On Apr 24, 2:03 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
the one FIDE had denied Fischer.

Larry Evans later came under fire when this
sweeping claim was debunked.

It's not a question that can be answered mathematically.
Having a chance at a rematch and having an advantage
in a match itself are two separate things.

Larry Evans and his ratpack have chronic troubles
with such elementary logic.

Not only that, the whole issue was a red herring,
intended to divert attention away from the unfairness
of Bobby Fischer's "demands". The argument runs
something like this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The demands made by BF may have been unfair,
but they were less unfair than X.

2) FIDE has given X to somebody "we" don't even
like.

3) So then, giving in to BF's unfair demands was
the correct action for FIDE; they messed up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Evans argue that Fischer never became World Champion
because he refused to offer Spassky a rematch? Of course not.

Boris Spassky did not get a rematch, so it would
appear that this was more about bashing Anatoly
Karpov than it was about rematches or even fairness.


I am not personally a fan of the rematch clause, even though
some rematches have produced good chess. However, it
could be viewed as compensation of a different sort for
playing a match without any advantage, as Karpov did
three times.

One issue is that rematches often involve the same
two players, again and again-- which can get a little
bit tedious. The same two guys, playing the same
openings, over and over and over... .


Note that the current FIDE system includes a bizarre form
of rematch, though it doesn't pertain to a head-to-head match.
Kramnik "lost" to Anand (i.e. finished behind him in a
tournament) so now gets his "rematch".

We got a (very brief) glance into some issues in
a recent "interview" by nearly-IMnes of one of the
top players. Unfortunately, that "interview" was
dominated by the interviewer's personal agenda,
and did not try to focus on the interviewee, on
what *he* thought. He barely mentioned a beef
or two before being directed right back toward
the old Adorjan agenda.

With the leader of the pack, the agenda includes
bashing FIDE, bashing the USCF, bashing GM
Karpov, shifting the blame for GM Fischer's
premature retirement to FIDE, etc., etc. In some
cases, it turns out that Larry Evans has simply
lifted "his" opinions wholesale from others, and
they are in turn parroted by his underlings, be he
right or wrong.


-- help bot