There is a world of difference between the 12-12 draw clause in the classic 24 games match (where draws count) and the demand for a 1 game difference between both players in a "first to X wins" format.

In the classic format, the possibility of a draw is implicit in the format. (In fact, the players could get to 12-12 without even winning a game.) It makes sense that in the event of a draw, the champion retains the title in that format.

In a first to 6 wins (or first to 10 wins) where draws don’t count, Fischer’s demand was indeed unreasonable. It actually meant that the “first to 10 wins” format only applied to his opponent, while he would be required to win only 9. This looks very unfair, because it is indeed unfair. Imagine a best of 5 tennis match (where the winner has to win 3 sets) in which one of the players demands that this should apply only to his opponent, while he should be declared winner by winning 2 sets. Same with Fishcher’s demand: you win by winning 10, but I win by winning 9. It's absurd.

I have always felt that Fischer, brilliant as he was, must certainly have developed some kind of pathologically unbearable fear of losing once he reached the top. It’s the only explanation for his refusal to play after 1972. There is an interview with Kasparov where he talks about this: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt... One of the things he mentions is that the quality of the Karpov-Spassky candidats match was very high, and Fischer could not have avoided noticing that Spassky played much better in that match, and yet he had no chance.

Let's put it more precisely as 9-9 would be technically "tie" and not "win" for Fischer in the match, though the outcome, i. e. successful defence of WC title, would be very same:

HR: .... You say on page 249, just before the Spassky match [against Karpov in 74] “that Spassky had no conception of the strength of the grandmaster against whom he had been drawn,” which tells me that there had been massive improvement Spassky either didn’t know or couldn’t know.

GK: Yes, he didn’t know, probably he couldn’t know. Spassky was never good at preparing in great depth for his opponents, and as I explain in the book that this match was the final demonstration of the failure of Bondarevsky’s concept of this “fresh head.” So just coming with an open mind and not over-working on opening ideas and on the profile of your opponent. Karpov, according to Razuvaev and others who worked with him, spent more time on chess than ever in his life and his progress …

HR: In that period?

GK: In that period. His progress from the early 70’s to the match with Spassky, the end of the match, which in my view was probably one of the highest quality ever played. It’s more than significant, it’s amazing. Spassky lost 7-4, which speaks for itself.

HR: And Karpov is that much stronger because he’s hard-working, because he’s inspired, because he’s matured …

GK: It was a combination. I’m not sure I could be absolutely correct in presenting the reasons why he played so well. I’m just looking at the moves, and you could see by the very unusual rate of the number of games picked up from the match. For instance, from the Karpov-Korchnoi final match I picked only one game, because from my perspective, from the perspective of someone who is analyzing the development of the game of chess, the final match made very little contribution. I discovered there was very little I could present to the public, both in terms of general development of the game of chess and also from Karpov’s prospects. While out of the 11 games he played with Spassky, I picked 8. I picked eight because I thought it was an amazing quality for an event of that magnitude. In my view the Karpov-Spassky match was to a certain degree a substitute to the world championship match we didn’t see in that cycle.

HR: Well, you’ve already said that you thought Karpov would defeat Fischer.

GK: No, I didn’t say he would defeat Fischer. I think that Fischer, after the Karpov-Spassky match, probably lost faith in his ability to beat Karpov. It doesn’t mean that Fischer was inferior to Karpov, but for Fischer, psychological confidence was everything. And looking at what Karpov did to Spassky in 1974, I think shocked Fischer, because he knew Spassky’s strengths and he could recognize that Spassky played in Leningrad better than Reykjavik, and yet he had no chance. So that’s why I think Fischer was so aggressive in pushing the unlimited match, ten wins, because he knew that would be his best chance. The long match offered him a much better chance than a short event. I’m sure he was impressed by the quality, and also the creativity … but the way Karpov played. It was so light but also so deep. It was a unique mixture, which could remind you of Morphy’s games, not in style, but just in the invisible relative easiness of doing things, while every move and every concept had a profound substantial idea behind it.

HR: Well, he defeats Spassky, he plays very well, it may be he’s stronger than anyone in the world at that point in 1975.

GK: Which is a great period, because his match with Fischer could be a phenomenal splash for the quality of chess.

HR: Sure.

GK: Yes, to see these two giants colliding at the time of Karpov’s peak, and I still think Fischer could show us magnificent chess that would probably speed up the development of chess and could bring us to new heights.

HR: It’s speculation, of course, but Fischer had a reputation for starting slowly and Karpov had a reputation for falling apart at the end so …

The rematch clause allowed Botvinnik to regain the title against Smyslov, without having to go through the heavy grind that the other players had to go through.

The rematch clause allowed MB to regain the title from Tal without having to go through the qualifying clause again, a huge advantage.

Those are the facts, but it's not a nice story.

Plus it ensured some more brilliant chess as well.

If it was a choice between that and the dissapointments of the Kasparov-Kramnik affair I would want a rematch clause every time.

Think how different chess history would be with an automatic rematch in that case.

For the 1990 cycle Karpov entered at the quarter-final stage (which was the more normal practice for a defeated champion, viz. Petrosian in 1971 and Spassky in 1974).

4 real? Thats not someting you read about him, he tends to glide under a 'mavarick' persona, he being the outsider trying to change the system. Obama met with him in O's recent trip to Moscow. I bet that made him real popular with Putin and the other guy.

And <percyblakeney>'s account of Kasparov's Party games is accurate to the best of my knowledge - he also had a powerful protector in the Politburo of the time (Heydar Aliev). A period of Kaspy's political life which he has since tried very hard to airbrush out of existence.

==============

I do think that calling it a “draw” in the same sense as classic 12-12 draw in a match limited to 24 games (where draws count) is a very wild stretch. It is also a stretch to refer to the wins as “points” in the same sense as in the classic format. As far as I know, there was never such clause in matches involving a predetermined number of wins (where draws don’t count) in the entire history of the game. This seems to me very different from the other format. In the normal format, the limitation in the number of *games*, with draws being worth half a point, makes a drawn match an inevitable possibility. This is a reasonable price to pay for the enormous advantage of having a clear time frame within which the match will be finished.

But there is by definition no limit to the number of games in a match played to a given number of wins, and the 9-9 clause was certainly *not* meant to solve that problem at all. The match could go on for 2 month or 6 months -- with or without the 9-9 clause. The number of wins was already limited (10) so the clause didn’t address anything here either. What Fischer was asking was simply to limit the number of wins required of him to a figure lower than his opponent. If this 9-9 clause seems so reasonable, one wonders why it has never been seen in this format, neither in matches to 10 wins nor in matches to 6 wins. The unfairness of it becomes more and more obvious the more you reduce the numbers. Think of a match "to 4 wins" which is declared finished when one of the players reaches 3 wins, while the other player can only win 4-2 or 4-1 or 4-0, but not 4-3. Sorry, that's not a match "to 4 wins." It's some highly unfair concoction. The whole notion is completely absurd.

<was Tal a CP member? I don't believe so.>

>

Steinitz-Zukertort
World Championship Match, 1886.