Correction:

I've written:

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.

Each of tyhem played another FIVE games, not four
(so, indeed, it was a tournament consisting of
something like mini-matches; however it was a tournament
in it's spirit more than a collection of matches
since they played five round-robin rounds, they didn't
play consecutive games with the same opponent).

Wlod

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-02-01 14:00:24 PST):

Karpov avoided "succesfully" a championship match
against Fischer.

_
If Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wants to blame Karpov
for failing to agree to a requirement that he would
have to try to finish two or more points ahead of
Fischer, it seems to me that he should be explicit
about this instead of using vague language like,
"avoided 'successfully'".

"Bobby Fischer had sent in a number of demands ... Some
of these were conceded ... But two demands were rejected.
... Numerous telegrams had been sent to the Congress by
Fischer via his spokesman, Fred Cramer. The last one said
that, in the light of FIDE's decisions, he was resigning his
FIDE world-championship title. ... Another attempt was
made to bring the FIDE and Fischer into complete accord,
when Colonel Edmondson (U.S. Chess Federation) asked
for the summoning of an extraordinary meeting of the FIDE
Congress. There being a sufficient number of countries in
agreement, it duly assembled at Bergen-aan-Zee in the
Netherlands from 18 to 20 March, 1975. It was an
extraordinary congress in every sense of the word, and
eventually, after much heated discussion, one of Fischer's
demands was conceded: the match was to have a limitless
number of games. But Fischer's other demand - that a
draw be declared when the situation reached nine to nine
- was rejected by a majority of three. Fischer's words on
hearing this were, 'It's all over then.' No match took place.
Fischer ignored the request to say by 2 April whether or not
he would play, and Karpov became the new world champion"
- Golombek (1976)

"Many have rather cynically described [Fischer] as
engaging in 'gamesmanship.' It seems more likely
that the capture of the title led to an emotional
upset of serious proportions. His conditions for
the match with Karpov seem motivated more by inner
fantasies than anything else. Thus so far he has
not played a serious game of chess since he became
champion. There is the grave danger that he may
never play again." - Fine (1976)

"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.

Arthur,

My impression is that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has become angry at you
(see his response in this thread) for one or more of the following reasons:

1) Mr Holsztynski does not regard Lev Khariton as 'his sidekick'.
2) Mr Holsztysnki was offended to be described by you as an 'ex-Soviet'.
3) Mr Holsztysnki was offended by your praise of my research.
4) Mr Holsztysnki *really* believes what he has written in this thread:
"I have never insulted anybody, and certainly it is hardly possible
to insult Karpov."

--Nick

(Louis Blair) wrote in message . com...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-02-01 14:00:24 PST):
Karpov avoided "succesfully" a championship match against Fischer.
_
If Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wants to blame Karpov for failing to agree to a
requirement that he would have to try to finish two or more points ahead of
Fischer, it seems to me that he should be explicit about this instead of
using vague language like, "avoided 'successfully'".

Dear Mr Blair,

I concur with you that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski could be more explicit in
his language about why he blames Anatoly Karpov. But it seems to me that
Mr Holsztynski already has been clear enough in expressing his vehement
opinion that Bobby Fischer's demanded "two point margin of victory" condition
was a fair one, and that Karpov was wrong, stupid, cowardly, dishonest, and
unfair to Fischer not to have accepted it.

"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 (sic). He chose not to play."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (7 December 2003, in this thread)

On the other hand, if Anatoly Karpov had been the champion and Bobby Fischer
had been the challenger, then would Wlodzimierz Holsztynski have regarded
the "two point margin of victory" condition as a fair one that Fischer should
have accepted?

As far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's judgment of the merits of the
proposed 1975 Fischer-Karpov match conditions seems to be distorted by his
strong personal partiality or prejudice toward each of those players.

Here are some statements by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski about Fischer and Karpov:

"All chess players and people interested in the modern chess history have
plenty of examples of how sharp, how profound is Fischer's mind is in general
(outside the chess board), except for his sick, degenerated racist nonsense.
He goes straight to the core of issues."

"Fischer's great intellectual ability goes way beyond chess.
It is scary that such a wonderful mind can degenerate so bad."

"Anatoly Karpov is the SHAME of world chess."

"(Karpov) doesn't deserve any true friendship, he's good at the most
for some dirty pacts."

"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."

"I have never insulted anybody, and certainly it hardly possible to insult
Karpov."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

--Nick

"Bobby Fischer had sent in a number of demands ... Some
of these were conceded ... But two demands were rejected.
... Numerous telegrams had been sent to the Congress by
Fischer via his spokesman, Fred Cramer. The last one said
that, in the light of FIDE's decisions, he was resigning his
FIDE world-championship title. ... Another attempt was
made to bring the FIDE and Fischer into complete accord,
when Colonel Edmondson (U.S. Chess Federation) asked
for the summoning of an extraordinary meeting of the FIDE
Congress. There being a sufficient number of countries in
agreement, it duly assembled at Bergen-aan-Zee in the
Netherlands from 18 to 20 March, 1975. It was an
extraordinary congress in every sense of the word, and
eventually, after much heated discussion, one of Fischer's
demands was conceded: the match was to have a limitless
number of games. But Fischer's other demand - that a
draw be declared when the situation reached nine to nine
- was rejected by a majority of three. Fischer's words on
hearing this were, 'It's all over then.' No match took place.
Fischer ignored the request to say by 2 April whether or not
he would play, and Karpov became the new world champion"
- Golombek (1976)

"Many have rather cynically described [Fischer] as
engaging in 'gamesmanship.' It seems more likely
that the capture of the title led to an emotional
upset of serious proportions. His conditions for
the match with Karpov seem motivated more by inner
fantasies than anything else. Thus so far he has
not played a serious game of chess since he became
champion. There is the grave danger that he may
never play again." - Fine (1976)

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-02-01 14:00:24 PST):
Karpov avoided "succesfully" a championship match
against Fischer.

I wrote (2004-02-02 10:12:18 PST):
If Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wants to blame Karpov
for failing to agree to a requirement that he would
have to try to finish two or more points ahead of
Fischer, it seems to me that he should be explicit
about this instead of using vague language like,
"avoided 'successfully'".


Nick wrote (2004-02-03 14:39:23 PST):

I concur with you that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
could be more explicit in his language about why
he blames Anatoly Karpov. But it seems to me that
Mr Holsztynski already has been clear enough in
expressing his vehement opinion that Bobby Fischer's
demanded "two point margin of victory" condition
was a fair one, and that Karpov was wrong, stupid,
cowardly, dishonest, and unfair to Fischer not to
have accepted it.

"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 (sic). He chose not to play."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (7 December 2003, in
this thread)

_
The quote is about four weeks old. In case anyone
has started reading since that time, it seemed to
me to be appropriate to clarify what Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski apparently means when he says that
Karpov "avoided" Fischer.

"Bobby Fischer had sent in a number of demands ... Some
of these were conceded ... But two demands were rejected.
... Numerous telegrams had been sent to the Congress by
Fischer via his spokesman, Fred Cramer. The last one said
that, in the light of FIDE's decisions, he was resigning his
FIDE world-championship title. ... Another attempt was
made to bring the FIDE and Fischer into complete accord,
when Colonel Edmondson (U.S. Chess Federation) asked
for the summoning of an extraordinary meeting of the FIDE
Congress. There being a sufficient number of countries in
agreement, it duly assembled at Bergen-aan-Zee in the
Netherlands from 18 to 20 March, 1975. It was an
extraordinary congress in every sense of the word, and
eventually, after much heated discussion, one of Fischer's
demands was conceded: the match was to have a limitless
number of games. But Fischer's other demand - that a
draw be declared when the situation reached nine to nine
- was rejected by a majority of three. Fischer's words on
hearing this were, 'It's all over then.' No match took place.
Fischer ignored the request to say by 2 April whether or not
he would play, and Karpov became the new world champion"
- Golombek (1976)

"Many have rather cynically described [Fischer] as
engaging in 'gamesmanship.' It seems more likely
that the capture of the title led to an emotional
upset of serious proportions. His conditions for
the match with Karpov seem motivated more by inner
fantasies than anything else. Thus so far he has
not played a serious game of chess since he became
champion. There is the grave danger that he may
never play again." - Fine (1976)

(Louis Blair) wrote in
message . com...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-02-01 14:00:24 PST):
Karpov avoided "succesfully" a championship match against Fischer.

I wrote (2004-02-02 10:12:18 PST):
If Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wants to blame Karpov for failing to agree to
a requirement that he would have to try to finish two or more points ahead
of Fischer, it seems to me that he should be explicit about this instead
of using vague language like, "avoided 'successfully'".

Nick wrote (2004-02-03 14:39:23 PST):
I concur with you that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski could be more explicit in
his language about why he blames Anatoly Karpov. But it seems to me that
Mr Holsztynski already has been clear enough in expressing his vehement
opinion that Bobby Fischer's demanded "two point margin of victory"
condition was a fair one, and that Karpov was wrong, stupid, cowardly,
dishonest, and unfair to Fischer not to have accepted it.

"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 (sic).
He chose not to play."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (7 December 2003, in this thread)

The quote is about four weeks old.

Dear Mr Blair,

Actually, the quotation is more than eight weeks old.
Please do be more careful lest Wlodzimierz Holsztynski should conclude with
evidently absolute certainty, as he already has done with me, that you cannot
understand anything about mathematics. :-)

In case anyone has started reading since that time, it seemed to me to be
appropriate to clarify what Wlodzimierz Holsztynski apparently means when
he says that Karpov "avoided" Fischer.

Yes, I agree that it would be "appropriate to clarify what Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski apparently means when he says that Karpov 'avoided' Fischer".
But, as far as I can tell, Mr Holsztynski seems unwilling to make any further
clarification of his exact reasons for blaming Karpov, though evidently
Mr Holsztynski has no hesitation in blaming Karpov in extremely abusive terms.

"Anatoly Karpov is the SHAME of world chess."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

"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."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

"I have never insulted anybody, and certainly it is hardly possible to
insult Karpov."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

"I am not any historian, not even an amateur historian."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

It would be helpful if Mr Wlodzimierz ("Karpov is...a poor excuse for a human
being") Holsztynski could clarify his reasons for blaming Anatoly Karpov.

It would be helpful if Mr Wlodzimierz ("I am not any historian") Holsztynski
could learn how to distinguish between some clearly more or less reliable
sources of 'historical facts'.

It would be helpful if Mr Wlodzimierz ("I have never insulted anybody")
Holsztynski could learn how to write in public with a modicum of common
civility and respect for other human beings.

--Nick

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote:
Phony picky-nicky (Nick) 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*.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:
That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!

Nick wrote:
(snipped by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski)

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

(My explanation was completely snipped by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
Please read it in my earlier post in this thread.)

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

Yes, in the given context this is a triffle.

*If* it's a mere 'trifle' for Wlodzimierz Holsztynski to make *his error* by
overlooking or muddling the clear distinction between a 'match' and a
'tournament', then I submit that it was wrong for Mr Holsztynski to denounce
me as 'sooo stupid!' when he *mistakenly* concluded that I had made an error.

Let me try to get through your thick, muddy, obstinate, poor pretext for
a brain:

Here's what I wrote earlier (which Wlodzimierz Holsztynski snipped):
"It's well-accepted among strong players that there's a significant
difference between 'match strategy' and 'tournament strategy'."

For example, one could compare Tigran Petrosian and Bent Larsen in the 1960s.

Was it just a trivial difference that the 1948 FIDE World Championship
was decided by a single tournament rather than a series of matches?
Evidently, Bobby Fischer thought that the difference was significant.

"For a period of ten years--between 1946 and 1956--Reshevsky was probably
the best chess player in the world. I feel sure that had he played a match
with Botvinnik during that time, he would have won and been world champion."
--Bobby Fischer ('Chessworld', January-February 1964)

What would have happened if the 1948 FIDE Championship had been decided by,
say, playing the matches Botvinnik-Reshevsky and Keres-Smyslov, then playing
a match between their winners, and then playing a final match between that
winner and Euwe, the last living world champion? Of course, no one today
could ever know for certain. In my opinion, without necessarily agreeing
fully with Bobby Fischer about it, Samuel Reshevsky should have had a better
chance of becoming the world champion in 1948 if he had been playing matches
rather than in a tournament.

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.

Louis Blair and I have asked Wlodzimierz Holsztynski to clarify exactly what
he means (such as Karpov's not accepting Fischer's 'two point margin of
victory' condition?) by writing "Karpov avoided 'successfully' a championship
match against Fischer", but Mr Holsztynski has declined so far to do so.

Yes, you, phony Bourbaki, are trivial, and you have wasted bandwidth again.
You, phony Bourbaki are a trivial flat square, cubically stooooopid. Happy?
Wlod

When playing chess, occasionally I have felt about as *comparatively* stupid
as Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has alleged, such as when I recently played three
five-minute games against a former champion of Russia, a GM rated FIDE 2630,
and I lost every game. But I have rarely experienced such comparable moments
of stupidity when playing against someone (like Mr Holsztynski) at the level
of USCF 1711. :-)

Even *if* Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's 'advice' to me (above) is as 'profound'
as he seems to believe, it hardly could be described as original. Jason Repa
has been giving me about the same kind of 'advice', though in rather more
creatively striking terms in English than Mr Holsztynski's. :-)

In the interest of clarity, I am *not* comparing Wlodzimierz Holsztynski with
Jason Repa as *human beings in general*. Although Mr Holsztynski has made it
quite clear many times (e.g. "spitting virtually in his (my) cowardish face")
that he has absolute disrespect for me in every way as a human being (assuming
that he even regards me as one), I am a realist who believes that it's foolish
to discount the intelligence of one's enemies. Unlike Jason Repa, Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski can write intelligently on subjects such as 'Lattices with real
numbers as additive operators', and I can respect *some* of Mr Holsztynski's
writings even though I may still disagree with his expressed views.

But when Wlodzimierz Holsztynski writes his personal attacks against me--
someone about whom he knows hardly anything, personally or professionally--
he does sound all too close to being an abusive troll such as Jason Repa.

"My advice to you is: confine yourself to writing about subjects with respect
to which you are, undoubtedly, an expert. That way, you'll avoid *making
yourself look like a trolling idiot*, just as you've done in this thread,
again." (the asterisks were in the original text)
--Mark Houlsby (7 December 2003, 'Relevant details', writing to Mr Holsztynski)

That's sound advice, and I hope that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski will heed it.

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.

The common language of rec.games.chess.misc is English, not Russian.

--Nick