With a unified chess world, Kasparov might have been able to put the screws to IBM for a more "fair" match
I'm not up on the details of FIDE vs PCA. However, Wikipedia [1] claims that Kasparov created PCA. So he was actually responsible for the rift. But you're claiming this rift hurt his leverage?
He was the PCA champ, FIDE had their own champ (or might threaten to, I can't remember). IBM is about to throw a boatload of cash in hyping the event.
From my perspective it would seem anyone claiming to be champion would be under pressure to play or risk having the other league's champion be hyped as the best player in the world by IBM.
I think without the split that Kasparov may have been able to dictate more firm terms. Examples such as requiring previous play by the computer, 3rd party auditing, release of logs afterward, etc...
Comments
I'm not up on the details of FIDE vs PCA. However, Wikipedia [1] claims that Kasparov created PCA. So he was actually responsible for the rift. But you're claiming this rift hurt his leverage?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Chess_Association
He was the PCA champ, FIDE had their own champ (or might threaten to, I can't remember). IBM is about to throw a boatload of cash in hyping the event.
From my perspective it would seem anyone claiming to be champion would be under pressure to play or risk having the other league's champion be hyped as the best player in the world by IBM.
I think without the split that Kasparov may have been able to dictate more firm terms. Examples such as requiring previous play by the computer, 3rd party auditing, release of logs afterward, etc...