I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll
try all of them and see what kind of responses I get.

I have read about how after defeating Capablanca, Alekhine dodged a
rematch with him for the rest of his career, no matter how much Capa
wished for a rematch. Yet in 1975 Bobby Fischer was "forced" to a
rematch with the Soviets (and of course refused to play and forfeited
his title).

My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
another cannot and has it stripped from him.

Any comment?



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

In article ,
The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:

My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
another cannot and has it stripped from him.

FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
won the title.

FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
ducked the most threatening challenger.

Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
think he resigned it.)

Ron wrote:
In article ,
The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:

My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
another cannot and has it stripped from him.

FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
won the title.

FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
ducked the most threatening challenger.

That is correct. Prior to Alekhine's death, the world title was,
essentially, the champion's personal property, which he could risk or
not, at his discretion. The only significant deterrent to resting on
one's laurels indefinitely was public opinion.
Of the five pre-FIDE champions, it could be argued that at least two,
Lasker and Alekhine, evaded legitimate challengers to some extent. Of
course, the situation was complicated by the need for the challenger to
raise funds. The champion could not be expected to risk his title
without adequate payment, so the challenger had to find backers willing
to put up thousands of dollars, hefty sums for the early 20th century.
This obstacle was too much for some talent-rich but cash-poor
challengers, such as Rubinstein and Nimzovitch. On the other hand,
Janowski, whose challenger credentials were not the best, got a title
match because he had a wealthy patron who put up the dough.
When FIDE took over, fund-raising became less of an obstacle, and was
no longer the challenger's responsibility, so title matches could be
put on a regular schedule. Also matters were simplified by the fact
that, with the exception of Fischer, all the champions and challengers
1951-1990 were Soviet citizens, who were paid by the state to play
chess, making outside backing less of an issue.

Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
think he resigned it.)

Technically, he did resign it, by telegram to FIDE. I suppose if
Fischer had still claimed the title while refusing to play Karpov, some
sort of formal divestiture would have been done.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:

My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
another cannot and has it stripped from him.

FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
won the title.

That's true in terms of W Ch match arrangements, but FIDE did govern chess
rules and rankings, titles &c since its inception.

FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
ducked the most threatening challenger.

Yes. And because they could. Euwe played a significant part in all this, but
he was but a pawn in the game of the evil Soviets who, as TK has mentioned,
effectively ran world chess on a national basis until the modern [Fischer]
epoch. TK is also correct to point out that Soviet players were allowed to
be professionals, in fact, if not by declaration, by virtue of state
support. The Soviet's didn't care to hear from other countries about the
fundamental fairness of this support.

Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
think he resigned it.)

I suppose the second world war 'emergency measures' where FIDE took control
of the championship process will continue for better or worse. It is
significant these days that although the title remains the same, the
competition has been very different - essentially all historical match-play
resolutions of the championship have ceased.

A few years ago 3 W Champs, Kasparov, Karpov and Kramnik asked to speak with
FIDE's leader on the future of the championship, but were rebuffed.

Therefore, we seem to have now done away with the 'lottery-Swiss' which
Khalifman won, as well as long match-play events [Kasparov-Karpov matches],
and now determine the title by an invited group of 8 players in round-robin
format.

Whether this is a better means to determine a world champion is open to many
views, but what is less diffident is the type of chess produced.

Cordially, Phil Innes

The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:

I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll
try all of them and see what kind of responses I get.

Asshole.

*plonk*

Ron wrote:
In article ,
The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:


My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
another cannot and has it stripped from him.


FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
won the title.

FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
ducked the most threatening challenger.

Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
think he resigned it.)

Thanks. I thought the answer might be something along those lines.

Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

In article 5pw%e.472$Wb3.165@trndny04,
"Chess One" wrote:

Therefore, we seem to have now done away with the 'lottery-Swiss' which
Khalifman won, as well as long match-play events [Kasparov-Karpov matches],
and now determine the title by an invited group of 8 players in round-robin
format.

Isn't this what they did after WWII to get the ball rolling again?

I'm hoping the current title goes a long way towards re-legitimizing the
world championship. Seriously - does anybody consider Kasimdzhanov a
legitimate heir to the legacy of Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, etc...?

Without Kasparov (who was quite possibly bigger than the game) chess is
in desperate need of a legitimate champion. Kramnik was hand-picked by
Kasparov (didn't he actually lose a "qualifying" match?) and therefore
doesn't have much legitimacy in most people's eyes.

(He recent results haven't helped, either.)

Whomever wins this tournament is going to have a pretty darn strong
claim. I wonder if FIDE will be smart enough to go back to match play
afterwards, however.

-Ron

On 2005-10-01, The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
Ron wrote:

FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
won the title.

FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
ducked the most threatening challenger.

Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
think he resigned it.)

Thanks. I thought the answer might be something along those lines.

Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?

As did Smyslov.

The defeated champion had the right to a return match until the
1960s. Petrosian was the first not to have that right.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfaj.freeshell.org
================================================== ================
Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach
http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
The defeated champion had the right to a return match until the
1960s. Petrosian was the first not to have that right.

Actually, Botvinnik was the first, after losing to Petrosian in 1963.
He was rather ticked off at FIDE for taking away his rematch right. as
I recall.

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.games.chess.computer.]

Follow-ups to rgc.politics. This has nothing to do with analysis or
computers.

On 2005-10-01, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?

As did Smyslov.

Which is rather sad: Smyslov was the strongest player in 50's. He won
two extremely strong candidates tournaments. Not to mention that he
playes very, very beautifylly.

The defeated champion had the right to a return match until the
1960s. Petrosian was the first not to have that right.

Karpov had that right too for some time.

--
Ari Makela late autumn -
a single chair waiting
http://arska.org/hauva/ for someone yet to come
-- Arima Akito