PDA

View Full Version : World Championships 2004



Pages : 1 [2]

bobby1972
14-07-2004, 04:33 PM
this was even worse than the penalty this is choking big time ,i mean he had the exchange the 2 bishops a passer control of only open file ahead in developmet and he decides to leave the file and loose the change i cant believe the play of adams in the ending

frogmogdog
14-07-2004, 05:03 PM
if there's a player whose name starts with K in a world chess champ final, do they always win?

Bill Gletsos
14-07-2004, 06:45 PM
Obviously people will say that Kasim winning the title just shows how poor the FIDE format of a knockout is, however it should be noted that Kasim did not just fluke his win, he actually defeated the top 4 seeds in Topalov, Adams, Grischuk and Ivanchuk.

Garvinator
14-07-2004, 07:57 PM
Obviously people will say that Kasim winning the title just shows how poor the FIDE format of a knockout is, however it should be noted that Kasim did not just fluke his win, he actually defeated the top 4 seeds in Topalov, Adams, Grischuk and Ivanchuk.
i dont think anyone of us have said that kasim has not deserved his win, he certainly does deserve the solcc. He beat the competition under the format they played, that is all he can do.

My problem is with having a world championship in chess being decided in short knockout matches and then rapid matches. As I pointed out the world champs could have been won on a drawn odds game.

Rincewind
14-07-2004, 08:25 PM
if there's a player whose name starts with K in a world chess champ final, do they always win?

The previous two champions were exceptions. ;)

Rincewind
14-07-2004, 08:30 PM
My problem is with having a world championship in chess being decided in short knockout matches and then rapid matches. As I pointed out the world champs could have been won on a drawn odds game.

Yes it is obviously ridiculous.

However, what got my goat were Adams fans talking up Adams chances, how he was going to easily dispatch Kasimdzhanov, be the first English WCh, etc, etc. And then when he loses (chokes) they begin to bag out the format, time control, etc. Smacks of sour grapes to me.

The competition was what it was. On this occasion and under these conditions Rustam was stronger than Mickey. End of story. :hand:

Congratulations Kasimdzhanov. :clap:

bobby1972
14-07-2004, 09:10 PM
kasim is 24 and might yet rise to another level adams well at 32 when if ever will he even have a chance to choke possibly never,ivanchuk choked against pono last time so no nerves no title it even happened to karpov in 85 match when he lost the game 24 trying to win,and when he could not draw the 24 the following match to win back tittle,dont forget bronstein now there is a choker korchnoi at 5-5 versus karpov chigorin is possibly even bigger versus stinitz man what this fellow missed was incredible it makes bronsteins k move look brilliant.

eclectic
14-07-2004, 09:32 PM
kasim is 24 and might yet rise to another level adams well at 32 when if ever will he even have a chance to choke possibly never,ivanchuk choked against pono last time so no nerves no title it even happened to karpov in 85 match when he lost the game 24 trying to win,and when he could not draw the 24 the following match to win back tittle,dont forget bronstein now there is a choker korchnoi at 5-5 versus karpov chigorin is possibly even bigger versus stinitz man what this fellow missed was incredible it makes bronsteins k move look brilliant.

wasn't there something with carl schlecter too in his match against lasker?

eclectic

frogmogdog
14-07-2004, 10:33 PM
The previous two champions were exceptions.

hi barry
might have misunderstood your reply but didn't pono beat ivanchuk, and anand beat shirov? ie no K's involved.

although i guess karpov lost to kasparov, and kasparov lost to kramnik, so a K can still lose (if they're playing another K).

Rincewind
14-07-2004, 11:11 PM
kasim is 24 and might yet rise to another level adams well at 32 when if ever will he even have a chance to choke possibly never,ivanchuk choked against pono last time so no nerves no title it even happened to karpov in 85 match when he lost the game 24 trying to win,and when he could not draw the 24 the following match to win back tittle,dont forget bronstein now there is a choker korchnoi at 5-5 versus karpov chigorin is possibly even bigger versus stinitz man what this fellow missed was incredible it makes bronsteins k move look brilliant.

Bobby, Try to finish one idea before starting another. I found it difficult to tease out what you are trying to say here.

Yes, Ivanchuk underperformed. However, Ivanchuk is well known for his nervous disposition and seemingly poor (for elite level) time management. Adams is not so well known, at least I haven't heard of it before before and was a little surprised by some of the chances he missed and games he seemingly muffed.

As for other great chokes from history? Probably worth starting another thread.

Rincewind
14-07-2004, 11:16 PM
might have misunderstood your reply but didn't pono beat ivanchuk, and anand beat shirov? ie no K's involved.

although i guess karpov lost to kasparov, and kasparov lost to kramnik, so a K can still lose (if they're playing another K).

FMD, you're right! Sorry for the confusion. ;)

You were obviously very specific in the prescription of your rule however Occam's razor would dismiss it as having any prescriptive value. And of course the meeting of two Ks in the finals is like the buttered toast tied to the back of a cat. A logical paradox! ;)

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2004, 02:14 AM
Obviously people will say that Kasim winning the title just shows how poor the FIDE format of a knockout is, however it should be noted that Kasim did not just fluke his win, he actually defeated the top 4 seeds in Topalov, Adams, Grischuk and Ivanchuk.

This is true. Sometimes weak-ish players win knockouts because the top seeds are upset and they get an easy run, but that was not the case here.

It should be kept in mind that he beat all those guys in rapids. Still to even draw with all these four guys in normal time is not a feat to be sneezed at.

Luckily I have been bagging the format for years, so I can still bag it as much as I like without being one of those hypocrites Barry is rightly lambasting.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2004, 02:19 AM
if there's a player whose name starts with K in a world chess champ final, do they always win?

Keres failed to win the 1948 match-tournament, but I'm not sure that counts as a final given that it had six participants.

Garvinator
15-07-2004, 09:20 AM
Keres failed to win the 1948 match-tournament, but I'm not sure that counts as a final given that it had six participants.
kamsky failed to win in 1996 ;)

Ian Rout
15-07-2004, 11:18 AM
Luckily I have been bagging the format for years, so I can still bag it as much as I like without being one of those hypocrites Barry is rightly lambasting.


Ditto.

While the fact that key pairings, including the final, were determined by clock-thumping contests of low quality does show the stupidity of the format, it does perhaps enhance the contest's standing as the triathlon of chess - players have to compete at slow, quick and lightning and are at a disadvantage if they can't handle them all.

That being the case maybe the format should include all three from the start rather than just use speed chess as a tie-break - e.g two slow games worth 6 points each, four rapid games worth 3 points each and twelve lightning worth 1 point. This would also make it worth winning both slow games, rather than winning the first and playing for a draw in the second.

One advantage that Kasimdzhanov had in the later rounds that he will carry into the Kasparov match is that he is the rank outsider and has nothing to lose, but one that he won't have is that in the KO he was meeting his expected opponent each round whereas his opponent's weren't so he was better able to prepare both technically and psychologically. His best bet v GK might be to find excuses not to play the match and then go round insisting he is still the champion.

Garvinator
15-07-2004, 11:31 AM
While the fact that key pairings, including the final, were determined by clock-thumping contests of low quality does show the stupidity of the format,
Ian, this solcc and the last one the pono won were/are both supposed to be qualifying routes to the classical world championships.

If they were stand alone events, then your method like alot of others would be fine. But they are not fine or ok when they are the route to the classical world championship.

Routes to the classical world championship should be decided by one way only, classical time control chess. What is the time control for Kramnik/leko? I suspect it is 40 moves in 100 minutes plus 30 secs per move ?? If it is something like that, then any other route to the classical world championship should use a similar or exactly the same time control.

This situation of the ko could have been simply solved by having 128 players like they had for the solcc and make it a 20 round swiss or something similiar.

Then if 2 or more players tied for 1st, they playoff under conditions stated before the tournament begins, but again under the classical time control.

Ian Rout
15-07-2004, 11:54 AM
I agree with this. Either arrangement is unsatisfactory as a World Championship or WC qualifier; but making it a designated triathlon gives it some meaning in its own right, at the moment it isn't really one thing or another.

I recall Karpov and Kasparov played a match of mixed time controls last year, but only two games of each so that every game was of equal weight.

Trizza
15-07-2004, 02:18 PM
Obviously people will say that Kasim winning the title just shows how poor the FIDE format of a knockout is, however it should be noted that Kasim did not just fluke his win, he actually defeated the top 4 seeds in Topalov, Adams, Grischuk and Ivanchuk.

Yes, it was a magnificent effort by Kasim. I am not belittling his play, but I think he fully deserves the title of FIDE Knockout Rapidplay Champion. :)

Whether this means he is an appropriate challenger for Kasparov is another matter (if Kasparov should even have a challenger at all).

arosar
15-07-2004, 02:41 PM
The concept of a World Chess champ is stupid. We should just get over it and dump the whole idea. Just have a world number 1.

AR

Rincewind
15-07-2004, 03:02 PM
The concept of a World Chess champ is stupid. We should just get over it and dump the whole idea. Just have a world number 1.

Do you have any rationale behind your position, or is it just a vibe?

arosar
15-07-2004, 03:56 PM
I question the concept's usefulness.

AR

Rincewind
15-07-2004, 04:01 PM
I question the concept's usefulness.

As opposed to the utility of a World No 1. :hmm:

arosar
15-07-2004, 04:07 PM
At least who is No. 1 is clear. When was the last time you had disputes of who's WC in golf or tennis?

AR

Rincewind
15-07-2004, 04:10 PM
At least who is No. 1 is clear. When was the last time you had disputes of who's WC in golf or tennis?

So why cite utility when what you mean is simplicity of application? :confused:

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2004, 04:44 PM
Golf - before Tiger Woods became so dominant that the answer was bleedin' obvious.

Tennis - probably the last time someone got to #1 by only winning on clay courts.

eclectic
15-07-2004, 05:59 PM
Yes, it was a magnificent effort by Kasim. I am not belittling his play, but I think he fully deserves the title of FIDE Knockout Rapidplay Champion. :)

Whether this means he is an appropriate challenger for Kasparov is another matter (if Kasparov should even have a challenger at all).

If and when Kasimdzhanov meets Kasparov later this year then should the former lose will that make him the champion with the shortest ever tenure?

I understand that perhaps Euwe regained the title on some technicality for a brief time after the death of Alekhine until the Soviets objected however I sense that this tale is maybe mere apocrypha.

eclectic

Lucena
15-07-2004, 06:14 PM
His best bet v GK might be to find excuses not to play the match and then go round insisting he is still the champion.
Sounds familiar :D

frogmogdog
15-07-2004, 10:02 PM
kamsky failed to win in 1996

yep gg, but kamsky lost to karpov... as did korchnoi...