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

On Apr 21, 6:43 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> When you are designing a competition (or anything), there are a number
> of objectives. You'd want it to be credible (i.e. identifies the more
> deserving player) and exciting, but there are also logistical
considerations
> (competition can't last forever because there are costs of holding the
> competition etc.) So it is a tradeoff. Accepting that, say 1%, of the
> time the competition  may not be decisive is very minor and is a
defensible
> choice.
>
> The problem, as I've said, is that in a short match, the tied match
> possibility is not at all small. That's a real problem, and can be
reasonably
> addressed by various tie-breaks. Unfortunately, the real world is
> going the other way - matches are getting shorter thereby increasing the
> champion's advantage.
>
> Of course, for various reasons, we've seen the prestige of the
> WC devalued greatly over the past decades.

How many other games or s****ts have 24 or more games in their
champion****p series to determine who the world champ is?

If 24 games is not enough, how many is enough?  Are people supposed to
play 50 games?  When you happen to add time control to chess, and have
a world champion, you turn chess as a game, into a s****t.  Since this
is the case, is it not im****tant to see what other s****ts do?

And exactly how is more games going to make a difference if the
defending champion just has to draw to retain their title?  Are we
supposed to wait for game 37 so that he bungles?

- Rich