< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Sep-18-10|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: < Hesam7: <acirce: It was after Kasparov lost those three games in a row that he sacked Evgeny Vladimirov from his team, accusing him of having given away secret information to Karpov's camp.>
In his latest book ("Kasparov vs Karpov 1986-1987") Kasparov gives more details regarding this incident and for the starters he says that Vladimirov left on his own and he provides anecdotal evidence that someone from his camp was passing information to Karpov, particularly in the case of game 18 where he reproduces parts of an article by Igor Akimov (a psychologist and journalist who was Karpov's team) published soon after match.>|
In the same book, Kasparov reproduces a note in which Vladimirov explains that he is leaving the team voluntarily. Apparently, he made this decision shortly after accusing the others of "spy mania" upon their discovery of his "secret telephone"... In the actual note, he simply says
<Feeling physically and mentally exhausted, I have decided voluntarily to leave Kasparov's team.>
|Nov-24-10|| ||Eyal: <In his latest book ("Kasparov vs Karpov 1986-1987") Kasparov gives more details regarding this incident […] and he provides anecdotal evidence that someone from his camp was passing information to Karpov, particularly in the case of game 18 where he reproduces parts of an article by Igor Akimov (a psychologist and journalist who was Karpov's team) published soon after match.>|
The case which Kasparov puts forward in this book for the information leakage from his team (at least as far as the games themselves are concerned) may be worth quoting in full… In its most complete form, it appears in the context of his telling about what happened on his team right after the 3rd consecutive loss, in game 19. I’ve added in square brackets some relevant information about the specific games mentioned, according to their analyses in the book:
<This sudden move [Vladimirov leaving the team] shed a little light on the mysterious events that had been occurring during the match.
I will summarize the unusual facts which have been mentioned in the earlier commentaries. It will be remembered that back in London, when Karpov encountered my new opening - the Grunfeld defence – not only was he not taken aback, but he struck with great precision directly at the key points of our analysis. He successfully avoided all the traps and effectively anticipated all the strikes we had prepared...
In the 5th game I chose a rare and risky plan [10...Qxd2 instead of Qa5], and quite quickly Karpov found the refutation of the entire idea. This made me suspicious: Karpov could hardly have prepared so thoroughly before the match for this opening. And if the problem was new for him, he should have taken more time thinking about it at the board. So, was home preparation something with a London hallmark? But at the start Karpov had encountered other urgent problems, in the Nimzo-Indian defence, for instance, where in the 2nd game he failed to gain full equality. It was hard to understand how, in less than a week, his team has managed to prepare a complicated variation with an important improvement [apparently he’s referring to 9...Nc6! in the 4th game], and moreover, not in the main direction, but in a sideline. This showed an amazing gift of foresight!
In the 4th game Karpov effectively closed an entire variation of the Nimzo-Indian defence, by employing a continuation which was one of our analytical secrets. As will be seen from the notes, it was not only the analyses of the two players that coincided, but also the 'holes' in their analyses! Out short-sightedness is easy to explain: we were looking for an advantage for White and we overlooked the plus points of 12...Qc7! [which Karpov should have played instead of 12...Bd7?] But surely Karpov, in searching for a defence for Black, should have discovered this move if he had done some serious analysis beforehand?! But he didn’t discover it...
I was faced with psychological puzzles like this after almost every game. Either our analyses in a narrow field would completely coincide – right down to the faulty assessments of individual moves and positions, or my opponent would inexplicably guess in advance the course that games would take...
In the opening of the 6th game, in my analysis I overlooked a very dangerous move for Black – 11.Qh3! Karpov also ignored it, but he proved to be excellently prepared for 11.Qe3+, the move I had planned beforehand. In the 7th game, Karpov was fully prepared for my new move [9...Nb6], which my trainers and I had looked at a few hours before the start of play. In the 8th game he chose a defence 'with perpetual check' which I myself had prepared for Black and only at the last moment did I notice that here White wins (Timoshchenko was the only one who knew about this); when he saw this at the board, Karpov deviated, but it was too late – Black was already in a difficult position.
[Kasparov is talking about Karpov choosing 13...Be7! thus sidestepping the line 13...Nxe4? 14.Bxe4 dxe3 15.Qh5 exf2+ 16.Kh1 f5 17.Bxf5 g6 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Qxg6+ which was considered at first by Kasparov’s team as leading to a draw by perpetual, but was later found to be winning for White after 19...Kh8 20.Rad1 (or 20.Qh5+ Kg8 21.Qg4+! Kh8/h7 22.Rad1)]
In the 11th game, after a preliminary skirmish in the 9th, he struck me with the unpleasant 15.Rxc6, which I had not seen in my home analysis. In the 10th and 12th games he again shocked me by employing rare defences, which my team had actively analyzed for Black.>
|Nov-24-10|| ||Eyal: (Continued)
<When after the 12th game I said that information was probably being handed over by someone in our team, Vladimirov pointed the finger at Timoshchenko, who was working with me alone, without the rest of the trainers. But in Leningrad Timoshchenko was no longer there, and Karpov continued displaying amazing foresight. In the 14th game he forestalled my home preparation [by 19…Rxa3, played instantly by Karpov, for which Kasparov was unprepared].
Nikitin: "A few days before the 16th game Garry found a wonderful combinative idea in a variation of the Spanish the Karpov employed. He asked Vladimirov and Dorfman to refine it, and they showed that, although White was a piece down, his attack was very dangerous." [The idea was 18…Ne5 19.axb5 Qf6 20.Nxc4!! Nxc4 21.Rg3] But my opponent also forestalled this novelty! [by playing 18…Qf6!] After wild complications Karpov’s forces were nevertheless crushed, and my lead increased to three points. In the general euphoria no one paid serious attention to my perplexity and alarm: "Look, Karpov again scored a bull’s-eye!" It was then that Vladimirov let slip for the first time that he would be leaving the team immediately after the match.
After this I contrived to lose three games in succession. In the 17th and 19th games my opponent again caught me in his home preparation in the Grunfeld, and I failed to cope with the unexpected problems. And in the 18th game Karpov took me aback with a novelty which he had been preparing all night, after 'amazingly' foreseeing that this particular position would arise in the game.
[According to another passage in the book, Kasparov is basing this on an article published soon after the match by Igor Akimov, a member of Karpov’s team. Akimov told that on the eve of game 18 Karpov had spent a sleepless night analyzing the position reached after 10…Qe7 (the novelty), as he was completely sure it would occur, trying to make up his mind whether he should enter this line of play. And Kasparov goes on to comment about Karpov’s certainty that this position (following 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 Bb7 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 d6 9.Nd2 g5 10.Bg3) would occur: "But this raises uncomfortable questions for Karpov. Why after two crushing wins in the Ruy Lopez [in games 14 & 16] should I change tack, and begin the game not with the king’s pawn, but the queen’s pawn? […] Why after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 was I bound to play 3.Nf3 (instead of the successful [in games 2 & 4] 3.Nc3) and – after 3…b6 – 4.Nc3, rather than 4.a3 or 4.g3, inviting the 'modern' variations with 4…Ba6 or 4…c5, which were then coming into fashion? Let us suppose that Karpov made a brilliant guess. But, even knowing the opening, how could he picture in such detail the structure of the opponent’s preparations? […] It has to be agreed that there is only one reasonable explanation…"]
Nevertheless I completely outplayed him, but then strange things began to happen, and the game was adjourned in a difficult position for me. However, Karpov chose the worst of three possible continuations, which should have led to a draw in literally two moves, and he won only thanks to a blunder in our home analysis. [He’s referring to the sequence 43…Rc1? (instead of 43…Ra1!) 44.a6? (instead of 44.Bc5!) 44…Rc2+! (an intermediate check overlooked by Kasparov and his team)] Of course, at the board I should have seen the intermediate check that we had overlooked in our analysis, but Karpov’s choice of an openly weak move speaks volumes!>
(From "Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess, Part 3: Kasparov vs Karpov, 1986-1987")
|Nov-24-10|| ||AnalyzeThis: Karpov past his prime was still a fighter, unlike Kasparov who played like a dead fish against Kramnik.|
|Nov-24-10|| ||Eric Schiller: <analyze>what utter nonsense! Kasparov continued to dominate the tournament scene, destroying all,opposition. He just had one bad match after 15 years of match dominance.|
|Dec-17-10|| ||VladimirOo: But what a bad match!|
|Dec-30-10|| ||talisman: Eric, get well soon....btw..did you see Margaret swooning at you?|
|Feb-20-13|| ||perfidious: < Eric Schiller: <analyze>what utter nonsense! Kasparov continued to dominate the tournament scene, destroying all,opposition. He just had one bad match after 15 years of match dominance. >|
One bad go of it against an historically difficult opponent, when otherwise on great form in the run-up to the match (by Kasparov's own admission), and this appears to be all some people wish to remember.
|Dec-11-13|| ||tzar: <Eyal> Thanks for this excellent post...Incredibly not a lot of comments about the incident in this page, especially because the case (if proved) could have been the end of Karpov's career and certainly the total ethical discredit of a chessplayer who IMO has turn out to be quite a good sportsman for decades. |
A Kasparov delusion, similar to Fischer's paranoid accusations saying the K+K matches were all staged???
A typical Kasparov disdain for Karpov's victories compared to his own phenomenal achievements and a convenient excuse in case he had lost the match???
Or, on the contrary, a founded accusation based on facts???
Anyway, it seems that Kasparov's claim affects the whole 1986 WC match and not only the 3 games lost in a row. Without doubt, if we believe him it would be the most incredible achievement in the whole history of WC matches...a player who is able to win a match even when his opponent has access to his whole preparation for it!!! Bravo maestro!!!
|Dec-17-13|| ||tzar: Nevertheless, until now it does not seem to be credible evidence of the whole affair. The fact that Vladimirov's and even Karpov's reputation were at risk (if not completely destroyed as in the case of Vladimirov)does not seem to worry the Ogre of Baku too much.|
|Feb-16-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <On December 30, 1985, Campomanes gave an interview to the Associated Press in Geneva, stating that Kasparov would have until midnight January 7, 1986 to accept these conditions, and if he did not, Karpov would be declared world champion. Kasparov, however, stood firm to his convictions...>|
So glad that Kasparov "stuck it" to Campo the Corrupt.
|Feb-16-14|| ||offramp: Sure an 'tis a load of hooey!|
|Feb-16-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <offramp: Sure an 'tis a load of hooey!>|
Well, if you think you have the straight scoop, lay it down!
|Feb-23-15|| ||Estoc: Has Karpov ever said anything about the accusation of being given Kasparov's secret prep?|
|Feb-22-16|| ||GrahamClayton: Footage of the preparations for the London part of the match:|
|Oct-12-16|| ||Allanur: < the loser would play in February 1987 against the winner of the current candidates cycle >|
what the hell right do they have to determine the final of candidates tournament? They mutually agreed to make their life easier and so was done?
Can you imagine Anand and Carlsen in 2014 agreed to this condition and Karjakin would first have needed to face Anand after winninh candidates.
|Oct-12-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Can't remember how much matches Fischer had to play but no one said: "Poor dude."|
|Oct-12-16|| ||Howard: Allanur, your comment isn't very clear. Exactly what do you mean ?|
All I can say is that the 1985-87 cycle ended up having to be improvised somewhat due to the K-K marathon, in 1984-85.
|Oct-12-16|| ||Petrosianic: <Howard>: <Allanur, your comment isn't very clear. Exactly what do you mean ?>|
He worded it very badly, but clearly he's asking why the winner of a the candidates didn't get an automatic title shot, as such winners always had in the past.
One could reasonably argue that the Candidates winner should have got his title shot as always, and the loser of Karpov-Kasparov been seeded into the next candidates (again, as always).
It would have been more boring that way, as Kasparov would surely have toasted Sokolov, but it would arguably have been fairer.
|Oct-12-16|| ||Lambda: Having the loser of the match play the winner of candidates was surely a way of not having the loser of the match deprived of the opportunity to play in candidates as normal because they were too busy playing for the championship.|
Anand and Carlsen wouldn't have been able to do it because there was no match rerun and no revenge match preventing the loser from playing in candidates as normal.
|Jan-26-17|| ||Allanur: @Lambda, < Having the loser of the match play the winner of candidates was surely a way of not having the loser of the match deprived of the opportunity to play in candidates as normal because they were too busy playing for the championship. >
if X is too busy to take place in the cycle, that is not the right to directly play the final without qualifying there. Life is not obliged to be scheduled for Karpov or Kasparov.|
Fischer was absolutely right in ignoring FIDE. Such a certian country favoured organisation should be said "f.ck off." How could they could have supported Karpov more?
< Allanur, your comment isn't very clear. Exactly what do you mean ? >
why the winner of candidates were to play the loser of the match? why the loser was given such a *privilege*
|Jan-26-17|| ||todicav23: Kasparov is really a bad looser for accusing Karpov of cheating by having access to his preparation.|
<In the 7th game, Karpov was fully prepared for my new move [9...Nb6], which my trainers and I had looked at a few hours before the start of play.>
This is from a comment on this page. It seems that Kasparov had looked at a variation just a few hours before the game and somehow Karpov, in just a few hours, was able to get access to all that information and also analyze it deeper. It's clear now that Karpov hacked into Kasparov's computer and stole all the preparation. He also had access to a time machine so he traveled to the future and used Stockfish to find holes in Kasparov's preparation.
Since Karpov was very close to win in 1987 it's clear that in that match not only he had access to all Kasparov's preparation but he also used black magic to influence Kasparov's thinking process. Without all these tricks employed by Karpov, Kasparov would have easily won with 12-0.
|Jan-26-17|| ||Petrosianic: <todicav23>: <Kasparov is really a bad looser for accusing Karpov of cheating by having access to his preparation.>|
Possibly he is, but your actual arguments are nonsense. (No Black Magic was used, therefore no theft or prep occurred. That's a complete non sequitor.)
|Jan-27-17|| ||todicav23: <Petrosianic: <todicav23>: <Kasparov is really a bad looser for accusing Karpov of cheating by having access to his preparation.>|
Possibly he is, but your actual arguments are nonsense. (No Black Magic was used, therefore no theft or prep occurred. That's a complete non sequitor.)> Black magic is real!
|Feb-19-17|| ||Sally Simpson: Proof of plagiarism is if the original document had spelling mistakes in it and they re-appear in the copied document.|
Map makers have been to known to put in deliberate mistakes so fake copiers can be prosecuted.
One of the things I recall from Kasparov's claim that a second was feeding Karpov's team was the fact that a Bishop move in an opening they were studying was considered good so they worked out a plan against it.
It was discovered the Bishop move was actually not good.
However come the game and Karpov played the same Bishop move and then an anti plan to Kasparov's plan.
This blunder by Kasparov team was 'apparently' given to Karpov's team who took it at face value and worked on it.
The move in question was 12...Bd7 in this game.
Kasparov vs Karpov, 1986
Kasparov's notes (in his London-Leningrad 1986 book) say:
"It's paradoxical, but a fact, that in our preparations we too regarded this move as best. 12..Qc7 was recommended by commentators and in subsequent analysis a way of developing White's initiative could not be found."
In his 1990 Autobiography he says he had found the mole, Yevgeniy Vladimirov (based by the way on some pretty flimsy evidence) and recalling this game added.
"So it was not just the analysis that coincided, it was also the holes in the analysis."
Basically if there was a mole in Kasparov's camp, it appears he picked up a 'spelling mistake' passed it onto to team Karpov who in turn reproduced the 'spelling mistake.'
I'm of the opinion this is just great players paranoia (they all have it)
clutching at straws to explain a later 3 straight defeats.
But Karpov was not averse to playing with Gary's mind.
When the London to Leningrad plane landed (during the flight Gary says he and Karpov played cards together) a limousine with a military escort was laid on for the challenger Karpov. Kasparov, the champion, was given an ordinary Volga with no escort.
Kapsarov thinks this snub was arranged by FIDE or the city elders of Leningrad, but would they really do that?
I reckon it was a relatively easy to organise brilliant ploy by team Karpov to upset Gary.
Ahh the good old days.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·