This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
interest in chess and improve its viability?

Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
the solution?

- Rich

On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:
This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
interest in chess and improve its viability?

Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
the solution?

- Rich

That should be Kasparov RETAINS Title on a Draw. Blasted typos.

- Rich

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS BY GM LARRY EVANS (page 14)

When Kasparov finally dethroned Karpov in 1986, he promptly struck
a blow for chess justice by voluntarily renouncing the rematch clause.
But
he didn’t strike the second blow. The format for future title matches
returned
to the best-of-24 games with draws counting. In 1987 he barely saved
his
title against Karpov on a 12-12 tie. Kasparov gave two reasons for
sticking
with this system at a symposium we both attended in Madrid:

1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
saw no reason why the challenger shouldn’t have to vault the same
obstacle.

2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
book a playing hall, which isn’t possible in an open-ended match.

Kasparov’s argument makes sense, yet Fischer’s point is still valid.
Only wins should count. This way, a champion can’t cling to the title
by
playing for draws.


Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:
This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
interest in chess and improve its viability?

Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
the solution?

- Rich

That should be Kasparov RETAINS Title on a Draw. Blasted typos.

- Rich

"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:
This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
interest in chess and improve its viability?

Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
the solution?

I don't think the principle that the champion retains the title
on a tied match is wrong. The problem in chess is that in a
relatively short match (24 games then, 12? now),
it is mathematically a big advantage. It is easy to take steps to
that bring the drawn match probability down to the 1% range. Once
that is done, I don't think that giving the champ draw odds is
unreasonable.

What doe "helping chess" mean?

On Apr 21, 11:59 am, SBD wrote:
What doe "helping chess" mean?

Helping chess refers to fostering its growth, quality, and reputation
in the world. It is related to the subject header about increasing
interest in chess.

So, the question I was asking is whether or not the champion retaining
his title by means of a draw helps increase interest in chess, and
help nurture its growth, or does it work against this?

- Rich

On Apr 21, 1:05 am, " wrote:
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS BY GM LARRY EVANS (page 14)

Kasparov gave two reasons for
sticking
with this system at a symposium we both attended in Madrid:

1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
saw no reason why the challenger shouldn’t have to vault the same
obstacle.

2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
book a playing hall, which isn’t possible in an open-ended match.

Kasparov’s argument makes sense, yet Fischer’s point is still valid.
Only wins should count. This way, a champion can’t cling to the title
by
playing for draws.

And this explains why the format remains. Someone gets to be
champion, no way are they going to lower the bar in any way for the
challenger. So, it looks like it is now stuck. And this explains
why things are the way they are now. Perhaps a reigning champion
retiring would end up allowing for changes. Perhaps FIDE, etc...
could say that, the moment the reigning champion is dethroned, new
rules will be in effect. Perhaps combine both.

But, so long as people think the current approach with the reigning
champion maintaining their title on a draw is in effect is ok, then I
doubt there will be any changes. I am sure there is also
rationalizing it, so that people don't have to look towards change.

- Rich

On Apr 21, 1:39 am, "David Kane" wrote:

I don't think the principle that the champion retains the title
on a tied match is wrong. The problem in chess is that in a
relatively short match (24 games then, 12? now),
it is mathematically a big advantage. It is easy to take steps to
that bring the drawn match probability down to the 1% range. Once
that is done, I don't think that giving the champ draw odds is
unreasonable.

What are the benefits of having the reigning champion retain the title
by means of a draw? How does it increase interest in chess, foster
its growth, and encourage a more competitive form of chess? Please
explain that.

- Rich

On Apr 20, 11:33*pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:
This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. *Can someone
please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
interest in chess and improve its viability?

Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
in any way. *Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
the solution?

- Rich

"Retails"? What does that mean? Was the title for sale?

On Apr 20, 11:34*pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. *Can someone
please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
interest in chess and improve its viability?

Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
in any way. *Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
the solution?

- Rich

That should be Kasparov RETAINS Title on a Draw. *Blasted typos.

- Rich

Ah... okay. LOL I should have read more. SOrry!
Rob