Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[John Foley]

The interview with Kirsan contains a strange non sequitur:

"I have no problem with homosexuals," he added. "We are the only sport where women take part alongside men." - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/life/family/l ... Ziqr3.dpuf

[Roger de Coverly]

"We are the only sport where women take part alongside men."

In the unlikely event of Chess making it to either of the Olympics, would it be necessary to segregate? Horsey sports included in the Summer Olympics don't discriminate either and if you are leader of a Federation aspiring to take part in the Olympics, you should know these things.

[JustinHorton]

Also the equestrian events.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Anyone here have any views on what Kasparov said in a recent interview (by Dirk Jan Ten Geuzendam and Nigel Short) reported on by Chessbase?

http://en.chessbase.com/post/kasparov-a ... norway-1-2
http://en.chessbase.com/post/kasparov-a ... norway-2-2

[Roger de Coverly]

Anyone here have any views on what Kasparov said in a recent interview (by Dirk Jan Ten Geuzendam and Nigel Short) reported on by Chessbase?

You could ask what was going on in the Soviet Union in the 1970s as backgound to Lev Aronian's opinion about a lack of top players in the 1980s apart from the Ks. In the 1950s particularly, it seemed as if the Soviet Union had a non-stop conveyor belt generating top class players, even though this seemed to falter a bit in the 1960s. After Fischer, they put all their resources into Karpov and none of his contemporaries ever seemed to get much of a look in at establishing themselves as permanent top 10. Whether a true story or not, a Soviet official is alleged to said that they had one world champion already (Karpov) and didn't need another (Kasparov). That contrasts with the 1950s and 1960s where they had one champion (Botvinnik), but acquired several more (Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky) with a couple of might have beens in Bronstein and Keres.

As regards the Berlin and Petroff, if your pawn on e4 is attacked, you can always try defending it. Admittedly playing 3. d3 in the Petroff isn't any good, but there's little wrong with 4. d3 against the Berlin if your style is more like Carlsen's than Kasparov's.

[Matt Mackenzie]

There were a few around at that time who looked capable of rivalling Karpov (Beliavsky, Romanishin, Vaganian) But they all fell short, ultimately.

[Roger de Coverly]

There were a few around at that time who looked capable of rivalling Karpov (Beliavsky, Romanishin, Vaganian) But they all fell short, ultimately.

The hypothesis is that they were sidelined by the Soviet establishment by being denied opportunities to compete in the strongest tournaments.

[Lewis Martin]

"We are the only sport where women take part alongside men."

In the unlikely event of Chess making it to either of the Olympics, would it be necessary to segregate? Horsey sports included in the Summer Olympics don't discriminate either and if you are leader of a Federation aspiring to take part in the Olympics, you should know these things.

Not forgetting mixed sports! Badminton (Emms and Robertson), or indeed tennis when Murray and Robson got silver in Wimbledon in the 2012 Olympics.

I think you can kind of see where Kirsan is coming from though in that regard, however there aren't that many women that play for their respective countries in Olympiads. Judit Polgar, of course, comes to mind. That's not to say that they aren't good enough to represent them, for example, I am sure Humpy Koneru and Hou Yifan will do well for their countries. I don't know how strong Slovenia is, but I would have thought Anna Muzychuk must be near enough in contention... It just so happens that there are 5 men believed to be stronger, and the women's team may want them with regards to winning medals.

[Lewis Martin]

I was puzzled with the remark of: "I have no problem with homosexuals.", in terms of it being an odd comment to make with regards to (what I believed the conversation was about) mixed sports. Of course, one would have to read the article to get the comment into context, it was with regards to the Sochi Winter Olympics in Russia.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think you can kind of see where Kirsan is coming from though in that regard, however there aren't that many women that play for their respective countries in Olympiads.

Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant has played for the Scottish Open team in the past, although this time round she will be strengthening the Women's team.

[JustinHorton]

There were a few around at that time who looked capable of rivalling Karpov (Beliavsky, Romanishin, Vaganian) But they all fell short, ultimately.

The hypothesis is that they were sidelined by the Soviet establishment by being denied opportunities to compete in the strongest tournaments.

How probable is that hypothesis really though?

[Stewart Reuben]

There is no doubt that citizens of the USSR were disadvantaged due to the difficulties they had travelling. When the USSR broke up there was a diaspora of strong Russian-speaking chess players. Some had been denied opportunities. Thus this looked like rating inflation in the 1990s, whereas it was nothing of the sort.
Whether any of the second tier Soviets would have become first tier, if they had had the opportunity, can only be conjecture.

[JustinHorton]

Another way to look at it is maybe this. When did the USSR last produce a world-title contender before Karpov? Unless I'm mistaken nobody had come along since Tal, who of course emerged at the end of the Fifties. There were top players about, people like Stein and Polugayevsky who could beat anybody on their day, but was there really the constant conveyor-belt of potential world-championship-winning talent that one might imagine, and which was supposedly artificially stopped to protect Karpov, if we overlook Kasparov (or claim that they tried to stop him but failed)?

It seems more plausible to me that since Tal the USSR saw one new player of the very highest standard about once a decade - Tal emerging at the end of the Fifties, Karpov at the start of the Seventies and Kasparov at the start of the Eighties. In other words, nothing changed, this had been normal for a very long time and there had been nothing since the Fifties to match the emergence of a whole clutch of great players (Spassky, Petrosian, Korchnoi, Geller if you like).

Also, if the chess establishment in the USSR was obstructing players from coming through as rivals to Karpov, who was obstructing players outside the USSR? Because Hubner, Ljubojevic, Hort and Miles, to name a few, never quite came to their full potential either.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Worth remembering that Polugayevsky and Stein were actually both a few years older than Tal.

[Stewart Reuben]

Petrosian and Spassky of course became World Champions after Tal. My theory is that Korchnoi wasn't as good a player in a theoretical sense, but made up for it in his determination.
Years of birth
Petrosian 1927
Korchnoi 1931
Larsen 1935
Tal 1936
Spassky 1937
Fischer 1943
Karpov 1951
It has always interested me how many great players were children in the Second World War, or Great Patriotic War if you were Soviet.
Justin. How do you know those players you named never quite came to their full potential? I suspect Karpov only reached his peak when he had to face up to Kasparov. If he had played Fischer, he might have become an even better player.