Kasparov - Anand PCA World Championship Match (1995)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

WCC Overview

<< previous

HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP

next >>

<< previous

FIDE CHAMPIONSHIPS

next >>

Kasparov vs Anand, 1995
New York City

Although stripped of his title by FIDE for holding his 1993 match with Short outside the world chess body's auspices, Kasparov was nevertheless widely considered the legitimate World Champion. The Professional Chess Association (PCA) created by Kasparov held a series of a series of candidate matches to choose an opponent for him. Viswanathan Anand succeeded in becoming the champion's opponent.

Kasparov vs Anand
Kasparov and Anand play above New York City
Anand's rise in the chess world was meteoric. Born in India, he quickly emerged as his nation's greatest player. At age fifteen, he became the youngest Indian to win the International Master title. At the age of sixteen he was crowned India's National Champion. In 1987 he was the first Indian to win the World Junior Championship. In 1988, at the age of eighteen, he became the first official Grandmaster of India. Anand qualified for the PCA World Championship final by winning the candidates matches against Michael Adams and Gata Kamsky. ^[1]

The 1995 PCA title match was played on the Observation Deck on the 107th floor of the World Trade Center in New York City. The prize fund was 1,500,000 US$, with 2/3 for the winner. Ten percent of the fund would to go to the PCA. In case of a tied match, Kasparov would retain the PCA title, but the prize would be split. The match was to last 20 games instead of the traditional 24, each game played at 40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour, followed by 30 minutes to complete the game. There were to be no timeouts and no adjournments.

The match started with eight straight draws (a record for the opening of a world championship match) until Anand drew first blood by winning game nine. This victory was not to be enjoyed for very long, as Kasparov then rebounded by dominantly winning four of the next five games.

After 18 games, with a final score of 10½ to 7½ Kasparov retained the PCA World Chess Champion title.

click on a game number to replay game 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Anand ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½

Kasparov ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½

FINAL SCORE: Kasparov 10½; Anand 7½
Reference: game collection WCC Index [Kasparov-Anand 1995]

NOTABLE GAMES [what is this?]

    · Game #10     Kasparov vs Anand, 1995     1-0
    · Game #9     Anand vs Kasparov, 1995     1-0
    · Game #11     Anand vs Kasparov, 1995     0-1

FOOTNOTES

Wikipedia: Viswanathan Anand

page 1 of 1; 3 games

Game	Result	Moves	Year	Event/Locale	Opening
1. Anand vs Kasparov	1-0	35	1995	Kasparov - Anand PCA World Championship Match	B84 Sicilian, Scheveningen
2. Kasparov vs Anand	1-0	38	1995	Kasparov - Anand PCA World Championship Match	C80 Ruy Lopez, Open
3. Kasparov vs Anand	1-0	41	1995	Kasparov - Anand PCA World Championship Match	B01 Scandinavian

REFINE SEARCH: White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 · Later Kibitzing>
Oct-21-08		Hesam7: And the match was not as bad for Anand as the result indicates or people make it out be. I have said this before, he forced Kasparov to abandon Najdorf!

Nov-25-08		Ladolcevita: Old picture always looks so beautiful

Oct-26-09		Jim Bartle: Sports Illustrated's report on the match: In a soundproof glass cage a quarter of a mile above Wall Street, a couple of cavemen named Garry Kasparov and Viswanathan Anand spent the past month clubbing it out at the Intel World Chess Championship. Caveman is the chess term for a player of primitive and brutal instincts. Kasparov, the champion who treats chess as blood sport, showed he's still the game's top troglodyte by bludgeoning his opponent in the best-of-20 series. The $1.5 million battle ($1 million goes to the winner) on the 107th floor of the World Trade Center, had promised to be the worst mismatch since Tyson-McNeeley. Kasparov, a 32-year-old Russian, was expected to pin his 25-year-old Indian challenger to the ropes early, bounce him around at will and score a quick knockout. It didn't play out that way. For eight games Anand jabbed, probed and feinted with astonishing speed, frustrating Kasparov's best efforts and earning draws. Then Anand, the mild, jokey son of a Madras railroad executive, won the ninth game in a display of tactical genius that left his rival stunned. "You catch a tiger by the whiskers, next day he's going to be ferocious," Anand reckoned. He was right. Kasparov mauled Anand in Game 10. And Game 11. And two of the three after that. Then, on Monday, Kasparov drew Game 17 to secure his fifth title defense since 1985. "Anand showed he could hold his own," said one grandmaster analyst. "But he's an intuitive player, and you can't beat Kasparov on intuition alone." In the tournament's final days, the question was not whether Anand would win another game, but whether he would survive to play championship chess again after his psychological and intellectual battering. The $500,000 loser's share may help him recover. Even cavemen have to eat.

Apr-16-10		SharpAttack: <VaselineTopLove> I completely agree with your posts here (about Anand's opening choices and he being inexperienced) Don't you think Anand has become too predictable in his openings? I mean he finds sharp lines in the popular top-level openings but never surprises the opponents with something unusual.

Aug-31-10		garrykasparov: Wow.Even though Anand took the lead in Game 9 he lost the match.

Aug-31-10		SetNoEscapeOn: <garrykasparov> (fan) That's not so unique in itself, but it is interesting to think about: how can we measure the "competitive level" of a chess matches? You often hear people say things like "the match was closer than the score would indicate," or use wildly different adjectives to describe matches with similar (or even identical) final scores. Perhaps we could start by looking at 5 things: 1. The final score of the match. 2. The number of lead changes in the match (one player taking the lead away from the other, not just breaking or establishing a tie). 3. The number of games where the loser led the match. 4. The number of games where the match was tied (post-game). 5. The most dominant "mini-match" within the match, and who won it. I'll use the longest period where one player won without answer from his opponent, trimming draws from both ends. I'm sure there are other things, and maybe there is a way to weight/combine these into a single number. The last three items help us get around the problem of comparing matches of different lengths. For what it's worth, here are the results in the post K-K era (classical title matches): Kasparov-Short 1993 Final Score: +5 (Kasparov) Lead Changes: 0 Short led for 0 games The match was tied for 0 games Dominant stretch: 10.5/15 (+6), Kasparov (games 1-15) Kasparov-Anand, 1995 Final Score: +3 (Kasparov) Lead Changes: 1 Anand led for 1 game The match was tied for 9 games Dominant stretch: 4.5/5 (+4), Kasparov (games 10-14) Kasparov-Kramnik 2000 Final Score: +2 (Kramnik) Lead Changes: 0 Kasparov led for 0 games The match was tied for 1 game Dominant stretch: 5.5/9 (+2), Kramnik (games 2-10) Kramnik-Leko 2004 Final Score: even, but Kramnik retained his title Lead Changes: 1 Leko led for 6 games The match was tied for 4 games Dominant stretch: 3/4 (+2), Leko (games 5-8) Kramnik-Topalov 2006 Final Score: even (official classical score) Lead Changes: 1 (official) Topalov led for 1 game (official) The match was tied for 4 games Dominant stretch: both players went 2/2, +2 (Kramnik in games 1-2, Topalov in games 8-9) Anand-Kramnik 2008 Final Score: +2 (Anand) Lead Changes: 0 Kramnik led for 0 games The match was tied for 2 games Dominant stretch: 3.5/4, +3, Anand (games 3-6) Anand-Topalov 2010 Final Score: +1 (Anand) Lead Changes: 1 Topalov led for 1 game The match was tied for 6 games Dominant stretch: 2.5/3, +2, Anand (games 2-4)

Sep-01-10		garrykasparov: <SetNoEscapeOn> Thanks for thinking that i'm not really garry kasparov.Besides,I bet he would use capital letters anyways.

May-26-12		offramp: <Akuni: <offramp: Without a doubt one of the very worst matches in history. Definitely the worst World Championship match EVER.> Says the kibitzer who lists James Mason as his favorite player...> I can change it if you tell me who my favourite player should be.

Sep-02-13		offramp: < SetNoEscapeOn: <garrykasparov> (fan) That's not so unique in itself, but it is interesting to think about: how can we measure the "competitive level" of a chess matches?> The system you have worked out is really good. Its only fault is that you applied it to some pretty short or dull matches. Any chance of someone extending the list backwards?

Sep-02-13		SetNoEscapeOn: I can't think of a better person than you yourself :).

Sep-02-13		offramp: That is not likely. [Laughter.]

Apr-07-15		Chessinfinite: The match was well fought, Anand could have definitely got in a couple of more wins, at least one more in game 17. I saw that game closely, and remember Anand missing 37. b4!, which would have been the best winning try, instead he chose something else that 'looked' poisonous, and required only moves from Kasparov- which to his credit Garry found, all of them!. I would say, this was was a good start by Anand, and could have been as big as the Karpov matches earlier, had Vishy been a bit more relaxed. Garry of course was the man to beat and deserved to win this mighty battle- and no one achieved beat him for the next five years.

Oct-29-15		thegoodanarchist: Anand was a bit of a butterball back in '95, judging by the photo.

Mar-15-16		Conrad93: This match is not as awful as the Lasker vs. Marshall 1907 match.

Mar-19-16		Hawkman: This was probably the last WC where both the players considered their opinions superior to computers.

Mar-19-16		Olavi: <Hawkman: This was probably the last WC where both the players considered their opinions superior to computers.> No, at least Kasparov-Kramnik 2000, probably later matches also. And for valid reasons. It's enough to study their opening preparation.

Apr-06-16		Chessinfinite: If you asked Kasparov, he ranked his matches as follows : 1. Kasparov vs Karpov - Tough and close 2. Kasparov vs Anand - Very interesting 3. Kasparov vs Short - Boring. enough said by the legend himself.

Apr-07-16		offramp: <Chessinfinite: If you asked Kasparov, he ranked his matches as follows : 1. Kasparov vs Karpov - Tough and close 2. Kasparov vs Anand - Very interesting 3. Kasparov vs Short - Boring. enough said by the legend himself.> He is ranking this match sixth of the matches he won. That's pretty low.

Apr-07-16		Chessinfinite: no, i think he also meant the kind of opposition he faced - definitely for him, the Short match was the dullest of them all. It was not like he was expecting to face a real challenge before the match actually began. He even predicted something like "It would be Short" - he seemed to know even before how the match would be like.

Apr-07-16		offramp: Yes you are correct chessinfinite. I understand it now.

Apr-07-16		Chessinfinite: I am always right, thank you.

Apr-09-16		offramp: And welcome to a lifetime on my ignore list.

Apr-09-16		morfishine: <offramp> I love this comment: <And welcome to a lifetime on my ignore list> The difficulty in finding educated and refined people to engage in objective conversation is balanced by the joy when we find such people. *****

Apr-09-16		Chessinfinite: sure, i grant you that 'honour' as well<offramp> and <morfishine> you can get to that list as well, to be fair i will hear you out till you deal with some other poster on other pages, where i thought, you seem to be having a hard time there defending your self proclaimed 'attack', but good luck on that.

Apr-10-16		Sally Simpson: Hi Offramp. Chessinfinite has just said that he has put you on his ignore list. Hi Chessinfinite, Offramp now knows you too have added him to your ignore list. Hi Offramp, I've just told Chessinfinite you now know you are on Chessinfinite's ignore list. Hi Chessinfinite, Offramp is now aware he is on your ignore list and that I have told you that he knows. Phew!

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!