From: edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles)
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:23:09 GMT
Summary: Kasparov is the FIDE World Champion

In article <1992Dec12.193455.462@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> > those rules must be abided by to legitimately claim the title of
> > World Champion.  Fischer did not abide by those rules, therefore he
> > can't claim the title.
> 
> But he HAS the title. Go recheck your logic and compare it with reality.
> Unless, of course, you wish to decalre him not your 'second-rate-players-
> association-non-champion', which of course you are entitled to do.

Fischer  does not have the title. Kasparov has the title. Fischer gave up
his world championship title because he did not want to defend it under
FIDE's rules. FIDE did not really recognize his giving up of the title but
later stripped him of the title when he refused to defend it. Since then
Fischer has not played in any official competitions for the world title.
Karpov was awarded the title in 1975, when Fischer didn't show up. He
defended the title sucessfully against Korchnoi, but finally lost it to
Kasparov in 1985. Kasparov has since defended the title against Karpov
more than once, and will attempt to retain the title against either Timman
or Short. 

How can you insist that Fischer has the title that he himself gave up and
then was stripped of? How can you imagine him to be the world champion or
the strongest player in the world when he hasn't played a game in world
class competition in 20 years? Do you recognize Fischer as the world champion
just because He says he is?

Fischer was officially world champion from 1972-1975. During his reign
he won no tournaments, no matches, no games. From 1975-1985 Karpov was
world champion. During that time he tied for first or won first outright
in almost every single tournament he played. He defended his title three
times and achieved the highest rating of active grandasters. From 1985
til now Kasparov has been world champion. He has achieved the highest
rating ever, has won most of the tournaments he has played in and has
defended his title on every occasion he was supposed too. Do you really
think Fischer deserves to be recognized as world champion??

> > 
> > And you missed the point of my original post--which was that there is
> > NO accurate way to determine who the best chessplayer "really" is
> > (the "real" best chessplayer being able to beat "all the rest"),
> > because different people play better against different kinds of
> > opponents.  You never disputed this at all.
> 
> Hmmm....I would have thought the person who beats his opponents would qualify
> somehow, perhaps you would prefer we use "most-dramamtic-move" to qualify
> someone as world champion?
> 
> And, I DID dispute it. Please read AND think before responding.
> 

I agree that the person who beats his opponents would qualify to be world
champion. Karpov beat all his opponents on the way to the world championship
title (including Spassky)... but he couldn't beat Fischer because Fischer
refused to play. I guess this is very clever on Fischer's part, because he
can always claim that noone ever defeated him as world champion. Now, when
he has returned and beaten Spassky under "abnormal" conditions, he not only
can claim to still be undefeated as world champion -- he also can be ex-
cused poor play because of the conditions the match was played under. The
way to remove all doubt about his chess would be for Fischer to simply
play, and play under the conditions and rules that all the other grandmasters
play under, and beat them. He won't do this. I don't think he wants to further
disturb the myth.

> > 
> >>Besides, what do any of these opinions have to do with the GMs defending their
> >>claims against Fischer?
> >>

They have nothing to do with the GMs defending their claims against Fischer.
A different thread entirely... I agree with Don, in that I would like to hear
the GMs address the effect of the playing conditions on the play. I can't 
speak for the GMs and IMs since I'm not one of them. Their criticisms seem
reasonable to me, but it's true that they haven't addressed the issues of the
Fischer clock, no adjournments and no "teams". Would the Kasparov-Karpov
games have been of poorer quality had they been played under the FS-II condi-
tions? I think it's obvious they would have. So what qualities of play have
lead IMs and GMs to conclude that Fischer is of greatly diminished strength?

Pretending for a moment that I am a GM (send your donations and this fantasy
can become a reality), I would say that I can excuse errors in the latter
part of the game to fatigue and lack of adjournament analysis, but more than
a few errors were made early in the game (and remember, the Fischer clock
virtually eliminates serious time pressure). Spassky's health can be an ex-
cuse for most of his errors in this stage of the game, but what of Fischer?

                                
                                   Ed Knowles, W.M.C.