On the 19th February an open letter signed by Anatoly Karpov was released:
To Mr. F. Campomanes President of FIDE
In continuation of our discussion during your recent visit in Moscow I would like once again to say that I highly appreciate your concern about the health and nerves of the players and all those connected with unprecedented prolonged match. I understand human motives that influenced your decision to end the match.
You, no doubt, acted in the interests of Chess, but 1 am deeply convinced that the present situation has caused damage to Chess to say nothing of blasting my sports and public reputation which in the course of many years has been considered unimpeachable. Unfortunately, some public statements of the challenger conduce to that.
In its approach to you the USSR Chess Federation has not pro posed to end the Match but only to make a brake which could have enabled all the people concerned to have a rest.
As you know on February 15 1985 both the players hate expressed the strong wish and ability to continue playing till the final result provided for in the regulations approved by the Fide congress. For me, personally, this possibility is necessary in order to once again prove my adherence to the principles of sports competition over the chessboard. The challenger had his own arguments: he is complaining of being deliberately deprived of his right to compete for the highest title.
I am sure that millions of Chess enthusiasts are not satisfied by the fact that the sports competition has remained unfinished. Consequently, resumption of the match will be for general benefit.
I hope that the USSR Chess Federation in these circumstances will not oppose to the wish of its own strongest Chessplayers. It is certainly not in the interests of the Federation for the atmosphere to he heated.
It has not been easy for you to take your decision on February 15, 1985, and naturally it is not easy for you now to review it. But during the candidates’ competitions in 1983 you already proved your wisdom and ability to place the interests of Chess and Chessplayers above all.
That has only served to consolidation of your prestige and authority.
Keeping this in mind I appeal to you to give your consent to resumption of the play in the match as soon as it is only possible
Sincerely Yours.
Anatoly Karpov
World Champion
President Campomanes travelling asked the secretary of Fide, Dr. Lim Kok Ann, to send the following telegram.
Attention USSR Chess Federation.
Concerning Mr. Karpov’s open letter dated 19 February, President wishes to know your views on his request to have Match resumed, that is, are you ready to reorganize Match, if hypothetically President decides affirmatively on Mr. Karpov’s request.
Further, President would like to solicit through you, since President has now no way to contact Mr. Kasparov, his view on possible resumption of Match.
Please reply to Fide Lucerne or to Manila telex number 40030
Regards, Dr. Lim Kok Ann General Secretary
Soviet President Sevastianov answered on the same day.
F. Campomanes Fide President
We request to grant the right for the organisation of the match for the World Champion title between Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov according to the regulations to be approved by 1985 Fide congress, to the USSR Chess Federation. Start of the Match first week of September 1985
With best regards
V. Sevastianov
USSR Chess Federation
On 25th February 1985, Z. Gligoric informed Campomanes that according Mr. Mamedov (Kasparov’s chief of delegation) Kasparov accepted decision of FIDE President to consider Match ended and was ready to play new Match in September.
Two days later President Campomanes issued the following press statement:
I have within the last nine days been receiving requests to alter the February 15th decision to end the match without decision, and to start a new match on Sept. 2, 1985. Foremost, and most direct and most persistent has been from Mr. Anatoly Karpov. You are familiar with the reasons for that decision? Let us review them…
What reasons could there be for a change of that decision? Why should we resume the match from where we left off?
On Feb. 19, Karpov had an open letter for me which he had distributed to media in Moscow. (I actually read it in full on the 21st in Athens). This circumstance alone is unprecedented, and de served total attention. Note the emotional tone. He wishes to redeem his blasted sports and public reputation.
Mr. Kasparov never formally entered a protest. His protestations during the media conference on Feb. 15th must have been tentative and ill considered outbursts, reacting to Mr. Karpov’s earlier call for a continuation of the match.
Have the conditions changed to day to warrant a reversal? They will still play an unlimited match till one player wins six. What’s the prospect, 1, 5, a dozen or even thirty games? If Karpov wins, fine, but if Karpov loses, can the revenge match be played September?
Assuming it is resumed, they’ll play, say by March first. Two weeks interval. Mr. Karpov shall have rested, it can be alleged.
Will the former excellence of play be revived. This is moot.
The only certain change is that media will cover it once more in grand style. For a while anyway, until they get bored with prospective draws.
Alternatives and some possible effects:
A. if I become convinced of the wisdom of the proponents of resumption, or succumb to the fleeting but fierce pressures of ‘The show must go on’ groups, the galeria can once again shout ‘Ole’ as they see blood on sand.
The organizing committee will dutifully renew preparations and in quick time place Sports Hotel or Trade Union hall in full match gear … telexes, extra phones for media … and track down the other principals of the match (Oh, yes, there are people other than the players involved) from Yugoslavia, Germany, Spain and the Philippines (assuming they’ve made no other commitments) and bring them back to Moscow. These are not insurmountable tasks.
Mr. Karpov will have a chance to redeem, to paraphrase him, his blasted sports and public reputation.
And Mr. Kasparov will have his opportunity to gamble with his 5 or 30 percent chance to win the match.
And everyone will be convinced of the truth that Mr. Karpov truly wanted on Feb. 15 to continue playing to the end; and that it was he who first declared publicly that the match should continue, not Mr. Kasparov, on that memorable day, Feb: 15.
The gallery shall have been served and the match games and their sidelights shall be grist for media’s mill.
B. In FIDE’s name I should stand resolute on the decision of Feb. 15, as I am buffeted by fierce opinion favouring match resumption, I risk unpopularity or outright condemnation. To this I pay little heed. It’s a hazard of office. Have I not spoused seemingly unpopular decisions before!
I risk unafraid because FIDE must see beyond the forest, and render decisions that long endure. But most of all I risk the loss of a long-standing friendship with Mr. Karpov
Therefore I opted on Feb. 15, to paraphrase Mr. Golombek of the London Times, for the only practical way of solving the problem with which I was faced.
Today I choose to reinforce that option: ending the match without decision, and starting a new match from scratch (0-0) on Sept. 2, 1985. From the inner most in heart and mind, I firmly believe it was right then, it is right today and only time will give its final verdict.
Am sorry, Tolya.
Gens Una Sumus.
Florencio Campomanes FIDE President
The match finished after 160 days, 48 games, 8 won and 40 draws.
Karpov didn’t lost his title but lost 10 kilos (22 pounds) during the match
In May 1985, the FIDE Executive Council, met in Tunisia and decided that:
1) There would be a 24 game match.
2) If the match ended 12-12, Karpov would keep the title.
3) If Karpov lost, a return match would be granted, but this would be for the current cycle only and would not apply to future cycles. This meant that Kasparov would have to beat Karpov in one match and then hold him to at least a draw in a second. If he succeeded, he would not have the advantage of a return match in defending the world championship title.
The loser of the return match would be seeded directly into a Candidates final match for the current cycle. The match would consist of 24 games against the winner of the semi-final match. This meant that a new World Champion challenger would have to beat both Karpov and Kasparov to gain the title.
Moscow, IX, 1984 – II, 1985.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | |
| Karpov A | = | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 |
| Kasparov G | = | = | 0 | = | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 |
from Chess Life
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | Total | |
| Karpov A | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | 25.0 |
| Kasparov G | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 23.0 |
After the conference where Campomanes announced about the interrupting of the match Karpov-Kasparov the correspondents asked some officials to comment this event:
F. Campomanes:
“It’s my duty to make decisions in complicated situations. This decision was made on behest of my mind and my heart. The goal of the Championship match is competition of two strongest chess players who should demonstrate a better game, skills in theoretic preparation, strong fighting will, which they have.
Both Kasparov and Karpov devoted themselves totally to this match, trying to reach the top. I think that now due to these players there are not “blank points” in the Queen’s Gambit, at least in some variants.
The situation aroused at the match is called “force- major”, and the decision on this situation should be accepted by the only person who is responsible for it. There are special points 1-21 in the FIDE Regulations, that the President is responsible personally and officially for the match, and the point 6-11 confirms that I am authorized to accept the final decisions on all the questions concerning the match totally.”
Chief Arbiter of the match Gligoric YUG:
“Several times I was an Arbiter at different chess events, but this match Karpov-Kasparov was a record for me. I spent half a year of my life on it. I can say with all the responsibility that the organization of the match was excellent. Karpov and Kasparov, I think, indeed were completely exhausted and that is absolutely natural after such a marathon contest. I think that the decision of the president is absolutely reasonable and fair. I think it is for the profit of both GMs and chess totally. Both participants have demonstrated a high class of play. Of course there were some mistakes, but they follow all the tourneys. Now it’s much more difficult to win.”
The Chairman of Appealing Committee, Honorary FIDE Member A. Kinzel:
“I managed to overcome the usual difficulties which always inevitably arouse during the long staying far from home due the excellent organization of the match. Of course the state of contestants is quite different. I had a possibility to talk to both of them in different moments of the match, could feel their moral state, to follow their ways of thinking. Certainly they said “yes” -expressing intentions to continue the match, but even in that situation I had an impression that they were tired. Our president had to accept a decision as the situation was critical. This decision was not easy, but it was not impulsive. Even in January we spoke about the regulations of the matches, and on the base of the Moscow contest it was clear that 24 games was enough for the title match. It is difficult to make a decision of world importance (scale). The highest purpose here is fairness. And everybody should base on the real situation. We spoke to Kasparov as well as to Karpov, and everyone expressed private wishes. Campomanes consulted with us: Gligoric-the chief arbiter and with me. And we tried to be a support for the President in this difficult moment. I took part in the taking of this decision, which has only one aim -to help chess. To my mind both contestants are so exhausted, that they should have some time to realize that they got help timely. Both of them are outstanding persons in the chess world, and all the chess amateurs and chess fans wait for new creative achievements from them.”
The “TASS” Agency correspondent met the participants of the World Chess Championship Match International Grandmasters Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov in Moscow. Both opponents shared their views on the creative side of the 48 games played and told us about their plans for the nearest future.
World Champion Anatoly Karpov is the first to answer the questions:
Q: How do you evaluate creative and sportive results of the world championship match? A: The creative side of the match was very interesting. It enriched the general chess theory and especially the theory of openings. First of all, we should mention several effective variations of the Queen gambit, New Indian and Sicilian defence as well as the Russian game. Many games were rich in strategic and tactical struggle in middlegame and endgame.
Both opponents showed a supreme mastery in defence. Perhaps, it was more impressive than art of attack, but that was a peculiarity of the top-level chess rivalry. The press published some critical comments regarding big number of draws in the match – sometimes they were quick ones. That fact can be easily explained.
First of all, the games between the top-level chess players usually have low percentage of decisive games even in less important tournaments. In the recent years I have been losing not more than 3-4 out of 60-70 games in the tournaments of the grandmaster level, which makes the average of one defeat out of 20 games. Kasparov had approximately the same result.
Secondly, the modern state of the openings’ theory facilitates many variations and schemes to be worked out up to the 20th-30th move and sometimes even to endgame positions. Therefore, if White had no advantage after the opening and Black had equalised the game, both opponents saw no reason to continue the struggle. Besides, they both had to think about sparing their strength in a match without limits.
By the way, while the opponents had spent 175 hours at the chessboard in the Baguio match, which was considered one of the longest and most difficult matches, Moscow witnessed a 206 hours long competition.
As for the sportive side, we should mention several stages. I was leading 4:0 after 9 games. I was stronger than my opponent both strategically and tactically at the start. Kasparov had failures trying to play novelties in the Sicilian defence (the 3rd game) and his favourite variation of Tarrasch defence in the Queen gambit (the 7th and the 9th games), which he had successfully applied in the Candidates’ matches. I could also win the 2nd game, if I hadn’t made a mistake on the 40th move.
I suppose that such performance of Kasparov was a result of his excessive self-confidence he had shown before the start of the match and excessively high estimation of his chances by some experts and journalists.
After that the challenger changed his tactics significantly. He started to play cautiously, avoiding the smallest risk even in his favourable positions. Having 4 points’ advantage, I also tried to avoid complications. Perhaps, that was my mistake – “strike while the iron is hot”. A series of 17 draws followed.
At last I won the 27th game, which I consider one of the best games I played not only in this match, but also on the whole. The score was 5:0 and there was one last step to victory to be made.
Perhaps, I could end the match in the 31st game, when I had one pawn more, but I did not play well in the time-trouble, possibly due to fatigue.
Chess is like a football: if you don’t score a goal, the ball is flying into your goal. So, the next, 32nd game brought the first success to Kasparov in this match, thus inspiring him.
Having time-trouble in the 41st game, I missed my chance to end the match after I had failed to calculate all consequences of a piece sacrifice (33. a6!).
The 47th game was the weakest one of all the games I had played for many years. By the way, not many people know that Kasparov offered a draw at the 12th move. I declined it, although I had no advantage. Influenced by critical comments and dissatisfaction about quick draws, I thought it was not suitable to accept a draw so early while playing White.
Then there was a defeat in the 48th game. Kasparov played middlegame very strongly, but the endgame was different as we both made mistakes.
Errors? There were not more mistakes in this match than in any other world championship matches. Besides, there had been no matches of 48 games in the chess history. There would hardly be any in the future.
I never have been a supporter of a limitless match. It was adopted in 1974 at the urgent request of the world champion r. Fischer. When discussing time-limits of the 1978 and 1981 matches, neither I, nor the representatives of the USSR Chess Federation in any way supported the limitless match, but most FIDE officials and especially FIDE President Campomanes continued to insist on it.
So, after 5:0 there followed 5:3.
After 30 games, there already were opinions that the match had been lasting too long, that all people – arbiters, organisers and spectators – were tired, that the players’ health was threatened and something had to be done to solve that problem. The match regulations provided no other solution, but to continue the match.
I don’t deny that I was tired, Who of the participants of all 30 world championship matches wouldn’t be tired after playing 40 or 50 games? But all rumours about my exhausted physical state and inability to continue the match were not true.
I should remind you that leading 5:2 after the 27th game in 1978 in Bagio I let my opponent equalise, but then I managed to ultimately win in that critical situation.
Therefore I publicly announced at the press conference on February 19th that I was ready and willing to continue the match. Despite the negative reaction of several FIDE officials and national federations, FIDE President did not reconsider his decision.
Q: New match between you and Kasparov is scheduled for the early September. What are you plans for the pre-match period? A: I am not ready to answer this question in detail. First of all, I should take some rest. Then I shall analyse all 48 games and make proper conclusions for the future both in chessic as well as psychological respect. Perhaps, I shall participate in some tournament. It is not yet clear, which one I shall choose.
Q: It is known that the FIDE Congress will determine the new match regulations only in August – shortly before the beginning of the match. Does this situation have certain inconveniences? A: Of course, it does! The world championship match regulations are normally determined at the beginning of the cycle or at least one year before the match. Now, I am worried by the fact that we shall get the regulations less than a month before the match. The explanation is that the decision of February 15th was a hasty one and some important details were left out.
As the last FIDE Congress (Thessaloniki, December 1984) considered it unnecessary to further organise unlimited matches, one should expect that number of games in the 1985 match would be limited by 24 games.
I would like to use this opportunity and kind assistance of TASS Agency to express my deep gratitude to chess-lovers, who sent me hundreds of letters and telegrams congratulating me with successful games and cheering me up. I am sorry that I did not entirely justify their expectations.
Garry Kasparov:
“Such long lasting competition full of struggle and rivalry could not be fully comprehended at the first sight. This event gave a huge material for analysis to the experts and chess fans. At first I thought that everything would be all right in the coming match. However, I somehow didn’t take it into account that world championship match would involve a strong psychological tension.
Generally speaking, I would divide the whole match into three stages. The first stage could be characterised by my nervousness and big number of mistakes. The world champion was the first to succeed in this situation: that was the result of his bigger match and tournament experience. At that stage Karpov was playing in his usual manner, precisely calculating variations and making use of my errors.
Then there followed a long series of draws. That was a triumph of the defensive art. The rhythm of the match was becoming steady and even.
At last, the third pat of the match could be marked by the games, which were more interesting from the point of view of game quality. The struggle was growing tense.
The whole match could be characterised by high creativity.
A whole number of endgames seemed very interesting to me. I think that experts would definitely include them into reference books of chess endgames. Both of us had our own achievements in this match. There were some interesting middlegames in the second part of the match, but the biggest number of ideas could be found in the openings and that was no coincidence. Karpov has a rich store of chess openings. That advantage could be clearly seen both in Bagio as well as Merano. As for me, I also cannot complain about the lack of openings preparation. We both used the same formations with Black and White searching for new resources in those positions. All that was a discovery of new horizons in chess, which would determine the development of some trends in openings’ theory in the nearest future.
There is exactly half a year left before our new match. I must have some rest, recover physically and properly prepare for the match in September. Soon I will visit Baku. In March I will travel to Irkutsk to attend the finals among the teams of Pioneers’ and Youth Palaces, trained by grandmasters. I love these competitions as I had myself participated in them when I was a pioneer. Twice I was a member of a team. Now I will be a team captain for the second time.
By the way, I would like to use this opportunity to express my concern and anxiety about this tournament: each year prestige of this tournament decreases. The main reason is that many of my grandmaster colleagues are avoiding this tournament, not considering it serious.
End of May – beginning of June I would like to participate in a big international tournament or play in the match against some grandmaster. It will be followed by the preparation for the new championship match.
I think that both Karpov and I are equally concerned about the regulations of this coming match. All rules and terms should be agreed upon well in advance. Therefore, I think that I will be too late to adopt the regulations of the FIDE Congress in August. These regulations must be urgently prepared by FIDE not later than in May. This should be done for the sake of the new match and chess.”
Garry Kasparov told his side of the world championship story in a June 3rd Der Spiegel (Germany) interview, conducted by Werner Harenberg, an editor of that magazine.
Q: Mr. Kasparov, what will be the name of the world chess champion following the 24 games of the title match in Moscow between Karpov and yourself? A: You presumably believe that the match between Karpov and myself in the autumn will actually take place. I have serious doubts that Karpov is really prepared to play the match for the title and to sit across the board from me on September 2nd. He has yet to exhaust his possibilities for preventing the match. But before you ask who will be world champion at the end of the year you must first ask who is the world champion today.
Q: Yes, well, who is? A: At the moment, there is no world chess champion. There has never been an end to a world chess championship such as that in Moscow on February 15. Hopefully, there will never again be one. In my opinion, Karpov has forfeited his right to call himself the world champion. On the other hand, I have yet to earn this right, which can only be had by victories at the chessboard.
Q: On September 2nd, the match will begin once again with the score at 0-0. Marseilles, London and Moscow all made bids to hold the match. Shortly before this conversation, Campomanes chose Moscow. Does that cor respond with your wishes? A: No. My view is that the match should take place in the Soviet Union — but not in Moscow. Karpov has up front advantages there.
Q: For him it’s a home game. But you did agree to play in Moscow last September for the first match. A: At that time I believed that the prestige of our country was more important, but I’ve fulfilled my duty to our capital city by playing 48 games there. I suggested Leningrad as a compromise — a city with no less tradition.
Q: But Leningrad did not actually make a bid? A: The Sport Committee could easily organize the match in Lenin grad, but since Karpov wants to play in Moscow, Leningrad doesn’t come into consideration. I’m quite used to t fact that no notice is taken of my wishes.
Q: Will you play in Moscow? A: Kasparov: My main concern is to save the match. The most important thing is that I get to sit opposite Karpov. After all, one can beat him — even in Moscow. The thing is actually to play against him. You can’t win against a ghost.
Q: Let us now go through the scandals which surrounded the previous world championship. First of all, was the September 10 start last year too early for you? A: Kasparov: Yes. According to the rules, it should have started six months following the candidates’ final, which would have been. October 10. I would then have had an extra month for preparation.
Q: About the first match? A: Karpov committed a gross strategic error. He had a clear lead [4 —0 5]. It was his duty to play riskily. He would have lost one game, perhaps two. But that was unlikely. By game 20, he could have won overall by 6-2. But he simply waited for me to make mistakes. He didn’t want to win himself, just wait until I lost. That showed a defect in his character. Everything that went
The Yugoslav journalist D. Andic tried to analyse the situation including the two open letters signed by Glogoric and Kasparov (annex). His article was published in CLR: “What Kasparov actually had to say about the Soviet federation differed little from his now famous remarks in Der Spiegel. The real interest is in the uninhibited nature of his criticism. Observers here feel that Kasparov has set a new precedent for Soviet sportsmen in chess or, for that matter, in any other field. One member of the Soviet diplomatic staff in Belgrade described Kasparov’s assertions as “scandalous.”
In any event, one thing is certain: there is now open warfare between FIDE President Florencio Campomanes and Kasparov. Stated Kasparov: “Campomanes tries to convert grandmasters into — as Tal put it — hired hands through his main slogan of ‘developing chess in the Third World.’ But that is jtist an alibi. Chess cannot be developed without leading grandmasters, and no one knows where the practice will lead of taking money from all sides and allegedly directing it towards the Third World. A figure like Campomanes just had to appear. It is quite natural that someone should wish to exploit chess for his own interests once the game has begun to bring a profit.”
Finally, Kasparov did not rule out the possibility that there could be a move at the next FIDE congress in Graz, Austria, to award Karpov a 2-0 lead at the start of the upcoming September match the challenger termed the possibility an interesting question which could not be “excluded.”.
It was, however, Kasparov’s criticism of GM Gligoric which took top billing in Belgrade. He accused the veteran Yugoslavian star of conduct unbecoming a neutral match referee. Thus, Kasparov divulged what went on behind closed doors after the Moscow press conference of February 15. When the young Soviet stated his desire to continue the match, Gligoric responded, “No way!” He further accused Gligoric of putting pressure on him to accept proposals to end the match which included, among other pro visions, a stipulation that Kasparov would have to win the return match by four points in order to remain as world champion after January I, 1986. If he should win by three points or less, the title would revert to Karpov on that date.
Kasparov’s main charge against Gligoric was that along with Campomanes, the Yugoslav GM took part in an effort on February 14, to procure Kasparov’s agreement to end the match. Wrote Kasparov: “During these talks, you were sit ting at the table and taking your active part in them. You were even helping the translator occasionally. In these talks I put it clearly and precisely that I saw two methods for the match to end. First — Karpov could resign if he were unable to continue. Secondly — we should go on playing according to the existing rules. Campomanes answered that a third variation was also possible, ‘I shall make the decision myself.’ What these threatening words meant, I found out the next day at the Moscow press conference.” Gligoric replied that he appeared at the meeting “accidentally.”
