On October 18 when the Chief Arbiter announced that Korchnoi has conceded game thirty-two, Karpov sent a telegram to L. Brezhnev.
The match was over. After 94 days, Karpov had successfully defended his crown.
“He played a game he had never analyzed made bad moves we have never seen,” said Michael Steen
“I don’t even want to look at the board,” Korchnoi told his seconds, refusing to analyze the position overnight. His team pored over the board but could not salvage a draw.
Karpov received the biggest purse in chess history—$350,000 while Korchnoi gets US$200,000.
The champion held a press conference it 7:00 pm yesterday on the stage of the Baguio Convention Centre.
Admitting physical and mental fatigue and losing three kilos, Karpov said his best games were the 8th, 27th and 32nd. He also cited the 22nd and 25th as good games. “I am happy wilt, the outcome but not with the score,” Karpov said.
In reply to Korchnoi’s accusation of “hostility of the organizers,” Karpov said “When we played in the Soviet Union in 1974, he blamed the Soviet authorities whom he said conspired to stop him from winning the championship. Now that we are here, he is blaming the Filipino organizers. I do not know now where we can play the championship for him not to blame anyone.”
The match divided naturally into four phases. During the first (Games 1-12) Korchnoi clearly had the better of the play but he was only able to convert one of his advantageous positions into a win. A good example was showed in the 5th game (the longest ever game played during a world championship match: 124 moves) when Korchnoi, in time trouble and completely winning blundered on move 55 with Be4?? instead of Bf7. The first Karpov’s victory came on game 8 in 28 moves. Korchnoi was not very well inspired to innovate his 9th move in a Ruy Lopez opening. And after Karpov move 18 Bh6! he was nearly lost. Korchnoi came back on score on the 11th but mainly because Karpov was out of form. With the score standing at 1-1 with 10 draws Karpov had ceased to be firm favorite and the result of the match appeared to be completely open. But the second phase (Games 13-17) changed all that. Karpov won three more games without reply (13th, 14th and 17th when he had to resign move 39 just before to be mated) and the question in most people’s minds became not who would win but how long Korchnoi could make the match last. The third phase (Games 18-26) was in many ways the reverse of the first. Now it was Karpov who established good positions only to throw them away. Korchnoi managed to pull back one game during this phase (in the 21st Karpov mixed up a drawish endgame) but this still left him trailing 4-2.
The fourth phase (Games 27-32) produced the final shoot-out. Karpov won game 27 to go 5-2 up but them appeared to run out of ammunition. Korchnoi scored 3.5 points from the next four games (29-31-32) to level the score at 5-5. It looked as though a miracle was about to occur but it was not to be. In this last game, Korchnoi defended with a Pirc. By playing some strange move like 11…Nh5 his position became already uncomfortable. Karpov moved his pieces on the King-side and on the 25th lunched a fatal central attack. After five hours of play Korchnoi decided to adjourn the hopeless position. The play was never resumed and the next day Korchnoi sent a letter to the Deputy Chief Arbiter: “I don’t resume the 32nd game but I’m not going to sign the score sheet of the game because it has been played under absolutely illegal conditions. I don’t consider this game valid. The match is not finished. I reserve the right to complain to the FIDE on the tolerable Soviet’s behaviour, a hostility of the organizers, a lack of activity of the arbiters. ”
Karpov won the thirty-second game and retained his title by the narrowest possible margin, 6-5.
So Karpov remains world chess champion for another three years. A part of his victory is maybe due to handling of the clock. He had obviously decided this was Korchnoi’s Achilles’ heel and he played on this weakness constantly. He played fast to induce Korchnoi to get into time trouble and played sharp moves when Korchnoi was in time trouble. In the end this tactic worked but it came perilously close to costing Karpov the match. It would have been a better match, and probably Karpov would have obtained a better result, if he had used his full time allowance and concentrated on trying to find the best moves. For all these criticisms, one can’t take away from Karpov the fact that he won the match and so established himself as the most effective player in the world at the time.
Korchnoi played better than Karpov-but he also played worse. His play was generally on a high creative level than Karpov. But too often his play descended briefly but decisively to the depth. Nearly always his perpetual enemy, the clock, caused his collapses. It was easy enough to spot the disease but it proved impossible to find a cure. Korchnoi failed to win the world title but he took the champion the full distance and his play at its best was worthy of any world champion.
Let there be no doubt that the general quality of the play was high. The present match was afflicted by both these problems to a greater degree than ever before and the situation was exacerbated by the fact that the level of controversy swept up not only the players themselves but also members of their delegations, the organizers and members of the jury. The level of contention which arose in this hostile atmosphere included not only matters of genuine importance but also trivia. Let just mentioned few of them : the yogurt war; the darkly-tinted glasses; the parapsychologist Dr. Zoukhar; Korchnoi’s contortions and grimaces; shaking hands…
For the statistics, the players made with 1526 moves a new world record beating the old record holding by Capablanca and Alekhine in 1927 with 1397 moves and 34 games. The match showed also the highest average of moves with 48 beating the old record by the same players in 1974 with 47
Baguio City, VII-X, 1978.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | |
| Korchnoi | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = |
| Karpov | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | Total | ||
| Korchnoi V | = | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | 15.5 | |
| Karpov A | = | = | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 16.5 |
Alexei Srebnitsky APN Correspondent reported in Chess Chat:
“Anatoly Karpov, 27, a graduate of the economics department of Leningrad University, has beaten in Baguio (Phi¬lippines) Victor Korchnoi 6 :5 and de¬fended his world chess crown. Over three months the opponent played 32 games (draws were not. taken into account). They were losing weight and undergoing nervous tension. As a result, the stronger and the stauncher of the two emerged triumphant.
The match, especially in its initial stage, was proceeding in a compli¬cated psychological atmosphere. The jury of appeals had to examine pro¬test after protest, which came from Korchnoi’s side. Karpov, as he put it, wanted only one thing: to play chess.
Many experts not without grounds predicted Karpov’s success. Indeed, he has been awarded the chess Oscar for the last five years in a row. But his triumph, as can be judged at least by the close score, has called for self devotion, creative endeavour and re¬straint.
Why has the champion failed to overwhelm the contender?
First, Korchnoi is, undoubtedly, a strong rival. As Victor Baturinsky, director of the USSR Central Chess Club, who headed the Soviet delega¬tion at Baguio, told me, Korchnoi was excellently prepared for the match from the theoretical, physical and even (Baturinsky smiled) technical point of view.
Obviously, following Fischer’s ex¬ample, he even brought a special arm¬chair from Holland. Interestingly, ¬when Karpov was leading 4 – 1, the same Dutch company offered him by cable a similar armchair – free of charge. The champion thanked the company, but refused.
With the score 2 – 5 the contender, probably, lost all hopes of fighting back and began to play in a free and easy way. As often occurs in sport, Korchnoi unexpectedly improved his standards and even levelled the score.
But Karpov was not broken. Mikhail Tal, who knows Karpov well, wrote about him on the eve of the match: “Anatoly is very sportsmanlike by nature. At the crucial moments he becomes transformed and plays much better than his usual level. This was reflected in a number of excellent vic¬tories gained at the crucial moments.” The former world champion would, probably, repeat these words with pleasure.
Karpov first started absorbing the ideas of the great Capablanca, then went through the school of Mikhail Botvinnik and for many years worked hand in hand with outstanding coach and prominent grandmaster Semyon Furman. Anatoly took up chess in the old Russian town of Zlatoust in the Urals and continued to play in Tula. At the age of 9 he qualified for the first rating, at 11 he became a candi¬date master, at 15 – a master and at 19 – an international grandmaster.
When Karpov was nearing 24, he won the world chess crown for the first time. Prior to that he had squeak¬ed past the experienced Polugaevsky, Spassky and Korchnoi. The then world champion Fischer refused to defend his title and ceded the palm.
Keeping his promise to be a “play¬ing champion”, Karpov took part in 14 major tourneys within less than three years. In twelve of them he took or tied for first place. This year, shortly before the match for the world title, he tied for first place with Boris Spassky in a grandmaster’s tournament at Bugojno, Yugoslavia.
Anatoly Karpov does not confine his interest to chess, however. He graduated from secondary school with a gold medal. His university diploma paper “Spare Time and its Economic Significance under Socialism”, de¬fended on February 8, 1978, was a-warded the highest grade and recom¬mended for the press. Karpov goes in for sport likes to read and from child¬hood has been a stamp collector. He travels much throughout the country, delivers lectures and consultations and gives simultaneous exhibitions.
“My life would have been pretty awful if I had confined myself to chess”, Karpov admitted once. Ana¬toly devotes to chess a mere three hours a day, but, as he points out during this time he is fully absorbed in the game.
After the new triumph Karpov continues to stick to his rules, which chess devotees throughout the world like very much. He will remain a “playing champion”.
S. Flohr: “I am not surprised that, having lost the match in Baguio, Korchnoi tries to explain his defeat by causes not of a chess nature”, international grandmaster Salo Flohr told an APN correspondent in Moscow. “I would rather be surprised if he did not try”, Flohr added.
After he lost the world champion¬ship match Korchnoi made a state¬ment in which, seeking to explain his failure, he sharply attacked Karpov, the Soviet delegation, the organizers of the match and the International Chess Federation. Korchnoi declared, in particular, that the “organizers of the match were fully under Soviet pressure”. Korchnoi and his second, British grandmaster Keene, also claim that they experienced an “incredible stress” during the match.
“These are absolutely not augmented statements”, says Flohr, “but I understand what their prime cause Korchnoi -and this has long been known – is unable to lose in a gentlemanly way. I have seen many world chess matches: I remember 1935, when the great Alekhine lost to Max Euwe. The champion of all times, as I regard him, clothed in tail-coat, held out a hand to his happy rival and uttered the traditional words of sportsmanship: ‘Hurrah to the new world champion!”
“Korchnoi”, continued Salo Flohr, “tries to copy Robert Fischer, to whom, by the way, he is no match as a chess player. Fischer brought a special chair with him to his match with Spassky in Reykjavik – Korchnoi brings a similar one to Baguio. Fischer in the Icelandic capital sends protest after protest to the Board of Appeals – Korchnoi in the Philippines does the same thing. I must, however, note that Fischer’s remarks were most often to the point, though some were wrong as well – but they were never egoistic. This stands in marked con¬trast with Korchnoi who, in his cap¬rices, works only for himself.”
“Let us recall”, suggests Flohr, “the 1974 match between Korchnoi and Karpov. It passed smoothly; the Muscovites offered the players the best halls of their city. But as soon as Korchnoi lost, he began to complain to journalists about discrimination -which he had supposedly felt during the match.”
“I”, said Flohr, “admit that the public was more sympathetic towards Karpov. But the blame rests above all with Korchnoi himself, since on the eve of the match he made at least two immodest statements. Firstly, he said that Karpov was too young and in-experienced for a meeting with Bobby Fischer and that he, Korchnoi, would not give his rival an opportunity to meet the then world champion. Se¬condly, Korchnoi publicly promised to “be through with Karpov” within se¬venteen games. If I had been a fan of Korchnoi after these statements of his I would no doubt have crossed over to the ‘Karpov camp'”
“Korchnoi was highly pleased by the state of affairs in Belgrade when he in one of the challenge matches of the present cycle led by five victories against Spassky. But after suffering four defeats later, he went into hys¬terics and found nothing better than to explain his failure by an allegation that he was being “sent rays on”. An absurdity? Yes. But since Korchnoi succeeded in winning that match after all, he later admitted that he had simply said that in jest.”
“I think”, remarks Flohr, “that one could have found a wittier joke”.
“In Baguio, after the Korchnoi team settled down and the contenders began at long last to simply play chess, the challenger was quite satis¬fied with the atmosphere of the match especially as he at first reduced the gap in score and then even equalized it. But when he lost the last, decisive, game, Korchnoi again took up his old tune and, I repeat, I would be sur¬prised if he didn’t do it. Korchnoi is forty-seven years old – an age when a man can no longer be changed.”
“Now he says”, stressed Salo Flohr, “that Karpov is not truly interested in chess and resembles a robot whose only interest is to win a victory over the rival. Obviously, the style of play of the young champion is not to Korchnoi’s liking. Well, you should prove that your style is more pro¬mising, but prove it
at the chessboard.” (The match ends when one of the players achieves 6 victories. Draws do not count. If Karpov loses, a return match will be played within one year).
32 games were played, Karpov won 6, Korchnoi won 5, and 21 games were drawn.
M. Euwe (Holland): “The match abounded with problems. The quality of the games was not as expected. I also think that this system of an unlimited number of games is good — it is more interesting. But I have another suggestion — to play, let’s say, 20 games then interrupt the match and let the grandmasters rest for three months, so that they could resume their play rested and fresh.”
R. Byrne (USA): “This match had the worst sportsmanship of any match in chess history, and I think that was the main reason why they had so many mistakes in the games. They were so busy spitting each other off the board that their energy went in that, not in playing. You know, it started with Korchnoi accusing Karpov of being the “jailor of my family’. That has nothing to do with the match and it’s a part of naive politics. That was followed by yoghourt in the 2nd gate, then Zoukhar and all sorts of disputes, one after the other. Then came the biggest dispute. Korchnoi chose the wo Ananda Margas, who had been convicted of murder to be members of his team, Fantastic! The match was a circus of its own; so it’s not surprising that there were so many mistakes. Korchnoi also made many mistakes in time pressure, Keene, Korchnoi’s second, told me before the match that Korchnoi knew problem time pressure, but added “He is working on its”. It was obvious that he did not succeed. I guessed the result of the match, as I had done with the result of the match Spassky—Fischer in 1972. I would like to say that there were some good games as well. After three months of play Karpov must have been very tired, but he played extremely well against the Pirc defence. Some might wonder why Korchnoi played Pirc defence, but the the fact is that he played well, and the three defeats Karpov had — games 28, 29 sad 31 set up that exciting finish. He played so passively, he simply maintained the position.
In my opinion Karpov’s best game was the eighth where Korchnoi played the opening badly. Well games were the 18th and the 32nd Korchnoi played the end games very well in the finish.
Now when I think of the match I remember mostly all the disputes and also that heavy rain in Baguio. When Korchnoi went to the Philippines he said that he had asked to play during rain, but he had never seen a bad monsoon season. Baguio is a beautiful place, but you have to go there when there is no rain.”
P. Benko (USA): The quality of the games was not on a very high level, but it was an interesting battle, especially from the psychological point of view. I did not go to Baguio, and therefore don’t know all that was going there. But I read a lot, and judging from what ‘I’ve read there were indeed very many problems.”
W. Browne (USA): “it was undoubtedly one of the most interesting and exciting matches because of its exceptional atmosphere, In my opinion all that went on around the match is not for chess, The battle was even, and Karpov’s victory is praiseworthy, regardless of the fact that Korchnoi equalized in the finish.”
After the match a journalist from the “Shakmaty v SSSR” interviewed Arbiter Malcev BUL member of the Appeal Committee.
Q: How can the refusal of Challenger’s claims to play under Swiss flag be explained?
A: Some unscrupulous journalists began a fussy campaign. The answer is absolutely clear. One of the regulations of the match points that there should be flags of the countries represented by the participants. As far as the challenger as not the citizen of Switzerland his claims were not legal.
Q: From the very beginning of the match the representative of the challenger Mrs. Leeuwerik stated that the Appealing Committee was “pro-Soviet”. What can you say on this point?
A: The Appealing Committee followed strictly the regulations of the match and the international laws confirmed by FIDE, the decisions were made unanimously. Nevertheless, Mrs. Leeuwerik always tried to explain those decisions by political motives. Rude and unpleasant attacks of this expansive person only disturbed the normal procedure of the match. As for the Appealing Committee, it included the Colonel Edmondson USA, Professor Lim Kok Ann SIN- the Head of the Committee and me. It was ridiculous to say that the Committee was “pro-Soviet”.
Q: How did you treat the claim of Korchnoi when Karpov asked for a glass of soft drink during the game?
A: Only an abnormal imagination of the challenger and his representatives could see some dirty tricks in such a simple fact. Still, the Committee took it seriously. The claim was discussed and certainly declined.
Q: What is your opinion on the claims concerning the presence of Dr. Zukhar in the playing-room?
A: My opinion is absolutely definite and is the same with the official decision of the Committee. The presence of respectful Dr. Zukhar in the playing-room did not disturb anybody and did not break the process of the contest. We did not have a right to satisfy groundless caprices, pretensions and simulations.
Q: What is your opinion of the claim of the challenger in the FIDE Congress after the match?
A: From the law point of view this claim was illegal. According to the regulations of the match all the claims on the game or organization of the match are to be discussed first of all by the Appealing Committee. Korchnoi did not address the Appealing Committee after the 32nd game and it is clear why. This game was played following strictly the regulations of the match. Addressing directly to the Congress the challenger intended to use ill-informed about the procedure of the match delegates. His indecent purposes were to discredit the match and to use the tribune of the Congress for anti-Soviet attacks. It was a surprise that the Swiss chess federation supported this demagogic claim. But the challenger’s calculations failed and the Congress declined Korchnoi’s claim and congratulated the world Champion Karpov A. with the deserved victory.
Q: What can you say about the quality of games played at Baguio?
A: I think that the match games were rich of content and contributed a lot to the theory and practice of chess.
Speaking about the match there were some comments of famous chess players.
S. Gligoric YUG: “The World Champion demonstrated fighting character especially in the last game of the match which became decisive.”
L. Schmid BRD: “As for the winner, Karpov earned this title. He is worth to be World Champion who could prove it in Baguio and in all his victories at the strong international tournaments.”
R. Hubner FRG: “A. Karpov plays better than all the other chess players in the world. And he proved by his victory over the challenger that he is the strongest.”
G. Barcza HUN: “Karpov is the strongest chess player in the world nowadays.”
B. Larsen DEN: “I was sure in the victory of Karpov before the match at Baguio and the fact that he gained the title of the strongest chess player was not a surprise for me.”
Anatoly Karpov commented in another press conference:
“Any World Championship Match demands a lot of physical and moral strength. The 3-month Match in Baguio was not an exception. At the end the participants faced the most complicated situation, when the score became 5:5. Having the majority of 3 points – 5:3, I decided I already won the match and was waiting for the act of capitulation. But something unexpected happened with my nerves and I lost 3 games.
Before 32nd game I managed to summon my strength. To that decisive meeting I went in a good mood. I must say that all our delegation had the same feelings – confidence in the favorable ending of the game. So it was.
Before the beginning of a match I told that Korchnoi is a strong player and the match with his would not be a “easy walk”. It proved to be right in the course of the game. But the Match in Baguio proved also that the rival as a person was not worthy of respect. Like in 1974 he behaved tactlessly. I formed the opinion that his numerous protests and declarations in Baguio had been prepared beforehand. If he lost a game he said he was disturbed, if he won he said that he “won despite of everything”. This was a so called very convenient position.
My seconds helped me a lot. We were working together and everyone contributed what he could.
The regulations of the match in Philippines, like all the previous games, were far from being perfect. They had their own advantages and disadvantages. It is too early to give the final rating to the World Championship system.
Among the future rivals there are Korchnoi and Spassky. The rest 6 players should be selected through the qualification tournaments.
I do not think it right to increase the number of participants. The practice shows that the strongest are always among the top 8 players qualified for the World Championship. Today we are having such a situation when the chess players of the older generation still show the high class, but at the same time our youth has a progress. That is why we expect a real struggle at the coming qualification tournaments.
Very often people ask me how many games must a grand master play in a year. There is no common norm for all the players. My norm is about 80 games per year.
The Champions of the past years often made a serious mistake, when they stopped playing in the strong tournaments. That is why they sometimes came to the final match less prepared that the rivals, who had had to meet the strongest players during the qualification tournaments and was in a perfect form. I tried not to repeat this mistake and was playing a lot during the period from 1975 to 1978.”
Alexander Butsenin attended the press conference held for Soviet and foreign journalists at Friendship House in Moscow. It was devoted to the results of the match in Baguio for the world chess crown.
Q: No other champion has played as frequently as you have. What, in your opinion, is the “quota” of a Grandmaster and champion for playing during a year?
A: Yes, I have played a lot between 1975 and 1978 and I think I was right. After analyzing the performances of the previous world champions, I realized that had made a very grave mistake. I set myself the task of not losing the good form I attained in 1974 at the finals of the challengers’ match.
It could be that I‘ve played one or two tournaments more than necessary but I think I followed the right course. My norm is something like 80 games a year. But every Grandmaster has his own ideas about the number of games he has to play in a year.
Q: What sports help you to keep in good physical shape?
A: I like sport in general. As an amateur I go in for skiing, swimming and tennis.
Q: Chess entails great physical and nervous stress, so what kind of relaxation do you prefer? Do you like to travel? Which is your favorite city?
A: Yes, chess is a very difficult sport. Nervous stress is especially great. Travel, of course, helps to distract your attention and helps you relax. But I have to travel a great deal to take part in various matches. So I like to rest in one place, so that I can read, go for a stroll, or just sit down and think about things. When I have spare time from competitions I like going to museums.
I remember very well a journey in my own country. Two years ago I played in Siberia and the Far East. I was especially impressed by Kamchatka. It’s an absolutely wonderful land – very beautiful. Yakutia and Krasnoyarsk were also impressive.
It is hard to name my favorite city. I live in Leningrad and I like it very much. There are so many interesting and beautiful cities in the world! Naturally, I’d like to visit them all.
Q: As a rule you are always calm and smiling. Is that a testimony of confidence in your own strength, your love for life and people? And why did you lose your coolness when the score was 5-2?
A: A match for the world title is a very intense and serious affair. The contestants behave in a certain set way. Since nerves are strained to the utmost during a match, the participants tend not to mix with each other to avoid conflicts. Naturally, good relations are restored after the match is over. That is how it was with Spassky Polugaevsky and me after the 1974 matches.
But the match in Baguio was held in a very tense atmosphere. I have to admit that the dominating feeling for my rival was hate. It was hate for a person who committed high treason and left his native country, the country, which had given him everything. It was in the USSR that he had become a prominent chess player.
Are chess players superstitious and what do I need a psychologist for?
These questions obviously troubled the challenger very much. He declared all the time that people were hindering him. And he made most of this stand. If he lost he declared that he lost because he was being hindered. But when he won he declared that he won in spite of being hindered.
During the match you feel very tense and have to do a lot of work. And you have to use your free moments to divert your mind from chess. This is where the psychologist and his advice come in. The psychologist included in my team was a professor well known and respected in his field. Korchnoi’s charges are absolutely groundless. I always try to be friendly to those who are friendly to me. But I very much resent being picked upon. That’s when I stop smiling. But in general, I would say I am confident of my strength – and I love life and people.
When the score was 5-2 in my favor, something happened to my nerves and I literary couldn’t play, so that is the explanation for my failure – in 27 games I lost only two, but in 28th to 31st – three in a row. However, things like this do happen to chess players – I suppose it happens in any other field as well. You see, I had decided much too early that the match was already won and I had only to sign the challenger’s statement of capitulation.
The fight was over on the chess board but continued in the Dutch Court and inside FIDE main body
The Swiss Chess Federation, on behalf of Viktor Korchnoi, lodged a protest for consideration by the FIDE Congress which met during November 1978 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. After discussions with the Central Committee of FIDE, representatives of the Swiss CF stated that their protest had been reduced to two points.
1. The check to Mr. Korchnoi from the Philippines must be payable without reservations.
2. A commission should be created to investigate whether there had been irregularities or not in the 32nd game.
Florencio Campomanes filed another protest to that same FIDE Congress.
As organizer of the World Chess Championship Match, Baguio 1978, I protest to the General Assembly against the disgraceful conduct of the former Challenger, Viktor Korchnoi, and the Chief of his Delegation, Mrs. Petra Leeuwerik, variously described by the press as Chief of the Swiss Delegation, his secretary, his constant companion, his confidante and his aide.
He then listed and elaborated upon seven instances of what he characterized as “their scandalous behavior”.
From the Buenos Aires minutes of the General Assembly, supreme governing body of FIDE.
Following the recommendations of the Central Committee, the General Assembly
(a) declared the match finished with a score of 6-5 and declared Mr. Karpov winner of the match;
(b) decided that Mr. Korchnoi’s check could be cashed unconditionally, as it had been cashable from the outset;
(c) decided that the Bureau, after having received the report of the Chief Arbiter, should consider this report as it is usual with all FIDE competitions.
The General Assembly furthermore approved that the Soviet and the Swiss Chess Federations and the Chief Arbiter (or, in his absence, the Chairman of the Jury) reply in writing to the following questions:
1. Was Korchnoi “unnecessarily disturbed” in violation of Regulation 4.56? If so, why did not the arbiters or the Jury prevent the disturbing of a player in violation of Regulation 7.5?
2. Can a final decision on the Swiss protest be made without the Chief Arbiter’s “official report … describing the events and any unusual problems” in accord with Regulation 3.4? Who must complete this report and by when?
3. Did Korchnoi fail to observe “the highest principles of sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct” in violation of Regulation 4.81 (note also Statutes 1.2 with respect to duties)? Specify details.
4. Are the Swiss protesting “a decision made onstage during play”? If so, why was not their protest submitted by the time limit specified in Regulation 11.34?
The Chairman of the Jury had already given his replies; in the General Assembly, the Swiss and the Soviet Chess Federations promised to do so before leaving Buenos Aires.
The Swiss delegate accepted that the check had been given unconditionally and was satisfied with the procedure to be followed.
The FIDE Bureau met from February 3 to 6, in Graz Austria. FIDE published a press release in which the FIDE Bureau regrets the Challenger’s attitude and severely admonishes Mr. Korchnoi to conduct himself in a correct manner in all future chess matches.
After the match Korchnoi didn’t talk to much in public. Interviewed in Switzerland by Arrabal and Alain de Penanster for the French weekly L’Express, Korchnoi was as usual outspoken.
“A real world championship final match would be a match between Fischer and me . . . Karpov doesn’t count … he doesn’t like playing chess!”
Q: You adjourned the 7th game In Baguio In a difficult position. In analysis during the night, you found an unexpected resource. Why did Karpov Immediately offer a draw when you resumed?
A: It’s an enigma to me too. Perhaps because, although he had winning chances, It was not impossible that I might win.” (The situation was fluid). “But there is another hypothesis. Did Karpov get to know of my discovery before we resumed? One of my English seconds, Keene, Was waiting a book on the games throughout the match, in breach of his contract. He was telexing copy to London continuously. Somebody might have spied on the transmissions. One of our rooms was bugged and there was even a little spy-hole through which we could be watched.”
“In the last game, you introduced a new move which has not been mentioned in any book. Karpov replied instantly?”
“I had prepared that move with my assistants for several days. There was a leak. Too much money was circulating. I know who had been bought, but I don’t want to say.”
Asked about the hypnotist Zukhar, Korchnoi replied “When he sat in the front row, Karpov won five games. When he was withdrawn, Karpov won just one. The Soviets say there is no such thing as parapsychology. But they practise it. One parapsychologist has communicated with astronauts by thought transmission. Sharansky was sent to prison for 30 years for telling the West about this. Zukhar has the power to encourage one player and disturb the other, if not screened off. When we obtained agreement for Zukhar to be put back to the seventh row, Baturinsky had the front six rows emptied of spectators.”
Q: Why did you agree to play the last game though Zukhar had returned in defiance of agreements to the contrary?
A:I could sense that Karpov seemed full of confidence but 1 had not noticed Zukhar.
It was my assistants’ doing. They gave up.
Q: You had counter-attacked with two Hindu mystics of the Anand Marg sect who had been accused of attempted murder prior to the match!
A: This is a progressive organisation founded in India when Mrs. Gandhi was flirting with Moscow. When the Soviets saw that the Anand Marg’s aims were more humanitarian than political, they sought to discredit them by accusing them of murders. The organisers at Baguio had the two mediators expelled from the hall, the hotel and finally from the town.
The interviewers recalled how Korchnoi finished third to Fischer and Tal in the strongest lightning tournament ever held, yet he repeatedly blundered in time-trouble in Baguio.
Did your strength in blitz chess make you over-confident? Korchnoi did not know, but said Karpov had also blundered, surprisingly often on resumption after adjournments, he was brought a yoghourt containing some sort of dope which revitalised him abnormally in the middle of each session.
Asked to rank the world’s leading players,, he put Fischer first, himself and Karpov equal second, Portisch fourth.
And then?
A: Petrosian, Timman, Mecking —who is, however, handicapped by a blood complaint.
Tal?
A: Vodka has dulled his genius.
Q: Will Fischer play again?
A: “We all want him to. He will need to train a little, and somebody must find the money … I should be happy to play him. You can tell the world that.