who would have won that match if it would happened ?
Chess genius or chess machine .
Fide :-) ?
I think that Fischer would have won the first by a large margin, and I think that Karpov would have won the second by a small margin, such as 12.5-11.5 or 13-11.
> Karpov has stated several times both before and after the 1975 match fell apart that he would have lost to Fischer.
Thats a flat out lie. Karpov never said this. Even if Karpov would believe this, he would have never said it.
No professional would EVER said that no matter the odds.
P.S.: You are very naive if you consider everything that is writen in Kasparov's books as facts.
> Karpov has stated several times both before and after the 1975 match fell apart that he would have lost to Fischer.
says he said it before the match. Also the word "will be" in the quote talks about future events, not about the past.
It is a surprising quote; the Soviet chess establishment must have been mortified to read that from one of their rising stars. They probably took him to the woodshed after he said that.
> A more reasonable question is who would have won in 1978.
In case they would be playing their 1975 match to "first to 10 wins", they would be playing until 1978 :)
We will just never know.
Before the match of the century where he won 3:1 vs Petrosian he were not very active.
Before the revenge match vs Spassky RJF was inactive for 25 years (?)while Spassky was active.
RJ Fischer won that match played up to 10 wins.
So inactivity was not big problem for RJF.
In the book Russians vs Fischer there were the comment 'RJ is playing with previous strength'
There were friends.
RJF was ready play vs Spassky next year in 1973 but SU federation did not accept that possibility.
So they filled that agreement later and got cash.
Funny how the world champion title changes people's views.
While challenger Fischer denounced the champion's advantage and promised to abolish it. Once he became champion he imediatelly change his view and actually tried to increase the advantage with the 9-9 clause.
As challenger Kasparov denounced the rematch right, and said that draw odds were enough. When Kramnik defeated him, he wanted a rematch.
After defeating Kasparov, Kramnik said that rematches are the thing from the past, but when he lost his title he demanded a rematch (only that he didn't called it as such). Well, actually he demanded a "rematch" as a condition of his participation in Mexico. Only when FIDE granted this, did he confirm his participation in Mexico. He was smart enough to demand a rematch before he lost the title.
Euwe proposed a compromise solution: unlimited match to 10 wins, but in case of 9 wins to 9 wins the match goes in 10 games overtime. In case overtime ends in 5-5 tie, the champion keeps the title. That way both was possible - unlimited match and draw odds for the champion.
Like always, Fischer rejected everything that wasn't exactly how he wanted.
>Euwe proposed a compromise solution: unlimited match to 10 wins, but in case of 9 wins to 9 wins the match goes in 10 games overtime. In case overtime ends in 5-5 tie, the champion keeps the title. That way both was possible - unlimited match and draw odds for the champion.
I think this was also essentially the idea behind any possible Capablanca-Alekhine 5-5 agreement --- that match would be called off as "tied" (neither player wanted to lose such a close match to "luck"), but, there would immediately/soon be another match, limited to a smallish number of games (such as 20). In any case, I don't think Euwe's solution ever made it past the trial balloon stage (of course, if Fischer had been agreeable, then there would have been more impetus).
>I do not know if that 9-9 clause was big advantage it is comparable with draw odds but it demands champion to win 9 games so it is less then draw odds in limited match.
One cannot simply refer to mathematics to compute the "champion's edge" in an unlimited match. The champion can hold the title by:
*) Winning the requisite number of games
*) Not losing the requisite number of games, and the match gets called off (due to fatigue, impatience of sponsors, etc.)
The latter possibility is hard to measure in a precise mathematical sense.
Turning to various history, the FIDE votes in 1974 were:
Q. Should it be 10 wins, as per the WC, or 6 wins, as per the FIDE congress of 1972?
10 wins: 26, 6 wins: 24, Abstain: 12
Q. The length of the match being limited, what should the limit be?
36 games: 25, 30 games: 22, 50 games: 18, Abstain: 4
A. Now that the WC resigned, should we re-consider?
No: 35, Yes: 17, Abstain: 11
With question 1, in 1971, in part already due to negotiations with Fischer-ites (who wanted 10 wins, to go into in effect already for the 1972), the FIDE had changed the match system to be 6 wins (over the objections of the Russians) with there being no tie clause.
From Fischer's cablegram (of 21 June 1974, five days before the FIDE meeting), describing both the reason for 10 wins (rather than 6), and the tie clause:
Now I speak of a very important matter. Official World Championship occurs only once in three years. Temporary form, or team preparation, or luck should not be permitted to determine results. World Champion should be World's Best Player, and long match is necessary to reach a just result with nearly absolute certainty. For this reason I propose that match be won by first player to win ten games, with no limit on total number played. Provision for drawn match with score nine wins to nine with champion retaining title and prize fund split equally is consistent with longstanding tradition of small advantage for champion.
Having given "longstanding tradition of small advantage for champion" as the reason for the tie clause, he then continues:
Yet those who have long enjoyed this advantage now wish to abolish it. Propaganda emanating from a certain country has falsely implied that I am seeking unprecedented advantage. These critics say that it is unfair to require a two-point margin of ten wins to eight in order for a challenger to win a match, yet only in this way can champion's advantage be fairly preserved when there is no limit on total games. And critics deliberately overlook that champion also needs two-point margin in order to win match.
Having set down his conditions for "fairly preserv[ing]" the champion's advantage, he then turns to the historical record:
Mr. Cramer [the US rep to FIDE, also a rep of Fischer, and a rep of the USCF -- quite a trifecta] can demonstrate the historical record, but for example, Alekhine needed at least a margin of six wins to four to become World Champion, whereas Capablanca needed only five wins to retain his title, draws not counting.
The "historical record" here is a bit more fuzzy than it might seem: the "London rules" of 1922 (signed by all major competitors, except maybe Nimzovich) has as clause #1: The match to be one of six games up, drawn games not to count. This would seem to rebut Fischer's claim, though Capablanca had talked of a "drawn match" (to be followed by 20-game re-match) in correspondence in 1927, and it is unclear whether he was talking about a 5-5 result (about which Capablanca and Alekhine might have had a private agreement), or an abandonment. As one should expect, chess historian Edward Winter would be the expert on such matters:
Calculating probability will be difficult.
In the 1910 championship match between Lasker and Schlechter, which was schedules for only 10 games (like nowadays :)), "...the challenger had to gain an advantage of 2 points" and if it ended in a 5 1/2-4 1/2 match in favor of Schlechter, it would be declared a draw (My Great Predecessors I pg. 173).
In 1911 Capablanca challenged Lasker and these were the champion's conditions: "the winner was to be the first to win 6 games, draws not counting, but with a limit of 30 games; after the 30th game the match was to terminate and the winner would be the player who had a lead of not less than two points, while with an advantage of one point the match would be considered drawn" (My Great Predecessors pg. 239). However a decade later they played to the best of 24 games and Botvinnik preferred this format.
The conditions for the Levenfish and Botvinnik match for the title of USSR champion (1937) were: "the winner would be the first to win 6 games, draws not counting, and with a score of 5-5 the champion, Levenfish, would retain his title" (My Great Predecessors II pg. 121).
Again, it has always been the champion's right to retain the title in the event of a draw. In a limited match to 16, 24, or 30 games the match is drawn at 8-8, 12-12, or 15-15 respectively. Also, the challenger must win one more game than the champion to win. In an unlimited match the only fair draw if playing to 6 wins is 5-5, and the only fair draw if playing to 10 wins is 9-9. Therefore, the challenger must have 2 more wins (this is inherent to the system).
Fischer is often criticized for insisting on the 9-9 draw clause. There is no perfect system. Fischer despised draws and thought the unlimited match, with draws not counting, would combat this. Maybe he was right; maybe he was wrong. For those who strongly feel that this 2 point handicap is too much should consider this in light of Karpov and the Soviets reintroducing the champion's right to a rematch---thereby the challenger is forced to defeat the champion 2 different times. I ask in all fairness, which is the more difficult wall to climb? I don't believe Fischer insisted on 10 wins because he was rusty or because he knew that Karpov had stamina issues and would fade as some have insinuated. It was simply a matter of principle. Already in 1963 Fischer had challenged Petrosian to a 10 game match with draws not counting (Profile of a Prodigy pg. 71).
> In the 1910 championship match between Lasker and Schlechter, which was schedules for only 10 games (like nowadays :-)), "...the challenger had to gain an advantage of 2 points" and if it ended in a 5 1/2-4 1/2 match in favor of Schlechter, it would be declared a draw (My Great Predecessors I pg. 173).
And again Kasparov states something as a fact, but in reality nobody knows what the conditions were. It might be true, but it also my not be true.
In my opinion there should be somekind of champions advanatage and in best of 24 format, a 12-12 draw odds were reasonable. Draw odds and rematch was not. With unlimited match, there just can't be any draw odds (2 wins advantage is just to much), so the rematch is almost only option for champions advantage. In 1978, 1981 and 1984 Karpov had absolutely no advantage in the match itself, but of course he had a rematch right.
>It might be true, but it also my not be true.
Maybe the opponents didn´t know it exactly for themselves. And so we saw one of the greatest games in wcc history until WWII!
>In the 1910 championship match between Lasker and Schlechter, which was schedules for only 10 games (like nowadays :-)), "...the challenger had to gain an advantage of 2 points" and if it ended in a 5 1/2-4 1/2 match in favor of Schlechter, it would be declared a draw (My Great Predecessors I pg. 173).
Chess historians disagree here. [And in any case, MGP is not a historical source :)]. Wikipedia page
My own opinion is that the 2-pt edge idea is a myth that has simply been copied from one source to another (Kasparov is well-known for his trumpeting of this idea, in conjunction with him being the only champion to defend via winning the final game [Seville 1987]). To the best of my knowledge, there is no primary evidence in favour it (usually, a "secret contract" is mentioned, though this is hypothetical -- I should think any such "secret contract" would be more likely to involve a re-match).
As usual, the man-on-the-spot is Winter (#4144), quoting Preiswerk, 10 days after the match ended (and thus the primary source, though still perhaps mistaken or misleading): A narrow victory by Schlechter would by no means have given him the world championship but, instead, it would have brought him a serious return match to be carried out irrespective of its financing. This may not have suited the two masters, who, after all, are also excellent businessmen. Buckley even wrote (in the American Chess Bulletin, at the time) that Lasker would still have been titular champion (in some sense) had Schlechter won all the games.
Additionally, Lasker's correspondence at the time (two days before the final game, written for the New York Evening Post) also suggests that Schlechter would gain the title by 1-0. The innuendo of Preiswerk seems to be that a 2-0 win by Schlechter would be more likely to obtain funding for a "true" match (the 1910 match was underfunded, which is one reason for its shortness). So it might be more proper to say Lasker really had a re-match clause here. [And to be pedantic, this is not an example "of an unlimited match to 6 or 10 games"].
>In 1911 Capablanca challenged Lasker and these were the champion's conditions: "the winner was to be the first to win 6 games, draws not counting, but with a limit of 30 games; after the 30th game the match was to terminate and the winner would be the player who had a lead of not less than two points, while with an advantage of one point the match would be considered drawn"
Capablanca's original challenge was of 10 games up. Lasker responded with 6 wins, or best score by at least 2 after 30 games. Thus, (and I don't have the original conditions in front of me), it seems that 6-5 would be a win, but 5-4 with 21 draws would not. This again is a bit different (and makes more sense to me) than 5-5 being a draw in an "unlimited" match. In any case, this was at an early stage in negotiation, not a final agreement. Also under dispute (besides number of wins and length of match) were: location (Lasker didn't want tropical Havana), copyright (Lasker wanted to retain the rights), and time limit (Lasker wanted 12 moves/hour, while Capablanca said 15 --- in fact, in The Chess Amateur, this is the only clause that is noted in their brief blurbs, with Capablanca saying that he would never play at such a time control).
>However a decade later they played to the best of 24 games
The 1921 Capablanca-Lasker match was 8 wins or 24 games (some sources say 30 games, though again Winter, citing the match book, seems more accurate). And Lasker had lesser interest herein, having "resigned" the title to Capablanca in 1920 (though this was not recognised by most).
>Here are some examples from the 20th century of an unlimited match to 6 or 10 games where draw odds were given to the champion (5-5 or 9-9).
The others listed (Bogoljubov-Romanovsky, Levenfish-Botvinnik) are not World Championships. In the former, Bogoljubov had 15/17 while Levenfish was 2nd with 12.5/17 -- for the latter, Levenfish won with 12.5/17, while Botvinnik did not play (finishing his dissertation). Romanovsky was probably lucky even to get a match (which he lost 5-1 -- plus Bogo won their game in the tournament). Krylenko organised the Botvinnik-Levenfish match (whether he "ordered" it to "punish" MB is a different issue), and the purported rules from Capablanca-Alekhine were largely copied.
>Again, it has always been the champion's right to retain the title in the event of a draw. [...] In an unlimited match the only fair draw if playing to 6 wins is 5-5, and the only fair draw if playing to 10 wins is 9-9.
The "wins-only" accounting has the feature that it can neatly cut out the "event of a draw" except for abandonment. I find the phrase "fair draw" in an unlimited match to be a misnomer.
>For those who strongly feel that this 2 point handicap is too much should consider this in light of Karpov and the Soviets reintroducing the champion's right to a rematch---thereby the challenger is forced to defeat the champion 2 different times. I ask in all fairness, which is the more difficult wall to climb?
This is not exactly true. Firstly, the challenger becomes Champion after winning the first time (see Smyslov and Tal -- and Euwe, though there the re-match was freely granted). Furthermore, and perhaps a bit pedantic, this means that the challenger-now-Champion need only draw the second time around. Also, the question of whether the 2-point handicap is "too much" can be considered in a self-contained manner, and comparing it to a re-match clause seems to conflate the issue. [My personal contention is that the "rematch" clause does well when there are exactly two players who are admittedly in a separate class, but elsewise gives the Champion too large of an edge toward eventual retention. For instance, in the run-up to 1978, Euwe had suggested a re-match only in the case where the challenger had won by the minimal margin of 6-5. Also important with re-matches is the availability of funding.]
>Already in 1963 Fischer had challenged Petrosian to a 10 game match with draws not counting (Profile of a Prodigy pg. 71).
Notably missing from the challenge was a clause that would allow Petrosian to retain the title if the score of 9-9 was reached. Similarly, I don't think that Fischer mentioned such an idea when he proposed 10 wins back in 1971.
>The others listed (Bogoljubov-Romanovsky, Levenfish-Botvinnik) are not World Championships.
I might elucidate this a bit more: no matter what the result of these matches, both players would be in a tournament for the same title in a year or two. For this reason, I'm not sure that saying that: Levenfish "retained hist title" by 5-5 is notably different than saying that the match was a 5-5 draw.
Petrosian was able to Beat Karpov that time so RJF would be able too.
Next Karpov matches vs Korchnoi were played on equal considering personal problems of Korchnoi - family in SU.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill