On Apr 26, 5:28 pm, "parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Now we come to the crux of the matter. Despite good-faith efforts and
> even the challenger's apparent folly, Kasparov is not absolved from
> his pledge to give ****rov a title shot for $2 million as announced to
> the world at Linares in 1998. Kasparov put his trust in a person who
> proved unreliable, but he also put his credibility and prestige behind
> the WCC (which went the way of his GMA and PCA). These facts can't be
> evaded. It turned out, perhaps, that he unwittingly treated himself
> more shabbily than he did ****rov.
>
> I still believe Kasparov has a debt of s****ting honor to play ****rov.
> If he should do so, you can rely on me to celebrate in bold type and
> capital letters. As it stands, however, ****rov never got paid for
> beating Kramnik or a title shot -- both are Kasparov's obligation.
Sorry, but I disagree with your analysis.
Garry Kasparov did not refuse to play a match with ****rov. Kasparov
was ready and willing to play. ****rov refused to play because he
wanted more money.
One of the reasons more money was not available was that Kasparov had
easily beaten ****rov many times and ****rov had never beaten Kasparov.
Nobody gave ****rov any chance at all to beat Kasparov in a match.
Thus, sponsors were unwilling to put up much money for such a match.
None of this was any fault of Kasparov.
The prize fund being offered ****rov was generous in spite of these
problems. I believe that the amount offered was $250,000. This is more
than the amount initially offered for the Kamsky Tapolov Match more
than ten years later. ****rov was a fool not to take the $250,000.
The claim that Kasparov had a moral obligation to pay ****rov out of
his own pocket has no basis.
Sam Sloan
|
