I have formed the opinion, judging from a lot of reading material on the subject, it remains a logical response on the fact that the USSR did not want that champion was Garry Kasparov.?But why? Yes, he seems to be Azeri with mixed roots, but played it for the flag of the Soviet Union would just drop the time for RUSSIA and it is naturally like predstavil modern Russian school and spoke not from flagdom of the USSR and the Russian flag, but who exactly didn't want to see Harry in the role of a new champion that had to play in total, 144 of the party of which 21 won the Harry and Karpov won 19.
In the Soviet Union people were divided: Botvinnik, Shevernadze and others rooted for Kasparov. Kasparov was of Jewish and Armenian descent, born and raised in Azerbaidzhan. Karpov was a party member.
Objectively speaking, Karpov was probably still stronger in the first match as he got a huge advantage against Kasparov who was playing too sharp for a win. Then on advice by Botvinnik, Kasparov began to play for draws, so as to wear Karpov out.
Objectively speaking, Karpov was probably still stronger in the first match as he got a huge advantage against Kasparov who was playing too sharp for a win. Then on advice by Botvinnik, Kasparov began to play for draws, so as to wear Karpov out.
Maybe the party elite did not want to let Karpov go
One was 13 years younger, had a bit more energy and zeal, much better analyzed opening prep stuff and a far better seconds team for all 5x WC matches. Tiny advantages all, but all were very valuable.
Karpov-Kasparov in almost all respects a match too close to call. Both amongst the probably 5 best Chess players ever, maybe Top 3 of all time even. Karpov very probably to be seen as an almost equal to Kasparov. OK, 2 tiny losses in win-or-die matches ... both toss -of-the-coin games though. The winner gets bragging rights, the loser can suffer.
Both 6x World Champion too. Without one, then surely not the other. Karpov was very HQ, in almost all aspects of the game, bar beating Garri convincingly just doing so the once even. Garri meanwhile never faced a single worthy opponent post-Karpov, in his PCA days and a then hasty retirement at age 45 or so.
Both played Chess to the extreme level against each other, both rarely tested against Anand etc who was not 100% at this high level of play, at that moment. K-K probably almost dead-equal in actual games.
Karpov-Kasparov in almost all respects a match too close to call. Both amongst the probably 5 best Chess players ever, maybe Top 3 of all time even. Karpov very probably to be seen as an almost equal to Kasparov. OK, 2 tiny losses in win-or-die matches ... both toss -of-the-coin games though. The winner gets bragging rights, the loser can suffer.
Both 6x World Champion too. Without one, then surely not the other. Karpov was very HQ, in almost all aspects of the game, bar beating Garri convincingly just doing so the once even. Garri meanwhile never faced a single worthy opponent post-Karpov, in his PCA days and a then hasty retirement at age 45 or so.
Both played Chess to the extreme level against each other, both rarely tested against Anand etc who was not 100% at this high level of play, at that moment. K-K probably almost dead-equal in actual games.
I remember the last encounter in New York/Paris 1990. Replaying the games from „videotext“...
A Political discussion.
The book by Kasparov on the matches is great reading.
He deliberately omitted commenting on the games of the first match, tacitly admitting that Karpov then was the stronger player.
He deliberately omitted commenting on the games of the first match, tacitly admitting that Karpov then was the stronger player.
One aspect of K-K was a maybe obstinate refusal by Karpov (mostly him btw), to just avoid the sharpest possible lines.
Karpov kept-on always playing for example the Zaitsev defense to the Spanish until he lost eventually in one series of WC matches. Also once Garri maybe astonished him by reviving the Scotch opening after about 100 years of non-activity and also launched a very well-prepared b3 novelty against him, Karpov still played the very same line next game and then lost in it's crazy you-mate-me-or-i'll-mate-you opposite castling complications.
Or revisiting the Petroff quite a bit or even so many explorations of the Grunfeld defense. So many times, Karpov almost broke through here, but just not quite happening for him ever really. Against Kamsky, it clicked a bit better.
So many other maybe possibly swing moments too. Karpov just almost seemingly pre-destined to play the losing hand so very often. Every defining moment or else momentum swing seemed to go always Kasparov's way. Genuine 50/50 games mostly fell his way, blunders on both sides mostly worked for him too, knife-edge games as well.
Contrary to the narrative of the time, one player is so very nice and ultra-approachable and quite humble - whilst the other was never so. He would snap your head off, if you ever dared to actively intrude in any post-match kibitzing stuff. One would put you in your place, very firmly so too, if deemed necessary by him, the other would not mind at all a little bit of interaction. Both almost other-wordly qua Chess calculations, of course. There they did not differ greatly from each other. They saw stuff multiple moves ahead in almost every conceivable line you could think of.
No real guesses needed as to who-is-who here. Especially if you ever happened to meet one or the other of them. Then it would be very obvious and no explanation ever needed. Not that you ever need to be likable per-se to be a fantastic chess player. It does maybe help though, at least at the human level.
Karpov kept-on always playing for example the Zaitsev defense to the Spanish until he lost eventually in one series of WC matches. Also once Garri maybe astonished him by reviving the Scotch opening after about 100 years of non-activity and also launched a very well-prepared b3 novelty against him, Karpov still played the very same line next game and then lost in it's crazy you-mate-me-or-i'll-mate-you opposite castling complications.
Or revisiting the Petroff quite a bit or even so many explorations of the Grunfeld defense. So many times, Karpov almost broke through here, but just not quite happening for him ever really. Against Kamsky, it clicked a bit better.
So many other maybe possibly swing moments too. Karpov just almost seemingly pre-destined to play the losing hand so very often. Every defining moment or else momentum swing seemed to go always Kasparov's way. Genuine 50/50 games mostly fell his way, blunders on both sides mostly worked for him too, knife-edge games as well.
Contrary to the narrative of the time, one player is so very nice and ultra-approachable and quite humble - whilst the other was never so. He would snap your head off, if you ever dared to actively intrude in any post-match kibitzing stuff. One would put you in your place, very firmly so too, if deemed necessary by him, the other would not mind at all a little bit of interaction. Both almost other-wordly qua Chess calculations, of course. There they did not differ greatly from each other. They saw stuff multiple moves ahead in almost every conceivable line you could think of.
No real guesses needed as to who-is-who here. Especially if you ever happened to meet one or the other of them. Then it would be very obvious and no explanation ever needed. Not that you ever need to be likable per-se to be a fantastic chess player. It does maybe help though, at least at the human level.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.