"Jürgen R." wrote in message ...

"David Kane" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..

wrote in message
...
GREG KENNEDY STRIKES OUT AGAIN

Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
*even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
the same number of Whites and Blacks. -- help bot

David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
the champion.

I said that it is not an advantage in the title defense itself. Even though
I am no great fan of the rematch clause, it is akin to the practice
of seeding the defeated champion in the Candidates cycle.

The point was that there is no way to *mathematically* compare
that advantage with an actual advantage in the match.

Why not?

If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.

Because losing the match and winning the rematch *isn't* retaining
the title. It's losing the title and then winning back the title. There
is nothing in mathematics that allows us to equate the cases.

Smyslov was world champion, even though he didn't hold the title
for long.

Do we consider it an advantage in the 1969 match that Petrosian
was seeded into the 1972 Candidates final? It's an advantage
to be sure - one can argue whether it is fair or not - but most
would grasp that it is not an advantage in the 1969 match.