(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message m...
Louis Blair wrote in message ...

[...]
LEV KHARITON wrote (Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:59:41 +0200):

In 1975 Kasparov was only 12 years old and may
be he was too young to understand what was happening.

_
According to the Oxford Companion, Karpov was born in 1951.

Louis, here you got dizzy or something.
Hm, you are human after all :-) Wlod

Dr. Blair was still correct, Karpov was born in 1951. In 1975,
Kasparov was only 12.

tomic wrote (Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:05:21 +0200):

Delegates accepted the first Fischer's claim to play without limit
of the game numbers (37:33). But, the second Fischer's claim
was refused. That was Fischer's claim that he detain the title if
the result in match would be undecided, 9:9. That claim was
refused with 35:32 and 3 votes were retired. You know that
Fischer's demand was used by other WCC (e.g. Botvinnik,
Lasker).

_
I know of no world championship match played by Botvinnik
or Lasker where the challenger had to finish two points ahead
of the champion in order to cause the champion to lose his title.
It is true that Lasker sought such a rule, but that was at a time
when there was no FIDE that was in a position to take the title
away from a champion who sought inappropriate rules. There
are also those who think that there was a secret conspiracy to
fool the public about the rules of the 1910 Lasker-Schlechter
match, but nothing has been found that confirms this.


tomic wrote (Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:05:21 +0200):

It's obviously that Fischer was not afraid of Karpov. By
the way, you can see Chessmetric evaluation of the strength
Karpov and Fischer in 1975. The difference was too big ...

_
By 1975, Fischer had been away from serious chess for
three years. Human emotions, especially Fischer emotions,
are not necessarily governed by chessmetrics.

By the way, sorry about my Kasparov/Karpov mix-up.

"tomic" wrote in message
...

Dear Jerzy,
you would ask Mr Khariton about connection between non-interference USCF
and
criminal.


That`s right : I wonder why he accuses USCF of criminal behaviour. What
court should try that case in his opinion ?

I know other type of criminal. When I was at my school, 4 years
before (I'm professor) some criminals bombarded by plane, near my place,
and
they broke 33 windows in our school. They killed innocent people. The
children in school were frightened. Do you agree that's criminal? It was
not
chess criminal, but chess criminal is only part of the general criminal.

I am sorry Goran because of that disaster. Like in all wars, in this
particular case politicians are guilty.
For sure all wars are caused by politicians who can`t come to terms with
each other. Of course there are international courts that judge war
criminals.


Regards,

Jerzy

"The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing everything to
break off the match between Fischer and Karpov"

- Lev Khariton



Anyone who would write something as absurd as what he has written here about
Fischer quitting as World Champion is suspect in any critiques of someone
else as far as historical accuracy goes.

Probably much of what Khariton says is accurate, but the Fischer stuff goes
off the deep end into lala land.

- Joshua B. Lilly

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...
"tomic" wrote in message
...

Dear Jerzy,
you would ask Mr Khariton about connection between non-interference USCF
and
criminal.


That`s right : I wonder why he accuses USCF of criminal behaviour. What
court should try that case in his opinion ?

I know other type of criminal. When I was at my school, 4 years
before (I'm professor) some criminals bombarded by plane, near my place,
and
they broke 33 windows in our school. They killed innocent people. The
children in school were frightened. Do you agree that's criminal? It was
not
chess criminal, but chess criminal is only part of the general criminal.

I am sorry Goran because of that disaster. Like in all wars, in this
particular case politicians are guilty.
For sure all wars are caused by politicians who can`t come to terms with
each other. Of course there are international courts that judge war
criminals.


Regards,

Jerzy

Dear Jerzy,
that was not war. They just came with planes and bombarded our schools,
hospitals...They destroyed our houses and killed innocent people. Which
Court? God's! After all, nobody of us will not be alive after hundred years.
And the facts about these (and anothers) crimes will remain. The history
will be the arbiter. Like we recall about criminal actions in WW II. How
many our chess players were killed? Do you know the number? So, I suggest
you not to write when the theme is criminal. Chess criminal or other. So, I
propose to return on chess themes.

Regards,
Goran Tomic

"tomic" wrote in message
...
Dear Jerzy,
I have to correct you again. It was not war. That was killing children by
cassette bombs, with radiation- that was continuation of the genocide over
my nation, which had it's culmination in WW II. But, in WW II that
genocide
was not successful finished. I hope you don't trust in media manipulation
about reasons to bombardment us. Nothing at all what was on your, and
other
TV shown was not true. The truth is that they came to kill and they have
done it successfully. They killed people of all nations, women, children.
Somebody would ask himself - why? Maybe they want to reduce the number the
people on the earth to 2 milliards. But, than they have to kill 4
milliards.
For classical weapon it's too much. But maybe they could use some disease?
Like SARS? Or combination plague and influence? Or combination of the
virus
influence and leukemia? New version of SIDA? Does somebody who kill
innocent
people for his imaginary reasons of reduction world's population or for
oil
have moral rights to talk about criminal whether it's chess criminal or
not.

Goran as I previuosly said there are specific international courts to chase
war criminals responsible for genocide.
There is no other way to seek justice in my opinion.


So, I propose again to return on clearly chess themes.


You mixed up two different things to support Khariton`s thesis of "criminal"
behaviour of USCF.
Of course I prefer to use in our discussion strictly chess terminology and
arguments related to chess instead of the sad events from your life.

Regards,

Jerzy

tomic wrote:

Dear Jerzy,
I have to correct you again. It was not war. That was killing children by
cassette bombs, with radiation- that was continuation of the genocide over
my nation, which had it's culmination in WW II. But, in WW II that genocide
was not successful finished. I hope you don't trust in media manipulation
about reasons to bombardment us. Nothing at all what was on your, and other
TV shown was not true. The truth is that they came to kill and they have
done it successfully. They killed people of all nations, women, children.
Somebody would ask himself - why? Maybe they want to reduce the number the
people on the earth to 2 milliards. But, than they have to kill 4 milliards.
For classical weapon it's too much. But maybe they could use some disease?
Like SARS? Or combination plague and influence? Or combination of the virus
influence and leukemia? New version of SIDA? Does somebody who kill innocent
people for his imaginary reasons of reduction world's population or for oil
have moral rights to talk about criminal whether it's chess criminal or not.

The distorted viewpoint from which some people view the world
around them is really quite incredible!


So, I propose again to return on clearly chess themes.

Well, that's good. Do you teach history? :-P

http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/7375$wix.htm

World Chess Championship
1975 Fischer forfeits to Karpov


I don't know how Fischer feels about it, but I consider it a huge loss
that he and I never played our match. I felt like the child who has
been promised a wonderful toy and has it offered to him but then, at
the last moment, it's taken away. - A.Karpov, Karpov on Karpov

Fischer demanded that the match be won by the first player to win ten
games, with no limit to the number of games. The champion would retain
the title in the event of a 9-9 score. This meant, of course, that the
challenger would need to win the match by a score of 10-8.

FIDE's rules were that the reigning champion retained the title in the
event of a 12-12 tie after 24 games. The same rules governing World
Championship matches had been in place since the 1949 FIDE Congress in
Paris. They were confirmed at the 1974 Congress in Nice.

Fischer claimed that his proposal was fairer to the challenger than
FIDE's limit of 24 games. In a letter to Larry Evans published
November 1974 in Chess Life, Fischer wrote:-

Steinitz, Tchigorin, Lasker (too), Gunsberg, Zukertort, etc. all
played under the ten win system I proposed (and some matches with the
9-9 tie clause). Yet the Russians pretend that I'm asking for an
UNPRECEDENTED advantage. Incidentally, Larry, the Capa-Alekhine match
DID have a draw clause at 5-5. Yes, Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take
the title just the same as my match proposal.
In the same issue of Chess Life, editor Burt Hochberg quoted Fischer:-

The whole idea is to make sure the players draw blood by winning
games, and the spectators get their money's worth.

and then commented:-

The rules say that draws do not count in the scoring, but they
certainly do count as games played, and every draw in a limited match
brings the leader's ultimate victory closer. Fischer is correct, in
our opinion, and the current [Karpov-Korchnoi Candidates semifinal]
match proves it. If FIDE does not discourage draws by forcing the
players to win, chess may die the draw-death predicted by Capablanca
many years ago. The public deserves a fighting match, and it is FIDE's
obligation to set the rules that will make it possible. Taking a cue
from Bobby, some enterprising businessman should produce a button
reading: DRAW BLOOD, NOT GAMES.
Ed Edmondson of the USCF negotiated on Fischer's behalf. An
extraordinary FIDE Congress, called at Bergen-aan-Zee in Holland in
March 1975, refused to change FIDE's decision.

Fischer did not respond to the FIDE invitation to play the match under
FIDE conditions. Karpov was declared World Champion on 1 April 1975.
It is Karpov's curious fate that he has never beaten a reigning world
champion in a match for the title.

Underlying the controversy is the question of whether the champion
should have any advantage in a tie match.

I take it from the tone of his writing that Lev Khariton has a "thing" about
Kasparov. I wonder what it it? Maybe he got pushed around the school yard as
a kid by a bully named Garry?
Leopold

"tomic" wrote in message
...

Modesty has never been Kasparov's forte. With years, however, our
drawbacks
progress geometrically. This is the first thought that springs to mind
when
reading his interviews, especially the most recent one at
www.chessbase.com
Well, lack of modesty is not his only drawback that gets unproportionally
inflated. What strikes me more, is the lack of objectivity and I would
say,
cruel indifference to the past whether it be chess or otherwise.
Paradoxically, there are still people who consider Garry Kasparov a great
historian.
Kasparov's newest blockbuster, his triology "My Chess Predecessors" was
the
subject of the aforementioned interview. Chess publishers in Moscow and
New
York almost simultaneously released the first volume of Kasparov's
research.
The book was compiled together with Dmitry Plisetsky, a meticulous and
hard-working journalist, who has done, I am sure, a lion's share of work
aided by Kasparov's mega-computers.
Whose predecessors, in this case, are the first 12 World Champions,
Kasparov
's or Plisetsky's? - this is what one of my pen-pals asked me recently. I
would not say that the title of the triology is too humble. If the
predecessors are great, so Kasparov is great as well.No wonder the third
volume of the book will be dedicated totally to Kasparov's games. Why
"predecessors" then? I would call the whole piece "12+1", that would be
more logical.So, this is a book on chess history, and obviously Kasparov
thinks that it has wrapped up in him. But where is Vladimir Kramnik, his
toppler?Or may be, Kramnik has not yet become part of chess history?
Here are two quotes from Kasparov's interview at chessbase.com
"It's enough to say that any average GM today knows more than Fischer did
in
1972, at his peak. He was way ahead of his generation, but we consider
many
of those games primitive now, just because we know so much more. Not about
his talent, but about the knowledge. You look at the openings of
Fischer-Spassky, they were searching in the dark. Nowadays you are one
click
away from the answer"
Thanks, Mr.Kasparov! At least, you admit that Fischer had a talent. But
how
about Fischer and Spassky "searching in the dark"? In this interview
Kasparov remarks that the new generation of chess players were brought up
on
the games of his matches with Karpov in the 80s. Doesn't Kasparov think
that
he grew up as a chess player learning from Spassky and Fischer. If he
considers himself a historian, at least a chess historian, he cannot
disagree with me.
Another quote: "In Volume Three I argue that Karpov had a very good
chance
to beat Fischer in 75. I would even consider Karpov the favorite in 75. He
was more flexible, he was from a new generation. Karpov's chess was
multifaceted. Fischer would have had a very hard time, and I think Fischer
knew that. I doubt Fischer would have avoided a match with Korchnoi and
Spassky"
Of course, Kasparov has an interest to believe that Karpov could have
defeated Fischer. So, he defeated Karpov, who was stronger that Fischer.
Strange, but never before has he maintained that Karpov was stronger than
Fischer in 1975. The real stunner, however, is that Kasparov believes that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov intentionally, or that he would
have
definitely played with Korchnoi or Spassky. This view was shared in the
70s
only by the brain-washed, law-abiding Soviet citizens and some
anti-Fischer
Americans today. What a standpoint to hear from a chess historian like
Kasparov! I wonder whether his views of other champions in his book are
as
logical and consistent?
The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing everything to

break off the match between Fischer and Karpov, and finally the Soviets
succeeded. In 1975 Kasparov was only 12 years old and may be he was too
young to understand what was happening. However, today it has been
universally acknowledged that Fischer was stonewalled by the Soviet and
world chess community with the criminal non-interference of the US Chess
Federation. Suffice it to read, among other documents, the book "Russians
vs. Fischer" published in English in Moscow a few years ago. To say that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov is not only an error, it is a lie
vis-a-vis chess history!
If Kasparov is unable (or he does not want ) to properly evaluate the
events
of chess history that happened in his lifetime, how can we trust his
assessment of history in general years and centuries before he was born?
Are
his opinions competent and objective? And how can we trust his
pronouncements today, when, for example, he supported the "theory" that
Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction" and therefore had to be attacked by
the United States?

LEV KHARITON

tomic wrote:

I wonder that somebody doesn't know anything about SARS. I thought, the
truth about SARS. I'll cite one excerpt from the article. I excuse to all
who can say that's not chess theme, but ignorance of Briarroot provoked me
to detailed explanation (as you will read in the article that most
intelligent person will conclude that something with SARS is wrong-obviously
Mr Briarroot is not among them):
-----------------------------------------
SARS - A Great Global SCAM
By Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH [snip]

I rest my case!


PS: The Raellians have a web site too, you know.