< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
|Sep-18-17|| ||Lambda: <Why did they not just give a break and restart this match after a month or so?>|
That would clearly have favoured Karpov, since he was exhausted and had just lost two games. Having an entirely new match is preferable because it's not clear who that favours.
|Sep-18-17|| ||Howard: Not only that, 48 games was just too damn long, as it was. Terminating the match was almost undoubtedly the right thing to do. Suspending the match for a month or so, probably wouldn't have served much purpose.|
Look at this way--let's say Karpov won the 52nd game (after three draws), and thus "won" the match 6-3.....with 43 draws, too. Would a three-point margin over 52 games really prove that Karpov was the "better" player ? Hardly !
|Sep-18-17|| ||nok: Suspension was considered among other solutions, already in January, but didn't solve the venue problem. Kasparov and Keene offered to start again at 0-0 in London.|
|Sep-18-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Howard>
The irony wants that K and K played 120 games for the world title.
16-16 and 88 draws.
Nice figures, I have to admit :)
|Sep-18-17|| ||Petrosianic: <Nice figures, I have to admit :)>|
But not accurate. They actually played 144 games for the title, and the score was +21-19=104 in Kasparov's favor.
|Sep-18-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Petrosianic>
You are right; I missed the second '85 match.
|Sep-18-17|| ||offramp: It was a purely financial decision. FIDÉ was paying a fortune in hotel and venue costs. The venue had already been changed to somewhere cheaper.|
Neither player was particularly tired. 48 games in 5 months is not unusual for an active GM, and most of those were very short draws.
I'd like to know where the statement that Karpov had lost 10kg comes from. Is that another Chess Life & Review-necdote?
|Sep-18-17|| ||Arconax: This I did not know, <offpamp>.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||Strelets: <offramp> makes a good point. There were a lot of short draws in this first, unlimited K-K match. 22 of the 48 games were draws of 25 moves or less and I don't think it's disputable that both players produced better chess in the second (Moscow 1985) and third (London/Leningrad 1986) matches, conducted after FIDE had abolished the first to win six with draws not counting rule.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||diceman: <offramp: It was a purely financial decision. FIDÉ was paying a fortune in hotel and venue costs. The venue had already been changed to somewhere cheaper.>|
|Sep-19-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: It was Campomanes who came up with the health issues. According to wiki|
|Sep-19-17|| ||Petrosianic: <offramp: It was a purely financial decision. FIDÉ was paying a fortune in hotel and venue costs. The venue had already been changed to somewhere cheaper.>|
That may be true, but it's not what Campomanes said. He cited only the health issues, and the fact that neither player was able to continue (even though neither player was making that claim, and Campomanes was not a doctor.)
If he'd cancelled it after Game 46 on the grounds that it was going nowhere and had become an organizational nightmare, only Karpov would have complained. But cancelling it because it's going nowhere right at the moment that it's going somewhere would have sounded phony (and been phony).
|Sep-19-17|| ||Howard: Yes, I never understand why Campo cancelled the match at the time he did---that is, after Kasparov had just won two straight games. Did he underestimate the flak that would almost inevitably occur?|
He probably should have waited another, say, another 4-5 games before deciding to cancel. If those next several games had been draws, then Kasparov's two wins probably would have looked like a fluke, and thus calling off the match probably wouldn't have looked so suspicious.
Not only that, if Karpov had managed to win a sixth game during that, say, Game 49-52 stretch, then Campos would obviously have not had to make any decision !
Just seemed that Campos picked a very "sensitive" moment to terminate the contest.
|Sep-19-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Hmm.. I guess they didn't cancel it in one day. |
Maybe Karpov suspected something and it affected his play.
Pure peculation but I heard Soviet officials complaining about the use of the (national) building for too long.
So I guess, also considering the state the Soviet Union was in, there must have been rumours about the upcoming cancellation.
|Sep-19-17|| ||Everett: As I said above, it's only the nature of the match length that stopped Karpov here. The fact that it is Fischer's idiocy that suggested this format in the first place adds extra irony to it all.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||nok: <He probably should have waited another, say, another 4-5 games before deciding to cancel.>|
He did propose to play eight more games. Kasparov refused, preferring that the match be stopped immediately. This was before the last game. Anyway, the players knew game 48 might be the last.
|Sep-19-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Probably posted before:
|Sep-19-17|| ||Howard: Yes, now I remember. It was suggested that the match continue for a limited number of additional games, but Kasparov objected.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||Petrosianic: He'd have been foolish to accept. If there were, say 8 games left, Karpov could go all out for a win, knowing that it could blow up in his face twice without repercussion.|
|Sep-20-17|| ||offramp: Lim Kok Ann wrote, in early 1986, |
<"Campomanes states that at first (in December) only the suspension of [this match] was considered, as a solution to the impasse – the players objected to <change of playing hall> 'against regulations'; the organizing committee’s lease on the Hall of Columns had long lapsed, and the hall was required for funerals, inter alia ...
Apparently Kasparov remarked that instead of a suspension he would prefer the match be terminated. This rash remark first put the idea to Campo that termination could be a solution...">
|Sep-20-17|| ||offramp: <Petrosianic: <offramp: It was a purely financial decision. FIDÉ was paying a fortune in hotel and venue costs. The venue had already been changed to somewhere cheaper.>
That may be true, but it's not what Campomanes said. He cited only the health issues, and the fact that neither player was able to continue (even though neither player was making that claim, and Campomanes was not a doctor.)...>|
He would, wouldn't he? When a company is about to go bankrupt the CEO comes on telly and says that the responsibility lies with interest rates, market corrections, crop failure in Tashkent, Hurricane Irma - anything except "Our business system has proved a total failure."
|Sep-20-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Whoa I guess my memory is not that bad. But I can find nothing about Karpov's weight loss. Although I remember that as well.|
I mean... didn't he eat enough?
|Sep-20-17|| ||nok: Iirc that's some crapola that appeared in the British press. (When Keene is around, beware.) At the end the players may have been more tired by the negotiations than anything else.|
|Sep-20-17|| ||Howard: As far as Karpov's "weight loss" he was reported to have lost weight during his near-marathon 1978 match with Korchnoi. Inside Chess, in fact, mentioned it in a 1991 issue.|
|Sep-20-17|| ||Petrosianic: That's because they were serving him yoghurt during the game. If Yoghurtgate had been Pork Rind Gate, Karpov would have gained.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·