Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2003-12-06 01:37:27 PST):
Karpov and the Soviet Federation did everything to
avoid a match with Fischer. So, he became the first
"World Champion" who didn't bother to play a
championship match.

I wrote (2003-12-07 12:48:08 PST):
What did Karpov do to avoid a match with Fischer in
1974-5?


Wlodzimierz Holsztynski now writes (2003-12-07 18:31:03 PST):

Spasski could easily and more than once break his
match against Fischer and he would continue his
champion tenure. Instead, Spasski chose to play.

Korchnoy could say I have already won against
Kasparov, when Kasparov failed to show up on time
for their candidate match due to Karpov's and
Soviet Federation manipulations. Korchnoy had
chosen to play.

Karpov could easily make a statement that 9:9
clause is no big deal (indeed, it was not). He
could say: I want to play. Instead he chose to
cooperate with the Soviet Federation in avoiding
ther math. He chose not to play.

_
Neither Spassky nor Korchnoi agreed to conditions
that would have required them to try to finish two
or more points ahead of an an opponent. If
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wants to blame Karpov for
failing to agree to such conditions, it seems to
me that he should be explicit about this instead
of using vague language like, "... did everything
to avoid ...".

Karpov's plain was delayed from BRASIL,
where he promoted chess, as he usually do..





"Jerzy" wrote in message ...
"Aryeh Davidoff" wrote in message
om...
Aryeh Davidoff: Please, read Lev Khariton's comment at
www.pakchess.com

Karpov withdraws in Benidorm
(December 1st, 2003)


My comment: Anatoly Karpov is the pride of world chess. I have no
doubt that all the participants of of the Benidorm tournament can
learn a lot from Karpov. By allowing to disqualify him from the
tournament, they are cutting their goose: they will always miss
something in their chess education. Besides, their behavior is immoral
simply on human grounds. Karpov is minimum 25 or 30 years older than
most of the participants and they should respect both his age and his
place in chess history.
In the past I wrote many negative and critical articles on Karpov. All
this, however, does not prevent me from being objective. The
disqualification of Karpov is another disgraceful episode in chess
history.

Also, as my readers know, I had all the support of Radjabov when
Kasparov went into hysteria over Radjabov's winning the beauty prize
for his victory over the 13th World Champion in Linares this year.
Unfortunately, Radjabov's insistence on Karpov's disqualification
sheds a bad light on Radjabov's image in the world of chess.
Gentlemanly behavior does not seem to be the trademark of the great
chess players born in Baku!


After a period of hesitation I`ve decided to answer to your letter (I don`t
know Aryeh`s, Lev`s or someone else).
I don`t understand the point of Karpov. If he were still a professional
chess player he shouldn`t be late even to such an unimportant (from
competitive point of view) chess event like rapid chess tournament in
Benidorm (it was however important from advertising point of view).

It`s said that Karpov is notorious for such late-comings so I assume that he
is not so innocent of the whole mess there in Benidorm. Yes, I agree with
you, double Aryeh and Lev, it`s a question of good manners but I doubt it
was only Radjabov`s fault.

Double regards as usual,
Jerzy

(Louis Blair) wrote in message . com...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2003-12-06 01:37:27 PST):
Karpov and the Soviet Federation did everything to avoid a match with
Fischer. So, he became the first "World Champion" who didn't bother to
play a championship match.

In 1948, Mikhail Botvinnik became the FIDE World Champion without playing
a championship *match*.

I wrote (2003-12-07 12:48:08 PST):
What did Karpov do to avoid a match with Fischer in 1974-5?

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski now writes (2003-12-07 18:31:03 PST):
Spasski could easily and more than once break his match against Fischer
and he would continue his champion tenure. Instead, Spasski chose to play.
Korchnoy could say I have already won against Kasparov, when Kasparov
failed to show up on time for their candidate match due to Karpov's and
Soviet Federation manipulations. Korchnoy had chosen to play.

Karpov could easily make a statement that 9:9 clause is no big deal
(indeed, it was not). He could say: I want to play. Instead he chose to
cooperate with the Soviet Federation in avoiding ther math. He chose not
to play.

Neither Spassky nor Korchnoi agreed to conditions that would have required
them to try to finish two or more points ahead of an an opponent.

If Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wants to blame Karpov for failing to agree to
such conditions, it seems to me that he should be explicit about this
instead of using vague language like, "... did everything to avoid ...".

I concur with Andreas Walkenhorst's impression (expressed earlier in this
thread) that Wlodzimierz Holsztysnki is just determined to insult Karpov.

Here are some of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's related statements in this thread:

"Anatoly Karpov is the SHAME of world chess." (4 December 2003)

"I have never insulted anyone, and certainly it is hardly possible to
insult Karpov." (5 December 2003)

"Yes, Karpov is a very strong player, while he is a very low creature, a
poor excuse for a human being. That's how he will always be remembered by
the chess history." (6 December 2003)

The reader may decide for himself or herself whether or not Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski's comments about Anatoly Karpov should be considered insults
(which Holsztynski has denied).

--Nick

(Louis Blair) wrote in
message . com...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2003-12-06 01:37:27 PST):
Karpov and the Soviet Federation did everything to avoid a match with
Fischer. So, he became the first "World Champion" who didn't bother to
play a championship match.

In 1948, Mikhail Botvinnik became the FIDE World Champion without playing
a championship *match*.

I wrote (2003-12-07 12:48:08 PST):
What did Karpov do to avoid a match with Fischer in 1974-5?

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski now writes (2003-12-07 18:31:03 PST):
Spasski could easily and more than once break his match against Fischer
and he would continue his champion tenure. Instead, Spasski chose to play.
Korchnoy could say I have already won against Kasparov, when Kasparov
failed to show up on time for their candidate match due to Karpov's and
Soviet Federation manipulations. Korchnoy had chosen to play.

Karpov could easily make a statement that 9:9 clause is no big deal
(indeed, it was not). He could say: I want to play. Instead he chose to
cooperate with the Soviet Federation in avoiding ther math. He chose not
to play.

Neither Spassky nor Korchnoi agreed to conditions that would have required
them to try to finish two or more points ahead of an an opponent.

If Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wants to blame Karpov for failing to agree to
such conditions, it seems to me that he should be explicit about this
instead of using vague language like, "... did everything to avoid ...".

I concur with Andreas Walkenhorst's impression (expressed earlier in this
thread) that Wlodzimierz Holsztysnki is just determined to insult Karpov.

Here are some of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's related statements in this thread:

"Anatoly Karpov is the SHAME of world chess." (4 December 2003)

"I have never insulted anyone, and certainly it is hardly possible to
insult Karpov." (5 December 2003)

"Yes, Karpov is a very strong player, while he is a very low creature, a
poor excuse for a human being. That's how he will always be remembered by
the chess history." (6 December 2003)

The reader may decide for himself or herself whether or not Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski's comments about Anatoly Karpov should be considered insults
(which Holsztynski has denied).

--Nick

Good research! Wlodzimierz Holsztynski spends his time insulting Karpov
and his sidekick Lev Khariton spends his time insulting Kasparov. So it
goes. They are not the only ex-Soviets who seem to be getting even for
their past mistreatment by the old Communist apparatus.

"Arthur" wrote in message ...

Good research! Wlodzimierz Holsztynski spends his time insulting Karpov
and his sidekick Lev Khariton spends his time insulting Kasparov. So it
goes. They are not the only ex-Soviets who seem to be getting even for
their past mistreatment by the old Communist apparatus.

You don't know what you're talking about!

Why don't you stick to the chess themes,
and live others alone?

Wlod

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2003-12-06 01:37:27 PST):
Karpov and the Soviet Federation did everything to avoid a match with
Fischer. So, he became the first "World Champion" who didn't bother to
play a championship match.

To this (Nick) replies in message
. com...

In 1948, Mikhail Botvinnik became the FIDE
World Champion without playing
a championship *match*.


That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!

This is not an insult. It is an evident fact by now.

Wlod

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in
message om...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2003-12-06 01:37:27 PST):
Karpov and the Soviet Federation did everything to avoid a match with
Fischer. So, he became the first "World Champion" who didn't bother to
play a championship match.

To this (Nick) replies in message
. com...
In 1948, Mikhail Botvinnik became the FIDE World Champion without playing
a championship *match*.

That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!

In 1948, Mikhail Botvinnik became the FIDE World Champion after winning the
championship *tournament* ahead of Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky, and Euwe.

This is not an insult. It is an evident fact by now.

Perhaps on 'Planet Wlod', which evidently has its own unique rules of logic,
language, and definitions of 'insult'.

--Nick

(Nick) wrote in
message . com...
(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in
message om...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2003-12-06 01:37:27 PST):
Karpov and the Soviet Federation did everything to avoid a match
with Fischer. So, he became the first "World Champion" who didn't
bother to play a championship match.

To this (Nick) replies in message
. com...
In 1948, Mikhail Botvinnik became the FIDE World Champion
without playing a championship *match*.

That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!

In 1948, Mikhail Botvinnik became the FIDE World Champion after winning the
championship *tournament* ahead of Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky, and Euwe.

Someone (evidently inexperienced at chess) has asked me about whether
there's a significant distinction between a 'match' and a 'tournament'
and for my explanation of that difference.

Yes, a 'match' and a 'tournament' are two fundamentally different
forms of chess competition. A 'match' may be defined as a series of
games between only two players. A 'tournament' may be defined as a
series of games among more than two players. It's well-accepted
among strong players that there's a significant difference between
'match strategy' and 'tournament strategy'.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (above) that Anatoly Karpov became
(in 1975) "the first 'World Champion' who didn't bother to play a
championship match".

In response, I pointed out (politely enough) that Mr Holsztynski's
assertion was untrue because, as I wrote: "In 1948, Mikhail
Botvinnik became the FIDE world champion without playing a
championship *match*." (Yes, the term *match* was emphasised in
my original statement.)

Then Mr Holsztynski wrote:
"That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!"

Of course, I don't know exactly why Mr Holsztynski wrote that.
My hypothesis is that Mr Holsztynski overlooked the distinction
between a 'match' (his specific term) and a 'tournament', which
was the actual form of the 1948 FIDE world championship event.
Then Mr Holsztynski apparently presumed that I must be "sooo stupid"
as to believe that, say, Mikhail Botvinnik had become the FIDE world
champion without having to play at all in 1948.

As in the cases of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's other personal
presumptions about me, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski was wrong again.

That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!
This is not an insult. It is an evident fact by now.
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

"I have never insulted anybody."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

"Of course, you are following the even more-established Usenet
tradition of harshly attacking another member, with little or
no provocation, using language that you would never use in a
face-to-face discussion with somone you had merely overheard
and never met."
--Bob Musicant (writing to Harold Buck)

Whatever nonsense that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski writes about me
reveals much more about his own character and judgment (or the
lack of each) than it ever could about mine.

--Nick

Phony picky-nicky (Nick) wrote in message om...

nickbourbaki:

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski):

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2003-12-06 01:37:27 PST):
Karpov and the Soviet Federation did everything to avoid a match
with Fischer. So, he became the first "World Champion" who didn't
bother to play a championship match.

To this (Nick) replies in message
. com...

In 1948, Mikhail Botvinnik became the FIDE World Champion
without playing a championship *match*.

That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!


Yes, a 'match' and a 'tournament' are two fundamentally different
forms of chess competition.

Then Mr Holsztynski wrote:
"That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!"

Yes, in the given context this is a triffle.
Let me try to get through your thick, muddy, obstinate,
poor pretext for a brain:

Botvinnik and every champion until Karpov
won their champion titles over the board.
Karpov had it handed to him by a bunch of
FIDE bureaucrats (after having unfair advantages
of Soviet support in candidate matches against
Spassky and Korchnoy). Karpov avoided "succesfully"
a championship match against Fischer.

Yes, you, phony Bourbaki, are trivial, and you have
wasted bandwidth again.

You, phony Bourbaki are a trivial flat square,
cubically stooooopid. Happy?

Wlod

PS. Another trivia: that post-WWII, 1948, championship
competition of five players, each playing another
four games, and won by Botvinnik, was and perhaps
still is called in Russian a match-tournament.