"The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing everything to
break off the match between Fischer and Karpov"

- Lev Khariton



Anyone who would write something as absurd as what he has written here about
Fischer quitting as World Champion is suspect in any critiques of someone
else as far as historical accuracy goes.

Probably much of what Khariton says is accurate, but the Fischer stuff goes
off the deep end into lala land.

- Joshua B. Lilly

http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/7375$wix.htm

World Chess Championship
1975 Fischer forfeits to Karpov


I don't know how Fischer feels about it, but I consider it a huge loss
that he and I never played our match. I felt like the child who has
been promised a wonderful toy and has it offered to him but then, at
the last moment, it's taken away. - A.Karpov, Karpov on Karpov

Fischer demanded that the match be won by the first player to win ten
games, with no limit to the number of games. The champion would retain
the title in the event of a 9-9 score. This meant, of course, that the
challenger would need to win the match by a score of 10-8.

FIDE's rules were that the reigning champion retained the title in the
event of a 12-12 tie after 24 games. The same rules governing World
Championship matches had been in place since the 1949 FIDE Congress in
Paris. They were confirmed at the 1974 Congress in Nice.

Fischer claimed that his proposal was fairer to the challenger than
FIDE's limit of 24 games. In a letter to Larry Evans published
November 1974 in Chess Life, Fischer wrote:-

Steinitz, Tchigorin, Lasker (too), Gunsberg, Zukertort, etc. all
played under the ten win system I proposed (and some matches with the
9-9 tie clause). Yet the Russians pretend that I'm asking for an
UNPRECEDENTED advantage. Incidentally, Larry, the Capa-Alekhine match
DID have a draw clause at 5-5. Yes, Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take
the title just the same as my match proposal.
In the same issue of Chess Life, editor Burt Hochberg quoted Fischer:-

The whole idea is to make sure the players draw blood by winning
games, and the spectators get their money's worth.

and then commented:-

The rules say that draws do not count in the scoring, but they
certainly do count as games played, and every draw in a limited match
brings the leader's ultimate victory closer. Fischer is correct, in
our opinion, and the current [Karpov-Korchnoi Candidates semifinal]
match proves it. If FIDE does not discourage draws by forcing the
players to win, chess may die the draw-death predicted by Capablanca
many years ago. The public deserves a fighting match, and it is FIDE's
obligation to set the rules that will make it possible. Taking a cue
from Bobby, some enterprising businessman should produce a button
reading: DRAW BLOOD, NOT GAMES.
Ed Edmondson of the USCF negotiated on Fischer's behalf. An
extraordinary FIDE Congress, called at Bergen-aan-Zee in Holland in
March 1975, refused to change FIDE's decision.

Fischer did not respond to the FIDE invitation to play the match under
FIDE conditions. Karpov was declared World Champion on 1 April 1975.
It is Karpov's curious fate that he has never beaten a reigning world
champion in a match for the title.

Underlying the controversy is the question of whether the champion
should have any advantage in a tie match.

I take it from the tone of his writing that Lev Khariton has a "thing" about
Kasparov. I wonder what it it? Maybe he got pushed around the school yard as
a kid by a bully named Garry?
Leopold

"tomic" wrote in message
...

Modesty has never been Kasparov's forte. With years, however, our
drawbacks
progress geometrically. This is the first thought that springs to mind
when
reading his interviews, especially the most recent one at
www.chessbase.com
Well, lack of modesty is not his only drawback that gets unproportionally
inflated. What strikes me more, is the lack of objectivity and I would
say,
cruel indifference to the past whether it be chess or otherwise.
Paradoxically, there are still people who consider Garry Kasparov a great
historian.
Kasparov's newest blockbuster, his triology "My Chess Predecessors" was
the
subject of the aforementioned interview. Chess publishers in Moscow and
New
York almost simultaneously released the first volume of Kasparov's
research.
The book was compiled together with Dmitry Plisetsky, a meticulous and
hard-working journalist, who has done, I am sure, a lion's share of work
aided by Kasparov's mega-computers.
Whose predecessors, in this case, are the first 12 World Champions,
Kasparov
's or Plisetsky's? - this is what one of my pen-pals asked me recently. I
would not say that the title of the triology is too humble. If the
predecessors are great, so Kasparov is great as well.No wonder the third
volume of the book will be dedicated totally to Kasparov's games. Why
"predecessors" then? I would call the whole piece "12+1", that would be
more logical.So, this is a book on chess history, and obviously Kasparov
thinks that it has wrapped up in him. But where is Vladimir Kramnik, his
toppler?Or may be, Kramnik has not yet become part of chess history?
Here are two quotes from Kasparov's interview at chessbase.com
"It's enough to say that any average GM today knows more than Fischer did
in
1972, at his peak. He was way ahead of his generation, but we consider
many
of those games primitive now, just because we know so much more. Not about
his talent, but about the knowledge. You look at the openings of
Fischer-Spassky, they were searching in the dark. Nowadays you are one
click
away from the answer"
Thanks, Mr.Kasparov! At least, you admit that Fischer had a talent. But
how
about Fischer and Spassky "searching in the dark"? In this interview
Kasparov remarks that the new generation of chess players were brought up
on
the games of his matches with Karpov in the 80s. Doesn't Kasparov think
that
he grew up as a chess player learning from Spassky and Fischer. If he
considers himself a historian, at least a chess historian, he cannot
disagree with me.
Another quote: "In Volume Three I argue that Karpov had a very good
chance
to beat Fischer in 75. I would even consider Karpov the favorite in 75. He
was more flexible, he was from a new generation. Karpov's chess was
multifaceted. Fischer would have had a very hard time, and I think Fischer
knew that. I doubt Fischer would have avoided a match with Korchnoi and
Spassky"
Of course, Kasparov has an interest to believe that Karpov could have
defeated Fischer. So, he defeated Karpov, who was stronger that Fischer.
Strange, but never before has he maintained that Karpov was stronger than
Fischer in 1975. The real stunner, however, is that Kasparov believes that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov intentionally, or that he would
have
definitely played with Korchnoi or Spassky. This view was shared in the
70s
only by the brain-washed, law-abiding Soviet citizens and some
anti-Fischer
Americans today. What a standpoint to hear from a chess historian like
Kasparov! I wonder whether his views of other champions in his book are
as
logical and consistent?
The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing everything to

break off the match between Fischer and Karpov, and finally the Soviets
succeeded. In 1975 Kasparov was only 12 years old and may be he was too
young to understand what was happening. However, today it has been
universally acknowledged that Fischer was stonewalled by the Soviet and
world chess community with the criminal non-interference of the US Chess
Federation. Suffice it to read, among other documents, the book "Russians
vs. Fischer" published in English in Moscow a few years ago. To say that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov is not only an error, it is a lie
vis-a-vis chess history!
If Kasparov is unable (or he does not want ) to properly evaluate the
events
of chess history that happened in his lifetime, how can we trust his
assessment of history in general years and centuries before he was born?
Are
his opinions competent and objective? And how can we trust his
pronouncements today, when, for example, he supported the "theory" that
Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction" and therefore had to be attacked by
the United States?

LEV KHARITON

Karamazov wrote (17 Jul 2003 08:08:40 -0700):

In a letter to Larry Evans published November 1974 in Chess
Life, Fischer wrote:-

Steinitz, Tchigorin, Lasker (too), Gunsberg, Zukertort, etc. all
played under the ten win system I proposed (and some matches
with the 9-9 tie clause).

_
"Some" seems to be only one as far as world championship
matches go. There was a 9-9 tie provision in the 1886
Steinitz-Zukertort match, but, at that time, neither player
was considered to be champion and thus, neither player would
have had the title in the event of a draw. Thus, unlike the 1974
Fischer proposal, the 1886 rules gave no advantage to either
player.


Karamazov wrote (17 Jul 2003 08:08:40 -0700):

In a letter to Larry Evans published November 1974 in Chess
Life, Fischer wrote:-
...
Incidentally, Larry, the Capa-Alekhine match DID have a draw
clause at 5-5. Yes, Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take the title
just the same as my match proposal.

_
A book by Panov and a number of other books by Soviet or
Russian authors say the same thing, and the matter has been
debated more than once, but, so far, I have seen nobody
produce a report from the time of the match that says that
a 5-5 tie rule applied. (References to the possibility of a tie
have been mentioned, but this could have referred to the
possibility of the players agreeing to a drawn match after
a large number of games.)

The Oxford Companion and a number of other books say
that the Capablanca-Alekhine match was governed by the
London rules that contained no 5-5 tie rule. These rules
had been advocated by Capablanca himself as well as
a number of other noted players of the day. If Capablanca
had sought to depart from his own proposal by requiring
someone challenging him to finish two or more points
ahead of Capablanca, one would think that there would have
been a lot of comment, particularly from Alekhine who
later wrote at length about the match.


Karamazov wrote (17 Jul 2003 08:08:40 -0700):

In a letter to Larry Evans published November 1974 in Chess
Life, Fischer wrote:-
...
Yet the Russians pretend that I'm asking for an
UNPRECEDENTED advantage.

_
On 2003-05-03 22:37:21 PST, NoMoreChess posted a
passage that included the remark:

"The attempt to compare and contrast what Fischer
'demanded' of FIDE to what other world champions
got, serves not to place all this into better perspective,
but only to cloud the real issue; that being whether or
not FIDE was right in refusing to grant all of Fischer's
conditions."

My feeling is similar. Whatever happened in 1927 (or
1910), there was no FIDE that was in a position to take
the title away from a champion who sought inappropriate
rules.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:33:08 -0500, Louis Blair wrote:

tomic wrote (Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:05:21 +0200):

Delegates accepted the first Fischer's claim to play without limit
of the game numbers (37:33). But, the second Fischer's claim
was refused. That was Fischer's claim that he detain the title if
the result in match would be undecided, 9:9. That claim was
refused with 35:32 and 3 votes were retired. You know that
Fischer's demand was used by other WCC (e.g. Botvinnik,
Lasker).

_
I know of no world championship match played by Botvinnik
or Lasker where the challenger had to finish two points ahead
of the champion in order to cause the champion to lose his title.

The Capablanca/Alekhine match had that clause, though it was to 6 games,
not 10. A 5-5 score resulted in a tied match and Jose would have retained
his title in the circumstance.

So there _is_ a precedent for the clause.

It's obviously that Fischer was not afraid of Karpov. By
the way, you can see Chessmetric evaluation of the strength
Karpov and Fischer in 1975. The difference was too big ...

_
By 1975, Fischer had been away from serious chess for
three years. Human emotions, especially Fischer emotions,
are not necessarily governed by chessmetrics.

He was also away from serious chess for the last 3 years of the 60s.
But when he came back in 70s he was devastating. It stands to reason
that in 1975 Fischer was still in peak form, and would have beaten karpov.

wrote in message
...

By 1975, Fischer had been away from serious chess for
three years. Human emotions, especially Fischer emotions,
are not necessarily governed by chessmetrics.

He was also away from serious chess for the last 3 years of the 60s.
But when he came back in 70s he was devastating. It stands to reason
that in 1975 Fischer was still in peak form, and would have beaten karpov.


You are probably right. But now we can only make guesses who would have won
then.


Regards,

Jerzy

Phil wrote (22 Jul 2003 21:55:01 GMT):

The Capablanca/Alekhine match had that clause, though it was
to 6 games, not 10. A 5-5 score resulted in a tied match and
Jose would have retained his title in the circumstance.

_
A book by Panov and a number of other books by Soviet or
Russian authors say this, and the matter has been debated more
than once, but, so far, I have seen nobody produce a report
from the time of the match that says that a 5-5 tie rule applied.
(References to the possibility of a drawn match have been
mentioned, but this could have referred to the possibility of
the players agreeing to a drawn match after a large number
of games.)

The Oxford Companion and a number of other books say
that the Capablanca-Alekhine match was governed by the
London rules that contained no 5-5 tie rule. These rules
had been advocated by Capablanca himself as well as
a number of other noted players of the day. If Capablanca
had sought to depart from his own proposal by requiring
Alekhine to finish two or more points ahead of Capablanca,
one would think that there would have been a lot of comment,
particularly from Alekhine who later wrote at length about the
match.


Phil (22 Jul 2003 21:55:01 GMT):

So there _is_ a precedent for the clause.

_
On 2003-05-03 22:37:21 PST, NoMoreChess posted a
passage that included the remark:

"The attempt to compare and contrast what Fischer
'demanded' of FIDE to what other world champions
got, serves not to place all this into better perspective,
but only to cloud the real issue; that being whether or
not FIDE was right in refusing to grant all of Fischer's
conditions."

My feeling is similar. Whatever happened in 1927, there
was no FIDE that was in a position to take the title away
from a champion who sought inappropriate rules.

tomic wrote (Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:05:21 +0200):
It's obviously that Fischer was not afraid of Karpov. By
the way, you can see Chessmetric evaluation of the strength
Karpov and Fischer in 1975. The difference was too big ...

I wrote (Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:33:08 -0500):
By 1975, Fischer had been away from serious chess for
three years. Human emotions, especially Fischer emotions,
are not necessarily governed by chessmetrics.


Phil wrote (22 Jul 2003 21:55:01 GMT):

He was also away from serious chess for the last 3 years
of the 60s. But when he came back in 70s he was devastating.

_
Phil seems to have things exaggerated.

"As the spring of 1970 approached, Fischer had gone
eighteen months and played only one public game."
- Frank Brady (Bobby Fischer: Profile of a Prodigy,
page 154)


Phil wrote (22 Jul 2003 21:55:01 GMT):

It stands to reason that in 1975 Fischer was still in peak form,
and would have beaten karpov.

_
Here is part of how Reuben Fine reasoned:

"... It seems more likely that the capture of the title [by
Fischer in 1972] led to an emotional upset of serious
proportions. ... There is the grave danger that he may
never play again. It would be tragic for the world of
chess to lose such a great mind. It can only be hoped
that the FIDE or the U. S. Chess Federation will take
some steps to help him out of his turmoil." - Fine (1976)

Starting in 1972, Fischer spent about two decades away
from serious chess.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:07:03 +0200, Jerzy wrote:
wrote in message
...

By 1975, Fischer had been away from serious chess for
three years. Human emotions, especially Fischer emotions,
are not necessarily governed by chessmetrics.

He was also away from serious chess for the last 3 years of the 60s.
But when he came back in 70s he was devastating. It stands to reason
that in 1975 Fischer was still in peak form, and would have beaten karpov.


You are probably right. But now we can only make guesses who would have won
then.

Sure... but also keep in mind how strong he still was in '92 after *20*
years away. He wasn't in '72 form, but his "rusty" performance rating
from the '92 match was still 2720 or so... good enough to still be top
10 after *20* years! so I think it's VERY reasonable to assume he
would have won in '75.

wrote in message
...


Sure... but also keep in mind how strong he still was in '92 after *20*
years away. He wasn't in '72 form, but his "rusty" performance rating
from the '92 match was still 2720 or so... good enough to still be top
10 after *20* years! so I think it's VERY reasonable to assume he
would have won in '75.

Phil, Fischer in `92 wasn`t Fischer from `72. He was strong but he wasn`t
that strong.
He lost 20 years of active playing ....

And probably we have to wait another 20 years when Fischer emerges to play
another match with Spassky ))

Regards,

Jerzy

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:44:12 +0200, Jerzy wrote:
wrote in message
...


Sure... but also keep in mind how strong he still was in '92 after *20*
years away. He wasn't in '72 form, but his "rusty" performance rating
from the '92 match was still 2720 or so... good enough to still be top
10 after *20* years! so I think it's VERY reasonable to assume he
would have won in '75.

Phil, Fischer in `92 wasn`t Fischer from `72. He was strong but he wasn`t
that strong.
He lost 20 years of active playing ....

As I stated above... but he performed at 2720 elo, after 20 years of
inactivity. that's really quite amazing. The point I'm making is how
strong he clearly was in '75, enough to have put karpov away no doubt.