Fischer vs. Kasparov

Main

Date: 09 Nov 2004 04:58:13
From: Ivan
Subject: Fischer vs. Kasparov

Maybe they can let Fischer play Kasparov now to prove that Bobby is
the world champion

Date: 15 Dec 2004 14:26:34
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

In an interview that was published in Chessbase.com, here's what Miyoko
Watai said:

E.M.: What have you brought to him?

Watai: I brought newspapers to him. He refused to read magazines
because he doesn't feel like enjoying magazine articles. I've also
brought some money. Visitors are not allowed to offer detainees food,
but they can ask officials to buy some foods they want to eat. He
bought "natto" fermented soybeans. It's his favorite. He likes eating
natto put on boiled "genmai" brown rice and with miso soup.

He always carries his chess set with him. I'm not sure it's in his
suitcase [that he brought to the Narita airport] or with him in the
detention facility.

More on this link: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1879

Date: 14 Dec 2004 00:29:48
From: Adrian MacNair
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"Ivan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Maybe they can let Fischer play Kasparov now to prove that Bobby is
> the world champion

You should read "Bobby Fischer goes to war". It's a great little book about
the 1972 match (which occured 2 years before I was born). Fischer proved
throughout his life that he was a very difficult person to organize matches
around, and I could only imagine the insanity of getting Fischer (now a
ghost of his former self in a Japanese jail) to play Kasparov. Can you
imagine the thousands of offers of millions of dollars he has received to
play chess since 1972, and only one was accepted!

Let's face it. Fischer is a legend more because he left on top. And despite
all his ranting about Jews and Hitler and 911 and Kasparov being the worst
kind of scum... we still love him for going out #1. Our hero-worshipping
mentalities have placed him on a pedestal above the Kasparovs and Karpovs...
into an immortality which Fischer himself wouldn't want to tamper with. I
have no doubt he thinks he is still World Champion. I have no doubt that
Saddam Hussein still thinks he's President of Iraq. Neither statements are
true, but nobody is going to change either mans opinions of himself.

Fischer was an important part of chess history, and the games he played were
his art. But the artist is dead. Van Gogh doesn't paint anymore. Mozart
isn't going to compose any more symphonies. And Fischer isn't going to play
any more chess, except in rare sightings on ICS and in the dreams of the
many he inspired.

Date: 15 Dec 2004 19:15:18
From: Mogath3
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

>You should read "Bobby Fischer goes to war". It's a great little book about
>the 1972 match (which occured 2 years before I was born).

I read it and can't believe that I did. I already knew everything that happend
during that match from the several books that were written about it 30 years
ago. Just a rehash of old news.
Fischer was used to getting his way because he could. He was a spoiled brat
then and he's a pathetic man now. Boris Spassky would have had every right to
pack up and go home back then and would not have lost any face for it. It's
just too bad that someone didn't tell him "The conditions are perfect.
Everything is in order. If you choose not to play, Spassky can play Petrosian
and you can go home." THAT would have been great! I honestly don't believe that
Fischer could beat Kasparov. Put the both of them in their prime and I'd take
Kasparov. I've heard people say that Kasparov has lost his edge. Why? Because
he's lost a meaningless, yes MEANINGLESS match to a computer and drew twice?
Please. Those matches against the computer are meaningless. The only way those
matches could mean anything is if they were 24 game matches with a 2 1/2 hours
per game time control. First one to score 12 points wins, THATS a match.
Anything else is meaningless exhibition.
WHEW!! Wow, sorry for the rant.....

Regards,
Jeff

Date: 15 Dec 2004 14:36:39
From: John A Swartz
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

> Fischer was used to getting his way because he could. He was a spoiled brat
> then and he's a pathetic man now. Boris Spassky would have had every right to
> pack up and go home back then and would not have lost any face for it.

Agreed. Perhaps this should say as much about how much of a gentleman
Spassky was, despite the fact that many Americans (at least at the time)
would have seen him as one of the "evil Russians".

> It's
> just too bad that someone didn't tell him "The conditions are perfect.
> Everything is in order. If you choose not to play, Spassky can play Petrosian
> and you can go home." THAT would have been great!

Well, I guess you could say they did that in '75 (substitute Karpov and
Korchnoi for Spassky and Petrosian). But, despite Fischer's problems,
his victory over Spassky certainly gave chess a boost in popularity.

> I honestly don't believe that
> Fischer could beat Kasparov. Put the both of them in their prime and I'd take
> Kasparov.

Me too.

> I've heard people say that Kasparov has lost his edge. Why? Because
> he's lost a meaningless, yes MEANINGLESS match to a computer and drew twice?

Maybe because he lost a 16-game match to Kramnik in 2000, 2 losses, no
win, and several seemingly lifeless draws toward the end of the match.

> Please. Those matches against the computer are meaningless. The only way those
> matches could mean anything is if they were 24 game matches with a 2 1/2 hours
> per game time control. First one to score 12 points wins, THATS a match.
> Anything else is meaningless exhibition.

Perhaps - but who has the advantage over the course of 24 games? The
computer that suffers no fatigue, or the human that perhaps can find a
weakness in computer's play and exploit it?

John

Date: 15 Dec 2004 23:52:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

John A Swartz <[email protected] > wrote:
>> I've heard people say that Kasparov has lost his edge. Why? Because
>> he's lost a meaningless, yes MEANINGLESS match to a computer and drew
>> twice?
>
> Maybe because he lost a 16-game match to Kramnik in 2000, 2 losses, no
> win, and several seemingly lifeless draws toward the end of the match.

And his poor showing in the European Club Championships and a fairly
mediocre (by his standards) run of Linares tournaments. Kasparov used to
be near-invincible but now other people are in with a shout, too -- I
think it's fair to say that he's lost his edge but that doesn't stop him
being an extremely strong player, of course.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Electronic Gerbil (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a children's pet but it uses
electricity!

Date: 16 Dec 2004 12:51:28
From: Henri Arsenault
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

In article <8E*[email protected] >, David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:

>And his poor showing in the European Club Championships and a fairly
>mediocre (by his standards) run of Linares tournaments. Kasparov used to
>be near-invincible but now other people are in with a shout, too -- I
>think it's fair to say that he's lost his edge but that doesn't stop him
>being an extremely strong player, of course.
>
His domination of the recent Russian Championship against the strongest
players of any recent tournament showed that the old fire is still there.

Henri

Date: 16 Dec 2004 11:33:13
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (Henri Arsenault) wrote:

> His domination of the recent Russian Championship against the strongest
> players of any recent tournament showed that the old fire is still there.

The difference being that, at his prime, you didn't have to pick and
choose tournaments to find Kasparov at his best.

Now you do.

Again, nobody is saying that he's "weak." Or, at least, I sure hope
nobody's saying that, because that's an absurd statement.

But I do think it's clear that he's not as consistently strong as he
was in the late 80s and early 90s.

-Ron

Date: 17 Dec 2004 12:53:32
From: Henri Arsenault
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

In article <[email protected] >, Ron
<[email protected] > wrote:

> But I do think it's clear that he's not as consistently strong as he
>was in the late 80s and early 90s.
>
That may be the case, but as he says himself, once you reach his position,
the only way is down...

But the fact remains that he still appears to be the strongest player in
the World. I recognize that this statement is difficult to check.

Henri

Date: 17 Dec 2004 11:20:37
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (Henri Arsenault) wrote:

> But the fact remains that he still appears to be the strongest player in
> the World. I recognize that this statement is difficult to check.

His rating has slipped about 30 points over the past four years, for
what it's worth. But rating's are slippery things anyway.

The biggest difference is that you can legitimately say that Kramnik is
stronger than Kasparov -- despite being 50 points down on the rating
list -- because he beat him convincingly in a match.

For the record, I'm not claiming that Kramnik is clearly stronger than
Kasparov -- merely that it's an open question, which both players having
an argument in their favor (rating vs. match results).

From the time he won the championship, it wasn't an open question for
at least ten years. That's all I'm really saying.

Date: 17 Dec 2004 21:13:49
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

En/na Ron ha escrit:

> The biggest difference is that you can legitimately say that Kramnik is
> stronger than Kasparov -- despite being 50 points down on the rating
> list -- because he beat him convincingly in a match.
>
> For the record, I'm not claiming that Kramnik is clearly stronger than
> Kasparov -- merely that it's an open question, which both players having
> an argument in their favor (rating vs. match results).

Kasparov only had bad "results" in that match, .. I suppose you have not
check all the kramnik-Kasparov Games in the last 10 (or 15, or 5) years.

In 2004 two draws, no victories
In 2003 two draws, no victories
In 2002 no games
In 2001 1 win for Kasparov, 0 wins for Kramnik, many draws
...

And more, Kasparov has better results playing with thrid people (that
explain his higher ELO), specially with Shirov.

That mean Kramnik has no argument in his favour.

And I agree, rating argument is is Kasparov favour.

I would add that Kramink is a WCC who has win only one match (He lost
with Shirov in semifinal, won Kasparov, draw Leko, and no more matches)

AT

Ps: "Fear" argument is in Kasparov favour too, ... can you explain why
Krmanik avoid to play with him (Moscow, rematch, ...)

Date: 17 Dec 2004 22:59:50
From: Mark S. Hathaway
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

Antonio Torrecillas wrote:

> I would add that Kramink is a WCC who has win only one match (He lost
> with Shirov in semifinal, won Kasparov, draw Leko, and no more matches)

Look back further and you'll also see a beautiful match
where Kamsky crushed Kramnik.

Date: 17 Dec 2004 14:00:19
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

In article <[email protected] >,
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:

> Kasparov only had bad "results" in that match, .. I suppose you have not
> check all the kramnik-Kasparov Games in the last 10 (or 15, or 5) years.
>
> In 2004 two draws, no victories
> In 2003 two draws, no victories
> In 2002 no games
> In 2001 1 win for Kasparov, 0 wins for Kramnik, many draws
> ...

Well, I don't know if you can draw the same conclusions from games
played in non-match situations (where there are other factors at play
other than winning that particular game) that you can from a match
(where the only objective that matters is winning the match.)

But I don't want to get sucked into arguing that Kramnik is better than
Kasparov here -- that's not my point. My point is to compare the
Kasparov of the late 80s and early 90s to the Kasparov of 2004.

-Ron

Date: 17 Dec 2004 14:50:52
From: Jerzy
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"Henri Arsenault" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > But I do think it's clear that he's not as consistently strong as he
> >was in the late 80s and early 90s.
> >
> That may be the case, but as he says himself, once you reach his position,
> the only way is down...
>
> But the fact remains that he still appears to be the strongest player in
> the World. I recognize that this statement is difficult to check.

It is difficult to check but notice that he is no longer a WCC. He is still
number one in the FIDE rating list.

IMHO in the Russian Championship several excellent players were, however,
missing (e.g. Kramnik, Karpov, Khalifman to mention a few).

Regards,

Jerzy

Date: 17 Dec 2004 19:20:50
From: Henri Arsenault
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

In article <[email protected] >, "Jerzy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> But the fact remains that he still appears to be the strongest player in
>> the World. I recognize that this statement is difficult to check.
>
>It is difficult to check but notice that he is no longer a WCC. He is still
>number one in the FIDE rating list.

He didn't keep himself there by playing against patzers...
>
>IMHO in the Russian Championship several excellent players were, however,
>missing (e.g. Kramnik, Karpov, Khalifman to mention a few).
>
True, but except for Kramnik, those you mention are all weaker than the
ones that were there. This was probably the strongest tournament of recent
years, or at least of this year. Offhand the only missing top player I can
think of in addition to Kramnik that might have had a shot at winning is
Anand.

Henri

Date: 18 Dec 2004 20:37:11
From: Jerzy
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"Henri Arsenault" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >It is difficult to check but notice that he is no longer a WCC. He is
still
> >number one in the FIDE rating list.
>
> He didn't keep himself there by playing against patzers...

The question is why he plays so seldom ? Not to mention his cancelled
matches with Ponoiov or Kasimdzhanov. And he hasn`t won several
tournaments lately.

> >IMHO in the Russian Championship several excellent players were, however,
> >missing (e.g. Kramnik, Karpov, Khalifman to mention a few).
> >
> True, but except for Kramnik, those you mention are all weaker than the
> ones that were there. This was probably the strongest tournament of recent
> years, or at least of this year. Offhand the only missing top player I can
> think of in addition to Kramnik that might have had a shot at winning is
> Anand.

The stronger the competition the more difficult to win. Before the Russian
Championship Kasparov assumed that +4 would be enough to win but he has
scored even more because of somewhat weaker competition pool.

Regards,

Jerzy

Date: 15 Dec 2004 13:52:37
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

In article <[email protected] >,
John A Swartz <[email protected] > wrote:

> > I've heard people say that Kasparov has lost his edge. Why? Because
> > he's lost a meaningless, yes MEANINGLESS match to a computer and drew twice?
>
> Maybe because he lost a 16-game match to Kramnik in 2000, 2 losses, no
> win, and several seemingly lifeless draws toward the end of the match.

Anybody's who's watched a lot of Kasparov's play over the years can't
help but notice how much quieter his play is now. I think he's clearly
not playing as interesting chess as he was in the late '80s and early
'90s -- when he seemed to consistently play a much more dynamic game.

But why on earth would he be? If we assume he reached his peak in '86 or
so (before his first Karpov match he had some technical weaknesses,
which, for the purposes of this discussion, it's safe to say Fischer
would have pounced on).

It seems to me that over the 90s Kasparov has relied more and more on
opening preparation rather than over-the-board inspiration. This is a
perfectly logical way to cope with declining endurance due to age. There
have been some rather confounding errors -- missed draws that others
have seen in real time, that kind of thing -- but most glaring has been
the decline in fighting spirit. Does anybody think that the Kasparov of
1990 would have played with as little fight as he did as he did against
Kramnik in 2000? Kasparov was consistently on the defensive in that
match, in a way that I'd only seen him be against Karpov in their first,
aborted match.

But, realistically, how many chessplayers have maintained their peak
for 10 years? Lasker and Botvinnik, I suppose. Karpov's close. It's
not an insult at all to Kasparov to say that, after 12 or 13 years of
dominance, age started to wear down his strength a bit.

-Ron

Date: 14 Dec 2004 21:43:35
From: michael adams
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

Adrian MacNair wrote:
>
> "Ivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Maybe they can let Fischer play Kasparov now to prove that Bobby is
> > the world champion
>
> You should read "Bobby Fischer goes to war". It's a great little book about
> the 1972 match (which occured 2 years before I was born). Fischer proved
> throughout his life that he was a very difficult person to organize matches
> around, and I could only imagine the insanity of getting Fischer (now a
> ghost of his former self in a Japanese jail) to play Kasparov. Can you
> imagine the thousands of offers of millions of dollars he has received to
> play chess since 1972, and only one was accepted!
>
> Let's face it. Fischer is a legend more because he left on top. And despite
> all his ranting about Jews and Hitler and 911 and Kasparov being the worst
> kind of scum... we still love him for going out #1.

Nah we don't love the cunt, at all. Go fuck yourself Adrian & bother
'us' nae more. Cunt, McNairs a cunt, ee's a cunt, watch this mc'nair
cunt get up with his oatmeal mouth & brandish his best Toledo steel
phfleuger! - WAC = (wadda cunt)..

Date: 06 Dec 2004 07:34:59
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

LOL,
I can just "see" John Lovitz from Saturday Night Live doing his
impersonation as Fischer as his character The Pathelogical Liar.
Rob

Date: 09 Nov 2004 16:27:33
From: R.P. Warren
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

[email protected] (Ivan) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...

> Maybe they can let Fischer play Kasparov now to prove that Bobby is
> the world champion

Maybe Muhammad Ali can fight Evander Holyfield to prove that a champ
past his prime but still active can beat a long-inactive has-been to a
pulp.

Date: 10 Nov 2004 02:19:12
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"R.P. Warren" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[email protected] (Ivan) wrote in message
news:<[email protected] >...

>>Maybe Muhammad Ali can fight Evander Holyfield to prove that a champ
past his prime but still active can beat a long-inactive has-been to a
pulp.<<

Nope, it was George Foreman who at age 45, regained the WBA and IBF Heavyweight
Title from Michael Moorer age 26, in Las Vegas on 05-November-1994.

Date: 10 Nov 2004 08:25:23
From: R.P. Warren
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Nope, it was George Foreman who at age 45, regained the WBA and IBF Heavyweight
> Title from Michael Moorer age 26, in Las Vegas on 05-November-1994.

Are you saying then that Fischer today is analogous to Foreman then,
and Kasparov to Moorer? If so, I would have to disagree.
Kasparov-Fischer now would probably be more like Holyfield-Ali,
roughly speaking.

Date: 10 Nov 2004 18:11:50
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"R.P. Warren" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>Are you saying then that Fischer today is analogous to Foreman then,
and Kasparov to Moorer? If so, I would have to disagree.
Kasparov-Fischer now would probably be more like Holyfield-Ali,
roughly speaking.<<

Maybe you haven't heard, but Fischer plays chess everyday. He has a chess
set wherever he goes.

Date: 05 Dec 2004 06:28:42
From: Rob Mitchell
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "R.P. Warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >>Are you saying then that Fischer today is analogous to Foreman then,
> and Kasparov to Moorer? If so, I would have to disagree.
> Kasparov-Fischer now would probably be more like Holyfield-Ali,
> roughly speaking.<<
>
> Maybe you haven't heard, but Fischer plays chess everyday. He has a chess
> set wherever he goes.

Against whom?

Date: 05 Dec 2004 20:18:51
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

Liam Too wrote (2004-11-10 16:12:09 PST):

> Maybe you haven't heard, but Fischer plays chess
> everyday. He has a chess set wherever he goes.

_
"I don't play the old chess anymore, you
know. The old chess is dead. It's been
played out. ... I don't play the old chess
anymore. I play the Fischer-Random, see.
I don't play old chess anymore, period.
... I'm finished with the old chess. It's
rotten to the core. ... If you knew the
truth about the old chess, you wouldn't
have any interest in it, either." - Fischer
(2002)

Date: 05 Dec 2004 19:37:16
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

Date: 09 Nov 2004 19:19:13
From: Good Moves aren't worth BEANS ......
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

Fischer has as much claim to considering himself World Champion as did
Kasparov (from 1989 until he lost the match to Kramnik), and Kramnik since.
All three broke away from FIDE and were not defeated in a FIDE match.

Jason Repa

"Ivan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Maybe they can let Fischer play Kasparov now to prove that Bobby is
> the world champion

Date: 09 Nov 2004 22:19:01
From: 5et2
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"Good Moves aren't worth BEANS ......" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<RK8kd.168300$%k.85954@pd7tw2no>...
> Fischer has as much claim to considering himself World Champion as did
> Kasparov (from 1989 until he lost the match to Kramnik), and Kramnik since.

Fischer has no claim. He resigned his only world championship title in June 1974.

> All three broke away from FIDE and were not defeated in a FIDE match.
>
> Jason Repa
>
>
> "Ivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Maybe they can let Fischer play Kasparov now to prove that Bobby is
> > the world champion

Date: 10 Nov 2004 08:06:37
From: Good Moves aren't worth BEANS ......
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"5et2" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Good Moves aren't worth BEANS ......"
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:<RK8kd.168300$%k.85954@pd7tw2no >...
> > Fischer has as much claim to considering himself World Champion as did
> > Kasparov (from 1989 until he lost the match to Kramnik), and Kramnik
since.
>
> Fischer has no claim. He resigned his only world championship title in
June 1974.

Another idiot speaking out of his ass! Get your facts straight buddy.
Fischer didn't resign anything. The only difference between Fischer's break
from FIDE and the other's I mentioned, is that Fischer didn't have other
super GMs with him to add weight to his break off. Kasparov, Karpov, Short,
etc all broke off from FIDE in unison.

Jason

Date: 13 Nov 2004 21:24:35
From: Keithbcook
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

How I dislike this kind of rudeness on the internet!

Date: 10 Nov 2004 11:38:04
From: 5et2
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"Good Moves aren't worth BEANS ......" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<h_jkd.169337$Pl.99818@pd7tw1no>...
> "5et2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Good Moves aren't worth BEANS ......"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<RK8kd.168300$%k.85954@pd7tw2no>...
> > > Fischer has as much claim to considering himself World Champion as did
> > > Kasparov (from 1989 until he lost the match to Kramnik), and Kramnik
> since.
> >
> > Fischer has no claim. He resigned his only world championship title in
> June 1974.
>
>
> Another idiot speaking out of his ass! Get your facts straight buddy.
> Fischer didn't resign anything. The only difference between Fischer's break
> from FIDE and the other's I mentioned, is that Fischer didn't have other
> super GMs with him to add weight to his break off. Kasparov, Karpov, Short,
> etc all broke off from FIDE in unison.
>
> Jason

From Informant 19, page 276, referring to June 1974 telegramme:

"the President of FIDE received a telegramme on June 27 in Nice from
world champion Robert Fischer which says: 'As I made clear in my
telegram to the FIDE delegates, the match conditions I proposed were
non-negotiable. Mr. Cramer informs me that the rules of the winner
being the first player to win ten games, draws not counting, unlimited
number of games and if nine wins to nine match is drawn with champion
retaining title and prize fund split equally were rejected by the FIDE
delegates. By doing so FIDE has decided against my participation in
the 1975 world chess championship. I THEREFORE RESIGN MY FIDE WORLD
CHAMPION TITLE. Sincerey (sic), Bobby Fischer'" (My all-caps emphasis
in case you missed the word RESIGN.)

Jason states emphatically with insult, "Fischer didn't resign
anything." Who agrees with him?

Date: 10 Nov 2004 10:05:52
From: nowonmai
Subject: Re: Fischer vs. Kasparov

"Good Moves aren't worth BEANS ......" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<h_jkd.169337$Pl.99818@pd7tw1no>...

> Fischer didn't resign anything.

I THEREFORE RESIGN MY FIDE WORLD CHESS CHAMPION TITLE. SINCERELY, BOBBY FISCHER.

--telegram from Bobby Fischer to Max Euwe, FIDE President, June 27 1975

But, of course, this is not the "real" title or whatever it is he claims to hold.