Impala Publishers Blog Page

The soccer World Cup begins today. That fact may already be clear to you – unless you live on the planet Mars, or in the United States. In keeping with the event, the Impala blog offers its own slant, although we shall not be sending Correspondents to cover the matches, which the exception of the Czech Republic-Ghana game, where I do hope to be present.

Perhaps you have noticed the newspaper headlines such as ‘Owen thinks we have a chance’, where a reporter has asked the Newcastle striker, ‘Do you think we have a chance?’; and Owen has replied, ‘Yes, I think we have a chance.’ To be followed in a day or two by the headline ‘Owen thinks that we have a real chance’, where the reporter has asked, ‘Do you think that we have got a real chance?’, when the striker has replied, ‘Yes, I think we have a real chance.’

Perhaps you know something of the Battle of Rooney’s Metatarsal, fought between England coach Sven-Goran Eriksson and Rooney’s Club Manager, Alec Ferguson. But perhaps you don’t. If not, you haven’t missed much.

Yesterday the Times published a supplement, World Cup 2006: Your complete guide. Scanning it for enlightenment, I found two articles that I consider quoting from. The first is from the pen of Simon Barnes, sports journalist and bird-watcher. Barnes is one of my favourite writes on sport and I’m glad to read that George Szirtes shares this taste. At the Kasparov-Short World Chess Championship in 1993 I was lucky enough to meet Barnes. More precisely, we were standing at the bar together at the same time. In those days there was a hirsute version, but he seemed today to have had his locks cut short. If he wrote anything about chess then, I don’t remember it.

Barnes has covered several world cups and his piece has the introduction ‘Winning is all that matters in this wonderfully partisan spectacle, writes Simon Barnes’

‘The tell us that the World Cup is a celebration of international brotherhood. They are absolutely right, too. The brothers in question are Cain and Abel. There’s no escaping that conclusion when you attend a World Cup in person. All the eternal mysteries of sport are reduced to jingoism and victory…..

….when you attend a World Cup, you commute from one city of jingoistic excess to another. Each city is a different colour – or rather two different colours. Every city shouts and sings in two different languages and always the message is the same: Win! Win!

….everywhere you go, in every station, restaurant, bar, hotel and airport, you meet an almost sickeningly intense desire for the home team to do well. I made no attempt to avoid it when I covered the World Cup in Italy in 1990…I got caught up in the cheery Italian fervour of it all. I remember walking from the Stadio Olimpico in Rome after Italian victories: walking with the crowds playing bull-and-matador in the traffic, cars hooting joyously, dancing pedestrians, happy boys and happy beautiful girls hanging out of car windows…

I have attended two World Cups in football-neutral countries: in the United States and in Japan…This was rum: you would travel from endless streets of indifference to a station or a stadium in which football was the most important thing in the world. And all because of partisanship.

…For the sake of the stories I will write, for the sake of the joy it will bring the nation, I hope England will go all the way. But a treacherous part of me yearns to see England make an early exit because England fans en masse are not amusing to deal with. Threat hangs in the air.’

Is this not a much greater glory for the English nation than all the dross of ‘patriotic’ partisanship? That a leading sportswriter for a major English newspaper should admit that part of him yearns for England to fall at the first hurdle, since the rabble that follow the English team are not comely to behold?

Now to England’s ‘real’ chance. Danny Finkelstein introduced the ‘Fink Tank’ team, led by Dr Henry Stott and Dr Ian Graham, and its Predictor computer model. They have fed it data of the results of more than 4,500 international games that have taken place since 1998 – with the goals scored, the nature of the match and how recently it has taken place.

From the date, they have worked out the probability of an outcome between any two national sides, even ones that have not played each other for years. Then they have played the World Cup tens of thousands of times, which allows the team to work out the chances of any national side reaching any round and, naturally, of winning the tournament together.

Does the model work? The first Predictor model was used in the last World Cup and showed many successes – for example indicating that Senegal’s opening victory against France was much more likely than most people thought. And the model has been applied to the Premiership for four years and had produced a profit against bookie’s odds.four years in a row.

Most English supporters appear vastly to overestimate the chances of the national side, and the bookies’ odds naturally reflect this fact.

Finkelstein illustrates the results this way. There are 32 countries competing for the world cup. If you divide 100 by 32 you get 3.125 %. Say that half of the sides are no-hopers, so that you can double the percentage to 6.25. This would be the indicator if the top 16 sides each had an equal chance of winning.

So what does the model say?

1. Brazil 13.1
2. France 11.1
3. Germany 10.9 [home advantage – historically a big factor in a nation’s success in the Cup]
4. Holland 10.7
5. Spain 9.9
6. Italy 5.4

and now
7. England 5.0

Apart from Brazil., only European sides appear above 5 %. Only European sides win in Europe, and only South American sides win in South America. Brazil is the sole country to have bucked that trend.

England have a 5 % chance of winning the World Cup, they are a one-in-twenty shot. That compares to the bookies’ odds that I have heard of 8-1. No wonder the bookies make money!

Updated odds throughout the tournament are available at www.timesonline.co.uk/finkelstein

Armenia is in the news. Its chess team won the Gold Medal at the recent Chess Olympiad in Turin. Armenia were led on Board 1 by the world No 3, Levon Aronian, who scored 7/11, and on Board 2 by Vladimir Akopian, who scored 9/13. Gabriel Sargissian assisted ably with a score of 10/13.

Aronian’s brilliant win against Czech David Navara is featured in the chess column of today’s Times. And Aronian achieved a different kind of fame when English player Danny Gormally floored him with a punch at an Olympiad party.

Former World Champion Garry Kasparov (born 1963) is partly Armenian, his name being a Russification of his mother’s name of ‘Kasparian’ showing the distinctive Armenian ending ‘-ian’ meaning ‘son of’. The fully-Armenian Tigran Petrosian (born 1929) was a predecessor of Karsparov’s as World Champion. 'Tigran' is Armenian for 'Tiger'.



By Far Euphrates is a book written by Christian historical novelist, Deborah Alcock (1813-1913 ). She wrote the book in 1896 to encourage aid to Christian Armenians in Turkey after the massacres of 1894-1895.

Alcock skillfully captures the culture of the Christian Armenians under the Ottoman Empire, including their dress, foods, social customs, housing, and religious beliefs. She also accurately describes the sufferings and massacre of the Armenians at the hands of their Moslem rulers. Though names are changed, all incidents in the book are historically accurate, including the burning of the church at Urfa filled with Christians seeking refuge.

In 1975 I attended the summer conference of the Irish Association at Queen’s University, Belfast. Addressing the conference was Professor Richard Hauser. His wife, Hephzibah Menuhin, attended as well. Hephzibah was a concert pianist and sister of Yehudi Menuhin. Professor Hauser invited me to stay with them in London. This I did at the end of the year en route to another conference in Berlin.


Hauser was an expert in what today would be called ‘conflict resolution’. The greatest disaster ever to afflict the Armenian people, what they call their Holocaust, was the genocide committed against them by the Turks during World War One. To a great extent, the Kurds – who lived largely intermingled with the Armenians – acted as the agents of the Turkish government in organising the massacres.

Professor Hauser showed me a long, curved, oriental dagger. He told me that this had been a gift to him from the Kurds. He claimed to have been successful in arranging the first-ever meeting between representatives of the Armenians and Kurds with a view to resolving their ancient quarrel.

There is a treatise on Hauser and Hephzibah, their ideas and writings
here.

To be continued

A.J. Goldsby is a US Chess Federation Chess (USCF) Master and enthusiast who lives in Pensacola, Florida. He has a superior chess website, which the Chess Journalists of America voted "Best General Chess Web Site" for 2004. See Chess page

On the recent election for the Presidency of FIDÉ, Goldsby comments -

'It was a sad day for chess. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a dictator, third-world thug, and {former} Campomanes' flunky ... was re-elected as the FIDE President. Its not like the world body was not given a choice, Bessel Kok, a well-known and highly respected Dutch businessman ... was running against Ilyumzhinov.

Garry Kasparov had beseeched the body to make the right move, but clearly his voice was completely disregarded. Maybe no one understands what this means. Maybe the world body thinks it is OK to hold events in places like Libya ... where all persons of Jewish descent are excluded. Or maybe Ilyumzhinov simply purchased enough votes to insure that he won, and the election was nothing more than a sham!

Whatever the reason, the world body in chess failed completely ... I just hope that our beloved past-time does not further descend into dark and dire places ... or that we have passed the point of no return. '

But of course there’s much more of general chess interest there.

AJ has another site as well, which ranges beyond chess. Science-fiction is another interest. Worth a look.

Last Sunday, Ray Keene posted a blog ‘GOD AND CHESS BY RAY KEENE ( FOR JAMES)’.

Keene suggested an analogy for God. Before computers, Grandmasters would rack their brains to analyse positions correctly. In their first meeting at the Varna Olympiad in 1962, Bobby Fischer drew with World Champion, Mikhail Botvinnik. In his book ‘My 60 Memorable Games’ [London, 1969], Fischer claimed that he was winning at one point and threw away the win. Botvinnik claimed that he always had the draw in hand and passed the problem over to a young student, Garry Kasparov, to prove the matter.

Later in life, the same Garry Kasparov once challenged his rival, Anatoly Karpov, to an ‘analysis match’. Kasparov wanted to prove that, not only was he better than Karpov over the board, but that he was better at analysis, too.

Today, Keene reports, all grandmasters do to find the ‘chessic truth’ of a position is feed it into Fritz (a successful computer program). Nor is Fritz, David Levy claims, the best computer program around. He thinks it might only achieve 6-8th in the World Chess Computer Championship, were it to compete.

Keene suggests that computers have now achieved a God-like position in chess analysis, once thought a distinctively human activity.

In the 1960s the book Honest to God had an enormous success. The author was the Liberal Theologian, Dr John Robinson(1919-83), Bishop of Woolwich. Robinson sought to demystify God. He wanted to destroy the picture of God of an old man with a beard living up above us in the heavens. Still today theological liberals continue to pour scorn on the analogy.

In reply C.S. Lewis observed that it was impossible for us to think of God, except by analogies. Lewis wrote in The Observer of 24 March 1963 –

‘The Bishop of Woolwich will disturb most of us Christian laymen less than he anticipates. We have long ago abandoned belief in a God who sits on a throne in a localized heaven. We call that belief anthropomorphism, and it was condemned before our time. There is something about this in Gibbon.’ [C.S. Lewis: A Companion and Guide, Walter Hooper, London, 1996, page 115].

The use of analogies, while inevitable, contain dangers.

Jesus used to pray to God as ‘Abba, Father’ [e.g. Mark 14:36] . The conventional Jewish picture had God utterly powerful and remote from humanity. Isaiah was granted the vision of God the tail of whose robe filled the Temple [Isaiah 6:1]. The Jewish High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple, thought to be Jehovah’s dwelling-place, on only one day in the year (the Day of Atonement). Even then, the High Priest had a rope tied round his feet so that, in the case of his death or incapacity, the other priests could drag his body out of the Holy of Holies to avoid entering the Presence themselves.

Yet here was Jesus addressing God as ‘Abba’ – which is closer to ‘Daddy’ than ‘Father’ in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. The idea was so revolutionary that Saint Paul and the Apostles retained the Aramaic word ‘Abba’ in his letters along with the Greek word for ‘father’. ‘Abba, Father’ [e.g. Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6].

Jesus taught clearly that God was Spirit and could be confined to no physical place.

‘God is spirit. .....The day is coming and is already here, when God will be worshipped in spirit and in truth’.

The New International Version of the Bible has in John 4: 23-24 -

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Robert Huntington reports as well on this item in the Olympiad bulletin, where a veteran grandmaster finds a new excuse for lack of chessic success.

“Grandmaster Viktor Korcnoi informs the public and especially chess tourists he lost two games in a row.

“He tries to explain his bad play by exaggerated interest of the public to his person. He has an opportunity to announce that from now on he is not going to give any autographs to anybody, to give interviews and he does not allow to take photos of him to anybody including arbiters, who often take advantage of their ruling position.”

One of the most charismatic and colourful figures in the chess world, Viktor Korchnoi was once a single win away from becoming World Champion. Born in 1931, he continues to play on Board One for his adopted Switzerland at the age of 75 – and 'Viktor the Terrible' still expects to win!

Ray Keene, host of this page, has written that Korchnoi has set various records for longevity of élite chess performance, which can only be rivalled or surpassed by the two World Chess Champions EMANUEL LASKER (1868-1941, World Champion 1894-1921) and VASILY SMYSLOV (born 1921, World Champion 1957-8) – see Keene’s Spectator chess column here .

I have written on Korchnoi here, here, here, and here - Editor .

Editor James O’Fee writes - Yesterday Robert Huntington reported on his site, All Things Human, on a conversation with chess computer expert David Levy. Chess-playing computers began to appear in the 1960s and Levy placed a bet, which he won in 1978, that no computer would beat him within 10 years. Levy has written many books on computer chess and chess in general. One that I remember with affection was ‘Sacrifices in the Sicilian’.

‘The World Computer Championship is also taking place here at the Oval in Turin. Twenty of the world’s top programs are here. It is fascinating to watch the games. Except for the presence of the two machines on the table, it might pass for a casual game between humans. There is a board and clock and the operators make the moves and punch the clocks manually. In between moves, they engage in analysis and good-natured banter.

Earlier today, I sat down for a few minutes with International Master David Levy. Those of my generation may remember his famous bet that no computer could beat him within ten years, which he won in 1978. For a long time, he was the champion of the human race against the machine until he lost to Deep Thought in 1989.

I began by asking him why the human operators were even necessary. Surely, there you could interface the computers and then sit back and watch them go at each other. “We want to preserve a bit of humanity and it’s nice for the programmers to talk face to face.”

I couldn’t help but notice the absence of the best-known program Fritz. “Fritz is a very well-publicized program and it’s not very clear how it would do. It’s not very likely that it would finish at the top, around 6th to 8th is more probable.” It follows that it wouldn’t make good business sense to enter it. (I saw Fred Friedel earlier today and he mentioned that he’s reading my blog; Fred, if you are reading this, feel free to dispute this point.)

How much have computers improved since the days of the Kramnik-Deep Fritz and Kasparov-Deep Junior (a mere three to three and a half years ago)? “They keep getting better every year but it’s hard to say how much. Perhaps 30 ELO points a year. We probably have two 2800 programs and five 2700+ programs here.”

I asked him about open source chess programs and he mentioned two such: Crafty and Fruit. There was a dispute that resulted in a program (LION++ 1.5) being disqualified because it was a modification of Fruit. This would have been acceptable if this had been revealed, credit given, and permission received before entering.

I finished with a discussion of how much of the results are due to hardware and how much due to software. “It’s nearly all software.” I stated the conventional view that most of the advances were due to faster processers and more memory and that while among computers, it might be software that made the difference, in man vs. machine play, it was hardware. He found that much too broad a generalization and said advances had been made in both and it was hard to separate them. So I gave them the hypothetical of today’s software on a Commodore 64. “Of course, it would be much weaker. Perhaps no better than 2000.”‘

Editor James O'Fee writes - This letter is taken from Robert Huntington's All Things Human website. Yasser Seirawan is a US Grandmaster and former US Champion, today described as 'an adviser to Bessel Kok'. The current Chess Olympiad in Turin will see an election for the post President of Fide between the incumbent, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, and Bessel Kok. Seirawan's letter is dated Autumn 2003.

Dear Yasser,

I read your open letter on FIDE with great interest and agree with virtually everything you wrote. I do, however, feel compelled to correct you on what you wrote concerning my separation from AP.

You wrote, “Our friend Robert Huntington, the Associated Press chess reporter, resigned his post in disgust in 2002.” While it is certainly true that I was disgusted, it was AP’s decision [in September 2003], not mine. At that time, AP had twice lost money twice by buying airline tickets for me to travel to events that were rescheduled (the postponed Moscow Grand Prix and the Kasparov-Deep Junior match that was moved from Jerusalem to New York). Rather than risk having this happen again, they chose to find a local stringer for the Kasparov-Ponomariov match in Yalta only to see that match also cancelled. That was the! last straw and they informed me that they no longer considered chess worth covering.

In other words, this was more than a single disgruntled and disgusted journalist, it was the world’s largest and most important news organization rendering its opinion, not merely on FIDE, but on chess in general. Not only have they ceased covering FIDE events but they have ceased covering all chess events. For example, they have not bothered with Corus or Linares and sent no one to the Kramnik-Leko match last year. I wish I could say that they were mistaken or misguided in their decision but I have no doubt that it made perfect business sense. Your hypothetical example of a potential corporate sponsor considering a chess event illustrates why.

Nor is it only AP that has abandoned chess. A google search of Corus coverage shows the Indian press covered it extensively (thanks to Anand) but the rest of the world ignored it. While removing Ilyumzhinov from the head of FIDE is a necessary first step, it will take years of effort (and good fortune) to undo the damage he and his cronies have inflicted. We are lucky enough to have a crop of young players in the West (I’m thinking particularly of Nakamura and Carlsen) on which the media might latch, so the task is not hopeless, just extremely difficult. At least, we recognize where we have to begin.

Sincerely,
Rob Huntington

Editor James O’Fee writes –

How the former world chess champion Garry Kasparov hopes to unseat President Vladimir Putin
by Jeffrey Tayler


Politics in Russia has historically been a game of winner take all. Victors amass booty and virtual immunity from censure or even prosecution. The vanquished, if they are lucky, escape abroad or putter away their remaining years in dacha gardens. On the surface the contemporary situation is not much different: President Vladimir Putin, in power since 2000, has packed the State Duma and the Federation Council (Russia's bicameral legislature) with his supporters, and the national media are largely subservient to his wishes. During the first four years of his rule Putin's approval ratings never dropped below 70 percent, and in 2004 he won re-election with 71 percent of the vote. His closest competitor, the Communist candidate Nikolai Kharitonov, received only 14 percent and has drifted back into the muddy fields of his demographically doomed party. Now Moscow is awash in rumors that in 2008 Putin may seek election to a third term, a move currently prohibited by the constitution, but easily arranged.

All is not well for Putin, however. His approval ratings have swung wildly over the past twelve months, at times dropping by twenty points or more. Despite five years of draconian measures designed to suppress challenges to his authority, Putin looks increasingly vulnerable, especially since his botched attempt to rescue the schoolchildren taken hostage in Beslan in September of 2004 (which sparked angry protests in the North Caucasus, to say nothing of horror and dismay among his supporters elsewhere in the country) and his bungled economic reforms of last winter (which led to the first violent demonstrations of his tenure). If ever the opposition in Russia has had a chance, it is now; and the man most eager to seize the moment is a highly recognizable and admired public figure in Russia, better known internationally for most of the past twenty years as the world's chess champion: Garry Kimovich Kasparov.

Russia is roughly as enamored of chess as the United States is of pro tennis. When Kasparov left the game to enter politics, in March of this year, the move sparked puzzlement among fans and skepticism from political commentators, who stressed his inexperience and lack of status in the no-holds-barred arena of Russian politics. But the pundits' declarations notwithstanding, Kasparov is no novice in politics. He quit the Communist Party in 1990, when it became clear that the days of the Soviet system were numbered. He then went on to help found the Democratic Party of Russia and the pro-Western bloc Russia's Choice, now defunct but once the standard-bearers of liberalism. And in 1996 he campaigned actively for Boris Yeltsin's re-election. These are passable bona fides for any Russian liberal.

Not surprisingly, Kasparov has given up on pursuing change through the system as restructured by Putin, and has instead embarked on a campaign to effect, in his own words, nothing less than the "dismantlement of the regime", an undertaking that will surely demand as much determination, brashness, and brio as he displayed during his career in chess. He is a revolutionary, goaded into action by the Kremlin's authoritarianism and the impotence of the liberal opposition, and he has concluded that Russia's fate will be decided through something resembling the mass protests that recently toppled corrupt governments in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. His aim is to unseat Putin through a sort of eclectic command center known as Committee 2008: Free Choice, a group made up of thirty-two members of various ideological persuasions, and affiliated with a broader outgrowth, the United Civic Front, which consists of about 2,000 liberals, Communists, members of extreme nationalist parties, and even defectors from the pro-Putin behemoth United Russia, scattered across twenty-one regions. What unites them all is the threat presented by the government's authoritarianism, and a determination to stop Putin from seeking a third term.

Early one clement morning in August, Kasparov took me along for a series of speaking engagements that Committee 2008 had arranged for him in Vladimir, a small city 120 miles northeast of the capital. He stepped out of the entryway of his apartment building, in central Moscow, trim and vigorous, his salt-and-pepper hair thick under a baseball cap, his swarthy complexion suggesting Jewish and Armenian descent, a strike against him on the pavement of a city where skinheads and other extremists frequently assault those who look "non-Russian." Kasparov's public-relations officer, a luminous young blonde named Marina Litvinovich, introduced us, and we climbed aboard a pearl-gray minibus. Several other members of his entourage hopped in as well. Bodyguards would trail us in a silver-hued SUV.

Our driver navigated among begrimed Ladas, Volgas, and Moskviches in a lurching cavalcade studded with clean new Mercedes and the occasional glistening black Volvo (perhaps belonging to a Duma deputy or other state official) forcing traffic aside with sirens and flickering high beams. Muscovites, many dressed to the nines, slipped between vehicles to cross the jammed streets. Soon we passed the Ring Road, Moscow's Beltway, and trundled into the countryside, where steel-and-glass buildings gave way to gritty cement hovels with hand-painted wooden signs. At the roadside scarved old ladies sold mud-covered produce or stood waiting for buses.

"Leaving Moscow is like entering another dimension," Kasparov said, his eyes on the montage of rural decay sliding by. "As things are now, Russian politics is conducted within the Ring Road. Even liberal politicians don't travel much. They fear the people." Kasparov has no choice but to hit the road to deliver his message: state-friendly television gives scant airtime to opposition figures. But there is more to his travels than that, he said. "For me leaving the capital is like attending university. We'll visit some twenty regions by year's end, and I'm correcting our actions based on what I learn. I want to shift the center of political gravity from Moscow to the regions, to bring big politics down to the molecular level, to show people how it affects them, and how we can change policy to change our lives."

His peripatetics so far have proved neither smooth nor safe. In a throwback to hammer-and-sickle days, when the state found ingenious ways to harass lone but dogged dissidents like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, the authorities now seem determined to discourage Kasparov. High-ranking police officers regularly await him at venues. Interior Ministry troops roughed him up at a rally this past May. When he visited the North Caucasus, in June, the trip devolved into quasi-farce: three airports denied his chartered plane landing rights; auditoriums at which he was scheduled to speak inexplicably closed or lost their electricity; hotels at which he was booked turned suddenly "full"; rowdy teenagers hurled ketchup-covered eggs at him; and the police denied him access to Chechen refugee camps. Kasparov's worldwide fame probably dissuades his opponents from more-aggressive tactics; two other Putin challengers have fared worse. One of them, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oligarch and chief of the oil company Yukos, sits in jail, ostensibly for tax evasion and fraud, but probably because he planned to finance the opposition. The other, the former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov, voiced an interest in the presidency and soon found himself facing accusations of fraud and abuse of office, plus a tax audit.

As we neared Vladimir, I asked Kasparov what motivated him to leave chess for politics, risky as it is, and when a majority of Russians appear so apolitical.

"I can't say I'm not afraid," he replied. "But the government is destroying our country. I feel a moral imperative to act, either to act or leave. And I'm not leaving. Putin knows if he leaves the Kremlin, he'll be heading not to a retirement pension but to Lefortovo [Prison]. People are asking why, with state revenues at record highs from oil prices, they're living worse and worse." Notwithstanding an 85 percent rise in oil prices over the past twelve months, the growth in Russia's GDP, 20 percent of which derives from oil and gas, is expected to drop from 7.1 percent last year to 5.9 percent this year. After six years of much-touted economic growth, wages average only $200 to $300 a month in Moscow, and the average is half that, or less, in the provinces. Kasparov noted that under Putin, as under Yeltsin, politicians and bureaucrats batten on the kormushki (feeding troughs) their offices provide them, extracting bribes, "gifts," and other lucrative benefits from their sinecures. According to the Moscow think tank Indem, since 2001 the average bribe has jumped from $10,200 to $135,000, despite Putin's loudly publicized anti-corruption campaign. "All the bureaucrats must get their share," Kasparov told me. "They side with Putin as long as he gives them kormushki, but they will run out. When that happens, and it's a matter of time, they will have less reason to support him. One can't rule out violence; there are too many hyenas to feed."

Three hours after setting out, we pulled into Vladimir's suburbs, a wasteland of concrete apartment blocks standing in shabby dominion over ragged fields. Near the dusty glass doors of the Palace of Young Creators, a cement edifice that blends the bleakest of Soviet and Bauhaus styles, a chunky middle-aged police officer stood glaring at us, his arms crossed. Two younger policemen loitered near the doors, looking bored. They made way for a crowd of forty or fifty of Kasparov's fans, led by the palace's director, emerging to greet their idol.

Kasparov took a seat on the stage of an auditorium that was almost full. He spoke matter-of-factly, as he had to me. Answering the first question, he dispelled a common misperception about his entry into politics: "I have no plans to run for office myself. My aim is to ensure that we have free and fair elections in 2008, and that the president of Russia has the mandate of the Russian people. The government must know it can be replaced; only then will it be accountable to the people. Officials from the lowest to the highest must be elected." This was an oblique reference to Putin's decision last year to abolish gubernatorial elections and appoint governors himself, and to the rumors that he may soon do away with mayoral polls.

Questions on a variety of subjects followed in respectful volleys, but Kasparov stayed on message: Russians must embark on an open national discourse to determine their goals and how to attain them. Only then will development and prosperity ensue. "It's our country," he said, "and all of us must do what we can to help it." If this seems a statement of the obvious, one should remember that throughout history ordinary Russians have shunned politics as a rule, intervening only at cataclysmic junctures, and with mostly negative results.
After a fifteen-minute interview outside with Vladimir's TV 6, we bundled back aboard the minibus and took off for lunch and a press conference at the Staryi Gorod restaurant, in the town's center.

All the seats were occupied. In attendance around a quadrangular arrangement of tables, along with disheveled local reporters, were saggy-jowled civic leaders and bureaucrats; a camera crew from RTR, Russia's state-television channel 2; and five hulking members of a pro-Kremlin youth group called Nashi ("Us" as opposed to "Them"). Nashi's founder, Vasily Yakemenko, has pledged to use his members, who number around 150,000 and come from thirty regions, to help Putin combat, in unspecified ways, corrupt bureaucrats and oligarchs along with "liberals, fascists, pro-Western politicians, and ultranationalists."

Yakemenko has designated Kasparov and Committee 2008 as enemies. Analysts and human-rights activists believe that the Kremlin may arrange to deploy Nashi against demonstrators in the event of widespread unrest in the run-up to elections. Kasparov agrees, calling them the "shock troops of the regime." Three sat directly facing him, and two were nearby on his left.

A middle-aged woman stood up and asked why Kasparov cites the dismantlement of the regime as his primary aim. Couldn't he offer a more positive goal?

Kasparov acknowledged that some of his supporters and colleagues had asked him to soften his message. "To that," Kasparov said, "I answered, Let's say the overthrow of the regime."

He smiled. Some in the crowd winced at his words; for understandable reasons, Russians as a rule distrust talk of revolution. But he didn't slow down. Reminding the audience that Putin had strangled the media and cut off channels of communication with the people, thereby consigning resistance to the streets, he hit his stride. "We must do everything so that money remains in the regions, where it is earned, to solve the regions' problems. Moscow is a giant vacuum cleaner sucking up the wealth of the regions and sending it abroad." Capital flight, around $2 billion in 2003, hit $7.9 billion in 2004 and is expected to reach $10 billion this year. "Why, five years after the sinking of the Kursk submarine [and the loss of the 118 sailors aboard it], do we still have no naval rescue service? Why is Russia selling nuclear technology to Iran when Iran sponsors Islamic terrorism, a grave threat to us? Why are we selling weapons to China and supporting the Chinese geopolitical agend, the gravest threat to Russia, and a country with claims to our territory that it doesn't bother to hide? Our army has been reduced to nothing. Our cities are collapsing ..."

The Nashi youths stirred, crossing their arms and cocking their heads. Kasparov shifted gears and addressed them.

"I have one question for you," he said. "Why did President Putin award the highest medal of honor in Russia, the Order of Hero of Russia (the same order given to the defenders of Moscow against the German Nazis in World War II!), to Akhmad Kadyrov [the Chechen rebel leader, assassinated last year, whom Putin chose to administer Chechnya] and his son, Ramzan [his successor], bandits and murderers of our Russian soldiers? Tell me, why?"

The hall was silent. The Nashi members dropped their eyes to the floor.
"Why? I ask you again, why did the president cheapen our award by giving it to the murderers of our soldiers, of guys your own age? Answer me!"

"We'll ask him when we see him," one grumbled, eyes downcast.

As we left the restaurant after the press conference, I wondered aloud to Kasparov about the wisdom of riling the masses. "To demand free elections but to fear the people at the same time is absurd," he answered. "Implementing the will of the majority, whatever it is, will offer us the best chance of success", even if that means letting Russia break up.

In a country so vast and bristling with nuclear weapons, this would be a strikingly risky move, not only for Russia but for the world. But as a chess player Kasparov knows that risk means opportunity, and he has almost always outwitted his opponents.

See as well blogs on KASPAROV AND QUESTIONTIME, April 2 and 3, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 -Ed

Editor James O’Fee continues - In Part One we have seen how in 1974 Viktor Korchnoi fought a close match with Anatoly Karpov for what was the World Championship in effect. In the second part of his career, Korchnoi came even closer to the World Crown, just a single win away.

In 1974 by Karpov, backed by the resources of the Soviet chess establishment, narrowly defeated Korchnoi. It was then, Kasparov writes, that the persecution of Korchnoi began.

Kasparov writes that Korchnoi has a difficult character….’Everyone knows his acrimonious, biting comments, which normally hit their target. Of course, over the past half century he has many times experienced strong hostility, but this can hardly be the leitmotif of such a long and brilliant career.’ Korchnoi, naturally, felt aggrieved that his country's authorites had loaded the dice so heavily in favour of his younger opponent. In an interview with a Yugoslav newspaper shortly after the match with Karpov, Viktor let slip a disparaging assessment of Karpov’s abilities…..’Karpov was a weaker player than Petrosian, nor was he superior in chess talent or knowledge to Spassky or Polugayevsky’ (ie the defeated Soviet Candidates).

The response of the authorities was severe. Korchnoi was forbidden to play in international tournaments for a year and his grandmaster stipend was reduced by a third. His erstwhile friend, but now bitter enemy, former World Champion Petrosian, initiated a campaign against Korchnoi in the newspaper Sovyetsky Sport. 1975 was the year of Korchnoi’s disgrace.

In 1976 Korchnoi was permitted once again to play abroad, and in July came sensational news. Former USSSR Champion Viktor Korchnoi requested political asylum in Holland! Thus Korchnoi became the first Soviet Grandmaster – a privileged elite in the USSR – to defect to the West.

The USSR deployed the entire might of their propaganda machine against the traitor, who found a new home in Switzerland. The USSR sought to treat the grandmaster as a ‘non-person’ and kept his family as captives in the USSR, or rather as hostages.

Yet they could not prevent Korchnoi from playing chess and an amazing thing happened. Korchnoi’s chess strength seemed rather to increase and he fought his way through the barrier of three of his former compatriots – Petrosian, Polugayevsky and Spassky – to win a second showdown with his old adversary and Soviet favourite, the Grandmaster from the Urals, Anatoly Karpov, now crowned as World Champion.

The shootout took place in Baguio, Phillipines, arranged by Florencio Campomanes, ‘extremely energetic and endlessly cunning’ (Kasparov), who adopted a fawning attitude to Soviet demands. As a reward Campomanes later received the votes of the Soviet bloc to became President of the International Chess Organisation, FIDÉ. In this capacity Campomanes acted again as a Soviet tool, ending the first World Championship between Karpov and the author of the book, Kasparov, ‘without result’ – but following the wishes of the Soviet establishment.

The climate in Baguio was unsuitable, the city was at a distance from the Third World nation’s capital, and the resources available to the two adversaries were disproportionate. In the three previous Candidates’ matches, the Soviet side had had ample opportunity to study the emigré Grandmaster’s psychological strengths and weaknesses. They brought a team of 14 to assist the world Champion; whereas Korchnoi had to rely on a team of 5, among them the host of this page, Ray Keene, as his Second and sometime spokesman.

Kasparov relates many of the tricks used in the ‘Battle of Baguio’, which received wide publicity in the chess press. Among them was the use of a ‘Parapsychologist’, Vladimir Zhukhar, to unsettle Korchnoi and prevent him from concentrating on the chess battle alone.

Nonetheless Viktor the Terrible came close to unseating his most formidible foe. Korchnoi won through to a score of 5 wins each (the first to six wins won the match), one win away from the Crown. The effort had however exhausted Korchnoi. He played the decisive game badly and Karpov retained his world crown.

This was the pinacle of Korchnoi’s chess career. He won through to challenge Karpov again ( Merano, 1981) but Karpov then demonstrated a clear superiority. Korchnoi would retain an amazing strength in play until today, but his hopes of the world title were over.

Korchnoi’s style

In response to the question ‘Who was the greatest chess player?’, Saviely Tartakower answered ‘If chess is an art, Alekhine. If chess is a science, Capablanca. If chess is a struggle, Lasker’. Korchnoi’s favourite player and model has been Lasker.

Korchnoi is always seeking to set his opponent difficult problems. If necessary, he is happy to concede the initiative and embark on a difficult defence, winning many such defensive games. Kasparov describes quotes Korchnoi's style as ‘crooked’ and quotes 'Viktor Vasilev' -

'Korchnoi's style is Tal's style, as though turned inside out. Tal always strives to seize the initiative, whereas Korchnoi is ready to concede it without regret. Tal likes to attack, Korchnoi to defend. Tal plays especially confidently with White, Korchnoi with Black. Tal himself, half-joking, half seriously, calls his constant failures a protracted case of "Korchnoi fear", but the reason probably lies elsewhere. Apparently, Korchnoi's counterattacking style with its inexhaustible defensive resources and tenacious striving to upset the balance enables him to steadfastly withstand Tal's attacks.'

Korchnoi demonstrated a clear superiority over Mikhail Tal, World Champion 1960-61 –

‘It is well known that, for Tal, Korchnoi was the most difficult and awkward opponent – the only player in the world against whom, after becoming champion and even ex-champion of the world, he had not won a single game, while losing five with five draws! For many years afterwards too, the character of their chess relations did not change. Before their Candidates semi-final match in 1968 the score in their decisive games was 9-1 in Korchnoi’s favour, and after the match it became 11-2. And only towards the end of their chess rivalry, in the mid-1980s, did Tal manage to improve slightly on this catastrophic balance.

It was probably Korchnoi’s ‘crooked’ style that did not allow Tal to dictate matters in games with him, as when playing other opponents. Tal liked to sacrifice and seize the initiative, but this did not bother Korchnoi: he happily took ‘everything that was going’, defended tenaciously, and at the first opportunity launched a counterattack. And the main thing – he did not lose his head in the face of Tal’s fierce onslaught!’

Korchnoi’s achievement

Kasparov considers that Korchnoi is one of the very best annotators in the history of chess. ‘The key to understanding the Korchnoi phenomenon can be found in the annotations to his own games. What mercilessness with respect to himself, what forceful, objective evaluations! It is this ultra-critical approach to chess problems, developed from his youth, that enables Korchnoi to retain his clarity of thinking and to continue developing. In combination with robust health, this is the basis for chess longevity.’

Kasparov writes of Korchnoi’s enormous talent, his selfless love for chess, his hard work and his supreme professionalism. Of his many contributions to opening theory, not just in finding new moves, but in also in developing new systems viz in the French Defence, the English Opening, the Grünfeld Defence, the Tartakower Variation of the Queen’s Gambit and the Open Variation of the Spanish.


Kasparov’s book

In these pages I have criticised Korchnoi’s 1977 autobiography, Chess is my Life: Autobiography and Games (Batsford, London, 1977, English translation by Ken Neat) for its lack of deep analysis of chess games. This autogiography came out shortly before Korchnoi’s great match that year with Karpov, the ‘Battle of Baguio’.

This criticism cannot be levelled against Kasparov’s treatment of Korchnoi. Aided by Fritz, My Great Predecessors Part V presents analysis which will be deep enough for most readers and wasted, perhaps, on some; but Karparov’s enthusiasm to discover chessic ‘truth’ carries the reader along. The author’s great admiration for Korchnoi shines through and illuminates a notable contribution to chess literature.

My Great Predecessors Part V: Korchnoi and Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Gloucester Publishers (formerly Everyman Publishers), London, March 2006. English translation by Ken Neat.

Korchnoi will be signing his latest releases Chess is My Life, Korchnoi Best Games Vol 1 – White, Korchnoi Best Games Vol 2 – Black and Practical Rook Endings, 10am – 11.30am in the London Chess Centre, 369 Euston Rd NW1; nearest tubes. Warren Street and Great Portland St. For further details phone 0207 388 2404 or see –
http://www.chesscenter.com/korchnoi2006.html

[Concluded]

My Great Predecessors Part V: Korchnoi and Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Gloucester Publishers (formerly Everyman Publishers), London, March 2006. English translation by Ken Neat.

Editor James O'Fee writes - VIKTOR KORCHNOI, one of the giants of 20th Century chess, is visiting the London Chess Centre on Saturday 29 April (tomorrow), giving chess fans in this country a remarkable opportunity to meet one of the chess greats in person.

Korchnoi will be signing his latest releases Chess is My Life, Korchnoi Best Games Vol 1 – White, Korchnoi Best Games Vol 2 – Black and Practical Rook Endings 10am – 11.30am in the London Chess Centre, 369 Euston Rd NW1; telephone 0207 388 2404; nearest tubes, Warren Street and Great Portland St. For further details phone or see –
http://www.chesscenter.com/korchnoi2006.html

Co-incidentally, the latest in the series of books on chess history written by former World Chess Champion GARRY KASPAROV was published in March. This is PART V in his series and deals with the rivals Viktor Korchnoi and Anatoly Karpov, devoting roughly equal space to both. Here I shall review only the section dealing with Korchnoi, leaving that on Karpov till another day.

Former World Champion Garry Kasparov dominated the world of chess for a generation. Part I of his series My Great Predecessors appeared in 2003; the series has the ambitious goal of documenting play for the World Chess Championship (the ‘Classic’ Championship, as Kasparov has it) since its inception; covering, moreover, the chess careers of each of the World Champions and of the major Challengers for the Championship; with a depth of analysis, assisted by the chess program Fritz, which has rarely been attempted for popular books on chess.

Although Korchnoi challenged twice for the World Championship [1977 in Baguio, Phillipines, and 1981 in Merano, Italy] the Leningrad-born Grandmaster never won the ultimate prize. Some may be surprised, therefore, that Kasparov’s 199 pages on Korchnoi exceeds the space given to almost every previous World Champion viz. Steinitz (72), Lasker (108), Capablanca (115), Alekhine (117), Euwe (101), Smyslov (179), Tal (94), Petrosian (174), Spassky (146), even the mighty Botvinnik (151). To only Fischer has Kasparov devoted more space (285 pages).

Certainly Korchnoi has enjoyed a long career. In a recent issue of The Spectator, Ray Keene, host of this page, wrote that Korchnoi has set various records for longevity of élite chess performance, only be rivalled or surpassed by the two World Chess Champions EMANUEL LASKER (1868-1941, World Champion 1894-1921) and VASILY SMYSLOV (born 1921, World Champion 1957-8). Viktor ‘the Terrible’ (as he was known) was one of the world’s leading players from about 1960, ranked third after Fischer and Spassky from about 1967 to 1975, second to Karpov from about 1975 to 1980 (according to the Oxford Companion to Chess, Hooper & Whyld, 1984).

Victor Lvovovich Korchnoi was born in 1931 of a Polish father and a Jewish mother. His parents split fairly early and his father’s relations brought the child up. During the siege of Leningrad the young boy suffered great hardship. Advised that he was too frail for the rigours of a chess career, he took to eating porridge to strengthen his constitution!

Korchnoi won the Soviet Championship in 1960, 1962-3, 1964-5 and 1970. Then he played Karpov in the Candidates’ Final in 1974.

This was Korchnoi first great chance to win the World Crown, since the mercurial Bobby Fischer afterwards failed to defend his World Crown, losing it by default to the winner of the Korchnoi-Karpov match. In this great crisis of his life, Korchnoi’s character came into play. Contrary to popular belief, chess is not a game of pure logic; emotion and character has a great influence, which is particularly important at the Chess Olympus, the matches for the World Championship.

Bobby Fischer’s emergence in the 1960s to pose a genuine threat to the Soviet hold on the Crown had shocked the Soviet chess establishment. For Fischer’s match with Boris Spassky in 1972, the Soviet establishment enlisted every major Soviet grandmaster to assist Spassky’s preparation. Yet Spassy failed and Fischer became the Chess King.

The Soviet press had noticed that Bobby Fischer (b. 1943) was a generation younger than his Soviet rivals – until the emergence of a new Soviet hopeful, Anatoly Karpov (b. 1951). Karpov had a further advantage over Korchnoi, since he was a pure Russian, of the ‘working-class’, from the Urals. Whereas Korchnoi was part-Jewish, an ‘intellectual’ (his father had been a teacher), and from the dangerous ‘cosmopolitan’ city of Leningrad.

The chess establishment threw its weight behind Karpov. Korchnoi wanted to play anywhere but Moscow. The match took place in Moscow. The main Soviet grandmasters were enlisted to help Karpov. In an extremely close and keenly-contested match, Karpov defeated Viktor the Terrible by the score +3 –2 = 19. Since Fischer skulked in his tent and refused to defend his title, Anatoly Karpov became the 12th World chess Champion without having to push a pawn against Bobby Fischer.

In examining Viktor Korchnoi’s response to the new situation, we must consider his fiery and emotional character; but I shall leave this discussion till tomorrow. Then you will be able to read my comments on the remainer of Korchnoi’s career, and still have time to meet Viktor the Terrible in person at his book-signing at the London Chess Centre between 10.30 am and 12 midday.

[More tomorrow]

Editor JAMES O’FEE writes –

In his latest book MY GREAT PREDECESSORS PART V: Korchnoi and Karpov, GARRY KASPAROV writes (if indeed it is Kasparov – the book is written ‘with the participation of Dmitri Plisetsy’) -

‘It is well known that, for Tal, Korchnoi was the most difficult and awkward opponent – the only player in the world against whom, after becoming champion and even ex-champion of the world, he had not won a single game, while losing five with five draws! For many years afterwards too, the character of their chess relations did not change. Before their Candidates semi-final match in 1968 the score in their decisive games was 9-1 in Korchnoi’s favour, and after the match it became 11-2. And only towards the end of their chess rivalry, in the mid-1980s, did Tal manage to improve slightly on this catastrophic balance.

It was probably Korchnoi’s ‘crooked’ style that did not allow Tal to dictate matters in games with him, as when playing other opponents. Tal liked to sacrifice and seize the initiative, but this did not bother Korchnoi: he happily took ‘everything that was going’, defended tenaciously, and at the first opportunity launched a counterattack. And the main thing – he did not lose his head in the face of Tal’s fierce onslaught!'

RAY KEENE comments - I THINK KASPAROV DEFINITELY WROTE THE STUFF ABOUT KORCHNOI-HIS ASSISTANT IS THERE TO CHECK THE VARIATIONS WITH FRITZ PRIMARILY-OR PERHAPS TO WRITE UP STUFF KASPAROV DICTATES AND POLISH IT.

Kasparov adds -

'This is how Viktor Vasiliev characterised the two chess antipodes,

[Sorry, I do not know who 'Viktor Vasilev' is, but it's not Korchnoi -Ed]

- 'Korchnoi's style is Tal's style, as though turned inside out. Tal always strives to seize the initiative, whereas Korchnoi is ready to concede it without regret. Tal likes to attack, Korchnoi to defend. Tal plays especially confidently with White, Korchnoi with Black. Tal himself, half-joking, half seriously, calls his constant failures a protracted case of "Korchnoi fear", but the reason probably lies elsewhere. Apparently, Korchnoi's counterattacking style with its inexhaustible defensive resources and tenacious striving to upset the balance enables him to steadfastly withstand Tal's attacks.'

Editor JAMES O’FEE writes -

VIKTOR KORCHNOI, one of the giants of 20th Century chess, is visiting the London Chess Centre on 29 April, giving chess fans in this country a remarkable opportunity to meet one of the chess greats in person. For details see –

http://www.chesscenter.com/korchnoi2006.html

In my library I have a copy of Korchnoi’s autobiography CHESS IS MY LIFE (1977), a title stolen from him, along with many other indignities, by his great rival ANATOLY KARPOV for his own book (1980). Korchnoi’s book had the score of 75 games; but many of these lacked a detailed analysis. And of those that do carry analysis, I notice that the last one, Game 75, is analysed by Korchnoi’s Second – Ray Keene! Perhaps the new books of his games, as announced by the London Chess Centre, divided now into two books of games with white and games with black, will have more of Korchnoi's analysis of his own games.

In the current issue of THE SPECTATOR, RAY KEENE, host of this page, writes that Korchnoi has set various records for longevity of élite chess performance, which can only be rivalled or surpassed by the two World Chess Champions EMANUEL LASKER (1868-1941, World Champion 1894-1921) and VASILY SMYSLOV (born 1921, World Champion 1957-8). For Keene’s full column see –

http://www.spectator.co.uk/chess/2006-04-15.pdf

or buy the magazine.

Co-incidentally, the latest in the series of books on chess history written by former World Chess Champion GARRY KASPAROV has just arrived on my doormat. This if PART V (March 2006) and deals with the rivals Viktor Korchnoi and Anatoly Karpov.

Although Korchnoi challenged Karpov twice for the World Champion, in 1977 (Baguio, Phillipines) and Merano/Meran (1981), Korchnoi never achieved the final goal. It surprised me, therefore, that Kasparov has devoted 199 pages to Korchnoi, over twice the 94 pages that he devoted to MIKHAIL TAL, World Champion 1960-1961. Does this mean that Kasparov considers that Korchnoi is twice as important to the history of chess as ‘the Magician of Riga’?

It is instructive to compare the career of the two Soviet Grandmasters, who, nonetheless, were in some sense both outsiders to the Soviet Chess establishment. Mikhail Tal was born in 1936 of Jewish blood in Riga, Latvia. Tal’s career blazed like a meteor; he played adventurous, sacrificial chess like no-one else before or since. Tal won the Soviet Championship in 1957 at the age of 20 and went on to win the World Crown in 1960. Illness, sadly, affected Tal all his life and played a major role in his loss of the World Crown in 1961. Tal, ‘the Magician of Riga’, died in 1992.

Korchnoi’s career may be compared, rather, to that of a multi-stage rocket, taking time to reach each level, but having endurance. Korchnoi, also of Jewish blood, was born in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) in 1931 – he was several years older than Tal. Rather than attack, Korchnoi is known more for his originality, accuracy and resourcefulness in defence.

Korchnoi won the Soviet Championship in 1960, 1962-3, 1964-5 and 1970. He played Karpov in the Candidates’ Final in 1974. Karpov won and so became World Champion by default, since Bobby Fischer failed to defend his World Crown.

In 1976 Korchnoi became the first Soviet Grandmaster to defect to the West, receiving the enduring enmity of the Soviet Chess establishment. After that the Soviet establishment would employ every trick in the book, and quite a few outside it, to damage Korchnoi and to retain the World Champioship for the Soviet Union in the person of Karpov.

Nonetheless, Korchnoi won through to challenge Karpov for the World Championship in 1977 and 1981. Despite the disparity in resources available to him, his challenge in 1977 was a formidable one. Korchnoi has lived to see the demise of the Soviet Union, his great enemy, and has maintained exceptional playing strength.

I have seen Korchnoi in the flesh twice. The first time was around 1980, when Korchnoi was at the height of his powers. SAM LIVINGSTONE, from Newtownards, brought Korchnoi to Northern Ireland for a simultaneous display. Korchnoi played 30 boards and there was immense enthusiasm for the appearance of the Grandmaster. The room was jammed full and I had to squeeze my head over the shoulders of others just to get a peek.

Then at the Kasparov-Short World Championship in London, I gained access into the Grandmasters’ room, with Korchnoi and several other GMs. So I passed only a few inches from this legendary figure.

God willing, I shall write a fuller review of Kasparov’s latest book MY GREAT PREDECESSORS PART V: Korchnoi and Karpov, when I have had time to read it more fully.