View Poll Results: Who is the world chess champion?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Topalov

    9 36.00%
  • Kramnik

    5 20.00%
  • Topalov and Kramnik each hold world titles of roughly equal value

    2 8.00%
  • Title is vacant

    0 0%
  • Concept is meaningless, silly, outmoded or undesirable

    2 8.00%
  • Shirov

    0 0%
  • Kasparov

    2 8.00%
  • Fischer

    1 4.00%
  • Escribano

    4 16.00%
  • Other (please state)

    0 0%
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 87
  1. #1
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63

    who is world champion? (POLL ADDED)

    The tournament that FIDE are running in Argentina will legitimately decide who the world champion will be. It is not neccerssary for the world champion to be the strongest player in the world so Kramnik's absence is irrelevant and any claim he has to be world champion is irrelevant as his "title" is not descended from those of Capablanca, Lasker,Alekhine, Tal, Spassky, Karpov etc. Fischer started all this confusion when after claiming the title more through psychology and politics than chess he was afraid to defend his title against Karpov.

  2. #2
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,399
    Quote Originally Posted by cafman
    The tournament that FIDE are running in Argentina will legitimately decide who the world champion will be. It is not neccerssary for the world champion to be the strongest player in the world so Kramnik's absence is irrelevant and any claim he has to be world champion is irrelevant as his "title" is not descended from those of Capablanca, Lasker,Alekhine, Tal, Spassky, Karpov etc. Fischer started all this confusion when after claiming the title more through psychology and politics than chess he was afraid to defend his title against Karpov.
    Well said

  3. #3
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,054
    Quote Originally Posted by cafman
    The tournament that FIDE are running in Argentina will legitimately decide who the world champion will be. It is not neccerssary for the world champion to be the strongest player in the world so Kramnik's absence is irrelevant and any claim he has to be world champion is irrelevant as his "title" is not descended from those of Capablanca, Lasker,Alekhine, Tal, Spassky, Karpov etc.
    Actually you could argue that it is. Kasparov was the champion who could trace his title linage back to Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine etc and Krammnik defeated him in a match. That is something that no other player has been able to claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by cafman
    Fischer started all this confusion when after claiming the title more through psychology and politics than chess
    This statement just simply denies the fact of how strong Fischer was in 1970-1972.
    Quote Originally Posted by cafman
    he was afraid to defend his title against Karpov.
    There is no real evidence of this statement just speculation.
    In fact given Fischer's personality he was always unlikely to compromise his position on match conditions. The Russians were certainly against meeting his conditions. If they believed that Karpov could have beaten him then surely they would not have opposed Fischer's match conditions as a win on mmerit was certainly better than a win on forfeit.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 25-09-2005 at 05:47 PM.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  4. #4
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    This statement just simply denies the fact of how strong Fischer was in 1970-1972.
    No it doesn't

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    There is no real evidence of this statement just speculation.
    In fact given Fischer's personality he was always unlikely to compromise his position on match conditions. The Russians were certainly against meeting his conditions. If they believed that Karpov could have beaten him then surely they would not have opposed Fischer's match conditions as a win on merit was certainly better than a win on forfeit.
    So you let the inmates run the assylum,Fischer demanded that the match be won by the first player to win ten games, with no limit to the number of games. The champion would retain the title in the event of a 9-9 score. This meant, of course, that the challenger would need to win the match by a score of 10-8.

    FIDE's rules were that the reigning champion retained the title in the event of a 12-12 tie after 24 games. The same rules governing World Championship matches had been in place since the 1949 FIDE Congress in Paris. They were confirmed at the 1974 Congress in Nice.

    Fischer claimed that his proposal was fairer to the challenger than FIDE's limit of 24 games. Regardless he was again offered big money to play Karpov and again didn't!

  5. #5
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by bergil
    Fischer claimed that his proposal was fairer to the challenger than FIDE's limit of 24 games. Regardless he was again offered big money to play Karpov and again didn't!
    I believe your thesis relies on the assumption that Fischer made decisions on rational grounds. However, I sure he didn't. Also the Russian sports officials were severely embarassed after what happened in Iceland and the general opinion of the hierarchy was that Spassky and his team made too many concessions to the American. Basically I think there was no way Fischer was ever going to defend his title against a soviet challenger.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,308
    Can we just enjoy this tournament for what it is and debate any succession paths in another thread as I am sure we have other threads for this topic?

  7. #7
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,054
    Quote Originally Posted by bergil
    No it doesn't
    Of course it did. Fischer was the strongest player in the world over that period. He was totally dominant in the Interzonal and the candidate matches.
    Quote Originally Posted by bergil
    So you let the inmates run the assylum,Fischer demanded that the match be won by the first player to win ten games, with no limit to the number of games. The champion would retain the title in the event of a 9-9 score. This meant, of course, that the challenger would need to win the match by a score of 10-8.

    FIDE's rules were that the reigning champion retained the title in the event of a 12-12 tie after 24 games. The same rules governing World Championship matches had been in place since the 1949 FIDE Congress in Paris. They were confirmed at the 1974 Congress in Nice.

    Fischer claimed that his proposal was fairer to the challenger than FIDE's limit of 24 games. Regardless he was again offered big money to play Karpov and again didn't!
    As I said, to Fischer it wasnt about money. He believed his proposal was far better than FIDE's and that his was fairer because the champion could not just get a lead in the competition and draw the remaining games as was possible with a 24 game FIDE match.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  8. #8
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    As I said, to Fischer it wasnt about money. He believed his proposal was far better than FIDE's and that his was fairer because the champion could not just get a lead in the competition and draw the remaining games as was possible with a 24 game FIDE match.
    It wasn't up to that mentally ill baby to decide the conditions of the match, if you recall at one stage he wouldn't play on Saturdays. His dummy spit started the undermining of the world championship but why didn't he play in other chess tourmaments after 75?

  9. #9
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,054
    Quote Originally Posted by bergil
    It wasn't up to that mentally ill baby to decide the conditions of the match, if you recall at one stage he wouldn't play on Saturdays.
    True but if I recall correctly that was due to religious grounds.
    Quote Originally Posted by bergil
    His dummy spit started the undermining of the world championship
    Actually I dont think it did. After being declared champion Karpov's tournament record showed just how deserving he was to be champion. Also with Fischer an inactive recluse Karpov was undoubtedly the strongest player at that time.
    If anything undermined the world championship it was the Kasparov-Short split from FIDE in the early 90's.
    FIDE held their own championship and Karpov was declared the champ when he beat Timman. However virtually everyone would acknowledge that Kasparov was clearly the worlds strongest player.
    FIDE eventual introduction of the world championship knockout system further eroded FIDE's world championship credibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by bergil
    but why didn't he play in other chess tourmaments after 75?
    I dont think you can rationalise Fischers overall thinking.
    I'm just saying that Fischer could be particularly stubborn when it came to issues that he flet strongly about.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  10. #10
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,325
    Quote Originally Posted by cafman
    It is not neccerssary for the world champion to be the strongest player in the world so Kramnik's absence is irrelevant
    I don't quite follow your logic here since Kramnik is not necessarily (indeed Anand fans would say probably not) the strongest player in the world anyway. Usually this argument is used to defend Kramnik being the titleholder.

    and any claim he has to be world champion is irrelevant as his "title" is not descended from those of Capablanca, Lasker,Alekhine, Tal, Spassky, Karpov etc.
    Actually Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine all held the title in the same way Kramnik does - as their own personal property defended against selected strong challengers. FIDE appointed themselves guardians of that title after Alekhine died, but forfeited the right to run it when they (a) stripped Kasparov of it over non-chess (financial) issues (b) ran replacement "world championships" that were not credible.

    Fischer started all this confusion when after claiming the title more through psychology and politics than chess he was afraid to defend his title against Karpov.
    The confusion had been resolved by the time of FIDE's disputes with Kasparov.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I don't quite follow your logic here since Kramnik is not necessarily (indeed Anand fans would say probably not) the strongest player in the world anyway. Usually this argument is used to defend Kramnik being the titleholder.
    Actually I think you would struggle to find anybody to claim Kramnik is the strongest player at the moment. His recent tournament record is pretty woeful. He struggles to make my top eight.

    That said, it is difficult to see a lasting resolution to the Championship chaos without him. I think Kramnik will have to play the winner in order to retain any credibility as World Champion, and he will almost certainly lose.

  12. #12
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63

    Kkk

    Fischer had never beaten Spassky before Rejklavik. Also it was rumoured at the time( and later confirmed) that Karpov beat Spassky in a training match before Spassky played Fischer.I think karpov was 19 at the time!
    Karpov subsequently proved himself to be a great champion but never got the credit he deserved because of Fischers ghost lurking in the background. Probably what caused Karpov's downfall (apart from Kasparov being the greatest player of all time) was that he didn't really have a serious challenger for most of his career.
    I think when Kasparov was playing there was no problem accepting him as champion no matter what criteria was used. Now that there is no one head and shoulders above the rest I think that we should all accept the winner in Argentina as champion.

  13. #13
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,054
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Actually I think you would struggle to find anybody to claim Kramnik is the strongest player at the moment.
    I thought KB was saying that the argument that you dont need to be the top rated player to be champion has been used to justify Kramnnik being the champ and not Kasparov.
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    His recent tournament record is pretty woeful. He struggles to make my top eight.
    Agreed his recent form has been bad for his usual standards.
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    That said, it is difficult to see a lasting resolution to the Championship chaos without him. I think Kramnik will have to play the winner in order to retain any credibility as World Champion, and he will almost certainly lose.
    Not necessarily if he can overcome his recent form slump and especially if he plays as well as he has done in the past.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  14. #14
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,054
    Quote Originally Posted by cafman
    Fischer had never beaten Spassky before Rejklavik. Also it was rumoured at the time( and later confirmed) that Karpov beat Spassky in a training match before Spassky played Fischer.I think karpov was 19 at the time!
    Can you provide an actual reference to back this claim up.
    Quote Originally Posted by cafman
    Karpov subsequently proved himself to be a great champion but never got the credit he deserved because of Fischers ghost lurking in the background. Probably what caused Karpov's downfall (apart from Kasparov being the greatest player of all time) was that he didn't really have a serious challenger for most of his career.
    I think when Kasparov was playing there was no problem accepting him as champion no matter what criteria was used.
    Of course although he may have been stronger he was no longer champion when Kramnnik beat him.
    Quote Originally Posted by cafman
    Now that there is no one head and shoulders above the rest I think that we should all accept the winner in Argentina as champion.
    Why should we. Krammnik can trace his 'title" back via Kasparov. The winner of the Argentinian Competition cannot. As such they are nothing more than just the winner of a double round robin.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  15. #15
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Can you provide an actual reference to back this claim up.
    Spassky vs Fischer 1-0 29 1960 Mar del Plata C39 King's Gambit Accepted
    2. Fischer vs Spassky 1/2-1/2 35 1966 Santa Monica (1) C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
    3. Spassky vs Fischer 1-0 50 1966 Santa Monica (1) D86 Grunfeld, Exchange
    4. Fischer vs Spassky 1/2-1/2 57 1966 Ol C93 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Smyslov Defense
    5. Spassky vs Fischer 1-0 39 1970 Siegen ol final D86 Grunfeld, Exchange
    these are all the games I could find before 72, for the record Fischer won 17 Spassky 10 and 28 draws

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. FIDE World Championship in San Luis, POLL NOW ATTACHED
    By Oepty in forum Overseas Tournament News and Results
    Replies: 295
    Last Post: 12-11-2005, 10:23 AM
  2. Topalov new World Champion!
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14-10-2005, 01:01 PM
  3. The List
    By jeffrei in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 21-07-2004, 05:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •