PDA

View Full Version : G. Kasparov v R. Kasimdzhanov

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 01:23 AM
Guess its time to start a thread on this match.

Poll attached.

If you vote for G. Kasparov, you believe that G. Kasparov will end up seven points in front of R. Kasimdzhanov.

If you vote for R. Kasimdzhanov +1, you believe that R. Kasimdzhanov will end up one point in front of G. Kasparov.

Bill Gletsos
21-10-2004, 01:24 AM
What poll.

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 01:26 AM
What poll.
the one just finished ;)

Bill Gletsos
21-10-2004, 01:31 AM
Guess you were just slow in getting it done. ;)
Either that of some of us are just too quick at reading new posts. :lol:

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 01:32 AM
Guess you were just slow in getting it done. ;)
Either that of some of us are just too quick at reading new posts. :lol:
or i was spending too much time trying to get kasim's name spelt right seven times :eek:

Rhubarb
21-10-2004, 01:42 AM
Another poll where the tied match isn't an option? :banana:

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 01:48 AM
Another poll where the tied match isn't an option? :banana:
because a tie cannot occur mr GC. there will be rapid and the blitz games if result is 6-6 after 12 games ;) now go stuff that banana :lol:

Rhubarb
21-10-2004, 02:01 AM
because a tie cannot occur mr GC. there will be rapid and the blitz games if result is 6-6 after 12 games ;) now go stuff that banana :lol:
So if I want to predict, for example, 6-6 after 12, then Gaz wins all 4 four playoff games, should I vote Kasparov +1 or +4?

And another thing: suppose I want to vote for Fathead +8?

Anyone got any recipes for banana bread? :)

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 02:05 AM
So if I want to predict, for example, 6-6 after 12, then Gaz wins all 4 four playoff games, should I vote Kasparov +1 or +4?
i would assume that they would play just the minimum number of games to get a winner. So if it was 6-6 and then kasparov wins the first three rapid games, the result would be +3. I have assumed that the fourth game wouldnt be played.

And another thing: suppose I want to vote for Fathead +8? i dont think this result will be possible for the above listed reasons.

Rhubarb
21-10-2004, 02:15 AM
i would assume that they would play just the minimum number of games to get a winner. So if it was 6-6 and then kasparov wins the first three rapid games, the result would be +3. I have assumed that the fourth game wouldnt be played.

i dont think this result will be possible for the above listed reasons.
Okay, points taken. I'm not sure what the organisers intend to do with dead rubbers. Say, for example, that Gazza was ahead 6.5-3.5 after 10?

P.S. Maybe it's better you had two extra poll options: 6-6 followed by tiebreak win to either player.

EDIT: OK, I see you've edited the initial post now.

Bill Gletsos
21-10-2004, 12:25 PM
or i was spending too much time trying to get kasim's name spelt right seven times :eek:
Guess you never heard of Copy & Paste. :doh:

Bill Gletsos
21-10-2004, 12:28 PM
Okay, points taken. I'm not sure what the organisers intend to do with dead rubbers. Say, for example, that Gazza was ahead 6.5-3.5 after 10?

P.S. Maybe it's better you had two extra poll options: 6-6 followed by tiebreak win to either player.

EDIT: OK, I see you've edited the initial post now.
He had no choice since he cannot edit the poll. ;)

Garvinator
21-10-2004, 12:33 PM
Guess you never heard of Copy & Paste. :doh:
actually i did use copy and paste ;) just didnt want to say that you were too quick at looking at new threads. :P :P :D

Bill Gletsos
21-10-2004, 12:39 PM
actually i did use copy and paste ;) just didnt want to say that you were too quick at looking at new threads. :P :P :D
Not always but more often than not its true. ;)

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2004, 09:14 PM
I've gone for +3 and I'll suggest a scoreline as well: +4=5-1.

bobby1972
22-10-2004, 10:32 AM
kramnik is not playing winner so why play this match,i hope organisers stop this now that kramnik has spoken he he he,kaspa is the past baby

eclectic
22-10-2004, 11:16 AM
drat!

there's no preferential voting

;)

eclectic

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 02:18 PM
kramnik is not playing winner so why play this match,i hope organisers stop this now that kramnik has spoken he he he,kaspa is the past baby
i think Kramnik is just postering now that he has retained the classical world championship.I am surprised if he really has said that he wants a four way match. It would be in his best interests to just give with winner of this match a shot at the title.

Even if he was to lose the match against kaspa/kasim, he would still be required to only one match in the next candidates matches to get another match for the world championship. I cant understand Kramnik's logic for wanting a match between four players. :wall:

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 03:32 PM
i think Kramnik is just postering now that he has retained the classical world championship.I am surprised if he really has said that he wants a four way match.
He is suggesting his challenger should be selected from a four way match, not that he should be part of any four way match for the title.

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 03:44 PM
He is suggesting his challenger should be selected from a four way match, not that he should be part of any four way match for the title.
so he did :doh: well it would just cause another day when they are so close. :wall:

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 05:04 PM
so he did :doh: well it would just cause another day when they are so close. :wall:
Yes but perhaps Kramnik thinks he might have a better chance against say Anand rather than Kasparov and that in a 4 player tournament that perhaps Anand might win.

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 05:08 PM
Yes but perhaps Kramnik thinks he might have a better chance against say Anand rather than Kasparov and that in a 4 player tournament that perhaps Anand might win.
so by your explaination, it is still a self serving statement by Kramnik :( and should be ignored :P

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 05:38 PM
so by your explaination, it is still a self serving statement by Kramnik :( and should be ignored :P
I'm not saying that at all.
In fact just because something may be self serving does not necessatily mean it should be automatically dismissed but instead be judged on whatever merits it may actually have in its favour.

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 05:42 PM
I'm not saying that at all.
In fact just because something may be self serving does not necessatily mean it should be automatically dismissed but instead be judged on whatever merits it may actually have in its favour.
and also judged by its bad points too.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 06:19 PM
and also judged by its bad points too.
That goes without saying.

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 06:37 PM
That goes without saying.
well just thought it should be said anyways ;)

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 07:41 PM
well just thought it should be said anyways ;)
The point of "goes without saying" means it didnt. :hand:

ursogr8
23-10-2004, 08:00 PM
Posts #24 to #27 do not add much to anything. (except their post counts). :rolleyes:

Trent Parker
23-10-2004, 08:10 PM
Posts #24 to #27 do not add much to anything. (except their post counts). :rolleyes:

it adds more than what this post does. :rolleyes: :wall:

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 08:13 PM
Posts #24 to #27 do not add much to anything. (except their post counts). :rolleyes:
Of course it does.
I'm trying to enlighten gg as what needs and needs not be said. ;)

Your post was one that need not have been said as it added nothing. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 08:14 PM
it adds more than what this post does. :rolleyes: :wall:
Exactly Trent.
Unfortunately starter failed to appreciate that. :whistle:

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 08:53 PM
i see one person has voted for kasim so far. :uhoh:

eclectic
23-10-2004, 09:23 PM
i see one person has voted for kasim so far. :uhoh:

ok gg

i just saw that so i've voted kasim in a +7 shutout so i can get a really good dividend if it comes true or (most likely) have plenty of :banana: s thrown at me if it doesn't

:P

eclectic

Garvinator
23-10-2004, 09:28 PM
ok gg

i just saw that so i've voted kasim in a +7 shutout so i can get a really good dividend if it comes true or (most likely) have plenty of :banana: s thrown at me if it doesn't

:P

eclectic
if you are right, you have every right to throw as many :banana: as you want to. But i suspect you will be wrong, so here is an early set of bananas :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

23-10-2004, 09:57 PM
Heres a special one, :evilb:

JGB
24-10-2004, 01:55 AM
:evilb: (Kasparov) will :buttkick: :banana: (Kasim) and no one will be playing the :boohoo: when you have to eat your 100 :banana:

ursogr8
24-10-2004, 07:14 AM
I'm trying to enlighten gg as what needs and needs not be said. ;)

Well Bill if you succeed in this objective then you will have succeeded in saving all who read here a great deal of time. I will watch with interest now to see if there is a change in gg'' s proclivity to proliferous posting.
If you are successful I will then retract my accusation about your posts.
But if there is no change (in gg'' 's behaviour) then I expect you to admit you tried valiantly but failed.

starter

ps But the early signs of your being successful are not good, e.g. post #34 is clearly on the negative side of the ledger.

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 06:44 PM
Well Bill if you succeed in this objective then you will have succeeded in saving all who read here a great deal of time. I will watch with interest now to see if there is a change in gg'' s proclivity to proliferous posting.
If you are successful I will then retract my accusation about your posts.
But if there is no change (in gg'' 's behaviour) then I expect you to admit you tried valiantly but failed.
I succeeded as far as my point at the time but perhaps not in the long run. :rolleyes:

ps But the early signs of your being successful are not good, e.g. post #34 is clearly on the negative side of the ledger.
I suspect he cannot help himself making the gratuitous post.
Then again your continual posting of competetive index's in your thread on the subject could also be deemed a waste of time as it convinces no one who does not already agree with you. ;)

ursogr8
24-10-2004, 09:15 PM
I succeeded as far as my point at the time but perhaps not in the long run. :rolleyes:
Nor the short run ...judging by post #34. Valiant try by you Bill.

I suspect he cannot help himself making the gratuitous post.
Yes Bill, this may be the root cause of the issue.

Then again your continual posting of competitive index's in your thread on the subject could also be deemed a waste of time as it convinces no one who does not already agree with you.
You have got the wrong idea why I am posting still on that thread. There are some who are mildly interested in the concept of designing tournaments that contain competitive rounds instead of the normal SWISS 3 junk rounds per 7. But some of these folk are undecided as to what level competitiveness is 'sufficient'. My recent posts are nothing but data designed to familiarise our selves with the correlation between the index and the number of upsets vis--vis the ratings expectations. For example, when the index is around 270 we see about 10 out of 50 results go against the ratings.
I don't anticipate I will ever persuade those who genuinely like JUNK rounds. Many (like Matt and BD) have been quite honest as to why they like them.

I don't post on that thread to be gratuitious, any more than I would call your posting (anywhere/anytime) to help Matt overcome his afflictions, gratuitious.

starter

Recherché
24-10-2004, 10:03 PM
My recent posts are nothing but data designed to familiarise our selves with the correlation between the index and the number of upsets vis--vis the ratings expectations. For example, when the index is around 270 we see about 10 out of 50 results go against the ratings.

Perhaps I should be asking this in the other thread, but I take it that a higher number of upsets is considered a good thing as far as competitiveness and tournament quality are concerned?

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 10:07 PM
Nor the short run ...judging by post #34. Valiant try by you Bill.
Yes for the short run because I got him off his Kramnik point. ;)

Yes Bill, this may be the root cause of the issue.
Of course we are all probably guilty of it just not to the same degree.

You have got the wrong idea why I am posting still on that thread. There are some who are mildly interested in the concept of designing tournaments that contain competitive rounds instead of the normal SWISS 3 junk rounds per 7. But some of these folk are undecided as to what level competitiveness is 'sufficient'. My recent posts are nothing but data designed to familiarise our selves with the correlation between the index and the number of upsets vis--vis the ratings expectations. For example, when the index is around 270 we see about 10 out of 50 results go against the ratings.
I don't anticipate I will ever persuade those who genuinely like JUNK rounds. Many (like Matt and BD) have been quite honest as to why they like them.

I don't post on that thread to be gratuitious, any more than I would call your posting (anywhere/anytime) to help Matt overcome his afflictions, gratuitious.
I doubt you can draw any valid comparison between the two situations, but I take your point. ;)

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 10:10 PM
Perhaps I should be asking this in the other thread, but I take it that a higher number of upsets is considered a good thing as far as competitiveness and tournament quality are concerned?
Not that your asking it here worries me, however the thread police would say yes you should. :lol:

Recherché
24-10-2004, 10:15 PM
Not that your asking it here worries me, however the thread police would say yes you should. :lol:

I suppose the evening tends to bring out the rebel in us all.

Garvinator
24-10-2004, 10:22 PM
Not that your asking it here worries me, however the thread police would say yes you should. :lol:
damn straight :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 10:32 PM
damn straight :whistle:
Of course thread police is just a self appointed title with no real authority. :lol:

Garvinator
24-10-2004, 10:37 PM
Of course thread police is just a self appointed title with no real authority. :lol:
true, but when the thread policeman points out that something would be better located in another thread, it usually gets moved to the better thread. Some would call that a traffic cop :P and same thread policeman is thinking that perhaps this thread needs to be moved :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 10:43 PM
Perhaps what really needs to be moved is this thread police discussion.

Garvinator
24-10-2004, 10:50 PM
Perhaps what really needs to be moved is this thread police discussion.
i think it should be from post 28.

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 11:05 PM
i think it should be from post 28.
Then again it probably all should be left so as to demonstrate your folly and the subseqent discussion.

Garvinator
24-10-2004, 11:15 PM
:lol: :lol: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 11:24 PM
:lol: :lol: :whistle:
And your obvious love of emoticon only posts. :hand:

ursogr8
25-10-2004, 09:04 AM

Bill

The metric that counts in your contention about use-by-date is the replies-to-views ratio. The competitiveness thread is very healthy on this criteria, thank you; in contrast say with the two OLYMPIC appeals and selection threads.
So, just leave the thread alone mate, in case I start to suspect that you are disgruntled that your most recent RATINGS thread was a total fizzer on controversy when compared with earlier RATINGS threads. ;)

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 01:00 PM
Bill

The metric that counts in your contention about use-by-date is the replies-to-views ratio. The competitiveness thread is very healthy on this criteria, thank you; in contrast say with the two OLYMPIC appeals and selection threads.
That is a fairly useless metric.
You could view it 5 times yourself and the views would increase.

So, just leave the thread alone mate, in case I start to suspect that you are disgruntled that your most recent RATINGS thread was a total fizzer on controversy when compared with earlier RATINGS threads. ;)

Firstly if you believe that you are a complete :banana: and being :crazy: .
Secondly I'm not even sure what rating thread you are even referring to.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 01:02 PM
any danger that discussion of the thread title might break out soon? ;) :P

ursogr8
25-10-2004, 01:34 PM
any danger that discussion of the thread title might break out soon? ;) :P

No danger at all.
Terminal rot was seen at posts #26 and #34, and it just will not go away.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 10:48 PM
at the risk of offending anyone by actually trying to talk about something relating to this match, here is an article from chessbase that i thought was very funny cause it could actually happen.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1976

eclectic
25-10-2004, 11:01 PM
at the risk of offending anyone by actually trying to talk about something relating to this match, here is an article from chessbase that i thought was very funny cause it could actually happen.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1976

who else would you expect to give support to kramnik?

someone who helped cause the mess in the first place?

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 11:34 PM
at the risk of offending anyone by actually trying to talk about something relating to this match, here is an article from chessbase that i thought was very funny cause it could actually happen.
Not a chance it could happen.

eclectic
30-10-2004, 03:16 AM
see kasparov's open letter to fide at the chessbase site www.chessbase.com giving the ultimatum that financial arrangements are either secure for dubai .... or turkey ... or else he doesn't play in january

eclectic

Garvinator
30-10-2004, 03:19 AM
see kasparov's open letter to fide at the chessbase site www.chessbase.com giving the ultimatum that financial arrangements are either secure for dubai .... or turkey ... or else he doesn't play in january

eclectic
i have seen this article, amazing though cause when i was setting up the poll, i was thinking of having a match will not be played in january option. :eek:

JGB
26-11-2004, 09:37 PM
Kaspy is in fine form against the cream of the crop of the 57th Russian Championship leading to the World Championship match.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2047

Bill Gletsos
03-12-2004, 10:09 PM
Looks like this might be switching from Dubai to Turkey.

http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=602

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2061

JGB
04-12-2004, 12:08 AM
Pretty sad that it's so hard to find sponsors and organisers for the big events in chess not just at home but also abroad. Looks like the guys in Dubai are going to pull the pin after the GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili Olympic Closing Ceremony fiasco.

Bill Gletsos
05-12-2004, 03:47 PM
Looks like the guys in Dubai are going to pull the pin after the GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili Olympic Closing Ceremony fiasco.
On what do you base that statement given it appeared the Dubai connection was questionable even before the Olympiad Closing Ceremony situation.

Garvinator
05-12-2004, 05:08 PM
On what do you base that statement given it appeared the Dubai connection was questionable even before the Olympiad Closing Ceremony situation.
just made a murky situation even more murky and the sponsors decided that it wasnt for them after the olympiad.

JGB
06-12-2004, 03:21 AM
2004 World Chess Champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov celebrated his 24th birthday today!

Chess has not been the fountain of youth on this occasion?! :whistle:

Lucena
08-12-2004, 12:25 PM
They're definitely calling the match off in Dubai. I'm getting a definite sense of deja vu here...

JGB
08-12-2004, 09:48 PM
Is it possible that Kasparov's rating will drop below the brilliant 2800 mark, bringing him back to the level of mere human? He sits on 2813 and his expected rating change is -13.8 on www.Fide.com.
(although I assume his last Russian tournament result is not included)

Kasimdzhanov's rating is 2650, although he is a expecting a very healthy rating gain of 28.4.

Lucena
09-12-2004, 12:14 AM
Is it possible that Kasparov's rating will drop below the brilliant 2800 mark, bringing him back to the level of mere human? He sits on 2813 and his expected rating change is -13.8 on www.Fide.com.
(although I assume his last Russian tournament result is not included)

Kasimdzhanov's rating is 2650, although he is a expecting a very healthy rating gain of 28.4.

I reckon it's all inflated anyway...

JGB
09-12-2004, 12:24 AM
I reckon it's all inflated anyway...
Without a doubt, but what isn't these days? ;)

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 10:03 PM
FiDE confirms the event is off in Dubai.
It is now rescheduled for spring 2005 whilst FIDE enter discussions with other organisers.

http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=605

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2005, 12:39 PM
Kasparov withdraws from FIDE 2005 World championship Match.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2145

Oepty
20-01-2005, 12:57 PM
OUCH!. I have some sympathy with Kasparov as he has obviously been given a real run around. It further hurts FIDE creditabilty. I hope that a Khasimdhanov - Kramnik match can be organised as a reunificatiom match, although I really just expect further division and acrimony.
Scott

arosar
20-01-2005, 01:02 PM
Ridiculous. Still talking about an archaic concept: a chess world champion. The way to move on is to discard the whole idea and simply settle for rankings.

AR

pballard
21-01-2005, 10:44 AM
Ridiculous. Still talking about an archaic concept: a chess world champion. The way to move on is to discard the whole idea and simply settle for rankings.

AR

The fact is the chess public likes to see a match between the best 2 players in the world. It also seems to be the only time chess gets into the mainstream press. Fischer-Spassky, Karpov-Korchnoi, Kasparov-Karpov: these matches all got fighting chess - and publicity - we've only been able to dream about since 1993.

--
Peter

arosar
21-01-2005, 11:07 AM
A match between 2 fellas is old fashioned, a relic of those duelling days. Now if all we have for getting in to the mainstream press is that, then we're not doing a very good job at all.

If we must declare a world champion, then I think there are better formats. Now where is that old BB where we've discussed all this before?

AR