Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1985)

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

Kibitzing

Chessgames premium membership fee will increase to $39 per year effective June 15, 2023. Enroll Now!

WCC Overview

<< previous

HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP

next >>

Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985
Moscow

After 48 games had been played in the Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1984), FIDE president Florencio Campomanes canceled the event while it was still in progress. He stated that the match had "exhausted the physical, if not the psychological resources, of not only the participants but all those connected with the match..."^[1] No winner was declared, so Anatoly Karpov retained the title. A new world championship match would now begin on September 3, 1985 with the initial score set at 0-0.

Karpov vs Kasparov
Karpov and Kasparov, 1985
Karpov prepared for the match by winning the tough Category 14 "OHRA Crown Group" in Amsterdam, July 15-26, 1985. He also underwent a rigorous exercise program: "Tennis... and swimming, in my opinion, are the perfect combination of physical activity, allowing one to be in excellent condition."^[2] Garry Kasparov prepared by playing a match against Robert Huebner in Hamburg, May 27-June 4, 1985 (+3 -0 =3), and another match against Ulf Andersson in Belgrade May 12-June 20, 1985 (+2 -0 =4).^[3] Kasparov then began further preparation with his team in Zağulba Bağlari, Azerbaijan. He remarked that "by September... I felt far more confident than a year earlier. I had become stronger and had more stamina. My store of opening ideas had been thoroughly replenished."^[4] Mikhail Botvinnik predicted that "If Kasparov has an equal score...after 10-12 games, he will have a good chance to win the match."^[5]

FIDE introduced a 24 game limit, with the title holder Karpov enjoying draw odds. If Karpov lost, he also had the automatic right to a rematch.^[6] The prize for the match was 1.6 million Swiss Francs, with 62.5% going to the champion.^[7] For each draw, FIDE would deduct 1% of the purse, and fine each player a further 1%.^[2] The arbiters were Andrey Petrov Malchev and Vladas Ivanovich Mikenas.^[8] Kasparov had vociferously, and successfully, objected to FIDE's first choice of Svetozar Gligoric and Anton Kinzel, the arbiters from the Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1984), because he thought they had been too ready to follow Campomanes.^[9] Karpov's seconds were Igor Arkadievich Zaitsev, Yuri Balashov,^[10] Efim Geller, Sergey Makarichev and Evgeni Vasiukov.^[11] Kasparov's seconds were Aleksander S Nikitin, assisted by Josif D Dorfman, Gennadi Timoshchenko, Evgeny Vladimirov and Alexander Shakarov.^[10] The match was played in the Tchaikovsky Hall, Moscow. Evgeny Vladimirov describes the scene: "...amongst the 1,500 spectators and the tens of millions of Soviet chess fans outside, there are no neutrals... Thousands stand in rows six feet deep all around the cordoned off Mayakovsky Square before the start of each game. A ticket for a good seat costs 2½ roubles but on the black market they are changing hands at 15 roubles..."^[12]

Kasparov won the 1st game. Karpov evened the score in Game 4 by manoeuvering to build an overwhelming kingside attack, and then went ahead 2-1 when Kasparov pressed too hard for a win in Game 5. Karpov now experienced a period of weak play that lasted throughout the month of October. It started in Game 11, when Karpov made the crude blunder 22...Rcd8. Kasparov won the game with a queen sacrifice, tying the match. Karpov explains that he became distracted when the German news magazine Der Spiegel published a controversial story on September 30. It was about a large sum of money Karpov had allegedly received from a computer sponsorship deal, without notifying the Soviet authorities. This would have constituted a major violation of the exchange control regulations. Karpov was later cleared of the accusations. In an 1988 interview, Karpov agreed with the observation that he never played worse in a match against Kasparov than from October 1 to October 24, 1985. Furthermore, he said that Kasparov would not have become world champion in 1985 without help from Der Spiegel.^[13]

In Game 16 Kasparov took the lead with what he regarded to be the "most beautiful" of the match and also "an important turning point. After this game I felt I could win the title, that I must win it. At the same time it became clear that Karpov felt the exact opposite."^[14] Karpov reported that in home analysis before the game, his second Efim Geller had found the improvement 12.Be3, but forgot to tell him!^[11] After a drawn 17th game Kasparov took a time out, assuming that Karpov would go all out against him with the white pieces in Game 18.^[5] Kasparov secured a two point lead when Karpov lashed out unsuccessfully on the kingside in Game 19. The drawn Game 21 ended unexpectedly after Kasparov suddenly noticed a flaw in his adjournment analysis. This seems to have encouraged Karpov, and Kasparov took another time out.^[15] Karpov cut the lead to a point by playing aggressively with the white pieces in Game 22. Kasparov explained that he "underestimated the opponent's pawn offensive on the kingside."^[16] In Game 24 Karpov needed to win in order to tie the match and retain his title. In a "superb fighting game, worthy of a world championship decider," Karpov built up a promising attacking position, but miscalculated after Kasparov sacrificed two pawns.^[17] Garry Kasparov won the game, and so became the 13th world chess champion.

Kasparov summed up the match as follows: "Karpov made the best even in unfavourable positions, exploiting every chance when positions were in his favour. He achieved outstanding performances. Towards the end of the match my confidence was slightly shaken by excitement and nervous stress; however, I managed to pull myself together for the final game. I realised that Karpov would have to do his utmost to win... In experience, I was behind Karpov but youth has an advantage; more surplus energy."^[18] Mikhail Tal called this "one of the most interesting matches in the history of chess." He praised Kasparov's "sharp, aggressive style," and remarked that "I only wish that his stay on the throne will not be as short as mine!"^[5] On December 5, 1985 Karpov exercised his contractual right to a rematch, which was scheduled to start in the summer of 1986.^[19]

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 19 20 21 22 23 24
Karpov 0 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0

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

FINAL SCORE: Kasparov 13; Karpov 11
Reference: game collection WCC Index [Karpov-Kasparov 1985]

NOTABLE GAMES [what is this?]

    · Game #16     Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985     0-1
    · Game #24     Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985     0-1
    · Game #11     Kasparov vs Karpov, 1985     1-0

FOOTNOTES

Garry Kasparov, Kasparov v Karpov 1975-85 (Everyman Chess 2009), p.254

In Chess Library Encyclopedia "Anatoly Karpov Chapter 2: Matches, Tournaments, Rivals Part 3"

Garry Kasparov, Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, Part 1: 1973-1985 (Everyman Chess 2011), p.7

Kasparov v Karpov 1975-85 p.277

In Chess Library Encyclopedia "Garry Kasparov Chapter 2: Matches, Tournaments, Rivals Part 3"

In Official Site of the FIDE World Chess Championship Match "Anatoly Karpov - Kasparov September 3 - November 9, 1985 Moscow (USSR)."

"Chess" vol 50, nos. 963-4 (Dec 1985), p.226

Kasparov v Karpov 1975-85 p.272

Kasparov v Karpov 1975-85 p.273

Kasparov v Karpov 1975-85 pp.54, 277

Jan Timman and Cornelius van Wijgerden, (Hilversum: Teleac/NOT 1997), TV episode. "Schaken met Jan Timman" Stonehenge transl.

Dominic Lawson, Financial Times (19 Oct 1985). In "Chess" vol 50, nos. 961-2 (Nov 1985), p.198

The background is that Karpov had advertised chess computers and should have received $446,177.50 by 1981 via middleman Helmut Jungwirth. Jungwirth claimed that he had transferred the money to Karpov. Karpov maintained that he had not received the money and had been deceived by Jungwirth. In the 1988 interview, Karpov explained that he had possessed evidence against Jungwirth and informed the Soviet authorities already in 1984. The article still unsettled Karpov, since it tried to discredit him and insinuated that he may have actually received the money. He was sealed off from the public during the match, but learned about the content of the article very soon after it was published. What Karpov termed the "other side" was anxious to draw his attention to the reports. Karpov filed a lawsuit at the Hamburg court of justice in mid-1985 before a statute of limitation would prevent him doing so, and Jungwirth lost the lawsuit in 1988. Jungwirth had to pay Karpov 800,000 Deutsch Marks, which Karpov pledged to donate to the Soviet Union to support sports, especially chess. Sources: Victor Baturinsky, Das Schachgenie Karpow, Benita Spielhaus transl. (Berlin, Sportverlag 1991), p.157; Toljas Million, Der Spiegel, issue 40, (30 Sept 1985); interview with Karpov by W Harenberg, Diese Affäre kostete mich den Titel, Der Spiegel, issue 52 (26 Dec 1988)

"Chess" vol 50, nos 965-6 (Dec 1985), p.278

Kasparov v Karpov 1975-85 p.392

Kasparov v Karpov 1975-85 p.395

"Chess" vol 50, nos. 963-4 (Dec 1985), p.242

"Chess" vol 50, nos. 963-4 (Dec 1985), p.225

Kasparov v Karpov 1975-85 p.8

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 · Later Kibitzing>
May-26-08		antigravedadx: yeah is a grat match is the best!!!

May-26-08		sitzkrieg: < It's just because Kasparov was so successful disseminating his propaganda it has reached a virtual "everyone-knows-that" status.> Ray Keene?

May-26-08		Petrosianic: <Before claiming too strongly that Karpov received favourable treatment, it should be remembered that FIDE terminated the first KK match in a situation where Karpov was winning> Everybody knows that. It doesn't change the prevailing opinion that the match was stopped to help Karpov, for reasons you are no doubt aware of. Campomanes considered doing the same thing in 1978, but didn't go so far that time. Whether Campomanes <succeeded> in helping Karpov, or whether he ended up hurting him is a separate question. But the intent is clear. <If this had been played out, Kasparov's next chance to become WC would have been 1987, where in fact the scheduled match was drawn 12-12.> If you're implying that Kasparov wouldn't have become world champion even then if the match hadn't been stopped, you're leaving out the tiny detail that Kasparov was the defending champion in that match. A small point but worth mentioning. <Whatever the intentions of FIDE, there is no doubt that Kasparov benefited enormously from the intervention at the expense of Karpov.> Only if you think that there's no question that he'd have gone down to defeat had they not intervened. The moment when he's just won 2 in a row is not exactly the best time to make that particular argument. If the match had been stopped after Game 46, nobody would be saying that they just did it to save Karpov's butt. <The whole rematch-rematch-match against-the-Candidates-winner-thing was stupid of course.> Don't tell me. That didn't help Karpov either. <...But it was somewhat acceptable, since there were no serious challengers to the K&K supremacy at the time.> Isn't the point of a Candidates competition to find out who the serious candidates are? If the rules are set up to benefit those whom we've decided in advance deserve to br there, then there's no point in the competition at all. It would be better to cancel the Candidates altogether and just Karpov a(nother) free shot rather than give him a handicap against players he's supposed to vastly outclass anyway.

Nov-05-08		Honza Cervenka: <<Before claiming too strongly that Karpov received favourable treatment, it should be remembered that FIDE terminated the first KK match in a situation where Karpov was winning> Everybody knows that. It doesn't change the prevailing opinion that the match was stopped to help Karpov, for reasons you are no doubt aware of. Campomanes considered doing the same thing in 1978, but didn't go so far that time.> Campomanes did exactly what Garry Kasparov had suggested to do after the game 47. But this little detail is usually omitted in common narration of the story about cancellation of the first K vs K match by evil commie pro-Karpov Canpomanes-FIDE-KGB-Kremlin clique.

Nov-05-08		Petrosianic: <Campomanes did exactly what Garry Kasparov had suggested to do after the game 47. But this little detail is usually omitted in common narration of the story about cancellation of the first K vs K match by evil commie pro-Karpov Canpomanes-FIDE-KGB-Kremlin clique.> I omitted it because I'm not aware of it. Do you have a cite? People give Campo a hard time for it because he considered doing the exact same thing in 1978, as Korchnoi was closing in. And because he did it over the objections of both players. And because he lied when he did it, saying when he took the stage that he hadn't yet decided what to do, while at the same time, TASS was announcing that he'd cancelled the match. And because he was caught on a live mike telling Karpov "I told them just what you told me to." It's not really that big a mystery why people were upset.

Nov-06-08		Honza Cervenka: Kasparov proposed complete termination of match and a new match with limited number of games starting from 0:0 played later in 1985 to Alfred Kinzel who served during the match as the chairman of the appeals committee after the game 47. There are subsequently conflicting accounts from Kinzel and Gazza of the circumstances and context in which Kasparov proposed that the match should be terminated but the fact that he proposed that is doubtless. For example E. Winter mentions it in The Termination (see http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...) and I have read about it in Jan Plachetka's book about World chess championships "Boje o sachovy tron" (Battles for the chess throne).

Nov-06-08		percyblakeney: Botvinnik said that the match was stopped because Kasparov's chances of winning had become bigger than Karpov's. Not that he has to be right about that, but at least it shows that holding this view doesn't necessarily have to do with having a negative view of Communism or the Soviet system. Karpov's timeouts had become longer and longer, only one game was played during the last twelve days of the match, and it was three months since Karpov's last win while Kasparov won the last two. Kasparov said that he was given the suggestion after the 47th game that eight more games was to be played, and that Karpov would keep his title even if Kasparov went +3 in these games. Kasparov meant that restarting from 0-0 would be a better alternative, but also that he need not feel forced to agree to something after having won the last two games that he might have accepted in an earlier stage of the match, just like a draw offer can't be accepted at a later stage in a game.

Nov-06-08		percyblakeney: So, even if the most negative options for Kasparov were avoided (the Soviet Chess Federation wanted to restart from 5-3 at some later occasion), he hardly got exactly what he wanted either. Among other things FIDE reintroduced the combination of rematch clause, draw odds and "limited match" here. Karpov wouldn't risk tiring in the same way as in the first match, only needed to draw, and if he couldn't do that he had another match coming up. FIDE even declared that Karpov was to be given the title without playing when Kasparov didn't want to defend within three months after this match, but had to retract this statement. Looking at the start of the first match, where Karpov had 5-0 after 27 games, one could imagine that he should have decent chances to stay even after 24 games here. And also in the second match did Kasparov have a worse first than second half. After ten games Karpov was leading, after 15 it was drawn, but Kasparov needed to win and went 3-1 in wins in the last nine games.

Nov-06-08		Honza Cervenka: <Botvinnik said that the match was stopped because Kasparov's chances of winning had become bigger than Karpov's.> Well, Kasparov himself apparently disagreed with Botvinnik then at this particular point as he evaluated his chances to win the match about 25-30 %. Anyway, Kasparov's accounts and especially interpretations of events should be always taken with some dose of scepticism as he is not the most reliable source to put it very mildly. His statements are quite often self-contradictory. For example, in case of Karpov's condition at the end of terminated match he is able to have it in both ways. According to him the match was terminated because Karpov was exhausted and unable to continue in the match without great risk of losing it but elsewhere he can state something like this: "The people around him 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." (GK, Child of Change, p.143) and emphasize the game 48 as an outstanding achievement where he "caught him [i.e. Karpov] out in one mistake" (ibid, p. 125). He never cares much about facts when he is promoting his side of story and he is able to misquote Campomanes' recorded words or Karpov's letter to FIDE in a way that supports his story even in a written book. (See Edward Winter's review of Child of Change at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...) With this in mind it is not easy to take his interpretation of his negotiations with Kinzel without "cum grano salis". Btw, weren't longer and longer "Karpov's timeouts", i.e. interruptions in the match caused by the fact that the organizing committee’s lease on the Hall of Columns elapsed after three months and that both players disagreed with removal of playing hall?

Nov-06-08		percyblakeney: <Well, Kasparov himself apparently disagreed with Botvinnik then at this particular point as he evaluated his chances to win the match about 25-30 %.> This is often quoted but should maybe not be seen as some definitive evaluation since it was what Kasparov said at the press conference, concluding that he was stopped because he finally had some winning chances in the match, maybe 25-30%. He did also say on the same occasion that he would win easily if the match continued, and various other things that should be taken with a pinch of salt as well. <Kasparov's accounts and especially interpretations of events should be always taken with some dose of scepticism> Absolutely. <Btw, weren't longer and longer "Karpov's timeouts", i.e. interruptions in the match caused by the fact that the organizing committee’s lease on the Hall of Columns elapsed after three months and that both players disagreed with removal of playing hall?> A couple of the timeouts were caused by that, and some by Campomanes personally, according to Mark Weeks. Karpov took a timeout after the 47th game, and Kasparov took timeouts as well so it wasn't only Karpov that needed some rest. Most people say that Karpov was much more tired by then, but statements concerning his being unable to continue the match at all at this stage seem to be fairly unreliable.

Nov-06-08		acirce: <HR: Focusing on that press conference, if you had to do it again, would you do it differently? GK: No. I think my instincts worked well. Actually, I made a pretty decent statement. Some people have tried to use it against me, when I said – my chances to win are twenty-five to thirty percent but for the first time I had the chance. Some of my opponents said that I was still downgrading my chances; it’s not that he was winning. The message was yes its twentyfive to thirty percent, but it’s the first time in six months I have a shot. Twenty-five percent is a decent chance for someone who was trailing 5-0. HR: I agree, but the math is pretty hard to get around. GK: I think now that my chances probably would have been better because Karpov psychologically was in shock.> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt...

Nov-06-08		acirce: <Botvinnik said that the match was stopped because Kasparov's chances of winning had become bigger than Karpov's. Not that he has to be right about that, but at least it shows that holding this view doesn't necessarily have to do with having a negative view of Communism or the Soviet system.> Of course it doesn't necessarily have to do with that. Botvinnik was Kasparov's long-standing teacher and mentor and at this time they still had good relations. The former did have good relations with Karpov too but that had already started to change before the match. And of course Kasparov himself was a member of the Communist Party and viewed himself as a loyal Soviet citizen. Who knows what he really thought though. (I'm also not saying that the "Communist Party" was still really Communist.) Incidentally Kasparov is talking about this as well in the interview I just linked to: <HR: On page 146, in your notes to the twentieth match game, you had white, after 14 Rb1!? you write, “the 13th game went 14 Ba3 Nc6 with equality. When I spoke on the telephone to Botvinnik after it, I was taken aback by the question: ‘What would you have done if White had played 14 Rb1 ?’ I wasn’t able to answer immediately, and we decided to analyse this position.” It’s a little unclear, when did you speak with Botvinnik? GK: After game thirteen. HR: Tell us about that. What are the circumstances surrounding a conversation between you and the ex-world champion? GK: I spoke with him regularly. We had excellent relations and he was always helpful by offering his advice throughout almost all my career prior to the world championship match. HR: Is it safe to day that before the match he is a supporter of you to win? GK: Absolutely.> ------- <With Karpov I had good relations, but then they began to deteriorate when he started asserting that there was no such thing as the Soviet School of Chess. And later, when he began oppressing Kasparov, I took Kasparov's side, since I considered that they should be in equal conditions.> (Botvinnik, soon before his death, published in New In Chess 1995/5) <And when I became World Champion, Mikhail Moiseevich did not conceal his pleasure. After all, Karpov was not a researcher and in his interviews he called Botvinnik's time the stagecoach era, letting it be known that there was no point in doing serious analytical work. His defeat was therefore to some extent a triumph for the principles of the sixth champion.> (Kasparov, OMGP II) -------- <"The people around him 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." (GK, Child of Change, p.143) and emphasize the game 48 as an outstanding achievement where he "caught him [i.e. Karpov] out in one mistake" (ibid, p. 125).> Yes, this is what he is still saying today. In his recent book on the first two matches against Karpov he calls the 48th and last game the best of the whole match - not just <his> best, <the> best. <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 [...]>

Jul-28-10		GrahamClayton: Here is a photo of the players at the board: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/gal...

Aug-17-10		GrahamClayton: Kasparov's comments on becoming World Champion in "Ultimate Challenge": "When we got back to our 'palace' I went through room after room for fifteen minutes, just screaming and yelling out of pure animal joy. Victory! I don't expect I shall ever experience such a whirlwind of feeling again. It is enough to have felt it just once in your life. People ask if it was like falling in love. I have to say that it was even better than that; you've proved that you're the best in the world, you've finally achieved the target you set yourself many years before, you've overcome every obstacle on the way there, and you know that no one and nothing, no matter what happens in the rest of your life, can take this achievement away, that you have become part of history. The euphoria continued throughout the night as an endless stream of congratulations and telephone calls poured in."

Feb-21-15		Oliveira: What a well-rounded, lively summary piece! Well done <Chessgames.com>

Oct-02-15		Paraconti: Campomanes should have halted the match for 6 months and have it resumed at 5-3. That would've helped Karpov tremendously!

Oct-02-15		offramp: <Paraconti: Campomanes should have halted the match for 6 months and have it resumed at 5-3. That would've helped Karpov tremendously!> When the score reached 5-3 Kasparov had won.

Oct-02-15		HeMateMe: <When the score reached 5-3 Kasparov had won.> That's what I thought. That's why Karpomanes killed the match.

Oct-02-15		offramp: <HeMateMe: <When the score reached 5-3 Kasparov had won.> That's what I thought. That's why Karpomanes killed the match.> Kasparov won the 24th and final game to make the score 5-3.

Nov-10-15		kamagong24: Thirty years ago today! Hard to believe, but it was that long ago when I won the World Championship against Anatoly Karpov. November 9, 1985 at the Tchaikovsky Hall in Moscow. Karpov resigned game 24 at 9:54pm Moscow time... - Kasparov

Nov-11-15		chancho: Video of the moment when Karpov resigned the final game, and closing ceremony: https://www.facebook.com/GKKasparov...

Oct-18-18		AylerKupp: After Kasparov won the 22nd game the score was 12.5-9.5 and he had won the match since the best that Karpov could do by winning the last 2 games was 12.5-11.5. Does anyone have any idea why the last 2 games were played? The match description above says that "FIDE instituted a 24 game <limit>", indicating that the players needed to play at <most> 24 games. Or was the match supposed to last 24 games regardless of the score? In the latter case if Kasparov had won the match by the highly unlikely score of 24-0 it certainly would have been embarrassing for Karpov at best. Just remember the treatment that Taimanov got after losing to Fischer 0-6!

Oct-18-18		MissScarlett: Karpov won the 22nd game....

Oct-18-18		Keyser Soze: For my count had Karpov won the last game the match would be tied..

Oct-19-18		AylerKupp: <MissScarlett>, <Keyser Soze> My bad. I erroneously looked at my spreadsheet listing the results of the WC Matches and I clicked on the link for Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Rematch (1986) instead of the link for Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1985). In the latter Kasparov was ahead 11.5 – 9.5 after 21 games but Karpov won the 22nd game to make the score 11½ – 10½ So of course they had to play the 23rd game which, since it ended in a draw, made the score 12.0 – 11.0 in Kasparov's favor. So, if Karpov had won the 24th game he would had retained the title since under that matches rules the champion would retain And I looked at Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Rematch (1986) again and <there> the score was tied at 10½ - 10½ after the 21st game and it was Kasparov who won the 22nd game to make the score 11½ - 10½. So of course they had to play the 23d game. After they drew that one, Kasparov only needed a draw in the last game to retain the title because the draw clause was also in effect. So, it was a dumb question on my part in the first place and I can see the look of puzzlement on your faces but thanks for setting me straight.

search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 · 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!