Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rochester!quiroz From: quiroz@rochester.UUCP (Cesar Quiroz) Newsgroups: net.games.chess Subject: Re: Re : Rigged World Championship Message-ID: <11626@rochester.UUCP> Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 16:32:24 EDT Article-I.D.: rocheste.11626 Posted: Fri Sep 13 16:32:24 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 16-Sep-85 00:03:11 EDT References: <369@ssc-bee.UUCP> Reply-To: quiroz@rochester.UUCP (Cesar Quiroz) Distribution: net Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept. Lines: 69 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