| |
Main
Date: 20 Apr 2008 21:33:18
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do anything to
|
This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
interest in chess and improve its viability?
Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
the solution?
- Rich
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 14:09:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 30, 4:20 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Where I see a real problem regarding cheating by
> > by Russians, is that nobody can understand what
> > they are saying to one another in *American*
> > tourneys.
>
> Fortunately, the United States of America is a diverse country, and
> some of the Americans attending chess events in the U.S. might well be
> of Russian ancestry, and understand the language, but have no love for
> the Soviet system.
I think you are imagining one of those huge
tourneys out East, like say, the World Open.
In that case, rampant cheating or talking
amongst players is just a part of the way BG
mis-organizes his tourneys.
I was thinking of tourneys I have attended
more-or-less locally, where there might be
just two Russian-speaking players, who, if
conditions allowed, could talk with one
another during play, just as everyone else
does, but in English.
In my scenario, the fact that there are two
Russian players already signals trouble for
the locals, who may well not be as strong at
chess. If you add in the possibility to speak
about the game right in front of eye-witnesses,
this could give certain folks an even bigger
edge, since unlike our "normal" cheaters,
they don't have to conspicuously leave the
playing hall each time.
Unlike the Cold War propagandists here in
rgc, I don't pretend that cheating is just a
"Russian" phenomenon. As far as I know, I
have never been cheated by a Russian-
speaking player, but I certainly have -- many
times -- by English-speaking Americans. A
few examples:
1) Tweaked chess clock
2) Changing the position on the board
3) Consulting other players
4) Distraction and annoyance
5) Changing the rules to suit
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 13:20:05
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 29, 9:41=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 Where I see a real problem regarding cheating by
> by Russians, is that nobody can understand what
> they are saying to one another in *American*
> tourneys.
Fortunately, the United States of America is a diverse country, and
some of the Americans attending chess events in the U.S. might well be
of Russian ancestry, and understand the language, but have no love for
the Soviet system.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 20:41:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 29, 9:48 pm, [email protected] (Andy Walker) wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As I recall from Achieving the Aim (though I don't have it on hand
> >to be sure), Botvinnik did want the rematch clause as early as 1948,
> >but he did not get it until the mid-1950s. There is also the matter of
> >the regulation adopted in the late 1950s, limiting the number of
> >qualifiers from the Interzonal to the Candidates, for any one country.
> >This seemingly impartial rule really applied in fact only to Soviet
> >players (e.g. Stein), thus limiting the number of serious challengers
> >Botvinnik might face.
It appears that Mr. Kingston is straining to somehow
vilify Mr. Botvinnik. In reality, a reigning champion is
faced by a relative few (one?), regardless of such
special rules. The people most likely to benefit could
very well be the lucky candidates-- those who slip past
the special rule's limitation and continue on normally;
or is it the non-Soviet contenders, who will no longer
need to worry about those players who were thereby
eliminated? Each powerful player thus eliminated
improves the odds of every other contender for the
crown.
> Most of us thought it was an attempt to limit the amount of
> collusion that could take place.
That would be the switch from candidates tourneys
to candidates *matches*.
> > In making my point, I was defining "serious challenger" as
> >qualifying for the FIDE Candidates stage.
>
> OK, but I specifically made it clear that I was referring
> rather to competing on equal terms with the top Soviet players.
> Fischer was *expecting* to do so in 1962, but was badly beaten by
> Benko and Geller early on and never recovered.
Observant readers will note that whenever it suits his
fancy, Mr. Kingston will artificially restrict his "research"
to a small portion of the available data-- that portion
which appears to support his wobbly opinions.
> Seems to me to be pre-judging your claims. The actions that
> you describe as "cheating" seem to be normal tournament practice to
> others [eg Benko]. If it's merely a matter of "holier than thou",
> then "cheating" is too strong a word. It's also provocative to
> describe actions as *Soviet* cheating when indulged in by individuals
> rather than by the state; it would be a surprise if any country has
> a monopoly in players who manipulate or bribe to secure titles or
> ratings, or who solicit help during play, or whatever.
This was and still is all part and parcel of the Cold
War propaganda machine. The ploy is to associate
cheating with "Soviets" or "Russians", ignoring any
and all cases of cheating by everyone else.
Where I see a real problem regarding cheating by
by Russians, is that nobody can understand what
they are saying to one another in *American*
tourneys. They could be saying: "after I crush this
American patzer, let's go to Taco Bell; I love their
burritos". Or, they could be saying: "After I sac'
on h3, I will have King, Bishop and Knight-- an
elementary win I learned back in Moscow when I
was seven or eight".
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 03:30:54
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 28, 8:03 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I will just repeat that you seem unaware of the actual facts
> surrounding the match. You cannot rely on Evans for
> unbiased information. Evans is the classic USCF
> apparatchik. When the Chess Life "bosses" demand
> cold war rhetoric - he complies. Say or write anything
> to maintain lifetime employment, that's the ticket.
>
> I'm not nominating Karpov for sainthood -
> the Soviets displayed horrendous sportsmanship
> (as did Korchnoi) and he was certainly part of it.
What you refer to as "cold war rhetoric" I view as the simple facts.
Even today, evil bullies like Kim Jong Il in North Korea, Hu Jintao in
Red China, or Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, continue to stunt the lives
of millions. It isn't dishonest to say that where these people belong
is behind bars, so that the people of their countries could be happy
and free like Americans are.
Posting from Google Groups, ironically, I have for the past few weeks
seen as a "related link" a news item about Karpov choosing to visit
Cuba to help promote chess there.
From September 1, 1939 to June 4, 1989 was nearly 50 years. This is a
very large hole in the lifetime of a human individual, so even those
people in Poland who did not perish as a result of World War II and
the Communist tyranny that followed Hitler's defeat, even those people
who did not die from natural causes during this long time, would not
really be able to simply proceed from the point at which Poland
regained its freedom to make up for all the missed opportunities they
suffered during this long time when Poland didn't enjoy peace,
prosperity, and freedom.
This shows how much human tragedy dictatorship can cause, so
dictatorship should not be allowed to exist. Virtually all the
problems in Poland during those 50 years can be traced to a few evil
men.
A few evil men, whether or not they live or lived in Indonesia,
presumably are also responsible for stirring up the popular sentiment
that has led to the evil, wicked, and abominable attack by a mob on an
Ahmadiyya mosque in Indonesia that I heard of in yesterday's news.
Muslims who think that they are justified in raising their hands in
force against peaceful people simply because those people have beliefs
different from theirs - clearly are travelling down the same road of
insanity that led to the events of September 11, 2001.
It is true, therefore, that sometimes there are people who are not
ready for democracy, since they would not freely choose to fully
respect minority rights.
If we are to avoid both dictatorships on the one hand, and mob rule
that disrespects minority rights on the other hand, then we have two
admissible forms of government. Where the people are prosperous and
educated enough to respect minority rights, democracy. Where they are
not, colonial rule from a democracy, until the necessary cultural and
educational level is achieved.
Of course, this won't solve all the world's problems, just the
unnecessary ones artificially created by a few evil men, and added to
the big problems we unavoidably face.
How do we guarantee that every child has enough to eat?
How do we guarantee that every little boy, of normal or greater
intelligence, who is willing to pay attention in school, will be able,
when he grows up, to find a job that pays well enough to allow him to
marry and start a family?
How do we guarantee that every child will be able, if his or her
intelligence is sufficient, to attend college, without the necessity
of learning a second language if it would not be directly relevant to
his or her chosen field of study?
While it is true that dictators and terrorists make these problems
worse, even without this exacerbation, these are problems the solution
of which is dependent on available resources.
For someone to become a particle physicist or electronics engineer who
can't hold a conversation in any language other than English is
perfectly commonplace these days. But for the principle of universal
equality of all individuals, regardless of their ethnic background, to
apply, this must become equally possible if one substitutes "Hawaiian"
or "Basque" or "Inuktitut" or "Yi" or "Tibetan" or "Arunta" or even
"Malayalam" or "Armenian" for English above.
This would require the relevant linguistic communities to expand in
size, so that they could support the necessary infrastructure for a
diverse economy which could, within itself, without excessive levels
of dependency on external sources, provide every kind of employment
opportunity, particularly including those at the highest levels.
So, if in the English-speaking world, you can join Intel, and help
design the next generation of the Streaming SIMD extensions for use in
x86 processors, in the Armenian-speaking world, you could join another
company that designed from scratch the architecture of the equally
powerful microprocessors used there. Or you could work for the company
that wrote the most popular commercial operating system for computers
using these microprocessors.
How do we have the smallest ethnic groups grow to be big enough so
their communities have parity with the United States, so that each of
them can have their own Sibelius and their own Verdi and their own
George Lucas... and also ensure that the world can grow enough food so
that everyone has enough to eat, even with them all eating as well as
Americans do?
There's another good reason for getting rid of dictators and
terrorists. To increase material production so vastly, without
destroying the world, we will need to use sources of energy that don't
spew vast amounts of greenhouse gases, particulates, and poisons into
the air. And they will have to provide unconstrained quantities of
energy, so warm and fuzzy solar, geothermal, and wind power, even if
they can help, aren't going to be enough by themselves. With current
technology, this means nuclear power.
Also, we will need to send a few people into space to establish
colonies there, so that habitats can be built from the asteroids and
fertilizer obtained from the comets of the Kuiper Belt
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 07:02:58
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
"Quadibloc" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d70431e1-2178-434c-9925-a7dc8bcb029a@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 8:03 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I will just repeat that you seem unaware of the actual facts
>> surrounding the match. You cannot rely on Evans for
>> unbiased information. Evans is the classic USCF
>> apparatchik. When the Chess Life "bosses" demand
>> cold war rhetoric - he complies. Say or write anything
>> to maintain lifetime employment, that's the ticket.
>>
>> I'm not nominating Karpov for sainthood -
>> the Soviets displayed horrendous sportsmanship
>> (as did Korchnoi) and he was certainly part of it.
>
> What you refer to as "cold war rhetoric" I view as the simple facts.
That's your mistake right there. Judgements derived from false
premises will also be false.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 20:57:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 28, 1:25 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Raymond Keene, an anti-Karpov writer
...a RABIDLY anti-Karpov writer...
> characterized the 1978 match as "that rare phenomenon
>- a World Championship with both players in peak form"
I take the opinions of hacks like Raymond Keene with
a pound of sea salt, so in this case, I did a little digging
to see if the (purely objective) numbers matched up. It
turns out that he was right: both players performed at a
very high level. If you remove the information about which
rated event was which, one could not possibly conclude
that VK's results suffered from alleged kidnappings,
beatings, or even from yogurt-favoritism or hypnosis. In
reality, the match with Anatoly Karpov in 1978 was one
of the better performances of VK's entire chess career.
I think it may have been the dark sunglasses. If your
opponent cannot see what part of the board you are
looking at, then they will have no idea what stupid plans
you may cook up or even on which side of the board you
plan to "attack". They worked for Douglas MacArthur,
and they worked for Victor Kortchnoi-- maybe they can
even work for me?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 18:07:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 28, 7:30 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> If, thus, a *government* connived in the use of steroids by its
> athletes, a quite reasonable consequence would be simply to ban the
> entire country from participation in the Olympics.
I don't think this would do much good. The fact is,
in spite of all the doping, our military is not really a
threat in chess. And "steroids" are for bulking up on
muscle; chess requires alertness, focus-- these lie
in the realm of stimulants.
Rather than over-react to some government plot to
take over the world... of Olympic gold medals, they
could simply have mandatory drug testing in which
only outlawed AND helpful drugs are screened for.
That way, the pot smokers will not need to whine
about invasion of their privacy, loss of "freedom",
etc. Even the Evans ratpack can then "feel good,
be happy".
Focus Factor: it worked for me; I used to be a
lowly Class C player, but now I'm able to hang
fewer pieces than ever before!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 16:30:55
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 28, 11:25 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> To condemn Karpov, a chessplayer, for all of the USSR's
> evil practices is ridiculous.
You're quite right.
But it isn't a question of blaming Karpov as an individual. If the
government of the Soviet Union wishes to engage in unethical
activities aimed at influencing the outcome of a sporting competition,
then it can expect to not be eligible to bring honors home from its
competitors.
If, thus, a *government* connived in the use of steroids by its
athletes, a quite reasonable consequence would be simply to ban the
entire country from participation in the Olympics.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 19:03:19
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
"Quadibloc" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e1883c04-93f9-407a-9554-e505b8955dc3@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 11:25 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> To condemn Karpov, a chessplayer, for all of the USSR's
>> evil practices is ridiculous.
>
> You're quite right.
>
> But it isn't a question of blaming Karpov as an individual. If the
> government of the Soviet Union wishes to engage in unethical
> activities aimed at influencing the outcome of a sporting competition,
> then it can expect to not be eligible to bring honors home from its
> competitors.
>
> If, thus, a *government* connived in the use of steroids by its
> athletes, a quite reasonable consequence would be simply to ban the
> entire country from participation in the Olympics.
>
I will just repeat that you seem unaware of the actual facts
surrounding the match. You cannot rely on Evans for
unbiased information. Evans is the classic USCF
apparatchik. When the Chess Life "bosses" demand
cold war rhetoric - he complies. Say or write anything
to maintain lifetime employment, that's the ticket.
I'm not nominating Karpov for sainthood -
the Soviets displayed horrendous sportsmanship
(as did Korchnoi) and he was certainly part of it.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 05:41:47
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 28, 6:08 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Er... To avoid our getting lost in a twisty maze of nested negations,
> my position is this. The international chess community should have
> just as much of a say in the conduct of, say, a world championship
> match between two Russians played in Russia as it would in a world
> championship match between a Frenchman and a Brazilian played in
> Japan. This fact of being organized and regulated by an international
> body is what distinguishes a world championship from a national
> championship.
>
> I wouldn't extend that to the fine details of the playing conditions
> but it should, for example, be the international body that decides the
> overall form of the match, who competes in it and so on.
This is a perfectly reasonable position, since what the two men are
competing for, although it is in Russia that they are competing for
it, is the FIDE World Championship. As you note, the important things
are questions that directly affect the validity of the contest in
choosing the world's best chessplayer, so this would involve matters
like the number of games, the disposition of ties, and rematches.
Since the Soviet Union was
a) a totalitarian dictatorship, and
b) the home of the vast majority of the world's best chess players,
however, had push come to shove, FIDE's power would have been rather
limited. The Chess champion of the rest of the world except the Soviet
Union might not have been much of a world Chess champion.
Otherwise, one would have thought that holding one players' family
hostage during a World Championship match might have been considered
unsporting, allowing Korchnoi to win automatically through the
disqualification of Karpov.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 10:25:51
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
"Quadibloc" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:19768e6c-c2a4-43e3-9451-4fd2a8eb4040@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 6:08 am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Er... To avoid our getting lost in a twisty maze of nested negations,
>> my position is this. The international chess community should have
>> just as much of a say in the conduct of, say, a world championship
>> match between two Russians played in Russia as it would in a world
>> championship match between a Frenchman and a Brazilian played in
>> Japan. This fact of being organized and regulated by an international
>> body is what distinguishes a world championship from a national
>> championship.
>>
>> I wouldn't extend that to the fine details of the playing conditions
>> but it should, for example, be the international body that decides the
>> overall form of the match, who competes in it and so on.
>
> This is a perfectly reasonable position, since what the two men are
> competing for, although it is in Russia that they are competing for
> it, is the FIDE World Championship. As you note, the important things
> are questions that directly affect the validity of the contest in
> choosing the world's best chessplayer, so this would involve matters
> like the number of games, the disposition of ties, and rematches.
>
> Since the Soviet Union was
>
> a) a totalitarian dictatorship, and
>
> b) the home of the vast majority of the world's best chess players,
>
> however, had push come to shove, FIDE's power would have been rather
> limited. The Chess champion of the rest of the world except the Soviet
> Union might not have been much of a world Chess champion.
>
> Otherwise, one would have thought that holding one players' family
> hostage during a World Championship match might have been considered
> unsporting, allowing Korchnoi to win automatically through the
> disqualification of Karpov.
Don't get your history from Larry Parr. Refusing emigration
requests for families of defectors has little do with chess and less to
do with Karpov. It was routine Soviet practice. Karpov and
Korchnoi have been cordial in later years - hardly what one
would expect if Karpov had been behind some evil plot.
To condemn Karpov, a chessplayer, for all of the USSR's
evil practices is ridiculous. After all, Korchnoi himself was
not willing to forego the title match to achieve a non-chess
objective - it would have been extraordinary for Karpov
to have done so.
Raymond Keene, an anti-Karpov writer, characterized the
1978 match as "that rare phenomenon - a World Championship
with both players in peak form"
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 14:05:44
From:
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 27, 1:27=A0pm, [email protected] (Andy Walker) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]=
om >,
>
> =A0<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > =A0 On this matter I must basically agree with Parr. In his
> >> >autobiography, Botvinnik describes how he himself was the main author
> >> >of the regulations FIDE adopted for world championship matches and
> >> >challenger qualifying. I'm not sure whether they were then "imposed"
> >> >on FIDE, or FIDE just adopted them willingly, but either way Botvinnik=
> >> >and his Soviet supporters got what they wanted.
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Does or did anyone think it mattered?
> > =A0 =A0That's rather beside the point I was trying to make, Andy. The po=
int
> >of my post was simply to say that Parr had given the historial facts
> >accurately on this particular occasion.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't see how "FIDE set up this system ... =A0to protect=
Soviet
> supremacy" [LP] and "The USSR imposed the system ... in 1948" [LP] is
> compatible with your doubts expressed above *combined with* your claim
> that LP had given the facts accurately.
I was referring only to the fact that the FIDE regulations had been
drafted by the chief Soviet player. Help-bot, to whom Parr was
replying, did not seem to be aware of this.
> =A0On the *facts* as thus far
> stated, all we seem to know is that Botvinnik proposed some regulations
> and FIDE approved them. =A0Botvinnik can scarcely have *planned* to draw
> or lose his five matches as WC [while winning the two re-matches], so
> it's a stretch to claim that in 1948 he was setting up the regulations
> *in order to* give himself a long stretch as an undeserving WC.
As I recall from Achieving the Aim (though I don't have it on hand
to be sure), Botvinnik did want the rematch clause as early as 1948,
but he did not get it until the mid-1950s. There is also the matter of
the regulation adopted in the late 1950s, limiting the number of
qualifiers from the Interzonal to the Candidates, for any one country.
This seemingly impartial rule really applied in fact only to Soviet
players (e.g. Stein), thus limiting the number of serious challengers
Botvinnik might face. So I think a case can be made that Botvinnik did
try, with some success, to manipulate FIDE rules in his own favor.
> =A0What
> evidence does anyone have that the USSR *imposed* the MMB regulations,
> as opposed to merely forwarding them for approval, and FIDE agreeing
> that they were a reasonable basis? =A0Or that FIDE [or even the USSR]
> set them up to protect "Soviet supremacy"? =A0
A good question. That was Larry Parr's claim; perhaps he will
present his evidence.
> > =A0What _was_ unfair were the Soviets' behind the scenes machinations,
> >e.g. keeping Najdorf out in 1948, and their collusive tactics,
> >especially in the Candidates Tournaments to ensure that no non-Soviet
> >player got to be the challenger.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Perhaps, though there's quite a spectrum between normal
> tournament practice, through gamesmanship and sharp practice, to
> actual cheating.
I would say the Soviets excelled at both.
> >> For the couple of
> >> decades from 1948 until Larsen and then Fischer became serious
> >> contenders,
> > =A0Fischer became a serious contender before Larsen. They both played
> >in an Interzonal for the first time in 1958, but Fischer became a FIDE
> >Candidate first, in 1959, based on his 5th place in that Interzonal.
> >Larsen placed only 16th in that event, and did not make it to the
> >Candidates cycle until 1965.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yes, but (a) the Fischer of 1962 -- still a teenager! -- w=
as,
> despite the hype, not yet a serious challenger for the title, as was
> indeed shown by the Curacao tournament, and (b) where was Fischer in
> the 1965 and 1968 Candidates'? =A0
Bobby's self-imposed absence from those events is well known.
> Until 1971, I think there was still a
> respectable point of view that Larsen had done more to break the
> Soviet hegemony than anyone else,
I would agree that a good case could be made for Larsen as "#1
Western Player" (to use Chess Review's phrase) circa 1965-1970. But I
would not say that Larsen had done anything to "break the Soviet
hegemony." He never beat any Soviet player in any Candidates Match, as
far as I can find in my references.
In making my point, I was defining "serious challenger" as
qualifying for the FIDE Candidates stage. This Fischer did years
before Larsen, thus my objection to your phrasing "first Larsen then
Fischer." I don't think Larsen in 1965 or 1968 made any more of a dent
in the Candidates cycle than Fischer did in 1959 or 1962, and Fischer
did get into the Candidates 6 years before Larsen, so I did not agree
with your saying "first Larsen then Fischer."
> and that Fischer, despite manifest
> talent, was too "fragile" as soon as conditions were adverse to be
> able to mount a serious assault on Petrosian and Spassky in a long
> match.
Well, neither did Larsen. He lost to Tal in 1965 and to Spassky in
1968. And we all know how he did against Fischer in 1971.
> > =A0I never have been able to buy the argument that Soviet cheating was
> >OK because they would have won anyway without it. Surely you're not
> >saying that?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Soviet cheating" is a rather provocative way of describin=
g
> things! =A0
No, just recognizing the facts.
> If you're thinking of Curacao, then I don't see any evidence
> of *cheating*, either "Soviet" or personal. =A0
Fischer's complaints notwithstanding, Cura=E7ao 1962 is not exactly
what I had in mind, though blatant cheating did occur there, for
example Petrosian's attempt to help Benko against Keres. And
concerning the "gentlemen's agreement" between Petrosian, Geller, and
Keres, GM Jan Timman takes a far less permissive view than you in his
book on the tournament. In any event, the prime examples, IMO, are
Hague-Moscow 1948 and Neuhausen-Z=FCrich 1953. There were also some
shady stunts in Olympiads, the case of Matulovic taking a dive for
Taimanov, and others.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 01:48:24
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
In article <47a1547f-ee94-4b38-93b7-03a5ea47974f@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >,
<[email protected] > wrote:
> As I recall from Achieving the Aim (though I don't have it on hand
>to be sure), Botvinnik did want the rematch clause as early as 1948,
>but he did not get it until the mid-1950s. There is also the matter of
>the regulation adopted in the late 1950s, limiting the number of
>qualifiers from the Interzonal to the Candidates, for any one country.
>This seemingly impartial rule really applied in fact only to Soviet
>players (e.g. Stein), thus limiting the number of serious challengers
>Botvinnik might face.
Most of us thought it was an attempt to limit the amount of
collusion that could take place. It seems hard to argue that a
player who is not [based on results in the previous Candidates and
Interzonal] among the top six [WC, top 2 from prev Candidates, 3
qualifiers from IZ] in his own country could have been a more
serious challenger to Botvinnik than Petrosian [or Keres, Geller,
Tal (when fit), Korchnoi, Spassky, ...]. It's at least as arguable
that the effect was to give high-level opportunities to players of
other countries, thus reducing Soviet dominance.
Of course, one feels sorry at the personal level for
[Bron]Stein, who were deprived of CT places by the rule, but I
don't think there's a serious claim that either was likely to
become WC in 1963 or 1966.
>> [...] Until 1971, I think there was still a
>> respectable point of view that Larsen had done more to break the
>> Soviet hegemony than anyone else,
> I would agree that a good case could be made for Larsen as "#1
>Western Player" (to use Chess Review's phrase) circa 1965-1970. But I
>would not say that Larsen had done anything to "break the Soviet
>hegemony." He never beat any Soviet player in any Candidates Match, as
>far as I can find in my references.
Having lost narrowly to Tal [+2 -3 =5] in 1965, he beat Geller
[+3 -2 =4] in the 3rd-place play-off. In 1968-69, he was smashed by
Spassky [on his way to the WC], but then equally smashed Tal, again
in the 3rd-place play-off. That's not a *bad* record! Better than
Fischer prior to 1971 .... He had a decent record in tournaments
in that time, too.
> In making my point, I was defining "serious challenger" as
>qualifying for the FIDE Candidates stage.
OK, but I specifically made it clear that I was referring
rather to competing on equal terms with the top Soviet players.
Fischer was *expecting* to do so in 1962, but was badly beaten by
Benko and Geller early on and never recovered.
>> > I never have been able to buy the argument that Soviet cheating was
>> >OK because they would have won anyway without it. Surely you're not
>> >saying that?
>> "Soviet cheating" is a rather provocative way of describing
>> things!
> No, just recognizing the facts.
Seems to me to be pre-judging your claims. The actions that
you describe as "cheating" seem to be normal tournament practice to
others [eg Benko]. If it's merely a matter of "holier than thou",
then "cheating" is too strong a word. It's also provocative to
describe actions as *Soviet* cheating when indulged in by individuals
rather than by the state; it would be a surprise if any country has
a monopoly in players who manipulate or bribe to secure titles or
ratings, or who solicit help during play, or whatever.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 11:56:44
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
On Apr 27, 8:48 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Personally I think the rules should be designed so that tie matches
> are statistically very improbable and giving the champion tie-odds
> is only a very small advantage. But that is contrary to the game's
> traditions.
My thinking is in that direction as well, but, as noted, it is partly
because I suspect, based on what I've read recently about _komidashi_
in Go, that this could be part of a strategy that could lead to the
return of pre-Steinitzian fireworks in Chess, of which I've submitted
an example for discussion.
And, of course, in some discussion I've noted that my chief aim is to
address what I believe to be the main complaint of those who say that
Chess has problems - its popularity as a *spectator* sport, not its
popularity as something play themselves for amusement, which may be in
good health as some say, aided by Internet servers, or which may be in
trouble due to rival distractions about which nothing reasonable can
be done.
If videogames are ever banned, it will be because the government wants
more children playing baseball so they will not be too fat to become
soldiers, not because we want more chessplayers.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 11:47:12
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
On Apr 27, 11:37 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> This is not the way the rematch clause worked. The rematch was
> an extra match. I.e. it did not harm C's chances in any way.
Good, then that's the system I was recommending.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 08:10:49
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
I think that I didn't quite get the figures right.
With no rematches, if we have three chessplayers of equal ability who
are the contenders for the World Championshp over three cycles, with A
the champion and B the challenger, and C the outsider, in the first
year, we have:
Year X: A faces B.
A is the new champion, 50%
B is the new champion, 50%
if A wins:
Year X+2:
B is the challenger, 50%
C is the challenger, 50%
so
A remains champion: 50%
B becomes champion: 25%
C becomes champion: 25%
and if B wins, the symmetric equivalent is true, so indeed we get:
A is champion: 37.5%
B is champion: 37.5%
C is champion: 25%
In the year X+4, the three possible cases are the same as those above,
and so we just convolute them again:
A = .375 * .5 + .625 * .25
B = .375 * .5 + .625 * .25
C = .25 * .5 + .75 * .25
for
A: 34.375%
B: 34.375%
C: 31.25%
With rematches, if B wins in year X, the case in year X+2 becomes B
plays A with 100% probability, so the combination of the two cases is
then:
A is champion: 50%
B is champion: 37.5%
C is champion: 12.5%
The histories are:
AA: 25% - and no rematches
BA: 25% - B gets a rematch
BB: 25% - and no rematches
AB: 12.5% - A gets a rematch
AC: 12.5% - A gets a rematch
So in year X+4, we have the possibilities
AAA: 12.5
AAB: 6.25
AAC: 6.25
BAA: 12.5
BAB: 12.5
BBB: 12.5
BBA: 6.25
BBC: 6.25
ABA: 6.25
ABB: 6.25
ACA: 6.25
ACC: 6.25
which add up to
A: 43.25%
B: 37.5 %
C: 18.75%
which is a considerable advantage to A, and an even more considerable
disadvantage to B, in year X+4 compared to
A: 34.375%
B: 34.375%
C: 31.25%
without rematches.
But if we think that rematches are a valid thing, since the changing
of the guard should be truly decisive, if we separated the rematch
from the regular title defense by having it take place between normal
title defenses, and in addition to them, then the advantage given the
champion is considerably mitigated.
Here, we have:
First, in year X, A meets B, each one wins with probability 50%.
If A wins, then in year X+2, A meets either B or C with probability
50% as in the cases above.
If B wins, then B plays A in year X+1, each one winning with
probability 50%.
So the cases in Year X+2 are:
AA: 25%
AB: 12.5%
AC: 12.5%
BaA: 12.5%
BaB: 6.25%
BaC: 6.25%
BbB: 12.5%
BbA: 6.25%
BbC: 6.25%
leading to the chances of each player being the World Champion in that
year as:
A: 43.75%
B: 31.25%
C: 25%
compared to
A: 50%
B: 37.5%
C: 12.5%
with rematches, and
A: 37.5%
B: 37.5%
C: 25%
without rematches.
So the inequality is much more limited, and it affects only B, and not
C, if rematches are made ancilliary.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 10:37:34
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
"Quadibloc" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> With rematches, if B wins in year X, the case in year X+2 becomes B
> plays A with 100% probability, so the combination of the two cases is
This is not the way the rematch clause worked. The rematch was
an extra match. I.e. it did not harm C's chances in any way.
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 05:43:40
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
On Apr 26, 9:14 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "J=FCrgen R." <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]=
...
> > If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
> > a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
> > 75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.
>
> Because losing the match and winning the rematch *isn't* retaining
> the title. It's losing the title and then winning back the title. There
> is nothing in mathematics that allows us to equate the cases.
Nothing in the _mathematics_, but one certainly could change the
rules, so that if the challenger wins the match, the match isn't over
till the rematch is played. Then the champion would mathematically
have just the enormous advantage noted.
As long as we don't do that, then, you are right, a rematch is not a
problem for that reason.
But a rematch clause gives a champion an advantage just the same.
Let us suppose that instead of World Championship matches happening
after lengthy debates and a difficult process of finding an agreement
on a venue that will pay the players enough, they happened like
clockwork at fixed intervals. Perhaps every two years.
In the year X, the champion A plays the challenger B. There is also an
up-and-coming strong player C waiting in the wings. The three of them
are very nearly of equal strength.
Year X: A wins 50% of the time, B wins 50% of the time.
Case A winning in year X:
Year X+2-epsilon: B plays C for the privilege of playing for the World
Championship.
Year X+2: A plays B or A plays C. The world champion is A 50% of the
time, B 25% of the time, and C 25% of the time.
Case B winning in year X:
Year X+2: B plays A due to the rematch clause.
So in year X+2, because there's a rematch clause, the World Champion
will be:
A with probatility 50%
B with probability 37.5%
C with probability 12.5%
Without a rematch clause, the World Champion would be
A with probability 37.5%
B with probability 37.5%
C with probability 25%
If the rematch took place in year X+1, and a normal title defence
still took place normally in year X+2, not being delayed by the fact
that a rematch happened, then C wouldn't be shut out of the system
part of the time to A's benefit. A would still have a small advantage,
but at B's expense, I think.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 07:48:42
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
>"Quadibloc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:d3c2d79d-2194-4b5b-bea4-a435ca77786e@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 26, 9:14 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "J�rgen R." <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...>
>> > If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
>> > a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
>> > 75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.
>>
>> Because losing the match and winning the rematch *isn't* retaining
>> the title. It's losing the title and then winning back the title. There
>> is nothing in mathematics that allows us to equate the cases.
>
>Nothing in the _mathematics_, but one certainly could change the
>rules, so that if the challenger wins the match, the match isn't over
>till the rematch is played. Then the champion would mathematically
>have just the enormous advantage noted.
Sure. I willl grant that *in that case* one could calculate a mathematical
advantage.
>As long as we don't do that, then, you are right, a rematch is not a
>problem for that reason.
>But a rematch clause gives a champion an advantage just the same.
This was never denied. It does not give him an advantage *in the
initial match* though. It is logically similar to the practice of seeding the
loser of the championship match into the last round of the
next Candidates cycle. Karpov's defenses in 78, 81, and 84 are
historically exceptional in that they contained no champion's advantage.
Personally I think the rules should be designed so that tie matches
are statistically very improbable and giving the champion tie-odds
is only a very small advantage. But that is contrary to the game's
traditions.
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 16:59:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
On Apr 26, 6:32 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> FIND THE QUOTE YOURSELF
Idiot. There is no such quote, which is why I pointed
out the fact that imbecile Larry Parr was misrepresenting
the facts.
> >David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
> the champion.
What Mr. Kane did was point out one flaw in the
"reasoning" of the Evans ratpack. That particular flaw
was the mixing up and stirring in of ingredients which
did not belong in the recipe, for as we know, rematch
or no rematch, a title winner like say, Bobby Fischer,
is regarded as world champion even if he should go
on to lose any rematch, after the fact. For that matter,
he is regarded as a champion even if he ever afterward
plays like a complete duffer, losing every game; it's a
done deal.
When Larry Evans bought into the misbegotten idea
of bungled calculations, he erred. Ever since, his
apologists -- primarily Larry Parr -- have struggled to
avoid admitting that gaffe, just like all his many others.
Any rational approach cannot help bot note that even
before FIDE took over control of the world champion
title, rematches were common; hence, this is simply
the wrong issue. There must be plenty of issues where
FIDE itself initiated some idiocy or other, and those
would be the proper issues with which to bash the
disorganization. All this nonsense can be defended by
supporters (if indeed there are any left) by pointing to
the long *tradition* of a deposed champ getting a
rematch. (As we know, when it comes to traditions,
reason stands virtually no chance of winning.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 15:45:51
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 25, 10:13 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> Bid for time? Do you mean set the clock at 6 minutes, and players bid
> less to decide what side they would play? This way they players who
> bids less time would pick the side (let's presume white here). Not
> sure bidding more time is the right answer here.
I'm not sure how that was intended to work, either.
I know that in Go, it has been suggested that players bid for komi in
order to get black - that is, the player who offers to score the most
points over the other player to win, if he gets the first move, does
get the first move.
A bit like Contract Bridge.
I suppose the player gets White who offers the largest time advantage
to his opponent...
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 15:32:45
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
FIND THE QUOTE YOURSELF
It's in this very thread.
>David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
the champion. >
Quote him, then. What's that-- you haven't got a
quote of DK saying that? Hmmm.
help bot wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2:08 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
> > the champion.
>
> Quote him, then. What's that-- you haven't got a
> quote of DK saying that? Hmmm.
>
>
> > But here is what Mikhail Tal wrote after losing the title back to
> > Mikhail Botvinnik, who exercised the clause in 1961: "I often have to
> > answer a ticklish question: what do you think of return matches? As it
> > happened the honour of 'closing this page of the FIDE' fell to my lot.
> > What would it have cost the International Chess Federation to take
> > the decision to abolish return matches a year earlier?!"
> >
> > Now Greg overlooks that an even number of rounds in a Swiss does
> > NOT mean equal colors for everyone. If two leaders both have 3 whites
> > and 2 blacks going into the last round of a six-round Swiss, one of
> > them will end up with 4 whites and 2 blacks.
>
> Interesting. Of course, nearly every Swiss tournament
> I have played in had fewer than six rounds. The main
> problem is with the weekend Swiss of five rounds (that's
> three on Saturday, and two on Sunday), where at the end,
> the winner may have had an extra White and the losers
> might complain of having been jilted.
>
> Now that pairings are done by computer, the cases in
> which somebody gets too many Blacks cannot so easily
> be blamed on the tournament director or on favoritism. I
> think players who have had a bye or who are in the lower
> portion of the scoring table will be the most likely victims
> here. Folks who have a perfect score tend to get their
> due colors (unless they've changed the rules, again).
>
> But let's talk about Mikhail Tal's issues for a moment.
> We know that in addition to the rematch he lost to GM
> Botvinnik, he was also subjected to the special rule
> which restricted the number of qualifiers from "any one
> country" (obviously meaning the USSR); that rule was
> passed due to complaints regarding potential collusion
> in the candidates tournament format-- complaints by
> Bobby Fischer (which incidentally, wrongly implicated
> Victor Kortchnoi as a cheater who purportedly "threw"
> his games to keep BF from winning). Obviously, when
> politics enter the fray, fairness goes out the window.
>
> I am flatly against having a rematch clause. If one
> cycle every three years is not good enough, then they
> can change the cycle to make it "fit" in less time. The
> champion should have no advantage whatsoever, or,
> if that is not possible, then his advantage should be
> limited to not having to qualify (again) and play in the
> preliminary events, to show he is good enough to be
> a "real contender".
>
> I don't know which hurt Mikhail Tal more-- the rematch
> clause, the special rule or losing a kidney. But the real
> problem seems to be that the talking heads in the
> chess press can't stand it when there are a multitude
> of near-equals in contention for the title; they respond
> by selecting one favorite, and then attacking everybody
> else. Or the other way around-- they select one player
> to play the villain, and everybody else is written into the
> script as the good guys. LOL!
>
> Larry Evans' approach has consistently been to cast
> Gary Kasparov as a good guy, but this choice was not
> well thought-out (consider his blatant cheating, and his
> ever-changing lies). And one of the most obvious
> problems with casting Mr. Botvinnik as villain, is that
> he consistently defeated those players who were
> beyond the reach of evil Soviet henchmen who were
> cast in the roles of manipulators. For instance, when
> the script calls for super-Soviet players to "throw" their
> games, we are not supposed to notice that at the very
> same time, western super-stars are also losing to MB,
> simply being *outplayed* on the chess board.
>
> Not to pick on Larry Evans, mind you; I notice this
> same type of flaw in many, many movie and TV
> scripts. It seems that the one thing all these story
> writers have in common is, unsurprisingly, creativity;
> and for whatever reason, creativity and logical thinking
> just do not go hand-in-hand.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 15:18:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
On Apr 26, 2:08 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
> the champion.
Quote him, then. What's that-- you haven't got a
quote of DK saying that? Hmmm.
> But here is what Mikhail Tal wrote after losing the title back to
> Mikhail Botvinnik, who exercised the clause in 1961: "I often have to
> answer a ticklish question: what do you think of return matches? As it
> happened the honour of 'closing this page of the FIDE' fell to my lot.
> What would it have cost the International Chess Federation to take
> the decision to abolish return matches a year earlier?!"
>
> Now Greg overlooks that an even number of rounds in a Swiss does
> NOT mean equal colors for everyone. If two leaders both have 3 whites
> and 2 blacks going into the last round of a six-round Swiss, one of
> them will end up with 4 whites and 2 blacks.
Interesting. Of course, nearly every Swiss tournament
I have played in had fewer than six rounds. The main
problem is with the weekend Swiss of five rounds (that's
three on Saturday, and two on Sunday), where at the end,
the winner may have had an extra White and the losers
might complain of having been jilted.
Now that pairings are done by computer, the cases in
which somebody gets too many Blacks cannot so easily
be blamed on the tournament director or on favoritism. I
think players who have had a bye or who are in the lower
portion of the scoring table will be the most likely victims
here. Folks who have a perfect score tend to get their
due colors (unless they've changed the rules, again).
But let's talk about Mikhail Tal's issues for a moment.
We know that in addition to the rematch he lost to GM
Botvinnik, he was also subjected to the special rule
which restricted the number of qualifiers from "any one
country" (obviously meaning the USSR); that rule was
passed due to complaints regarding potential collusion
in the candidates tournament format-- complaints by
Bobby Fischer (which incidentally, wrongly implicated
Victor Kortchnoi as a cheater who purportedly "threw"
his games to keep BF from winning). Obviously, when
politics enter the fray, fairness goes out the window.
I am flatly against having a rematch clause. If one
cycle every three years is not good enough, then they
can change the cycle to make it "fit" in less time. The
champion should have no advantage whatsoever, or,
if that is not possible, then his advantage should be
limited to not having to qualify (again) and play in the
preliminary events, to show he is good enough to be
a "real contender".
I don't know which hurt Mikhail Tal more-- the rematch
clause, the special rule or losing a kidney. But the real
problem seems to be that the talking heads in the
chess press can't stand it when there are a multitude
of near-equals in contention for the title; they respond
by selecting one favorite, and then attacking everybody
else. Or the other way around-- they select one player
to play the villain, and everybody else is written into the
script as the good guys. LOL!
Larry Evans' approach has consistently been to cast
Gary Kasparov as a good guy, but this choice was not
well thought-out (consider his blatant cheating, and his
ever-changing lies). And one of the most obvious
problems with casting Mr. Botvinnik as villain, is that
he consistently defeated those players who were
beyond the reach of evil Soviet henchmen who were
cast in the roles of manipulators. For instance, when
the script calls for super-Soviet players to "throw" their
games, we are not supposed to notice that at the very
same time, western super-stars are also losing to MB,
simply being *outplayed* on the chess board.
Not to pick on Larry Evans, mind you; I notice this
same type of flaw in many, many movie and TV
scripts. It seems that the one thing all these story
writers have in common is, unsurprisingly, creativity;
and for whatever reason, creativity and logical thinking
just do not go hand-in-hand.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 11:14:01
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
I AGREE WITH GREG BUT....
<For instance, the long-winded attempt to play back the
history of the world championship left out parts where
Gary Kasparov -- a favorite of the ratpackers -- failed, such
as his GMA and PCA debacles. Mr. Parr also "forgot to
mention" that GK's handling of his private world title had
selected GM Shirov as challenger, but instead of, say,
giving GK a rematch clause, Mr. Shirov was simply
cheated out of his shot at the title altogether! > -- Greg Kennedy
I criticized Kasparov at the time. And GM Evans was also sharply
critical of Kasparov in his Chess Life when replying to Owen Williams
{K's manager).
But the fact of the matter is that nobody offered to put up a decent
purse for that match because of Kasparov's lopsided record of wins
against Shirov in the past.
The outcome was deemed to be a foregone conclusion.
help bot wrote:
> On Apr 25, 10:20 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Snipped long-winded, sloppy story.
>
>
> > > Poor Mr. Parr hates it when those ugly facts interfere with
> > > the Evans propaganda!
>
>
> The stories posted here by Evans ratpacker Larry Parr
> always seem to goof on some key details.
>
> For instance, the long-winded attempt to play back the
> history of the world championship left out parts where
> Gary Kasparov -- a favorite of the ratpackers -- failed, such
> as his GMA and PCA debacles. Mr. Parr also "forgot to
> mention" that GK's handling of his private world title had
> selected GM Shirov as challenger, but instead of, say,
> giving GK a rematch clause, Mr. Shirov was simply
> cheated out of his shot at the title altogether!
>
> As horrible a job as FIDE has done, it seems that
> there will always be a few who can still "out-do" the
> hacks at their own game. It reminds me of what went on
> before FIDE took over, of the ducking and conniving of
> just about every world champ whose name was not
> Wilhelm Steinitz. In many cases, the result of the
> champions having free reign was that the most worthy
> contenders were not even able to get a foot in the door.
>
> Instead of arguing that Gary Kasparov was a champion
> of "justice", perhaps Larry Evans should take a good,
> hard look at what justice is-- like he did when Bobby
> Fischer was barking "demands" at FIDE.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 11:08:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
GREG KENNEDY STRIKES OUT AGAIN
<Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
*even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
the same number of Whites and Blacks. > -- help bot
David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
the champion.
But here is what Mikhail Tal wrote after losing the title back to
Mikhail Botvinnik, who exercised the clause in 1961: "I often have to
answer a ticklish question: what do you think of return matches? As it
happened the honour of 'closing this page of the FIDE' fell to my lot.
What would it have cost the International Chess Federation to take
the decision to abolish return matches a year earlier?!"
Now Greg overlooks that an even number of rounds in a Swiss does
NOT mean equal colors for everyone. If two leaders both have 3 whites
and 2 blacks going into the last round of a six-round Swiss, one of
them will end up with 4 whites and 2 blacks.
And so it goes.
help bot wrote:
> On Apr 25, 1:11 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On second thought, the Swiss system has an inherent defect of
> > inequitable distribution of colors. A system which attempts to balance
> > the first move advantage of White through a scoring edge for Black
> > should help to correct this Swiss system problem.
>
>
> Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
> *even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
> the same number of Whites and Blacks.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 15:35:14
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:33194478-afbf-4342-bd30-0268cd6fac60@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> GREG KENNEDY STRIKES OUT AGAIN
>
> <Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
> *even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
> the same number of Whites and Blacks.> -- help bot
>
> David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
> the champion.
I said that it is not an advantage in the title defense itself. Even though
I am no great fan of the rematch clause, it is akin to the practice
of seeding the defeated champion in the Candidates cycle.
The point was that there is no way to *mathematically* compare
that advantage with an actual advantage in the match. I would
rather go on vacation to Hawaii than paint my kitchen, but it cannot
be characterized as a "mathematical" comparison.
I'm sure Parr is one of those with absolutely no understanding
of mathematics. And he is all too willing to ramble on about
topics which he does not understand.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 01:28:57
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:33194478-afbf-4342-bd30-0268cd6fac60@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> GREG KENNEDY STRIKES OUT AGAIN
>>
>> <Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
>> *even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
>> the same number of Whites and Blacks.> -- help bot
>>
>> David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
>> the champion.
>
> I said that it is not an advantage in the title defense itself. Even
> though
> I am no great fan of the rematch clause, it is akin to the practice
> of seeding the defeated champion in the Candidates cycle.
>
> The point was that there is no way to *mathematically* compare
> that advantage with an actual advantage in the match.
Why not?
If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.
If the odds are 7-3 against the champion the odds are even
that he will win either match or rematch.
In other words: the advantage is enormous.
> I would
> rather go on vacation to Hawaii than paint my kitchen, but it cannot
> be characterized as a "mathematical" comparison.
>
> I'm sure Parr is one of those with absolutely no understanding
> of mathematics. And he is all too willing to ramble on about
> topics which he does not understand.
>
You think Parr are rambling when they are actually reporting
on their historical research. They are now, very likely, working on
the important question of what would have become of Europe
had the Siege of Vienna succeeded in 1529. Suleiman the
Magnificent would then have become Sultan of the Occident and,
obviously, the World Trade Center would still be standing.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 13:51:39
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?= <[email protected] > wrote:
> If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
> a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
> 75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.
You're assuming independence, which seems unlikely, to me.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Cyber-Car (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-performance luxury car that
exists only in your computer!
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 20:14:38
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
"J�rgen R." <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:33194478-afbf-4342-bd30-0268cd6fac60@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> GREG KENNEDY STRIKES OUT AGAIN
>>>
>>> <Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
>>> *even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
>>> the same number of Whites and Blacks.> -- help bot
>>>
>>> David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
>>> the champion.
>>
>> I said that it is not an advantage in the title defense itself. Even though
>> I am no great fan of the rematch clause, it is akin to the practice
>> of seeding the defeated champion in the Candidates cycle.
>>
>> The point was that there is no way to *mathematically* compare
>> that advantage with an actual advantage in the match.
>
> Why not?
>
> If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
> a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
> 75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.
Because losing the match and winning the rematch *isn't* retaining
the title. It's losing the title and then winning back the title. There
is nothing in mathematics that allows us to equate the cases.
Smyslov was world champion, even though he didn't hold the title
for long.
Do we consider it an advantage in the 1969 match that Petrosian
was seeded into the 1972 Candidates final? It's an advantage
to be sure - one can argue whether it is fair or not - but most
would grasp that it is not an advantage in the 1969 match.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 10:29:41
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J�rgen R." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:33194478-afbf-4342-bd30-0268cd6fac60@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> GREG KENNEDY STRIKES OUT AGAIN
>>>>
>>>> <Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
>>>> *even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
>>>> the same number of Whites and Blacks.> -- help bot
>>>>
>>>> David Kane falsely claimed the rematch clause is no advantage to
>>>> the champion.
>>>
>>> I said that it is not an advantage in the title defense itself. Even
>>> though
>>> I am no great fan of the rematch clause, it is akin to the practice
>>> of seeding the defeated champion in the Candidates cycle.
>>>
>>> The point was that there is no way to *mathematically* compare
>>> that advantage with an actual advantage in the match.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> If challenger and champion have the same chance of winning
>> a 24-game match then the champion will retain the title
>> 75% of the time, winning either the match or the rematch.
>
> Because losing the match and winning the rematch *isn't* retaining
> the title. It's losing the title and then winning back the title. There
> is nothing in mathematics that allows us to equate the cases.
Sorry. It isn't clear to me exactly which 'cases' you want
to compare?
>
> Smyslov was world champion, even though he didn't hold the title
> for long.
>
> Do we consider it an advantage in the 1969 match that Petrosian
> was seeded into the 1972 Candidates final? It's an advantage
> to be sure - one can argue whether it is fair or not - but most
> would grasp that it is not an advantage in the 1969 match.
>
Such an arrangement wouldn't affect a coin-flipping machine.
However, it may well affect a human player: Knowing that he
will have a second chance will bring peace of mind and he may
alter his playing style.
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 10:32:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 25, 10:20 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
Snipped long-winded, sloppy story.
> > Poor Mr. Parr hates it when those ugly facts interfere with
> > the Evans propaganda!
The stories posted here by Evans ratpacker Larry Parr
always seem to goof on some key details.
For instance, the long-winded attempt to play back the
history of the world championship left out parts where
Gary Kasparov -- a favorite of the ratpackers -- failed, such
as his GMA and PCA debacles. Mr. Parr also "forgot to
mention" that GK's handling of his private world title had
selected GM Shirov as challenger, but instead of, say,
giving GK a rematch clause, Mr. Shirov was simply
cheated out of his shot at the title altogether!
As horrible a job as FIDE has done, it seems that
there will always be a few who can still "out-do" the
hacks at their own game. It reminds me of what went on
before FIDE took over, of the ducking and conniving of
just about every world champ whose name was not
Wilhelm Steinitz. In many cases, the result of the
champions having free reign was that the most worthy
contenders were not even able to get a foot in the door.
Instead of arguing that Gary Kasparov was a champion
of "justice", perhaps Larry Evans should take a good,
hard look at what justice is-- like he did when Bobby
Fischer was barking "demands" at FIDE.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 10:10:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 25, 1:11 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On second thought, the Swiss system has an inherent defect of
> inequitable distribution of colors. A system which attempts to balance
> the first move advantage of White through a scoring edge for Black
> should help to correct this Swiss system problem.
Or... we could only have Swiss tourneys with an
*even* number of rounds, so that everybody gets
the same number of Whites and Blacks.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2008 09:13:49
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 25, 10:31 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:TYB*[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> How would the following work out?
>
> >>> White win = +1
> >>> Black win = +1.11
> >>> White draw = .45
> >>> Black Draw = .50
>
> >> Looks good. As a side benefit, I'd guess that it would cut back the
> >> number of times tie-breakers would need to be applied.
>
> > Hmm. Now I think about it, wouldn't it actually be better to use a
> > tie-break, at least for matches? If the match is drawn under conven-
> > tional 1-1/2-0 scoring, declare the match to be won by the player who
> > won the greater number of games with black or, if that's still a tie,
> > by the player who did X or, ... And then award the match to the
> > champion if it's still tied after some reasonable list of tie-break
> > criteria.
>
> > My reasoning is that any system of differentially scoring wins and
> > draws for black and white implicitly defines some sort of tie-break
> > system for `tied' matches but one has to sit down and work out what
> > the system is. (For example, in the original proposal of 1 for a win,
> > 0.45 for a white draw and 0.55 for a black draw, the system was the
> > rather counter-intuitive and probably unintended `The player with the
> > most wins as white wins the match'.) Rather than try to come up with
> > a scoring system that implicitly defines some tie-break criteria,
> > wouldn't it be easier to just explicitly define the tie-break?
>
> Even though I have favored alternate scoring, I don't
> think it makes much sense in matches. I also think unplayed
> tie-breaks are artificial. To me, the most sensible approach
> is to go to single game sudden death. To eliminate the advantage
> of going first, have each player bid time on his clock in order
> to have the first White, highest bidder wins. I also think that
> at some time in the sudden death period, one can go to a
> two-games-per-day schedule - this is routine in the chess
> world, and games now are shorter than they have been
> historically, so it's no hardship. This way the expected
> extension of a tied match will be a few days or so- no unusual
> logistical problems are created.
Bid for time? Do you mean set the clock at 6 minutes, and players bid
less to decide what side they would play? This way they players who
bids less time would pick the side (let's presume white here). Not
sure bidding more time is the right answer here.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2008 07:20:27
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
DAVID KANE CLAIMS REMATCH CLAUSE IS NO ADVANTAGE!!
"You can=92t even compare the rematch clause with Fischer=92s demands,"
said Garry Kasparov. "It=92s impossible to win two matches in a row. I
did it,
but even today I don=92t know how it was possible."
<As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion in the
FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice with
Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov)....A rematch clause (whether you
like it or not) is no advantage in the match defense itself. I can't
think of any other champions to play without any advantage, though
possibly there were some in the pre-FIDE era....Poor Mr. Parr hates
it when those ugly facts interfere with the Evans propaganda! > --
David Kane
(after I posted GM Larry Evans' interview with GM Yuri Averbakh).
>In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's
family was held hostage in the USSR and released only after
Korchnoi lost twice. > --Larry Parr
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 105)
FIDE=92s initial purpose was to organize chess Olympiads, but
the death of Alekhine left the chess throne vacant. In 1948
FIDE assumed control of the title and set up a three-year cycle
to determine a new challenger.
Yet already suspicions arose in the first match-tournament that
the three Soviets (Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov) might collude against
the three outsiders (Euwe, Fine, Reshevsky). Reuben Fine just
dropped out in disgust and devoted himself to psychiatry. Botvinnik,
as expected, emerged victorious while Reshevsky cried foul, hinting
that Keres had thrown some games.
Bobby Fischer, after a sour experience at Curacao in 1962,
also accused the Russians of collusion. He said, "I had the
best score of anyone who didn=92t cheat."
This charge resulted in serious reforms, including the abolition
of the rematch clause that Botvinnik had enjoyed for lo those
many years. No longer id the challenger have to win two matches
before the title [really] changed hands.
In 1975 FIDE stripped Bobby of the title [technically he
resigned] then turned around and gave Karpov even more
than Bobby had dreamed of asking for. FIDE restored the
rematch clause with consummate ease for Anatoly Karpov.
After Karpov lost to Garry Kasparov, he promptly invoked the
clause and FIDE president Florencio Campomanes, in violation
of his own rules, threatened to strip Kasparov of the title unless
he agreed to play yet a third consecutive match with Karpov.
Even before this match began, Kasparov renounced the
infamous rematch clause, striking a real blow for chess
justice in one stroke. But he still had draw odds in a 24
game-limit. This edge enabled him to hold his crown by
12-12 in his fourth match with Karpov in 1987 for a $2
million purse in Seville, Spain.
In the short space of three years, they faced each other
in 120 games spanning four grueling title matches, with
Kasparov holding a slim edge of one point.
[In 1990 Kasparov won their fifth and last match by the slim
margin of one point after 24 more games. In 1993 Kasparov
broke with FIDE to beat Nigel Short and then Vishy Anand in
1995. Vladimir Kramnik deposed Kasparov in 2000 outside of
FIDE jurisdiction and then held his title on a tie against Peter
Leko in 2004, before toppling Topalov in 2006.]
Kasparov never forgave Campo for conniving to save
Karpov=92s crown in that first match. Although still leading
by two points, Karpov had just lost two games in a row
and was unfit to continue after 48 games that lasted
almost six months. He tried for a postponement to preserve
his lead, a ploy that backfired when his good friend Campo,
under the glare of the international press, ordered a new
match to start from scratch later in 1985.
The neutrality of FIDE officials was called into question from
the outset. It was discovered that both Campo and Alfred Kinzel,
a man he appointed to the match jury, had acted as financial
agents for Karpov in a matter involving roughly half a million
dollars in Karpov=92s foreign hard-currency bank account from
royalties endorsing chess computers. Clearly, FIDE officials
at the highest level had violated the cornerstone of sporting ethics
and were implicated in a conflict of interest. Kasparov was livid,
because it set the pattern for Karpov=92s preferential treatment by
FIDE in subsequent matches.
During an interview Campo clammed up when I broached
this touchy topic: "That is, that is, that is not chess, that
is private business, and I will not go into private affairs with
other people. Did the Chess Life editor put you up to asking
that question?" he stuttered. [Campo deemed Larry Parr=92s
coverage of FIDE too critical and pressured American officials
into firing him.]
David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:30746d04-3f14-4ffe-9462-e6eb57074b0b@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > MORE DISINFORMATION FROM DAVID KANE
> >
> > The man is unfit to write about chess history.
> >
> > <Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
> > FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
> > out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
> > neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
> > two title defenses in a 10-year period.> -- David Kane
> >
> > 10 YEARS!?
> >
> > he ignores the fact that Kasparov played FIVE title matches
> > with Karpov between 1985-1990. After that Kasparov put his title
> > on the line (outside of FIDE jurisdiction) against Short in 1993,
> > Anand in 1995 and Kramnik in 2000 who denied him a rematch
> > because it wasn't included in their contract.
>
> Kasparov's matches vs. Karpov were under FIDE's auspices.
> Once Kasparov broke away from FIDE, he did what champions
> often did pre-FIDE: they avoided their challengers. So, as you
> note in your own post, but are apparently too dim to understand,
> Kasparov played two matches in the 1990's (a 10-year period)
> before losing to Kramnik in 2000. And Kasparov had a bigger
> champion's advantage than *all* of his FIDE predescessors (Karpov
> being the special case who played 3 matches with
> no advantage whatsoever.) because the non-FIDE matches
> were shorter than the FIDE matches that had been held
> until that time.
>
> Poor Mr. Parr hates it when those ugly facts interfere with
> the Evans propaganda!
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 16:59:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 24, 5:57 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> Well, they're almost right.
>
> If the premises are true, they support the conclusion:
>
> They messed up even worse than they would have done had they done what
> *we* wanted.
>
> Of course, you are right that the conclusion that giving in to no
> unfair demands is even better follows forcefully from the premises as
> well; but perhaps they also claim that RJF's demands _weren't_ unfair,
> at least not really.
You have completely lost your mind.
1) It is always the reigning champion who gets to
make stupid "demands".
2) Bobby Fischer was the challenger; Boris Spassky
was the one who, by tradition, was allowed to make
outrageous demands!
3) The mere fact that FIDE was considering BF's
stupid "demands" and not Boris Spassky's, in and
of itself tells us all we need to know about the
supposed fairness of that particular cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Parr wants us to all pretend that when he
"mentions" what FIDE did with regard to Anatoly
Karpov or Mikhail Botvinnik -- two very favorite
whipping boys of the Evans ratpack -- he in no
way is arguing that two wrongs make a right. But
the only way for that to fly would be for him to
stop relying on such fallacies, and come up with
a *rational* idea. As we know, he cannot; all his
"ideas" are simply parroted from higher up, since he
cannot, or at any rate does not, think for himself.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 15:48:11
From:
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 24, 6:20=A0pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:pED*[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> =A0"David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving FIDE are
> >>>> well known. They may not be historically out of line with
> >>>> champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but neither it is anything to boast
> >>>> about. He played just two title defenses in a 10-year period.
>
> >> I knew Parr was too stupid and lazy to count the months, but I guess
> >> I should have expected somebody to! Based on your research, I will
> >> correct my statement to "He played just two title defenses in a 9.75
> >> year period" (Hasn't anyone ever heard of rounding??)
>
> > Oh, please. =A0The FIDE schedule called for matches in 1987, 1990, 1993
> > and 1996. =A0Look -- there's a nearly nine-year period from just after
> > the end of the 1987 match to just before the start of the 1996 match!
> > It would be nearly ten years if the 1987 match had been played in
> > January and the 1996 match in December.
>
> Missing the forest. FIDE had a system
> involving zonals, interzonals, and candidates
> matches in order to determine a worthy
> challenger. It was 3 years for a reason.
>
> Kasparov Inc. had nothing of the sort. =A0It was not
> much different in practice than handpicking
> an opponent. So there was no reason to wait so long, except for
> Kasparov's personal motives, again, not fairness.
Actually, in the first few years after GK's break from FIDE, the
Professional Chess Association did have a FIDE-style qualification
system. That's how Anand came to challenge Kasparov in 1995. However,
the PCA, like most Kasparov-led organizations, proved short-lived.
> The ~5-year gap between matches is long, and there
> were various shenanigans at that time. While they
> probably had as much to do with money
> as anything else, fairness was not an important
> principle in the process.
If you are referring to the shabby teatment of Shirov after he beat
Kramnik, I quite agree. He was supposed to get a title shot, but
instead he got the shaft.
> The point is that in the FIDE system you played
> a credible challenger whether you wanted to or not.
> Portraying Kasparov as an advocate of fairness
> is simply ridiculous given the way he managed his
> own title. This is not to say the he was an
> unworthy champion in that period - on the contrary
> he was generally active and successful. But arguing
> that he would have won if had been fair is a different
> thing than saying that he was fair.
>
> This is not to say that FIDE hasn't been behind some
> notable cases of unfairness of its own (the annulled
> match, toiletgate etc.)-
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 14:57:35
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 24, 2:40=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 Larry Evans and his ratpack have chronic troubles
> with such elementary logic.
>
> =A0 Not only that, the whole issue was a red herring,
> intended to divert attention away from the unfairness
> of Bobby Fischer's "demands". =A0The argument runs
> something like this:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>
> =A01) The demands made by BF may have been unfair,
> but they were less unfair than X.
>
> =A02) FIDE has given X to somebody "we" don't even
> like.
>
> =A03) So then, giving in to BF's unfair demands was
> the correct action for FIDE; they messed up.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, they're almost right.
If the premises are true, they support the conclusion:
They messed up even worse than they would have done had they done what
*we* wanted.
Of course, you are right that the conclusion that giving in to no
unfair demands is even better follows forcefully from the premises as
well; but perhaps they also claim that RJF's demands _weren't_ unfair,
at least not really.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 14:54:25
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 24, 2:39=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> How would the following work out?
>
> White win =3D +1
> Black win =3D +1.11
> White draw =3D .45
> Black Draw =3D .50
>
> This would seem to encourage wins, and make tied matches less likely.
> It also tries to give Black a scoring edge to balance the first move
> edge of White. =A0Maybe the exact scoring edge would need to be fine tuned=
...
At least the amount for a win is bigger than the amount for a draw;
this is good because normally each player in a match or tournament
spends half his time as White and half his time as Black. Which means
that if you subtract .05 from all the black scores, you get an
'equivalent' scoring scheme as far as motivating the players is
concerned in most cases. (Of course, in a Swiss, some players won't
get alternating colors, and so compensation for that is also an issue
- but a separate one from motivating behavior in the usual case.)
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 13:41:20
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 24, 1:59=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > One possibility of ensuring more decisive match results would be to
> > change the way draws are scored. =A0I like the idea of giving White
> > .45 of the point and Black .55 of the point. =A0Mathematicians might
> > come up with a better way to split the point. =A0A drawn 24 game match
> > would seem to be much more unlikely with this idea.
>
> There are a number of problems with that proposal. =A0First and
> foremost, doesn't it encourage both players to play for the draw with
> black?
>
> It might not actually help too much, either. =A0If the match is going to
> be tied, it's likely that most of the games will be drawn. =A0With only
> a few wins, it's quite likely that all the wins will be with the white
> pieces, which means that the match will still be tied with the
> suggested scoring system.
>
> It also has a rather counter-intuitive property. =A0Suppose that a match
> is played that would have been drawn under standard scoring of half a
> point each for a draw. =A0It follows that the players both won the same
> number of games. =A0But now look at the number of wins each player has
> with each colour. =A0Every win a player gets with a particular colour is
> one less draw with that colour. =A0In particular, winning more games
> with black means drawing fewer games with black, which means fewer
> points.
>
> Consider the following four-game match, with Alice having white in the
> first game.
>
> =A0 Alice + =3D - =3D =A02.1
> =A0 Bob =A0 - =3D + =3D =A01.9
>
> It seems a bit strange that Bob loses the match, given that he won his
> game as black, which is harder than winning with white.
>
> I suppose you could try to fix this by changing the scores for wins,
> to compensate for the points `lost' by not getting the draw.
In fact, it's because of this very property that I decided against
giving extra points to Black for a draw in my Dynamic Scoring
proposal. Instead, I give the extra points for a minor victory, and
then gradually taper them off as one gets to checkmate.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 13:40:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 24, 2:03 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
> >> the one FIDE had denied Fischer.
>
> > Larry Evans later came under fire when this
> > sweeping claim was debunked.
>
> It's not a question that can be answered mathematically.
> Having a chance at a rematch and having an advantage
> in a match itself are two separate things.
Larry Evans and his ratpack have chronic troubles
with such elementary logic.
Not only that, the whole issue was a red herring,
intended to divert attention away from the unfairness
of Bobby Fischer's "demands". The argument runs
something like this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The demands made by BF may have been unfair,
but they were less unfair than X.
2) FIDE has given X to somebody "we" don't even
like.
3) So then, giving in to BF's unfair demands was
the correct action for FIDE; they messed up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Does Evans argue that Fischer never became World Champion
> because he refused to offer Spassky a rematch? Of course not.
Boris Spassky did not get a rematch, so it would
appear that this was more about bashing Anatoly
Karpov than it was about rematches or even fairness.
> I am not personally a fan of the rematch clause, even though
> some rematches have produced good chess. However, it
> could be viewed as compensation of a different sort for
> playing a match without any advantage, as Karpov did
> three times.
One issue is that rematches often involve the same
two players, again and again-- which can get a little
bit tedious. The same two guys, playing the same
openings, over and over and over... .
> Note that the current FIDE system includes a bizarre form
> of rematch, though it doesn't pertain to a head-to-head match.
> Kramnik "lost" to Anand (i.e. finished behind him in a
> tournament) so now gets his "rematch".
We got a (very brief) glance into some issues in
a recent "interview" by nearly-IMnes of one of the
top players. Unfortunately, that "interview" was
dominated by the interviewer's personal agenda,
and did not try to focus on the interviewee, on
what *he* thought. He barely mentioned a beef
or two before being directed right back toward
the old Adorjan agenda.
With the leader of the pack, the agenda includes
bashing FIDE, bashing the USCF, bashing GM
Karpov, shifting the blame for GM Fischer's
premature retirement to FIDE, etc., etc. In some
cases, it turns out that Larry Evans has simply
lifted "his" opinions wholesale from others, and
they are in turn parroted by his underlings, be he
right or wrong.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 13:00:36
From:
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 24, 2:41=A0pm, [email protected] (Andy Walker) wrote:
> In article <[email protected].=
com >,
>
> =A0<[email protected]> wrote:
> > =A0On this matter I must basically agree with Parr. In his
> >autobiography, Botvinnik describes how he himself was the main author
> >of the regulations FIDE adopted for world championship matches and
> >challenger qualifying. I'm not sure whether they were then "imposed"
> >on FIDE, or FIDE just adopted them willingly, but either way Botvinnik
> >and his Soviet supporters got what they wanted.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Does or did anyone think it mattered? =A0
That's rather beside the point I was trying to make, Andy. The point
of my post was simply to say that Parr had given the historial facts
accurately on this particular occasion.
With the exception of the rematch clause, I don't think the
Botvinnik rules were markedly unfair. One could argue that the clause,
by which the incumbent retained his title in the event of a tie match,
was unfair, but it was nothing new, going back at least to Lasker-
Schlechter 1910.
What _was_ unfair were the Soviets' behind the scenes machinations,
e.g. keeping Najdorf out in 1948, and their collusive tactics,
especially in the Candidates Tournaments to ensure that no non-Soviet
player got to be the challenger.
> For the couple of
> decades from 1948 until Larsen and then Fischer became serious
> contenders,
Fischer became a serious contender before Larsen. They both played
in an Interzonal for the first time in 1958, but Fischer became a FIDE
Candidate first, in 1959, based on his 5th place in that Interzonal.
Larsen placed only 16th in that event, and did not make it to the
Candidates cycle until 1965.
> the WC and the Olympiads were Soviet monopolies. =A0If
> the WCs had not been Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky,
> the most likely alternatives were Keres, Bronstein, Geller, Korchnoi
> and others from the USSR. =A0Reshevsky, Najdorf, Szabo, Gligoric and
> so on were strong GMs, but it's hard to argue that any of them bar
> just possibly Reshevsky on top form were serious contenders for the
> title [as opposed to likely qualifiers for the Candidates].
I never have been able to buy the argument that Soviet cheating was
OK because they would have won anyway without it. Surely you're not
saying that?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 17:27:17
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
In article <[email protected] >,
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> > On this matter I must basically agree with Parr. In his
>> >autobiography, Botvinnik describes how he himself was the main author
>> >of the regulations FIDE adopted for world championship matches and
>> >challenger qualifying. I'm not sure whether they were then "imposed"
>> >on FIDE, or FIDE just adopted them willingly, but either way Botvinnik
>> >and his Soviet supporters got what they wanted.
>> Does or did anyone think it mattered?
> That's rather beside the point I was trying to make, Andy. The point
>of my post was simply to say that Parr had given the historial facts
>accurately on this particular occasion.
I don't see how "FIDE set up this system ... to protect Soviet
supremacy" [LP] and "The USSR imposed the system ... in 1948" [LP] is
compatible with your doubts expressed above *combined with* your claim
that LP had given the facts accurately. On the *facts* as thus far
stated, all we seem to know is that Botvinnik proposed some regulations
and FIDE approved them. Botvinnik can scarcely have *planned* to draw
or lose his five matches as WC [while winning the two re-matches], so
it's a stretch to claim that in 1948 he was setting up the regulations
*in order to* give himself a long stretch as an undeserving WC. What
evidence does anyone have that the USSR *imposed* the MMB regulations,
as opposed to merely forwarding them for approval, and FIDE agreeing
that they were a reasonable basis? Or that FIDE [or even the USSR]
set them up to protect "Soviet supremacy"? Up to 1972, Soviet
supremacy in WC matches would have been equally protected by a rule
that the title should be decided by playing underwater tiddleywinks.
> With the exception of the rematch clause, I don't think the
>Botvinnik rules were markedly unfair. One could argue that the clause,
>by which the incumbent retained his title in the event of a tie match,
>was unfair, but it was nothing new, going back at least to Lasker-
>Schlechter 1910.
Right. Even the re-match clause could be claimed as part
of the normal "gentlemen's agreement" of the previous era, witness
Alekhine - Euwe and Steinitz - Lasker, and the bad blood caused by
Capablanca's failure [for whatever reason] to secure a return against
Alekhine. I don't see any need to assume any deep plotting, rather
than MMB proposing a formalisation of previous "good practice".
> What _was_ unfair were the Soviets' behind the scenes machinations,
>e.g. keeping Najdorf out in 1948, and their collusive tactics,
>especially in the Candidates Tournaments to ensure that no non-Soviet
>player got to be the challenger.
Perhaps, though there's quite a spectrum between normal
tournament practice, through gamesmanship and sharp practice, to
actual cheating.
>> For the couple of
>> decades from 1948 until Larsen and then Fischer became serious
>> contenders,
> Fischer became a serious contender before Larsen. They both played
>in an Interzonal for the first time in 1958, but Fischer became a FIDE
>Candidate first, in 1959, based on his 5th place in that Interzonal.
>Larsen placed only 16th in that event, and did not make it to the
>Candidates cycle until 1965.
Yes, but (a) the Fischer of 1962 -- still a teenager! -- was,
despite the hype, not yet a serious challenger for the title, as was
indeed shown by the Curacao tournament, and (b) where was Fischer in
the 1965 and 1968 Candidates'? Until 1971, I think there was still a
respectable point of view that Larsen had done more to break the
Soviet hegemony than anyone else, and that Fischer, despite manifest
talent, was too "fragile" as soon as conditions were adverse to be
able to mount a serious assault on Petrosian and Spassky in a long
match.
> I never have been able to buy the argument that Soviet cheating was
>OK because they would have won anyway without it. Surely you're not
>saying that?
"Soviet cheating" is a rather provocative way of describing
things! If you're thinking of Curacao, then I don't see any evidence
of *cheating*, either "Soviet" or personal. Taking a quick draw to
conserve energy when playing someone you're unlikely to beat anyway
is normal tournament practice even today, and the losers by that
practice in 1962 were not Korchnoi and Fischer, who were outclassed
and did little better than Benko, but Keres and Geller, who missed
out by half a point on a "soft" chance at the WC in 1963.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 11:13:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 24, 11:50 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> So basically, I was refuting the Parr claim that Kasparov was
> somehow an advocate of fair play.
The ploy of mentioning that Gary Kasparov had
"renounced" the champion's unfair advantage has
come back to bite.
In fact, the only real "advocate of fair play" I can
think of offhand is Larry Evans, in his famous
article in Chess Life where he refused to endorse
the unfair "demands" of Bobby Fischer. Some
time afterward, a crotchety old man replaced the
real Larry Evans, and in this new form, he began
attempting every conceivable method to "justify"
what had happenned, and shift the blame to
anyone *but* Bobby Fischer.
This shape-shifting, blame-transferring incarnation
of Larry Evans is the one that countless critics have
identified as being fundamentally dishonest. But
how could he be otherwise? You want to know
what's really funny? Today, in the real chess world,
"we" -- that is the USA -- have another contender
for the world championship title, but because he is
not a native-born American, the Evans ratpack
does not recognize that he exists! Too bad
Larry Christiansen or Nick "gimme another, and
make it a double" DeFirmian were not better chess
players.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 10:43:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 24, 3:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> DAVID KANE TRIES TO REWRITE HISTORY?
David Kane, as usual, made some bizarre claims,
but instead of refuting them, we get this equally
bizarre response from chief rat Larry Parr:
> EVANS: If Fischer had asked for a return match clause instead
> of ten wins, do you think FIDE would have given it to him?
>
> AVERBAKH: Of course. Of course.
Generally speaking, it is the *reigning champion*
who makes selfish "demands", not the challenger.
In this case, the fact that it was Bobby Fischer
making "demands", shows just how ludicrous the
handling of this cycle was. Former world champ
Tigran Petrosian wrote that this nonsense placed
the other players in the same situation psycho-
logically, as men under fire in a foxhole during war.
> EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
> the one FIDE had denied Fischer.
Larry Evans later came under fire when this
sweeping claim was debunked.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 11:03:51
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2d73c1aa-c87e-41d6-bf5d-b0f4c66e44c6@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 3:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
>> the one FIDE had denied Fischer.
>
> Larry Evans later came under fire when this
> sweeping claim was debunked.
>
It's not a question that can be answered mathematically. Having
a chance at a rematch and having an advantage in a match itself
are two separate things.
Does Evans argue that Fischer never became World Champion
because he refused to offer Spassky a rematch? Of course not.
I am not personally a fan of the rematch clause, even though
some rematches have produced good chess. However, it
could be viewed as compensation of a different sort for
playing a match without any advantage, as Karpov did
three times.
Note that the current FIDE system includes a bizarre form
of rematch, though it doesn't pertain to a head-to-head match.
Kramnik "lost" to Anand (i.e. finished behind him in a
tournament) so now gets his "rematch".
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 08:11:58
From:
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 24, 12:59=A0am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
> FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
> out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
> neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
> two title defenses in a 10-year period.
Dave, I'm having trouble seeing what 10-year period you mean. Here
are Kasparov's title matches:
1984-85 vs. Karpov (nullified w/o result by FIDE)
1985 -- wins title from Karpov
1986 -- retains title vs. Karpov
1987 -- retains title vs. Karpov
1990 -- retains title vs. Karpov
1993 -- retains title vs. Short
1995 -- retains title vs. Anand
2000 -- loses title to Kramnik
I can see a 9-year period that could be considered to have "just two
title defenses," i.e. 1991-1999, though I would not use the word
"just," which seems to imply that GK was relatively inactive or
ducking competition. One could as easily characterize it as a rather
active period by saying he played four title matches in 11 years.
The 1990 match ended on December 31st, and the 2000 match began on
October 8th, so the longest period involving "just two title defenses"
by Kasparov was 9 years, 9 months and 7 days. This is quite comparable
to, say, Botvinnik, who after winning the title at Hague-Moscow 1948,
played "just two title defenses" in the period June 1948 through
February 1957.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 08:50:12
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2a6a28b2-7e2f-49de-a242-1c42376ee015@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 24, 12:59 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
>>
>> Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
>> FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
>> out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
>> neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
>> two title defenses in a 10-year period.
> Dave, I'm having trouble seeing what 10-year period you mean. Here
>are Kasparov's title matches:
>
>1984-85 vs. Karpov (nullified w/o result by FIDE)
>1985 -- wins title from Karpov
>1986 -- retains title vs. Karpov
>1987 -- retains title vs. Karpov
>1990 -- retains title vs. Karpov
>1993 -- retains title vs. Short
>1995 -- retains title vs. Anand
>2000 -- loses title to Kramnik
>
> I can see a 9-year period that could be considered to have "just two
>title defenses," i.e. 1991-1999, though I would not use the word
>"just," which seems to imply that GK was relatively inactive or
>ducking competition. One could as easily characterize it as a rather
>active period by saying he played four title matches in 11 years.
> The 1990 match ended on December 31st, and the 2000 match began on
>October 8th, so the longest period involving "just two title defenses"
>by Kasparov was 9 years, 9 months and 7 days. This is quite comparable
>to, say, Botvinnik, who after winning the title at Hague-Moscow 1948,
>played "just two title defenses" in the period June 1948 through
>February 1957.
I knew Parr was too stupid and lazy to count the months, but
I guess I should have expected somebody to! Based on your
research, I will correct my statement to "He played just two
title defenses in a 9.75 year period" (Hasn't anyone ever
heard of rounding??)
FIDE was based on a 3 year cycle. Because of the nullified match
and the rematch clause, it took 3 matches to complete one cycle.
Then it follows the pattern until 1990 (Kasparov retaining the
title by tie in one case, demonstrating the importance of the
champion's advantage)
Then we go to the non-FIDE era (essentially Kasparov doing
whatever he felt like). He started off reasonably well, then
there is a period where he doesn't play a match for ~5 years.
There are various ways to interpret what happened in that
period, others beside Kasparov bear some of the responsibility,
but at the end of the day it was his show and he wasn't playing
WC matches. Nothing comparable to the credibility of
FIDE's cycle had been developed.
So basically, I was refuting the Parr claim that Kasparov was
somehow an advocate of fair play. He gave himself statistically
larger champion's advantage than those who were champion
in the FIDE era, and manipulated things to suit himself.
Not that this was in any way abnormal for
a chess world champion! It is depressingly normal.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 21:59:15
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
David Kane <[email protected] > wrote:
>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving FIDE are
>>> well known. They may not be historically out of line with
>>> champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but neither it is anything to boast
>>> about. He played just two title defenses in a 10-year period.
>
> I knew Parr was too stupid and lazy to count the months, but I guess
> I should have expected somebody to! Based on your research, I will
> correct my statement to "He played just two title defenses in a 9.75
> year period" (Hasn't anyone ever heard of rounding??)
Oh, please. The FIDE schedule called for matches in 1987, 1990, 1993
and 1996. Look -- there's a nearly nine-year period from just after
the end of the 1987 match to just before the start of the 1996 match!
It would be nearly ten years if the 1987 match had been played in
January and the 1996 match in December.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Slimy Chicken (TM): it's like a farm
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ animal but it's covered in goo!
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 15:20:45
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:pED*[email protected]...
> David Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving FIDE are
>>>> well known. They may not be historically out of line with
>>>> champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but neither it is anything to boast
>>>> about. He played just two title defenses in a 10-year period.
>>
>> I knew Parr was too stupid and lazy to count the months, but I guess
>> I should have expected somebody to! Based on your research, I will
>> correct my statement to "He played just two title defenses in a 9.75
>> year period" (Hasn't anyone ever heard of rounding??)
>
> Oh, please. The FIDE schedule called for matches in 1987, 1990, 1993
> and 1996. Look -- there's a nearly nine-year period from just after
> the end of the 1987 match to just before the start of the 1996 match!
> It would be nearly ten years if the 1987 match had been played in
> January and the 1996 match in December.
>
Missing the forest. FIDE had a system
involving zonals, interzonals, and candidates
matches in order to determine a worthy
challenger. It was 3 years for a reason.
Kasparov Inc. had nothing of the sort. It was not
much different in practice than handpicking
an opponent. So there was no reason to wait so long, except for
Kasparov's personal motives, again, not fairness.
The ~5-year gap between matches is long, and there
were various shenanigans at that time. While they
probably had as much to do with money
as anything else, fairness was not an important
principle in the process.
The point is that in the FIDE system you played
a credible challenger whether you wanted to or not.
Portraying Kasparov as an advocate of fairness
is simply ridiculous given the way he managed his
own title. This is not to say the he was an
unworthy champion in that period - on the contrary
he was generally active and successful. But arguing
that he would have won if had been fair is a different
thing than saying that he was fair.
This is not to say that FIDE hasn't been behind some
notable cases of unfairness of its own (the annulled
match, toiletgate etc.)
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 06:43:50
From:
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 24, 8:52=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> We all know that FIDE was founded in 1924 but did not take
> control of the title until after Alekhine's death in 1946.
>
> The USSR imposed the system for the world championship in 1948.
> The rules greatly favored Botvinnik who had draw odds from the start.
On this matter I must basically agree with Parr. In his
autobiography, Botvinnik describes how he himself was the main author
of the regulations FIDE adopted for world championship matches and
challenger qualifying. I'm not sure whether they were then "imposed"
on FIDE, or FIDE just adopted them willingly, but either way Botvinnik
and his Soviet supporters got what they wanted.
Besides the regulations for title competition after 1948, they also
got what they wanted for the 1948 match-tournament. For example
Najdorf was not invited after Fine declined to play. This gave the
Soviets a 3-to-2 majority among the 5 players (Botvinnik, Smyslov and
Keres vs. Reshevsky and Euwe), making collusion easier than if there
had been another non-Soviet.
According to Bronstein, Najdorf was black-balled at Botvinnik's
personal insistence, out of spite for the way Najdorf drubbed him at
Groningen 1946.
> Apparently the rematch clause was added later at his behest.
No "apparently" about it. It's a plain fact.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 18:41:48
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
In article <296fa1ae-6b03-4d2a-bb2a-e9fec5688484@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On this matter I must basically agree with Parr. In his
>autobiography, Botvinnik describes how he himself was the main author
>of the regulations FIDE adopted for world championship matches and
>challenger qualifying. I'm not sure whether they were then "imposed"
>on FIDE, or FIDE just adopted them willingly, but either way Botvinnik
>and his Soviet supporters got what they wanted.
Does or did anyone think it mattered? For the couple of
decades from 1948 until Larsen and then Fischer became serious
contenders, the WC and the Olympiads were Soviet monopolies. If
the WCs had not been Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky,
the most likely alternatives were Keres, Bronstein, Geller, Korchnoi
and others from the USSR. Reshevsky, Najdorf, Szabo, Gligoric and
so on were strong GMs, but it's hard to argue that any of them bar
just possibly Reshevsky on top form were serious contenders for the
title [as opposed to likely qualifiers for the Candidates].
If the WC match is between Soviet GMs and held in the USSR,
it's hard to argue that any other country should have had much of
a say in the match conditions. Whether Keres, Bronstein, Smyslov
and Tal were hard done by is "interesting", even important, esp when
assessing Botvinnik's [in particular] greatness as a player, but
largely a matter of internal Soviet politics.
In 1972 it all changed ....
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 21:32:12
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
Andy Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> If the WC match is between Soviet GMs and held in the USSR, it's
> hard to argue that any other country should have had much of a say
> in the match conditions.
I disagree. If we're to call these people `world champions' rather
than `Soviet champions', the world needs to have had a say in how the
champion is decided. Which it did, through FIDE.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Evil Pointy-Haired Cat (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a cuddly pet that's completely
clueless but it's genuinely evil!
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 17:46:12
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
In article <aCn*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
>> If the WC match is between Soviet GMs and held in the USSR, it's
>> hard to argue that any other country should have had much of a say
>> in the match conditions.
>I disagree.
But you seem to be agreeing; or are you claiming that "[not]
much of a say" means "no say"?
> If we're to call these people `world champions' rather
>than `Soviet champions',
[Note in passing -- many people did observe in the period of
Soviet hegemony that the Soviet Championship was sometimes a stronger
event than the Candidates' Tournament.]
> the world needs to have had a say in how the
>champion is decided. Which it did, through FIDE.
Indeed. But when the WC, challenger and venue are all Russian,
and so FIDE is talking to the Soviet Chess Federation (a) representing
Botvinnik, (b) also representing Bronstein [or whoever], and (c) also
representing the interests of the venue, and when [as until recently]
FIDE is not the huge international corporation you might imagine, but
rather the proverbial one-man-and-his-dog, FIDE's role as broker is
somewhat limited.
You might claim that Botvinnik, Bronstein and the venue ought
not all to have had their interests protected by one same national
federation, but that's a different matter, and in the Real World, it's
hard to see what else could have happened.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 13:08:24
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
Andy Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> If the WC match is between Soviet GMs and held in the USSR, it's
>>> hard to argue that any other country should have had much of a say
>>> in the match conditions.
>> I disagree.
>
> But you seem to be agreeing; or are you claiming that "[not] much of
> a say" means "no say"?
Er... To avoid our getting lost in a twisty maze of nested negations,
my position is this. The international chess community should have
just as much of a say in the conduct of, say, a world championship
match between two Russians played in Russia as it would in a world
championship match between a Frenchman and a Brazilian played in
Japan. This fact of being organized and regulated by an international
body is what distinguishes a world championship from a national
championship.
I wouldn't extend that to the fine details of the playing conditions
but it should, for example, be the international body that decides the
overall form of the match, who competes in it and so on.
>> If we're to call these people `world champions' rather than `Soviet
>> champions',
>
> [Note in passing -- many people did observe in the period of Soviet
> hegemony that the Soviet Championship was sometimes a stronger event
> than the Candidates' Tournament.]
Indeed.
> But when the WC, challenger and venue are all Russian, and so FIDE
> is talking to the Soviet Chess Federation (a) representing
> Botvinnik, (b) also representing Bronstein [or whoever], and (c)
> also representing the interests of the venue, and when [as until
> recently] FIDE is not the huge international corporation you might
> imagine, but rather the proverbial one-man-and-his-dog, FIDE's role
> as broker is somewhat limited.
Fair enough -- I'd not realised that FIDE was so small in those days
and was treating this as a largely theoretical question.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mentholated T-Shirt (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fashion statement but it's
invigorating!
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 05:52:38
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
MORE DISINFORMATION FROM DAVID KANE
The man is unfit to write about chess history.
<Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period. > -- David Kane
10 YEARS!?
Not only does David Kane support drug testing in chess,
he ignores the fact that Kasparov played FIVE title matches
with Karpov between 1985-1990. After that Kasparov put his title
on the line (outside of FIDE jurisdiction) against Short in 1993,
Anand in 1995 and Kramnik in 2000 who denied him a rematch
because it wasn't included in their contract.
ANOTHER PHONY
Help Bot (Greg Kennedy) is just as phony as David Kane.
In reply to my statement that Greg failed "to place the blame where
the blame
belongs --- with FIDE, which set up this flawed system from the start
in order
to protect Soviet supremacy" he replied with characteristic
dishonesty:
<Idiot. F.I.D.E. is a *French* term, and the
organization in question was not "set up" to
"protect" Soviet supremacy; Soviet supremacy is
just a simple fact of life. >
Who's he kidding?
We all know that FIDE was founded in 1924 but did not take
control of the title until after Alekhine's death in 1946.
The USSR imposed the system for the world championship in 1948.
The rules greatly favored Botvinnik who had draw odds from the start.
Apparently the rematch clause was added later at his behest.
Botvinnik held the title on a 12-12 tie in his first two title
defenses
against Bronstein and Smyslov, then invoked the rematch clause
to regain the title after losing to Smyslov and Tal. Finally, in spite
of his vehement protests, this clause was stricken before he lost
the title to Petrosian in 1963.
The fact that FIDE is "a French term" and Greg's other ramblings
have no bearing on the champion retaining the title in a drawn match
or the other issues at hand.
[email protected] wrote:
> DAVID KANE TRIES TO REWRITE HISTORY?
>
> EVANS: If Fischer had asked for a return match clause instead
> of ten wins, do you think FIDE would have given it to him?
>
> AVERBAKH: Of course. Of course.
>
> EVANS: How did you feel years later when FIDE restored the rematch
> clause for Karpov after having taken it away from Botvinnik in 1963?
>
> AVERBAKH: It was top secret, but Ed Edmondson was the one who
> organized this return match clause for Karpov!
>
> I was present during the negotiations for the Karpov-Korchnoi match.
> Our federation wanted to have 24 games or a maximum of 30, and
> Edmondson pressed for six wins. At the FIDE congress in Caracas
> in 1977 Karpov demanded a rematch clause for accepting six wins.
> Edmondson helped him get it.
>
> EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
> the one FIDE had denied Fischer. What was Ed?s motive?
>
> AVERBAKH: Probably to make up for some of the nasty things he wrote
> about Karpov, such as "this mouse who roars like a lion." Fischer was
> out
> of the picture already and had dismissed Edmondson, so perhaps Ed
> wanted to improve his relations with Karpov. Really he organized
> everything.
>
> EVANS: Do you think Karpov was happy to get the title without playing
> Fischer?
>
> AVERBAKH: Of course. Karpov was afraid of Fischer in 1975. Who
> wouldn?t like to get the title by default?
>
> EVANS: Do you think that?s the main reason why Karpov was so active
> after that: to prove he was really worthy of the title?
>
> AVERBAKH: For Karpov, you know, money is very important. This is his
> main stimulus. He may lose to Kasparov, but he is always well
> compensated
> for it.
>
> EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985?
>
> AVERBAKH: For me it?s completely clear. Because Karpov couldn?t
> continue at all.
>
> EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion?
>
> AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried
> his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply
> couldn?t
> play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement.
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 138)
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > THIS IS UNTRUE
> >
> > <As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
> > in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
> > with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
> > had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
> > he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.> -- David Kane
> >
> > In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
> > rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
> > held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.
> >
> >
> >
> > David Kane wrote:
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:fe288e83-da21-4a01-9b68-9b49b6af565c@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > DON'T BLAME KASPAROV!
> > > >
> > > > "I don't know how it's possible to win two matches in a row. I did it,
> > > > but I still don't know how I did it." -- Gary Kasparov who voluntarily
> > > > renounced the rematch clause.
> > > >
> > > > FIDE is to blame. Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
> > > > advantages than Kasparov.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dubious accuracy, of course.
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
> > > in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
> > > with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
> > > had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
> > > he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.
> > >
> > > Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
> > > FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
> > > out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
> > > neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
> > > two title defenses in a 10-year period.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 07:19:56
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:30746d04-3f14-4ffe-9462-e6eb57074b0b@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> MORE DISINFORMATION FROM DAVID KANE
>
> The man is unfit to write about chess history.
>
> <Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
> FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
> out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
> neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
> two title defenses in a 10-year period.> -- David Kane
>
> 10 YEARS!?
>
> he ignores the fact that Kasparov played FIVE title matches
> with Karpov between 1985-1990. After that Kasparov put his title
> on the line (outside of FIDE jurisdiction) against Short in 1993,
> Anand in 1995 and Kramnik in 2000 who denied him a rematch
> because it wasn't included in their contract.
Kasparov's matches vs. Karpov were under FIDE's auspices.
Once Kasparov broke away from FIDE, he did what champions
often did pre-FIDE: they avoided their challengers. So, as you
note in your own post, but are apparently too dim to understand,
Kasparov played two matches in the 1990's (a 10-year period)
before losing to Kramnik in 2000. And Kasparov had a bigger
champion's advantage than *all* of his FIDE predescessors (Karpov
being the special case who played 3 matches with
no advantage whatsoever.) because the non-FIDE matches
were shorter than the FIDE matches that had been held
until that time.
Poor Mr. Parr hates it when those ugly facts interfere with
the Evans propaganda!
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 07:30:59
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:30746d04-3f14-4ffe-9462-e6eb57074b0b@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> MORE DISINFORMATION FROM DAVID KANE
>>
>> The man is unfit to write about chess history.
>>
>> <Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
>> FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
>> out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
>> neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
>> two title defenses in a 10-year period.> -- David Kane
>>
>> 10 YEARS!?
>>
>> he ignores the fact that Kasparov played FIVE title matches
>> with Karpov between 1985-1990. After that Kasparov put his title
>> on the line (outside of FIDE jurisdiction) against Short in 1993,
>> Anand in 1995 and Kramnik in 2000 who denied him a rematch
>> because it wasn't included in their contract.
>
> Kasparov's matches vs. Karpov were under FIDE's auspices.
> Once Kasparov broke away from FIDE, he did what champions
> often did pre-FIDE: they avoided their challengers. So, as you
> note in your own post, but are apparently too dim to understand,
> Kasparov played two matches in the 1990's (a 10-year period)
> before losing to Kramnik in 2000.
Correction. Kasparov did play Deep Blue in this
time period - and of course has whined about his 1997 loss
ever since.
And Kasparov had a bigger
> champion's advantage than *all* of his FIDE predescessors (Karpov
> being the special case who played 3 matches with
> no advantage whatsoever.) because the non-FIDE matches
> were shorter than the FIDE matches that had been held
> until that time.
>
> Poor Mr. Parr hates it when those ugly facts interfere with
> the Evans propaganda!
>
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 00:29:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
DAVID KANE TRIES TO REWRITE HISTORY?
EVANS: If Fischer had asked for a return match clause instead
of ten wins, do you think FIDE would have given it to him?
AVERBAKH: Of course. Of course.
EVANS: How did you feel years later when FIDE restored the rematch
clause for Karpov after having taken it away from Botvinnik in 1963?
AVERBAKH: It was top secret, but Ed Edmondson was the one who
organized this return match clause for Karpov!
I was present during the negotiations for the Karpov-Korchnoi match.
Our federation wanted to have 24 games or a maximum of 30, and
Edmondson pressed for six wins. At the FIDE congress in Caracas
in 1977 Karpov demanded a rematch clause for accepting six wins.
Edmondson helped him get it.
EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
the one FIDE had denied Fischer. What was Ed=92s motive?
AVERBAKH: Probably to make up for some of the nasty things he wrote
about Karpov, such as "this mouse who roars like a lion." Fischer was
out
of the picture already and had dismissed Edmondson, so perhaps Ed
wanted to improve his relations with Karpov. Really he organized
everything.
EVANS: Do you think Karpov was happy to get the title without playing
Fischer?
AVERBAKH: Of course. Karpov was afraid of Fischer in 1975. Who
wouldn=92t like to get the title by default?
EVANS: Do you think that=92s the main reason why Karpov was so active
after that: to prove he was really worthy of the title?
AVERBAKH: For Karpov, you know, money is very important. This is his
main stimulus. He may lose to Kasparov, but he is always well
compensated
for it.
EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985?
AVERBAKH: For me it=92s completely clear. Because Karpov couldn=92t
continue at all.
EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion?
AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried
his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply
couldn=92t
play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement.
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 138)
[email protected] wrote:
> THIS IS UNTRUE
>
> <As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
> in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
> with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
> had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
> he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.> -- David Kane
>
> In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
> rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
> held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.
>
>
>
> David Kane wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:fe288e83-da21-4a01-9b68-9b49b6af565c@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > > DON'T BLAME KASPAROV!
> > >
> > > "I don't know how it's possible to win two matches in a row. I did it,=
> > > but I still don't know how I did it." -- Gary Kasparov who voluntarily=
> > > renounced the rematch clause.
> > >
> > > FIDE is to blame. Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
> > > advantages than Kasparov.
> > >
> >
> > Dubious accuracy, of course.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
> > in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
> > with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
> > had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
> > he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.
> >
> > Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
> > FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
> > out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
> > neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
> > two title defenses in a 10-year period.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 23:29:42
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
THIS IS UNTRUE
<As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match. > -- David Kane
In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.
David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:fe288e83-da21-4a01-9b68-9b49b6af565c@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > DON'T BLAME KASPAROV!
> >
> > "I don't know how it's possible to win two matches in a row. I did it,
> > but I still don't know how I did it." -- Gary Kasparov who voluntarily
> > renounced the rematch clause.
> >
> > FIDE is to blame. Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
> > advantages than Kasparov.
> >
>
> Dubious accuracy, of course.
>
> As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
> in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
> with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
> had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
> he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.
>
> Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
> FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
> out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
> neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
> two title defenses in a 10-year period.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 07:01:30
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:48a6de5a-fbc3-480f-b965-be4ac40b1d94@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> THIS IS UNTRUE
>
> <As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
> in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
> with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
> had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
> he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.> -- David Kane
>
> In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
> rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
> held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.
A rematch clause (whether you like it or not) is no advantage
in the match defense itself. I can't think of any other champions
to play without any advantage, though possibly there were some
in the pre-FIDE era.
Note that if Fischer's "win-by-two" condition had been in place
during Karpov's first match with Kasparov, he would have
already retained his title. Why? Because had Kasparov
tied the match at 5-5, the match would have been stopped,
ended as a tie, and Karpov would have retained the title!
>
>
>
> David Kane wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:fe288e83-da21-4a01-9b68-9b49b6af565c@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> > DON'T BLAME KASPAROV!
>> >
>> > "I don't know how it's possible to win two matches in a row. I did it,
>> > but I still don't know how I did it." -- Gary Kasparov who voluntarily
>> > renounced the rematch clause.
>> >
>> > FIDE is to blame. Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
>> > advantages than Kasparov.
>> >
>>
>> Dubious accuracy, of course.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
>> in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
>> with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
>> had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
>> he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.
>>
>> Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
>> FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
>> out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
>> neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
>> two title defenses in a 10-year period.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 21:01:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 23, 10:19 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> with FIDE, which set up this flawed system from the start in order to
> protect Soviet supremacy.
Idiot. F.I.D.E. is a *French* term, and the
organization in question was not "set up" to
"protect" Soviet supremacy; Soviet supremacy is
just a simple fact of life. One day, perhaps the
Chinese or Indians will dominate the game-- but
there will always be loons who obsess over the
two seconds or so in which BF was world
champion.
If you ever run across a Web site which has a
graph of the location of all its logged-in players,
you will see why it is that Soviets -- and northern
Europe -- so dominate the chess scene; the
game is far more popular over there than in
America. In fact, I've seen players lose games
at chess in order to not miss some basketball
or football playoff, which happened to coincide.
Here in the USA, people are obsessed with
sports, cars and money.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 19:19:09
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
TWO WRONGS MAKE TWO WRONGS
<Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater advantages than
Kasparov. >
Larry Parr, stating a simple fact.
>The old two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy again. This kind of muddled thinking leads to all sorts of delusions and fantasies, since Reason is simply> tossed out the window.>
Greg Kennedy, failing to place the blame where the blame belongs --
with FIDE, which set up this flawed system from the start in order to
protect Soviet supremacy.
And so it goes.
help bot wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
> > advantages than Kasparov.
>
>
> The old two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy again.
>
> This kind of muddled thinking leads to all sorts of
> delusions and fantasies, since Reason is simply
> tossed out the window.
>
> According to one fantasy, GM Botvinnik was the
> "favorite" of evil villains who did everything in their
> power to keep his challengers from getting the
> title. Unfortunately, just about everybody did in
> fact get the title, for GM Botvinnik lost the world
> championship title more times than any other
> person in the history of the game!
>
> The fantasy also held that one day, an insider
> would reveal that in his expert opinion, MB was
> the Kremlin's favorite, and this mere opinion was
> touted by storyteller Larry Evans as the smoking
> gun which would show his wild speculations to
> have been correct. Unfortunately, the story ends
> with that "insider" telling the world that, in his
> expert opinion, it was GM Smyslov who was the
> favorite of the powerful Kremlin puppet-masters... .
>
> Oh well, it made for a good story.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 15:25:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 23, 3:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
> advantages than Kasparov.
The old two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy again.
This kind of muddled thinking leads to all sorts of
delusions and fantasies, since Reason is simply
tossed out the window.
According to one fantasy, GM Botvinnik was the
"favorite" of evil villains who did everything in their
power to keep his challengers from getting the
title. Unfortunately, just about everybody did in
fact get the title, for GM Botvinnik lost the world
championship title more times than any other
person in the history of the game!
The fantasy also held that one day, an insider
would reveal that in his expert opinion, MB was
the Kremlin's favorite, and this mere opinion was
touted by storyteller Larry Evans as the smoking
gun which would show his wild speculations to
have been correct. Unfortunately, the story ends
with that "insider" telling the world that, in his
expert opinion, it was GM Smyslov who was the
favorite of the powerful Kremlin puppet-masters... .
Oh well, it made for a good story.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 11:20:51
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 23, 10:03=A0am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 22, 9:02 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If the "detail" makes the vast majority of proposed solutions
> > impossible, then it settles the question of applying those solutions.
>
> Then you have a Titanic type situation, where things are doomed and
> nothing will change it? =A0Just keep riding it out in hopes another
> Bobby Fischer comes along? =A0Not sure how chess will produce another
> Bobby Fischer, unless there is another Cold War. =A0Kasparov is probably
> the closest to Fischer, but how large of an impact did he have on
> Chess?
The specific problem that a tie score in a match of fixed length
allows the World Champion to retain his title doesn't seem to be
fixable if we accept that the World Championship match has to be
organized in a way that is amenable to ordinary hall rentals.
I felt that this wasn't the biggest problem with Chess, so I wasn't
too concerned if we couldn't fix it completely.
Going to blitz would indeed cause the problem that then people might
not be satisfied that the victory really went to the best chess
player. One of the things people *want* from the World Championship is
examples of the finest chess that can be played, since it has the best
players in it. Going to speed chess might heighten the drama of the
event, but it would detract from another important element of its
interest.
So my inclination is to *stick* with giving "draw odds" to the old
champion, since that's actually a widespread convention, but instead
make other changes that will make draws less common. For a match, 1/3
- 1/3 and similar solutions don't work, but there are other measures
that would. Besides changing the rules of chess so that there are more
ways to win, at least partly, one could take measures like one I
mentioned - if a match is tied, eliminate the last win. (Doing that
would require giving the champion White in the first game, though, it
seemed to me, if game order is crucial.) But *before* doing that, see
if it's still tied if one gives extra points for wins with Black, I
will now add, inspired by another post.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 09:24:19
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 6:43 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The problem, as I've said, is that in a short match, the tied match
> possibility is not at all small. That's a real problem, and can be reasonably
> addressed by various tie-breaks. Unfortunately, the real world is
> going the other way - matches are getting shorter thereby increasing the
> champion's advantage.
>
> Of course, for various reasons, we've seen the prestige of the
> WC devalued greatly over the past decades.
When you speak of the "real world" do you mean the world outside of
chess, or how chess is actually done in reality? If it is done by the
later, that should be in the scope of chess to change. But, it also
can reflect practical realities.
If it is the former, then isn't that a sign that the chess world has
lost touch with the real world? In those cases, should necessary
changes be made?
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 09:21:25
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 11:04 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Let's suppose that the goal is to eliminate, or at
> least reduce to a sliver, any unfairness in the W. C.
> cycle; the first step might be to eradicate the FIDE;
> or perhaps, to somehow move the championship
> cycle outside its grasp. But that would not in any
> way guarantee a fairer handling of the title; for
> instance, suppose the surrogate organization were
> to be the USCF: it's a good bet that in spite of
> everything, FIDE's "achievements" would be in
> grave danger of being "bested" in short order... .
>
> -- help bot
I am not looking to personally eliminate FIDE. However, if anyone
here wants to help IAGO get into the chess business to have the best
solution (even if not perfect), for chess in a tournament level, that
is up for being changed, please speak up. I don't have any chess yet
on the 2008 IAGO World Tour. I am up for chess in some form being on
IAGO World Tour calendar. Well, some form outside of chess variants.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 09:15:12
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
On Apr 23, 3:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> In return for ditching the 24-game format in favor of the first player
> to win six games, FIDE restored the rematch clause in 1978 as a sop to
> Karpov, a favorite of the Kremlin, against Soviet defector Viktor
> Korchnoi
> whose family was held hostage inside the USSR. This dirty deal
> disgusted Fischer.> -
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 13)
How many organized sports have players playing 24 games? And, let's
get real here people, when you start to introduce time controls to
chess, having titles, awarding points, Chess becomes a sport. Why
should any sport need more than 24 games in order to decide who the
world champion is? Want a simple solution? How about if the
defending champion doesn't secure more points than his opponent after
24 games, then he loses his title, and there is no reigning world
champ. At this point, chess could end up changing the rules and
introducing a superior tiebreaking system. You then would end up
having a year without a world champ at chess. Someone please tell me
exactly what reigning world champions do to help the growth of chess?
If nothing, why not end up not having one, if allows chess to to make
needed changes. As I see it, the reigning chess champion is known by
next to no one outside the chess world. How useful is that? Are we
supposed to blame the reigning champ as not being Bobby Fischer? In
other word, if the world champion isn't know around the world, not
having one would end up meaning they won't be missed.
As far as unlimited number of games go, are they going to hold the
world championship in the FIDE headquarters? Please tell me how
exactly you will be able to have a location to have the tournament for
MONTHS? Also, tell me how the world is going to care. Is the
unlimited number of games going to be like selection of Pope? One day
we end up producing a winner?
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 21:25:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> How many organized sports have players playing 24 games? And, let's
> get real here people, when you start to introduce time controls to
> chess, having titles, awarding points, Chess becomes a sport.
Well, I'm not sure that's the distinguishing feature of a sport but
let's not get side-tracked on that.
> Why should any sport need more than 24 games in order to decide who
> the world champion is?
Snooker uses a best of 35 match, over three days. (It's not possible
for a frame to be tied so the odd number of games guarantees a
winner.)
The point is that the champion and challenger are very closely-matched
in skill. Very short matches mean that the title can be decided by a
single error, which leads to a feeling that the title is not really
earnt.
> Want a simple solution? How about if the defending champion doesn't
> secure more points than his opponent after 24 games, then he loses
> his title, and there is no reigning world champ.
That has the same problem as the idea of declaring joint champions in
the same situation -- how do you arrange the *next* championship?
> Someone please tell me exactly what reigning world champions do to
> help the growth of chess?
Serve as an aspiration and a role model? Almost all sports have world
and regional champions so I assume there must be some value in it.
> If nothing, why not end up not having one, if allows chess to to make
> needed changes. As I see it, the reigning chess champion is known by
> next to no one outside the chess world. How useful is that? Are we
> supposed to blame the reigning champ as not being Bobby Fischer?
My guess is that, if you ask the man on the street who is the world
chess champion, he'll say `I don't know' or `Garry Kasparov'.
> As far as unlimited number of games go, are they going to hold the
> world championship in the FIDE headquarters? Please tell me how
> exactly you will be able to have a location to have the tournament
> for MONTHS? Also, tell me how the world is going to care.
These are exactly the problems that led to the matches being fixed at
twenty-four games, with draw odds for the champion!
Dave.
--
David Richerby Salted Natural Postman (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail but
it's completely natural and covered
in salt!
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 01:09:23
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
In article <3f9d70e3-922f-4ca8-bdeb-b8347d7aa2fb@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
>How many organized sports have players playing 24 games?
It rather depends what you call a "game". Tennis in the
form of a 5-set match between reasonably even players can easily
go to 60+ games; professional golf tournaments are commonly held
over 72 holes; bowls matches used to be held over a large number
of ends, but fairly recently switched to shorter sets; boxing
matches used [esp in the bare-knuckle era] to consist of a large
number of rounds, but Elf'n'Safety has cut that down. A fairly
direct "equivalent" to chess is the snooker world championship,
being held currently, where the early rounds are over 19 frames,
and matches get longer until the final is [IIRC] 35 frames.
> [...] Someone please tell me
>exactly what reigning world champions do to help the growth of chess?
Well, at least in principle, it gives us a focus -- the WC
has a certain amount of authority to speak for chess, eg to talk
to governments, to raise money, to improve conditions for [eg]
former professionals fallen on hard times, etc., etc. The same
could be said of the FIDE President. In the days when the former
was undisputed and the latter was of undisputed probity, this was
clearly a force for good.
>If nothing, why not end up not having one, if allows chess to to make
>needed changes.
Perhaps. Tennis and golf are two sports that manage without
a WC [and boxing manages with lots].
> As I see it, the reigning chess champion is known by
>next to no one outside the chess world.
I suspect he is known by quite a lot of people who have no
connexion with or interest in chess, but who happen to be Indian.
I admit that in Europe he is probably less well known than were
Kasparov, Fischer and Capablanca; but the actual weight of numbers
may well be in favour of the current holder.
[...]
>As far as unlimited number of games go, are they going to hold the
>world championship in the FIDE headquarters? Please tell me how
>exactly you will be able to have a location to have the tournament for
>MONTHS?
That, of course, was the problem with KK1. A match that
started with fanfares and grandeur in the best venue in Moscow
finished in a telephone box somewhere in the suburbs in front of
two men and a dog.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 09:42:09
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
"Rich Hutnik" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3f9d70e3-922f-4ca8-bdeb-b8347d7aa2fb@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 3:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In return for ditching the 24-game format in favor of the first player
>> to win six games, FIDE restored the rematch clause in 1978 as a sop to
>> Karpov, a favorite of the Kremlin, against Soviet defector Viktor
>> Korchnoi
>> whose family was held hostage inside the USSR. This dirty deal
>> disgusted Fischer.> -
>>
>> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 13)
>
> How many organized sports have players playing 24 games? And, let's
> get real here people, when you start to introduce time controls to
> chess, having titles, awarding points, Chess becomes a sport. Why
> should any sport need more than 24 games in order to decide who the
> world champion is?
The reason for longer matches is so that they are meaningful.
You haven't given a single reason why 24 games is too many.
The point you are missing is that the "World Champion" designation
is marketable. More people will pay attention to a match that is
credibly a "World Championship" than to an equal number of games
that aren't.
The trend to deciding the WC with tournaments and short matches
has weakened the WC title. FIDE's old way - where there was
a difficult qualifying process including both tournaments and matches
- followed by a significant 24-game match meant that if you had
won the championship you had done something special.
You seem to favor something like the FIDE knock-out
titles. This was a single tournament "championship"
involving short matches, and tie-breaks with increasingly
fast time controls. The problem is that it produced a
string of no-name winners, and everyone knew that
the FIDE KO title was not a "real" championship.
Want a simple solution? How about if the
> defending champion doesn't secure more points than his opponent after
> 24 games, then he loses his title, and there is no reigning world
> champ.
You seem to be advocating trivializing the world championship
so that there is *never* a credible champ. How is that
better?
At this point, chess could end up changing the rules and
> introducing a superior tiebreaking system. You then would end up
> having a year without a world champ at chess. Someone please tell me
> exactly what reigning world champions do to help the growth of chess?
> If nothing, why not end up not having one, if allows chess to to make
> needed changes. As I see it, the reigning chess champion is known by
> next to no one outside the chess world. How useful is that? Are we
> supposed to blame the reigning champ as not being Bobby Fischer? In
> other word, if the world champion isn't know around the world, not
> having one would end up meaning they won't be missed.
>
> As far as unlimited number of games go, are they going to hold the
> world championship in the FIDE headquarters? Please tell me how
> exactly you will be able to have a location to have the tournament for
> MONTHS? Also, tell me how the world is going to care. Is the
> unlimited number of games going to be like selection of Pope? One day
> we end up producing a winner?
First, a finite length produces a winner if you give the champ tie-odds.
Second, in practice you could have something like a 10-game
sudden death tie-break in the event of a tied regulation match. Statistically
that will break the tie a huge percentage of the time, without
extending the match very long at all.
>
> - Rich
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 09:05:08
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 9:25 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
> > book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
> > arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
> > of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.
>
> Not at all. Simply change the time controls so that each game takes no
> longer than HALF the amount of time left until the end of the hall
> rental. Disciplined use of this strategy will allow you to play an
> unlimted number of games.
If you are going with an unlimited amount of games, how about having
it so the first player win with white and black would be the world
champ? You throw out draws. Halving the time per game is like the
solution of blitz as an overtime solution.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 09:03:29
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 9:02 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> If the "detail" makes the vast majority of proposed solutions
> impossible, then it settles the question of applying those solutions.
>
> John Savard
Then you have a Titanic type situation, where things are doomed and
nothing will change it? Just keep riding it out in hopes another
Bobby Fischer comes along? Not sure how chess will produce another
Bobby Fischer, unless there is another Cold War. Kasparov is probably
the closest to Fischer, but how large of an impact did he have on
Chess?
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 22:03:23
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> Then you have a Titanic type situation, where things are doomed and
> nothing will change it? Just keep riding it out in hopes another
> Bobby Fischer comes along? Not sure how chess will produce another
> Bobby Fischer, unless there is another Cold War. Kasparov is
> probably the closest to Fischer, but how large of an impact did he
> have on Chess?
I would guess that, outside the USA and/or among people aged under 50,
Kasparov is better known than Fischer among the general public.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Addictive Swiss Dictator (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a totalitarian leader but it's
made in Switzerland and you can never
put it down!
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 00:23:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
DON'T BLAME KASPAROV!
"I don't know how it's possible to win two matches in a row. I did it,
but I still don't know how I did it." -- Gary Kasparov who voluntarily
renounced the rematch clause.
FIDE is to blame. Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
advantages than Kasparov.
<Ever since 1948, when Mikhail Botvinnik won the title under
suspicious
conditions, the system was designed to protect Soviet supremacy by
making
it almost impossible for an outsider to wrest the title from behind
the Iron
Curtain. Botvinnik had draw odds in a 24-game series, an edge that
enabled
him to keep the title on a 12-12 tie in his first two defenses with
David
Bronstein in 1951 and Vasily Smyslov in 1954.
In addition, Botvinnik had the insurance of a rematch clause which he
invoked successfully after losing his next two matches with Smyslov in
1957 and Mikhail Tal in 1960. FIDE finally struck the infamous rematch
in
1963 before Botvinnik lost to Tigran Petrosian.
In return for ditching the 24-game format in favor of the first player
to win six games, FIDE restored the rematch clause in 1978 as a sop to
Karpov, a favorite of the Kremlin, against Soviet defector Viktor
Korchnoi
whose family was held hostage inside the USSR. This dirty deal
disgusted Fischer. > -
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 13)
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 7:25 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Quadibloc wrote:
> >>
> >>> I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
> >>> book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
> >>> arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
> >>> of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.
> >> Not at all. Simply change the time controls so that each game takes no
> >> longer than HALF the amount of time left until the end of the hall
> >> rental. Disciplined use of this strategy will allow you to play an
> >> unlimted number of games.
> >
> > For human chess players to move pieces, and then punch the chess
> > clock, in subnanosecond time intervals is not feasible. Hence, Zeno
> > cannot be our guide in this, and a chess tournament cannot be allowed
> > to become a supertask.
> >
> > John Savard
>
> The mathematician and the engineer consider Zeno's Paradox.
>
> The mathematician knows that it can't be done.
>
> The engineer knows that he'll get close enough.
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2008 21:59:08
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:fe288e83-da21-4a01-9b68-9b49b6af565c@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> DON'T BLAME KASPAROV!
>
> "I don't know how it's possible to win two matches in a row. I did it,
> but I still don't know how I did it." -- Gary Kasparov who voluntarily
> renounced the rematch clause.
>
> FIDE is to blame. Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
> advantages than Kasparov.
>
Dubious accuracy, of course.
As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.
Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
two title defenses in a 10-year period.
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 22:45:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 11:56 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The mathematician and the engineer consider Zeno's Paradox.
>
> The mathematician knows that it can't be done.
>
> The engineer knows that he'll get close enough.
The real problem with your suggested solution is
that lots of people would whine when their favorite
did not end up winning the match.
Suppose the favorite is named Gerry Kaspero,
and his disliked opponent we shall call Anna-Toley
Karnov. Now, if GK were to win the very first game
and then, after a long string of draws, AK were to
win two blitz games in a row, the whiners would
moan that it wasn't "fair" to weight such games
equally. But if AK had won the early game and
GK then won a couple of blitz games, it would be
heralded as a great success by the pundits and
by the press, who would attribute the result to
GK's "dynamic" play.
So then, what about simply hot-saucing the two
players if they continue to draw one another?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 20:04:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 10:10 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> > If you can show that the *best*
> > solution requires exactly 24 games,
>
> No, I can't do that.
>
> > and also
> > that a championship match requires a fixed
> > length, then by all means, do so.
>
> I thought that Kasparov _did_ do that, and you said he was changing
> the topic.
What I wrote was that Mr. Kasparov was trying
to "justify" his unfair advantage. I also marked off
a few fallacies or red herrings.
> I understand that it would be better if the World Championship were
> absolutely fair.
Whoa there; what's this business about absolutes?
There is no need for "absolute" perfection in order to
merely do better than what FIDE has done with regard
to fairness. In fact, the switching back and forth from
having a tie match clause to not having one in and of
itself has lead to unfair advantages; that is called
inconsistency, and no absolute perfection is needed
in order to surpass such an effort.
> But that requires either excluding ties, or having a
> possible result of two co-champions. If both are impractical, then
> living with a little unfairness seems not unreasonable.
If this, if that; why not show us how these "ifs" are
at all relevant to the issue? (I for one have no great
objection to co-champions, for instance.)
> If the unfairness can be reduced to a mere sliver, though, that would
> be good, and I had a couple of ideas for that.
Unfortunately, decisions regarding the world
championship cycle are influenced by politics and
by those who have power or influence over the FIDE.
Any changes are likely to be temporary, and easily
reversed-- as we have seen in the past.
Let's suppose that the goal is to eliminate, or at
least reduce to a sliver, any unfairness in the W. C.
cycle; the first step might be to eradicate the FIDE;
or perhaps, to somehow move the championship
cycle outside its grasp. But that would not in any
way guarantee a fairer handling of the title; for
instance, suppose the surrogate organization were
to be the USCF: it's a good bet that in spite of
everything, FIDE's "achievements" would be in
grave danger of being "bested" in short order... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 19:13:24
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 7:25 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
> > book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
> > arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
> > of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.
>
> Not at all. Simply change the time controls so that each game takes no
> longer than HALF the amount of time left until the end of the hall
> rental. Disciplined use of this strategy will allow you to play an
> unlimted number of games.
For human chess players to move pieces, and then punch the chess
clock, in subnanosecond time intervals is not feasible. Hence, Zeno
cannot be our guide in this, and a chess tournament cannot be allowed
to become a supertask.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 22:56:41
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do anything
|
Quadibloc wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:25 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
>>> book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
>>> arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
>>> of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.
>> Not at all. Simply change the time controls so that each game takes no
>> longer than HALF the amount of time left until the end of the hall
>> rental. Disciplined use of this strategy will allow you to play an
>> unlimted number of games.
>
> For human chess players to move pieces, and then punch the chess
> clock, in subnanosecond time intervals is not feasible. Hence, Zeno
> cannot be our guide in this, and a chess tournament cannot be allowed
> to become a supertask.
>
> John Savard
The mathematician and the engineer consider Zeno's Paradox.
The mathematician knows that it can't be done.
The engineer knows that he'll get close enough.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 19:10:59
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 7:35 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> If you can show that the *best*
> solution requires exactly 24 games,
No, I can't do that.
> and also
> that a championship match requires a fixed
> length, then by all means, do so.
I thought that Kasparov _did_ do that, and you said he was changing
the topic.
I understand that it would be better if the World Championship were
absolutely fair. But that requires either excluding ties, or having a
possible result of two co-champions. If both are impractical, then
living with a little unfairness seems not unreasonable.
If the unfairness can be reduced to a mere sliver, though, that would
be good, and I had a couple of ideas for that.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 18:35:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 9:02 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > Oh, really? You have a scheme whereby the World Champion and a
> > > challenger can play exactly 24 games, and it is guaranteed that each
> > > one won't win the same number of games out of those 24?
>
> > I don't need to have anything; this is not about me--
> > it's about the ploys people come up with in order to
> > *justify* giving the champ an unfair advantage over the
> > challenger.
>
> I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
> book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
> arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
> of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.
Ah, but then, that wasn't the issue.
The issue, of course, was the "justifications"
for the world champion -- here, it was Gary
Kasparov -- getting to keep the title in case of
a tied match. The reality is that such matches
are not about playing hall scheduling; they are
about determining the world's strongest chess
player-- which has nothing whatsoever to do
with what I have or have not, nor with the
arbitrary number "24".
> > Lost in La-la land? The issue was whether or not
> > the champion ought to have an unfair advantage--
> > namely draw odds. The correct procedure is to
> > first answer that "question", and only then worry
> > over the trivial (or non-trivial) details.
> If the "detail" makes the vast majority of proposed solutions
> impossible, then it settles the question of applying those solutions.
I don't care about the majority of proposals,
for from what I've seen, they are the creations
of deranged minds. What counts is the best
solution. If you can show that the *best*
solution requires exactly 24 games, and also
that a championship match requires a fixed
length, then by all means, do so. Until then, I
believe it makes sense to focus on the idea
of a fair match instead of obsessing over
irrelevant details, like who will work the
demonstration board, or precisely how many
games to schedule.
I noted that further up in this thread, Gary
Kasparov was credited with renouncing the
champion's advantage; but they did not report
on whether he actually played even one such
match, nor how many he played with an unfair
edge. It appeared to be a bit of a puff-piece
in that respect. As for precisely when to make
any possible shift from unfair to fair matches,
my suggestion would be to do it as soon as
possible; or at the worst, when a champion
emerges who is so superior that he would
hardly even notice the loss of his unfair
advantage.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 18:02:34
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 2:53 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:25 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Oh, really? You have a scheme whereby the World Champion and a
> > challenger can play exactly 24 games, and it is guaranteed that each
> > one won't win the same number of games out of those 24?
>
> I don't need to have anything; this is not about me--
> it's about the ploys people come up with in order to
> *justify* giving the champ an unfair advantage over the
> challenger.
I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.
> Lost in La-la land? The issue was whether or not
> the champion ought to have an unfair advantage--
> namely draw odds. The correct procedure is to
> first answer that "question", and only then worry
> over the trivial (or non-trivial) details.
If the "detail" makes the vast majority of proposed solutions
impossible, then it settles the question of applying those solutions.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 20:25:44
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do anything
|
Quadibloc wrote:
>
> I wasn't trying to get *personal*. I didn't think that the need to
> book a hall for a fixed amount of time was irrelevant to having to
> arrange the World Championship match so that it takes a fixed amount
> of time - and thus involves a fixed number of games.
>
Not at all. Simply change the time controls so that each game takes no
longer than HALF the amount of time left until the end of the hall
rental. Disciplined use of this strategy will allow you to play an
unlimted number of games.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 13:53:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 8:25 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > In 1987 he barely saved his title against Karpov on a
> > > 12-12 tie. Kasparov gave two reasons for sticking
> > > with this system at a symposium we both attended in
> > > Madrid:
>
> > > 1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
> > > saw no reason why the challenger shouldn=92t have to vault the same
> > > obstacle.
>
> > The infamous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
>
> I'm with you here.
>
> > > 2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
> > > book a playing hall, which isn=92t possible in an open-ended match.
>
> > Change of subject ploy.
> Oh, really? You have a scheme whereby the World Champion and a
> challenger can play exactly 24 games, and it is guaranteed that each
> one won't win the same number of games out of those 24?
I don't need to have anything; this is not about me--
it's about the ploys people come up with in order to
*justify* giving the champ an unfair advantage over the
challenger.
> Oh, wait. It isn't impossible to have a definite result from a fixed-
> length match; even I can think of a scheme. Assuming that all 24 games
> are not drawn - in *that* case, they can just book another playing
> hall, and it had better be a cheap one, because who will be interested
> enough to come and watch - then the person who won the *last* game
> loses, on the basis that the other player was ahead over the largest
> number of games.
Lost in La-la land? The issue was whether or not
the champion ought to have an unfair advantage--
namely draw odds. The correct procedure is to
first answer that "question", and only then worry
over the trivial (or non-trivial) details.
> The champion would have the advantage of playing White in the first
> game.
Colors should be determined in such a way that
neither player has an unfair advantage. (In fact,
this avoidance of unfair advantages seems to be
a hallmark of my comments in this thread.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 12:38:26
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 22, 7:22=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have no problem with fighting draws. =A0To me, they are good chess.
Fighting draws can indeed be very good chess. Since the "expected
value" of chess seems to be less than a forced win for White, it seems
reasonable that a draw is less likely to contain a blunder by one
player than a win.
But the problem I'm trying to solve isn't to get Grandmasters to play
better chess. They're Grandmasters, and they _are_ playing Grandmaster-
level chess. It isn't broken, so I can't fix it.
Non-fighting draws can be addressed by various stratagems (i.e. 1/3 -
1/3) but they lead to certain complications of another kind that I'm
unprepared to address.
The problem I'm trying to solve, thus, isn't non-fighting draws, nor
is it inferior play. Instead, I am looking at what I think is a larger
perceived problem; that Chess isn't as popular as it was in the grand
old days before Steinitz, because the players know too much about
positional play, so fireworks like Queen sacrifices don't happen as
often.
So my ambitions here can be criticized as meretricious. I'm trying to
make Chess seem exciting not just to those who can savor advanced
positional play, but instead to bring back excitement even a
woodpusher can appreciate.
Getting even a small fraction of a point on the scoreboard is
something that's worth sacrificing a Queen for - and this is why I'm
trying to narrow down the range of draws, so that while defensive play
can still protect one against checkmate, it still doesn't fully
deprive one's opponent of valuable things to do - either gaining a
minor victory, or preventing you from obtaining one.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 05:24:48
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 7:29 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I like the idea of giving White .45 of
> the point and Black .55 of the point.
That is one way of modifying Chess, and it might encourage White to
play for the win, since then, if by doing so he took chances, so that
his chance of winning compared to Black's was not so large, getting
away from Black's extra fraction of a point for the draw would offset
that.
My "Dynamic Scoring" idea takes that one step further, as well as
partly turning it inside-out. Instead of having White encouraged to
play to win, and Black encouraged to play to draw, I wanted to
encourage *both* players to play to win.
Also, I wanted to make draws less likely. Giving both players 1/3 of a
point for a draw has been proposed for that - but that has its own
problems.
So I came up with what I describe on
http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0103.htm
where I let people win a few points with stalemate, bare King, or even
perpetual check, and give Black extra points for those, but not for a
draw, so that Black is encouraged to try to win something, and White
is encouraged to go all the way for checkmate.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 06:22:50
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do anything
|
Quadibloc wrote:
> On Apr 21, 7:29 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I like the idea of giving White .45 of
>> the point and Black .55 of the point.
>
> That is one way of modifying Chess, and it might encourage White to
> play for the win, since then, if by doing so he took chances, so that
> his chance of winning compared to Black's was not so large, getting
> away from Black's extra fraction of a point for the draw would offset
> that.
>
> My "Dynamic Scoring" idea takes that one step further, as well as
> partly turning it inside-out. Instead of having White encouraged to
> play to win, and Black encouraged to play to draw, I wanted to
> encourage *both* players to play to win.
>
> Also, I wanted to make draws less likely. Giving both players 1/3 of a
> point for a draw has been proposed for that - but that has its own
> problems.
I have no problem with fighting draws. To me, they are good chess.
> So I came up with what I describe on
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0103.htm
>
> where I let people win a few points with stalemate, bare King, or even
> perpetual check, and give Black extra points for those, but not for a
> draw, so that Black is encouraged to try to win something, and White
> is encouraged to go all the way for checkmate.
I prefer the concept of keeping it simple.
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 05:17:00
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 9:34 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> I scanned it quickly. I am up for anything that will improve chess as
> a game AND as a sport. I believe the Chess AS A SPORT side has a lot
> of work. Chess the game is far better off.
I'd class the opening book as part of Chess the game; but that problem
is "easy" to fix - switch to Capablanca chess and so on and so forth.
> Is it that
> they hypermodern school got slapped down by rigidly sound play that we
> got away from wild excesses?
The Chess of the Romantic period, such as La Bourdonnais-MacDonnell,
or Anderssen-Kieseritzky, where games could involve such things as the
sacrifice of the Queen and both Rooks to force checkmate, did get
slapped down by rigidly sound play.
Hypermodern chess - the invention of Nimzowitsch - had to do with
things like controlling the center with pieces, including the
fianchetto of the Bishop (B-N2), rather than the usual P-K4, P-Q4 Pawn
advance. It never really caught on, but it still has some lasting
influence - it remains recognized as a valid way to exert some control
over the center in some situations, but not as unconditionally better
than the traditional way. The chess of Petrosian has been cited as
showing a significant hypermodern influence.
> I would need to study more. I am not familiar with that.
I'm not too familiar with Go myself, but I had been doing some web
searching to learn some basic facts about it. I created a page about
Go that brought together information on how the rules were different
in China and Korea that was scattered in other places:
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0101.htm
and in that effort, I found out that because Go is scored by the
number of points on the board that you surround, with the player with
the higher score winning the game, it's possible to tweak the scoring
easily, just as it's possible to give handicaps of a few extra stones
to start with.
This is different from Chess, where checkmate is all or nothing - and
pawn odds or Knight odds seriously distort the game.
Because Go had a problem with dull, defensive play - the first player
could always win by a few points at the end - an offset of a few
points, komidashi, was brought in, and it did an excellent job of
curing the problem. That's why I tried to figure out if it could be
adapted to the very different situation in Chess.
How can we give a small, controllable, advantage to Black to
compensate for White having the first move - and make it harder for
the game to end in a draw - which are the things that komidashi did in
Go?
Scoring stalemate as a partial win means that fewer games would end in
a draw; since komidashi made OTB draws impossible by including an odd
half-stone as an offset, I also included bare King - and even
perpetual check.
Giving Black a small advantage inspired me to think of scoring draws
and checkmates the old way, equally for both players, but scoring the
partial victories with a bias towards Black, with the bias being
highest for the least of the forms of victory.
Giving Black no advantage, though, for a draw seemed to me to be a way
to encourage Black to play more aggressively; having that advantage
taper off as the game became more decisive might encourage White, in
turn, to also play more aggressively.
I can't guarantee it would work, and the scheme of points would
doubtless need tweaking through experience, but it seemed to me to be
a simple and direct way to encourage more dynamic play, unlike
anything I had heard of before.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 11:21:54
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw"
|
Rich Hutnik wrote:
>How many other games or sports have 24 or more games in their
>championship series to determine who the world champ is?
Simple solution; call the entire series of 24 a game and
call each individual match a frame (bowling), pitch
(baseball), serve (tennis) hole (golf) or a deal (poker).
The fact that chessplayers call it a new game when they
set up the men but bowlers don't call it a new game when
they set up the pins is purely arbitrary.
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 20:34:23
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 8:15 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 10:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> My initial reaction is that it may not help chess, but it is
> unavoidable.
I think as was posted, the world championship is treated as personal
property, not a measure of greatness, and this hurts the game.
> On another topic - I've seen a posting of yours on the Chess Variant
> pages, where you comment negatively on people proposing new solutions
> to problems instead of testing them.
I think maybe it has to do more with Grand Chess by Sammy I displayed
that. I also had suggested that the chess variant community break
their variants down into different components so people can test them,
and an experiential approach be used more. I am in favor of people
proposing new solutions, but I also would like to see new solutions
tried and adopted. What you did see with the likes of Braves Chess
was my issue with someone labelling a universal solution for draws, as
a chess variant, than a rules patch. I also think if someone devises
a new game piece, they should label it as a piece.
> So you may not be interested, but
> I think I've come up with a scheme - this "Dynamic Scoring" thing -
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0103.htm
>
> that could address draws *even in* situations like the World
> Championship match, not just in tournaments.
I scanned it quickly. I am up for anything that will improve chess as
a game AND as a sport. I believe the Chess AS A SPORT side has a lot
of work. Chess the game is far better off.
> Recently, there was another posting here about the death of Steinitz;
> the article showed how, in addition to suffering from the
> psychological pressures associated with Chess, his fate may also have
> been partly due to the burden of anti-Semitism to which he was
> subjected as well. If Steinitz was the Shusaku of Chess, I am trying
> to set the stage for the Go Seigen of Chess - by copying _komidashi_
> from Go as best I can.
>
> It may be unfair to pin all the blame on Steinitz, but by advancing
> our understanding of Chess, he did make Chess play less flamboyant
> than it once was. One way to get chessplayers to play inferior moves
> is tighter time controls, but that isn't really what is wanted. We
> want flashy, exciting Chess like they had before Steinitz - piece
> sacrifices right and left and so on.
As a game gets analyzed to death, this happens. One interesting study
into chess at the highest level is the play "The French Defense",
which is actually an interesting psychological school. Is it that
they hypermodern school got slapped down by rigidly sound play that we
got away from wild excesses?
> If I hadn't heard of komidashi, and its results in practice in Go, I
> would still have despaired of coming up with any notion that would
> have any possibility of helping with this part of the problem.
I would need to study more. I am not familiar with that.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 20:24:52
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 8:00 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 10:16 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
> > > please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> > > because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> > > interest in chess and improve its viability?
>
> > > Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> > > in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
> > > the solution?
> > "Retails"? What does that mean? Was the title for sale?
>
> I don't see that spelling error anywhere. It was always "retains".
> Retain means keep.
>
> John Savard
First message on my part had that typo. Someone else must of fixed it
in a reply. Probably Kasparov Retailing the title would do more for
enhancing chess than him retaining it on a draw :-)
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 20:23:47
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 12:16 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
> > please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> > because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> > interest in chess and improve its viability?
>
> > Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> > in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
> > the solution?
>
> > - Rich
>
> "Retails"? What does that mean? Was the title for sale?
Should be Retains (typo). But, in terms of the champ, it means they
sell out their competitive spirit to fight for wins, along with their
principles. They RETAIL it :-)
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 20:22:36
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 12:17 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:34 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
> > > please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> > > because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> > > interest in chess and improve its viability?
>
> > > Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> > > in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
> > > the solution?
>
> > > - Rich
>
> > That should be Kasparov RETAINS Title on a Draw. Blasted typos.
>
> > - Rich
>
> Ah... okay. LOL I should have read more. SOrry!
> Rob
Maybe I should keep it RETAILS, because apparently when someone
becomes a world champ, they sell out every principle to defend a
system that encourages them to draw their way to retain a title. If
chess worked like boxing, the only way a challenger could ever become
champ would be to knock out the champ. Not TKO, but flat knockout.
The champ would argue, as Kasparov did, that "well I had to knock out
the prior champ, so why should I make the challenger have it easy"?
And the defending champ will argue, and draw in support of those who
host the championship, that replaying draws just won't work. He could
also argue that there are no other competitions out there that play 24
games to decide who is champion anyhow.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 20:19:48
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 6:43 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> When you are designing a competition (or anything), there are a number
> of objectives. You'd want it to be credible (i.e. identifies the more
> deserving player) and exciting, but there are also logistical considerations
> (competition can't last forever because there are costs of holding the
> competition etc.) So it is a tradeoff. Accepting that, say 1%, of the
> time the competition may not be decisive is very minor and is a defensible
> choice.
>
> The problem, as I've said, is that in a short match, the tied match
> possibility is not at all small. That's a real problem, and can be reasonably
> addressed by various tie-breaks. Unfortunately, the real world is
> going the other way - matches are getting shorter thereby increasing the
> champion's advantage.
>
> Of course, for various reasons, we've seen the prestige of the
> WC devalued greatly over the past decades.
How many other games or sports have 24 or more games in their
championship series to determine who the world champ is?
If 24 games is not enough, how many is enough? Are people supposed to
play 50 games? When you happen to add time control to chess, and have
a world champion, you turn chess as a game, into a sport. Since this
is the case, is it not important to see what other sports do?
And exactly how is more games going to make a difference if the
defending champion just has to draw to retain their title? Are we
supposed to wait for game 37 so that he bungles?
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 17:25:42
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 11:36 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 1:05 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In 1987 he barely saved his title against Karpov on a
> > 12-12 tie. Kasparov gave two reasons for sticking
> > with this system at a symposium we both attended in
> > Madrid:
>
> > 1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
> > saw no reason why the challenger shouldn=92t have to vault the same
> > obstacle.
>
> The infamous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
I'm with you here.
> > 2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
> > book a playing hall, which isn=92t possible in an open-ended match.
>
> Change of subject ploy.
Oh, really? You have a scheme whereby the World Champion and a
challenger can play exactly 24 games, and it is guaranteed that each
one won't win the same number of games out of those 24?
Oh, wait. It isn't impossible to have a definite result from a fixed-
length match; even I can think of a scheme. Assuming that all 24 games
are not drawn - in *that* case, they can just book another playing
hall, and it had better be a cheap one, because who will be interested
enough to come and watch - then the person who won the *last* game
loses, on the basis that the other player was ahead over the largest
number of games.
The champion would have the advantage of playing White in the first
game.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 18:29:07
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do anything
|
Quadibloc wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:36 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 1:05 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> In 1987 he barely saved his title against Karpov on a
>>> 12-12 tie. Kasparov gave two reasons for sticking
>>> with this system at a symposium we both attended in
>>> Madrid:
>>> 1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
>>> saw no reason why the challenger shouldn�t have to vault the same
>>> obstacle.
>> The infamous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
>
> I'm with you here.
>
>>> 2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
>>> book a playing hall, which isn�t possible in an open-ended match.
>> Change of subject ploy.
>
> Oh, really? You have a scheme whereby the World Champion and a
> challenger can play exactly 24 games, and it is guaranteed that each
> one won't win the same number of games out of those 24?
>
> Oh, wait. It isn't impossible to have a definite result from a fixed-
> length match; even I can think of a scheme. Assuming that all 24 games
> are not drawn - in *that* case, they can just book another playing
> hall, and it had better be a cheap one, because who will be interested
> enough to come and watch - then the person who won the *last* game
> loses, on the basis that the other player was ahead over the largest
> number of games.
>
> The champion would have the advantage of playing White in the first
> game.
>
> John Savard
One possibility of ensuring more decisive match results would be to
change the way draws are scored. I like the idea of giving White .45 of
the point and Black .55 of the point. Mathematicians might come up with
a better way to split the point. A drawn 24 game match would seem to be
much more unlikely with this idea.
If players can get used to decimal results as opposed to whole number
results it should work fine in tournaments also. We can do it. Look at
how we adapted to the metric system! Oops, I forgot, we didn't.
Another aspect of this: it would shift opening theory in an interesting
way. Lines that were dubious before might become more reasonable. It
would certainly encourage White to avoid drawing lines. Some players of
Black might become specialists in drawing lines with that color.
Finally, it would be delightful to screw up all the computers for
awhile. They would eventually adjust ... :)
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 20:59:05
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do anything
|
J.D. Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> One possibility of ensuring more decisive match results would be to
> change the way draws are scored. I like the idea of giving White
> .45 of the point and Black .55 of the point. Mathematicians might
> come up with a better way to split the point. A drawn 24 game match
> would seem to be much more unlikely with this idea.
There are a number of problems with that proposal. First and
foremost, doesn't it encourage both players to play for the draw with
black?
It might not actually help too much, either. If the match is going to
be tied, it's likely that most of the games will be drawn. With only
a few wins, it's quite likely that all the wins will be with the white
pieces, which means that the match will still be tied with the
suggested scoring system.
It also has a rather counter-intuitive property. Suppose that a match
is played that would have been drawn under standard scoring of half a
point each for a draw. It follows that the players both won the same
number of games. But now look at the number of wins each player has
with each colour. Every win a player gets with a particular colour is
one less draw with that colour. In particular, winning more games
with black means drawing fewer games with black, which means fewer
points.
Consider the following four-game match, with Alice having white in the
first game.
Alice + = - = 2.1
Bob - = + = 1.9
It seems a bit strange that Bob loses the match, given that he won his
game as black, which is harder than winning with white.
I suppose you could try to fix this by changing the scores for wins,
to compensate for the points `lost' by not getting the draw.
> If players can get used to decimal results as opposed to whole
> number results it should work fine in tournaments also. We can do
> it. Look at how we adapted to the metric system! Oops, I forgot,
> we didn't.
The rest of the world did. :-P
Dave.
--
David Richerby Psychotic Windows (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ graphical user interface but it wants
to kill you!
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 13:39:28
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do anything
|
David Richerby wrote:
> J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> One possibility of ensuring more decisive match results would be to
>> change the way draws are scored. I like the idea of giving White
>> .45 of the point and Black .55 of the point. Mathematicians might
>> come up with a better way to split the point. A drawn 24 game match
>> would seem to be much more unlikely with this idea.
>
> There are a number of problems with that proposal. First and
> foremost, doesn't it encourage both players to play for the draw with
> black?
>
> It might not actually help too much, either. If the match is going to
> be tied, it's likely that most of the games will be drawn. With only
> a few wins, it's quite likely that all the wins will be with the white
> pieces, which means that the match will still be tied with the
> suggested scoring system.
>
> It also has a rather counter-intuitive property. Suppose that a match
> is played that would have been drawn under standard scoring of half a
> point each for a draw. It follows that the players both won the same
> number of games. But now look at the number of wins each player has
> with each colour. Every win a player gets with a particular colour is
> one less draw with that colour. In particular, winning more games
> with black means drawing fewer games with black, which means fewer
> points.
>
> Consider the following four-game match, with Alice having white in the
> first game.
>
> Alice + = - = 2.1
> Bob - = + = 1.9
>
> It seems a bit strange that Bob loses the match, given that he won his
> game as black, which is harder than winning with white.
I like this result better than a tie, but I agree that the idea needs an
adjustment.
> I suppose you could try to fix this by changing the scores for wins,
> to compensate for the points `lost' by not getting the draw.
How would the following work out?
White win = +1
Black win = +1.11
White draw = .45
Black Draw = .50
This would seem to encourage wins, and make tied matches less likely.
It also tries to give Black a scoring edge to balance the first move
edge of White. Maybe the exact scoring edge would need to be fine tuned...
>> If players can get used to decimal results as opposed to whole
>> number results it should work fine in tournaments also. We can do
>> it. Look at how we adapted to the metric system! Oops, I forgot,
>> we didn't.
>
> The rest of the world did. :-P
Right you are sir... :(
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 17:19:47
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 20, 11:05 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> 2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
> book a playing hall, which isn=92t possible in an open-ended match.
>
> Kasparov=92s argument makes sense, yet Fischer=92s point is still valid.
> Only wins should count. This way, a champion can=92t cling to the title
> by
> playing for draws.
Part 2 is the part that makes sense - Part 1 is true, too, but that
would just be an argument against changing ever.
Maybe it would be harder to successfully play for draws if even
perpetual check counted as a tiny win; so just possibly my humble
contribution and/or kooky idea could help...
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 22:11:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> Maybe it would be harder to successfully play for draws if even
> perpetual check counted as a tiny win; so just possibly my humble
> contribution and/or kooky idea could help...
I doubt it. Perpetual check is a way of rescuing a lost position, not
a way of trying to steer a position with equal chances towards a draw.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Aluminium Book (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ romantic novel that's really light!
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 17:15:26
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 20, 10:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> in any way.
My initial reaction is that it may not help chess, but it is
unavoidable.
A match between two players, even if not many of the games are draws,
could produce an even result. And when that happens, one _could_ have
it go on indefinitely until someone won a game, but that makes the
world championship hang on a result that might be due to accident.
Having the World Championship being somewhat stable is not a bad
thing, and having one champion instead of two co-champions is also
not a bad thing.
However, in looking at the Wikipedia article on the World
Championship, I see that the next couple of challengers are picked out
in advance.
An unseated Champion's right to a rematch should be in addition to,
not instead of, meeting normal challengers - and normal challengers
should come up through the Candidates' matches in a fair and open
procedure, so that when a new, strong player emerges, he can contend
for the World Championship if he is the best of the other players.
This doesn't seem to be the case at present, and it is a problem.
On another topic - I've seen a posting of yours on the Chess Variant
pages, where you comment negatively on people proposing new solutions
to problems instead of testing them. So you may not be interested, but
I think I've come up with a scheme - this "Dynamic Scoring" thing -
http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0103.htm
that could address draws *even in* situations like the World
Championship match, not just in tournaments.
Recently, there was another posting here about the death of Steinitz;
the article showed how, in addition to suffering from the
psychological pressures associated with Chess, his fate may also have
been partly due to the burden of anti-Semitism to which he was
subjected as well. If Steinitz was the Shusaku of Chess, I am trying
to set the stage for the Go Seigen of Chess - by copying _komidashi_
from Go as best I can.
It may be unfair to pin all the blame on Steinitz, but by advancing
our understanding of Chess, he did make Chess play less flamboyant
than it once was. One way to get chessplayers to play inferior moves
is tighter time controls, but that isn't really what is wanted. We
want flashy, exciting Chess like they had before Steinitz - piece
sacrifices right and left and so on.
If I hadn't heard of komidashi, and its results in practice in Go, I
would still have despaired of coming up with any notion that would
have any possibility of helping with this part of the problem.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 17:00:39
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 10:16 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
> > please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> > because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> > interest in chess and improve its viability?
>
> > Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> > in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
> > the solution?
> "Retails"? What does that mean? Was the title for sale?
I don't see that spelling error anywhere. It was always "retains".
Retain means keep.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 10:36:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 1:05 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> When Kasparov finally dethroned Karpov in 1986, he promptly struck
> a blow for chess justice by voluntarily renouncing the rematch clause.
This /sounds/ good, but who really decided such
issues, the world champion, or FIDE?
> The format for future title matches
> returned to the best-of-24 games with draws counting.
> In 1987 he barely saved his title against Karpov on a
> 12-12 tie. Kasparov gave two reasons for sticking
> with this system at a symposium we both attended in
> Madrid:
>
> 1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
> saw no reason why the challenger shouldn=92t have to vault the same
> obstacle.
The infamous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
> 2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
> book a playing hall, which isn=92t possible in an open-ended match.
Change of subject ploy.
> Kasparov=92s argument makes sense
Wrong.
> yet Fischer=92s point is still valid.
> Only wins should count.
More of same.
I expect a decent case /could be/ made, if only
these amateurs were to be fired, and replaced
by trained professionals, who would not make
such simple and transparent errors in thinking.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 10:26:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
> please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> interest in chess and improve its viability?
>
> Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
> the solution?
You seem to have serious terminology problems.
For instance, a match is not a "tournament". And
a tied match is not the same as a drawn game of
chess.
The tradition of retention of title in case of a tied
*match* seems to be a carry-over from the bad old
days, when players acted as though they regarded
the championship title to be a piece of personal
property.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 09:17:44
From: Rob
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 20, 11:34=A0pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. =A0Can someone
> > please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> > because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> > interest in chess and improve its viability?
>
> > Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> > in any way. =A0Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
> > the solution?
>
> > - Rich
>
> That should be Kasparov RETAINS Title on a Draw. =A0Blasted typos.
>
> - Rich
Ah... okay. LOL I should have read more. SOrry!
Rob
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 09:16:17
From: Rob
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 20, 11:33=A0pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. =A0Can someone
> please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> interest in chess and improve its viability?
>
> Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> in any way. =A0Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
> the solution?
>
> - Rich
"Retails"? What does that mean? Was the title for sale?
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 09:12:23
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 1:39 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I don't think the principle that the champion retains the title
> on a tied match is wrong. The problem in chess is that in a
> relatively short match (24 games then, 12? now),
> it is mathematically a big advantage. It is easy to take steps to
> that bring the drawn match probability down to the 1% range. Once
> that is done, I don't think that giving the champ draw odds is
> unreasonable.
What are the benefits of having the reigning champion retain the title
by means of a draw? How does it increase interest in chess, foster
its growth, and encourage a more competitive form of chess? Please
explain that.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 09:10:28
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 1:05 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS BY GM LARRY EVANS (page 14)
>
> Kasparov gave two reasons for
> sticking
> with this system at a symposium we both attended in Madrid:
>
> 1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
> saw no reason why the challenger shouldn=92t have to vault the same
> obstacle.
>
> 2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
> book a playing hall, which isn=92t possible in an open-ended match.
>
> Kasparov=92s argument makes sense, yet Fischer=92s point is still valid.
> Only wins should count. This way, a champion can=92t cling to the title
> by
> playing for draws.
And this explains why the format remains. Someone gets to be
champion, no way are they going to lower the bar in any way for the
challenger. So, it looks like it is now stuck. And this explains
why things are the way they are now. Perhaps a reigning champion
retiring would end up allowing for changes. Perhaps FIDE, etc...
could say that, the moment the reigning champion is dethroned, new
rules will be in effect. Perhaps combine both.
But, so long as people think the current approach with the reigning
champion maintaining their title on a draw is in effect is ok, then I
doubt there will be any changes. I am sure there is also
rationalizing it, so that people don't have to look towards change.
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2008 18:33:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS BY GM LARRY EVANS (page 14)
>>
>> Kasparov gave two reasons for sticking with this system at a symposium
>> we both attended in Madrid:
>>
>> 1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
>> saw no reason why the challenger shouldn't have to vault the same
>> obstacle.
>>
>> 2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
>> book a playing hall, which isn't possible in an open-ended match.
>>
>> Kasparov's argument makes sense, yet Fischer's point is still valid.
>> Only wins should count. This way, a champion can't cling to the title
>> by playing for draws.
>
> And this explains why the format remains. Someone gets to be
> champion, no way are they going to lower the bar in any way for the
> challenger. So, it looks like it is now stuck.
I think you need to read up on the history of the championship -- you
seem to be overlooking an awful lot of basic points, here.
Up to 1948, the world championship was, essentially, the property of
the champion. He could set his own rules and do whatever he wanted.
For example, Capablanca and Alekhine were never able to agree terms
for a rematch after Alekhine won the title; Alekhine instead played
and won matches against the weaker Bogoljubow.
From 1948, the championship was run by FIDE. While the champion has a
certain weight in arguing for the terms he wants, ultimately, FIDE has
the final say. For example, Fischer wanted the 1975 match to be
played as first to ten wins but FIDE said no and he refused to play
the match, forfeiting the title in the process.
In 1993, Kasparov (the then FIDE champion) and Short (the then FIDE
challenger) became annoyed enough with FIDE's handling of the match
arrangements that they decided to run the match themselves, outside
FIDE. This created a parallel `personal property' championship that
stayed in Kasparov's hands until he was beaten by Kramnik in 2000.
Meanwhile, FIDE continued to organize their own championship,
initially in the form of challenger-vs-champion matches, then as a
knock-out tournament and, more recently, as a round-robin tournament
contested by the top players. FIDE did not recognize Kasparov or
Kramnik as world champion.
I believe that Kasparov's comments refer to the period 1993-2000 when
he was effectively able to set terms for world championship matches.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Crystal Lead Widget (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a thingy that weighs a ton but it's
completely transparent!
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 09:06:01
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 11:59 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> What doe "helping chess" mean?
Helping chess refers to fostering its growth, quality, and reputation
in the world. It is related to the subject header about increasing
interest in chess.
So, the question I was asking is whether or not the champion retaining
his title by means of a draw helps increase interest in chess, and
help nurture its growth, or does it work against this?
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 08:59:05
From: SBD
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
What doe "helping chess" mean?
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 22:05:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS BY GM LARRY EVANS (page 14)
When Kasparov finally dethroned Karpov in 1986, he promptly struck
a blow for chess justice by voluntarily renouncing the rematch clause.
But
he didn=92t strike the second blow. The format for future title matches
returned
to the best-of-24 games with draws counting. In 1987 he barely saved
his
title against Karpov on a 12-12 tie. Kasparov gave two reasons for
sticking
with this system at a symposium we both attended in Madrid:
1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
saw no reason why the challenger shouldn=92t have to vault the same
obstacle.
2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
book a playing hall, which isn=92t possible in an open-ended match.
Kasparov=92s argument makes sense, yet Fischer=92s point is still valid.
Only wins should count. This way, a champion can=92t cling to the title
by
playing for draws.
Rich Hutnik wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
> > please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> > because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> > interest in chess and improve its viability?
> >
> > Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> > in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
> > the solution?
> >
> > - Rich
>
> That should be Kasparov RETAINS Title on a Draw. Blasted typos.
>
> - Rich
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 21:34:01
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do
|
On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times. Can someone
> please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> interest in chess and improve its viability?
>
> Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help chess
> in any way. Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part of
> the solution?
>
> - Rich
That should be Kasparov RETAINS Title on a Draw. Blasted typos.
- Rich
|
|
