Not so smart (Kasparov, Computers and chess)

The Economist ^ | Jan 30th 2003

[jgorris]

He lost to Krammnik in the World Title Match. Deal with it.

Kasparov is the highest rated player. Deal with it.

So because it's not FIDE, your assertion is that somehow it's not legitimate?

Don't take my work for it, go ask FIDE and Ruslan Ponomariov.

Krammnik was in his late teens when he lost many of those matches, and Krasparov was in his prime.

OK, following your logic, Kramnik is the one now in his prime and Kasparov is not. Therefore, Kramnik should now be dominating Kasparov, but he is not-- neither in terms of rating (which is a measure of playing strength) nor in terms of games against Garry.

Whatever. Hopefully we will see a re-unification match (which all three parties, Ponomariov, Kramnik and Kasparov have already committed to) and the question of who is the real world champion will be decided.

[MHGinTN]

The game to which I'm referring is one played by Fischer in the US Championship, 1956, I think, against Donald Byrne. He made a Queen sacrifice at about move 17 or 18 an mated his opponent in 24 more moves, forcing the action with six or seven checks culminating in mate at about move 41 or 42! I may have confused the name with another game of nearly equal brilliance ... Fischer played so many brilliant games, it is hard to keep them all in mind.

[Mr. Mojo]

Hopefully we will see a re-unification match (which all three parties, Ponomariov, Kramnik and Kasparov have already committed to) and the question of who is the real world champion will be decided.

I'd like to see that. Who do you think would (or will) win?