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:[email protected]m...
> 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 ?