Jud McCranie wrote:

Suppose there are 10,001 voters in a city and two candidates are
running for office, an incumbent and a challenger. After 10,000 votes
are counted, both have 5,000 votes. So are we going to let that next
vote decide, or are we going to discard that last vote and declare the
incumbent the winner?

Me: Let all of the votes count.

Jud, I agree (:-) that your favorite
option of deciding the title is valid.

I am only saying that still, after 9:9
or (for active chess) after 31:31,
the next win is like a coin toss.
Bookmakers would have it 1:1.
However, I am ready to accept a small
amount of the good/back luck, granted
that the conditions are fair (equal to
both players). It's ok that one of the
two equally matched players gets lucky,
and gets the title. It's painful to the other
one but it's not any tragedy.

In many sports the (olimpic or otherwise
world) champions are not the dominating
guys but the ones who peaked during the
championship. This somewhat diminishes
the status of the title but it's ok.

The traditional view of the chess public
was different. In the past they wanted
the challenger to be **clearly** better
than the champion in order to award
the challenger the title. From this point
of view, playing to the first win after 9:9
or after 31:31 is counterproductive --
the players are evenly matched and,
according to the old view, the old
champion should keep his/her title,
just as Botvinnik did on two occasions
(under the 12:12 provision).

Jud, do not redefine the meaning of
"clearly superior". Changing the usage
of the words will not change the
reality. Evenly matched players are
evenly matched, and one game won't
change it.


Best regards,

Wlod