QUICK POINTS

1. "Bobby probably could have gotten the rematch clause if he'd been
willing to compromise at all." (Graeme)

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.

2. Averbakh said the Russians were shocked when Edmondson suggested the
rematch clause if Karpov accepted the principle of six wins instead of
24 games with the champion keeping the title on a 12-12 tie.

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 may be why Edmondson, whom
Fischer had fired, suggested the rematch clause.

4. "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." (Graeme)

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.

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.




Graeme wrote:
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.

Rob wrote:
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

Rob, I have noticed that many postings by Dr. Blair
(or some imposter) appear to have no content other
than headers, and repeating entire postings of others.
The problem seems to have started a couple of weeks
ago. You're not the only one, and I doubt very much
if there is anything wrong with your browser.

-- help bot

wrote:
QUICK POINTS

1. "Bobby probably could have gotten the rematch clause if he'd been
willing to compromise at all." (Graeme)

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.


This overt reliance upon what people say as somehow
establishing the objective facts is astonishing.


2. Averbakh said the Russians were shocked when Edmondson suggested the
rematch clause if Karpov accepted the principle of six wins instead of
24 games with the champion keeping the title on a 12-12 tie.

Compare and contrast this statement to what has already
appeared in this thread; it was clearly stated that a third party
proposed this to FIDE, and that no one -- not even the Russians
-- objected at the time. Does this indicate that any "shock"
would then have been the result of an American suggesting
this idea? And this appears to contradict the statement
made earlier in this thread as to who did the proposing of the
idea.


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 may be why Edmondson, whom
Fischer had fired, suggested the rematch clause.


Again, it was stated earlier in this thread that a third party
proposed this to FIDE. You two can't have it both ways;
either Mr. Edmonson proposed this, or the other guy did.
Did Mr. Edmonson get a third party to propose this idea
*for him* to FIDE? If so, how did the Russians know the
idea was "suggested" by Mr. Edmondson? And earlier
it was stated that the idea was suggested first by GM
Karpov, *to* Mr. Edmondson.


4. "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." (Graeme)

Dr. Euwe confirmed that the rematch clause was mathematically a bigger
edge for the champion than Fischer's 9-9 tie clause,

Please show your work. Presenting an answer from out
of the blue looks like possible cheating. Showing one's
work lends substance and support to one's answer.

Could there be some reason you are afraid to show
the supporting work here?


even if many people didn't see it like that. Other mathematicians
may disagree,

Any man with a decent education need not rely upon
pure authority arguments -- even in the realms of math.
Besides, this is hardly calculus. Probability, yes. Logic,
yes. But how technical can it possibly be? One gets
the impression that you are deliberately hiding something.


and it would be interesting to see a definitive proof that settled the
matter once and for all.


This has already appeared in this very thread. The key
idea is that two matches are not the same as one match.
Treating two as if they were one is an error. This is not
unrelated to math, a subject which appears to pose serious
problems for you.


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.


Well, GM Fischer may have known. But he is lost in
another world. Besides, there is a problem with the
above comment: if FIDE accepted ALL of... what about
the possibility of infinite conditions? I mean to say,
what if GM Fischer continually added more, each and
every time FIDE accepted all the others? This process
has to end somewhere; the world does not stop revolving
simply because GM Fischer has a serious psychological
problem.


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.


Here is my two cents worth on this:

The idea that there can/must be one, and only one,
world chess champion at any given time, is silly. There
is no good reason why we could not have co-champions
in the event of a tie.
In view of this, there is then no valid reason whatever
for granting any reigning world champ a tied match
clause, or a drawn match title retention. Period.

-- help bot

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. :-)

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.

Regards,

Wlod

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
:-)

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.

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.

CHESS LIFE, AUGUST 1978, PAGE 413

THE INFAMOUS REMATCH CLAUSE

An interview with Max Euwe

BENKO: It is interesting to compare the Karpov negotiations with the
Fischer negotiations. Don't you think that Karpov as champion is
getting more than Fischer as champion ever asked for?

EUWE: Yes, I do think so. But Korchnoi knew all about the suggestions
[6 wins with a rematch clause restored for Karpov]. He visited my
office often at that time. As a matter of fact, I suggested that the
return match should take place only if the candidate wins by no more
than one point. But the committee did not accept this.

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.

help bot wrote:
Rob wrote:
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







Rob, I have noticed that many postings by Dr. Blair
(or some imposter) appear to have no content other
than headers, and repeating entire postings of others.
The problem seems to have started a couple of weeks
ago. You're not the only one, and I doubt very much
if there is anything wrong with your browser.

-- help bot

Bot,
Thanks. I didn't know if he was having computer problems or may have
suffered a stroke.
Rob