< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-12-08|| ||Necessary Truths: The first game listed (Kasparov-Karpov, 26 moves, draw) clearly doesn't belong here. Does anyone know where this game came from?|
|Feb-13-08|| ||BipolarFanatic: <The first game listed (Kasparov-Karpov, 26 moves, draw) clearly doesn't belong here. Does anyone know where this game came from?> Somewhere in the 1984 match I guess, because there are only 47 listed there.|
|Feb-13-08|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: Says [Round "42"] in the gamescore (Kasparov vs Karpov, 1985), and by an amazing coincidence it's the 42nd game of the marathon match that is missing...|
|Feb-19-08|| ||notyetagm: Wow, Kasparov just -killed- Karpov with the 4 ♘f3 Nimzo-Indian in this match, winning Games 1, 11, and 19.|
Kasparov vs Karpov, 1985
Kasparov vs Karpov, 1985
Kasparov vs Karpov, 1985
|May-26-08|| ||antigravedadx: yeah is a grat match is the best!!!|
|May-26-08|| ||sitzkrieg: < It's just because Kasparov was so successful disseminating his propaganda it has reached a virtual "everyone-knows-that" status.>
|May-26-08|| ||Petrosianic: <Before claiming too strongly that Karpov received favourable treatment, it should be remembered that FIDE terminated the first KK match in a situation where Karpov was winning>|
Everybody knows that. It doesn't change the prevailing opinion that the match was stopped to help Karpov, for reasons you are no doubt aware of. Campomanes considered doing the same thing in 1978, but didn't go so far that time.
Whether Campomanes <succeeded> in helping Karpov, or whether he ended up hurting him is a separate question. But the intent is clear.
<If this had been played out, Kasparov's next chance to become WC would have been 1987, where in fact the scheduled match was drawn 12-12.>
If you're implying that Kasparov wouldn't have become world champion even then if the match hadn't been stopped, you're leaving out the tiny detail that Kasparov was the defending champion in that match. A small point but worth mentioning.
<Whatever the intentions of FIDE, there is no doubt that Kasparov benefited enormously from the intervention at the expense of Karpov.>
Only if you think that there's no question that he'd have gone down to defeat had they not intervened. The moment when he's just won 2 in a row is not exactly the best time to make that particular argument. If the match had been stopped after Game 46, nobody would be saying that they just did it to save Karpov's butt.
<The whole rematch-rematch-match against-the-Candidates-winner-thing was stupid of course.>
Don't tell me. That didn't help Karpov either.
<...But it was somewhat acceptable, since there were no serious challengers to the K&K supremacy at the time.>
Isn't the point of a Candidates competition to find out who the serious candidates are? If the rules are set up to benefit those whom we've decided in advance deserve to br there, then there's no point in the competition at all.
It would be better to cancel the Candidates altogether and just Karpov a(nother) free shot rather than give him a handicap against players he's supposed to vastly outclass anyway.
|Nov-05-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: <<Before claiming too strongly that Karpov received favourable treatment, it should be remembered that FIDE terminated the first KK match in a situation where Karpov was winning>|
Everybody knows that. It doesn't change the prevailing opinion that the match was stopped to help Karpov, for reasons you are no doubt aware of. Campomanes considered doing the same thing in 1978, but didn't go so far that time.>
Campomanes did exactly what Garry Kasparov had suggested to do after the game 47. But this little detail is usually omitted in common narration of the story about cancellation of the first K vs K match by evil commie pro-Karpov Canpomanes-FIDE-KGB-Kremlin clique.
|Nov-05-08|| ||Petrosianic: <Campomanes did exactly what Garry Kasparov had suggested to do after the game 47. But this little detail is usually omitted in common narration of the story about cancellation of the first K vs K match by evil commie pro-Karpov Canpomanes-FIDE-KGB-Kremlin clique.>|
I omitted it because I'm not aware of it. Do you have a cite?
People give Campo a hard time for it because he considered doing the exact same thing in 1978, as Korchnoi was closing in.
And because he did it over the objections of both players.
And because he lied when he did it, saying when he took the stage that he hadn't yet decided what to do, while at the same time, TASS was announcing that he'd cancelled the match.
And because he was caught on a live mike telling Karpov "I told them just what you told me to."
It's not really that big a mystery why people were upset.
|Nov-06-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: Kasparov proposed complete termination of match and a new match with limited number of games starting from 0:0 played later in 1985 to Alfred Kinzel who served during the match as the chairman of the appeals committee after the game 47. There are subsequently conflicting accounts from Kinzel and Gazza of the circumstances and context in which Kasparov proposed that the match should be terminated but the fact that he proposed that is doubtless. For example E. Winter mentions it in The Termination (see http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...)
and I have read about it in Jan Plachetka's book about World chess championships "Boje o sachovy tron" (Battles for the chess throne).|
|Nov-06-08|| ||percyblakeney: Botvinnik said that the match was stopped because Kasparov's chances of winning had become bigger than Karpov's. Not that he has to be right about that, but at least it shows that holding this view doesn't necessarily have to do with having a negative view of Communism or the Soviet system. Karpov's timeouts had become longer and longer, only one game was played during the last twelve days of the match, and it was three months since Karpov's last win while Kasparov won the last two.|
Kasparov said that he was given the suggestion after the 47th game that eight more games was to be played, and that Karpov would keep his title even if Kasparov went +3 in these games. Kasparov meant that restarting from 0-0 would be a better alternative, but also that he need not feel forced to agree to something after having won the last two games that he might have accepted in an earlier stage of the match, just like a draw offer can't be accepted at a later stage in a game.
|Nov-06-08|| ||percyblakeney: So, even if the most negative options for Kasparov were avoided (the Soviet Chess Federation wanted to restart from 5-3 at some later occasion), he hardly got exactly what he wanted either. Among other things FIDE reintroduced the combination of rematch clause, draw odds and "limited match" here. Karpov wouldn't risk tiring in the same way as in the first match, only needed to draw, and if he couldn't do that he had another match coming up. FIDE even declared that Karpov was to be given the title without playing when Kasparov didn't want to defend within three months after this match, but had to retract this statement.|
Looking at the start of the first match, where Karpov had 5-0 after 27 games, one could imagine that he should have decent chances to stay even after 24 games here. And also in the second match did Kasparov have a worse first than second half. After ten games Karpov was leading, after 15 it was drawn, but Kasparov needed to win and went 3-1 in wins in the last nine games.
|Nov-06-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: <Botvinnik said that the match was stopped because Kasparov's chances of winning had become bigger than Karpov's.>|
Well, Kasparov himself apparently disagreed with Botvinnik then at this particular point as he evaluated his chances to win the match about 25-30 %.
Anyway, Kasparov's accounts and especially interpretations of events should be always taken with some dose of scepticism as he is not the most reliable source to put it very mildly. His statements are quite often self-contradictory. For example, in case of Karpov's condition at the end of terminated match he is able to have it in both ways. According to him the match was terminated because Karpov was exhausted and unable to continue in the match without great risk of losing it but elsewhere he can state something like this: "The people around him attributed my late victories to the fact that he was so exhausted, but Karpov knew better. He knew it was my chess that was beating him." (GK, Child of Change, p.143) and emphasize the game 48 as an outstanding achievement where he "caught him [i.e. Karpov] out in one mistake" (ibid, p. 125). He never cares much about facts when he is promoting his side of story and he is able to misquote Campomanes' recorded words or Karpov's letter to FIDE in a way that supports his story even in a written book. (See Edward Winter's review of Child of Change at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...) With this in mind it is not easy to take his interpretation of his negotiations with Kinzel without "cum grano salis".
Btw, weren't longer and longer "Karpov's timeouts", i.e. interruptions in the match caused by the fact that the organizing committee’s lease on the Hall of Columns elapsed after three months and that both players disagreed with removal of playing hall?
|Nov-06-08|| ||percyblakeney: <Well, Kasparov himself apparently disagreed with Botvinnik then at this particular point as he evaluated his chances to win the match about 25-30 %.>|
This is often quoted but should maybe not be seen as some definitive evaluation since it was what Kasparov said at the press conference, concluding that he was stopped because he finally had some winning chances in the match, maybe 25-30%. He did also say on the same occasion that he would win easily if the match continued, and various other things that should be taken with a pinch of salt as well.
<Kasparov's accounts and especially interpretations of events should be always taken with some dose of scepticism>
<Btw, weren't longer and longer "Karpov's timeouts", i.e. interruptions in the match caused by the fact that the organizing committee’s lease on the Hall of Columns elapsed after three months and that both players disagreed with removal of playing hall?>
A couple of the timeouts were caused by that, and some by Campomanes personally, according to Mark Weeks. Karpov took a timeout after the 47th game, and Kasparov took timeouts as well so it wasn't only Karpov that needed some rest. Most people say that Karpov was much more tired by then, but statements concerning his being unable to continue the match at all at this stage seem to be fairly unreliable.
|Nov-06-08|| ||acirce: <HR: Focusing on that press conference, if you had to do it again, would
you do it differently?
GK: No. I think my instincts worked well. Actually, I made a pretty
decent statement. Some people have tried to use it against me, when I said
– my chances to win are twenty-five to thirty percent but for the first time
I had the chance. Some of my opponents said that I was still downgrading
my chances; it’s not that he was winning. The message was yes its twentyfive to thirty percent, but it’s the first time in six months I have a shot. Twenty-five percent is a decent chance for someone who was trailing 5-0.
HR: I agree, but the math is pretty hard to get around.
GK: I think now that my chances probably would have been better
because Karpov psychologically was in shock.>
|Nov-06-08|| ||acirce: <Botvinnik said that the match was stopped because Kasparov's chances of winning had become bigger than Karpov's. Not that he has to be right about that, but at least it shows that holding this view doesn't necessarily have to do with having a negative view of Communism or the Soviet system.>|
Of course it doesn't necessarily have to do with that. Botvinnik was Kasparov's long-standing teacher and mentor and at this time they still had good relations. The former did have good relations with Karpov too but that had already started to change before the match. And of course Kasparov himself was a member of the Communist Party and viewed himself as a loyal Soviet citizen. Who knows what he really thought though. (I'm also not saying that the "Communist Party" was still really Communist.) Incidentally Kasparov is talking about this as well in the interview I just linked to:
<HR: On page 146, in your notes to the twentieth match game, you had
white, after 14 Rb1!? you write, “the 13th game went 14 Ba3 Nc6 with
equality. When I spoke on the telephone to Botvinnik after it, I was taken
aback by the question: ‘What would you have done if White had played
14 Rb1 ?’ I wasn’t able to answer immediately, and we decided to analyse
this position.” It’s a little unclear, when did you speak with Botvinnik?
GK: After game thirteen.
HR: Tell us about that. What are the circumstances surrounding a
conversation between you and the ex-world champion?
GK: I spoke with him regularly. We had excellent relations and he was
always helpful by offering his advice throughout almost all my career
prior to the world championship match.
HR: Is it safe to day that before the match he is a supporter of you to win?
<With Karpov I had good relations, but then they began to deteriorate when he started asserting that there was no such thing as the Soviet School of Chess. And later, when he began oppressing Kasparov, I took Kasparov's side, since I considered that they should be in equal conditions.> (Botvinnik, soon before his death, published in New In Chess 1995/5)
<And when I became World Champion, Mikhail Moiseevich did not conceal his pleasure. After all, Karpov was not a researcher and in his interviews he called Botvinnik's time the stagecoach era, letting it be known that there was no point in doing serious analytical work. His defeat was therefore to some extent a triumph for the principles of the sixth champion.> (Kasparov, OMGP II)
<"The people around him attributed my late victories to the fact that he was so exhausted, but Karpov knew better. He knew it was my chess that was beating him." (GK, Child of Change, p.143) and emphasize the game 48 as an outstanding achievement where he "caught him [i.e. Karpov] out in one mistake" (ibid, p. 125).> Yes, this is what he is still saying today. In his recent book on the first two matches against Karpov he calls the 48th and last game the best of the whole match - not just <his> best, <the> best. <It was full of instructive moments, of clashes between attack and defence. In all its phases there was a tense, interesting struggle, without blunders such as those that were the cause of my defeats. It is hard to find a move by Karpov which definitely deserves a question mark [...]>
|Jul-28-10|| ||GrahamClayton: Here is a photo of the players at the board:
|Aug-17-10|| ||GrahamClayton: Kasparov's comments on becoming World Champion in "Ultimate Challenge":|
"When we got back to our 'palace' I went through room after room for fifteen minutes, just screaming and yelling out of pure animal joy. Victory! I don't expect I shall ever experience such a whirlwind of feeling again. It is enough to have felt it just once in your life. People ask if it was like falling in love. I have to say that it was even better than that; you've proved that you're the best in the world, you've finally achieved the target you set yourself many years before, you've overcome every obstacle on the way there, and you know that no one and nothing, no matter what happens in the rest of your life, can take this achievement away, that you have become part of history. The euphoria continued throughout the night as an endless stream of congratulations and telephone calls poured in."
|Feb-21-15|| ||Oliveira: What a well-rounded, lively summary piece! Well done <Chessgames.com>|
|Oct-02-15|| ||Paraconti: Campomanes should have halted the match for 6 months and have it resumed at 5-3. That would've helped Karpov tremendously!|
|Oct-02-15|| ||offramp: <Paraconti: Campomanes should have halted the match for 6 months and have it resumed at 5-3. That would've helped Karpov tremendously!>|
When the score reached 5-3 Kasparov had won.
|Oct-02-15|| ||HeMateMe: <When the score reached 5-3 Kasparov had won.>|
That's what I thought. That's why Karpomanes killed the match.
|Oct-02-15|| ||offramp: <HeMateMe: <When the score reached 5-3 Kasparov had won.>
That's what I thought. That's why Karpomanes killed the match.>|
Kasparov won the 24th and final game to make the score 5-3.
|Nov-10-15|| ||kamagong24: Thirty years ago today! Hard to believe, but it was that long ago when I won the World Championship against Anatoly Karpov. November 9, 1985 at the Tchaikovsky Hall in Moscow. Karpov resigned game 24 at 9:54pm Moscow time... |
|Nov-11-15|| ||chancho: Video of the moment when Karpov resigned the final game, and closing ceremony:|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·