Game 22
Game 23
Game 24
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Total | |
| Karpov, A | ½ | 1 | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 0 | 12 |
| Kasparov, G | ½ | 0 | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | 12 |
Some questions to the 13th champion:
Q: Now that you have won the World Championship and retained your title, what ambitions remain for you?
A: I don’t know, because won the World Championship title three times in three years, a record for chess history! If we’re talking about chess ambitions, maybe to in the World Cup. The most important ambition is to improve my chess, to become a better chess player than I am now. I can’t yet think of beating Fischer’s record ELO rating; it’s quite difficult. Also I have a problem in that FIDE cut my rating by about 35 points which makes the task harder. I’m not sure it’s that important for me, how ever; it’s better to just become a very strong chess player — the best in the world.
My real ambition is to put my energy into different activities. Firstly I have the GMA; this is my brainchild as it was described in the Herald Tribune newspaper. We have to increase our activity and make our organisation better at running professional chess, I also want to finish my fight with Campomanes, not for me personally, but for the sake of chess. Also if it’s possible, I’d like to produce maybe the best chess magazine in the world, to provide something for all players, not just for chess aristocrats. I also want to do something for my country, un connected with chess, and yet at the same time to keep up my chess strength, all of which is very difficult.
Q: You seem to make a habit of winning crucial last round games; for example twice against Karpov, against Tal in Brussels last year, against W. Schmidt in the Dubai Olympiad and even as far back as against Tukmakov in the USSR Championship 1981. How do you explain this ability to win when it matters?
A: Oh, maybe it’s part of my nature. It doesn’t only occur in chess; it’s the same in any other game — if I play tennis with another weak player like me; it’s the same in any other activity. If I stand well, I can’t find resources, I can’t be very concentrated, I’m usually relaxed. If I’m in trouble — remember the 5-0 scoreline; this is my greatest achieve ment in chess, trailing 5-0 and not losing the match by the end of the competition — then suddenly I discover something inside me. I can use my capabilities to lQO maybe even more and usually my opponents don’t expect such aggression or such strong concentration and it’s not only a chess victory, it’s also a moral victory. I think the last game in Seville proved this point of view; Karpov lost the game because of his psychological approach.
Q: In Seville, you weren’t at your best, but why did you seem to make such little effort with the white pieces? For example, the line you played against Karpov’s Caro-Kann in this event was so much more aggressive than in Seville.
A: It’s nothing to do with par ticular openings — it was a feature of my mood, my feelings, during the match. I didn’t want to play the match because for me it was a real rematch. The match in London and Leningrad couldn’t be called a rematch because it was a continu ation of our fight. We were fighting for the World title as two challengers. After I won this match, I became a World Champion with full rights and when I played the rematch against Karpov, I had some psychological problems. I had proved twice that I was much stronger than him and I had to repeat this achievement; it was very difficult. I was convinced and everyone was convinced that I was much stronger than Karpov, but still I had to play this match and Karpov used this psychological factor. Because I wasn’t in my best form, I couldn’t use all my capabilities during the match. That’s why I was quite happy to take a draw, especially when I was in the lead, like during those games with the Caro-Kann. My idea was to get rid of this match without any problems, without any sacrifices for myself.
Q: You’ve already stated that Karpov will be your challenger again in 1990. If you win, whom do you see as your most likely opponent in 1993?
A: But I hope that it won’t happen. I hope that during the next two years Karpov will lose something of his chess strength and I’ll see another opponent because it’s getting very boring for me to play the same person. I think that Karpov has the best chance at the moment of becaome challenger in 1990 then after Nigle Short but five year is a long time.
Seville, October -December, 1987.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Total | |
| A. Karpov URS | = | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | = | = | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 0 | 12.0 |
| G. Kasparov URS | = | 0 | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | 1 | 12.0 |
R. Keene brilliantly concluded in his book on the match: It was the best of matches, it was the worst of matches. There were insipid draws. There were fine wins. There were blunders that would have shamed a coffee-house player. There were passages of complexity and brilliance that will be remembered for years to come. Above all there was a cliff-hanging ending which put the story on the front pages around the world.
In the opening phase Karpov showed that his challenge was no mere formality. After five games, three of which were decisive, he was leading 3-2. But Kasparov then seemed to regain his confidence. He equalized in game 8 and after Karpov’s horrific blunder in game 11 it was the champion who had a lead of one point. Needing only a tie to retain his title, Kasparov reverted to the stalling tactics which had led to the ‘Moscow marathon’ of 48 games. During this lackluster phase of the match Karpov managed to catch up by a well-judged win in game 16. But with a further succession of draws and only two games to go it looked as though Kasparov would hang on. Then, out of the blue, came the dramatic conclusion to it all. In game 23 Kasparov seemed to have recovered from a dubious position, but then he produced the gaffe which most people thought would cost him his title. However, Kasparov was reserving his best performance for the final game. After a quiet start, during which Karpov fell behind on the cl he managed to conjure up sufficient complications to bamboozle the challenger in his time pressure. The champion’s superb endgame technique enabled him to convert a problematical adjourned position into a win.
Although Karpov stumbled at the final fence, it was his reputation rather than the champion’s that was enhanced by this match. He had started as underdog and yet managed to draw the match, giving the champion a massive fright in the process. He deserves the title of vice- champion (or even, in Gufeld’s opinion, co-champion!) and few doubt that it is he who will again confront Kasparov in 1990.”
Former challenger D. Bronstein: “It goes without saying that Garry Kasparoy and Anatoly Karpov have always been superb technically, and the match just finished is yet another confirmation of the fact. But I can see, in the games of the Seville Match, something more important for the game of chess, namely, that they are saturated with nuances—delicate small-scale solutions—which usually pass unnoticed by the spectators enthralled by counting the points scored.
To begin with, Kasparov’s victory in the Seville Match is, in large measure, due to his exceptionally clever strategy in the opening phase. It has generally been recognized that the more often a player varies opening systems in the course of a match the harder it will be for his opponent to surprise him in an opening purposely; accordingly, the player’s chances to succeed will increase.
World Champion Garry Kasparov employed a very economical method of playing in the opening. As Black, he adopted the Grünfeld Defense in ten games, while having the White pieces, he chose the English Opening as many times.
Of course, so bold an approach towards the opening phase, where one always may run into the reefs of an innovation prepared at home, is perhaps for a World Champion alone to take. Yet, all Masters and Grandmasters should follow his example by analyzing one or two lines extremely thoroughly, rather than studying ten or twenty variations superficially.
It seems necessary to mention the fact that an abundance of chess openings exists only on the pages of voluminous handbooks and encyclopedias. Only those variations, however, in which a chess player is “in his element” are suitable for practical application. The art of selecting and building up one’s right opening repertoire can therefore be achieved only after years of testing, often after bitter failures. Garry Kasparov, however, has gone through that ordeal with one breath, so to speak. And this—an intuitive under standing of barely outlined chess positions and the tactical nuances hidden within them—is perhaps the most distinguishing feature of his talent.
Ex-World Champion Anatoly Karpov also made, in this match, a large contribution to opening theory. His surprising method of attacking in the Grünfeld will now be carefully analyzed by the experts who previously rejected this line, where White wins a Pawn.
In the Queen’s Gambit Declined, Anatoly Karpov demonstrated a number of new moves, which either intensify White’s attack or reveal Black’s defensive potential. And only in the English Opening was he unable to equalize unfailingly—maybe because of his exceeding maximalism in his desire to wrest the initiative as soon as possible.
Speaking about the middle phase, one can mention some delicate positional plans carried out by both players, as well as very strenuous combinational fights in other encounters. I would like to reiterate that, playing through the games of the match now that it is over, one can more readily perceive the tension of the battle, in which losing was highly undesirable and victory—extremely necessary.
I agree with the opinion expressed by many commentators that in the art of delicate strategic maneuvering Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov have no equals. Perhaps, there were few brilliant combinations in Seville. This, however, is quite natural— the defense was at its highest, the participants usually saw, and prevented, combinational threats far in advance.
Endgames in Seville were most diverse, one more interesting than another. I like very much the end- game from the seventh encounter, in which the Black Bishop and Pawns were fighting the White Rook. The White Rooks showed their mettle in the thirteenth game, while the Black Rooks—in the nineteenth. An extremely interesting endgame that arose in the eleventh contest was unfortunately spoiled by Karpov’s oversight. Yet, even then the method of exploiting his advantage demonstrated by Kasparov is very instructive. And, of course, in the last hours of the match, the World Champion won the difficult end- game of the 24th encounter by breaking the stubborn resistance of the Black pieces. In that endgame, everything was beautiful—the White Queen’s maneuvers, the intricate transfers of the Bishop, and the two bold moves by the White King at the crucial moments, the one played at the adjournment, the other at the final moment.
One month later, Kasparov visiting Canada told CLR about game 23 and 24.
Q: How you felt after losing game 23 of the recent title match to Anatoly Karpov. You had to win game 24 to tie the match and to keep your Ii tIe. Were you suffering inside? In your heart of hearts, did you think that you could win the final game?
A: Did I suffer “inside” during the 24th game? I suffered “inside” during the whole match! I didn’t want this match. I was trying to finish the games and to forget about it all as soon as possible, I was dreaming about the end of the match and what I would do as the champion. They were grand dreams. You see, I could not play strongly because of this psychological division inside of me — the need to concentrate versus the desire to have done with it all.
I knew that there was no guarantee that I would win the 24th game. I knew that! Yet I couldn’t imagine a result in which Karpov would go back as the champion. I was completely sure that if I had to win, then I would. And I also knew what to expect if I lost the match — in the chess world and in the Soviet Union! My mother told me that I had played some horrible games in the match and that now I had only one chance to save my honor and to prove that I am Kasparov.
Well, I wasn’t especially prepared for the game. I played c2-c4, Ngl-f3, gw-g3, b2-b3, Bf1-g2, Bc1-b2 with the idea of making the game last as long as possible. Karpov lost the game psychologically when he understood that the battle would not end in a short draw. He literally couldn’t make moves. During the earlier games, he was brave because he knew that I did not want to play a fourth match. But in the final game, he knew that I was determined to win, I wanted to play!
Yet I don’t want to give a false impression. I want the people to know that the battle was a hard one and that I really felt the pressure.
Q: When the 24th game was ad journed after you sealed 42, Kg2, players everywhere analyzed the position. Arguments raged — “White wins,” “Black draws,” What’s the truth of the matter?
A: I don’t know. I have studied the position for hours and hours — alone and with friends. I still cannot give you an answer, Let’s just asy that White has good, practical chances to win.
Q: Alexander Alekhine once said that to be champion, one must have a strong personal character. You give the impression of being a very tough guy. What about Karpov? Do you see him as a tough guy, too?
A: Yes, more or less. Karpov is a tough man who has an interesting psychological base for his successes, He has always been absolutely sure of the support behind him, and this fact gives him a feeling of superiority. Now, chess is a game of making decisions. If you can make these decisions without any hesitations or doubts, then you have a big psychological advantage. In our first match, he felt himself to be invincible because he sat at the top of the pyramid of the biggest system. He feared no one. But in our second match, which I won by two points, he was unsure of himself.
Behind the scenes FIDE was negotiating with PCA. Both Excecutive Boards met in Brussels. FIDE President Campomanes commented: “The Brussels meeting was cordial and both the Executive Council and the Grand Master Association provisional boars were looking for a meeting of the minds not a clash of opposing views…The wisdom of the Council and the Brandmasters Association, and the warm hospitality of our host Bessel Kok, fostered a congenial atmosphere for dialogue. And through dialogue we achieve consensus.
The GMA plan to organize a World Cup over a period of two years and FIDE agreed to shift the World Championship cycle from 2 to 3 years”