On Apr 22, 10:10 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

If you can show that the *best*
solution requires exactly 24 games,

No, I can't do that.

and also
that a championship match requires a fixed
length, then by all means, do so.

I thought that Kasparov _did_ do that, and you said he was changing
the topic.

What I wrote was that Mr. Kasparov was trying
to "justify" his unfair advantage. I also marked off
a few fallacies or red herrings.


I understand that it would be better if the World Championship were
absolutely fair.

Whoa there; what's this business about absolutes?

There is no need for "absolute" perfection in order to
merely do better than what FIDE has done with regard
to fairness. In fact, the switching back and forth from
having a tie match clause to not having one in and of
itself has lead to unfair advantages; that is called
inconsistency, and no absolute perfection is needed
in order to surpass such an effort.


But that requires either excluding ties, or having a
possible result of two co-champions. If both are impractical, then
living with a little unfairness seems not unreasonable.

If this, if that; why not show us how these "ifs" are
at all relevant to the issue? (I for one have no great
objection to co-champions, for instance.)


If the unfairness can be reduced to a mere sliver, though, that would
be good, and I had a couple of ideas for that.

Unfortunately, decisions regarding the world
championship cycle are influenced by politics and
by those who have power or influence over the FIDE.
Any changes are likely to be temporary, and easily
reversed-- as we have seen in the past.

Let's suppose that the goal is to eliminate, or at
least reduce to a sliver, any unfairness in the W. C.
cycle; the first step might be to eradicate the FIDE;
or perhaps, to somehow move the championship
cycle outside its grasp. But that would not in any
way guarantee a fairer handling of the title; for
instance, suppose the surrogate organization were
to be the USCF: it's a good bet that in spite of
everything, FIDE's "achievements" would be in
grave danger of being "bested" in short order... .


-- help bot