The Rematch Clause
Larry Parr
"I told them exactly what you told me to tell them."-- ex-FIDE
President Florencio Campomanes, whispering to Anatoly Karpov
at the press conference of February 15, 1985, stopping K-KI,
and as picked up by a CNN microphone.
In a net exchange with Remco Gerlich, Rolf Tueschen wrote on
February 3 that the rematch clause for the FIDE champion was "an old
tradition" that had "nothing to do with Karpov." Further, in typical
fashion, Mr. Tueschen made the aspersion that Mr. Gerlich "seem[ed] to
be somewhat new in the business."
The truth is that Mr. Gerlich hit the nail precisely on the head
when he wrote, "Karpov made sure he had the right of a rematch against
Kasparov." Indeed, Karpov undertook the rematch mission personally.
Here's the story with a bit of background.
FIDE settled a rematch clause on Botvinnik, who exercised it twice
in 1958 against Vasily Smyslov and in 1961 against Mikhail Tal. Both
matches were wonderful fights, and several memorable games resulted.
However, FIDE lifted the rematch clause before Botvinnik's 1963 match
against Tigran Petrosian.
In 1966 and 1969 against Boris Spassky, Petrosian did not enjoy a
rematch clause. Nor did Spassky against Bobby Fischer in 1972.
In 1975 Fischer did not defend the FIDE world title against Karpov,
which meant that the latter's narrow victory in the candidates' final
over Viktor Korchnoi became the de facto FIDE title match.
The fight over FIDE match rules in 1975 between the United States
and the Soviet Union left a lot of bruised feelings. At the Caracas
Congress of 1977, Karpov met with the highly influential Ed Edmondson,
who for personal reasons offered American support for the latter's quest
for a rematch clause. With both the Americans and the Soviets on the
same side, it sailed through. I would say that the deal was as dirty
as it gets, except that there is so much more in Karpov's career that
is even worse.
The source for the above meeting was on the scene. In a published
tape-recorded interview with this writer in, if memory serves 1989, GM
Yuri Averbakh related the above. (Query: Has GM Averbakh published his
much-awaited memoirs, which will apparently contain authoritative
information on whether Paul Keres was forced to throw games to Botvinnik
in 1948, which if true, would mean that the FIDE system was rotten right
from the root?)
This writer has no particular objection to a rematch clause per
se. But I find unconscionable the way it has been used politically.
In 1975 Bobby Fischer never dreamed of asking for a rematch clause.
Instead he wanted an open-ended match with the victor being the first
to score 10 wins. On a 9-9 tie, the champion would keep the title,
thereby making it incumbent that the challenger score 10-8. Fischer's
10-8 demand, while wrong in this writer's estimation, was actually
statistically more favorable to the challenger than the old FIDE format
of the champion holding the title on a 12-12 tie in a limited 24-game
match. There was no reason for the FIDE Congress to have rejected
Fischer's demands if they had earlier found adequate a system which was
statistically less advantageous for the challenger.
In any event, Fischer had the FIDE title lifted for making a demand
that was far less onerous for the challenger than what Karpov was
routinely granted two years later in Caracas. Indeed, Fischer's demand
was less onerous for the challenger than the match system that existed
from 1951 to 1972.
On the question of Karpov being seeded into the finals at
Groningen I favored that arrangement, though for reasons probably far
different from Mr. Tueschen's. Briefly, the FIDE champion's prestige
and moral chess authority is a useful counterweight to the chess
bureaucrats, who are actively attempting to cheapen the world title by
arranging six-game matches and blitz playoffs. The idea is that future
champions will never enjoy the imprimatur of supremacy -- merely the status
of having won a chess event that contained far more fortuity than a
traditional match of, say, 24 games.
Karpov finally struck a positive blow for chess and the rule of law
within FIDE by threatening to sue the organization if it held a title
tournament last December in Las Vegas. Once again, FIDE was violating
its own rules by arranging a tournament off the cuff, and Karpov rightly
called them on it.
Over the last century or so, the world champion has played a
generally positive role in promoting chess. Steinitz, Lasker,
Capablanca and Alekhine did much for chess, and we all owe an enormous
debt to Bobby Fischer whose concrete play and legend remade the image
of chess. Our "value" rose enormously in every way. Even chess books
increased several fold in price. Before the Fischer-Spassky match in
1972, I bought a couple of hundred rare and semi-rare books in Hamburg
from old Kurt Rattmann and paid a pittance. A pittance! After
Fischer-Spassky, those same books suddenly became collectors' items.
Their value has shot up exponentially.
Mr. Tueschen and this writer have fundamentally opposing views.
He's a man of the organization or what the Russians used to called the
Orgburo. "All the top GMs," he writes, "were educated and trained by
their national associations." His point is that the GMs owe something
to the chess authorities. My belief is the precise opposite. The chess
authorities owe virtually everything to the masters, who are the heart
and soul of chess.
The libertarian understanding of the individual is that in a
natural economy, he contributes far more to society and the accumulation
of surplus value than he receives. The role of government and society
is to maximize the individual -- to the very limited extent that it's
possible -- rather than the individual subordinating himself to a
collective.
Long ago,Dr. Lasker said that the future of chess belonged to the
creative master and those chess organizers willing to work with him. In
1921 Lasker and Capablanca played for a prize fund of $20,000 or around
$500,000 in today's coinage. During the classic, relatively undisturbed
FIDE era from 1948 to 1972, the prize fund was about $1,500 US. Only
with the rise of Fischer did the situation change. As for Kasparov, he
raised the funds for his matches, though with GM Lev Alburt's
indispensable help for New York 1990. (To this day, the FIDEcrats hate
the likes of Kasparov and Alburt for raising the vast sums that they
themselves could not.)
FIDE has been a heavy weight holding back chess development for
decades. As GM Larry Evans noted, the effect of the FIDE system in
the West was to discourage talent from challenging Soviet supremacy
throughout the 1950s and 1960s. "We all knew," said Evans, "that the
pot at the end of the rainbow was less than $2,000 in American money.
The Soviets loved the system because it ensured their hegemony, while
depressing chess values in the West. Only Fischer, who was NOT primus
inter pares, changed that."
--
Larry Parr
Chesspride
> At the Caracas
>Congress of 1977, Karpov met with the highly influential Ed Edmondson,
>who for personal reasons offered American support for the latter's quest
>for a rematch clause. With both the Americans and the Soviets on the
>same side, it sailed through. I would say that the deal was as dirty as it
gets,
Can you share some of the details that make it so dirty, Larry? Or is it that
you simply don't like the outcome?
>Fischer's
>10-8 demand, while wrong in this writer's estimation, was actually
>
>statistically more favorable to the challenger than the old FIDE format
>of the champion holding the title on a 12-12 tie in a limited 24-game
Hmmm...I cannot see how needing to win by two games (10-8) is easier than
needing to win by one game (12 1/2 - 11 1/2).
This issue has been debated for decades...and it seems folks that think
winning by two with no rematch in an unlimited match is easier than winning by
one in a finite match somehow always discount the fact that...after winning
match #1...the winner IS the new titleholder (e.g, Tal, Smyslov)...even if they
then lose the subsequent rematch.
The rematch clause isn't about delaying the crowning of a new champion...so
much as it is about the selection of the new champion's first opponent.
>The libertarian understanding of the individual is that in a
>natural economy, he contributes far more to society and the accumulation
>of surplus value than he receives. The role of government and society
>is to maximize the individual
Yes...well...I'm sure we've all read ATLAS SHRUGGED, Larry.
At the end...the creative folks abandon the world...sound familiar? Oops...did
I give away the ending?
Eric C. Johnson
USCF Assistant Director
Larry Parr
<<Hmmm...I cannot see how needing to win by two games (10-8) is easier than
needing to win by one game (12 1/2 - 11 1/2). This issue has been debated for
decades...and it seems folks that think winning by two with no rematch in an
C. Johnson, USCF Assistant Director
Eric "FIDE All The Way" Johnson once again displays his blind loyalty to FIDE
-- and his ignorance of chess history. At the time both Charles Kalme and Dr.
Max Euwe, who were both mathematicians, agreed that Fischer's conditions gave
the challenger a better break than the FIDE system.
Is it also necessary to remind Mr. Johnson that Dr. Euwe was FIDE president
at the time?
--
Larry Parr
Chesspride
Mr. Parr likes to snip my posts at quite inopportune points...
I ended with a comment that folks who think winning an open-ended match by two
points with no rematch clause (but a 9-9 nullification point) is easier than
winning a finite match by a single point (with the rematch clause and a 12-12
nullification point)...often conveniently overlook...that by winning the first
match...the new winner IS THE CHAMPION...thus, any rematch is irrelevant and
need not be included in the calculations.
The rematch clause only specifies the first official challenger in the case of
a new titleholder...it neither extends the length of the contest nor places
extra burdens on the new champion.
Sticks and stones, Larry. You know the rest.
Rolf Tueschen
<19990204162445...@ng115.aol.com>:
>Mr. Parr likes to snip my posts at quite inopportune points...
[..]
>Sticks and stones, Larry. You know the rest.
I'm not sure if Larry is able to understand that. As he called you
"blind" he might have thought that you wouldn't _see_ when he snipped.
BTW how do you feel when you remember the good book Larry wrote with
Arnold Denker and when you see him now act like a dirty fellow? Does
Larry suffer of too little affection? I confirmed him of my admiration
but still he treated me badly by of what I had written. Then he was
upset when I called him a dirty fellow. How to bring logic into his
neighborhood? Finally the great problem of humor. While Larry cheats and
calls others "blind" or puts others into the neighborhood of alleged
murder he doesn't digest properly the reactions of others on himself. My
defining him as a dirty fellow (for his cheats), my tries to show him
how stupid deliberate allegations could be (e.g. I wrote that Larry
allegedly had a double chin but that he now had been operated in Brazil
and that his chin is ok again) he then suffers from a week-long
self-torturing program as if Larry were a member of the OPUS DEI. He's
repeating all these characterizations over and over again like a prayer.
Because he knows well enough how evil he can be. So let me beg you *not*
to handle him too sharply. Larry has enough trouble with himself these
days. ;-)
:)
Gilbert Palmer
message<EZWDEPAU#GA....@NIH2NAAA.PROD2.COMPUSERVE.COM ...> KARPOV AND THE
REMATCH
>My belief is the precise opposite. The chess
>authorities owe virtually everything to the masters, who are the heart
>and soul of chess.
I feel I must take issue with this statement of yours that chess masters are
the heart and soul of chess. I can’t agree with you here Larry, chess is
more, oh so much more than the masters.
Are we not a wide church? Is the chess community not made up of many
groups? Are we truly to think that ‘the masters’ are indeed l’am et coeur
du jeu? (Christ you’ve got me doing franglais now…)
Suppose for a minute the end of the world really doth bekon, and we gathered
all of the chess community past and present for one last shindig. Say a
Requiem Service.
Just suppose some chess loving Wizard waved his wand and following a mighty
woosh and flash of bright light we suddenly all found ourselves sitting in
the echoey hush of some cavernous candle lit gothic cathedral, awaiting the
start of the requiem.
You would be there Larry, no doubt about that, although you would probably
be asked to leave your sidearm and grenades at he door, but what about the
seating arrangements? I would see them something along the likes of this:
Right up there, close to the alter in front of the choir would be the
ancients who actually invented the game, be they one or be they many.
In the front pews, I grant you, would sit the World Champions, (all but
Fischer of course who would arrive five minutes late if he was going to turn
up at all). It would be wonderful to see Lasker there puffing away,
Capablanca twirling his tennis racket and looking anxiously at his watch,
Alechine playing on his pocket set. Behind them, the massed ranks of the
chess world sitting expectantly in their designated spots, Kyrlenko winking
involuntarily to all and sundry, Nathaniel Cook making a few sketches, to
Edward Winter busying himself checking the hymn book for misprints to the
Italian genius who gave the queen her modern day powers…
So here we all are, the world of chess through all the ages of the game,
addicts and arbiters and artists and authors and editors and historians and
journalists and organisers and sponsors as well as all the casual patsers
and unfulfilled prodigies, programmers and bookstall proprietors….and of
course the masters too.
And as Philidor raised his baton and the murmuring subsided for the first
piece of music in celebration of chess to begin, would there not be a sense
of togetherness passing through ‘l’assemblee des fideles’ (I told you, you
have me doing it now)I think that there would be.
Masters - we maybe give them respect because they can do better what we all
love to do or write about or think about or whatever, we may even let the
best of them sit up in front, but chess is more oh so much more than just
the masters. And as everybody knows pawns are the heart and soul of chess.
Gilbert Palmer
A Chess Fan
Gilbert Palmer
message<EZWDEPAU#GA....@NIH2NAAA.PROD2.COMPUSERVE.COM ...> KARPOV AND THE
REMATCH
>My belief is the precise opposite. The chess
>authorities owe virtually everything to the masters, who are the heart
>and soul of chess.
I feel I must take issue with this statement of yours that chess masters are
Gilbert Palmer
message<EZWDEPAU#GA....@NIH2NAAA.PROD2.COMPUSERVE.COM ...> KARPOV AND THE
REMATCH
>My belief is the precise opposite. The chess
>authorities owe virtually everything to the masters, who are the heart
>and soul of chess.
I feel I must take issue with this statement of yours that chess masters are
Gilbert Palmer
message<EZWDEPAU#GA....@NIH2NAAA.PROD2.COMPUSERVE.COM ...> KARPOV AND THE
REMATCH
>My belief is the precise opposite. The chess
>authorities owe virtually everything to the masters, who are the heart
>and soul of chess.
I feel I must take issue with this statement of yours that chess masters are
Larry Parr
clause had nothing to do with Karpov. Once again he changes the
subject to this writer.
Sad, sad, sad.
--
Larry Parr
Larry Parr
Rolf Tueschen
>Sad, sad, sad.
If that is so sad for Larry, why not thinking a bit deeper?
I didn't react on that point because I saw Larry reporting almost stuff
I could subscribe and stuff that could be taken as support for my
thesis.
Perhaps it was again a possibility to twist my opinion due to some
English tricks but I meant nothing but that Karpov was NOT the one who
invented such rematches. Therefore I wrote such a clause has nothing to
do with Karpov. Because it was there before Karpov. In all Botvinnik and
Petrosian matches. BTW I can't see why a rematch should be a bad thing
at all.
Again, Larry was convicted with evidential proof that he acted like a
dirty fellow. He twisted and cheated deliberately what I had wriiten.
This should be clarified and then we can see if sadness still does
exist. For me it's also sad to see a famous author go that low into
propaganda and character assassination. I wished that it all wouldn't be
true or could be corrected at least. Larry should also stop to
discriminate each typo with a vibrating "sic". As if a typo from a
foreigner, who's typing with two fingers in a hurry should mean more
than that of being just a typo. All that could be corrected in all
friendship. NB that a foreigner does not automatically use sort of
correcting tool for his posts. That would take away completely the life
out of a direct communication. I like to answer the posts on the spot
and live. Not after some days' of consideration and after a thourouh
polishing of my expressions. We should remember that we're all writing
in the sand.
>--
>Larry Parr
Rolf Tueschen
[snipped]
Larry, let's not become unfair!
You mentioned a _cigar_ but you completely forgot to mention yours
truly. This is a crime!
You could quite easily paste a few notes on me, no?!
Larry Parr
"At this very moment, I do not know what I intend to do." -- ex-
FIDE President Florencio Campomanes speaking to a press conference
on February 15, 1985, a minute before announcing cessation of KK-
I and about 10 minutes after his decision had ALREADY been announced
by the Soviet news agency TASS.
"I told them exactly what you told me to tell them." -- Campo
whispering to Anatoly Karpov after announcing the cessation of
KK-I (as captured by a CNN microphone).
Eric "FIDE All The Way" Johnson, an USCF assistant director, is
so anxious to defend FIDE that he will defend the indefensible --
worse still, he will defend decisions that proved disastrous for
American chess.
Readers will recall that Bobby Fischer laid down certain conditions
for defending his FIDE title in 1975, including a provision that at
nine wins each (an unlikely event) in a match of an unlimited number
of games, the champion would retain his title. Hence the challenger
would have to score 10 wins to capture the crown, while the champion
would have to notch only nine wins to retain it. Or, if you will, the
challenger would have to win 10-8 to become FIDE kingpin
Fischer's proposal, while unfair, was mathematically more favorable
to the challenger than the old FIDE format of the champion retaining
his crown on a 12-12 tie in a limited match of 24 games. Every
statistical analysis known to this writer has backed up this claim.
Nonetheless, Fischer's conditions were rejected by a special meeting
of FIDE even though many of those voting against the American position
had earlier supported a system that was less generous to the challenger.
Then, at the 1977 FIDE congress in Caracas, Anatoly Karpov was
granted a rematch clause through the connivance of the Soviets and
Americans. Ed Edmondson, a major figure in FIDE at that time,
represented the United States.
Here, then, is Mr. Johnson's repsonse to my claim that the deal
was as dirty as it gets: "Can you share some of the details that make
it so dirty, Larry? Or is it that you simply dont like the outcome?"
Let's try the following, Mr. Johnson: 1. The rematch clause,
which relates directly to the possibility of a given champion creating
an "era" for himself, is a major advantage, for which our American FIDE
titleholder neither sought nor thought to ask; 2. The rematch clause,
which relates directly to a second payday for a given champion, is a
major benefit, for which our American FIDE titleholder neither sought
nor thought to ask; 3. The rematch clause, which related directly to
lessening the possibility of an American or Western challenger unseating
Anatoly Karpov for a full championship term and then promoting chess in
the West, was granted to Karpov through secret diplomacy involving
Karpov himself and an American representative too ashamed to make his
role public.
That's just the start, Mr. Johnson.
Bobby Fischer, with whom I would neither care to speak nor to meet
(he's anti-Semitic in the sense that he hates Jews and he unconscionably
exercised his natural right to play Boris Spassky in war-torn Yugoslavia)
offered his challenger a better deal than he had as a challenger. In
addition he made no outrageous demands such as a rematch clause. Yet
FIDE stripped him of its title, when later this same organization
would countenance halting the KK-I title match at a moment when the
challenger had won two consecutive games. Greg Kennedy said Fischer
made a host of unreasonable demands in 1975, but I believe that most of
them were spot-on and have since improved the lot of masters. GM Walter
Browne has often given Fischer credit for improving playing conditions.
Mr. Johnson writes, "The rematch clause isn't about delaying the
crowning of a new champion so much as it is about the selection of the
new champion's first opponent."
The rematch clause is about giving a sitting champion a chance to
extend his era; the rematch clause is about giving a sitting champion
a second payday while other challengers grow older; the rematch clause
is about forcing a challenger -- in the case of Botvinnik's era,
Americas Sammy Reshevsky -- to climb a mountain twice; the rematch
clause awarded Karpov in 1977 was about power politicians demonstrating
that Bobby Fischer could be stripped of the FIDE title for making a
demand less burdensome on his challenger than under which he labored,
while the Soviet Karpov could be rewarded for gaining a title without
having to defeat, arguably, the strongest world champion ever. (Kasparov
himself has lauded Fischer as "the greatest" of the modern era, if the
yardstick is the clear water between the champ and the challengers.)
Mr. Johnson cannot deny that mathematicians and statisticians of
the caliber of Charles Kalme and Max Euwe (FIDE president at the
time!) found Bobby Fischer's conditions mathematically more favorable
to the challenger than those obtaining in FIDE from 1951 to 1972, so
he writes, "Hmmm I cannot see how needing to win by two games
(10 - 8) is easier than need to win by one game (12 ? - 11 ?)."
Such impudence! Moreover, it is an impudence that supports a
decision by FIDE which came close to delivering a fatal blow to
the organization for which he works. Of course, Mr. Johnson knows full
well that the unlimited number of games in Fischer's proposal versus
the closed 24-game set existing for two decades under FIDE provides
the key statistical reason for why Fischer's proposal was more
favorable to the challenger than the earlier system.
If Mr. Johnson were an honest professional broker on this matter,
he would cut the hmmms and other such stuff. He signed his posting
giving his USCF title, and he has an obligation to speak professionally.
Finally, Mr. Johnson drags in Ayn Rand apropos of my discussion of
the individual. How intellectually retarded to reduce libertarianism
to Miss Rand.
ENTER ROLF TUESCHEN
Rolf Tueschen has also checked in with a posting of February 4.
Readers will recall that he falsely claimed in an earlier exchange
with Remco Gerlich that the rematch clause for the FIDE champion had
"nothing to do with Karpov." Astonishing ignorance. His initial
response was to drop the subject of his embarrassing error and to
address the following absolutely pathetic stuff to Mr. Johnson:
<<BTW how do you fell when you remember the good book Larry wrote
with Arnold Denker and when you see him now act like a dirty fellow?
Does Larry suffer of too little affection? I confirmed him of my
admiration but still he treated me badly by of what I had written.>>
The man contradicts himself in the same sentence. He claims that I
treated "me badly" and then writes that I treated what he had written
badly. He gets it right the second time. I have not dealt with Mr.
Tueschen's person. Nor will I. No name calling, no sexual innuendo,
no bemerding humor.
Mr. Tueschen concluded his scientific and logical presentation with
the observation, "Larry has enough trouble with himself these days."
By this point, I have no doubt that within a few days, Mr.
Tueschen, perhaps abetted by Mr. Innes, will claim that the above
stuff was just more deep irony and joshing jollying. I warrant
most readers can see that the truth is quite the opposite.
Mr. Tueschen does not wish to discuss the central issue of whether
we chess people have enough evidence about the way Kirsan Ilyumzhinov
runs his self-described dictatorship in Kalmykia to make the political
decision to find someone more suitable for the post of FIDE president.
Hence the name calling, verdict making and "defining." Hence also the
sexually demeaning "humor" and all the rest.
On February 5, Mr. Tueschen returned with more generalized and
absolutely pathetic ad hominem unattached to any kind of argument:
<<And that's the whole secret with people like Larry Parr. To
have exact evidence for such a verdict I had a longer debate with
him. Larry began to twist and cheat what I had written. At that
moment I knew that he was a dirty fellow without honesty.>>
--
Larry Parr
Phil Innes
Tueschen, perhaps abetted by Mr. Innes, will claim that the above
stuff was just more deep irony and joshing jollying. I warrant
most readers can see that the truth is quite the opposite.
POLITICS GREATER THAN THE TRUTH
I warrant they will make up their own minds, based on what is
presented, and how it is presented.
In these threads we go into things together (technically
called a "discussion," Larry) - no-one is presumed to have a
monopoly on the truth here. This is good enough for me.
If you insist on politicising every issue to your own taste -
that is all very well. What is completely obnoxious is that
you then insist that this is the only view, that you have a
singular grasp of the issues (despite any experience here),
and that anyone who has another opinion can be besmirched.
Phil Innes
Larry Parr
Larry Parr
One Mr. Adamski has checked in with a posting of February 6
rehashing an encounter that Larry Evans had with Edward Winter. The
charge is that GM Evans was tying himself in logical knots by trying to
reconcile statements that the famous award-winning journalist wrote in
1975 and 1986. Frankly, I see no necessary contradiction between
GM Evans' two quoted claims:
1. "Karpov will go down in history as the man who avoided a match
with Bobby Fischer and then eluded him for the next 10 years!" -- GM
Larry Evans, in Chess Life, March 1986
2. "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his stubbornness
is what killed the match." -- GM Larry Evans, in Chess Life, November 1975
GM Evans discussed Bobby's foolishness and stubbornness in 1975.
In 1986 he predicted the harsh, pitiless, and not always totally justified
verdict of history.
History is indeed a harsh mistress. My thanks go to a correspondent
in the United States for GM Evans' full statement in the March 1986
Chess Life, which I posted separately. I would submit that someone
who is ardently pro-Karpov, who understands the caprice of history,
could woefully subscribe to what Larry Evans wrote in the above quotation
from 1986. Nowadays Karpov is arguing that Soviet authorities forced
him to do what he did in 1975.
ENTER BOB STRINGER
Obviously I find myself in substantial agreement with Bob Stringer
in his reply to Greg Kennedy's posting of February 6. Two quick points:
1. I defined the phrase "anti-Semitic" as being anti-Jewish
when discussing Bobby Fischer's view's because he considers himself to
be a philo-Semite. Fischer has correctly noted that Arabs are also
Semites (the most accurate description of Mr. Fischer's
views is that they are savagely anti-Jewish).
2. Mr. Stringer described one statement of mine as pointless
and then proceeded to enunciate my point: Fischer granted Boris
Spassky mathematically superior match terms in 1992 to those Fischer
played under as Spassky's challenger in 1972.
Now, if Mr. Stringer cares to argue my observation is less than
imposing, given the sad figure that Fischer cut in Yugoslavia, then I
would agree with him completely. Fischer-Spassky II came about 15 or
20 years too late.
GREG KENNEDY RETURNS
"Suppose I label you Larry *Bobby is still my hero* Parr:
does that make you wrong whenever you disagree with me on any particular
subject?" -- Greg Kennedy in a posting of February 6
"Bobby Fischer, with whom I would neither care to speak
nor to meet." -- Larry Parr in a posting of February 5
"it is OBVIOUS [my emphasis] that there was a VAST
CONSPIRACY [my emphasis] in the press which brainwashed nearly everyone
in the USA into supporting Fischer, regardless of the true facts." -- Greg
Kennedy in a posting of February 7
I welcome the return of Greg Kennedy to these precincts. We are
old Net acquaintances, and I trust that our upcoming exchanges will prove
illuminating. In his posting of February 6, there is an intensely
affecting moment. He gives me a "hint" not to "flame" him for referring
to articles which held that many of Bobby Fischer's demands in 1975 were
"unreasonable" and "quite petty in nature." After all, writes Mr.
Kennedy slyly, he could be paraphrasing an article by "your friend Evans."
For Pete's sake! If I disagree with Larry Evans about something,
then I toss punches at him with neither fear nor favor. He does the
same in response. Most recently, we exchanged barbs in the deliberations
of the OMOV Committee. Before that, I wrote on this forum that his
decision to play at Havana 1964, while within his natural rights,
would cause him a few centuries in either Purgatory or Hell. He
responded with a strong defense. On other occasions we have quarrelled
over abortion until silence dominated much of a five-hour drive from
Reno to San Francisco.
We deal with issues on this forum, not personalities. Or we ought to.
Besides obeisances to Rolf Tueschen and someone named Sean, Mr.
Kennedy made two substantive points in his posting:
1. It is my obligation to retype a long article by Charles
Kalme that appeared, if memory serves, in Chess Life circa 1975; and
if Mr. Kalme, wherever he may live, objects to my appropriating his
copyright, then I ought presumably to take the gamble so as to meet
Mr. Kennedy's preposterous "official challenge."
2. FIDE made the right decision to reject Fischer's conditions
in 1975, if viewed strictly on the merits of the decision and without
considering the surrounding context.
Before dealing with these two points, let me note that when Mr.
Kennedy takes me to task for referring to "Eric *FIDE All the Way*
Johnson" he is actually objecting to my employing Mr. Johnson's
self-description in our previous communications. I assume we have
heard the last from Mr. Kennedy on this point, though he may surprise
me and enter a handsome amende honorable.
So, then, my answer to Mr. Kennedy's attempt to label me in the
conditional as a hero-worshipper of Bobby Fischer is to quote my remarks
about Mr. Fischer in the same posting. To wit: I would neither speak
nor meet with the man. Nor, as it happens, willingly break bread with
him. His views are viciously anti-Jewish, and his decision to exercise
his natural right to play chess in Yugoslavia against Boris Spassky was
utterly despicable.
However, our discussion is not about hero-worshipping Bobby
Fischer. It is about whether FIDE conducted itself atrociously in the
case of GM Fischer and, I suppose, about whether FIDE has mismanaged
the title outrageously in general.
Mr. Kennedy's first point is that unless I can hunt down Charles
Kalme's article over here where I work in SE Asia, then I am failing to
meet his absurd -- get this -- "official challenge." The punctilio for
public dispute is that this writer is under no obligation to reproduce
materials that are part of a very public record. It is not my job to
produce Mr. Kalme's widely read article; it is Mr. Kennedy's job --
and he does live in the United States -- to procure copies for himself.
Most of my archive is currently in storage, though even if I had the
pieces in my possession over here in Malaysia, I would certainly not
spend time retyping them to contribute to Mr. Kennedy's education.
As for Mr. Kennedy's second point, we are in agreement on part of
his main premise. Bobby Fischer's conditions in 1975 did not create a
level playing field for champion and challenger, and they were wrong
because of it. Where we disagree is over Mr. Kennedy's ever-so-
convenient attempt to rip the FIDE decision against Fischer's 10-8
clause from the surrounding context.
There are two bottom lines: Bobby Fischer proposed conditions that
were unfair to the challenger, and these conditions were nonetheless
statistically more fair than the system which had obtained in FIDE from
1951 to 1972. Many of those who voted for political reasons to oppose
Fischer's unfair conditions had earlier -- for political reasons --
supported a 24-game match with the champion enjoying draw odds.
A perfectly legitimate response to Fischer's unfair conditions
would have been to support them as an incremental improvement over what
had obtained earlier.
Mr. Kennedy made several polemical points that Bob Stringer
addressed. For example, he claimed I was "incoherent" when writing
that Fischer offered Boris Spassky a better mathematical deal in 1992
than Fischer had labored under when playing Spassky in 1972. In
truth, Mr. Kennedy's charge of incoherence was incoherent. One may
disagree with what I wrote, but it made internal sense.
Concerning Rolf Tueschen, Mr. Kennedy enters what might be called
the Innes-excuse. We are told once again that Mr. Tueschen's native
tongue is not English and that some "leniency is therefore required when
interpreting whatever it is he is trying to say." I'm sorry, Mr.
Kennedy. Mr. Tueschen is able to express his meaning clearly enough,
and his sexual innuendo and name-calling are attempts to bemerd an opponent.
Mr. Kennedy states his unqualified agreement with Mr. Tueschen that
I am "a dirty fellow without honesty." I assume that he will now
attempt to back up his charge with appropriate documentation. Or
withdraw his "Yes to Mr. Tueschen's charges.
As for Mr. Kennedy's absurd claim of a "vast conspiracy" in the
press that was "obvious" and that conspirators contrived to brainwash
the American public, I would challenge -- hey, let's call it an "official
challenge" -- Mr. Kennedy to back up a claim that is paranoid on its
face. No dice, Mr. Kennedy, I am not calling you paranoid; I am talking
about your charge.
Oh, yes, here's another beaut: the conspirators succeeded in
brainwashing everyone at the time, but it took somewhat longer for Larry
Evans. The tacit premise is that the conspiracy went on for years until
Evans "succumbed." (However, I have seen no evidence that GM Evans has
changed his mind about either Fischer or Karpov.)
I call this kind of thinking puerile. Mr. Kennedy will no doubt
defend it as uniquely adult and sophisticated.
MR. TUESCHEN AND THE REMATCH CLAUSE
In an exchange with Remco Gerlich, Mr. Tueschen wrote on February 3
that the rematch clause for the FIDE champion was "an old tradition"
that had "nothing to do with Karpov." He was replying directly to Mr.
Gerlich's statement that "Karpov made sure he had the right of a rematch
against Kasparov." Further, in typical fashion, Mr. Tueschen made the
aspersion that Mr. Gerlich "seemed to be somewhat new in the business."
Now, the bottom line was that if based on the exchange with Mr.
Gerlich, who wrote nothing more than the truth, then it was Mr. Tueschen
who proved "to be somewhat new in the business."
In his latest posting of February 6, Mr. Tueschen attempts to deny
the plain meaning of his straightforward claim that the rematch clause
had "nothing to do with Karpov." He tells us that he really meant to
say that "the clause wasn't invented by or for Karpov."
True enough, but his original claim was directed precisely against
Mr. Gerlich's statement that "Karpov made sure he had the right of a
rematch against Kasparov."
Mr. Tueschen should also learn to replicate quotations accurately.
In one paragraph he quotes himself as stating the rematch clause "had
nothing to do with Karpov" and then four paragraphs later he quotes
himself again, using the significantly different phrase "not to do
with." At this juncture, we can safely say apropos of Mr. Tueschen's
stated goal, he is not yet ready for The New Yorker or prime time.
--
Larry Parr
Larry Parr
Dr A. N. Walker
> [...] (Query: Has GM Averbakh published his
> much-awaited memoirs, which will apparently contain authoritative
> information on whether Paul Keres was forced to throw games to Botvinnik
> in 1948, which if true, would mean that the FIDE system was rotten right
> from the root?)
[This is a side-issue to my main point, which is below.
*If* Keres was forced to throw games, this clearly reflects badly
on the Soviet authorities of the time and perhaps on Botvinnik.
But this seems to me a long way from meaning that the FIDE system
was rotten -- *unless* there is evidence that *FIDE* connived in
rigging the event.]
> [...] Fischer's
> 10-8 demand, while wrong in this writer's estimation, was actually
> statistically more favorable to the challenger than the old FIDE format
> of the champion holding the title on a 12-12 tie in a limited 24-game
> match.
There may be some weasel words here. *Assuming* that you
mean the Fischer demand vs the FIDE format in operation from 1963
to 1975, then I don't think this is right.
If we assume that the WC and the challenger are of equal
ability, then the Fischer demand has an 18.54% chance of coming
down to a 9-9 draw, so the incumbent has a roughly 60% chance of
retaining his title, when it should have been 50% in a "perfect"
world.
It is harder to estimate the effects of the 12-12 rule,
as this depends on the proportion of draws. [If this proportion
is 100%, then the 12-12 rule *must* apply!] If we make the
somewhat reasonable assumption that half the games are drawn,
then we find that 11.43% of matches come to 12-12, and the
incumbent has just under a 56% chance of keeping his title.
The chance stays under 18.54% for all plausible percentages
of draws.
There are further complications caused by relative
performances with white and with black, and by psychological
factors, but these are even harder to model convincingly, and
there is no reason to suppose that modest allowances for these
will tip the balance far enough between the two systems to
overcome the 7.11% "advantage" of the Fischer system -- some
of the effects could make matters worse.
Of course, if there is a re-match clause, then the
chances shift dramatically. But that does not seem to be the
basis of the calculations being discussed, and in any case, the
"victims", Smyslov and Tal, of rematch clauses are nevertheless
quite properly remembered as former World Champions, and in a
quite different category from "mere" challengers like Bronstein.
Only an incurable optimist will believe that it would
have made any difference anyway to whether or not Fischer could
have been persuaded to play in 1975.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Don C. Aldrich
<75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Here is the complete text of GM Evans' essay which has bearing on
>the current discussion.
This was ignorant, partisan politcal crap thirteen years ago, and it
wears even less well today.
Must you continually repeat yourself? Have you absolutely nothing
original to say?
Uncle Larry, could you pweaze tell us about the Pinkertons again?
==Dondo
"He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous."
Julius Caesar, Act I, Sc. 2.
Kenneth Sloan
>
> It is harder to estimate the effects of the 12-12 rule,
> as this depends on the proportion of draws.
This analysis is interesting, and a necessary first step. However, it
should be pointed out that the "proportion of draws" is unlikely to be a
fixed value over the duration of the match. After some games have been
played, the score in the match so far may well motivate one
of the players to play for a draw (while the other player may be
motivated to play for a decisive result - hopefully a win). The
probability of a draw depends very much on the immediate goals of the
two players.
This level of analysis, I think, is important in assessing the relative
importance of a 9-9 tie clause where only wins count and a 12-12 tie
clause when draws count.
Finally, note that many "last round" games may be drawn (objectively,
the probability of a draw is high) when in fact the game is probably
LOST for the loser of the match. In a situation where a draw is just as
bad as a loss, twho things may happen:
1) the player behind in the score may press too hard and take too
many risks
2) the player ahead in the score may offer a "courtesy" draw, rather
than press on to the almost-certain win.
And, of course, we have already had an object lesson in how the
proportion of draws can be artificially manipulated in a "only wins
count" WC match.
--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/
Larry Parr
Dr A. N. Walker
> This analysis is interesting, and a necessary first step. However, it
> should be pointed out that the "proportion of draws" is unlikely to be a
[Interesting points snipped.]
I agree entirely with what Ken says; my only defence is
that psychological factors are very hard to model and even harder
to build into the conditions for a match. Meanwhile, I have
thought of a way of presenting my previous result that may make
it clearer and easier to estimate in other cases.
Firstly, the "Fischer demand", first to win 10 but 9-9 is
enough to retain the title, is exactly equivalent to an 18-game
match with draws ignored and with 9-9 enough. Now suppose we
think back to the old-style 24-game match, and assume that a
proportion p of the games are expected to be decisive. Then this
is *roughly* equivalent to a 24xp-game match with draws ignored.
But unless p is very small [less than about 0.04] or very large
[greater than about 0.96], there is roughly an evens chance as
to whether the number of draws is odd or even. If the number of
decisive games is odd, then there *cannot* be a tie; if it is
even, then there can [and we saw before that for well-matched
opponents, the chance of a tie was nearly 20% in the Fischer case].
So the chance of a tie is roughly half of that that there would
be in a K-game "Fischer" match where K is the nearest *even* whole
number to 24xp. In statistics, you halve the expected deviation
by quadrupling the number of "samples", so our 24-game match has
roughly the discriminating power of a 4x24xp-game "Fischer" match.
When I worked the numbers, I took p to be 0.5; so the
traditional match is roughly equivalent to a 48-game Fischer
match, and it is not surprising that the chance of a tie is
therefore quite a bit less than the chance for an 18-game Fischer
match. Or, going the other way, for the two formats to have
equal discrimination, a traditional match would have to have no
more than 18/4 = 4.5 decisive games. You have to go back a *long*
way to find a WC chess match as "indecisive" as that! [But there
will have been many other high-level short matches, and any number
of draughts/checkers matches with fewer decisive games.]
Conclusion: the Fischer format gives significantly more
advantage to the incumbent than a traditional match, with draws
counting, of any reasonable length.
Larry Parr
Larry Parr
Chessdon
"Fischer wanted to keep the title if each player won nine games with the purse
divided equally between champion and challenger.
Thus the champion had draw odds if and only if the match was tied
at 9-9."
Another way to look at this is that the challenger, Karpov,to win the title
needed to beat Fischer by at least 2 full points, 10 to 8 or better.
While the draw odds in the Spassky/Fischer match meant, that Fischer only
needed to beat Spassky by 1 point, 12 1/2 to 11 1/2.
Don Schultz
Larry Parr
Chessdon
.
Actually a fourth way to look at this is given in my book CHES...@AOL.COM
The book will be available immediately following the end of my term as USCF
President - August 1999.
Don
Larry Parr
<<It is obvious that there was a vast conspiracy in the press
which brainwashed nearly everyone in the USA into supporting
Fischer, regardless of the true facts.>> -- Greg Kennedy
What twaddle!
While CHESS LIFE, a house organ of the USCF, supported Fischer's
conditons to the hilt, there was one notable independent voice --
GM Larry Evans -- a close friend of Fischer. At first Mr. Kennedy
called the 5-time USA champion one of the conspirators and then
one of the victims of his own conspiracy!
A reader called my attention to several items from Larry Evans On
Chess in CHESS LIFE. Judge for yourself.
<<Q. Alex Binder, Ariz: In Jan./74, p. 30, a cablegram from Bobby
Fischer to FIDE stated: "Urge adoption of ten wins to decide 1975
match, draws not counting, champion to retain title if nine wins to
nine..." This means that the champion needs only nine to win and the
challenger must win by at least two. Do you feel this is fair and why?
A: No, it isn't fair. The whole idea of not counting draws is to
eliminate a drawn match. Historically the first player to win six
games was good enough for Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine. Why
isn't it good enough for Bobby Fischer?>> -- GM Evans, April 1974
After Fischer refused to defend his title in 1975, GM Evans
was even more critical of his match conditions:
<<Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his stubbornness
is what killed the match -- nothing or nobody else. Despite
'mathematical proof' that his conditions were fairer than the old
system, they were still not fair. All the words in the world can't
obscure that simple fact. Many years ago Hans Kmoch observed
prophetically: 'Finally America produces its greatest chess
genius, and he turns out to be just a stubborn boy.'>>
<<Everything had to be his way -- or else. For future matches a
reasonable formula is the first player to win six games,
continuing until one player gets two games ahead in the event of
a 5-5 tie.>>
<<Karpov said playing until 10 wins is: "Awful...The match can
last 3 or 4 months...cease being art and turn into forced
labor. Fischer's terms are ungentlemanly and unfeasible.">>
<<I see no reason why eliminating the value of draws will shorten
the match. Draws should not count only because a player will not
be able to protect his lead by playing for a draw.>>
<<Very few grandmasters supported Fischer's proposals. Robert
Byrne called them 'absolutely stark-naked cheating.' Bent Larsen
said, 'It is the first unethical thing Fischer has done.' A tie
match is unacceptable to the public, and it's high time a world
champion stopped dictating terms to his challenger. Ironically,
when Fischer was still the challenger he opposed the champion's
having any edge."
(Larry Evans On Chess, Chess Life, November 1995, the same issue in
which Charles Kalme's justification of Fischer's conditions appeared.)
SPECULATING ON FISCHER'S MOTIVES
As Alexander Alekhine once wrote of an annotator's speculation into
the great Russian's psychology, such excursions can be ungrateful
things. For years everyone wondered why Bobby Fischer was shunning the
chess world; then at a pre-match press conference with Spassky in 1992
he announced that the chess world had shunned him. He had not refused
to play his fellow grandmasters; they had refused to play him!
I think Fischer's explanation of his logic was the one idea that
had occurred to no one over the 20 years since he beat Spassky in 1972.
WHY?
Here, then, is yet another ungrateful excursion. Look at Fischer's
play during his heyday. He obviously feared no one. No one. He played
to win as Black against the very best including Spassky (see, for example,
his 1970 Siegen loss after refusing a draw against Spassky). He certainly
did not fear Karpov, who actually feared Fischer, based on what we now
know about Karpov's own slim estimation of his chances in 1975.
For years Bobby watched as Soviet champions demanded and got
pretty much everything they asked for. So, then, I believe that he
demanded 10 wins and an unlimited match to give the Russkies a taste
of what he considered to be their own medicine. For what it's worth,
Larry Evans thinks so too.
For the record, Kalme's point -- and mine too -- was never that
Fischer's conditions were fair. They were not. The best match, in my
estimation, would be a six-wins affair of unlimited length with a coin
flip to see who gets White in game one. No advantage of any kind to
either side. I have written the same on many occasions in the past.
INTERVIEW WITH SMYSLOV
Vasily Smyslov believes in Satan. He said so to me in an interview
that I published with him in Chess Life back in 1986 or 1987. I can't
remember whether I included the remark in the interview.
Smyslov said a lot that was off the record about the Soviet state
which I'm still duty bound not to divulge even though the man's nemesis
is gone. He was a firm believer in Russian Orthodoxy, and he spoke at
some length about Caruso and his dalliance with dark forces.
The man was certainly not a dialectical materialist. Bob
Stringer's account of Smyslov's antics in Havana makes me feel very
sad. He could not possibly have believed a word of what he was
saying. As for the gent standing on a table and orating, egad!
In 1964 Larry Evans accepted an invitation to compete at the
Capablanca Memorial in Havana. In 1965 Fischer was refused permission
to go there by the State Department and was forced to compete via
short-wave radio from the Marshall Chess Club in Manhattan. Perhaps
this explains Smyslov's remark about Fischer's "imprisonment."
Could Mr. Stringer post portions of Donner's account here? I
haven't seen this book yet.
(Reposted from rgcm)
--
Larry Parr