Critical of both sides.

"...Topolov was losing at the game and so he switched to
gamesmanship. If the match is aborted he can claim he wasn't defeated
and so maintain his status as FIDE champion. Mr. Kramnik... may walk
of with the same faded title he took from me in 2000... if this chaos
isn't resolved, he can go on to claim 'champion for life' standing
outside of FIDE."

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:52:14 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

Mr. Kramnik... may walk
of with the same faded title he took from me in 2000...

So, that title is "faded" because Kasparov lost it?
---
Replace you know what by j to email

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:17:41 -0400, Jud McCranie
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:52:14 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

Mr. Kramnik... may walk
of with the same faded title he took from me in 2000...

So, that title is "faded" because Kasparov lost it?

He was ticked because he didn't get a rematch.

Uzytkownik "Mike Murray" napisal w wiadomosci
...

Mr. Kramnik... may walk
of with the same faded title he took from me in 2000...

So, that title is "faded" because Kasparov lost it?

He was ticked because he didn't get a rematch.

What`s more Mr.Kramnik wasn`t a legitimate challenger for Mr.Kasparov then.
I mean that he lost in the qualifiers to Mr.Shirov.

Mike Murray wrote:

So, that title is "faded" because Kasparov lost it?

He was ticked because he didn't get a rematch.

Right. Kasparov's world came to a halt in 2000 when he lost.

He conveniently forgets that since then Kramnik has defended his title
against Leko, a well worthy challanger, so this "Topa-toilet-match" is
Kramnik's 3rd WCC.

Kasparov is falling behind the times, he has begun living in his past.
Sad but I guess we all were young and strongonce ...upon a time.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:36:00 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

He was ticked because he didn't get a rematch.

Well, one of the purposes of FIDE was to schedule regular matches for
the championship, in contrast to what was done before.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Jerzy wrote:
"Mike Murray" napisal
Mr. Kramnik... may walk of with the same faded title he took from
me in 2000...

So, that title is "faded" because Kasparov lost it?

He was ticked because he didn't get a rematch.

What`s more Mr. Kramnik wasn`t a legitimate challenger for Mr.
Kasparov then. I mean that he lost in the qualifiers to Mr. Shirov.

I doubt that's Mr Kasparov's point, of course, since Mr Kasparov was
as much at fault there as Mr Kramnik.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Poetic Book (TM): it's like a romantic
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ novel but it's in verse!

wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:

So, that title is "faded" because Kasparov lost it?

He was ticked because he didn't get a rematch.

Right. Kasparov's world came to a halt in 2000 when he lost.

He conveniently forgets that since then Kramnik has defended his
title against Leko, a well worthy challanger, so this
"Topa-toilet-match" is Kramnik's 3rd WCC.

And you conveniently forget that this was a full five years after he
won the title from Kasparov. Not since World War II got in the way
has a World Champion gone so long without defending his title. Well,
unless you count Fischer, at thirty-four years and counting... :-)

Kasparov is falling behind the times, he has begun living in his past.
Sad but I guess we all were young and strongonce ...upon a time.

I think I skipped the `strong'' part.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Crystal Sushi (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a raw fish but it's completely
transparent and full of holes!

In article ,
Jud McCranie wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:36:00 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

He was ticked because he didn't get a rematch.

Well, one of the purposes of FIDE was to schedule regular matches
for the championship, in contrast to what was done before.

Not really. FIDE existed long before they started organizing the
World Championship. That said, FIDE's organization was supposed to
provide the benefit you describe.

But, on the other hand, FIDE fouled up badly in 1985 and were making a
total mess of the `organization' of the 1993 match.


Dave.

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

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jud McCranie wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:36:00 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

He was ticked because he didn't get a rematch.

Well, one of the purposes of FIDE was to schedule regular matches
for the championship, in contrast to what was done before.

Not really. FIDE existed long before they started organizing the
World Championship. That said, FIDE's organization was supposed to
provide the benefit you describe.

But, on the other hand, FIDE fouled up badly in 1985 and were making a
total mess of the `organization' of the 1993 match.


An interesting statistic about the world championship:

Pre-FIDE WC: 17 matches, 11 with challengers who would never become
champion.(65%)
FIDE: ~15 cycles, 3 with challengers (Bronstein once, Korchnoi twice) who would
never become champion (20%)
Post-FIDE WC: 4 matches, 3 with challengers unlikely to ever become champion.
(Short, Anand, Leko) (75%)

While not denying FIDE's foul-ups, nor suggesting that FIDE is uniquely
capable, the evidence is that the traditional FIDE process did a good job
of identifying contenders.