Schach Praline Pos1

Schach Praline Pos1
Kann Weiß gewinnen ???

Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011

Lasker und Tarrasch “Die Erzrivalen”

 
 

Diese Nachricht wurde Ihnen von boesian via Google Reader gesendet.

 
 

via Schach und Kultur von Frank Mayer am 26.06.11

gemalt von Elke Rehder

Im Jahre 1908 klopfte eine neue Herausforderung an die Tür

von Dr. Emanuel Lasker, um ihm die königliche Schachkrone

zu entreissen.

Es handelte sich hierbei um seinen Erzrivalen

Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch:

Foto chessgames.com

 

Dieses Mal konnte Lasker die Herausforderung nicht ablehnen,

da es Dr. Tarrasch war, der ihm den Handschuh hinwarf und mit dem er eine erklärte Feindschaft pflegte.

Beide Spieler hatten eine ganz unterschiedliche Auffassung über das Konzept "Schach".

Gemalt von Elke Rehder

Ausserdem hatte sich Dr. Tarrasch mehrfach abfällig über den Weltmeister

Dr. Emanuel Lasker geäussert.

Foto: browsebiography.com

 

Der Hochmut Tarrasch's verhinderte ein match gegen Lasker

im Jahre 1892, da er der Ansicht war, dass der Gegner zu minderwertig für ihn sei.

Diese Absage verursachte eine starke Feindseligkeit zwischen beiden.

Die Abneigung von Tarrasch war tief verwurzelt, und die Organisation des Wettkampfes versuchte zu vermitteln und vereinbarte ein Treffen.

Lasker sass ruhig in einem Sessel des Empfangsraumes und Tarrasch erschien in der Eingangstür, machte eine kurze Verbeugung und sprach:

"Für Sie, Herr Lasker, habe ich nur zwei Worte:

Schach matt!"


Gemalt von Elke Rehder

 

Danach verneigte er sich noch einmal kurz und verschwand wieder…..

Mit dieser Geste und den Worten gab er zu verstehen, dass es einen erbitterten Kampf geben werde.

Dr. Emanuel Lasker revanchierte sich mit einem klaren Sieg:

World Chess Championship
1908 Lasker – Tarrasch Title Match

Duesseldorf/Munich, VIII-IX, 1908.

Foto: de.domotica.net

Das Duell mit Tarrasch wurde von allen Schachanhängern mit grossem Interesse verfolgt, wobei viele von ihnen glaubten, dass der weltbeste Spieler Tarrasch sei

(nicht umsonst nannte man ihn den Weltmeister der Turniere)

und sahen in dem Treffen die Möglichkeit, dass der Herausforderer seine Überlegenheit beweisen konnte.

Lasker begann das match und gewann gleich die ersten beiden Partien, eine Entwicklung, die er zu einem Vorsprung von 5 : 1 ausbaute und bis zum Schluss durchhalten konnte.

Tarrasch hatte Momente, wo er sich wieder erholte und sich wie ein "Phönix aus der Asche" präsentierte, aber der Abstand im Ergebnis war zu gross,

so dass Dr. Emanuel Lasker seinen WM-Titel behielt.

Nachstehend die 1. Partie aus dem match:

(6607) Lasker,Emanuel – Tarrasch,Siegbert [C68]

 

World Championship 8th Germany (1), 17.08.1908

 

1.e4 e5 2.Sf3 Sc6 3.Lb5 a6 4.Lxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Dxd4 Dxd4 7.Sxd4 c5 8.Se2 Ld7 9.b3 Lc6 10.f3 Le7 11.Lb2 Lf6 12.Lxf6 Sxf6 13.Sd2 0–0–0 14.0–0–0 Td7 15.Sf4 Te8 16.Sc4 b6 17.a4 a5 18.Txd7 Sxd7 19.Td1 Se5 20.Sxe5 Txe5 21.c4 Te8 22.Sh5 Tg8 23.Td3 f6 24.Kd2 Le8 25.Sg3 Ld7 26.Ke3 Te8 27.Sh5 Te7 28.g4 c6 29.h4 Kc7 30.g5 f5 31.Sg3 fxe4 32.Sxe4 Lf5 33.h5 Td7 34.Tc3 Td1 35.Kf4 Ld7 36.Te3 Th1 37.Sg3 Th4+ 38.Ke5 Th3 39.f4 Kd8 40.f5 Th4 41.f6 gxf6+ 42.Kxf6 Le8 43.Sf5 Tf4 44.g6 hxg6 45.hxg6 Tg4 46.Txe8+ Kxe8 47.g7 Kd7 48.Sh4 Txg7 49.Kxg7 Ke6 50.Sf3 Kf5 51.Kf7 Ke4 52.Ke6 Kd3 53.Kd6 Kc3 54.Kxc6 Kxb3 55.Kb5 1–0

 

Endstellung:


Nach 55. Kb5

Zum Nachspielen:

1. Lasker vs Tarrasch 1-0   55   1908   Lasker-Tarrasch World Championship Match   C68 Ruy Lopez, Exchange

 

Tarrasch und Lasker analysieren eine Partie:

Foto wikipedia.org

Zusätzliche Bemerkungen:

Zitaten-Auswahl von Susanna Poldauf (ehemals Lasker-Gesellschaft)


Nachstehend folgender Brief:

Emanuel Lasker an Professor Gebhardt (Vorsitzender des Deutschen Schachbundes) Kopenhagen, 11. Juli 1908:


„Sie, wie die Spieler selbst haben das Recht, jede einzelne Partie des Matches jeder deutschen Zeitung um einen festzusetzenden kleinen Preis zu verkaufen. Doch bleiben die Spieler Eigentümer der Partien (wie der dafür erhaltenen Honorare) und muß ihnen dies Recht durch Vermerk im Spielsaal und auf Eintrittskarte gesichert werden."
(Emanuel Lasker in: Der Schachwettkampf Lasker – Tarrasch um die Weltmeisterschaft im August – September 1908

von Dr. Tarrasch, Leipzig 1908, S. 20)

************

Dr. Emanuel Lasker

Foto chesscorner.com

Lasker sagte über Tarrasch:

"Die Stärke oder Schwäche von Herrn Dr. Tarrasch stützt sich auf sein übermässiges Ehrgefühl. Ohne diese Eigenschaft wäre er nur ein durchschnittlicher Schachspieler geworden.

Aber seine anormale Egozentrik hat ihn zu einem Giganten werden lassen.

Seine Eigenliebe ist so gross, dass er sie mit irgend etwas zeigen muss, und das Schach war das einfachste Mittel für ihn.

Tarrasch ist ein begeisterter Anhänger des Schachs, aber besonders seines Schachs."

***********

 

Auf Seite 33 des Schachmagazin vom November 1905

(herausgegeben in New York)

schreibt er nach der 5. WM-Partie gegen Frank Marschall

wie folgt:

Foto wikipedia.org

 

"Herr Dr. Tarrasch vertritt recht eigenartige Gesichtspunkte über die Schachweltmeisterschaft, wobei er denkt, dass der Titel des Weltmeisters ein Beiwort ist für den besten anerkannten Spieler.

Das ist die Meinung eines deutschen Bürgers oder besser gesagt:

"ein Irrtum".

Für einen Engländer oder Amerikaner ist es nicht notwendig zu unterstreichen, dass der Weltmeister im allgemeinen der erste, zweite oder dritte beste Spieler ist, aber er ist der Weltmeister – ausser wenigen bestimmten Fällen – und der Beste von allen.

Die unterschiedliche Denkweise eines Deutschen und Angelsachsen führt zu praktisch wichtigen Ergebnissen.

Ein Deutscher kann den Titel fordern, in dem er auf seine Erfolge verweist; also einfach dank der Kraft seiner Argumente.

Ein Engländer oder Amerikaner wird versuchen, in einem WM-Kampf sein Recht auf den Titel zu beweisen".

"Herr Dr. Tarrasch ist ein Denker, ein Freund komplexer und tiefer Theorie….er bewundert einen Gedanken wegen seiner Tiefe; ich bewundere diesen wegen seiner Wirksamkeit…ich glaube an die Kraft."


Siegbert Tarrasch

Bild: Kaniaverlag.de

Tarrasch über Lasker:

"Lasker verliert hin und wieder eine Partie, aber er verliert nie den Kopf."

**********

Beide Spieler trafen sich im Jahre 1916 in Berlin noch einmal zu einem match,

wobei es hierbei aber nicht um die Weltmeisterschaft ging.

Dieses Zusammentreffen wurde vollkommen von Lasker beherrscht, wie er in seinem Buch schreibt, das in Wien 1917 erschien:

Bild: 3.bp.blogspot.com

Das Endergebnis war +5 -0 =1 Lasker vs. Tarrasch (Berlin, 1916)

***************

Nachsatz: ein "göttliches" Zitat von Dr. Tarrasch:


Quelle: Liga Nacional, Argentina

Sitges (Barcelona), im Juni 2011


 
 

Optionen:

 
 

Sonntag, 26. Juni 2011

Anand: Obstacle in setting up chess academy

 
 

Diese Nachricht wurde Ihnen von boesian via Google Reader gesendet.

 
 



Time constraints obstacle in setting up chess academy: Anand
PTI | Jun 22, 2011, 03.23pm IST

COIMBATORE: World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand on Wednesday said that he has not yet given up his idea of setting up a chess academy but admitted that he could not do it because of the time constraints.

"Definitely, it is there in my mind. However, preoccupation and time constraints have become impediment to the venture," Anand, who was here to attend a function of NIIT, told reporters.

On whether he would prefer to set up an academy in Chennai, Anand said, "We will see. It is there in my mind. However, there are no immediate plans for this."

Asked why chess was not becoming popular in the country despite his exploits, Anand said that the game was not a traditional one and had not reached every nook and corner of the country.

He also said that he is trying to popularise the game through the initiative of NIIT MyChamp.

NIIT MyChamp scheme has helped more than one million students to learn chess, even reaching to some non-traditional areas in North.

Anand said a recent study had revealed that by playing chess, students can improve their academic performance, particularly in subjects like Mathematics and Science.

The legend also added that he would visit several cities, including Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Nagpur in the next 10 days to motivate more people to take up chess.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Chess daily news from Susan Polgar

 
 

Optionen:

 
 

Hikaru Nakamura Loses in Online Blitz game vs GM Simonian (2011 ICC Chess Ch...

 
 

Diese Nachricht wurde Ihnen von boesian via Google Reader gesendet.

 
 

via Susan Polgar Chess Daily News and Information von Online Chess am 24.06.11

By Chess Tutor William Stewart

For the original article and PGN on how Hikaru Nakamura loses in Online Blitz please visit William's website.

Hikaru Nakamura rarely loses in online blitz, especially in a championship and especially during the finals so I found this game to be highly interesting. Hikaru Nakamura loses the blitz game after only 24 moves, playing an unusually weak game after he failed to see the the positional gain of a pawn sack by Simonian.

Watch Hikaru Nakamura lose to GM Grayr Simonian in the 2011 ICC Blitz Championship Finals


GM Grayr Simonian (EREBUNI) Vs GM Hikaru Nakamura (CapilanoBridge) - ICC Blitz Open (June 3-5, 2011) - Simonian opens with e4 and Nakamura responds with an offbeat variation involving the fianchetto of his queenside bishop. He attempts to create counterplay by attacking white's center from the side with 4. ...Bb4, however Simonian's 7. 0-0! sacrifices a pawn to powerfully seize the initiative. After 13. d5! white is able to break open the center and get to black's king, which has been stuck in the middle due to his severe lack of development. 18. Bxf7+! forces black's king into the open, and 20. Rf3 essentially seals the deal for white. A very fine attacking game by Grayr Simonian, as it is very rare to see Nakamura lose in online blitz in 24 moves - especially during the finals.

For the original article on how Hikaru Nakamura loses in Online Blitz please visit William's website (includes PGN).

Chess daily news from Susan Polgar

 
 

Optionen:

 
 

Hikaru Nakamura Loses in Online Blitz game vs GM Simonian (2011 ICC Chess Ch...

 
 

Diese Nachricht wurde Ihnen von boesian via Google Reader gesendet.

 
 

via Susan Polgar Chess Daily News and Information von Online Chess am 24.06.11

By Chess Tutor William Stewart

For the original article and PGN on how Hikaru Nakamura loses in Online Blitz please visit William's website.

Hikaru Nakamura rarely loses in online blitz, especially in a championship and especially during the finals so I found this game to be highly interesting. Hikaru Nakamura loses the blitz game after only 24 moves, playing an unusually weak game after he failed to see the the positional gain of a pawn sack by Simonian.

Watch Hikaru Nakamura lose to GM Grayr Simonian in the 2011 ICC Blitz Championship Finals


GM Grayr Simonian (EREBUNI) Vs GM Hikaru Nakamura (CapilanoBridge) - ICC Blitz Open (June 3-5, 2011) - Simonian opens with e4 and Nakamura responds with an offbeat variation involving the fianchetto of his queenside bishop. He attempts to create counterplay by attacking white's center from the side with 4. ...Bb4, however Simonian's 7. 0-0! sacrifices a pawn to powerfully seize the initiative. After 13. d5! white is able to break open the center and get to black's king, which has been stuck in the middle due to his severe lack of development. 18. Bxf7+! forces black's king into the open, and 20. Rf3 essentially seals the deal for white. A very fine attacking game by Grayr Simonian, as it is very rare to see Nakamura lose in online blitz in 24 moves - especially during the finals.

For the original article on how Hikaru Nakamura loses in Online Blitz please visit William's website (includes PGN).

Chess daily news from Susan Polgar

 
 

Optionen:

 
 

Chess girls

 
 

Diese Nachricht wurde Ihnen von boesian via Google Reader gesendet.

 
 



Susan Polgar Inspires "Chess Girls"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b011vhdc

Chess Grandmaster Susan Polgar's life is portrayed in the new BBC radio documentary "Chess Girls."

Written by Melanie Hess

Susan Polgar's parents defied the government in communist Hungary to school their daughter in a highly unusual way– chess, eight hours a day, every day.

Now a grandmaster, Polgar's story of ascension to worldwide fame through her childhood as a unique education experiment is portrayed in BBC's recent production, "Chess Girls."

Polgar, who is well known for breaking the gender barrier in chess by becoming the first female grandmaster, had anything but a normal upbringing. The BBC radio documentary, which premiered June 16, shares the exceptional progression of Polgar and her two sisters, Judit and Sofia.

"My father had that idea even before I was born. When he had children he'd like to raise them in a special way," Polgar said, "focusing on a certain area and trying to excel, rather than kind of being mediocre in many things."

"Chess Girls" dramatized the irregularity of Polgar's schooling and noted that the media was often surprised to hear the Polgar girls genuinely say they were happy.

Polgar said her family was often criticized, but she never felt negatively about her early days.

"My childhood was good," Polgar said. "It was certainly very natural because it was the only environment I knew, so that was very normal for me."

At 15 years old, Polgar was ranked as the number one women's chess player in the world.

"I was pioneering in open competition," Polgar said. "At that time, it was simply revolutionary because most women simply admitted that they are not as good as the men, just like in physical sport. Even though, chess is not a physical sport, but a mental exercise. Therefore, that has been a major theme of my career, to fight for gender equality."

In her current position as the director of the Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence (SPICE) and Knight Raiders coach, Polgar employs many of the same techniques her father used to help her achieve her status today.

"I incorporated all the different knowledge I acquired over the years," Polgar said. "And I am trying to share the best of it with our chess team members here."

Source: http://today.ttu.edu

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b011vhdc

Chess daily news from Susan Polgar

 
 

Optionen:

 
 

Bobby Fischer vs The World

 
 

Diese Nachricht wurde Ihnen von boesian via Google Reader gesendet.

 
 



Bobby Fischer against the world
The documentary on Bobby Fischer on HBO

The documentary Bobby Fischer Against the World, debuting Monday, June 6 (9:00-10:45 p.m. ET/PT), on HBO, chronicles the chess master's meteoric rise, culminating in the historic 1972 match against Boris Spassky in Iceland, as well as his shocking withdrawal from competition and the paranoia that derailed his life.

HBO brings a film that explores the complex story of a brilliant but troubled man who became a worldwide chess prodigy, seemingly tormented and destructive as his reputation grew.

Hailed as a chess genius before puberty, Bobby Fischer's mother pushed his early obsession with chess. In 1958, 14-year-old Robert James "Bobby" Fischer stunned the chess world by becoming the youngest grandmaster in history, launching a career that would make him a legend.

Then the next decade and a half, his rise to the top of the game riveted the world and inspired an international chess phenomenon. And then Fischer disappeared from the public eye.

The documentary Bobby Fischer Against the World, debuting Monday, June 6 (9:00-10:45 p.m. ET/PT), on HBO, chronicles the chess master's meteoric rise, culminating in the historic 1972 match against Boris Spassky in Iceland, as well as his shocking withdrawal from competition and the paranoia that derailed his life.

More video at:

Blip TV chess series

Chess video

Chess opening lessons

Chess videos - become fan on Facebook

Directed by Liz Garbus (the Oscar®-nominated "The Farm: Angola, USA"; HBO's Emmy®-winning "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib"), "Bobby Fischer" explores the complex life of the troubled genius whose charisma and talent spurred a worldwide fascination with the "game of kings." Fischer's evolution from childhood chess prodigy to global superstar, angry recluse and, finally, fugitive from the law is a spellbinding story of the making and unmaking of an American icon.

Raised in a modest Brooklyn apartment, he overcame an unconventional and difficult childhood, learning to play chess at age six. While his brilliant but distracted single mother, Regina, was pursuing her passion for Communist politics, the eight-year-old Fischer was regularly playing, and beating, more experienced adults.

"Chess is like my alter ego," Fischer once told a journalist. As he rose in the ranks of the game, his obsession with winning and lack of social finesse led others to call him a prima donna, eccentric, paranoid, even "the most arrogant man in the world," but no one could argue with his supremacy at the table.

Providing an unprecedented look at the man behind the headlines, the film weaves together news clips dating from the 1950s to the 2000s, photographs, letters – many never made public before – and exclusive interviews with friends, fans and colleagues. Interviewees include: chess champions Gary Kasparov, Susan Polgar, Larry Evans and Dr. Anthony Saidy; authors David Edmonds and Malcolm Gladwell; talk-show host Dick Cavett; Paul Marshall, Fischer's personal attorney; Harry Sneider, his trainer; and photojournalist Harry Benson, who was granted unfettered access to Fischer during his training for the 1972 championship, as well as during the competition. Garbus also draws on a wealth of archival footage, along with never-before-seen photographs by Benson, to create a searing portrait of a brilliant but elusive man whose life was shattered by obsession and mental instability.

The film spotlights the thrilling 1972 world championship match between Fischer and Boris Spassky. Breaking down the historic tournament game by game, Garbus deftly highlights the parallels between the 21-game marathon and the tense geopolitics of the Cold War era, with the eccentric Brooklyn boy facing the brilliant Soviet-sponsored grandmaster.

Televised throughout the world, the competition was held in Reykjavik, Iceland and became a focal point of the U.S. and Soviet Cold War tensions, which at one point required the intervention of national security advisor Henry Kissinger. As Kissinger explains, "The Soviets had been winning these tournaments and I thought it would be good for America, for democracy, to have an American win."

More at Monsters and critics

Two additional featurettes will be available on HBO On Demand

"The Fight for Fischer's Estate" (seven minutes) tells the story of the many claims to Fischer's two-million-dollar estate, featuring exclusive interviews with Marilyn Young, his Filipino girlfriend, Jinky Young, her daughter, claimed to be Fischer's daughter by Marilyn Young, and Russell Targ, Fischer's American brother-in-law. Also included is archival interview footage of Miyoko Watai, the Japanese woman who claims to be Fischer's wife. Since Fischer's death in 2008, these parties have been fighting for control of the estate. Two years later, after battles in Icelandic courts, his exhumation and subsequent DNA tests finally laid the matter to rest.

"Chess History" (five minutes) explains the origins of the game, its infinite complexity and enduring popularity. The segment features a wealth of unusual archive footage, plus interviews with Garry Kasparov, a respected chess authority and one of the best players of all time; Susan Polgar, a five-time women's world champion, who provides a brief "lesson" on the various powers of the pieces and basic rules of the game; and noted chess authors David Shenk and David Edmonds.

Beginning with Bobby Fischer Against the World, HBO Documentary Films presents another weekly series this summer, debuting a provocative new special every Monday through Aug. 15. Other June films include: "A Matter of Taste: Serving Up Paul Liebrandt" (June 13); "Sex Crimes Unit" (June 20); and "Hot Coffee" (June 27).

Chess daily news from Susan Polgar

 
 

Optionen:

 
 

Boris Gelfand: A completely happy man

 
 

Diese Nachricht wurde Ihnen von boesian via Google Reader gesendet.

 
 

via Chess in Translation von mishanp am 31.05.11

Boris Gelfand | photo: russiachess.org

After Boris Gelfand won the Candidates Matches in Kazan he gave numerous interviews that shed light on a player who, despite having been at the top of world chess for 20 years, is perhaps still something of a mystery to chess fans. It's time for that to change, as an Anand-Gelfand World Championship match awaits!

The text below is based on selected highlights from the following four interviews, conducted soon after Gelfand's victory in Kazan: 

As well as talking about his path to victory, Gelfand discusses all kinds of topics, including the upcoming match with Anand, the "problem" of classical (and Russian) chess, the rating system, his career ups and downs, music… and the Champions League final. Due to the length it might be advisable not to try and read everything in one go, or at least to have a Shipovian cup of coffee © prepared!

Winning the Candidates Matches

Boris, could you sum up the Candidates Matches: how did your opponents surprise you? And which encounter was the most difficult?

In the quarterfinals Mamedyarov surprised me by completely changing his opening repertoire: he started playing 1. e4 and the sharpest Sicilians, and had prepared the Meran for Black. Both of those openings require an enormous amount of work. I think, however, his being out of training told. After all, his strength is based on wonderful practical qualities, but because he hadn't played for a long time Shakhriyar would sometimes sink into thought at the wrong moment, and was clearly nervous. The work he put in will have an effect in the long term, but it didn't work out in the first match.

Kamsky also turned out to be brilliantly prepared: he played the Najdorf very well and put an end to the Grunfeld. Of course, that was the toughest match. In the tie-break the situation was critical for me: I had to win on demand with Black. The rapid games were of a very low quality; that's the worst tie-break I've ever played.

I can't say Grischuk surprised me in any way, as you could just look at his two matches and see that he was very well prepared, as well as which openings he was using. The final match was tough, but it was clear what I could expect from my opponent. (RCF)

The battle against Gata Kamsky | photo: video.russiachess.org

You were a whisker away from being knocked out… (against Kamsky)

Yes, when I lost with White I really didn't have much chance. I got lucky that Kamsky made it a game. After all, he could have played 1. d4 2. Nf3 3. Bf4… He's played like that all his life. It would have been hard to win. Of course, anything can happen, but it's much harder than in a sharp Sicilian. When he chose the open Sicilian he gave me chances.

Madness on his part?

It's not madness. Everyone plays according to their internal instinct. He set himself a goal: to play chess. In the long run that's probably the correct decision. He lost here, but in the long run he might triumph.

What do you think – was your section of the draw easier than Grischuk's?

Yes, probably.

So it turns out that Grischuk cleared a path for you?

Well, I don't know who cleared a path for whom. We played the way it worked out. It wasn't me who thought up the draw. According to the previous rules I was supposed to play a match against Aronian immediately. The winner of the World Cup and the winner of the Grand Prix. Then they started to change everything: to include people, to link things together… I didn't get angry. If those are the rules – then ok, I'll prepare according to those rules as well.

Friends at the closing ceremony | photo: russiachess.org

I noticed that you and Sasha Grischuk treated each other almost like family members. You called each other Borya and Sasha at the press conferences…

I've got a good relationship with everyone. I can't say it's any worse with Aronian or Kramnik. Sasha's been to my house, and I've been to his when I was in Odessa. He was playing in my city and I invited him round. It's pleasant to play an opponent you've got good relations with, and he congratulated me warmly. All three congratulated me warmly, but those warm relations didn't affect our play. On three occasions, figuratively speaking, he "had me on the ropes", in the 1st, 2nd and 5th games. I managed to hold on with only moves. The 2nd was really very tough.

In the 2nd Black probably should have attacked the d3-pawn, but he began pushing the a-pawn?

I still haven't checked it, but they say there was no "mathematical win" there. […]

Taking into account Sasha's experience in tie-breaks, were his chances greater?

In rapid chess, if you look at the results, then besides Anand no-one has done better than I have. All those World Cups played under the knockout system… I also beat Aronian in the same system in Leon. The chances were 50:50, as in the classical games. If players are of the same level then the chances are equal at any time control. I don't believe Sasha plays better in rapid than in classic. Sasha won Linares, the Russian Championship – he's won a lot.

And in blitz?

We'd also be even. That's blitz played after four rapid games, so who can be a favourite there?! Whoever's alive is the favourite. Whoever can handle his nerves better is the favourite. And I've played lots of blitz against Sasha. Both at my house and at tournaments.

An approximately even struggle?

In tournaments he's got an edge, but anything can happen: he might have won, or I might have won. Perhaps I'd have got a won position but then blundered a rook. And in the next game I might not blunder. In the World Championship Sasha won I was leading for the whole tournament. In the deciding game I lost to him, but I could have won if I'd taken the exchange at one point. If I'd won that game I might have become champion. He's a strong blitz player, but I don't think I'm so bad either. (ChessPro)

You didn't sleep at all, Boris? (after beating Grischuk)

It was very hard to get to sleep. It was much more difficult than after a painful loss. After a failure you collect yourself, analyse your blunders and think about how to eradicate them. But here – there was an incredible nervous exhilaration. When I won the World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk in 2009 I didn't sleep a wink. Here I only fell asleep close to dawn.

Did you realise the magnitude of your victory?

I fully realised that the moment Grischuk resigned. I didn't require any time. Over the years I've learned to control my emotions. If they were controlling me then I'd never have won in Kazan. In the last game, after all, I realised that I was winning. But I needed to calmly apply the finishing touches to the job. Volodya Kramnik had just such an overwhelming advantage against Grischuk in the semifinals. If he'd taken his chance he'd have been in the final. But Kramnik, it seems, was let down by nerves. (SovSport)

The ratings system

With Boris Gelfand ranked 16th on the FIDE rating list before the Candidates (he's now up to 13th on the live lists), he was inevitably asked about the significance of ratings:

Boris, ahead of you is the first match in your career for the chess crown. How is it that you arrived at the Candidates Tournament with one of the lowest ratings among the participants, but left as the challenger for the World Championship title?

Ratings give an idea of strength, but don't show the relationship so precisely. The difference between the first and last participant wasn't so big. Everyone who travelled to Kazan had a chance of winning. I prepared hard for the tournament, for half a year together with my coaches and my whole team, and came to the matches in good form. Now I've got a very good feeling, but it's not going to be any easier to prepare for a match for the World Championship title. (RIA)

Has anyone calculated the rating points you added here?

Well, no-one was playing for ratings here… In general, I treat ratings with some irony.

Tell us what you think about it.

It's not a bad system – it shows your calibre and form. But no more. The fact that someone has 2770 now, while I've got 2730, doesn't mean I play worse. Well, he's played one tournament better, but in the next tournament perhaps I'll play better. You need to look at it as a whole. Let's say, four people have a higher rating, and then there are 10-15 who are more or less the same. And in about two years' time, if you take me, Grischuk, Ivanchuk and Nakamura, it'll be about the same. True, Nakamura has risen recently. The fact that today he has such-and-such a rating and I have such-and-such plays no role. It might be different tomorrow. (ChessPro)

Magnus Carlsen

Magnus Carlsen's withdrawal from the Candidates Matches cast a shadow over the event, and led to questions for Gelfand:

In the final your opponent was Alexander Grischuk, but it could easily have been Carlsen, whose place was taken by the Russian after Carlsen pulled out. What do you think was the reason for him not taking part?

It's only possible to speculate. I don't have any information. At the same time I can't understand his decision. It's a different generation, with different priorities, and perhaps different values, but I don't understand it. The reason he gave is illogical… But I don't even know what to say. (RIA)

I remember that in Wijk aan Zee you told me that Carlsen amazed you. You told me then that you thought he was a reincarnation of Karpov…

Yes, I remember that. Since then he's got much stronger. When I said that to you it was his first strong tournament. A couple of months before that I'd played him at the Tal Memorial and he was a clear outsider, he was playing at a different level.

Were you surprised that he refused to play for the World Championship?

It was a strange decision. Another problem is that the arguments he used weren't sound. Garry Kasparov was also surprised that he withdrew… There are a lot of versions. Everyone has to decide for himself what his values and priorities are. The cycle was changed because of him, as he pulled out of the Grand Prix but still got back in – the regulations were changed. It was strange. I'm not judging him. It's his choice.

The fact you played a match against Grischuk and not him – that was better for you, wasn't it?

Carlsen - Gelfand in Bazna last year | photo: ChessBase

Perhaps it would have been easier against him. I've had an edge in our games. Last year I played him twice in Bazna and I had an advantage in those games. I'm not sure it would have been more difficult against him than against Grischuk. If someone's got into the eight and won two matches, then it can't be "easy". I don't think it would have been more difficult against Carlsen than the others. Perhaps it will be in future, but… (ChessPro)

The state of classical chess

Many people are talking at the moment about classical chess being close to ruin. That's why you end up with blitz and tie-breaks. There's a problem with classical chess.

The problem of classical chess… Alexander Grischuk said there are too many draws, that everything's simply been studied so much that it's harder and harder to win, harder and harder to surprise someone or to get complex play. Alexander said that after his games against Kramnik, who he was unable to pose any problems to for a long time. Of course, that's a little exaggerated. Yes, it's becoming harder than before, but not to such a degree. And the final match between Alexander and me showed that. You can pose problems, and our games were conducted in a very tense struggle. I was on the verge of losing on three occasions. Alexander was applying pressure, and it was only in two games out of six that we didn't manage to get a real struggle. That strikes me as a reasonable percentage.

And as for the winner sometimes being decided in games with a faster time control – that's a problem with classical chess, but there's no better option. Previously people would play until the first win – weeks, or months. But that's not realistic anymore. Each tournament has its format, its dates, and rooms reserved in hotels. No-one's going to book months in advance and then wait and see who plays. Everyone has plans, schedules and other tournaments. It's a reasonable compromise. If you have six games at a classical time control and the opponents are evenly-matched, then it's reasonable to decide the winner by playing a sensible number of games with a faster time control. Four games for deciding the strongest player is a reasonable number. At one time they'd play roulette to decide the winner, but you'll agree it's more logical to play blitz than roulette. Of course, it's not an ideal formula, but it is a normal one. Nothing's perfect in this world. (RIA)

Here's a typical situation: the next round is starting, and journalists (myself included) and also your assistants, go off to have lunch. At concerts, when the conductor raises his baton, no-one rushes to the buffet!

True, everything has its own peculiarities and it's hard to compare. It strikes me that the main niche for chess now is the internet; the longer a game lasts, the more people watch it. There are more visitors to sites, traffic and so on. There are a lot of advantages and I don't understand these discussions about how much of a spectacle it is. It strikes me that we've got a sensible balance between rapid and classical chess at the moment. Each organiser runs what suits him more. I've got a very good opinion of classical chess, and rapid, and blitz, but I don't like a mix. Danailov takes away half an hour – for some reason there's 1 hour 30 minutes for 40 moves. Or FIDE tries to take away some time. It makes no sense, as after all it's not going to be rapid but the quality of the games will be lower. The constant desire to reduce the quality of games is incomprehensible to me. It's a kind of obsession: let's organise time trouble, the grandmasters will start to blunder, and it'll be more of a spectacle for people! That's what I'm against. But if rapid chess tournaments are run that's great – it's spectacular, vivid, and it'll attract a lot of additional spectators.

But nevertheless: we're sitting having lunch while on the stage the grandmasters are meditating for around 40 minutes. Do you need such meditations? Wouldn't it be possible to get by without them and simply use time rationally? Then there wouldn't be time trouble blunders and the quality of the games wouldn't fall too much?

Perhaps, but in the last game of the final I thought for about 40 minutes over the move 18. Nh4 with the idea of f2-f4, which was highly rated by my opponent and many very strong grandmasters. If I'd had to make the move in 5 or 10 minutes I either wouldn't have found it, or I wouldn't have believed it. I needed time. If you want to get high-quality games you need to allow time. (RCF)

The World Championship match against Vishy Anand

I know it's still early to talk about it, but what might be the deciding factor in the match against Anand?

Who's better prepared. Moreover, we're both older players, so who has the most energy. He's got great experience of similar matches, which is also a significant factor. Therefore it's simple – who's in better form, who, perhaps, gets lucky – that's who'll win. Sport is sport. And in terms of age it's very symbolic: they say that the young are making their presence felt, that there's generation chance, but it turns out that the World Championship will be played by chess players who've already been playing for 20 years. That's a good sign and a signal to the young that if they don't achieve success in a year or two life isn't over, that you have to keep fighting and success might come at any moment.

So far there's been no word on the place or date of the title match – are those crucial questions? How much time do you need for preparation and how important are those questions for you overall?

FIDE is taking bids until the 30th June, so we should find out quite soon. The official dates are April-May 2012, but rumours suggest it might be delayed a little, to the summer. So there should in any case be enough time for preparation – a year. There's no problem with that. While as for the location, the main thing is to play in a normal climate. That's fundamental. On home soil or not? At home it's fine, but there's also more pressure. In India – for Anand, in Israel – for me. Therefore the main thing is that the weather is sunny. But overall, that's not a crucial question, more so as in spring and summer it's good weather almost everywhere. It's simply pleasant to play when the sun's shining – you've got a completely different mood. (RIA)

If playing in Elista's suggested, will you play there?

And what's wrong with Elista? Candidates Matches were played in Elista and the organisers tried very hard. The objective conditions were tough: it was hot. But if they say Elista – then we'll play in Elista. There are people who get paid to be responsible for handling it, so let them earn that.

The size of the prize fund is a fundamental question for you?

Well, there should be some sort of minimum…

A million dollars appears to be the minimum.

I don't know. I've never followed it. Whatever's written in the rules, that's what it should be. That's why rules are written, and not to be changed every five minutes. If more's on offer somewhere, then go for that. But it shouldn't be any less than the established minimum. (ChessPro)

Fitness regime!

On the Chesspro forum there's been a slightly strange discussion about your physical condition. People have been saying that on photographs it's noticeable you've got a "tummy". And our aesthetes would like to see you slender and toned, like Grischuk, for example. How do you yourself relate to your "tummy"?

Efim Geller's fitness regime

Calmly. I weighed myself today: during the tournament I lost five kilograms. I had a discussion with Anand. He said that without going to the gym it was impossible to maintain your form. But I say: it's possible. We'll see.

I always remember Efim Petrovich Geller. He was quite a plump man and I don't think he went to the gym. But Korchnoi, in one of his interviews, said that Efim Petrovich was one of the most energetic chess players. And aged 54 in Minsk, at that Championship you were at, Efim Petrovich played brilliantly and became USSR Champion.

Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian. He didn't go to the gym and also had a "tummy". But he played so energetically! It strikes me that the basis of success is a healthy way of life. You need to walk a lot. To eat well. (ChessPro)

First steps in chess

Where did your acquaintance with chess start?

There's a wonderful children's textbook, probably the best in history – "Journey to the Chess Kingdom". My dad, who really loved the game, began to go through a diagram a day with me. One evening I told him that I wanted to study something else. Well, he thought the boy had cooled towards the chessboard and pieces. He told my mum that chess hadn't interested Boris. My dad couldn't even imagine that I'd gulped down the whole book in one day and therefore wanted something new. Unfortunately my father didn't live to see my victory. We lost him one and a half years ago…

Did you soon realise that you'd become a professional chess player?

Tamara Golovey with a young Boris Gelfand | photo: wichitachessclub.org

After school my parents insisted I received a professional education. But when I started to get into the semifinals of the USSR Championship, which was considered a great success back then, they left me alone. I enrolled in Physical Culture at university, so as to avoid the army, and gave myself up to chess completely. By the way, they still dragged me into the military for ten days – the most unpleasant memories of my life.

What did you feel when you found yourself in the company of great grandmasters?

I'll tell you a story. 25 years ago I was playing a game in a tournament against Alexander Khalifman, now an ex-FIDE World Champion and one of the commentators on my match against Grischuk in Kazan. The tournament took place in my native Minsk. My position wasn't very good. I was terribly nervous as I was a young master, and the elite were there. Suddenly two well-known grandmasters came up to us – I won't give their names – and started to watch me carefully. I tried to make myself small, thinking it was embarrassing, I was losing, I'd make a fool of myself and they'd laugh… I made a move and got up from the board. They approached me and delicately asked: "Borya, you're a local here. Do you know who that elegant blonde sitting in the fifth row is? Introduce us!" (SovSport)

Chess career

The chess journalist Yury Vasiliev first met Boris Gelfand at the USSR Championship in Minsk in 1979, and has followed his career ever since. He even mentioned laughing with Tigran Petrosian about Gelfand's habit of spinning a chess piece in his hand while thinking – back in 1980!  

You know, Boris, when speaking to you I can't get rid of a strange feeling, like déjà vu. As if you've been around forever.

Yes! I've been around forever since 1979!

And it's as if you haven't really changed…

And you haven't changed either! I remember you perfectly!

What I'm getting at, Borya, is that now chess has got younger and people become grandmasters at 14… But suddenly you've qualified for a match against the champion… And you'll be older than him! It's amazing! After all, you were always a candidate for that match, you were always among the few…

I've always played well in the candidates events, but none were held for ten years.

Maybe your time has finally come, Borya?

I don't know… I've kept working, I enjoy the game… It's a very interesting business, playing chess! And I also think there's a lot of exaggerated talk about youth. I've played 20 games against Kasparov, around 50 games against Karpov, 20 with Korchnoi, 80 with Ivanchuk (including 50 in classical chess), 30 with Anand and 30 with Kramnik. No-one else has such experience. Only Ivanchuk and Anand. Well, and perhaps also Kramnik and Topalov.

I remember in Las Palmas asking Anand if he could name the top-10 chess players of all time and nations. He said straight away: "Or maybe 5?" Could you name your top 5 or 10?

No, I can't. They're all great. Both those who became champions, and those who didn't.

After all, you really loved the games of Akiba Rubinstein…

I knew them all by heart, from Razuvaev and Murakhvery's "60 games". I came home from school, sat on the couch and read it without a board, game after game… I knew all sixty by heart. (ChessPro)

In the early 90s you were considered a realistic challenger for the crown, your achievements were growing, and then a certain decline began. Why?

It's hard to say. It was necessary to rethink some things, to reconsider. And to a degree it happened artificially. In 1997 I played badly, but at the end of the year, in the first FIDE knockout championship, I got to the semifinals in Groningen. True, I mainly won in tie-breaks, and at the time that was considered bad form and I got a simply amazing hounding from the press! If someone wins a tie-break now you say well done, but back then I got such a hounding and they stopped inviting me to tournaments. There were also objective circumstances: 14 people used to play in Linares, but they reduced that to 7, and there simply weren't many tournaments, while new chess players were coming along. At some point I stagnated; I was working, but I wasn't thinking about exactly how I had to work. (RCF)

Soviet and Russian chess 

Do you know that Russian fans took just as much pleasure in your victory as Israelis, as many people still consider you one of our grandmasters?

Of course I represent Israel and I'm proud to play for my country and bring victory to my country. Yes, I was born in Minsk and I lived the majority of my life there. I was formed as a chess player there and I've played dozens of times in Russia, very successfully. I've got a lot of friends, a lot of fans who keep supporting me – therefore it's no surprise that my victory was received like that in Russia. And of course in Kazan I felt as though I was at home. Even my opponents complained about it. (Translator's note: one example is this interview I translated with Gata Kamsky). In no match, including the final against Alexander Grischuk, did I feel as if I was playing on foreign ground. The fans' support was very important and I want to say a big thank you to them.

I came across the surprising opinion that Russian chess has seen a very serious decline, that the last time a Russian held the chess crown was in 2007, and that now the World Championship will take place without any Russian grandmasters. What's your opinion on that?

I categorically disagree. It seems to me that the situation in Russian chess is the best in the world. No other federation works as effectively as the Russian one. Over the course of many years the best round-robin tournament in the world has been run in Moscow – the Tal Memorial, as well as the best open tournament – Aeroflot Open. It has the strongest national championship, a series of very important tournaments and the Russian team often wins. There's no decline at all.

The problem is the appearance of very strong competition. In the past there was no competition, but now there are lots of chess players in many countries around the world. At the moment there are two Russians in the top-8, and another two nearby – Karjakin and Svidler. Russian chess is on the rise and there's no doubt everything's ok. No other country in the world has such a quantity of chess players of the very highest class. It's simply that in the past other countries didn't have such a quantity of good chess players.

As for the World Championship title… Yes, Kramnik lost to Anand in the match in 2008, but that was played between the best players in the world, and one of them had to lose. That doesn't signify any sort of crisis. A genius was born in India. It happens. I'd be happy if we had the same situation in Israeli chess as there is in Russia. Even if it was ten times worse than in Russia that would already make me happy. It's simply that everyone's got used to the fact there's a Russian champion. But the world's changed.

In Soviet times, apart for the USSR, a series of countries in Eastern Europe and, perhaps, Holland, chess wasn't so developed, there were no tournaments and essentially there was nothing. But now the world has opened up. Previously, after all, no-one, with rare exceptions, saw the games from serious tournaments, while now you can follow any game live – even national events among boys and girls. All the games are freely available. Before, if you were born, like Anand for example, in India, only enormous talent and a great capacity for work could help you to reach the summit.

But now the situation's changed. People get to know about chess players in the most far-away countries, they're invited, and everyone is on a level footing. Therefore talents also appear in countries when it would previously have been unimaginable, and where, perhaps, they didn't know what chess was. Norway, the Philippines, Vietnam.

Le Quang Liem, Aeroflot winner in 2009 and 2010 | photo: Chess-News.ru

A boy from Vietnam has won the Aeroflot Open for two years in a row – and that's the world's strongest open tournament. That really indicates something. Russian coaches travelling abroad for work are also bringing results. Now there's interest, sponsors, and everyone can invite the best coaches, specialists and assistants. And after all, it's become fairer: if you weren't born in a chess country but you've got the desire and talent – you've got more possibilities than before. (RIA)

Do you agree when people call you "a student of the Soviet School of Chess"?

If you add the essential "detail": the Minsk School of Chess. That started with Boleslavsky, then passed through Kapengut to me, and other chess players living under the influence of Boleslavsky's ideas. In Minsk they always played the most principled opening variations. In Riga, let's say, they played in the style of Tal, in the Caucasus – in the style of Tigran Vartanovich [Petrosian]: offbeat systems, based on subtleties… In Lvov it all derived from Stein. In Belarus everyone played the Sicilian, the King's Indian… And always the most challenging systems. (ChessPro)

Family life

How are things in your private life?

Everything's good. There's been an addition to our family: our son was born.

How old is he?

Two months. I've barely seen him: I've been here all the time.

What's he called?

Avner.

And what does that mean in Hebrew?

"My father – light".

And you told me that your daughter's called Avital. That means "morning dew" – yes?

Yes. My wife's called Maia.

Did she call you in Kazan?

Every day. On Skype, of course. Avital kept asking, "Daddy, haven't you finally won yet?!" I told her, "Not yet". She said, "But you've got three helpers! Why aren't they able to help you?!" I said, "They're helping. We're working". She said, "Well, you'll at least come back by my birthday?" That's in September. I told her, "I'll be back before then". (ChessPro)

What's she like at chess?

There was a slightly unpleasant incident. In our city they teach chess at 30% of the kindergartens, including hers. Her teacher phoned me and said: "What's going on? Why does your daughter refuse to play chess?" After that we bought her animated computer programs and she did take an interest, but not a great interest and she's got other hobbies. She does play, though. (RCF)

Other interests

Do you like music?

Yes. Classical. I also like rock.

Can you say you like listening to Brahms or, say, Hayden, or Bach's Brandenburg Concertos…

No, I'm not at that level. It's more that I like the atmosphere of concerts. When I go to a concert I understand that something great is taking place. People wrote the music centuries ago, and you can't write anything better. That paradox occupies me. I constantly think about it. In some spheres development has gone as far as it could, and in music what's been written in the twentieth century is the low point.

Do you agree that music directly affects your soul?

Perhaps… Perhaps…

Kramnik and I once discussed the topic. He's friends with musicians and Volodya told me that chess reminds him of music.

It also seems like that to me. I talked to Nikolai Lugansky and realised that the professions are similar. Well, a little different, of course. In chess you should get yourself into a particular state of mind, and also take into account your opponent's state of mind. But in music, it's only yourself. It seems to me that chess should position itself as an occupation for intelligent, educated, thinking people. A person has to make an effort to understand chess. You don't need to reduce chess to a level where it'll be comprehensible to people who aren't interested in it. And to have more people interested in it you need education. It seems to me there should be a scheme like that – you need to draw people into chess in childhood. (ChessPro)

Do you have an aptitude for languages? Have you learned Hebrew?

At an everyday level; I speak badly, but I can talk when necessary. I once gave an hour-long interview – that's my greatest achievement in Hebrew.

Do you find languages difficult or is it simply that it's not necessary?

It might be necessary, but not to such a degree as to make the extra effort. If it's a question of whether to look for ideas in the Grunfeld Defence or to polish my Hebrew, then the answer's unequivocal: the Grunfeld Defence comes first! (RCF)

Future plans

Borya, the traditional "journalistic" question: what are your immediate plans? Where are you going to play?

I'm going to rest. Rest for a loooong time. This summer I probably won't play anywhere. I need to recover.

If they invite you to Bilbao will you play?

If they invite me I'll think about it. It's a very strong tournament. But for now I haven't been invited.

Well, they might now.

Perhaps. (ChessPro)

In August the World Cup is taking place. Are you going to play there?

I don't know yet. If I hadn't won in Kazan I'd definitely have taken part, but as it is, probably not. (RCF)

And finally… Barça!

For anyone who doesn't follow football, on Saturday Barcelona brilliantly beat Manchester United 3:1 in the Champions League final (the main club event in Europe).   

I know you're a fan of Barcelona…

Gelfand's supporter's card | photo: Vasily Konov, rian.ru

I really love football and played myself at an amateur level. When I first saw the Holland team at the European Championship in 1988 it seemed as though there were Gods on the pitch. What players they were – Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkaard, Ronald Koeman! And in 1994 Barcelona made the same impression on me. Do you remember Stoichkov, that same Koeman, Romario? Since then it's as if I've drunk a love potion.

Are you flying to London for the Champions League final?

Yes, my friends gave me tickets as a gift.

Have you got their scarf with you?

I'll buy it there. You know, our whole family supports Barça now. My young daughter sings the club's song along with me. She's learned it by heart. I gave her a plastic water bottle with the team logo. In kindergarten her friends teased her about it, saying a girl shouldn't be a football fan. She made fists at them and shouted: I supported, support and will support Barcelona! And then she sang the song. After that they left her alone.

I know you're even part of the official fan club.

Yes, that was a present from my wife on my birthday. (SovSport)

Zangalis asked Gelfand to provide a commentary on his match against Grischuk as if it had been the Champions League final (!).

Of course I'll be Barça, and Sasha Grischuk will be the English club. The game was balanced, when suddenly the English team launched a sharp counterattack, but Mascherano and Piqué put out the fire in front of their goalmouth (the first game). There was another goal-mouth incident: Rooney hit a powerful shot at almost point-blank range, but Puyol cleared the ball off the goal-line (the second game). Phew, we'd escaped. Half-time.

The second half begins. Neither team decides to go for an all-out attack. They continue to probe each other (the third and fourth games). Then Manchester are once more on the attack, Valdés, a Barça defender, makes a mistake in front of his own goal, but Busquets and Mascherano again repel the threat (the fifth game). There's a bold attack by the Catalans. Messi beats one defender after another, gets into a one-on-one situation, waits for Van der Saar to go to ground, and scores the winning goal in the 89th minute (the sixth game). Barcelona are the best team in Europe again! (SovSport)

Perhaps it's fitting to end with this final "football" comment from Gelfand:

I look at you now and see a completely happy man…

That's how it is. What else do you need? My son's been born, I'm going to play a World Championship match, tomorrow I'm flying to the Champions League final… Although, to be completely happy, I still need Barça to win. (SovSport)

You can watch Boris Gelfand being greeted on his return to Israel in this report by the Russian-language 7kanal.com.  He's met by representatives of the Israeli Chess Federation, one of whom says in a short interview that it would be the dream of all Israeli grandmasters to organise a World Championship match in Israel, and they'll never have a better chance. That said, neither Gelfand nor the federation seem confident of any government support. The 7kanal report notes that no representatives of the Prime Minister's Office or the Ministry of Sport were present in Ben Gurion International Airport, despite being invited.

Gelfand was met in the airport by his family | photo: 7kanal.com

That probably didn't concern Boris Gelfand too much, though, as he was also welcomed by his wife and children, with Avital being the first to jump into his arms!


 
 

Optionen:

 
 

Grischuk: I was worried I’d forgotten how to play chess

 
 

Diese Nachricht wurde Ihnen von boesian via Google Reader gesendet.

 
 

via Chess in Translation von mishanp am 28.05.11

Just before the closing ceremony of the Candidates Matches in Kazan, Alexander Grischuk gave a fascinating interview to Yury Vasiliev of ChessPro, where he talked about tactics, his fear he'd forgotten how to play chess, Gelfand's play in the final, and the "burial of classical chess" due to draws.

Alexander Grischuk at the final press conference | photo: kazan2011.fide.com

The interview at ChessPro was yet more evidence of what we're missing due to the fact that Grischuk is one of the least interviewed players at the top of world chess.

Sasha, can you give us a few of your thoughts about this cycle. You were included at the last moment and, according to the old chess legend, had the best chances.

I must say it was a very interesting time – it really was very interesting to play. I had quite a strange feeling: I couldn't imagine losing, but on the other hand, I didn't believe I'd win.

Perhaps because your opponents were probably the strongest in the tournament, Aronian and Kramnik…

It wasn't about my opponents. From the very first match I couldn't imagine losing. Well, and then I didn't lose in general. In the final as well, I couldn't imagine losing, but there I did lose.

When we met for the last time before the matches in Wijk aan Zee, you said you'd used up all your failures. Did you therefore expect to do well in Kazan? (Translator's note: here are some of the highlights of Vasiliev's reports from Wijk, including more from Grischuk.)

After Wijk aan Zee I wasn't in the best mood, of course. I then went on to play very badly at the Aeroflot Blitz, not even qualifying for the World Championship. There were five places on offer there, and I finished seventh. Overall, I was worried I'd forgotten how to play chess…

Seriously?!

Well, I wasn't that worried, and fortunately it turned out not to be true. At some point after that I started to work seriously, for two or three months. That bore fruit, and I was no longer as far behind my opponents in preparation as usual. In the final you might say I wasn't even behind at all. In some games I was better prepared, and in some Gelfand was. I was still behind Aronian and Kramnik in preparation, but no longer quite as dramatically as is usually the case.

Some of your detractors accused you of "cowardice" on internet forums, saying that in every match you were only dreaming of getting to the tie-breaks…

I think that's nonsense. In any case, someone who's trying to win a match does it any way he can. First of all, against Aronian all the games were fighting, while against Kramnik you could say that I did have the tactics you just mentioned. In fact, I simply didn't know what to do. I didn't want to go for a worse position with White just because I was playing White: well, a draw's a draw, and it's still all to play for.

In the end your tactics, however they were described by your spiteful critics, paid off. And in the final you met Gelfand, who you'd previously beaten in similar formats. What got in your way this time?

This time Boris' wonderful play got in my way. He only made a single bad move over the course of six games. True, it was very bad – 22. Bxh8 in the 2nd game. He sacrificed a piece based on his analysis, but then didn't continue playing a piece down. Anything could have happened there but more likely than not it'd have ended in perpetual check or a repetition of moves. Instead of that, he won back the exchange, but lost the initiative and got a difficult position. I thought I was very close to victory, but in fact it's very hard to win there. My seconds looked at it with a computer but even then they couldn't find a clear win. There were chances, but they didn't manage to find a win. The last game, on the other hand, I simply consider to have been a masterpiece by him. He played brilliantly, so I've got no regrets in that regard.

You had good relations with everyone you played. Did that disturb you?

Maybe it disturbed me a little, but not much… It's generally easier for me to play when I don't have very good relations with my opponent, although it's not so critical.

Where did it all go wrong? | photo: kazan2011.fide.com

In the last game you came up against some preparation. Is 13. b3 a strong novelty?

13. b3 is of course also a strong novelty. But the way Boris played after that: Nh4 and f4 – those were moves that didn't even enter my head!

And after that Black's losing by force?

In principle, I only made one mistake: Bxh4. But even the computer (which I later looked at the game with) doesn't immediately grasp that it's a mistake i.e. the level of play by White was so high that I'd have had to play phenomenally not to lose that game. And it's never easy to play phenomenally.

At this point Vasiliev asked about poker. Grischuk said he hadn't played for the last few months in the run-up to the matches, and thought it helped. Grischuk was then confronted with the following statement he made about the World Championship in his KC-Conference at Crestbook (where he answered hundreds of reader questions – highly recommended, and not only because I translated it! :)).

starik: Alexander, in his recent KC-Conference Alexey Shirov declared that he isn't a contender for the title of World Champion in classical chess. Can you say the same about yourself?

Alas, yes.

Grischuk responds:

All chess players to one degree or another hope to become World Champion. It's another matter that when I spoke or wrote those words it seemed to me that it was too far away. And then, when Carlsen pulled out, it turned out that I had to win four matches – and could become World Champion. But I only managed to win two.

The finalists and Ilyumzhinov at the closing ceremony | photo: Moscow Chess Federation

The next topic of discussion was also based on an earlier statement by Grischuk, this time one made in the press conference after he'd agreed a draw against Kramnik's Petroff in the third game of their match. Here's Vladimir Barsky's version at the Russian Chess Federation website (I've included the assessment of the game to provide the context):

It was another "very interesting" game; Volodya probably made one and a half moves on his own. Although my position looks better, and after 21…c6 I rejected a draw, it was impossible to think up anything for White there. Black can exchange rooks, or he can probably choose not to. The position's approximately equal and, with an hour less on the clock, I offered a draw. But even if we'd had the same amount of time I don't think White has even the slightest chances of winning. [...]

I think, in general, we're witnessing the burial of classical chess. Two decisive games in 21; that's about the same as in checkers. On the one hand, that's a great disappointment – to keep playing such boring games, but on the other hand – maybe we're doing a good thing.

In other words, proving the absurdity of classical chess might hasten its replacement by something else! Here's how Grischuk elaborated on the topic in his interview with Vasiliev:

Boris and I have an excellent relationship, but on that point our opinions differ. He thinks my statement about "the burial of classical chess" is complete nonsense, while I still think that classical chess doesn't have long to go. Why did I mention it while I was still winning matches? Because when someone's losing people put it down to that – the man lost so that's why he's talking like that. But I said it when I'd won a match, and then another. And now I still don't see any prospects for classical chess.

You think we need to switch to rapid chess?

It doesn't have to be rapid. Fischer Chess is very promising. It's also named Chess-960, after all, as there are 960 starting position. Well, some of those positions are a little absurd i.e. the pieces stand in absurd positions… Perhaps you don't need to use all the 960 starting positions but, let's say, 200 or 300? I don't know the exact number. I think that really would get rid of all the forced draws, because it's impossible to analyse 100 starting positions, never mind 900. I think the most promising option is Fischer Chess.

One topic that fascinates observers of Grischuk's chess is his constant time trouble, but as so often he found nothing he could really say in response, except that he thought he'd never manage to eradicate the problem. The interview concluded:

What are your plans for the near future?

Now I'll have a little rest, because it really was a tough event. My seconds told me that I looked fresher and fresher each day, but perhaps they were just flattering me.

By the way, about your seconds. I recall that in the past you'd sometimes go to events alone, while here you had an impressive team. Why three people?

I can tell you that from the very beginning I wanted to have both Bacrot and Riazantsev in my team, and when I decided to play the Grunfeld I decided to get together with Peter [Svidler] as he's a top specialist in that opening. I've never taken and would never take someone I don't know. But I've known Alexander and Etienne for a long time, while I've known Peter for around 20 years. I can only say an enormous thank you to all three of them for their work. It was very productive.

Grischuk, Svidler and Bacrot do the "Reservoir Dogs" walk | photo: ChessPro

Ilya Levitov told me that you're going to lead the Russian team at the World Team Championship. How many appearances will that make it for the national team?

…."teen". I played for Russia for the first time in 1999, in Batumi.

Do you expect to win?

I think we're the favourites. Our team will consist of Karjakin, Nepomniachtchi, Svidler, Vitiugov and me. I hope we'll win. Then there's going to be a very interesting event – the World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk. And then I don't yet know, but there are more than enough tournaments this autumn.


 
 

Optionen: