Talk:World Chess Championship 1984–1985

Combine with 1985 match?
I wonder whether this article should be renamed to World Chess Championship 1984-1985 and include the 1985 match.

Pros:
 * It solves the problem of allocating a winner to the 1984 match in other places such as Template:World Chess Championships. (Then again I've just altered the template to create another solution).
 * The two matches were part of the same cycle. (Then again so were the 1958, 1961 and 1986 rematches).
 * The 1984 match was unfinished, so it's not the same as the rematches in 1958, 1961 and 1986.
 * The 1984 match actually went into 1985, so merging the articles prevents messy naming.

Cons:
 * Some (most?) sources speak of them as separate matches, e.g. Mark Weeks' chess pages and Raymond Keene's book on the 1986 match both number the 1984, 1985 and 1986 matches as the first, second and third Karpov-Kasparov matches respectively.

Peter Ballard (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'd keep them separate. In addition to the con that you mention (most sources consider the matches separate), there's also the issue of length.  This article could (and should) be expanded substantially.  The Candidates Matches are discussed only very briefly, and we don't even list the cities for most of the matches.  There's essentially no discussion of the individual games in the championship, which makes sense for most of the draws but not the decisive games and a few near misses.  Also, there's a lot more to be said (based on good sources) about the extremely controversial termination of the match.  I don't generally advocate creating little articles in the anticipation that some day they may be too large if they had instead been kept together (write the main article first, split later as needed is a better policy), but here we have an extremely natural division and the article is already separate and not that small even in its current incomplete state.  This may seem to be (or maybe just is) inconsistent with my opinion that Interregnum of World Chess Champions should be merged into World Chess Championship 1948, but I tried to explain the reasons for that suggestion at Talk:Interregnum of World Chess Champions.  Quale (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of the match?
Wouldn't it be useful to state how long the match took in time? The article only mentions the 48 games, and it's unclear for readers unfamiliar with chess tournaments if they happened in a day, a week or half a year.

This is especially interesting to interpret the claim that Karpov had lost 10 kg during the match and to understand how critical was the decision to stop it.

(I have only elementary knowledge of chess and very vague knowledge of chess tournaments. I can imagine world championship games taking less than half an hour or a few days (as in the case of Go), which can take the match anywhere between 16 hours and six months.) bogdanb (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point! The match lasted about 5 months. I'll add this to the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lies in article
This is a very bad article - perpetuating the myths and lies surrounding this championship match. Read for example what is written on Edward Winter's Chess notes. Kasparov asked for the match to be abandoned - so how could he then be extremely resentful of Campomanes decision? Abandoning the match improved his chances of winning. A real, reliable, citation is needed for the weight loss and health claims. I have ever heard of Mark Weeks and have no idea why his website is being used as a reliable source.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) For example http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/child.html or http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fidefacts.html

Where was the match played?
The article does not mention any city/venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.74.37 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Keene's new article regarding this match
If anyone has time, please incorporate this piece into the article.

https://www.thearticle.com/chess-two-cases-of-cancel-culture

Kingturtle = (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Karpov says 6-0 would have destroyed Kasparov?
I know it is cited, but it seems nonsense to me. If Kasparov was liable to be "psychologically destroyed" by a 6-0 loss, surely he would have folded when he was down 4-0 after 9 games, or when he was eventually down 5-0. It would be good to get a response from Kasparov or one of his defenders. Adpete (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have added a quote by Raymond Keene as a balance. It does not directly answer the question on what would have happened if Karpov had won 6-0. But in my opinion, Karpov is such a partisan source on this, that we have to add something. Adpete (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thinking more, the problem is that no one else has reacted to Karpov's claim. If some - or even one! - leading player or commentator reacted to Karpov's comment, it would be notable. But no one has commented on it, so why should we? And the problem is that Karpov is a very biased source, when it comes to Kasparov and on this match. For sure include his comments on this match. But his crystal-ball gazing on how the match would have affected Kasparov: I think his opinion is of little value unless other commentators comment on it, especially since it promotes his own legacy (if Kasparov had never became WC, Karpov probably would have remained WC until at least 1993).


 * So I will probably remove it (and the Keene comemnt) altogether. Adpete (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to 1984–1985
I've moved the page, following concerns in the first section here, but kept it about KK1 alone.

I had a couple of reasons for doing this. Firstly, the match incontrovertibly went on over two years, so "World Chess Championship 1984" by itself may raise questions. It may have appeared in some branding, but choosing a year gets a bit difficult for the other year-crossing matches 1890-1 and 1896-7 where it's harder to tell what was official or if that's a sensible notion for that era. I'd like those to be handled in some way that seems consistent, which is why I reverted the move back to 1984 (since 1890-1 and 1896-7 weren't also moved back).

And secondly, giving both years seems to be a normal way to refer to the match in hindsight, e.g. chessgames.com, The Guardian, and Jan Timman's book on the five Karpov-Kasparov matches. It's "1984-85" or "1984/85" in some of these, but MOS:DATERANGE mandates "1984–1985" anyway. Double sharp (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss it here on the talk page. Double sharp (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I support the change to 1984–85, for consistency and MOS reasons above. I've noticed this before, but just been too lazy to change it :) Adpete (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Should Bobby Fischer's pre-arrangement opinion be omitted?
I mean it wasn't omitted for the 1962 candidates... Thewriter006 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)