Right, John.  Years later, after all the acrimony of the K-K matches had worn away, Kasparov magnanimously acknowledged his attack on Vladimirov was unjustified.

Btw, I agree completely with Micawber that Anand's  position in the first game was hardly enviable even with the programmed move. But then again, Anand didn't try it out again either.  Will any GM try that line?  I doubt it.

I thought that Geller's defection to Team Karpov was sufficiently documented, but it could just have been repeated often enough to seem true.  Did Polugaevsky also leave Spassky to join Karpov's entourage?

@MNB
Youre right about the two other exceptions,
who didnt sign the petition:
Spasski, who allready lived and played in France,
so he was not dependant on the goodwill of the USSR any more.
Karpov, who would have been in a strange petition if he signed and still would meet Korchnoi in a match.
There is no doubt however, that Karpov was the main beneficiary of this action, since it was intended to deprive Korchnoi of high level practice and if possible of his livelihood.

Regarding Keene/Karpov in the Merano match
Mnb, you are right that there is no hard evidence for this and I shouldnt have presented it as fact. Though I remember that the rumours allready circulated in 1981 surrounding the match.

Neither is there hard evidence of two similar cases
both involving Karpov:
The 1974 candidates semi-final, where it was rumoured that Geller (Spasski's second in 1972) had aided Karpov.
The Karpov-Kasparov match in Sevilla, where it was rumoured that Vladimirov (one of Kasparov's seconds) had supplied theoretical information to the Karpov camp.

It is interesting that no other World Champion beside Karpov has ever been connected with such cases.

Anyway, this is I admit a little beside the point. There was nothing wrong with the support that Anand got.
One thing about Anands preparation and mistakes:
Imho this still does not what happened in the first game. Even if he had played the correct move-order, 
his position would not have been very good.
However in the second half of the match he succesfully disarmed Topalov's Grunfeld preparation.
So why the rather risky try in the first game?

micawber wrote on 05/19/10 at 16:48:32:


Has that been confirmed by Keene or anybody else?  I know the suggestion is that he went to Moscow prior to the match but do you know where that claim originates?  IIRC there's a comment ot this effect in Korchnoi's autobiography but is there any independent evidence do you know?

RDK was commenting on the match on BBC TV so presumably he was never actually in Merano in 1981

Indeed I think that the only one to have had backup of more than one previous world champion was Karpov.

The World Champions before Botvinnik never assisted anyone before or during a title match.
In fact the first title contestant who employed a strong world class player was Euwe in 1935, who had Maroczy as a second.


In his 1974 candidate finals match against Korchnoi 
he had the help of both Botwinnik and Tal (and probably - Petrosian). 
For Korchnoi it was impossible to find any second of GM-strength! He received some help from Bronstein
who stayed with Korchnoi for one week.
(and who was promptly sacked from the newspaper he worked for) and a little furtive help from Polugajevsky.
Because Fischer decided not to defend his title, this was in fact a match for the World Title.

The 1978 the story was repeated, but we can only identify Tal as a second. But many USSR GM's were forced to deliver opening analysis for the Karpov team, so he might have had access to analyses by Smyslov or Petrosian as well. (Spasski was allready living in France by then, and Botwinnik was no longer an active chess-player).
To top that, Awerbach as president of the USSR chess federation organised a petition against Korchnoi and the resulting boycot of any tournament in which he participated. Almost all GM's signed, with again Bronstein as a notable exception.

I dont recall that Tall was on Karpov's team in the 1981 match. Though Karpov's team was no less remarkable then. Raymond Keene switched sides and appeared on Karpov's team, after having been Korchnoi's second in 1978. Hardly an ethical action and one that must have disrupted Korchnoi's preparation to some extent.

So yes, Anand backed up by Kasparov (and even Kramnik??)  is remarkable.

Yeah, it is hardly fun anymore to root against Topalov.

That's no big surprise that a lot of people wanted to help the likeable Anand against the hated Danailov ...

I've just watched the Anand interviews at chessvibes web site. It's some very nice material and I'm glad we have this very interesting online chess journalism. 

Anand is very honest and outspoken about his mistakes with his preparation etc. But one thing was more than surprizing to me. If I understood him correctly, he blundered twice in the first two games while he still was in his preparation (or he should have been)

• In game 1 he recalled the somewhat extraordinary/characteristic move Kg8-f7. But instead of playing 23... Bd7 24.Rg3 Kf7 he played the move he had in mind first (23... Kf7, although it was bad and he could have spotted the reason for this) which was a fatal mistake.
• In game 2 it seems to me the very same thing happened. He only recalled the motif Qa3/Qxa3/bxa3, was unable to work it out over the board and played the immediate 15.Qa3?! when of course (this would be my guess) 15.Rfd1! and only after Re8 the move 16.Qa3! was correct and very likely the line he had in his notebook.

I find this a remarkable coincidence or let's say repetition of the same mistake. This could easily have cost him the match...

Still, it is not the first blunder in a WC-match.
Remember there where multiple blunders in the WC-matches Karpov-Kasparov (for instance Karpov blundering an exchange in a better position with Rc6? in a grunfeld) as in the matches Karpov-Korchnoi (Korchnoi allowing a mate in few with two knights), Kramnik-Topalov (both players simultaneous overlooking a mate in few) and Kramnik-Anand (Kramnik overlooking a reasonable simple combination by Anand). 
The tension in the last game of the match was of course enormous. 
I must say I am happy that Anand retained the title.
He showed some excellent positional chess. In the last game, Topalov was allready under some pressure when he committed his error/blunder. 
And Anand's preparation was outstanding (except for the first game  ). In the second half of the match he showed he had sufficient backup variations available (Nimzo-indian/English opening/Grunfeld/Lasker defence). That made it hard on Topalov, who seemed to have prepared a rather narrow repertoire for this match.