QUOTE: "there may be some room to argue the point, but please review the record of Capa before mentioning him in the same company as those three.  Even Steinitz and Lasker should be placed ahead of Capa."

Wow, that was a surprise.  First of all, I didn't mention Capablanca at all except to say he was my favorite.  I didn't mention his relation to Kasparov, Karpov, or Fischer in terms of ability at all.    

In another thread on the "Greatest Player of all time", I argued that while Morphy deserves more respect than was being afforded to him, and that Fischer is an intelligent choice as the greatest, I personally think of Kasparov as the greatest player of all time.  I mentioned Kasparov's incredible record, his wonderful matches against Karpov, and the fact that he maintained #1 in the World for 20 years and defended his title many times (whereas Fischer walked away).

I didn't mention Capablanca at all when arguing who was the greatest player.  I just like the guy's style.  If I had a choice between playing a game with Kasparov or a game with Capablanca I'd choose the latter.  But I still think Kasparov is the better chess player (partially because of the tremendous work ethic you alluded to).  Also, Kasparov is a much better technical player than he is credited for.  He won many endgames with just a slight edge against guys like Karpov, Ulf Andersson, Smylov, etc.  He also defended brilliantly when called upon to do so.
But all this is beside the point...'favorite player' and 'greatest player' are two seperate things all together.  Just as I'd pick Fischer to win in a match against Lasker, but I'd be cheering for Lasker....

So, I'm a little unsure why you're telling me about how lazy Capablanca was and how Steinitz and Lasker should be placed ahead of him.  I didn't place him ahead of anybody except as my personal favorite; and I can't presume that you're actually trying to tell me who I should prefer as my own personal favorite player??  Just as I doubt you think of Smyslov is the strongest player of all time (or MNb's Spielmann affinity).

I never argued that Capablanca was a better player than any other player (though he is certainly better than most).   
Sorry for any misunderstanding between us; although I'm sure your post is made mostly in jest.
Still, I have nothing but respect for you and your opinions.   
All this means that I'm afraid the bulk of the tongue lashing was meant for poor Dragan Glas. 

Cheers,
Nietzsche

PS - I must also assume you weren't referring to me when you suggested I "review the record of Capa before mentioning him in the same company as those three."  As I never mentioned him in such a way and I'm quite familiar with his record (the guy IS my favorite player after all...).  And for people who do want to learn more about Capablanca the man, I heartily recommend Edgar Winter's book (which I bought for a mere $6 at a used book store...see the Gods repay true faith).

Quote:

I'm sure it was not calculated this way, but a very favorable consequence of Topalov's post-San Luis, disparaging remarks about Kramnik's worthiness is the heightened interest in the outcome of this match (actually, I'm not so sure this was entirely uncalculated...).

Quote:

Q.E.D.  

Since San Luis Topalov has looked almost mortal.  Topalov brings to the table two really strong ingredients (apart from his style):   

a) he obviously works very hard before tournaments (and presumably matches) that he considers special

b) his fighting spirit is really great.  He won games from even positions against some of the best players in the world in San Luis.

Kramnik, even during his match with Kasparov, let a few wins go.  Granted, he was always pressing Kasparov, and wasn't intimidated by him.  I doubt Kramnik will be intimidated this time.  Kramnik was listed by Time magazine as one of the top 10 sportsmen of the year in 2000 because he trained seriously and performed magnificently.

This is the most important chess event of Kramnik's life.  Yes, his match with Kasparov helped to make his reputation, but there was such an air of inevitability about that one that even if Kramnik didn't win in 2000, one felt that he would win eventually.  His close match with Leko was exciting, but again, he was expected by most pundits to win that one.

This time, Kramnik needs to win against Topalov to validate his own claim to the World title and his decision not to participate in various FIDE sponsored "championship" tournaments.  Topalov has the disadvantage of having won a title only to find that it wasn't real.  Now he has to gird himself for another, more difficult battle knowing that if he loses he won't be able to defend his title.

Keano wrote on 07/20/06 at 13:40:05:


Oh, I don't think these statistics mean a great deal at all.  There's little question that Topalov's game improved markedly over the last year, while Kramnik's fell off.  While the statistics aren't especially telling, some of the games, however, are.  It would appear that in rapid games, Topalov has a much easier time getting the kinds of positions he likes against Kramnik, while Kramnik makes it difficult for Topalov to play his dynamic game in longer time controls.  It is striking to see how effectively Kramnik snuffed the life out of Topalov's positions...

I agree with SCHOLAR.........
Topalov shouldn't have made those remarks about Kramnik being unworthy.
I think those remarks is a real blemish.
Kramnik, being a real gentleman, hasn't responded to those remarks by Topalov.

For me, a Kramnik win would probably be the best thing for chess in general for two reasons:

First: it will renew the discussion of match-play championships.  I really believe that this is the best way to determine a champion.  You can use tournaments to whittle down the number of candidates as Seirawan and Sonas have suggested, but they agree that a match for the championship is the best way to determine that the best player is champion.

Second:  A Kramnik win would revitalize the chess scene.  Topalov wouldn't appear invincible, FIDE would have to reconsider what to do with its tournament, and Anand would enter into the equation as a wild card just before the next generation of great players start pushing these guys out.  It would encourage organizers to put up money for more tournaments with the Big Three (K-A-T) and the next tier of players fighting it out.  I think that a Topalov victory would encourage a stagnant status quo.

Health issues and recent form notwithstanding, Kramnik has an impressive +10 record against Topalov over the course of their careers, according to ChessBase.  That doesn't take out rapid games, etc., but Topalov has a +1 score against Kramnik when Topalov is White, while Kramnik's +11 score with the White pieces is rather startling, especially when you notice that in two recent losses with the White pieces (at Corus 2005 and Sofia MTel 2005), Kramnik played 1 e4.  Kramnik's only other loss with White to Topalov came in 2000 at the Amber Rapids.

To make matters worse, the last time Topalov beat Kramnik with White at a regular time setting was in 1996 at Las Palmas (and earlier that year in Novgorod).  Topalov seems to have an advantage in rapid play games, but I don't know how much stock you want to put in those for the match...

It's a million dollar question..........So after thinking about it a long time, I now think that Kramnik might win the match up after all (though Topalov's current rating is very high), due to his long time mastery of strategic chess. Topalov is a superb tactitian, but Kramnik is sure to be prepared against him, and will most probably dump his lesser successful lines, to unleash his sound repertoire.
We can expect some super games if the match takes place.