QUICK POINTS
1. "Bobby probably could have gotten the rematch clause if he'd been
willing to compromise at all." (Graeme)
No less an authority than Averbakh, the Russian rep at Caracas, said
that "of course" Fischer could have gotten a rematch clause if he had
asked for it.
2. Averbakh said the Russians were shocked when Edmondson suggested the
rematch clause if Karpov accepted the principle of six wins instead of
24 games with the champion keeping the title on a 12-12 tie.
3. A careful reading of what GM Evans wrote in UNEASY CROWN indicates
that Karpov at first wanted to keep the title if the match reached a
5-5 tie (just as Fischer wanted this to happen in the event it reached
9-9 with a 10 wins requirement). That may be why Edmondson, whom
Fischer had fired, suggested the rematch clause.
4. "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." (Graeme)
Dr. Euwe confirmed that the rematch clause was mathematically a bigger
edge for the champion than Fischer's 9-9 tie clause, even if many
people didn't see it like that. Other mathematicians may disagree, and
it would be interesting to see a definitive proof that settled the
matter once and for all.
5. GM Evans agreed with Graeme that nobody knows if Fischer would have
played Karpov in 1975 even if FIDE accepted ALL of his conditions.
Graeme wrote:
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.