|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 28 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-15-12
 | | Honza Cervenka: Let’s move a discussion from London Chess Classic (2012) to a more proper place: <HeMateMe: <Honza> I just wanted to make two observations of the material you posted: 1) Karpov had used up all of his rest postponements. To me, this is collateral evidence of someone who is becoming exhausted, having to face Kasparov everyday at the chessboard.> Well, it’s true that Karpov used all his rest postponements but so did Kasparov. And in fact it was Kasparov who asked for the rest for health reasons as the last one before the termination of the match but it’s just a detail of no special importance. I have no doubt that both of them were very tired and I have no reason to dismiss a hypothesis that Karpov’s situation was worse at the end of the match not only because of his physical constitution but also because of the outcome of last two games which had to boost Gazza’s moral and self-confidence to the heavens while for Karpov it could have been quite depressive situation (although on many occasions he has proven quite impressive psychical stability and toughness under the pressure or in stress situations over the board), especially if you take in consideration missed win in the game 41 and lucky escape from objectively lost position in the game 46. But up to this moment I never saw a iota of reliable evidence that Karpov was unable to continue in the match, and the published documents are showing quite clearly that he wanted to continue and that he was trying to reverse Campomanes’ decision to cancel the match without conclusion. Unlike Kasparov as the documents are showing quite clearly too. And of course, there was nothing like “having to face Kasparov everyday at the chessboard”. The match was terminated on the 15th of February 1985, the last game was played one week before on the 8th of February, the 47th game was played on the 30th of January etc. In fact during January and February of 1985 they played only 12 games due to postponements required by both players but in some cases caused by technical reasons as the lease of the Hall of Columns elapsed already at the end of December, both players refused to move the match to another place in Moscow and it was just impossible to cancel other long-time scheduled events which should have taken place in the Hall of Columns. It is just a matter of fact that for this and in the consequence of used format of match with unlimited number of games, which could have run forever in this way, the match long time before its termination became a nightmare and big PR disaster for organizers. I think that especially this moment, which was putting in deep doubts even the regularity of the contest, was an important factor behind Campo’s decision to stop this madness and to organize a new match from 0-0 later in 1985 as Kasparov himself proposed after the game 47. I don’t think that the reason was to “save Karpov from looming defeat” and known facts and documents here apparently don’t support the theory of vast pro-Karpov conspiracy behind the decision to terminate the match. |
 |
Dec-15-12
| | Honza Cervenka: Hi <acirce>, I know. But I read your later post on this matter only after I had reacted on that old one.:-) |
|
Dec-15-12
 | | acirce: <And that Karpov was at least publicly against Campo’s decision and that he was quite reluctant to accept it even during that negotiation behind closed door during the press conference on the 15th of February it is corroborated by other participants including Kasparov himself.> Yes, indeed. Kasparov in his "Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-1985": <Karpov and I were invited to sign an official document saying that we agreed with the President's decision. For more than an hour they tried to talk me into signing that piece of paper, speaking to me rudely and with irritation. But I did not put my signature to this 'historic' document!IT WAS CLEAR THAT KARPOV HAD NO GREAT DESIRE TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT, and he did this only after Sevastyanov slapped him on the shoulder and said 'Come on, Tolya, sign it. It's a good piece of paper'. However, at the same time Karpov did not forget to add the condition about his right to a return match.> My emphasis. I.e., just as you say, even Kasparov makes clear that Karpov didn't really want to sign it, he just caved under the pressure. |
|
Dec-15-12
| | acirce: Karpov himself explained that when signing he thought Kasparov too would accept the fait accompli and sign it as well. Meanwhile, a little later, while Karpov made public statements that he wanted, even demanded, the match to be restarted, there was this official statement from Kasparov's camp to quite the opposite effect: <Kasparov does not want to continue the match. Kasparov is agreeable to the FIDE President's decision to consider the match ended. Kasparov is ready to play a new match in September.> - Yuri Mamedov, head of Kasparov's delegation, on 25 February 1985. |
|
Dec-17-12
| | Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: <drik> I think that Fischer's withdrawal had primarily nothing to do with negotiations...I don't think that he would have played even if that apparently impassable 9-9 drawing clause would have been accepted.> You think ... you don't think...
Do you not think that you need to justify such 'thoughts' with at least some evidence?> The evidence in this case (and the evidence quite telling I would say) is Fischer’s behavior and the nature of match conditions which he put on the table. Btw, Botvinnik already in 1972 just after the match in Reykjavik predicted that Fischer will never play again and the history has proven him to be right (with exception of the second match with Spassky in 1992 but it hardly can be counted in this matter). |
|
Dec-17-12
| | Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: And don’t blame Karpov, who was then one of most outspoken critics of this new system> Sorry Honza - Karpov was hardly powerless. He could have prevented this whole sorry episode, by threatening to withdraw. But that would have hardly been in his interests.> If he would have withdrawn from the event then he would have lost his title by default. He wasn’t in position to dictate conditions. Unlike Kasparov’s title, which was widely accepted as the real title of the World Champion despite of official non-recognition from the part of FIDE (not to mention Gazza’s unassailable standing of the world number one), his title had any value only within the FIDE. In 1997 he was not either the world number two, as Kramnik and Anand were already clearly ahead of him in the ranking and Topalov was shoulder to shoulder with him. |
|
Dec-17-12
| | Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: I think I don't need any defence of my claims which are based on factual evidence.> You may indeed have claims based on factual evidence - but you did not provide them. You tried to 'prove' your point by reduction to absurdity - stating that weak OTB play was incompatible with shrewd negotiation. If you have 'facts' then you should employ them - rather than employing such flawed 'logic'.> The evidence like Sevastyanov’s letter to Campomanes from the 13th of February proposing adjournment of the match for three months, the text of Campomanes’ announcement of termination of the match from the 15th of February which states that the decision was made despite of willingness of both players to continue in the match, Karpov’s letter to Campomanes from the 19th of February in which he demands to retract the decision to terminate the match, and the telegram of Kasparov’s representative Mamedov to Vice President of FIDE Lim Kok Ann from the 25th of February which states that Kasparov is prepared to play the new match on 24 games according to Campo’s decision from the 15th of February and that he does not wish to resume the play in the interrupted match are all matter of public record available in public domain. Also testimonies confirming Karpov’s great reluctance to accept the termination already during that discussion behind closed door on the 15th of February which occurred after Campomanes had announced his decision at the press conference are in public record. He (unlike Kasparov) signed the declaration of termination then but he did it after long insistence and persuasion from the part of Campomanes and some other participants of these talks and he did it not because of being consented with it but because he just saw it as a fait accompli which cannot be undone. This is not only Karpov’s version of event, Kasparov who was towards Karpov usually harshly critical confirms this description of this negotiation behind closed door quite unequivocally in his writings on the termination affair (see acirce’s comment above on this thread). If despite of all that Karpov was an active and even key member of any real anti-Kasparov plot to terminate the match and deprive him thus of inevitable victory from the score 3-5 in his disfavor, as popular narration puts it, then he (Karpov) deserves an Oscar as the best actor of the 20th century. And I really doubt that a man in such a psychical and physical state which is ascribed to Karpov after 48 games marathon with Gazza would be able of such a great, flawless and convincing dramatic performance. And of course, don't forget Kasparov's proposal to terminate the match and play a new one with limited number of games from 0-0 which he made after the game 47. There is no dispute that he did it though context and conditions under which this proposal was made are disputed. |
|
Dec-17-12
| | Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: What about Adams, Shirov, Gelfand, Short, Dreev, Svidler, van Wely, Beliavsky, Salov, Bareev, Khalifman and others?> What about them? Anand faced the possibility of facing half these guys in the draw; IN ADDITION to facing Karpov at the end. Karpov could only ever face one of them. THIS is you balancing factor? REALLY?> Please, don’t try to pretend that you don’t understand my point here. Karpov was until the end of Groningen tournament which ended just three days before the start of the match for the FIDE’s World Champion title in Lausanne still in dark about the name of his challenger, which is a situation without precedent in the history of chess. I never said anything that it was “balancing factor” which miraculously turned that Kirsan’s mockery of World Championship into a fair contest. Of course, you are right that Anand before getting chance to challenge Karpov had to play against Nikolic, Khalifman, Almasi, Shirov, Gelfand and Adams, and he also could have met other players from his part of tournament tree on the way to Lausanne but how does it change the point that Karpov was in (for the world champion who is going to meet a challenger) totally surreal and absurd situation? I don’t want to try to make futile comparisons of Anand’s fatigue after a won tournament and spent opening preparation against impossibility to make specific preparation for specific challenger, who is warmed up and who just have proven his excellent form in the qualifier, which was a handicap of Karpov under the circumstances. But if you don’t think that it is unacceptably unfair towards a challenger that he must qualify himself before getting chance to play a match with reigning world champion, then the only problem here was extremely short time between the finish of KO qualifier in Groningen and the start of WCH match played in another country. And I have never heard that this schedule was Karpov’s idea or that he insisted on such a schedule. Yes, he accepted it by his participation in the event but so did Anand and all other players who played in Groningen. |
|
| Dec-19-12 | | drik: <<drik> You think ... you don't think... Do you not think that you need to justify such 'thoughts' with at least some evidence?>> <Honza Cervenka: The evidence in this case (and the evidence quite telling I would say) is Fischer’s behavior> Unfortunately your 'evidence' is YOUR INTERPRETATION of his behaviour. His behaviour was notoriously bizzare - and of all players, the least susceptible to reliable interpretation. Fischer withdrew from the Sousse Interzonal whilst leading - was that because he was terrified of playing Spassky? In the end - this is just guesswork. <Botvinnik already in 1972 just after the match in Reykjavik predicted that Fischer will never play again> You know of course that Botvinnik once predicted about Karpov - "The boy doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession." If you make enough predictions ... some are bound to be right & some will make you look like an idiot. |
|
| Dec-19-12 | | drik: <Honza Cervenka: If he would have withdrawn from the event then he would have lost his title by default.> ...& so? A title already devalued by the absence of Kasparov & Kramnik, was still so valuable that it was worth participating in this travesty? At some point, a sense of integrity has to overcome self-interest. Otherwise you lose credibility, which is worth more than real titles - let alone paper ones. |
|
| Dec-19-12 | | drik: <Honza Cervenka: The evidence like Sevastyanov’s letter to Campomanes from the 13th of February> OK - I have not seen this letter. How does it explain Karpov's initial acceptance of the termination? And please don't say that it was because the naive & innocent Karpov, was so overawed by the majesty of Campomanes. <You tried to 'prove' your point by reduction to absurdity - stating that weak OTB play was incompatible with shrewd negotiation.> I guess you are no longer attempting to justify this 'proof' ;-) |
|
| Dec-19-12 | | drik: <Honza Cervenka: Please, don’t try to pretend that you don’t understand my point here.> I never claimed not to understand the point. I simply claimed to not to understand anyone, who could think that the contest was REMOTELY fair. Yes Karpov not knowing who his opponent would be, was inconvenient. But the REAL 'inconvenience' of ACTUALLY having to fight through all these players, was INCOMPARABLY greater than the VIRTUAL inconvenience of POSSIBLY playing them. DID Karpov have an unfair advantage in this tournament. YES or NO. If you can possibly answer NO - then I have absolutely nothing more to say on the matter. |
|
| Dec-19-12 | | nok: <A title already devalued by the absence of Kasparov & Kramnik, was still so valuable that it was worth participating in this travesty? At some point, a sense of integrity has to overcome self-interest. Otherwise you lose credibility> Your morals lesson notwithstanding, a hundred adults still participated. <Yes Karpov not knowing who his opponent would be, was inconvenient. But the REAL 'inconvenience' of ACTUALLY having to fight through all these players, was INCOMPARABLY greater than the VIRTUAL inconvenience of POSSIBLY playing them.> I like Tyrolian singing. Btw I agree with Carlsen and the 19th century guys that the champion shouldn't be seeded in the final, but Steinitzian tradition has its way for now. Anyway this ain't the place to discuss this. |
|
Dec-19-12
| | Honza Cervenka: <drik> <Unfortunately your 'evidence' is YOUR INTERPRETATION of his behaviour. His behaviour was notoriously bizzare - and of all players, the least susceptible to reliable interpretation. Fischer withdrew from the Sousse Interzonal whilst leading - was that because he was terrified of playing Spassky? In the end - this is just guesswork.> Well, I don't say that my interpretation of his behaviour and his conditions for 1975 match is the only possible and that the evidence in this matter is absolutely conclusive. I also don't think that Fischer was particularly afraid of Karpov or (when he withdrew from Sousse) of Spassky or Petrosian or anybody else. But I think (and many things surrounding Fischer's career support such a possibility) that Fischer's problem was atychiphobia or something very close to it. He was simply afraid of possibility of failure, and he had to fight with this fear always when he should play. He loved chess and he had very strong motivation in the objective to become the World Champion. But even then he sometimes needed other people to persuade him to return back to the chessboard. And his state was getting worse during the time. When he became the World Champion, he lost the only incentive which was able to hold him in the game. |
|
Dec-19-12
| | Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: If he would have withdrawn from the event then he would have lost his title by default.> ...& so? A title already devalued by the absence of Kasparov & Kramnik, was still so valuable that it was worth participating in this travesty? At some point, a sense of integrity has to overcome self-interest. Otherwise you lose credibility, which is worth more than real titles - let alone paper ones.> Despite of significantly lesser value of the FIDE title in the eyes of general public it was far from worthless. Kasparov did not participate not because of any high moral grounds but because he did not wish to jeopardize and diminish his valuable title in this Russian roulette. It was well known already then that short matches decided eventually by rapid tie-breaks can lead to great upsets on the account of favourites. Kramnik and Kamsky were the only serious contenders who refused to participate. For Karpov as professional who lives from chess it would be a vain gesture with no effect which would hurt only his interests. In fact, he withdrew next year in protest of breaking his rights of the World Champion from the part of FIDE and what has happened after that? Exactly nothing. Kirsan was running happily his KO show (this time with Kramnik in the field, though without Kasparov and Anand) and in the final the 31st man (Akopian) met the 36th man (Khalifman) with the letter becoming the World Champion. In 2000 Kramnik as the new Classical WCH absented there and so did both Karpov and Kasparov but all other heavy weights were there and Anand won the jackpot this time. So why to blame Karpov that he did not withdraw already in 1998? And of course, the beginning of this debate was Karpov's shrewdness and toughness in handling of FIDE. |
|
Dec-19-12
| | Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: The evidence like Sevastyanov’s letter to Campomanes from the 13th of February> OK - I have not seen this letter. How does it explain Karpov's initial acceptance of the termination? And please don't say that it was because the naive & innocent Karpov, was so overawed by the majesty of Campomanes.> Of course, Sevastyanov's letter does not explain Karpov's "initial acceptance" (more precisely his signature under Campomanes declaration which explicitly stated that the match is stopped despite of wish of both players to continue) but it shows the position of Soviet chess federation which was strikingly different from Campo's decision announced two days later which on the other hand exactly followed Kasparov's proposal made in the beginning of February after the 47th game. Karpov's "initial acceptance" (read signature) of Campomanes declaration of termination of the match can be explained quite easily in the way Karpov did it. After public announcement of termination at the beginning of that press conference which came as a surprise to him Karpov simply considered the announced decision to be definitive, especially if representatives of Soviet chess federation did not object and even urged both players to accept it. The text of Sevastyanov's letter can be found in Edward Winter's "The Termination" at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
Dec-19-12
| | Honza Cervenka: <drik> <<Honza Cervenka: Please, don’t try to pretend that you don’t understand my point here.> I never claimed not to understand the point. I simply claimed to not to understand anyone, who could think that the contest was REMOTELY fair. Yes Karpov not knowing who his opponent would be, was inconvenient. But the REAL 'inconvenience' of ACTUALLY having to fight through all these players, was INCOMPARABLY greater than the VIRTUAL inconvenience of POSSIBLY playing them. DID Karpov have an unfair advantage in this tournament. YES or NO. If you can possibly answer NO - then I have absolutely nothing more to say on the matter.> Well, even under good old system of FIDE any challenger had to go through (usually much tougher) qualification consisting of zonal, interzonal and candidate tournaments or matches, and in this respect there was nothing unfair there, though the newly established K.O. format was not much reliable mean to produce the best challenger (in 1997 Anand was the player with the highest rating among participants of Groningen but there were many upsets on the account of main contenders for the title and very next WCH played under same format had had Khalifman and Akopian in the final, both of them from the fourth ten of participants according to rating. The only real issue, which was highly problematic from the perspective of even and fair conditions was just the three days gap between the end of Groningen and the start of the match in Lausanne. As the fatigue can be key factor in the chess match, this schedule was definitely in Anand's disfavour. But the question is how great role the fatigue played then, if any at all. I have to repeat here once again that Vishi as far as I know never explained his loss in 1998 by fatigue after Groningen and journey from Netherland to Switzerland during one of those three days for his rest. Personally I would prefer to be in Karpov's place rather than Anand's under conditions like that but I am not a player who cares much about opponents and usually I am not doing any specific preparation and so it is more important for me to be fresh that well prepared but tired. But super GMs and chess profesionals can see an impossibility to make focused preparation on the opponent as great disadvantage. It is hard to make any meaningful comparison here, and I don't think it is necessary to do it. |
|
| Dec-20-12 | | drik: <nok: Your morals lesson notwithstanding, a hundred adults still participated.> ...& that makes it right? I'm glad nobody entrusts you with moral lessons. <but Steinitzian tradition has its way for now.> Yes of course - the 'Steinitzian tradition' clearly applies without modification, to a 100+ player knockout tournament, with the winner forced to player the champion with only 3 days rest. I'm glad nobody entrusts you with lessons in chess history either. |
|
| Dec-20-12 | | drik: <Honza Cervenka: Well, I don't say that my interpretation of his behaviour and his conditions for 1975 match is the only possible> Fine. Your interpretation is perfectly reasonable - but there are several others; each sufficiently likely; to make very questionable any deductions based solely yours. I doubt very much that Fischer was afraid of anyone in 1972 - indeed I remember an interview where he stated his wish to be champion for 30(?!) years. The first seeds of fear probably date from Karpov's superb demolition of Spassky - but immediately afterwards the Korchnoi match demonstrated Karpov's lack of stamina ... probably giving rise to the demand for a first to 9 wins format. The mere fact that Fischer was fine-tuning match conditions, suggest to me that he intended to defend. I doubt there was any intention to default, before 1974. But that is just my opinion. |
|
| Dec-20-12 | | drik: <Honza Cervenka: Kasparov did not participate not because of any high moral grounds but because he did not wish to jeopardize and diminish his valuable title in this Russian roulette.> Source? I seem to recall that Kasparov always claimed that he WAS the champion & so could not participate in a tournament that had Karpov as reigning champion. Indeed - quite aside from ANY considerations of fairness - had FIDE had any interest in Kasparov's participation, a pure KO format with no reigning champion was the only option. The format they chose seems calculated to force his exclusion. <For Karpov as professional who lives from chess it would be a vain gesture with no effect which would hurt only his interests.> Karpov was reigning champion & in the top 6 (only 90 points adrift of Kasparov), & so would have carried a lot of weight MAKING A STAND FOR SOMETHING TRANSPARENTLY FAIR. <In fact, he withdrew next year in protest of breaking his rights of the World Champion from the part of FIDE and what has happened after that? Exactly nothing.> He withdrew MAKING A STAND FOR SOMETHING TRANSPARENTLY UNFAIR, something in his & only his interests. And he chose to do when he had dropped outside the top 10, trailed Kasparov by 150 Elo & was so clearly untenable as a world champion that FIDE would have been relieved to see him go. |
|
| Dec-20-12 | | drik: <Honza Cervenka:.The text of Sevastyanov's letter can be found in Edward Winter's "The Termination" at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/>... Thanks for this, it is very useful. But as you say, it does not address Karpov's initial acceptance. I agree that at the point of termination, Karpov had better chances of winning the match that Kasparov ... but the fact the accepted termination SUGGESTS TO ME that he thought otherwise. After a few days rest, he probably came to realise his mistake. I have to agree with the conclusions at the end of the letter - <The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;The account by Kasparov in Child of Change was untruthful and self-contradictory; Karpov has provided inadequate explanations to exonerate himself from suspicion;> |
|
| Dec-20-12 | | drik: <Honza Cervenka: The only real issue, which was highly problematic from the perspective of even and fair conditions was just the three days gap between the end of Groningen and the start of the match in Lausanne. As the fatigue can be key factor in the chess match, this schedule was definitely in Anand's disfavour.> OK. So we are in agreement that the conditions were in Anand's disfavour ... we only disagree about the EXTENT of this disfavour. <But the question is how great role the fatigue played then, if any at all.> Fatigue plays a role in most human competition - so 'any at all' is scarcely in doubt. Recall Karpov's fatigue after 20 games in both the 74 & 78 matches against Korchnoi. Recall that Kasparov dismissed the match as between "a tired player and an old player". https://sites.google.com/site/carol... <I have to repeat here once again that Vishi as far as I know never explained his loss in 1998 by fatigue> Vishy is a gentlemen. He has said little about his treatment by the Bulgarians in the Topalov match either, but that does not mean that nothing was amiss. He finally admitted the toll of Kasparov's 'door slamming' antics at the 1995 match - but it took him over a decade to do so. Perhaps he only did so because it was not widely known. Comment on this case may be deemed superfluous - given that it is so blatantly obvious. |
|
| Dec-20-12 | | nok: Your point was the unfairness of one player sitting out while the other plays the Candidates : <Yes Karpov not knowing who his opponent would be, was inconvenient. But the REAL 'inconvenience' of ACTUALLY having to fight through all these players, was INCOMPARABLY greater than the VIRTUAL inconvenience of POSSIBLY playing them.> It happens to be a correct point. I noted that all Steinitzian cycles were unfair in this way, whatever the Candidates format. Now, the latter will have its own twists, and knockout is generally disliked. But to say a hundred men lost their honor by a playing in Groningen is, well, moralising. |
|
| Jan-06-13 | | blazerdoodle: @Honza. Fascinating analysis on Fischer. But all the analysis aside, Fischer did have a set of rules he claimed he would play under. I can’t say they were right or wrong, they were fed up with the guy. But being and old guy and old school, I liked the Cramer rules and don’t believe it’s true they unduly favored the champ. The idea of having to beat the champ to take his title is not to give the champ special treatment - he has it by the success he gained it, already- why? If the match is drawn, and the challenger still able to usurp him, but not beat him. This can’t be good. It’s trying to give to the usurper more than his due, is all it is. I’m not saying the challenger deserves more than his due. But if the match is drawn, he shouldn’t lose his title. No one took it. This will continue to bug me. I believe chess is like boxing, not tennis or baseball. |
|
| Apr-29-13 | | Capabal: <Determining the Strength of Chess Players Based on Actual Play>
by Diogo R. Ferreira, ICGA Journal, March 2012
http://web.ist.utl.pt/diogo.ferreir...Ferreira analyzed various matches and tournaments, among them all the K-K matches. Results of the K-K matches are copied below. The method is described as follows: We used HOUDINI 1.5a which is one of the strongest engines currently available (only superseded by HOUDINI 2.0c at the time of this writing), with a search depth of 20 plies. • We carried out the analysis from move 1 (actually, analysis begun with the starting position, so that the gain of the first move could be determined). With respect to opening theory/preparation, we consider it to be an integral part of strength of play. • With regard to suboptimal play in won/lost positions, we considered that playing strength should be de- termined based on whatever a player brings about on the board. If a player plays suboptimally, and this changes the position evaluation, then it should have an effect on the perceived strength of play. • Our method for comparing players is based on the distribution of gain expressed as a histogram with the maximum possible resolution (in this work, we used intervals 1 centipawn). This is in contrast with other approaches that consider only one or two parameters (e.g., mean loss, or mean and standard deviation). • Rather than an expected error or best move percentage, our method provides an expected score between players that can be directly translated into an estimated rating difference. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that computer analysis can be translated directly into the Elo-rating scale. • There is no consideration whatsoever of the complexity of the positions. This is perhaps one of the few issues in which the present approach is lacking in comparison with both Guid and Bratko (2006) and Regan and Haworth (2011) ------------------
Kasparov-Karpov WC matches
1984.................ELO.........Strength
Kasparov............2715.........2754
Karpov..............2705.........2754
1985.................ELO.........Strength
Kasparov............2700.........2760
Karpov..............2720.........2749
1986................ELO..........Strength
Kasparov............2740.........2758
Karpov..............2705.........2758
1987................ELO..........Strength
Kasparov............2740.........2748
Karpov..............2700.........2755
1990................ELO..........Strength
Kasparov............2800.........2756
Karpov..............2730.........2754 |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 28 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
