Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 17th 05, 01:56 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default World Champion Formats makes for Different World Champions?

World Champion Formats makes for Different World Champions?


Dear Phil,

I would like to put this into context. They played 14 games rather
than 28, and they played at a faster time limit without adjournments. I
don't accept the idea that Toppy showed he could maintain it for a long
period against 2700 competition. The ratings are inflated, though that
goes for all. But the event should have been longer.



---------
My opinion Larry is that the quality of chess would have fallen off if there
had been many more games in this format [every round a different opponent]
but that those on form would continue to have stayed ahead of those who were
not, and by the same proportion.

Contrasting this with classical championships is to also contrast the
different systems of round-robin games with match play. To amplify or dilate
on this difference:-

Fischer in his prime may not have done well in this championship, being
a slow starter, but against Spassky being 2 games down out of 2 was no
inhibition to success, once the player had 'played himself in'.

In many ways that sort of chess is superior as a long test of worth between
two top players, but it is difficult to think that we will ever see it
again.

You cannot like my pragmatic comment that this W Ch series produced a
respectable W Ch after so many years, and indeed it is no comparison to
previous world championships which used a match-play model - only to recent
attempts to produce a champion. At least those players who could fairly be
said to represent the top current performers were in attendance, and the
Libyan event cast into its proper perspective by virtue of the relative poor
performances of Kasim and Adams.

I write sometimes with a W Ch contender and he says that the round-a-day
regimen of modern chess against a different player is 'brutal', and though
it is some test of skill, it does not invoke top flights of chess
imagination.

I even speculated below that if Kasparov had played that he would not have
inhibited the winner's success - but that is a comment on the format - and I
would [perhaps idly] speculate that in match-play Kasparov would have beaten
any player in the group.

A challenge for a new [?] Fide president will be to assess if there is
sufficient confidence to re-instate the classical style of match play, and
consequently if there is enough funding for it, indeed, if such confidence
would remain steady during a long zonal qualification period.

Otherwise I accept your remark as being a pertinent criticism of the format,
without for me taking anything away from the winner, and hope for better
since hope is all there is.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Yours, Larry



  #2   Report Post  
Old October 17th 05, 06:06 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default World Champion Formats makes for Different World Champions?

Dear Phil,

I would like to put this into context. They played 14 games rather
than 28, and they played at a faster time limit without adjournments. I
don't accept the idea that Toppy showed he could maintain it for a long
period against 2700 competition. The ratings are inflated, though that
goes for all. But the event should have been longer.


Here is a text by some strong players to illustrate what Larry Parr and I
are comparing, and these comments are a [Turkish word] Taqquiyah, 'arguing
for the other side' :-

"I had a talk with Beliavsky in Frankfurt about how the information boom
and the almost unlimited opportunities to play in tournaments affected
chess. I said to him what I still think about: some progress has definitely
been made since 1970, but it was far less than one would expect, bearing in
mind the duration of time and the above-mentioned circumstances.

Sasha in his turn, was brief: 'the level of games is lower today'.

Certainly no one can claim, without becoming an object of ridicule, that
we have more 'giants' now than in 1970: just think of Fischer, Spassky,
Korchnoi, Petrosian, Portisch, Polugajevsky, Larsen, Olafsson, Gligoric,
Uhlmann, and I am only stopping for breath..."

This excerpts come from a title under review by Andras Adorjan, /Black is
Okay forever/, which might as well have been titled:

Thesis on Creativity.

Phil Innes


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Topalov is World Champion Angelo DePalma rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 5 October 15th 05 07:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017