I have posted Seirawan's comments on Karpov's 33rd move in the game's page. He believes that even after 33... Nc5 Kasparov is better although there is no clear win for Kasparov.

I suppose your basis for this is that <The alternative would have been that the loser had to be outside the qualification cycle altogether> but I don't understand why you consider this as an all-or-nothing affair. Why do you find it unthinkable that Karpov could be seeded into the semi-finals, or quarter-finals?

For one thing, when the 1986 match was finished, the candidates semifinal (what from the beginning was supposed to be the candidates final) had already taken place (or was going on and nearing its end, I don't remember exactly). And at the time they signed the agreement, the quarterfinals/semifinals (Vaganian-Sokolov, Yusupov-Timman) were already going on or finished. I suppose they could have postponed Sokolov-Yusupov and let Karpov/Kasparov enter for some kind of 3-player match tournament. A bit odd but not unthinkable; anyway, those were not the rules.

<Like I said, the fact that they had agreed to this BEFORE THE MATCH> Actually I don't see where you said this, but if this is actually true then I have to apologize, retract what I said, and even take your side on the issue.

I also reacted somewhat to the way it's worded here right now and the way it seems to imply favouritism without including the background. There is always Mark Weeks' page for some information about these matches, even if not always exhaustive: http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/86k...

How big an advantage was that though? Although Anand may have been tired, equally one could argue he would have been less "rusty". Furthermore, given that the finallist other than Karpov was not known until a few days before the match, Karpov would have had little opportunity to prepare for the specific opponent. Whereas Anand would have known in advance of the tournament, that if he wanted to be world champion he had to prepare to meet Karpov.

Meanwhile, Karpov could of course prepare a little too. In the absence of Kasparov and Kramnik, it was clear that Anand was the favorite to win. It's actually quite probable that he spent more time preparing for Anand than Anand for Karpov. But I don't know what he said about it.

According to Mark Weeks, Kramnik refused to participate in the 1997-98 cycle since he thought it was unacceptable that the Champion had the privilege of only playing the final.

Then Mark Weeks is wrong. As I already explained in another thread, Kramnik boycotted the tournament for the exact same reason as we have been talking about here, Karpov being seeded into the final <and> getting to play an exhausted opponent only a couple of days after the "main" event. I understand that some are eager to make Kramnik look like a hypocrite, but as usual facts don't bear that conclusion out.

That does sound more believable than what Weeks is writing. In any case, in the next FIDE Championship the Champion's direct entry into the final was abolished and Karpov refused to defend his title.

Karpov only got a few thousand a few years later in court, not his FIDE title back though.

Ryan Razo: Anyone see something like this in a game here:

click for larger view

If you find one, please post it (and the link) later. Thanks