Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":

MORE DISINFORMATION FROM DAVID KANE

The man is unfit to write about chess history.

<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.> -- David Kane

10 YEARS!?

Not only does David Kane sup****t drug testing in chess,
he ignores the fact that Kasparov played FIVE title matches
with Karpov between 1985-1990. After that Kasparov put his title
on the line (outside of FIDE jurisdiction) against Short in 1993,
Anand in 1995 and Kramnik in 2000 who denied him a rematch
because it wasn't included in their contract.

ANOTHER PHONY

Help Bot (Greg Kennedy) is just as phony as David Kane.

In reply to my statement that Greg failed "to place the blame where
the blame
belongs --- with FIDE, which set up this flawed system from the start
in order
to protect Soviet supremacy" he replied with characteristic
dishonesty:

<Idiot. F.I.D.E. is a *French* term, and the
 organization in question was not "set up" to
 "protect" Soviet supremacy; Soviet supremacy is
 just a simple fact of life.>

Who's he kidding?

We all know that FIDE was founded in 1924 but did not take
control of the title until after Alekhine's death in 1946.

The USSR imposed the system for the world champion****p in 1948.
The rules greatly favored Botvinnik who had draw odds from the start.
Apparently the rematch clause was added later at his behest.

Botvinnik held the title on a 12-12 tie in his first two title
defenses
against Bronstein and Smyslov, then invoked the rematch clause
to regain the title after losing to Smyslov and Tal. Finally, in spite
of his vehement protests, this clause was stricken before he lost
the title to Petrosian in 1963.

The fact that FIDE is "a French term" and Greg's other ramblings
have no bearing on the champion retaining the title in a drawn match
or the other issues at hand.















parrthenon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> 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?s 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?t like to get the title by default?
>
> EVANS: Do you think that?s 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?s completely clear. Because Karpov couldn?t
> 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?t
> 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.