VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glor b.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!ngpeer.news .aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 21
X-Admin:
From: (Parrthenon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: 22 May 2004 17:22:56 GMT
References:
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
Subject: Fischer's tie clause
Message-ID:

If it appeared in numerous Russian books, a chess encyclopeadia,
Gazza's book, chess magazines, and adopted by well known chess
journalists like Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans, isn't that good enough
to become reasonable? What about the opposition, do they have proof
that there
never was a 5-5 Capa-Alehkine clause?

From Larry Evans On Chess, Chess Life, October 2003, page 43:

THOUGHT FOR THE MONTH: "The Capa-Alekhine ma ch [in 1927] did have a
draw
clause at 5-5. Yes, Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take the title just
the same
as my match proposal [requiring 10 wins with a 9-9 tie clause vs.
Karpov in
1975]." -- Bobby Fischer in Chess Life, November 1974, page 715.

The evidence for this claim is murky, which is why GM Evans tacked on
the word
APPARENTLY at the end of his reply to a reader's question:

How many people realize that Lasker evaded Capa before WW1 by
requiring his
challenger to win by a margin of two points in a 30-game match? The
"fair"
London rules of 1922 required six wins yet Capa apparently tacked on a
5-5 tie
clause vs. Alekhine in 1927, in effect forcing his challenger also to
win by
two points.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path: controlnews3.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: (Goran Fischer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Fischer's tie clause
Date: 25 May 2004 09:55:59 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 64
Message-ID:
References:


NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.134
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1085504159 24508 127.0.0.1 (25 May 2004
16:55:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 16:55:59 +0000 (UTC)

Hey buddy! You are entitled to your opinion and so do I. As far as I'm
concerned, here's the score on the 5-5 issue:

Edward Winter and Louis Blair = 1
Gazza Kasparov, Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans = 0

GF

(Liam Too) wrote in message
. com...
I can't blame Larry Parr for saying that 5-5 clause that he's been
fighting against Dr. Blair is now MURKY. He must have seen the
abrasive post of Goran Fischer, whoever he is, regarding the writings
of Larry Parr and GM Evans.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
IMO, a "journalist" should not simply make guesses, and then slyly
tack-on
weaselwords in case he is eventually caught. Instead, he should try
to be
reasonable objective, and every now and then, do just a little bit of
research,
no matter how much it hurts! :-)

What are you saying NoMoreChess, journalists shouldn't flip-flop their
opinions especially in their writings when they change political
affiliations?


That is not quite what I was saying in that post.
GM Evans "apparently" made a rather careless guess as to the facts, without
bothering to do any research as to what the real facts were. His insertion of
that weasel-word essentially transfered the burden of determining these facts
to others -- a very lazy approach for someone who is being well paid to write
about chess matters.
Imagine, if you will, a chess column by "IM Anonymous" in which the writer
analyses thus:

1.e4 (been tried before, or so I've been told)
...e5 (copies White?)
2.Nf3 (develops a piece, I suppose)
...Nf6 (copies White again)
3. Nc3 (check the books, it's probably in there)
...Nc6 (Fritz might find something better -- I didn't bother to check)
4. d3 (seems okay)
...d6 (are we there yet?)

etc., and White eventually blundered.
0-1

Please send my $500 check for this to:

Fatboy Anonymous
Hotel Central
Miami, FL



PS: I just started on the next one -- should be done in ten minutes or less.
Will fax ASAP.

Regards,

Fatboy (sipping pinacollatas by the pool)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glor b.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews. com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 18
X-Admin:
From: (Parrthenon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: 26 May 2004 03:57:19 GMT
References:
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
Subject: Fischer's tie clause
Message-ID:

Hey buddy! You are entitled to your opinion and so do I. As far as
I'm
concerned, here's the score on the 5-5 issue. -- Goran Fischer

Hey, buddy! It was your namesake who made this claim, neither Parr nor
Evans --
he was virtually the only writer in Chess Life who opposed Fischer's
9-9 tie
clause.

All the evidence about 1927 is still murky but Capa wrote a letter
about the
possibility of a drawn match, which would not be possible if the title
went to
the first player who won five games. So something is obviously fishy
here. Even
Louis Blair and Edward Winter are baffled.

"The Capa-Alekhine match [in 1927] did have a draw clause at 5-5. Yes,
Alekhine
had to win by 6-4 to take the title just the same as my match proposal
[requiring 10 wins with a 9-9 tie clause vs. Karpov in 1975]." -- Bobby
Fischer
in Chess Life, November 1974, page 715.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
X-Abuse-Report:
Message-ID: t.com
Path:
controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glor b.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews. com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.secureusen et.com!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 06:15:08 GMT
Lines: 56
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Fischer's tie clause
From: Louis Blair
References:

Organization: Your Company
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25

Goran Fischer wrote (2004-05-25 09:55:59 PST):
As far as I'm concerned, here's the score on the
5-5 issue:

Edward Winter and Louis Blair = 1
Gazza Kasparov, Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans = 0


Larry Parr replied to Goran Fischer:

It was your namesake who made this claim, neither
Parr nor Evans -- he was virtually the only writer
in Chess Life who opposed Fischer's 9-9 tie clause.

_
It seems to me that Larry Parr DID make the 5-5
claim. For example:

"If Alekhine were leading 5-4 in games won
and Capa won a fifth game, then Capa would
have kept the title." - Larry Parr (2002-06-13
23:35:29 PST)


Larry Parr wrote:

All the evidence about 1927 is still murky but
Capa wrote a letter about the possibility of a
drawn match, which would not be possible if
the title went to the first player who won five
games.

_
A draw would be completely possible if the
participants had agreed to halt the match.


Larry Parr wrote:

So something is obviously fishy here. Even
Louis Blair and Edward Winter are baffled.

_
I can not imagine why Larry Parr thinks that I
am baffled. My position on this matter has
not changed:

"the players could agree to a drawn
match just as players can agree to a
drawn game." - Louis Blair (2003-05-05
19:19:48 PST)

Looking at the last paragraph of Edward Winter's
Chess Notes #3253, I do not get the impression
that his opinion is very different from mine
on the matter.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA