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

On Apr 21, 12:17 pm, Rob <robmt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:34 pm, Rich Hutnik <richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 12:33 am, Rich Hutnik <richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > This headline was around 1990 or so in the NY Times.  Can someone
> > > please argue that having the world champion retaining their title
> > > because the tournament ended on a draw does anything to increase
> > > interest in chess and improve its viability?
>
> > > Please let me know if you see this doing ANYTHING at all to help
chess
> > > in any way.  Ok, maybe draws aren't the problem, but are they part
of
> > > the solution?
>
> > > - Rich
>
> > That should be Kasparov RETAINS Title on a Draw.  Blasted typos.
>
> > - Rich
>
> Ah... okay. LOL I should have read more. SOrry!
> Rob

Maybe I should keep it RETAILS, because apparently when someone
becomes a world champ, they sell out every principle to defend a
system that encourages them to draw their way to retain a title.  If
chess worked like boxing, the only way a challenger could ever become
champ would be to knock out the champ.  Not TKO, but flat knockout.
The champ would argue, as Kasparov did, that "well I had to knock out
the prior champ, so why should I make the challenger have it easy"?
And the defending champ will argue, and draw in sup****t of those who
host the champion****p, that replaying draws just won't work.  He could
also argue that there are no other competitions out there that play 24
games to decide who is champion anyhow.

- Rich