Karamazov wrote (17 Jul 2003 08:08:40 -0700):

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).

_
"Some" seems to be only one as far as world championship
matches go. There was a 9-9 tie provision in the 1886
Steinitz-Zukertort match, but, at that time, neither player
was considered to be champion and thus, neither player would
have had the title in the event of a draw. Thus, unlike the 1974
Fischer proposal, the 1886 rules gave no advantage to either
player.


Karamazov wrote (17 Jul 2003 08:08:40 -0700):

In a letter to Larry Evans published November 1974 in Chess
Life, Fischer wrote:-
...
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.

_
A book by Panov and a number of other books by Soviet or
Russian authors say the same thing, and the matter has been
debated more than once, but, so far, I have seen nobody
produce a report from the time of the match that says that
a 5-5 tie rule applied. (References to the possibility of a tie
have been mentioned, but this could have referred to the
possibility of the players agreeing to a drawn match after
a large number of games.)

The Oxford Companion and a number of other books say
that the Capablanca-Alekhine match was governed by the
London rules that contained no 5-5 tie rule. These rules
had been advocated by Capablanca himself as well as
a number of other noted players of the day. If Capablanca
had sought to depart from his own proposal by requiring
someone challenging him to finish two or more points
ahead of Capablanca, one would think that there would have
been a lot of comment, particularly from Alekhine who
later wrote at length about the match.


Karamazov wrote (17 Jul 2003 08:08:40 -0700):

In a letter to Larry Evans published November 1974 in Chess
Life, Fischer wrote:-
...
Yet the Russians pretend that I'm asking for an
UNPRECEDENTED advantage.

_
On 2003-05-03 22:37:21 PST, NoMoreChess posted a
passage that included the remark:

"The attempt to compare and contrast what Fischer
'demanded' of FIDE to what other world champions
got, serves not to place all this into better perspective,
but only to cloud the real issue; that being whether or
not FIDE was right in refusing to grant all of Fischer's
conditions."

My feeling is similar. Whatever happened in 1927 (or
1910), there was no FIDE that was in a position to take
the title away from a champion who sought inappropriate
rules.

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


Dear Jerzy,
I have nothing personally with it. My family is nice, nobody from my family
was killed in these events. But, the victim is truth and justice. Justice
was killed. Why? The truth may be very repellent if somebody used to hear
sweet lies all the time. So, what's the truth about my country? The real
truth was that we were rich and pleasant life. But, they have evaluated that
one part of our country is too rich for us. And they came with planes,
bombarded and destroyed our country, towns, bridges, buildings, factories,
and take this part of our country. I can recall that part of my country,
they take for themselves, has very wealthy mines with rare metals. So, that
was our tragedy. But, that was not all. They arranged media's manipulation
and lies which they iterated thousand times, so that was good prelude for
killing innocent people. You don't need to talk about international court.
We know what's it. We recognize only God's court and God's justice. Not
yours.
So, don't talk about criminal in chess if you don't correct these criminal
acting in world. It's hypocrisy.

Goran Tomic

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:33:08 -0500, Louis Blair wrote:

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.

The Capablanca/Alekhine match had that clause, though it was to 6 games,
not 10. A 5-5 score resulted in a tied match and Jose would have retained
his title in the circumstance.

So there _is_ a precedent for the clause.

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.

He was also away from serious chess for the last 3 years of the 60s.
But when he came back in 70s he was devastating. It stands to reason
that in 1975 Fischer was still in peak form, and would have beaten karpov.

Phil wrote (22 Jul 2003 21:55:01 GMT):

The Capablanca/Alekhine match had that clause, though it was
to 6 games, not 10. A 5-5 score resulted in a tied match and
Jose would have retained his title in the circumstance.

_
A book by Panov and a number of other books by Soviet or
Russian authors say this, and the matter has been debated more
than once, but, so far, I have seen nobody produce a report
from the time of the match that says that a 5-5 tie rule applied.
(References to the possibility of a drawn match have been
mentioned, but this could have referred to the possibility of
the players agreeing to a drawn match after a large number
of games.)

The Oxford Companion and a number of other books say
that the Capablanca-Alekhine match was governed by the
London rules that contained no 5-5 tie rule. These rules
had been advocated by Capablanca himself as well as
a number of other noted players of the day. If Capablanca
had sought to depart from his own proposal by requiring
Alekhine to finish two or more points ahead of Capablanca,
one would think that there would have been a lot of comment,
particularly from Alekhine who later wrote at length about the
match.


Phil (22 Jul 2003 21:55:01 GMT):

So there _is_ a precedent for the clause.

_
On 2003-05-03 22:37:21 PST, NoMoreChess posted a
passage that included the remark:

"The attempt to compare and contrast what Fischer
'demanded' of FIDE to what other world champions
got, serves not to place all this into better perspective,
but only to cloud the real issue; that being whether or
not FIDE was right in refusing to grant all of Fischer's
conditions."

My feeling is similar. Whatever happened in 1927, there
was no FIDE that was in a position to take the title away
from a champion who sought inappropriate rules.

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 ...

I wrote (Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:33:08 -0500):
By 1975, Fischer had been away from serious chess for
three years. Human emotions, especially Fischer emotions,
are not necessarily governed by chessmetrics.


Phil wrote (22 Jul 2003 21:55:01 GMT):

He was also away from serious chess for the last 3 years
of the 60s. But when he came back in 70s he was devastating.

_
Phil seems to have things exaggerated.

"As the spring of 1970 approached, Fischer had gone
eighteen months and played only one public game."
- Frank Brady (Bobby Fischer: Profile of a Prodigy,
page 154)


Phil wrote (22 Jul 2003 21:55:01 GMT):

It stands to reason that in 1975 Fischer was still in peak form,
and would have beaten karpov.

_
Here is part of how Reuben Fine reasoned:

"... It seems more likely that the capture of the title [by
Fischer in 1972] led to an emotional upset of serious
proportions. ... There is the grave danger that he may
never play again. It would be tragic for the world of
chess to lose such a great mind. It can only be hoped
that the FIDE or the U. S. Chess Federation will take
some steps to help him out of his turmoil." - Fine (1976)

Starting in 1972, Fischer spent about two decades away
from serious chess.

tomic wrote:

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
Here is part of how Reuben Fine reasoned:

"... It seems more likely that the capture of the title [by
Fischer in 1972] led to an emotional upset of serious
proportions. ... There is the grave danger that he may
never play again. It would be tragic for the world of
chess to lose such a great mind. It can only be hoped
that the FIDE or the U. S. Chess Federation will take
some steps to help him out of his turmoil." - Fine (1976)

Starting in 1972, Fischer spent about two decades away
from serious chess.


I think that Reuben Fine was very naive man in ordinary life, and in
prognosis and evaluation chess events. He was similar Emanuel Lasker who
made some great oversights in ordinary life (By the way, all his life he try
to get more money and all the money he lost cause political bad appraisal,
so at the end of his life he come to poverty).
Mr. Reuben Fine obviously didn't understand well situation in chess politic
in 30's and 40's. It's interesting that he didn't understand nor Lasker's
psychology (see what Lasker said about Fred Reinfeld and Reuben Fine Fine
book: Dr Lasker's Chess Career).
So, I don't believe in any Fischer emotional upset and Fine's prognosis
"that he may never play again". I think that other people were more upset
than Fischer when he became WCC. The obvious prove that Fine was mistaken
was Fischer playing in Yugoslavia 1992. Some people like to underestimate
Fischer strength in 1992. But, I can recall that he was still splutter for
ordinary or stronger GM. "Upset" or veneration regards Fisher playing was so
much that interesting case happened in rematch Fischer-Spassky, in
Yugoslavia. In one game Spassky resigned, in situation when he could
sacrifice a queen and the situation would be unclear. GM Seirawan who
commented that game for the Yugoslav newspaper "Politika" didn't perceive
that sacrifice. Next day, Mr Seirawan sent an apology to the readers because
he missed that line in which Fischer would have little better game, but
still unclear.
So, my conclusion is that there were many mistaken evaluation in psychology
and character of genius Bobby Fischer.

Goran Tomic

Well, I couldn't agree more your conclusion here dear Tomic, but just
consider pls. if you like to be Queen down in Spassky position. Spassky
is great chess player & gentleman, he choose honourably. He resign. ..

I find it very hard to believe that GM *Dr.* Fine was in bad sorts financially
at the end of his life. Can a true historian confirm or deny Goran's statement,
which so often are just drivel?

SBD

..
I find it very hard to believe that GM *Dr.* Fine was in bad sorts
financially
at the end of his life.


I think he was clearly talking about Em. Lasker, not R. Fine.







Can a true historian confirm or deny Goran's statement,
which so often are just drivel?


And when not merely drivel, sometimes murky.