VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!f16g2000cwb .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 4 Nov 2006 18:43:18 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 62
Message-ID: .com
References: . com

NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.67.46
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162694602 25901 127.0.0.1 (5 Nov 2006
02:43:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 02:43:22 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O;
en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.81.67.46;
posting-account=pwtqtw0AAACw59dt7zOnp9M9tGBpr6Lp

On 4 Nov 2006 14:58:54 -0800, "
wrote:

(a citation from Al Losoff follows)

1. If the match at any time stands at 9:9 it
indicates anequality between the contestants.

3. Thus a win by either player in the next decisive game shows
no superiority any more than a single throw of a coin shows a
superiority of heads or tails.

To this Jud McCranie responds with:

This doesn't make any sense to me. Whomever
wins the next game as won 10 to 9.

4. A 9:9 result then is properly declared a drawn match
since the challenger has shown no clear superiority.

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?

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?

***

We need to accept the reality.
We need to accept the fact that
occasionally the competitors are
so well matched that it is the question
of good luck which of them wins.
In such situations we need to decide
about the our customs, and not about
what is right and what is wrong in the
chess sense. As long as the solution
is fair, things are fine, and we need to
be philosophical about the necessarily
imperfect comparisons--there is no such
thing as a perfect one.

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.

But is a match till 10 wins reasonable?
That's a separate question.

Regards,

Wlod
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA