TWO WRONGS MAKE TWO WRONGS

Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater advantages than
Kasparov.
Larry Parr, stating a simple fact.

The old two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy again. This kind of muddled thinking leads to all sorts of delusions and fantasies, since Reason is simply tossed out the window.
Greg Kennedy, failing to place the blame where the blame belongs --
with FIDE, which set up this flawed system from the start in order to
protect Soviet supremacy.

And so it goes.



help bot wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:23 am, " wrote:


Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
advantages than Kasparov.


The old two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy again.

This kind of muddled thinking leads to all sorts of
delusions and fantasies, since Reason is simply
tossed out the window.

According to one fantasy, GM Botvinnik was the
"favorite" of evil villains who did everything in their
power to keep his challengers from getting the
title. Unfortunately, just about everybody did in
fact get the title, for GM Botvinnik lost the world
championship title more times than any other
person in the history of the game!

The fantasy also held that one day, an insider
would reveal that in his expert opinion, MB was
the Kremlin's favorite, and this mere opinion was
touted by storyteller Larry Evans as the smoking
gun which would show his wild speculations to
have been correct. Unfortunately, the story ends
with that "insider" telling the world that, in his
expert opinion, it was GM Smyslov who was the
favorite of the powerful Kremlin puppet-masters... .

Oh well, it made for a good story.


-- help bot

On Apr 23, 10:19 pm, " wrote:

with FIDE, which set up this flawed system from the start in order to
protect Soviet supremacy.


Idiot. F.I.D.E. is a *French* term, and the
organization in question was not "set up" to
"protect" Soviet supremacy; Soviet supremacy is
just a simple fact of life. One day, perhaps the
Chinese or Indians will dominate the game-- but
there will always be loons who obsess over the
two seconds or so in which BF was world
champion.

If you ever run across a Web site which has a
graph of the location of all its logged-in players,
you will see why it is that Soviets -- and northern
Europe -- so dominate the chess scene; the
game is far more popular over there than in
America. In fact, I've seen players lose games
at chess in order to not miss some basketball
or football playoff, which happened to coincide.
Here in the USA, people are obsessed with
sports, cars and money.


-- help bot

wrote in message
...
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.


Dubious accuracy, of course.

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.

Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period.

THIS IS UNTRUE

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match. -- David Kane

In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...
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.


Dubious accuracy, of course.

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.

Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period.

DAVID KANE TRIES TO REWRITE HISTORY?

EVANS: If Fischer had asked for a return match clause instead
of ten wins, do you think FIDE would have given it to him?

AVERBAKH: Of course. Of course.

EVANS: How did you feel years later when FIDE restored the rematch
clause for Karpov after having taken it away from Botvinnik in 1963?

AVERBAKH: It was top secret, but Ed Edmondson was the one who
organized this return match clause for Karpov!

I was present during the negotiations for the Karpov-Korchnoi match.
Our federation wanted to have 24 games or a maximum of 30, and
Edmondson pressed for six wins. At the FIDE congress in Caracas
in 1977 Karpov demanded a rematch clause for accepting six wins.
Edmondson helped him get it.

EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
the one FIDE had denied Fischer. What was Ed’s motive?

AVERBAKH: Probably to make up for some of the nasty things he wrote
about Karpov, such as "this mouse who roars like a lion." Fischer was
out
of the picture already and had dismissed Edmondson, so perhaps Ed
wanted to improve his relations with Karpov. Really he organized
everything.

EVANS: Do you think Karpov was happy to get the title without playing
Fischer?

AVERBAKH: Of course. Karpov was afraid of Fischer in 1975. Who
wouldn’t like to get the title by default?

EVANS: Do you think that’s the main reason why Karpov was so active
after that: to prove he was really worthy of the title?

AVERBAKH: For Karpov, you know, money is very important. This is his
main stimulus. He may lose to Kasparov, but he is always well
compensated
for it.

EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985?

AVERBAKH: For me it’s completely clear. Because Karpov couldn’t
continue at all.

EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion?

AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried
his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply
couldn’t
play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement.

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 138)



wrote:
THIS IS UNTRUE

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match. -- David Kane

In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
....
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.


Dubious accuracy, of course.

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.

Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period.

MORE DISINFORMATION FROM DAVID KANE

The man is unfit to write about chess history.

Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period. -- David Kane

10 YEARS!?

Not only does David Kane support drug testing in chess,
he ignores the fact that Kasparov played FIVE title matches
with Karpov between 1985-1990. After that Kasparov put his title
on the line (outside of FIDE jurisdiction) against Short in 1993,
Anand in 1995 and Kramnik in 2000 who denied him a rematch
because it wasn't included in their contract.

ANOTHER PHONY

Help Bot (Greg Kennedy) is just as phony as David Kane.

In reply to my statement that Greg failed "to place the blame where
the blame
belongs --- with FIDE, which set up this flawed system from the start
in order
to protect Soviet supremacy" he replied with characteristic
dishonesty:

Idiot. F.I.D.E. is a *French* term, and the
organization in question was not "set up" to
"protect" Soviet supremacy; Soviet supremacy is
just a simple fact of life.

Who's he kidding?

We all know that FIDE was founded in 1924 but did not take
control of the title until after Alekhine's death in 1946.

The USSR imposed the system for the world championship in 1948.
The rules greatly favored Botvinnik who had draw odds from the start.
Apparently the rematch clause was added later at his behest.

Botvinnik held the title on a 12-12 tie in his first two title
defenses
against Bronstein and Smyslov, then invoked the rematch clause
to regain the title after losing to Smyslov and Tal. Finally, in spite
of his vehement protests, this clause was stricken before he lost
the title to Petrosian in 1963.

The fact that FIDE is "a French term" and Greg's other ramblings
have no bearing on the champion retaining the title in a drawn match
or the other issues at hand.















wrote:
DAVID KANE TRIES TO REWRITE HISTORY?

EVANS: If Fischer had asked for a return match clause instead
of ten wins, do you think FIDE would have given it to him?

AVERBAKH: Of course. Of course.

EVANS: How did you feel years later when FIDE restored the rematch
clause for Karpov after having taken it away from Botvinnik in 1963?

AVERBAKH: It was top secret, but Ed Edmondson was the one who
organized this return match clause for Karpov!

I was present during the negotiations for the Karpov-Korchnoi match.
Our federation wanted to have 24 games or a maximum of 30, and
Edmondson pressed for six wins. At the FIDE congress in Caracas
in 1977 Karpov demanded a rematch clause for accepting six wins.
Edmondson helped him get it.

EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
the one FIDE had denied Fischer. What was Ed?s motive?

AVERBAKH: Probably to make up for some of the nasty things he wrote
about Karpov, such as "this mouse who roars like a lion." Fischer was
out
of the picture already and had dismissed Edmondson, so perhaps Ed
wanted to improve his relations with Karpov. Really he organized
everything.

EVANS: Do you think Karpov was happy to get the title without playing
Fischer?

AVERBAKH: Of course. Karpov was afraid of Fischer in 1975. Who
wouldn?t like to get the title by default?

EVANS: Do you think that?s the main reason why Karpov was so active
after that: to prove he was really worthy of the title?

AVERBAKH: For Karpov, you know, money is very important. This is his
main stimulus. He may lose to Kasparov, but he is always well
compensated
for it.

EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985?

AVERBAKH: For me it?s completely clear. Because Karpov couldn?t
continue at all.

EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion?

AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried
his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply
couldn?t
play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement.

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 138)



wrote:
THIS IS UNTRUE

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match. -- David Kane

In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...
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.


Dubious accuracy, of course.

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.

Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period.

On Apr 24, 8:52*am, " wrote:

We all know that FIDE was founded in 1924 but did not take
control of the title until after Alekhine's death in 1946.

The USSR imposed the system for the world championship in 1948.
The rules greatly favored Botvinnik who had draw odds from the start.

On this matter I must basically agree with Parr. In his
autobiography, Botvinnik describes how he himself was the main author
of the regulations FIDE adopted for world championship matches and
challenger qualifying. I'm not sure whether they were then "imposed"
on FIDE, or FIDE just adopted them willingly, but either way Botvinnik
and his Soviet supporters got what they wanted.
Besides the regulations for title competition after 1948, they also
got what they wanted for the 1948 match-tournament. For example
Najdorf was not invited after Fine declined to play. This gave the
Soviets a 3-to-2 majority among the 5 players (Botvinnik, Smyslov and
Keres vs. Reshevsky and Euwe), making collusion easier than if there
had been another non-Soviet.
According to Bronstein, Najdorf was black-balled at Botvinnik's
personal insistence, out of spite for the way Najdorf drubbed him at
Groningen 1946.

Apparently the rematch clause was added later at his behest.

No "apparently" about it. It's a plain fact.

wrote in message
...
THIS IS UNTRUE

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match. -- David Kane

In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.

A rematch clause (whether you like it or not) is no advantage
in the match defense itself. I can't think of any other champions
to play without any advantage, though possibly there were some
in the pre-FIDE era.

Note that if Fischer's "win-by-two" condition had been in place
during Karpov's first match with Kasparov, he would have
already retained his title. Why? Because had Kasparov
tied the match at 5-5, the match would have been stopped,
ended as a tie, and Karpov would have retained the title!





David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...
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.


Dubious accuracy, of course.

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.

Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period.

wrote in message
...
MORE DISINFORMATION FROM DAVID KANE

The man is unfit to write about chess history.

Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period. -- David Kane

10 YEARS!?

he ignores the fact that Kasparov played FIVE title matches
with Karpov between 1985-1990. After that Kasparov put his title
on the line (outside of FIDE jurisdiction) against Short in 1993,
Anand in 1995 and Kramnik in 2000 who denied him a rematch
because it wasn't included in their contract.

Kasparov's matches vs. Karpov were under FIDE's auspices.
Once Kasparov broke away from FIDE, he did what champions
often did pre-FIDE: they avoided their challengers. So, as you
note in your own post, but are apparently too dim to understand,
Kasparov played two matches in the 1990's (a 10-year period)
before losing to Kramnik in 2000. And Kasparov had a bigger
champion's advantage than *all* of his FIDE predescessors (Karpov
being the special case who played 3 matches with
no advantage whatsoever.) because the non-FIDE matches
were shorter than the FIDE matches that had been held
until that time.

Poor Mr. Parr hates it when those ugly facts interfere with
the Evans propaganda!

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
...
MORE DISINFORMATION FROM DAVID KANE

The man is unfit to write about chess history.

Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period. -- David Kane

10 YEARS!?

he ignores the fact that Kasparov played FIVE title matches
with Karpov between 1985-1990. After that Kasparov put his title
on the line (outside of FIDE jurisdiction) against Short in 1993,
Anand in 1995 and Kramnik in 2000 who denied him a rematch
because it wasn't included in their contract.

Kasparov's matches vs. Karpov were under FIDE's auspices.
Once Kasparov broke away from FIDE, he did what champions
often did pre-FIDE: they avoided their challengers. So, as you
note in your own post, but are apparently too dim to understand,
Kasparov played two matches in the 1990's (a 10-year period)
before losing to Kramnik in 2000.

Correction. Kasparov did play Deep Blue in this
time period - and of course has whined about his 1997 loss
ever since.


And Kasparov had a bigger
champion's advantage than *all* of his FIDE predescessors (Karpov
being the special case who played 3 matches with
no advantage whatsoever.) because the non-FIDE matches
were shorter than the FIDE matches that had been held
until that time.

Poor Mr. Parr hates it when those ugly facts interfere with
the Evans propaganda!