New In Chess 2014#4, page 9.
The latter above intrigued me when I read it in the last New In Chess - and not just me, either, judging from a comment on the blog last week. I've asked before but not yet had any response. So does anybody have any clue what this is about?
[Nigel Short index]
10 comments:
Did anyone ever know who owned the PCA and where it was legally constituted? It could just have been a private business venture with shared ownership between Kasparov and Short.
I'm not sure what you would expect to see in the accounts of such a match that was untoward. The BCF published accounts for the London part of 1986 match, but then it was expecting English chess players to pay for the resulting deficit. Otherwise it wouldn't be and isn't normal practice.
RdC
I'm not sure what you would expect to see in the accounts of such a match that was untoward.
Me neither, but then again that's one of the reasons why I'm asking.
The BCF published accounts for the London part of 1986 match, but then it was expecting English chess players to pay for the resulting deficit.
That deficit was an interesting tale in itself, wasn't it? What happened to those agreements in the end?
Yes, will be interesting to see if Short bites for his next column. One could hypothesise all sorts of stuff was taken out as expenses, or the thing was way over budget. But I am just speculating, as I have not heard this anywhere - but from his tone Roycroft seems to think something is amiss. My main memory of the event is how initially they were way too optimistic with the ticket pricing, and had to slash the prices just before the start.
As for the games my recollection is how Short completely outplayed Kasparov many times with white out of the opening, only to botch it up later on (was it in one of these botches Keene started prematurely humming the national anthem live on channel 4?) I thought this showed it very likely Fischer would have convincingly won a match against Kasparov.
I think the main shock from the account could be the pitiful prize money the players had to compete for - allegedly significantly less that the Manchester bid. According to reports at the time from the players' camps, the players had to accept big cuts (at around the time of the cuts in the ticket prices from 45 to 10 pounds) or have Murdoch cancel the match sponsorship altogether.
Wouldn't we have expected Nigel to complain about it by now if such were the case?
normally yes, but (if true) this would have been a mess of his own making and very embarrassing for him.
It would be surprising (if true) that Dominic Lawson never picked it up though - and I am sure he would have published it if he had discovered it.
I think for something like a big cut in the prize fund the non Murdoch press would have been all over it. In Lawson's book, he mentions The Times wanting to financially help Short with a new second when he was getting pummelled (which he refused)... maybe there is something similar to that. But it would seem from the timing of this curious letter the interest could be on the Kasparov side....Lawson himself writes about Kasparov gesticulating about pulling money out of drawers ("Where's the cash Campo" if I recall)
Presumably when the prize fund was cut by Murdoch or his representatives, a non-disclosure clause would have been added, on pain of the loss of even the modest prize fund. Certainly that was the modus operandi for early phone hacking victims.
Entertaining while these speculations are, there is as far as I'm aware no evidence at all for any of them...
Don't forget who was one of Kasparov's seconds.
http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/93ks$$.htm
RdC
Post a Comment