Meanwhile, the technical details of the four utterly different positions were being honed. Not that we really expected to get our preparation in, in full ­ after all (normal) chess opening theory has been developing for centuries and continues to be in flux. But we developed quite detailed outline strategies for the four games and, indeed, not only did the first three games turn out to be remarkably similar to what we had expected, but Kasparov later paid us the indirect compliment of muttering darkly about his “amateur opponent having had professional preparation”.And so to the day of battle itself. Play commenced at noon on Saturday in Simpson’s-in-the-Strand.

Simpson’s was appropriate above all for its historical connections with chess, which was first played on the site in 1828 when it was known as Mr Samuel Reiss’s Grand Cigar Divan. Myriad “odds games” were surely played in what later became Simpson’s over the course of the 19th century. But the restaurant is still best known for arguably the most famous chess game of all time which took place in 1851 prior to the great London tournament of that same year. In the so-called “Immortal Game”, the German maths teacher Adolf Anderssen checkmated the Polish-German Lionel Kieseritzky after sacrificing, astonishingly, both his rooks and his queen.While we were certainly not expecting anything as brilliant or chaotic as the “Immortal Game”, there was nevertheless great expectation when they kicked off. Great though Kasparov is, two pawns is considerable odds (especially if one is a centre pawn). And of all the many brilliant victories at odds published over the years, few if any of the odds takers can have had anything like Chapman’s level of competence.So it was far from clear, even to me, what chances our man had. And although the public appeared to be betting most on 4-0 to Kasparov, he himself had, just a few days earlier, declared that: “When I worked out the handicap with Terry Chapman, the objective was to try and make us absolutely even…

In retrospect, I was over-generous, and if I were setting the odds, I believe that Chapman would be the 2-to-1 favourite.”In combat, you should take everything the enemy says with a pinch of salt. But in this case, I thought that Garry was being fairly straightforward. And so while I was naturally somewhat apprehensive about this first game, I was also fairly hopeful.Although Chapman got a good opening, Kasparov managed to create some uncertainty with a cunning pawn advance. Chapman still remained with the advantage, even after a slight concession to force the exchange of those most dangerous of attacking pieces, the queens; and he wisely returned one of the two extra pawns to keep some measure of control. Even after Kasparov regained the other pawn, the position remained favourable to Chapman but he got dangerously short of time, blundered on successive moves and lost.I have no clear recollection of what far-from-magical words John Nunn and I said to Terry in the interim. But Chapman showed great strength of character to fight his way to a draw in the second game on Saturday afternoon. And then, in the third game, on Sunday morning, Chapman went one better still At first, it didn’t look too promising.