"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:
Settlements just about always include some face-saving bull****
verbiage. The way you figure out who won is by seeing who paid money
to who.

That statement is not remotely accurate. It neglects the fact that
even in arbitration there are costs that have nothing to do
with a case's merit.

I'll be the first to agree that the party with merit is not always the
one who ultimately wins. But they usually are, and either way, it
doesn't change who won. I also notice that the IHT article doesn't
say anything about the $25K that FIDE paid to Susan Polgar being
attorneys' fees--Sam is making up bull**** again. The $25K sounds
like compensation for damages to me, which FIDE would not have paid
unless it felt Susan's case was strong, whether they spun it that way
afterwards or not. By paying Susan to drop the case, they avoided an
extremely messy potential situation of having to yank Xie Jun's title
and maybe get in another lawsuit over THAT.

The "spin" is in the claim of "victory". Do you really think someone with a
valid
claim to the world championship would give it up for $25K??
FIDE was just being expedient. What would have been the point of
spending $100k+ in legal costs to "win"?

Xie Jun was a worthy challenger, Polgar ducked
her, then sought to have her title reinstated through legal action,
and failed. While that kind of behavior is sadly common
in the chess world, it's hardly commendable.