DAVID KANE CLAIMS REMATCH CLAUSE IS NO ADVANTAGE!!

"You can’t even compare the rematch clause with Fischer’s demands,"
said Garry Kasparov. "It’s impossible to win two matches in a row. I
did it,
but even today I don’t know how it was possible."

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)....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....Poor Mr. Parr hates
it when those ugly facts interfere with the Evans propaganda! --
David Kane
(after I posted GM Larry Evans' interview with GM Yuri Averbakh).

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. --Larry Parr

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 105)

FIDE’s initial purpose was to organize chess Olympiads, but
the death of Alekhine left the chess throne vacant. In 1948
FIDE assumed control of the title and set up a three-year cycle
to determine a new challenger.

Yet already suspicions arose in the first match-tournament that
the three Soviets (Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov) might collude against
the three outsiders (Euwe, Fine, Reshevsky). Reuben Fine just
dropped out in disgust and devoted himself to psychiatry. Botvinnik,
as expected, emerged victorious while Reshevsky cried foul, hinting
that Keres had thrown some games.

Bobby Fischer, after a sour experience at Curacao in 1962,
also accused the Russians of collusion. He said, "I had the
best score of anyone who didn’t cheat."

This charge resulted in serious reforms, including the abolition
of the rematch clause that Botvinnik had enjoyed for lo those
many years. No longer id the challenger have to win two matches
before the title [really] changed hands.

In 1975 FIDE stripped Bobby of the title [technically he
resigned] then turned around and gave Karpov even more
than Bobby had dreamed of asking for. FIDE restored the
rematch clause with consummate ease for Anatoly Karpov.

After Karpov lost to Garry Kasparov, he promptly invoked the
clause and FIDE president Florencio Campomanes, in violation
of his own rules, threatened to strip Kasparov of the title unless
he agreed to play yet a third consecutive match with Karpov.

Even before this match began, Kasparov renounced the
infamous rematch clause, striking a real blow for chess
justice in one stroke. But he still had draw odds in a 24
game-limit. This edge enabled him to hold his crown by
12-12 in his fourth match with Karpov in 1987 for a $2
million purse in Seville, Spain.

In the short space of three years, they faced each other
in 120 games spanning four grueling title matches, with
Kasparov holding a slim edge of one point.

[In 1990 Kasparov won their fifth and last match by the slim
margin of one point after 24 more games. In 1993 Kasparov
broke with FIDE to beat Nigel Short and then Vishy Anand in
1995. Vladimir Kramnik deposed Kasparov in 2000 outside of
FIDE jurisdiction and then held his title on a tie against Peter
Leko in 2004, before toppling Topalov in 2006.]

Kasparov never forgave Campo for conniving to save
Karpov’s crown in that first match. Although still leading
by two points, Karpov had just lost two games in a row
and was unfit to continue after 48 games that lasted
almost six months. He tried for a postponement to preserve
his lead, a ploy that backfired when his good friend Campo,
under the glare of the international press, ordered a new
match to start from scratch later in 1985.

The neutrality of FIDE officials was called into question from
the outset. It was discovered that both Campo and Alfred Kinzel,
a man he appointed to the match jury, had acted as financial
agents for Karpov in a matter involving roughly half a million
dollars in Karpov’s foreign hard-currency bank account from
royalties endorsing chess computers. Clearly, FIDE officials
at the highest level had violated the cornerstone of sporting ethics
and were implicated in a conflict of interest. Kasparov was livid,
because it set the pattern for Karpov’s preferential treatment by
FIDE in subsequent matches.

During an interview Campo clammed up when I broached
this touchy topic: "That is, that is, that is not chess, that
is private business, and I will not go into private affairs with
other people. Did the Chess Life editor put you up to asking
that question?" he stuttered. [Campo deemed Larry Parr’s
coverage of FIDE too critical and pressured American officials
into firing him.]



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...
MORE DISINFORMATION FROM DAVID KANE

The man is unfit to write about chess history.

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. -- David Kane

10 YEARS!?

he ignores the fact that Kasparov played FIVE title matches
with Karpov between 1985-1990. After that Kasparov put his title
on the line (outside of FIDE jurisdiction) against Short in 1993,
Anand in 1995 and Kramnik in 2000 who denied him a rematch
because it wasn't included in their contract.

Kasparov's matches vs. Karpov were under FIDE's auspices.
Once Kasparov broke away from FIDE, he did what champions
often did pre-FIDE: they avoided their challengers. So, as you
note in your own post, but are apparently too dim to understand,
Kasparov played two matches in the 1990's (a 10-year period)
before losing to Kramnik in 2000. And Kasparov had a bigger
champion's advantage than *all* of his FIDE predescessors (Karpov
being the special case who played 3 matches with
no advantage whatsoever.) because the non-FIDE matches
were shorter than the FIDE matches that had been held
until that time.

Poor Mr. Parr hates it when those ugly facts interfere with
the Evans propaganda!