THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS BY GM LARRY EVANS (page 14)

When Kasparov finally dethroned Karpov in 1986, he promptly struck
a blow for chess justice by voluntarily renouncing the rematch clause.
But
he didn’t strike the second blow. The format for future title matches
returned
to the best-of-24 games with draws counting. In 1987 he barely saved
his
title against Karpov on a 12-12 tie. Kasparov gave two reasons for
sticking
with this system at a symposium we both attended in Madrid:

1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
saw no reason why the challenger shouldn’t have to vault the same
obstacle.

2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
book a playing hall, which isn’t possible in an open-ended match.

Kasparov’s argument makes sense, yet Fischer’s point is still valid.
Only wins should count. This way, a champion can’t cling to the title
by
playing for draws.


Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:
This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
interest in chess and improve its viability?

Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
the solution?

- Rich

That should be Kasparov RETAINS Title on a Draw. Blasted typos.

- Rich