Quote:


Matters are not as simple as presented by Micawber. The facts are indisputable, but nobody ever has even found indications, that Karpov is responsible. Sure, he did not object on public either, Karpov was not a saint. But there is one indication, that Karpov was not altogether happy with the way Kortsjnoj was treated.
After Kortsjnoj's escape to the west, the Sovjet Chess Federation published an appeal to boycott him. It was signed by all Sovjet GM's except four. Two of these four I remember clearly: Spassky and ....Karpov.
There is not much evidence of Karpov's personal power except the accusations of Kortsjnoj and Kasparov. They are not exactly the most reliable sources; Kasparov has taken great benefit of political protection as well. Concerning Kortsnoj: the scandals around all candidate matches of 1977 say enough. Especially Polugajevsky played far below his normal level after intimidation by Kortsjnoj.
In 1975/1976 Kortsjnoj participated in the Hastings tournament; here his leave from Russia was prepared.
Frankly I do not see why Karpov's ethical standards should be rated lower than Topalov's, Kortsjnoj's or Kasparov's. In my opinion Topalov's bad behaviour in the current match is only equalled by Kortsjnoj's from 1977-1981. This does not justify the Sovjet boycott of course.
Just one little question. What have Kortsjnoj and Kasparov ever done in favour of Boris Gulko's case? Here we really have a chess career of a potential top 10 player effectively blocked.

OstapBender wrote on 10/07/06 at 15:45:15:


I agree the forfeited point is a big problem in this match - but this is not a Topalov problem, it all stemmed from the incorrect Appeals committee verdict, the incorrect decision (in my opinion - although theoretically he was in the right) of the arbiter to start game 5, and then Kramniks decision to stay in the rest room. As  for Grandmasters saying they would have walked out - easy to say but if their match fee and World title depended on it I think you would find they make a different decision!

@IM John Cox,

Did I provide you with enough examples of Karpov and his Team?
That the presence of doctor Zoukar or the KGB did improve Korchnoi's play
I serioiusly doubt. Other GM's have stated that Korchnoi told them he had
been nervous by the massive KGB presence during the 1978 match.

The agreement about doctor Zoukar is on public record. 
His presence in one of the front rows was widely reported by western journalists.

Anyway Karpov wielded a lot of personal power in the Russian Chess Federation around
1978, and many GMs where of the opinion he could have ended the boycott after 
prolonging his title.

Keano, I refer you to articles 12.1 and 12.6 of the Laws of Chess

Article 12.1 forbids a player to do anything which would bring the game into disrepute. 

Article 12.6 forbids a player to do anything which would distract an opponent. Nothing restricting that to actions during the game.

It is abundantly clear that Topalov is in breach of article 12.1. I look forward to hearing the sanction that Mr Gijssen decides to impose.

In any case, you say in defence of Topalov that he was not cheating, merely acting unethically. I do not recognise the difference.

There is an analogy with Karpov-Korchnoi 1978. There had been negotations 
about the presence of doctor Zoukar and other things. The outcome had been
that the doctor was prohibited to sit in the first the first fifteen rows of the
audience or so. During the last game of the match he took his place in one
of the front rows. Korchnoi might have refused to play, but no doubt 
he would have lost the game and the match by forfeit. As it was the
Karpov team knew without doubt that Korchnoi was superstitious and the
presence of the doctor unnerved him. They did this with the single purpose to
influence the outcome of this all important game.

By the way not the protesting cost Kramnik a game, but his decision not to play.
And that was certainly not unique. Fisher did not appear for the second game
of his match against Spassky and dropped a point.
Kasparov didnt appear for his candidates match against Korchnoi in 1983 and 
lost this match by forfeit. Only cunning negatiations, and an offer that Korchnoi
couldnt refuse, gave Kasparov a second chance to play this match.
(Korchnoi couldnt refuse the offer that the boycott against him should be lifted;
this boycott had been in place since 1976; on the other hand you might call
it blackmail: if he refused the offer the boycott would continue).

ANSWER at mr Cox

Korchnoi was very much hindered and intimidated during his preparation for this 1974 match.
He was denied any strong second, while Karpov could demand the support of any 
GM he liked (for instance) Tall was added to the team during the match.

We dont have to take Korchnoi's word for this. Bronstein went to help Korchnoi with his
preparation during one week. On his return to Leningrad he was immediately 
sacced by his newspaper and thus denied an important source of income. Other GM's were
effectively warned away by this example.
Polugajevsky, another prospective second, was warned away as well. He let Korchnoi have 
some notes in a rather round about way.
After the match Korchnoi was denied tournaments abroad for a year or so.
As a matter of fact I think the tounament in the Netherlands where he "escaped" was his 
first tournament abroad since 1974.He did so mainly because he felt, that should he win
the candidates final, he wouldnt get a fair shot at the title.

And let not forget that he was under a boycott from 1976 till 1983. The boycott ended when he
agreed to replay his candidate match against Kasparov. A match Kasparov previously had lost
by forfeit. No one doubted that Karpov wielded enough power by 1978 that he might have
ended this boycott any time he liked. There is no more effective measure to destroy the career of
a GM than to deny him top level competition.

Korchnoi was pressured with his family not only around 1981, in fact this started as early
as 1977, when his son wrote (or was forced to write) a letter full of reproaches at the
adress of his father and a plea to return to the USSR.

Also in 1978 Karpovs delegation not only consisted of the infamous doktor Zoukar but of a number of
people with a non-descript function. Their build clearly suggesting this was KGB-personal, who used
chess boards for bashing in skulls in preference for anything else. The Karpov team thus suggested
to Korchnoi he still might have esaped the USSR be was still under threat.

PM.
I still like your book "starting out d4" even though it dont agree with your opinions.

MNb wrote on 10/06/06 at 21:08:47:


I agree 100% with all of this, exactly right! 

Kramnik and Fritz.

Kramnik did actually made an insulting statement to an opponent concerning Fritz.
In their 1995 match Kramnik lost a game against Kamski, due to a good opening novelty.
Kramnik commented the Kamski team had only found this because they had used Fritz
in their preparation. Thus implying neither Kamski nor his seconds where strong enough 
to come up with the new moves on their own.
Since back then this involved fritz4 or fritz5 this statement was rather ridiculous.