ChessBanter - View Single Post

**Graeme**

wrote:
Here is a pertinent passage (omitted by Graeme) where GM Evans quotes
the research of former FIDE president Dr. Max Euwe, a mathematician. GM
Evans was also far ahead of his time in suggesting that all games be
finished should be finished in a single session without adjournments.

Yes, the article is worth reading in full. I think Evans was basically
right in rejecting the rematch clause, but wrong in thinking that it
was a bigger advantage than Fischer asked for. What's better? A fair
shot at a 1 year title reign, or an unfair shot at a 3 year reign?
That's impossible to quantify, but I think most people, if they had to
be screwed, would prefer being screwed like Tal, to being screwed like
Bronstein. A 1 year title reign is a lot better than none at all. A
tie match doesn't benefit anyone except the champion, and certainly
doesn't "prove" that the players are equal.

My point was that it wasn't simply a matter of evil Russians supporting
the rematch versus all right thinking folks being against it. Even
Americans like Ed Edmondson and neutral parties were enthusiastic about
the idea at the time. I don't like it myself, I think that being
seeded directly into the finals is all the advantage the champion
deserves. But it seems like Edmondson's motivation for going along
with it was not to do a "dirty deal", but to make compromises to see to
it that Fischer's idea of an unlimited match should be tested in the
moden era. There were people at the time (Fischer included) who
seriously thought it would solve the draw problem, and needed to be
tried. To get Karpov to defend under a system he didn't want, it was
necessary to give him something in return.

Bobby got most of what he wanted, but not all. He probably could have
gotten a return match clause if he had asked for it.

Yes, I read that last night, and it's interesting in that it shows that
in the eyes of the rest of the world, the rematch was a smaller
advantage than making the challenger win by 2. Yeah, I think Evans is
probably right there. Bobby probably could have gotten the rematch
clause if he'd been willing to compromise at all. But I don't think he
would have played under any circumstances. In retrospect, we can see
that he retired in 1972, he just didn't bother to tell us. It wasn't
just the 1975 match he bowed out of, it was *all* events for the next
20 years.