser for
>> more money,
>
> Seeking to back up your faulty position with a faulty analogy makes
>a certain amount of sense, but has little if anything to do with logical
>thinking. Your analogy has absolutely nothing in common with the World
>Chess Championship and the FIDE Title situation.
> Kasparov and Short did not play their contractually agreed upon
>match outside FIDE for the FIDE (in your faulty analogy World Open)
>title, they played it for the World Chess Championship which is a
>different title from the FIDE championship.
You have completely lost touch again. You have
quite simply forgotten that Alekhine still has your
imaginary title, and are now pretending that Short or
Kasparov had it, or were going to have it, which is
logically impossible. You gave it to Alex last, remember?
> Thus your analogy simply doesn't hold any water.
Yes, my analogy was connected to reality and in
that sense, it was not a correct one for your above
scenario in which a dead man has that which two
living players want, but cannot get from him since
he is dead, and therefore could never lose to either
of them. This is growing tiresome...
> and then claim to have won the World
>> Open! You get the money (from the moon-people),
>> but you lose the title. Elementary.
>
> No one is claiming that Kasparov is still FIDE Champion, but if you
>find comfort in beating up on a straw man, so be it.
Once again, you are defending against a non-threat
by saying the above. Kasparov is not even a
participant in the FIDE world championship cycle, let
alone the latest winner.
You have failed to grasp my above analogy to reality,
because of your obsession with an imagined split title
or twin titles, which exist only in your own mind. I'm
becoming convinced that you don't really understand
what a title is, and are confusing being the best
(i.e. Kasparov) with having the title (i.e. Karpov) and
in some way cannot cope with the reality that right now,
the best player does not have the title of world champ.
This is reminiscent of the folks who, for so long,
refused to accept that Petrosian was the world champ,
simply because they didn't like his playing style.
There evolved a certain mentality that Fischer was the
"real" champion, and this same refusal to accept reality
was apparent long after Bobby retired- even now to
some extent.
How many examples could be produced where
the strongest player failed to win a title, and it went
instead to a lesser player who was lucky, or, as here,
on technicalities? Technicalities which many refuse
to accept, even though without them there would be
no value in a title. FIDE's cycle was flawed, but
the alternative is to watch again an again, as a
self-proclaimed champion ducks the competition to
hang on to that which he dares not risk losing.
History- learn from it or it will repeat itself,
endlessly.
- Greg Kennedy
Greg Kennedy
> Mr Johnson also posted intentionally false statements such as, "Mr
>Mayo is wrong, Chess Life recognized both Karpov and Kasparov as World
>Champions". Well, my original statement was that Chess Life recognized
>Kasparov as World Champion, and as such was clearly NOT wrong, but Mr
>Johnson was probably hoping that people wouldn't read what I actually
>wrote and just believe his bogus "rebuttal".
As I saw it, Chess Life referred to Kasparov as World
Champion and to Karpov as FIDE "world champion." Note
the small letter "w" in word "world", and the quotation marks
around "world champion" in references to Karpov. It was
fairly clear that they were supporting Kasparov while
pacifying FIDE by not refusing altogether to recognize its title.
A quick glance at the placement and amount of space
devoted to each match confirms this assessment of
Chess Life's policy.
In other words, Chess Life could claim to have
recognized both but their stance was clearly biased
in favor of Kasparov and against Karpov, as always.
Give these guys credit for one thing- their unrelenting
consistency of bias.
- Greg Kennedy
a31...@hotmail.com
> It doesn't matter that you were making a "counter-point" in
response to a
> previous poster. YOUR point was trifling. The fact that Shirov
finished
> ahead of Morozovich in a 9 round tournament proves little about the
> superiority of Shirov over Morozevich, or vice versa. The fact that
> Morozevich beat shirov in a single game proves even less.
Agreed.
>
> What do you mean that tournament results should not be taken as a
> "criteria" for choosing candidates? Tournament results determine
rating and
> ranking. If a player wins tournament after tournament--as Kasparov
has
> done--it is generally indicative of great chess skill. No matter how
many
> candidates you have for a World Championship (say 100, like FIDE has
for
> their KO WC), ". Even though FIDE has more candidates participate in
their
> WC "cycle", I think that their system is very arbitrary. If you view
Linares
> '98 as an ad hoc candidates tournament, then most of the main
contenders (eg
> Topalov, Ivanchuk, and Svidler) had their chance and muffed it. Your
> objections DON'T change the fact that shirov earned the right to play
> Kramnik (Kramnik + Anand should NOT have been given free rides, but
that is
> moot now). By the way, hust how do you think that candidates were
selected
> under FIDE? By qualifying fro Interzonal Tournaments!
I believe the original FIDE cycle was more fair and just.
> But YOUR contention was that Shirov wasn't even in the same
class as
> those players. I NEVER contended that Shirov was better than any or
all of
> them. Do you NOW concede that Shirov is in the same class
(chessplaying
> strength) as Anand, Kramnik, and the others
This may be my personal opinion (based on studying several of
their games), but I feel both Anand and Kramnik
are a cut above Shirov, irrespective of what the ratings have
to say.
Don Fong
>The comptuer does not use outside assistance. It has whatever it came with
>at the start of the game.
oh, does that mean that if Kasparov had a copy of Informant hidden in
his shirt "at the start of the game", he'd be allowed to use it? (it isn't
"outside assistance" because he has it IN his shirt.)
Rolf Tueschen
Fantastic uppercut. :)
But let me give a deeper (still deeper, yes) analysis of the problem.
Since it had caused so many confusion among computer chess experts and
their claque.
THE STRENGTH OF COMPUTER CHESS PROGRAMS
Little Patchwork
[search also for several messages I have sebt earlier into rgcc; just
search with a keyword 'chain']
In short. A chain (here a computer chess program) is only as strong as
its weakest link. I think everybody can understand it. Now, what is
supposedly the weakest link of chess programs no matter if they are
called Deep Blue or the known microcomputer programs?
Exactly. They can't play chess! (Excuse the scandalous statement but
it's nevertheless true.) This means, at least today, programs are unable
to think on their own about strategic plans or deep tactical quarrels.
Not to speak of the whole opening period. Without a single move in an
implemented 'book' our modern chess programs play worse than experienced
chess players with Elo 1300.
Now, it is clear that a machine like Deep Blue plays without direct
tactical losses in a range of say 15 ply or so. That is a tremendous
strength that no human Elo 1300 player has.
So, it could well be, that the Elo performance of a book-less Deep Blue
would quickly rise higher into the 1900-2000. That is a certain limit
where human players begin to play still with many calculational mistakes
but with much experience in opening theory. NB through their own
experience. Not just through mere learning by heart.
Computer chess heroes have told me several times that even Kasparov in
that respect relies on opening books, so why we should forbid the same
for Deep Blue?
The answer is simply because the assumption that Kasparov would rely on
stored opening lines he once adopted into his memory, is nonsense.
Players like Kasparov did research, examin, check their whole opening
repertoire by themselves. Only very weak players have the idea of
learning the lines by heart. In the case of Kasparov his home studies
ARE the opening repertoire of the future!
If a certain version of a computer program would analyse all that over a
certain time only then it had the right to get the results implemented
in 'books'.
That machines can't play chess is also proven by the following scenario.
Guess who taught Deep Blue what seemingly fantastic continuations were
in reality a whole lot of crap?? Deep Blue itself? No! It was GM
Benjamin.
Now, let's make a simple thought process. Kasparov is something of
perhaps ten times stronger than GM Benjamin. You see my point? Even if
GM Benjamin had checked all the open questions, in that period of 12
months or so, he would have still found a lot of solutions that would be
cracked by a player called Kasparov.
Then why Deep Blue had "won" the little show event in 1997? Wasn't it
stronger than Kasparov in the end?
Nope. Only this single argument to consider. How should it be possible
in three games with each color, to find out what were the crucial
weaknesses in opening prep? You get the idea. It was all about gambling
but not serious chess. And of course not about the winning in a serious
match.
But Anand and Karpov did also only play some 6 games in Lausanne in
1998...
Yes, that is true. But how many games did the same players play before?
Know what I mean? Deep Blue version 1997 was a completely new machine
with not a single game score published in advance.
But it's a well known fact that even the World Champion would not always
be able to beat a much weaker player who is new to him. All sorts of
psychological aspects come into play. And do never forget that the
overall "mistake-less" play up to a certain depth is a terrible pressure
that Deep Blue can put on a human player. And Kasparov mentioned that
aspect. All that however could be met if only a human player had the
chance to play a few training games with the machine. Then no GM could
prepare the machine for a match against Kasparov. Or take any of the
best players. Simply because there are so many possibilities to exploit
the general unability of a machine to play chess.
Such exhibitions between strong machines and the best human players,
weak humans wouldn't have a chance to win anyway, are basically a fake
if they should mean that the machines are as strong as the best humn
players. It's a financially very interesting pass-time for the human
masters. But not at all something that then could mean that the machine
is comparable to the human masters.
With all the books a future Deep Junior surely will be a remarkable tool
for each chess lover. A good help for one's own training. But with all
the limitations each machine/program has, namely that it can't play
chess. However, it's like the use of computers for learning purposes of
our students. Decades ago the so-called learning machines were defamed
as nonsense and surely worse than the human pedagogy of human teachers.
Wrong. Already in the fifties it was known that the guided learning with
learning machines that worked with the so-called reinforcement technique
was much more _effective_ than the much more time-consuming learning in
real classes. Single learning with your _personal_ teacher of course is
still the best method to learn something. But this is very expensive or
depending on political decisions. Look, what Russia has thrown overboard
of the former Soviet traditions.
Transposed into chess, the future possibilities will allow students to
learn chess at home. A little elite of trainers will still be needed to
implement the knowledge into the machines. Still a wide field of
research...
Something to discuss:
Do we think that a machine will ever be able to outplay the best humans?
-- Only if the game will be solved. Not earlier.
Do we think that human trainers will become worthless?
-- Only if we think that we can build machines that consider all kind of
personal idiosyncrasies in human students. When we take for granted that
a genial talent will also need the help of very specific interference
psychologically, this surely will take some decades or centuries before
we can create a human clone in a machine outfit.
Do we fear that chess will ever die because it could be solved?
-- Only if we assume that human beings could have an interest in
becoming like a machine. Also here the human nature will prevent the
worst imaginations. Simply because a human genius will have no interest
in becoming a machine. Would be no real challenge.
Alvah Mayo
>
> > What is so strange about it?
>
> It doesn't make any sense- that's what.
Oh now that's real substantive. Perhaps you would care to explain
WHY you don't think it makes any sense? I posted why I think it is not
strange. It wouldn't hurt you to do the same to support your position.
That's the way debate is normally conducted.
>
> > Steinitz had legal jurisdiction over
> >the World Chess Championship, as did Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and
> >Euwe after him. Thus it was established at that time that the World
> >Champion has clear legal jurisdiction over the World Chess Championship.
> >This fact is undisputed.
>
> No, it isn't. I am disputing it. Pay attention!
Disputing it based on what evidence? Are you saying that Steinitz
DIDN'T have legal jurisdiction over the World Chess Championship even
though he decided who (if anyone) got to challenge him for it, what the
conditions would be, what sponsorship offers to accept, etc.
An interesting position to be sure.
>
> > Next, is there any legal process available and was there in fact
> >any legal process used by FIDE or on FIDE's behalf to "take over"
> >jurisdiction of the World Title? No.
>
> Legal process. What legal process?
Thank you for admitting that there was and is no legal process used
by FIDE.
Are you saying
> FIDE must sue Alekhine's estate for legal control of the
> title you have described?
No I am not.
> You don't make any sense.
Admittedly, the above statement about FIDE taking legal action
against Alekhine's estate makes no sense whatsoever. However, it was YOU
who made that statement and thus it is YOU who makes no sense.
> In what court? In what country?
Thank you for illustrating my point.
>
> > If you know of any, I will repeat the challenge I made to Mr
> >Johnson (which he ignored) and ask you to post such evidence to this
> >newsgroup. The fame of being the first to find such evidence in 50 years
> >will be yours.
>
> The fact that there was no need to sue Alekhine's estate
> is evidence against your position, not in support of it.
No need? No, you had it right the first time, there was no
legitimate method to do so. If there was FIDE would have tried it by
now.
In any event, it is you who brings up Alekhine's estate not I. Once
Alekhine died there was no previous champion, and a new champion emerged
ala the precedent established with Steinitz-Zukertort.
Alekhine's estate has absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
> > Since it was established that the World Champion has jurisdiction
> >over the World Chess Championship, and since FIDE did not and could not
> >take any legal action to usurp that authority, then the World Champion
> >still has that jurisdiction over the World Chess Championship today.
>
> He is dead. His heirs probably don't give a hang
> about this nonsense.
Who is "he"? Assuming you are still talking about Alekhine, his
heirs are completely irrelevant here.
>
> > Now, upon what, other than opinion, do you base your belief that
> >FIDE controls the World Chess Championship?
>
> Pay attention this time:
I paid attention last time. Your position had no more merit then
than it does now.
The countries of the world
> mostly all belong to FIDE, via their national federations.
> The chessplayers in turn, belong to these federations
Not by a long shot sport. In Canada there are about 3 million
chessplayers and not more than 5000 are members of the national
federation. Have you got evidence that the US is substantially
different?
In either case, your assertion is patently false.
> and are citizens of those countries which belong to FIDE.
> Still clueless?
Hmm the personal insult, the last refuge of the man beaten in
legitimate debate. You and Mr Fitch make fine company in my opinion.
If I were clueless, you might have a slight chance of winning this
debate. Unfortunately for you, I am not clueless.
I'll give you a hint- when you step back
> and look, you will see that by belonging to FIDE and
> participating in FIDE's zonals, etc., these federations
> are supporting FIDE's control of the world championship
> cycle.
Wrong again. Belonging to FIDE and participating in FIDE Zonals
does not mean they automatically support alleged FIDE "control" of the
World Chess Championship as the facts clearly show. Both the CFC and
USCF have, while belonging to FIDE and participating in FIDE zonals,
recognized Gary Kasparov as World Champion, AFTER FIDE stripped him of
the FIDE title.
Hence the name, "world championship"- and not
> "Garry's private championship."
Wrong again. Even FIDE will tell you that their title is named the
FIDE World Chess Championship, not the World Chess Championship.
>
> > When the federations of the vast
> >> majority of countries had joined FIDE, did this not give
> >> FIDE jurisdiction over the world championship title?
Of course not.
> >
> > Based upon what? What legal principle or law would allow FIDE to
> >usurp jurisdiction over the World Title just because most countries in
> >the world belong to FIDE? None that I am aware of, perhaps you will
> >enlighten me.
>
> I doubt that- you seem to be happily in the dark.
> Legal. Jurisdiction. And you also seem to be able to
> think ONLY in terms of law,
As opposed to you, who apparently thinks ONLY in terms of fantasy.
which is fine but you have
> failed to describe the authority you believe oversees
> such matters as this one.
Try the World Court at the Hague. Of course, unless FIDE decides to
waste time and actually take this matter to that authority, the status
quo of Kasparov as World Chess Champion will do nicely.
>
> >> Kasparov's own federation was a member of FIDE, as
> >> was Short's.
> >>
> >> snip
>
> Not a good answer, but at least you didn't twist
> what I wrote like some folks. :-)
It was the answer the statement deserved though, since you fail to
show how membership of national federations in FIDE has any relevance to
the matter at hand. :-)
>
> >> >> If Kasparov can abandon FIDE and still remain Champion,I guess
> Fischer
> >> >> could still be called Champion
> >> >
> >> > Sure you could call Fischer Champion, but it wouldn't change the
> >> >facts. Fischer abandoned chess altogether and forfeited his
> >> >contractually obligated match with Karpov. A forfeited match is a lost
> >> >match, so Karpov got both the World and FIDE Chess Championships in
> >> >1975.
> >>
> >> Confused or attempting to cloud the issue? There was only
> >> one title at that time,
> >
> > No, there were two titles at that time. FIDE instituted a FIDE
> >title in 1948. The World Chess Championship was instituted in 1889. Now,
> >when and how exactly do you claim that the titles were merged? What
> >legal process was used?
>
> Clouding, eh. Okay. I do not claim when or how any
> imaginary title was merged with the title of world champ.
> You get all the "credit" for that.
Calling the FIDE title imaginary? Hey, even *I* wouldn't go that
far. :-)
>
> > In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the status
> >quo of seperate World and FIDE titles remains.
>
> Yes, yes- of course Alekhine is still in possesion
> of your imaginary "World" title.
Of course he is not. Perhaps you could favour us with the legal
basis on which you base a claim that a dead man can own the World Chess
Championship.
And if you claim that the World Chess Championship is imaginary,
then I take comfort in that Alekhine, Capablanca, Euwe, Lasker, Steinitz
and the rest of the world share in my "delusion".
It couldn't have
> happenned to a nicer guy.
>
> > which Fischer "resigned".
> >
> > Actually if you read his letter of resignation published in the
> >USCF's magazine, Fischer specifically resigns the FIDE title by name.
>
> Yes, and he specifically addressed people by their
> names, too. But there was only one Tal. Only one
> Spassky. Not two.
Which is relevant to the discussion at hand because...?
Are you then saying Bobby was
> clarifying WHICH "GM Larry Evans" he was writing to
> when he mentioned Larry _by name_ in his letter to
> the Chess Life collumnist in 1975? LOL!
Hmm another classic straw man. I "said" nothing of the sort.
However, if you wish to make up statements for me to attack then all the
power to you. Maybe you'll actually have some success debating against
what I didn't say, since you have none against what I *did* say.
>
> You are confusing Bobby's preciseness with a
> nonexistant declaration that he was resigning ONLY
> one of his many titles (world's best 1e4 player, world's
> best 1...c5 player, world's funniest chess champion,
> world's best blitz player, world's most paranoid 2700,
> world's best chessplayer, world's highest rated
> chessplayer ever, ad infinitum...)
>
> > Even so,
> >> that title was assigned to him for several more months by
> >> the controlling organization, FIDE, until their deadline came
> >> at which time they stripped him of it and it was forfeited to
> >> the next in line, Karpov.
> >
> > FIDE can do whatever it likes with the FIDE title. After all, the
> >FIDE title is the property of FIDE.
>
> I was mistaken to believe you had no sense of
> reality. You just seem to drift in and out.
You'll excuse me if I don't take your version of "reality" as the
norm.
>
> >> > In 1993, Kasparov abandoned FIDE but STILL played his
> contractually
> >> >obligated match with Short. Kasparov won that match and thus retained
> >> >the World Chess Championship.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Kasparov did not play his contractually
> >> obligated FIDE match.
> >
> > No, I did not say contractually obligated FIDE match, I said
Hmm I don't see a "snip" here. Maybe in a few more posts you can
completely change my post
and finish the job you start here...
>
> Nor did I state that you did. Strawman...
You most certainly implied it. I said he played his contractually
obligated match with Short. You said I was wrong, he did not play his
contractually obligated FIDE match. Thus you are attempting to create
the belief that I said he played a contractually obligated FIDE match. I
did not state this.
>
> >contractually obligated match. Show me the contract,
>
> It was here a minute ago- Rolf, what have you done
> with that contract? I know it was you, Sean is glued to
> his monitor, perusing the XXX sites,
I'll leave to your friends.
and Larry is busy
> with his spell-checker. (frantically searches desk)
> Well I'm sorry, but you'll have to get it from Rolf /
> Prof.Dr.Graue / DerUberstench- he must have grabbed
> it off my desk when I wasn't looking. Confounded
> psychobabbling prankster...
>
> > either implied,
> >verbal or written, that says that Kasparov agreed to defend both his
>
> His? You can prove legal possession?
Can you disprove it? Legal precedent clearly shows that the World
Champion has jurisdiction over the World Chess Championship. I am still
waiting for you to post evidence which contradicts this status quo.
Well then-
> possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the law is all
> you care to discuss, so out with it- you are holding
> back proof of Garry's legal possession of said titles.
Not at all, I presented at the outset the evidence which supports
my position. I would accuse you of holding back proof to support your
claim, except that one cannot hold back what they do not possess.
>
> There could be juridicial consequences. You have
> my professional warnings...
>
> ...Rolf, stop that! Get away from my keyboard.
>
> >World and FIDE titles only under the auspices of FIDE.
> > Nice attempt to alter my previous post, better luck next time.
> >
> >
> >FIDE took a $beating$
> >> precisely because Garry and Nigel wanted all the
> >> money
> >
> > Not all the money, just a larger portion. Short also claimed that
> >he had not been consulted about the playing site and dates.
>
> Just a larger portion? Like maybe, 100%?
No. Of course, once Short convinced Kasparov to hold their
contractually obligated match without FIDE's presence, I doubt that FIDE
was still going to receive a cut...
> You are right about FIDE screwing up by not
> contacting Short about his preferences, but
> they _claimed_ he was unreachable or did not
> respond.
>
> > and violated any such contract, playing
> >> instead another match they chose to call the world
> >> championship. They might just as well have called
> >> it the Absolute championship, or the Real Deal
> >> championship, or the Kasparov Chess Association
> >> championship. They (or rather he, Garry) got the
> >> money, the glory, the independence, but forfeited
> >> the title
> >
> > He forfeited the FIDE title.
>
> What I said.
What you said was "he forfeited the title". You did NOT say, "he
forfeited the FIDE title". Thus when you say "What I said", you are
lying. You would do well to actually read your own posts from time to
time, silly.
Not Garry's other titles, silly!
>
> > FIDE stripped him of it because they
> >have jurisdiction over their own FIDE title. They have no jurisdiction
> >over the World Title, thus they have no authority to strip Kasparov of
> >it.
>
> Of course not. You have already proven that
> Alekhine still has your imaginary title,
Yet another straw man, since I have neither stated nor proven any
such thing. I've shown that Kasparov is the current World Chess
Champion.
so how
> could anyone "strip" Garry of it? Sheesh.
> Try to remember where you last put your
> imaginary friend.
>
> >as a result. The rest was hype, swallowed
> >> hook, line, and sinker by the masses.
> >>
> >> A bit of logical thinking is all that's required to
> >> decipher this mess. You cannot enter the World
> >> Open, win all your games up to the final round, and
> >> then the top two players decide to go to the moon
> >> and play the final round for another organiser for
> >> more money,
> >
> > Seeking to back up your faulty position with a faulty analogy makes
> >a certain amount of sense, but has little if anything to do with logical
> >thinking. Your analogy has absolutely nothing in common with the World
> >Chess Championship and the FIDE Title situation.
> > Kasparov and Short did not play their contractually agreed upon
> >match outside FIDE for the FIDE (in your faulty analogy World Open)
> >title, they played it for the World Chess Championship which is a
> >different title from the FIDE championship.
>
> You have completely lost touch again. You have
> quite simply forgotten that Alekhine still has your
> imaginary title,
Upon what do you base your claim? Oh wait I forgot, you don't
believe in posting supporting evidence. At least that's the conclusion I
reach from reading your posts.
and are now pretending that Short or
> Kasparov had it,
Nothing pretend about it. Gary Kasparov is the current World Chess
Champion. I've posted supporting evidence. Now it's your turn.
or were going to have it, which is
> logically impossible. You gave it to Alex last, remember?
Yet another straw man. I didn't give it to Alex, YOU did.
>
> > Thus your analogy simply doesn't hold any water.
>
> Yes, my analogy was connected to reality
You've got another analogy hiding somewhere? The analogy you
actually gave us was quite irrelevant and had nothing whatsoever to do
with reality.
and in
> that sense, it was not a correct one for your above
> scenario in which a dead man has that which two
> living players want,
No matter how many times you try, you'll never be able to get this
straw man to stick to me. The scenario you describe is quite simply not
mine.
but cannot get from him since
> he is dead, and therefore could never lose to either
> of them. This is growing tiresome...
>
> > and then claim to have won the World
> >> Open! You get the money (from the moon-people),
> >> but you lose the title. Elementary.
> >
> > No one is claiming that Kasparov is still FIDE Champion, but if you
> >find comfort in beating up on a straw man, so be it.
>
> Once again, you are defending against a non-threat
> by saying the above. Kasparov is not even a
> participant in the FIDE world championship cycle, let
> alone the latest winner.
Which explains quite nicely why Kasparov is not FIDE Champion.
> You have failed to grasp my above analogy to reality,
> because of your obsession with an imagined
Imagined because you say so? Yes, I should just take your active
imagination over historical fact and data as well as legal precedent.
Yes, I am sure that's the way to go...
split title
> or twin titles, which exist only in your own mind.
They exist in the real world also, but I understand if you don't
like to be reminded of reality.
I'm
> becoming convinced that you don't really understand
> what a title is,
and are confusing being the best
> (i.e. Kasparov)
Not at all. Being the best doesn't take away Kasparov's status as
World Chess Champion either.
with having the title (i.e. Karpov)
The FIDE title? Yes, Karpov certainly has that.
and
> in some way cannot cope with the reality that right now,
> the best player does not have the title of world champ.
Your "reality" is certainly most imaginative but doesn't qualify as
fact. Gary Kasparov is the World Chess Champion, and for some reason you
are in denial about it. Of course, you are the guy who believes that
Fischer mania was the product of a vast conspiracy... :-)
> This is reminiscent of the folks who, for so long,
> refused to accept that Petrosian was the world champ,
> simply because they didn't like his playing style.
> There evolved a certain mentality that Fischer was the
> "real" champion, and this same refusal to accept reality
> was apparent long after Bobby retired- even now to
> some extent.
> How many examples could be produced where
> the strongest player failed to win a title,
Kasparov didn't fail to win it, beating Karpov in 1985 for both the
FIDE and World Chess Championships.
and it went
> instead to a lesser player who was lucky, or, as here,
> on technicalities?
I'd hardly consider defeating the reigning titleholder of both the
FIDE and World Chess Championship titles to be lucky or a technicality,
but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Technicalities which many refuse
> to accept, even though without them there would be
> no value in a title. FIDE's cycle was flawed, but
> the alternative is to watch again an again, as a
> self-proclaimed champion
Hmm, the World Chess Championship has never been gained by "self
proclamation". In order to do something again, you have to do it once
first.
ducks the competition to
> hang on to that which he dares not risk losing.
Now you are getting confused yet again. You are confusing Karpov
the FIDE Champion with Kasparov the World Chess Champion. Kasparov is
out there playing and proving his dominance, bringing more lustre to the
World Chess Championship.
Meanwhile Karpov is struggling to draw a match with Jeroen Piket,
dropping out of the top 10 of the FIDE rating list entirely, and
attempting to prolong his FIDE title reign not by defending it over the
board, but by threatening to sue if FIDE doesn't give him more time as
champion.
>
> History- learn from it or it will repeat itself,
> endlessly.
Yes, history has taught me it is useless to beat a dead horse, or
debate with someone who doesn't acknowledge the accepted rules of
debate. Thus, you have earned an honoured place on my killfile along
with Mssrs Fitch and Johnson.
You never know, maybe some day you will learn techniques for civil
and proper discussion. I suggest you observe the posts of Mssrs Mirable
and Hyde, for example. I don't always agree with them, but at least they
are capable of intelligent discourse.
>
> - Greg Kennedy
michae...@my-deja.com
I have no more interest in feeding your PSYCHOSIS.It's obvious your in
need of some serious psychotherapy.Debating/arguing with you is like
talking to a wall.I believe it was buddha who sat in front of a wall
for some time and when he arose he was enlightened.Well i sat in front
of this wall(YOU) for a few days.I have arisen to rent a bulldozer to
knock the wall down.Your argument has no Basis in Fact,Nonsensical and
is down right Ignorant.Everybody see's this accept you.
I AM EXTREMELY HONORED TO BE ON YOUR KILLFILE.I'M SURE IF YOU KEEP UP
THIS NONSENSICAL ARGUMENT THAT EVERYONE IN DEJA. WILL BE ON YOUR
KILLFILE.
JBDes1
>tactical losses in a range of say 15 ply or so. That is a tremendous
>strength that no human Elo 1300 player has.
I'm not a real big fan of computer chess, but if by "ply" you mean depth, as in
how many moves you can see, do you think that there are many people who can
even see 15 moves into a position rated under 2700? I wouldn't think so.
>So, it could well be, that the Elo performance of a book-less Deep Blue
>would quickly rise higher into the 1900-2000. That is a certain limit
>where human players begin to play still with many calculational mistakes
>but with much experience in opening theory. NB through their own
I think there is a chess program out that impliments a lot of "chess knowledge"
more so then calculation and it playes at about an IM - GM level maybe. I
think it's CSTAL. Why wouldn't the IBM team impliment this same chess
knowledge into the Deep Blue monster?
>Now, let's make a simple thought process. Kasparov is something of
>perhaps ten times stronger than GM Benjamin. You see my point? Even if
>GM Benjamin had checked all the open questions, in that period of 12
>months or so, he would have still found a lot of solutions that would be
>cracked by a player called Kasparov.
I agree that I think it keeps getting more and more as far as ratings.
The difference between a 2800 rated player and a 2600 rated player is so much
more vast then the difference between an 1800 and 1600. It's sort of
"exponential" where one would jump 500 points in elo in the 1000s would be
comparable to maybe 50 points in the 2600s
That's why Fischer's leap from 2690 to 2785 in one year is so impressive. He
had to have memorized thousands of new positions during his training.
I think Kasparov can beat Deep Blue, but I doubt if the match will ever happen
again. (Unfortunally)
>best players. Simply because there are so many possibilities to exploit
>the general unability of a machine to play chess.
>
There is a thread on quantum computers in rec.games.chess.analysis, where the
calculation is based more on equation then calculation (I think), it's quite
frightning for chess. :)
Thanks for the information Rolf, you do have a great amount of info and great
research skills. :)
Ed Seedhouse
>>The rest (99%) of the world's population will call Kasparov the champion.
>
>Too bad a match doesn't make for wc anymore - it's public opinion now.
There is nothing new about this at all. It always has been a matter
of public opinion and it always will be. It's just that when FIDE ran
the show it had a great influence on public opinion and now,
fortunately or unfortunately, it doesn't.
In fact the very meaning of the words "world champion" by themselves
is not static and never will be. Whether someone is "world champion"
is and always will be a matter of opinion. Whether someone is "FIDE
World Champion" or "WCC World Champion" or whatever organization's
world champion is a matter of verifiable fact. But whether the "FIDE"
w.c. or the "WCC" w.c. is the "real" champion is a matter of opinion.
Even when no one but FIDE ran a world chess championship it was
*still* a matter of opinion as to whether this was a valid process and
whether the resulting "champion" could be the "real" champion.
The argument will never end, so long as various factions claim what
can only be a matter of opinion to be a matter of fact.
Ed Seedhouse
"Seedhouse" on ICC.
CFC Rating: 2050
Ed Seedhouse
>Since computers were unavailable when professor Elo came up with
>his original formula, it had to be simplified to facilitate paper-and-pencil
>calculations.
As a matter of fact Elo used a computer to do the original
calculations. Computers were definitely available, but not widely
available nor cheap enough to be widely used.
JBDes1
>calculations. Computers were definitely available, but not widely
>available nor cheap enough to be widely used.
>
Didn't ELO create his formula in 1950? If so, how did he have time to use the
computers back then? (Since they would burn out)
gStr...@houses.com
wrote:
>gStr...@houses.com wrote:
>
>>>The rest (99%) of the world's population will call Kasparov the champion.
>>
>>Too bad a match doesn't make for wc anymore - it's public opinion now.
>
>There is nothing new about this at all. It always has been a matter
>of public opinion and it always will be. It's just that when FIDE ran
>the show it had a great influence on public opinion
Yes, winning matches can have an effect on public opinion.
With no matches, the wc is *purely* a matter of public opinion, not a
matter of match outcome + public opinion.
>In fact the very meaning of the words "world champion" by themselves
>is not static and never will be.
Indeed.
>Whether someone is "world champion"
>is and always will be a matter of opinion.
Alas, this does not justify the lack of an objective standard.
>World Champion" or "WCC World Champion" or whatever organization's
>world champion is a matter of verifiable fact. But whether the "FIDE"
>w.c. or the "WCC" w.c. is the "real" champion is a matter of opinion.
Fischer defeated Spassky 12.5-8.5 and that leads to public opinion
recognizing Fischer as wc. If that's what you're saying, I'll buy
that.
>Even when no one but FIDE ran a world chess championship it was
>*still* a matter of opinion as to whether this was a valid process
...as opposed to no process? Why try to lump the two as similar? One
has no objective criterion; the other does.
>The argument will never end,
I agree.