During early August further details emerged on the vexed question of officials for the September rematch. Campomanes had indeed appointed Kinzel as Jury Chairman and Gligoric as Chief Arbiter, even though both were heavily implicated in the termination of the previous match and, consequently, in open, written and flagrant dispute with Kasparov.
In a sharp retort Kasparov announced that he would not play the next match at all if Gligoric were to accept the arbiter post. Indeed, according regulations, the Chief Arbiter should be on the list of preferences submitted by both players. The only person to fit this bill was the highly respected German grandmaster Lothar Schmid, who had officiated at the Fischer-Spassky match of 1972 and Korchnoi-Karpov in 1978.
Kinzel attempted, in a rambling document of self-justification sent to a various FIDE officials, to defend himself against Kasparov’s Der Spiegel illegations. Keene reproduced a translation of it in full in his book.
In Der Spiegel of June 3 1985 I am mentioned by name eleven times. The impression given of myself, of FIDE President Florencio Campomanes and of the Chief Arbiter of the match, GM Svetozar Gligoric, is that of a group of FIDE functionaries attempting to hinder Gary Kasparov from reaching his goal in life — the title of world chess champion. The technique used to create this impression was for Spiegel editor Werner Harenberg to ask Mr Kasparov several leading questions designed to put us in the wrong.
When I returned to Berlin from Moscow on February 19, I read hrough some thirty articles from the national and international press concerning the cancellation of the championship match. Their gist was that President Campomanes’ decision to cancel the match worked to Mr Kasparov’s disadvantage. Such words as “manipulation” and “play- acting” were common.
The theory generally advanced was that the President caved in to the requests of the Soviet sports leadership which, it was held, preferred the Russian Karpov ‘to the Armenian Jew, Mr Kasparov (formerly Weinstein). It was this nonsense which prompted my initial public statement about the real events during the final stage of the world championship.
What, then, really happened from February 1 to 15?
On 1 February the FIDE President proposed limiting the match to a further eight games. To the surprise of all concerned, Kasparov only wanted to accept this proposal if the match was halted immediately. This suggestion of Kasparov was absolutely identical with the FIDE President’s decision of 15 February. If you take this into account, on 15 February Kasparov received from Campomanes everything he had demanded at the start of February.* This shows that his decision was not made on the spur of the moment but matured over a two-week period.
My dealings with Werner Harenberg began when I presented my statement of fact to him on 20 February. He requested an interview with me, but I would agree to this only upon prior publication of my statement in Der Spiegel. His reply that he would have to make further investigations seemed inadequate, since the press had already published untrue statements without any investigation. As I see it, the Spiegel interview with Kasparov is a sort of continuation of my meeting with Mr Harenberg. So let us look at the specific points raised in this interview to see how valid they are.
First, are FIDE functionaries trying to prevent Mr Kasparov from becoming world champion? Where, one asks, is the proof’? My view is that Messrs Karpov and Kasparov have both enhanced the prestige of chess. FIDE trusts both of them, considers their interests and acts for the welfare of both gentlemen.
Secondly, was it a violation of the rules to cancel the match? President Campomanes’ decisions were based upon FIDE regulations, and the Executive Council of FIDE at its May 1985 meeting in Tunisia approved unanimously Campomanes’ decision to cancel the match, thanking him for his initiative.
The next charge is that I twisted one of Mr Kasparov’s sentences to suggest that he wanted to end the match. Yet the fact remains that the conditions stipulated by Mr Kasparov are identical to those enunciated by Mr Campomanes when he ended the match. To wit: the match would end immediately, without an additional eight games.
Did I, as Mr Kasparov alleges, exert pressure on him to accept Mr Karpov’s offer? Personally, I did not agree with Mr Karpov’s proposal, and I so told Mr Karpov. He replied that it was only a basis for discussion. I duly informed the Challenger of the imposition, and I never tried to persuade him to accept it. As for the advantages and disadvantages that I discussed with Mr Kasparov, those familiar with international negotiations know that intermediaries ask questions to establish a basis for compromise.
Mr Kasparov mentions my injunction that there be no separate negotiations between the two players. My real point was that one should try to come to a common solution in a circle of three persons (Mr Campomanes or myself and the two players). I was merely trying to it tempt once more what the FIDE President tried earlier — to get the two players together. The President’s attempt failed because Mr Kasparov did not appear.
Then there is the unpleasant and false implication contained in Mr Harenberg’s remark, “now it’s very easy to understand why Mr Kinzel declared this to be confidential.” He was referring to Mr Karpov’s plan to end the match. In reality, there were two things that Mr Campomanes declared to be confidential: the Champion’s proposition and a certain request that Mr Kasparov made. The motive was to protect the two players. Mr Kasparov made public Mr Karpov’s idler, but I feel bound to remain silent about Mr Kasparov’s even stranger request. This is because FIDE is not a forum for washing linen m public.
What emerges is that the reasons advanced by the press for the cancellation of the match are untrue and that the charges against FIDE must crumble away. The Der Spiegel interview is an attempt to obscure ny position and to distort what actually happened.
It is a fruitless attempt using transparent means.
Alfred Kinzel, Chairman of the Match Jury”
To close the debate related with the termination of the match of 1984-1985, FIDE published an little leaflet in which his President using his best rhetoric explain his decision to stop the match.
Back to square one – the second match
By the deadline of May 1st bids for the match were made public: Marseilles with £500,000 and London £ 300,000. However it was Moscow which has the preference of the players. After a long debate FIDE decided to sacrifice the financial aspect for the tradition and announced the venue for the next World Championship to…Moscow with a prize fund equivalent to of 500,000 pounds. Because Kasparov was threatening to boycott the match if Gligoric was chosen as the Chief Arbiter, FIDE had some problems to finalize his decision. But in a “generously gesture” the Yugoslav Grandmaster and was replaced by the German Lothar Schmid.
In an interview with Sovietskaya Rossia Anatoly Karpov said that the previous match, during which 48 games were played, revealed the dubious aspects of matches of unlimited duration. Such exhausting competitions inevitably require straining every nerve to the utmost. But the world champion emphasized that in his sports practice he upheld the principle that the struggle should be waged to the end. This is why at the final conference with FIDE President Florencio Campomanes during the previous match he stated readiness to go on playing the match. Nevertheless, the match was ended, and the system of unlimited competitions possibly went down in history for ever with it.
In the new match of 24 games the situation is more definite. An opponent lagging behind in the score, Karpov maintains, will have to attack, since his chances to win will shrink with every subsequent game played.
In the newspaper Vechernyaya Moskva Karpov described the return to a limited number of games in a title match as legitimate and corresponding to the spirit of the time.
Karpov points out that ten world chess title matches have already been held under this formula. Mikhail Botvinnik, for instance, who played seven contests of this less taxing kind, used to say that even one such match took one year out of his life.
Asked about the unusual methods of his psychological training, the world champion promised to divulge the secrets … after the key match with 22- year-old challenger Garry Kasparov. Karpov is convinced that, given correct and all-round training of the nervous system, its potential grows and there are practically no limits here. The results are in direct ratio to time spent and one’s own will power.
The second match started in Moscow on September 2, 1985. To avoid another marathon, the new rules accepted by the Tunis FIDE Council were in force. One of the implications was that to be the new World Champion Kasparov will have to score 12½ points. FIDE fixed the prize fund to CHF 1,600,000 with 24% to be deducted for a new fund (CACDEC) which aim to help the development of chess in the Third World Countries.
Game 1
Game 1
Nimzo-Indian Defense
Kasparov surprised with this first game by playing 3.Nc3 and then accepting the Nimzo-Indian opening, which he refused in the previous match. With an unused system Kasparov took a clear advantage not only on the board but also on the clock. Black completely paralyzed on move 18 had no other choice than to enter into a losing endgame. Karpov didn’t want to loose energy with an hopeless adjournment and resign just before. Taking in account the last two wins of the previous match, this victory will be the third in a row.