| |
Main
Date: 01 Oct 2005 03:25:48
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll
try all of them and see what kind of responses I get.
I have read about how after defeating Capablanca, Alekhine dodged a
rematch with him for the rest of his career, no matter how much Capa
wished for a rematch. Yet in 1975 Bobby Fischer was "forced" to a
rematch with the Soviets (and of course refused to play and forfeited
his title).
My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
another cannot and has it stripped from him.
Any comment?
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 01:37:39
From:
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
>>>Prior to Alekhine's death, the world title was,
essentially, the champion's personal property, which he could risk or
not, at his discretion. The only significant deterrent to resting on
one's laurels indefinitely was public opinion.
It should be added that in the London, 1922 tournament, Capablanca
suggested the so-called "London rules" for the regulation of the world
championship. Capablanca's suggestion was widely seen as fair to both
the challanger and the champion. In effect, it designated the minimal
financial and chess-achievement conditions which the challanger must
meet to have the right for a match. The intent was to no longer allow
the champion to avoid his strongest opponents by making extravagant
financial demands, but, on the other hand, he could not be forced to
play for inadequate compensation or against inferior opponents.
The leading players in that tournament, in particular Capablanca
himself and Alekhine, signed an agreement to the effect that if any one
of them becomes world champion, they would accept all challanges that
meet the London rule's requirements. The London rules, however, formed
no official body to oversee the world championship. They were
officially merely a private agreement between specific players. That
said, Capablanca obviously hoped these rules will form a tradition of
fairness that will govern world championship matches indefenitely.
Later (in 1927) Capablanca accepted Alekhine's challange for his crown
according to those London rules (with some minor alterations they
agreed on). Alekhine won their match. Despite Capablanca having a right
to a rematch according to those rules, no rematch between the two took
place.
Why no such match too place is debatable. As E. Winter notes in his
book on Capablanca, financially, the London rules allowed the champion
to refuse any challange with a purse of less than $10,000. In the
"roaring 20s", this was not too difficult to meet (although it was a
great deal of money indeed, perhaps between $500,000-$1,000,000
today), but in the world wide depression following 1929, it became
virtually impossible to collect such a sum.
Thus, the "law of unexpected consequences" came into effect. The London
rules' "$10,000" clause, originally established to protect the champion
from having to take non-serious offers for a match, became a tool
where, in conditions of worldwide depression, the champion COULD avoid
meeting his most dangerous opponent, by insisting on the challanger
meeting the letter of the London agreement, while playing world
championship matches with lesser opponents for less money (the London
rules did not FORBID the champion to play in matches for less than
$10,000, only did not REQUIRE him to do so).
So, while perhaps not violating the "letter of the law" in his refusal
of a rematch with Capablanca, Alekhine certainly violated the spirit of
the agreement by avoiding Capablanca and meeting Euwe and Bugoljubov
(sp?) instead.
That, and the second world war, were the end of the London rules. When
FIDE took over in 1948, they used a different system.
P.S.
To Mr. Sloan: yes, Mr. Kingston made a mistake here about Korchnoi, but
there is a diffrence between a hastly-written internet newgroup reply
to a published book. The core of Mr. Kingston's criticism of Messrs.
Keene and Schiller is not that other people never make any mistakes
anywhere, but that this duo doesn't put no more effort into what they
publish in books than most people put into their internet posts.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2005 02:58:51
From: Vladyslav Kosulin
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
[email protected] wrote:
> So, while perhaps not violating the "letter of the law" in his refusal
> of a rematch with Capablanca, Alekhine certainly violated the spirit of
> the agreement by avoiding Capablanca and meeting Euwe and Bugoljubov
> (sp?) instead.
Well, Alekhine was in his right and can not be blamed for this, especially
because Capa tried to violate both the spirit and the letter of London 1922
rules, when he demanded Alekhine to prove his right to challenge Capa by playing
in New York, 1927 ignoring the fact that Alekhine already satisfied all London
rules. You can read the story in details in Alekhine's book about New York, 1927.
Vlad
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 09:05:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll
> try all of them and see what kind of responses I get.
Oh, come on. It's not all that difficult? Your post has absolutely
nothing to do with computer chess so rgc.computer is completely the wrong
place; you're not doing or asking for any analysis of chess positions so
rgc.analysis isn't appropriate either. You're skirting around the edges
of chess politics so rgc.politics might be a reasonable choice; otherwise,
rgc.misc is the group you're looking for.
BTW, you missed rec.games.chess.play-by-email or whatever it's called.
Followups set.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Devil Monk (TM): it's like a man of
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ God that's possessed by Satan!
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 00:54:48
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
1. FIDE did not exist in the 1920s. The title belonged to the WC to do with
as he pleased
2. Fischer wasn't "forced" to do anything. He won the FIDE title, and when
the FIDE challenger was determined in 1975 he had the option of playing him.
He decided not to because he's psychotic.
"The Man Behind The Curtain" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll try
> all of them and see what kind of responses I get.
>
> I have read about how after defeating Capablanca, Alekhine dodged a
> rematch with him for the rest of his career, no matter how much Capa
> wished for a rematch. Yet in 1975 Bobby Fischer was "forced" to a rematch
> with the Soviets (and of course refused to play and forfeited his title).
>
> My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge Capa
> and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just three
> years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in effect in
> the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as arbitrary, that one
> person can have his title so long by maneuvering and another cannot and
> has it stripped from him.
>
> Any comment?
>
>
>
> John
>
> --
>
>
> Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
>
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 17:02:35
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> Since the best match player is not necessarily the best tournament
> player, perhaps there should be a World Match Champion and a World
> Tournament Champion.
Tarrasch ran that idea up the flagpole about 100 years ago; hardly
anyone saluted. After Lasker clobbered him in their 1908 match, I don't
think the idea was taken seriously again.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 09:15:24
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> Since the best match player is not necessarily the best tournament
>> player, perhaps there should be a World Match Champion and a World
>> Tournament Champion.
>
> Tarrasch ran that idea up the flagpole about 100 years ago; hardly
> anyone saluted. After Lasker clobbered him in their 1908 match, I don't
> think the idea was taken seriously again.
Isn't that a bit like the people here who respond to questions with a
``what's your rating'' DSW? :-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Evil Accelerated Beer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a refreshing lager but it's twice as
fast and genuinely evil!
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2005 01:41:18
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > Since the best match player is not necessarily the best tournament
> > player, perhaps there should be a World Match Champion and a World
> > Tournament Champion.
>
> Tarrasch ran that idea up the flagpole about 100 years ago; hardly
> anyone saluted. After Lasker clobbered him in their 1908 match, I don't
> think the idea was taken seriously again.
Well, if you have some combination of both you make it so that the world
champion has to be able to excel at both match and tournament play.
We're getting some great chess in this tournament, though, I have to say.
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 11:34:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> The defeated champion had the right to a return match until the
> 1960s. Petrosian was the first not to have that right.
Actually, Botvinnik was the first, after losing to Petrosian in 1963.
He was rather ticked off at FIDE for taking away his rematch right. as
I recall.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 14:50:00
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.games.chess.analysis.]
On 2005-10-01, Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> The defeated champion had the right to a return match until the
>> 1960s. Petrosian was the first not to have that right.
>
> Actually, Botvinnik was the first, after losing to Petrosian in 1963.
> He was rather ticked off at FIDE for taking away his rematch right. as
> I recall.
You're right. I think Botvinnik retired from the WC cycle after
that.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
==================================================================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress
<http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html >
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 16:06:35
From:
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
>I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll
>try all of them and see what kind of responses I get.
Asshole.
*plonk*
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 06:19:00
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
> > Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
> > three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
> > effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
> > arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
> > another cannot and has it stripped from him.
>
> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
> won the title.
>
> FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
> reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
> ducked the most threatening challenger.
That is correct. Prior to Alekhine's death, the world title was,
essentially, the champion's personal property, which he could risk or
not, at his discretion. The only significant deterrent to resting on
one's laurels indefinitely was public opinion.
Of the five pre-FIDE champions, it could be argued that at least two,
Lasker and Alekhine, evaded legitimate challengers to some extent. Of
course, the situation was complicated by the need for the challenger to
raise funds. The champion could not be expected to risk his title
without adequate payment, so the challenger had to find backers willing
to put up thousands of dollars, hefty sums for the early 20th century.
This obstacle was too much for some talent-rich but cash-poor
challengers, such as Rubinstein and Nimzovitch. On the other hand,
Janowski, whose challenger credentials were not the best, got a title
match because he had a wealthy patron who put up the dough.
When FIDE took over, fund-raising became less of an obstacle, and was
no longer the challenger's responsibility, so title matches could be
put on a regular schedule. Also matters were simplified by the fact
that, with the exception of Fischer, all the champions and challengers
1951-1990 were Soviet citizens, who were paid by the state to play
chess, making outside backing less of an issue.
> Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
> power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
> think he resigned it.)
Technically, he did resign it, by telegram to FIDE. I suppose if
Fischer had still claimed the title while refusing to play Karpov, some
sort of formal divestiture would have been done.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2005 14:55:40
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
On 1 Oct 2005 06:19:00 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> When FIDE took over, fund-raising became less of an obstacle, and was
>no longer the challenger's responsibility, so title matches could be
>put on a regular schedule. Also matters were simplified by the fact
>that, with the exception of Fischer, all the champions and challengers
>1951-1990 were Soviet citizens, who were paid by the state to play
>chess, making outside backing less of an issue.
On 1 Oct 2005 06:25:49 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>With all due respect, Viktor Korchnoi, Karpov's challenger in 1978 and
>1981, can hardly be considered a "Soviet citizen" who was paid by the
>state. He had defected in 1976 when in Holland for the IBM Tournament.
>He would eventually settle in Switzerland.
Thank you for pointing out this error by Taylor Kingston.
This is a good example of the kind of mistake which is often made but
whenever anybody on Taylor Kingston's enemies list makes this kind of
mistake, he attacks that person again and again, sometimes dozens of
times.
So, we are entitled to attack Taylor Kingston a few dozen times for
this error.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2005 17:10:44
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> So, we are entitled to attack Taylor Kingston a few dozen times for
> this error.
Only when you start being as gracious as Taylor for being corrected, Sam.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 00:14:36
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:10:44 GMT, Ron <[email protected] >
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
>
>> So, we are entitled to attack Taylor Kingston a few dozen times for
>> this error.
>
>Only when you start being as gracious as Taylor for being corrected, Sam.
Your rek is funny considering that so far as I am aware, Taylor
Kingston has not yet admitted that he made a mistake, must less
apologized.
All of us make mistakes. Even I make mistakes. However, most of us do
not spend years attacking others over typographical errors the way
that Taylor Kingston does.
Everybody knows that Korchnoi was not a Soviet citizen when he played
a match for the World Chess Championship in 1978. Obviously Kingston
knows that too. This matter would be immediately dropped where it not
for the fact that Kingston attacks, attacks, attacks endlessly every
time he finds a mistake like this on the part of others.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 03:04:31
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> Your rek is funny considering that so far as I am aware, Taylor
> Kingston has not yet admitted that he made a mistake, must less
> apologized.
Wrong again, Sam. He wrote (although it only showed up in .misc, for
some reason):
>
> You are quite right. That's what I get for posting before my morning
> coffee has taken effect. Thanks for the correction.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 06:22:49
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
In article <[email protected] >,
The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected] > wrote:
> My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
> Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
> three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
> effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
> arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
> another cannot and has it stripped from him.
FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
won the title.
FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
ducked the most threatening challenger.
Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
think he resigned it.)
|
| | |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 04:48:51
From: Vladyslav Kosulin
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
>>Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
>>three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
>>effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
>>arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
>>another cannot and has it stripped from him.
>
>
> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
> won the title.
>
> FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
> reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
> ducked the most threatening challenger.
As a matter of fact, Alekhine had never ducked Capa.
The main source of a personal feud between Alekhine and Capablanca was in Capa's
attempts to reject Alekhine's right as an official Challenger in 1926-1927 after
he satisfied all requirements esteblished in London, 1922.
IMHO, while being a World Champion Capa behaved not fair, and after becoming the
WC Alekhine fully legitimately asked Capa to satisfy all, especially financial,
requirements to an official challenger, esteblished in London, 1922.
The real joke was that the only requirement Capa was not able to satisfy, was to
guarantee a $10,000 prize fund, the requirement driven in 1992 solely by Capa
when he was a Champion. The requirement which prevented Nimzo and Rubinstein
from playing their matches with Capa before Alekhine.
Vlad
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 17:08:29
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
>>Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
>>three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
>>effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
>>arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
>>another cannot and has it stripped from him.
>
>
> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
> won the title.
>
> FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
> reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
> ducked the most threatening challenger.
>
> Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
> power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
> think he resigned it.)
Thanks. I thought the answer might be something along those lines.
Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 19:28:22
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
In article <[email protected] >,
The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected] > wrote:
> Thanks. I thought the answer might be something along those lines.
>
> Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?
At the time, FIDE had a "Champions right to a rematch" clause.
Botvinnik didn't have to win a candidates cycle to get a rematch - he
got it automatically.
The later ditched that rule.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 13:49:51
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
On 2005-10-01, The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>>
>> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
>> won the title.
>>
>> FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
>> reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
>> ducked the most threatening challenger.
>>
>> Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
>> power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
>> think he resigned it.)
>
> Thanks. I thought the answer might be something along those lines.
>
> Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?
As did Smyslov.
The defeated champion had the right to a return match until the
1960s. Petrosian was the first not to have that right.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
==================================================================
Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach
<http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html >
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 18:44:29
From: Ari Makela
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.games.chess.computer.]
Follow-ups to rgc.politics. This has nothing to do with analysis or
computers.
On 2005-10-01, Chris F.A. Johnson <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?
>
> As did Smyslov.
Which is rather sad: Smyslov was the strongest player in 50's. He won
two extremely strong candidates tournaments. Not to mention that he
playes very, very beautifylly.
> The defeated champion had the right to a return match until the
> 1960s. Petrosian was the first not to have that right.
Karpov had that right too for some time.
--
Ari Makela late autumn -
[email protected] a single chair waiting
http://arska.org/hauva/ for someone yet to come
-- Arima Akito
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 13:44:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
>> Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
>> three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
>> effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
>> arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
>> another cannot and has it stripped from him.
>
> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
> won the title.
That's true in terms of W Ch match arrangements, but FIDE did govern chess
rules and rankings, titles &c since its inception.
> FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
> reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
> ducked the most threatening challenger.
Yes. And because they could. Euwe played a significant part in all this, but
he was but a pawn in the game of the evil Soviets who, as TK has mentioned,
effectively ran world chess on a national basis until the modern [Fischer]
epoch. TK is also correct to point out that Soviet players were allowed to
be professionals, in fact, if not by declaration, by virtue of state
support. The Soviet's didn't care to hear from other countries about the
fundamental fairness of this support.
> Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
> power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
> think he resigned it.)
I suppose the second world war 'emergency measures' where FIDE took control
of the championship process will continue for better or worse. It is
significant these days that although the title remains the same, the
competition has been very different - essentially all historical match-play
resolutions of the championship have ceased.
A few years ago 3 W Champs, Kasparov, Karpov and Kramnik asked to speak with
FIDE's leader on the future of the championship, but were rebuffed.
Therefore, we seem to have now done away with the 'lottery-Swiss' which
Khalifman won, as well as long match-play events [Kasparov-Karpov matches],
and now determine the title by an invited group of 8 players in round-robin
format.
Whether this is a better means to determine a world champion is open to many
views, but what is less diffident is the type of chess produced.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2005 03:36:56
From: Vladyslav Kosulin
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
Chess One wrote:
> Yes. And because they could. Euwe played a significant part in all this, but
> he was but a pawn in the game of the evil Soviets who, as TK has mentioned,
> effectively ran world chess on a national basis until the modern [Fischer]
> epoch. TK is also correct to point out that Soviet players were allowed to
> be professionals, in fact, if not by declaration, by virtue of state
> support. The Soviet's didn't care to hear from other countries about the
> fundamental fairness of this support.
Well, evil is in details, not in Soviets. You can blame Soviets for supporting
their chess community and for paying Soviet professionals, who, by the way, had
to perform a regular community service (mostly providing lectures and simuls all
over the country) to be eligible for this funding, but let's be honest:
1) Where would be the world of chess now without those 70 or so years of rocket
chess development driven mostly by 'evil Soviets'?
2) It would be much more honest to blame your country not supporting chess
instead of blaming Soviets supporting their chess community. It would be much
more honest to blame western countries in which professional wrestling is
considered a sport worth megamillions while chess geniuses die in poverty.
3) Campo was not Soviet, but his ruling was far from rules of honor either.
Vlad
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 09:11:20
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
[ Followups set ]
Chess One <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
>> won the title.
>
> That's true in terms of W Ch match arrangements, but FIDE did govern
> chess rules and rankings, titles &c since its inception.
On a minor point, FIDE only started running a rating list in 1970, as I
recall. (It may have been earlier but it was long after FIDE's
foundation.)
> I suppose the second world war 'emergency measures' where FIDE took
> control of the championship process will continue for better or worse.
> It is significant these days that although the title remains the same,
> the competition has been very different - essentially all historical
> match-play resolutions of the championship have ceased.
Well, that depends on how you view Kramnik's claim to be World Champion.
> Therefore, we seem to have now done away with the 'lottery-Swiss' which
> Khalifman won
That was a lottery-knockout, wasn't it? It certainly was last year when
Kasimdzhanov won it.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Swiss Radioactive Priest (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of the cloth but it'll
make you glow in the dark and it's
made in Switzerland!
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 17:34:37
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
In article <5pw%e.472$Wb3.165@trndny04 >,
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Therefore, we seem to have now done away with the 'lottery-Swiss' which
> Khalifman won, as well as long match-play events [Kasparov-Karpov matches],
> and now determine the title by an invited group of 8 players in round-robin
> format.
Isn't this what they did after WWII to get the ball rolling again?
I'm hoping the current title goes a long way towards re-legitimizing the
world championship. Seriously - does anybody consider Kasimdzhanov a
legitimate heir to the legacy of Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, etc...?
Without Kasparov (who was quite possibly bigger than the game) chess is
in desperate need of a legitimate champion. Kramnik was hand-picked by
Kasparov (didn't he actually lose a "qualifying" match?) and therefore
doesn't have much legitimacy in most people's eyes.
(He recent results haven't helped, either.)
Whomever wins this tournament is going to have a pretty darn strong
claim. I wonder if FIDE will be st enough to go back to match play
afterwards, however.
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Oct 2005 03:49:23
From: Vladyslav Kosulin
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
Ron wrote:
> I'm hoping the current title goes a long way towards re-legitimizing the
> world championship. Seriously - does anybody consider Kasimdzhanov a
> legitimate heir to the legacy of Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, etc...?
C'mon, man!
The old days are in past. We'll never get back the old respectable cycle. Kasim
is not holding a title of best player of all times. He holds the title of FIDE
World Champion he won in fair competition. Knockouts were definitely too much
innovative, but they were played, and this is our history we must live with.
Future Championship cycle if FIDE makes it reality will be much more dynamic
compared to time of Botvinnik or Karpov-Kasparov supremacy.
Vlad
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 18:44:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <5pw%e.472$Wb3.165@trndny04>,
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Therefore, we seem to have now done away with the 'lottery-Swiss' which
>> Khalifman won, as well as long match-play events [Kasparov-Karpov
>> matches],
>> and now determine the title by an invited group of 8 players in
>> round-robin
>> format.
>
> Isn't this what they did after WWII to get the ball rolling again?
yeah, they engaged Alekhine for a match in England but he croaked in the
meantime, then there was no reigning champ to continue the previous system,
except perhaps Euwe, but i must suppose that he no longer thought of himself
as a viable world champion
> I'm hoping the current title goes a long way towards re-legitimizing the
> world championship. Seriously - does anybody consider Kasimdzhanov a
> legitimate heir to the legacy of Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, etc...?
I think its the type of game too. Judit just took him apart with a
spectacular attack - and perhaps a number of top players might have
succumbed to it, but there are only so many surprises you can spring on one
player - in match play i think strategy of play is different
> Without Kasparov (who was quite possibly bigger than the game) chess is
> in desperate need of a legitimate champion. Kramnik was hand-picked by
> Kasparov (didn't he actually lose a "qualifying" match?) and therefore
> doesn't have much legitimacy in most people's eyes.
>
> (He recent results haven't helped, either.)
>
> Whomever wins this tournament is going to have a pretty darn strong
> claim. I wonder if FIDE will be st enough to go back to match play
> afterwards, however.
I agree - at this stage of affairs, people who show up and battle their way
through at least become champions by virtue of playing chess against most of
the top tier of contemporary players. This is an improvement on the
'lottery-Swiss', and the long-cycle candidates match system seems entirely a
thing of the past.
Phil
> -Ron
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 19:32:34
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
In article <sOA%e.4555$DO2.4092@trndny06 >,
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I agree - at this stage of affairs, people who show up and battle their way
> through at least become champions by virtue of playing chess against most of
> the top tier of contemporary players. This is an improvement on the
> 'lottery-Swiss', and the long-cycle candidates match system seems entirely a
> thing of the past.
With the demise of the Soviet Union, there's much less threat of
collusion in a candidates tournament, so I think we could go back to a
candidates-tournament followed by a championship match type system.
I'd hate to see match play removed from the system entirely.
-Ron
(decrossposted from *computer).
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 16:04:13
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
On 2005-10-01, Ron wrote:
>
> I'd hate to see match play removed from the system entirely.
Since the best match player is not necessarily the best tournament
player, perhaps there should be a World Match Champion and a World
Tournament Champion.
Or the world title could go to the player with the highest
performance rating for the year in matches and tournaments of a
high enough class.
Or....?
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
==================================================================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress
<http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html >
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2005 19:55:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Question about holding onto the World Title
|
"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <sOA%e.4555$DO2.4092@trndny06>,
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I agree - at this stage of affairs, people who show up and battle their
>> way
>> through at least become champions by virtue of playing chess against most
>> of
>> the top tier of contemporary players. This is an improvement on the
>> 'lottery-Swiss', and the long-cycle candidates match system seems
>> entirely a
>> thing of the past.
>
> With the demise of the Soviet Union, there's much less threat of
> collusion in a candidates tournament, so I think we could go back to a
> candidates-tournament followed by a championship match type system.
>
> I'd hate to see match play removed from the system entirely.
>
> -Ron
I think your sentiment is almost unuiversally held Ron, by people who loved
the quality of that deep one-to-one gladitorial encounter. Alas, there is
insufficient money to host such a series, now that Saddam is gone, and
illicit oil money cannot be laundered somewhat north of Iraq.
Phil
> (decrossposted from *computer).
|
|
