wrote in message
...
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.

A rematch clause (whether you like it or not) is no advantage
in the match defense itself. I can't think of any other champions
to play without any advantage, though possibly there were some
in the pre-FIDE era.

Note that if Fischer's "win-by-two" condition had been in place
during Karpov's first match with Kasparov, he would have
already retained his title. Why? Because had Kasparov
tied the match at 5-5, the match would have been stopped,
ended as a tie, and Karpov would have retained the title!





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.