Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gymble.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!dday From: dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Newsgroups: net.games.chess Subject: Re: New rigged world title rules Message-ID: <327@gymble.UUCP> Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 11:21:32 EDT Article-I.D.: gymble.327 Posted: Thu Sep 12 11:21:32 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 09:35:39 EDT References: <475@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <3238@nsc.UUCP> Reply-To: dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Distribution: net Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 65 Summary: I think they're rigged, too! > >-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