On 4 Nov 2006 18:43:18 -0800, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:

If the challenger won the next game, it would be 10 to 9,
and he would have shown a clear superiority.

Where is your treshold?

Well, fischer's proposal was for the first one to win 10 games. Let
the match go until that threshold is met.

Let's consider, for the sake of argument, a fast
chess match, 20m+20s, 4 games per day,
5 days a week (20 games per week). They
play till one of them wins 32 games. Would you
still object to declaring a drawn match in the
case of the 31:31 score?

Yes. If it is the first one to win 32 games, play until one wins 32
games. If the match rule is for the first one to win 100 games, let
the match go until one wins 100 games.

The classical (old?) chess tradition
requires that challenger should show
a clear dominance over the old champion
in order to replace him/her. If we want to
uphold this tradition then indeed
a provision like 9:9 is reasonable.

No it isn't. If it is a match until the first player wins x number of
games (draws not counting) then that should be it. Otherwise, play a
limited number of games, draws counting, and if it is tied at the end
of those games, the champion retains the championship.

But is a match till 10 wins reasonable?

I think that is too many.
---
Replace you know what by j to email