< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Jun-25-14|| ||Petrosianic: <This indeed was a blow for Kasparov who had declared that he could not imagine that somebody would sponsor a championship without his participation.>|
Nobody outside of the FIDE Home Office and the participants regarded it as a championship. It got very little press, being as it was, a battle of the two losers. In those pre-internet days, it was hard to get results, much less scores until later.
|Jun-25-14|| ||nok: Not really, both championships had a lot of press, as had the unusual split-title situation. Hence the growing anticipation for Linares 94.|
|Jun-25-14|| ||Petrosianic: Maybe it was easier to find press on Karpov-Timman in some places than others, but I don't remember many taking it very seriously. Not even those who were interested in the chess.|
|Jun-25-14|| ||john barleycorn: <nok: ... Hence the growing anticipation for Linares 94.>|
With one of Karpov's biggest feats...
|Jun-25-14|| ||Howard: True, not too many people took the 1993 Karpov-Timman match too seriously, but then one reason was because not only did it take place in the shadow of the "real" world championship match, but also because the winner of this match was a foregone conclusion.|
Sure enough, Karpov (after a slightly slow start in the match) blew Timman off the board easily.
|Jun-25-14|| ||Petrosianic: Well, that's the point. Kasparov-Short was seen by almost all at the time as "the real World Championship Match".|
Kasparov has fallen out of favor somewhat since then. Both his ego and his failure to stabilize the title, have hurt his image. But that doesn't change the way people saw things in 1993. Almost nobody either viewed the title as vacant, or viewed Karpov as world champion.
The outcome of both matches was pretty much a foregone conclusion. If anything, Karpov's had more sporting value. His form was slightly uncertain after losing to Short.
|Jun-25-14|| ||john barleycorn: Kasparov considered this break-away as one of his biggest mistakes.|
|Jun-25-14|| ||Petrosianic: Not in 1993, he didn't.|
|Jun-25-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Petrosianic: Not in 1993, he didn't.>|
right, that insight came to him when all the organisations he brought up actually went nowhere. Now, he is even running for FIDE president. A turn-neck forever.
|Jul-01-14|| ||Poulsen: <Petrosianic> You are making some good and valid points here.|
But never the less FIDE did strip Kasparov of the title. The big question here is: could FIDE do that?
If yes - then there was no WCh in summer of 1993.
If no - as you have argued for very well - then the title indeed belongs to the titleholder.
As I see it we cannot have it both ways. Eíther FIDE is in or out.
Maybe my examples from history were flawed. My point was simple this: if FIDE is out - and cannot strip a player of a title - how can they appoint a WCh then?
Remember Karpov f.x. did not play for the title itself - only for the right to play for the title. He became WCh - not by playing - but by declaration by FIDE.
There are some principles at stake here - and as I see it, history has sometimes seen FIDE acting as if they in fact OWN the title - and at other times WCh has acted as if HE own the title.
|Jul-01-14|| ||Petrosianic: <But never the less FIDE did strip Kasparov of the title. The big question here is: could FIDE do that?|
If yes - then there was no WCh in summer of 1993.
If no - as you have argued for very well - then the title indeed belongs to the titleholder.>
Yes, they could do it, but that's why there were two world champions that year; One recognized by FIDE, the other by the public. The title <isn't> the champion's property, he owns it only insofar as he has the public behind him.
Compare Kasparov's case with Susan Polgar. Kasparov at least helped make his own problems. Polgar simply had the title taken from her. And it was taken illegally, when FIDE ordered her to play in the home country of her opponent, against their own rules. The difference is that the public recognized the title change, illegal as it was, and without the public behind her, Polgar was no longer champion. (I imagine they did this because they simply didn't care about the women's title enough to make a stink, but other interpretations are possible).
Under the identical circumstances in 1993, if the public had been behind Karpov rather than Kasparov, Kasparov would have been out in the cold too. It was rather exceptional for the public to refuse to recognize a FIDE decision, but they were exceptional circumstances. The public is like the Vice President casting the deciding vote. It doesn't happen often, but it's the final judgment.
|Jul-01-14|| ||nok: The public actually recognized both champions, and Karpov's good results up until 97 left people wondering about a reunification match. That's why it's called a split.|
|Jul-01-14|| ||Petrosianic: Yes, it's certainly true that there was no Undisputed Champion from 1993-2006, and two disputed ones.|
|Jul-01-14|| ||Olavi: It's off topic, but I have strong reservations about Polgar's forfeit of the title. I don't think there were any regulations against playing in China. That said, FIDE has a long history of breaking its own rules.|
|Jul-01-14|| ||Petrosianic: My understanding (I'd have to check old mags to confirm it) was that it was against FIDE rules at the time to FORCE a player to play in the other's home country (although they might still agree to it).|
|Jul-01-14|| ||Olavi: That's possible. I remember that in the 1978 and 1981 matches, when Karpov and Korchnoi couldn't agree on a bid, the FIDE President had full control; and around 1990, FIDE took the decision that the players no longer had any say as to where the match is played.|
|Jul-01-14|| ||kellmano: <Howard: You may be interested to know, Mr. 1100, that in Kasparov's third volume of his best games (which should be due out soon) he reportedly will be stating that one of the biggest mistakes of his professional career was letting himself (and Short) be forfeited by FIDE and then forming his own match under the auspices of the newly-formed PCA association>|
He says that at the end of volume 2. I've just read it - he uses pretty much exactly those words.
|Jul-01-14|| ||HeMateMe: <Compare Kasparov's case with Susan Polgar. Kasparov at least helped make his own problems. Polgar simply had the title taken from her. And it was taken illegally, when FIDE ordered her to play in the home country of her opponent, against their own rules.>|
Wasn't Polgar's chief complaint that FIDE wanted her to immediately play a match with no time to prepare? She had just finished some sort of elimination match or tournament. It was one of those FIDE decisions out of the blue where they changed their own schedule, damaging the chances of one of the players.
I wonder if Kasparov had negotiated with FIDE? Wasn't their standard to take 20% of the prize fund, for expenses? Perhaps they could have been negotiated down to 10% Also, what does FIDE get from member fees and donations, and gain from operations? Kasparov could have requested a look at their open books, by a third party auditor, to see what exactly FIDE has, and what they spend it on. As FIDE has never been transparent about their finances, they are untrustworthy.
I'm starting to come around to the idea that GK was not wrong at all to take the title out of FIDE and create the PCA. It went titz up because none of the other top players supported Kasparov, there was never the feel of a union of players, which could have simply hired their own administrators to operate tournaments and keep a ranking system, collect dues from players/countries, etc.
Kasparov himself said that "All of the top players--Anand, Ivanchuk, Kramnik, made money off of the PCA, but they gave it not one word of public support."
|Jul-03-14|| ||Howard: Regarding my comment from a couple days ago, I meant that Kasparov will state IN MORE DETAIL in his next book, as to why he and Short made that big mistake.|
I'm aware that he alludes to it in his second book on his best games, but I don't believe he gives any specifics.
By the way, he said back in February that the third volume is already written......he gave a nice talk at the U.S. Amateur Team East event, in New Jersey this past February---and he mentioned that. I was there !
|Jul-13-14|| ||MissScarlett: <right, that insight came to him when all the organisations he brought up actually went nowhere. Now, he is even running for FIDE president. A turn-neck forever.>|
Kasparov never wanted FIDE to be abolished; he thought they should concentrate on running the non-professional side of the game, though I don't know what funding model he envisaged. Under the PCA, he didn't have any problems allowing the players to compete in FIDE events; indeed, he famously came to FIDE's rescue with the staging of the 1994 Olympiad in Moscow. His complaint about their inability to manage the professional game is the same now as it was then.
|Jul-13-14|| ||MissScarlett: <Regarding my comment from a couple days ago, I meant that Kasparov will state IN MORE DETAIL in his next book, as to why he and Short made that big mistake>|
Don't expect any revelations. That said, Kasparov has always maintained that Short initiated the breakaway match idea, and that there was no secret design, as Karpov alleged.
This would appear to be borne out by Dominic Lawson's account in <The Inner Game> where he reported that Garry continued to negotiate with FIDE and the Manchester bid team after the split and the birth of the PCA had been publicly announced.
<Kasparov, Page and Rice, however, went on at midnight to the Conrad Hotel at Chelsea Harbour to visit a gentleman who had just arrived from the Philippines: Florencio Campomanes. Another late-arriving guest was Tony Ingham, the organizer of the Manchester bid. Ingham informed Kasparov and friends that Manchester was now prepared to bid £1.6 million for the match, provided it remained under the auspices of Fide. Campomanes and Kasparov then began to haggle over the precise terms, both monetary and political, of such a demarche.
I heard of the meeting the next morning and rang Nigel to warn him of the development. For the second time in a month, he was, most uncharacteristically, reduced to something akin to rage, 'I'm @#$%ed! I'll be made to look a complete idiot and Gazza will get all the extra money. I can only think that a lot of money is being offered to him under the table. He has always done this with organizers. It might only take an extra half million to get Gazza to agree to Manchester. He's not a man of principle is Gazza. He's forgotten everything we said in our joint press statement.' Nigel paused for breath, then added in a much quieter voice, 'Of course, it's my own fault for doing a deal with one of the most unpleasant people in the chess world.'>
As it happened, Short and Keene's refusal to call off an announced PCA press conference where the match bids were to be publicly opened, and an apparent breakdown in the Kasparov/Campomanes horse-trading, meant that Garry was back on board.
|Jul-13-14|| ||MissScarlett: <The cynic in me had assumed that Kasparov's primary motivation in "splitting" from FIDE was that FIDE offered very small amounts of money for the world championship (i.e., that was my assumption), whereas Kasparov believed (again, my assumption) that he could find a better way of organizing, marketing and bringing funding/sponsorship to top-level chess.>|
Well, no and yes. The prize funds for the world title match had risen substantially from the 1986 London/Leningrad match to the 1990 New York/Lyon match. Although Short made a big deal of how FIDE (mis)managed the bidding process, his main problem seems to have been that he expected the prize fund to have been considerably larger than the £1.2 million that Manchester first announced, not appreciating that the nature of the Kasparov-Karpov rivalry added a considerable cachet. So, ironically, one could say the success of FIDE in increasing the value of the world title match sowed the seed of its demise.
|Jul-13-14|| ||MissScarlett: <I'm starting to come around to the idea that GK was not wrong at all to take the title out of FIDE and create the PCA. It went titz up because none of the other top players supported Kasparov, there was never the feel of a union of players, which could have simply hired their own administrators to operate tournaments and keep a ranking system, collect dues from players/countries, etc.|
Kasparov himself said that "All of the top players--Anand, Ivanchuk, Kramnik, made money off of the PCA, but they gave it not one word of public support.">
Look at it from the players' point of view. FIDE didn't just roll up into a ball after the PCA breakaway. They put on the Biel Interzonal for the next cycle (1994-1996) concurrently with the Kasparov-Short match, and before the Karpov-Timman match even took place. All the top players competed (with two notable exceptions), just as they (also, with two exceptions) did when the PCA ran its own Interzonal in Groningen in December 1993. Even after the PCA secured its big sponsorship deal with Intel in 1994 for its world championship cycle and the rapidplay Grand Prix series, who can blame the top players for continuing to ride both horses? Don't forget that the PCA split had largely contributed to the demise of the players' union, the GMA, since Short had been its then president, and it relied on a cut of the world champonship monies for its financing.
|Dec-18-14|| ||kellmano: Can you believe that this kind of thing used to be on TV:|
An entertaining twenty minutes
|Sep-25-15|| ||Eyal: Short on his match strategy: "My idea was to attack you, Garry, because at least <you> would see what my threats were even if I couldn't"|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·