Fred Wilson is back, you can catch his monthly show
at www.chesscafe.com.
In this first show Fred had GM Andy
Soltis as his guest. It's always an excellent show when these two
get together. They talked about Andy’s
new book, “Bobby Fischer rediscovered". Fred recommends this book
and based on this show, I will buy it. There was an interesting
analysis of Bobby Fischer’s play. Soltis also made an interesting point about
the Fischer vs. Spassky match in 1992, he feels it helped cause Kasparov
and Short to split from FIDE in 1993. Soltis
states that the Fischer vs. Spassky match fetched 5 million dollars.
Spassky the loser got more money than Kasparov got for winning his match
with Nigel Short. Soltis states that Kasparov thought he was getting a big
pay day for the 1993 world championship match, however the huge pay
day could not be had.
|
Hangin's take :
That's a great point, I could definitely see how
Kasparov would be angry that Fischer and Spassky could get a 5 million
dollar pay day. Kasparov and Short did not do too badly in terms of money for
their
1993 match. It had to sting Kasparov that Bobby Fischer, who had
not played in 20 years, was still the biggest draw in chess.
|
Fred and Andy got
on to talking about the best system for a world championship. Andy
seems to favor the Knockout format, because the games are more decisive. He
says that Ruslan Ponomariov had to win a lot of games to win his title.
Ruslan had to face 6 opponents. He
states that Vassily Smyslov only won 12 games to become a champion. He
won 6 games in the 1956
candidate tournament and then won 6 games to defeat World
Champion Mikhail Botvinnik in 1957
world championship match. Tigran Petrosian only won 13 games to
become a champion. He won 7 games in the 1962
candidate Tournament and he won 6 games to defeat World Champion
Mikhail Botvinnik in the 1963
world championship match.
|
Hangin's take:
My feeling
is that FIDE did not perfect the world championship process until
1964.
I
also believe that it's not the number of games won that’s so important,
it's who you beat that counts most.
Look at Spassky road to his title during the 1966 cycle.
1)
In 1966 Spassky won 13
games
in the Amsterdam interzonal, where he tied for first with Larsen, Smyslov.
2)
In the quarterfinal
candidate match, Spassky won three games and defeated Paul Keres by a
score of 6-4.
3)
In the semifinal candidate match Spassky won 4 games to defeat Geller by a score of 5.5-2.5.
4)
In the final candidate match – Spassky won 4 games to defeat
former champion Mikhail Tal by a score of
7-4.
5)
In the world championship match - Spassky
won three games in his loss to
Tigran Petrosian the 9th World Champion
by a score of 11.5 –
12.5.
Since Spassky lost the world championship match in 1966, he was
automatically seeded into the 1969 world championship process.
1)
In the quarterfinal candidate match – Spassky won
3 games to defeat Geller by a score of 5.5 – 2.5 .
2)
In the semifinal candidate match - Spassky won 4 games to defeat Bent Larsen
by a score of 5.5 – 2.5
3)
In the final candidate
match Spassky won 4 games to
defeat Victor Kortchnoi by a score 6.5 – 3.5.
4)
In the world championship match Spassky won 6 games to became the
10th World Champion by defeating the 9th World
Champion Tigran Petrosian by a score of 12.5 – 10 5.
Spassky road to the world title was a tough one. He deserved to
be world champion. He beat top players, the who’s who
of chess. He defeated two world champions and won 17 games against
the best in the world.
Lets take a look at Bobby Fischer’s road to the title during the
1972 world championship cycle.
1)
In 1970 Palma De Mallorca Interzonal Bobby Fischer finished first by 3.5
points, winning 15 games.
2)
In the quarterfinal candidate match
Bobby won 6 games to
defeat Mark Taimanov
by a score of 6-0. This was unprecedented in chess history. I
equate it to Don Larsen’s perfect game no hitter in the world series in
1956.
3)
In the semifinal candidate match Bobby repeated the feat by winning
6 games to defeat Bent Larsen by a score of 6-0. During this period, Bobby string of defeating
18 GM is a row is equivalent to White Ford pitching 33 consecutive scoreless innings
in a world series.
4)
In the candidate final match Bobby won 4 games to defeat ex world
champion Tigran Petrosian by a score of 6.5- 2.5.
5)
In the world championship match, Bobby Fischer won 7 games to
become the 11th World Champion by defeating Boris Spassky the
10th World Champion by a score of 12.5 - 8.5.
Bobby Fischer's road to the title was also very difficult. He defeated 2
world champions and won 36 games against the best in the world. He
did it in smashing style
Ponomariov only won 12 games en
route to his title.
As far as being a world champion, it's not necessary the number of
wins that counts most, it’s the quality of the opponent that’s important.
Clearly, in the old system winning a lot was necessary but
so was winning against the top players in the world. That’s what gives value to
a title. If you review the path to the title of Spassky, Fischer, Karpov,
and Kasparov,
you will find that they won a lot of games and faced tougher opponents
than any FIDE Knockout winner. The old system found the best challengers
and champions. It kept the tradition of king of the mountain, the man who
beat the man who beat the man.
|
Fred Wilson made an interesting point that the challengers in the
old system had to play
a lot of chess and could get exhausted. This gave the champion
an advantage.
|
Hangin's take:
Well, I do think the champion has some disadvantages as well;
all the top players will be studying his games.
Who does the champion prepare for? He has to wait to find
out who will challenge him. He can take a good guess, but may need
to prepare for multiple opponents. Also many champions have lost their
titles in their first defense, namely Smyslov, Tal, Capablanca, Euwe,
and Spassky. If you look at the true champions from 1966 onward, you can see
the best player breaks thru. Karpov
defended his title three times. He lost his title because Kasparov was
better. Kasparov held his
title for 15 years, but he had some close calls. In the 1995 match, Anand took
the lead mid way thru, but self-destructed. In 1987, Karpov was within one
game and one draw of taking the title back. However Karpov lost the 24th game
of the match allowing Kasparov to keep his title. Also in 1984, Karpov was one
game away from retaining his title against Kasparov. I don’t feel that
being a world champion is an advantage in itself. The champ does get draw
odds, but he has to play better chess than the challenger. In the old
system the better player has broken thru. The old process was three years
long, so challengers had time to rest and recharge before playing the
champion.
|
Andy Soltis also had an interesting comment, that during the 1970 USSR vs.
the world match, all 20 players were asked the following question: Do you like the current world
champ system? Only 3 players said they like it.
|
Hangin's take:
My response is tough. Becoming champion is not supposed to be easy.
The title retains it values because of the difficulty in winning it. The
1970 process was a fair, tough process. It allows the best players to triumph
by showing strength of play. Also the money prior to 1972 world championship
cycle was poor. Now the money is good and I think the candidate matches
would draw some nice dollars for the players. Also players are proud to
say, I was a candidate. If the players in 1970 were
making the money that top players make now, I don't think they would object.
The problem with Chess today is there aren't too many resume building
events, like candidate matches.
|
|
Soltis had another interesting point about how the world
championship will be decided in the future, he feels that there will be
another great player who will, like Capablanca, have a meeting with top
players and tell them what is needed to challenge for the title.
|
Hangin's take :
Andy is talking about the 1922 London Protocol. It was
after the 22 London Tournament, Capablanca invited all the top finishers
out to dinner and told them what was needed to challenge him. The main
point was money, the challenger had to raise 5000 dollars. I think this is
very likely to occur if reunification does not happen. I don't think it's
the best method, but it's better than the FIDE knockout process. It preserves
the man who beat the man tradition. Kramnik says he has a 2 million dollar
match against Kasparov any time he wants. If FIDE does not support a
good system, then that's what will occur. I think there is also danger, hopefully the champion will challenge someone in the top 5 or
10. Fide was created to organize world championship events that allowed
the top players to challenge for the title. FIDE perfected a
system in the mid 1960's that allowed the top players to earn the right to
challenge for the title through their strength of play against other top
players.
|
|
|