A. Sokolov and his coatch V. Yurkov analysed the match for the Buletin of the Central Chess Club of Moscow.
V. Yurkov: “First of all to my mind both Sokolov and Yusoupov demonstrated the play which does not correspond to their level – the quality of the games was lower than usually. Apparently it happened because of the following reasons.
First, in accordance with the known axiom the quality of the play is always a little worse than in tournaments.
Second, both participants did not manage to come to the match in good sports form. Both of them were becoming tired on the 5th hour of playing although they were paying a lot of attention to the physical training.
Third, the price of the victory was too great – super final. From this the grand masters were unnecessary nervous: they took too seriously any sports and art failure during the match. The opponents could not regenerate quickly after failures and could not perform well in art.
At last, the forth reason is that Sokolov and Yusoupov have very little experience in match games. And in matches traditional approach is not always suitable. The result of the game may depend on the correct psychological choice, one lucky (unlucky) decision.
For example. Now there is a dispute on whether Karpov needed the time-out, which he took during the return match after 3 victories one after another. There are different opinions. The similar situation appeared in our match as well. Before the 12th game in which Yusoupov had the white pieces he leading took the time-out. There was some definite logics in it – to have rest, to hold up the attacking gust of the opponent. But as it turned out later Yusoupov ws tired of the New Indian defense and he decided to change the opening, to try to use the white color more successfully. And in this decision there was no logics to my mind. Of course if he had won this match everybody would have said that Artur is a brilliant strategist. But Yusoupov lost…
On the board it appeared the situation, which was never met in the practice of both players but Sokolov new the scheme better – we were preparing it during training. Now, of course, it is easy to discuss but the conclusion is clear: Nimtsovich’s defense in this game was the unhappy decision for Yusoupov and his team and decided the fate of the match.
These are the reasons which influenced the art side of the case.
But why Sokolov won?
When we were preparing for the match we paid attention to the fact that Yusoupov can be won if we use some original tactical ideas although here there is also some definite paradox. Yusoupov himself is a perfect tactician. But in the positional game it is too difficult to win him.
In some respect this idea was a success, especially in French Defense – here appeared a tactical fight and in total Sokolov looked more confident.
Maybe there is another explanation. As far as I know Yusoupov thought beforehand that he is not ready to play equally neither with Karpov nor with Kasparov. Such thoughts affect the moral spirit. It was easier for Andrei as he did not think that far…”
A.Sokolov: “The match against Yusoupov was the second in my life. But it differed a lot from the first one. If for preparations for the game against Vaganyan we practically did not have time for the finals we were preparing thoroughly. We played a lot of training games.
I played often with Yusoupov even more often than with other challengers. Our first game took place in 1976 during the Youth Championship of the country and ended with a draw. But next year Artur became the Youth World champion and our ways forked. I continued to play in the youth tournaments and Yusoupov passed to “grown-up” chess.
Our next duel took place in 1982 in the finals of Moscow Championship and also ended with a draw. The same happened with 3 games in 1984 during the USSR championship, but in Montpelier during the challengers’ tournament I lost. This game had a great psychological influence on both of us. Yusoupov started the match being calmer. Until you win the opponent you feel uncertain. And really I won my dangerous opponent only in the 7th game although I could have done it much earlier. While preparing we fundamentally studied the art of Yusoupov and concluded that the games he lately lost were full of tactical fight with original ideas. My coach has already mentioned this. The games followed unusual way and then the opponents of Artur managed to turn the game to their advantage. For example, in Bogoino he lost 3 games and all of them were of tactical character. By the way, we played 2 games more with Yusoupov in Bogoino. The first ended with a draw, the second was difficult. I had a bad position but managed to save.
Certainly, the negative score in our meetings with Yusoupov influenced my playing in the beginning of the match. I wanted too badly to win and as a result I failed already in the first game. If I had played the black I would have aimed calmer struggle. With the white I thought I should play only for winning. In the rare variant of the French defense (it occupies one of the main places in the openings repertoire of Yusoupov) appeared the position in which all the theoretical hand-books give unanimously advantage to the white, but in practice it was not too clear. The black has not a bad counter-play. It is obvious that the experience in playing such positions is very important.”
Final candidates Match
Linares, February-March, 1987.
The way how A. Sokolov ‘finished’ Yusupov with a hat-trick gave to the 24 years Russian some good notoriety. A. Karpov aware of danger prepared this match with the same seriousness as he did when he played G. Kasparov. The selected venue was the city of Linares, Spain famous for its annual tournament. After one month and eleven games Karpov achieved the needed 7.5 points leaving only 3.5 points to his fellow countryman. The former world champion took immediately the lead after the second game. Playing chess with determination and somehow better prepared he managed to size the initiative in all the games except game one where he was completely lost. Karpov finished the match with two victories but Sokolov was already K.O.
Game 1
Caro Kann
Karpov surprised his opponent by playing the Caro-Kann, a rare choice in his repertoire. White achieved a powerful attacking position, but was unable to broke through and Karpov managed to reach a drawn double rook ending.
Game 2
Queen Indian Defense
The game was an improvement of the well known Gavrikov- Sokolov of 1985. Black went quietly to a Bishop versus Knight ending which gave White… the better chance. Karpov, then masterize the position and eventually won the game.
Game 3
Caro-Kann
Black improve a position reached by Korchnoi in 1985 which gave him a dead draw.
Game 4
Queen Indian Defense
Another improvement from game 2 found by the former champion. Then it was Sokolov who had to fight back and managed to secure a drawn rook and pawn ending.
Game 5
Caro Kann
White can’t avoid Black to equalize. Another quite draw.
Game 6
Queen Indian
The players repeated the same Queen Indian defense, Sokolov repeated the same the similar type of the isolated. He probably equalised, however the former champion avoided a repetition. Then Sokolov sacrificed two piece for a rook, he got two pawns as well, but his activity slowly disappeared. Karpov took over. After changing queens Sokolov pushed his d pawn looking for activity but just lost it. After that Karpov gave no chance.
Game 7
Caro Kann
Sokolov played the the main Caro Cann, Karpov again employed the Nd7 variation. White concentrated his pieces in order to build an attack against the king. Black made a stylish defending combination. That simplification leads to an equal endgame. No wiining chance occured for White.
Game 8
Queen Indian
Sokolov did not choose the line which brought joyless suffer. Karpov handled the position characteristicly to his style. However this time it did not give enough to build on. When they started the rook ending it was almost certain it would end in a draw.
Game 9
Caro Kann
Sokolov made a deparate attempt to crack Karpov’s rock solid new defence. In the 3.e5 Bf5 line he soon played g4. His anslough was stopped by the excellent h5 move. In the ensuing ending Karpov pressed hard, but Sokolov held it. However his chances becoming thinner and thinner.
Game 10
Queen Indian Defense
Karpov didn’t try too much before to opt for a small enduring edge in the endgame. Karpov conducted the ending without any reproach. At some stage Karpov placed a marvelous sacrifice of his Knight for a pawn which later converted the game into an undisputed victory.
Game 11
Caro-Kann
Sokolov tried once more the line he played in the first game with an attacking position but went wrong in the early middle game and collapse after a faulty combination.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | |
| A. Sokolov | = | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | 3.5 |
| A. Karpov | = | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 7.5 |
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP FINAL 1987, SEVILLA
The fourth world championship match between the two best players of the world started on October 12th when the 24-year old world champion Gary Kasparov entered on the stage in Sevilla, Spain to meet 36-year old Anatoly Karpov.
After contesting a lifetime of nearly 100 games only an incredible one point separates the two top players in the world. A few hours before the match start both players were invited to answer questions from the journalists. Karpov stated that the competition was going to be very interesting at all times, because both his rival and himself were at on excellent stage “full of strength’-, and although it was useless to try to get him to venture his impressions on the outcome he did say that he is optimistic about the result and that the Championship will take as long ‘as the organizers will put up with us, in a clever sally so as not to make a forecast on how many games will hove to be played before the new champion, the best of twenty tour, is decided.
The challenger held forth on the book, “The child of change” which his competitor had presented the previous afternoon and affirmed that it formed part of the psychological war which his opponent had unleashed against him, a war in which there have been other types of at tacks and accusations by Kasparov which Karpov only mentioned as just another pan of the strategy of the present world champion.
In the “cold war,’ unleashed, allusions to common business between the challenger to the title and Roman Toran, president of the Spanish Chess Federation, were not lacking business relations which Karpov denied, and when the argument was put forward that they could have meant a possible handicap to the neutrality of the match, the challenger pointed out that the neutrality depended solely and exclusively an the Organizing Committee.
On the insistence at same informants, on the theme of his relations with Kasparov and on Kasparov’s book, Karpov indicated that his competitor only tells part of the truth but forgets other no less important parts, such as: that he had at his disposal for his training period better conditions than any other player in the USSR, that he had financial help and teachers paid by the Government and that he even had Karpov’s help in a frustrated confrontation with Korchnoi, which contrasts with his affirmations in the book when he says that the challenger opposed the interest of the present champion at all times.
In spite of all this Kasparov, who by the way painted out that he had placed a complaint to the FIDE because both his and Karpov’s scores were lower than what corresponded to them, affirmed that they both are among the best chess players in the world, we have faced each other many times and we are going to continue to do so. And although we have reached a hundred games, I am satisfied at having such a good rival as Kasparov, because without him this would be sad and boring! ” In spite of his optimism and tranquility, Kasparov did not want to make any predictions on the length of the conflict, and how many games will have to be played to find out who has been the best of twenty four and who is, therefore world champion after this rendez-vous in the city of Seville.
However, he has had no objection to talking about his opponent, whom he defines as a player who is very positional, with great intuition for making the most of positional advantages, but not a lover of complications and of whom he of firms that in previous confrontations victory would have meant for him “not to triumph in the world chess, but to cart sense his personality”.
He also said of Anatoly Karpov that he had been the greatest chess player in the world for ten years, with great command of the game to which he added, more over, great political power, but although he did not wish to make any forecasts on possible outcome he did state that Karpov had never left him sleepless, that he had never even dreamt of him, maybe be cause “we have spent too many hours of our lives sitting opposite each other for such a thing to happen”. –
Game 1
Game 1
Grünfeld Defense
The opening of the first game was a repetition of several games in the 1986 London –Leningrad encounter. It was only in the 10th move that the players chose to diverge from their previous games. Karpov missed a very promising continuation avoiding exploiting his kingside potential. In a hard battle on the Queen’side the game went to a draw by repetition of moves.