Solution. WCC Match is 24 Games w/ Champion getting Draw Odds. No Tiebreaks

WalangAlam

My bad, its a 3-1-0 scoring system also known as football scoring, the one that was used in Bilbao Chess tournament not the candidates.

WalangAlam

However, draws are  a natural conclusion  in Chess especially between even matched opponents. 

BonTheCat
Justs99171 wrote:
BonTheCat wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
 

That's totally ridiculous. Tal spanked Botvinnik in the 1st match. Having an organ removed most certainly effects one's play. Tal healthy was definitely a stronger player than an old Botvinnik.

Karpov wasn't that much better than Korchnoi and Kasparov wasn't that much better than Karpov.

I'm curious as to why you brought up that irrelevant information, though.

Fischer absolutely smashed both Petrosian and Spassky.

Yes, I know, and you were making what point exactly? That candidate matches instead of candidates tournaments favoured the reigning world champion. As for the differences in strength, I suggest you go back and look at the rating lists. 1972: 125 points (in Fischer's favour), 1978: 60 points difference, 1981: 40 points, 1984: 10 points in Kasparov's favour, 1985: 20 points in Karpov's favour. In short, the only two matches during the Elo era when the Elo favourite didn't win was 1984 and 1985. The same goes for the pre-Elo era (if we use Chessmetrics, which isn't brilliantly reliable). Petrosian was world #1 in 1963, Spassky #1 in 1966, Spassky #3 vs Petro's #5 in 1972. Quite simply: the rating favourite won nearly every time. The only one to buck the trend was ... Botvinnik. Bronstein was world #1 in 1951 (match drawn), Smyslov #1 in 1954 (draw), 1957 (S. won), and 1958 (B. won), Tal #1 in 1960 (T. won) and 1961 (B. won). As I said, had Botvinnik played more frequently during his reign as World Champion, he would have done even better.

Never mind, we'll never agree on this. You think Tal was the bee's knees, while I consider Botvinnik the most under-appreciated World Champion of all.

Justs99171
BonTheCat wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
BonTheCat wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
 

That's totally ridiculous. Tal spanked Botvinnik in the 1st match. Having an organ removed most certainly effects one's play. Tal healthy was definitely a stronger player than an old Botvinnik.

Karpov wasn't that much better than Korchnoi and Kasparov wasn't that much better than Karpov.

I'm curious as to why you brought up that irrelevant information, though.

Fischer absolutely smashed both Petrosian and Spassky.

Yes, I know, and you were making what point exactly? That candidate matches instead of candidates tournaments favoured the reigning world champion. As for the differences in strength, I suggest you go back and look at the rating lists. 1972: 125 points (in Fischer's favour), 1978: 60 points difference, 1981: 40 points, 1984: 10 points in Kasparov's favour, 1985: 20 points in Karpov's favour. In short, the only two matches during the Elo era when the Elo favourite didn't win was 1984 and 1985. The same goes for the pre-Elo era (if we use Chessmetrics, which isn't brilliantly reliable). Petrosian was world #1 in 1963, Spassky #1 in 1966, Spassky #3 vs Petro's #5 in 1972. Quite simply: the rating favourite won nearly every time. The only one to buck the trend was ... Botvinnik. Bronstein was world #1 in 1951 (match drawn), Smyslov #1 in 1954 (draw), 1957 (S. won), and 1958 (B. won), Tal #1 in 1960 (T. won) and 1961 (B. won). As I said, had Botvinnik played more frequently during his reign as World Champion, he would have done even better.

Never mind, we'll never agree on this. You think Tal was the bee's knees, while I consider Botvinnik the most under-appreciated World Champion of all.

 

This is all incessant blabber.

That's the point I was making.

But since you mention it ...

There was no rating list until when?

Now if you're looking at retroactive ratings, Tal had about 90 rating points on Botvinnik.

You brought all this non sense up.

Matches are more grueling, wear the challenger down, and allow the champion to more thoroughly study the challenger.