DAVID KANE TRIES TO REWRITE HISTORY?

EVANS: If Fischer had asked for a return match clause instead
of ten wins, do you think FIDE would have given it to him?

AVERBAKH: Of course. Of course.

EVANS: How did you feel years later when FIDE restored the rematch
clause for Karpov after having taken it away from Botvinnik in 1963?

AVERBAKH: It was top secret, but Ed Edmondson was the one who
organized this return match clause for Karpov!

I was present during the negotiations for the Karpov-Korchnoi match.
Our federation wanted to have 24 games or a maximum of 30, and
Edmondson pressed for six wins. At the FIDE congress in Caracas
in 1977 Karpov demanded a rematch clause for accepting six wins.
Edmondson helped him get it.

EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
the one FIDE had denied Fischer. What was Ed’s motive?

AVERBAKH: Probably to make up for some of the nasty things he wrote
about Karpov, such as "this mouse who roars like a lion." Fischer was
out
of the picture already and had dismissed Edmondson, so perhaps Ed
wanted to improve his relations with Karpov. Really he organized
everything.

EVANS: Do you think Karpov was happy to get the title without playing
Fischer?

AVERBAKH: Of course. Karpov was afraid of Fischer in 1975. Who
wouldn’t like to get the title by default?

EVANS: Do you think that’s the main reason why Karpov was so active
after that: to prove he was really worthy of the title?

AVERBAKH: For Karpov, you know, money is very important. This is his
main stimulus. He may lose to Kasparov, but he is always well
compensated
for it.

EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985?

AVERBAKH: For me it’s completely clear. Because Karpov couldn’t
continue at all.

EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion?

AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried
his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply
couldn’t
play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement.

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 138)



wrote:
THIS IS UNTRUE

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match. -- David Kane

In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
....
DON'T BLAME KASPAROV!

"I don't know how it's possible to win two matches in a row. I did it,
but I still don't know how I did it." -- Gary Kasparov who voluntarily
renounced the rematch clause.

FIDE is to blame. Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
advantages than Kasparov.


Dubious accuracy, of course.

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.

Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period.