help bot wrote:
Compare and contrast this statement to what has already
appeared in this thread; it was clearly stated that a third party
proposed this to FIDE, and that no one -- not even the Russians
-- objected at the time. Does this indicate that any "shock"
would then have been the result of an American suggesting
this idea? And this appears to contradict the statement
made earlier in this thread as to who did the proposing of the
idea.

According to Edmondson in January 1978, when FIDE was about to try to
decide between the limited match and the unlimited one (that USCF still
wanted), Karpov himself was the 3rd party who, behind the scenes,
suggested the compromse (unlimited match in exchange for rematch
clause), and Dr. Tudela of Venezuela who introduced it during the
actual FIDE meeting.

Now, Edmondson's article indicates his complete approval, so it might
have come as a shock when an American chimed in in support of a rematch
clause for Karpov, but his article doesn't address that one way or the
other. He just says that nobody objected.



This has already appeared in this very thread. The key
idea is that two matches are not the same as one match.


Yes, clearly the chances of becoming champion under the 1978 rules were
much better than the chances of becoming champion under Fischer's rules
in 1975. The chances of *staying* champion for 3 years under either
system are a different question and probably impossible to quantify,
though.

The whole idea of trying to judge victory by percentage points though
is dodgy. By Kalme's thinking, a 10-8 (+2) victory in Fischer's system
should be exactly equal to a +5-4=15 (+1) result in the old system
(because in both cases, the winner won 55.6% of the decisive games).

But going by percentages seems like the wrong approach, since one
system does count draws, and the other doesn't. I think most of us can
see that even in Fischer's system, a +10-8=50 result is much less
decisive than +10-8=0. But by Kalme's thinking, both of these results
are identical, since he's not only not scoring the draws, but
pretending that they don't exist at all.

In fact, by Kalme's thinking, being the first to win a single game of
chess is the most difficult task of all, since to do that, would
require the winner to win 100% of the decisive games. That's a good
sign that there's something screwy with the argument.

There's really no way to mathematically say that the challenger has a
better chance under Fischer's system. It's purely a matter of taste.
Some players would genuinely prefer having to go 2-0 with no time limit
than having to win the very next game, others wouldn't. The objective
reality was that the new system required the challenger to win by 2
points instead of 1, and that no such thing had ever happened in a FIDE
championship match before. Maybe never in ANY world championship
(except the 1886 match, which hit both players equally).




I mean to say,
what if GM Fischer continually added more, each and
every time FIDE accepted all the others? This process
has to end somewhere; the world does not stop revolving
simply because GM Fischer has a serious psychological
problem.

Isaac Kashdan made that same point about the 1969 Championship, which
Fischer wouldn't play in unless they increased it to 22 rounds.

Kash wrote:

~~~~~
"If enlarging the tournament would assure Fischer's participation I
might say go ahead with it... But what if the schedule were rearranged,
quite a task at short notice, and Fischer then went to New York just in
time to play, and then objected to the lights, or the size of the
playing area, or the hum of the spectators, or the director's manner or
some other point, major or minor. As it happens, Fischer is now in
California. He was asked to come to New York, at the expense of USCF,
to check out the playing conditions. This alone would indicate that
USCF officials are very anxious to have Fischer in the tournament.
Fischer refused to discuss any other matters until his request for 22
players was accepted.

I have had some personal experience with Fischer. I supervised him as
Captain of the U.S.A. team at the Chess Olympics in Leipzig, East
Germany, in 1960, and as Director of The Piatagorsky Cup Tournament in
Santa Monica, 1966. On both occasions there were no problems that came
to public attention, but there were some incidents that may have added
to the gray hair I have. Not that I have given up on Fischer. I would
gladly assume a similar task if I thought it would help. I am only
pointing out that making a concession to Fischer does not guarantee
success of a venture.

I am well aware of the tremendous advantage to American chess if the
world championship could be brought here. It would be worth a great
deal of effort and money on the part of the chess community, and it
would be worth some sacrifices on the part of other grandmasters. But
the goal is also worth a great deal to Fischer, and he must also show
some accommodation."
~~~~~

Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 11:15:11 -0800):

7 ... I suggest getting better grounded in chess history
7 before making blanket generalizations that underestimate
7 some very great players.

_
I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading
SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell
has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the
evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine have all
written books of that sort. Fine has written,
_
"For sheer originality, profundity, and technical
perfection [Alekhine] was never surpassed."
- Fine (1951)
_
I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic
about Alekhine in some of his writing.
_
Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such
writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective
and I, at least, get the impression that some authors
oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting
to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were
written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and
Kramnik.

Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 11:15:11 -0800):

7 ... I suggest getting better grounded in chess history
7 before making blanket generalizations that underestimate
7 some very great players.

_
I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading
SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell
has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the
evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine all wrote
books of that sort. Fine wrote,
_
"For sheer originality, profundity, and technical
perfection [Alekhine] was never surpassed."
- Fine (1951)
_
I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic
about Alekhine in some of his writing.
_
Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such
writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective
and I, at least, get the impression that some authors
oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting
to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were
written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and
Kramnik.

Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 11:15:11 -0800):

7 ... I suggest getting better grounded in chess history
7 before making blanket generalizations that underestimate
7 some very great players.

_
I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading
SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell
has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the
evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine all wrote
books of that sort. Fine wrote,
_
"At his best Alekhine had equals, but he did
not have any superiors. For sheer originality,
profundity, and technical perfection he was
never surpassed. He ranks among the really
great artists of the chessboard." - Fine (1951)
_
I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic
about Alekhine in some of his writing.
_
Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such
writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective
and I, at least, get the impression that some authors
oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting
to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were
written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and
Kramnik.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.googl e.com!b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Taylor Kingston"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 8 Nov 2006 14:30:50 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 25
Message-ID: .com
References: . com
.com
.com
. com
. com
.com
.com
om
.com
. com
.com
.com
.com
.com
.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.180.245
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1163025055 8039 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2006
22:30:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:30:55 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: .com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;
AT&T CSM6.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 netcache2 (NetCache NetApp/6.0.4)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=198.96.180.245;
posting-account=EiI5yw0AAACV86a5CGNajLjBxzUoGk-N



On Nov 8, 4:59 pm, "Louis Blair" wrote:
I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading
SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell
has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the
evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine have all
written books of that sort.

Yes, I've read all of them. My point was that Rob produced nothing to
establish his claim that Alekhine had "very pronounced theories about
lines of development"; in fact it seemed he could not even explain what
he meant, and suggested that I should define it for him.

I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic
about Alekhine in some of his writing.

Yes, Reinfeld, writing in the early 1950s, considered Alekhine the
greatest player of all time. But neither he nor the other writers you
mention attributed Alekhine's greatness to his "theories," whether
"pronounced" or otherwise. In fact Alekhine's play generally did not
show any pronounced theoretical slant, unlike, say, the hypermoderns
Réti and Nimzovitch, or classicists such as Rubinstein. He was
eclectic rather than "ideological."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I wrote (8 Nov 2006 14:26:52 -0800):
7 I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading
7 SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell
7 has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the
7 evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine all wrote
7 books of that sort. Fine wrote,
7
7 "At his best Alekhine had equals, but he did
7 not have any superiors. For sheer originality,
7 profundity, and technical perfection he was
7 never surpassed. He ranks among the really
7 great artists of the chessboard." - Fine (1951)
7
7 I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic
7 about Alekhine in some of his writing.
7
7 Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such
7 writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective
7 and I, at least, get the impression that some authors
7 oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting
7 to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were
7 written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and
7 Kramnik.

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 14:30:50 -0800):

7 Yes, I've read all of [those books on the evolution of
7 chess by Réti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine]. My point was that
7 Rob produced nothing to establish his claim that Alekhine
7 had "very pronounced theories about lines of development";
7 in fact it seemed he could not even explain what he meant,
7 and suggested that I should define it for him.
7
7 Yes, Reinfeld, writing in the early 1950s, considered
7 Alekhine the greatest player of all time. But neither he
7 nor the other writers you mention attributed Alekhine's
7 greatness to his "theories," whether "pronounced" or
7 otherwise. In fact Alekhine's play generally did not show
7 any pronounced theoretical slant, unlike, say, the
7 hypermoderns Réti and Nimzovitch, or classicists such
7 as Rubinstein. He was eclectic rather than "ideological."

_
To me, all this terminology is unclear, and I wonder if a
word like "theories" means the same thing to different
people. I get the impression that Rob Mitchell is in
approximately the same position as me - remembering
things vaguely and hoping that others can flesh out (and
maybe adjust) the concept.
_
The Euwe quote said domething about the creation of
"ingenious ideas". Did somebody write that Alekhine came
up with new attacking ideas? It might be fun to take
another look at what those books said and try to judge
to what extent they made statements that have stood the
test of time.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h54g2000cwb .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "help bot"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Date: 8 Nov 2006 22:14:42 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 18
Message-ID: . com
References: . com
. com
. com
.com
.com
. com
. com

. com
.com
.com
.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.2.9.152
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1163052887 7764 127.0.0.1 (9 Nov 2006
06:14:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 06:14:47 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: .com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061025 Firefox/1.5.0.8,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.2.9.152;
posting-account=9BIrBw0AAAB7iLUVDUl7NdGh5tPTwbP2


Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:27 am, "Rob" wrote:
I believe Alekhines "creative" work ethic is unique in chess. He
developed not only a theory but also applied the theory to great effect.

To what "theory" do you refer, Rob? And I would agree that Alekhine's
chess work ethic was exemplary, but it was hardly unique.

It seems as though "Rob" is unfamiliar with the
work of Wilhelm Steinitz, among others.

Alekhine's "theory", as it is termed, was simply
that other players played bad moves, requiring
frequent refutation OTB. ;D

-- help bot
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

"Alekhine's style took ideas from all the various schools of thought.
He developed and integrated them together into a new dynamic chess.
Combined with his determination to win, and immense capacity for work,
he became one of the most effective players in his era.

He refined Lasker's approach to chess (of making the opponent play in
uncomfortable positions to their style), by giving his opponents the
opportunity to overindulge in their very own style of play! Examples
include beating Capablanca in simple chess, out complicating Nimzovich,
and luring Reti into enormously idea-rich positions!"




Louis Blair wrote:
I wrote (8 Nov 2006 14:26:52 -0800):
7 I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading
7 SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell
7 has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the
7 evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine all wrote
7 books of that sort. Fine wrote,
7
7 "At his best Alekhine had equals, but he did
7 not have any superiors. For sheer originality,
7 profundity, and technical perfection he was
7 never surpassed. He ranks among the really
7 great artists of the chessboard." - Fine (1951)
7
7 I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic
7 about Alekhine in some of his writing.
7
7 Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such
7 writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective
7 and I, at least, get the impression that some authors
7 oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting
7 to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were
7 written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and
7 Kramnik.

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 14:30:50 -0800):

7 Yes, I've read all of [those books on the evolution of
7 chess by Réti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine]. My point was that
7 Rob produced nothing to establish his claim that Alekhine
7 had "very pronounced theories about lines of development";
7 in fact it seemed he could not even explain what he meant,
7 and suggested that I should define it for him.
7
7 Yes, Reinfeld, writing in the early 1950s, considered
7 Alekhine the greatest player of all time. But neither he
7 nor the other writers you mention attributed Alekhine's
7 greatness to his "theories," whether "pronounced" or
7 otherwise. In fact Alekhine's play generally did not show
7 any pronounced theoretical slant, unlike, say, the
7 hypermoderns Réti and Nimzovitch, or classicists such
7 as Rubinstein. He was eclectic rather than "ideological."

_
To me, all this terminology is unclear, and I wonder if a
word like "theories" means the same thing to different
people. I get the impression that Rob Mitchell is in
approximately the same position as me - remembering
things vaguely and hoping that others can flesh out (and
maybe adjust) the concept.
_
The Euwe quote said domething about the creation of
"ingenious ideas". Did somebody write that Alekhine came
up with new attacking ideas? It might be fun to take
another look at what those books said and try to judge
to what extent they made statements that have stood the
test of time.

On Nov 9, 10:15 am, "Rob" wrote:
"Alekhine's style took ideas from all the various schools of thought.
He developed and integrated them together into a new dynamic chess.
Combined with his determination to win, and immense capacity for work,
he became one of the most effective players in his era.

He refined Lasker's approach to chess (of making the opponent play in
uncomfortable positions to their style), by giving his opponents the
opportunity to overindulge in their very own style of play! Examples
include beating Capablanca in simple chess, out complicating Nimzovich,
and luring Reti into enormously idea-rich positions!"

I would guess Rob got this from
http://www.chessclub.demon.co.uk/cul...e/alekhine.htm.
Reading it, I felt a thread of memory vibrate. Turns out my hunch was
right. It is actually a very close paraphrase of William Hartston's
"The Kings of Chess" (1985), page 119.
Yet the site does not even list that book among its sources, let
alone give Hartston credit for the above paragraphs. Unless Hartston is
himself the webmaster there, this is yet another example of uncredited
borrowing verging on plagiarism, a sin rampant among chess web-sites.
For comparison, I append Hartston's text below:

"Alekhine's eclectic style took ideas from all the various schools of
play extant, developed them and welded them together into a new dynamic
chess. Fueled by Alekhine's incomparable will to win, it made him the
most complete, most effective player of the game in his era, perhaps of
all time.
"In his best games Alekhine showed that his all-round skills included
weapons which could combat any style. Most players with any degree of
versatility try to reach positions of a type which their opponents do
not enjoy. That was Lasker's approach to the chess struggle, but
Alekhine refind the idea into a much more subtle weapon. He beat
Capablanca with simple chess, he out-complicated Nimzowitsch, he could
lure Réti into games too rich in ideas even for the imagination of
that great master."

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!k70g2000cwa .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Taylor Kingston"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Alekhine's Creativity (was: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs.
Karpov)
Date: 9 Nov 2006 06:43:17 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 66
Message-ID: .com
References: .com
. com
. com
.com
.com
om
.com
. com
.com
.com
.com
.com
. com
.com
. com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.49.184.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1163083403 6727 127.0.0.1 (9 Nov 2006
14:43:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 14:43:23 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: . com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;
AT&T CSM6.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=24.49.184.240;
posting-account=EiI5yw0AAACV86a5CGNajLjBxzUoGk-N



On Nov 8, 8:09 pm, "Louis Blair" wrote:
To me, all this terminology is unclear, and I wonder if a
word like "theories" means the same thing to different
people. I get the impression that Rob Mitchell is in
approximately the same position as me - remembering
things vaguely and hoping that others can flesh out (and
maybe adjust) the concept.

What Rob said was "I believe Alekhines 'creative' work ethic is
unique in chess. He developed not only a theory but also applied the
theory to great effect." Yet Rob seems unable or unwilling to explain
what that this "theory" was. I suspect Rob just has a vague, inchoate
notion that Alekhine was a great player but has no definite idea of
what made him great.
The chess meaning of "theory" is quite different from its meaning in
science or in common parlance. The OC gives two main definitions:

1) The general principles of sound play, based mainly on the
teachings of Steinitz: development, control of the center, strong and
weak pawn structures, etc. I am not aware that Alekhine added
significantly to chess theory in this sense, whereas his contemporaries
Lasker, Breyer, and Nimzovitch did.
2) The accumulated body of knowledge about openings. To say "The
first 20 moves were all theory" means basically that an established,
accepted book line was played. A bad move in the opening may be labeled
"untheoretical." A worthwhile new move may be labeled a "theoretical
novelty" (TN), and eventually become part of opening theory if it is
accepted as sound.
Occasionally a player comes along who greatly expands opening theory
by developing whole new systems. Some examples are Louis Paulsen (who
was playing the Pirc and King's Indian in the mid-1800s), Pillsbury and
the Queen's Gambit, Réti and the Réti System, and Nimzovitch with the
Winawer French, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, and other lines.
As far as I know, Alekhine did not produce such major and
far-reaching innovations. His forte was not in devising whole systems
of development, but mainly in sharp TNs aimed at seizing the
initiative. Thus, contrary to Rob's statement, we cannot speak of
Alekhine developing *_a_* theory and applying it. Rather, he came up
with countless improvements in established opening lines, improvements
that set his opponents problems they were usually not able to solve.


The Euwe quote said domething about the creation of
"ingenious ideas". Did somebody write that Alekhine came
up with new attacking ideas?

He most definitely did. Alekhine had a great knack for seizing the
initiative in positions others found sterile. Coles gives many examples
in the chapter "Dynamics and Dynamite" in his book "Dynamic Chess"
(1956). But again these were all in the nature of TNs in established
lines: the Albin-Chatard Attack in the French, the Blumenfeld
Countergambit, the Von Hennig-Schara Gambit in the QGD, the Slav
Defense, the Orthodox QGD, the Caro-Kann, etc.
An example is Alekhine-Capablanca, AVRO 1938: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2
Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 Qb6 8.Nf3 -- Nothing new so far.
All book going back to at least the 1890s. 8...cxd4 9.cxd4 Bb4+ 10.Kf1!
-- There's the Alekhine TN. He "sacrifices" his right to castle for the
sake of denying exchanges to a cramped opponent. Ingenious, but it
cannot be characterized as applying *_a_* theory.
If there was any Alekhine "theory," it was that no one theory applies
in all situations. In this sense, he anticipated what IM Watson called
"rule independence" -- the idea that ultimately only concrete
variations matter, not abstract generalities.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA