Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":

DAVID KANE TRIES TO REWRITE HISTORY?

EVANS: If Fischer had asked for a return match clause instead
of ten wins, do you think FIDE would have given it to him?

AVERBAKH: Of course. Of course.

EVANS: How did you feel years later when FIDE restored the rematch
clause for Karpov after having taken it away from Botvinnik in 1963?

AVERBAKH: It was top secret, but Ed Edmondson was the one who
organized this return match clause for Karpov!

I was present during the negotiations for the Karpov-Korchnoi match.
Our federation wanted to have 24 games or a maximum of 30, and
Edmondson pressed for six wins. At the FIDE congress in Caracas
in 1977 Karpov demanded a rematch clause for accepting six wins.
Edmondson helped him get it.

EVANS: But this clause was a bigger mathematical advantage than
the one FIDE had denied Fischer. What was Ed=92s motive?

AVERBAKH: Probably to make up for some of the nasty things he wrote
about Karpov, such as "this mouse who roars like a lion." Fischer was
out
of the picture already and had dismissed Edmondson, so perhaps Ed
wanted to improve his relations with Karpov. Really he organized
everything.

EVANS: Do you think Karpov was happy to get the title without playing
Fischer?

AVERBAKH: Of course. Karpov was afraid of Fischer in 1975. Who
wouldn=92t like to get the title by default?

EVANS: Do you think that=92s the main reason why Karpov was so active
after that: to prove he was really worthy of the title?

AVERBAKH: For Karpov, you know, money is very im****tant. This is his
main stimulus. He may lose to Kasparov, but he is always well
compensated
for it.

EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985?

AVERBAKH: For me it=92s completely clear. Because Karpov couldn=92t
continue at all.

EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion?

AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried
his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply
couldn=92t
play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement.

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 138)



parrthenon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> THIS IS UNTRUE
>
> <As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
> in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
> with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
> had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
> he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.> -- David Kane
>
>    In each of these title matches Karpov had the advantage of a
> rematch clause -- not to mention the fact that Korchnoi's family was
> held hostage in the USSR and released only after Korchnoi lost twice.
>
>
>
> David Kane wrote:
> > <parrthenon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
news:fe288e83-da21-4a01-9b68-9b49b6af565c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > DON'T BLAME KASPAROV!
> > >
> > > "I don't know how it's possible to win two matches in a row. I did
it,=

> > > but I still don't know how I did it." -- Gary Kasparov who
voluntarily=

> > > renounced the rematch clause.
> > >
> > > FIDE is to blame. Both Botvinnik and Karpov enjoyed even greater
> > > advantages than Kasparov.
> > >
> >
> > Dubious accuracy, of course.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
> > in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice
> > with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) Ironically, if Karpov
> > had been the beneficiary of Fischer's "win-by-two" condition,
> > he would have defeated Kasparov in their first match.
> >
> > Kasparov's manipulations to keep the title by leaving
> > FIDE are well known. They may not be historically
> > out of line with champion's behavior pre-FIDE, but
> > neither it is anything to boast about. He played just
> > two title defenses in a 10-year period.