Re: "Kasparov Retains Title on a Draw":

"David Richerby" <davidr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:pED*O0dbs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David Kane <davidekane@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>  "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.
>>
>> 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??)
>
> Oh, please.  The FIDE schedule called for matches in 1987, 1990, 1993
> and 1996.  Look -- there's a nearly nine-year period from just after
> the end of the 1987 match to just before the start of the 1996 match!
> It would be nearly ten years if the 1987 match had been played in
> January and the 1996 match in December.
>

Missing the forest. FIDE had a system
involving zonals, interzonals, and candidates
matches in order to determine a worthy
challenger. It was 3 years for a reason.

Kasparov Inc. had nothing of the sort.  It was not
much different in practice than handpicking
an opponent. So there was no reason to wait so long, except for
Kasparov's personal motives, again, not fairness.

The ~5-year gap between matches is long, and there
were various shenanigans at that time. While they
probably had as much to do with money
as anything else, fairness was not an im****tant
principle in the process.

The point is that in the FIDE system you played
a credible challenger whether you wanted to or not.
****traying Kasparov as an advocate of fairness
is simply ridiculous given the way he managed his
own title. This is not to say the he was an
unworthy champion in that period - on the contrary
he was generally active and successful. But arguing
that he would have won if had been fair is a different
thing than saying that he was fair.

This is not to say that FIDE hasn't been behind some
notable cases of unfairness of its own (the annulled
match, toiletgate etc.)