Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":

On Apr 24, 2:41=A0pm, a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Andy Walker) wrote:
> In article
<296fa1ae-6b03-4d2a-bb2a-e9fec5688...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> =A0<ttk5...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > =A0On this matter I must basically agree with Parr. In his
> >autobiography, Botvinnik describes how he himself was the main author
> >of the regulations FIDE adopted for world champion****p matches and
> >challenger qualifying. I'm not sure whether they were then "imposed"
> >on FIDE, or FIDE just adopted them willingly, but either way Botvinnik
> >and his Soviet sup****ters got what they wanted.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Does or did anyone think it mattered? =A0

  That's rather beside the point I was trying to make, Andy. The point
of my post was simply to say that Parr had given the historial facts
accurately on this particular occasion.
  With the exception of the rematch clause, I don't think the
Botvinnik rules were markedly unfair. One could argue that the clause,
by which the incumbent retained his title in the event of a tie match,
was unfair, but it was nothing new, going back at least to Lasker-
Schlechter 1910.
  What _was_ unfair were the Soviets' behind the scenes machinations,
e.g. keeping Najdorf out in 1948, and their collusive tactics,
especially in the Candidates Tournaments to ensure that no non-Soviet
player got to be the challenger.

> For the couple of
> decades from 1948 until Larsen and then Fischer became serious
> contenders,

  Fischer became a serious contender before Larsen. They both played
in an Interzonal for the first time in 1958, but Fischer became a FIDE
Candidate first, in 1959, based on his 5th place in that Interzonal.
Larsen placed only 16th in that event, and did not make it to the
Candidates cycle until 1965.

> the WC and the Olympiads were Soviet monopolies. =A0If
> the WCs had not been Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky,
> the most likely alternatives were Keres, Bronstein, Geller, Korchnoi
> and others from the USSR. =A0Reshevsky, Najdorf, Szabo, Gligoric and
> so on were strong GMs, but it's hard to argue that any of them bar
> just possibly Reshevsky on top form were serious contenders for the
> title [as opposed to likely qualifiers for the Candidates].

  I never have been able to buy the argument that Soviet cheating was
OK because they would have won anyway without it. Surely you're not
saying that?