Chess politics - FIDE and Karpov (was: Chess Life rehires GM Evans!)

Author

FIDE and Karpov (was: Chess Life rehires GM Evans!)

Taylor Kingston

2006-08-17, 7:37 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1155821503.385368.35160@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> While Karpov's chessic history is stated truely in the above, it is not as
> much overlooked as a novelty - it actually breaks with the '48 issue and has
> no precedent.
>
>
> Plus; Taimanov and Larsen, and anyone else who had improved in the previous
> 5 years!

Those two did not qualify for the Candidate Matches. I don't have the
1973 Interzonal standings to hand, but I would assume that they did not
finish high enough.

quote:

>
> O dear - an analogy which completely inverts the situation. The truth of it
> was that FIDE said, "we've changed the rules, and our chap doesn't have to
> play anybody, that's fair!'

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that awarding the
title to Karpov after Fischer's abdication was completely in accordance
with FIDE rules, rules that had been in effect for some years. Someone
more knowledgeable may be able to correct me, but I believe the same
thing would have happened had any previous FIDE champion declined to
play the official challenger. Thus Bronstein would have been declared
champion had Botvinnik declined to play in 1951, or Fischer would have
become champion by default had Spassky refused in 1972.

quote:

> I would have thought that requiring a 1948 Avro-esque would be precisely
> what would determine if the previous #2 could win the #1 spot. Karpov,
> though his style of play is quiet and technical, is one of the most
> exceptionally moody players - in an artistic sense - that I know about.
>
> While he said he always had an, again artistic, animus against Korchnoi
> which sparked and raised his ches playing capability, he could never summon
> the same as Kasparov. [Just in passing, he paid a very high compliment to
> Fischer, who he rated highest of all in his interest [[Karpov on Karpov,
> 1991]] and mentioned something like the "90 percentile."]
>
> I suppose I could ask him, but already in his own words Karpov explained how
> her ran around the world for 3 years trying to make a match against Fischer,
> because HE felt that was necessary to justify becoming world champion,
> rather unlike what you say above which was FIDE's perspective, and for
> Karpov this would be a fair means to be titled World Champion.
>
> I disagree with Larry Parr and maybe Larry Evans too, that Karpov tried to
> avoid a match. I see it differently. I think Karpov was quite sincere, but
> remarkably naive!
>
> I think that Fischer entertained all these ideas from Karpov, but saw the
> shaded crowd behind him, and sensed rightly or wrongly that he was not
> dealing with the main negotiator in Karpov, and those people were not nearly
> so interested.
>
> Some measure of this was the sheer volume of shit that Russians published
> about Fischer's unreasonable conditions, his state of mind, etc.
>
> Anyone watched cold-war Soviet-Russian rhetoric long enough knows exactly
> what this indicates! And they were obviously mad as hell at this 'outlaw' of
> a nondescript system, who beat their golden boy in 'their own' showcase
> sport, and their almighty bloody system.

I strongly agree with your last two paragraphs.

Chess One

2006-08-17, 11:36 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1155831617.599215.126180@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Those two did not qualify for the Candidate Matches. I don't have the
> 1973 Interzonal standings to hand, but I would assume that they did not
> finish high enough.

Well, are you arguing personalities or principles?

quote:

>
> I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that awarding the
> title to Karpov after Fischer's abdication was completely in accordance
> with FIDE rules, rules that had been in effect for some years. Someone
> more knowledgeable may be able to correct me, but I believe the same
> thing would have happened had any previous FIDE champion declined to
> play the official challenger. Thus Bronstein would have been declared
> champion had Botvinnik declined to play in 1951, or Fischer would have
> become champion by default had Spassky refused in 1972.
>
>
> I strongly agree with your last two paragraphs.

Did you read Gulko's manuscript yet? Your interviewee doesn't come out of it
so well.

Also try "I was Fisher's victim", by Taimanov.

The only difference between East and West is that in my interview with
Taimanov the East expected these behaviors, expected the championship to be
'biased', and the Western press apologised for the Soviets, as they had done
since 1939, and were too shy to mention it at the time.

PI

[A forgotten anecdote from a few days ago is that Zamyatin's 'We', the
stimulus for 1984, was, according to Orwell, initially banned from
publication in the UK and in the US.]

Taylor Kingston

2006-08-17, 11:36 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1155831617.599215.126180@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well, are you arguing personalities or principles?

In this context, a totally bizarre and irrelevant question, typical
of Phil Innes.

help bot

2006-08-18, 2:47 am

Chess One wrote:

quote:

Playing Santa to Karpov? This comment reveals nothing
if not the inherent bias of its writer. The only "gift" Karpov
received here was not having to get beat up on by Fischer,
who would then have retained the title. Yet Karpov was at
the same time, jilted out of a bunch of easy money. After
all, *anyone* could lose a match to Fischer. But Fischer
wouldn't play just anyone.

[vbcol=seagreen]

Phil forgot to take his meds again. He needs them for
his memory to function.

....[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Well, are you arguing personalities or principles?

LOL! It seems to me that it is near-Phil IM who is focused
upon the cult of personality here. The anti-Karpov slant is
such that the camera must itself be mounted on a Parrian
swivel! "Tilt!" -- the pinball machine flashes.

quote:

FIDE's chap? Boy, you should be writing novels, like
Stephen King. One minute, the villain is portrayed as
Russia's "golden boy", the next, he belongs to the evil
minions at FIDE HQ. No doubt the plot will thicken as
it is revealed in a later chapter that FIDE and Russia
are both secretly controlled by an organisation called
CHAOS, which ultimately seeks to take over the entire
world!

[vbcol=seagreen]

Question: are evil villains to be taken at their word, so
long as it is committed to print? I don't think so. This
inconsistency in the plot is troubling.

[vbcol=seagreen]

FYI: suggesting that you disagree with one but perhaps
not the other, is as naive as it gets. These two are like
Dolly the sheep: they "think" exactly alike when it comes
to the anti-Karpov and anti-FIDE issues. Searching for
issues on which these two *don't* "think" alike, is akin to
searching for a needle in a haystack.

[vbcol=seagreen]

Interesting. So you think the motive *must* be external.
It could not possibly be that the flaw lay within. I expect
you also have a similar rationalisation for Fischer's Bxh2
blunder against Spassky, and for his problems against
the French Defense. Hmmm. And his troubles with
women -- blame it on his mother, then? How about the
time he threw a gutterball, when he should have picked
up the spare? Too much floor wax? I see....

[vbcol=seagreen]

A good point. Fischer could read Russian (to some extent),
so unlike Chess Life readers, he likely was exposed to a lot
of rhetoric from the sore losers from whom he snatched the
title in 1972.

[vbcol=seagreen]

You know, whenever it suits their fancy, the Evans
ratpackers will portray *Botvinnik* as the "golden boy"
of Russia, substituting this for substantive evidence
that he did all sorts of evil. But now the subject does
not involve Botvinnik, so they take the liberty of borrowing
the phrase to use against Karpov, until such time as it
becomes convenient to put the title of "golden boy" back
from where it came.

[vbcol=seagreen]

Ah, gymnastics! Or did you mean couples figure skating?
No matter.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Did you read Gulko's manuscript yet?

He never sent it to me. I offered to do some proofreading,
but he never mentioned that he was writing it in Russian!

quote:

> Your interviewee doesn't come out of it so well.

Nyet?

quote:

> Also try "I was Fisher's victim", by Taimanov.

Idiot! Why can't he write a book on his famous match
with Bobby, instead of this unknown patzer, "Fisher"?

quote:

> [A forgotten anecdote from a few days ago is that Zamyatin's 'We', the
> stimulus for 1984, was, according to Orwell, initially banned from
> publication in the UK and in the US.]

My speculation is that this book was written in Russian,
and thus entire sections or ideas may have been swiped
by writers in English, much the same way that many
Russian chess books and book titles have. Naturally,
when we read about such theft it is always the Russians
stealing from us, without paying any royalties. The whole
world, tilted on a camera swivel.

-- help bot

Chess One

2006-08-18, 7:36 pm

"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155878841.055022.324270@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
>
> FIDE's chap? Boy, you should be writing novels, like
> Stephen King. One minute, the villain is portrayed as
> Russia's "golden boy", the next, he belongs to the evil
> minions at FIDE HQ.

I am making precisely the case that Karpov was neither of those cartoons.
Not that this response addresses what I wrote.

quote:

> No doubt the plot will thicken as
> it is revealed in a later chapter that FIDE and Russia
> are both secretly controlled by an organisation called
> CHAOS, which ultimately seeks to take over the entire
> world!

And this is the person who talks of being on, or was it off, the meds?

quote:

>
>
>
> Question: are evil villains to be taken at their word,

Well, the term is yours!

quote:

> so
> long as it is committed to print? I don't think so. This
> inconsistency in the plot is troubling.

And so is this cartoonish view of history and people. If you answer your own
question, consider how much you know about either as a qualifying agent to
what you make of things.

quote:

>
>
> FYI: suggesting that you disagree with one but perhaps
> not the other, is as naive as it gets. These two are like
> Dolly the sheep: they "think" exactly alike when it comes
> to the anti-Karpov and anti-FIDE issues.

Actually, that is far from true! But as a response it again avoids the issue
raised, and instead of addressing the context of Karpov's representation to
Fischer of a W Ch basis, slinks off as usual to gratuitously slag Parr and
Evans.

quote:

> Searching for
> issues on which these two *don't* "think" alike, is akin to
> searching for a needle in a haystack.
>
>
>
>
> Interesting. So you think the motive *must* be external.

Whose motive and for what? And I used no imperative in my sentences above.

quote:

> It could not possibly be that the flaw lay within. I expect
> you also have a similar rationalisation for Fischer's Bxh2
> blunder against Spassky, and for his problems against
> the French Defense. Hmmm.

You 'expect' because you have a slim grasp on the dynamics of the issue,
having forgotten that most all we know is of public persona, behind which
are real people - therefore you 'expect' similar cartoonish explanations to
match your own understanding.

quote:

> And his troubles with
> women -- blame it on his mother, then? How about the
> time he threw a gutterball, when he should have picked
> up the spare? Too much floor wax? I see....

I hope you are not going to turn into another Sexpert who tried Henry Miller
once, but didn't like... Are you making Fischer's private life a cartoon as
well? If so, it would explain much. Personally I think he was intensely
private and if he had some assignations the last thing that would occur to
him would be to talk about it in public.

It also needs to be distinguished that there was a mother fixation rather
than a degree of family fixation [which is an odd way to talk about
traditional relations at home, and there being only one parent in the
family], which is a consideration worthy of evaluating - and it isn't
paranoia to distrust men, eg, when dad isn't around - not that many of us
ever discover so many 'wise uncles' in the world either.

In terms of human relationships obviously there was a slow start in
developing them - but that is the unexceptional condition of many people,
especially in the arts, which seems all consuming.

While, I suppose, some of these factors may have influenced Fischer after
winning the world title, I do not see any particular behavior associated
with them that is much different than the introverted Karpov, another loner,
who on visiting Paris with a Russian group knew others thought him odd
because they went to a disco and he spent all day alone in the Louvre. One
might even suspect some personality concordance between them.

quote:

>
>
> A good point. Fischer could read Russian (to some extent),
> so unlike Chess Life readers, he likely was exposed to a lot
> of rhetoric from the sore losers from whom he snatched the
> title in 1972.

I don't think he could read Russian sufficiently to understand any nuance
written in Russia [which would very anodyne criticism indeed] whereas
certain western writers were pleased to repeat Russian 'opinion' to English.

quote:

>
>
> You know, whenever it suits their fancy, the Evans
> ratpackers will portray *Botvinnik* as the "golden boy"
> of Russia, substituting this for substantive evidence
> that he did all sorts of evil.

I wonder if Taimanov is included in the "Evans' ratpackers' group? Not that
MT wrote of any evil, but that was how the entire system worked, that highly
talented people were further selected for their political correctness, and
no excess or special energy should be expended to deplete 'internal'
sources, when there are foreign boogers out there to be dominated!

When quite literally the head of the Empire hangs a gold medal round your
neck, not for chess, but for services to the state, then you are indeed a
political 'golden boy'.

quote:

> But now the subject does
> not involve Botvinnik, so they take the liberty of borrowing
> the phrase to use against Karpov, until such time as it
> becomes convenient to put the title of "golden boy" back
> from where it came.

If that indeed is the extent of their opinion, it is a crude one, albeit
originating from a crude regime. But I am confused about your own
appreciation of these things - don't you know that MT avered this official
'champion' malarky? That it is no fantasy or invention. That the cold war
was still going on, a massive game of liar's poker, with people as
expendable chips.

quote:

>
>
> Ah, gymnastics! Or did you mean couples figure skating?
> No matter.

You need an education in this subjct: There were 3 showcase performance
arts: The Ballet, The Circus and Chess.

quote:

>
>
> He never sent it to me. I offered to do some proofreading,
> but he never mentioned that he was writing it in Russian!

Of course he didn't mention it because you never asked him. If you had you
would have had only to negotiate English.

quote:

>
>
> Nyet?

Gulko cites Averbakh's contribution to his own chess carear.

quote:

>
>
> Idiot! Why can't he write a book on his famous match
> with Bobby, instead of this unknown patzer, "Fisher"?

Because he is as trite as you?

quote:

>
>
>
> My speculation is that this book was written in Russian,

So much for all these specualtions!

The difference between your commentary and those with whom you disagree, is
that they know things, and do not write an almost exclusively factless
screed entirely composed of speculations - instead they seem to know both
more of the foreground issues of the players, and also the context within
which it all occured.

Quite recently on the tv someone asked Dylan about why he wrote as he did in
the late sixties, and why those expressions seemed so much more alive and
durable than most 'pop' - and as much in his look as in his words, but he
said that everyone expected the bomb to drop any time now, and it didn't
really matter much which side was right or wrong, the whole game was played
by idiots.

That's a comment made of the times by someone about the same age as Fischer.

Phil Innes

quote:

> and thus entire sections or ideas may have been swiped
> by writers in English, much the same way that many
> Russian chess books and book titles have. Naturally,
> when we read about such theft it is always the Russians
> stealing from us, without paying any royalties. The whole
> world, tilted on a camera swivel.
>
>
> -- help bot
>

Taylor Kingston

2006-08-18, 7:36 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> Well, are you arguing personalities or principles?

Chess One

2006-08-18, 7:36 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1155907681.177566.87150@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> Well, are you arguing personalities or principles?

Rummaging through my closet, I found my stash of 1973 Chess Life and
Review. There were two 18-player Interzonals that year, one in
Leningrad, one in Petropolis, Brazil. The top three finishers from each
qualified for the Candidate Matches, along with Petrosian and Spassky,
who were automatically seeded from the previous cycle.
At Leningrad, Karpov and Korchnoi tied for first at 13½-3½.

**there you have it - viktor i think has an alternate history of what
constitutes chess strength - that is, without medals, and state support, and
his family hostage to events - but even today, which of them would win a
match? kortchnoi was always Karpov's bete noire. Taimanov said about 'aura',
you know, that feeling eminating from a few players which made you shrink,
that only a few players had it - Kasparov, Fischer, Kortchmoi, and Tal. He
didn't mention Spassky nor Karpov.

Third
was R. Byrne, 12½-4½. Smejkal was 4th, Larsen 5th, Taimanov =8-10th
(with Tal and Gligoric).
At Petropolis, Mecking won, scoring 12-5. =2nd-4th were Portisch,
Polugaevsky, and Geller at 11½-5½. Geller was eliminated in a later
playoff.
1974 Candidate Match results:

Spassky +3 =3 over Byrne
Karpov +3 =5 over Polugaevsky
Korchnoi +3 -1 =9 over Mecking
Petrosian +3 -2 =8 over Portisch

Korchnoi +3 -1 =1 over Petrosian
Karpov +4 -1 =6 over Spassky

Karpov +3 -2 =19 over Korchnoi

**but when viktor was bad he was very bad, according to the politburo.
taimanov wrote me that his visit to liverpool was signed by stalin himself!
that is a measure of how important chess was to external presentations.

PI

help bot

2006-08-19, 2:36 am

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> Rummaging through my closet, I found my stash of 1973 Chess Life and
> Review. There were two 18-player Interzonals that year, one in
> Leningrad, one in Petropolis, Brazil. The top three finishers from each
> qualified for the Candidate Matches, along with Petrosian and Spassky,
> who were automatically seeded from the previous cycle.
> At Leningrad, Karpov and Korchnoi tied for first at 13=BD-3=BD. Third
> was R. Byrne, 12=BD-4=BD. Smejkal was 4th, Larsen 5th, Taimanov =3D8-10th
> (with Tal and Gligoric).
> At Petropolis, Mecking won, scoring 12-5. =3D2nd-4th were Portisch,
> Polugaevsky, and Geller at 11=BD-5=BD. Geller was eliminated in a later
> playoff.
> 1974 Candidate Match results:
>
> Spassky +3 =3D3 over Byrne
> Karpov +3 =3D5 over Polugaevsky
> Korchnoi +3 -1 =3D9 over Mecking
> Petrosian +3 -2 =3D8 over Portisch
>
> Korchnoi +3 -1 =3D1 over Petrosian
> Karpov +4 -1 =3D6 over Spassky
>
> Karpov +3 -2 =3D19 over Korchnoi

Chess One

2006-08-19, 7:36 pm

"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155961957.610370.110490@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> Rummaging through my closet, I found my stash of 1973 Chess Life and
> Review. There were two 18-player Interzonals that year, one in
> Leningrad, one in Petropolis, Brazil. The top three finishers from each
> qualified for the Candidate Matches, along with Petrosian and Spassky,
> who were automatically seeded from the previous cycle.
> At Leningrad, Karpov and Korchnoi tied for first at 13½-3½. Third
> was R. Byrne, 12½-4½. Smejkal was 4th, Larsen 5th, Taimanov =8-10th
> (with Tal and Gligoric).
> At Petropolis, Mecking won, scoring 12-5. =2nd-4th were Portisch,
> Polugaevsky, and Geller at 11½-5½. Geller was eliminated in a later
> playoff.
> 1974 Candidate Match results:
>
> Spassky +3 =3 over Byrne
> Karpov +3 =5 over Polugaevsky
> Korchnoi +3 -1 =9 over Mecking
> Petrosian +3 -2 =8 over Portisch
>
> Korchnoi +3 -1 =1 over Petrosian
> Karpov +4 -1 =6 over Spassky
>
> Karpov +3 -2 =19 over Korchnoi

Don't try and confuse near-IM Innes with the facts!

He said Santa brought Karpov the title, and no list of
players, not even one which includes all the above
Titans of chess, can change his way of "thinking", if
one can call it that. The main point is that Evans,
Parr, and therefore, Innes, don't like the fact that Karpov
got the title instead of Fischer, and so they will squeal
about it until doomsday.

**My point is quite different than this - not that almost-a-name is able to
distinguish any fine points at all - but that Karpov himself should join the
group of people who didn't like being handed the title by Santa-Fide,
otherwise he would not have chased Fischer around the world for 3 years.

**This is not such a fine point, and maybe almost-a-name could get it?
especially if he had left the text in to which he sort of replies. Better to
fudge it all up with his kissing-cousin Kingston, and try to be
vaguer-than-thou.

**The very point of the issue was that Kortchnoi was a very viable contender
for the title, and in match-play against Karpov would be expected to have
done very well indeed.

Nothing and nobody can stop
them. They were born to whine, and we were born to
listen. Personally, I think Fischer deserved a more
intelligent group of whiners, but I could be wrong.

**personally? ROFL! you can't even write your own name! but spend your time
slagging off others, as if you knew something other than contesting
knowledge by basically incompetent recapitulations you are not even brave
enough to let stand.

**see if you do either thing - actually gird up your loins and write to an
issue, speaking your own stuff like an ordinary human being, without need to
group and trash all other people who hold other opinions like an angry
fundamentalist mullah, and also try writing your own name since the 2 are
often thought to be linked.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

Taylor Kingston

2006-08-19, 7:36 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> **The very point of the issue was that Kortchnoi was a very viable conten=

der

quote:

> for the title,

No one is disputing that. Korchnoi had been in the world's top 10
since the early 1960s, and in 1974 showed that he was #3 in the world,
behind Fischer and Karpov.

quote:

> and in match-play against Karpov would be expected to have
> done very well indeed.

Yes, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, he narrowly lost to
Karpov 11=BD-12=BD (+2 -3 =3D19) in the final 1974 Candidates Match, played
16 September to 22 November 1974 in Moscow. While compared to most
others' results against Karpov, this was "very well indeed," the fact
remains that Korchnoi *_did lose._* It cannot be argued that he was
denied his chance.
If I understand Innes (not an easy task), he is arguing that when
Fischer abdicated, Korchnoi (and perhaps the other candidates) should
have been given a second chance. While it goes against my grain to side
with Karpov on much of anything, this seems unfair to him. Why must he
win the title twice?
And, as I have said several times here, I believe it would have
contravened a rule already on the FIDE books, that the challenger
assumed the title in the event of the champion's abdication.
I also wonder, had it been a non-Soviet candidate -- Byrne, Mecking,
or Portisch -- who had won his matches and been awarded the title when
Fischer abdicated, would anyone here be saying the process was unfair?

Chess One

2006-08-19, 7:36 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1156003212.737970.270600@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> **The very point of the issue was that Kortchnoi was a very viable
> contender
> for the title,

No one is disputing that. Korchnoi had been in the world's top 10
since the early 1960s, and in 1974 showed that he was #3 in the world,
behind Fischer and Karpov.

**O good, I'm glad no one isn't.

quote:

> and in match-play against Karpov would be expected to have
> done very well indeed.

Yes, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, he narrowly lost to
Karpov 11½-12½ (+2 -3 =19) in the final 1974 Candidates Match, played
16 September to 22 November 1974 in Moscow. While compared to most
others' results against Karpov, this was "very well indeed," the fact
remains that Korchnoi *_did lose._* It cannot be argued that he was
denied his chance.

**i'm glad Kingston takes the opportunity to once more no notice the funny
circumstances surrounding Korchnoi's chess.

If I understand Innes (not an easy task), he is arguing that when
Fischer abdicated, Korchnoi (and perhaps the other candidates) should
have been given a second chance.

**for someone with so little contextual knowledge this is mighty big of
Kingston to try to restate my point, rather than just let it stand. It is
Kingston's point that the default should go to the winner of the candidate
cycle - it is MY point to say that this was novel, and we have a world champ
who never played for it as such, and who is awareded the title without a
match.

Let us see if Kingston can accept these plain statements without struggling
to understand - because he takes so much onto his own understanding that I
have the feeling that it is a bit too overbearing for him.

I initially cited the WWII tournament as a previous precedent - and where
the AVRO winner was NOT selected to be world champ. Instead we had some
chess which Botvinnik won. I am suggesting that everyone seemed to want a
chess match to be played to gain the world title, except Fide.

While it goes against my grain to side
with Karpov on much of anything, this seems unfair to him. Why must he
win the title twice?

**He never won the title at all. He was just the previous best candidate
from a previous year. He himself wanted to /win/ the title - or as I have
just noted to almost-a-helper, why would he have chased Fischer round the
world for 3 years instead of just saying "to hell with it, okay I'll be W
Ch?"

**Kingston sides with the Fide position. Its okay! I mean, he can hold a
different point of view from me - at least its okay with me, and I have no
trouble understanding Kingston's or Fide's position.

And, as I have said several times here, I believe it would have
contravened a rule already on the FIDE books, that the challenger
assumed the title in the event of the champion's abdication.

**did you mean to insert a negative in that sentence? since what you wrote
made it illegal for the champion to assume.. etc

I also wonder, had it been a non-Soviet candidate -- Byrne, Mecking,
or Portisch -- who had won his matches and been awarded the title when
Fischer abdicated, would anyone here be saying the process was unfair?

**so much for Korchnoi's circumstances. and also a vague reference to
'fair'. "Did you win the world title, not exactly, I was the last best"
seems to be the sentiment - which I repeat was a NEW idea, since it did NOT
happen après-Alekhine.

**An alternative would have been to have declared the world title open, and
seeded Karpov to the semi-finals maybe, but at least he would have had to
have played a game of chess to earn the title of world champion. If indeed,
as I suspect to be the case, Karpov himself preferred this, does Kingston
actually object?

Phil Innes

Taylor Kingston

2006-08-19, 7:36 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> Yes, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, he narrowly lost to
> Karpov 11=BD-12=BD (+2 -3 =3D19) in the final 1974 Candidates Match, play=

quote:

> 16 September to 22 November 1974 in Moscow. While compared to most
> others' results against Karpov, this was "very well indeed," the fact
> remains that Korchnoi *_did lose._* It cannot be argued that he was
> denied his chance.
>
> **i'm glad Kingston takes the opportunity to once more no notice the funny
> circumstances surrounding Korchnoi's chess.

To what "funny circumstances" do you refer?

quote:

> If I understand Innes (not an easy task), he is arguing that when
> Fischer abdicated, Korchnoi (and perhaps the other candidates) should
> have been given a second chance.
>
> **for someone with so little contextual knowledge this is mighty big of
> Kingston to try to restate my point, rather than just let it stand. It is
> Kingston's point that the default should go to the winner of the candidate
> cycle - it is MY point to say that this was novel, and we have a world ch=

amp

quote:

> who never played for it as such, and who is awareded the title without a
> match.
>
> Let us see if Kingston can accept these plain statements without struggli=

quote:

> to understand - because he takes so much onto his own understanding that I
> have the feeling that it is a bit too overbearing for him.
>
> I initially cited the WWII tournament as a previous precedent - and where
> the AVRO winner was NOT selected to be world champ. Instead we had some
> chess which Botvinnik won. I am suggesting that everyone seemed to want a
> chess match to be played to gain the world title, except Fide.

The situations are not equivalent. In the two or three years
preceding Fischer's abdication, there had been an extensive, organized
process at work: FIDE Zonals, Interzonals, and Candidate Matches, by
which a single official challenger, proven in competition, was
selected. In the years immediately prior to Alekhine's death, there had
been no equivalent process, no organized competition from which a
single clear challenger emerged. Thus the necessity for Hague-Moscow
1948.

quote:

> While it goes against my grain to side
> with Karpov on much of anything, this seems unfair to him. Why must he
> win the title twice?
>
> **He never won the title at all. He was just the previous best candidate
> from a previous year.

Ah, a Fischer die-hard, who still believes Bobby is Champion of the
World? I only know of one other person who believes that.

quote:

> He himself wanted to /win/ the title - or as I have
> just noted to almost-a-helper, why would he have chased Fischer round the
> world for 3 years instead of just saying "to hell with it, okay I'll be W
> Ch?"

I tend to agree. I think Karpov probably wanted to play in 1975. That
has nothing to do with the fallacious analogy between 1975 and 1946-48.

quote:

> **Kingston sides with the Fide position. Its okay! I mean, he can hold a
> different point of view from me - at least its okay with me, and I have no
> trouble understanding Kingston's or Fide's position.
>
> And, as I have said several times here, I believe it would have
> contravened a rule already on the FIDE books, that the challenger
> assumed the title in the event of the champion's abdication.
>
> **did you mean to insert a negative in that sentence? since what you wrote
> made it illegal for the champion to assume.. etc

quote:

> I also wonder, had it been a non-Soviet candidate -- Byrne, Mecking,
> or Portisch -- who had won his matches and been awarded the title when
> Fischer abdicated, would anyone here be saying the process was unfair?
>
> **so much for Korchnoi's circumstances.

quote:

> and also a vague reference to
> 'fair'. "Did you win the world title, not exactly, I was the last best"
> seems to be the sentiment - which I repeat was a NEW idea, since it did N=

quote:

> happen apr=E8s-Alekhine.
>
> **An alternative would have been to have declared the world title open, a=

quote:

> seeded Karpov to the semi-finals maybe, but at least he would have had to
> have played a game of chess to earn the title of world champion. If indee=

quote:

> as I suspect to be the case, Karpov himself preferred this, does Kingston
> actually object?

You are saying that if he could not play Fischer, then Karpov wanted
to play Korchnoi all over again? I'm not aware that he ever said such a
thing.

The Historian

2006-08-19, 7:36 pm

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> Chess One wrote:
>
> Ah, a Fischer die-hard, who still believes Bobby is Champion of the
> World? I only know of one other person who believes that.

I have met a chessplayer who swore Karpov was never world champion. His
'logic' was that the 1978 match in the Philipines, a match to choose
Fischer's replacement, was so corrupt that Karpov should have been
disqualified. The next 'real' championship was in 1983, when Kasparov
beat Korchnoi. So his timeline of champions runs:

1972-1975 Fischer
1975-1978 vacant
1978-1983 Korchnoi
1983 - 2000 Kasparov

This example proves that Innes isn't the only nutcase in chess.

Chess One

2006-08-19, 7:36 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1156014054.014403.10780@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> Yes, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, he narrowly lost to
> Karpov 11½-12½ (+2 -3 =19) in the final 1974 Candidates Match, played
> 16 September to 22 November 1974 in Moscow. While compared to most
> others' results against Karpov, this was "very well indeed," the fact
> remains that Korchnoi *_did lose._* It cannot be argued that he was
> denied his chance.
>
> **i'm glad Kingston takes the opportunity to once more no notice the funny
> circumstances surrounding Korchnoi's chess.

To what "funny circumstances" do you refer?

**first of all your browser is not set to normal newsnet protocols, please
make a not of it, secondly you perhaps missed what has recently been noted
here about Kornoi'c hostages to circumstance?

quote:

> If I understand Innes (not an easy task), he is arguing that when
> Fischer abdicated, Korchnoi (and perhaps the other candidates) should
> have been given a second chance.
>
> **for someone with so little contextual knowledge this is mighty big of
> Kingston to try to restate my point, rather than just let it stand. It is
> Kingston's point that the default should go to the winner of the candidate
> cycle - it is MY point to say that this was novel, and we have a world
> champ
> who never played for it as such, and who is awareded the title without a
> match.
>
> Let us see if Kingston can accept these plain statements without
> struggling
> to understand - because he takes so much onto his own understanding that I
> have the feeling that it is a bit too overbearing for him.
>
> I initially cited the WWII tournament as a previous precedent - and where
> the AVRO winner was NOT selected to be world champ. Instead we had some
> chess which Botvinnik won. I am suggesting that everyone seemed to want a
> chess match to be played to gain the world title, except Fide.

The situations are not equivalent. In the two or three years
preceding Fischer's abdication, there had been an extensive, organized
process at work: FIDE Zonals, Interzonals, and Candidate Matches, by
which a single official challenger, proven in competition, was
selected. In the years immediately prior to Alekhine's death, there had
been no equivalent process,

**there was world war II.

no organized competition from which a
single clear challenger emerged. Thus the necessity for Hague-Moscow
1948.

**in other words, the suceeding candidate becoming world champ WAS novel,
which is what I wrote in the first place.

quote:

> While it goes against my grain to side
> with Karpov on much of anything, this seems unfair to him. Why must he
> win the title twice?
>
> **He never won the title at all. He was just the previous best candidate
> from a previous year.

Ah, a Fischer die-hard, who still believes Bobby is Champion of the
World?

**you are a specualtor and imaginer on the level of a help-not? How come you
talk about who talks when you can't answer? why there is any implication of
being a Fischer die-hard is unknown to me, but assumed by Kingston who no
doubts relates his own imagination of what I clearly never said to drug
usage

I only know of one other person who believes that.

**who you know is a remarkably inconsiderable comment

quote:

> He himself wanted to /win/ the title - or as I have
> just noted to almost-a-helper, why would he have chased Fischer round the
> world for 3 years instead of just saying "to hell with it, okay I'll be W
> Ch?"

I tend to agree. I think Karpov probably wanted to play in 1975. That
has nothing to do with the fallacious analogy between 1975 and 1946-48.

** should I say 'o really? why don't you say why it is fallacious' or should
I not bother because Kingston himself doesn't bother?

quote:

> **Kingston sides with the Fide position. Its okay! I mean, he can hold a
> different point of view from me - at least its okay with me, and I have no
> trouble understanding Kingston's or Fide's position.
>
> And, as I have said several times here, I believe it would have
> contravened a rule already on the FIDE books, that the challenger
> assumed the title in the event of the champion's abdication.
>
> **did you mean to insert a negative in that sentence? since what you wrote
> made it illegal for the champion to assume.. etc

Ah, Phil, who loves to complain about context-snipping, clips the
antecedent of my quote to try to score a spurious point. The "it" in my
sentence referred to doing something other the rule of succession
already on FIDE's books.

**agreed! your bad writing is my fault, and why be specific when you can say
"it"? In other words, Kingston is agreeing with me in his own peculiar way,
and even his second explanation of what he means is pretty vague, viz:

' The "it" in my sentence referred to doing something other the rule of
succession already on FIDE's books '

quote:

> I also wonder, had it been a non-Soviet candidate -- Byrne, Mecking,
> or Portisch -- who had won his matches and been awarded the title when
> Fischer abdicated, would anyone here be saying the process was unfair?
>
> **so much for Korchnoi's circumstances.

quote:

> and also a vague reference to
> 'fair'. "Did you win the world title, not exactly, I was the last best"
> seems to be the sentiment - which I repeat was a NEW idea, since it did
> NOT
> happen après-Alekhine.
>
> **An alternative would have been to have declared the world title open,
> and
> seeded Karpov to the semi-finals maybe, but at least he would have had to
> have played a game of chess to earn the title of world champion. If
> indeed,
> as I suspect to be the case, Karpov himself preferred this, does Kingston
> actually object?

You are saying that if he could not play Fischer, then Karpov wanted
to play Korchnoi all over again?

**idiotic! I am not saying that, since, Louis Blair pelease note, I neveer
said that. What Kingston means with his poor english, is that it is his
inference that... but how he shoould be able to create such an inferecne
from what I said is not known to me.

**I simply said that Korchnoi was also a viable candidate for the W Ch and
who, besides, had a fair chance of winning it, rather than this scenario of
Karpov being the only possible successor. A free Korchnoi and family would
have been a very tough opponent indeed.

I'm not aware that he ever said such a
thing.

**Again, what Kingston is aware of is some vague business to which I do not
make direct inquiry. I only write Korchnoi, his publisher, editors, sparring
partners and other colleagues.

Phil Innes

Taylor Kingston

2006-08-19, 7:36 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> Chess One wrote:
>
> To what "funny circumstances" do you refer?
>
> **first of all your browser is not set to normal newsnet protocols, please
> make a not of it, secondly you perhaps missed what has recently been noted
> here about Kornoi'c hostages to circumstance?

You are saying that Korchnoi's family was held hostage when he played
Karpov in the *_1974_* Candidates Final? Two years *_before_* he
defected in 1976? Funny, I have Korchnoi's autobiography, the latest
edition, here in front of me. He mentions the hostage situation with
respect to the 1978 and 1981 matches, but not the 1974 match, when he
was still a citizen of the USSR.
But, perhaps you know something about Korchnoi even Korchnoi does not
know. So, please tell us, who were the hostages in 1974?

help bot

2006-08-19, 11:37 pm

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> If I understand Innes (not an easy task), he is arguing that when
> Fischer abdicated, Korchnoi (and perhaps the other candidates) should
> have been given a second chance.

This is not my take; on the contrary, what Evans and his
evil ratpackers wish to peddle is that, even though Karpov
emerged as victor in the FIDE world championship cycle,
his so-called seizure of the title was tainted, because not
only did Karpov "fail" to defeat Fischer OTB, he also "failed"
in using political power to connive a victory over Kortchnoi.
Not to mention any other such tainted victories, obtained
through political pressure rather than simple, powerful
chess.

quote:

> While it goes against my grain to side
> with Karpov on much of anything,

Ah, so you *still* believe the Polugaevsky Sicilian to
be quite playable?!!

quote:

> this seems unfair to him. Why must he win the title twice?

Near-Innes IMphil is so mixed up these days that he
may very well have given this impression. But don't be
confused: Larry Parr's conspiracy theory in no way entails
that Karpov would be recognised as the real world champ
if only he had won it twice! On the contrary, he could win
it a thousand times, and the Evans/Parr clan would still
moan that he never beat Fischer OTB, and imply that he
never could.

quote:

> And, as I have said several times here, I believe it would have
> contravened a rule already on the FIDE books, that the challenger
> assumed the title in the event of the champion's abdication.
> I also wonder, had it been a non-Soviet candidate -- Byrne, Mecking,
> or Portisch -- who had won his matches and been awarded the title when
> Fischer abdicated, would anyone here be saying the process was unfair?

Good point. As I seem to recall, the attitude taken
by Chess Life (obviously controlled by its editors) was
very favorable to Mecking. I expect the same held true
for R. Byrne, but I'm not sure how Portisch fared back
then. Obviously, because of the Cold War mentality of
Chess Life editors, *any* candidate would be preferable
to a Russian, and would have received better treatment
than has Karpov in terms of the anti spin.

One of my favorite idiocies from these people is their
peculiar handling of the chess openings. To wit, if one
of their pets (let's say Kasparov, for example) happens
to play 1.d4, he is still described as being "dynamic",
no matter what happens next. But if say, Karpov were
to play 1.e4, no matter how "dynamic" the play that
follows, he is described as dull, lifeless, blah. For the
icing on the cake, these same writers will turn around
and ordain that 1.e4 is a "dynamic" opening, while 1.d4
is..."a dead piece of meat".

-- help bot

Louis Blair

2006-08-20, 2:35 am

I wrote (10 Aug 2006 13:31:13 -0700):
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
....
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:56:46 GMT):
7 ... I would have thought that requiring a 1948
7 Avro-esque would be precisely what would determine
7 if the previous #2 could win the #1 spot. ...
_
I wrote (17 Aug 2006 10:15:44 -0700):
7 ... This makes no sense to me. The candidate
7 process was intended to take the place of a candidate
7 tournament. Karpov had already gone through that
7 there was no reason to make him go through it again.
7 The only thing that was left was to play Fischer.
7 Fischer was not willing to play under non-"asinine"
7 rules. That made Karpov the winner. ...
_
....
_
After some comments by helpbot,
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:32:52 GMT):

7 ... Kortchnoi was a very viable contender for the title, and
7 in match-play against Karpov would be expected to have
7 done very well indeed. ...

_
"... Korchnoi had participated in the 1972-1975
challenger selection process and been
unsuccessful. ..." - Louis Blair (18 Aug 2006
18:38:27 -0700)

Louis Blair

2006-08-20, 2:35 am

I wrote (10 Aug 2006 13:31:13 -0700):
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7 ...
_
....
_
After some comments by Taylor Kingston,
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:34:52 GMT):

7 ... It is Kingston's point that the default should go to the
7 winner of the candidate cycle - it is MY point to say that
7 this was novel, and we have a world champ who never
7 played for it as such, and who is awareded the title
7 without a match. ...

_
Karpov had successfully finished the FIDE 1972-1975
challenger selection process including three matches.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:34:52 GMT):

7 ... I initially cited the WWII tournament as a previous
7 precedent - and where the AVRO winner was NOT
7 selected to be world champ. Instead we had some
7 chess which Botvinnik won.

_
"... AVRO 1938 ... was intended as an unofficial
candidates tournament, the idea being that the
winner would play Alekhine for the title. ... Keres
was declared winner by Sonneborn-Berger tie-break.
_
... Alekhine ... died in 1946.
_
FIDE ... organized Hague-Moscow 1948 to determine
a new World Champion. Botvinnik won, ..." - Taylor
Kingston (18 Aug 2006 09:57:33 -0700)
_
_
"... The decade of time from 1938 to 1948 is one
reason why Keres in 1948 is not a precedent for
Karpov in 1975. ..." - Louis Blair (18 Aug 2006
18:38:27 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:34:52 GMT):

7 I am suggesting that everyone seemed to want a chess
7 match to be played to gain the world title, except Fide.
7 ...

_
Where is there any indication of general interest in a
1975 Karpov-Korchnoi match?
_
"... Korchnoi had participated in the 1972-1975
challenger selection process and been
unsuccessful. ..." - Louis Blair (18 Aug 2006
18:38:27 -0700)
_
No doubt, people wanted to see a Fischer-Karpov
match. Unfortunately:
_
"Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:34:52 GMT):

7 ... [Karpov] never won the title at all. He was just the
7 previous best candidate from a previous year.

_
Karpov had successfully finished the FIDE 1972-1975
challenger selection process including three matches.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:34:52 GMT):

7 [Karpov] himself wanted to /win/ the title - or as I have
7 just noted to almost-a-helper, why would he have chased
7 Fischer round the world for 3 years instead of just saying
7 "to hell with it, okay I'll be W Ch?"

_
"There does not seem to be any reason to
doubt that [Karpov] felt a need to convince
the public that he was the best active
player, but that does not mean that Karpov
thought that it was wrong for FIDE to give
him the title in 1975." - Louis Blair
(17 Aug 2006 10:15:44 -0700)

Chess One

2006-08-20, 7:37 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1156025657.469228.134640@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> You are saying that Korchnoi's family was held hostage when he played
> Karpov in the *_1974_* Candidates Final? Two years *_before_* he
> defected in 1976? Funny, I have Korchnoi's autobiography, the latest
> edition, here in front of me. He mentions the hostage situation with
> respect to the 1978 and 1981 matches, but not the 1974 match, when he
> was still a citizen of the USSR.

He never mentioned how much fun that was! O ha ha ha.

quote:

> But, perhaps you know something about Korchnoi even Korchnoi does not
> know.

That even Korchnoi does not write.

quote:

> So, please tell us, who were the hostages in 1974?

You weren't interested in Gulko either. But even after knowing Averbakh was
going to cover his own actions [in fact, to lie, and after being given not
one, but two sources of contact], you couldn't think of ANY pertinent
questions to ask them, or Averbakh.

Phil Innes.

quote:

>

Chess One

2006-08-20, 7:37 pm

"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156040023.225153.206490@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>

For Greg Kennedy it is not, but what subject is, these days?

It seems to depend rather a lot on if you like the implication of what is
said - I made the outstandingly clear point 4 times that Kortchnoi was a
very viable contender. But Kennedy prefers vaguer Kingston's take on things

So, having started out this way, is it worth reading further?

Perhaps help-not does not know that I have been a personal friend of
Korchnoi's editor, and his publisher, for over 10 years - I think I have
VK's home phone around here someplace.

If help-not finds these these very plain statements to much for him - he
might attempt simpler subjects and write about the history of shove-ha'penny
or something adapted to his personal comfort level of understanding.

This being all to difficult.

Phil Innes
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> This is not my take; on the contrary, what Evans and his
> evil ratpackers wish to peddle is that, even though Karpov
> emerged as victor in the FIDE world championship cycle,
> his so-called seizure of the title was tainted, because not
> only did Karpov "fail" to defeat Fischer OTB, he also "failed"
> in using political power to connive a victory over Kortchnoi.
> Not to mention any other such tainted victories, obtained
> through political pressure rather than simple, powerful
> chess.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ah, so you *still* believe the Polugaevsky Sicilian to
> be quite playable?!!
>
>
>
>
>
> Near-Innes IMphil is so mixed up these days that he
> may very well have given this impression. But don't be
> confused: Larry Parr's conspiracy theory in no way entails
> that Karpov would be recognised as the real world champ
> if only he had won it twice! On the contrary, he could win
> it a thousand times, and the Evans/Parr clan would still
> moan that he never beat Fischer OTB, and imply that he
> never could.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Good point. As I seem to recall, the attitude taken
> by Chess Life (obviously controlled by its editors) was
> very favorable to Mecking. I expect the same held true
> for R. Byrne, but I'm not sure how Portisch fared back
> then. Obviously, because of the Cold War mentality of
> Chess Life editors, *any* candidate would be preferable
> to a Russian, and would have received better treatment
> than has Karpov in terms of the anti spin.
>
> One of my favorite idiocies from these people is their
> peculiar handling of the chess openings. To wit, if one
> of their pets (let's say Kasparov, for example) happens
> to play 1.d4, he is still described as being "dynamic",
> no matter what happens next. But if say, Karpov were
> to play 1.e4, no matter how "dynamic" the play that
> follows, he is described as dull, lifeless, blah. For the
> icing on the cake, these same writers will turn around
> and ordain that 1.e4 is a "dynamic" opening, while 1.d4
> is..."a dead piece of meat".
>
>
> -- help bot
>

help bot

2006-08-20, 7:37 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> Perhaps help-not does not know that I have been a personal friend of
> Korchnoi's editor, and his publisher, for over 10 years - I think I have
> VK's home phone around here someplace.

They say that "birds of a feather, flock together". IMO,
nearly an IM Innes might find a "kindred spirit" in the anon
known as Nick Boobaki. The same desperate need to
identify with the rich and famous. The same substitution
complex of what *others* think for what they apparently
cannot themselves. Just one tiny problem: IM Phil has
repeatedly declared that anons are cowardly scum who
are afraid of the dark, and Boobaki may take offense.

Oh well. I tried to help.

"You can lead a near-IM to water, but you can't make
him think." -- anon.

-- help bot

Louis Blair

2006-08-20, 11:37 pm

I wrote (10 Aug 2006 13:31:13 -0700):
7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
7 Life:
7
7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
7
7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
7
7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
_
....
_
After some comments by helpbot,
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:32:43 GMT):

7 ... I made the outstandingly clear point 4 times that
7 Kortchnoi was a very viable contender. ...

_
"... Korchnoi had participated in the 1972-1975
challenger selection process and been
unsuccessful. ..." - Louis Blair (18 Aug 2006
18:38:27 -0700)

help bot

2006-08-20, 11:37 pm

Louis Blair wrote:

quote:

> I wrote (10 Aug 2006 13:31:13 -0700):
> 7 ... GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess
> 7 Life:
> 7
> 7 "... [Karpov] will go down in history as the man
> 7 who avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and
> 7 then eluded him for the next ten years. ..."
> 7
> 7 Previously, GM Evans had written:
> 7
> 7 "Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
> 7 stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or
> 7 nobody else." - GM Evans (1975)
> _
> ...
> _
> After some comments by helpbot,
> Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:32:43 GMT):
>
> 7 ... I made the outstandingly clear point 4 times that
> 7 Kortchnoi was a very viable contender. ...
>
> _
> "... Korchnoi had participated in the 1972-1975
> challenger selection process and been
> unsuccessful. ..." - Louis Blair (18 Aug 2006
> 18:38:27 -0700)

I think near-IM Innes wants to change the subject. Like
his master, Larry Parr, he feels very uncomfortable when
confronting the self-contradictions and ground-shifting of
GM Evans.

To me, the mere suggestion that there ought to have
been further "playoffs" after Fischer surrendered the
title reveals psychological desperation. It boils down
to an outright rejection of the same rules and authority
which gave Fischer the title in the first place.

-------------------

Let's step back in time, shall we? In 1972, Spassky
held the title and a man who had never once defeated
him in *even a single game* was the challenger. If I am
not mistaken, the unfair advantage granted the champion
at that time was keeping the title in case of a tied match.
Fischer forfeited for not making the deadline set in advance
for *both* players as to showing up to play. Wait! No he
didn't. They made an exception, just for him. Next, our
man loses the first game, continuing his long streak of
never beating the champ, then forfeits the next. Wait! No
he didn't. They changed the rules again, and again, it was
to help Fischer. The poor guy obviously needed *a lot* of
help, since he evidently was outclassed or something.

Okay, the match resumes, and after a dispute wherein
Fischer created a disturbance on Spassky's time, that is,
with Spassky's clock ticking away, the spell is broken.
Nevermind that this is against the rules, for the arbiter's
"job" has shifted to helping poor Fischer in any way he
can, not enforcing the actual rules. I think they must have
forgotten to assign that job to anybody, because the match
arbiter usually is not so busy with other things. In any case,
the important thing is that "the show must go on", because
otherwise the organisers will lose thier shirts.

Long story (almost) short: Fischer wins. Spassky enters
next cycle, losing to Karpov. Tal and Petrosian are past
their primes, and yes, Victor Kortchnoi has (finally!) become
a force to be reckoned with, at the age of 92 or something.
The poor guy nearly starved to death when he ought to have
been in his prime, chesswise. Things are rough all over.
As if that weren't bad enough, he is forced to play the
Suicide Defense as Black against 1e4 (1.e4 e6, 2,d4 d5).
Or is this called something else these days? Anyway,
Kortchnoi gets all sorts of bad breaks, like having to play
Petrosian when he would have preferred *anybody* else,
even Fischer. His son is kidnapped by Karpov's thugs and
during play, bits and pieces of him turn up in Kortchnoi's
yogurt. Still, he fights to win. Then, after being poisoned,
shot, and thrown out a ten-story window, the man finally
cracks -- losing a single pawn. The rest is history.

Well, what do you think? Will it sell? Ooops! I know,
I know. I forgot to include a chase scene, and plenty of
chess-playing babes! Back to the old typewriter. How
about this: I include a scene in which Kortchnoi is
playing his nemisis, Karpov, and they *both* miss an
obvious mate-in-ten! So great is the hatred between them,
that they can't even see obvious mates, nor the fly which
fell into the cup of yogurt (zoom in close, then pull back and
show funny look on face, after --pretend-- consumption).

-- help bot

jamesrynd@aol.com

2006-08-22, 2:36 am

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> taimanov wrote me that his visit to liverpool was signed by stalin himself!

In what year did Taimanov visit Liverpool?

Larry Tapper

2006-08-22, 7:40 pm

jamesrynd@aol.com wrote:

quote:

> Chess One wrote:
>
> In what year did Taimanov visit Liverpool?

That would have been the students' world championship in 1952. During
this period Taimanov also travelled abroad with his wife Lyuba Bruk
giving duo piano recitals, so the question also arises how hard it was
for the two together to get permission for foreign concert tours.

LT

jamesrynd@aol.com

2006-08-22, 7:40 pm

Larry Tapper wrote:

quote:

>
> That would have been the students' world championship in 1952. During
> this period Taimanov also travelled abroad with his wife Lyuba Bruk
> giving duo piano recitals, so the question also arises how hard it was
> for the two together to get permission for foreign concert tours.
>
> LT

Interestingly, Taimanov is listed in the Internet Movie Database (IMDB)
but only as a pianist and star of a 1937 movie! No mention of his chess
career there at all.

Thanks for allowing an adult conversation about chess instead of the
usual Innes challenge, Larry.

Chess One

2006-08-23, 7:37 pm

"Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156249351.031770.298550@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> jamesrynd@aol.com wrote:
>
> That would have been the students' world championship in 1952. During
> this period Taimanov also travelled abroad with his wife Lyuba Bruk
> giving duo piano recitals, so the question also arises how hard it was
> for the two together to get permission for foreign concert tours.

If you behaved, you were okay, if closely watched, and while still being
'escorted'. If you have the double Phillips CD - there is picture of
Taimanov playing Evans with Che Guevara looking on.

Che cracked a joke [maybe not on this occasion?] about his dilemma of
starting a revolution someplace, maybe Venezuela, or becoming a chessplayer.

See also G. Cabrera Infante's /Mea Cuba/ which has an article on Capablanca,
which not incidentally includes a wickedly invented anecdote of Capa and
Alekhine in Petersburg in 1914, a balaliaka and a 'gorgeous gypsy girl', and
a bit of murder too - he says it first appeared in /The complete chess
addict/ by Mike Fox and Richard James. -- to which is superadded comments in
1960 by Dr Félix Martí Ibáñez, on the 'Freudian pearls' aspect of the game.

Larry Tapper is correct, for a fuller context read the chessville interview.

PI

quote:

> LT
>