On Apr 27, 11:37 am, "David Kane" wrote:

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.

Good, then that's the system I was recommending.

John Savard

On Apr 27, 8:48 am, "David Kane" wrote:

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.

My thinking is in that direction as well, but, as noted, it is partly
because I suspect, based on what I've read recently about _komidashi_
in Go, that this could be part of a strategy that could lead to the
return of pre-Steinitzian fireworks in Chess, of which I've submitted
an example for discussion.

And, of course, in some discussion I've noted that my chief aim is to
address what I believe to be the main complaint of those who say that
Chess has problems - its popularity as a *spectator* sport, not its
popularity as something play themselves for amusement, which may be in
good health as some say, aided by Internet servers, or which may be in
trouble due to rival distractions about which nothing reasonable can
be done.

If videogames are ever banned, it will be because the government wants
more children playing baseball so they will not be too fat to become
soldiers, not because we want more chessplayers.

John Savard

On Apr 27, 1:27*pm, (Andy Walker) wrote:
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.

I was referring only to the fact that the FIDE regulations had been
drafted by the chief Soviet player. Help-bot, to whom Parr was
replying, did not seem to be aware of this.

*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.

As I recall from Achieving the Aim (though I don't have it on hand
to be sure), Botvinnik did want the rematch clause as early as 1948,
but he did not get it until the mid-1950s. There is also the matter of
the regulation adopted in the late 1950s, limiting the number of
qualifiers from the Interzonal to the Candidates, for any one country.
This seemingly impartial rule really applied in fact only to Soviet
players (e.g. Stein), thus limiting the number of serious challengers
Botvinnik might face. So I think a case can be made that Botvinnik did
try, with some success, to manipulate FIDE rules in his own favor.

*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"? *

A good question. That was Larry Parr's claim; perhaps he will
present his evidence.

*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.

I would say the Soviets excelled at both.

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'? *

Bobby's self-imposed absence from those events is well known.

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,

I would agree that a good case could be made for Larsen as "#1
Western Player" (to use Chess Review's phrase) circa 1965-1970. But I
would not say that Larsen had done anything to "break the Soviet
hegemony." He never beat any Soviet player in any Candidates Match, as
far as I can find in my references.
In making my point, I was defining "serious challenger" as
qualifying for the FIDE Candidates stage. This Fischer did years
before Larsen, thus my objection to your phrasing "first Larsen then
Fischer." I don't think Larsen in 1965 or 1968 made any more of a dent
in the Candidates cycle than Fischer did in 1959 or 1962, and Fischer
did get into the Candidates 6 years before Larsen, so I did not agree
with your saying "first Larsen then Fischer."

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.

Well, neither did Larsen. He lost to Tal in 1965 and to Spassky in
1968. And we all know how he did against Fischer in 1971.

*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! *

No, just recognizing the facts.

If you're thinking of Curacao, then I don't see any evidence
of *cheating*, either "Soviet" or personal. *

Fischer's complaints notwithstanding, Curaçao 1962 is not exactly
what I had in mind, though blatant cheating did occur there, for
example Petrosian's attempt to help Benko against Keres. And
concerning the "gentlemen's agreement" between Petrosian, Geller, and
Keres, GM Jan Timman takes a far less permissive view than you in his
book on the tournament. In any event, the prime examples, IMO, are
Hague-Moscow 1948 and Neuhausen-Zürich 1953. There were also some
shady stunts in Olympiads, the case of Matulovic taking a dive for
Taimanov, and others.

Andy Walker wrote:
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"?

Er... To avoid our getting lost in a twisty maze of nested negations,
my position is this. The international chess community should have
just as much of a say in the conduct of, say, a world championship
match between two Russians played in Russia as it would in a world
championship match between a Frenchman and a Brazilian played in
Japan. This fact of being organized and regulated by an international
body is what distinguishes a world championship from a national
championship.

I wouldn't extend that to the fine details of the playing conditions
but it should, for example, be the international body that decides the
overall form of the match, who competes in it and so on.

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.]

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.

Fair enough -- I'd not realised that FIDE was so small in those days
and was treating this as a largely theoretical question.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated T-Shirt (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fashion statement but it's
invigorating!

On Apr 28, 6:08 am, David Richerby
wrote:

Er... To avoid our getting lost in a twisty maze of nested negations,
my position is this. The international chess community should have
just as much of a say in the conduct of, say, a world championship
match between two Russians played in Russia as it would in a world
championship match between a Frenchman and a Brazilian played in
Japan. This fact of being organized and regulated by an international
body is what distinguishes a world championship from a national
championship.

I wouldn't extend that to the fine details of the playing conditions
but it should, for example, be the international body that decides the
overall form of the match, who competes in it and so on.

This is a perfectly reasonable position, since what the two men are
competing for, although it is in Russia that they are competing for
it, is the FIDE World Championship. As you note, the important things
are questions that directly affect the validity of the contest in
choosing the world's best chessplayer, so this would involve matters
like the number of games, the disposition of ties, and rematches.

Since the Soviet Union was

a) a totalitarian dictatorship, and

b) the home of the vast majority of the world's best chess players,

however, had push come to shove, FIDE's power would have been rather
limited. The Chess champion of the rest of the world except the Soviet
Union might not have been much of a world Chess champion.

Otherwise, one would have thought that holding one players' family
hostage during a World Championship match might have been considered
unsporting, allowing Korchnoi to win automatically through the
disqualification of Karpov.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Apr 28, 6:08 am, David Richerby
wrote:

Er... To avoid our getting lost in a twisty maze of nested negations,
my position is this. The international chess community should have
just as much of a say in the conduct of, say, a world championship
match between two Russians played in Russia as it would in a world
championship match between a Frenchman and a Brazilian played in
Japan. This fact of being organized and regulated by an international
body is what distinguishes a world championship from a national
championship.

I wouldn't extend that to the fine details of the playing conditions
but it should, for example, be the international body that decides the
overall form of the match, who competes in it and so on.

This is a perfectly reasonable position, since what the two men are
competing for, although it is in Russia that they are competing for
it, is the FIDE World Championship. As you note, the important things
are questions that directly affect the validity of the contest in
choosing the world's best chessplayer, so this would involve matters
like the number of games, the disposition of ties, and rematches.

Since the Soviet Union was

a) a totalitarian dictatorship, and

b) the home of the vast majority of the world's best chess players,

however, had push come to shove, FIDE's power would have been rather
limited. The Chess champion of the rest of the world except the Soviet
Union might not have been much of a world Chess champion.

Otherwise, one would have thought that holding one players' family
hostage during a World Championship match might have been considered
unsporting, allowing Korchnoi to win automatically through the
disqualification of Karpov.

Don't get your history from Larry Parr. Refusing emigration
requests for families of defectors has little do with chess and less to
do with Karpov. It was routine Soviet practice. Karpov and
Korchnoi have been cordial in later years - hardly what one
would expect if Karpov had been behind some evil plot.

To condemn Karpov, a chessplayer, for all of the USSR's
evil practices is ridiculous. After all, Korchnoi himself was
not willing to forego the title match to achieve a non-chess
objective - it would have been extraordinary for Karpov
to have done so.

Raymond Keene, an anti-Karpov writer, characterized the
1978 match as "that rare phenomenon - a World Championship
with both players in peak form"

On Apr 28, 11:25 am, "David Kane" wrote:

To condemn Karpov, a chessplayer, for all of the USSR's
evil practices is ridiculous.

You're quite right.

But it isn't a question of blaming Karpov as an individual. If the
government of the Soviet Union wishes to engage in unethical
activities aimed at influencing the outcome of a sporting competition,
then it can expect to not be eligible to bring honors home from its
competitors.

If, thus, a *government* connived in the use of steroids by its
athletes, a quite reasonable consequence would be simply to ban the
entire country from participation in the Olympics.

John Savard

On Apr 28, 7:30 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

If, thus, a *government* connived in the use of steroids by its
athletes, a quite reasonable consequence would be simply to ban the
entire country from participation in the Olympics.


I don't think this would do much good. The fact is,
in spite of all the doping, our military is not really a
threat in chess. And "steroids" are for bulking up on
muscle; chess requires alertness, focus-- these lie
in the realm of stimulants.

Rather than over-react to some government plot to
take over the world... of Olympic gold medals, they
could simply have mandatory drug testing in which
only outlawed AND helpful drugs are screened for.
That way, the pot smokers will not need to whine
about invasion of their privacy, loss of "freedom",
etc. Even the Evans ratpack can then "feel good,
be happy".

Focus Factor: it worked for me; I used to be a
lowly Class C player, but now I'm able to hang
fewer pieces than ever before!


-- help bot

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Apr 28, 11:25 am, "David Kane" wrote:

To condemn Karpov, a chessplayer, for all of the USSR's
evil practices is ridiculous.

You're quite right.

But it isn't a question of blaming Karpov as an individual. If the
government of the Soviet Union wishes to engage in unethical
activities aimed at influencing the outcome of a sporting competition,
then it can expect to not be eligible to bring honors home from its
competitors.

If, thus, a *government* connived in the use of steroids by its
athletes, a quite reasonable consequence would be simply to ban the
entire country from participation in the Olympics.


I will just repeat that you seem unaware of the actual facts
surrounding the match. You cannot rely on Evans for
unbiased information. Evans is the classic USCF
apparatchik. When the Chess Life "bosses" demand
cold war rhetoric - he complies. Say or write anything
to maintain lifetime employment, that's the ticket.

I'm not nominating Karpov for sainthood -
the Soviets displayed horrendous sportsmanship
(as did Korchnoi) and he was certainly part of it.

On Apr 28, 1:25 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Raymond Keene, an anti-Karpov writer


...a RABIDLY anti-Karpov writer...


characterized the 1978 match as "that rare phenomenon
- a World Championship with both players in peak form"


I take the opinions of hacks like Raymond Keene with
a pound of sea salt, so in this case, I did a little digging
to see if the (purely objective) numbers matched up. It
turns out that he was right: both players performed at a
very high level. If you remove the information about which
rated event was which, one could not possibly conclude
that VK's results suffered from alleged kidnappings,
beatings, or even from yogurt-favoritism or hypnosis. In
reality, the match with Anatoly Karpov in 1978 was one
of the better performances of VK's entire chess career.

I think it may have been the dark sunglasses. If your
opponent cannot see what part of the board you are
looking at, then they will have no idea what stupid plans
you may cook up or even on which side of the board you
plan to "attack". They worked for Douglas MacArthur,
and they worked for Victor Kortchnoi-- maybe they can
even work for me?


-- help bot