what the hell right do they have to determine the final of candidates tournament? They mutually agreed to make their life easier and so was done?

He worded it very badly, but clearly he's asking why the winner of a the candidates didn't get an automatic title shot, as such winners always had in the past.

One could reasonably argue that the Candidates winner should have got his title shot as always, and the loser of Karpov-Kasparov been seeded into the next candidates (again, as always).

Fischer was absolutely right in ignoring FIDE. Such a certian country favoured organisation should be said "f.ck off." How could they could have supported Karpov more?

<In the 7th game, Karpov was fully prepared for my new move [9...Nb6], which my trainers and I had looked at a few hours before the start of play.> This is from a comment on this page. It seems that Kasparov had looked at a variation just a few hours before the game and somehow Karpov, in just a few hours, was able to get access to all that information and also analyze it deeper. It's clear now that Karpov hacked into Kasparov's computer and stole all the preparation. He also had access to a time machine so he traveled to the future and used Stockfish to find holes in Kasparov's preparation.

Map makers have been to known to put in deliberate mistakes so fake copiers can be prosecuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_...

One of the things I recall from Kasparov's claim that a second was feeding Karpov's team was the fact that a Bishop move in an opening they were studying was considered good so they worked out a plan against it.

It was discovered the Bishop move was actually not good.

However come the game and Karpov played the same Bishop move and then an anti plan to Kasparov's plan.

This blunder by Kasparov team was 'apparently' given to Karpov's team who took it at face value and worked on it.

The move in question was 12...Bd7 in this game.

Kasparov vs Karpov, 1986

Kasparov's notes (in his London-Leningrad 1986 book) say:

"It's paradoxical, but a fact, that in our preparations we too regarded this move as best. 12..Qc7 was recommended by commentators and in subsequent analysis a way of developing White's initiative could not be found."

In his 1990 Autobiography he says he had found the mole, Yevgeniy Vladimirov (based by the way on some pretty flimsy evidence) and recalling this game added.

"So it was not just the analysis that coincided, it was also the holes in the analysis."

Basically if there was a mole in Kasparov's camp, it appears he picked up a 'spelling mistake' passed it onto to team Karpov who in turn reproduced the 'spelling mistake.'

I'm of the opinion this is just great players paranoia (they all have it) clutching at straws to explain a later 3 straight defeats.

But Karpov was not averse to playing with Gary's mind.

When the London to Leningrad plane landed (during the flight Gary says he and Karpov played cards together) a limousine with a military escort was laid on for the challenger Karpov. Kasparov, the champion, was given an ordinary Volga with no escort.

Kapsarov thinks this snub was arranged by FIDE or the city elders of Leningrad, but would they really do that?

I reckon it was a relatively easy to organise brilliant ploy by team Karpov to upset Gary.

Kasparov wasnt past his prime vs Kramnik, so your comment makes no sense.

In fact he was at his highest elo ever or very close.

That deas fish stayed No.1 in the world until retirement.

In a droll vein, the title character of the Steinbeck short story <Johnny Bear> was a savant who could repeat music, inter alia.

I just feel at this stage of his career, it was a bridge too far for Karpov to fight Kasparov and overcome him. Karpov was already 35 with a lot of battle scars and mileage in him.

He was a very active World Champion and played a lot of chess during his decade of total supremacy.

It was too much to ask to fight an equally talented player who was much younger and much fresher than he was. When Karpov was younger, he used to make the best moves almost instantly but by this time period, he routingly was in time trouble difficulty. If they were a bit closer in age, this would have been an even more incredible rivalry.

I think that if Karpov also could have been 21-24 years old during their matches 1984-87 this would have been much to Kasparov’s advantage, just like Kasparov being 33-36 instead also would have been to his advantage.

I don’t think one should deduce too much about Kasparov’s playing strength based on that one result though. In July 1999 which he considered his peak time Kasparov had a lead of 80 Elo on the rating list, ahead of Anand, who by most are considered top ten among the greatest ever. On the next rating list in 2000 his lead was even bigger with Anand in second.

Karpov was first ahead of Timman, Tal and Korchnoi in 1976-83, but often the margin was rather slender. 5-10 Elo ahead of Korchnoi on some lists, 20 ahead of Tal in 1980, etc. But he was also once 60 Elo ahead of Korchnoi and 45 ahead of Timman in his biggest leads. But then Timman was no Anand, and Korchnoi was 50 when he was 5 Elo behind Karpov.

First he picked Kramnik as his second and prepared openings together, then he picked him as one of only two participants in the Candidates, and then gave him the title match in spite of losing said Candidates, and then played far below his usual level in the match, even taking draws with white in 11-14 moves in must win games.