aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (09/04/85)
At a recent meeting of the International Chess federation FIDE
in Tunisia, the Russians managed to put their stamp on the new
world championship title rules to make it easier for Karpov to
keep his title of world champ, and -more important- to guarantee
a Soviet monopoly on the world title.
Here are the new rigged rules, "a la soviet":
1) A limited 24 games match. In case of a draw (12-12),the champ
retains his title.
2) If the champ looses, he still can invoke the rematch clause,
and play a second "decisive" match with the same rules as in 1).
3) The selection process to determine the next challenger of the
world champ is as follows:
a) A K.O. match tournament between 12 contenders from the
Interzonals, and 4 seeded from the last cycle will
produce 2 candidates.
b) The loser of the last world championship match (karpov
or Kasparov in this instance) will join these 2 candidates
for a 3-way playoff tournament. The winner of this
tournament will be the challenger.
It will be nearly impossible for a non-soviet chess player to
become challenger. Because, statistically, at least two soviet
players have always reached the candidates tournament, this
rule 3-b seems designed to allow collusion between the soviet
candidates.
According to rumours, they unsuccessfully tried to push for a rule
limiting the money purse of the world championship match, in
order to further de-motivate any possible "capitalist" contender. bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/06/85)
What would you expect from a country that uses chemical weapons and
"butterfly" mines to kill Afghan children?
--
Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp.
...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
"That's the news from Lake Wobegon ... "ken@rochester.UUCP (Blade Runner) (09/07/85)
In article <2111@burdvax.UUCP> bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: >What would you expect from a country that uses chemical weapons and >"butterfly" mines to kill Afghan children? Please keep your political opinions to net.politics! Ken -- UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa USnail: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627. Voice: Ken!
chongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon Noll) (09/10/85)
In article <475@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> you write: >-more important- to guarantee a Soviet monopoly on the world title... >Here are the new rigged rules, "a la soviet": Oh? Lets see now... >1) A limited 24 games match. In case of a draw (12-12),the champ >retains his title. >2) If the champ looses, he still can invoke the rematch clause, >and play a second "decisive" match with the same rules as in 1). These rules say nothing about the national status of a player. Nothing to "worry" about so far... >3) The selection process to determine the next challenger of the >world champ is as follows: > a) A K.O. match tournament between 12 contenders from the > Interzonals, and 4 seeded from the last cycle will > produce 2 candidates. Still no rigged Soviet advantage. A non-Soviet of equal skill can win just as much as a Soviet player can. > b) The loser of the last world championship match (karpov > or Kasparov in this instance) will join these 2 candidates > for a 3-way playoff tournament. The winner of this > tournament will be the challenger. > >It will be nearly impossible for a non-soviet chess player to >become challenger. Because, statistically, at least two soviet >players have always reached the candidates tournament, this >rule 3-b seems designed to allow collusion between the soviet >candidates. It seems that 2 soviet players reaching the top positions indicates that the soviets have VERY GOOD players. If that were not the case, other people would be on top more often! American players can become "intrenched" just as much as French players and just as much as Soviet players and just as much as ... IF AND ONLY IF they are good enough to move to the top of the list. Politics can not cause a player to win or lose a game. Politics can spoil the flavor of the game via bickering and yelling between games. What do you want, a rule which requires 50% of all contenders to come from Western nations? Do you want some kind of quota system for the top 12 list? Don't worry what nation a player is from. Worry about how well the game is being played. Worry about the fact that chess is a low priority in the U.S. Worry about the lack of world class players from other nations. After that, do something about it like improving your own game to world class standards, or support someone else who can if it bothers you that much! chongo <remember, winning a game proves nothing about your politics> /\oo/\ -- no comment is a comment.
kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin) (09/11/85)
>>-more important- to guarantee a Soviet monopoly on the world title... >>Here are the new rigged rules, "a la soviet": > >> b) The loser of the last world championship match (karpov >> or Kasparov in this instance) will join these 2 candidates >> for a 3-way playoff tournament. The winner of this >> tournament will be the challenger. >> >>It will be nearly impossible for a non-soviet chess player to >>become challenger. Because, statistically, at least two soviet >>players have always reached the candidates tournament, this >>rule 3-b seems designed to allow collusion between the soviet >>candidates. > > Don't worry what nation a player is from. Worry about how well the game is > being played. Worry about the fact that chess is a low priority in the U.S. > Worry about the lack of world class players from other nations. After that, > do something about it like improving your own game to world class standards, > or support someone else who can if it bothers you that much! > I think you missed the 'collusion' point. In a three way tournament the Soviets can play easy draws against each other, saving their strength for non-Soviet opponents. This was one of Fischer's big complaints about the Candidates tournament, and I think it's a legitimate concern. Look at the joke the Soviets made of the last title match just because the 'right' Soviet player was about to lose!!! Kevin Kinder ihlpm!kvk
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (09/12/85)
As Fischer pointed out, the Soviets both in theory and practice seek to extract maximum political advantage from chess, in part to "demonstrate" the superiority of Soviet culture. Nothing is too immoral for them in pursuing their goals, including at the very least collusion between Soviet players against non-Soviet players (agreeing to short draws for example in order to save their strength for non-Soviet opponents), psychological warfare, etc. Please don't be naive about this. They have destroyed Fischer's career (he is arguably the greatest chess genius ever and his withdrawal from chess is a cultural loss comparable to Morphy's withdrawal). Korchnoi's son was imprisoned, the current Soviet champion was not allowed to participate in the interzonals for political reasons, many top Soviet players have defected to escape Soviet control, I could go on indefinitely. The new rules are DEFINITELY rigged to favor Soviet retention of the world title.
dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) (09/12/85)
> >-more important- to guarantee a Soviet monopoly on the world title... > >Here are the new rigged rules, "a la soviet": > >Oh? Lets see now... > > >1) A limited 24 games match. In case of a draw (12-12),the champ > >retains his title. > >2) If the champ looses, he still can invoke the rematch clause, > >and play a second "decisive" match with the same rules as in 1). > >These rules say nothing about the national status of a player. Nothing >to "worry" about so far... You miss the point! At the end of the current match the world champion is certain to be a Soviet. Not only does this insure that the official Soviet favorite Karpov will get another chance should he lose this match to Kasparov, it also insures that whoever faces the eventual champ in the next world championship match must defeat either Karpov or Kasparov not once but *twice* in order to retain the crown! If that's not a Soviet advantage I don't know what is. Let us not forget that Karpov initially received the crown because Fischer requested rule changes in favor of the champion (himself) which were much less one-sided than these. > >3) The selection process to determine the next challenger of the > >world champ is as follows: > > a) A K.O. match tournament between 12 contenders from the > > Interzonals, and 4 seeded from the last cycle will > > produce 2 candidates. > > b) The loser of the last world championship match (karpov > > or Kasparov in this instance) will join these 2 candidates > > for a 3-way playoff tournament. The winner of this > > tournament will be the challenger. > > > >It will be nearly impossible for a non-soviet chess player to > >become challenger. Because, statistically, at least two soviet > >players have always reached the candidates tournament, this > >rule 3-b seems designed to allow collusion between the soviet > >candidates. > >It seems that 2 soviet players reaching the top positions indicates that >the soviets have VERY GOOD players. If that were not the case, other people >would be on top more often! American players can become "intrenched" just >as much as French players and just as much as Soviet players and just as >much as ... IF AND ONLY IF they are good enough to move to the top of the list. Again, the issue here is stacking the deck. Everyone *knows* that the Soviets have the best players in the world, and more of them. But the Soviets are not content with the likely eventuality that a Soviet will remain champion. They want to be virtually certain of it. Under these rules, a Soviet (loser of current match) is certain to be seeded into the finals of the candidates matches. If one of the other two qualifiers is Soviet (a strong possibility), then two of three are Soviet. Leaving aside the possibility of collusion, consider that a lone Westerner (or East European, for that matter) will have much less likelihood of defeating two Soviet candidates than just one. Even should a non-Soviet make it to the title match, he would be so exhausted from this gruelling battle that he would have an immediate disadvatange against the (Soviet) champ. >Do you want some kind of quota system for the top 12 list? No, I'm just interested in fair play for all, including Kasparov, who has gotten the short end of the stick throughout this sickening affair. Dennis Doubleday Univ. of Maryland
dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (09/12/85)
> > b) The loser of the last world championship match (karpov > > or Kasparov in this instance) will join these 2 candidates > > for a 3-way playoff tournament. The winner of this > > tournament will be the challenger. > > > >It will be nearly impossible for a non-soviet chess player to > >become challenger. Because, statistically, at least two soviet > >players have always reached the candidates tournament, this > >rule 3-b seems designed to allow collusion between the soviet > >candidates. > > It seems that 2 soviet players reaching the top positions indicates that > the soviets have VERY GOOD players. If that were not the case, other people > would be on top more often! American players can become "intrenched" just > as much as French players and just as much as Soviet players and just as > much as ... IF AND ONLY IF they are good enough to move to the top of > the list. > > Politics can not cause a player to win or lose a game. Politics can spoil > the flavor of the game via bickering and yelling between games. What do you > want, a rule which requires 50% of all contenders to come from Western > nations? You're missing the point entirely. If two players of any nation reach the 3-way playoff, then there is a distinct possibility of one player intentionally drawing or losing games to the other so that their nation will still have the challenger. Thus, you are COMPLETELY WRONG in stating that politics can not cause a player to win or lose a game. Since the Soviets have the current champ and will have the current loser, this ensures that they will have at least one of the 3 in the playoff next time. So all they have to do is get one out of the two others, and they will be in a position to try this tactic to ensure that they will have the challenger. This then ensures that they will have the loser the next time, etc. Also check the way Soviet players are seeded into Interzonals. I don't remember the rules exactly, but I remember being impressed when I read them with the fact that Soviets need not eliminate each other - they can have a number of players with a good chance to reach the 3-way playoff. The whole point is that this is a system that heavily favors whichever nation has the current champion. Since the Russians have the current champ and current loser-to-be, they have changed the rules in this fashion to bias the chances towards themselves.
roy@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy Mongiovi) (09/13/85)
In article <3238@nsc.UUCP>, chongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon Noll) writes: > Politics can not cause a player to win or lose a game. Politics can spoil > the flavor of the game via bickering and yelling between games. What do you > want, a rule which requires 50% of all contenders to come from Western > nations? Do you want some kind of quota system for the top 12 list? > > Don't worry what nation a player is from. Worry about how well the game is > being played. Worry about the fact that chess is a low priority in the U.S. > Worry about the lack of world class players from other nations. After that, > do something about it like improving your own game to world class standards, > or support someone else who can if it bothers you that much! > > chongo <remember, winning a game proves nothing about your politics> /\oo/\ That's all easy to say, and I agree with the sentiment. But have you been paying attention to the world championships since Fischer? Do you remember Karpov-Korchnoi in Baguio? You know that chess has nothing to do with politics. I know that chess has nothing to do with politics. It's too bad the Russians think it has everything to do with politics. -- Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163 ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy exp(sqrt(-1.0) * 4.0 * atan(1.0)) == -1
ashby@uiucdcsp.Uiuc.ARPA (09/13/85)
Politics can indeed make a player lose a game. Just ask Korchnoi what kind of pressure he felt knowing that his family was being held hostage. Or more recently, ask Kasparov whether or not he thinks politics had anything to do with the cancellation of the first match.
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/17/85)
> At a recent meeting of the International Chess federation FIDE > in Tunisia, the Russians managed to put their stamp on the new > world championship title rules to make it easier for Karpov to > keep his title of world champ, and -more important- to guarantee > a Soviet monopoly on the world title. An interesting point: those rules are strangely reminiscent of the rules governing the America's Cup. They're somewhat more one-sided, I must admit, but the form & intent are remarkably similar.
lazarus@ucbvax.ARPA (Andy Lazarus) (09/18/85)
A recent press release from the US Chess Federation states that the FIDE (World Chess Fed.) congress in Graz, Austria has modified the world championship rules. The 3-way playoff, with its possibilities for collusion, has been abolished. The top finishers in the Interzonals will play knockout matches to determine one challenger. This challenger then plays a match vs. the loser of the current match. (Actually, if Kasparov wins, against the loser of the February re-match.)