From: ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel)
Subject: Re: who is world champion
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:12:56 GMT

In article <9210121902.AA07916@hplwk.hpl.hp.com> albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert) writes:
>Kasparov is only obliged to play whoever emerges from the candidate's
>matches to defend his title.  If Fischer wants to prove that he is
>the best in the world, he can go through the interzonals and candidate's.

Of course Kasparov is only "obliged" to play whoever wins the
candidates matches.  That applies to the defense of the FIDE
title.  I really doubt that Fischer cares at all about the FIDE
title.  You can just as easily reverse the two names and make an
equally valid argument:  Fischer will only play whomever he deems
worthy as a challenger for HIS title.  If Kasparov want to prove he
is the best in the world, he can come to Fischer and  negotiate
terms for a match.  (Rather, he can come to Fischer and accept
terms for a match.)

>If Kasparov agrees to a match with Fischer, whether motivated
>financially, or to dispel critiques offered by some American
>amateurs that some egocentric baby that won't be part of the
>system may be a better chess player, then Kasparov is being
>generous to Fischer. 

And if Fischer ever allows Kasparov a match, then Fischer is being
generous to Kasparov.  Fischer can make more money than Kasparov
playing matches.  It would be generous, in three ways, for Fischer to
agree to match:
	1)  Kasparov makes a bundle.
	2)  Kasparov gets a shot at Fischer's title.
	3)  Kasparov gets to prove he is the best.

I wonder if these "critiques" are exclusively American.  How does
Fischer's popularity in Europe compare with the US?

>Let's not forget that Kasparov has been a great champion by doing what
>a champion should-- promoting the game, remaining very active in tournaments
>instead of fearing public visibility-- ie being an active and visible
>champion who has made significant contributions to the game both on and
>off the board.  In this arena, Fischer's performance as a world
>champion has been dwarfed by the shadows of our world champion.

Agreed.  Fischer has let a lot of people down by his long absence.
Kasparov has been a very active champion, and has given us some
great chess by doing so.  Fischer never had to play a multi-year
series like Kasparov played against Karpov.

Maybe it's just my poor memory, but I always felt that Fischer was
seeking some higher truth in chess.  His performances were often
very spotty -- flashes of extraordinary brilliance, followed by
play that reminded us that he was perhaps a mere mortal after all.
After the mid-60s, many believed that he was clearly the best in
the world.  The FIDE title apparently just wasn't that important to
him.  (Could you even imagine Karpov or Kasparov dropping out of
the '67 Sousse Interzonal?)  Kasparov has played some fantastic
games, and has dominated some very strong competition.  But he has
to wonder what it's like to play against someone who at one time
showed just as much talent as he has for the game.

Fischer is clearly not playing at the level he set in 1970-1971.
But his play doesn't seem all that bad.  Twenty years of rust is a
lot.  I hope he doesn't rush into matches with the top five too
quickly.  The rust is probably a larger problem than the change in
chess theory.

Fischer has a remarkable ability to surprise.  It's too glib to say
that Kasparov will eat his luch.  Right now, that would be true, BUT
in a year?  Who can say?

I have little doubt that if Fischer wants to play, Kasparov will
agree.