Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":

"Rich Hutnik" <richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:3f9d70e3-922f-4ca8-bdeb-b8347d7aa2fb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?

The reason for longer matches is so that they are meaningful.
You haven't given a single reason why 24 games is too many.

The point you are missing is that the "World Champion" designation
is marketable. More people will pay attention to a match that is
credibly a "World Champion****p" than to an equal number of games
that aren't.

The trend to deciding the WC with tournaments and short matches
has weakened the WC title. FIDE's old way - where there was
a difficult qualifying process including both tournaments and matches
 - followed by a significant 24-game match meant that if you had
won the champion****p you had done something special.

You seem to favor something like the FIDE knock-out
titles. This was a single tournament "champion****p"
involving short matches, and tie-breaks with increasingly
fast time controls. The problem is that it produced a
string of no-name winners, and everyone knew that
the FIDE KO title was not a "real" champion****p.




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.

You seem to be advocating trivializing the world champion****p
so that there is *never* a credible champ. How is that
better?

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?

First, a finite length produces a winner if you give the champ tie-odds.
Second, in practice you could have something like a 10-game
sudden death tie-break in the event of a tied regulation match.
Statistically
that will break the tie a huge percentage of the time, without
extending the match very long at all.
>
> - Rich