< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 17 ·
|Nov-05-15|| ||chancho: <As a follow-up, here is SHIROV'S SAD SAGA (Chess Life, April 2000,
EVANS ON CHESS
From: Owen Williams (Worldwide Agent for Garry Kasparov, Palm Beach,
Q. I decided it was time to answer your oft-repeated line about
"Kasparov's shabby treatment of challenger Alexei Shirov."
The World Chess Council (WCC) under its Chairman and Founder, Luis
Rentero, agreed to put up $2.1 million for a title match plus another
$100,000 for the loser in Kramnik vs. Shirov after Anand withdrew in
1998. Rentero then arbitrarily announced this $100,000 would have to
be deducted from the $2.1 million. In retrospect, it was an early
indication as to how things would be run! The glue began to come
unstuck and as soon as we heard rumors and questioned Rentero, he told
all of us "my word is my bond" and "if necessary I pay the prize money
myself." Coupled with this was a continuous "Trust Me" and another
constant refrain was "the Government will approve the signing this
Garry and I discussed going public but you can imagine the hullabaloo
that would have ensued with him blamed for pulling the plug
prematurely. We started to scramble. I personally made half a dozen
transatlantic trips and spent enough time and dollars to make my case.
Rentero finally ran out of ideas and we were left with no
alternatives. The match backing disappeared and soon thereafter
tragedy struck in the form of a life-threatening auto accident for
Rentero. Garry retains a healthy respect for what he did for chess in
Linares over the years, but Rentero's foray into bigger things was an
unmitigated disaster of his own making.
Eventually a businessman in California agreed to put up $600,000 in
cash plus full airfares and hotel for each player at a value of
$50,000 each. We went to Shirov and he refused. Dr. William Wirth (a
notable chess sponsor and patron himself) agreed to top up the prize
with a further $200,000 of his own money. Shirov said "no." He
repeated to me that there was an offer from Tarrasa near Barcelona,
where he was living at the time for 225 million pesetas (about $1.6
million). The hope of the Catalonian offer was, I believe, the real
reason why Shirov turned down our $800,000 offer. He has since tried
to say that it was not in writing, but the truth is he said "no" so
firmly that we never had time to confirm it in writing.>
|Nov-05-15|| ||Petrosianic: <ToTheDeath> <Sorry, but I trust his opinion more than yours.>|
Irrelevant, since my statement that Shirov refused to play wasn't an opinion, it's a fact. Your (and Larry's) statements that he had good reason to refuse are the actual opinions here.
If you can show me that Kasparov offered to pay 2 million dollars out of his own pocket to make the match happen, if necessary, then I'll be quite surprised, and will then have to grudgingly concede your point that it was Kasparov who didn't make good. Otherwise I feel (and this IS an opinion, BTW) that if you want to know why the money wasn't forthcoming, you need look no farther than Shirov's anemic +0-15=14 record against Kasparov.
|Nov-05-15|| ||MissScarlett: <Irrelevant, since my statement that Shirov refused to play wasn't an opinion, it's a fact.>|
Shirov refused to accept one offer for the match. It was Kasparov who unilaterally terminated any further prospect of a match.
In my opinion, those are the facts. Anyone who argues with me will get crushed, as per usual.
|Nov-05-15|| ||Petrosianic: Shirov refused to accept the one and only offer for the match. If he'd found a better one in a reasonable time (whatever that is) I'd agree that Kasparov had an obligation to play him. But failing that, the cycle must go on. Just like 1975. It's bad that Fischer didn't play, but eventually the world championship goes on and a new match is arranged.|
Traditionally, you know, it is the challenger who finds backing for his challenge.
|Nov-05-15|| ||Petrosianic: Really, Shirov was foolish. He should have just played for the lower stakes and gone down in history as a challenger. He'd have made a lot more money later on, and found his marketability increased, just as Short became more valuable for playing and losing.|
Khalifman probably enjoys a slight bump even from holding the worthless FIDE title, but it's hard to tell. Nobody's heard from him in years.
|Nov-05-15|| ||MissScarlett: <Shirov refused to accept the one and only offer for the match.>|
Not so, because he'd played the match with Kramnik on the understanding that the Rentero offer was in place. At the time he rejected the American offer, how could he know that Kasparov would unilaterally declare the match null and void? What was the particular hurry?
<The Shirov-Kramnik challenger match was played from May 24th to June 5th, 1998 in Cazorla, Spain.>
<Billed as a warmup for his forthcoming WCC title match, Kasparov played a friendly six game match against Jan Timman in Prague, Czech Republic, starting September 6th 1998 (the match was sponsored by EuroTel). At the press conference on the eve of the match, Kasparov announced that his WCC title match with Shirov had been cancelled due to lack of sponsorship and funding.>
Assuming these dates are correct, that's a mere three months.
It can certainly be argued that Shirov overvalued his market worth, and should've pragmatically accepted the American deal, and that Kasparov was simply being realistic in reneging on the match, but the greatest untruth in the whole affair was his claim that: <I was ready to play Shirov and I did everything possible to facilitate that.> (link above)
|Nov-05-15|| ||chancho: <Alexei Shirov: The collapse of the Kasparov match was connected with the failure of the autonomous government of Andalusia to live up to its oral promises. |
The legal responsibility was borne by the president of the World Chess Council, Luis Rentero Suares, who had signed a contract with me specifying the conditions of both "matches” my match with Kramnik and the match of the winner with Kasparov.
At that time, he did not have the requisite guarantees from the Andalusian government, but that only became apparent later.
It was against Rentero that I filed a lawsuit in municipal court, but because of the extreme financial risk I did not pursue it to a higher level. I described the role of Kasparov in this story in my book Fire on Board 2, and I have no desire now to return to this theme and stir up bad memories.
I can only say that if there had not been some manipulation of the information that prevented me from finding out in time what was actually happening in Spain, and later in California, then we probably would have been able to agree [on a match].>
|Nov-05-15|| ||MissScarlett: If anyone has a copy of <Fire On Board 2> to hand, feel free.|
|Nov-05-15|| ||chancho: It's part 2.
|Nov-05-15|| ||Mr 1100: <offramp: "In Anand - Gelfand World Chess Championship (2012) Boris Gelfand seemed to want to get the classic games out of the way as quickly as possible and try to win the world championship with a cheapo in a 5-minute game.">|
Well, considering Gelfand's lifetime score against Anand at rapid chess, I'm not so sure anyone would have seen that as a very wise strategy.
<... Anand also didn't trouble himself - a boring match was the result.>
Again, it's perhaps worth also noting that, according to the Guid & Bratko computer assessment study published in 2013, the Anand-Gelfand 2012 match actually was rated as being one of the five best WCC matches of all time, indeed ranked above any of the famous Karpov-Kasparov matches. In addition, the Kramnik-Leko match of 2004, which resulted in a 7-7 draw, was actually rated the best match of all time.
|Nov-05-15|| ||MissScarlett: Part 2 is such sweet sorrow.|
|Nov-06-15|| ||offramp: <Mr 1100: <offramp: "In Anand - Gelfand World Chess Championship (2012) Boris Gelfand seemed to want to get the classic games out of the way as quickly as possible and try to win the world championship with a cheapo in a 5-minute game.">
Well, considering Gelfand's lifetime score against Anand at rapid chess, I'm not so sure anyone would have seen that as a very wise strategy.>|
I thought it was a terrible idea. Had he tried a bit harder Gelfand might have won another game in normal time. But there was no effort there at all.
|Nov-06-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Mr 1100>: <Again, it's perhaps worth also noting that, according to the Guid & Bratko computer assessment study published in 2013, the Anand-Gelfand 2012 match actually was rated as being one of the five best WCC matches of all time, indeed ranked above any of the famous Karpov-Kasparov matches.>|
A match in which every game was a 10 move draw that never left the book would rate perfectly on the scale you're talking about, but it would be foolish to recommend it as a good match on those grounds.
And Anand-Gelfand came closer to that than any other match.
|Nov-06-15|| ||offramp: I think that one of most colossal matches was 1966 match. Very close to 1927 match. In same area as 1978 match.|
|Nov-06-15|| ||Absentee: <Petrosianic: A match in which every game was a 10 move draw that never left the book would rate perfectly on the scale you're talking about, but it would be foolish to recommend it as a good match on those grounds.>|
It could be the best match never played.
|Nov-07-15|| ||Mr 1100: <Petrosianic: "...And Anand-Gelfand came closer to that than any other match.">|
Well, look at the overall picture.
Anand-Kramnik (2008): 4 decisive games out of 11.
Anand-Topalov (2010): 5 decisive games out of 12.
Those match performances were also ranked highly by the Guid & Bratko study (http://tinyurl.com/o6t9nm8).
Kasparov-Anand (1995): a disappointing result for Anand, 4 losses out of 18 games.
The study looked at several WCC matches over the years, and their findings indicated Anand to be, overall, a more "accurate" player than any of his predecessors.
Within this context, the fact that the 2012 match was lacking in drama, doesn't really mean they were playing poorly. It was a 12-game match, and both players were being pragmatic, avoiding unnecessary risks.
|Nov-07-15|| ||keypusher: <Within this context, the fact that the 2012 match was lacking in drama, doesn't really mean they were playing poorly. It was a 12-game match, and both players were being pragmatic, avoiding unnecessary risks.>|
Or as Nigel Short put it, if you play 25 moves of book and then call it a day, you won't make a lot of mistakes. Anand-Gelfand sucked.
|Nov-09-15|| ||Ulhumbrus: Kasparov says in his book that his preparation was was narrow and inflexible. He may mean that when Kramnik produced the Berlin defence Kasparov lacked an alternative first move such as 1 c4 or 1 d4, and when Kramnik found a way to gain the advantage against Kasparov's Gruenfeld defence, Kasparov once more lacked an alternative defence.|
|Nov-09-15|| ||keypusher: <Ulhumbrus: Kasparov says in his book that his preparation was was narrow and inflexible. He may mean that when Kramnik produced the Berlin defence Kasparov lacked an alternative first move such as 1 c4 or 1 d4, and when Kramnik found a way to gain the advantage against Kasparov's Gruenfeld defence, Kasparov once more lacked an alternative defence.>|
Interesting, and kind of shocking. Tal was pretty much guilty of the same thing in the Botvinnik rematch, but you don't expect that from Kasparov.
|Nov-09-15|| ||SChesshevsky: <.. Kasparov says in his book that his preparation was narrow and inflexible.>|
I took it that, relative to a world championship match, Kasparov admits he didn't prepare much at all.
I don't know if he should've prepared for the possibility of a Berlin Wall defense but it seemed like you could almost feel like in each progressive game Kasparov was getting nearer to solving it over the board.
What really must've of been disappointing and kind of showing a little rust was in his two losses Kasparov came up short on what seemed tactical combinations. Very surprising for a guy who's known as a great calculator.
|Nov-10-15|| ||Petrosianic: <but Kasparov would have slaughtered him in a rematch and he knew it.>|
That's what you said about the first match. If you were wrong about that, couldn't you be wrong about the other?
It was in fact Kasparov who ducked the rematch for reasons that are well known. If you really don't know what they are, I'll be glad to tell you, but you're going to feel pretty silly.
|Jan-03-16|| ||Hawkman: It's ironic. This match is famous for the Berlin Defense of the Ruy Lopez, but it didn't win one game. It's kind of a tribute to how feared Kasparov's KP game was before this. When you're losing and are arguably the greatest player since Fischer, it would have been nice to see greater efforts from Garry in the 11 and 14 move games. I don't understand that.|
|Jan-14-16|| ||Karne: After Game 10, Kasparov remarked that he hadn't been in a "great mood" throughout the match.|
|Feb-07-16|| ||The Kings Domain: A sad and embarrassing example of how the mighty have fallen. A 1990-era Kasparov would not have played as badly.|
|Mar-07-16|| ||Hawkman: For Kasparov to wait until the last game to try 1. d4 was just silly.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 17 ·