From end of 20th century
Over the last 40 years, chess world is being blessed (or cursed, depends) with K vs K battles. In 70s we have Korchnoi vs Karpov, in 80s Karpov vs Kasparov, in 90s its Kasparov vs Kramnik,
...to the beginning of 21st century
Move over to 21st century the K vs K battle spilled out of the chess
board...we have Kirsan vs Karpov and now it is Kirsan vs Kasparov. Now the stake is higher, instead of to determine who is the champion of 64 squares, now it is to determine who is the champion of 196 countries.
In all of these battles (with exception of Kasparov vs Kramnik), challengers always lost on their first encounters, challengers are also always facing an uphill, unfair task of fighting the champion. Who could forget what Korchnoi faced when playing against Karpov in 1978 (his family is still in Soviet Union then), or what Kasparov faced when playing against Karpov in 1984 (FIDE stop the match when Karpov starts losing game after game).
Now i believed Kasparov is also facing an uphill task to beat Kirsan. This syndrome of unfair treatment to chess challenger is well rooted in chess tradition. No surprise here, aren't we are not the only sports that set up the weird conditions to suppress challenger ? (Equal points-champion keep the title...challenger needs to win extra game to be a champion...challenger needs to win hundred of battles before 'qualified' to challenge champion...and the list goes on)
Hmm, strange to think that chess as an intellectual games comes up with all these non intellectual, nonsense rules... and chess as a game that supported fairness (both black and white pieces carry the same height, weight and speed, each player can moved equal number of moves etc), suddenly in the biggest chess battle, unfairness can be seems everywhere.
So true is what Orwell said in Animal Farm. "All animals are equals but some animals are more equal than others"
Kirsan got the advantage no doubt about it. If these are an hypothecal chess match, i put Kasparov's rating at 2850 and Kirsan at 2820 BUT...Kirsan is a defending champion and Kasparov needs to win that extra game (assume this is old rule) to clinch victory, and Kirsan is well supported by the best seconds and best super computers, and it is played at Kirsan's country.
But still i am supporting Kasparov...but with my unenviable track record of always support person who later lost tragically ( i supported Zuhri for MCF President...and also supported Hamid Majid for FIDE General Secretary, i supported Spain in World Cup ...and psst, i also supported Dyana Sofya...), not sure whether Kasparov's Team appreciate my support...
ALL THE BEST KASPAROV!
MASUM 2017 - Part 1
2 days ago