CHESS LIFE, AUGUST 1978, PAGE 413

THE INFAMOUS REMATCH CLAUSE

An interview with Max Euwe

BENKO: It is interesting to compare the Karpov negotiations with the
Fischer negotiations. Don't you think that Karpov as champion is
getting more than Fischer as champion ever asked for?

EUWE: Yes, I do think so. But Korchnoi knew all about the suggestions
[6 wins with a rematch clause restored for Karpov]. He visited my
office often at that time. As a matter of fact, I suggested that the
return match should take place only if the candidate wins by no more
than one point. But the committee did not accept this.

Graeme wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

3) If the latter, are you saying Edmonson negotiated on Karpov's or
Korchnoi's behalf? Sounds strange. How did Edmondson get involved in
negotiations where neither party was American? With Fischer retired,
why would Edmonson care about preserving Fischer's match conditions?


I've found a partial answer to this. CL&R, January 1978, p.27 has an
article by Edmondson on the Caracas Congress, in which he speaks
positively and supportively of the deal Karpov got, but I know there's
another article or letter somewhere around this same time that
describes Edmondson's role in going to bat for Karpov in greater
detail, and how Karpov took the unlimited match in exchange for the
rematch. I need to keep looking.

Anyway, according to this article, there were 6 packages on the table.
The Soviet proposal was for Best of 24 or 6 Wins. The USCF Policy
Board favored an Unlimited Match with no tie clause.

Edmondson cuts Karpov slack on not wanting the unlimited match:

"In fairness to Anatoly Karpov, I must insert here my impression that
he honestly feels a match requiring ten wins for victory would be
unnecessarily long and terribly exhausting, both physically and
mentally. He feels that the same winner would emerge from a no-draw
match requiring six wins, although he expressed beforehand a
willingness to compromise on eight wins for the match proposed in
1975."

He says that it was Karpov who proposed the rematch in exchange for
taking the unlimited match, and speaks positively, indeed almost
sycophantically of Karpov he

"Anatoly Karpov and Nona Gaprindashvili were both at Caracas, and
within 48 hours of his arrival Karpov demonstrated one reason why he
deserves to be World Champion - he can always come up with yet another
variation. In private conversation, he stated that none of the six
proposals on the Agenda - including that of the USSR Chess Federation -
struck him as the best. Rather than put a limit on the number of
games, he asked, why not return to what was customary up until 1963,
that is, have a rematch if the Championship changes hands?...
Absolutely no one opposed this compromise when it was made from the
floor by Dr. Tudela (Venezuela). The Central Committee recognized that
it combined the best elements of all that had gone before. The
exciting provision which requires a specific number of wins was
maintained and the drawn-game and drawn match possibilities eliminated.
And if a rematch does result - twice as much publicity for chess!"

This isn't the whole story. As I say, there's still another piece
floating around that I haven't found about Edmondson's lobbying efforts
to help the proposal pass. But this is enough to show that Edmondson
supported this package enthusiastically and without reservation. Not a
hint of dissension or any idea that there was anything unfair about it.
In addition, he goes out of his way to say that Karpov deserves to be
World Champion, and that bit about praising him for "coming up with a
new variation", is borderline toadying.

Looks like I did misremember something, or at least report it in a
misleading way. Although he didn't want an unlimited match, they
didn't exactly twist his arm to get him to accept this compromise, he
suggested it himself.


Kavalek's claim that the rematch was unfair because, if we (improperly)
combine both matches into one, the champion could possibly "retain"
despite losing 6-11 is from September 1978, page 473. Here's a quote
of his main point: "This time it is the rematch clause that makes the
regulations absolutely ridiculous. For Karpov to meet a new challenger
in 1981 in defense of the title FIDE handed him in 1975, all he needs
to do is win 6 games - in the REMATCH. He doesn't need even a single
win in the first match! Korchnoi, on the other hand, cannot be the
defending world champion in 1981 even if he wins eleven games in both
mtaches combined (six in the first): he must win TWELVE games. The
favoring factor for the champion is thus 12:6, an incomparably more
advantageous situation for Karpov than for any previous champion, and
far more so than under Fischer's proposals."

Denker's rebuttal letter to Kavalek is February 1979, page 64, though
he says a bit less than I remembered. As he put it, "[Kavalek's] reply
to Dr. Hunt puts me in mind of the old Talmudic scholars who could come
up with any desired interpretation when expedient. So it was that
after reading his article I became convinced that six was more than
five, less than seven, yet in some vague way equal to twelve." It must
have been some other letter, not Denkers, that pointed out that under
this argument, Smyslov, Tal and Euwe were never champions at all.

Evans' endorsement of Kavalek's argument is from January 1979, page 35.
Here, Evans states "And I want to go on record here as condemning
Karpov's rematch clause just as strongly, for the reasons expressed by
Kavalek last September." He goes on to say his oft-repeated bit about
how FIDE gave Karpov a bigger advantage than Fischer ever asked for,
but if he's basing that on Kavalek's argument, he needs to seriously
rethink it.


The problems with Kavaleks' argument seem so obvious that I can't
imagine that someone so intelligent didn't see them from the start.
He's obviously highly biased; he gives that away with the complaint
about FIDE handing Karpov the title, which, apart from having nothing
to do with this case, is untrue, to boot. Fischer handed it to Karpov
by resigning the title 9 months early rather than fighting for his
conditions.

The fudge here is that Kavalek assumes that the point of a world title
match is, not to win the match or become champion, or be sitting
champion in the next title defense, or anything like that. The point
is to be the defending champion at an arbitrary date in the futu
1981. I admit I'm not a big fan of rematches either. I think anyone
who climbs the mountain should be guaranteed a certain amount of time
at the top to try to set trends and create his own "era". Kasparov had
to play 120 championship games, more than most champions play *ever*,
before he could sit back and enjoy the title for a while. That just
doesn't seem right.

But Kavalek goes to absurd lengths to try to make his point. The
implication that Karpov and the Soviets wouldn't CARE about dropping
the title to the defector Korchnoi for a while so long as they got it
back a year later, is laughable. If Korchnoi had won the title and
lost it right back, he would indeed have gone down in history as a
world champion. Nobody would consider that Karpov had "retained" his
title because he was defending champion in 1981. That's simply
ridiculous.