Kasparov

Garry Kasparov, born in Baku in 1963, was World Champion from 1985 to 2000 and one of the players who most influenced modern preparation. His career brings together the long rivalry with Anatoly Karpov, exceptional consistency at the highest level, and the matches against Deep Blue. His games also offer something more concrete than records: they show how piece activity becomes threats, how to sustain an initiative, and how to adjust a plan when an opponent finds a defence.

From Baku to the world title challenge

Kasparov developed within the Soviet system and attended Mikhail Botvinnik's school. Analysing one's own games, preparing an opening repertoire, and working systematically were part of that education. His early talent did not replace hard work. He won the World Junior Championship in 1980 and was already competing successfully against leading adult players before turning twenty.

The 1982 Moscow Interzonal opened his route to the crown. In the Candidates matches he defeated Alexander Beliavsky, Viktor Korchnoi, and Vasily Smyslov. They differed greatly in style and experience. That sequence matters because a title challenger had to solve different problems over many months, prepare for each opponent, and recover from surprises, as well as produce excellent individual games.

Karpov and learning to resist

The first match with Karpov, which began in 1984, was played to six wins with no overall game limit. Karpov led by five wins to none. Kasparov prolonged the contest and narrowed the margin to five wins against three before FIDE ended it without a result after 48 games. The cancellation remains a controversial episode in championship history; it was not a competitive victory for either player.

The new match in 1985 had a maximum of 24 games. Kasparov won 13-11 and, at 22, became the youngest World Champion up to that time. Winning required more than a stronger attack. He had learned to endure uncomfortable positions, judge when to complicate the game, and challenge Karpov in strategic territory where he had initially seemed less secure.

The rivalry continued through title defences in 1986, 1987, and 1990. In Seville in 1987 Kasparov had to win the last game. He did so, tied the score at 12-12, and retained the crown under the rules. The finish illustrates an essential feature of match play: an objectively equal position can demand very different decisions depending on who must win and who can settle for a draw.

What defines his chess

Kasparov sought positions where his pieces could work together and his opponent faced concrete problems. The initiative does not simply mean moving first or attacking the king on every turn. It means asking questions: threatening a central break, placing a piece on a strong square, or creating two targets that cannot easily be defended together. An opponent busy answering those threats has less time to pursue a separate plan.

Opening preparation enabled him to reach such positions with advance knowledge of their ideas and many variations. He worked with teams of analysts and embraced databases and computer tools early. Memorised sequences alone do not explain his strength, however. Preparation becomes useful when a player understands the resulting structure, which pieces should be exchanged, and what risk is justified if the opponent departs from known play.

The Sicilian Defence and King's Indian Defence were prominent in his repertoire with Black. Both can produce unbalanced positions, but imbalance is a means rather than a guarantee of an attack. Extra space on one wing may come with weaknesses elsewhere. To study his style, follow those exchanges of advantages and identify the concrete compensation for each concession, rather than reading every pawn advance as automatic aggression.

Game 16 against Karpov in 1985 is a representative example. Kasparov gave up a pawn and established a knight on d3 that severely restricted White's coordination. The lesson extends beyond the famous knight: the other pieces and pawn breaks exploited the restrictions it created. Counting material without considering available squares and freedom of movement would have given an incomplete assessment.

A champion during the title split

In 1993 Kasparov and Nigel Short played their match outside FIDE. The break created two World Championship lines. Kasparov defeated Short and defended his title against Viswanathan Anand in 1995. Accounts of this period must distinguish Kasparov's crown from the championship organised by FIDE. Both existed, and overlooking the division makes the careers of champions and challengers difficult to follow.

In London in 2000, Vladimir Kramnik defeated him and ended his reign. Kramnik's Berlin Defence became a symbol of the match. By directing several openings into queenless positions, he reduced Kasparov's opportunities to apply the kind of pressure he preferred. The defeat illustrates a practical principle: match preparation includes choosing problems that trouble the opponent, even when those positions are less spectacular for spectators.

Kasparov continued winning tournaments after losing the title and retired from professional competition in 2005 while still at the top of the rating list. His importance therefore cannot be measured solely by his championship dates. A title match is a particular event; consistency against many opponents over years provides a different measure of competitive strength.

Deep Blue and computer analysis

Kasparov won the 1996 match against Deep Blue 4-2 despite losing its first game. IBM's system won the 1997 rematch 3.5-2.5. It was the first computer victory over a reigning World Champion in a match under standard tournament controls. The article on Kasparov and Deep Blue in 1997 explains that result's context.

The milestone did not mean chess was solved or that a computer thought like a person. Engines calculate and evaluate positions through processes different from a player's conscious experience. For learners, their usefulness increases when checking variations is combined with a human explanation: knowing that a move is better does not establish what threat it prevents or why a piece needs a different square.

Games, books, and legacy

His victory over Veselin Topalov at Wijk aan Zee in 1999 provides an introduction to his tactical imagination. The rook offer 24.Rxd4 launched a hunt for the black king and made the game one of the most studied of his career. When replaying it, distinguish the sacrifice's idea, the reply actually played, and alternative defences. A celebrated combination does not mean every losing reply was forced or that its winner saw every branch.

Kasparov also turned analysis into an extensive body of writing. My Great Predecessors explores earlier champions through annotated games; Modern Chess examines changes in elite practice and his rivalry with Karpov; his autobiographical collections allow readers to compare thoughts during a game with later revisions. These demanding works become more accessible when readers first follow the plans, then examine the variations that test them.

Outside competition he developed educational and political activities and wrote about the relationship between people and technology. This context belongs to his biography, though studying his chess does not require sharing his views. A useful way to approach his technical legacy is to look beyond the celebrated sacrifice: first examine which pieces were already active, which defenders were far away, and which earlier decision made the combination possible. A Kasparov game then becomes more than a distant display of brilliance. It explains how an opportunity is built.

Annotated games

• Kasparov versus Topalov, 1999
• Kasparov-Deep Blue 1997
• Karpov-Kasparov 1984