Karpov's Worst Moment

For nineteen years I've been thinking that the Karpov's tragedy was in failing to regain his title. Now I realize that the real tragedy was losing $600,000.

Well ... Any boxer who has faced Tyson has probably lost much more than 600.000 bucks. And about the 20 seconds, against Tyson it used to be "the fare". Of course, it included a world title as well.

Re Tyson's typical bout length: Early in 1988 I landed my first big-time job in New York and immediately received an invitation I would have liked to turn down, but couldn't. The invitation was from a prominent, "connected" labor union president, to meet him and several associates to watch Tyson fight Michael Spinks on closed-circuit TV from a restaurant.

I wanted to say no because it was my first week in a very demanding job and I feared being out late into the evening would leave me drained next day; but I had to go because the union was important in my industry, the union president was new in the post himself and I had not met him before.

Well, thanks to Iron Mike, things worked out fine for me. He knocked out Spinks 90 seconds into the first round, and I got to bed early after all.

$600,000 in 1987 is the equivalent of well over $1 million today. I'd be bummed out too if I lost that because of a time trouble blunder.

Karpov and the Russians did not treat Fischer and Korchnoi in an honest sportsman like way.

I have no tears for Karpov. as far as I am concerned he never won a fair Match and therefore never demonstrated that he was a champion.

He will never be a champion to me.

Coming within one easy step of reclaiming the pinnacle of the sport you have dedicated your life is of course, unpleasant but is it really worthy of the word "tragic"?

We are dealing with a sport/game here. Fischer choosing to stop playing at the top of his game? Karpov coming within one win of regaining his title so many times? Kasparov not getting a rematch against Kramnik? Tal playing for the title one step away from hospital bed? Kramnik having a bad year? Rubinstein never getting a title shot?

Are any of those things really worthy of the epithet tragic? I just don't believe that any failure in chess can really be called tragic. Unfortunate, for them or for the sport, sure, but a tragedy is a death of your child, imprisonment, or something of a more serious aspect of your life.

Yuriy,

If your $600,000 house burns down, isn't that tragic?

Yuriy, you're a cool dude. Thanks for the perspective.

Tippy,

I don't know the exact amounts, but each chess match usually has a considerable prize fund for the winner and for the loser. If Karpov got 400,000 instead of 1 million then no, I don't consider it tragic. Especially considering he already accumulated considerable money from other matches.

Yuriy -- give the man a break. I don't think he was trying to compare his professional misfortunes to the Holocaust. "Tragedy" is always a relative term and you can pretty much trot out some more hideous example whenever you want to attack someone for using the word.

KARPOV isn't a real champion? I'll buy Kasimzhanov, or Khalifman. Even Pono. I'll nod politely about Anand, even though he'd have been champion more often, not less, with a better cycle.

Karpov beat Korchnoi in two matches. He failed to beat Fischer because the American failed to show up (Karpov wanted to play, Fischer wanted to play prima donna). Karpov is the most dominant player of the century after Kasparov. If you want to knock champions you ought to stick with the ones who didn't beat -everybody- six ways from sunday for ten years.

At least tommy is always still good for a laugh.

How's Susie?

'excellent education, and certain notions of philosophy'?! Was he joking? Excellent education? Certain notions of philosophy? What notions? You'll forgive me my dear chess friends, but this is a pile of ....!

To jump into a couple of controversies that have blossomed here:

1. The word, "Tragedy", is best viewed in its Greek and/or Shakesperean sense -- a hero's downfall caused by a hidden personal flaw that suddenly takes on decisive importance due to circumstances beyond his control (i.e., what is usually called, "fate") -- rather than the naive, conventional sense of the word applied by Yuriy and Todd above.

In the literary sense, Karpov's 11th-hour collapse is indeed properly viewed as tragic.

On the other hand, Karpov's choice to focus now on the money he lost -- rather the title and its significance for his place in the chess world after 1987 -- is shallow and petty, and undermines his claim of having something in common with classic tragic heroes like Caesar, Odysseus, or Oedipus.

Had Karpov regained the title then, who can know how differently chess history might have turned out? If Kasparov had lost that match and his title, might he have failed to wrest it back after that? And then -- had Karpov been the champ into the 1990s and Kasparov a mere humbled challenger, might the Soviet Union not have imploded? (I realize that last one is a stretch, but it's worth mentioning at least as a wild speculation.)

2. Although I never liked Karpov as either a person or a chess player (I find his style boring, which is basically a way of saying I'm jealous because I'm constitutionally unable to incorporate the value of patience into my own playing), his dominance of his peers at the chessboard was so clear and so prolonged, that no one could seriously question his status as a champion of the game.

But I feel that tommy's comment has some validity -- not in terms of Karpov's abilities as a chess player, but only as applied to Karpov's character and sportsmanship.

In his dealings with both Fischer and (especially) Korchnoi, this man revealed there was nothing he would not stoop to.

The Eidinow book (about Fischer and the Cold War) makes clear that Karpov was beneficiary and participant of the Soviet authorities' well-laid strategies to "profile" Fischer, as we would say today, and use the resulting psychological insights to do everything in their power to goad the American into walking away from the match.

Worse, I think any fair-minded person must regard Karpov as complicit in the Soviet authorities' sending Korchnoi's son to a labor camp on the eve of a Karpov-Korchnoi WCC match (1981?)

So, although clearly a champion of chess skill, I feel that Karpov does not deserve all the other positive connotations that go along with that word.

Karpov is one of the greatest players ever. Congrats to him.

As for some of the comments, it sounds like the things some people here questions may have been misquoted or mistranslated. We don't know for sure if he actually said things like 'tragic' or 'an excellent education, and certain notions of philosophy'. Lets not give him hard time for something that is a translation of a possible misquote. I think we all know what he meant, anyway. Losing game 24 of the 1987 match is as disappointing as it can be for someone like Karpov, for obvious reasons. And as for education and philosophy, I think his point is that most world champions were highly educated and well rounded individuals. Fischer was probably the only exception, and he didn't stay on top for many years, anyway.

The term 'renaissance man' sure applies to Karpov himself. Not only was he a multiple time world champion of chess, and of the most dominant players in the history of the game, he also has a lot of other things on his resume. He has a degree from Leningrad State University, which was one of the top schools in USSR. He was also a world champion of belot (with GM alexander Belyavsky as his partner). And he was the champion of Russia in the most popular Russian card game. Then there is his political work with the UNESCO, UN and peace foundations. It definitely seems like this educated man is doing somewhat better than, say, Fischer, who was a one trick pony that only excelled in chess and whose only non-chess contribution to the world consists of anti-semitic rants on Philipines radio stations.

Karpov is one of the greatest players ever. Congrats to him.

As for some of the comments, it sounds like the things some people here questions may have been misquoted or mistranslated. We don't know for sure if he actually said things like 'tragic' or 'an excellent education, and certain notions of philosophy'. Lets not give him hard time for something that is a translation of a possible misquote. I think we all know what he meant, anyway. Losing game 24 of the 1987 match is as disappointing as it can be for someone like Karpov, for obvious reasons. And as for education and philosophy, I think his point is that most world champions were highly educated and well rounded individuals. Fischer was probably the only exception, and he didn't stay on top for many years, anyway.

The term 'renaissance man' sure applies to Karpov himself. Not only was he a multiple time world champion of chess, and of the most dominant players in the history of the game, he also has a lot of other things on his resume. He has a degree from Leningrad State University, which was one of the top schools in USSR. He was also a world champion of belot (with GM Alexander Belyavsky as his partner). And he was the champion of Russia in the most popular Russian card game. Then there is his political work with the UNESCO, UN and peace foundations. It definitely seems like this educated man is doing somewhat better than, say, Fischer, who was a one trick pony that only excelled in chess and whose only non-chess contribution to the world consists of anti-semitic rants on Philipines radio stations.

And as for the money, Ill quote this from
http://www.intecsus.org/Chess%20School/Karpov.htm

In the course of his career, he gave more the 3 million U.S. dollars for the development of national sports. In 1986, Karpov together with Gary Kasparov gave $650,000 to the Foundation of Help to Victims of Chernobyl’. Nowadays he gives money to an orphan boarding school in his native town of Zlatoust, pays grants to talented children within the New Names program and to best apprentices of the Chernobyl’ Children chess school.

And who said that KArpov focus on the money he lost in 1987 rather than the title he didnt win? Perhaps he just mentioned the money as a sidenote to highlight the importance of those 20 seconds. I am suprised at how many people are ready to jump on him for this comment.

And as for the money, Ill quote this from
http://www.intecsus.org/Chess%20School/Karpov.htm

"In the course of his career, he gave more the 3 million U.S. dollars for the development of national sports. In 1986, Karpov together with Gary Kasparov gave $650,000 to the Foundation of Help to Victims of Chernobyl’. Nowadays he gives money to an orphan boarding school in his native town of Zlatoust, pays grants to talented children within the New Names program and to best apprentices of the Chernobyl’ Children chess school."

Something tells me that the same people who criticise Karpov for focusing on the money have hardly made similar contribution to charity. So I find it ridiculous that some people make Karpov out to be a villain when he is one of the gracious people in any sport (and not just chess) and an excellent ambassador for the game.

what is belot?

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belot

Basically, it is a card game that is similar to bridge, I guess.

I will just re-emphasize that you are reading a translation from Russian, and it may not exactly convey what he said.

Karpov wasn't responsible for Fischer's refusal to defend his title. FIDE had every right to insist that Fischer defend his title on the same terms that Spassky had.

About Karpov... well I wish I could do two things like him : play his endgames, and his caro Kann. Karpov has his own defensive and very pure style.

Karpov is a defender. Such a good defender that he managed to reach, after 250 games against Kasparov, an almost equal score (if my memory is good, Kasparov leads with +1).

Everybody agrees saying that Kasparov is the strongest player ever. Well, 124.5 out of 250 games against the strongest player ever isn't a too bad result...

You may like him, you may not. But he's one of the all time greats, and with Kasparov he has produced some of the most stunning chess and matches ever. He says he's in the pinnacle? Just the truth...

Haha, thanks for a good laugh.

Russianbear,

I agree. Unfair of me to take that tragedy/$600,000 shot at a translated, off-hand comment by Karpov.

Tragedy in Shakesperean and Greek terms is ruin or extreme sorrow brought on due to hero's personal shortcomings or flaw. Since both Karpov and Greg chose to use the term I felt it was important to point out how petty it really is to view chess happenings in such light. Greek and Shakesperean tragedies end with the death of the hero or the destruction of his ideals. Neither of those is true in these cases. I can go on for a while about definition of tragedy, since there were a couple of other mistakes made, but I want to talk about chess.

"The Eidinow book (about Fischer and the Cold War) makes clear that Karpov was beneficiary"

Well, of course, he was the beneficiary. He was the one playing Fischer.

"and participant of the Soviet authorities' well-laid strategies to "profile" Fischer, as we would say today"

What the hell is profiling? Why was it not used by the Soviets in 1972?

"and use the resulting psychological insights to do everything in their power to goad the American into walking away from the match."

Anybody who read a Fischer interview should realize it takes little to nothing for him to self-destruct. He has done so on many occasions in situations where Soviet presence was non-existent. Many who have read about the match that didn't happen found Fischer demands to be unfair, and did so without psychological pressure from the Soviets.

"Worse, I think any fair-minded person must regard Karpov as complicit in the Soviet authorities' sending Korchnoi's son to a labor camp on the eve of a Karpov-Korchnoi WCC match (1981?)"

Actually, any fair-minded person would tell you that the Soviet government would apply pressure on Korchnoi based on the fact that he chose to emigrate and therefore was viewed as a traitor. Had Korchnoi faced a semi-dissident like Spassky or Bronstein or Kasparov, the pressure would have still been there. So no, I don't think one can automatically assume Karpov had anything to do with Igor Korchnoi's fate.

Karpov-Kasparov classic control is +20-28=119 lifetime.

Note that up until the 90's all Soviet athletes and performers abroad had to give most of their earnings to the state. Most chess prize money went to the Soviet sport authorities. If you were good, some got distributed back out to you in cash and perks. Not that he isn't a charitable fellow as well as a demonstrably greedy one (avarice still being one of his lesser sins in my book), but there should be some perspective to his press release on "donations," a term usually used for monies given voluntarily.

Yuriy stat is lifetime, and that includes the years when Karpov was on the decline while Kasparov was still in his prime. In the World Championship matches Kasparov is only +2 after 144 games. During their World championship battles they were as evenly matched as any other pair of top level chess players in history.

Apparently Karpov understands what tragedy is since he talks about the death of his father (hastened, as he says, by the Baguio match) in the same paragraph of the interview. However, I don't see any mention of the $600,000 loss or a casino comparison (am I missing something?). I suppose it could have been edited out. Mig, do you have a link to the source of your excerpts? The Russian version of the interview is here: http://www.trud.ru/trud.php?id=200605230900501

Translation in full of Karpov's statement:

"And where in life and chess did you make those biggest mistakes?

In life, I think, I made fewer mistakes than behind the chessboard. But it so turned out that my most signficant personal loss I probably hastened with my match against Korchnoi in 1978. Then my father was already seriously ill, but for a time he seemed to have stabilized. And then I lost three games...My father was stressing over my results probably even more than I was. At this moment his nervous system, his health could bear no more. In one week his condition took a turn for the worse and the doctors could do no more. My match ended in October and by New Year my father was permanently in the hospital. He died in March. So chess turned out to be tied to a family tragedy. Of course I have made serious mistakes in chess as well. For example, the last game of my championship match with Kasparov in Seville. I was ahead 12-11. I was twenty seconds short: I would have chosen the right move."

Many questions later he talks about whether Kasparov had ESP help during the second match but I don't see a mention of 600,000 there or any tragedy.

Bear,

I merely answering Ruslan who thought the lifetime record was +1 in Garry's favor over 250 games.

I don't think you can question Karpov's motives for donating the money. He could have defected and played for money for himself and not to donate it to causes he didn't believe in. He no more "had to" give the money to charity than an average American athlete who participates in a celebrity charity edition of a game show like Jeopardy "had to" give his winnings to charity. Besides, the history of his charity work is not limited to a period where he "had to" give money to Soviet sports authorities.

Karpov does indeed mention the word "tragic" with regards to his blunder in the 24th game in Seville. The last part of the translation should read:

"There were, of course, serious mistakes in chess as well. I would even say, tragic ones. For example, the last game..."

My point was that the Soviet Sport Authority was not a standard charity and Karpov's motives were irrelevant. During that period it was charity like paying your taxes is charity. Obviously anything he has given, of time and money, later is another story. And of course he did generate the money.

I got the quotes from a Spanish newspaper and gave all they had, didn't pick and choose or edit myself other than translating. Leaving things out is obvious but it would be strange if they added anything.

I suppose there could exist somewhere an English version of the same interview, and it could conceivably differ from the Russian one. However, I can not find one.

DZ, my bad--I forgot to put down that sentence--I didn't mean that he doesn't mention tragedy in that particular paragraph, just that he doesn't mention it in the later one. Ironically, the sentence I omitted was the very reason I translated. So, again:

"And where in life and chess did you make those biggest mistakes?
In life, I think, I made fewer mistakes than behind the chessboard. But it so turned out that my most signficant personal loss I probably hastened with my match against Korchnoi in 1978. Then my father was already seriously ill, but for a time he seemed to have stabilized. And then I lost three games...My father was stressing over my results probably even more than I was. At this moment his nervous system, his health could bear no more. In one week his condition took a turn for the worse and the doctors could do no more. My match ended in October and by New Year my father was permanently in the hospital. He died in March. So chess turned out to be tied to a family tragedy. Of course I have made serious mistakes in chess as well. I would even say tragic ones. For example, the last game of my championship match with Kasparov in Seville. I was ahead 12-11. I was twenty seconds short: I would have chosen the right move."

WOW thank you flyonthewall. finally someone who thinks clearly. I want to thank you for being able to put into words so well the feelings that I have had. I am not always so good with the correct words.

but you are right on. Karpov held Korchnoi's family hostage and the message from the Russian authorities was. if you want to see your family alive again then you better not defeat Karpov.

and people argue that karpov won. what a laugh. karpov held a gun to Korchnoi.

and I loved the way you talked about psychological profiling of fischer. that is exactly how I always saw the picture. there never has been any doubt that they purposely forced and pushed fischer into pulling out. it was too easy for them to do that. fischer was always pulling out. what a set up for the russians and karpov. what a phoney. he is no champion. never will be. and I believe that Karpov's basic character is the same today as it has always been. I do not trust anything that is karpov. none of his wins none of his games etc. he was also fed all kinds of opening analysis from other grandmasters to help karpov win games in every tournament. everything about karpov is not him. it is some kind of finagle

here is what flyonthewall posted above.

But I feel that tommy's comment has some validity -- not in terms of Karpov's abilities as a chess player, but only as applied to Karpov's character and sportsmanship.
In his dealings with both Fischer and (especially) Korchnoi, this man revealed there was nothing he would not stoop to.
The Eidinow book (about Fischer and the Cold War) makes clear that Karpov was beneficiary and participant of the Soviet authorities' well-laid strategies to "profile" Fischer, as we would say today, and use the resulting psychological insights to do everything in their power to goad the American into walking away from the match.
Worse, I think any fair-minded person must regard Karpov as complicit in the Soviet authorities' sending Korchnoi's son to a labor camp on the eve of a Karpov-Korchnoi WCC match (1981?)
Posted by: flyonthewall at May 24, 2006 13:58

"Karpov held Korchnoi's family hostage"

I believe he actually broke into Viktor's house and held the gun to Igor's head. The Russian KGB was able to interfere just in time.

"There has never been any doubt that they purposedly forced and pushed Fischer into pulling out."

Among genius psychological profiling pulled by Russians in this era:

--forcing Fischer to abstain from chess for 3 years by sending the wrong yogurt to his house
--asking Bobby to demand unique retaining rights
--being willing to negotiate terms for the match
--writing letter to FIDE on Fischer's behalf insisting his terms were non-negotiable
--continuing psychological persecution of Fischer long after he resigned championship and was of any use to them (how else to explain the sheer idiocy produced every time he opens his mouth?)
--pulling stunts on Fischer's behalf during Spassky match

You got to love this logic: Fischer was likely to pull out, therefore it must have been the Russian government that forced Fischer to pull out.

Recent comments from Kasparov (the 'interested outsider') in case you missed them on chessbase:

"I wouldn't say Topalov is clearly No 1, because he and Anand are about equal."

"Today, for instance, I would prefer to see a match between Topalov and Anand if I had to make my choice."

Nice to see my thoughts validated by the champion. Now if only I could think like him on the chessboard ...
:)

Just for the record.

Karpov had another "tragedy" (pick your word) against Kasparov, although not so definitive.

Karpov could have won the 1984 match by 6-0, but blundered on game 31 in a winning position.

tommy: Karpov had nothing to do with crimes that Korchnoi's son commited. If anything, it was part of Korchnoi's plot to get his son to commit crimes and get arrested, so he and western media could apply pressure on Karpov during the match. So it was Korchnoi who held a gun to Karpov's head during the match by claiming that his son arrest had political reasons. It is a shame he would use his son this way, but unfortunately he did.

Get real. Karpov didn't need any help in 1981. At that time he was one of the most dominant world champions in history, arguably the most dominant since Alekhine (and maybe on par with Alekhine).

As for Fischer situaton, how in the world is that Karpov's fault? Karpov was ready to play in 1975. Fischer chickened out. You can talk all you want about profiling (whatever the hell that is), but in the end it was Fischer's decision to not defend his title. Spassky and Soviet chess federation went to great length to accomodate Fischer in every possible way in the 1972 match (remember, Fischer basically forfeited a match and only Spassky's desire to continue saved it). Then prior to 1975, Karpov and Soviet chess federation fullfilled hundreds of demands of Fischer, except for one which was considered unfair by even Fischer's supporters (the 2 point odds clause that Fischer wanted for himself). So how in the world is is Fischer's loss of a title is anyone's fault but Fischer's?

And Karpov, with his career and his life prove that he contributed much more - no matter if one counts chess or non chess-contribution. Compare Karpov's charity work and work in peace foundations to Fischer's endless "me me me" interviews and anti-semitic rants. Surely, it is ridiculous to claim that Fischer is somehow morally superior to Karpov. Fischer is chess at its worst - it is madness, obsession, paranoya, racism, anticemitism. Karpov is chess at its best - domination and longevity on the board and significant and diverse contribution to society off the board.

As for Korchnoi, he is another one of the small minority of chessplayers who are anti-social and obsessed with chess. Even his peculiarities off the board aside, you cannot even compare his chess accomplishments and contribution to those of Karpov. Karpov is one of the all time greats. Korchnoi is a mere footnote of the Karpov era.

Yes, and let's not forget the 1974 match vs Korchnoi, where Karpov was +3 early on but was shaved to +1 by the time the clock (i.e. the 24-game match limit) ran out on his opponent. And of course there was the 1978 WCC match when Karpov again grabbed a huge early lead, then ran out of steam and almost lost the match.

I presume that those of you who prattle on about Fischer's / tommy's / my paranoia, are aware of how Garry Kasparov (in print) has explained the above events: that Karpov throughout his career relied heavily on doping to keep up his energy, and could be brought to heel if an opponent deliberately prolonged a match past the point where doping would be effective.

I make this point not to accuse Karpov of doping, but rather to expose his slavish followers like Yuriy for being decidedly selective when it comes to ridiculing paranoid theories.

Two further points: While Yuriy mentions "sending the wrong yogurt", in fact that was a bit of Soviet paranoia -- not paranoia coming from the Fischer side, as he implies. Remember when they insisted on X-raying Spassky's chair during the 1972 match, to see if Fischer had planted some device in it that was emitting waves to fry Spassky's brain?

Also, Yuriy's too-ready admission that he has not read the Eidinow book I cited earlier, makes it clear that "don't confuse me with the facts" is part of his agenda. Had he read that book, or even a review of it, he would not claim that the Russian side was "willing to negotiate terms for the match" between Fischer and Karpov in 1974. The book definitively disproves that claim, with extensive documentation released from Soviet archives. The Soviet (Karpov) side's central strategy in the talks leading up to that non-match was to always reject every suggestion from Fischer, since they figured (correctly) that would induce him to harden his positions and ultimately walk away. They also adopted as their main objective, that the match should never take place, presumably because they didn't think Karpov could defeat Fischer at the board.

Contrast the Karpov team's strategy in 1974-5 with Spassky's behavior during the 1972 WCC match with Fischer. Spassky could have walked away after Fischer forfeited in game 2 and claimed the whole match by default. Much later it was revealed that the Soviet authorities actually ordered him to do just that, but he disobeyed and went out of his way to reach an accommodation with Fischer -- presumably because Spassky felt the championship should be decided by chess played on the board, as opposed to the off-board "chess" preferred by cynical Soviet bureaucrats and other Cold War politicians.

Of the two attitudes toward WCC competition I have just described, which one -- Spassky's, or Karpov's -- do you think more deserving of the admiration associated with the word, "champion"?

Finally, as to who would have won had a WCC match been played in 1975, here is a citation from Wikipedia regarding Kasparov's recent claim (in My Great Predecessors) that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 1975: "Critics argue that Kasparov was trying to boost his own prestige by boosting that of the man he defeated. Spassky thought that Fischer would have won in 1975 but Karpov would have qualified again and beaten Fischer in 1978. Zsuzsa Polgar thinks Fischer would have won very narrowly in 1975 due to his greater experience."

Those views more or less correspond with my own -- although I actually don't think it would even have been close in 1975, simply because Karpov at that point was still well below the dominating levels of strength he attained by 1977 or 1978. As to whether Karpov at his peak (i.e. late 70s through early 80s, or even 1994 Linares) could have beaten Fischer at his peak (1970-72), that is a different question, of a wholly speculative and fantasy sort.

For those of you who are inclined to trust Kasparov without question, it's worth noting that Kasparov's own position in My Great Predecessors is a flip-flop on his part. I have a published interview with him from 1992 (on the occasion of the Fischer-Spassky match in Belgrade that year) where he flat-out stated that he thought Fischer would have beaten Karpov in '75.

Of course I've never denied that Fischer was an easy target for profiling, whose own actions played a major part in bringing about his own dethronement. All I'm saying is that that's not the whole story. And a "my ears are closed to anything I don't want to hear" attitude like Yuriy's, serves poorly the rest of us readers who are interested in learning about chess and chess history.

Is a Stalin apologist ok but a Bush apologist - not OK?

Come on guys, prove me wrong and pile on Russianbear.

"It was part of Korchnoi's plot to et his son to commit crimes and get arrested, so he and western media could apply pressure on Karpov during the match" (russianbear, if you are joking, I apologize; but your tone sounds like you are not joking...which I find very sad, given that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1992 and there are few statues of Uncle Joe to be found anywhere these days).

The "crimes" that Russianbear is referring to, by the way, are: applying for permission to leave the USSR, then (when his application was "answered" with a conscription notice) evading conscription.

Korchnoi "is another one of the small minority of chessplayers who are anti-social and obsessed with chess." Wake up, Uncle Joe, this is a CHESS blog you're writing on. It isn't Komsomolskaya Pravda circa 1959.

Everyone above who contrasted Karpov's contributions to society with Fischer's "contributions" was being no less cynical than the Stalinist remarks about Korchnoi I just quoted. Fischer is mentally ill. Belittling him for not contributing to society makes about as much sense as to criticize Steinitz, or Karl Marx for that matter, for not being philanthropists (both died in poverty).

Karpov obviously didn't use doping. Whatever happened to presumption of innocence. Also, Korchnoi did get close in the other two matches, but he still lost to Karpov, so it is not clear why Karpov, who was in his prime in 1981 would need to resort to unfair play against Korchnoi. On the other hand, Korchnoi's inability to win matches against Karpov, combined with his hateful personality, may well have led him to cheat.

As for Eidinow book, that book sounds as unbiased towards Karpov and Soviet chess as Hitler's Mein Kampf is unbiased towards Jews. Pardon us for not rushing to buy a copy.

And what does Stalin have to do with anything? Korchnoi's son broke the law and was arrested. So what? Should we blame stalinism for that? I am sure Korchnoi has his answers to the question of why his son was imprisoned in USSR, just as I am sure Fischer has his answers as to why he was imprisoned in the USA. Whetheir their stories should be taken as a fact is another question. But obviously they would both want to claim they were persecuted for political reasons - in Korchnoi's case, by the evil Soviets, and in Fischer's - by Jew/communist controlled USA.

And Korchnoi is known to be a very difficult person to be around. It is not like I am making things up about him.

Funny how you say Fischer is insane to relieve him of any responsibility to society, and yet you dont think he was insane enough to lose to Karpov in 1975 had he actually played. Trying to have your cake and eat it, too? What stage of paranoya corresponds to not being able to function properly and yet to being able to defend world chess championshiip?

Uh oh. Hitler. What's the name of that law?

Godwin's.

The Eidinow book is rambling, but not particularly biased. Most of the documents they use are Soviet. Obviously Fischer is the center of the story. But that doesn't mean the Soviets weren't conspiring against him. Considering all we know about the individuals running the show then it would be astonishing if they hadn't been.

As for drugs, many Soviet players of Karpov's era spoke of how the Soviets tried to find every advantage for him. Many of these same players simply assume drugs were one of these. These aren't even the worst Russian rumors to go around about young Karpov. Many should really be considered accusations against the system that Karpov served, however.

Gee, I wonder what drugs the US Chess Federation made Fischer take. They seem to offer 1 year chess burst and then lead to paranoya. Just by their respective careers/lives, the drugs that were pumped into Karpov seem to have less annoying side-effects than the one that were pumped into Fischer by USCF.

And as for Soviets conspiring against Fischer, I think it wasn't the case any more than Americans conspired against Karpov or Spassky. USCF wanted their guy to beat Karpov or Spassky as much as was the case vice versa.

Exactly, because we have hundreds of pages of documents from the USCF discussing psychological manipulation. And because many other American players have talked about how the USCF conducted drug experiments. Oh wait, that never happened.

And don't forget how the American players colluded for draws with each other. Darn, that didn't happen either. What's with this BS "everyone is the same, nobody is worse than anyone else, everyone is guilty of the same behavior"? The Soviet authorities put a huge amount of resources and thought into regaining the title by any means necessary. There was no similar effort, or even a structure or group capable of such an effort, anywhere else in the world, let alone in the US. The USCF couldn't even get their guy to play a single game after beating Spassky.

Fischer had his own sins and problems, certainly. He was miserable to Spassky in 72 and I doubt he would have played Karpov under any cirumstances in 75. He was too fragile by then.

As for Kasparov's estimations about the likely result of a Karpov-Fischer match, as he wrote, his opinion changed after spending a year deeply analyzing Fischer and Karpov's games for My Great Predecessors. He realized that Karpov was playing a very different type of chess and that Fischer probably would have seen the same thing, especially in the Karpov-Spassky candidates match. Thus his opinion that Fischer probably would have played had Korchnoi or Spassky come through instead of Karpov.

I love the way anyone who learns something or thinks about something in a new way and changes his mind is branded a "flip-flopper." Because clearly it's better to say something once and never think again for the rest of your life. Very Bushian.

I just looked up Godwin's law - it was interesting to say the least. However, as an online discussion grows longer, not only the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one, but also a probabilty of people mentioning pretty much anything, for example, sushi, approaches one. Note that people mentioned Stalin before I mentioned Hitler, and unlike my comment, theirs was indeed a logical fallacy.

But coming back to Karpov, I must say that if the Russian to Spanish translation was indeed the place where the mention of $600,000 was introduced, then it is not the first time a translator tried to 'alter' the original. I remember catching chessbase.com translators translating Kasparov's comments about Shirov (quoting from memory now) "he may play well against Bacrot in Biel, but when he plays me, it is a different story". They translated this as "he may play well against George in Bahamas, but when he plays me, it is a different story". So they changed to it make Kasparov sound like he wasn't attacking anyone in particular. And now apprently they are making it sound like Karpov especially cared about 600 000 dollars he lost in 1987 match. Call me paranoid, but it seems like if there is something in a translated chess text that was not in the original, this addition of a translator is more like to make Kasparov look good or to make Karpov look bad. Hmm, I wonder why people in the west are much more likely to like Kasparov than Karpov.

Mig, note that I wasn't claiming that USCF drugged Fischer. However, I strongly doubt that Soviet CF conducted drug experiments.

As for psychological manupulation, I doubt that Soviets chess had more to do with that than American chess. AFAIC the world championship match where a participant was under the most stress and psychological pressure from opposition was 1972, where Spassky had to withstand never-ending abuse and psychological pressure from the American side. Never before and never again was a participant subjected to that -all the hype, the crazy demands, etc. Fischer didn't even show up for one of the games - that sounds like something out of CIA psychological pressure manuals. I guess we have to wait for the CIA documents to be declassified to find out what kind of horrible psychological tricks were played on Spassky that he played like a shadow of his former self.

Note that it was never proven that Soviet colluded for draws with each other. It has as much proof as does the worldwide Israeli/Jew-controlled-USSR/jew controlled-USA anti Fischer conspiracy. However, the only thing that prevented Americans from collusion is that Americans were never good enough to make in into candidates tourney in large numbers.

Note that the accusation of such a collusion at the time were another trick used by the americans to apply pressure on Soviet GMs. Yet another was the FIDE quota for Soviet players, which legalized discrimination of Soviet chess players based on the lone fact that they happened to come from USSR. Again, this can only be part of the plot by the US.

Collusion never proven beyond statements by some of the players who colluded that yes, there was collusion? What else would you like?

The problem on the American side in 1972 was Fischer. That is, when you say "Americans" to whom are you referring? What organization? What leadership? You need conspirators to have a conspiracy.

We have all sorts of US government papers about Fischer. About how he and his mother were investigated as possible spies. About how Fischer was considered unstable and unreliable.

We have evidence on one side so you say we'll just have to wait until evidence that agrees with your point of view comes out on the other side before we come to any conclusions. No.

Fischer disappeared.
Kasparov's main rival was Karpov.
And Kasparov liked "Fischer over Karpov."

Kasparov surpassed Karpov.
Kasparov's rival for the title of "best ever" became Fischer.
And Kasparov changed to "Karpov over Fischer."

Kasparov may have revised his opinion in the course of analyzing the games of Fischer and Karpov for MGP. But hadn't Kasparov exhaustively analyzed the games of both men two decades ago?

People do learn things and change their minds. But Kasparov's mind-changings always seem to closely track his self-interest at any given moment.

Kasparov's varying takes on the WCC title, for example, are absolutely dizzying and appear to have nothing whatever to do with “learning something."

Then again, maybe it's all translation problems.

No, you mean what you, greg koster, designate to be Kasparov's self-interest. Huge difference. You spin similar arguments about everything. No matter the event, the opinion, the action, Kasparov = bad. Then you contrive an equation to match that predetermined result even if you must contradict yourself repeatedly to do so. Your own statements on Kasparov and the WCh are easily as dizzying. Even when Kasparov does exactly what you say he should do, he is, amazingly, wrong.

Kasparov had surpassed Karpov long ago. Perhaps flyonthewall can produce the 1992 interview and its source and see if it provides any context. The Spiegel and El Pais interviews I have do not. ("Fischer would have been the favorite" is all I have, without even stating whether or not he agreed with that, although it seems clear he did.) That said, of course Kasparov is not immune to letting his emotions get the better of him. But his saying Fischer would win back when Fischer was calling him a liar and a criminal who should be in jail doesn't sound like that. Nor has he ever let his dislike of Karpov get in the way of acknowledging his chess skills. Of course according to you this is only because Kasparov beat him and so praising Karpov is self-serving. Like every single other thing he has ever done or said. Of course.

In my experience, greg koster has been more fair and balanced about Kasparov than many other people have been about Karpov, for example.

Anyway, Mig, please enlighten those of us who don't know. Who exactly is the person who admitted to being a part of scheme to collude for draws.

And Fischer wasn't the only American. What about the fact that he shouldn't have even been playing in the candidates matches in the first place because he didn't play in the zonal (or was it iterzonal, I forget). FISCHER DIDN'T EVEN QUALIFY to play for the world championship. Had Karpov gotten to be the world champion in such a way, everyone would scream bloody murder. That is clear, since many people end up blaming Karpov for the fact that Fischer forfeited the 1975 title. So it was not just Fischer.

Also, I don't think the whole accident with x-raying the chair may have been provoked by american side by accidentally "giving away" the info to soviet side. Also, GM Geller suggested that Spassky have been the victim of the US intelligence operation.

The key to my "spin" on Kasparov: When I think he acts appropriately I praise him. When I think he doesn't, I criticize him.

Thus Kasparov:

--criticizes Karpov's FIDE WCC airdrop. Yay!
–-has his own FIDE WCC airdrop. Boo!

--obtains computer-related sponsorship. Yay!
--undercuts Intel and slimes IBM. Boo!

--condemns rematches. Yay!
--demands a rematch. Boo!

--says the WCC title is his until someone beats him. Yay!
--says [insert the current week’s position] Boo!

–holds a qualifier to determine his 2000 challenger. Yay!
–boycotts Kramnik’s 2002 qualifier. Boo!

If you take a principled position on ANY of these issues, you HAVE to criticize Kasparov 50% of the time.

The key to my "spin" on Kasparov: When I think he acts appropriately I praise him. When I think he doesn't, I criticize him.

Thus Kasparov:

--criticizes Karpov's FIDE WCC airdrop. Yay!
–has his own FIDE WCC airdrop. Boo!

--obtains computer-related sponsorship. Yay!
--undercuts Intel and slimes IBM. Boo!

--condemns rematches. Yay!
--demands a rematch. Boo!

--says the WCC title is his until someone beats him. Yay!
--says [insert the current week’s position]....Boo!

–holds a qualifier to determine his 2000 challenger. Yay!
–boycotts Kramnik’s 2002 qualifier. Boo!

If you take a principled position on ANY of these issues, you HAVE to criticize Kasparov 50% of the time.

oops

Mig,

Unlike Karpov, Kasparov's contributions to spheres of life beyond and above chess are substantial, nearly always voluntary, and, to me (and most other people, I think), generally sincere and praiseworthy.

That said, I don't see why that should immunize Garry's every action and statement from any kind of open-minded appraisal or criticism.

In particular, it is evident to almost everyone that Garry's ego and (chess and non-chess) activities tend to color his views of things. (For instance, my earlier comment that he was seen as self-interested when in MGP he favored Karpov over Fischer, was not just my own view, but was a quote from Wikipedia; I don't even know who wrote it.)

It's no crime, not even a sin, to have a big ego. I do, I suspect you do, and Kasparov has earned the right to have a much bigger ego than either of us.

Still, I think the likelihood that Garry has indeed "spun" his public judgments of Karpov, Fischer, Kramnik and others to suit his conception of his own place in chess history, is something worth noting.

Greg Koster just did an admirable job of articulating that. His comment is worth considering on its own merits, apart from whatever he may have said in other contexts.

Indeed, nice job greg koster.

Koster's analysis is true to his post history on this issue, while Mig's return shot reflects the confused Chessninja direction since GK's retirement. "Losing sucks" indeed, and since Mig lost Garry, the once-hysterical defences of his hero and benefactor have taken the form of clumsy birdshot aimed at the critical poster (in this case the critical Koster).

On a similar tack, it could be argued strongly that Garry Kasparov was the greatest thing that ever happened to chess but was not such a great gift to the chess community. Another 50-50 split that Mig could swallow with his vodka and Nytol to ease the strain of absolutism.

Great, now we've devolved into the usual Koster cut-and-paste-to-every-thread "discussion" to make every item all about why Garry Kasparov should be shot on sight. My response to save space: arguments #7, 12, and 15. I'll post a list later in case anyone has had the luck to forget.

As for the simple-minded little list, comparing each case as if there are no other factors involved is a nice way to ask everyone to turn off their brains. But I forgot, nuance is a dirty word. Only the condemning/demanding rematch item holds water, the others have plenty of debatable gray area. (Arguments #3, 11, and 23, with a little #24 tossed in to cover what makes an acceptable qualifier.)

Wow Russianbear, really going out on a limb. People you are agree with are fair and balanced. Excellent choice of adjectives, by the way. Exactly right. And of course Clubfoot, as usual indistinguishable from his lovemates while contributing nothing but hot air. Absolutist? I've disagreed with Kasparov on dozens of issues. His rapproachments with Campomanes and Ilyumzhinov were ridiculous, et al. It's the damned if you do, damned if you don't games that tick me off.

As for merits, If Kasparov came out tomorrow and said, "yeah, thinking about it again, Fischer probably would have beaten Karpov." It would be 1) Aha, see, Kasparov is a flip-flopper and 2) he's just tearing down Karpov because he hates him. You can NEVER LOSE this way. If Kasparov says anything critical of Karpov he's attacked for maligning a nemesis. If he says anything positive about him he's attacked for building up someone he beat.

Of course, both could be true! But since we're not mind-readers and, to pull rank, I'm the only one here who knows him well, you have only face value. You don't know his motivations. But if you automatically assume everything he says and does is based on selfish promotion, it's not hard to develop conclusions.

Now that he lost to Kramnik Kasparov isn't doing anything for unificiation. - Boo

In Prague Kasparov jumped into the world championship unification cycle. - Boo

The Kasparov Pono/Kasim matches are holding things up. - Boo

Kasparov dropped out of the Kasimdzhanov match, he's a quitter. - Boo

Good times, good times.

Mig, I would also add to your list of Kasparov's crimes his dropping out of the Shirov match. No doubt, Kasparov was terrified at the prospect of his opponent managing to draw one or even a couple of games.

I suppose I could add:

Kramnik is staying away from FIDE and upholding the long-match tradition of the classical world championship. - Yay

Kramnik is playing a FIDE unification match with Topalov and agreeing to play in a championship tournament. - Yay

Head explodes. - Yay

Fun game. Beats thinking.

On a more serious note, though, what really bothers me is that (to the best of my knowledge) Kasparov never spoke out on the subject of Ilyumzhinov's circus in and around Libya. Part of his less than savoury rapprochement with Kirsan, I guess.

Not really, but you can see where this would lead. If he says anything he's trying to ruin unification and is a double-dealer. If he doesn't say anything he's immoral about Israel, etc. Everybody wants Kasparov to shut up until he does, at which point everybody wants him to stand up and say something. At which point he is attacked for whatever he says, and/or is told to shut up. Rinse and repeat. He said at the time that of course it was a sick joke but it was for the federations and players needed to stand up. One gets tired of being the lightning rod all the time.

At the end of the day it's like the way Garry has told the players that if they don't approve their only weapon they have is to organize and, if necessary, to boycott. Easy for him to say. Likewise, easy for us to say he should walk away from a potential big match over an event he's not playing in. I eventually decided I couldn't condemn players who need to eat for playing chess. Kasparov had the financial luxury to pick and choose, but I'm not sure it's fair to hold that against him either.

Of course I ranted about Libya for months and provided one of the first platforms for others to rant about it (various players) while posting items to ChessBase. (Search here for Libya.) But I'm sure I was somehow serving Kasparov's interests there, too...

With all respect, I feel that you might be complicating things a bit here. Kasparov badly wanted to get to play Kramnik so he had to accept Tripoli as a real thing and Kasimdzhanov as a valid winner. Look where he ended up, though: no match and egg on his face about the whole Libya thing. Could be seen as poetic justice of sorts, don't you think?

I agree and that's not incompatible with what I said. I was talking about his speaking out about the Israeli situation. Kasimdzhanov (the Libya winner) was going to be FIDE champion regardless. Kasparov had already spent years bashing the KO's, but that's the way FIDE was choosing its champions. He already had a deal to face the FIDE champion so dictating how they chose that champion was a bit beside the point. Accepting such a deal to begin with was the hard part.

Of course he wanted a shot at Kramnik. He also wanted to help unify things, feeling guilty about causing the rift in 1993. If Kasparov doesn't participate there was no Prague. FIDE didn't want their KO champion playing Kramnik but thought they could get bucks and co-opt the title by first getting Kasparov in. Something for everyone and egg for everyone in the end. It's two sides of the word compromise. Almost by definition it's going to be a little sleazy because you're giving in on something. And then when nothing comes of it all you have is the dirty feeling... Dirty egg, yum.

Well, I guess, the only consolation for him is that this whole mess was a perfect preparation for his future political career.

It is very easy to accuse somebody of not listening to the facts when you are not providing any facts of your own. According to the Wikipedia article you cite, Fischer submitted a long list of demands. According to that same article, only two of those demands were rejected, the "first to X" rule and "draw in case of both have X-1" rule. Neither one of those do I find reasonable or reasonable ground to reject the match. The former rule was even accepted for the candidates cycle of 1975. Fischer's letter to FIDE announcing his decision to quit started with the sentence: "As I made clear in my telegram to the FIDE delegates, the match conditions I proposed were non-negotiable." The article cites the very Eidinow book you mention and I have read a review of it, both at the Post and the Amazon.

Shall we talk about other mentions of Fischer paranoia in the Wikipedia article in the match of the century?
Who asked to remove all cameras from the match and refused to show up when they weren't?
Who demanded to play in a small room backstage?
Who started the rocking back and forth in the chair?
Who, in his second's words went around inspecting television equipment and tested remote control camera for possible sources of noise?
Who demanded the removal of first seven rows of spectators?
And no, it wasn't Soviet paranoia that led to Fischer abstaning from chess for three years. That decision was up to Bobby.
Now THESE are facts, fly. I haven't seen too many from you yet. So far you have stated two: Soviets rejected Fischer's demands, something I find doubtful considering virtually all of them were accepted.
Soviets asked for Spassky's chair to be tested for devices. Agreed, but this is a relatively minor demand easy to verify right or wrong and this took place late in the match, long after Fischer pulled the same stunt as it relates to rooms and cameras.

I am a SLAVISH follower of Karpov. I guess that is why I consider the man to have often behaved immoral professionally and to have been a tool of an evil regime. But I will not accept accusations that Karpov ate babies or accusations that are equally ridiculous such as:

1. Karpov instigated imprisonment of Korchnoi's son.

Anybody who followed Soviet politics knows that it would take USSR no prompting from anybody whatsoever to do everything they can to hurt Korchnoi.

2. Any time Soviet side is taken to equate with Karpov side.

Sorry, but aside from a few dissidents like Bronstein, Spassky and Kasparov who were occasionally able to stand up and have things their way, all negotations were always done on Soviet GMs behalf by the Soviet government with little consideration for what the players wanted.

3. Karpov's doping explains his collapses in matches.

Karpov's health explains his collapse in matches--the man was not in good shape and had several physical collapses whenever the match would run long. What kind of doping can't be readministered anyway?

side note: even the infamous yogurt Karpov had is of the type associated with people recovering from illness/in a hospital

4. Karpov was pumped with opening innovations and tips in games that were adjourned.

This is especially amazing since Karpov's games, especially those against Kasparov had lack of opening innovations and poor finishing post-adjournment. On the other hand in situations when the opponent would display a novelty or in situations that required high understanding of the position, Karpov played tremendously.

5. Karpov's success was due to team Soviet GMs that was on his side.

In those great days, after Alekhine, but before Deep Fritz, everybody worked with a team of GMs. Yes, Karpov's was strong. But he achieved his best results after the collapse of the Soviet Union and continued to be a top player, easily second greatest in the world, long after the Soviet machine had fallen apart.

Like I said, many of the things about the man repulse me. But these allegations are not among them.

Just a small test of how SLAVISH a follower of Karpov you are. Was he or was he not kissed on both cheeks by (clearly senile) Brezhnev?

The subject of Kasparov's opinion on Fischer-Karpov 1975 is an interesting one, and, I hope, worthy of discussion. It was interesting enough for Mig to attribute Kasparov's change of mind to his work on MGP.

When I explored the other side of that issue, however, Mig exploded:

"You spin arguments about everything. No matter the event, the opinion, the action, Kasparov=bad...Even when Kasparov does exactly what you say he should do, he is, amazingly, wrong."

Mig accused me of making every item into an argument on "about why Garry Kasparov should be shot on sight," referred to Koster's "simple-minded list", suggested that Koster wants everyone to "turn off their brains", that Koster considers nuance "a dirty word."

Are these claims accurate? Or do I write carefully and responsibly, citing statistics, quoting sources?

Mig's attack on me clearly took the discussion a long way from "is Kasparov's opinion on Karpov-Fischer credible?" I suspect that's the point. Mig is bullying. Much or most of the energy in this thread has been expended on the question of the character of the 11th and 12th World Champions. Mig, if you're foreclosing debate on the credibility and character of the 13th, it would be more honest to just come out and say so, rather than attacking your posters and effectively aborting the inquiry.

Actually, I don't remember, but I think a lot of people were (including Carter, Castro and Honecker), so I would bet he was as well.

Hey guys get off Karpov's back. He dominated chess from 1975-1985. Every great player has helpers.

What doomed Karpov was his philosphy. He has said that chess mastery comes from constant practice not new idea, Kasparov defeated Karpov with work, and new ideas

Yes, he was (kissed by Brezhnev repeatedly) - when getting a medal after the Baguio match. One of the most disgusting things I have ever seen on TV in my life...

To think about this thread's caption, I would expect any normal human being would nominate THAT as the worst moment of his/her life.

Except of course Russianbear. For him, that (being kissed in public by Brezhnev) would be the BEST moment of his life! Only thing that could possibly outdo it would be getting kissed by Stalin.

Come to think of it, Karpov might very well feel the same.

"Come to think of it, Karpov might very well feel the same."

You have a point here :)

On further thought.

Accusing Mig of trying to "blow up" the discussion of Kasparov's Fischer-Karpov 1975 credibility was unfair. Better to simply try to respond to some of the many, many, many points he raises:

"Nor has he ever let his dislike of Karpov get in the way of acknowledging his chess skills. Of course according to you this is because Kasparov beat him and so praising Karpov is self-serving. Like every other thing he has done or said. Of course."

--You're right, Mig. A champion can be accused of being self-serving whether he praises or damns his challenger. But you'll never find me damning Kasparov for praising an opponent. Thus I have no quarrel with Kasparov saying, before his last WCC match with his great rival: "That's the last thing I haven't done in chess--to beat Karpov convincingly." (New York 1990 result: 12.5-11.5).

On the other hand, Kasparov must be faulted for the belittling "praise" he routinely doles out. One of many examples: "The secret of Karpov's style is to achieve maximum effect by minimum effort in positions he likes...he's extremely dangerous--he plays like a robot." (Quotes are from L.A. Times Oct 7, 1990)

"Great, now we've devolved into the usual Koster cut-and-paste-to-every-thread.....My response to save space: Arguments #7, 12, and 15."
–The reason these discussions appear repetitious is that when Kasparov-related threads start getting "sticky" Mig routinely abandons or "explodes" them. Kasparovus interruptus.

Karpov is/was the greatest chess talent in the 2nd half of the 20th century .
He didnt study or prepare as much as a match demamded though he had great results in all his matches .
Never forget that he could have won 6- 0 in 84-85 or that in 2nd match in 1985 he lost the title becasue of home prepared game 16 and becasue of a terrible blunder in game 11 . Never forget his comwback in 1986 he went from being 3 points behind to equal score within 3 games . Never forget the 1987 match when he could retain the title again .. he had many chances for it .. more chances than a super GM nowadays can dream of . Remember now how all other oponents got crashed by Kasparov and just finishing this post i have to remind u that Linares 94 is a record noone can acheive again ... not even kapablanca or fischer .. NOONE .

Stergios,

I'd like to review a tighly-reasoned argument that Karpov, not Kasparov, was the greatest chess talent of the past 50 years. But you haven't made it. In the meantime I'm siding with Jeff Sonas.

You argue that "Karpov didn't study or prepare as much as a match demanded", and imply that if he had done so he would have surpassed Kasparov. Maybe, Stergios, if YOU had studied as hard as Kasparov YOU would have surpassed him.

And if you remove from the equation the games where Karpov was caught in a prepared variation, or blundered, you'll have to do the same for Kasparov.

Greg,

The best comment in this blog was your first one. It made me laugh. Thanks for sharing your wit.

Not much news today, evidently, so I'll add something to the lengthy list of Karpov's Worst Moments (again, relating to character, not chess performance).

Karpov was addressing a press conference on the occasion of an important match. Most likely it was the 1978 WCC match against Korchnoi. Location was somewhere in the West, probably France, England or maybe Switzerland.

Fernando Arrabal, a Spanish journalist and well-known literary figure (a dadaist playwright, if memory serves), attempts to ask him a question. Arrabal was known to be an admirer of Fischer, who was not part of the picture in 1978. But it meant that Karpov and his Soviet handlers would have known the Spaniard's questions would be unfriendly to them.

The MC (or perhaps Karpov himself) calls on Arrabal. He starts to ask his question in Spanish, but is quickly cut off by Karpov who cites the "ground rules" of that particular press conference: questions may be asked only in Russian, English or French (the latter was the official language of FIDE at the time, I believe).

Obviously there would have been people on hand, even within Karpov's entourage and/or the FIDE group, who could have translated Spanish if need be. But the champ wasn't gonna miss an opportunity to wave the rule book against a critic, even one with press accreditation at an official press conference.

Arrabal was visibly nonplussed, and tried to dispute the champ's restriction. But in the end he had to accept that Karpov was within his rights to insist on one of the three approved languages. So he gamely continued in broken English.

He barely got past the first word of his question, before Karpov derisively and triumphantly dismissed him.

"Master Karpov," Arrabal began...

The champ -- having succeeded in luring his opponent to make the brave but dubious move of addressing him in an unfamiliar (to the questioner) language, broke in with outrage in his voice. Indeed, the moral outrage felt by this champion of human rights, this humble champion of free speech, was so great that (again relying on my dim memory), Karpov himself spoke in two languages at once.

"Ya ne myestr! Ya grossmyestr!" he blurted out, or something close to that. Then he switched to English: "I am World Champion!"

And with a wave of his hand the champ avoided having to answer a question he didn't want to have to answer...on the grounds that the guy asking it wasn't sufficiently fluent in English (or Russian, or French).

Sounds kinda like something George W. might do...doesn't it?

Whaddaya think of that, Russianbear?

A lot of people don't understand that to buy custom essay supposes to be a normal issue in process of study. Hundreds of students all over the world use help of the custom services to have a good result.