Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":

<ttk5079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:2a6a28b2-7e2f-49de-a242-1c42376ee015@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Apr 24, 12:59 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

>  Dave, I'm having trouble seeing what 10-year period you mean. Here
>are Kasparov's title matches:
>
>1984-85 vs. Karpov (nullified w/o result by FIDE)
>1985 -- wins title from Karpov
>1986 -- retains title vs. Karpov
>1987 -- retains title vs. Karpov
>1990 -- retains title vs. Karpov
>1993 -- retains title vs. Short
>1995 -- retains title vs. Anand
>2000 -- loses title to Kramnik
>
> I can see a 9-year period that could be considered to have "just two
>title defenses," i.e. 1991-1999, though I would not use the word
>"just," which seems to imply that GK was relatively inactive or
>ducking competition. One could as easily characterize it as a rather
>active period by saying he played four title matches in 11 years.
> The 1990 match ended on December 31st, and the 2000 match began on
>October 8th, so the longest period involving "just two title defenses"
>by Kasparov was 9 years, 9 months and 7 days. This is quite comparable
>to, say, Botvinnik, who after winning the title at Hague-Moscow 1948,
>played "just two title defenses" in the period June 1948 through
>February 1957.

I knew Parr was too stupid and lazy to count the months, but
I guess I should have expected somebody to! Based on your
research, I will correct my statement to "He played just two
title defenses in a 9.75 year period" (Hasn't anyone ever
heard of rounding??)

FIDE was based on a 3 year cycle. Because of the nullified match
and the rematch clause, it took 3 matches to complete one cycle.
Then it follows the pattern until 1990 (Kasparov retaining the
title by tie in one case, demonstrating the im****tance of the
champion's advantage)

Then we go to the non-FIDE era (essentially Kasparov doing
whatever he felt like). He started off reasonably well, then
there is a period where he doesn't play a match for ~5 years.
There are various ways to interpret what happened in that
period, others beside Kasparov bear some of the responsibility,
but at the end of the day it was his show and he wasn't playing
WC matches. Nothing comparable to the credibility of
FIDE's cycle had been developed.

So basically, I was refuting the Parr claim that Kasparov was
somehow an advocate of fair play. He gave himself statistically
larger champion's advantage than those who were champion
in the FIDE era, and manipulated things to suit himself.
Not that this was in any way abnormal for
a chess world champion! It is depressingly normal.