Despite the somewhat disappointing nature of the play in Karpov’s 6-2 victory, the 85 games which Karpov and Korchnoi have contested over the past ten years have left a legacy of creativity and fighting spirit that will leave a lasting mark on chess. For the statistics the match proved to be the shortest
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Total | |
| Korchnoi V | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | 7.0 |
| Karpov A | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | 0 | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | 11.0 |
On the 1st of January, three days after the return of the Soviet delegation from Merano to Moscow, a press conference was held for local and foreign journalists. More than 300 media representatives, who attended the press conference, asked the champion various questions regarding his trip to Merano as well as his estimation of the arbiters’ work at the match, about creativity and work in chess, public activities and Karpov’s plans, etc. The journalists had prepared most of their questions in writing not to lose much time (!). Those questions were sorted thematically. Press attaché of the delegation A. Roshal read those questions for the spectators. One the whole, the press conference lasted one hour and a half.
V. Ivonin, Deputy Chairman of the USSR Sports Committee, started the press conference with an opening speech full of local colours:
“Dear ladies and gentlemen, dear comrades! First of all, I would like to thank you for the attention you are giving to this press conference and meeting with the world chess champion Anatoly Evgenievich Karpov. Many of you know well that the Soviet Union is presented by more than 80 sports, chess being one of the most popular among them. Nearly 4 million people attend chess classes and circles. If we take into account the fact that every Soviet family has a chess set, we can say that most of the Soviet citizen can play chess now. This serves a good explanation of such huge interest and attention of the Soviet chess lovers and public to previous world chess championship matches as well as the last one, which was held in Merano, Italy. It also can explain such huge enthusiasm of the Soviet people, inspired by the victory of Anatoly Karpov. Karpov has become a world chess champion for the third time. I would also like to note that in the post-war period the world chess crown was held only by the Soviet grandmasters with exception of the years 1972-1975, when Robert Fischer took the title. You may also know that after his victory Robert Fischer almost never participated in any tournaments or activities of the chess federations: neither national, nor international. As compared to Fischer, Anatoly Karpov became a playing champion from the very first day of his reign. All the years of Karpov’s chess activity as a champion are a good proof of that. Anatoly Karpov is also doing a lot for the popularisation of chess. He is editing “64 – Chess Review” magazine and participates in many events, connected with the development of chess in the Soviet Union. Due to his outstanding achievements in chess and his public activities he was awarded the highest national award – Order of Lenin. The awarding ceremony took place in Kremlin yesterday and the first Deputy Chairman of the USSR Supreme Council Comrade V.V.Kuznetsov awarded the Order of Lenin to our champion. Only some 40 minutes ago we have awarded Anatoly Karpov with laurels, which are traditionally presented to the champion in the USSR Sports Committee. In conclusion, let me congratulate Anatoly Karpov with a brilliant victory and his world champion title. Thank you for your attention.”
Question of the “Trud” correspondent: Anatoly Evgenievich, what are your impressions of the organisation of the match in Merano?
Karpov: I must say that organisers had taken a serious approach to the issues of organisation of this match.
“Pravda”: Why was the victory easier this year as compared to the Baguio match? Did you become stronger or was it your opponent who played weaker? Did you learn the lessons of Baguio?
Karpov: To my mind, the word “easier” is not applicable to the world championship match. I’d rather say that I managed to score more points. World championship matches are never easy to win. Merano match cost me a lot of energy. Of course, it turned out to be more favourable than the previous one in Bagio, but we must remember that I had led with a 3-point advantage there as well. Till the certain moment Merano match was an exact copy of the match in Bagio. The only exception was that we had a score 4:1 after the 9th game, while in Bagio it had been the 17th game that we had reached such a score. But then, when the score was 5:2, I did not repeat the mistake I had made in Philippines. There I had thought that the 5th point was the most important one and the last point would have come easily… I did not make such a psychological blunder in Merano. This time I considered the 6th victory the most difficult one. That was why I did not relax after getting my 5th point. Instead I became more concentrated. I went to each game with a desire to play and win.
“Soviet Sport”: What the arbiter’s qualification should be at the world championship match?
Karpov: Arbiters in Merano were highly qualified and experienced in judging international competitions and chess Olympiads. I think that the only problem was that none of the arbiters could speak Russian, while both players were Russian-speaking. That gave an opportunity to Korchnoi to “misbehave” in the period of time between the 9th and 12th games, as the arbiters did not understand what we were talking about. I wish there was a grandmaster or a strong international master among the arbiters. By the way, almost all strong chessplayers having the title of an international arbiter can speak Russian. The Merano match was held on a very high level and, in my opinion, the arbiters did not have as much work as in Baguio.
“Sport abroad” magazine: Don’t you think that FIDE should consider an issue of unacceptability of any non-sportive campaigns during the match, if they are initiated by one of the competing sides?
Karpov: I think that the head of our delegation could answer this question…
V. Baturinsky: After the Baguio match FIDE made substantial amendments to the match regulations, increasing the responsibility of participants, delegation members and respective national federations for their behaviour during the match. That’s why no further legislative amendments are necessary. However, the problem in the match was that the so-called delegation of Korchnoi, who played as a Swiss citizen, consisted of people who, except for Mme Leeuwerik, were not Swiss chessplayers. Those were people of various nationalities and even some of them had no citizenship. As for the Swiss Chess Federation, it almost did not pay any attention to the match and therefore it was not responsible for the match. That’s why players should follow the regulations adopted by FIDE.
“Chess in the USSR”: Anatoly Evgenievich, what are the prospects of the open variation of the Spanish game in the light of your novelties in the 14th and 18th games?
Karpov: Each match makes some corrections in the theory of openings and separate types of middlegame positions. Sometimes there are matches, which are interesting from the point of view of the endgame. The most actively tested variation in Merano was the open variation of the Spanish game. I must add that this variation was also often observed in the Bagio match. The theory of this variation had moved far forward after that match, but I think that now we have managed to make substantial corrections. The most important in this respect were the 6th game, where Korchnoi won, and the 14th game won by me as well as the 18th game, the last game of the match. The chess theory is always changing and analysts will take to their work. Who knows –something new may appear in the coming tournaments or in several years.
“CHESS” (Riga): You have experience both in matches with fixed number of games and matches held until certain number of wins. What’s your opinion about these systems? Which one is fair?
Karpov: It is hard to say which system is fairer. Both systems have their drawbacks. From the point of view of organisers, it is easier to host matches with limited number of games. Unlimited matches are hard to plan and schedule. For instance, in Merano the organisers were very anxiously following the score as I had managed to win three times in four games, and they were afraid that the match would not last long. When we came to inspect the venues before any venue was chosen, and later, after Italy was chosen to host the match, organisers had other problems and doubts. They asked whether this match could last till the New Year eve. Thus, they were not sure about timing and I could understand their anxiety, as both variants were not good for the organisers. From the point of view of chess, a match with limited number of games has both its merits and drawbacks. For instance, unlimited matches have sharper struggle. In the matches with limited number of games, after gaining big advantage one can start “crawling on draws” and finish the match after the fixed number of games was played. Unlimited match gives no such opportunity to chessplayer, as, even having 2- or 3-point advantage (say, with the score 5:2), one still has to win the last 6th game. Thus, one should be ready for a sharp and heavy fight at the chessboard, which wouldn’t let one relax even for a minute. In the limited match one can have some rest, make quick draws, thus coming closer to the finish. Unlimited match is also hard, because chessplayers cannot allocate their physical energy, as nobody knows what time-distance one should program oneself for.
“Reuters”, Hungarian, Spanish journalists and others: Can you estimate your opponent as chessplayer and person?
Karpov: As a chessplayer, Korchnoi is very serious opponent. I can remind you that he became a challenger for the world champion’s title already in 1961, i.e. he had been playing in the candidates’ tournaments and then in candidates’ matches with 3-year intervals already for 20 years. He is a chessplayer with huge experience at the top-level chess. He gained huge number of victories in many international tournaments. He is a dangerous opponent in any situation. When comparing Korchnoi of three years ago in Baguio and Korchnoi in his present situation, I could tell that he had made certain mistakes in his match preparation. The challenger was risky in his preparation for the match. First of all, he had overestimated his knowledge of openings’ theory. If you remember, Korchnoi announced in 1974 that, although he could have some rivals in practical strength, in the knowledge of openings he was second to none, as he knew his openings better than Karpov, Spassky and Petrosian altogether. Of course, he was boasting, but, apparently, such estimation of his knowledge of the openings’ theory remained unchanged. I think that he did not pay proper attention to the preparation of openings. Instead he tried to be practically active and enter the match right from some tournament. I had stopped participating in any tournaments four months before beginning of the match. As for Korchnoi, he finished his participation in some competition only in the late August, while the first game of our match was scheduled for the 1st of October. His plan was clear: Korchnoi had always tried to impose his struggle on his opponent and seize the initiative at the very start. He knew that I would have a big pause in the tournament practice. He thought that I would not enter the match rhythm at once, which would let him seize the initiative and take a lead in the match. However, it turned out to be quite the opposite: I took the lead in the match and his plan was a failure. Then there followed a tense struggle, but Korchnoi failed to take the initiative from the start. I was leading both in the score and openings’ theory. If we take a closer look at those games, we can make the following conclusion: I easily managed to equalise while playing Black; I even won the micro-match with Black (2:1) as well as with White (4:1). That meant that Korchnoi had problems with Black. Neither could he make problems for me when playing with White. That was a serious mistake, which resulted in my advantage. Besides, as compared to Baguio, I played well in simple positions. In Baguio I had managed to win in complicated positions, but stumbled in simple ones. In Merano I managed to win the 4th game with White having simple position and no advantage. I also won in the 2nd game having small advantage. So far I can say that I had an advantage in every stage of the match. More deep analysis is needed for serious conclusions. Of course, I had taken into account the lessons of Baguio mostly connected with separate situations of the match: one should have serious approach to each separate game and one should not relax even for a moment when playing against Korchnoi. If one follows my advice, it is possible to play without those difficulties I had in Baguio.
“Komsomolskaya Pravda” and others: Whom would you like to meet at the future cycle of the world championship match?
Karpov: I have just finished the last match and I am happy about it. I had neither time nor desire to think what can happen in three years. However, this is something I have to think about, as I must plan my tournament schedule now. There are no incidental opponents in the world championship matches. Each one of those, who have passed through a difficult selection of the Interzonal tournament and candidates’ matches, deserves a right to meet the champion. I think that all chessplayers would join my opinion if I say that there were no incidental participants in the candidates’ matches. If the chessplayer went through the test, he must be interesting to play with.
“Reuters” and others: What was the political and chess-related situation in Merano?
Baturinsky: It is difficult to answer this question correctly. We must say, that on the side of the Soviet delegation and of the world champion personally, we have did our best to make the match a purely sportive and chess event. However, as there were two parties in this match, everything could not depend on one side only. Therefore we had to face some problems, raised by the representatives of Korchnoi’s delegation as well as some representatives of the Western media. They tried to connect the match with the issues in no way related to chess. It seemed to us that those efforts ultimately proved to be useless. While there were less scandals and protests as compared to the match in Baguio, the situation was still very tense. But finally the general sympathies of the overwhelming majority of the spectators and journalists were friendly towards the winner of the match. First of all, that was a result of the struggle at the chessboard. Secondly, that was result of an exceptional self-control and polite behaviour of our world champion and delegation members. That’s all I could basically tell you.
More on A. Karpov’s press conference was published in the Soviet press:
Upon his return from Merano World Champion Anatoly Karpov met Soviet and foreign reporters in the press centre of the Ministry of the USSR Foreign Affairs. Below are abridged records of the press conference.
Merano victory evidently turned easier for you than Baguio three years ago. Have you become stronger or has your rival become weaker? Did you learn by Baguio lesson?
You never win World Championship games easily. They are much backbreaking and nerve thrilling. Until a definite moment Merano game went on just as it would in Baguio, but if in Baguio the 4:1 score was fixed after the seventeenth game, in Merano it was achieved already after the ninth. When we had 5:2 I avoided the mistake I made three years ago. It seemed to me at the time that the most important thing is to win the fifth game and let the sixth go by itself. Now I knew that the sixth game is the most difficult to win, and having scored the fifth point I played every game with the only idea in my mind: “To play and win”.