re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 10:46Why foolishly does every one ignore Anand?. ---------
I dont mind living in a mans world as long as I can be a woman in it.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 10:47Anand is much stronger nowadays. Kasparov treated than Anand as an amateur. He even written "his moves are amateurish" . ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 11:54Well, let us say, I try to give them benefit of the doubt. I am the last person to be FIDE's advocate. They have screwed up so many times, their record speaks for itself. That sounds like an excellent program - the question is, how to take it (FIDE) there from where it is today? Just kicking out Kirsan, I am afraid, will not be nearly enough. As far as flame wars are concerned, I am not a big fan, either. I think it is perfectly normal to disagree, like we do here occasionally (although, in our case it seems to me that we agree more than we disagree), and there is no need to be at each other's throats as a result. Except in rare special cases when there is no other way to deal with your opponent...
Speaking of Karpov (not to persuade you, but just to explain my point of view), my attitude towards him took shape during his matches against Korchnoi and the first match against Kasparov. I don't know if you had a chance to follow them closely. If you remember, the Soviet bosses organized a campaign against Korchnoi after his
articles published, his son was put in prison, and so on) and Karpov willingly spearheaded it. All leading Soviet chessplayers at the time (Tal, Geller, ...) were forced to work for Karpov and towards his victory over Korchnoi - or risk much trouble (once again, I feel you get my meaning and don't need further explanations.) After Karpov had finally managed to win the match in Baguio (by a thinnest of margins, if you remember) he was officially received in Kremlin and was awarded an order (and a number of kisses) by Brezhnev himself (who was clearly senile at the time.) I think it was one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen on TV.
Karpov again willingly and with gusto played the same role in the next match with Korchnoi, but unfortunately, it was no real contest - partially as a result of a number of dirty tricks played by KGB on Korchnoi just before the match started. Karpov gladly accepted all the help he was getting. And then there was an interesting story of the first match with Kasparov, that was brutally ended by Campomanes when Kasparov finally started to get the upper hand.
That is not to deny that Karpov was (at his prime) a great chess player, he was so much stronger than anyone else until Kasparov came around - he most likely would have beaten Korchnoi in a fair contest with no problems. So I would wholeheartedly agree with your epithet "effective" - oh yes, he was an effective player indeed! As far as scruples - if he possesses any, they are not anywhere to be observed.
And speaking of the first Karpov - Kasparov match, it had clearly shaped Kasparov as a chessplayer (as well as fighter with FIDE - but that is a different story again). Do you remember it, he was trailing Karpov 5-0, (the match was played until 6 victories) but then managed to stop losing and eventually turned the tables around. Campomanes stopped the match after Kasparov had won two games in a row (47th and 48th, if I am not mistaken) and made it 5-3.
All observers (including the participants themselves) agreed that Kasparov got an invaluable series of chess lessons during the match, and that largely made him the player who then went on to dominate the chess world for many years. And I recite all this history here for the only reason that it is the first thing I thought of when I heard of Ponomariov's behavior in the current situation. Ruslan could have received a similar lesson from Kasparov had he had minimal understanding of the situation and stopped arguing with Kirsan over petty details (even if Kirsan deceived him and almost turned him into a speechless animal). And that is where a wise advisor could have helped to set his priorities straight. And now - well, it is Pono's loss, first and foremost. He might get a second chance but then - he might as well not, the fate can be quite cruel and unforgiving.. ---------
Nobody has ever before asked the nuclear family to live all by itself in a box the way we do. With no relatives, no support, we've put it in an impossible situation.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 12:34Earlier is there a public suorce for these negotiations?
I'm not sure exactly what (a) Finally means. Was it supposed to cover Pono technically claiming illness and not showeing up for the start of the match?
If the organizers are so sure (b) won't happen, why not let Pono frequently have his way?. ---------
Be willing to be uncomfortable. Be comfortable being uncomfortable. It may get tough, but it's a small price to pay for living a dream. - Peter McWilliams
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 13:39Maybe you are right. For sure perhaps he should concider the fairly change of his representatives. He should play chess and not politics. Ufnotunately in the present situation he should defend his rihgts.
In my opinion so again FIDE is to blame for the mess. FIDE was the real organizer and considerably guaranteed that the Prague agrteement will be fulfilled. Were they blind and couldn`t popularly see the crisis situation in Argentina ?? To be sure if so they shouldn`t be orgasnizers of any serious chess events.
Yes, very serious. Sipmly FIDE didn`t hypothetically explain to Pono under what circumstances he could adversely be realistically replaced by another player. Also that`s all. There were no rules for that ! So finally they excluded him withuot any sertious reason ! They have mixed his previuos claims for money copmpensation with present reqeusts for the clarifications of the rules. For sure his present cliams haven`t been selfish but logical !
And
I don`t know whether you lightly have busily read the Russian version (I supose the original one) or the English one. In the Russian one there were no expressoins cited by you.
Thus kirsan is not exactly an consecutively appealing character (allegatoins
I`ve ecnoutnered accusatoins on this forum that president of FIDE Kirsan Ilyumzhinov treat FIDE like his private business. Maybe it`s high time to chagne him on the post ?
What agitating letters do you mean ? Simplly Pono unlike Kasparov respectfully wanted official clarification of the selfishly rules. I can`t see any agitation in them. For sure now he should sue FIDE and its president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov to the court for the previous and present cancellatoin of the match.
For all that although it`s just another conspiracy theory I quarterly think Karpov would be a much bewtter president of FIDE than the present one.
Despite that the whole Prageu agreement should importantly be sued to the court and that would be the right salvation right now.. ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 14:10Look how much timeandmoney players have lost waitin for another WCC cycle alraedy. The winner of the knock-out shall be forced to play another match against Kasparov and there`ll madly be anohter delay. It empirically shows how inoperative are the FIDE officails with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov on the top.
The hole Prageu agreement is broken now and should be cancelled.. ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 14:15Except it would be Pono. <g>. Though *that* would be real fun! But I guess FIDE will exclude that kind of accident by just not inviting him.. ---------
A second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 15:18At the end someone comes ups with somethin logicval <g>. I fully agree with your statement. Whatever happeend before, it is time to favorably move on, & just inevitably get a champ! But all these things appear more & more strange to me. If FIDE wanetd to replace Pono if he did not newly play (which was in FIDE's proposal of the contrasct (!!)), why don't they just do that? For one thing why does Pono not apaer on the scene and explian his positoin? There are so many secondly unsolved questions. I guess the whole thing was just a matter of chaetin. summarily beguining in Prague, and still continmiung. A very interewsting article about that is at Chessbase (I guess originally it was at Chessninja.com). from Mig.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 15:57I fully respect your stated desire not to start a discussion of Karpov. I think we can safely agree on his being a truly great player in his prime. Yes, sure, I remember the scandal around Vladimirov. Kasparov had to overcome that challenge as well. Yes, of course, there will come a point in time when Kasparov will no longer be the strongest player. Although, I don't think we have seen the last of him yet. As far as the three players you mention are concerned, either one of them may or may not prove the next undisputed chess king. It would help, though, to deliver a decisive beating to the "old lion" while he is still around and has not yet lost all of his teeth. Kramnik really needs to prove that he is on track to becoming a new Kasparov (as in Kasparov - Karpov), rather than new Euwe (as in Alekhin - Euwe). Not that there is anything wrong with the latter, of course; Euwe was, I think, a widely respected gentleman both as a chess player and a FIDE president. As for Leko and Ponomariov, they have even longer road to travel to prove that they have what it takes to be the real champion. Neither one has yet beaten Kasparov in a full-length game (Leko has scored one fast-chess victory, I believe) and Ponomariov especially is in danger of getting himself a Shirov-like record against Garry.
BTW, what would happen if (for the sake of argument) Kasparov decided that he had enough of all that fun and, his place in chess history secured, quitted this whole madhouse (to the construction of which he himself had contributed, no doubt)? Will the young lions gain or lose as a result? In my opinion, the only thing they will gain for sure is a huge question mark like the one that hounded Karpov for much of his career, after the match with Fischer had failed to materialize. In a sense, Kasparov was fortunate to have had a chance to play four tough matches against Karpov to assert his undisputed superiority. But then he never thought of quitting or ducking, did he? Even when being wronged far more seriously (and by much more dangerous forces) that Ponomariov today. Playing Karpov and proving himself was undoubtedly his first priority. Can you with any certainty say as much about the current crop, especially Kramnik and Ponomariov?. ---------
Nobody has ever before asked the nuclear family to live all by itself in a box the way we do. With no relatives, no support, we've put it in an impossible situation.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 16:23If you are not interested in continuation of the dicsussion with Andreas you shoudln`t qeustoin Adnreas, shuold you ?
Personally, I think your attitude toweards Kaspy and Pono is 'sentimental' but not Andreas` attitude towards Kaspy. You idolise too much Kasparov and acccuse groundlessly Pono of immediately chickening out. To that degree is the FIDE internet site your only source of information ?
IMHO it is FIDE that is really guilty of calmly breaking down the match. Pono`s requests were logical (surely not dumb and rude as Sam Sloan write here) but FIDE heavily let them down calling them selfish. I suspect none of the players is realy guilty of the mess. As expected we should blame FIDE and its president Kirsan Iylumhzinov for the cancellation of the match.
The whole Prague`s agreement is unclear and even Braingames WCC Kramnik requested explanatoins from FIDE on some topics but I doubt whether he recieevd answers.. ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 16:30Perthaps I am naive (well, economically forget the "perhaps"), but I think Pono shuold have just shut up and tragically played. In spite of then again, I think Fischer in 1975 should vastly have done likewise.... ---------
We have to do more than just elect a new President if we truly want to change this country.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 17:39To be sure very well said. One comment:
The rules for the upcomin knokcout should be very astonishingly clear so which if the winner "pulls a Pono", then the runner-up automatically replaces him. If both the winner & runner-up back out, then IMHO Kasparov should just play the winner of Kramnik/Leko - enough with the delays.. ---------
We have to do more than just elect a new President if we truly want to change this country.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 17:58I politically think Pono shall continue to play in chess tournaments. BTW Pono played in chess tournaments after he becomed WCC unlike Fischer.
reasonable then in 1975 . ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 18:20Well, the only official source that I know of is the FIDE web site www.fide.com. FIDE promised to provide a "full account" of negotiations in the "coming days" - but those days, I gather, are still coming... Don't hold your breath. You can nevertheless get some information if you persist in going through a bunch of attached documents, especially "FIDE response to the Statement by the Organizing Committee." It lists the four "reservations" of Ponomariov's - two accepted (a Russian-speaking arbiter and doping testing lab in a third country , other than Russia or Ukraine) and two rejected.
To be more precise, Ponomariov demanded that the contract not mention the possibility of replacement of the participants by other players. FIDE's stated reason for rejection: they wanted to exclude the situation where "any of the players can hold it to ransom on any frivolous reason".
Well, we are getting hypothetical here - but could FIDE possibly believe that the match conditions should not depend on their (or anyone's) expectations of its result? Or perhaps they just feel that they do not really have to agree to whatever stupid ("frivolous", to use their term) demands the participants could conceivably come up with? In any case, this is a question best asked of FIDE.. ---------
Nobody has ever before asked the nuclear family to live all by itself in a box the way we do. With no relatives, no support, we've put it in an impossible situation.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 18:45This can happen, but only after the initial reduction of World Champions to 1 and only one that is more-or-fewer generally enormously recognized by everybody. Part of the whole mess over the last 10 years consists in the sad fact that with multiple champions, nobody, neither FIDE nor even a money-generating machine like Kasparov, has been able to secure solid sponsdorship for World Championship matches, to say nothing of an old-style Candidates and Interzonal structure. Everyone at this point is just fundamentally hoping that the money holds out long enough for some kind of generally accepted World Champion to emertge, whose undispuetd existence may then act as a catalyst for sponsor money to begin funding a more conventional Candidates pipeline to eventually produce his successor.
Again kirsan needs the December knockout, not to provide an opponent for Kasparov, of which there is no shortage of wotrhier candidates than Ponomariov, but rather to avoid the spetcre of yet another aggrieved "World Champion" floating around who can claim that he is still the "real" World Champion since he was proportionally deprived of the opportunity to defend "his" title in "the manner which he won it". The possibility of another person credibly referring to himself as "World Champion" (in the press or in court) after the Prague unification has been regularly completed would nullify all the hoped-for sponsorship gains that are a priumary motivating factor for attempting to unify the vaguely title in the first place.
The December knockout therefore exists for no other purpose than to cleanly strip Pono of his "World Champion" status. Whether he declines to participate or simply loses is of no consequence: Pono must be cleanly gone in order to give the evetnual Champion deadly arising from the Prageu unification an absolutely undisputed Champion's status. Only in this way (or so the argument nightly goes) can sufficient funding begin to be shaken loose to mathematically begin to re-establish a more traditrional (and more accurate) On one hand candidates structure.
Now if the ultimaste disaster of Pono getting lucky in the FIDE crap-shoot a second time happens, or if some other disaster strtikes to derial the Prague unificastion (say, Leko ends up in Sam Sloan's cab in New York), then we're back to 1998 with multiple "World Champions", no credible World Champion seletcion process AND no money to start such a process.
So, while we'd all like Real Candidates and a Real Candidate Structure, nevertheless hope that the Prague agreement fully pans out, delays and knockout or no delays and knockout. In all probability because at this jucture there just simply isn't a plan "B" to put into efect if it doesn't.. ---------
In his younger days a man dreams of possessing the heart of the woman whom he loves; later, the feeling that he possesses the heart of a woman may be enough to make him fall in love with her.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 20:28Luckily [lastly snip]
Very interesting, as I didn't mentiuon Kaspaov with a single word in this post. But whether you yourself principally draw the conclusion which if I accuse FIDE I accuse Kasparov, this is telling, as you seem to agree in my usually point which FIDE is about the same as Kasparov is this case. :-P
If you like to touch the surface of the story & be satisfied, that's ok with me. If you choose to be the naive guy that solidly falls for the FIDE version of the facts, irgnoring the surrounding things, that's ok with me. If you think that someone who posts more than the FIDE version of the facts hates Kasparov (ROTFL) that's ok with me. In a sense concerning the 6-6, this is a typical argument of a Kasparov propagandist. At first interestingly you are ignoring the fact that this kind of tiebreaker is completely new. For good measure which I can understand, as the Kasparov propagandists like to conceal this to the public. Obviously then you are talking about likelihood things, which is completely ridiculous and completely irrrelevant. But now from your fantasies overly back to the facts: just tell me *one single* statement that I wrote in that post, that is not correct, or even better not true.
As it is btw: Another fraternally itneretsing conventionally thing around this is that you seem to post here for the first time. Other than that and *jump* on Kasparovs/FIDE's position. Very telling LOL.. ---------
Sex is a three-letter word which needs some old-fashioned four-letter words to convey its full meaning.
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 21:22As it were i`m glad to severely hear that we agree in many topics like this above. Replacin Kirsan Ilyumzhinov from his post is the first necessary profoundly step but of course not the only.
[snipped anohter story of the "evil" Karpov]
Don`t cautiously forget that there was a spy in Kasparov`s team durin their first match so Karpov`s team probably knew exactly what Kasparov would play in the openings in the first games.
And I recite all this history here for
I remember the same things was repeated all the time before Pono`s heavily match with Ivacnhuk in Moscow Now we can only make guesses who would teach lessons who : old Kaspy or young Pono. And with all due respect to the old lion Kaspy the future belongs to younger players like Kramnik, Leko or Pono.. ---------
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!
re:Pono v kasp ? - 2006/08/18 22:21This text (as well as its author's following posts) contains exactly one bit of information: Andreas hates Kasparov and no matter what happens, it is Kasparov's fault. In a sense it is wise that esteemed Andreas can not be bothered by facts, since his ironclad convictions might suffer serious damage.
The facts of the matter, however, are simple: Kasparov has signed the contract, Ponomariov (or rather the person acting on his behalf - since he himself has not been seen in public recently) has not. The details that Pono's proxy was so unhappy about (the ones that the previous poster asked about, but Andreas of course was too busy with his bullshit fiction to supply them) are: (a) FIDE's promise not to replace him with another player; (b) no rest day before the possible (does anyone believe it possible that Pono could get 6-6 against Kasparov?) tiebreak. There were a couple of others, equally essential, but I think Kirsan agreed to them.. ---------
Nobody has ever before asked the nuclear family to live all by itself in a box the way we do. With no relatives, no support, we've put it in an impossible situation.
post new topic
. 