Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-bee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!ditzel
From: ditzel@ssc-bee.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel)
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: Re : Rigged World Championship
Message-ID: <369@ssc-bee.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 01:05:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-bee.369
Posted: Wed Sep 11 01:05:41 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 06:15:30 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 77


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).