Kasparov vs Karpov, 1984

[Cyrus]

This started in SMP (link) but the proper forum for a debate is probably here. As chess aficionados among you probably know, there was in 1984 a controversial decision by FIDE president Campomanes to abort the match for the world championship between champion Karpov and contender Kasparov, when the score was 5-3 for Karpov.

It was a match under "Fischer rules", i.e. with only wins to count. Karpov built an early 4-0 lead but a string of draws kept his next win until the 27th game, whereby he was leading by 5-0. Kasparov won the 32nd game, and, after another sting of wins which took the match to five months, won the 47th and the 48th games. (Not "three wins in a row" as many people mistakenly assert.)

At that time, citing as reasons the "physical condition" of the contestants, Campomanes, the Philippine president of FIDE, aborted the match.

I submit that the FIDE decision was more beneficial to Kasparov than to Karpov.

1. People focus on the "Kasparov comeback" but neglect the fact that the match was not interrupted (to continue at some later date, after the contestants had ostensibly "recovered") but aborted completely! The contenders would have to start anew from 0-0, which was surely an injustice to the player leading by 5-3 at the time of interruption. Kasparov himself stated (Child of Change, p. 133), "In a way this wasn't so bad for me. I was sure I would win the second match. I had become much wiser that at the beginning of this one. And to start playing again at 0-0 was better than 5-3 against."

2. Karpov needed only 1 more win, to Kasparov's 3 to win the match. Even if Karpov was indeed physically deteriorating, he was till a 3:1 favourite in the arithmetic. Kasparov himself estimated his chances of winning the match, were it not aborted, at "about 25 or 30%" (p. 141, ibid.)

3. Karpov was most probably NOT "deteriorating physically" as subsequently claimed by his various critics and adversaries (such as Kasparov or the odious Raymond Keene). What better evidence about Karpov's state of physical and mental health during the latter stages of the match than ..Kasparov himself ?

[ QUOTE ]
[From pp. 124-125 and p. 143 of Child of Change :]
Some people ... have claimed that the quality of the chess at the end was very poor, showing that the champion must have been very sick and that my victories were a fluke. This is not borne out by close analysis. GMs have picked out the following games for outstanding technical expertise, brilliant ideas or sheer sporting excitement: Numbers 6, 9, 27, 32, 36, and crucially 48 -- the very last one.

The people around Karpov couldn't understand what was happening. Because he had beaten me so easily in the early games, they assumed he must be unwell to be losing at the end. But Karpov himself knew better. ... He knew it was my chess that was beating him.

[/ QUOTE ]4. Was Kasparov in good physical and mental shape at the end of the match ? Possibly not.

[ QUOTE ]
[From a Kasparov interview to New In Chess, 1985, with Gary referring to himself in the third person :]
Exhaustion did exist anyway ... Psychological exhaustion increased even when a game was not so intense, because the match lasted a long time, and the responsibility was great. One could not relax and had to think about the match all the time. One's brain was working, and the nervous tension did not stop, not even for a moment.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, that's the evidence, or at least most of it. (Gratefully lifted from Edward Winter's exemplary Kings, Commoners and Knaves.) Kasparov eventually became world champion and proved to be among the greatest and possibly the greatest champion of all*. But at the time, in his match against Karpov, he was not the favourite to win it.

--Cyrus

* Kasparov is notorious for contradicting himself about chess personalities. But here is his opinion on Robert Fischer in 1990:

[ QUOTE ]
[From p.275 of Mortal Games] :
Bobby [Fischer] says that he is not sure he could have beaten Capablanca. Ridiculous. He would have won easily ... To compare players from different eras makes no sense ... The only way to judge the old players is relative to the other players of their period. Fischer was far ahead of the other players of his day. By this measure, I consider him the greatest world champion.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MicroBob]

I haven't studied this controversy enough.

I had always previously assumed based on my extremely limited knowledge that the Campomanes decision was done due to his preference for Karpov.

Interesting tht Kasparov still considered himself to be that significant an underdog in spite of having all momentum.

In Campomanes was so concerned about the health and well-being of the combatants could he not have just delayed the match a month or two?


I've read up a bit more on the famous Fischer/Spassky '73 match but this one in '84 is really worth learning more about as it strikes me as being almost as interesting and dramatic.


What on earth was this topic doing in SMP in the first place?

[Dale]

I won't be able to find a source for this, but I think Lev Alburt said that Botvinnik told Kasparov to make 20 draws in a row, and that would enable him to outlast Karpov. The reason? The champ was using amphetamines.

At the time, Kasparov was quite angry, because the match had been stopped at the first moment, after months and months, when he had a reasonable chance to win.

[Utah]

Hi Cyrus,

Cool post. However, your analysis doesn't seem to get to the heart of the decision. Why cancel for any other reason than the one given?

[MicroBob]

Right. If Kasparov himself was that angry when it was cancelled then this seems contrary to his statement that he only gave himself a 25-30% chance to win.

If he really thought this then why would he be angry?

And my hunch is that Karpov was indeed truly relieved that he was able to cling to his title with this weird decision because I really doubt he believed he was a 70% favorite at that point.
Wasn't he just looking terrible by the end of this thing? If he had no energy left then how on earth was he going to muster one more win against Kaspy?


I think that just going by wins was really stupid of them anyway. But not nearly as stupid as that weird NCAA single-elim bracket-stuff they've been doing.

I stopped following chess awhile ago but I believe they are still using this embarassingly poor format.

[atrifix]

I have not played or studied chess in some time, so it will be difficult for me to have a serious debate replete with sources. But I'll give you my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
I submit that the FIDE decision was more beneficial to Kasparov than to Karpov.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that chess is quite like poker, e.g., what is +EV for one player must be -EV for the other one. In this case both players and the rest of the chess world were unhappy with the decision. It seems the only one who was happy with it was Campomanes.

[ QUOTE ]
1. People focus on the "Kasparov comeback" but neglect the fact that the match was not interrupted (to continue at some later date, after the contestants had ostensibly "recovered") but aborted completely! The contenders would have to start anew from 0-0, which was surely an injustice to the player leading by 5-3 at the time of interruption. Kasparov himself stated (Child of Change, p. 133), "In a way this wasn't so bad for me. I was sure I would win the second match. I had become much wiser that at the beginning of this one. And to start playing again at 0-0 was better than 5-3 against."

[/ QUOTE ]

To postpone the match would have been terribly unfair to Kasparov. There had already been several timeouts in the match, and Kasparov had just won 3 games. To give Karpov a 5-month break would have been ludicrous. Aborting the match was not a particularly good compromise, but it was better than continuing it later.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Karpov needed only 1 more win, to Kasparov's 3 to win the match. Even if Karpov was indeed physically deteriorating, he was till a 3:1 favourite in the arithmetic. Kasparov himself estimated his chances of winning the match, were it not aborted, at "about 25 or 30%" (p. 141, ibid.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read this book, but I have to figure that Kasparov was much better than 25% to win the match. It is true that the arithmetic was in Karpov's favor, but it had been in Karpov's favor for 5 months and he was not showing any signs of winning the match. Granted, he only needed one win, but Kasparov had the initiative in the match. All the commentators agreed that Kasparov was a favorite despite his 5-3 deficit.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Karpov was most probably NOT "deteriorating physically" as subsequently claimed by his various critics and adversaries (such as Kasparov or the odious Raymond Keene). What better evidence about Karpov's state of physical and mental health during the latter stages of the match than ..Kasparov himself ?

[ QUOTE ]
[From pp. 124-125 and p. 143 of Child of Change :]
Some people ... have claimed that the quality of the chess at the end was very poor, showing that the champion must have been very sick and that my victories were a fluke. This is not borne out by close analysis. GMs have picked out the following games for outstanding technical expertise, brilliant ideas or sheer sporting excitement: Numbers 6, 9, 27, 32, 36, and crucially 48 -- the very last one.

The people around Karpov couldn't understand what was happening. Because he had beaten me so easily in the early games, they assumed he must be unwell to be losing at the end. But Karpov himself knew better. ... He knew it was my chess that was beating him.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this at all. Yes, it was Kasparov's chess that was beating him--I doubt Karpov would have lost 3 games to an 1800 patzer, even were he on his deathbed, and Kasparov was a terribly strong player even in 1984. But Karpov's health was clearly detereorating. He lost 22 pounds (around 15-20% of his body weight) during the match and had been hospitalized several times. If my memory is correct he was hospitalized at the time when Campomanes stopped the match. Often chess players will want to say that their health has no bearing on their play, that they can play even in the toughest of conditions, but I don't believe it. I think Tal could have been the dominant player of his era if he wasn't always in such bad health.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Was Kasparov in good physical and mental shape at the end of the match ? Possibly not.

[ QUOTE ]
[From a Kasparov interview to New In Chess, 1985, with Gary referring to himself in the third person :]
Exhaustion did exist anyway ... Psychological exhaustion increased even when a game was not so intense, because the match lasted a long time, and the responsibility was great. One could not relax and had to think about the match all the time. One's brain was working, and the nervous tension did not stop, not even for a moment.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, that's the evidence, or at least most of it. (Gratefully lifted from Edward Winter's exemplary Kings, Commoners and Knaves.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This I will agree with--a 5-month world championship match probably takes a toll on anyone, regardless of how young they are. I don't know what the effect of the match was on Kasparov, but it is probable that he was also exhausted. However, Kasparov's decline in health did not compare to the extreme breakdown that Karpov suffered.

[ QUOTE ]
Kasparov eventually became world champion and proved to be among the greatest and possibly the greatest champion of all*. But at the time, in his match against Karpov, he was not the favourite to win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what would have happened in the match. I don't think it is quantifiable to say that Kasparov was a 55%-45% favorite, or whatever. My opinion is that if the match had continued as scheduled, Kasparov would have been the favorite.

[ QUOTE ]
[From p.275 of Mortal Games] :
Bobby [Fischer] says that he is not sure he could have beaten Capablanca. Ridiculous. He would have won easily ... To compare players from different eras makes no sense ... The only way to judge the old players is relative to the other players of their period. Fischer was far ahead of the other players of his day. By this measure, I consider him the greatest world champion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with Kasparov there; by that measure, Philidor would have been the overwhelming favorite to beat Morphy and Fischer. I don't think anyone ever believed that Fischer could offer knight odds (or even pawn odds) to Smyslov or Botvinnik and win. I do consider Fischer to be the greatest world champion, though.

[atrifix]

Regarding the health of the players:

Without respect to what happened in this match, Karpov's weak health was well known, I think even by 1984. Longer matches were not his forte. In addition to that, Karpov was 33 and Kasparov was only 21. Obviously a longer match would favor Kasparov.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
What on earth was this topic doing in SMP in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

My reply started this all (from Is there luck in chess?):

[ QUOTE ]

One more thing.

A lot of people seem to think that there is luck in any one game, but when we get more and more games, the luck factor will disappear as we get into the long run. I don't think this is the case. I agree that you can have luck in any one game, and that longer matches historically tend to produce better results, but as matches get longer and longer, the effect of the match itself begins to have an impact. One could argue that this is similar to the Karpov-Kasparov 1984 match (the match was aborted because Karpov was becoming violently ill due to the extreme length of the match), although I think Kasparov was the better player in that match.

This is even more clear in tournaments. When you get a bunch of players together luck plays more of a factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Often chess players will want to say that their health has no bearing on their play

[/ QUOTE ]


Really? I thought many chess players were aware of not feeling 'as strong' in certain matches and stuff like that.
Not having as much energy as they got older (with some exceptions in there).

Fischer stated that his tennis, swimming and running were an important part of his training.
He was pretty nutty of course, but I think he got it right with this one. Although I don't know if other chess players agreed with him or not.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
I stopped following chess awhile ago but I believe they are still using this embarassingly poor format.

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of world championship matches, this was the only match in history where they ever used this format (Fischer's suggestion). Today they have an much more terrible format for the world championship. I don't know about less prestigious matches, though.