NOT QUITE ACCURATE

By Larry Parr

Larry [Evans] has long made what I thought to be the specious claim that,
because of the rematch clause, under the system in effect until Petrosian's
win, a challenger was forced to win two matches before he could be considered
the champion. -- Bob Musicant

Not quite accurate.

GM Evans never said the victor of the first match was not world champ. He
repeatedly stressed that the REMATCH CLAUSE COMBINED WITH DRAW ODDS was
patently unfair to the challenger. Because the USSR dominated FIDE, no reforms
were possible until Fischer emerged.

GM Evans said "Kasparov struck a blow for justice" by renouncing the
rematch clause when he beat Karpov.

In the scheduled 16-game match that Kasparov lost to Kramnik in 2000, the
defending champion retained draw odds but had no rematch clause.

GM Evans' holds that neither side should have any edge. In case of a tie
in a set number of games (where draws count) he suggested that the champion
could have White in the next game with colors alternating until someone wins a
game.

I believe the champion should not be given White but that colors should
continue alternating until someone wins the next game.

In the scheduled 16-game match that Kasparov lost to Kramnik in 2000, the
defending champion retained draw odds but had no rematch clause.


But after his defeat to Kramnik, didn't Garry complain that Kramnik owed
him a rematch?

John

THE WHINING CONTINUES

By Larry Parr

In the scheduled 16-game match that Kasparov lost to Kramnik in 2000, the
defending champion retained draw odds but had no rematch clause.
-- Larry Parr

But after his defeat to Kramnik, didn't Garry complain that Kramnik owed him a
rematch? -- John Swartz

Kasparov complains about a lot of things, but a rematch clause wasn't in
the contract. To this day he claims that somehow Deep Blue cheated against him
in 1997, but where's the beef?

Q. How do you know Kasparov's plane has arrived? A. The engines stop but,
the whining continues.

This joke is cited in GAME OVER
-- see Evans On Chess (9/22/03)
http://www.worldchessnetwork.com

(Parrthenon) writes:

NOT QUITE ACCURATE

By Larry Parr

Larry [Evans] has long made what I thought to be the specious claim that,
because of the rematch clause, under the system in effect until Petrosian's
win, a challenger was forced to win two matches before he could be considered
the champion. -- Bob Musicant

Not quite accurate.

GM Evans never said the victor of the first match was not world champ. He
repeatedly stressed that the REMATCH CLAUSE COMBINED WITH DRAW ODDS was
patently unfair to the challenger. Because the USSR dominated FIDE, no reforms
were possible until Fischer emerged.


What evidence do you have that the 19 year old Fischer
had anything to do with Botvinnik losing the rematch
clause? It seems to me that some reform did in fact
take place.


GM Evans said "Kasparov struck a blow for justice" by renouncing the
rematch clause when he beat Karpov.

Indeed.


In the scheduled 16-game match that Kasparov lost to Kramnik in 2000, the
defending champion retained draw odds but had no rematch clause.

Though in a 16 game match the draw odds are more important
than in the traditional 24 game match. So, little good as
it did him, Kasparov did have a bigger champion's edge
than did Spassky or Petrosian.


I believe the champion should not be given White but that colors should
continue alternating until someone wins the next game.

Sounds good to me. Which means it will never be adopted.

William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

SPORTS ILLUSTRATED 1962

By Larry Parr

After the candidates' tournament at Curacao where several Soviets ganged up
on Fischer, he wrote a famous article in Sports Illustrated about how the
Russkies cheat at chess. It hit with the force of an earthquake. Botvinnik
complained bitterly about losing the rematch clause vs. Petrosian and the
qualifying system was also changed by FIDE to one-on-one matches where players
from a nation couldn't collude against an outsider.

If you don't think that Fischer had anything to do with these reforms, so
be it.

GM Evans never said the victor of the first match was not world champ. He
repeatedly stressed that the REMATCH CLAUSE COMBINED WITH DRAW ODDS was
patently unfair to the challenger. Because the USSR dominated FIDE, no reforms
were possible until Fischer emerged.
-- Larry Parr

What evidence do you have that the 19 year old Fischer had anything to do with
Botvinnik losing the rematch
clause? It seems to me that some reform did in fact take place. -- William
Hyde

(Parrthenon) writes:

SPORTS ILLUSTRATED 1962

By Larry Parr

After the candidates' tournament at Curacao where several Soviets ganged up
on Fischer, he wrote a famous article in Sports Illustrated about how the
Russkies cheat at chess. It hit with the force of an earthquake. Botvinnik
complained bitterly about losing the rematch clause vs. Petrosian and the
qualifying system was also changed by FIDE to one-on-one matches where players
from a nation couldn't collude against an outsider.


Clearly Fischer's charges led to the changes in the
candidates event. But what reason do we have to think
it had anything to do with the rematch clause?

It would seem odd to deny Botvinnik his rematch in the
middle of a championship cycle, rather than at the
beginning. It's quite possible, of course, though it
would argue that Botvinnik's power in FIDE was fairly weak.
I wonder what B had to say in "Achieving the Aim".

If you have evidence that it was done that way, let me know.

If you don't think that Fischer had anything to do with these reforms, so
be it.

I'd suggest saving this sort of rhetoric for at least round two
of any discussion. We have talked before, remember?

William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

William Hyde wrote (2003-09-24 10:00:41 PST):
What evidence do you have that the 19 year
old Fischer had anything to do with Botvinnik
losing the rematch clause? It seems to me that
some reform did in fact take place.


Larry Parr wrote (2003-09-24 11:22:23 PST):

After the candidates' tournament at Curacao
where several Soviets ganged up on Fischer,
he wrote a famous article in Sports Illustrated
about how the Russkies cheat at chess. It hit
with the force of an earthquake. Botvinnik
complained bitterly about losing the rematch
clause vs. Petrosian and the qualifying system
was also changed by FIDE to one-on-one matches
where players from a nation couldn't collude
against an outsider.

_
Did the Fischer Sports Illustrated article
complain about the rematch clause?

(Louis Blair) writes:

William Hyde wrote (2003-09-24 10:00:41 PST):
What evidence do you have that the 19 year
old Fischer had anything to do with Botvinnik
losing the rematch clause? It seems to me that
some reform did in fact take place.


Larry Parr wrote (2003-09-24 11:22:23 PST):

After the candidates' tournament at Curacao
where several Soviets ganged up on Fischer,
he wrote a famous article in Sports Illustrated
about how the Russkies cheat at chess. It hit
with the force of an earthquake. Botvinnik
complained bitterly about losing the rematch
clause vs. Petrosian and the qualifying system
was also changed by FIDE to one-on-one matches
where players from a nation couldn't collude
against an outsider.

_
Did the Fischer Sports Illustrated article
complain about the rematch clause?

I do not have a copy of the article here. He
may quite possibly have criticized the rematch
clause in the article, but I recall no such
comments. On the other hand I read this article
decades ago, and I was concentrating on the Curacao
results at the time.

Even if he didn't make that complaint it is possible
that he was the source of the change. While FIDE
was cleaning up the candidates event(1) they may
have taken advantage of the opportunity to drop the
rematch clause. But that would depend on whether
these reforms were simultaneous - another fact
to be determined.

(1) Or, as I would say, eliminate one of the most
interesting set of tournaments of all time for a
series of short matches in which Fischer declined
to play for a decade.

William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
om...

Did the Fischer Sports Illustrated article
complain about the rematch clause?

Louis,
Like Prof. Hyde, I read the article, "The Russians Have Fixed World Chess"
many years ago, but my memory of it is that it dealt solely with a plethora
of draws among the Soviet players at Curacao, including the curious
circumstance that [some? at least one?] occurred in positions(s) where one
player had a decided advantage.
Bob