|
Main
Date: 29 May 2008 21:35:17
From: EZoto
Subject: Why would Kamsky care?
|
Was reading the chessbase website and it is saying that Kamsky simply doesn't want to play in Bulgaria. After several extensions for money the Bulgarian chess federation says no more. Shirov wants to replace Kamsky. Whatever happened to the Kamsky that didn't care where he played? Shirov saying he doesn't care where he plays is the mentality you have to have to win. Has anyone else offered more money than Bulgaria? EZoto
|
|
|
Date: 29 May 2008 20:00:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why would Kamsky care?
|
On May 29, 9:35 pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote: > Was reading the chessbase website and it is saying that Kamsky simply > doesn't want to play in Bulgaria. After several extensions for money > the Bulgarian chess federation says no more. Shirov wants to replace > Kamsky. Whatever happened to the Kamsky that didn't care where he > played? Shirov saying he doesn't care where he plays is the mentality > you have to have to win. Has anyone else offered more money than > Bulgaria? Some people never learn. Those are are familiar with the history of chess know that in reality, the attitude of not caring where they play has nothing to do with success in chess. According to former world champion Petrosian, he and Bobby Fischer argued over the venue for their famous candidates match in 1971, using an intermediary to translate. As we now know from 20/20 hindsight, one of these two was soon to become the new world champion, and yet he insisted on getting his own way on a multitude of issues, just one of which was the venue. Thus, is it silly to assert that a winning attitude requires indifference as to playing site-- or anything else for that matter. I do not know why GM Kamsky does not want to play in Bulgaria, but I could guess; maybe he wants to combine his chess play with a little sight-seeing during the match? Maybe he would like to see places like Italy, France, Venezuela or New Zealand, but thinks Bulgaria has little to offer? Maybe he's been there, and like Los Angeles or New Jersey, it was yucky? Who knows... . -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 23:10:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why would Kamsky care?
|
On May 30, 11:17 pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote: > > As for former challengers (to GM Kramnik), they > >too seemed unseasoned, often casting themselves > >upon their own sword rather than accept a draw or > >two. IMO, the way to beat an "unbeatable" man is > >not by falling upon one's own sword, but by doing > >what GM Alekhine did-- he somehow discovered a > >way to beat the "invincible chess machine"; there > >were some weaknesses there, but to everyone > >else they simply were /invisible/. > I have to disagree with you on that one. Whoa there, fella! It was not /my/ idea to call GM Kramnik unbeatable; that was a recent idea of Gary Kasparov's. This guy was mated-on-the-move by Fritz (or whatever program), so I don't believe him to be unbeatable by any means; but in some match games I replayed online, GM Kramnik's opponent played as if his life had been threatened if he drew a game! Maybe that guy was on a huge ego trip, believing himself to be two classes better than GM Kramnik... I really can't understand why any player that good would play so stupidly. The exact phrase Mr. Kasparov used was, I believe, "he [i.e. Mr. Kramnik] never loses", which of course was an exaggeration. My point was not that GK is really unbeatable, but that his opponents defeat themselves-- at least in those few games I've seen. I missed the match between Mr. Kasparov and Mr. Kramnik. > Kramnik has not been > impressive in any match he has played except for Kasparov and Kasparov > was not nearly his best for that match. Kamsky has beaten him several > years ago in a match and Shirov beat him decisively also. Leko needed > only a draw in the last game of his match against Kramnik to win the > title and Topalov I believe had not played a match against anybody > until Kramnik and that went into overtime. Kramnik has not been > unbeatable in matches. Kamsky's match record is more impressive than > Kramnik's. That last statement is rather a stretch, I think. How can GK's match record be better than GK's, when the first GK took a *world championship* title from a third GK? And how do you explain the inordinate success of so many players who all have the same initials (GK)? And, if you cannot explain it, then tell me the email address of G. Kaidanov, G. Kuzmin, or G. Kasparian, so I can ask one of them. : >D > I agree that Kamsky is not quite in form but when Kamsky > was at his best he was dangerous. Whether he can reclaim that form is > another story. Indeed, the choice of the term "dangerous" tells a tale. Dangerous is a term used to describe the hunting of big game... with rifles. But who is the hunter-- the one with the rifle! Bobby Fischer was "dangerous", right up until the late 1960s. Emory Tate is "dangerous". But world champions are "strong"; their losing opponents are often described as "ill" or unlucky. -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 00:58:42
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Why would Kamsky care?
|
On May 30, 8:17 pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote: > > Kramnik has not been impressive in any match > he has played except for Kasparov and Kasparov > was not nearly his best for that match. :-) > Kamsky has beaten him several years ago in > a match and Shirov beat him decisively also. Kramnik, the fun loving, overweighted youngster, and Kramnik who won against Kasparov and Topalov, are two different people. > Leko needed only a draw in the last game of his > match against Kramnik to win the title Kramnik was sick during the match but had succeded in title defense nonetheless. > and Topalov I believe had not played a match > against anybody until Kramnik and that went > into overtime. That's a mudding, dishonest statement. Half of the truth is a whole lie. > Kamsky's match record is more impressive than > Kramnik's. WAS (not IS). ======== Wlod
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2008 09:12:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why would Kamsky care?
|
On May 30, 1:46 am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote: > I hope he plays ... > > The bottom line , does he want to be a champion or not ? > > Maybe he is afraid to play Top ? Maybe he *should be* afraid to play the top-rated players right now. I'm a bit behind on my reading, but from what I've seen in Chess Lies magazine GK is not in the same form as the very top players; his results seem too uneven to take the crown just yet. As for former challengers (to GM Kramnik), they too seemed unseasoned, often casting themselves upon their own sword rather than accept a draw or two. IMO, the way to beat an "unbeatable" man is not by falling upon one's own sword, but by doing what GM Alekhine did-- he somehow discovered a way to beat the "invincible chess machine"; there were some weaknesses there, but to everyone else they simply were /invisible/. As for GK, I read somewhere that he quit chess to become a doctor; then I read that he got a law degree; now it seems he may be after the world championship title-- you can't be all things to all people! Only an obsessive-compulsive lunatic is going to take -- and keep -- the title, so make up your mind, dude. (Truth be told, living here in the USA gives a 2700+ non-world champion plenty of opportunities to reap $ome reward$.) -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2008 09:37:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Why would Kamsky care?
|
Kirsan has just stepped in after a direct phone call from Yury Vasilyev and guaranteed funding for the match. Written commitment tomorrow, he says. First reported by TWIC. Phil Innes "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:2ddc43b1-06dc-4bdf-875e-c3939ce18808@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On May 30, 1:46 am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote: > >> I hope he plays ... >> >> The bottom line , does he want to be a champion or not ? >> >> Maybe he is afraid to play Top ? > > Maybe he *should be* afraid to play the top-rated > players right now. I'm a bit behind on my reading, > but from what I've seen in Chess Lies magazine > GK is not in the same form as the very top players; > his results seem too uneven to take the crown just > yet. > > As for former challengers (to GM Kramnik), they > too seemed unseasoned, often casting themselves > upon their own sword rather than accept a draw or > two. IMO, the way to beat an "unbeatable" man is > not by falling upon one's own sword, but by doing > what GM Alekhine did-- he somehow discovered a > way to beat the "invincible chess machine"; there > were some weaknesses there, but to everyone > else they simply were /invisible/. > > As for GK, I read somewhere that he quit chess > to become a doctor; then I read that he got a law > degree; now it seems he may be after the world > championship title-- you can't be all things to all > people! Only an obsessive-compulsive lunatic is > going to take -- and keep -- the title, so make up > your mind, dude. (Truth be told, living here in the > USA gives a 2700+ non-world champion plenty > of opportunities to reap $ome reward$.) > > > -- help bot > > > > >
|
| | |
Date: 30 May 2008 23:17:00
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Why would Kamsky care?
|
> As for former challengers (to GM Kramnik), they >too seemed unseasoned, often casting themselves >upon their own sword rather than accept a draw or >two. IMO, the way to beat an "unbeatable" man is >not by falling upon one's own sword, but by doing >what GM Alekhine did-- he somehow discovered a >way to beat the "invincible chess machine"; there >were some weaknesses there, but to everyone >else they simply were /invisible/. I have to disagree with you on that one. Kramnik has not been impressive in any match he has played except for Kasparov and Kasparov was not nearly his best for that match. Kamsky has beaten him several years ago in a match and Shirov beat him decisively also. Leko needed only a draw in the last game of his match against Kramnik to win the title and Topalov I believe had not played a match against anybody until Kramnik and that went into overtime. Kramnik has not been unbeatable in matches. Kamsky's match record is more impressive than Kramnik's. I agree that Kamsky is not quite in form but when Kamsky was at his best he was dangerous. Whether he can reclaim that form is another story. EZoto
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2008 22:46:29
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Why would Kamsky care?
|
I hope he plays ... The bottom line , does he want to be a champion or not ? Maybe he is afraid to play Top ?
|
|