chessgames.com
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 >>  
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984-85
The Aborted Match

From the age of 12, the chess genius from Azerbaijan Garry Kasparov was setting new standards. After becoming the youngest player to win the USSR Junior Championship he went on to win the World Junior Championship at age 16. His style was aggressive and dynamic. On his seventeenth birthday he achieved the grandmaster title.

After defeating Beliavsky, Korchnoi, and Smyslov in the candidates matches, Kasparov earned the right to challenge Anatoly Karpov for the title. The match was held in Moscow. Once again, the format was the first to 6 wins, draws not counting.

 Karpov vs Kasparov
 Karpov and Kasparov, 1984
Karpov secured quick lead in the match, winning games 3, 6, 7, and 9 to establish a dominating score of 4-0. However, due an incredible series of draws, it wasn't until game 27 when Karpov claimed his 5th point. With the score 5-0, Karpov's victory appeared imminent, but this marathon struggle was outlasting everybody's expectations. Finally, on the 32nd game, Kasparov beat Karpov for the first time. After another long series of draws, Kasparov won game 47 and game 48, making the score 5 to 3.

At this stage, FIDE President Florencio Campomanes made a most unexpected and controversial decision: he called the match off.

At the press conference at which he announced his decision, Campomanes cited the health of the two players, which had been put under strain by the length of the match, despite that both Karpov and Kasparov stated that they would prefer the match to continue. Karpov had lost 10kg (22lb) over the course of the match. Kasparov, however, was in excellent health and extremely resentful of Campomanes' decision, asking him why he was abandoning the match if both players wanted to continue. It would appear that Kasparov, who had won the last two games before the suspension, felt the same way as some commentators: that he was now the favorite to win the match despite his 5-3 deficit. He appeared to be physically stronger than his opponent, and in the later games seemed to have been playing the better chess.[1]

The match lasted from September 10, 1984 to February 8, 1985. It was aborted after 48 games, making Karpov the de facto winner. A new match was scheduled to take place later in 1985.

click on a game number to replay game 1234567891011121314151617181920
Kasparov½½0½½00½0½½½½½½½½½½½
Karpov½½1½½11½1½½½½½½½½½½½

click on a game number to replay game 2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Kasparov½½½½½½0½½½½1½½½½½½½½
Karpov½½½½½½1½½½½0½½½½½½½½

click on a game number to replay game 4142434445464748
Kasparov½½½½½½11
Karpov½½½½½½00

FINAL SCORE:  Karpov 5;  Kasparov 3 (40 draws)
Reference: game collection WCC Index [Karpov-Kasparov 1984/5]

NOTABLE GAMES   [what is this?]
    · Game #9     Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984     1-0
    · Game #6     Kasparov vs Karpov, 1984     0-1
    · Game #27     Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984     1-0

FOOTNOTES

  1. Garry Kasparov from Wikipedia.com

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 48  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½361984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85B81 Sicilian, Scheveningen, Keres Attack
2. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½471984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E17 Queen's Indian
3. Karpov vs Kasparov 1-0311984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85B44 Sicilian
4. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½441984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E15 Queen's Indian
5. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½211984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85B83 Sicilian
6. Kasparov vs Karpov 0-1701984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E15 Queen's Indian
7. Karpov vs Kasparov 1-0441984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85D34 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
8. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½201984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
9. Karpov vs Kasparov 1-0701984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85D34 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
10. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½151984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E12 Queen's Indian
11. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½411984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85A15 English
12. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½211984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85D58 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) Syst
13. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½331984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85A15 English
14. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½161984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E15 Queen's Indian
15. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½931984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E15 Queen's Indian
16. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½371984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E15 Queen's Indian
17. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½231984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85D58 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) Syst
18. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½251984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E15 Queen's Indian
19. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½511984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85D37 Queen's Gambit Declined
20. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½191984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85A15 English
21. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½341984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85D37 Queen's Gambit Declined
22. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½251984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
23. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½221984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85D30 Queen's Gambit Declined
24. Kasparov vs Karpov ½-½171984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85A33 English, Symmetrical
25. Karpov vs Kasparov ½-½221984Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match 1984/85D58 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) Syst
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 48  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 21 OF 31 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Aug-26-11  positionalgenius: <SM> If your going to troll, at least do it with some class as your representing kasparov. Read the top of the page:
<<At the press conference at which he announced his decision, Campomanes cited the health of the two players, which had been put under strain by the length of the match, despite that both Karpov and Kasparov stated that they would prefer the match to continue. Karpov had lost 10kg (22lb) over the course of the match>>>
Aug-26-11  shach matov: Campo was in the pocket of the soviets, as is well known.

However, the point is not whether Karpov lost 22 pounds or not. It's completely irrelevant. The point is that the match was canceled when GK won two consecutive games and it seems that he was unstoppable and KArpov will lose more games.

Never in history was WC match canceled because one player was losing weight. Absurd to even consider such a possibility. These are lame and unacceptable excuses.

Aug-26-11  shach matov: <positional>

So what's your excuse for Karpov losing the 1985, 86, and 1990 matches? Was he also exhausted, tired?

Pathetic excuses by Karpov fanboys which the man himself would never make. You're ruining his image by such nonsensical "arguments".

Aug-26-11  ozmikey: Since this has been a red-hot topic at the moment, I thought it might be worth quoting the reflections of Lev Alburt in "Chess Life" following the Termination. It has always struck me as the most candid and insightful account of what PROBABLY went on behind the scenes. And as you will see, although you would expect Alburt (as a defector) to be solidly pro-Kasparov, his views are decidedly nuanced. Here we go:

PART 1

<We all need heroes. It is this understandable, even laudable longing that lies behind the tidal wave of sympathy for Gary Kasparov and the almost savage excoriation of Anatoly Karpov and FIDE President Florencio Campomanes. As the New York Times put the matter in a recent editorial, "Mr. Karpov was the official favourite," and Gary Kasparov was "the younger, brasher outsider, of Jewish and Armenian ancestry." Nor did the FIDE President fare any better: he was undeservedly described asbeing "obliging" toward "Soviet-bloc" interests. From the Times, these are harsh words.

But There Are Problems With The Current Wisdom

To be sure, there have been abuses in this match from the beginning. I argued earlier in these pages that the world champion had attempted several illegal maneuvers to upset the challenger and to adjourn the match during the Thessaloniki Olympiad. I even brought out into the open what has been known for years on the international chess circuit: that Anatoly Karpov gives himself a chemical zing before chess games. On the other hand, I also noted that the challenger was no young Lochinvar: he deliberately set out to destroy the champion's health.

Just a few weeks ago, what I wrote seemed shocking and, in the phrase of some, unbelievable. Adjourn the match for the Olympiad? Karpov near a drug-induced collapse? Yet the match was, in a far more fantastic turn of events, cancelled altogether; and the world champion, as I write these words, receives treatment in an elite Moscow clinic known for handling drug-related psychological problems.

Finally, there are the considered words of Anatoly Karpov himself. In an open letter to Florencio Campomanes, he removed any rational doubt that he orchestrated the cessation of the match. "In their approach to you," he wrote to Campomanes, "the USSR Chess Federation has not proposed to end the match but only to make a break, which could have enabled all the people concerned to have a rest."

Still, this black-and-white scenario simply won't wash. If Karpov were truly the Party's man and Kasparov merely a half-Jewish renegade, then the Soviet bosses would have ordered Kasparov to lose. We would all have admired a hard-fought Karpov victory, ending with the score of, say, +6-3=17.

But it didn't happen. And that's because Gary Kasparov is NOT an outsider. Gary became a full Communist Party member at the precocious age of 19, and he is currently a member of the central committee of the Azerbaijan C.P. Yet this by no means exhausts his political good fortune. The late Yuri Andropov made Heydar Aliev, the former first secretary of the Azerbaijan C.P., a full Politburo member. And as Aliev rose, so rose Gary. When the match began, Kasparov enjoyed a political protector whose status asone of the dozen most powerful men in the Soviet Union dwarfed Karpov's contacts as a chess grandmaster would a Class A player.

Karpov's political connections reach no higher than the Propaganda Department of the central committee of the National C.P., through its one-time boss Evgeny Tyazhelnikov. But the reader will notice from viewing the organizational chart* that this connection places him well above his nominal superiors, the minister of sport and the head of the USSR Chess Federation!

One could dwell on the fact that chess, like all sports, is controlled by the Propaganda Department. My purpose here, however, is to note that life and certainly politics are not as simple as an organizational chart. After all, on paper Kasparov's connections stretch so much higher than Karpov's that he could have had the world champion shot - let alone chart the course of a chess match!

In reality, both men are relatively equal members of the nomenklatura, what Milovan Djilas has tellingly labelled "the new class". And how it happened that Karpov proved a more adroit handler of his middle-level connections than Kasparov did of his high-level patron - thereby hangs a tale.>

* The chart merely points out that the Propaganda Department has precedence over the Ministry of Sport, let alone the USSR Chess Federation.

Part 2 coming soon.

Aug-26-11  Capabal: <positionalgenius: << It's important to remember that we have absolutely no evidence that Karpov was having any physical problems. This was for the most part propaganda by the soviets who realized that they need an excuse to stop the match when Kasparov was completely dominating.> That's simply not true. Look at any reference to the 1984 match and they all mention to some degree how exhausted karpov was. He lost 22 lbs during the match.>

Yes. I was browsing a few days ago through an early 90s edition of the Oxford Companion to Chess, not exactly a Soviet work. In the entry on Karpov they say that toward the end of the match it was obvious to all spectators that both players were exhausted, especially Karpov. Then they say that of course both players denied it, and both claimed the cancellation favored the other player. I am paraphrasing from memory. I will quote the exact passage later.

Aug-26-11  shach matov: Lets remember that the only evidence
(as far as I can see)that Karpov lost 22 pounds came from Campo himself, who was clearly controlled by the soviets.

However, there are two point of import here:

1. If indeed Karpov lost 22 pounds, the credit has to be given to Kasparov for wearing him out and preventing Karpov from wining the decisive game. This is sport afterall, the player with more stamina must prevail.

2. In principle it's completely irrelevant whether Karpov lost 22 pounds or not. It was not an excuse to cancel the match. What's next, every time one of the players claims tiredness, the match will be canceled? Simply unacceptable.

Aug-26-11  Psihadal: <At the press conference at which he announced his decision, Campomanes cited the health of the two players, which had been put under strain by the length of the match, <despite that both Karpov and Kasparov stated that they would prefer the match to continue.> Karpov had lost 10kg (22lb) over the course of the match>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J313...

I remember watching this interview of Campomanes where he said that Karpov was the first one to approach him and ask for the match to be continued.

Kasparov, however, didn't say a word until Campo's official statement that the match will be aborted. Only then did Kasparov remember to protest.

Personally, I always thought that Kasparov actually wanted the match to be cancelled and start from 0-0, because even if Karpov was in fact exhausted (which is debatable, I think that the exhaustion excuse was just a stupid reason for the soviets to pressure FIDE into aborting the match), Karpov still needed only one more win, while Kasparov needed three more.

Let us not forget that in the 1978 Karpov-Korchnoi match, which lasted 32 games, Karpov had a 4-1 lead as well as a 5-2 lead, Korchnoi managed to equalise the score 5-5, yet Karpov still won the decisive game.

Kasparov simply wanted to victimise himself. That's how I see it.

Aug-26-11  ozmikey: Lev Alburt's take on K-K I continued...

PART 2

<The Match in Review

On September 10, 1984, GM Anatoly Karpov played 1. e4 in game one. By October 6, he was leading +4-0=5. Kasparov seemed on the edge of a breakdown, and the match appeared virtually over. It was at this point that former world champion Mikhail Botvinnik advised Gary "to make 20 draws in a row." Another aide added: "Do that, and you will take him with your bare hands!". Not nice, not pretty, but it might prove effective.

There followed 17 draws and then another Karpov victory, his last, in game 27. It was now November 24th, and Karpov led +5-0=22. While victory for the champion seemed inevitable, the match itself had been transformed from what the Soviet leadership hailed as a propaganda coup to a public relations curse. Such laconic headlines as "Yet Another Draw in Chess" and "Chess: And The Draws Go On" peppered the pages of the New York Times. Even worse, they were beginning to laugh at the Soviet school of chess - as in the memorable Times headline of November 19th, "At Chess Match, the Chant is Dee-fense."

But the worst was yet to come. Following a Kasparov win in game 32, the two players embarked upon another string of draws. From December 16 to January 28, from game 33 through 46, the two players laboured mightily to produce the mole hill of 14 more draws.

Then on January 30, Karpov lost the 47th game. Mucovites began to joke openly that the world champion looked worse than Chernenko, and perhaps he did. For it was at this juncture that he arranged through his connections a series of illegal "technical timeouts" - those very same contacts to whom president Campomanes obliquely referred in his press conference when he said that he was cancelling the match because of inconvenience caused to "all those in control of the match".

Inconvenience, indeed! On February 9, Anatoly Karpov lost his second game running, if the phrase is apt. For the champion had, in fact, run out of gas but not out of cunning. His ability to order at will a further series of timeouts (Kasparov himself was forced to postpone the game scheduled for February 10) indicated the salient fact about the match.

That fact was a simple one: the Soviet leadership, including Aliev, had washed its hands of what had become a propaganda disaster. Control of the match, as symbolised by its removal from the Hall of Columns to the seedy environs of the Sport Hotel, passed from high-level organs to the "proper" authorities, Karpov's men at the Propaganda Department and Sector of Sport levels.>

Part 3 to come.

Aug-26-11  shach matov: <Personally, I always thought that Kasparov actually wanted the match to be cancelled and start from 0-0>

That's just an opinion (and certainly nothing wrong with that) but lets remember that Karpov was unable to win even one game during the last 21 games and lost the two consecutive last games when Campo canceled the match. It's very much possible that this scenario would have continued if not for the cancellation.

It's possible that Karpov wanted to continue, but also possible that he was not judging things objectively at that point. The soviets, however, so things more objectively as Karpov being in a serious danger of losing more games and the match itself. Thus they acted accordingly.

Another very important point is that GK had nothing to lose here being a very young challenger who even if lost would soon have another chance to play for the title; but for Karpov this was a very different situation, not to mention the unpleasant possibility of losing the title to an aggressive, cocky kid.

Aug-26-11  ozmikey: The conclusion of Alburt's article:

PART 3

<Kasparov: The Real Winner?

So it was because the chess match got put on the political backburner that Karpov was able to give Kasparov a chessic hotfoot. He won the battle.

But has he lost the war? I think so. The world champion overplayed his hand and he has in the process badly damaged the interests of the Soviet Communist Party. Politburo members, including Heydar Aliev, have already persued the Times editorial which warned, "It matters when a country formally accused of noncompliance with arms treaties is credibly charged with fudging even at the clear rules of international chess."

Soviet leaders hate to read this sort of thing in the pages of the establishment press, and Karpov's culpability will hardly go unnoticed when Kasparov gains his next audience with Aliev. Thus it becomes entirely possible that KARPOV will be ordered to lose his next match against Kasparov.

Campo: People Were Laughing, but He Didn't Know Why

Thos who view Florencio Campomanes as a tool of the Soviets betray a short memory indeed. Only last summer at Pasadena, when he forfeited Kasparov in his match with Korchnoi, he was portrayed by the Soviets as an American puppet, a product of the "Marcos regime" in the Philippines. Furthermore, Campomanes has long been a friend and promoter of Bobby Fischer's interests. Helping Bobby Fischer and being a friend of the Soviet Union are mutually exclusive activities.

Finally, the Soviets themselves yanked the political rug from beneath him. As Campomanes at the press conference was insisting, in the words of the Times, "that even as he stepped to the podium he did not know what decision he was going to take", the Soviets were already releasing the detailed substance of his remarks. There was a titter in the audience when news of this reached the press conference room. Poor Campo: People were laughing, but he didn't know why!

Campomanes' motives for cancelling the match were manifold - a desire to save chess from further embarrassment, an underestimation of the outrage which would be produced by his decision, and, above all, a personal loyalty to his friedn "Anatoly" - a friendship dating back to the days of the 1978 Karpov-Korchnoi match in Baguio.

And that, Chess Life readers, is why it REALLY happened in Moscow.>

Some final thoughts of my own:

- For what it's worth (which is frankly very little), I think that Karpov was probably in a pretty dire state of health towards the end of the match. The circumstantial evidence for this is substantial to say the least.

- As Edward Winter writes in his fairly definitive piece on the whole affair (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...), Karpov has provided insufficient evidence to exonerate himself from suspicion. I too was amazed that in the Karpov on Karpov book (published in the early nineties if I remember rightly), the whole affair was simply glossed over.

- As many people have already stated: had Campo taken the decision to abort the match BEFORE game 47, the chess world would probably have applauded heartily. Just putting that out there.

Aug-26-11  Psihadal: Thanks for the article, <ozmikey>.

This proves that Kasparov wasn't really against the decision of aborting the match and starting over as he had claimed, as playing again from 0-0 was better for him than continuing from a 5-3 deficit, even if Karpov was really exhausted - another subject in which Kasparov contradicts himself. First by saying that Karpov "has exhausted his strength" and then by saying that he beat Karpov due to "his chess" rather than Karpov's exhaustion.

Aug-26-11  shach matov: <Lev Alburt> doesn't always sound very neutral, perhaps losing the two games he played against Kasparov caused him to lose objectivity. Not to say that he was in love with Karpov either... Needless to say he has an opinion like all of us, not proving much, if anything at all.
Aug-26-11  shach matov: <Psihadal: First by saying that Karpov "has exhausted his strength" and then by saying that he beat Karpov due to "his chess">

That's just a lie. GK never said that. Provide evidence or apologize for the wrongful accusations.

Remember that Kasparov beat Karpov three times and never lost! Lets give a little respect where it's due! I will continue to remind the fanboys of this truth as long as they troll or lie. And remember I will not get tired. I can easily repeat many many times that Kasparov beat Karpov three times in world championship matches. If you like to hear this repeated over and over, be my guest!:)

Aug-26-11  Capabal: <- As many people have already stated: had Campo taken the decision to abort the match BEFORE game 47, the chess world would probably have applauded heartily. Just putting that out there.>

Yes. And if fact, BEFORE game 47, the chess world would have probably found it fairly reasonable if the match had just been adjourned a few months. They could have cited the need to let the players gain some vigor and fighting spirit, since the match seemed to be going nowhere. This of course was no longer possible after games 47 and 48. The cancellation was equivalent to an adjournment + resetting the score back to 0-0 under a new format, something about which Kasparov could not have been unhappy about, UNLESS he was absolutely certain that Karpov's exhaustion was so complete that it would make it impossible for him to win 1 game before Kasparov won 3. Maybe Kasparov was totally sure of that. But if he had even the slightest doubt, then the adjournment + erasing of the score could not have upset him all that much.

My impression is:
1. Both of them had to be tired after a 5 month effort. 2. Karpov seemed to be much more tired.
3. Karpov could probably have gotten an adjournment if he had seriously pushed for one before game 47.

Aug-26-11  shach matov: <Capabal>

you seem to continue to make excuses bout Karpov's <exhaustion> while never even ONCE providing any real evidence of this! this what I call BS!

now tell me if you will: what was the cause for Karpov losing the 85 match? was he exhausted back then also?

why did he lose the 86 and 90 matches? was he tired again?

absolutely amazing that Karpov had enough self-respect and honer to never complain and make silly excuses like "I am tired"! But couple of his fanboys use this lame excuses over and over.

Aug-26-11  Psihadal: <shach matov: Remember that Kasparov beat Karpov three times and never lost! Lets give a little respect where it's due! I will continue to remind the fanboys of this truth as long as they troll or lie. And remember I will not get tired. I can easily repeat many many times that Kasparov beat Karpov three times in world championship matches. If you like to hear this repeated over and over, be my guest!:)>

It's all inside the link that <ozmikey> had provided. Please read it before calling me a liar.

Are you mental? Where did I ever say that Kasparov doesn't deserve respect? Where did I ever claim that Kasparov didn't win a match against Karpov? You're just spitting out irrelevant nonsense that I have never said and that have nothing to do with our discussion.

Do you always get this feisty whenever someone says a slightly negative thing about your idol?

Aug-26-11  shach matov: <Psihadal: It's all inside the link that <ozmikey> had provided. Please read it before calling me a liar.>

BS! I could care less what some <lev alburt> says. Show me a real quote by Kaspaorv where he says that! If you can't, then you're lying.

Aug-26-11  shach matov: I will repeat: both K's were two damn grown men playing chess not lifting weights! Neither of them was a fragile ballerina who faints at the sight of a mouse. It's unacceptable to continue to make excuses for Karpov's tiredness!

This is chess: if one of the players feels tired, to bad! He forfeits the match!

Tal who was really ill throughout his life never complained about a damn thing and never had a match canceled because he was "tired". Maybe he should have claimed exhaustion during the return match with Botvinik and asked for the match to be canceled? At least he would have a real excuse. But obviously this would be absurd but for some reason some fanboys here want us to believe that their hero is special and the rules does not apply to him.

Aug-26-11  Psihadal: <Shach matov>

You really ARE mental, aren't you?

First of all, the article is not Lev Alburt's, but Edward Winter's. If you would click the link and read the article, you would have known that.

Also, if you would have read the article, you would have known that in page 125 of "Child of change", Kasparov himself wrote that "Karpov has exhausted all of his strength".

Please read other people's arguments before refuting them.

Aug-26-11  Capabal: In his review of Kasparov'sa book Child of Change, Edward Winter writes:

<His views on Karpov’s state of health towards the end of the match are peculiar and self-contradictory. On page 124 he rejects the claim that Karpov was sick, emphasizing the quality of game 48, and on page 143 he writes: ‘The people around him [Karpov] attributed my late victories to the fact that he was so exhausted, but Karpov knew better. He knew it was my chess that was beating him.’ But on page 125 Kasparov states that his opponent ‘had exhausted his strength’, and on page 130 says that ‘Karpov was in no state to go on without the serious risk of defeat’.>

Years later, Kasparov called the 48th game the best of the match. It is entertaining to read what he wrote about game 48, in light of his previous comments about Karpov's exhaustion:

<It was full of instructive moments, of clashes between attack and defence. In all its phases there was a tense, interesting struggle, without blunders SUCH AS THOSE THAT WERE THE CAUSE OF MY DEFEATS. It is hard to find a move by Karpov which definitely deserves a question mark, and it is well known that the quality of a win is best judged by the standard of play by the loser and the number of interesting ideas demonstrated by the winner (BY THIS CRITERIA THE SECOND BEST GAME WAS THE 32nd)> [my emphasis]

That's quintessential Kasparov. Karpov was exhausted and "in no state to go on," but, as usual, the best games are the ones Kasparov won, especially the last one, because Karpov played his best chess in a state of exhaustion. The games Kasparov lost lack all beauty, because, as usual blunders "were the cause of my defeats".

This is a recurrent theme in all Kasparov's writings.

Aug-26-11  Psihadal: I don't understand why you repeat this claim of yours. I have never said that Karpov was tired.
But kasparov did.
Aug-26-11  shach matov: <But on page 125 Kasparov states that his opponent ‘had exhausted his strength’, and on page 130 says that ‘Karpov was in no state to go on without the serious risk of defeat’.>

There's no contradiction here at all, and that's what I was referring to!

First of all this statement <‘had exhausted his strength’> may refer to chess strength in particular, as the second statement. Nowhere did GK say that Karpov was physically tired. Indeed he may have meant that Karpov was mentally or psychologically exhausted, which is absolutely not an excuse to stop a match!

It's also not an excuse to accuse GK of contradicting himself. If Karpov was mentally exhausted it was all due to Kasparov making him reach that helpless state by the continued strong opposition. Thus, even if he was feeling helpless, 100% credit should be given to Kasparov for making him feel that way.

Once again, I am very annoyed at people trying to make excuses for Karpov's loses and the criminal decision to stop the match. Karpov himself never made such excuses, so why are the fanboys?

Aug-26-11  Petrosianic: <capabal> <Even allowing for the generally inflated ego of chess players, this is very unseemly behavior in a 40 year old man. These things tend to get noticed when they pile up.>

Yeah, pretty much everything you said is true. In fact, this reminds me of a discussion I started on another board a few years back. Maybe people would like to opine.

My premise was to borrow from the world of Pro Wrestling, which has all the wrestlers divided up into Good Guys (Babyfaces, or just Faces) and Bad Guys (Heels). The real world isn't so black and white, obviously, but for the sake of theater, they pretend it is.

Question: If chess were presented to the public in the same way, how would you classify the World Champions? Here's the way I saw it, more or less:

Steinitz: Abrasive, boombastic personality, killed swashbuckling chess with his principles. Heel.

Lasker: In some ways he's decidedly Face, but in a few instances, he seems clearly the Heel. I can't really decide about him. Maybe he's like one of those wrestlers that's always changing back and forth.

Capablanca: Suave Latin lover, with incredible talent. Face.

Alekhine: Glowering personality, ducked a rematch with a mega-face, collaborated with the Nazis. Heel.

Euwe: Face. In fact Super Face. One of the few nice guys to finish first.

Botvinnik: This is one people will argue about, so I have to stress again that the real world is not so black and white. But for the sake of the game, we have to put them into one pigeon hole or the other. On that grounds, I classify him as Heel. He didn't do that much as champion, he was always the mountain that someone else was trying to climb. He kept his title on draws (the equivalent of title not changing hands on a DQ in wrestling), and got it back in free rematches. Heel.

Smyslov: Lost one title shot on a drawn match, and had his title reign cut short. Personable guy, could have been a professional opera singer, played for decades, inspired people by making the Candidates Finals in his 60's. Face.

Tal: Personable, humorous guy with an incredibly popular playing style. Mega Face.

Petrosian: Great player, but hard to understand. Unpopular playing style, too prone to short draws. Very popular in Armenia, and with me, but for the sake of the game, I have to say Heel.

Spassky: Actually has a few Heel-like moments, such as his conduct in Korchnoi-Spassky II, and in signing the anti-semitic petition a few years back. But his biggest legacy is his gallantry during Reykjavik, so Face.

Fischer: An organizer's nightmare, always embroiled in some controversy or other, and on the verge of walking out on something. And the less said about his conduct after retirement, the better. Heel.

Karpov: Through no fault of his own perhaps, but he still got the title without playing for it. Played two title defenses against a guy whose family was in the Gulag. Had a match stopped. Got a rematch AND a free seeding into the next Candidates Final. Got to play for the FIDE title after being eliminated, against another loser. You can make a case to defend all these things, but I have to say again that the Pro Wrestling scenario we're looking at here is very Black and White. Therefore Heel.

Kasparov: Ruthless self promoter, history of petulant conduct, tendency to rewrite history. Heel.

Kramnik: Like Lasker, I find it hard to pin him down. He was the Face in Kramnik-Topalov. And I felt that Anand-Kramnik was a battle of two Faces. But at other times he comes across as the Heel. Like lasker, I think of him as one that goes back and forth.

Anand. Even if I wanted to trash the guy, I simply can't think of anything bad to say about him. Face.

Aug-26-11  Psihadal: <Shach matov>
Yes, of course that's what you were referring to.
You obviously had already read the article, and had referred to these quotes of Kasparov. Which is why only a few minutes ago, you mistook Lev Alburt for the author of the article (which he is not) and which is why you asked for direct kasparov quotes (which are available in the article).

No one is making any excuses for Karpov, we are only quoting Kasparov who himself said that Karpov was tired.

I have finally reached a conclusion:
You are a troll, albeit a smart one.
But still a troll - or maybe just a crazy Kasparov fanboy - and I shall not continue this or any other discussion with you any further.

Aug-26-11  Petrosianic: <capabal> <Even allowing for the generally inflated ego of chess players, this is very unseemly behavior in a 40 year old man. These things tend to get noticed when they pile up.>

Yeah, pretty much everything you said is true. In fact, this reminds me of a discussion I started on another board a few years back. Maybe people would like to opine.

My premise was to borrow from the world of Pro Wrestling, which has all the wrestlers divided up into Good Guys (Babyfaces, or just Faces) and Bad Guys (Heels). The real world isn't so black and white, obviously, but for the sake of theater, they pretend it is.

Question: If chess were presented to the public in the same way, how would you classify the World Champions? Here's the way I saw it, more or less:

Steinitz: Abrasive, bombastic personality, killed swashbuckling chess with his theories. Heel.

Lasker: In some ways he's decidedly Face, but in a few instances, he seems clearly the Heel. I can't really decide about him. Maybe he's like one of those wrestlers that's always changing back and forth.

Capablanca: Suave Latin lover, with incredible talent. Face.

Alekhine: Glowering personality, ducked a rematch with a mega-face, collaborated with the Nazis. Heel.

Euwe: Face. In fact Super Face. One of the few nice guys to finish first.

Botvinnik: This is one people will argue about, so I have to stress again that the real world is not so black and white. But for the sake of the game, we have to put them into one pigeon hole or the other. On that grounds, I classify him as Heel. He didn't do that much as champion, he was always the mountain that someone else was trying to climb. He kept his title on draws (the equivalent of title not changing hands on a DQ in wrestling), and got it back in free rematches. Heel.

Smyslov: Lost one title shot on a drawn match, and had his title reign cut short. Personable guy, could have been a professional opera singer, played for decades, inspired people by making the Candidates Finals in his 60's. Face.

Tal: Personable, humorous guy with an incredibly popular playing style. Mega Face.

Petrosian: Great player, but hard to understand. Unpopular playing style, too prone to short draws. Very popular in Armenia, and with me, but for the sake of the game, I have to say Heel.

Spassky: Actually has a few Heel-like moments, such as his conduct in Korchnoi-Spassky II, and in signing the anti-semitic petition a few years back. But his biggest legacy is his gallantry during Reykjavik, so Face.

Fischer: An organizer's nightmare, always embroiled in some controversy or other, and on the verge of walking out on something. And the less said about his conduct after retirement, the better. Heel.

Karpov: Through no fault of his own perhaps, but he still got the title without playing for it. Played two title defenses against a guy whose family was in the Gulag. Had a match stopped. Got a rematch AND a free seeding into the next Candidates Final. Got to play for the FIDE title after being eliminated, against another loser. You can make a case to defend all these things, but I have to say again that the Pro Wrestling scenario we're looking at here is very Black and White. Therefore Heel.

Kasparov: Ruthless self promoter, history of petulant conduct, tendency to rewrite history. Heel.

Kramnik: Like Lasker, I find it hard to pin him down. He was the Face in Kramnik-Topalov. And I felt that Anand-Kramnik was a battle of two Faces. But at other times he comes across as the Heel. Like lasker, I think of him as one that goes back and forth.

Anand. Even if I wanted to trash the guy, I simply can't think of anything bad to say about him. Face.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 31)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 21 OF 31 ·  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:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. 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.

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

Blow the Whistle

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!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC