|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: conditions, elo, fischers, karpov |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
November 7th 06, 01:31 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
On Nov 7, 12:15 am, "Graeme" wrote: Taylor Kingston wrote: 3) If the latter, are you saying Edmonson negotiated on Karpov's or Korchnoi's behalf? Sounds strange. How did Edmondson get involved in negotiations where neither party was American? With Fischer retired, why would Edmonson care about preserving Fischer's match conditions? I've found a partial answer to this. CL&R, January 1978, p.27 has an article by Edmondson on the Caracas Congress, in which he speaks positively and supportively of the deal Karpov got, but I know there's another article or letter somewhere around this same time that describes Edmondson's role in going to bat for Karpov in greater detail, and how Karpov took the unlimited match in exchange for the rematch. I need to keep looking. Anyway, according to this article, there were 6 packages on the table. The Soviet proposal was for Best of 24 or 6 Wins. The USCF Policy Board favored an Unlimited Match with no tie clause. Edmondson cuts Karpov slack on not wanting the unlimited match: "In fairness to Anatoly Karpov, I must insert here my impression that he honestly feels a match requiring ten wins for victory would be unnecessarily long and terribly exhausting, both physically and mentally. He feels that the same winner would emerge from a no-draw match requiring six wins, although he expressed beforehand a willingness to compromise on eight wins for the match proposed in 1975." He says that it was Karpov who proposed the rematch in exchange for taking the unlimited match, and speaks positively, indeed almost sycophantically of Karpov he "Anatoly Karpov and Nona Gaprindashvili were both at Caracas, and within 48 hours of his arrival Karpov demonstrated one reason why he deserves to be World Champion - he can always come up with yet another variation. In private conversation, he stated that none of the six proposals on the Agenda - including that of the USSR Chess Federation - struck him as the best. Rather than put a limit on the number of games, he asked, why not return to what was customary up until 1963, that is, have a rematch if the Championship changes hands?... Absolutely no one opposed this compromise when it was made from the floor by Dr. Tudela (Venezuela). The Central Committee recognized that it combined the best elements of all that had gone before. The exciting provision which requires a specific number of wins was maintained and the drawn-game and drawn match possibilities eliminated. And if a rematch does result - twice as much publicity for chess!" This isn't the whole story. As I say, there's still another piece floating around that I haven't found about Edmondson's lobbying efforts to help the proposal pass. But this is enough to show that Edmondson supported this package enthusiastically and without reservation. Not a hint of dissension or any idea that there was anything unfair about it. In addition, he goes out of his way to say that Karpov deserves to be World Champion, and that bit about praising him for "coming up with a new variation", is borderline toadying. Looks like I did misremember something, or at least report it in a misleading way. Although he didn't want an unlimited match, they didn't exactly twist his arm to get him to accept this compromise, he suggested it himself. Kavalek's claim that the rematch was unfair because, if we (improperly) combine both matches into one, the champion could possibly "retain" despite losing 6-11 is from September 1978, page 473. Here's a quote of his main point: "This time it is the rematch clause that makes the regulations absolutely ridiculous. For Karpov to meet a new challenger in 1981 in defense of the title FIDE handed him in 1975, all he needs to do is win 6 games - in the REMATCH. He doesn't need even a single win in the first match! Korchnoi, on the other hand, cannot be the defending world champion in 1981 even if he wins eleven games in both mtaches combined (six in the first): he must win TWELVE games. The favoring factor for the champion is thus 12:6, an incomparably more advantageous situation for Karpov than for any previous champion, and far more so than under Fischer's proposals." Denker's rebuttal letter to Kavalek is February 1979, page 64, though he says a bit less than I remembered. As he put it, "[Kavalek's] reply to Dr. Hunt puts me in mind of the old Talmudic scholars who could come up with any desired interpretation when expedient. So it was that after reading his article I became convinced that six was more than five, less than seven, yet in some vague way equal to twelve." It must have been some other letter, not Denkers, that pointed out that under this argument, Smyslov, Tal and Euwe were never champions at all. Evans' endorsement of Kavalek's argument is from January 1979, page 35. Here, Evans states "And I want to go on record here as condemning Karpov's rematch clause just as strongly, for the reasons expressed by Kavalek last September." He goes on to say his oft-repeated bit about how FIDE gave Karpov a bigger advantage than Fischer ever asked for, but if he's basing that on Kavalek's argument, he needs to seriously rethink it. The problems with Kavaleks' argument seem so obvious that I can't imagine that someone so intelligent didn't see them from the start. He's obviously highly biased; he gives that away with the complaint about FIDE handing Karpov the title, which, apart from having nothing to do with this case, is untrue, to boot. Fischer handed it to Karpov by resigning the title 9 months early rather than fighting for his conditions. The fudge here is that Kavalek assumes that the point of a world title match is, not to win the match or become champion, or be sitting champion in the next title defense, or anything like that. The point is to be the defending champion at an arbitrary date in the futu 1981. I admit I'm not a big fan of rematches either. I think anyone who climbs the mountain should be guaranteed a certain amount of time at the top to try to set trends and create his own "era". Kasparov had to play 120 championship games, more than most champions play *ever*, before he could sit back and enjoy the title for a while. That just doesn't seem right. But Kavalek goes to absurd lengths to try to make his point. The implication that Karpov and the Soviets wouldn't CARE about dropping the title to the defector Korchnoi for a while so long as they got it back a year later, is laughable. If Korchnoi had won the title and lost it right back, he would indeed have gone down in history as a world champion. Nobody would consider that Karpov had "retained" his title because he was defending champion in 1981. That's simply ridiculous. Graeme, thanks much for making such an extensive post. I may have those 1978-79 CL&Rs stashed in a closet somewhere; now you've given me a reason to look. 
|
| Ads |
|
#23
November 7th 06, 04:19 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe. googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Rob" Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov Date: 7 Nov 2006 07:11:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 139 Message-ID: om References: . com . com . com .com .com . com NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.154.222.222 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162912321 13482 127.0.0.1 (7 Nov 2006 15:12:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:12:01 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: . com User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.154.222.222; posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f Taylor Kingston wrote: On Nov 7, 12:15 am, "Graeme" wrote: Taylor Kingston wrote: 3) If the latter, are you saying Edmonson negotiated on Karpov's or Korchnoi's behalf? Sounds strange. How did Edmondson get involved in negotiations where neither party was American? With Fischer retired, why would Edmonson care about preserving Fischer's match conditions? I've found a partial answer to this. CL&R, January 1978, p.27 has an article by Edmondson on the Caracas Congress, in which he speaks positively and supportively of the deal Karpov got, but I know there's another article or letter somewhere around this same time that describes Edmondson's role in going to bat for Karpov in greater detail, and how Karpov took the unlimited match in exchange for the rematch. I need to keep looking. Anyway, according to this article, there were 6 packages on the table. The Soviet proposal was for Best of 24 or 6 Wins. The USCF Policy Board favored an Unlimited Match with no tie clause. Edmondson cuts Karpov slack on not wanting the unlimited match: "In fairness to Anatoly Karpov, I must insert here my impression that he honestly feels a match requiring ten wins for victory would be unnecessarily long and terribly exhausting, both physically and mentally. He feels that the same winner would emerge from a no-draw match requiring six wins, although he expressed beforehand a willingness to compromise on eight wins for the match proposed in 1975." He says that it was Karpov who proposed the rematch in exchange for taking the unlimited match, and speaks positively, indeed almost sycophantically of Karpov he "Anatoly Karpov and Nona Gaprindashvili were both at Caracas, and within 48 hours of his arrival Karpov demonstrated one reason why he deserves to be World Champion - he can always come up with yet another variation. In private conversation, he stated that none of the six proposals on the Agenda - including that of the USSR Chess Federation - struck him as the best. Rather than put a limit on the number of games, he asked, why not return to what was customary up until 1963, that is, have a rematch if the Championship changes hands?... Absolutely no one opposed this compromise when it was made from the floor by Dr. Tudela (Venezuela). The Central Committee recognized that it combined the best elements of all that had gone before. The exciting provision which requires a specific number of wins was maintained and the drawn-game and drawn match possibilities eliminated. And if a rematch does result - twice as much publicity for chess!" This isn't the whole story. As I say, there's still another piece floating around that I haven't found about Edmondson's lobbying efforts to help the proposal pass. But this is enough to show that Edmondson supported this package enthusiastically and without reservation. Not a hint of dissension or any idea that there was anything unfair about it. In addition, he goes out of his way to say that Karpov deserves to be World Champion, and that bit about praising him for "coming up with a new variation", is borderline toadying. Looks like I did misremember something, or at least report it in a misleading way. Although he didn't want an unlimited match, they didn't exactly twist his arm to get him to accept this compromise, he suggested it himself. Kavalek's claim that the rematch was unfair because, if we (improperly) combine both matches into one, the champion could possibly "retain" despite losing 6-11 is from September 1978, page 473. Here's a quote of his main point: "This time it is the rematch clause that makes the regulations absolutely ridiculous. For Karpov to meet a new challenger in 1981 in defense of the title FIDE handed him in 1975, all he needs to do is win 6 games - in the REMATCH. He doesn't need even a single win in the first match! Korchnoi, on the other hand, cannot be the defending world champion in 1981 even if he wins eleven games in both mtaches combined (six in the first): he must win TWELVE games. The favoring factor for the champion is thus 12:6, an incomparably more advantageous situation for Karpov than for any previous champion, and far more so than under Fischer's proposals." Denker's rebuttal letter to Kavalek is February 1979, page 64, though he says a bit less than I remembered. As he put it, "[Kavalek's] reply to Dr. Hunt puts me in mind of the old Talmudic scholars who could come up with any desired interpretation when expedient. So it was that after reading his article I became convinced that six was more than five, less than seven, yet in some vague way equal to twelve." It must have been some other letter, not Denkers, that pointed out that under this argument, Smyslov, Tal and Euwe were never champions at all. Evans' endorsement of Kavalek's argument is from January 1979, page 35. Here, Evans states "And I want to go on record here as condemning Karpov's rematch clause just as strongly, for the reasons expressed by Kavalek last September." He goes on to say his oft-repeated bit about how FIDE gave Karpov a bigger advantage than Fischer ever asked for, but if he's basing that on Kavalek's argument, he needs to seriously rethink it. The problems with Kavaleks' argument seem so obvious that I can't imagine that someone so intelligent didn't see them from the start. He's obviously highly biased; he gives that away with the complaint about FIDE handing Karpov the title, which, apart from having nothing to do with this case, is untrue, to boot. Fischer handed it to Karpov by resigning the title 9 months early rather than fighting for his conditions. The fudge here is that Kavalek assumes that the point of a world title match is, not to win the match or become champion, or be sitting champion in the next title defense, or anything like that. The point is to be the defending champion at an arbitrary date in the futu 1981. I admit I'm not a big fan of rematches either. I think anyone who climbs the mountain should be guaranteed a certain amount of time at the top to try to set trends and create his own "era". Kasparov had to play 120 championship games, more than most champions play *ever*, before he could sit back and enjoy the title for a while. That just doesn't seem right. But Kavalek goes to absurd lengths to try to make his point. The implication that Karpov and the Soviets wouldn't CARE about dropping the title to the defector Korchnoi for a while so long as they got it back a year later, is laughable. If Korchnoi had won the title and lost it right back, he would indeed have gone down in history as a world champion. Nobody would consider that Karpov had "retained" his title because he was defending champion in 1981. That's simply ridiculous. Graeme, thanks much for making such an extensive post. I may have those 1978-79 CL&Rs stashed in a closet somewhere; now you've given me a reason to look. I would like to pose a question for discussion. Consider that the Greeks contributed greatly to philosophy and mathematics. They had a wonderful civilization. But were they better than the Romans? Many of the Roman successes can from Greek ideas. SO who was greater? Is the greater the one who conceptualized the ideas whole cloth from the ethos or is the one who used the principles to their maximum effect the greater? Now, in chess who is greater? Is the greatest player the one(s) who created new ideas and systems or is the greatest the one who simply found the most effective way to use others ideas? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
#24
November 7th 06, 04:22 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
THE REMATCH CLAUSE
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....icle&sid= 967 Thanks to Graeme for providing the reference to what GM Evans wrote in Chess Life (January 1979, page 35) under the heading of UNEASY CROWN where it is clear that he did not just rely on GM Kavalek's argument against the rematch clause. Here is a pertinent passage (omitted by Graeme) where GM Evans quotes the research of former FIDE president Dr. Max Euwe, a mathematician. GM Evans was also far ahead of his time in suggesting that all games be finished should be finished in a single session without adjournments. "Many observers, including me, felt that it was unworthy of a champion to impose such a handicap on the challenger. And I want to go on record here as condemning Karpov's rematch clause just as strongly, for the reasons expressed by Kavalek last September (p. 473). Bobby got most of what he wanted, but not all. He probably could have gotten a return match clause if he had asked for it. Instead he defaulted, depriving both himself and the world of an historic contest. Dr. Euwe, in the August issue (p. 413) agreed that Karpov as champion got more than Fischer as champion ever asked for. By accepting a six-win match (giving up his 5-5 tie proposal) Karpov got the protection of the return match clause. Dr. Euwe quite sensibly tried to avoid this unless the challenger should win by a slim 6-5 margin, but the Soviet juggernaut prevailed. Now we are right back where we started, except that a fixed number of games has been abolished. The challenger is still at a disadvantage because the process is dominated by politics. It's high time FIDE decreed that the crown goes to the first player who wins six games -- no ifs, ands or buts. With a faster time limit each game could be played to a finish in a single session, putting seconds out of work and throwing both contestants squarely on their own resources. This would also shorten the match, cut down draws, and increase spectator appeal. Of course it will never happen. Graeme wrote: Taylor Kingston wrote: 3) If the latter, are you saying Edmonson negotiated on Karpov's or Korchnoi's behalf? Sounds strange. How did Edmondson get involved in negotiations where neither party was American? With Fischer retired, why would Edmonson care about preserving Fischer's match conditions? I've found a partial answer to this. CL&R, January 1978, p.27 has an article by Edmondson on the Caracas Congress, in which he speaks positively and supportively of the deal Karpov got, but I know there's another article or letter somewhere around this same time that describes Edmondson's role in going to bat for Karpov in greater detail, and how Karpov took the unlimited match in exchange for the rematch. I need to keep looking. Anyway, according to this article, there were 6 packages on the table. The Soviet proposal was for Best of 24 or 6 Wins. The USCF Policy Board favored an Unlimited Match with no tie clause. Edmondson cuts Karpov slack on not wanting the unlimited match: "In fairness to Anatoly Karpov, I must insert here my impression that he honestly feels a match requiring ten wins for victory would be unnecessarily long and terribly exhausting, both physically and mentally. He feels that the same winner would emerge from a no-draw match requiring six wins, although he expressed beforehand a willingness to compromise on eight wins for the match proposed in 1975." He says that it was Karpov who proposed the rematch in exchange for taking the unlimited match, and speaks positively, indeed almost sycophantically of Karpov he "Anatoly Karpov and Nona Gaprindashvili were both at Caracas, and within 48 hours of his arrival Karpov demonstrated one reason why he deserves to be World Champion - he can always come up with yet another variation. In private conversation, he stated that none of the six proposals on the Agenda - including that of the USSR Chess Federation - struck him as the best. Rather than put a limit on the number of games, he asked, why not return to what was customary up until 1963, that is, have a rematch if the Championship changes hands?... Absolutely no one opposed this compromise when it was made from the floor by Dr. Tudela (Venezuela). The Central Committee recognized that it combined the best elements of all that had gone before. The exciting provision which requires a specific number of wins was maintained and the drawn-game and drawn match possibilities eliminated. And if a rematch does result - twice as much publicity for chess!" This isn't the whole story. As I say, there's still another piece floating around that I haven't found about Edmondson's lobbying efforts to help the proposal pass. But this is enough to show that Edmondson supported this package enthusiastically and without reservation. Not a hint of dissension or any idea that there was anything unfair about it. In addition, he goes out of his way to say that Karpov deserves to be World Champion, and that bit about praising him for "coming up with a new variation", is borderline toadying. Looks like I did misremember something, or at least report it in a misleading way. Although he didn't want an unlimited match, they didn't exactly twist his arm to get him to accept this compromise, he suggested it himself. Kavalek's claim that the rematch was unfair because, if we (improperly) combine both matches into one, the champion could possibly "retain" despite losing 6-11 is from September 1978, page 473. Here's a quote of his main point: "This time it is the rematch clause that makes the regulations absolutely ridiculous. For Karpov to meet a new challenger in 1981 in defense of the title FIDE handed him in 1975, all he needs to do is win 6 games - in the REMATCH. He doesn't need even a single win in the first match! Korchnoi, on the other hand, cannot be the defending world champion in 1981 even if he wins eleven games in both mtaches combined (six in the first): he must win TWELVE games. The favoring factor for the champion is thus 12:6, an incomparably more advantageous situation for Karpov than for any previous champion, and far more so than under Fischer's proposals." Denker's rebuttal letter to Kavalek is February 1979, page 64, though he says a bit less than I remembered. As he put it, "[Kavalek's] reply to Dr. Hunt puts me in mind of the old Talmudic scholars who could come up with any desired interpretation when expedient. So it was that after reading his article I became convinced that six was more than five, less than seven, yet in some vague way equal to twelve." It must have been some other letter, not Denkers, that pointed out that under this argument, Smyslov, Tal and Euwe were never champions at all. Evans' endorsement of Kavalek's argument is from January 1979, page 35. Here, Evans states "And I want to go on record here as condemning Karpov's rematch clause just as strongly, for the reasons expressed by Kavalek last September." He goes on to say his oft-repeated bit about how FIDE gave Karpov a bigger advantage than Fischer ever asked for, but if he's basing that on Kavalek's argument, he needs to seriously rethink it. The problems with Kavaleks' argument seem so obvious that I can't imagine that someone so intelligent didn't see them from the start. He's obviously highly biased; he gives that away with the complaint about FIDE handing Karpov the title, which, apart from having nothing to do with this case, is untrue, to boot. Fischer handed it to Karpov by resigning the title 9 months early rather than fighting for his conditions. The fudge here is that Kavalek assumes that the point of a world title match is, not to win the match or become champion, or be sitting champion in the next title defense, or anything like that. The point is to be the defending champion at an arbitrary date in the futu 1981. I admit I'm not a big fan of rematches either. I think anyone who climbs the mountain should be guaranteed a certain amount of time at the top to try to set trends and create his own "era". Kasparov had to play 120 championship games, more than most champions play *ever*, before he could sit back and enjoy the title for a while. That just doesn't seem right. But Kavalek goes to absurd lengths to try to make his point. The implication that Karpov and the Soviets wouldn't CARE about dropping the title to the defector Korchnoi for a while so long as they got it back a year later, is laughable. If Korchnoi had won the title and lost it right back, he would indeed have gone down in history as a world champion. Nobody would consider that Karpov had "retained" his title because he was defending champion in 1981. That's simply ridiculous.
|
|
#25
November 7th 06, 04:59 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Louis Blair wrote: VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe. googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Rob" Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov Date: 7 Nov 2006 07:11:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 139 Message-ID: om References: . com . com . com .com .com . com NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.154.222.222 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162912321 13482 127.0.0.1 (7 Nov 2006 15:12:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:12:01 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: . com User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.154.222.222; posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f Taylor Kingston wrote: On Nov 7, 12:15 am, "Graeme" wrote: Taylor Kingston wrote: 3) If the latter, are you saying Edmonson negotiated on Karpov's or Korchnoi's behalf? Sounds strange. How did Edmondson get involved in negotiations where neither party was American? With Fischer retired, why would Edmonson care about preserving Fischer's match conditions? I've found a partial answer to this. CL&R, January 1978, p.27 has an article by Edmondson on the Caracas Congress, in which he speaks positively and supportively of the deal Karpov got, but I know there's another article or letter somewhere around this same time that describes Edmondson's role in going to bat for Karpov in greater detail, and how Karpov took the unlimited match in exchange for the rematch. I need to keep looking. Anyway, according to this article, there were 6 packages on the table. The Soviet proposal was for Best of 24 or 6 Wins. The USCF Policy Board favored an Unlimited Match with no tie clause. Edmondson cuts Karpov slack on not wanting the unlimited match: "In fairness to Anatoly Karpov, I must insert here my impression that he honestly feels a match requiring ten wins for victory would be unnecessarily long and terribly exhausting, both physically and mentally. He feels that the same winner would emerge from a no-draw match requiring six wins, although he expressed beforehand a willingness to compromise on eight wins for the match proposed in 1975." He says that it was Karpov who proposed the rematch in exchange for taking the unlimited match, and speaks positively, indeed almost sycophantically of Karpov he "Anatoly Karpov and Nona Gaprindashvili were both at Caracas, and within 48 hours of his arrival Karpov demonstrated one reason why he deserves to be World Champion - he can always come up with yet another variation. In private conversation, he stated that none of the six proposals on the Agenda - including that of the USSR Chess Federation - struck him as the best. Rather than put a limit on the number of games, he asked, why not return to what was customary up until 1963, that is, have a rematch if the Championship changes hands?... Absolutely no one opposed this compromise when it was made from the floor by Dr. Tudela (Venezuela). The Central Committee recognized that it combined the best elements of all that had gone before. The exciting provision which requires a specific number of wins was maintained and the drawn-game and drawn match possibilities eliminated. And if a rematch does result - twice as much publicity for chess!" This isn't the whole story. As I say, there's still another piece floating around that I haven't found about Edmondson's lobbying efforts to help the proposal pass. But this is enough to show that Edmondson supported this package enthusiastically and without reservation. Not a hint of dissension or any idea that there was anything unfair about it. In addition, he goes out of his way to say that Karpov deserves to be World Champion, and that bit about praising him for "coming up with a new variation", is borderline toadying. Looks like I did misremember something, or at least report it in a misleading way. Although he didn't want an unlimited match, they didn't exactly twist his arm to get him to accept this compromise, he suggested it himself. Kavalek's claim that the rematch was unfair because, if we (improperly) combine both matches into one, the champion could possibly "retain" despite losing 6-11 is from September 1978, page 473. Here's a quote of his main point: "This time it is the rematch clause that makes the regulations absolutely ridiculous. For Karpov to meet a new challenger in 1981 in defense of the title FIDE handed him in 1975, all he needs to do is win 6 games - in the REMATCH. He doesn't need even a single win in the first match! Korchnoi, on the other hand, cannot be the defending world champion in 1981 even if he wins eleven games in both mtaches combined (six in the first): he must win TWELVE games. The favoring factor for the champion is thus 12:6, an incomparably more advantageous situation for Karpov than for any previous champion, and far more so than under Fischer's proposals." Denker's rebuttal letter to Kavalek is February 1979, page 64, though he says a bit less than I remembered. As he put it, "[Kavalek's] reply to Dr. Hunt puts me in mind of the old Talmudic scholars who could come up with any desired interpretation when expedient. So it was that after reading his article I became convinced that six was more than five, less than seven, yet in some vague way equal to twelve." It must have been some other letter, not Denkers, that pointed out that under this argument, Smyslov, Tal and Euwe were never champions at all. Evans' endorsement of Kavalek's argument is from January 1979, page 35. Here, Evans states "And I want to go on record here as condemning Karpov's rematch clause just as strongly, for the reasons expressed by Kavalek last September." He goes on to say his oft-repeated bit about how FIDE gave Karpov a bigger advantage than Fischer ever asked for, but if he's basing that on Kavalek's argument, he needs to seriously rethink it. The problems with Kavaleks' argument seem so obvious that I can't imagine that someone so intelligent didn't see them from the start. He's obviously highly biased; he gives that away with the complaint about FIDE handing Karpov the title, which, apart from having nothing to do with this case, is untrue, to boot. Fischer handed it to Karpov by resigning the title 9 months early rather than fighting for his conditions. The fudge here is that Kavalek assumes that the point of a world title match is, not to win the match or become champion, or be sitting champion in the next title defense, or anything like that. The point is to be the defending champion at an arbitrary date in the futu 1981. I admit I'm not a big fan of rematches either. I think anyone who climbs the mountain should be guaranteed a certain amount of time at the top to try to set trends and create his own "era". Kasparov had to play 120 championship games, more than most champions play *ever*, before he could sit back and enjoy the title for a while. That just doesn't seem right. But Kavalek goes to absurd lengths to try to make his point. The implication that Karpov and the Soviets wouldn't CARE about dropping the title to the defector Korchnoi for a while so long as they got it back a year later, is laughable. If Korchnoi had won the title and lost it right back, he would indeed have gone down in history as a world champion. Nobody would consider that Karpov had "retained" his title because he was defending champion in 1981. That's simply ridiculous. Graeme, thanks much for making such an extensive post. I may have those 1978-79 CL&Rs stashed in a closet somewhere; now you've given me a reason to look. I would like to pose a question for discussion. Consider that the Greeks contributed greatly to philosophy and mathematics. They had a wonderful civilization. But were they better than the Romans? Many of the Roman successes can from Greek ideas. SO who was greater? Is the greater the one who conceptualized the ideas whole cloth from the ethos or is the one who used the principles to their maximum effect the greater? Now, in chess who is greater? Is the greatest player the one(s) who created new ideas and systems or is the greatest the one who simply found the most effective way to use others ideas? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Dr. Blair, my news reader must not work. I do not see that you made a comment. Can you please resubmit? Rob
|
|
#26
November 7th 06, 10:52 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
|
|
#27
November 7th 06, 11:17 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
QUICK POINTS
1. "Bobby probably could have gotten the rematch clause if he'd been willing to compromise at all." (Graeme) No less an authority than Averbakh, the Russian rep at Caracas, said that "of course" Fischer could have gotten a rematch clause if he had asked for it. 2. Averbakh said the Russians were shocked when Edmondson suggested the rematch clause if Karpov accepted the principle of six wins instead of 24 games with the champion keeping the title on a 12-12 tie. 3. A careful reading of what GM Evans wrote in UNEASY CROWN indicates that Karpov at first wanted to keep the title if the match reached a 5-5 tie (just as Fischer wanted this to happen in the event it reached 9-9 with a 10 wins requirement). That may be why Edmondson, whom Fischer had fired, suggested the rematch clause. 4. "I think Evans was basically right in rejecting the rematch clause, but wrong in thinking that it was a bigger advantage than Fischer asked for." (Graeme) Dr. Euwe confirmed that the rematch clause was mathematically a bigger edge for the champion than Fischer's 9-9 tie clause, even if many people didn't see it like that. Other mathematicians may disagree, and it would be interesting to see a definitive proof that settled the matter once and for all. 5. GM Evans agreed with Graeme that nobody knows if Fischer would have played Karpov in 1975 even if FIDE accepted ALL of his conditions. Graeme wrote: wrote: Here is a pertinent passage (omitted by Graeme) where GM Evans quotes the research of former FIDE president Dr. Max Euwe, a mathematician. GM Evans was also far ahead of his time in suggesting that all games be finished should be finished in a single session without adjournments. Yes, the article is worth reading in full. I think Evans was basically right in rejecting the rematch clause, but wrong in thinking that it was a bigger advantage than Fischer asked for. What's better? A fair shot at a 1 year title reign, or an unfair shot at a 3 year reign? That's impossible to quantify, but I think most people, if they had to be screwed, would prefer being screwed like Tal, to being screwed like Bronstein. A 1 year title reign is a lot better than none at all. A tie match doesn't benefit anyone except the champion, and certainly doesn't "prove" that the players are equal. My point was that it wasn't simply a matter of evil Russians supporting the rematch versus all right thinking folks being against it. Even Americans like Ed Edmondson and neutral parties were enthusiastic about the idea at the time. I don't like it myself, I think that being seeded directly into the finals is all the advantage the champion deserves. But it seems like Edmondson's motivation for going along with it was not to do a "dirty deal", but to make compromises to see to it that Fischer's idea of an unlimited match should be tested in the moden era. There were people at the time (Fischer included) who seriously thought it would solve the draw problem, and needed to be tried. To get Karpov to defend under a system he didn't want, it was necessary to give him something in return. Bobby got most of what he wanted, but not all. He probably could have gotten a return match clause if he had asked for it. Yes, I read that last night, and it's interesting in that it shows that in the eyes of the rest of the world, the rematch was a smaller advantage than making the challenger win by 2. Yeah, I think Evans is probably right there. Bobby probably could have gotten the rematch clause if he'd been willing to compromise at all. But I don't think he would have played under any circumstances. In retrospect, we can see that he retired in 1972, he just didn't bother to tell us. It wasn't just the 1975 match he bowed out of, it was *all* events for the next 20 years.
|
|
#28
November 8th 06, 06:19 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Rob wrote: Louis Blair wrote: VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe. googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Rob" Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov Date: 7 Nov 2006 07:11:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 139 Message-ID: om References: . com . com . com .com .com . com NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.154.222.222 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162912321 13482 127.0.0.1 (7 Nov 2006 15:12:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:12:01 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: . com User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.154.222.222; posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f Taylor Kingston wrote: On Nov 7, 12:15 am, "Graeme" wrote: Taylor Kingston wrote: 3) If the latter, are you saying Edmonson negotiated on Karpov's or Korchnoi's behalf? Sounds strange. How did Edmondson get involved in negotiations where neither party was American? With Fischer retired, why would Edmonson care about preserving Fischer's match conditions? I've found a partial answer to this. CL&R, January 1978, p.27 has an article by Edmondson on the Caracas Congress, in which he speaks positively and supportively of the deal Karpov got, but I know there's another article or letter somewhere around this same time that describes Edmondson's role in going to bat for Karpov in greater detail, and how Karpov took the unlimited match in exchange for the rematch. I need to keep looking. Anyway, according to this article, there were 6 packages on the table. The Soviet proposal was for Best of 24 or 6 Wins. The USCF Policy Board favored an Unlimited Match with no tie clause. Edmondson cuts Karpov slack on not wanting the unlimited match: "In fairness to Anatoly Karpov, I must insert here my impression that he honestly feels a match requiring ten wins for victory would be unnecessarily long and terribly exhausting, both physically and mentally. He feels that the same winner would emerge from a no-draw match requiring six wins, although he expressed beforehand a willingness to compromise on eight wins for the match proposed in 1975." He says that it was Karpov who proposed the rematch in exchange for taking the unlimited match, and speaks positively, indeed almost sycophantically of Karpov he "Anatoly Karpov and Nona Gaprindashvili were both at Caracas, and within 48 hours of his arrival Karpov demonstrated one reason why he deserves to be World Champion - he can always come up with yet another variation. In private conversation, he stated that none of the six proposals on the Agenda - including that of the USSR Chess Federation - struck him as the best. Rather than put a limit on the number of games, he asked, why not return to what was customary up until 1963, that is, have a rematch if the Championship changes hands?... Absolutely no one opposed this compromise when it was made from the floor by Dr. Tudela (Venezuela). The Central Committee recognized that it combined the best elements of all that had gone before. The exciting provision which requires a specific number of wins was maintained and the drawn-game and drawn match possibilities eliminated. And if a rematch does result - twice as much publicity for chess!" This isn't the whole story. As I say, there's still another piece floating around that I haven't found about Edmondson's lobbying efforts to help the proposal pass. But this is enough to show that Edmondson supported this package enthusiastically and without reservation. Not a hint of dissension or any idea that there was anything unfair about it. In addition, he goes out of his way to say that Karpov deserves to be World Champion, and that bit about praising him for "coming up with a new variation", is borderline toadying. Looks like I did misremember something, or at least report it in a misleading way. Although he didn't want an unlimited match, they didn't exactly twist his arm to get him to accept this compromise, he suggested it himself. Kavalek's claim that the rematch was unfair because, if we (improperly) combine both matches into one, the champion could possibly "retain" despite losing 6-11 is from September 1978, page 473. Here's a quote of his main point: "This time it is the rematch clause that makes the regulations absolutely ridiculous. For Karpov to meet a new challenger in 1981 in defense of the title FIDE handed him in 1975, all he needs to do is win 6 games - in the REMATCH. He doesn't need even a single win in the first match! Korchnoi, on the other hand, cannot be the defending world champion in 1981 even if he wins eleven games in both mtaches combined (six in the first): he must win TWELVE games. The favoring factor for the champion is thus 12:6, an incomparably more advantageous situation for Karpov than for any previous champion, and far more so than under Fischer's proposals." Denker's rebuttal letter to Kavalek is February 1979, page 64, though he says a bit less than I remembered. As he put it, "[Kavalek's] reply to Dr. Hunt puts me in mind of the old Talmudic scholars who could come up with any desired interpretation when expedient. So it was that after reading his article I became convinced that six was more than five, less than seven, yet in some vague way equal to twelve." It must have been some other letter, not Denkers, that pointed out that under this argument, Smyslov, Tal and Euwe were never champions at all. Evans' endorsement of Kavalek's argument is from January 1979, page 35. Here, Evans states "And I want to go on record here as condemning Karpov's rematch clause just as strongly, for the reasons expressed by Kavalek last September." He goes on to say his oft-repeated bit about how FIDE gave Karpov a bigger advantage than Fischer ever asked for, but if he's basing that on Kavalek's argument, he needs to seriously rethink it. The problems with Kavaleks' argument seem so obvious that I can't imagine that someone so intelligent didn't see them from the start. He's obviously highly biased; he gives that away with the complaint about FIDE handing Karpov the title, which, apart from having nothing to do with this case, is untrue, to boot. Fischer handed it to Karpov by resigning the title 9 months early rather than fighting for his conditions. The fudge here is that Kavalek assumes that the point of a world title match is, not to win the match or become champion, or be sitting champion in the next title defense, or anything like that. The point is to be the defending champion at an arbitrary date in the futu 1981. I admit I'm not a big fan of rematches either. I think anyone who climbs the mountain should be guaranteed a certain amount of time at the top to try to set trends and create his own "era". Kasparov had to play 120 championship games, more than most champions play *ever*, before he could sit back and enjoy the title for a while. That just doesn't seem right. But Kavalek goes to absurd lengths to try to make his point. The implication that Karpov and the Soviets wouldn't CARE about dropping the title to the defector Korchnoi for a while so long as they got it back a year later, is laughable. If Korchnoi had won the title and lost it right back, he would indeed have gone down in history as a world champion. Nobody would consider that Karpov had "retained" his title because he was defending champion in 1981. That's simply ridiculous. Graeme, thanks much for making such an extensive post. I may have those 1978-79 CL&Rs stashed in a closet somewhere; now you've given me a reason to look. I would like to pose a question for discussion. Consider that the Greeks contributed greatly to philosophy and mathematics. They had a wonderful civilization. But were they better than the Romans? Many of the Roman successes can from Greek ideas. SO who was greater? Is the greater the one who conceptualized the ideas whole cloth from the ethos or is the one who used the principles to their maximum effect the greater? Now, in chess who is greater? Is the greatest player the one(s) who created new ideas and systems or is the greatest the one who simply found the most effective way to use others ideas? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Dr. Blair, my news reader must not work. I do not see that you made a comment. Can you please resubmit? Rob Rob, I have noticed that many postings by Dr. Blair (or some imposter) appear to have no content other than headers, and repeating entire postings of others. The problem seems to have started a couple of weeks ago. You're not the only one, and I doubt very much if there is anything wrong with your browser. -- help bot
|
|
#29
November 8th 06, 06:59 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
|
|
#30
November 8th 06, 10:35 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
|
Linear Mode
