On Apr 21, 8:25 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

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.

The infamous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

I'm with you here.

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.

Change of subject ploy.

Oh, really? You have a scheme whereby the World Champion and a
challenger can play exactly 24 games, and it is guaranteed that each
one won't win the same number of games out of those 24?


I don't need to have anything; this is not about me--
it's about the ploys people come up with in order to
*justify* giving the champ an unfair advantage over the
challenger.


Oh, wait. It isn't impossible to have a definite result from a fixed-
length match; even I can think of a scheme. Assuming that all 24 games
are not drawn - in *that* case, they can just book another playing
hall, and it had better be a cheap one, because who will be interested
enough to come and watch - then the person who won the *last* game
loses, on the basis that the other player was ahead over the largest
number of games.

Lost in La-la land? The issue was whether or not
the champion ought to have an unfair advantage--
namely draw odds. The correct procedure is to
first answer that "question", and only then worry
over the trivial (or non-trivial) details.


The champion would have the advantage of playing White in the first
game.

Colors should be determined in such a way that
neither player has an unfair advantage. (In fact,
this avoidance of unfair advantages seems to be
a hallmark of my comments in this thread.)


-- help bot

On Apr 22, 2:53 pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:25 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

Oh, really? You have a scheme whereby the World Champion and a
challenger can play exactly 24 games, and it is guaranteed that each
one won't win the same number of games out of those 24?

I don't need to have anything; this is not about me--
it's about the ploys people come up with in order to
*justify* giving the champ an unfair advantage over the
challenger.

I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.

Lost in La-la land? The issue was whether or not
the champion ought to have an unfair advantage--
namely draw odds. The correct procedure is to
first answer that "question", and only then worry
over the trivial (or non-trivial) details.

If the "detail" makes the vast majority of proposed solutions
impossible, then it settles the question of applying those solutions.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:

I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.

Not at all. Simply change the time controls so that each game takes no
longer than HALF the amount of time left until the end of the hall
rental. Disciplined use of this strategy will allow you to play an
unlimted number of games.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

On Apr 22, 9:02 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

Oh, really? You have a scheme whereby the World Champion and a
challenger can play exactly 24 games, and it is guaranteed that each
one won't win the same number of games out of those 24?

I don't need to have anything; this is not about me--
it's about the ploys people come up with in order to
*justify* giving the champ an unfair advantage over the
challenger.

I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.

Ah, but then, that wasn't the issue.

The issue, of course, was the "justifications"
for the world champion -- here, it was Gary
Kasparov -- getting to keep the title in case of
a tied match. The reality is that such matches
are not about playing hall scheduling; they are
about determining the world's strongest chess
player-- which has nothing whatsoever to do
with what I have or have not, nor with the
arbitrary number "24".


Lost in La-la land? The issue was whether or not
the champion ought to have an unfair advantage--
namely draw odds. The correct procedure is to
first answer that "question", and only then worry
over the trivial (or non-trivial) details.

If the "detail" makes the vast majority of proposed solutions
impossible, then it settles the question of applying those solutions.

I don't care about the majority of proposals,
for from what I've seen, they are the creations
of deranged minds. What counts is the best
solution. If you can show that the *best*
solution requires exactly 24 games, and also
that a championship match requires a fixed
length, then by all means, do so. Until then, I
believe it makes sense to focus on the idea
of a fair match instead of obsessing over
irrelevant details, like who will work the
demonstration board, or precisely how many
games to schedule.

I noted that further up in this thread, Gary
Kasparov was credited with renouncing the
champion's advantage; but they did not report
on whether he actually played even one such
match, nor how many he played with an unfair
edge. It appeared to be a bit of a puff-piece
in that respect. As for precisely when to make
any possible shift from unfair to fair matches,
my suggestion would be to do it as soon as
possible; or at the worst, when a champion
emerges who is so superior that he would
hardly even notice the loss of his unfair
advantage.


-- help bot

On Apr 22, 7:35 pm, help bot wrote:
If you can show that the *best*
solution requires exactly 24 games,

No, I can't do that.

and also
that a championship match requires a fixed
length, then by all means, do so.

I thought that Kasparov _did_ do that, and you said he was changing
the topic.

I understand that it would be better if the World Championship were
absolutely fair. But that requires either excluding ties, or having a
possible result of two co-champions. If both are impractical, then
living with a little unfairness seems not unreasonable.

If the unfairness can be reduced to a mere sliver, though, that would
be good, and I had a couple of ideas for that.

John Savard

On Apr 22, 7:25 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:

I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.

Not at all. Simply change the time controls so that each game takes no
longer than HALF the amount of time left until the end of the hall
rental. Disciplined use of this strategy will allow you to play an
unlimted number of games.

For human chess players to move pieces, and then punch the chess
clock, in subnanosecond time intervals is not feasible. Hence, Zeno
cannot be our guide in this, and a chess tournament cannot be allowed
to become a supertask.

John Savard

On Apr 22, 10:10 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

If you can show that the *best*
solution requires exactly 24 games,

No, I can't do that.

and also
that a championship match requires a fixed
length, then by all means, do so.

I thought that Kasparov _did_ do that, and you said he was changing
the topic.

What I wrote was that Mr. Kasparov was trying
to "justify" his unfair advantage. I also marked off
a few fallacies or red herrings.


I understand that it would be better if the World Championship were
absolutely fair.

Whoa there; what's this business about absolutes?

There is no need for "absolute" perfection in order to
merely do better than what FIDE has done with regard
to fairness. In fact, the switching back and forth from
having a tie match clause to not having one in and of
itself has lead to unfair advantages; that is called
inconsistency, and no absolute perfection is needed
in order to surpass such an effort.


But that requires either excluding ties, or having a
possible result of two co-champions. If both are impractical, then
living with a little unfairness seems not unreasonable.

If this, if that; why not show us how these "ifs" are
at all relevant to the issue? (I for one have no great
objection to co-champions, for instance.)


If the unfairness can be reduced to a mere sliver, though, that would
be good, and I had a couple of ideas for that.

Unfortunately, decisions regarding the world
championship cycle are influenced by politics and
by those who have power or influence over the FIDE.
Any changes are likely to be temporary, and easily
reversed-- as we have seen in the past.

Let's suppose that the goal is to eliminate, or at
least reduce to a sliver, any unfairness in the W. C.
cycle; the first step might be to eradicate the FIDE;
or perhaps, to somehow move the championship
cycle outside its grasp. But that would not in any
way guarantee a fairer handling of the title; for
instance, suppose the surrogate organization were
to be the USCF: it's a good bet that in spite of
everything, FIDE's "achievements" would be in
grave danger of being "bested" in short order... .


-- help bot

Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:25 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:

I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.
Not at all. Simply change the time controls so that each game takes no
longer than HALF the amount of time left until the end of the hall
rental. Disciplined use of this strategy will allow you to play an
unlimted number of games.

For human chess players to move pieces, and then punch the chess
clock, in subnanosecond time intervals is not feasible. Hence, Zeno
cannot be our guide in this, and a chess tournament cannot be allowed
to become a supertask.

John Savard

The mathematician and the engineer consider Zeno's Paradox.

The mathematician knows that it can't be done.

The engineer knows that he'll get close enough.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

On Apr 22, 11:56 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:

The mathematician and the engineer consider Zeno's Paradox.

The mathematician knows that it can't be done.

The engineer knows that he'll get close enough.


The real problem with your suggested solution is
that lots of people would whine when their favorite
did not end up winning the match.

Suppose the favorite is named Gerry Kaspero,
and his disliked opponent we shall call Anna-Toley
Karnov. Now, if GK were to win the very first game
and then, after a long string of draws, AK were to
win two blitz games in a row, the whiners would
moan that it wasn't "fair" to weight such games
equally. But if AK had won the early game and
GK then won a couple of blitz games, it would be
heralded as a great success by the pundits and
by the press, who would attribute the result to
GK's "dynamic" play.

So then, what about simply hot-saucing the two
players if they continue to draw one another?


-- help bot

DON'T BLAME KASPAROV!

"I don't know how it's possible to win two matches in a row. I did it,
but I still don't know how I did it." -- Gary Kasparov who voluntarily
renounced the rematch clause.

FIDE is to blame. Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
advantages than Kasparov.

Ever since 1948, when Mikhail Botvinnik won the title under
suspicious
conditions, the system was designed to protect Soviet supremacy by
making
it almost impossible for an outsider to wrest the title from behind
the Iron
Curtain. Botvinnik had draw odds in a 24-game series, an edge that
enabled
him to keep the title on a 12-12 tie in his first two defenses with
David
Bronstein in 1951 and Vasily Smyslov in 1954.

In addition, Botvinnik had the insurance of a rematch clause which he
invoked successfully after losing his next two matches with Smyslov in
1957 and Mikhail Tal in 1960. FIDE finally struck the infamous rematch
in
1963 before Botvinnik lost to Tigran Petrosian.

In return for ditching the 24-game format in favor of the first player
to win six games, FIDE restored the rematch clause in 1978 as a sop to
Karpov, a favorite of the Kremlin, against Soviet defector Viktor
Korchnoi
whose family was held hostage inside the USSR. This dirty deal
disgusted Fischer. -

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 13)





Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:25 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:

I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.
Not at all. Simply change the time controls so that each game takes no
longer than HALF the amount of time left until the end of the hall
rental. Disciplined use of this strategy will allow you to play an
unlimted number of games.

For human chess players to move pieces, and then punch the chess
clock, in subnanosecond time intervals is not feasible. Hence, Zeno
cannot be our guide in this, and a chess tournament cannot be allowed
to become a supertask.

John Savard

The mathematician and the engineer consider Zeno's Paradox.

The mathematician knows that it can't be done.

The engineer knows that he'll get close enough.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/