Somehow several participants of rgcm
are taken too much with the secondary
symptoms of the success, like the world
chess championship title, and forget
about the real thing, about the dominant
result. The title is only a possible
symptom of such a success, but in itself
doesn't have to be of that much value,
especially when the rules cheapen it.

********

In the old days the chess public
wanted to have a king, a true
champion, not just a chimp. In
some sports championship is just
another competition, perhaps
with some more prestige than
other competitions, but only
that much. This is especially
in any sport where championship title
changes hands every year. Of course
some champions are memorable, consistent
over more than one competition, over
more than one year. Others are just
fleeting champions.

The chess public wanted to have true champions.
Once you had the first true champion, like
Wilhelm (or William) Steinitz, every next
one to be a true champion should show not just
equality but his superiority over the previous
one in a clear way, without leaving any doubt of
his (/her :-) domination over the aging champion.
Otherwise the old champion should stay the champion.
He proved himself at one time, and as long
as nobody dominates him, he should continue
to be a champion, even if he is only about equal
with others (but, of course, he should not
lose any championship match).

And that's the idea behind the "draw odds".
To have true champions, and not semi-random
flukes.

ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the
Fischer-Spasski match had a draw provision.
Fischer had every right to require the
same from his challenger.

Yes, it would be extra nice if he gave
up on his right, but it was up to him.
Something that many didn't understand,
while others, like Soviets, didn't
care about chess as such, they cared
more about politics or being bribed well.

**********

Too much is made out of the title as such.
The title is truly respected only if it
has meaning, only if it rests on superior
results.

When a challenger, like Bronstein or Smyslov,
gets a draw from the champion, after winning
against everybody else, he is a great player,
perhaps the best at the time, even without
the title. Such a player scored a tremendous
success.

BTW, it was different with Schlechter, who
didn't dominate all other players like
Bronstein and Smyslov did, when they drew
their matches against Botvinnik. In 1973/4
I had many chances to talk to IM E.F. He
only smiled at Schlechter and all players
at that time except for Lasker and Rubinstein
-- he respected the playing ability of these two.
That single match Lasker-Schlechter match was no
big deal to him. And nobody sain can claim that
Schlechter was clearly better even in that single
match than Lasker. That's a nonsense.

The idea of a champion who lost a championship
match even by one point was as unthinkable
in those days as it is today. The public would
never accept a "champion" who lost a championship
match. The title would have no value.

Knowing Lasker it is also not just to him to
assume that he would attempt such a foolishness.
I trust Levenfish's judgement, that Lasker was
deeply honest and fair, that he was not a man
who would like to "win" in a meaningless way.

BTW, it was different with Schlechter, who
didn't dominate all other players like
Bronstein and Smyslov did, when they drew
their matches against Botvinnik. In 1973/4
I had many chances to talk to IM E.F. He
only smiled at Schlechter and all players
of that time except for Lasker and Rubinstein
-- he respected the playing ability of these two.
That single match Lasker-Schlechter match was no
big deal to him. And nobody sain can claim that
Schlechter was clearly better even in that single
match than Lasker. That's a nonsense.

The idea of a champion who lost a championship
matcxh even by one point was as unthinkable
in those days as it is today. The public would
never accept a "champion" who lost a championship
match. The title would have no value.

Knowing Lasker it is also not just to him to
assume that he would attempt such a foolishness.
I trust Levenfish's judgement, that Lasker was
deeply fair, that he was not a man who would like
to "win" in a meaningless way.



Certainly the great players: Zukertort, Winawer,
Rubinstein, Reshevsky (Rzeszewski), Keres, Bronstein,
Korchnoy have a higher chess status than the world
champions Euwe and Kramnik, not to mention the FIDE
poker chimps.

In a long match, when the result reaches 9:9
(without counting draws), it makes sense to
declare the two competitors equal. It is fair
to say that they have about 50% chance each
to win the next game, that the next single
decisive game will not chenge anything, will not
prove much. And when the two competitors are about
equal, there is no need to have a new champ,
when you want a champ and not a chimp.

Wlodek

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:
ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the Fischer-Spasski match had a
draw provision. Fischer had every right to require the same from his
challenger.

The standard draw odds are that, if the match ends in a tie, the champion
retains his title. As you've said, the champion must be defeated in order
to have the title pass to somebody else.

Fischer wanted more than that, though. His condition was that the winner
would be the first to ten wins, except that, if the match reached 9-9, the
champion would be declared the winner. This means that the champion only
needs to win nine games to take the title but the challenger needs to win
ten and have the champion win eight or fewer. That's a much stronger
condition than draw odds.

Thanks for a very interesting post, though.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Indelible Tree (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a tree but it can't be erased
and it's invigorating!

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 02:30:10 PST):

ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the
Fischer-Spasski match had a draw provision.

_
Steinitz-Lasker?
Lasker-Marshall?
Lasker-Tarrasch?
Lasker-Janowski?

"I am not any historian, not even
an amateur historian." - Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski (2002-10-01 04:40:37 PST)


Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 02:30:10 PST):

Fischer had every right to require the
same from his challenger.

_
I see no reason to doubt that FIDE was
willing to give Fischer the advantage of
keeping his title in the event of a tied
score in a match of a fixed number of
games, but Fischer was unwilling to go
for that.


After a paragraph about Lasker,
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 02:30:10 PST):

The idea of a champion who lost a championship
matcxh even by one point was as unthinkable
in those days as it is today.

_
Steinitz-Lasker?
Lasker-Marshall?
Lasker-Tarrasch?
Lasker-Janowski?

"[The London rules were] a set of 21 rules
proposed by Capablanca in 1922, under which
world champions would meet challengers. ...
These rules were presented on the occasion
of the London tournament of 1922, and a
players' declaration ... was added: 'We,
the undersigned, agree to abide by the above
conditions proposed by Senior J. R. Capablanca,
and we hereby declare that these rules and
no others should govern all future championship
contests, and that should any one of us at any
time become world's champion, we will be ready
to defend the championship under the above
conditions.' This was signed by Alekhine,
Bogoljubow, Maroczy, Reti, Rubinstein,
Tartakower, and Vidmar. ... Capablanca's rules
were widely held to be fair to both contestants"
- Oxford Companion to Chess

The London rules allowed a champion to lose his
title by one point.

"I am not any historian, not even
an amateur historian." - Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski (2002-10-01 04:40:37 PST)

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 02:30:10 PST):

ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the
Fischer-Spasski match had a draw provision.

_
Steinitz-Lasker?
Lasker-Marshall?
Lasker-Tarrasch?
Lasker-Janowski?

"I am not any historian, not even
an amateur historian." - Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski (2002-10-01 04:40:37 PST)


Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 02:30:10 PST):

Fischer had every right to require the
same from his challenger.

_
I see no reason to doubt that FIDE was
willing to give Fischer the advantage of
keeping his title in the event of a tied
score in a match of a fixed number of
games, but Fischer was unwilling to go
for that.


After a paragraph about Lasker,
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 02:30:10 PST):

The idea of a champion who lost a championship
matcxh even by one point was as unthinkable
in those days as it is today.

_
Steinitz-Lasker?
Lasker-Marshall?
Lasker-Tarrasch?
Lasker-Janowski?

"[The London rules were] a set of 21 rules
proposed by Capablanca in 1922, under which
world champions would meet challengers. ...
These rules were presented on the occasion
of the London tournament of 1922, and a
players' declaration ... was added: 'We,
the undersigned, agree to abide by the above
conditions proposed by Senior J. R. Capablanca,
and we hereby declare that these rules and
no others should govern all future championship
contests, and that should any one of us at any
time become world's champion, we will be ready
to defend the championship under the above
conditions.' This was signed by Alekhine,
Bogoljubow, Maroczy, Reti, Rubinstein,
Tartakower, and Vidmar. ... Capablanca's rules
were widely held to be fair to both contestants"
- Oxford Companion to Chess

The London rules allowed a champion to lose his
title by one point.

"I am not any historian, not even
an amateur historian." - Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski (2002-10-01 04:40:37 PST)

On 11 Jan 2004 16:50:00 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
wrote:

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:
ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the Fischer-Spasski match had a
draw provision. Fischer had every right to require the same from his
challenger.

The standard draw odds are that, if the match ends in a tie, the champion
retains his title. As you've said, the champion must be defeated in order
to have the title pass to somebody else.

Fischer wanted more than that, though. His condition was that the winner
would be the first to ten wins, except that, if the match reached 9-9, the
champion would be declared the winner. This means that the champion only
needs to win nine games to take the title but the challenger needs to win
ten and have the champion win eight or fewer. That's a much stronger
condition than draw odds.

He said if the score reached 9-9, the *match* would terminate as a
draw. Of course, since the champion would retain his title, a draw
was nicer for him than for the challenger, but the stakes would be
split evenly.

David Richerby wrote in message ...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:

ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the Fischer-Spasski match had a
draw provision. Fischer had every right to require the same from his
challenger.


The standard draw odds are that, if the match ends in a tie,
the champion retains his title. As you've said, the champion
must be defeated in order to have the title pass to somebody
else.

Fischer wanted more than that, though.

No, Fischer didn't want more! He didn't make up 9:9.
It was used in the preFIDE championship matches.
Alechine had it tougher. Capa-Al match would be drawn
already at the 5:5 score. Now, that was hard! and it
partially explains the high percentage of draws (this
plus the Capablanca's style). In a contrast to Karpov,
Alechine didn't back up. Nor did he try to sway FIDE
or the public opinion that Capablanca's title should
be declared void. No, in a contrast to Karpov, Alechine
didn't grab the title for nothing, he won it over the board.

His condition was that the winner
would be the first to ten wins, except that,
if the match reached 9-9, the
champion would be declared the winner.
This means that the champion only
needs to win nine games to take the title
but the challenger needs to win
ten and have the champion win eight or fewer.
That's a much stronger condition than draw odds.

No, it is not "a much stronger" condition.
It is disputable which condition is harder
on the challenger, the 12:12 points or
9:9 wins. It all depends on the likelyhood of draw.
In my opinion condition 9:9 wins is easier to overcome
than the 12:12 points. While opinions of experts are
divided about half and half, everybody knows that
it depends on the seriousness of the draw margin.

Thanks for a very interesting post, though.


Dave.

Thank you. Somehow I didn't succeed in
impressing upon you, that the title is
important only when supported by a meaningful
result. That it is ok for the challenger to
go to history as someone who got 9:9.
Winning by 10:9 result the is like tossing a coin.

In the "wins only" system, a condition like 9:9
is a **minimal** draw provision. Stating it
as 10:8 winning condition has only a psychological
effect on naives.

Wlod

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:

Somehow several participants of rgcm
are taken too much with the secondary
symptoms of the success, like the world
chess championship title, and forget
about the real thing, about the dominant
result. The title is only a possible
symptom of such a success, but in itself
doesn't have to be of that much value,
especially when the rules cheapen it.

********


*

In the old days the chess public
wanted to have a king, a true
champion, not just a chimp. In
some sports championship is just
another competition, perhaps
with some more prestige than
other competitions, but only
that much. This is especially
in any sport where championship title
changes hands every year. Of course
some champions are memorable, consistent
over more than one competition, over
more than one year. Others are just
fleeting champions.

The chess public wanted to have true champions.
Once you had the first true champion, like
Wilhelm (or William) Steinitz, every next
one to be a true champion should show not just
equality but his superiority over the previous
one in a clear way, without leaving any doubt of
his (/her :-) domination over the aging champion.
Otherwise the old champion should stay the champion.
He proved himself at one time, and as long
as nobody dominates him, he should continue
to be a champion, even if he is only about equal
with others (but, of course, he should not
lose any championship match).

And that's the idea behind the "draw odds".
To have true champions, and not semi-random
flukes.

ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the
Fischer-Spasski match had a draw provision.
Fischer had every right to require the
same from his challenger.

Yes, it would be extra nice if he gave
up on his right, but it was up to him.
Something that many didn't understand,
while others, like Soviets, didn't
care about chess as such, they cared
more about politics or being bribed well.

**********
*'



Too much is made out of the title as such.
The title is truly respected only if it
has meaning, only if it rests on superior
results.

When a challenger, like Bronstein or Smyslov,
gets a draw from the champion, after winning
against everybody else, he is a great player,
perhaps the best at the time, even without
the title. Such a player scored a tremendous
success.

BTW, it was different with Schlechter, who
didn't dominate all other players like
Bronstein and Smyslov did, when they drew
their matches against Botvinnik. In 1973/4
I had many chances to talk to IM E.F. He

Quelque sa? comment? qui lui? Who this (IM E F)quoi?? *''


only smiled at Schlechter and all players
at that time except for Lasker and Rubinstein
-- he respected the playing ability of these two.
That single match Lasker-Schlechter match was no
big deal to him. And nobody sain can claim that
Schlechter was clearly better even in that single
match than Lasker. That's a nonsense.


Agree, yet you will begin repeating the liturgy Wlod.. **


The idea of a champion who lost a championship
match even by one point was as unthinkable
in those days as it is today. The public would
never accept a "champion" who lost a championship
match. The title would have no value.

Knowing Lasker it is also not just to him to
assume that he would attempt such a foolishness.
I trust Levenfish's judgement, that Lasker was
deeply honest and fair, that he was not a man
who would like to "win" in a meaningless way.

BTW, it was different with Schlechter, who
didn't dominate all other players like
Bronstein and Smyslov did, when they drew
their matches against Botvinnik. In 1973/4
I had many chances to talk to IM E.F.

Qui\who is this mysterious IM?

*'

He
only smiled at Schlechter and all players
of that time except for Lasker and Rubinstein
-- he respected the playing ability of these two.
That single match Lasker-Schlechter match was no
big deal to him. And nobody sain can claim that
Schlechter was clearly better even in that single
match than Lasker. That's a nonsense.

Agree..

***

The idea of a champion who lost a championship
matcxh even by one point was as unthinkable
in those days as it is today. The public would
never accept a "champion" who lost a championship
match. The title would have no value.

****

Knowing Lasker it is also not just to him to
assume that he would attempt such a foolishness.
I trust Levenfish's judgement, that Lasker was
deeply fair, that he was not a man who would like
to "win" in a meaningless way.

Certainly the great players: Zukertort, Winawer,
Rubinstein, Reshevsky (Rzeszewski), Keres, Bronstein,
Korchnoy have a higher chess status than the world
champions Euwe and Kramnik, not to mention the FIDE
poker chimps.

In a long match, when the result reaches 9:9
(without counting draws), it makes sense to
declare the two competitors equal. It is fair
to say that they have about 50% chance each
to win the next game, that the next single
decisive game will not chenge anything, will not
prove much. And when the two competitors are about
equal, there is no need to have a new champ,
when you want a champ and not a chimp.

Wlodek

Good post Wlod.


*****



...

David Richerby wrote:

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:
ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the Fischer-Spasski match had a
draw provision. Fischer had every right to require the same from his
challenger.

The standard draw odds are that, if the match ends in a tie, the champion
retains his title. As you've said, the champion must be defeated in order
to have the title pass to somebody else.

Fischer wanted more than that, though. His condition was that the winner
would be the first to ten wins, except that, if the match reached 9-9, the
champion would be declared the winner. This means that the champion only
needs to win nine games to take the title but the challenger needs to win
ten and have the champion win eight or fewer. That's a much stronger
condition than draw odds.

Thanks for a very interesting post, though.

Dave.

snip

I'm glad you understand the dynamics of Fischer's rule reforms. I've
tried to but still don't, & reading your stuff above, enlightens me no
further. Guess that throws me right in there with Karpov & the
Commissariat. Talk about prima donnas (bobbies?) - Fischer! Fischer!
Fischer! - but still, he did do a lot for stuggling chess-player's wage
conditions & ergonomic seat design. Har-har-har.

Pst. Why doesn't someone start in on J. McEnroes crusade to be the best
tennis player EVER, excluding Superman of course, & how he has single
handedly overturned moribund Wimbledon by American style chutzpah. And
that T. Henman?! - chooky! chooky! chooky!..

Mike Murray wrote:

On 11 Jan 2004 16:50:00 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
wrote:

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:
ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the Fischer-Spasski match had a
draw provision. Fischer had every right to require the same from his
challenger.

The standard draw odds are that, if the match ends in a tie, the champion
retains his title. As you've said, the champion must be defeated in order
to have the title pass to somebody else.

Fischer wanted more than that, though. His condition was that the winner
would be the first to ten wins, except that, if the match reached 9-9, the
champion would be declared the winner. This means that the champion only
needs to win nine games to take the title but the challenger needs to win
ten and have the champion win eight or fewer. That's a much stronger
condition than draw odds.

He said if the score reached 9-9, the *match* would terminate as a
draw. Of course, since the champion would retain his title, a draw
was nicer for him than for the challenger, but the stakes would be
split evenly.

Now you're talking Mike. So that would mean that assuming the score got
to 9/9, then the match could be declared drawn. Fischer would pick up
the reigning Champs. cheque of say, oh! I don't know, $100,000 US sound
OK to you Mike? - Karpov could take home to Mummy a useful $50K US &
they could all meet up again in a couple of yrs. for another wee go.
-Sounds emminently common-sensical & logical to me, but it did not pan
out this way. Personally I blame Physics for this dastardly state of
affairs, for example: it's easy to quantify the speed at which Marat
Safin (the Russian tennis player) delivers an ace at 200kph, the same
can not be said of Akopian moving a knight..

(Louis Blair) wrote in message . com...

After a paragraph about Lasker,
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 02:30:10 PST):

The idea of a champion who lost a championship
match even by one point was as unthinkable
in those days as it is today.

I have written it in the context of the
Lasker-Schlechter match.

I meant that if Lasker lost that match (or if any
champion lost a match to a challenger, even by 1 point)
then he would not be a champion anymore, even if there
was any "secret agreement" to the contrary.
It would be foolish. I am sure that Lasker,
known for being wise, intelligent and for
his integrity, would never make such a silly
thing, which would make him a laughingstock of
the entire chess world.

Somehow, Louis, you were to eager to misunderstand me.
What a pity. You did cut out the relevant continuation
of the quote. Here is the whole paragraph:

"The idea of a champion who lost a championship
match even by one point was as unthinkable
in those days as it is today. The public would
never accept a "champion" who lost a championship
match. The title would have no value."

Wlod

PS. Yes, Louis, at one moment I felt like stressing,
and I will easily repeat it now that I am not an
historian, not even an amateur one. I don't see
any reason for you to quote it, when you respond
to my post, and certainly there was no reason to
quote it more than once in one post (while reminding
the rgcm audience, in your own words, that I am not
a historian would be fine). I guess, it was your attempt
to be mean. It didn't touch me, but I objectively agree
with you that you were kinda mean, irrational as it is.