On Apr 26, 6:32 pm, " wrote:

FIND THE QUOTE YOURSELF

Idiot. There is no such quote, which is why I pointed
out the fact that imbecile Larry Parr was misrepresenting
the facts.


David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
the champion.

What Mr. Kane did was point out one flaw in the
"reasoning" of the Evans ratpack. That particular flaw
was the mixing up and stirring in of ingredients which
did not belong in the recipe, for as we know, rematch
or no rematch, a title winner like say, Bobby Fischer,
is regarded as world champion even if he should go
on to lose any rematch, after the fact. For that matter,
he is regarded as a champion even if he ever afterward
plays like a complete duffer, losing every game; it's a
done deal.

When Larry Evans bought into the misbegotten idea
of bungled calculations, he erred. Ever since, his
apologists -- primarily Larry Parr -- have struggled to
avoid admitting that gaffe, just like all his many others.

Any rational approach cannot help bot note that even
before FIDE took over control of the world champion
title, rematches were common; hence, this is simply
the wrong issue. There must be plenty of issues where
FIDE itself initiated some idiocy or other, and those
would be the proper issues with which to bash the
disorganization. All this nonsense can be defended by
supporters (if indeed there are any left) by pointing to
the long *tradition* of a deposed champ getting a
rematch. (As we know, when it comes to traditions,
reason stands virtually no chance of winning.)


-- help bot

"Jürgen R." wrote in message ...

"David Kane" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..

wrote in message
...
GREG KENNEDY STRIKES OUT AGAIN

Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
*even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
the same number of Whites and Blacks. -- help bot

David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
the champion.

I said that it is not an advantage in the title defense itself. Even though
I am no great fan of the rematch clause, it is akin to the practice
of seeding the defeated champion in the Candidates cycle.

The point was that there is no way to *mathematically* compare
that advantage with an actual advantage in the match.

Why not?

If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.

Because losing the match and winning the rematch *isn't* retaining
the title. It's losing the title and then winning back the title. There
is nothing in mathematics that allows us to equate the cases.

Smyslov was world champion, even though he didn't hold the title
for long.

Do we consider it an advantage in the 1969 match that Petrosian
was seeded into the 1972 Candidates final? It's an advantage
to be sure - one can argue whether it is fair or not - but most
would grasp that it is not an advantage in the 1969 match.

"David Kane" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..

"Jürgen R." wrote in message
...

"David Kane" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..

wrote in message
...
GREG KENNEDY STRIKES OUT AGAIN

Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
*even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
the same number of Whites and Blacks. -- help bot

David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
the champion.

I said that it is not an advantage in the title defense itself. Even
though
I am no great fan of the rematch clause, it is akin to the practice
of seeding the defeated champion in the Candidates cycle.

The point was that there is no way to *mathematically* compare
that advantage with an actual advantage in the match.

Why not?

If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.

Because losing the match and winning the rematch *isn't* retaining
the title. It's losing the title and then winning back the title. There
is nothing in mathematics that allows us to equate the cases.

Sorry. It isn't clear to me exactly which 'cases' you want
to compare?


Smyslov was world champion, even though he didn't hold the title
for long.

Do we consider it an advantage in the 1969 match that Petrosian
was seeded into the 1972 Candidates final? It's an advantage
to be sure - one can argue whether it is fair or not - but most
would grasp that it is not an advantage in the 1969 match.

Such an arrangement wouldn't affect a coin-flipping machine.
However, it may well affect a human player: Knowing that he
will have a second chance will bring peace of mind and he may
alter his playing style.

On Apr 26, 9:14 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Jürgen R." wrote in ....

If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.

Because losing the match and winning the rematch *isn't* retaining
the title. It's losing the title and then winning back the title. There
is nothing in mathematics that allows us to equate the cases.

Nothing in the _mathematics_, but one certainly could change the
rules, so that if the challenger wins the match, the match isn't over
till the rematch is played. Then the champion would mathematically
have just the enormous advantage noted.

As long as we don't do that, then, you are right, a rematch is not a
problem for that reason.

But a rematch clause gives a champion an advantage just the same.

Let us suppose that instead of World Championship matches happening
after lengthy debates and a difficult process of finding an agreement
on a venue that will pay the players enough, they happened like
clockwork at fixed intervals. Perhaps every two years.

In the year X, the champion A plays the challenger B. There is also an
up-and-coming strong player C waiting in the wings. The three of them
are very nearly of equal strength.

Year X: A wins 50% of the time, B wins 50% of the time.

Case A winning in year X:

Year X+2-epsilon: B plays C for the privilege of playing for the World
Championship.

Year X+2: A plays B or A plays C. The world champion is A 50% of the
time, B 25% of the time, and C 25% of the time.

Case B winning in year X:

Year X+2: B plays A due to the rematch clause.

So in year X+2, because there's a rematch clause, the World Champion
will be:

A with probatility 50%
B with probability 37.5%
C with probability 12.5%

Without a rematch clause, the World Champion would be

A with probability 37.5%
B with probability 37.5%
C with probability 25%

If the rematch took place in year X+1, and a normal title defence
still took place normally in year X+2, not being delayed by the fact
that a rematch happened, then C wouldn't be shut out of the system
part of the time to A's benefit. A would still have a small advantage,
but at B's expense, I think.

John Savard

=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?= wrote:
If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.

You're assuming independence, which seems unlikely, to me.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Cyber-Car (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-performance luxury car that
exists only in your computer!

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 9:14 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Jürgen R." wrote in ...

If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.

Because losing the match and winning the rematch *isn't* retaining
the title. It's losing the title and then winning back the title. There
is nothing in mathematics that allows us to equate the cases.

Nothing in the _mathematics_, but one certainly could change the
rules, so that if the challenger wins the match, the match isn't over
till the rematch is played. Then the champion would mathematically
have just the enormous advantage noted.


Sure. I willl grant that *in that case* one could calculate a mathematical
advantage.

As long as we don't do that, then, you are right, a rematch is not a
problem for that reason.

But a rematch clause gives a champion an advantage just the same.

This was never denied. It does not give him an advantage *in the
initial match* though. It is logically similar to the practice of seeding the
loser of the championship match into the last round of the
next Candidates cycle. Karpov's defenses in 78, 81, and 84 are
historically exceptional in that they contained no champion's advantage.

Personally I think the rules should be designed so that tie matches
are statistically very improbable and giving the champion tie-odds
is only a very small advantage. But that is contrary to the game's
traditions.

I think that I didn't quite get the figures right.

With no rematches, if we have three chessplayers of equal ability who
are the contenders for the World Championshp over three cycles, with A
the champion and B the challenger, and C the outsider, in the first
year, we have:

Year X: A faces B.
A is the new champion, 50%
B is the new champion, 50%

if A wins:
Year X+2:
B is the challenger, 50%
C is the challenger, 50%

so
A remains champion: 50%
B becomes champion: 25%
C becomes champion: 25%

and if B wins, the symmetric equivalent is true, so indeed we get:

A is champion: 37.5%
B is champion: 37.5%
C is champion: 25%

In the year X+4, the three possible cases are the same as those above,
and so we just convolute them again:

A = .375 * .5 + .625 * .25
B = .375 * .5 + .625 * .25
C = .25 * .5 + .75 * .25

for

A: 34.375%
B: 34.375%
C: 31.25%

With rematches, if B wins in year X, the case in year X+2 becomes B
plays A with 100% probability, so the combination of the two cases is
then:

A is champion: 50%
B is champion: 37.5%
C is champion: 12.5%

The histories a

AA: 25% - and no rematches
BA: 25% - B gets a rematch
BB: 25% - and no rematches
AB: 12.5% - A gets a rematch
AC: 12.5% - A gets a rematch

So in year X+4, we have the possibilities

AAA: 12.5
AAB: 6.25
AAC: 6.25
BAA: 12.5
BAB: 12.5
BBB: 12.5
BBA: 6.25
BBC: 6.25
ABA: 6.25
ABB: 6.25
ACA: 6.25
ACC: 6.25

which add up to

A: 43.25%
B: 37.5 %
C: 18.75%

which is a considerable advantage to A, and an even more considerable
disadvantage to B, in year X+4 compared to

A: 34.375%
B: 34.375%
C: 31.25%

without rematches.

But if we think that rematches are a valid thing, since the changing
of the guard should be truly decisive, if we separated the rematch
from the regular title defense by having it take place between normal
title defenses, and in addition to them, then the advantage given the
champion is considerably mitigated.

Here, we have:

First, in year X, A meets B, each one wins with probability 50%.

If A wins, then in year X+2, A meets either B or C with probability
50% as in the cases above.

If B wins, then B plays A in year X+1, each one winning with
probability 50%.

So the cases in Year X+2 a

AA: 25%
AB: 12.5%
AC: 12.5%
BaA: 12.5%
BaB: 6.25%
BaC: 6.25%
BbB: 12.5%
BbA: 6.25%
BbC: 6.25%

leading to the chances of each player being the World Champion in that
year as:

A: 43.75%
B: 31.25%
C: 25%

compared to

A: 50%
B: 37.5%
C: 12.5%

with rematches, and

A: 37.5%
B: 37.5%
C: 25%

without rematches.

So the inequality is much more limited, and it affects only B, and not
C, if rematches are made ancilliary.

John Savard

In article ,
wrote:
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.
Does or did anyone think it mattered?
That's rather beside the point I was trying to make, Andy. The point
of my post was simply to say that Parr had given the historial facts
accurately on this particular occasion.

I don't see how "FIDE set up this system ... to protect Soviet
supremacy" [LP] and "The USSR imposed the system ... in 1948" [LP] is
compatible with your doubts expressed above *combined with* your claim
that LP had given the facts accurately. On the *facts* as thus far
stated, all we seem to know is that Botvinnik proposed some regulations
and FIDE approved them. Botvinnik can scarcely have *planned* to draw
or lose his five matches as WC [while winning the two re-matches], so
it's a stretch to claim that in 1948 he was setting up the regulations
*in order to* give himself a long stretch as an undeserving WC. What
evidence does anyone have that the USSR *imposed* the MMB regulations,
as opposed to merely forwarding them for approval, and FIDE agreeing
that they were a reasonable basis? Or that FIDE [or even the USSR]
set them up to protect "Soviet supremacy"? Up to 1972, Soviet
supremacy in WC matches would have been equally protected by a rule
that the title should be decided by playing underwater tiddleywinks.

With the exception of the rematch clause, I don't think the
Botvinnik rules were markedly unfair. One could argue that the clause,
by which the incumbent retained his title in the event of a tie match,
was unfair, but it was nothing new, going back at least to Lasker-
Schlechter 1910.

Right. Even the re-match clause could be claimed as part
of the normal "gentlemen's agreement" of the previous era, witness
Alekhine - Euwe and Steinitz - Lasker, and the bad blood caused by
Capablanca's failure [for whatever reason] to secure a return against
Alekhine. I don't see any need to assume any deep plotting, rather
than MMB proposing a formalisation of previous "good practice".

What _was_ unfair were the Soviets' behind the scenes machinations,
e.g. keeping Najdorf out in 1948, and their collusive tactics,
especially in the Candidates Tournaments to ensure that no non-Soviet
player got to be the challenger.

Perhaps, though there's quite a spectrum between normal
tournament practice, through gamesmanship and sharp practice, to
actual cheating.

For the couple of
decades from 1948 until Larsen and then Fischer became serious
contenders,
Fischer became a serious contender before Larsen. They both played
in an Interzonal for the first time in 1958, but Fischer became a FIDE
Candidate first, in 1959, based on his 5th place in that Interzonal.
Larsen placed only 16th in that event, and did not make it to the
Candidates cycle until 1965.

Yes, but (a) the Fischer of 1962 -- still a teenager! -- was,
despite the hype, not yet a serious challenger for the title, as was
indeed shown by the Curacao tournament, and (b) where was Fischer in
the 1965 and 1968 Candidates'? Until 1971, I think there was still a
respectable point of view that Larsen had done more to break the
Soviet hegemony than anyone else, and that Fischer, despite manifest
talent, was too "fragile" as soon as conditions were adverse to be
able to mount a serious assault on Petrosian and Spassky in a long
match.

I never have been able to buy the argument that Soviet cheating was
OK because they would have won anyway without it. Surely you're not
saying that?

"Soviet cheating" is a rather provocative way of describing
things! If you're thinking of Curacao, then I don't see any evidence
of *cheating*, either "Soviet" or personal. Taking a quick draw to
conserve energy when playing someone you're unlikely to beat anyway
is normal tournament practice even today, and the losers by that
practice in 1962 were not Korchnoi and Fischer, who were outclassed
and did little better than Benko, but Keres and Geller, who missed
out by half a point on a "soft" chance at the WC in 1963.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...


With rematches, if B wins in year X, the case in year X+2 becomes B
plays A with 100% probability, so the combination of the two cases is

This is not the way the rematch clause worked. The rematch was
an extra match. I.e. it did not harm C's chances in any way.

In article ,
David Richerby wrote:
If the WC match is between Soviet GMs and held in the USSR, it's
hard to argue that any other country should have had much of a say
in the match conditions.
I disagree.

But you seem to be agreeing; or are you claiming that "[not]
much of a say" means "no say"?

If we're to call these people `world champions' rather
than `Soviet champions',

[Note in passing -- many people did observe in the period of
Soviet hegemony that the Soviet Championship was sometimes a stronger
event than the Candidates' Tournament.]

the world needs to have had a say in how the
champion is decided. Which it did, through FIDE.

Indeed. But when the WC, challenger and venue are all Russian,
and so FIDE is talking to the Soviet Chess Federation (a) representing
Botvinnik, (b) also representing Bronstein [or whoever], and (c) also
representing the interests of the venue, and when [as until recently]
FIDE is not the huge international corporation you might imagine, but
rather the proverbial one-man-and-his-dog, FIDE's role as broker is
somewhat limited.

You might claim that Botvinnik, Bronstein and the venue ought
not all to have had their interests protected by one same national
federation, but that's a different matter, and in the Real World, it's
hard to see what else could have happened.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham