Sep 12, 2017, 3:24 AM |

KARPOV  vs.  KASPAROV:  World Championship  1987

Kasparov was World Champion, so if Scores were tied he remained World Champion. The Result was to be decided by playing 24 Games. After 22 Games the Score was 11-11. However Karpov won the 23rd Game (Surprisingly Kasparov missed easy chances to force a Draw). Kasparov now needed to win the Final Game to remain World Champion.

THESE TWO GAMES RAISE THE QUESTION: "Is it possible for GM's to PRE-ARRANGE a WIN or a LOSS without causing SUSPICIONS that such an event has occurred?"


Grand Master Roman Dzinzichashvili has analysed Games 23 and 24 -- he finds them suspicious. (Someone had bet that Karpov would win Game 23, and Kasparov would win Game 24 -- they obtaine excellent odds)

The Mysterious Champioship 1987 

Introduction Video One.

  ^Most Mysterious World Championship: The Story - Chess Videos -

The Games Analysed Video Two  


Most Mysterious World Championship Match 2 - Chess Videos -

Game 24 is most instructive. Karpov would have become World Champion with a Draw, and the Game is cruising towards a draw. Then at about Move 31, Karpov blunders badly (Nc5 - a4) which gives Kasparov a certain Win in a few moves (Karpov would lose a piece). However, Kasparov does not "see this". A couple of moves later, Kasparov blunders badly so that Karpov could still achieve a Draw (with Na4-c5) -- but Karpov does not "see it". By this time Kasparov has an advantage, and with good play wins Game 24 after another 20+ moves (and he remains World Champion).
Roman does not openly make any accusations, but one cannot avoid the extremely strong suspicion that the results of both Games were pre-arranged. (There were rumours at the time that these 2 Games were pre-arranged. Roman is a freind of Karpov and was a Second for him). Roman says that even Grand Masters can blunder badly.  However, if a GM makes  a serious blunder, the chances of his opponent missing It are virtually nil. Yet, in this Game, a major blunder is "missed" by both of them at the same time. This happens not just once but TWICE!!
To have won immediately after Karpov's blunder would have made it obvious to everyone. Both missing the 2 blunders gives Kasparov some advantage, so that he wins 20 moves later. Doing so makes the blunders less obvious, unless a GM analyses the Games.
These 2 Games show how difficult it must be for GM's to pre-arrange a win or loss, without the resulting Game appearing inconsistant.

(Roman casts some doubt on claims of pre-arranged results by The Soviet Union. At least such Games could be analysed in a similar fashion).

i have discussed this in more detail at