ChessBanter - View Single Post

**help bot**

wrote:
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.

This overt reliance upon what people say as somehow
establishing the objective facts is astonishing.

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.

Compare and contrast this statement to what has already
appeared in this thread; it was clearly stated that a third party
proposed this to FIDE, and that no one -- not even the Russians
-- objected at the time. Does this indicate that any "shock"
would then have been the result of an American suggesting
this idea? And this appears to contradict the statement
made earlier in this thread as to who did the proposing of the
idea.

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.

Again, it was stated earlier in this thread that a third party
proposed this to FIDE. You two can't have it both ways;
either Mr. Edmonson proposed this, or the other guy did.
Did Mr. Edmonson get a third party to propose this idea
*for him* to FIDE? If so, how did the Russians know the
idea was "suggested" by Mr. Edmondson? And earlier
it was stated that the idea was suggested first by GM
Karpov, *to* Mr. Edmondson.

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,

Please show your work. Presenting an answer from out
of the blue looks like possible cheating. Showing one's
work lends substance and support to one's answer.

Could there be some reason you are afraid to show
the supporting work here?

even if many people didn't see it like that. Other mathematicians
may disagree,

Any man with a decent education need not rely upon
pure authority arguments -- even in the realms of math.
Besides, this is hardly calculus. Probability, yes. Logic,
yes. But how technical can it possibly be? One gets
the impression that you are deliberately hiding something.

and it would be interesting to see a definitive proof that settled the
matter once and for all.

This has already appeared in this very thread. The key
idea is that two matches are not the same as one match.
Treating two as if they were one is an error. This is not
unrelated to math, a subject which appears to pose serious
problems for you.

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.

Well, GM Fischer may have known. But he is lost in
another world. Besides, there is a problem with the
above comment: if FIDE accepted ALL of... what about
the possibility of infinite conditions? I mean to say,
what if GM Fischer continually added more, each and
every time FIDE accepted all the others? This process
has to end somewhere; the world does not stop revolving
simply because GM Fischer has a serious psychological
problem.

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.

Here is my two cents worth on this:

The idea that there can/must be one, and only one,
world chess champion at any given time, is silly. There
is no good reason why we could not have co-champions
in the event of a tie.
In view of this, there is then no valid reason whatever
for granting any reigning world champ a tied match
clause, or a drawn match title retention. Period.

-- help bot