From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:43:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.233827.19297@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.230222.5364@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct14.143447.17929@athena.mit.edu> tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes) writes:
>|> >
>|> >The main difference between Fischer's claim to a WC match and
>|> >everyone else's is that Fischer won the title and never lost it.
>|> >It was taken away from him.  This is where the controversy is
>|> >being generated on this thread of legitimate claims to a match.
>|> >Spassky and Botvinnik lost their titles fair and square, but
>|> >Fischer's title was taken away over disagreements he had regarding
>|> >the politics and rules (or lack thereof) for rematches.  Until
>|> >Bobby loses a match with ANYONE, there will always be a fairly
>|> >legitimate claim by some that he is the best chess player in the
>|> >world (which is not necessarily the same thing as "World Champion",
>|> >although the terms are sometimes used interchangably).
>|> >
>|> >
>|> >-- 
>|> >T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)
>|> 
>|> The FIDE giveth, and the FIDE taketh away.  By playing in the FIDE system and
>|> accepting the FIDE title, Fischer was implicitly submitting to FIDE rules.
>|> If he doesn't like that, he can start his own chess federation (Garri did,but
>|> that's another story. :-) ).  The FIDE was started to standardize the world
>|> championship process and prevent match ducking.  Fischer didn't complain
>|> (relatively speaking; Fischer always complains) when the FIDE gave him a shot
>|> at the title.  If fact, as I recall, one of Fischer's criticisms of the FIDE
>|> is that title defenses are too infrequent, and that if he were champ, things
>|> would be different.  That being the case, he should just as happily accept
>|> matches as champs as he did as challenger.  He didn't, and lost his title 
>|> "fair and square", under the same rules he won it.  He has no more claim to
>|> the title than Ivanchuk, Anand, Karpov, or Short, or even Spassky.
>|>  
>
>I've mentioned this a few times already, but I'll point it out again.
>I haven't mentioned anything about claims that Fischer is still "World
>Champion."  Read the article again.  I specifically noted the
>difference, but apparently some people can't read or are too trigger
>happy in their bobby bashing to pay attention.
>-- 
>T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)

Silly me.  After reading the article again, you never say "Fischer is still
World Champion."  You do contrast him to other player who lost their titles
in more ordinary ways, seeming to imply some important difference.  And what
might that difference be?  Well, if your reading skills are anywhere near 
mine, you'll recall that I didn't address Bobby's skill in any way.  You
seem to think that Fischer deserves extra merit because he wouldn't play
in '75.  If Kasparov were to duck Timnam (sp) or Anand or Short in the next
WC, I somehow doubt you would be so willing to give him coupon for a WC shot
redeemable anytime in the next centurt.

And as for trigger happy Bobby bashing, I guess if expecting him to be treated
like any other top quality chess player, then I guess I'm guilty.  Because that
is all I have said about him.  I haven't (and will not) address his skills or
his behavior or how he will match up against Kasparov.  Read the article again.
m