Trivia about Kasparov - Karpov encounters (trivia you probably never heard of)

KARPOV ACCUSES KASPAROV OF DODGING HIM

In 1997, 7 years after failing to dethrone Kasparov in 3 different matches, each of them consisted of 24 games, Karpov accused Kasparov of avoiding a match with him (Karpov), cherry-picking his opponents so not to risk the title.

In 1997 Karpov gave a simul exhibition in Singapore, he was asked about playing a match with Kasparov so that the title can be re-unified. Karpov said the following (smiling):

So he [Kasparov] does not want to make any risk with his ideas that he is the strongest chess player and so he wants to choose his opponents and to choose the right moment when he can for sure beat anybody or especially this one and he does not want to make any risk and to take any risk. But then he becomes private chess player.

…

Not only me but there are many many young players. …

I know you are not able to trust my words on this one without any back-up, right? Fortunately for you, I have searched the internet after I decided I will share it, and even found the footage of the relevant quotes. You can listen to him right here, Associated Press footage:

SINGAPORE: CHESS: KARPOV ACCUSES KASPAROV OF AVOIDING HIM

Finding this footage allowed me to quote the above excerpt.

Some background for those who are unfamiliar: Anatoly Karpov was world chess champion till 1985, Garry Kasparov dethroned him. Then the two played 3 other matches for Kasparov’s crown, Kasparov retained his title by beating Karpov twice and once drawing him, each match consisting of 24 games.

In 1993, Karpov was again trying to face Kasparov with the hope of winning the crown back. But Karpov was defeated in the candidates final, the challenger was Nigel Short - he would challenge Kasparov this time, not Karpov. But Short and Kasparov was not satisfied with the organisation of FIDE, they left FIDE and played their own match. Kasparov was still undefeated world chess champion, he was maintaining his title but FIDE disqualified him, now he was not officially a world champion. Instead Karpov became a world champion in a match organised by FIDE.

Karpov was again, officially, world chess champion. And he accused Kasparov of …

KASPAROV ATTEMPTS TO DODGE THE 1986 REMATCH

Here is a contemporary news report by New York Times: KASPAROV REFUSES TO ACT ON REMATCH

There, it does not explicitly or literally seem Kasparov was trying to avoid the rematch. It may even seem to you that Kasparov was objecting to the match being so close and in short time between the championship matches, but if you look at it deeper then there are some implications:

The new world chess champion, Gary Kasparov, is causing a furor once again, this time over his rejection of a rematch with Anatoly Karpov that is to start Feb. 10.

Consider it as well:

the 22-year-old champion went a step further and ignored a deadline set by the president of the World Chess Federation, Florencio Campomanes, for confirming the site of the rematch. In so doing, Mr. Kasparov effectively signaled his refusal to participate in the rematch.

And finally:

The young champion acknowledged that he had agreed to the terms of the last series, but that he had no choice. 'I'm Against This Outrage'

''If I hadn't signed, I wouldn't have played,'' he said in a telephone interview today. ''I never signed a separate agreement to the rematch.

''My position is that either there are rematches after all championship matches - after nine months or a year - or none at all. Either for everyone or for no one. I'm against special arrangements like this.

''I'm against this outrage, and I will not confirm the agreement I made.''

THE TERMINATION OF THE 1984 MATCH

[Spoiler/Short version: Kasparov wanted, demanded and even insisted on the termination, only to pretend as if he opposed it]:

In the mainstream narrative, this termination is narrated like these: “Karpov was unable to continue due to health issues. FIDE president appeared, announced that the match is null and a new match will be played under new terms, citing the health of the two players deteriorating as a reason. Both players, at least in front of the cameras, objected to the decision but obeyed the decision as they had nothing they could do.”

But the termination was very complex and behind the scenes it was Garry Kasparov who insisted on terminating the match for some reasons [even though he behaved differently in front of the cameras].

Lim Kok Ann, General secretary of FIDE back then, narrated that the FIDE committee in December 1984 was considering a 3 motnh suspension and then continue the match so that the players can rest. Moreover, FIDE had leased a hall in Moscov and its lease time has expired, the hotel rooms FIDE had rented for the players also expired. New organisation was needed. That 3 month suspension would work for both sides. At that time the score was either 5–1 or 5–0 as Kasparov scored his first win in December. FIDE consulted the two players, Kasparov insisted the match be terminated instead of suspending it. As the hotel rent also expired FIDE told the players that they will be given new accomodation places, to which Kasparov objected again.

After the 47th game was finished (Kasparov won) the FIDE president proposed 8 more games shall be played and in case there is still no winner then new match consisted of 24 games be played. Kasparov refused, saying it is unfair to him: In the next 8 games Karpov needs only a win whereas he will need 4 wins so that he can win the match. He insisted the match should be terminated immediately.

Before the termination is announced, nowadays it is narrated that the chief arbiter Gligoric reported the FIDE president that Karpov was unable to continue the match. The Soviet Chess Federation President Sevastianov requested a 3 month break so that the players can recover their health.

At the closing ceremony of the event, both players were protesting the decision of the FIDE president, both of them asking “why the match was cancelled if both sides were willing to continue?” At that press conference, Kasparov, Karpov and Campomanes held a private meeting. After that meeting, Karpov signed the agreement to terminate the match but Kasparov refused.

In his book “Child of Change”, Garry Kasparov says that the termination was not bad for him as starting a new match at 0–0 was better than playing a match with 5–3 against.

If you look at all of these, it was Kasparov who was willing the match to be terminated. However, in his initial and later interviews Kasparov acts as if he opposed the idea.

Gorbachev [might have] determined the FATE of the match.

According to Kasparov’s interview with Bill Cristoll , Soviet authorities at first was trying to prevent Garry Kasparov from becoming World Champion because they wanted to maintain Karpov as world champion. Because, says Garry Kasparov, challenging Karpov was to challenge the Soviet myth. As an explanation Kasparov says the following:

in 1978 and 1981, Karpov played Viktor Korchnoi who was a former Soviet player, defector. Like an evil man. A traitor. And Soviet propaganda billed those two matches, especially the first one where Karpov won a very dramatic event, just winning the last game with the score being 5-5. And the final victory gave Karpov in Game 32, sort of saved Karpov from a disaster. And it was trumpeted as a big victory of Soviet political system, and of course, he was personally congratulated by Brezhnev and praised by top Soviet authorities. So Karpov became kind of a cult figure. So the man who helped to bring back the title from Americans in 1975, and nobody remembered that Fischer hasn’t played, but what was important that Karpov brought the title back and also he twice defeated a traitor, a defector.

And only after Gorbachev was convinced for fair play was Garry Kasparov allowed to beat Karpov, according to Garry Kasparov. Here is the relevant part of the interview:

But again, I was lucky because there was a change, and Gorbachev brought Alexander Yakovlev, the man to his Party career, but was then sent to exile in Canada as a Soviet ambassador and was brought back, and he was instrumental in relaxing Soviet public, social, and cultural life. He never met me, but at the meeting, you know, Yakovlev convinced Gorbachev – and then he told me these stories when I met him in 1985 in August – he said, “Look, Comrade Gorbachev, it’s a chess match, so why do you bother? Let them play and let the best player win. They’re both Soviet players.” And that was the decision and I remember after meeting Yakovlev, so I came back home and my mother looks at me and I says, “Mom, great news, they let me beat Karpov.”

So, who knows?

Karpov was indeed very much favoured for several reasons, his other contemporaries also mention it. He was an ideal representative of communism in the cold war: grew up as an orphan, from working class, grew up in a village, grew up working in fields, despite all difficulties of life he studied and graduated from a university and simultaneously became world champion. He was a great message to the capitalist world.

Moreover, in 1984 or 85 he was still a young man. So, why have another world champion while you have an ideal representative of communism as a world champion?

Chess Oscar 1984 was a hoax?

FIDE creating new regulation suddenly, allowing new federations to vote for the first time.

Due to the termination, at least in public eyes, Kasparov displayed himselfas a victim (maybe he really was) and became an enemy to the FIDE president.

Chess Oscar was an award that was given to the most spectacular chess player of the year. It was chosen by a poll, federation delegates voting. The one with the most votes would win the award.

The year 1984 had amazing event: the terminated world chess championship match. Who would win? In case Kasparov wins, it would be a huge blow to the FIDE president, who was a personal and frank friend of Karpov since, at least, 1978 and who was now an enemy of Kasparov. Kasparov probably was the favourite as in the year 1984 he defeated Korchnoi and Vasily Smyslov in candidates matches very convincngly, spectacularly. Survived a 5–0 score and scored 3 wins, in the eyes of public and media the momentum was with him in the aborted match. In the public, in front of the public, eyes he was the one that did not sign the termination, he was the one who opposed it.

Karpov won the Oscar with only 30 more votes, out of 3300 votes in total: 1390 - 1360. The prize money was splitted equally.

Like Fischer, Spassky similarly thought K-K matches might have been some sort of a hoax (at least partially):

Here is what Spassky said about the two back in 1997:

One thing is, however, clear for me: if they had really played honestly 150 games in the five title-matches, both of them would have been in a mental asylum. Undoubtedly there was some kind of conspiracy between the two champions, probably starting with their third match. At least that was my impression when I was working as commentator of their match in Lyon in 1990. I shall never forget the 19th game when Kasparov proposed a draw in an absolutely winning position while Karpov was in awful time trouble. I was in a state of shock, absolutely unable to explain to the chess fans what had happened in this game. Now in retrospect I understand that mysterious, powerful and super-wealthy forces were standing behind their backs, and the two guys could have risked their lives had they disobeyed… I remember, for example, that after I had won against Petrosyan in 1969, it took me one year to return back to normal. I was completely exhausted after 23 games, but Karpov and Kasparov played five long matches! If they had really invested all their forces in all the games of all the matches, both would have been mentally sick for years. There was certainly some conspiracy between the players, they won a nice sum of money and kept their health in good shape.

Once in an interview, Susan Polgar narrated when Bobby Fischer was residing with them she and Bobby analysed Fischer’s allegations of Karpov-Kasparov matches being pre-arranged and pre-staged fight. Susan Polgar says Fischer bases his allegations on the moves that would not be played by such two top level players unless they were instructed to do. S.Polgar added Fischer’s theories made sense.

FIRST ENCOUNTER OF THE TWO LEGENDS

In a simul by Karpov. The game was not an easy victory for the world champion Karpov. Here is the game if you want to see: Anatoly Karpov vs Garry Kasparov (1975) First Contact

How ‘socially powerful’ were the two?

Here is a LAtimes report before their 1990 match, recalling the might of the two . If you want read the whole article, I am gonna mention one or two notable points:

1)They were millionaires 2) Here is about their political power:

For now, Kasparov insists, "I have no relations with my state. At all. At all! I still don't have the flat in Moscow. It shows the level of my connection with Soviet officials. It's unusual for the world champion. I live in my wife's very small flat. I don't have the flat in Moscow, I repeat it." In fact, he repeats it six times.

"Kasparov is being two-faced," says Yasser Seirawan. "He can get literally anything he wants in

Russia. I was among a group of 110 players going from

Moscow to the Grandmasters' Assn. general assembly in Murcia, Spain. Garri just stood at the airport gate and kept saying, 'He's with me, he's with me, he's with me.' Not a single member of the group had his luggage checked, went through the very formal customs process or was subjected to any kind of questioning. His political muscle is unbelievable."

SO IS ANATOLY KARPOV'S. As an elected People's Deputy--the nearest Soviet equivalent to a congressman--and a two-time recipient of the Sportsman of the Year and the Order of Lenin awards, Karpov brings enormous prestige to his recent criticism of the Soviet system. "If they like you, they use one law--if they don't, they use another." Karpov laughs. "You can be punished for nothing, or have glory for nothing."

Though as powerful, the two might have been `robbed` by the state. here is the relevant passage:

Although he retains his Communist Party membership, Anatoly Karpov can now be counted among the ranks of Russia's moderates. Early this year Karpov exposed the fact that the prize from the London-Leningrad match, which the players donated to victims of the Chernobyl disaster, was siphoned off "by the Ministry of Industry, to recover the losses of factories. We would not have given money for that." Under Karpov's leadership, the quasi-official Soviet Peace Fund sponsored a telethon that raise d nearly $5 million. "This money we shall distribute only to the victims of Chernobyl," he vows.

I suggest you read the whole article. To summarise the two:

Kasparov was a rebellion, he was a fighter. Karpov was a subordinate man, as told by his contemporaries. Yevgenia Albats puts it bluntly: "Karpov was very close to our party leaders, and--pardon me for saying--he liked to kiss their asses."

TIRED OF EACH OTHER?

In the year 1988, the USSR was having one of the 3 most competitive national championships,the strongest 18 players from the USSR was among the contestants. Previous world champion Anatoly Karpov and the reigning world champion Garry Kasparov was among the contestants, candidates tournament finalists like Artur Yusup, Andrei Sokolov and the old-but-gold Vasily Smyslov and Misha Tal, who won the world blitz championship the same year, were among the candidates. It was like all stars tournament. Young Ivanchuk and Khalifman was among the competitors. Moreover, spiritual leader of the Soviet chess school Mikhail Botvinnik was the chief arbiter.

As expected, the two Ks dominated the field and both scored equal number of points, drew each other, had same number of wins and draws, both were undefeated. So, who would be the USSR champion? The rule (or the tradition?) was to have a play-off among the tied ones, it was so in the past. For example, the USSR chess championship 1963.

But the two Ks resented playing each other, Mikhail Botwinnik tried to persuade them to play the play-off but neither side was willing to play it, both sides were reluctant. So, what followed? The USSR chess federation disqualified both of them and the shared-third place finishers Yusupov and Salov played a play-off match, in which Yusupov won. Yusupov was declared the USSR chess champion.

I am kidding, the USSR chess federation declared both of them champion. They were co-champions that year and the following years neither one attended the national championship.

THE TWO UNDERESTIMATING THE COMPUTERS

In the year 1987, Garry Kasparov was asked about the potential of computers in the chess world. The young champion asserted that never ever he will be beaten by a computer. He further strengthened his assertion, announcing any grandmaster who is afraid of computers may be assisted by Garry Kasparov himself.

Like his rival, Karpov similarly under-estimated the potential of the computers. In the press conference of the world chess championship 1990, Karpov was asked if a computer could be world chess champion in the future, Karpov replied that only in case the computers are capable of calculating the game till the end. Before that, no way.

The rest is history, a decade or a decade and a half later, computers completely outplayed humans...

Yes, they didn't understand computers.

Interestingly a champion who came before them, Botvinnik, trained as an electrical engineer, said that it was only a matter of time.

I posted the content and within 3rd minute you replied it 8-) You have finished it under 3 minutes? 8-)

No, I skimmed it. I read the headlines and a few sentences at random in each section

In particular Spassky's opinion on the 5 matches was interesting to me. Not quite the Fischer crazyness, but I didn't know a reasonable person also thought those games were suspicious.

One thing notable is that Spassky, like Fischer, similarly thought Jews are controlling the world in a sneaky way etc.

A hungarian grandmaster who had dinner with the two in 1990s recalled the event. The two former chess champions, both of whom were by mother's side a Jew, were discussing how Jews are controlling the world, are causing the problems etc.

In the year 2005, Spassky supported a campaign about banning Jewish associations in Russia, though later he regretted and said that that was a mistake.

I do not know if it affects the way to consider him a reasonable person.

Oh, I didn't know that about Spassky.

It's unsurprising then, that Fischer got along with him so well. I thought it was because Spassky was a gentleman while other Russian GMs didn't give Fischer respect or something.

He really was a gentleman and I also think he was reasonable. I think the reason he was like Fischer in his thoughts about "Jew World conspiracy/theory" was he really concluded so. In his youth, in his peak years, 1960s, Spassky used to oppose the communist government, criticise it through implications and he never became a member of the Communist party. What I am trying to demonstrate is that he was not a racist or something like that, he used to act in the way his opinions are. He was not hiding something, he was not being racist, he always was what he concluded, he was what is in his mind.

He might have concluded "Jew World Order" makes sense or true.

Spassky is my favourite chess player, I have read his biographies, I have read memories about him. I watched his photos and footages from 1950s and 60s. He is the one whose games I enjoy the most.

Looking at his games, I conclude if he took chess seriously he would have been the best ever, far beyond anyone that could trail him. He was so talented and yet lazy, unprofessional.

+ Susan Polgar also thought that Fischer's arguements about the games of the two being arranged made sense.

the theory above about world domination is really not news tbh. ive been hearing about this for years lol

@ruhu 100%. wouldnt have lost to fischer whatsoever if he tried as hard as fischer did.

Spassky thinking so is a news for many, though ☺

Spassky in 72 was as good as Fischer even with Spassky's lazyness, the difference was the blunders Spassky did. That was what what the seperated him from the juggernaut Bobby of 70-72.

more or less, yeah. people seem to forgot how long their games were, and that fischer was only slightly more accurate. If only spassky took his time and prepared correctly smh

Spassky used to throw away games in which he was superior. Some notable examples are In 1970 he threw away a game to Larsen in the USSR vs RoW match. in 74 he did against Karpov. He threw games to Korchnoi in 77.

he was famous for that, yeah lol losing winning games is one of his specialties

Probably that was due to his amateurish approach to chess. He did not take chess seriously, he did not study openings or endgames. He just relied on his middlegame skills and even then as even that part of his game was not professionally worked on, he used to blunder

but that shows how great chess mind he had. When he was on his form he took the chess world by storm. Taking part in very strong professional international chess tournaments at the age of 14-16, reaching the candidates through the highest national championship at the age of 19, then flopping and then again in 60s he took the chess world by hurricane, not even storm.

In 60s he dominated strong tournaments like Belgrade 64, Chigorin memorial, Santa Monica. Buried each and every legendary players of those years: Tal, Larsen, Korchnoi, Fischer, Geller and Keres.

In 1 tournaments (I do not recall, probably Second Piatigorsky) both him and Fischer scored 5 wins but Spassky scored 3 of those against top 5 finishers whereas against the same players Fischer scored zero wins. Fischer scored against bottom 5.

i found this blog here that was an interview with a bunch of famous players during the 60s and 70s (the interview took right after the 1970 USSR vs World matches), and by that point, all of them said that spassky was the best player alive for sure, not even a doubt, even though Petrosian and Fischer were around. 

I am aware of those interviews, I hardly recall them though. What I recall is both Fischer and Najdorf assessed Spassky's sacrifices are the most feared. Najdorf said Tal's sacrifices are bluff whereas Spassky's are just an informer of the time you should resign.

In mid-to-late 1960s Spassky was simply undisputed king. He buried his contemporaries in their head-to-head encounters.

Check his head-to-head scores in 2 parts: before Septemver 72 and aftwr September 72. His pre-72 score against Tal and Larsen are like 10-2 against each of them. 3-0 against Fischer. Significant difference against Korchnoi.

It was after 72 Tal and Larsen started to score against him with conceding barely.

anyway check this blog of mine as well:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/dis-covering-bobby-fischer-bobby-fischers-life-in-1970s-after-the-championship-match 

:trophy