THE REMATCH CLAUSE

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....icle&sid= 967

"It's impossible to win two matches in a row. I did it, but I still
don't know how I did it," said Kasparov.


Graeme wrote:
wrote:
In his letter to Evans on Chess, Elo explained this reference by
noting: "And like you, Dr. Max Euwe rightly pointed out that the
rematch clause gave Anatoly Karpov a bigger mathematical edge than
anything Bobby Fischer ever sought."

Well, Evans was mistaken on that. In one Evans on Chess column from
years earlier, he admitted that this claim was based on an argument
made by Lubosh Kavalek in a 1978 Chess Life & Review.

Kavalek's argument was that with the rematch clause, Karpov could
theoretically lose the first match 0-6, and then win the second match
6-5, and "retain" his title despite losing by a 6-11 aggregate score.
Five point difference! In Fischer's system, the challenger only has to
win by 2. Fischer's system must be fairer.

Arnold Denker pointed out the flaw in this argument in a letter to the
editor a few months later. That Kavalek was treating two separate
matches as if they were a single match, with a long intermission at the
halfway mark. In effect, the argument is like saying that Smyslov, Tal
(and Euwe himself) were never champions at all because they lost a
rematch.


As for "giving" Karpov a rematch clause (which is obviously *an*
advantage, though not as big as an advantage as making the challenger
win by 2), the reason for this seems to have been forgotten also. It
wasn't given to him, it was traded to him. Karpov was reticent to play
an unlimited match and wanted the old Best of 24 system. He agreed,
however, to play an unlmited match in exchange for a rematch clause,
which Ed Edmondson himself helped negotiate for him. Apparently, Ed
wanted as much of Fischer's match conditions to survive as possible,
and rightly considered the unlimited match system to be the core of it.