In my opinion, the fourth match between Karpov and Kasparov, held in Seville, 1987, was one of the most dramatic matches in chess history.

After the controversial 1984 match, Kasparov managed to beat Karpov twice in their 1985 “repeat” match which earned him the title, and in the 1986 return-match (which Karpov earned on the basis of the clause included in the conditions of the 1985 match).

However, only a year later, in 1987, Karpov earned an opportunity for yet another match. Karpov’s path toward the World Championship final was rather controversial.

First of all, the 1986 rematch had disrupted the normal flow of the World Championship cycles. However, FIDE stuck to its original intention of organizing new a World Championship in 1987, despite the fact that Kasparov would have to defend his title for the second year in succession. Thus, the Interzonal tournaments, which were an integral part of the qualifying cycle, were organized back in 1985.

Also, despite losing the title, Karpov continued to behave like the champion and FIDE continued to endorse such behavior. Thus, Karpov was seeded directly in the final of the Candidates cycle. There he met Andrei Sokolov, who had to qualify via Interzonal, win one of the first four places in the Candidates tournaments and then win two Candidates matches. In the final he presented no match for the fresh and rested Karpov and he was never the same after this loss — his career went as downhill as quickly as he had risen to the top.

In any case, having to face Karpov for the fourth time presented an enormous psychological difficulty for Kasparov. He has written extensively about his mental state in his book about this particular match (Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess, Part Three). Long story short, he had already felt that he had beaten Karpov and that he didn’t present a serious threat. Thus, he was unable to mobilize completely for this match, where he faced a highly motivated Karpov who still believed he had legitimate chances to win his title back.

(Kasparov also speculates that Mikhail Tal faced same psychological problems back in 1961 during his rematch against Mikhail Botvinnik. It is remarkable to read such insight from the very top).

The match showed that Kasparov was definitely not in his best form:

• In the 2nd game, after employing a strong novelty in the English Opening, he was rattled by Karpov’s response, and thought 93 minutes (!!) over a single move. In the complicated, typical Kasparov positions, he was completely outplayed and lost.
• After his win in the 11th game, when he took the lead for the first time, Kasparov himself admitted that he relaxed even further; he considered that the match was virtually over.
• In the 16th game, which he considered as “his lawful game” (remember the octopus game of the 1985 match, or the brilliant sacrificial win in the 1986 match), Kasparov played over-aggressively, and was beaten quite convincingly. After this he admitted that he dreamt of reaching the end of the match and started making draws, intending to win the match with the help of the 12–12 rule. Thus he started playing quietly and passively.

However, the end of the match would turn out to be everything but quiet and passive. The 23rd game was adjourned in a slightly favourable position for Karpov. Then, Kasparov made an inexplicable blunder, which led to an immediate loss.

The video of the end of the game can be seen here. Kasparov has just made the fatal 50…Rf73?? and Karpov refuted it with the help of the intermezzo 53 Bh6!!

Thus, one game before the end, Karpov took the lead. Kasparov found himself in a desperate situation - having to win the last game against a tough to beat opponent. The World Champion won the final game to order only on one instance before - Lasker won against Schlechter back in 1910.

Kasparov’s words are very interesting here:

“I can look back at my chess career and pick out more than a few crisis points, but only one Mount Everest. I would like to share the tale to investigate the means I used in winning the most important game of my life. ... After a tough, prolonged defense I suffered one of the worst hallucinations of my career and blundered to a loss in game 23. Suddenly, Karpov was up by a point and was only a draw away from taking back the crown he had lost to me two years earlier. The very next day after this catastrophe, I had to take the white pieces into a must-win game 24. Caissa, the goddess of chess, had punished me for my conservative play, for betraying my nature. I would not be allowed to hold on to my title without winning a game in the second half of the match. Only once before in chess history had the champion won a final game to retain his title. With his back against the wall, Emanuel Lasker beat Carl Schlechter in the last game of their match in 1910. The win allowed Lasker to draw the match and keep his title for a further eleven years. The Austrian Schlechter had, like Karpov, a reputation as a defensive wizard. In fact, his uncharacteristically aggressive play in the final game against Lasker has led some historians to believe that the rules of that particular match required him to win by two points. When preparing for my turn on the other side of this situation, I recalled that critical encounter. What strategy should I employ with the white pieces in this must-win final game? There was more to think about than game 23 and game 24, of course. These were also games 119 and 120 between us, an extraordinary number of top-level encounters between the same two players, all played in a span of thirty-nine months. It felt like one long match, with this final game in December, 1987, the climax of what we had started in September 1984. My plan for the final game had to consider not only what I would like best but what my opponent would like least. And what could be more annoying for Karpov than my turning the tables and playing like Karpov?"

Amazingly, Kasparov managed to adjourn the game in a position where he was a pawn up. In the end he managed to convert his advantage and salvage his title.

The reaction of the audience was also noteworthy:

“ It was without question the loudest and longest standing ovation I had ever received outside my native country.”

The video of the final moments of the 24th game:

Karpov also deserves praise for the fact that he immediately started analyzing after such a tough loss. A worthy competitor and in my opinion the second best player in chess history.

Footnotes