I wrote (6 Jun 2006 19:28:19 -0700):
On 18 Apr 2003 13:30:13 GMT, Larry Parr called our attention to
a November 2002 contribution to Chess Life by GM Evans:
_
_
"WHY FISCHER QUIT
_
Scott Sensiba
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
_
Q. Can you tell me again why Bobby Fischer didn't
defend his title against Anatoly Karpov in 1975? I think Bobby
could have won.
_
A. This question has been covered here at length over the
years, but I'll try again because so many people keep asking.
_
I believed then as now that Fischer's obstinacy killed the
deal. 'Finally America produces its greatest chess genius, and
he turns out to be just a stubborn boy,' lamented Hans Kmoch.
_
Bobby resigned his title after FIDE rejected a key demand
-- that the match consist of an unlimited number of games, draws
not counting, until one player won 10 games (with the champion
retaining his title on a 9-9 tie). Instead FIDE restricted it to 36
games, counting draws, which they knew he would reject.
_
Whether he would have defended his title even if FIDE
capitulated to all of his demands is debatable, but the political
nature of the close vote was obvious. The Soviets and their allies
voted as a bloc against Fischer's key demand. Western nations
split. In general they supported his position but a notable
exception was England.
_
Lev Alburt said that Soviet grandmasters privately scoffed
at Karpov's chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would
lose -- and badly. By quitting, Fischer not only turned down a
multi-million dollar purse -- he set back the cause of chess
in America and tragically destroyed his own career.
_
After seizing the title by default, Karpov became the most
active champion in history to try and prove it was no fluke. In
1977 a Soviet-dominated FIDE routinely granted him a rematch
clause, a bigger mathematical edge than anything Fischer ever
sought. This incident soured me and many others on FIDE."
_
_
Some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"the GM Evans quote is seriously flawed. He fails to
mention that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the
unlimited number of games and that what finally
terminated the Fischer-FIDE negotiations was
Fischer's demand that he keep his title unless the
challenger finished two or more points ahead of the
champion." - Louis Blair (Fri, 18 Apr 2003
14:40:42 -0500)
_
_
"Notice the weasel word 'eventually.' FIDE did
not agree to give an unlimited number of games
to Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975 -- they restricted
it to 36 games" - Larry Parr (19 Apr 2003
14:51:14 GMT)
_
_
"what reason is there to call ['eventually'] a 'weasel
word'? Why does Larry Parr tell us that 'FIDE did
not agree to give an unlimited number of games to
Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975'? According to
Golombek:
_
'Another attempt was made to bring the
FIDE and Fischer into complete accord,
when Colonel Edmondson (U.S. Chess
Federation) asked for the summoning of
an extraordinary meeting of the FIDE
Congress. There being a sufficient
number of countries in agreement, it
duly assembled at Bergen-aan-Zee in
the Netherlands from 18 to 20 March,
1975. It was an extraordinary congress
in every sense of the word, and eventually,
after much heated discussion, one of
Fischer's demands was conceded: the
match was to have a limitless number of
games. But Fischer's other demand -
that a draw be declared when the situation
reached nine to nine - was rejected by a
majority of three. Fischer's words on
hearing this were, "It's all over then." No
match took place. Fischer ignored the
request to say by 2 April whether or not
he would play, and Karpov became the
new world champion ...'"
- Louis Blair (Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:51:01 -0500)
_
_
"Also, does Larry Parr have an explanation for how
GM Evans could authoritatively write that FIDE 'knew'
Fischer would reject the 36 game limit? Was
GM Evans trying to suggest that FIDE, as a group,
deliberately sought to avoid a match in 1975?"
- Louis Blair (17 Apr 2006 00:00:38 -0700)
_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700):
One of Louie Blair's persistent gripes repeated ad nauseum ...
_
Would Larry Parr deny that he "repeat"s some "gripes" "ad
nauseum"?
_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700):
is that GM Evans didn't mention in Chess Life that FIDE finally
agreed to his unlimited match but there was a second meeting
where FIDE granted this demand but denied his 9-9 tie clause.
GM noted this fact at worldchessnetwork.com but ...
_
Is Larry Parr at last acknowledging that the November 2002 account
was seriously flawed?
_
Is he acknowledging that his 19 Apr 2003 14:51:14 GMT "weasel
word" attack was inappropriate? If so, where is the apology?
_
Is Larry Parr at last admitting that he was wrong to tell us that "FIDE
did not agree to give an unlimited number of games to Fischer vs.
Karpov in 1975 ... draws not counting was refused for Fischer."?
_
In connection with this incident, there is another matter where an
apology from Larry Parr is long overdue. He told us:
_
"[FIDE] restricted it to 36 games, a fact Mr. Blair
curiously omits." - Larry Parr (19 Apr 2003
14:51:14 GMT)
_
I prompty (Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:51:01 -0500) pointed out that my
Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:40:42 -0500 note had contained:
_
"From the November 2002 Chess Life:
... FIDE restricted it to 36 games, counting
draws, ..."
_
I saw nothing further from Larry Parr about my supposed omission.
Silence, however, is not a substitute for an apology.
_
"When I am dead wrong, I say so." - Larry
Parr (24 Apr 2006 00:17:45 -0700)
_
I do not remember Larry Parr indicating how much time may go
by before Larry Parr says so.
_
Larry Parr also avoids the issue of how GM Evans could authoritatively
write that FIDE 'knew' Fischer would reject the 36 game limit.
_
It is worthwhile to give our attention to one other aspect of the
19 Apr 2003 14:51:14 GMT Larry Parr note:
_
"Nor was Mr. Blair initially aware that the
Capablanca-Alekhine match (which required
six wins instead of 10) also had a clause that
the defending champion would keep the title
if the score reached 5-5, requiring the
challenger also to win by at least two points
(6-4)." - Larry Parr (19 Apr 2003 14:51:14 GMT)
_
Much later, Larry Parr himself became aware that:
_
"The evidence for this claim [that the 1927
Capa-Alekhine match did have a draw clause
at 5-5] is murky" - Larry Parr (22 May 2004
17:22:56 GMT)
_
Larry Parr even tried to tell us:
_
"It was [Fischer] who made this claim, neither
Parr nor Evans" - Larry Parr (26 May 2004
03:57:19 GMT)
_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700):
... [GM Evans] noted [that there was a second meeting where FIDE
granted the unlimited match demand] at worldchessnetwork.com ...
_
It is nice to know that GM Evans wrote a world chess network
account that did not duplicate the serious flaw in his November
2002 Chess Life account, but did he ever tell Chess Life readers
about the serious flaw?
_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700):
... but that won't stop the parser from regurgitating his drivel. No way.
No how. ...
_
In several notes, Taylor Kingston has clearly indicated that he was
referring to a postal rating in his 5 Jun 2005 11:46:16 -0700 note.
Is that likely to cause Larry Parr to stop "regurgitating" on the
subject?
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.sta nford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.e du!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!205.188.226.97!ngpeer .news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 71
X-Admin:
From: (Parrthenon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: 19 Apr 2003 14:51:14 GMT
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
Subject: Parser Blair
Message-ID:
SERIOUSLY FLAWED?
By Larry Parr
Louis Blair claims that the answer to Why Fischer Quit that appeared in
Larry
Evans On Chess (see below) is "seriously flawed" because GM Evans fails
to
mention "that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the unlimited number
of
games."
Notice the weasel word "eventually." FIDE did not agree to give an
unlimited
number of games to Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975 -- they restricted it to
36
games, a fact Mr. Blair curiously omits. Nor was Mr. Blair initially
aware that
the Capablanca-Alekhine match (which required six wins instead of 10)
also had
a clause that the defending champion would keep the title if the score
reached
5-5, requiring the challenger also to win by at least two points (6-4).
During the FIDE era, until the Fischer reforms, each Soviet champion
had two
big advantages: DRAW ODDS PLUS A REMATCH CLAUSE. The rematch clause was
restored for Karpov but draws not counting was refused for Fischer.
Mr. Blair, with his usual perspicacity, writes: "I might add that,
despite
these sensible observations, the GM Evans quote is seriously flawed.
He fails
to mention that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the unlimited
number of
games and that what finally terminated the Fischer-FIDE negotiations
was
Fischer's demand that he keep his title unless the challenger finished
two or
more points ahead of the champion."
From the November 2002 Chess Life:
WHY FISCHER QUIT
Scott Sensiba
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Q. Can you tell me again why Bobby Fischer didn't
defend his title against Anatoly Karpov in 1975? I think Bobby
could have won.
A. This question has been covered here at length over the
years, but I'll try again because so many people keep asking.
I believed then as now that Fischer's obstinacy killed the
deal. "Finally America produces its greatest chess genius, and
he turns out to be just a stubborn boy," lamented Hans Kmoch.
Bobby resigned his title after FIDE rejected a key demand
-- that the match consist of an unlimited number of games, draws
not counting, until one player won 10 games (with the champion
retaining his title on a 9-9 tie). Instead FIDE restricted it to 36
games, counting draws, which they knew he would reject.
Whether he would have defended his title even if FIDE
capitulated to all of his demands is debatable, but the political
nature of the close vote was obvious. The Soviets and their allies
voted as a bloc against Fischer's key demand. Western nations
split. In general they supported his position but a notable
exception was England.
Lev Alburt said that Soviet grandmasters privately scoffed
at Karpov's chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would
lose -- and badly. By quitting, Fischer not only turned down a
multi-million dollar purse -- he set back the cause of chess
in America and tragically destroyed his own career.
After seizing the title by default, Karpov became the most
active champion in history to try and prove it was no fluke. In
1977 a Soviet-dominated FIDE routinely granted him a rematch
clause, a bigger mathematical edge than anything Fischer ever
sought. This incident soured me and many others on FIDE.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA