Soviet Cheating in FIDE Competition: Keres-Botvinnik, 1948, Pt 3

I think most or all of us agree with that. The FIDE champions can't really be considered true champions until Kramnik won the reunified title.

"After Kasparov broke from the corrupt FIDE, none of the following FIDE titlists were legitimate, until Kasparov retired." ~JamieDelarosa

I'll agree with most of that. The best player in the world from 1985 to 2000 was Kasparov. But in 2000, Kasparov lost his title to Kramnik. When Kramnik unified the title with his match against Topalov in 2006, Kasparov was already retired. The unification match wasn't contingent on Kasparov's retirement though, which is what your comment implies.  

Btw, even Anand, who was a FIDE World Champion, has said that his match-play title was more important than his earlier World Championship title. The current World Cup is very similar to the FIDE World Championship that was held from 1999-2004. Nobody in their right mind would declare the winner of such a crap shoot the world champion, especially when the best player in the world wasn't involved.

You are correct about Kramnik, even though that match with Kasparov was on the shortish side.  16 games?

Jamie, are you really going to argue that today's world championships aren't legitimate because they aren't 24 games long? Your insinuation is that today's world championships are too short to be considered legitimate.

Your position is getting more and more ridiculous with each post. 

By game 16, it was absolutely clear who had won the match. 

Too many strange things about the Kramnik/Kasparov match for me to believe it was legit . I believe in match play Kramnik has lost more matches than he has won , his match play record certainly isnt impressive for a WC . 

Here's a two-part article by Matt Wilson, a statistician, that may interest people who want to discuss the ideal length of a World Championship match:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/are-the-che-world-champions-just-lucky-050913

http://en.chessbase.com/post/are-the-che-world-champions-just-lucky--part-2-060913

And here's his response to the perennial Fischer question about an unlimited match:

More Results

Roberto Manunta, Italy
I really appreciated the statistical analysis of Matthew Wilson in both his articles and I would love to know his opinion on a hotly debated topic: were Fischer's conditions fair for his Karpov match? (The match continues until one player wins 10 games, draws not counting; no limit to the total number of games played;
in case of a 9–9 score, the champion (Fischer) retains the title, and the prize fund is split equally.)

Matt Wilson

A fascinating question. Most people would just say, “Of course it’s unfair – the rules favor Fischer.” But to the numerically inclined, the natural response is, “Fischer is favored, but by how much?”

First we need to define a fair match. The rules should be designed so that if the two players are equally skilled, then they each have a 50% chance of becoming world champion. Note that in the modern era with a 66% draw rate, the match will likely be quite long. I estimated the number of games with 10,000 simulations:

The ten win system worked fine back in the early world championships, since wins occurred so frequently. To analyze this for 1975, we’ll need a couple of big assumptions.

• Big assumption #1: the organizers will allow the match to continue regardless of how long it takes.

• Big assumption #2: the draw rate will be unaffected by the length of the match. Naturally the players may tire as the match wears on, but this doesn’t necessarily change the draw rate. This assumption is hard to test since there isn’t a historical match of comparable length. The matches in modern times that went past 24 games are too small of a sample for me to have any confidence in the results.

Result: if the players are equal, then the match ends in a draw 18.5% of the time, more precisely

Result: if the players are equal, then the match ends in a draw 18.5% of the time, more precisely

Thus, the world champion keeps the title in 59.3% of the simulations even though he is no better than his opponent!

We could also ask, “Is this more unfair than the traditional 24 game matches where the champion had draw odds?” In 24 game matches with players of equal strength, 13.9% of the simulations end 12-12. The champion retains the title 57.0% of the time.

Under Fischer rules, the narrowest possible victory for Karpov would have been ten wins to eight wins, while Fischer only needed nine wins to nine wins. This seems quite unfair to Karpov, and it is. But surprisingly enough, it is only slightly more unfair than giving the champion draw odds in a 24 game match. And it is about equally unfair as the deal Leko got in 2004 (14 game match with draw odds for Kramnik).

(For my fellow math enthusiasts: A match of m games with a 66% draw rate ends in draw with probability

if m is even and the players are equal.)

Reb, Kramnik dominated the match against Kasparov. Kasparov was lucky not to lose by more!

The Ruy Lopez Berlin variation that Kramnik played wasn't a fluke. Even today, it's considered one of Black's nastiest choices. Kramnik was, and probably still is, the best opening theoretician in the world, including Kasparov!

I forgot to add a source for my post (currently #68):

http://en.chessbase.com/post/are-the-che-world-champions-just-lucky-part-3-211013

My position is consistent.  A chess championiship should be won in match play of sufficient length between the strongest player in the world and a challenger.

For instance, the Lasker-Schlecter of 1910, at 10 games long, was insufficient and almost had far-reaching ramifications.

I never specified how long a match should be.  If it is a set number of games, but it seems 16 should be the minimum.  If it is based on numbers of wins, 6 would be the minimum.

Jamie, statisticians have done the math on relative fairness. It shouldn't take you long to look up their results yourself. If you need help, let me know and I'll post links to a couple of interesting articles myself. But I'm guessing you can find them yourself. 

Here's a clue to help you: use "seirawan" in your search for an interesting recommendation by Yasser.

Spassky was the second highest in rating in 1972 and the defending champion and given that he won the USSR championship in 1973 with Karpov, Korchnoi , and Petrosian all playing its foolish to question his legitimacy in 1972 . 

The crosstable of this USSR Championship can be seen here : http://graeme.50webs.com/chesschamps/ussr/ussr41.htm

Reb, I never questioned Spassky's legitimacy, JamieDelarosa did. 

I stated that in 1972, Petrosian or Korchnoi might have been able to defeat Spassky for the reasons I stated. 

Reb, according to Regan's analysis of the World Championships, Kasparov played some of his best chess in 2000, and still lost!

See pages 11 and 12 of the article below, and pay attention to the IPR (intrinsic performance rating) column You'll see that in his world championship matches, only his 1986 performance against Karpov was better:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf

Jamie, the reason is antisemitism. You do not want the Jew Botvinnik to win the title. 

I am not questioning the ability of anyone.  I am questioning the legitimacy of the FIDE system.

I have great respect for Spassky and how he handled himself during 1972, and later.  He was badly treated by the Soviet establishment, much like Bronstein and Korchnoi and other dissidents.

Of course, my anti-semitism is why I am an administrator at "Israel Supporters"!  Or why I think Reshevsky got the shaft in the 1940s and 1950s.

Marignon's first language is probably Russian. By "you", he almost certainly meant the Soviet Union, not you personally. 

However, this is your thread. If you want to derail it, have fun.

Interesting paper.  Thank you.

My conclusion about your antisemitism is not farther fetched than yours about illegitimity of the championship.

End of discussion.