From: kstokker@risc.uni-linz.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
Subject: Re: fischer-spassky
Organization: RISC, J.K. University, Linz; Austria
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 07:44:30 GMT

varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:

>In article <19925.783.9788@dosgate> "lisa powell" <lisa.powell@canrem.com> writes:
>>DC> z    Subject: Fischer-Spassky
>
>>DC> My question is - Is the reappearance of Bobby Fischer going to be
>>the chess story of the decade? 
>
>It already is.

Well, the decade still lasts for approximately eight years...

>
>>If he wins
>>against Spassky, and shows sufficient brilliancy in doing so (ie his
>>old self) will there be talk of a Fischer-Kasparov match. Can Kasparov
>>ignore Fischer in these circumstances?
>
>>David: You have *got to be kidding. That would go far toward signaling
>>the demise of FIDE. Would you want that?
>
>I've been out of chess almost as long as Fischer, but I never
>thought much of FIDE in the first place.  FIDE is the international
>chess organization simply because after WWII it proclaimed itself
>to be.  To me, it seemed a bureaucracy more devoted to the "in"
>group of organizers than to promoting the playing of chess.  Seeing
>FIDE fall wouldn't bother me, especially if chess were to get the
>sort of publicity it deserves.
>
>>Because Fischer *is* news, the world's spotlight is
>>on this sideshow far more than it will be for a true main event such
>>as the match between Short and Timman do determine who will challenge
>>the genuine World Champion, Kasparov.
>
>Genuine?

Any other candidate in mind?

>
>I've always viewed FIDE as a bit of a sideshow.  If the
>principals want to do one thing and FIDE rules require
>another, an event held under FIDE rules is a sideshow.
>
>News is what the customers of news organizations are
>willing to pay attention to.  Fischer-Spassky is news.
>Short-Timman is not.  Fischer-Kasparov would be *big*
>news.

Short-Timman *is* news. Maybe not in the States. 
Fischer-Kasparov would be a walkover.

>
>>Granted, Kasparov could agree to a similar side-show for an even
>>larger purse, but such a match would still be a side show, not the
>>main event.
>
>Why?  Because FIDE wouldn't approve?  Give me a break.
>
>The FIDE cycle has no more intrinsic legitimacy than
>the current match.  Fischer has just as much right to
>proclaim a world champion as FIDE; possibly more, because
>he *won* his championship and FIDE simply expropriated
>the one the death of Alekhin left vacant.  A world
>championship is like a mathematical proof -- a social
>process.  The champion is whoever most of those interested
>view as champion, and a championship is "official" only
>when the validating organization has general respect.


The champion is the one who beats all challengers. The FIDE cycle
admits anyone to enter, even Mr. Fischer, and Kasparov showed
himself the best. That the FIDE is a corrupt organization has
nothing to do with that. Mr. Fischer lost his title by no fault
but his own.

>
>There are always at least two approaches to changing
>the way things are done.  One is to change an existing
>organization.  The other is to reject the existing
>organization and work outside it.  Fischer found FIDE
>impossible to change.  He's finally started operating
>outside it.  I wish it had happened a lot earlier.
>
>-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

Cheers,
Karel
-- 
-- Karel Stokkermans, RISC-Linz, Schloss Hagenberg, Austria, Europa
 -- email: kstokker@risc.uni-linz.ac.at (or k314070@edvz.uni-linz.ac.at)
"O hoe vergeefs / des doelmans hand / zich strekte naar de bal    [  21-6-88,  ]
 die 'een minuut / voor tijd de Duitse / doellijn kruiste..."     [ J. Deelder ]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess