Re: "Kasparov Retails Title on a Draw": Does this headline do

On Apr 21, 1:05 am, "parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> When Kasparov finally dethroned Karpov in 1986, he promptly struck
> a blow for chess justice by voluntarily renouncing the rematch clause.

  This /sounds/ good, but who really decided such
issues, the world champion, or FIDE?


> The format for future title matches
> returned to the best-of-24 games with draws counting.
> In 1987 he barely saved his title against Karpov on a
> 12-12 tie. Kasparov gave two reasons for sticking
> with this system at a symposium we both attended in
> Madrid:
>
> 1. Since he had to overcome draw odds when he was the underdog, he
> saw no reason why the challenger shouldn=92t have to vault the same
> obstacle.

  The infamous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.


> 2. Organizers must have a definite budget and solid dates when they
> book a playing hall, which isn=92t possible in an open-ended match.

  Change of subject ploy.


> Kasparov=92s argument makes sense

  Wrong.


> yet Fischer=92s point is still valid.
> Only wins should count.

  More of same.


  I expect a decent case /could be/ made, if only
these amateurs were to be fired, and replaced
by trained professionals, who would not make
such simple and transparent errors in thinking.


  -- help bot