Whatever happened to Valery Salov?
Joe.D.Veal-1
From what I have read, he was considered to be a specialist in the
endgame and a FIDE semifinalist/finalist(I am unsure, just know he
played Gata Kamsky in a tumultous match that he lost). What I know is
that he was training Shirov for his match with Kasparov. After this
event fell through, I have not heard about him in any major touranments
within a few years. I know that he had a civil/uncivil war with Garry
Kasparov. Does anybody know for what reasons? Also, does these reasons
have anything to do with Salov's absence as a international touranment
player? Itt seems that this guy can not buy a invitation to any
international events.
A Curious Chess Fanatic
Joe Veal
P.S. Yes, I am trolling for responses to this post. Any response is
welcome.
Chesspride
>
>within a few years. I know that he had a civil/uncivil war with Garry
>Kasparov. Does anybody know for what reasons? Also, does these reasons
>have anything to do with Salov's absence as a international touranment
GM Salov does not "play along to get along"...he speaks his mind. And he is
not shy about criticizing the self-proclaimed "champion."
This irritates the former world champion (Kasparov)....so Salov gets few
invitations to big Linares-style events...despite his high Elo.
Another flaw in the private title system...that the "supposed titleholder" can
eliminate any challenger or competitor by throwing a hissy fit.
In mature sporting organizations...challengers have standing that springs from
their performance in the cycle...not from whether or not they play nicey-nice
with the titleholder.
Yet another reason that GM Khalifman is the world champion.
Eric C. Johnson
Oblomov
I think he has lived in Spain for some time, but he seems to be
less active in tournaments.
>From what I have read, he was considered to be a specialist in
the
>endgame and a FIDE semifinalist/finalist(I am unsure, just know
he
>played Gata Kamsky in a tumultous match that he lost). What I
know is
>that he was training Shirov for his match with Kasparov. After
this
>event fell through, I have not heard about him in any major
touranments
>within a few years.
I recall him playing in several events, but don't believe he did
very well. Didn't he play in the Groningen and Las Vegas KOs? He
crashed out at Vegas, IIRC.
> I know that he had a civil/uncivil war with Garry
>Kasparov. Does anybody know for what reasons?
Don't know how the row started, but Salov published some rather
harsh articles on Kasparov in "New in Chess" magazine, which
probably escalated the war beyond any possibilities of a truce.
I haven't read the articles, but would like to; the excerpts
I've seen are hilarious!
>Also, does these reasons
>have anything to do with Salov's absence as a international
>touranment player?
No doubt.
> Itt seems that this guy can not buy a invitation to any
>international events.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Mig
<Joe.D....@ou.edu> wrote:
> A thought ran across my mind. Whatever happened to GM Valery Salov?
>From what I have read, he was considered to be a specialist in the
>endgame and a FIDE semifinalist/finalist(I am unsure, just know he
>played Gata Kamsky in a tumultous match that he lost). What I know is
>that he was training Shirov for his match with Kasparov. After this
>event fell through, I have not heard about him in any major touranments
>within a few years. I know that he had a civil/uncivil war with Garry
>Kasparov. Does anybody know for what reasons? Also, does these reasons
>have anything to do with Salov's absence as a international touranment
>player? Itt seems that this guy can not buy a invitation to any
>international events.
Salov was tipped as a world championship contender (meaning top
player) back in the 80s and had several impressive results, including
excellent performances in the World Cup series. His reputation as an
endgame expert is well deserved, and was cemented when he completely
crushed Alexander Khalifman in a candidates match. (Although Salov had
always killed Khalifman, having a 4-1 record against him before their
1994 match, which finished 5-1, most of the games being long endings
in which Khalifman was completely outclassed. Salov was later wiped
out by Kamsky.)
I don't believe detail were ever made public, but Salov's career was
reportedly interrupted by a serious blood disease in the early 90s (?
80s?). I don't find a long gap in his play, however, until the past
two years.
While Salov has written several borderline insane pieces about
Kasparov in New in Chess, at least they were entertaining. (And
ostensibly about other things, but both swerved off into long
tirades.) Mostly they were made up of criticizing everything from how
Kasparov studies too much to how he was "ill-bred." You call this a
"war" but that usually involves two fighting parties. It was more of a
broadside and a plea for attention. Kasparov did not respond at
length, although in his interview with me after the NIC articles ran
he called Salov "mentally damaged."
As usual all the bizarre ranting about "Kasparov destroyed my career,"
"world Jewry destroyed my career", and "black helicopters took my
pawns", is refuted by minimal research. If Kasparov was black-listing
Salov (as if somehow he had the ability to do this), why have they
played ELEVEN times? (3-0 Kasparov, 8 draws.)
Like most Russian 2650-range players, he found/finds it hard to get
invitations due mostly to the fact that organizers don't like to have
more than one or two players from the same country unless they're in
the top 10. And there are far fewer invitationals now at the top
level. This list includes players like Aleksandrov, Bareev, Dreev,
Zvjaginsev, Khalifman, Rublevsky, et al. All Russians (Alexandrov is
Belorussian), all very strong players, all lacking good invitations.
Sadly you can even add a tremendous talent like Svidler to that list
now. There just aren't many invitations to be had, and breaking into
the top 10 (and STAYING there) is not easy.
Beginning in 1997, Salov has had minus scores in almost every event in
which he played. You begin to lose invitations and rating points this
way. He won Wijk aan Zee in 1997 and was invited back. Then in 1998 he
finished at minus two (10th place), proceeded to lose a pile of rating
points, and wasn't invited back. He lost to Tkachiev in his first
match of the first FIDE KO, underperformed his rating by 114 points in
Belfort last year (minus one), and got wiped out 2-0 by Milos in Vegas
in his first match.
Gee, but it must be Kasparov forcing him to play badly in these
events. It's mind control! Of course after the articles Salov wrote I
don't think Kasparov could be blamed for not inviting the guy over for
tea, either.
His NIC articles proved that he's gone a bit nuts, if still a talented
writer. It's sad because he is/was a very talented player. He comes
from the cultured St.Petersburg school of chess that is better
represented by educated gentlemen such as Khalifman and Svidler these
days, not to mention my idol David Bronstein.
I watched Salov win the Polugaevsky Sicilian Thematic Tournament in
Buenos Aires in 1994. He out-Karpoved Karpov in two excellent wins.
(Karpov was to exact revenge a year later in a blitz match he won
6.5-1.5.)
Like many players who made it to the circle of elite round-robins and
bounced out, Salov probably found it hard to go back to opens and
tough Russian events with no prize funds. As far as I know he still
lives in Spain and has yet to play a serious game this year.
Saludos, Mig
Official Tango Instructor
http://www.KasparovChess.com
Bill Jones
>player) back in the 80s and had several impressive results, including
>excellent performances in the World Cup series.
i have a long memory, and will recall everyone talking about yusupov
and a. sokolov in the mid-eighties as the next super-gms who would be
contenders. no dice. then, the next pair to be hailed in the very
early nineties were gelfand and ivanchuk. no dice there either.
now, we have morozevich and leko.
(i'll wait for them to show me the money. )
Roman M. Parparov
> His NIC articles proved that he's gone a bit nuts, if still a talented
> writer. It's sad because he is/was a very talented player. He comes
> from the cultured St.Petersburg school of chess that is better
> represented by educated gentlemen such as Khalifman and Svidler these
> days, not to mention my idol David Bronstein.
I must make a couple of clearances here.
St. Petersburg has three major chess schools. One if The Pioneer Palace
(I dunno how it is called now), where I studied, and where Spassky,
Korchnoi, Taimanov, Kochiev, Khalifman, Epishin, Sakaev and others
were brought up. The second one is the University chess club. Their
top students are Salov, Emelin and Lugovoi. Kamsky's education was
split between the two, the first one (until age 10 or so) was in
Pioneer Palace. The third one is the Junior Sport School and their top
representator is Valery Popov (ELO 2550) - the guy I used to go with
in summer camps. Curiously enough, Svidler was brought up in none of
these, but in a small regional chess club.
As of Bronstein, AFAIR, he's Moscovite.
I may be mistaken, though, but I knew for sure he played a lot of
Moscow championships.
> Saludos, Mig
--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: ro...@maxho.com . HP: http://www.maxho.com/~romm
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)54-629-884 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann
Chesspride
>and a. sokolov in the mid-eighties as the next super-gms who would be
>contenders. no dice.
You must have a short memory.
Yusupov advanced quite far into the world championship cycle at one point,
eliminating Ivanchuk in one of the most thrilling games of all time (in fact,
Ivanchuk picked the "wrong Knight" to move to a critical square, and went down
to bitter defeat....the other choice would have won).
Yusupov made it to the semi-finals in the 1993 cycle.
In fact, if it had been Timman who had won through and not Short...and we had
still had the PCA defection and default...
...then the substitute final would have been Yusupov v. Short and not Karpov v.
Timman (because then Timman would have been defaulted, and the other candidate
brought up to the finals would have been Yusupov, Timman's candidate match
opponent).
>pair to be hailed in the very
>early nineties were gelfand and ivanchuk. no dice there either.
>
Boris Gelfand reached the final four in the 1995/96 cycle. He lost to Karpov
(the first sitting champion to ever have to play in a candidates semifinal
again to "defend" his title).
So both Yusupov and Gelfand made it quite far into the world championship
cycle....not the finals, but about as close as you could otherwise get.
Eric C. Johnson
Phil Innes
> I must make a couple of clearances here.
>
> St. Petersburg has three major chess schools. One if The Pioneer Palace
> (I dunno how it is called now), where I studied, and where Spassky,
> Korchnoi, Taimanov, Kochiev, Khalifman, Epishin, Sakaev and others
> were brought up. The second one is the University chess club. Their
> top students are Salov, Emelin and Lugovoi. Kamsky's education was
> split between the two, the first one (until age 10 or so) was in
> Pioneer Palace. The third one is the Junior Sport School and their top
> representator is Valery Popov (ELO 2550) - the guy I used to go with
> in summer camps. Curiously enough, Svidler was brought up in none of
> these, but in a small regional chess club.
Roman, St.Petersburg club "Lentransgaz" just became the winner or the
Russian Club Championship. This tournament was held in Smolensk Apr
15-25. The leader of the team Peter Svidler made his best score of 7.5/9
on the 1st board! Also playing were Viktor Korchnoi, Konstantin Sakaev,
Sergey Volkov, Sergey Ivanov, Vasily Yemelin, Sergey Ionov and Aleksei
Lugovoi.
My friend thinks maybe Peter will be world champion.
> As of Bronstein, AFAIR, he's Moscovite.
> I may be mistaken, though, but I knew for sure he played a lot of
> Moscow championships.
Yes - all this Petersburg stuff - poor Karpov wanted to leave Moscow and
go there, but Botvinnik stopped him. I am always a little interested in
the personality of Karpov - he writes about going to Paris, and while
others went to a disco or something - he spent the day at the Louvre
'staring at her.'
> > Saludos, Mig
Hello Mig - our blokes are chatting, no? How the hell are you? Phil
> --
> Roman M. Parparov
dgr...@my-deja.com
chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:
> >recall everyone talking about yusupov
> >and a. sokolov in the mid-eighties as the next super-gms who would be
> >contenders. no dice.
>
> You must have a short memory.
>
> Yusupov advanced quite far into the world championship cycle at one
point,
> eliminating Ivanchuk in one of the most thrilling games of all time
(in fact,
> Ivanchuk picked the "wrong Knight" to move to a critical square, and
went down
> to bitter defeat....the other choice would have won).
>
> Yusupov made it to the semi-finals in the 1993 cycle.
Whereupon he lost to Jan Timman. Not necessarily a humiliation, but
nothing to be proud of either. It might be considered to be a
disappointment for a player who was touted as a "contender" (for the
title of World Champion) to have his "high water mark" merely be a win
in a candidate cycle quarter-final match.
>
> In fact, if it had been Timman who had won through and not
Short...and we had
> still had the PCA defection and default...
>
> ...then the substitute final would have been Yusupov v. Short and not
Karpov v.
> Timman (because then Timman would have been defaulted, and the other
candidate
> brought up to the finals would have been Yusupov, Timman's candidate
match
> opponent).
>
Which indicates that Yusupov was royally screwed by FIDE. He a
Karpov both get eliminated in the semi-final match (and Karpov was more
seriously trounced, IMHO). Yet FIDE "regulations" had Karpov go forward
to meet Timman in the FIDE World Championship. No one know how quickly
those "regulations" had been drawn up. For all Eric knows, had Yusupov
been due to play Short in the FIDE WC, some other regulation would have
been unearthed, stipulating that Karpov, since he was higher rated than
Yusopov, would be the one to advance to the final. Sheer conjecture,
but it is clear that FIDE wouldn't have been thrilled at the prospect
of a "generic Russian super-GM" winning the FIDE title. Yusupov vs.
either Short or Timman would not have been the marquee matchup that
FIDE would have wanted (in order to offset the credibility of
Kasparov's claims). In the past, FIDE had used play=off matches in
similar situations. A Karpov-Yusupov Candidates Final match (for the
right to play Timman in the FIDE WC)would have been the fairest
solution, but then FIDE would have run the quite grave risk of the
undesireable outcome of Yusupov defeating Karpov.
> >pair to be hailed in the very
> >early nineties were gelfand and ivanchuk. no dice there either.
> >
>
> Boris Gelfand reached the final four in the 1995/96 cycle. He lost
to Karpov
> (the first sitting champion to ever have to play in a candidates
semifinal
> again to "defend" his title).
Another dumb innovation on FIDE's part, but it is hard to feel
sorry for Karpov given his usual method of "earning" the FIDE title.
There were many better wasys to get rid of "draw odds" for the
defending champion.
>
> So both Yusupov and Gelfand made it quite far into the world
championship
> cycle....not the finals, but about as close as you could otherwise
get.
>
But both still lost in ONLY the candidate semi-finals. Again,
Gelfand seems not to have fulfilled his potential. At one point
Lasparov had given him the mantle that Kramnik now wears--that of heir
apparent. Yet, Gelfand never really was able to break the 2700 barrier
(though even now he flirts with it) which would designate him as
a "Super GM". Yusupov, perhaps due to his style, never really has
threatened to bring his rating to the 2700 level. Both Gelfand and
Yusupov were hurt to some degree by the breakup of the USSR. The
political chaos and economic dislocation definitely did not help their
prospects. Indeed, Yusupov received a serious injury from a gunshot
wound during a bungled robbery. Yusupov has never quite fully recovered
either his health or his chess strength. Gelfand seems to be on an
upswing in form, and if the trend continues, may finally join Anand and
Kramnik as full peers in the "Super GM society".
A. Sokolov was truly a disappointment. He had dropped out of sight,
but now ekes a living in the Open tournaments in Europe.
Ivanchuk is tainted with the well deserved label of "choker". He
has been a continual disappointment in FIDE cycle events. He certainly
has the talent to change that very quickly, though....In terms of pure
talent, he ranks up there with Kramnik or Shirov. His rating has been
above 2700, and he is legitimatley considered to be a Super GM.
Unfortunately, he no longer seems to get invites to all of the Super GM
events. It appears as though Morozevich has taken "his" spot. Kasparov
respects Ivanchuk's ability, if not his fighting spirit or mental
toughness. Indeed, Ivanchuk has more victories over Kasparov in
tournament play than any other player....and almost all have been
beautiful examples of Kasparov simply being outplayed by somebody with
the spark of inspiration.
> Eric C. Johnson
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dgr...@my-deja.com
m...@spam.me.not.kcnewyork.com (Mig) wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:50:12 -0500, "Joe.D.Veal-1"
> <Joe.D....@ou.edu> wrote:
>
> > A thought ran across my mind. Whatever happened to GM Valery
Salov?
> >From what I have read, he was considered to be a specialist in the
> >endgame and a FIDE semifinalist/finalist(I am unsure, just know he
> >played Gata Kamsky in a tumultous match that he lost). What I know
is
> >that he was training Shirov for his match with Kasparov. After this
> >event fell through, I have not heard about him in any major
touranments
> >within a few years. I know that he had a civil/uncivil war with
Garry
> >Kasparov. Does anybody know for what reasons? Also, does these
reasons
> >have anything to do with Salov's absence as a international
touranment
> >player? Itt seems that this guy can not buy a invitation to any
> >international events.
>
> player) back in the 80s and had several impressive results, including
tournament game together. Obviously, it is entirely possible that
Kasparov had played 11 games with Salov BEFORE he began the blacklist
against Salov--and before he had the power to blacklist any GM.
Alekhine had played quite a few games versus Capablanca over the span
of 15 (including, of course, a World Championship!)But Capablanca never
had the opportunity to play in a tournament with Alekhine until
Nottingham 1936--after Euwe had take the title from Alekhine. And of
course, Kasparov and Karpov have played around 200 games with each
other. Now, however, thanks to Garry's pronouncements (public, and no
doubt, private) they haven't contested a serious full length game since
Linares 1996. There is very little dispute that Kasparov has actively
opposed efforts to invite Karpov to tournaments where he is playing,
just as Kasparov blacklisted Karpov off of the Russian Chess Olympiad
squads.
> Like most Russian 2650-range players, he found/finds it hard to get
> invitations due mostly to the fact that organizers don't like to have
> more than one or two players from the same country unless they're in
> the top 10. And there are far fewer invitationals now at the top
> level. This list includes players like Aleksandrov, Bareev, Dreev,
> Zvjaginsev, Khalifman, Rublevsky, et al. All Russians (Alexandrov is
> Belorussian), all very strong players, all lacking good invitations.
> Sadly you can even add a tremendous talent like Svidler to that list
> now. There just aren't many invitations to be had, and breaking into
> the top 10 (and STAYING there) is not easy.
Indeed! These are all good points, but compared to the others on
your list, Salov has additional black marks (some of which you have
brought up) to his name:
1) A (remarkably dull) style of play (unless one happens to also be an
Ulf Anderssen fan) which doesn't thrill the spectators... If 2 players
sport similar ratings, the crazy tactician is more likely to be invited.
2) A history of disputes with opponents and hassles with organizers.
His personality is far from charming
3) He seems to be past his peak, with a rating that is stagnating,
mediocre--at best-- tournament results, and about 5-6 years since his
(really very impressive) results such as his drubbing of Khalifman.
4) Repeated bouts of serious illness, and a generally frail physical
constitution.
>
> Beginning in 1997, Salov has had minus scores in almost every event in
> which he played. You begin to lose invitations and rating points this
> way. He won Wijk aan Zee in 1997 and was invited back. Then in 1998 he
> finished at minus two (10th place), proceeded to lose a pile of rating
> points, and wasn't invited back. He lost to Tkachiev in his first
> match of the first FIDE KO, underperformed his rating by 114 points in
> Belfort last year (minus one), and got wiped out 2-0 by Milos in Vegas
> in his first match.
>
> Gee, but it must be Kasparov forcing him to play badly in these
> events. It's mind control! Of course after the articles Salov wrote I
> don't think Kasparov could be blamed for not inviting the guy over for
> tea, either.
>
> His NIC articles proved that he's gone a bit nuts, if still a talented
> writer. It's sad because he is/was a very talented player. He comes
> from the cultured St.Petersburg school of chess that is better
> represented by educated gentlemen such as Khalifman and Svidler these
> days, not to mention my idol David Bronstein.
>
> I watched Salov win the Polugaevsky Sicilian Thematic Tournament in
> Buenos Aires in 1994. He out-Karpoved Karpov in two excellent wins.
> (Karpov was to exact revenge a year later in a blitz match he won
> 6.5-1.5.)
>
> Like many players who made it to the circle of elite round-robins and
> bounced out, Salov probably found it hard to go back to opens and
> tough Russian events with no prize funds. As far as I know he still
> lives in Spain and has yet to play a serious game this year.
>
> Saludos, Mig
>
> Official Tango Instructor
> http://www.KasparovChess.com
>
>
Chesspride
> Which indicates that Yusupov was royally screwed by FIDE.
No.
>He a
>Karpov both get eliminated in the semi-final match (and Karpov was more
>seriously trounced,
Not if you really look at the games.
>Yet FIDE "regulations" had Karpov go forward
>to meet Timman in the FIDE World Championship.
The regulation was...that if a finalist (e.g., Short) and the title holder
(e.g., Kasparov) were both defaulted...
Then you take the losing player from the semi-finals (e.g., Timman)...
...and pair this player against the player who LOST to the defaulted player in
the previous round (e.g., Karpov).
That is why...if it had been Timman who reached the finals and was
defaulted..the final would have been Yusupov v. Short.
Unless you think FIDE knew that a Kasparov default was likely...and that a PCA
would be formed...I don't see how you can say that Yusupov was harmed.
The FIDE regs were set LONG before the candidates matches for the 1993 cycle
were played. There was no waying of knowing the outcome...or that Kasparov and
his challenger would leave FIDE...or that a PCA would be formed...or that a
substitute final would be played.
The regs were set PRIOR to play. How on earth could we tell that it would be
Short and not Timman who would reach the finals? If it had been Timman, then
Yusupov would have had the edge.
>For all Eric knows, had Yusupov
>been due to play Short in the FIDE WC, some other regulation would have
>been unearthed, stipulating that Karpov, since he was higher rated than
>Yusopov, would be the
This is a serious slander against FIDE...with no foundation in the regulations.
>Yusupov vs.
>either Short or Timman would not have been the marquee matchup that
>FIDE would have wanted (in order to offset the credibility of
>Kasparov's claims).
But you overlook that prior to 1993...when the regs were set...there was no
indication that there would be any default. You try to show motive where there
was none.
>In the past, FIDE had used play=off matches in
>similar situations.
There has been no such similar situation....because there has been no "double
default" before.
>A Karpov-Yusupov Candidates Final match (for the
>right to play Timman in the FIDE WC)would have been the fairest
>solution,
No...following the regs set before the cycle began is the fairest.
Changing rules in mid-stream is never the fairest...although it may be the most
politically expedient.
>but then FIDE would have run the quite grave risk of the
>undesireable outcome of Yusupov defeating Karpov.
Yusupov would have been a fine champion.
> Boris Gelfand reached the final four in the 1995/96 cycle. He lost
>to Karpov
>> (the first sitting champion to ever have to play in a candidates
>semifinal
>> again to "defend" his title).
>
> Another dumb innovation on FIDE's part,
Caused, in part...because of public reaction to the "double default" from 1993.
>
> But both still lost in ONLY the candidate semi-finals.
So? Your point is...they didn't win the title...so trash them? Nice point.
> Again,
>Gelfand seems not to have fulfilled his potential. At one point
>Lasparov had given him the mantle that Kramnik now wears--that of heir
>appar
Damning him with faint praise?
Eric C. Johnson
dgr...@my-deja.com
chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:
> >
> > Which indicates that Yusupov was royally screwed by FIDE.
>
> No.
>
> >He a
> >Karpov both get eliminated in the semi-final match (and Karpov was
more
> >seriously trounced,
>
> Not if you really look at the games.
>
Well, it is purely a matter of opinion, but Karpov was roundly
crushed by Short's attacks in the Ruy Lopez games, and he was "taught a
lesson" when he adopted the Sicilian Defense in the final game of the
match. To this day, that remains the last time that Karpov has played
the Sicilian in a serious chess game. The Timman--Yusupov match was an
up and down affair, with Timman getting the better of a theoretical
battle in the Petroff Defense, and Yusupov making several devastating
time pressure blunders.
> >Yet FIDE "regulations" had Karpov go forward
> >to meet Timman in the FIDE World Championship.
>
> The regulation was...that if a finalist (e.g., Short) and the title
holder
> (e.g., Kasparov) were both defaulted...
>
> Then you take the losing player from the semi-finals (e.g., Timman)...
>
> ...and pair this player against the player who LOST to the defaulted
player in
> the previous round (e.g., Karpov).
>
Look, Eric, it is not that I do not understand the "regulations", it
is just that I question the validity of them.
> That is why...if it had been Timman who reached the finals and was
> defaulted..the final would have been Yusupov v. Short.
If that scenario had actually come to pass, then it would have been
Karpov who would have been the one who was screwed by FIDE. It would
have been amusing due to its irony, but I still would have protested
FIDE's action. Just because an action is potentially equally unfair to
both parties does not render that action to be just or proper...
>
> Unless you think FIDE knew that a Kasparov default was likely...and
that a PCA
> would be formed...I don't see how you can say that Yusupov was harmed.
>
Yusupov was harmed because he had been eliminated at the same point
in the Candidate's cycle as had Karpov, yet Karpov advanced to the FIDE
WC match, while Yusupov did not. Moreover, Yusupov was not even given
the opportunity to contest a match with Karpov for the right to meet
Timman in the FIDE WC match.
> The FIDE regs were set LONG before the candidates matches for the
1993 cycle
> were played. There was no waying of knowing the outcome...or that
Kasparov and
> his challenger would leave FIDE...or that a PCA would be formed...or
that a
> substitute final would be played.
>
> The regs were set PRIOR to play. How on earth could we tell that it
would be
> Short and not Timman who would reach the finals? If it had been
Timman, then
> Yusupov would have had the edge.
>
We'll have to take you at your word that the regulations were set
PRIOR to play, and long before the Candidate's Matches were contested.
When the regulation was first aired after the Short/Kasparov defaults,
nobody had seemed to have heard of it. Still, it is very hard to
disprove such an assertion by FIDE, although it wouldn't be the first
time that they have dissembled.
> >For all Eric knows, had Yusupov
> >been due to play Short in the FIDE WC, some other regulation would
have
> >been unearthed, stipulating that Karpov, since he was higher rated
than
> >Yusopov, would be the
>
> This is a serious slander against FIDE...with no foundation in the
regulations.
>
> >Yusupov vs.
> >either Short or Timman would not have been the marquee matchup that
> >FIDE would have wanted (in order to offset the credibility of
> >Kasparov's claims).
>
> But you overlook that prior to 1993...when the regs were set...there
was no
> indication that there would be any default. You try to show motive
where there
> was none.
>
The motive of FIDE can be inferred by the pattern of actions that
it took--taking opportunities to actively intervene (on Karpov's
behalf), while eschewing opportunities to choose actions which did not
benefit Karpov (until the late 1990s).
> >In the past, FIDE had used play=off matches in
> >similar situations.
>
> There has been no such similar situation....because there has been
no "double
> default" before.
>
I wrote: "similar", not "identical". There was a special match to
determine who would take Botvinnik's place in the Candidate's cycle
when he opted not to continue to compete in FIDE cycles following fis
defeat by Petrosian in 1963.
> >A Karpov-Yusupov Candidates Final match (for the
> >right to play Timman in the FIDE WC)would have been the fairest
> >solution,
>
> No...following the regs set before the cycle began is the fairest.
>
> Changing rules in mid-stream is never the fairest...although it may
be the most
> politically expedient.
Well, Eric, there is a big precedent for FIDE changing rules
in "mid-stream". I'm referring to when FIDE changed the rules in "mid-
match" during the notorious 1984-85 Karpov--Kasparov I match. In that
instance, I (and most of the chess world) disapproved of FIDE's changes
in the rules. However, it is absurd to argue that changing UNFAIR
and/or foolish rules --whether in "mid-stream" or not, is
inherently "never the fairest".
>
> >but then FIDE would have run the quite grave risk of the
> >undesireable outcome of Yusupov defeating Karpov.
>
> Yusupov would have been a fine champion.
You and I are in agreement there... however, for reasons of
political expedience, FIDE would have had ample reason to be mortified
at such an outcome.
>
> > Boris Gelfand reached the final four in the 1995/96 cycle. He lost
> >to Karpov
> >> (the first sitting champion to ever have to play in a candidates
> >semifinal
> >> again to "defend" his title).
>
> >
> > Another dumb innovation on FIDE's part,
>
> Caused, in part...because of public reaction to the "double default"
from 1993.
>
Don't blame FIDE's stupidities on the rank and file chess fan!
FIDE certainly had the power to respond to the adverse public reaction
in a more constructive and responsible mannner.
> >
> > But both still lost in ONLY the candidate semi-finals.
>
> So? Your point is...they didn't win the title...so trash them? Nice
point.
>
No, they are not trash...but the prior poster was not too far off-
base when he opined (in so many words) that the careers of Yusupov and
Gelfand had not (yet) fulfilled their potentials.
> > Again,
> >Gelfand seems not to have fulfilled his potential. At one point
> >Lasparov had given him the mantle that Kramnik now wears--that of
heir
> >appar
>
> Damning him with faint praise?
>
If you say so, Eric ;-)
> Eric C. Johnson
Todd Durham
dgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20000429234959...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
> chess...@aol.com (Chesspride) wrote:
[snip]
As I recall, the regulations in question HAD been in place for some time
before the double default. And the regulations do have a certain fairness to
them. After all, suppose Yusupov had become the other participant in the new
Finals. Then Timman is put in the position of having to beat Yusupov
_in_two_seperate_matches_ to become FIDE Champ. This is the kind of thing
that was (justly) criticized back in the days of Botvinnik's reign, and
later in Karpov's reign. And so I don't feel Yusopov was treated unfairly.
And of course, this is just my opinion...
[snip]
> > >A Karpov-Yusupov Candidates Final match (for the
> > >right to play Timman in the FIDE WC)would have been the fairest
> > >solution,
> >
> > No...following the regs set before the cycle began is the fairest.
> >
> > Changing rules in mid-stream is never the fairest...although it may
> be the most
> > politically expedient.
>
> Well, Eric, there is a big precedent for FIDE changing rules
> in "mid-stream". I'm referring to when FIDE changed the rules in "mid-
> match" during the notorious 1984-85 Karpov--Kasparov I match. In that
> instance, I (and most of the chess world) disapproved of FIDE's changes
> in the rules. However, it is absurd to argue that changing UNFAIR
> and/or foolish rules --whether in "mid-stream" or not, is
> inherently "never the fairest".
Don't forget that FIDE has also changed the rules in mid-stream the first
time they held a KO Championship. The KO format was adopted because FIDE
couldn't (or wouldn't) find sponsors for the traditional format. (And
incidentally, Eric does NOT go on about how a sporting organization needs to
follow through with its "cycle" on _this_ matter. Onl;y Kasparov's
organizations need to meet all prior stated conditions.) This change was
made after much vacilation on FIDE's part. The Interzonal qualifiers had no
idea they would end up in a KO format. And for the second one, FIDE changed
the regulations on how often they would hold the damnable things, thus
leading to the legal troubles with Karpov. So FIDE is, as you point out,
quite willing to change regulations in mid-stream, to continue mixing
metaphors.
[snip]
> > > Another dumb innovation on FIDE's part,
> >
> > Caused, in part...because of public reaction to the "double default"
> from 1993.
> >
> Don't blame FIDE's stupidities on the rank and file chess fan!
> FIDE certainly had the power to respond to the adverse public reaction
> in a more constructive and responsible mannner.
Well, _somebody_ has to take the blame! And you can sure as Hell bet the
bureaucrats aren't going to take any!
Todd
[snip]
Mig
wrote:
>>Salov was tipped as a world championship contender (meaning top
>>player) back in the 80s and had several impressive results, including
>>excellent performances in the World Cup series.
>
>i have a long memory, and will recall everyone talking about yusupov
>and a. sokolov in the mid-eighties as the next super-gms who would be
>contenders. no dice. then, the next pair to be hailed in the very
>early nineties were gelfand and ivanchuk. no dice there either.
>
>now, we have morozevich and leko.
>
>(i'll wait for them to show me the money. )
Maybe we need a "hype/letdown" ratio for upcoming stars who didn't
make it. Yusupov made it to the Candidates, as did A.Sokolov. Not bad.
I wouldn't say Ivanchuk and Gelfand missed the mark, really. So few
people become world champion, or even challengers, that sticking
around in the top 10 for a few years is about as much as people are
willing to bet on.
The last player I can really member people saying "the next world
champion" about was probably Leko, although Kramnik had that said
about him quite a bit (even by Kasparov when Kramnik was 17).
Morozevich's style has always been so risky there was always a
"but..." attached.
GMs under 15 were practically commonplace by the time Ponomariov and
Bacrot became the youngest ever, etc. so most bets were hedged.
Radjabov is probably the hottest thing around these days. But
mathematically speaking it's hard to imagine Kasparov hanging on to
the top spot as the world's best player for the six or seven years it
would take for Radjabov to be a serious contender.
Saludos, Mig
Mig
> But Mig, when is the LAST time the Kasparov and Salov played a
>tournament game together. Obviously, it is entirely possible that
>Kasparov had played 11 games with Salov BEFORE he began the blacklist
>against Salov--and before he had the power to blacklist any GM.
They haven't played in a while, but it was 1993 or so. I doubt anyone
thinks Garry's influence has grown since then. Even if there had been
a blacklist against Salov participating in any event Garry played in,
it's not like the guy didn't play and wasted away. He was very active
at that time and until a year or so ago and his results have been
getting steadily worse. Of course we can also come up with a nice long
list of strong players who haven't played Kasparov in five or six
years!
>Alekhine had played quite a few games versus Capablanca over the span
>of 15 (including, of course, a World Championship!)But Capablanca never
>had the opportunity to play in a tournament with Alekhine until
>Nottingham 1936--after Euwe had take the title from Alekhine. And of
>course, Kasparov and Karpov have played around 200 games with each
>other. Now, however, thanks to Garry's pronouncements (public, and no
>doubt, private) they haven't contested a serious full length game since
>Linares 1996. There is very little dispute that Kasparov has actively
>opposed efforts to invite Karpov to tournaments where he is playing,
>just as Kasparov blacklisted Karpov off of the Russian Chess Olympiad
>squads.
Actually, Karpov demands a lot of extra money if Kasparov plays, and
has even backed out of several events when he heard Garry was playing
and the organizers wouldn't pay out the extra. Not sure now, but back
when their rivalry was hotter they both asked extra fees for playing
in a tournament with the other. Simply enough, few organizers can
afford both of them at the same time.
But there certainly haven't been any pronouncements by Garry about
refusing to play Karpov. Logically enough, he's been less and less
concerned about it as Karpov's play has declined. Not that Karpov
couldn't still give him a strong match if he so desired.
Karpov and Kasparov have always battled one another from behind the
scenes as well as over the board. I'm not making excuses for either of
them, but the make-up of the Olympiad team has long been a political
football in the USSR/Russia.
Saludos, Mig