batgirl wrote:
Whatever is agreed upon is fair.
And it wasnt agreed upon.
Cowardly Fischer
Sort:
It was good that Fischer quit. Chess wrecked his life. Jealousy encourages people to call him a coward.
"As in Lasker-Schlecter?"
I've never heard anyone claim that a rule that forced Schlechter to win with a margin of two points would have been fair if it had existed, which it didn't in the match they played, at least according to what evidence is available. Still it has often been alluded to as a reason to support Fischer's demand that Karpov would have to score 10-8 against Fischer to win the title.
And, obviously, it wouldn't have been any more fair if it had existed and Schlechter had agreed to it. It would only have been another sign of how bad it is when the World Champion is in a position to dictate the rules.
"after their boy Karpov was awarded WC title by default, Fide immediately put back rematch condition, so now challenger really did needed to beat champion twice to win!!"
FIDE were bending over backwards to accomodate Fischer throughout his career. He played two Candidates tournaments but when he failed so badly he as usual explained that others played better with that they were cheating and demanded a change of qualification system. FIDE immediately changed the rules according to his wishes, and first then he started to refuse playing the qualifications. He also demanded a "no draws before move 30 in Olympiads", which he immediately broke himself, refused to qualify for his last Interzonal, where all American players had to withdraw their rightful claim so he could be given a spot, and FIDE agreed to all his demands for the Karpov match, except the one that Karpov had to win 10-8 to become World Champion, and even there with the smallest of margins in spite of the extreme unfairness of that demand. When FIDE later reintroduced the return match it of course didn't prevent any challenger from winning the title any more than Tal can be said to have been stopped from ever becoming World Champion just because he later lost the title.
"Again this "unfairness" word, except now it has for some reason become "extreme""
Fischer claimed that it was unfair that Spassky had draw odds against him. Forcing his own challenger to win with a margin of two points was so unfair that it is amazing that FIDE voted something like only 52-49 against it.
Some people might say it was unfair of Fischer to make fun of Karpov with those demands, given that Karpov was on a hiding to nothing.
NotAllowedTo is having another bad hair day peeps, nothing to see here!
meltdown gathering momentum.
Meltdown complete.
MSteen wrote:
Fischer was a chess genius. He was also profoundly disturbed. Let us thank him for his contributions to the game and then let him rest in peace.
This may be the most sensible thing I have read about Fischer on these forums.
You're a complete plonk. Sleep it off dude.
It has escalated quickly!
Dec 30, 2014
0
#55
balente wrote:
BMeck wrote:
Imagine if in every championship boxing match where the challenger won, he would have to beat the champion again in order to actually win the belt.
What? How is 1 game advantage similar to beating twice? This nonsense comment.
Of course, after their boy Karpov was awarded WC title by default, Fide immediately put back rematch condition, so now challenger really did needed to beat champion twice to win!!
Because, with draws not counting, the challenger has to beat the champion 2 more times to win i.e. 10-8
kinda amazing though that Fischer was so good and so weird that people are still talking about him 40 years after he quit.
Dec 30, 2014
0
#58
balente wrote:
I still do not get how you extrapolate this to beating him twice. Under old system the champion had the half point advantage. Under Fishers conditions the champion had one point advantage. But draws not counting is at least a equal trade off against an half point according to statistical analysis.
If Spassky had had such ridiculous demands in 72, Fischer woulda EXPLODED.
Dec 30, 2014
0
#59
balente wrote:
"Ridiculous"... Another unsubstantiated pronouncement innstead of an argument.
Now how did I know you wouldn't have any answer for that?
And because something wasnt implemented dosent make it unfair. Whats your point? Why 9-9 draw rule is unfair? In boxing there is the saying: you cannot dance with the champion, you must knock him down. Why chess should be different?
It was explained several times already. It is unfair because it gives the champion a one game advantage... Imagine if in every championship boxing match where the challenger won, he would have to beat the champion again in order to actually win the belt.