On Nov 7, 12:15 am, "Graeme" wrote:
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.

Graeme, thanks much for making such an extensive post. I may have
those 1978-79 CL&Rs stashed in a closet somewhere; now you've given me
a reason to look.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:15 am, "Graeme" wrote:
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.

Graeme, thanks much for making such an extensive post. I may have
those 1978-79 CL&Rs stashed in a closet somewhere; now you've given me
a reason to look.

I would like to pose a question for discussion.
Consider that the Greeks contributed greatly to philosophy and
mathematics. They had a wonderful civilization. But were they better
than the Romans? Many of the Roman successes can from Greek ideas. SO
who was greater? Is the greater the one who conceptualized the ideas
whole cloth from the ethos or is the one who used the principles to
their maximum effect the greater?

Now, in chess who is greater? Is the greatest player the one(s) who
created new ideas and systems or is the greatest the one who simply
found the most effective way to use others ideas?

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h54g2000cwb .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 7 Nov 2006 03:58:00 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 56
Message-ID: . com
References: . com

.com

.com

NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.67.233
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162900685 16130 127.0.0.1 (7 Nov 2006
11:58:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:58:05 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O;
en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=66.81.67.233;
posting-account=pwtqtw0AAACw59dt7zOnp9M9tGBpr6Lp

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
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe. googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Rob"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 7 Nov 2006 07:11:56 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 139
Message-ID: om
References: . com
. com
. com
.com
.com
. com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.154.222.222
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162912321 13482 127.0.0.1 (7 Nov 2006
15:12:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:12:01 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: . com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=72.154.222.222;
posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f


Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:15 am, "Graeme" wrote:
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.

Graeme, thanks much for making such an extensive post. I may have
those 1978-79 CL&Rs stashed in a closet somewhere; now you've given me
a reason to look.

I would like to pose a question for discussion.
Consider that the Greeks contributed greatly to philosophy and
mathematics. They had a wonderful civilization. But were they better
than the Romans? Many of the Roman successes can from Greek ideas. SO
who was greater? Is the greater the one who conceptualized the ideas
whole cloth from the ethos or is the one who used the principles to
their maximum effect the greater?

Now, in chess who is greater? Is the greatest player the one(s) who
created new ideas and systems or is the greatest the one who simply
found the most effective way to use others ideas?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

THE REMATCH CLAUSE

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

Thanks to Graeme for providing the reference to what GM Evans wrote in
Chess Life (January 1979, page 35) under the heading of UNEASY CROWN
where it is clear that he did not just rely on GM Kavalek's argument
against the rematch clause.

Here is a pertinent passage (omitted by Graeme) where GM Evans quotes
the research of former FIDE president Dr. Max Euwe, a mathematician. GM
Evans was also far ahead of his time in suggesting that all games be
finished should be finished in a single session without adjournments.

"Many observers, including me, felt that it was unworthy of a champion
to impose such a handicap on the challenger. 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 (p. 473).

Bobby got most of what he wanted, but not all. He probably could have
gotten a return match clause if he had asked for it. Instead he
defaulted, depriving both himself and the world of an historic contest.

Dr. Euwe, in the August issue (p. 413) agreed that Karpov as champion
got more than Fischer as champion ever asked for. By accepting a
six-win match (giving up his 5-5 tie proposal) Karpov got the
protection of the return match clause. Dr. Euwe quite sensibly tried to
avoid this unless the challenger should win by a slim 6-5 margin, but
the Soviet juggernaut prevailed.

Now we are right back where we started, except that a fixed number of
games has been abolished. The challenger is still at a disadvantage
because the process is dominated by politics.

It's high time FIDE decreed that the crown goes to the first player who
wins six games -- no ifs, ands or buts. With a faster time limit each
game could be played to a finish in a single session, putting seconds
out of work and throwing both contestants squarely on their own
resources. This would also shorten the match, cut down draws, and
increase spectator appeal.

Of course it will never happen.


Graeme wrote:
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.

Louis Blair wrote:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe. googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Rob"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 7 Nov 2006 07:11:56 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 139
Message-ID: om
References: . com
. com
. com
.com
.com
. com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.154.222.222
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162912321 13482 127.0.0.1 (7 Nov 2006
15:12:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:12:01 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: . com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=72.154.222.222;
posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f


Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:15 am, "Graeme" wrote:
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.

Graeme, thanks much for making such an extensive post. I may have
those 1978-79 CL&Rs stashed in a closet somewhere; now you've given me
a reason to look.







I would like to pose a question for discussion.
Consider that the Greeks contributed greatly to philosophy and
mathematics. They had a wonderful civilization. But were they better
than the Romans? Many of the Roman successes can from Greek ideas. SO
who was greater? Is the greater the one who conceptualized the ideas
whole cloth from the ethos or is the one who used the principles to
their maximum effect the greater?

Now, in chess who is greater? Is the greatest player the one(s) who
created new ideas and systems or is the greatest the one who simply
found the most effective way to use others ideas?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Dr. Blair,
my news reader must not work. I do not see that you made a comment. Can
you please resubmit?
Rob

Uzytkownik "Louis Blair" napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...

I would like to pose a question for discussion.
Consider that the Greeks contributed greatly to philosophy and
mathematics. They had a wonderful civilization. But were they better
than the Romans? Many of the Roman successes can from Greek ideas. SO
who was greater? Is the greater the one who conceptualized the ideas
whole cloth from the ethos or is the one who used the principles to
their maximum effect the greater?

Ancient Greeks had not only great ideas but encorparated them into
life.Archimedes was also a great apprentice of his theories. Roman Empire
fell a long time ago. Greece still exists :-)


Now, in chess who is greater? Is the greatest player the one(s) who
created new ideas and systems or is the greatest the one who simply
found the most effective way to use others ideas?

Steinitz created a whole theory on positional chess but Rubinstein was the
one who best incorporated his ideas into practice, however Steinitz probably
achieved in chess more than Rubinstein.

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.

One implication of this is that if it is 9-8 in favor of the champion,
that is sufficient to show that the champion is the better player.
But, on the other hand, if it is 9-8 in favor of the challenger, that
ISN'T enough to show he is better. What is good for the goose is good
for the gander.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Jerzy wrote:
Uzytkownik "Louis Blair" napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...

I would like to pose a question for discussion.
Consider that the Greeks contributed greatly to philosophy and
mathematics. They had a wonderful civilization. But were they better
than the Romans? Many of the Roman successes can from Greek ideas. SO
who was greater? Is the greater the one who conceptualized the ideas
whole cloth from the ethos or is the one who used the principles to
their maximum effect the greater?

Ancient Greeks had not only great ideas but encorparated them into
life.Archimedes was also a great apprentice of his theories. Roman Empire
fell a long time ago. Greece still exists :-)


Now, in chess who is greater? Is the greatest player the one(s) who
created new ideas and systems or is the greatest the one who simply
found the most effective way to use others ideas?

Steinitz created a whole theory on positional chess but Rubinstein was the
one who best incorporated his ideas into practice, however Steinitz probably
achieved in chess more than Rubinstein.

So would you say that the Greeks are greater? Would that mean the an
Alekhine or a Nimzovitch is a greater player/talent than a Fischer or
Kasparov?

wrote:
Here is a pertinent passage (omitted by Graeme) where GM Evans quotes
the research of former FIDE president Dr. Max Euwe, a mathematician. GM
Evans was also far ahead of his time in suggesting that all games be
finished should be finished in a single session without adjournments.

Yes, the article is worth reading in full. I think Evans was basically
right in rejecting the rematch clause, but wrong in thinking that it
was a bigger advantage than Fischer asked for. What's better? A fair
shot at a 1 year title reign, or an unfair shot at a 3 year reign?
That's impossible to quantify, but I think most people, if they had to
be screwed, would prefer being screwed like Tal, to being screwed like
Bronstein. A 1 year title reign is a lot better than none at all. A
tie match doesn't benefit anyone except the champion, and certainly
doesn't "prove" that the players are equal.

My point was that it wasn't simply a matter of evil Russians supporting
the rematch versus all right thinking folks being against it. Even
Americans like Ed Edmondson and neutral parties were enthusiastic about
the idea at the time. I don't like it myself, I think that being
seeded directly into the finals is all the advantage the champion
deserves. But it seems like Edmondson's motivation for going along
with it was not to do a "dirty deal", but to make compromises to see to
it that Fischer's idea of an unlimited match should be tested in the
moden era. There were people at the time (Fischer included) who
seriously thought it would solve the draw problem, and needed to be
tried. To get Karpov to defend under a system he didn't want, it was
necessary to give him something in return.


Bobby got most of what he wanted, but not all. He probably could have
gotten a return match clause if he had asked for it.

Yes, I read that last night, and it's interesting in that it shows that
in the eyes of the rest of the world, the rematch was a smaller
advantage than making the challenger win by 2. Yeah, I think Evans is
probably right there. Bobby probably could have gotten the rematch
clause if he'd been willing to compromise at all. But I don't think he
would have played under any circumstances. In retrospect, we can see
that he retired in 1972, he just didn't bother to tell us. It wasn't
just the 1975 match he bowed out of, it was *all* events for the next
20 years.