Main
Date: 20 Dec 2007 03:19:48
From: EZoto
Subject: WCC Anand - Kramnik

This is going to be a great match. On chessbase both players agreed
to terms and will be playing. Only one problem I have and it is my
opinion......................12 games. Does 12 games prove a world
champion? Does anyone know why 12 games was agreed upon?

EZoto




 
Date: 21 Dec 2007 14:48:44
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: WCC Anand - Kramnik
EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:
> Does anyone know why 12 games was agreed upon?

I assume they couldn't get anyone to sponsor a longer match.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Metal Flower (TM): it's like a flower
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made of steel!


 
Date: 20 Dec 2007 08:32:33
From: Terry
Subject: Re: WCC Anand - Kramnik

"EZoto" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> This is going to be a great match. On chessbase both players agreed
> to terms and will be playing. Only one problem I have and it is my
> opinion......................12 games. Does 12 games prove a world
> champion? Does anyone know why 12 games was agreed upon?
>
> EZoto

When is this match ?

Regards




  
Date: 20 Dec 2007 01:07:34
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: WCC Anand - Kramnik
Will Anand keep his title if they end up 6-6 ?

What date does it start ?



 
Date: 19 Dec 2007 23:47:46
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: WCC Anand - Kramnik
On Dec 19, 7:19 pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:
> This is going to be a great match. On chessbase both players agreed
> to terms and will be playing. Only one problem I have and it is my
> opinion......................12 games. Does 12 games prove a world
> champion? Does anyone know why 12 games was agreed upon?
>
> EZoto

It's going to be a wonderful match.
Two nice human beings. Two
superbly talented, great players.

Wlod


  
Date: 21 Dec 2007 00:12:50
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: WCC Anand - Kramnik
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:47:46 -0800 (PST), "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
(Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote:

>On Dec 19, 7:19 pm, EZoto <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is going to be a great match. On chessbase both players agreed
>> to terms and will be playing. Only one problem I have and it is my
>> opinion......................12 games. Does 12 games prove a world
>> champion? Does anyone know why 12 games was agreed upon?
>>
>> EZoto
>
>It's going to be a wonderful match.
>Two nice human beings. Two
>superbly talented, great players.
>
> Wlod

Very rare to see 2 players of this talent level also be true
gentlemen, well Leko - Kramnik also were gentlemen.

EZoto


 
Date: 19 Dec 2007 19:49:46
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: WCC Anand - Kramnik
On Dec 19, 9:19 pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:
> This is going to be a great match. On chessbase both players agreed
> to terms and will be playing. Only one problem I have and it is my
> opinion......................12 games. Does 12 games prove a world
> champion? Does anyone know why 12 games was agreed upon?
>
> EZoto

I do indeed miss the 24-game epic contests....

Cheers,
zdrakec


  
Date: 19 Dec 2007 23:06:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: WCC Anand - Kramnik


zdrakec wrote:

> On Dec 19, 9:19 pm, EZoto <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is going to be a great match. On chessbase both players agreed
> > to terms and will be playing. Only one problem I have and it is my
> > opinion......................12 games. Does 12 games prove a world
> > champion? Does anyone know why 12 games was agreed upon?
> >
> > EZoto
>
> I do indeed miss the 24-game epic contests....


In the old days, a world championship match was
only held once every few years (at best); now there
is no reason it cannot be done much more frequently.

Of course, if the match is close, those who are not
happy with the result will complain that the format
was to blame, that the title has been "dumbed down",
etc.

I have been out of chess for some time, and know
little about the styles of the current crop of players;
I did see some games where GM Kramnik goofed
around, then won after his opponent self-destructed;
that wasn't particularly impressive. In Chess Lies
there was an article where GM Kamsky was losing,
but his opponent blundered and GK went on to win;
not especially impressive, either. The same thing
happened in a game I played over, between GMs
Kamsky and Shirov: a self-destruct by the latter.

I am left wondering *why* the loser went bonkers,
as if his pants were on fire. In that same game I
just mentioned, GK played an early Q-h5, and his
sharp, tricky-Ricky play reminded me of the style
of computer.


-- help bot