Military Review

Chess and politics. Match Karpov-Kasparov and the Orange Revolution

Chess and politics. Match Karpov-Kasparov and the Orange Revolution

Thirty years ago, the most scandalous match began in Moscow. stories world chess

Thirty years ago, 9 September 1984, the most scandalous match in the history of chess began. World champion Anatoly Karpov had to defend his title against a young challenger Garry Kasparov.

The confrontation of two great grandmasters has long been interpreted much more widely than just a sports competition. Both the course of the duel and its result are often regarded as a symbol of the decline of the Soviet system and the arrival of new perestroika realities in its place.

A whole series of “orange revolutions” that occurred to our eyes several years ago was perceived by the “analytical community” as an extraordinary, hitherto unseen phenomenon. Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union, in two legendary matches, Karpov-Kasparov and Kasparov-Karpov successfully implemented a typical “orange” scenario. And although the events of those times were closely watched by the whole country, still few people understand what really happened then.

Before proceeding to the topic stated in the title of the article, it is necessary to make a number of preliminary remarks, without which it is impossible to understand the true meaning of the events that were of crucial importance in the fate of our country.

It is customary to associate radical transformations of the Soviet system with the name of M.S. Gorbachev. The following interpretation of the historical events of the middle of the 80-s was firmly established in wide use. The leader of the country has become a relatively young, energetic leader who understands the need for change. Having the opportunity to realize his intentions, he began a radical systemic transformation against the will of the "party democrats" who constituted the political elite of the Soviet Union and were seeking to preserve the "Brezhnev order."

These narrow-mindedly naive and superficial arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. The incredible speed with which the reforms were carried out, the fundamental nature, the depth of the changes that took place in the USSR at that time in all spheres of life, and many, many other facts indicate that the preparation for restructuring began long before 1985.

Recall what strategic tasks were set and successfully solved by the “Gorbachev team”.

First, it was necessary to develop, adopt, and most importantly, implement a package of new laws that completely changed the face of a country that, let's not forget, ranked first in the world in terms of area and third in terms of population.

Secondly, in order to suppress resistance to the reforms, which originated in the depths of the popular masses, including in power structures, it was necessary to think through and put into practice a set of measures, including a grandiose campaign of manipulating the consciousness of the population.

In order to carry out such a large-scale transformation, and even in a truly record time, the entire enormous bureaucratic Soviet machine had to work like a clock, preventing serious disruptions. In short, reform was a complex task requiring the mobilization of significant management and other resources. And this means that by the middle of 80's, the party vertical already consisted largely of people who not only did not seek to hinder restructuring, but also supported it in every way. It could not be otherwise. Without a very broad base within the party apparatus, Gorbachev would not have been able to realize a hundredth part of what he did. Otherwise, the initiatives of the Secretary General were simply sabotaged and would have hung in the air.

If you look at the biographies of the key figures of the “Gorbachev team”, it turns out that these people occupied high posts even under Brezhnev, and some under Khrushchev and even Stalin (Yakovlev, Aliyev).

Thus, the implementation of reforms was not the willful decision of Gorbachev, a loner who risked going against Sistema and the country's political elite, but on the contrary, a very influential part of the Soviet elite put Gorbachev into the historical arena in order to act in its interests.

In ideological terms, restructuring was a radical denial of the entire Soviet era, which is perfectly evident from the campaign of discrediting literally all the achievements of the USSR, as well as those people with whose name these achievements were associated.

Mixing it with dirt, throwing it off the pedestal, smearing their light, even if a mythologized image - this was what manipulators of public opinion needed. After all, having blackened and thus, destroying the symbols of the successes of the Soviet system, they pushed the people to the idea of ​​abandoning the system itself. Will a person maintain the system if he considers it criminal and incompetent? Of course not, which was later confirmed in practice.

The political, economic, and cultural planes of the Soviet system, the personification of which were personalities known throughout the country, were under the blow. And it is abundantly clear that manipulators could not leave without such attention such an important field for the masses as sports.

To begin with, chess is a unique sport, which, on the one hand, has a reputation as an elitist, and on the other hand, it does not require expensive equipment to engage in it. All you need is a small board, knowledge of simple rules, and you can play.

In the Soviet Union, they correctly assessed the incredible cultural, intellectual, ideological, and hence the political potential that chess possesses. The Soviet cult of chess was not and still has no analogues in the world. Chess clubs, sections and schools opened across the country. A lot of adult and children's tournaments were held, which were attended by experienced masters seeking talents. Consistent and clear government policies quickly bore fruit.

The first post-war world champion - Botvinnik, followed by Smyslov, then Tal, Petrosyan, Spassky - five world champions in a row and all Soviet! Not only world champions, but also our other grandmasters occupied a dominant position in the chess world. Victory followed one after another, the superiority of the Soviet athletes was just total. All the people who appreciated chess and who understood them quite well watched with joy for their success.

No other sport in the USSR had such an obvious advantage over other countries. Moreover, superiority was achieved in intellectual competitions. The ideological meaning of chess victories is obvious: the USSR is the intellectual leader of the world, which testifies to the progressiveness of the Soviet system.

However, in the West there was a man who turned out to be stronger than the entire Soviet chess machine. His name is Robert Fisher. He was literally a textbook embodiment of the American dream. The son of immigrants, a lone genius himself makes his way up. In the qualifying competitions, Fisher easily beats the best Soviet grandmasters, then smashes Spassky and becomes the world champion. The ideological meaning of the victory of Fisher is also very obvious. Here it is the triumph of the American way of life. For great victories, talent does not need a nanny as a state; in a free country of equal opportunities, gifted people automatically become in demand.

After such a heavy blow to the prestige of the Soviet chess school, the statesmen, who still maintained their positions in the elite of the USSR, did everything possible so that the chess crown would return to the Soviet Union.

Anatoly Karpov had to solve this difficult task. If Fisher was a living embodiment of the American dream, then Karpov personified the great Soviet dream. He was born in Zlatoust, a worker in the Urals city. As a child, he knew poverty and even need, and he began his way to a great sport in the factory Palace of Sports. Unlike many other leading Soviet chess players to some extent infected with the anti-Soviet virus, Karpov emphasized his loyalty to the system. He was considered "his" by millions of people, because he behaved like a typical Soviet man and shared the values ​​attributed to the majority. But at the same time he possessed an outstanding talent, will and purposefulness, which allowed him to achieve everything that most of the population of the USSR dreamed about: traveling abroad, fame, money, patronage from the authorities, etc.

Karpov had the qualities necessary to become a national idol, and at some point he became one. After all, what is the idol of the masses? As a rule, this is what the masses see themselves in their dreams, the idealized “I”, as psychologists say. The leadership of the USSR was well aware that Karpov was suitable for this role, supported him and was not mistaken. Very soon, a young, promising athlete turned into a chess player of incredible strength, and when he entered the world champion Fisher, the American refused to defend his title. In accordance with the international rules, Karpov was declared the champion.

Thus, in 1975, on the “chess” front of the ideological struggle, the Soviet Union restored the status quo. But soon troubles began again, Spassky and Korchnoi left the USSR, and if Spassky’s emigration could still be explained not by political, but by everyday reasons (his wife is of Russian origin), Korchnoi did not return from the international tournament and began to make sharp anti-Soviet statements.

Suddenly, it turned out that the Soviet system was left with only one truly outstanding chess player, able to defend the prestige of the country at the highest level - Karpov. And when Korchnoi emigrated, won the qualifying competition, everyone understood that the 1978 championship match of the year would be extremely ideological and scandalous.

The defeat of Karpov at the chessboard would have turned into the hardest defeat of the entire Soviet Union. Western propaganda, not sparing the strength and resources, created Korchnoi’s image of a “fighter against totalitarianism”, while Soviet propaganda denounced it in every way possible with shame.

As a result, Karpov was trapped in a psychological trap. If he wins, they will say that one cannot be proud of such a victory. They say that the whole Soviet system stood behind him, and Korchnoi fought alone, especially since Korchnoi’s son remained in the USSR, and in which case, the “totalitarian monster” could be accused of blackmail. If Korchnoi wins, they will surely say that justice has triumphed, and the “protégé of totalitarian forces” has lost, despite all the tricks of the “dictatorial regime.” And the size of anti-Soviet hysteria would be difficult even to imagine.

Karpov won with a minimal advantage of 6: 5, and three years later, in the next match, he again defeated Korchnoi (6: 2). In addition to champion matches, Karpov won many strongest tournaments, and rightfully became a symbol of the inviolability of the USSR's positions in sports. And as mentioned above, the moment was near when Soviet symbols would be transformed from objects of worship into an object of blackening. Therefore, a living legend, the idol of millions, Karpov, apparently, was the victim of a sophisticated and carefully planned operation.

In 1984, Karpov comes time for a third time to defend his title. In the minds of the people, he continues to be perceived as a typical "man of the System", a symbol of the Brezhnev era, which is patronized by party power. Oddly enough, this gross delusion still persists, although logic, common sense, and many facts prove the opposite. At the head of the country is a weak, seriously ill Chernenko and purely outwardly the system looks the same as it has been for the last ten years. Of course, everyone understands that he is only a nominal figure, but few people realize that the line to abandon socialism has already triumphed in the depths of the political elite and preparations for restructuring are in full swing.

The anti-Soviet elite needed their own symbols; they needed a new anti-Soviet chess king, a king to match himself. And here we come to the personality of Kasparov.

He was born in Baku in the 1963 year and already in his youth enjoyed the patronage of Heydar Aliyev. Before proceeding to the consideration of the first 1984 match of the year, it is necessary to make a brief excursion into Aliyev’s biography. The fact is that without taking into account the facts of his biography, it is impossible to understand what role he played in the scandalous and highly politicized confrontation of Karpov-Kasparov.

In 60, Aliyev held a number of important posts in the “power bloc” of the leadership of the Azerbaijan SSR — in 1964 — the vice-chairman, and in 1967 — the chairman of the State Security Committee at the Council of Ministers of Azerbaijan SSR. Since July 1969, Aliyev has been the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Azerbaijan Communist Party. When Andropov, who previously held the post of KGB chairman, becomes the general secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Aliyev abruptly goes to the mountain, since 1982 he has been a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and first deputy chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers. If we consider that the formal chief of Aliyev, Tikhonov, was already at a very respectable age, it becomes clear that in those years, it was Aliyev who was the de facto Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers.

So, he created all the conditions for chess growth for Kasparov and very quickly the young talent became stronger and became one of the strongest grandmasters of the USSR. Unlike Karpov, pointedly loyal to the system, a raid of "dissidence" was felt in Kasparov's behavior already at the beginning of 80's. Of course, at that time he did not make really harsh anti-Soviet statements, the time had not come yet, however, he didn’t hide his skepticism about the stagnant Soviet order too much. And in 1983, an event occurred that created Kasparov’s image as a victim of the “marasmic Soviet system.”

Kasparov-Korchnoi and Ribli-Smyslov entered the semi-finals of the qualifying competitions, the winner of which qualified for the match with Karpov, and both matches were broken through the fault of Soviet officials. The philistine conversations began that vile party officials, fearing for their pet Karpov, decided to eliminate his main rival, Kasparov. However, after Kasparov and Smyslov were considered defeated, Moscow apologizes to the international chess organization (FIDE), pays a fine, and asks all the same to hold semi-final matches. FIDE goes to the meeting of the USSR, Korchnoi, despite all his hatred of the Soviet Union, also agrees to play with Kasparov.

The story of the cancellation, and then the "reanimation" of those matches is extremely confusing and dark. There is evidence that the matches were saved by none other than Aliyev, but what really happened was not easy to figure out. The only obvious thing is that chess players became victims of hardware and political intrigues.

Be that as it may, Kasparov acquires a reputation as a “victim of the Soviet regime” and as such is ideally suited to the role of an anti-Soviet chess king. And Karpov is simply doomed to be in the same psychological trap, in which he had repeatedly been when he fought against Korchnoi. "Pet power" against the "victim of the regime."

And here comes the 1984 year. The match Karpov-Kasparov is held up to six wins, no draws are counted. After nine games, the 4: 0 score is in favor of Karpov. Then a long series of draws followed, but in the 27 game, Karpov, 5: 0! Shaped defeat. Kasparov manages to soak the score only in the 32 game, 5: 1. Again, a draw follows a draw. The match has been going on for several months already, the score does not change, until Karpov’s total victory lacks one step, but the victory is not given. Kasparov, despite all his efforts, also can not close the gap. And now Kasparov wins two games in a row, 47 and 48. 5 account: 3.

Then began a chain of strange events that still have not received a logically consistent explanation.

The President of FIDE Campomanes and 15 February 1985 of the year arrives in Moscow at a press conference in the Moscow Sport Hotel announces the end of the match “without announcing the winner”, citing his decision with the tiredness of athletes.

The most common version of these events is as follows: a rotten communist regime rushed to rescue its protege, Karpov, at the moment when it turned out that his physical condition no longer allowed him to play at a high level, which means he was doomed to defeat. Kasparov was illegally deprived of a real opportunity to become a world champion.

Let's analyze this interpretation. As already mentioned, at that time anti-Soviet forces dominated the USSR leadership. Then who and why could stop the match in order to "save Karpov from imminent defeat"? In his book Two Matches, Kasparov writes that 14 February 1985 of the year Campomanes showed him a letter signed by Chairman of the USSR Chess Federation Sevastyanov, which said that the chess federation is concerned about the extreme fatigue of both participants and asks for a three-month break.

So, officials from the USSR State Sports Committee decided to help Karpov? Stupidity. Aliyev himself was the patron saint of Kasparov - a figure far more influential than any representative of sports structures. Who then could go against his will and deprive Kasparov of a chance to become a world champion? Whose power was to force the Filipino Campomanes to come to Moscow to “help Karpov”? There are no intelligible answers to these questions in the framework of the stated version.

Turn to the facts.

1. 14 February Kasparov meets with Campomanes and learns from him about the written request of the USSR Chess Federation to make a three-month break in the match.

2. 15 February at a press conference Campomanes announced that the match will be canceled and the new match will begin with the 0: 0 account. Karpov disagrees with the decision of the FIDE President. Kasparov also confirms his readiness to continue the match.

3. A half-hour break is announced, after which Karpov signs off on Campomanes’s decision. Kasparov refuses.

4. February 19 Karpov writes an open letter to Campomanes, in which he demands to continue the match.

Agree to us utter confusion. If Karpov is really interested in canceling the match, then why does he require him to resume? Perhaps the whole thing is in a thin calculation and the letter is written to avert the eye? That is, Karpov knows that the match will not be resumed in any case, and in order to save his face he writes a letter that Campomanes will not take seriously? Look what happened next.

Karpov sent his letter to the central information agency of the USSR, TASS and the foreign agency Reuters, so that not only in the Soviet Union, but throughout the world they would know his position. And Karpov, speaking in the information program "Time", mentioned the letter. Soon the whole world was reading Karpov’s letter, but the inhabitants of the USSR were not! The foreign agency issued a letter from the Soviet champion, but the Soviet TASS agency did not!

Only the supreme power could order the central information agency of the Soviet Union. Only the intervention of the supreme rulers of the USSR could have forced the leadership of TASS not to disclose Karpov’s letter. After this, can it be said that the rulers of the USSR supported Karpov and stopped the match in his interests? Obviously not. The story of the letter shows the opposite.

But the power of the party apparatus did not extend to a foreign agency and the world knew that Karpov demanded to resume the match. The whole world knew that Kasparov did not agree with the decision to cancel the match, now the whole world (except for ordinary citizens of the USSR) found out that it does not suit Karpov either. Campomanes found himself in a very difficult situation, because if both chess players are ready to play, if both believe that the cancellation of a match violates their rights, then in the eyes of the public, he and only he will be guilty of disrupting the World Cup.

And what about Kasparov? Up to this point, his actions looked consistent. At the press conference of Campomanes, he stated that he did not agree with the cancellation of the match, a little later he refused to sign the corresponding agreement, which Karpov signed. And now Karpov gave up his signature, and, therefore, there was a real opportunity to achieve the continuation of the competition. It would seem that now Kasparov will begin to show activity, but instead Campomanes even had to resort to an ultimatum to find Kasparov.

Campomanes said that if Kasparov did not express his attitude to the current situation, Campomanes would regard his silence as acceptance of any decision that Campomanes would take in view of Karpov's letter. Immediately, the head of the delegation, Kasparov, sent a telegram to Campomanes that Kasparov was satisfied with the decision made in Moscow (about the cancellation of the match) and was already preparing for a replay.

So, Kasparov, who claimed at a press conference in Moscow that he did not agree with Campomanes, not only did not take advantage of the changed situation in order to defend his rights, but after Karpov’s letter, in fact, he supported the decision with which agreed! If at the first 15 conference in February 1985 of the year, Karpov agreed with the cancellation of the match, but Kasparov did not, after a short while, Karpov protested, and Kasparov supported Campomanes.

Another press conference followed by the FIDE President in the Philippines. The final decision: the result of the match is canceled, the new match will start with the 0: 0 account.

So, we considered the version that the match was stopped under pressure from the leadership of the USSR, and this was done in the interests of the party party’s favorite (Karpov), since Karpov, after several months of exhausting struggle, was exhausted and could no longer offer serious resistance to Kasparov. Thus, Kasparov was deprived of the opportunity to become a world champion.

Analysis of this version shows that it is inconsistent and does not explain a number of facts that are directly related to the events under consideration. Thus, it is necessary to recognize this version as untenable.

What really happened? I propose another version that consistently explains inconsistencies.

So, the very first games showed a significant superiority of Karpov. The living legend of the Soviet sport does not just win, but literally smashes the one who, according to the partelites, should become a symbol of change, “a fresh wind in the musty atmosphere of stagnation”.

Kasparov’s patrons face a difficult challenge. Kasparov must be saved from defeat, but at the same time, it must be done so that no one would guess that the system is on his side. Otherwise, the carefully crafted myth of a loner who "defied a rotten communist regime" collapses. What kind of challenge is there if the "rotten regime" fully contributes to Kasparov?

It is impossible to stop a match with an 4: 0 score, and even more so with 5: 0 in favor of Karpov, it will immediately become clear to everyone on which side the system is actually located. Kasparov’s patrons have no choice but to wait and hope that their protege will be able to win at least a few games. Then it will be possible to create the appearance of a fracture during the match and present the case as if the frightened Karpov is trying to escape from defeat, acting by unsportsmanlike methods.

Although Kasparov was able to avoid defeat (5: 3 score), from which he was literally on the move, the main goal of becoming a world champion is still difficult to achieve. Kasparov's patrons understand that he can no longer delay. On the one hand, Kasparov won two games in a row, which means that the appearance of a breakthrough during the match was assured, and on the other, Karpov only needed to win one game, and he is the champion. Apparently, at the direction of the leaders of the USSR, the Soviet Chess Federation appeals to the FIDE President Campomanes with a written request to take a break in the match.

We have to assume that Kasparov is aware of the plan he had planned, and his role is to demonstrate in public his disagreement with the suspension, and later with the cancellation of the match.

15 February Campomanes at a press conference in Moscow announces his decision to stop the match, and hold a new one, which will start with the 0: 0 account. At a press conference, Kasparov acts according to plan and expresses protest. But Karpov also disagrees with the decision of Campomanes. A break is announced, consultations are underway, after which Karpov signs off on the decision of Campomanes. Kasparov refuses.

February 19 Karpov writes an open letter to Campomanes, in which he demands to resume the match, thereby canceling his previous decision. The whole world will know that not only Kasparov, but also Karpov is ready to play. The plan of the anti-Soviet elite is in jeopardy. However, the main purpose of the manipulative operation was to discredit Karpov in the eyes of the citizens of the USSR, and here the country's leadership had every opportunity to prevent the spread of inconvenient information for them.

By order of the TASS authorities refuses to disclose the letter Karpov. Inside the Soviet Union, everyone knows that Karpov signed some papers, according to which the match was canceled, Kasparov did not sign, and therefore he is a victim. Public opinion is beginning to lean in favor of Kasparov. But at the same time, an ordinary USSR resident does not know that Karpov, a few days after the Moscow conference, refused to sign, thus giving Kasparov a real opportunity to insist on resuming the match.

They do not know that Kasparov started to avoid negotiations with Campomanes at this very moment, and, finally, the head of the Kasparov delegation sent a telegram to the FIDE President stating that Kasparov agreed with the decision of Campomanes to cancel the match and began preparations for replay
Without taking into account these most important facts, one can really get the impression that the system saved Karpov and grossly violated Kasparov’s rights. So the plan of the anti-Soviet elite was crowned with success.

The next match began with the 0: 0 score, when the restructuring was already in full swing, and Karpov began to slack off in the open. Kasparov looked like a moral winner, and Karpov’s reputation was undermined. In the eyes of many people, he appeared as a backstage intriguer who took advantage of his nomenclature connections, because he realized that he could not defeat Kasparov in a fair fight. Moreover, Karpov was deprived of that significant advantage of two points, despite the fact that he needed only one game to win the match.

In addition to the important psychological advantage, Kasparov received several months to understand the unique experience he had gained in the match with world champion Karpov. Karpov, easily winning four games from the first nine, revealed a number of weaknesses in Kasparov’s game, and how air needed time-out to eliminate the glaring shortcomings of his style.

However, even being in such a disadvantageous position, Karpov also led a long run in the second match, and the outcome came only in the last game. Karpov lost it, and with it the match. The anti-Soviet elite received an anti-Soviet champion.

This is only a version, an assumption, and it is hardly possible to say with absolute certainty how exactly things really were. But agree, there is something to think about.
With that said, the 1984-1985 events of the year are perceived differently. If the assumption is correct, it is easy to see that then the success of Kasparov and the victory of the "orange" are based on a fundamentally identical scheme, according to which Yushchenko was brought to power after many years.

As it was in the match Karpov-Kasparov. With the score 5: 3 in favor of Karpov. The result of the match is canceled. A replay is assigned, in which Kasparov wins. His victory is hailed as a victory for democratic forces, personifying freedom, over a representative of "rotten nomenklatura power."

As it was in Ukraine in 2004 year. Yanukovych won the election, with a score (if I may say so) 49,46%: 46,61%. The election results were, in fact, annulled, a so-called “third round” was appointed, who was won by Yushchenko. His victory was likewise presented to society as a victory for the democratic forces, personifying freedom, over a representative of "rotten nomenklatura power."

Isn't it the same circuit?

Indeed, chess is a unique game, a fusion of sports, science, art and big politics, including those painted in “orange” tones.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. belovur
    belovur 11 September 2014 14: 53
    When this match was played, as a kid I was rooting for Karpov. Thanks to the author for explaining my subconscious motives! laughing
    1. Giant thought
      Giant thought 11 September 2014 15: 05
      Most Soviet people supported Karpov at the time, as if they felt at that moment how Kasparov would turn out to be anti-Soviet.
      1. yehat
        yehat 11 September 2014 15: 48
        no Kasparov is an anti-adviser.
        an ordinary big egoist. The same as Fischer, who also turned out to be "anti".
        The author draws arguments for the ears.
        As for the dispute between Karpov and Kasparov, they then did not think about anything other than chess. Both are great in their own way. Both became pioneers, and in several respects. Each of them, in the end, turned out to be quite strong. Not only Kasparov, but also Karpov studied and together they raised the level of chess playing technology so much that even now there is nobody who would be on a par with them at the time of super matches.
        1. andj61
          andj61 11 September 2014 16: 01
          In principle, back in those days there were publications about whose benefit the suspension was, and then the cancellation of the match by Campomanes. This version was also considered, as the author stated. But the author does not have one moment - in the last installments Karpov looked exhausted, he was obviously very tired. Kasparov, on the other hand, played a game of starvation - always definitely for a draw, catching the slightest mistakes of an opponent.
          Who would win this match is very difficult to say. Karpov was initially stronger, Kasparov was younger and healthier: unlike the slender Karpov, he looked like an athlete. For the USSR as a whole, it did not matter who won - both grandmasters were Soviet.
        2. goose
          goose 11 September 2014 17: 06
          Karpov would really blow Fisher in the match, because in terms of game level, he was significantly superior at that time. And also on the side of Karpov was the whole army of theorists, whose power Fisher felt on himself, playing with Petrosyan and Spassky. Here he was losing outright. By the way, not the fact that Fisher and Keres excelled.
          We must pay tribute to Kasparov, he quite objectively presented the facts in the book "Two Matches", and wrote about the story with Campomanes that he was completely disoriented. And by the way, he admitted that Karpov was more physically exhausted than Kasparov at the time of the end of the match. Karpov lost 11 kg (!!!), and Kasparov only 3. Moreover, Karpov really was not an athlete like Botvinnik and Kasparov.
          1. Oldwiser
            Oldwiser 11 September 2014 22: 37
            Kasparov was supposed to lose the first match. Could he then get out to the next - this is such a question, the answer to which we will not know
      2. Roman 11
        Roman 11 11 September 2014 19: 46
        Quote: Thought Giant
        Most Soviet people supported Karpov at that time.
        Karpov was predictable, but lost due to age differences. After that match, he severely undermined his health both physically and even more morally. The champions are equal in level, with their own style, but the younger one was just physiologically able to outweigh, hence Karpov’s psychological uncertainty. By the way, many chess authorities emphasized the dimensions of Karpov as the most vulnerable spot, especially affecting the long distance of the competition.
        1. Cormorants
          Cormorants 12 September 2014 09: 37
          I know one thing, in judo you have to think too)))
  2. Good cat
    Good cat 11 September 2014 15: 03
    Maybe so, in life what just does not happen!
  3. Oleg Sobol
    Oleg Sobol 11 September 2014 15: 13
    Very interesting article! He plunged at that time and comprehended, then he simply looked and cheered for Karpov. good
    1. goose
      goose 11 September 2014 17: 09
      No wonder: Karpov's style resembles a French fencer, elegant, technical and swift. Kasparov at the start of the match looked more like Shrek.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. qQQQ
    qQQQ 11 September 2014 15: 38
    I think it was much easier. Aliyev, by hook or by hook, dragged in his protege Kasparov, and given the influence of Aliev, hence all these "games" with the cancellation, transfer. In general, there was simply no one to intercede for Karpov. But what is my respect for Karpov, that he endured this situation with dignity, and Kasparov, as a der ..., remained with him.
    1. Nikolav
      Nikolav 11 September 2014 16: 02
      The story is muddy. Rather, you are right that it was not a matter of far-reaching political and propagandistic ambitions, but banal support of the "great" compatriot Kasparov.
    2. 23 region
      23 region 11 September 2014 16: 07
      Quote: qqqq
      But what is my respect for Karpov, that he suffered this situation with dignity, and Kasparov, as he was der ... der, remained so to them.
      1. Nikolav
        Nikolav 11 September 2014 16: 16
        I remember talking to two Jewish women at work, they were very indignant that Kasparov, as they said, "abandoned his father" Kim Vanstein.
    3. Past_ Crocodile
      Past_ Crocodile 11 September 2014 20: 46
      One hundred pounds. I was in Baku at that time, I remember how Kasparov was extolled.
  7. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 11 September 2014 16: 47
    And after this stellar constellation of our champions (Harry wants it or does not want it, but he is also a Soviet champion), when we were not at all interested in chess - who can say, and who cares, who later became the champion? Anand, Kramnik - whether they were champions or not, and so with all. No background - no interest. But the commentators then showed us with magnetic figures every move. It was very interesting, but now - alas.
    1. goose
      goose 12 September 2014 14: 10
      Last interesting champion, do I understand you correctly?
      Correct: in Russia. In the 90s, the popularity of chess began to roll sharply, due to the fact that chess was not a sport sight. Our leadership almost buried all the efforts that led to a 50-year domination in the world of chess. In the West, on the contrary, interest in chess has grown sharply. Just in the 80s and 90s, many new festivals and tournaments appeared. City municipalities saw this as an additional incentive for a healthy boost to the tourism economy. At the same time, chess manages to live without sponsors and does not burden the economy. In Spain, Germany, China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and France, chess has become an element of school education and part of public policy.
  8. bubla5
    bubla5 11 September 2014 16: 49
    Some kind of nonsense, again fantasy, where infa, where is the evidence
  9. AVIATOR36662
    AVIATOR36662 11 September 2014 17: 50
    The article is excellent, absolutely in the spirit of the old communist hardening of the KP.It doesn’t allow, practically, the reader to think for himself, everything is “thought out” for the reader and only asked to clap and shout “Ok, okay! you don't need to know, "you have to assent to the author of the article. Of course, the majority will assent, not knowing (the majority were not even born then) either the atmosphere of that match, or the hard labor of these great grandmasters and their teams. There are a lot of real grandmothers, it is their (and not an outside journalist who chose the topic according to the date) opinion that is more fair. Finding these memoirs about this match is easier than ever. At that time it was Karpov who had absolutely unlimited administrative resources, and FIDE with its President Campomanes was simply 100% dependent (in material terms) on the USSR Chess Federation. The failure of the match (in Karpov's favor, this was then recognized by everyone, therefore Kasparov's signature is not worth it) only he delayed the fall (a chess match for the world championship with such regulations is incredibly difficult physically) Karpov from the chess Olympus. Although the score was nominally in Karpov's favor 5: 3, in reality Karpov could no longer play the match either physically or mentally. Young Kasparov was on the rise and physically much stronger than Karpov at that time. But the administrative resource turned out to be stronger. All subsequent matches between Kasparov and Karpov ended in victory for Kasparov. The fact that Karpov is a supergross is also evidenced by the fact that he again came out after the candidate cycle for Kasparov having outplayed Gata Kamsky "in the semi-final" in a very good style. There will always be those who like to earn their "literary kopeck" around real talents, exposing one or the other in an unpleasant light. And Karpov and Kasparov managed to earn the USSR and Russia at the Chess Olympiads gold. It seems that knowledgeable people remember that Kasparov in his school "raised" a replacement for himself, who also "overthrew him from the chess Olympus." If Karpov is careful now if he sits in the Duma, along with former boxers, former singers, former gymnasts, former actresses, former speed skaters, etc., then Kasparov did not get into this environment of "honorary exes". And largely because he always has his own opinion different from the opinion of the majority. He has his own opinion in matters of history, and the Kasparov chess minicomputer was 20-23 years ago a wonderful teaching tool for many of today's (then young and young) gross. Kasparov's contribution to the theory of chess is hardly worth it to speak separately, it is enough to recall only "Benoni" and "Benoni-modern". Kasparov's rating has been surpassed by a few.
    1. andj61
      andj61 11 September 2014 21: 37
      Quote: AVIATOR36662
      At that time, it was Karpov who had an absolutely unlimited administrative resource, and FIDE with its President-Campomanes was simply 100% dependent (in material terms) on the USSR Chess Federation. Failure of the match (in Karpov's favor, this was then recognized by everyone, because and Kasparov’s signature is not worth it) only delayed the fall (a chess match for world championship with such regulations is physically incredibly difficult) Karpov from the chess Olympus.

      Karpov had an administrative resource during the match with Korchnoi, and then the country’s resource, not FIDE, but he wasn’t with Kasparov. If Karpov had such a resource as you say, he, having defended his champion title with Korchnoi, would have achieved the abolition of such a regulation - up to 6 victories in the absence of a limit on the number of games. Indeed, in the match with Korchnoi, Karpov had health problems. And FIDE was not so dependent on the USSR, especially financially - at that time advertising, broadcasting rights, etc. gave a lot of money, and even chess was much more spectacular and popular - tens of times. But in the USSR there were almost half of the grandmasters of the world, and even more - that was the influence of the USSR on FIDE.
      But at the start of the Karpov-Kasparov match, no one could even imagine that the match would drag on so long. It was this match that ultimately led to the beginning of the process of the decline in the popularity of chess. Dozens of games in which Kasparov played a draw could not be considered interesting, solely for the purpose of delaying the match and physically exhausting the opponent. Nio what kind of game, creativity, beauty of games in most parties, speech did not go. Although at that time I sympathized with Kasparov, as my almost peer. But his behavior at the match warped everyone.
    2. Oldwiser
      Oldwiser 11 September 2014 22: 49
      Quote: AVIATOR36662
      All subsequent matches of Kasparov and Karpov ended in victory for Kasparov

      You forget the 87th match in Seville, which ended in a DRAW and Harry Kimovich got this draw by winning the last 24th game by order.
      Then I was a fan of the Civil Code, but now I am disappointed in it - I did not expect such dirty politicking. But great respect in A.E. Karpov, as always, has remained - both as a great chess player, and as a person, and as a public figure.
      1. AVIATOR36662
        AVIATOR36662 12 September 2014 00: 13
        Dear OldWiser, a draw in the match (rematch) in '87 in Seville left Kasparov with the title of World Cup! Nothing is forgotten by anyone, chess players cannot forget exactly the chess nuances, even if they were decades ago. and with Alyokhin there was a similar situation, with Korchnoi as well, with Gata Kamsky) features of politicking, all the more dirty, one must really want it. Who appreciates, loves and respects this sport, science and art (chess combines all these features) - try to see only a chess player in a chess player. By his chess merits, and to the Motherland as well. No one is immune from mistakes in life, from simple weaknesses, for which later one is ashamed, even talents. Knowing chess cuisine (from the inside) for a long time and well, I can only repeat the words of the hero of the comedy Gaidai: “People need to be softer, but we need to look better at questions.” Nobody at the state / level does not “tinker” our men's team for a result below average at this year's SHO in Tromso, with the highest rating of our chess players And there is a hole in the (brilliant) old woman!
    3. Johnny51
      Johnny51 12 September 2014 01: 07
      Yes, there is no point in comparing these 2 chess players ... Moreover, they played different chess. Karpov's "correct" chess and Kasparov's dynamic "irrational" chess are all facets of CHESS. With the advent of Kasparov, chess was further developed, as, in due time, with the arrival of Karpov. I believe that the intervention of ideologists only spoiled the battle of these great chess players and damaged the creative component of the matches. You can't be great in everything - you can overstrain ...
      1. docent_
        docent_ 12 September 2014 02: 59
        You are not quite right, that is, completely wrong about the styles. This Karpov played irrationally, or rather intuitively. And Kasparov was a phenomenal, but just a calculating machine. To be precise, Kasparov was developing a huge debut base and, when the PCs appeared then, he came in very handy. It is no coincidence that his further activities were related to computer programs. He played like a computer. That was precisely his strength (and, if you consider it a further development, and for me death, chess) - the ability to 100% use the computer database of openings.
        And Karpov relied more on intuition than on cramming his debuts as Kasparov, especially in the later years of his career (the reason is rather our usual Russian laziness). And again, it is no coincidence that his other hobby is serious card games, where there is room for intuition.
        Personally, I have never liked Kasparov either as a person or as a chess player. Karpov is his own. Once he was engaged in chess himself, it happened that Karpov and Kasparov were observed in the immediate vicinity - at the Olympics of the peoples of the USSR (there was one in the 70s), you could walk between the tables at which they played. Kasparov was about 15 years old.
        1. goose
          goose 12 September 2014 15: 38
          I agree on everything, but Kasparov, of course, lifted the bar in terms of theoretical preparation, accuracy of playing openings and gave specificity to the game. And most importantly - Kasparov learned, when it was necessary, to issue an impeccable move, this cannot be taken away. His analyzes are very accurate to this day. Their assessment, as a rule, does not change. Karpov is much less a theorist, but as a practitioner, of course, is superior to Kasparov. The apotheosis of talent and laziness was, of course, Spassky. I don’t like his style, he is focused exclusively on young age. When the bill goes away with age, nothing remains. Intuitive technical players such as Fischer, Karpov, Smyslov, Averbach, Karlssen, Mecking are more to my liking. Totalitarian chess players - such as Kasparov, Botvinnik, Portish, I like less. True, Kasparov at the end of his career diversified his menu.
  10. parafoiler
    parafoiler 11 September 2014 19: 05
    Yes, the combination is akin to chess, if not whiter.
  11. serg6231
    serg6231 11 September 2014 19: 26
    I was rooting for Karpov then, like all my friends
    but the article is interesting
  12. Tolibas
    Tolibas 11 September 2014 20: 25
    Excellent article!
  13. DPN
    DPN 11 September 2014 22: 24
    Quote: andj61
    Who would win this match is very difficult to say

    If Karpov was pressured by a burden of responsibility, then Kasparov was simply an opportunity to compete with the world champion. After the score 5: 3, start from scratch, try it yourself.
  14. Johnny51
    Johnny51 12 September 2014 00: 50
    I can say one thing: the Communist Party is the reason for the collapse of the USSR ... Well, ideology should not control the economy, culture, sports, etc. !! The main trouble of the Communist Party is that it believed in the myth created by itself about its own infallibility. It is human nature to make mistakes, and the majority opinion is by no means the truth.
    1. tokens2
      tokens2 12 September 2014 06: 53
      I can say one thing: the Communist Party is the reason for the collapse of the USSR ... Well, ideology should not control the economy, culture, sports, etc. !!

      The most interesting thing is ... that:
      Economics, culture, sports

      And there is ideology. And all this was very developed in the USSR.
      In addition to the economy.
      The ideological economy was developed by the USA - a kind of "edge" of chess laughing