Is the Condorcet Candidate, by definition, the Candidate winning 1-on-1
against All Opponents or the Candidate winning against the most?

Against all. If it's against most, then it would be the winner under the Copeland method, which is just one of many Condorcet methods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland%27s_method

  From: Frank Martinez <frankdmartinez@gmail.com>

To: "electionscience@googlegroups.com" electionscience@googlegroups.com; election-methods election-methods@electorama.com
Sent: Tuesday, 19 July 2016, 15:55
Subject: [EM] Condorcet Question

Is the Condorcet Candidate, by definition, the Candidate winning 1-on-1 against All Opponents or the Candidate winning against the most?

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/emfor list info

All of them. If there is no such candidate then there is no Condorcet winner.
Electing the candidate winning against the most other candidates is basically the Copeland method. That's not very decisive though, and its result can be affected by cloning candidates.
Kevin

  De : Frank Martinez <frankdmartinez@gmail.com>

À : "electionscience@googlegroups.com" electionscience@googlegroups.com; election-methods election-methods@electorama.com
Envoyé le : Mardi 19 juillet 2016 9h55
Objet : [EM] Condorcet Question

Is the Condorcet Candidate, by definition, the Candidate winning 1-on-1 against All Opponents or the Candidate winning against the most?

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info