ditzel@ssc-bee.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (09/11/85)
I am writing in response to the letter charging that the various chess rules governing the current world championship cycle are rigged and also the writer of : >What would you expect from a country that uses chemical weapons and >"butterfly" mines to kill Afghan children? [First the current rules ] : Somehow I don't see anything terrible with the new world championship rules. I did see something terrible about the previous world championship match that was stopped. I thought Karpov's connections made them- selves felt both within the USSR Chess Federation and the World Chess Federation. The current rules are not too bad. + First it sets a limit on the number of games. The Fischer proposals of unlimited numbers of games have been clearly "refuted" by the last world championship match. I once supported the idea...but after that match...forget it. I think 24 games should be sufficient to prove who is the better player. + Second, if the score is 12-12 the Champion retains his title. I seem to remember Bronstein-Botvinnik world championship was a 12-12 tie and Botvinnik retained the title (note both players were Soviet GMs). So this time with two Soviet players the same possibility can occur. I think in the event of a tie the champion should retain his title. Like I said before I support the premise that the challenger has 24 games to prove superiority (not PARITY). + The champion gets a rematch in the event he loses. This happened in Botvinnik-Tal World Championship matches (again two Soviet chess players). First Tal defeated Botvinnik , Botvinnik got his rematch a year later and defeated Tal. First I think the fact that in this case were Botvinnik defeats Tal in the rematch suggests that Tal was not stronger than Botvinnik and Tal didn't deserve the world champion- ship. So basically the champion has a second try, why not! 1) it should make for more exciting chess - as it did in both Tal- Botvinnik matches, and 2) the world champion is given a chance to redeem his previous performance. + Finally the last point made in the previous article about the changes made in Tunisia regarding one large tournament. I tend to agree that it makes things easier for the Soviet players...however I don't think you will see easy draws between them as this cuts in- to their point totals. There are some very strong players who will NOT take easy draws and who have good chances and are not Soviet GMs. Yasser Seirawan has defeated Karpov, Spassky, Larsen, Korchnoi...need i say more...? If the soviets draw against each other and fall to Yasser or some of the other strong players their chances are lessened. The idea of a the current tournament is not easy on the players but I tend to like it...I view it as another Interzonal, only among the world championship candidates. + In closing...I don't see any Soviet "chess conspiracy" and if the writer of the "Rigged" article sees them then I am very confused because historically the Soviets have employed many of the same rules between their own representatives. Spassky-Petrosian,Botvinnik-Tal, Botvinnik-Bronstein, Petrosian-Botvinnik, etc.....even Bobby Fischer played under some of the current world championship rules! 24 games, on tie champion retains title, no rematch clause. The precedent for the above candidate's tournament was Portoroz 1962 in which Fischer charged the Soviet players with conspiring against him. Later Soviet players stated that they had all kinds of advantages due to the number and strength of the players. [ As for the Afghan comment ] : I sympathize with your plight. Somehow you have come to view human beings playing chess as an ugly (one-way) symbol of brutality. I wish you a speedy recovery (also don't be so righteous ... it may do you well to read the book SIDESHOW by William Shawcross and see the flip side).
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (09/13/85)
Based on many years of close involvement with chess my perception is that there is a Soviet conspiracy with regards to chess. I don't want to clog up the net with my opinions so I won't respond to previous "no conspiracy" letters here. If anyone cares to argue about it feel free to send mail to me ...
quiroz@rochester.UUCP (Cesar Quiroz) (09/13/85)
Although I think the new rules are not *as* rigged as they may look like, I still feel they are unnecessarily pro-champion, whoever the champion happens to be. Please, notice first that I agree with limiting the number of games to reasonable number (24 looks good). Maybe Kasparov's idea of extending the match by 6 more games in the event of a tie at 24 could be considered, but doesn't seem really necessary. Also, I agree with the champion remaining in the title if the match is a tie. (I seem to recall that Lasker-Schlechter ended up something like +1 =10 -1 for both players, mainly due to Schlechter's superb play-for-a-draw skill.) However, I disagree with the "rematch" clause. For instance: From article <369@ssc-bee.UUCP> (ditzel@ssc-bee.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel)): > > >+ The champion gets a rematch in the event he loses. This happened in > Botvinnik-Tal World Championship matches (again two Soviet chess > players). First Tal defeated Botvinnik , Botvinnik got his rematch > a year later and defeated Tal. First I think the fact that in this > case were Botvinnik defeats Tal in the rematch suggests that Tal was > not stronger than Botvinnik and Tal didn't deserve the world champion- > ship. So basically the champion has a second try, why not! > 1) it should make for more exciting chess - as it did in both Tal- > Botvinnik matches, and 2) the world champion is given a chance to > redeem his previous performance. > Why not make the challenger have also another chance? And the champion yet another ... and another ... I think it's ridiculously close to the "Fights of the Century" we get from the heavyweights every few months. Either the match is "decisive" (even a tie is) or is not. I think that the champion has enough ways to redeem himself of a bad performance: for instance, the loser gets seeded far up in the next round, so he'll get a second chance (not for free) in very short order. >+ Finally the last point made in the previous article about the > changes made in Tunisia regarding one large tournament. I tend to > agree that it makes things easier for the Soviet players...however > I don't think you will see easy draws between them as this cuts in- > to their point totals. There are some very strong players who will > NOT take easy draws and who have good chances and are not Soviet GMs. > Yasser Seirawan has defeated Karpov, Spassky, Larsen, Korchnoi...need > i say more...? If the soviets draw against each other and fall to > Yasser or some of the other strong players their chances are lessened. > The idea of a the current tournament is not easy on the players but > I tend to like it...I view it as another Interzonal, only among the > world championship candidates. > Although the collusion theory is more Fischer-derived paranoia than substance, I feel that you are missing the point here. A tournament with only *3* players is not a "large" tournament. If players {A, B} fix things among themselves to exclude player C, they may go to a more drastic algorithm than just drawing: B plays to lose his 2 games with A, then goes for at least half a point on C. Not that C cannot pass through if he's better than both of {A, B}, but now is harder: two draws with black and he may be out. Think of it as if {A, B} were a single player that starts with a half point advantage over C, in spite that A, B and C are roughly equally strong. Enough for now. -- Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez Department of Computer Science {allegra|seismo}!rochester!quiroz University of Rochester or Rochester, NY 14627 quiroz@ROCHESTER
rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi) (09/14/85)
In article <369@ssc-bee.UUCP> ditzel@ssc-bee.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: > >+ The champion gets a rematch in the event he loses. This happened in > Botvinnik-Tal World Championship matches (again two Soviet chess > players). First Tal defeated Botvinnik , Botvinnik got his rematch > a year later and defeated Tal. First I think the fact that in this > case were Botvinnik defeats Tal in the rematch suggests that Tal was > not stronger than Botvinnik and Tal didn't deserve the world champion- > ship. So basically the champion has a second try, why not! > 1) it should make for more exciting chess - as it did in both Tal- > Botvinnik matches, and 2) the world champion is given a chance to > redeem his previous performance. > **** Here I must disagree. Talj won the first match against Botvinnik showing great superiority of play, he was great and brilliant. He was then taken sick and had great health problems and lost the rematch. He shouldn't have played, but he tried in spite of his health. In fact, at the time, it raised quite some noise that they didn't put it off until he was better. Other than that I agree on your points about the rules, although they reflect the sad fact that in this decade we don't have brilliant players who can achieve scores such as "Fisher-Larsen: 6-0" and "Fisher-Tajmanov: 6-0"..... Mark Galassi ...!tektronix!reed!rosalia