<Tab> No no no- Daniel loves your work on the candidates cycles. I guarantee it.

Everyone loves your work on the candidates cycles and your work on the 2,000 other Tournament projects you do.

If you stop those Herculean efforts the whole website will collapse. Your work on this is of the highest order, and an invaluable contribution not just to this website, but to chess history.

Never forget to remind yourself: "I'm a chess historian. I do what I want."

Who says this isn't a macho discipline.

Please don't worry about too many resources being devoted to the WCC intros. Though it might not seem like it, I have secretly been funneling much of my time to help with these candidates matches.

On that topic, I will indeed bring up the TOP SECRET STANDARDIZATION ISSUE again. But first, let's pow wow over in your forum.

Welcome back sir! We are all working hard to prepare your fine Game Collection: Game Collection: WCC: Karpov-Kasparov, 1985

Please look carefully at what we've done so far in the mirror?

We will send your <K-K 1985> in next, but first we have to finish it.

If you look carefully at the mirror, you can see that I posted a few questions that you could help us with?

It would have probably been better to mark the part originally from the 1985 match as supplementary material for the 1984/85 draft. The way it is, it looks like a draft itself and so causes misunderstandings.

<Chessical>

2 Kasparov had vociferously objected to FIDE’s first choice of Svetozar Gligoric and Anton Kinzel...Did Kasparov mean they supported Campomanes' decision to halt the 1984-1985 match? - <I used "believed" as this is what Kasparov's account states, but I have no direct evidence on what exactly Gligoric and Kinzel did or did not do. Whatever, it is the reason he gave to oppose their continued participation in the championship">.

3 <At the mid-point of the match “...all indications suggested that the most interesting stage was yet to come...The intensity of the struggle was to grow from game to game...” (p.343 “Kasparov v Karpov 1975-85”).> This is a Kasparov quote, right? <Yes, it is a Kasparov quote>

4 Further conditions for match: Number of games, time control?

<In July 1985, the FIDE Executive council had convened in Tunisia to determine the format of the next world championship cycle. They decided that instead of an unlimited match format the winner was to be the player who scored the best of 24 games, and in the case of a tie the reigning champion Karpov would retain the title. Karpov as reigning champion would also have an automatic right of rematch. In August 1985, and only three days before the start of the second match, the termination of its precursor was endorsed by FIDE’s AGM in Graz. They also ruled that in the case of a draw Karpov would remain champion, but if he lost he would be seeded directly into the Candidates Event at the quarter final stage (p.8, “Kasparov v Karpov 1986-87”).>

The project of a match between Alekhine and Euwe, about which prenegotiations took place in Amsterdam, has to be taken completely serious. The world champion has agreed in principle to play against Euwe, if he beats Bogoljubov. The length of the match (30 games) and the interrelated conditions have been agreed upon already.

The whole prize fund of their 1986 world championship match in London was donated by both, Karpov and Kasparov, to the Chernobyl funds.

When asked about the hostility between Kasparov and him, Karpov pointed towards Kasparov's social environment. The interviewer then asked, if he meant Kasparov's mother. Karpov names Alexander Nikitin, who acted upon Kasparov's mother.

Karpov recalls an incident from the 1987 match in Seville. In game 2 - Kasparov vs Karpov, 1987 - Kasparov forgot to press his clock. Karpov didn't notify him. Kasparov, who lost that game, already had a hopeless position when he forgot to press the clock according to Karpov and also the Seville match books. Yet, Kasparov played up the clock incident.

Karpov said, that he had wanted to play against Fischer and that's why he met with him 3 times to persuade him. He believes that Fischer was slightly stronger than him in 1975, assessing chances 60 to 40% in Fischer's favor. He believes that he was stronger than Fischer in 1976.

Kasparov accused his former second Evgeny Vladimirov of (1) having secretly worked for Karpov and (2) was later employed in Karpov's team, working together with him in the training camps in Tashkent and Odessa. Karpov answers that he knew Vladimirov from Soviet youth teams. Vladimirov was neither Karpov's spy, nor did he belong to his team in Tashkent or Odessa. Kasparov needed a scapegoat, because he didn't win the match in Seville. According to Karpov [and, btw., Kasparov himself], Kasparov had never any evidence for these accusations. Karpov never thought about asking Vladimirov for help and he had lately seen him only once, when they played for the same team at the European Championship. Karpov never saw the recordings, Vladimirov had made as Kasparov's trainer.

He asks Karpov about Tofik Dadashev, the clairvoyant who had once been employed by Kasparov, but was now allegedly working for Karpov. Karpov says that he saw him in the playing hall several times, also during the 22nd game in Leningrad of the 1986 match. Karpov considered Dadashev's presence to be a strain, pressure. Rumour has it, that Dadashev switched over to Karpov some time between the 3rd and 4th match, i. e. 1986/87. Karpov denies that. Dadashev was not his counsellor. He just came to him, because he felt guilty due to the aforementioned 22nd game. Karpov only wanted to know, what he had told Kasparov about him, which of Karpov's weaknesses he had examined. (Karpov mentions that Smyslov got red ears, when he had a bad position).

Regarding the cancelled match 1984/85, Karpov considers the cancellation to have been a great mistake. When he ought to agree to the cancellation, the cancellation had already been decided upon. Kasparov should thank Campomanes for the cancellation and light a candle in a church for him, instead of publicly attacking him. The cancellation was the worst possible decision. Both were exhausted, but Karpov needed only one more win, while Kasparov needed three - so every mistake could have ended the match for Kasparov.

<Karpova> Extremely helpful, thank you!

Here is another item concerning Game Collection: WCC: Kasparov - Karpov 1986

LA Times AP report:

LONDON — Champion Gary Kasparov and challenger Anatoly Karpov adjourned the 10th game of the world chess championship Friday, and experts said the game is likely to end in a draw. The game is to be resumed today, but some commentators said they thought the players would agree to a tie without playing further.

Kasparov, playing white in the 10th game, holds a 5-4 lead.

The champion arrived at the board first, and Karpov was more than three minutes late. In a gesture of sportsmanship, however, Kasparov did not play a move when his clock was started, but allowed his own time to run until Karpov arrived. Kasparov then pushed his queen's pawn forward two squares.

The opening followed a well-known variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined, until Karpov played a new move on his 13th. Kasparov thought for 14 minutes about his reply, and later established a strong knight in the center.

The winner of the match will be the first player to score six victories or 12 1/2 points. Winning a game is worth one point; a draw is worth half a point.

And another:

Robert Byrne, "Kasparov Ferocious in 16th Game" <New York Times 17 Sept 1986> http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/17/n...

KASPAROV FEROCIOUS IN 16TH GAME
By ROBERT BYRNE
Published: September 17, 1986

Gary Kasparov's ferociously complicated attacking play in the 16th game of the world chess championship match sent Anatoly Karpov down to defeat Monday in Leningrad.

Kasparov, the 23-year-old champion, has taken a three-point lead, to virtually assure himself of triumph in the contest.

The score is now 9 1/2 to 6 1/2. Kasparov has won four games to the 35-year-old former champion's one. The other games were draws.

It takes six victories or 12 1/2 points to win the match. Each victory counts as a point; a draw awards each player a half-point. If the series reaches a 12-12 tie, Kasparov would keep his title.

Reliance on Favorite Defense

Karpov resorted to his favorite Flohr-Zaitsev Defense with 9. . . B-N2 against the Ruy Lopez, as he had in the 14th game. The play took only 11 minutes for the first 17 moves, duplicating the earlier game.

However, this time, Kasparov made no attempt to clarify the position by interpolating 18 PxP, PxP, but directly played 18 N-Q4. Karpov tried a new placement for his queen with 18. . . Q-B3 in the hope of providing a better defense for his king.

The former champion was, in general, using the same strategy as before, sacrificing a pawn - this time by 19. . . N-B4; 20 PxP, PxP; 21 NxP - to take a grip on his Q6 square with his knights.

Had Karpov tried 23. . . N/5-Q6, Kasparov could have obtained a slight material advantage with 24 NxP!?, BxN; 25 BxN, BxB; 26 RxB, NxR; 27 QxN. Break in the Center

On 23. . . R-N1, Kasparov broke open the center at once with 24 P-K5, PxP; 25 NxKP, and Karpov brought a knight to the promised square with 25. . . N/5-Q6. After 26 N-N4, Q-QN3, 27 R-N3, it was evident that Kasparov intended to throw everything at the black king position.

Karpov might have tried 27. . . N-K5, except for 28 NxP!, BxN; 29 BxN, NxR; 30 BxB, which yields White a bishop and two pawns for a rook. However, it is not clear why he did not defend by 27. . . K-R1, unless he believed that his alternative, 27. . . P-N3, would give him winning chances after 28 BxP, QxP.

Kasparov pressed his attack unflinchingly with 29 Q-B3, yet there is some question whether Karpov could not immediately grab the sacrificed piece by 29. . . QxN! because 30 N-B6ch, K-R1; 31 Q-R5, RxBch; 32 K-R2, R-R8ch!; 33 KxR, NxPch; 34 K-R2, QxRch!; 35 KxQ, PxQ costs White a piece.

Of course, at this stage of the game, Karpov was already in time pressure and was surely looking for variations that did not demand exact calculation. Three Minutes Left

After 30 BxB, he might have tried 30. . . RxB, but 31 N-R6ch, K-N2; 32 N-B5ch, K-R2 (33. . . K-B3; 34 N-K3ch, K-N2; 35 N/K3xP!, BxN; 36 BxN, QxN; 37 BxB gives White a two-pawn advantage); 33 Q-K3, Q-B8ch; 34 QxQ, NxQ; 35 N-Q4 leaves Black a pawn down.

Had Karpov accepted the sacrifice with 31. . . QxN, he would have had to face 32 N-R6, N/2-K4; 33 Q-B6!, threatening both 34 RxP! and 34 P-Q6!

After Kasparov's 32 BxN, Karpov was down to three minutes to make the time control at move 40. The former champion could have avoided direct attack by 32. . . RxB; 33 Q-B4, RxR, but then 34 Q-Q6ch, K-K1; 35 KxR keeps Black behind in material.

Finally, Karpov seized the long-trapped knight with 33. . . QxN, but on 34 N-R6!, Kasparov's attack could not be contained. After 34. . . Q-K2; 35 RxP! the defense was doomed, because 35. . . Q-K4 was crushed by 36 R-N8ch, K-K2; 37 P-Q6ch!

Karpov could not capture with 37. . . QxP, because of 38 N-B5ch, nor by 37. . . KxP, because of 38 NxPch. The only alternative, 37. . . K-K3, got a rook and a bishop for the queen after 38 R-K8ch, K-Q4; 39 RxQch, NxR, but 40 P-Q7! forced additional enormous gain of material.

Of course, 40. . . NxP drops a rook to 41 QxPch, but after 40. . . R-N1; 41 NxP, Karpov could neither defend his knight, nor play 41. . . NxN in view of 42 QxR. The former champion gave up.

"Chess Library" Encyclopedia chapters on Kasparov:

"K" means "Vendetta." Karpov and Kasparov became the heroes of anecdotes

In the article of Rainer Buland, I didn't find much.

---

Page 22: He quotes <Sauberer, Schach-Lang-Läufer (2013), pp. 91-97> saying that Bogoljubov was able to fulfill Alekhine's financial demands thanks to German patrons.

---

I also found a reference to <S G Tartakower, Im Zeichen des ewigen Schachs, Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1934, p. 8>, who notes that the forthcoming match sets 3 precedents:

1) You are allowed to challenge the world champion without a firm basis yet, and only after he accepted you look for / create such a basis somwhere and somehow.

2) Therefore, the financial basis of the London Rules is invalid.

3) The world champion agrees to play in his challenger's country.

http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

The way Tartakower writes it, point 2 seems to follow from point 1.

---

Page 27: The Badische Schachverband managed to organize the world championship almost by himself. that's why the GSB, but also the Berlin and the North German Chess Federations felt hurt. Berlin became a game location only very late, and had the highest risk - the last games may not be played at all.

---

Page 29: Quoting <Sauberer, Schach-Lang-Läufer (2013), pp. 91-117> again: 40,000 Reichsmark (about 200,000 Euros) - a lot of money for a chess event in the 1930s. But this sum appears to encompass the money necessary for the whole event.

---

<Karpova> Not much? I call that a lot!!

I have a question- is the "Badische Schachverband" the chess federation of Baden?

Remember in the recent Chess Note that <Alekhine> mentioned in his radio broadcast that the "State of Baden" had guaranteed the match?

That item from page 27 also appears to silence some of the speculation that since the <GSB> was a well-funded Nazi party organ, it "must have" funded the match according to what <Alekhine> may have demanded- presumably the London Rules figure of the $10,000 purse. If they "felt hurt" this suggests they didn't fund the match, right? And they "felt hurt" because they didn't get credit for organizing the match.

So the question is still open of whether or not the equivalent of $10,000 US plus player travel expenses and accomodation was raised, with the purse split according to the London Rules formula. We still don't have a source that actually says that.

But I get the sense that more money was raised than in the 1929 match, where the financial conditions stipulated that <Alekhine> got $6,000 dollars win or lose, with <Bogoljubov> getting any surplus.

This is extremely valuable information you have posted.

Yes, the Badische Schachverband is the Baden Chess Federation.

On page 146, it says that the Baden Chess Federation arranged the match (to be exact, the Baden Chess Federation in the GSB).

They say (p. 27) that the GSB was not the driving force behind the arrangement and financing of the world championship. The GSB was not too enthusiastic about it for a long time, also because it was possible to do it without them. They admit that there are no direct sources, but studying the contemporaneous chess periodicals leads to the strong implication that the Berlin and North German Chess Federations would have felt hurt, had the Baden Chess Federation managed all of this on his own.

Otto Zander is quoted on p. 28 and his words were harsh. The goal of the GSB was to promote chess among the German manual workers (? <Handarbeiter>), and the world championship match does not lay on the way to this goal. Zander was against promoting the match himself or even grant <Bundesmittel> for it.

However, he leaves it to the chairman of the Baden Chess Federation to arrange the match in the territory of the Baden Chess Federation. He goes on to say that Dr. Kraft tried so at first, but financial difficulties made him look for game locations outside of Baden - by doing so, he didn't act as a chairman, but as a private man and this led to conflicts with other Chess Federations.

<Karpova>

Excellent, thank you.

Originally from 'La Strategie': According to the finally determined conditions, Steinitz and Chigorin will not just play a number of games, but a real match. Both masters will contribute $600 each to the purse. In addition to the amount of money the players have to raise, the Havana Chess Club, in whose rooms the match will be played, will pay for every game 100 Frs. to the winner and 50 Frs. to the loser. In case of a draw, each player receives 50 Frcs.. The Havana Chess Club also pays both master's travel expenses. During his stay, Chigorin will play matches against the Club's strongest players and give Simul and Blindfold exhibitions.

The match had to be interrupted at game 16, since Chigorin became sick (<da Tschigorin unwohl wurde.>)

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 24 February 1889, issues 7/8, p. 67, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche...

--

Steinitz won the match by scoring 10.5 points after 17 games, i. e. more than 50% with 20 games to be played overall.

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 10 March 1889, issue 10, p. 84, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche...

--

Later follows a longer article on the Steinitz-Chigorin 1889 match, which I will look at later. Source: Horatio Caro, Der Wettkampf zwischen Steinitz und Tschigorin, Deutsches Wochenschach, 24 March 1889, issues 11/12, pp. 86-91, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche...

--

The match was indeed declared won for Steinitz and ended after the drawn game 17 with 10.5 out of 20 possible points. They note that sources were partly `Times Democrat', 'Rivista de Ajedrez' and the 'International Chess Magazine'.

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 24 March 1889, issues 11/12, p. 104, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche...

--