In article ,
Jud McCranie wrote:

3. Thus a win by either player in the next decisive game shows
no superiority any more than a single throw of a coin shows a
superiority of heads or tails.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Whomever wins the next game as won
10 to 9.

Two things:

First of all, a 10 to 9 victory is less decisive than a 9 to 8 victory.
The difference isn't much, but, at some point, it does make sense to say
that the difference is too small to make a meaningful judgement.

(Eg, compare the relative skills of two players of a match which ends
2:1 compared to two players of a match which ends 101:100. The first
victory has outplayed his opponent much more clearly).

Where you draw the line and say that a one-win victory becomes trivial
is completely arbitrary. Arbitrary isn't bad, and, for practical
purposes you need to make that arbitrary decision at some point.

-Ron

wrote:
In his letter to Evans on Chess, Elo explained this reference by
noting: "And like you, Dr. Max Euwe rightly pointed out that the
rematch clause gave Anatoly Karpov a bigger mathematical edge than
anything Bobby Fischer ever sought."

Well, Evans was mistaken on that. In one Evans on Chess column from
years earlier, he admitted that this claim was based on an argument
made by Lubosh Kavalek in a 1978 Chess Life & Review.

Kavalek's argument was that with the rematch clause, Karpov could
theoretically lose the first match 0-6, and then win the second match
6-5, and "retain" his title despite losing by a 6-11 aggregate score.
Five point difference! In Fischer's system, the challenger only has to
win by 2. Fischer's system must be fairer.

Arnold Denker pointed out the flaw in this argument in a letter to the
editor a few months later. That Kavalek was treating two separate
matches as if they were a single match, with a long intermission at the
halfway mark. In effect, the argument is like saying that Smyslov, Tal
(and Euwe himself) were never champions at all because they lost a
rematch.


As for "giving" Karpov a rematch clause (which is obviously *an*
advantage, though not as big as an advantage as making the challenger
win by 2), the reason for this seems to have been forgotten also. It
wasn't given to him, it was traded to him. Karpov was reticent to play
an unlimited match and wanted the old Best of 24 system. He agreed,
however, to play an unlmited match in exchange for a rematch clause,
which Ed Edmondson himself helped negotiate for him. Apparently, Ed
wanted as much of Fischer's match conditions to survive as possible,
and rightly considered the unlimited match system to be the core of it.

On Nov 6, 3:12 pm, "Graeme" wrote:

As for "giving" Karpov a rematch clause (which is obviously *an*
advantage, though not as big as an advantage as making the challenger
win by 2), the reason for this seems to have been forgotten also. It
wasn't given to him, it was traded to him. Karpov was reticent to play
an unlimited match and wanted the old Best of 24 system. He agreed,
however, to play an unlmited match in exchange for a rematch clause,
which Ed Edmondson himself helped negotiate for him. Apparently, Ed
wanted as much of Fischer's match conditions to survive as possible,
and rightly considered the unlimited match system to be the core of it.

Graeme, this is quite interesting, and frankly not known to me until
now. I'm a bit unclear on a few things. May I ask:

1) When did the negotiations you describe take place? Are you
referring to Fischer-Karpov negotiations circa 1974-75, or
Karpov-Korchnoi negotiations circa 1977-78?
2) If the former, why would Karpov be the one granted the rematch?
Traditionally, that has been solely the privilege of a defeated
champion, not a defeated challenger, which Karpov would have been had
he played Fischer and lost in 1975.
3) If the latter, are you saying Edmonson negotiated on Karpov's or
Korchnoi's behalf? Sounds strange. How did Edmondson get involved in
negotiations where neither party was American? With Fischer retired,
why would Edmonson care about preserving Fischer's match conditions?

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:35:13 GMT, Ron
wrote:

First of all, a 10 to 9 victory is less decisive than a 9 to 8 victory.
The difference isn't much, but, at some point, it does make sense to say
that the difference is too small to make a meaningful judgement. ...

Say the match is a "first one to win 10 games". When the 9-9
situation going to the current champion, the "first one to win 10
games" is no longer in effect.

1. The champion never has to win 10 games - he only has to win 9 games
to retain the title.

2. The challenger is still required to win 10 games, and furthermore,
he is denied the chance to win 10-9.

The champion doesn't have to win by any games if he gets 9 wins. The
challenger has to win by TWO games (10-8 or better).

In the format with a fixed number of games, with a tie going to the
champion, the challenger only has to win one more game than the
champion.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

THE REMATCH CLAUSE

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....icle&sid= 967

"It's impossible to win two matches in a row. I did it, but I still
don't know how I did it," said Kasparov.


Graeme wrote:
wrote:
In his letter to Evans on Chess, Elo explained this reference by
noting: "And like you, Dr. Max Euwe rightly pointed out that the
rematch clause gave Anatoly Karpov a bigger mathematical edge than
anything Bobby Fischer ever sought."

Well, Evans was mistaken on that. In one Evans on Chess column from
years earlier, he admitted that this claim was based on an argument
made by Lubosh Kavalek in a 1978 Chess Life & Review.

Kavalek's argument was that with the rematch clause, Karpov could
theoretically lose the first match 0-6, and then win the second match
6-5, and "retain" his title despite losing by a 6-11 aggregate score.
Five point difference! In Fischer's system, the challenger only has to
win by 2. Fischer's system must be fairer.

Arnold Denker pointed out the flaw in this argument in a letter to the
editor a few months later. That Kavalek was treating two separate
matches as if they were a single match, with a long intermission at the
halfway mark. In effect, the argument is like saying that Smyslov, Tal
(and Euwe himself) were never champions at all because they lost a
rematch.


As for "giving" Karpov a rematch clause (which is obviously *an*
advantage, though not as big as an advantage as making the challenger
win by 2), the reason for this seems to have been forgotten also. It
wasn't given to him, it was traded to him. Karpov was reticent to play
an unlimited match and wanted the old Best of 24 system. He agreed,
however, to play an unlmited match in exchange for a rematch clause,
which Ed Edmondson himself helped negotiate for him. Apparently, Ed
wanted as much of Fischer's match conditions to survive as possible,
and rightly considered the unlimited match system to be the core of it.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.c om!newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!pro digy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!po stmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.c om.POSTED!cfd50cae!not-for-mail
From: Ron
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Organization: Organization?
References: . com

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
Message-ID:

Lines: 25
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.230.220.189
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 1162841713 ST000 69.230.220.189
(Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:35:13 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:35:13 EST
X-UserInfo1:
F[OWSX[DFZTS@^LYMRKNOPDA[X_LPO@FDY^L\UQHWIWDUWYADNVOPCKZBL\NX_KHV^GY[KVMG^ZPNHSCZNS[^UXFJVWYXVXKBH[XRWWBBDTN@AX\JSBVH]_@T\EKJHBMZ\_WZJFNRY]YWKSPED_U^NC\HSZ\WS[KEAYI@DO@\K@BP\LD[\GTMPLDFVU]ASJM
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:35:13 GMT

In article ,
Jud McCranie wrote:

3. Thus a win by either player in the next decisive game shows
no superiority any more than a single throw of a coin shows a
superiority of heads or tails.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Whomever wins the next game as won
10 to 9.

Two things:

First of all, a 10 to 9 victory is less decisive than a 9 to 8 victory.

The difference isn't much, but, at some point, it does make sense to
say
that the difference is too small to make a meaningful judgement.

(Eg, compare the relative skills of two players of a match which ends
2:1 compared to two players of a match which ends 101:100. The first
victory has outplayed his opponent much more clearly).

Where you draw the line and say that a one-win victory becomes trivial
is completely arbitrary. Arbitrary isn't bad, and, for practical
purposes you need to make that arbitrary decision at some point.

-Ron
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca .giganews.com!nntp.adelphia.com!news.adelphia.com. POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:48:50 -0600
From: Jud McCranie
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:48:48 -0500
Message-ID:
References: . com


X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 25
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.71.90.12
X-Trace:
sv3-GjRacWjKstz3mvx1PY94ltiC71F/J5cN+EXycuFejmsRJjfqFxn/SWbTFSt/bw3fhlS+sgBJB90Dsm7!zixp3VD/anQ5I2MXfbGr5RfQ+5MLH2uBDJ5LY1KVusXJskMx9plBn9Jnz1 84XxTtZDic3OIbnr8F!y2Oi1J4gU/zHn8jND5pzEko+Ig==
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:35:13 GMT, Ron
wrote:

First of all, a 10 to 9 victory is less decisive than a 9 to 8 victory.
The difference isn't much, but, at some point, it does make sense to say
that the difference is too small to make a meaningful judgement. ...

Say the match is a "first one to win 10 games". When the 9-9
situation going to the current champion, the "first one to win 10
games" is no longer in effect.

1. The champion never has to win 10 games - he only has to win 9 games
to retain the title.

2. The challenger is still required to win 10 games, and furthermore,
he is denied the chance to win 10-9.

The champion doesn't have to win by any games if he gets 9 wins. The
challenger has to win by TWO games (10-8 or better).

In the format with a fixed number of games, with a tie going to the
champion, the challenger only has to win one more game than the
champion.
---
Replace you know what by j to email
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Taylor Kingston wrote:
1) When did the negotiations you describe take place? Are you
referring to Fischer-Karpov negotiations circa 1974-75, or
Karpov-Korchnoi negotiations circa 1977-78?

Karpov-Korchnoi negotiations. It's reported in some late 70's issue of
CL&R, though I'll have to do a bit of digging to turn up the exact
issue.


3) If the latter, are you saying Edmonson negotiated on Karpov's or
Korchnoi's behalf? Sounds strange. How did Edmondson get involved in
negotiations where neither party was American? With Fischer retired,
why would Edmonson care about preserving Fischer's match conditions?

I don't think Edmondson was actually working *for* Karpov, but he took
his side on it and used his influence. The CL&R article in question
was written by Edmondson himself, I think, so I'll try to find it
tonight and just quote from it directly when I do.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

3) If the latter, are you saying Edmonson negotiated on Karpov's or
Korchnoi's behalf? Sounds strange. How did Edmondson get involved in
negotiations where neither party was American? With Fischer retired,
why would Edmonson care about preserving Fischer's match conditions?


I've found a partial answer to this. CL&R, January 1978, p.27 has an
article by Edmondson on the Caracas Congress, in which he speaks
positively and supportively of the deal Karpov got, but I know there's
another article or letter somewhere around this same time that
describes Edmondson's role in going to bat for Karpov in greater
detail, and how Karpov took the unlimited match in exchange for the
rematch. I need to keep looking.

Anyway, according to this article, there were 6 packages on the table.
The Soviet proposal was for Best of 24 or 6 Wins. The USCF Policy
Board favored an Unlimited Match with no tie clause.

Edmondson cuts Karpov slack on not wanting the unlimited match:

"In fairness to Anatoly Karpov, I must insert here my impression that
he honestly feels a match requiring ten wins for victory would be
unnecessarily long and terribly exhausting, both physically and
mentally. He feels that the same winner would emerge from a no-draw
match requiring six wins, although he expressed beforehand a
willingness to compromise on eight wins for the match proposed in
1975."

He says that it was Karpov who proposed the rematch in exchange for
taking the unlimited match, and speaks positively, indeed almost
sycophantically of Karpov he

"Anatoly Karpov and Nona Gaprindashvili were both at Caracas, and
within 48 hours of his arrival Karpov demonstrated one reason why he
deserves to be World Champion - he can always come up with yet another
variation. In private conversation, he stated that none of the six
proposals on the Agenda - including that of the USSR Chess Federation -
struck him as the best. Rather than put a limit on the number of
games, he asked, why not return to what was customary up until 1963,
that is, have a rematch if the Championship changes hands?...
Absolutely no one opposed this compromise when it was made from the
floor by Dr. Tudela (Venezuela). The Central Committee recognized that
it combined the best elements of all that had gone before. The
exciting provision which requires a specific number of wins was
maintained and the drawn-game and drawn match possibilities eliminated.
And if a rematch does result - twice as much publicity for chess!"

This isn't the whole story. As I say, there's still another piece
floating around that I haven't found about Edmondson's lobbying efforts
to help the proposal pass. But this is enough to show that Edmondson
supported this package enthusiastically and without reservation. Not a
hint of dissension or any idea that there was anything unfair about it.
In addition, he goes out of his way to say that Karpov deserves to be
World Champion, and that bit about praising him for "coming up with a
new variation", is borderline toadying.

Looks like I did misremember something, or at least report it in a
misleading way. Although he didn't want an unlimited match, they
didn't exactly twist his arm to get him to accept this compromise, he
suggested it himself.


Kavalek's claim that the rematch was unfair because, if we (improperly)
combine both matches into one, the champion could possibly "retain"
despite losing 6-11 is from September 1978, page 473. Here's a quote
of his main point: "This time it is the rematch clause that makes the
regulations absolutely ridiculous. For Karpov to meet a new challenger
in 1981 in defense of the title FIDE handed him in 1975, all he needs
to do is win 6 games - in the REMATCH. He doesn't need even a single
win in the first match! Korchnoi, on the other hand, cannot be the
defending world champion in 1981 even if he wins eleven games in both
mtaches combined (six in the first): he must win TWELVE games. The
favoring factor for the champion is thus 12:6, an incomparably more
advantageous situation for Karpov than for any previous champion, and
far more so than under Fischer's proposals."

Denker's rebuttal letter to Kavalek is February 1979, page 64, though
he says a bit less than I remembered. As he put it, "[Kavalek's] reply
to Dr. Hunt puts me in mind of the old Talmudic scholars who could come
up with any desired interpretation when expedient. So it was that
after reading his article I became convinced that six was more than
five, less than seven, yet in some vague way equal to twelve." It must
have been some other letter, not Denkers, that pointed out that under
this argument, Smyslov, Tal and Euwe were never champions at all.

Evans' endorsement of Kavalek's argument is from January 1979, page 35.
Here, Evans states "And I want to go on record here as condemning
Karpov's rematch clause just as strongly, for the reasons expressed by
Kavalek last September." He goes on to say his oft-repeated bit about
how FIDE gave Karpov a bigger advantage than Fischer ever asked for,
but if he's basing that on Kavalek's argument, he needs to seriously
rethink it.


The problems with Kavaleks' argument seem so obvious that I can't
imagine that someone so intelligent didn't see them from the start.
He's obviously highly biased; he gives that away with the complaint
about FIDE handing Karpov the title, which, apart from having nothing
to do with this case, is untrue, to boot. Fischer handed it to Karpov
by resigning the title 9 months early rather than fighting for his
conditions.

The fudge here is that Kavalek assumes that the point of a world title
match is, not to win the match or become champion, or be sitting
champion in the next title defense, or anything like that. The point
is to be the defending champion at an arbitrary date in the futu
1981. I admit I'm not a big fan of rematches either. I think anyone
who climbs the mountain should be guaranteed a certain amount of time
at the top to try to set trends and create his own "era". Kasparov had
to play 120 championship games, more than most champions play *ever*,
before he could sit back and enjoy the title for a while. That just
doesn't seem right.

But Kavalek goes to absurd lengths to try to make his point. The
implication that Karpov and the Soviets wouldn't CARE about dropping
the title to the defector Korchnoi for a while so long as they got it
back a year later, is laughable. If Korchnoi had won the title and
lost it right back, he would indeed have gone down in history as a
world champion. Nobody would consider that Karpov had "retained" his
title because he was defending champion in 1981. That's simply
ridiculous.

Jud McCranie wrote:

Suppose there are 10,001 voters in a city and two candidates are
running for office, an incumbent and a challenger. After 10,000 votes
are counted, both have 5,000 votes. So are we going to let that next
vote decide, or are we going to discard that last vote and declare the
incumbent the winner?

Me: Let all of the votes count.

Jud, I agree (:-) that your favorite
option of deciding the title is valid.

I am only saying that still, after 9:9
or (for active chess) after 31:31,
the next win is like a coin toss.
Bookmakers would have it 1:1.
However, I am ready to accept a small
amount of the good/back luck, granted
that the conditions are fair (equal to
both players). It's ok that one of the
two equally matched players gets lucky,
and gets the title. It's painful to the other
one but it's not any tragedy.

In many sports the (olimpic or otherwise
world) champions are not the dominating
guys but the ones who peaked during the
championship. This somewhat diminishes
the status of the title but it's ok.

The traditional view of the chess public
was different. In the past they wanted
the challenger to be **clearly** better
than the champion in order to award
the challenger the title. From this point
of view, playing to the first win after 9:9
or after 31:31 is counterproductive --
the players are evenly matched and,
according to the old view, the old
champion should keep his/her title,
just as Botvinnik did on two occasions
(under the 12:12 provision).

Jud, do not redefine the meaning of
"clearly superior". Changing the usage
of the words will not change the
reality. Evenly matched players are
evenly matched, and one game won't
change it.


Best regards,

Wlod