Crime and Punishment: Grischuk vs Kramnik

Sort:
philidorposition
nxavar wrote:
philidor_position wrote:

It was precisely Kasparov who drew with white in their match twice very shortly, one in 14 moves and one in 11 moves, so you don't know what you're talking about. Kramnik held confidently with black and pressed with white, winning 2 games without losing any, so he was simply his usual self. There's no "switching roles" here.


 If you check the games of that match you'll notice that Kasparov drew in such a few moves while being at least one point behind. So I'd say that he drew because he was sick of Krammnik's drawing strategy, especially when the second one was on Krammnik's 5th (!) Berlin Wall.


Is Berlin Wall something outside of chess? Is it cheating? Have I missed that rule? You either find a way to challenge it, or try your luck else where, like the scotch, the english, reti, whatever. If you think defending with the Berlin against a pressing Kasparov is an easy task, you really don't know much about chess. It is in fact the opposite of "safe," it contains a serious risk, you simply succumb to playing an inferior endgame, against the best player to have ever lived in the history of chess. It is by no means an easy draw.

The non-games and short draws with white in that match were played by a psychologically weakened Kasparov, not the Kramnik as you suggest in your posts.

So yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.

nxavar
philidor_position wrote:
nxavar wrote:
philidor_position wrote:

It was precisely Kasparov who drew with white in their match twice very shortly, one in 14 moves and one in 11 moves, so you don't know what you're talking about. Kramnik held confidently with black and pressed with white, winning 2 games without losing any, so he was simply his usual self. There's no "switching roles" here.


 If you check the games of that match you'll notice that Kasparov drew in such a few moves while being at least one point behind. So I'd say that he drew because he was sick of Krammnik's drawing strategy, especially when the second one was on Krammnik's 5th (!) Berlin Wall.


Is Berlin Wall something outside of chess? Is it cheating? Have I missed that rule? You either find a way to challenge it, or try your luck else where, like the scotch, the english, reti, whatever. If you think defending with the Berlin against a pressing Kasparov is an easy task, you really don't know much about chess. It is in fact the opposite of "safe," it contains a serious risk, you simply succumb to playing an inferior endgame, against the best player to have ever lived in the history of chess. It is by no means an easy draw.

The non-games and short draws with white in that match were played by a psychologically weakened Kasparov, not the Kramnik as you suggest in your posts.

So yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.


 Nevertheless you did seem to implicitly accept that Krammnik was indeed playing for a draw when using the Berlin Wall. Which makes your whole argument quite feeble.

happyfanatic
jesterville wrote:

...so far "the Candidates" has been a great disappointment...and I also agree with "reb"...the classical championship should be settled by long play...the problem of course is money...so I am not certain that any solution will be found soon...

I don't think that's really the problem myself.  If they held the candidates matches with less money, grandmasters would still be competing to play in it.

philidorposition
nxavar wrote:
philidor_position wrote:
nxavar wrote:
philidor_position wrote:

It was precisely Kasparov who drew with white in their match twice very shortly, one in 14 moves and one in 11 moves, so you don't know what you're talking about. Kramnik held confidently with black and pressed with white, winning 2 games without losing any, so he was simply his usual self. There's no "switching roles" here.


 If you check the games of that match you'll notice that Kasparov drew in such a few moves while being at least one point behind. So I'd say that he drew because he was sick of Krammnik's drawing strategy, especially when the second one was on Krammnik's 5th (!) Berlin Wall.


Is Berlin Wall something outside of chess? Is it cheating? Have I missed that rule? You either find a way to challenge it, or try your luck else where, like the scotch, the english, reti, whatever. If you think defending with the Berlin against a pressing Kasparov is an easy task, you really don't know much about chess. It is in fact the opposite of "safe," it contains a serious risk, you simply succumb to playing an inferior endgame, against the best player to have ever lived in the history of chess. It is by no means an easy draw.

The non-games and short draws with white in that match were played by a psychologically weakened Kasparov, not the Kramnik as you suggest in your posts.

So yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.


 Nevertheless you did seem to implicitly accept that Krammnik was indeed playing for a draw when using the Berlin Wall. Which makes your whole argument quite feeble.


Look. You can't even spell the guys' name. It's not Krammnik, it's Kramnik.

Grischuk played for a draw with black AND WHITE. That's what Kasparov started doing out of frustration with two 15- draws with white. The roles weren't reversed, Kramnik always tried to hold with black and win with white. It was Kasparov who acted like Grischuk, and even worse, because he was losing the match already.

I won't bother myself trying to convince you any more, you really have no idea.

Polar_Bear

Grischuk deserves his victory.

a) Contrary to expectation, Kramnik didn't prove he is better at classic chess, Grischuk proved he is equal (at least).

b) Grischuk proved at blitz he has better nerves.

Thus Grischuk is better player now.

(Although he is indeed worse than Keres, Bronstein, Korchnoi or Karpov were at their prime.)

whyohwhyohwhy
Polar_Bear wrote:

Grischuk deserves his victory.

a) Contrary to expectation, Kramnik didn't prove he is better at classic chess, Grischuk proved he is equal (at least).

b) Grischuk proved at blitz he has better nerves.

Thus Grischuk is better player now.

(Although he is indeed worse than Keres, Bronstein, Korchnoi or Karpov were at their prime.)


Oh dear.

Grischuk proved he is better at blitz. On the other hand, he proved that he is and considers himself weaker at classical chess than Kramnik. So who whould be challenging for the WC in CLASSICAL CHESS?

Several people have said "blame the system" not the player. But Grischuk's drawing behaviour in the (miserably few) 4 classical games is not something most other players would have considered. I must also say that I think Kramnik should at least have forced him to work for the draw rather than accepting after 8 moves.

All in all, let's cheer for Gelfand, who has shown class and depth time and time again, and who richly deserves a shot at the WC at this stage of his career.

nxavar
philidor_position wrote:
nxavar wrote:
philidor_position wrote:
nxavar wrote:
philidor_position wrote:

It was precisely Kasparov who drew with white in their match twice very shortly, one in 14 moves and one in 11 moves, so you don't know what you're talking about. Kramnik held confidently with black and pressed with white, winning 2 games without losing any, so he was simply his usual self. There's no "switching roles" here.


 If you check the games of that match you'll notice that Kasparov drew in such a few moves while being at least one point behind. So I'd say that he drew because he was sick of Krammnik's drawing strategy, especially when the second one was on Krammnik's 5th (!) Berlin Wall.


Is Berlin Wall something outside of chess? Is it cheating? Have I missed that rule? You either find a way to challenge it, or try your luck else where, like the scotch, the english, reti, whatever. If you think defending with the Berlin against a pressing Kasparov is an easy task, you really don't know much about chess. It is in fact the opposite of "safe," it contains a serious risk, you simply succumb to playing an inferior endgame, against the best player to have ever lived in the history of chess. It is by no means an easy draw.

The non-games and short draws with white in that match were played by a psychologically weakened Kasparov, not the Kramnik as you suggest in your posts.

So yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.


 Nevertheless you did seem to implicitly accept that Krammnik was indeed playing for a draw when using the Berlin Wall. Which makes your whole argument quite feeble.


Look. You can't even spell the guys' name. It's not Krammnik, it's Kramnik.

Grischuk played for a draw with black AND WHITE. That's what Kasparov started doing out of frustration with two 15- draws with white. The roles weren't reversed, Kramnik always tried to hold with black and win with white. It was Kasparov who acted like Grischuk, and even worse, because he was losing the match already.

I won't bother myself trying to convince you any more, you really have no idea.


 OK, Kramnik was just drawing with black while Grischuk was drawing with both colours. You do have to take into account though that Kramnik HAD to win if he wanted the title while Grischuk didn't since there was the option of tie-breaks. I'd say Kramnik was as drawish as he could. Kasparov didn't look like he was giving away the white pieces games either. 2 out of 8 games were quick draws, the one on the 5th Berlin Wall and with Kasparov being behind both times (draws would give him nothing)... doesn't seem to me like Kasparov was the one with the draw strategy. You are clearly misinterpreting the quick draws and completely ignoring the draw-intended nature of Berlin Defence usage.

bondocel

I don't know what format would work. I don't think it would be interesting to have 10 games with Kramnik and Grishuck drawing after 8 moves. Perhaps the best alternative is a large swiss tournament. Those who don't play and take early draws will end up in the middle and not on the top.

What puzzles me is that Kramnik didn't push for a win in the classical games and in rapids. OK, the fourth classical game was an exception. He knew that his opponent is stronger in blitz.

KostasRallis

Well the challenger of the title should be decided by a 8 (or something) top quallyfied players tournament, With the classic tie break system. The winner of this tournament (If same points then the wins count more simple tie break stuff etc) should be challenge the world champion in a 25 game match. (or something like that.) Its practically impossible to have 25 draws. If so that happens anyway, see you next year with a new 25 game match. Someday someone will win and voila the new world champion. Then 2 years of Qualifiying and blabla its goes on like this.

No stupid blitz rapid shit.

Polar_Bear

I have several points to add.

I spent wasting my time in the past trying to convince forum contributors (not here) that Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov and Khalifman are former full-fledged World Champions, not just "some FIDE Champions".

The Abdera in the WCh was a result of Kasparov's infamous work. Later he regretted it, but too late.

Kramnik is overrated, because he won one match against Kasparov. I don't consider this match as World Championship, because:

- FIDE had another champion at that time and it wasn't Kasparov

- outside of FIDE, challenger should have been Shirov, who had won a match vs Kramnik, but Kasparov refused to play him.

Thus Kramnik was never holding World Champion title, at least not in my eyes. Anand and Shirov were always better and so were the so-called "FIDE champions". Moreover, Kramnik is fading now.

The X-round-robin candidate tournament has to be avoided, because friends and players from the same country would cheat by short draws, saving their energy for other serious opponents (that was happening already in Zurich 1953 and Curacao 1962) and players on the tail could lose motivation and become prone to throwing games to their friends and players from the same country.

Blitz takes place only when both classic and rapid come out undecided. I think it is fair.

TheOldReb

Maybe there will be no money for a match between Anand and Grischuk or Gelfand or Anand will refuse to play either of them and we will see an Anand - Carlsen match  ?  I think this is what the world wants to see most and I think the money would be raised ... however , Anand is too nice a guy and he will do as he is expected to do I fear...... he is not a jerk like Kasparov. 

ChessMarkstheSpot

  The true crime and punishment here is the event as a whole. Making chess fans and even the people holding and sponsoring this tournament forcing them to go through this charade is the true crime being done. I've been very vocal and vehement about this entire tournament. Yes the show must go on and there has to be a winner, but there are no winners here in my mind. 

   Just saying what I feel.

  -Mark

Polar_Bear
Estragon wrote:

FIDE never owned the World Championship.  When Alekhine died, they were the appropriate body to organize the World Championship Tournament of 1948 to determine his successor, but the World Championship title belongs to the holder more than to FIDE.  They never were an impartial arbiter of the rules; the phony system worked fine as long as Soviets held the title and Soviets and their clients controlled FIDE.

If Fischer had been willing to play matches outside of FIDE auspices after 1972, no one would have seriously doubted he retained the title.  Instead, he pouted and stayed home, and let the title get back into their grasp.  Kasparov merely did what Fischer should have, although his fanatic need to control every aspect of the organization led to the failure of his upstart groups GMA and PCA.

Kramnik beat Kasparov.  He won the title.  Eventually Anand beat him in a match to claim the title.

Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov and Khalifman won very strong tournaments, but none of them was even at the level of a viable Challenger when they did so, and none showed any signs of a World Champion following their victories in these FIDE events. None of them were in the elite class with Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Yusapov, Anand, or Short.

Shirov got screwed doubly - the way those matches were set up, you got paid when you lost.  Kramnik was paid for losing to Shirov, I think it was $125,000, but because the title match never took place Shirov never got a dime for winning three matches. 

Was that a travesty and miscarriage of justice, and outrageous behavior on Kasparov's part not to give Shirov at least the next chance at a match?  Yes.  So was Alekhine's ducking of a rematch with Capablanca.  So was Kramnik's ducking of a rematch with Kasparov.  Life isn't fair, neither is chess.  Pull up your big girl panties and deal with it.


Not true. You are confusing it with Lasker's era. FIDE owns rights to run WCh and declare Champion.

FIDE & Soviets would. Fischer's private activities outside of FIDE nobody except his fans would have taken seriously.

I have come to conclusion this so-called "elite" is a scam. They are just ordinary GMs, only more obsessed with their ratings, so they avoid playing in larger field. Karpov, Short, Korchnoi, Ivanchuk and Adams tried to play in FIDE championships. They failed. So would have Kramnik, but he didn't even try.

That is exactly the reason why World Championship has to be organized by credible international body, not by the champion himself. The Lasker's model became obsolete and was abandoned long time ago. When Kasparov refused to play the match vs Shirov, he lost all credibility.

philidorposition
Polar_Bear wrote:
Estragon wrote:

A world championship a match between the TITLE HOLDER and the challenger for the title. It's as simple as that. Kasparov was world champion and Kramnik beat him to become the next. 

I agree Shirov was treated unfairly, but this was never Kramnik's fault.