"David Richerby" wrote in message
news
David Kane wrote:
"David Kane" wrote:
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.

I knew Parr was too stupid and lazy to count the months, but I guess
I should have expected somebody to! Based on your research, I will
correct my statement to "He played just two title defenses in a 9.75
year period" (Hasn't anyone ever heard of rounding??)

Oh, please. The FIDE schedule called for matches in 1987, 1990, 1993
and 1996. Look -- there's a nearly nine-year period from just after
the end of the 1987 match to just before the start of the 1996 match!
It would be nearly ten years if the 1987 match had been played in
January and the 1996 match in December.


Missing the forest. FIDE had a system
involving zonals, interzonals, and candidates
matches in order to determine a worthy
challenger. It was 3 years for a reason.

Kasparov Inc. had nothing of the sort. It was not
much different in practice than handpicking
an opponent. So there was no reason to wait so long, except for
Kasparov's personal motives, again, not fairness.

The ~5-year gap between matches is long, and there
were various shenanigans at that time. While they
probably had as much to do with money
as anything else, fairness was not an important
principle in the process.

The point is that in the FIDE system you played
a credible challenger whether you wanted to or not.
Portraying Kasparov as an advocate of fairness
is simply ridiculous given the way he managed his
own title. This is not to say the he was an
unworthy champion in that period - on the contrary
he was generally active and successful. But arguing
that he would have won if had been fair is a different
thing than saying that he was fair.

This is not to say that FIDE hasn't been behind some
notable cases of unfairness of its own (the annulled
match, toiletgate etc.)

On Apr 24, 6:20*pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote in message

news




David Kane wrote:
*"David Kane" wrote:
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.

I knew Parr was too stupid and lazy to count the months, but I guess
I should have expected somebody to! Based on your research, I will
correct my statement to "He played just two title defenses in a 9.75
year period" (Hasn't anyone ever heard of rounding??)

Oh, please. *The FIDE schedule called for matches in 1987, 1990, 1993
and 1996. *Look -- there's a nearly nine-year period from just after
the end of the 1987 match to just before the start of the 1996 match!
It would be nearly ten years if the 1987 match had been played in
January and the 1996 match in December.

Missing the forest. FIDE had a system
involving zonals, interzonals, and candidates
matches in order to determine a worthy
challenger. It was 3 years for a reason.

Kasparov Inc. had nothing of the sort. *It was not
much different in practice than handpicking
an opponent. So there was no reason to wait so long, except for
Kasparov's personal motives, again, not fairness.

Actually, in the first few years after GK's break from FIDE, the
Professional Chess Association did have a FIDE-style qualification
system. That's how Anand came to challenge Kasparov in 1995. However,
the PCA, like most Kasparov-led organizations, proved short-lived.

The ~5-year gap between matches is long, and there
were various shenanigans at that time. While they
probably had as much to do with money
as anything else, fairness was not an important
principle in the process.

If you are referring to the shabby teatment of Shirov after he beat
Kramnik, I quite agree. He was supposed to get a title shot, but
instead he got the shaft.

The point is that in the FIDE system you played
a credible challenger whether you wanted to or not.
Portraying Kasparov as an advocate of fairness
is simply ridiculous given the way he managed his
own title. This is not to say the he was an
unworthy champion in that period - on the contrary
he was generally active and successful. But arguing
that he would have won if had been fair is a different
thing than saying that he was fair.

This is not to say that FIDE hasn't been behind some
notable cases of unfairness of its own (the annulled
match, toiletgate etc.)-

Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:39:28 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


How would the following work out?

White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50


Looks good. As a side benefit, I'd guess that it would cut back the
number of times tie-breakers would need to be applied.

How do you think this would impact Swiss pairings?

The idea seems to need more thought for competitions where the number of
Whites versus Blacks are unevenly distributed. I am going to bow out of
that aspect of the discussion, as I know little about Swiss system
pairings. Even so, it looks good for matches, all-play-all round robin
events, and knock-out mini-match tournaments provided they give equal
access to White and Black. We see a lot of those types of competitions
at high levels today.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

On Apr 24, 5:57 pm, Quadibloc wrote:


Well, they're almost right.

If the premises are true, they support the conclusion:

They messed up even worse than they would have done had they done what
*we* wanted.

Of course, you are right that the conclusion that giving in to no
unfair demands is even better follows forcefully from the premises as
well; but perhaps they also claim that RJF's demands _weren't_ unfair,
at least not really.


You have completely lost your mind.

1) It is always the reigning champion who gets to
make stupid "demands".

2) Bobby Fischer was the challenger; Boris Spassky
was the one who, by tradition, was allowed to make
outrageous demands!

3) The mere fact that FIDE was considering BF's
stupid "demands" and not Boris Spassky's, in and
of itself tells us all we need to know about the
supposed fairness of that particular cycle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry Parr wants us to all pretend that when he
"mentions" what FIDE did with regard to Anatoly
Karpov or Mikhail Botvinnik -- two very favorite
whipping boys of the Evans ratpack -- he in no
way is arguing that two wrongs make a right. But
the only way for that to fly would be for him to
stop relying on such fallacies, and come up with
a *rational* idea. As we know, he cannot; all his
"ideas" are simply parroted from higher up, since he
cannot, or at any rate does not, think for himself.


-- help bot

J.D. Walker wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:39:28 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


How would the following work out?

White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50


Looks good. As a side benefit, I'd guess that it would cut back the
number of times tie-breakers would need to be applied.

How do you think this would impact Swiss pairings?

The idea seems to need more thought for competitions where the number of
Whites versus Blacks are unevenly distributed. I am going to bow out of
that aspect of the discussion, as I know little about Swiss system
pairings. Even so, it looks good for matches, all-play-all round robin
events, and knock-out mini-match tournaments provided they give equal
access to White and Black. We see a lot of those types of competitions
at high levels today.

On second thought, the Swiss system has an inherent defect of
inequitable distribution of colors. A system which attempts to balance
the first move advantage of White through a scoring edge for Black
should help to correct this Swiss system problem.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

J.D. Walker wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote:
How would the following work out?

White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50

[...] How do you think this would impact Swiss pairings?

The idea seems to need more thought for competitions where the
number of Whites versus Blacks are unevenly distributed. I am going
to bow out of that aspect of the discussion, as I know little about
Swiss system pairings. Even so, it looks good for matches,
all-play-all round robin events, and knock-out mini-match
tournaments provided they give equal access to White and Black.

You'd need to restrict to round-robins with an odd number of players
-- with an even number, everybody plays an odd number of games.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Dangerous Swiss Game (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a family board game but it's made in
Switzerland and it could explode at
any minute!

Mike Murray wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote:
How would the following work out?

White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50

Looks good. As a side benefit, I'd guess that it would cut back the
number of times tie-breakers would need to be applied.

Hmm. Now I think about it, wouldn't it actually be better to use a
tie-break, at least for matches? If the match is drawn under conven-
tional 1-1/2-0 scoring, declare the match to be won by the player who
won the greater number of games with black or, if that's still a tie,
by the player who did X or, ... And then award the match to the
champion if it's still tied after some reasonable list of tie-break
criteria.

My reasoning is that any system of differentially scoring wins and
draws for black and white implicitly defines some sort of tie-break
system for `tied' matches but one has to sit down and work out what
the system is. (For example, in the original proposal of 1 for a win,
0.45 for a white draw and 0.55 for a black draw, the system was the
rather counter-intuitive and probably unintended `The player with the
most wins as white wins the match'.) Rather than try to come up with
a scoring system that implicitly defines some tie-break criteria,
wouldn't it be easier to just explicitly define the tie-break?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Crystal Atlas (TM): it's like a map
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of the world but it's completely
transparent!

DAVID KANE CLAIMS REMATCH CLAUSE IS NO ADVANTAGE!!

"You can’t even compare the rematch clause with Fischer’s demands,"
said Garry Kasparov. "It’s impossible to win two matches in a row. I
did it,
but even today I don’t know how it was possible."

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)....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....Poor Mr. Parr hates
it when those ugly facts interfere with the Evans propaganda! --
David Kane
(after I posted GM Larry Evans' interview with GM Yuri Averbakh).

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. --Larry Parr

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 105)

FIDE’s initial purpose was to organize chess Olympiads, but
the death of Alekhine left the chess throne vacant. In 1948
FIDE assumed control of the title and set up a three-year cycle
to determine a new challenger.

Yet already suspicions arose in the first match-tournament that
the three Soviets (Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov) might collude against
the three outsiders (Euwe, Fine, Reshevsky). Reuben Fine just
dropped out in disgust and devoted himself to psychiatry. Botvinnik,
as expected, emerged victorious while Reshevsky cried foul, hinting
that Keres had thrown some games.

Bobby Fischer, after a sour experience at Curacao in 1962,
also accused the Russians of collusion. He said, "I had the
best score of anyone who didn’t cheat."

This charge resulted in serious reforms, including the abolition
of the rematch clause that Botvinnik had enjoyed for lo those
many years. No longer id the challenger have to win two matches
before the title [really] changed hands.

In 1975 FIDE stripped Bobby of the title [technically he
resigned] then turned around and gave Karpov even more
than Bobby had dreamed of asking for. FIDE restored the
rematch clause with consummate ease for Anatoly Karpov.

After Karpov lost to Garry Kasparov, he promptly invoked the
clause and FIDE president Florencio Campomanes, in violation
of his own rules, threatened to strip Kasparov of the title unless
he agreed to play yet a third consecutive match with Karpov.

Even before this match began, Kasparov renounced the
infamous rematch clause, striking a real blow for chess
justice in one stroke. But he still had draw odds in a 24
game-limit. This edge enabled him to hold his crown by
12-12 in his fourth match with Karpov in 1987 for a $2
million purse in Seville, Spain.

In the short space of three years, they faced each other
in 120 games spanning four grueling title matches, with
Kasparov holding a slim edge of one point.

[In 1990 Kasparov won their fifth and last match by the slim
margin of one point after 24 more games. In 1993 Kasparov
broke with FIDE to beat Nigel Short and then Vishy Anand in
1995. Vladimir Kramnik deposed Kasparov in 2000 outside of
FIDE jurisdiction and then held his title on a tie against Peter
Leko in 2004, before toppling Topalov in 2006.]

Kasparov never forgave Campo for conniving to save
Karpov’s crown in that first match. Although still leading
by two points, Karpov had just lost two games in a row
and was unfit to continue after 48 games that lasted
almost six months. He tried for a postponement to preserve
his lead, a ploy that backfired when his good friend Campo,
under the glare of the international press, ordered a new
match to start from scratch later in 1985.

The neutrality of FIDE officials was called into question from
the outset. It was discovered that both Campo and Alfred Kinzel,
a man he appointed to the match jury, had acted as financial
agents for Karpov in a matter involving roughly half a million
dollars in Karpov’s foreign hard-currency bank account from
royalties endorsing chess computers. Clearly, FIDE officials
at the highest level had violated the cornerstone of sporting ethics
and were implicated in a conflict of interest. Kasparov was livid,
because it set the pattern for Karpov’s preferential treatment by
FIDE in subsequent matches.

During an interview Campo clammed up when I broached
this touchy topic: "That is, that is, that is not chess, that
is private business, and I will not go into private affairs with
other people. Did the Chess Life editor put you up to asking
that question?" he stuttered. [Campo deemed Larry Parr’s
coverage of FIDE too critical and pressured American officials
into firing him.]



David Kane wrote:
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 Richerby" wrote in message
...
Mike Murray wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote:
How would the following work out?

White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50

Looks good. As a side benefit, I'd guess that it would cut back the
number of times tie-breakers would need to be applied.

Hmm. Now I think about it, wouldn't it actually be better to use a
tie-break, at least for matches? If the match is drawn under conven-
tional 1-1/2-0 scoring, declare the match to be won by the player who
won the greater number of games with black or, if that's still a tie,
by the player who did X or, ... And then award the match to the
champion if it's still tied after some reasonable list of tie-break
criteria.

My reasoning is that any system of differentially scoring wins and
draws for black and white implicitly defines some sort of tie-break
system for `tied' matches but one has to sit down and work out what
the system is. (For example, in the original proposal of 1 for a win,
0.45 for a white draw and 0.55 for a black draw, the system was the
rather counter-intuitive and probably unintended `The player with the
most wins as white wins the match'.) Rather than try to come up with
a scoring system that implicitly defines some tie-break criteria,
wouldn't it be easier to just explicitly define the tie-break?


Even though I have favored alternate scoring, I don't
think it makes much sense in matches. I also think unplayed
tie-breaks are artificial. To me, the most sensible approach
is to go to single game sudden death. To eliminate the advantage
of going first, have each player bid time on his clock in order
to have the first White, highest bidder wins. I also think that
at some time in the sudden death period, one can go to a
two-games-per-day schedule - this is routine in the chess
world, and games now are shorter than they have been
historically, so it's no hardship. This way the expected
extension of a tied match will be a few days or so- no unusual
logistical problems are created.

The problem isn't in designing a fair match with no
ties. The problem is that the champion, whoever he
is, doesn't *want* a fair match. He wants his
substantial champion's advantage. So that's the real
problem.

On Apr 25, 10:31 am, "David Kane" wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote in message

...



Mike Murray wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote:
How would the following work out?

White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50

Looks good. As a side benefit, I'd guess that it would cut back the
number of times tie-breakers would need to be applied.

Hmm. Now I think about it, wouldn't it actually be better to use a
tie-break, at least for matches? If the match is drawn under conven-
tional 1-1/2-0 scoring, declare the match to be won by the player who
won the greater number of games with black or, if that's still a tie,
by the player who did X or, ... And then award the match to the
champion if it's still tied after some reasonable list of tie-break
criteria.

My reasoning is that any system of differentially scoring wins and
draws for black and white implicitly defines some sort of tie-break
system for `tied' matches but one has to sit down and work out what
the system is. (For example, in the original proposal of 1 for a win,
0.45 for a white draw and 0.55 for a black draw, the system was the
rather counter-intuitive and probably unintended `The player with the
most wins as white wins the match'.) Rather than try to come up with
a scoring system that implicitly defines some tie-break criteria,
wouldn't it be easier to just explicitly define the tie-break?

Even though I have favored alternate scoring, I don't
think it makes much sense in matches. I also think unplayed
tie-breaks are artificial. To me, the most sensible approach
is to go to single game sudden death. To eliminate the advantage
of going first, have each player bid time on his clock in order
to have the first White, highest bidder wins. I also think that
at some time in the sudden death period, one can go to a
two-games-per-day schedule - this is routine in the chess
world, and games now are shorter than they have been
historically, so it's no hardship. This way the expected
extension of a tied match will be a few days or so- no unusual
logistical problems are created.

Bid for time? Do you mean set the clock at 6 minutes, and players bid
less to decide what side they would play? This way they players who
bids less time would pick the side (let's presume white here). Not
sure bidding more time is the right answer here.

- Rich