On Apr 21, 8:25 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

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.

The infamous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

I'm with you here.

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.

Change of subject ploy.

Oh, really? You have a scheme whereby the World Champion and a
challenger can play exactly 24 games, and it is guaranteed that each
one won't win the same number of games out of those 24?


I don't need to have anything; this is not about me--
it's about the ploys people come up with in order to
*justify* giving the champ an unfair advantage over the
challenger.


Oh, wait. It isn't impossible to have a definite result from a fixed-
length match; even I can think of a scheme. Assuming that all 24 games
are not drawn - in *that* case, they can just book another playing
hall, and it had better be a cheap one, because who will be interested
enough to come and watch - then the person who won the *last* game
loses, on the basis that the other player was ahead over the largest
number of games.

Lost in La-la land? The issue was whether or not
the champion ought to have an unfair advantage--
namely draw odds. The correct procedure is to
first answer that "question", and only then worry
over the trivial (or non-trivial) details.


The champion would have the advantage of playing White in the first
game.

Colors should be determined in such a way that
neither player has an unfair advantage. (In fact,
this avoidance of unfair advantages seems to be
a hallmark of my comments in this thread.)


-- help bot