Kasparov vs Karpov, 1984

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm a judge, and neither side likes my decision, I know I've made the right one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi, you're wrong.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ] As atrifix stated, this is usually not the case. Chess masters usually want to rumble and are keen for battle.

Mikhail Tal is a prime example of the chess master's attitude, indeed. He suffered from kidney problems throughout his life, something which greatly affected his stamina, but that didn't stop him from being a ferocious and dangerous opponent to the end.

[ QUOTE ]
Bobby 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.

[/ QUOTE ] Almost every post-WWII chess master of world class trained his body as well as his chess ability. All Soviet players were required to be at the top of their class at school and in top physical shape. Fischer was of the same mind, absolutely.

Not so, Spassky, though, his great opponent of 1972, who remained a talented and formidable chess player until recently, but has always been lazy in preparation ( indifferent to analysis involving hard work and relying on his natural talent), a dedicated bon viveur and an acolyte of Aphrodite rather than Caissa...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Your analysis doesn't seem to get to the heart of the decision. Why cancel for any other reason than the one given?

[/ QUOTE ]Short answer : It was Cold War propaganda stepping in, from both sides, to further confuse the consequences of a deeply flawed decision taken for unknown reasons by an incompetent FIDE president.

That's my take on it.

For anyone interested in the intrigue, here's a little elaboration on the background:

On the night of 9 February 1985, FIDE president Campomanes received a phone call from Yugoslav GM Svetozar Gligoric, who was otherwise trusted as being honestly neutral by both westerners and Soviets. Gligoric conveyed a message from Alfred Kinzel, a member of FIDE from Germany who did not speak a common language with Campomanes. The message itself did not contain any request for annulment or postponement. The message was a request by Kinzel to Campo, for them to meet in Lucerne, Switzerland.

Subsequently, this call took on dimensions of myth. (See, inter alia, the inevitable Raymond Keene's article in The Spectator of 23 February 1985.) It was claimed that Gligoric conveyed a message from Moscow for Campomanes to fly there and discuss the possibility of annulling the match. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, Donald Schultz of the United States Chess Federation was present during the call, and categorically denied the various hearsays. According to Schultz, Gligoric asked Campo to meet in Lucerne - and that was all.

However, subsequently, Kinzel came forward and claimed (something that Kasparov denied) that Kasparov requested that the match be terminated, and that he (Kinzel) duly worked towards that end : He arranged to meet Campomanes in Lucerne, stated that he found Kasparov's request as meriting consideration and so urged Campomanes to meet with Kasparov's representative sin London, UK.

On the 13th of February 1985, the USSR Chess Federation formally requested through a letter signed by its president V. I. Sevastyanov (a former astronaut, BTW), for a "three-month suspension of the match", citing as cause the "concern about the health of the participants".

Now, I believe I have presented significant evidence that
(a) both players suffered from the fatigue one would normally associate with a match of some 5 months duration,
(b) Kasparov testified that the tension of the match was getting to him (as well as to Karpov), and
(c) Karpov was tired but no more than anyone else in his place (he was not the weakling they make him out to be) and certainly not more than Kasparov (as Kasparov himself states!).

Can we believe that the Soviets, in their request, were simply mindful of the two players' health and that no "political" considerations were involved? There has been lots of talk abt Karpov being the Kremlin's favorite and Kasparov being the "outsider" but this has been a little overblown, particularly by Kasparov. The fact is that, at the time, in 1984/85, both were solid Soviet citizens. Kasparov was not anything like a "dissident" or a trouble-maker; simply someone who was not a Russian, but an Azerbaitzani. And he did have his own "protectors" from higher-up, as was necessary for any young hopeful, and especially from a graduate of the chess school for advanced players run by the loyal communist and ex-world champion Mikhail Botvinnik. (Kasparov likes to portray himself as an opponent of communism and Karpov as a communist thug, but this has not been exactly the case.)

Campomanes, subsequently, went to London, where he expressed the unfounded opinion that "something had to be done". This was not so, of course. As even the usually unreliable Raymond Keene admitted (Kasparov's testimony in his book Child Of Change, p.155), <font color="blue"> "No decision was necessary, since the match was proceeding according to regulations and these should have been allowed to run their course".</font>

To which Kasparov comments "Precisely!"

[ScottieK]

[ QUOTE ]
by 'embarassingly poor format' I was referring to the single-elimination bracket thing they've done.

where if they are still tied after the initial longer games they go to some sudden-death deal where one of the players gets a minute less but gets draw odds or something ridiculous like that.

I mean, where do they come up ith such nonsense?

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, the FIDE knockouts had a format where the players played a two-game match, one as each color. If they were tied, they played another two-game match at a shorter time control (like game in 30 minutes.) If they were tied after that, it was two games of 15 minutes, then two games of 5 minutes....may be off on the actual time controls, but that sounds about right. If they were still tied, one side got 6 minutes as white and the other side got 5 minutes as black and draw odds (winning in the event of a draw.) Whoever won the coin flip almost always chose to play black.

It's just like a tennis tournament (or the NCAA basketball brackets) but with the large draw factor in chess, they had to come up with something. Can't use tiebreaks in a head to head match, so they came up with this.

Found this interesting: FIDE knockout article

As for Kasparov - Karpov, it was unfair to both sides to annul the match. Both sides had legitimate grievances. It's a good thing Fischer rules are no longer used in such matches because a Super-GM contending for the world title can usually turn on that draw-machine whenever it's needed.

ScottieK

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
With whom are you comparing Karpov's performance in a "long match", anyway ? Long matches were whose "forte" ? A match of 4-months duration is not something common at the top level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in this case I was comparing him with Kasparov, although I agree that matches of 100+ days are not common.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Karpov was 33 and Kasparov was only 21. Obviously a longer match would favor Kasparov.

[/ QUOTE ]"Obviously"?! That's a 12-year difference. Viktor Korchnoi faced Karpov repeatedly in matches that were physically and psychologically much more exhausting (for both opponents) than anything that Karpov vs Kasparov subsequently offered. And Korchnoi was 20 years older than Karpov!

Ex-world champion Vassily Smyslov was a serious competitor in the candidates' matches well into old age. His ELO when he was 70 years old was a remarkable 2494.
We should respect the general rule about age difference but we also need to take into account the specifics of every person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of these examples, the difference between 33 and 21 at the absolute top of chess is enormous. A 33-year-old can beat a 21-year-old quite often, it's true, but longer matches do not favor him. Smyslov's rating was under 2500 when he was 70. Although he got to the candidates matches, that's not even close to the top. It's an amazing feat, and I certainly couldn't do it, but the fact is that Smyslov was never going to reclaim the world championship .

[ QUOTE ]
Anatoly Karpov's relatively smaller physique, introverted posture and quiet personality hide an extremely tough, calculating and persistent chess player, who knows when to be tough and when to be cautious. (Reminds you of anything, poker players? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) He was a non-smoker all his life, has followed very clean health regimen, suffered no serious illnesses and kept in as best a physical shape as he could throughout his chess career.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know enough about the specifics of Karpov's health. I'ts not an area I care to research at this point in my life. IMO, his play is quite good in tournaments and shorter matches but worsens considerably as a longer match continues.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]Chess is a zero-sum game for the two persons competing over the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but life is not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this case both players and the rest of the chess world were unhappy with the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]If you are referring to decisions affecting the match, yes, we could have a decision whereby both chess players would benefit or lose. In the specific instance, I submitted the evidence why Karpov, rather than Kasparov was the losing party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that everyone lost in this decision.

[ QUOTE ]
I repeat: Karpov was leading with 5-3 and needed only one win, to Kasparov's three, to win the match. Karpov's health was not an issue. (The Russians had asked formally for a break/postponement, and not an annulment.)Campomanes' decision, if any intervention was actually needed, should have been to introduce a break and postpone the match -- not annul it!

This is like a game of soccer whereby one team is leading by 5-0 and the losers start scoring three goals in the later stage of the match. There is an electricity blackout in the 75th minute and the referee stops the game. The rules correctly call for the game to re-start from where it stopped -- and not to be annulled altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not like soccer at all--all that you need to do in soccer is keep the game going for another 15 minutes without giving up two more goals. If the match had a definite end in sight then yes, Karpov would have been the overwhelming favorite, because Kasparov would not have been able to use his match tactics anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ] You erroneously asserted that Kasparov had won 3 games in a row. That is incorrect. Kasparov had won the last 2 games of the match, the 47th and the 48th. (Remember that Karpov came very close to winning game 41. Not bad for someone suffering from a "total breakdown".)

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that Kasparov had won 3 games since the last decision.

[ QUOTE ]
So why would it have been "terribly unfair" to Kasparov? He was trailing by 5-3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Karpov had already used all his timeouts and his health was a major concern. To give him a 5-month reprieve and continue the match with the same score is just ludicrous, not to mention well outside the rules of the match agreement.

[ QUOTE ]
Kasparov himself stated quite clearly (before he reneged and started on a disinformation campaign, helped by the hack Raymond Keene) that he was quite happy to start playing Karpov again with 0-0, rather than trailing 5-3. I already provided Kasparov's quotes and the source.

Are we to dispute now Kasparov's statements on whether the decision to postpone the match was good for him or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read this source. Like I said, it's going to be hard for me to have a serious debate replete with sources. But I don't think that Kasparov was happy with the decision--he refused to endorse it at the time. I don't see any way that that can be interpreted as him being pleased with the decision.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Karpov's health was clearly deteriorating. He lost 22 pounds (around 15-20% of his body weight) during the match and had been hospitalised several times. If my memory is correct he was hospitalised at the time when Campomanes stopped the match.

[/ QUOTE ] That is incorrect, as I have explained many times already. There has been no "hospitalisation" of Karpov.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't have the sources, but I thought this was generally accepted as fact. Perhaps I will look at Karpov's autobiography again.

[ QUOTE ]
There have been the usual and quite necessary time-outs for the players to recover mentally and physically, after a loss or during a weakening of abilities. But there was no "collapse". This is a myth created and perpetuated by the Campomanes camp and the Kasparov camp.

And Karpov lost 10 kgs (22 lbs) during the 4 months of the match (and not "rapidly" as had been asserted by supporters of the Campomanes' decision). Which did not represent "15-20% percent of his weight" however, since Karpov at the beginning weighted a little more than approximately 70 kgs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you are right about this. I thought that Karpov weighed about 50 kgs going into the match; in reality it was probably more like 70 kgs. But losing 10 kgs during the match is still pretty significant. I don't know how rapidly it occurred.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with Kasparov there; by that measure, Philidor would have been the overwhelming favorite to beat Morphy and Fischer.

[/ QUOTE ] You disagree with Kasparov because you have mot understood what he said! He stated that one CANNOT in fact compare players across different eras.

[/ QUOTE ]

He also stated: "Ridiculous. He would have won easily." Unless I have somehow misinterpreted your post. This sentence seemed quite clear to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, your disagreement has no substance. Kasparov stated clearly that the only way to rate a master was to compare him with players of his era. And with that criterion, Kasparov asserted that Fischer, in view of his crushing predominance over all contemporaries, was probably the greatest champion ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I assert that Morphy was much farther ahead of players of his era than Fischer was, and Philidor farther ahead still.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Game 41

In time trouble, Karpov plays 33.Rxd1 and misses 33.a6 that would have forced a win, ending the match with a 6-1 victory.

When a player brings forth such a winning position against his opponent and misses the win only on account of time trouble, we simply cannot say that he is suffering from a "complete breakdown".

[/ QUOTE ]

Karpov was an amazing player. To say I don't admire his play would be a crime against chess.

Edit: let me just say that 33. a6 was a difficult move to find even in normal conditions, and even after 33. a6 the win is still a LONG way off.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know enough about the specifics of Karpov's health. ... IMO, his play is quite good in tournaments and shorter matches but .

[/ QUOTE ] And by "longer matches" meaning ...something like five months ...of which there is only one example ...the very match of 1984!

Let's face it, there is nothing to compare it to. So there is nothing to substantiate the claim that Karpov's play "worsens considerably as a longer match continues".


[ QUOTE ]
The difference between 33 and 21 at the absolute top of chess is enormous.

[/ QUOTE ] "Absolute top"? You mean like in world championship matches?

Like when Alexander Alekhine, 45 years old, defeated Max Euwe, 36, and won his title back?

Like when Mikhail Botvinnik, 47, defeated Vassily Smyslov, 37, in 1958 ?

Or like when Botvinnik, 50, defeated Mikhail Tal, 25, in their return championship match of 1961 ?

Maybe you are referring to the age difference between Tigran Petrosian, 37, who won the match against Boris Spassky, 29, in 1966, to retain the world champion title?

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know enough about the specifics of Karpov's health. ... IMO, his play is quite good in tournaments and shorter matches but .

[/ QUOTE ] And by "longer matches" meaning ...something like five months ...of which there is only one example ...the very match of 1984!

Let's face it, there is nothing to compare it to. So there is nothing to substantiate the claim that Karpov's play "worsens considerably as a longer match continues".


[ QUOTE ]
The difference between 33 and 21 at the absolute top of chess is enormous.

[/ QUOTE ] "Absolute top"? You mean like in world championship matches?

Like when Alexander Alekhine, 45 years old, defeated Max Euwe, 36, and won his title back?

Like when Mikhail Botvinnik, 47, defeated Vassily Smyslov, 37, in 1958 ?

Or like when Botvinnik, 50, defeated Mikhail Tal, 25, in their return championship match of 1961 ?

Maybe you are referring to the age difference between Tigran Petrosian, 37, who won the match against Boris Spassky, 29, in 1966, to retain the world champion title?

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say a 33-year-old can't beat a 21-year-old. That is not what I meant at all--in fact, the prime of a chess-player is around the 27ish mark and a 33-year-old probably plays better than he did when he was 21. What I said was that a longer match favored Kasparov. As the length of the match increases, the younger player becomes more of a favorite--I don't think that is controversial.

The only one of those matches where there was a really significant age difference was Tal-Botvinnik, 1961, and I think Tal's health played a role in that match.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a good thing Fischer rules are no longer used in such matches because a Super-GM contending for the world title can usually turn on that draw-machine whenever it's needed.

[/ QUOTE ]On the other hand, we cannot but admit that most, if not all of Fischer's terms (when he had to face Karpov in defense of his world title) were subsequently adopted by FIDE in world championship matches.

Let's not forget that the format whereby draws are counted (e.g. 1972 Reykjavik) favors the title holder -- since he only has to hold on to his title with draws. And the recess and subsequent analysis of Soviet players (usually assisted when playing a westerner like Fischer), generally made draws easier to achieve.

The Fischer clock has become quite common, as well.