Kasparov is a great player, but he is not principled, and he made his own bed when signing the various contracts for the championship match. He deserved only to be placed high into the following candidates cycle.

However, I would have loved to see a World Championship re-match between Kasparov and Kramnik.

The above does not make me change my mind - it is my very strong opinion that Kramnik was totally correct to insist that Kasparov go through a Candidates event, a Qualifier that Kasparov himself pledged the chess world. Had Kramnik given way and allowed an automatic re-match, not only would it have been dishonorably reneging on his (and Kasparov's) pledge, but it would have had potentially dire consequences on the World Championship cycle itself. In effect, Kramnik would have continued the slide back into the pre-WW2 condition wherein the Champion, after all is said and done, chooses his Challenger. We could have ended up in a worse situation today regarding the World Championship cycle.

This is what basically happened during Kasparov's reign. For the sake of World Championship chess, I was glad when Kramnik took the Title from Kasparov AND stuck to their joint pledge for a Qualifier.

What else has Kramnik done?

1. Kramnik proceeded in his World Championship match with solely FIDE world champion Topalov, in spite of the fact that he could have justifiably walked out with the support of most of the world's top GMs after getting accused of cheating just because he was frequently going to the bathroom. The good result is the re-unification of the traditional Steinitzian classical Title with the FIDE Title.

2. Kramnik agreed to play in a World Championship TOURNAMENT, as opposed to a Match, in order to facilitate the re-unification process. No other living World Champion has made such a concession.

It was during Kramnik's 2000 to 2007 reign that the institution of the chess World Championship began to stabilize. IMO Kramnik has done more than any other person in trying to fix the mess that Kasparov made.

<Kasparov thought he could beat Kramnik in the match so he wouldnt have to face him again in the rematch and so he had the idea of the no rematch clause but the things happened the other way. So the no rematch clause was a double edge weapon for Kasparov. What if Kasparov won the match? No rematch then? but as the winner was Kramnik then the rematch should be played?>

No, that doesn't make any sense. The hypothetical rematch clause could only be triggered by a Kasparov loss. Challengers are never granted rematch privileges, so obviously there could have been no rematch if Kasparov had won. To be honest, there was nothing "double edged" about it- it was a concession by Kasparov.

<Everett>

<Only Spassky and Smyslov overcame their competition two cycles in a row. The prospect of fighting through the other top players is so difficult, both Karpov and Kasparov tried hard to avoid it.>

I disagree. Well, for most of his career Kasparov never had the need. Karpov did receive privileges, but in 1990 he got what the loser of Topalov-Anand will supposedly get- a spot in the quarterfinal. I think it's important to remember that both of them actually did win full blown cycles, "when it was their turn".

Is it really fair to compare the traditional cycle with an event like Dortmund 2002 in the first place? How about the upcoming world cup? More to the point: if the traditional cycle was still in place in 2002, do you think Kasparov would still have pushed for a rematch?

Karpov negotiated to be seeded deep into the cycles in '87 and '90 precisely because of how hard it is to beat top GMs in these situations. It's brutal. If he could have it his way, he would just go for a rematch, but that was barred to him by FIDE, no doubt with the support of Kasparov. And rightly so.

Of course the only reason one would NEED to be victorious twice in a row is if they failed to become champion the first time. It's hardly a knock against Petrosian, Fischer, Karpov or Kasparov, that they failed to win twice in a row.

<Karpov negotiated to be seeded deep into the cycles in '87 and '90 precisely because of how hard it is to beat top GMs in these situations. It's brutal. If he could have it his way, he would just go for a rematch, but that was barred to him by FIDE,>

I'm saying it's very hard to scramble up to the top, much less twice. I'm not knocking all the champs that did it the first time and won the title then. I'm simply saying that I respect those who have done it twice. It's interesting to note that, upon failing to gain/retain the title Bronstein, Tal, and Petrosian were unable to win through the candidates again.

In fact, the only person who lost the title and won through some form of candidates cycle is Karpov in '87 and '90, the latter being a much more impressive feat.

Also, Botvinnik, though losing 2 matches, saved himself with the rematch clause. Upon the 3rd loss,to Petrosian and without the rematch clause in place, he did not attempt the candidates (much like Kasparov). Many reasons including age and the fact that he was already champion probably dampened his desire, but to slog through so many other great players is tough!

I know Karpov had a rematch, yet '87 was not it. Don't know why you bring up '86. I'm talking about the negotiated privilege Karpov had as "ex-champion" in the cycles leading up to '87 and '90. Regarding '87, it makes sense that he was seeded into the late rounds, for he just finished a match in '86 while the other candidates were preparing and playing each other already. He met Andrei Sokolov in the finals. Game Collection: WCC Index [Karpov-Sokolov 1987]

I quote CG for the '90 cycle:
<Unlike the 1987 WCC cycle in which Karpov was seeded directly into the final candidate match, this time he was only reserved a spot in the quarter finals, and thus had to win three mini-matches in order to face Kasparov. This he accomplished by defeating Johan Hjartason 3½ to 1½, Artur Yusupov 4½ to 3½ and Jan Timman 6½ to 2½.>

Also, I have to admit to one glaring omission. Korchoi won through the candidates matches for the right to meet Karpov in both '78 and '81. Very impressive.

Q: I decided it was time to answer your oft-repeated line about "Kasparov's shabby treatment of challenger Alexei Shirov."

The World Chess Council (WCC) under its Chairman and Founder, Luis Rentero, agreed to put up $2.1 million [US] for a title match plus another $100,000 for the loser in Kramnik vs. Shirov after Anand withdrew in 1998. Rentero then arbitrarily announced this $100,000 would have to be deducted from the $2.1 million. In retrospect, it was an early indication as to how things would be run! The glue began to come unstuck and as soon as we heard rumors and questioned Rentero, he told all of us, "my word is my bond!" and "if necessary, I pay the prize money myself." Coupled with this was a continuous "Trust Me" and another constant refrain was "the Government will approve the signing this week."

Garry and I discussed going public but you can imagine the hullabaloo that would have ensued with him blamed for pulling the plug prematurely. We started to scramble. I personally made half a dozen transatlantic trips and spent enough time and dollars to make me care. Rentero finally ran out of ideas and we were left with no alternatives. The match backing disappeared and soon thereafter tragedy struck in the form of a life-threatening auto accident for Rentero. Garry retains a healthy respect for what he did for chess in Linares over the years, but Rentero's foray into bigger things was an unmitigated disaster of his own making.

Eventually a businessman in California agreed to put up $600,000 [US] in cash plus full airfares and hotel for each player at a value of $50,000 each. We went to Shirov and he refused. Dr. William Wirth (a notable chess sponsor and patron himself) agreed to top up the prize with a further $200,000 of his own money. Shirov said "no." He repeated to me that there was an offer from Tarrasa near Barcelona, where he was living at the time for 225 million pesetas (about $1.6 million). The hope of the Catalonian offer was, I believe, the real reason why Shirov turned down our $800,000 offer. He has since tried to say that it was not in writing, but the truth is he said "no" so firmly that we never had time to confirm it in writing.

Meanwhile we kept going from Southern Africa to the Far East without success while waiting for Tarrasa. My file is full of many Shirov e-mails saying, "there is a very important meeting next week and you will get an offer right away." It never happened. By Christmas of '98 we received no answers and I discovered Shirov had moved from the area. That, from my viewpoint, was the end of the Tarrasa non-offer.

Now let's come to the interesting question - why is it so fashionable to blame Kasparov? He has been World Champion since 1985. He has been Number 1 on all rating systems for a decade and more. There is a general perception that he pulls every string in every deal from start to finish and he has made the sort of enemies who will make up stories if they can't find evidence of wrongdoing. *Let's face it, Garry was the most harmed player in this whole fiasco, and here's why*: [*bold*]

1. He offered to play for $800,000 and his opponent said no, because he took a gamble on a bigger pot of gold around the corner. But no, we hear quite incredibly that Kasparov was greedy and Shirov was the shabbily-treated one.

2. He is accused of trying to retire the crown without playing. I can list 20 to 30 sites, cities, countries, promoters and sponsors we have approached to try and get the funding. Most turned it down because they said Kasparov was too strong and the match had no marquee value. I have heard Garry extol the virtues and playing strength of Anand, Kramnik and Shirov to try and convince sponsors that it would be a tough and fascinating match.

3. Garry suggested Shirov for his spot in the $100,000 Prague Match vs. Judith [sic] Polgar. If Garry had nothing to do with this invitation as Shirov claims, ask yourself what Garry was doing appearing in Prague for two days with NO FEE at all? Answer: He made a promise to Bessel Kok and Serge Grimaux that he would come to Prague free of charge, as this was the only way Bessel could get the sponsorship.

4. Shirov claimed "his right" and "his freedom" to play whom he liked and when he liked, including the 1999 FIDE Championship in Las Vegas. Did Garry ditch Shirov or did Shirov ditch Garry? Actually, the factual answer is neither as the match basically had "no takers" (i.e., no sponsorship).

5. Let's hope this puts to bed "the shabby treatment" type comment. As to the future: rest assured that Kasparov remains ready, willing, able and eager to play. Experience has taught us to make no statements until something firm is on offer.

I already knew the hard facts you outlined about l'affaire Shirov, though not the lengths to which you endeavored to arrange such a match. From what you wrote, it is obvious Kasparov felt either a moral or legal responsibility (perhaps both) to make enormous good-faith efforts to arrange a match with Shirov under a sanctioning organization that was clearly his vehicle. Fine. I have no problem with this because, if nothing else, it was less corrupt than FIDE.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Despite good-faith efforts and even the challenger's apparent folly, Kasparov is not absolved from his pledge to give Shirov a title shot for $2 million as announced to the world at Linares in 1998. Kasparov put his trust in a person who proved unreliable, but he also put his credibility and prestige behind the WCC (which went the way of his GMA and PCA). These facts can't be evaded. It turned out, perhaps, that he unwittingly treated himself more shabbily than he did Shirov.

I still believe Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to play Shirov. If he should do so, you can rely on me to celebrate in bold type and capital letters. As it stands, however, Shirov never got paid for beating Kramnik or a title shot - both are Kasparov's obligation.

I accept your account, though Shirov might take issue with it. After all, if I had beaten someone eight times and drawn seven out of a total of 15 games (recent results over a short period) and if I could arrange a match against the same opponent for big bucks, I would certainly do so.

Until this happens I will continue to write that Kasparov has treated Shirov shabbily, just as I will continue to opine that Kasparov remains the only true champion who is NOT cosseted by playing in elite events against very strong opponents.

Larry Evans, "Evans On Chess"

"Chess Life" April 2000

*****

*Let's face it, Garry was the most harmed player in this whole fiasco, and here's why*: