wrote:

No less an authority than Averbakh, the Russian rep at Caracas, said
that "of course" Fischer could have gotten a rematch clause if he had
asked for it.


I'd take Averbakh with a grain of salt, but still, this sounds
believable. The 9-9 tie clause seemed shocking and unprecedented to
many neutral parties. Nobody had ever made a challenger win by 2
points before, certainly not in a FIDE match. But there was clear
precedent for a rematch clause.

Fischer, by the way, disputed this. He believed that there was
precedent for the 2-point clause. He claimed that Capablanca-Alekhine
had a 5-5 clause, but as far as I've seen, his source for that was a
Soviet book published in the early 70's, with no references to such a
thing existing beforehand. We all know the rumors about
Lasker-Schlechter, though they've never been confirmed. And
Steinitz-Zukertort definitely had a 9-9 tie clause, though it affected
both players equally. The rule there was that in the event of a 9-9
tie, the title would be vacant. As far as I've been able to tell,
neither of the Lasker-Steinitz matches had it. Either way, even if it
were true that a champion had once forced a 2 point clause on a
challenger back in the days when champions could do whatever they
wished, that's no reason why a supposedly fair and regulated
organization should have one.




3. A careful reading of what GM Evans wrote in UNEASY CROWN indicates
that Karpov at first wanted to keep the title if the match reached a
5-5 tie (just as Fischer wanted this to happen in the event it reached
9-9 with a 10 wins requirement).


That's true. I don't know if it was Karpov, Rodionov, or whoever, but
see the June 1976 issue of CL&R. The initial rules draft proposed a 6
wins match with a 5-5 tie clause, and a rematch option for the
challenger (!) if the match ended tied. But if the second match was
also tied 5-5, the champion retains. This was shouted down pretty
quickly, as it was pretty close to what had been denied to Fischer.
The only difference was that instead of a 9-9 tie clause, there was, in
effect, a 10-10 tie clause, and a LONG intermission in the middle of
the match.



Dr. Euwe confirmed that the rematch clause was mathematically a bigger edge for the champion than Fischer's 9-9 tie clause, even if many people didn't see it like that. Other mathematicians may disagree, and it would be interesting to see a definitive proof that settled the
matter once and for all.


Euwe did say that, or rather Benko said it and Euwe agreed with it.
But neither one of them gave any reasons at that time.

The arguments in favor of Fischer's system being less unfair than the
old system are mostly found in Fischer's letter to Evans in 1974,
Kalme's long article in November 1975, and a shorter piece by Kalme in
October 1975.

Evans seemed to disagree with Kalme. At least I saw him criticizing
Kalme's piece in one of the issues I flipped through the other night
(one in 1980, I think. Possibly January). The long Kalme article is
almost worthless. He shamelessly tosses out three entire matches
(1889, 1927 and 1961), for not providing the data that fit his
theories. Most of his article was devoted to "proving" that the
Unlimited match would produce fewer draws than a limited one, by
supposing that draw ratios were fixed and unalterable, and determined
entirely by match conditions, rather than playing styles, eras, or
level of parity between the players. He not only tossed out three
matches, he brought in the 1974 Candidates Final to try to prove that
the "Wins or Points" format was the worst of all, but in so doing,
ignored the other six 1974 Candidates Matches that "proved" just the
opposite.

The 1984/5 match permanently kiboshed Kalme's idea that the Unlimited
match produced more wins. Depending on the circumstances and
temperaments of the players it actually encouraged more draws that
time. But even in 1978, he looked bad. It was Kalme's idea that there
were 19 draws in the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match because the match
conditions forced that result (even though they didn't force similar
results in the other six Candidates matches). But the score in that
match (under the bad system) was +3-2=19. Four years later, in 1978,
playing under the "Good" system (6 wins no limit), the score after 24
between the same 2 players was +4-2=18. Big improvement. Soltis had
said earlier (March 1976) that anyone who thought Karpov was playing
differently in the 1974 match than he'd always played was kidding
themself.


But most of Kalme's long article is about the merits of the Unlimited
match. For discussions of the 9-9 tie clause, the best two concise
sources are Fischer's 1974 letter to Evans and Kalme's 2-page article
in October 1975, pages 676-677. They both seem to make the same
assumption that there's a fixed "expectation" of draws that can be
determined based on how many draws there have been before. I think
Fischer even says that in the old system, if the first 23 games are
drawn, that there's a 0% chance of the challenger winning Game 24. (If
it's +1-1=31, he has a 4% chance, and so on). The flaw in that should
be obvious. By that reasoning, if the first game of a match is drawn,
there's a 100% chance that all the remaining games will be drawn too,
which isn't right.

I'm looking at the 2-page article now. Kalme writes:


In Bobby Fischer's system the challenger must be considered a 53-47
favorite per decisive game before he can be viewed as a favorite in the
match, whereas in the old FIDE system this ratio stands at 53-47 if the
expectation of a draw is 60%, but 54-46 if the draw expectation is 70%,
and 56-44 if 80%.


I'm not sure what he means here. To win by a 10-8 score, the
challenger has to win 55.6% of the decisive games. I've just run my
own numbers:

FISCHER'S SYSTEM
10:8 = winner got 55.6% of the wins

12½-11½ SCORE IN A BEST OF 24 MATCH
+6-5=13 = 54% draws, winner got 54% of the wins
+5-4=15 = 62% draws, winner got 56% of the wins
+4-3=17 = 71% draws, winner got 57% of the wins
+3-2=19 = 79% draws, winner got 60% of the wins
+2-1=21 = 87% draws, winner got 67% of the wins
+1-0=23 = 96% draws, winner got 100% of the wins

Kalme goes on to say:


The view to the contrary is based on the fallacious reasoning that
because the challenger has to win by 2 games in Fischer's system and by
only 1 game in the old system, his inherent superiority must be greater
in the former. The fallacy of such reasoning can be seen by
considering an 8-8 score in the decisive games in Fischer's system as
compared to 11½-11½ counting all games in the old system. If the
players are evenly matched and the expectation of a draw is 60% (a
conservative estimate if one is to judge the history of matches where
draws play a significant role. For example, in Spassky-Petrosian 1966
we had 71% drawn, while in the recent Karpov-Korchnoi match it was 79%.



What he's trying to say here is that if there are more than a certain
number of draws, the challenger has to win a greater percentage of the
decisive games than he does in Fischer's system. "Expectation of
draws" is speculative and unscientific, but Kalme was dedicated to
treating a chess game like a coin flip.

To win 10-8 in Fischer's system, means that the winner got 55.6% of the
wins. What Kalme is saying is that in the old system, if a player wins
by +5-4=15, he's scored in 55.6% of the decisive games, therefore it
must be harder to do than winning by 2 points in Fischer's system.

That seems pretty dubious, nevertheless, this is his argument. But
note that his argument is if there are MORE than 60% draws, the old
system is more difficult than Fischer's system. Less than 60% draws
means that the old system is easier.


Just one problem there. In previous FIDE Best of 24 matches, there had
been exactly 122 draws out of 224 games. That's only 54.5%! So, even
by Kalme's argument, the old system is fairer than Fischer's, right?

Well, no. In true Kalme fashion, he gets around this difficulty by
throwing out the data he doesn't like, and considering only matches
"where draws played a significant role".


But he doesn't ignore the tossed out data completely. He talks around
it a bit like this:


Even in matches where it was less, if one considers stages where one
side gains by a draw the percentage is large. For example, in
Fischer-Spassky 7 of the last 8, or 88% were drawn near the end.) the
challenger has a 25% chance of winning 2 before losing 1, but only a
20% chance of winning the very next game, as he would have to in the
old system, since a draw would finish him off.

One must consider not by how much the challenger must win, but how easy
or difficult it is to win by this under the given match conditions, and
a careful analysis shows that power of the draw in the old system has
an overriding effect.


To see what he's talking about by "stages", you need to read his
November 1975 article in full. In that article, he arbitrarily divides
all the Best of 24 matches up into stages (except for the 1961 match,
which he tosses out). Stage 1 and Stage 2. In one of the stages, he
says, there's a shootout with a lot of decisive games, and in the other
there are a lot more draws.

But the division of Stages was completely arbitrary. His "shootout"
stage might happen in Stage 1 (i.e. 1972), or it might happen in Stage
2 (i.e. 1966). In addition, when does Stage 2 of a Best of 24 match
begin? Most people would say Game 13. No, the way Kalme divided it,
Stage 2 could begin anywhere from Game 13 to Game 20, depending on
whatever best suited the conclusion he was trying to reach. The 1961
match had to be thrown out entirely because no matter how you divided
it, it had a shootout in both stages.


As you might be able to tell, I think very little of Kalme's work. He
massages, fudges and tosses out data so freely as to make his
conclusions worthless. And his attempts to prove that 2 is less than 1
simply don't fly.

Besides, the whole argument is beside the point anyway. What
difference does it make even if we could prove that Fischer's system is
less unfair than the Best of 24 system? Fischer promised to eliminate
the champion's advantage, not reduce it. Believe it or not, Kalme does
consider this point:



Even if one wanted to do away with the champion's advantage, it is a
question that deserves a careful consideration, and at the very least
such action must be projected to a future date when it would be
directed against an abstract champion and not against a specific one...


He seems to be singing a different tune here. A minute ago he had no
problem whatsoever in advocating a sweeping and unprecedented change in
the system without careful study.

But he was ignoring history. What he suggests is precisely what HAD
been done already. The champion's advantage was eliminated at the FIDE
Congress in Vancounver in 1971 where they voted at Fischer's behest
that the 1975 match would be an unlimited one. No tie clause, and no
evidence that Fischer had ever asked for one. Remember that as
challenger he opposed the champion's advantage. And it was done
against an abstract champion, just as Kalme suggested.

Comparisons of Fischer's system vs. the Best of 24 are therefore
improper from the get go, as that system had been discarded for 1975
before Fischer even became Challenger. The system on the table for
1975 was 6 wins, no tie clause. Fischer wasn't trying to reduce the
champion's advantage, he was trying to re-introduce it after it had
already been abolished. When Fischer asked for 10 wins instead of 6,
FIDE granted it, but put a 36 game limit on it (subtly re-introducing
the champion's advantage, since there was now an 18-18 tie clause).

But Fischer wanted it both ways. He wanted not only to re-introduce
the champion's advantage after it had been eliminated, but to keep the
unlimited match format as well. He could have had one or the other,
but not both. Seeing as how he'd wanted the unlimited match for years,
and also said for years that the champion's advantage was unfair, I
think he should have taken the 10 wins no tie clause option.




5. GM Evans agreed with Graeme that nobody knows if Fischer would have
played Karpov in 1975 even if FIDE accepted ALL of his conditions.


Yes, I don't know if he would have played. He might have done so if he
had felt he would have looked too bad by refusing. In fact, I think
FIDE crossed him up. Remember, that he resigned the title in 1974 the
day after FIDE limited the match. If he was trying to get out of
playing, walking out over the Unlimited Match would gain him a lot of
sympathy. A lot of people believed in that format and wanted to see it
tried in modern chess. But at the end, when FIDE finally granted the
10 Wins unlimited match, Fischer had nothing to walk out over except
the 9-9 clause, which a lot of people even in America thought was
unfair. It wasn't his original intention to walk out over that, and
he'd probably have preferred not to.

We do know though that Fischer wasn't too eager to play chess at all,
against Karpov or anybody else. He was furious at both the Soviets and
FIDE at the time. Do you realize how much damage Fischer could have
done to them both if he'd played a title defense outside of FIDE's
auspices? Do you realize how terrible FIDE would have looked if, after
the 1978 Match, Fischer had said to Korchnoi "You got screwed in
Baguio. Why don't you and I play a match for the REAL title." The
Soviets seemed to have been scared silly that he might do exactly that,
but Fischer just didn't want to play chess any more.

That may have come out a bit u nreadable. I was surrounding quotes
with brackets, and the newsreader seems to have wiped out most of
the brackets, possibly making it hard to tell what are my own words and
what are quotes. I can re-post it if therey's any confusion.

WHY FISCHER FORFEITED HIS TITLE

Graeme has provided an excellent analysis. For a summary see--

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0

Graeme is correct that GM Evans considered the Kalme article an
abomination. So many readers complained about Kalme's fallacies, in
fact, that the final section was cancelled in Chess Life.

Evans tried in vain to persuade Fischer to drop his 9-9 tie clause and
lower the number of wins from 10 to 8, warning that otherwise the match
with Karpov might become a marathon (which happened in the first K-K
match where neither side could win six games in 48 tries).

As Hans Kmoch noted: finally America produced its greatest chess
genius, and he turned out to be just a stubborn boy.

Graeme wrote:
That may have come out a bit u nreadable. I was surrounding quotes
with brackets, and the newsreader seems to have wiped out most of
the brackets, possibly making it hard to tell what are my own words and
what are quotes. I can re-post it if therey's any confusion.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.germany.c om!news.nask.pl!news.nask.org.pl!news.internetia.p l!newsfeed.gazeta.pl!newsfeed.tpinternet.pl!atlant is.news.tpi.pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
From: "Jerzy"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:18:27 +0100
Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl/
Lines: 25
Message-ID:
References: . com
. com
. com
.com
.com
. com
. com
NNTP-Posting-Host: acfo126.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl
X-Trace: nemesis.news.tpi.pl 1162930920 5831 83.9.216.126 (7 Nov 2006
20:22:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:22:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0646-2, 2006-11-07), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

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.
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: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:44:08 -0600
From: Jud McCranie
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:44:06 -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: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.71.90.12
X-Trace:
sv3-4Ps5vnan/rU2bXRBrO8weeCnzEwRS2ahv+BeL4s5GWdtV3RZZ8Mpw678Ko5 9o9kwhpooeIRaWdDpdHY!wFHlLknm+Bz6Ka5Kh1oVi2fkT+5Sz k5NUv2aG0iBJXtkIb9jhmZuHP3Gd/gH4kWUVzezoSIFQDg2!hA8YaHPpKS4iyuXbJXhg38BXAA==
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.

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
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!k70g2000cwa .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Rob"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 7 Nov 2006 13:16:34 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 30
Message-ID: . com
References: . com
. 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 1162934199 4627 127.0.0.1 (7 Nov 2006
21:16:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:16:39 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
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: k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=72.154.222.222;
posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f


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?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!f16g2000cwb .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Jerzy"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 8 Nov 2006 01:10:36 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 18
Message-ID: .com
References: . com
. com
. com
.com
.com
. com
. com

. com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.55.162.74
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162977041 12259 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2006
09:10:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:10:41 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; pl; rv:1.8.1)
Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 www.suwalki.kmp.gov.pl:8195 (squid/2.5.STABLE1)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=80.55.162.74;
posting-account=q_HXVgwAAACg3s9pd9H3tBNW_HjvCoz9

Rob napisal(a):


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?

I haven`t written about those specific chessplayers but of course
Alekhine and Kasparov achieved in chess as a sport more than Herr
Fischer who quitted chess at an early age of 29. And of course
Nimzowitch achieved in chess as a sport less than those three guys
although as a predecessor he has had a great impact on Herr Fischer and
Kasparov but I think Alekhine had even a greater impact than Nimzo. :-)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe. googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Jerzy"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 8 Nov 2006 04:02:21 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 19
Message-ID: . com
References: . com
. com
. com
.com
.com
om
. com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.55.162.74
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162987346 8666 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2006
12:02:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:02:26 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; pl; rv:1.8.1)
Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 www.suwalki.kmp.gov.pl:8195 (squid/2.5.STABLE1)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.55.162.74;
posting-account=q_HXVgwAAACg3s9pd9H3tBNW_HjvCoz9

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) napisal(a):
wrote:

It's high time FIDE decreed that [...]

FIDE and FIDE... -- I am sick hearing
that. Kramnik has won the championship,
it's his. FIDE has lost the championship
and should forget it. Who cares about FIDE!

Kramnik does not have the Kasparov's
energy to organize and prompt things,
but I am still happy that the championship
is in his hands and not in the blood stained
hands of Iljumzhinov.

There is no doubt that Kramnik won FIDE WCC and now he is a FIDE chimp
:-)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!f16g2000cwb .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Rob"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 8 Nov 2006 06:27:22 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 25
Message-ID: .com
References: . com
. com
. com
.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 1162996046 5527 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2006
14:27:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:27:26 +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: f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=72.154.222.222;
posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f


Jerzy wrote:
Rob napisal(a):


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?



I haven`t written about those specific chessplayers but of course
Alekhine and Kasparov achieved in chess as a sport more than Herr
Fischer who quitted chess at an early age of 29. And of course
Nimzowitch achieved in chess as a sport less than those three guys
although as a predecessor he has had a great impact on Herr Fischer and
Kasparov but I think Alekhine had even a greater impact than Nimzo. :-)

I believe Alekhines "creative" work ethic is unique in chess. He
developed not only a theory but also applied the theory to great
effect.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!m73g2000cwd .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Taylor Kingston"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 8 Nov 2006 06:34:05 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 9
Message-ID: .com
References: . com
. com
. com
.com
.com
. com
. com

. com
.com
.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.180.245
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162996450 7000 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2006
14:34:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:34:10 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: .com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;
AT&T CSM6.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 netcache2 (NetCache NetApp/6.0.4)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=198.96.180.245;
posting-account=EiI5yw0AAACV86a5CGNajLjBxzUoGk-N



On Nov 8, 9:27 am, "Rob" wrote:
I believe Alekhines "creative" work ethic is unique in chess. He
developed not only a theory but also applied the theory to great effect.

To what "theory" do you refer, Rob? And I would agree that Alekhine's
chess work ethic was exemplary, but it was hardly unique.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA