Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":

On Apr 23, 3:23 am, "parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In return for ditching the 24-game format in favor of the first player
> to win six games, FIDE restored the rematch clause in 1978 as a sop to
> Karpov, a favorite of the Kremlin, against Soviet defector Viktor
> Korchnoi
> whose family was held hostage inside the USSR. This dirty deal
> disgusted Fischer.> -
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 13)

How many organized s****ts have players playing 24 games?  And, let's
get real here people, when you start to introduce time controls to
chess, having titles, awarding points, Chess becomes a s****t.  Why
should any s****t need more than 24 games in order to decide who the
world champion is?  Want a simple solution?  How about if the
defending champion doesn't secure more points than his opponent after
24 games, then he loses his title, and there is no reigning world
champ.  At this point, chess could end up changing the rules and
introducing a superior tiebreaking system.  You then would end up
having a year without a world champ at chess.  Someone please tell me
exactly what reigning world champions do to help the growth of chess?
If nothing, why not end up not having one, if allows chess to to make
needed changes.  As I see it, the reigning chess champion is known by
next to no one outside the chess world.  How useful is that?  Are we
supposed to blame the reigning champ as not being Bobby Fischer?  In
other word, if the world champion isn't know around the world, not
having one would end up meaning they won't be missed.

As far as unlimited number of games go, are they going to hold the
world champion****p in the FIDE headquarters?  Please tell me how
exactly you will be able to have a location to have the tournament for
MONTHS?  Also, tell me how the world is going to care.  Is the
unlimited number of games going to be like selection of Pope?  One day
we end up producing a winner?

- Rich