 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics ChessKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Chess Forum / General Topics / October 2004Kramnik or Euwe
If Kramnik loses to Leko would he be considered the weakest player to ever win the World title? I know many unanimously believe that Euwe was the weakest player to ever win the world title but if Kramnik loses this match I think he would be considered the weakest player to ever win the title. Any thoughts? EZoto > If Kramnik loses to Leko would he be considered the weakest player to > ever win the World title? I know many unanimously believe that Euwe [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > EZoto There may be many flaws in the rating system but from July 01 to April 03 Kramnik was FIDE rated over 2800 (iirc he's the only other player apart from Kasparov to break 2800). In the 16 game match against Kasparov he did not lose a single game. You might not like his style. I might not like his style. But I think it's pushing it way too far to say he's weak. 'Reaching the top is easy. Staying there is the hard part.' Maybe Kramnik no longer has the absolute drive or focus now he's achieved his goal. He's still competing at the highest level because he obviously has world class ability but aiui Kramnik lost Game 8 against Leko because one move beyond his preparation there was a bust. It seems hard to believe that the Kramnik who prepared for the match against Kasparov would have allowed that to happen. Is there such a thing as a weak World Champion? Smyslov? cheers dd > Is there such a thing as a weak World Champion? Smyslov? > > cheers > > dd Smyslov? Find some opinions of very strong players disparaging Smyslov's chess ability. Good luck. Is there such a thing as a weak World Champion?No there is not. Smyslov? Smyslov was the dominant player in the early to mid 50's.He won TWO Candidates tournaments,drew Botvinnik and then beat him in World Championship Match play.If you include all 3 Matches, Smyslov out scored Botvinnik overall in the 3 Title Matches..I would not vote for Smyslov as the weakest World Champ. > Is there such a thing as a weak World Champion?No there is not. Smyslov? > > Smyslov was the dominant player in the early to mid 50's.He won TWO Candidates > tournaments,drew Botvinnik and then beat him in World Championship Match > play.If you include all 3 Matches, Smyslov out scored Botvinnik overall in the > 3 Title Matches..I would not vote for Smyslov as the weakest World Champ. And let's not forget Smyslov's advance to the candidate's finals (1983?) when he was in his 60's. It took Kasparov to stop him. > > Is there such a thing as a weak World Champion?No there is not. Smyslov? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And let's not forget Smyslov's advance to the candidate's finals > (1983?) when he was in his 60's. It took Kasparov to stop him. What was Smislov's first monca, his patronym in effect?.. >> I know many unanimously believe that Euwe was the weakest player to ever win the world title >> "many unanimously believe"?? Only all can believe unanimously. If even one of the many believes otherwise, it is not unanimous. Questions like this have little point. Using the word "weak" in reference to a world champion seems something of an oxymoron, like asking "Who was more stupid, Newton or Einstein?". > >> I know many unanimously believe that Euwe was the weakest player to > ever win the world title >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reference to a world champion seems something of an oxymoron, like > asking "Who was more stupid, Newton or Einstein?". It would be nice if you two fruitcakes would deal with the content of what was posted instead of trying to appear intelligent by being efficient little clerks and pointing out typos, spelling / grammatical errors, etc. Jason > It would be nice if you two fruitcakes would deal with the content of what > was posted instead of trying to appear intelligent by being efficient little > clerks and pointing out typos, spelling / grammatical errors, etc. > It would be nice if those who wish to support misuse of the English language could do so in a civil manner rather than with insult. It would also be nice if, before they criticise for supposedly not 'dealing with the content of what was posted', they would note that my post actually does deal with the matter in question. For what it's worth, my choice for 'weakest' world champion: Tal. Probably couldn't bench-press much over 100 pounds. In terms of what he accomplished as world champion, the weakest is obviously Fischer. Warren, if you're too stupid to understand and reply to the actual topic being discussed, perhaps a chess newsgroup is not for you. I speak for alot of us when I tell you to keep your spelling tutorials to yourself. Jason > > It would be nice if you two fruitcakes would deal with the content of what > > was posted instead of trying to appear intelligent by being efficient little [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Probably couldn't bench-press much over 100 pounds. In terms of what > he accomplished as world champion, the weakest is obviously Fischer. > Warren, if you're too stupid to understand and reply to the actual topic > being discussed, perhaps a chess newsgroup is not for you. I speak for alot > of us when I tell you to keep your spelling tutorials to yourself. Thank you for your kind message. While I too prefer to concentrate on chess topics, I will probably continue the tutorials from time to time. It's clear that 'alot' of you need them. > I will probably continue the tutorials from time to >time. It's clear that 'alot' of you need them. Keep them there tutorials commin'. It is clear that a lot of us need them. No body knows all there is to know about grammar and punctuation. Those of us who write about history and chess and math and English need to keep our hand in the game. You're not a bad person if you can not remember if a question mark should be placed inside or outside of quotation marks. I have learned to live with poor subject verb agreement and pronoun references but I still don't like it. I'm not talking about typos I'm talking (even though I'm actually writing) about how you use the language when you actually open your mouth to venture to speak. So let's not call people who have something serious to say about language which ever it is silly little clerk. Let's take it to heart and mixing our methaphores if the shoe fits wear it. > So let's not call people who have something serious to say about language which > ever it is silly little clerk. Let's take it to heart and mixing our > methaphores if the shoe fits wear it. Yes, that's right - because, even though a picture is worth a thousand words, at the end of the day and in the fullness of time, when all is said and done it goes without saying that this not only makes the best of a bad bunch but also, in a very real sense, takes into account all sides of the argument and thus can achieve the best of both worlds. :-) Opined "Eamon Warnock" ewarnock@gz.cngb.com >Yes, that's right - because, even though a picture is worth a thousand >words, at the end of >the day and in the fullness of time, when all is said and done it goes >without saying that this not only makes the best of a bad bunch >but also, in a very real sense, takes into account all sides of the >argument and thus can achieve the best of both worlds. :-) That way you don't have to be a flip flopper. You can be a "flop flop flopper" or a "flip flip flipper". Remember not everyone gets an AOL "me too". They have to be earned. Those of us who have faith in AOL call them an " AOL AMEN". The fence is a very good place to be unless it's in front of the Alamo. > Opined "Eamon Warnock" ewarnock@gz.cngb.com > >Yes, that's right - because, even though a picture is worth a thousand [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The fence is a very good place to be unless it's in front of the Alamo. Eue! no flap flap? - anyways, does anyone know Smyslov's christian 'monica'?.. The following post contains some f.cking swearing > Using the word "weak" in > reference to a world champion seems something of an oxymoron, like > asking "Who was more stupid, Newton or Einstein?". IT'S NOT A f.cking OXYMORON. IT'S A f.cking CONTRADICTION IN f.cking TERMS. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT f.cking THINGS (FOR NOW). f.cking PSEUDO f.cking INTELLECTUALS. f.ck ME. OH AND BTW f.cking SERENDIPITY ISN'T f.cking SYNONYMOUS WITH f.cking GOOD f.cking LUCK EITHER. There. That feels a lot better now. cheers dd > EZoto <euclides@eznet4u.com> wrote in message >> I know many unanimously believe that Euwe was the weakest player to >> ever win the world title > > "many unanimously believe"?? Only all can believe unanimously. If > even one of the many believes otherwise, it is not unanimous. "Many unanimously believe" means "there is a large group of people, all of whom believe". As such, it is equivalent to "many believe". Dave.  SignatureDavid Richerby Solar-Powered Frozen Chainsaw (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a lethal weapon but it's frozen in a block of ice and it doesn't work in the dark! > > EZoto <euclides@eznet4u.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > large group of people, all of whom believe". > As such, it is equivalent to "many believe". Your opinion on that is extremely unique! SignatureJohn Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes > "Many unanimously believe" means "there is a large group of people, all of whom believe". As such, it is equivalent to "many believe". > Be careful, or Jason will call you a fruitcake for going off on this grammatical tangent. Your post is a good try, but I must respectfully demur. Accepting your logic, 'unanimously' is completely redundant in Mr. Zoto's sentence. It amounts to saying 'Of people who believe X, 100% believe X'. The point I am making is that 'many' and 'unanimously' are mutually exclusive. Though not diametric opposites they describe distinct, different conditions. They cannot apply to the same thing at the same time. It's like saying 'He is always there most of the time' or 'God is omnipresent in some places'. I would guess what Mr. Zoto meant to say was 'many strongly believe' or some such. > If Kramnik loses to Leko would he be considered the weakest player to > ever win the World title? I know many unanimously believe that Euwe > was the weakest player to ever win the world title but if Kramnik > loses this match I think he would be considered the weakest player to > ever win the title. Any thoughts? In my experience, a usenet poster who says things like "I know many unanimously believe" really means "I believe." It would be nice if you two fruitcakes would deal with the content of what was posted instead of trying to appear intelligent by being efficient little clerks and pointing out typos, spelling / grammatical errors, etc. Jason > > If Kramnik loses to Leko would he be considered the weakest player to > > ever win the World title? I know many unanimously believe that Euwe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In my experience, a usenet poster who says things like "I know many > unanimously believe" really means "I believe." > If Kramnik loses to Leko would he be considered the weakest player to > ever win the World title? I know many unanimously believe that Euwe [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > EZoto You gotta give credit to the person who beat the previously unbeatable Kasparov. If the verdict is that Kramnik has faded since 2000, perhaps the answer will be Leko. After all he is only, what, #6 in the world? Still, time will tell. Besides Euwe, I've read an argument that the weakest WC was Tal; (argument basically being that he was (relatively) weak in match play but he finished ahead of Keres in the Candidates due to the round-robin format, then ran into an out-of-form Botvinnik). (Not saying I agree, just that I've read a strong player offering that opinion). -- Regards, Peter Ballard Adelaide, AUSTRALIA pballard@ozemail.com.au http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/ > If Kramnik loses to Leko would he be considered the weakest player to > ever win the World title? I know many unanimously believe that Euwe > was the weakest player to ever win the world title but if Kramnik > loses this match I think he would be considered the weakest player to > ever win the title. Any thoughts? Kasimdzhanov. Or have we given up on that FIDE championship thing? Dave. SignatureDavid Richerby Homicidal Tree (TM): it's like a tree www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it wants to kill you! > Kasimdzhanov. Or have we given up on that FIDE championship thing? Yes, we have, a long time ago. Hans J |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.