Is this the most underhanded thing done in chess?

[Robert Stokes]

I was told this tale by a congress organiser a few years ago. (The two names involved are fictitious because I can't remember them and wouldn't have included them if I could.)

A player entered the Minor event (Open/Major/Intermediate/Minor) of a weekend congress. In the Friday evening game he wiped the floor with his opponent. Later someone said to the organiser, "Why is Fred Bloggs playing in the Minor, he was in the Major a few months ago somewhere else?", Organiser, "Who do you mean?". "That chap in the red pullover".

The organiser replied, "But that's not Fred Bloggs, his name is John Smith." The person then told him that it really was Fred Bloggs and he should investigate. By then he had left. The Saturday morning just before the game started the organiser challenged the person who said, "I've changed my name by deed poll so I'm not Fred Bloggs any more."

The organiser then said, "I don't care what you call yourself, you are still the same person, so there is a place for you over in the Major event." John Smith (or Fred Bloggs) then pulled his coat off his chair which fell over loudly so everyone in the hall turned to see him storm out not to be seen again.

[Justin Hadi]

The collapse of Shirov's title shot against Kasparov was pretty bad - Gazza ended up playing Kramnik, who'd lost to Shirov in a match to decide the challenger!

[Michael Jones]

Sounds pretty similar to the recent case in NZ. But as regards the most underhand thing done in chess, surely nothing can beat Ilyumzhinov's re-election as FIDE president?

[Jonathan Bryant]

The collapse of Shirov's title shot against Kasparov was pretty bad - Gazza ended up playing Kramnik, who'd lost to Shirov in a match to decide the challenger!

Well that wasn't cool by any means but it wasn't the result of a deliberate plot was it? I thought it was just down to the fact that nobody would stump up any cash for a Kasparov- Shirov match.

As for the OP - my answer is no, but clearly it's not a pleasant thing to do.

Most underhand thing? Got to have something to do with the Soviet Union surely. Lots of unpleasant things have gone on but surely nothing to match the Communists' policy to do with chess.

I mean, signing a contract saying you won't write a book whilst acting as a second during a world championship match just after you've signed a contract with a publishing house agreeing to write such a book - as RDK did in 1978 - is not exactly pukka behaviour, but in pales in comparison to the Soviets keeping Korchnoi's family hostage during the match (and until after the 1981 match for that matter).

Most underhand thing? How about killing somebody because they made chess too bourgeois. Such was Nikolai Krylenko's fate as head of the Soviet Chess machine. Mind you, I doubt too many people had much sympathy for him given his record.

My vote, then, goes for the Soviets stopping Boris Gulko from emigrating and on top of that banning him from playing chess inside the Soviet Union.

[Justin Hadi]

The collapse of Shirov's title shot against Kasparov was pretty bad - Gazza ended up playing Kramnik, who'd lost to Shirov in a match to decide the challenger!

Well that wasn't cool by any means but it wasn't the result of a deliberate plot was it? I thought it was just down to the fact that nobody would stump up any cash for a Kasparov- Shirov match.

Well if you listen to Shirov, he says that Kasparov expected Kramnik to win the match and was a bit shocked when Shirov won it. There is no hard evidence of a deliberate plot, but in similar circumstances Ponomariov said Kasparov wasn't exactly forthcoming in the organisation of his title match either.

To me it’s obvious they conspired to support each other: Kasparov was striving to become World Champion again, and in exchange he made his peace with Ilyumzhinov and began to support him as FIDE President. I was more of a hindrance. And that’s the way I was treated. I can recall a few episodes that illustrate that.

I mention it because of the importance of the match rather than anything else, but Gulko's case sounds even worse, stopping an entire career. At least Shirov could still play in tournaments afterwards.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Well if you listen to Shirov, he says that Kasparov expected Kramnik to win the match and was a bit shocked when Shirov won it. There is no hard evidence of a deliberate plot, but in similar circumstances Ponomariov said Kasparov wasn't exactly forthcoming in the organisation of his title match either.

To me it’s obvious they conspired to support each other: Kasparov was striving to become World Champion again, and in exchange he made his peace with Ilyumzhinov and began to support him as FIDE President. I was more of a hindrance. And that’s the way I was treated. I can recall a few episodes that illustrate that.

I mention it because of the importance of the match rather than anything else, but Gulko's case sounds even worse, stopping an entire career. At least Shirov could still play in tournaments afterwards.

The reason I suspect no specific plot is that the match was due, if memory serves, around 1997 or 1998, and yet the Kramnik match didn't happen until 2000. If it was all planned why not just switch Vlad in for the original dates? Also, I'm sure Gazza wouldn't have been averse to making some easy money by knocking over opposition that had no chance of taking his title (like 93 and 95).

That Shirov never got to play the match he'd earned the right to play is still a great injustice though.


As far as Gulko's concerned, there's not an awful lot I like about The KGB Plays Chess, but the section he wrote about his experiences, hunger strikes arrests, beatings from the security services and all, is fascinating and well worth a read.

[Richard Thursby]

Speaking of changing names, I have played someone under two different names and I only found them on the current list by looking up their grading reference on my grading report. They are now under another name but at least they have the same first name as when I last played them.

[Justin Hadi]

The reason I suspect no specific plot is that the match was due, if memory serves, around 1997 or 1998, and yet the Kramnik match didn't happen until 2000. If it was all planned why not just switch Vlad in for the original dates? Also, I'm sure Gazza wouldn't have been averse to making some easy money by knocking over opposition that had no chance of taking his title (like 93 and 95).

Between 1998 (the Shirov Kramnik match) and 2000, Kasparov abandoned the Shirov match in 1999 and then mooted a match with Anand later in 1999, saying if the Anand match fell through he would play Shirov.

I'm not saying it was planned, but underhanded? Definitely. Shirov actually rejected only one offer made in 1998 of a match in California, believing that this didn't waive his rights to a match at any stage.

That Shirov never got to play the match he'd earned the right to play is still a great injustice though.

Agreed.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Well that wasn't cool by any means but it wasn't the result of a deliberate plot was it? I thought it was just down to the fact that nobody would stump up any cash for a Kasparov- Shirov match.

That accounts for half of the story, if there's no money for a Kasparov-Shirov match, then you might not organize one.
But this does not justify organizing another match Kasparov-Kramnik and accepting it as world championship match.
What next? Naming Kasparov world champion after *losing* the match in 2000 just because the paying sponsor likes better the pictures with Garry holding the trophy?

[IM Jack Rudd]

That accounts for half of the story, if there's no money for a Kasparov-Shirov match, then you might not organize one.
But this does not justify organizing another match Kasparov-Kramnik and accepting it as world championship match.

Why not? That's surely got to be better than the champion's not playing any title matches at all.

[Paolo Casaschi]

That accounts for half of the story, if there's no money for a Kasparov-Shirov match, then you might not organize one.
But this does not justify organizing another match Kasparov-Kramnik and accepting it as world championship match.

Why not? That's surely got to be better than the champion's not playing any title matches at all.

In my opinion official title matches should follow some basic sport rules: you only get to the final of a title selection if you qualify.
Kasparov was not forbidden to play for the title, he just was not keen to play if not enough money was on the table. I dont remember the details, the only situation where you might be right would be if FIDE offered to organize the match with a one dollar prize fund and *shirov* refused. Still it would be very odd for FIDE to organize a million dollars match later with Kramnik.

If Shirov was keen to play at the available conditions (even for free), then there's no right for organizing an alternative match with the challenger of your choice.

[IanDavis]

There was a certain obituary that might qualify for most distasteful

[Joey Stewart]

What about poor old Alekhine - he was so good at chess they had to shoot him.

[Richard Bates]

I think it had something to do with Kasparov having a career record against Shirov of 13-0.

[Gavin Strachan]

What about poor old Alekhine - he was so good at chess they had to shoot him.

He certainly had a lot of shots