Kramnik on Chess, Anand, Topalov and his future

V.T.: What are your political convictions?

V.K.: Ah, now that’s a very complex question.

V.T.: Well, for example, Grischuk’s got a wild aversion to what’s going on in Russia. What about you?

V.K.: No, I don’t have any aversion. I’ve noticed that it’s very hard to explain any of my political leanings, because I look at all of this from a completely different angle. I don’t really understand the point of view of other people, and perhaps they don’t understand mine. I look at all of this from a rational point of view, in terms of common sense and real possibilities, of what actually exists or could exist. People mostly dream. When it comes to Russia they say that everything’s bad, but you need to understand that at the given moment we don’t have the potential to become a Germany or Switzerland. If I started playing tennis now I wouldn’t expect to take part in next year’s Wimbledon. It strikes me that we’ve still got some inflated expectations left over from Soviet times.V.K.: No, of course not. I’m in favour of common sense and the theory of small deeds. You simply need to gradually improve everything, each in his own back yard. I really don’t like people who rant. We’ve got some acquaintances like that (laughs). The situation in Russia is far from ideal, but the problem is that we had that terrible 20th century. As a nation we suffered more than anyone else during it. Therefore it seems to me that we don’t have the potential now to become a leading country that can have a real influence on world politics. Of course we pretend, but at the given moment we’re not ready to make a qualitative leap forward.

V.T.: What you’ve said already amounts to quite a sharply defined position. If the 20th century was so terrible then you’ve got a clear aversion to the communist project in Russia?

V.K.: Yes, of course, an absolute aversion. Of course, there were some positives, but it’s all a question of the cost. Stalin was a multifaceted man, even a talented one, but how clever do you need to be to imprison millions of people and then get them to do hard labour for nothing to rebuild a country. That absolute villain laid waste to a whole generation of people. After he’d gone the Communist regime became a little milder, there were achievements, they got into space. But, forgive me, I was still in time to catch some of that period, and after all it was horrific, all that misery, that appallingly grey life. I don’t want to offend anyone as many people are nostalgic for those times, but for me it’s better to be poor but free.One of our main problems in Russia right now is imperialistic thinking. We need to get rid of that as soon as possible and start to move forwards. I was really inspired by the example of China. They were all busy somewhere and had gone completely quiet on the international stage. That lasted for around 20 years and then, all of a sudden, they’re a world superpower. Now they’re beginning to seize control of the financial markets and increase their influence, and rightly so. What we need to do now is pull ourselves together and improve human welfare.

V.T.: It seems despite the fact you live in Paris and you’re married to a French woman you still consider yourself Russian?

V.K.: Yes, of course, and my passport’s also Russian. I love Europe. I like the way people relate to each other, which is something we don’t do quite so well. But I grew up here and even if I ever receive a French passport I’ll still remain Russian.

V.T.: Your wife works for “Figaro”. Is that a right-wing or left-wing newspaper?

V.K.: More right-wing. Just now she’s not working there. She was on maternity leave and hasn’t yet returned.

V.T.: It’s well-known that the whole of France is divided, one way or another, into left and right. Which camp would you align yourself with?

V.K.: That’s precisely what I was talking about earlier: left or right makes absolutely no difference to me as common sense is what matters. “It’s not important what colour the cat is, but that it catches mice”. The more ideological a politician the more he drives me away. The ideal politician is an unprincipled politician (laughs). Good politics is common sense and a very subtle feel for situations, without becoming fixated on any one idea. I’ve got the same distaste for both communists and the far-right or, to take an American example – for the Republicans, precisely because they’ve got too much ideology, while the Democrats are more sensible. So it simply seems absurd to me when I hear all these discussions in France, particularly when you look at what a failure for the western world the decisions taken in the last 10-15 years have been.

V.T.: Do you have in mind financial policy, or immigration policy?

V.K.: Everything. The whole power of the western world has drained away as a result of those decisions, if there’s anyone left who hasn’t realised it yet. They were the ones who made crude mistakes, blundering pieces left, right and centre, and now the game can no longer be saved. At first it was done by the left, then the right. What they did to the European Union is beyond your worst nightmares. After all, it’s clear it was essentially the collapse of Europe.

V.T.: You mean the acceptance of new members en masse?

V.K.: Yes. It should have been done little by little, accepting one new country at a time, but only if it met the standards. Instead of that there’s now a mass of states at completely different levels. Some are donors while others are simply sucking up money, though those have no fewer rights than the people giving the money. It’s clear such a system doesn’t work and never will. Germany and France would, I think, jump at the chance to turn back the clock, but that’s impossible. The same can be said about immigration policy. I’m not against immigration, as it makes up a very important part of society, but it should have been done as it is in America, where you can’t end up quite so easily. At some point everyone who wanted to come to Europe did; and as a result you can see for yourself what’s going on.In my view, harsh as it might sound, it turned out that they had an intellectually weak elite. In Russia, though I realise this sounds a little odd, politics is conducted more intelligently. In order to be a good politician you need to have a good knowledge of history, because everything goes in circles and this has all happened before. The decline of empires followed more or less the same pattern. European values, the way people relate to each other and human rights, are very important to me, and it’s with great regret that I’m watching what’s happening to the civilised world just now. It’s suicide.
On himself

V.T.: In the 90s you had a reputation as a laid-back guy. All kinds of people would constantly hang out around you, partying. When and how did all that come to an end?

V.K.: It’s just that my circle of acquaintances changed a little. There’s a time for everything. When you’re 17 years old that’s all fascinating, cool: parties, company, girls, alcohol... But then you grow tired of it, and want something else.

V.T.: And how do things look nowadays?

V.K.: Well, everything’s more moderate, as after all I’ve got a family, a child. But my house is still open for many people who often turn up without calling first or stay the night.

V.T.: Have you got more friends who are French or Russian?

V.K.: It’s probably something like 50:50. I’m still quite free and open with people, but my circle of acquaintances has changed, which is natural. I’ve got some nostalgia for those times and I’m very glad that was part of my life, but the chapter’s closed and I’ve got no desire to repeat it. After all, my career’s gone well and I was also able to party a bit, while not doing any harm to my health. Many people who start their professional career at an early age never had that period, and then they try to catch up when they get to around 50. A big change in my relations with people was brought about by my World Champion status. For some I became unapproachable, it seemed. It wasn’t even a matter of envy or jealousy but, perhaps, some unachieved ambitions got in the way. In any case, the relations changed and perhaps became more cautious. I didn’t change greatly myself and I’m still quite down-to-earth with people. That’s a chapter I’ve closed.
V.T.: Given you’ve talked about a chapter, perhaps we should talk about books? What are your top-five books or writers?

V.K.: I haven’t read much recently as I’ve had no time at all, so I haven’t got a very clear idea of modern literature. “Generation P” is undoubtedly an outstanding book. Again, I think that’s because it was written at the right time and hit the mark. There’s now an enormous number of clones, but he (Pelevin) was the pioneer. Then, undoubtedly, there’s Dostoevsky. I don’t particularly like “The Brothers Karamazov”, but the “Grand Inquisitor” chapter is pure genius. Genius, because it was written precisely then and explains how the world is essentially constructed. “The Possessed”, of course. The man looked 50 years ahead and described everything. I really like Orwell: “Animal Farm” and “1984”, although he’s a little heavy-handed there. “War and Peace”. Here I can quote Botvinnik: “I can’t say I really like Tolstoy, but “War and Peace” is an absolutely brilliant thing”.

V.T.: So your preferences are quite classical and you’re not drawn towards counter-culture?

V.K.: No. You know I tried to read Sorokin, but somehow I couldn’t get into it. Perhaps I came across the wrong book. I’ll have to try again. And then of course there’s “The Master and Margarita”, even if it sounds very banal to list it. That’s probably my favourite work, overall.

V.T.: What about music?

V.K.: I’ve also got very little time for anything new at the moment. I’ve started to like classical music. I can’t say I’m a fanatic, but I’ve started to enjoy it. But as it is… Well, some intellectual things: Makarevich, Grebenshchikov. I really regret not having enough time as I’d like to find enough for all my pastimes.

V.T.: What are you preferences in terms of drinks and food?

V.K.: I’ve now become a bourgeois Frenchman. I drink a little wine but, in general, I don’t remember the last time I got drunk. When I was younger the goal was – to sit down and drink in order to get drunk, because why else would you? Now it’s no longer like that. I also like good cognac, and it’s always standing there at home. In the evening I like to have a glass or two. V.T.: French cuisine...

V.K.: I’m quite omnivorous when it comes to food. I love lots of things but I have to restrict myself because of my tendency to put on weight. For example, I like the Indian cuisine, but that’s immediately a kilogram of extra weight the next day. I do in fact consider French cuisine to be the world’s unrivalled no.1.

That was where we decided to end the official part of our interview, while for another hour or so we enjoyed simply chatting – mainly on chess. “I’ve long been working as Chubais” was uttered at one point – I’d never thought he sees himself quite like that. (Kramnik recently said he sees himself as a scapegoat in Russian and world chess, as Anatoly Chubais is in Russian politics). Although, of course, it’s somehow become customary to suspect him of something all the time: once it was the precariousness of his claims to the World Championship title, now it’s the absence of patriotism. Well, if that’s the case then he’s a very unusual suspect. You only need to get him talking and all your doubts vanish. Only to later return again.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8069

How To Make Fritz Chess Software Play a Specific Chess Opening Part Two

For our example, we'll say that you've been studying the King's Gambit and you want to practice playing it against Fritz. You've decided to create a small opening book containing just the variations you've studied so far:

* 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 etc. (The Classical Variation)
* 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 etc.
* 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 etc. (The Falkbeer Countergambit)
* 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 etc.

Obviously you're going to want to extend these variations so they're longer, plus add some side variations (so that there are occasional surprises along the way), but these variations constitute our basic roadmap of what we intend to do with our "handmade" opening book.

The first step is to fire up Fritz. In the main chessboard screen, go to the Game menu and select "New game" (this is to reset the chessboard and clear the Notation pane). Now we're going to create a new (empty) opening book. Go to the File menu, select "New", and then "Openings book" from the submenu to get to this dialogue: This is nothing more than the standard Windows file select dialogue which you've doubtless seen when using other programs. You can select a folder in which to house the book you're about to create, as well as give the book file a name. The default will be a "Books" folder which was created when you installed Fritz (the folder path will be \My Documents\ChessBase\Books; another way of getting there is via the path C:\Documents and Settings\[user name]\My Documents\ChessBase\Books). Just name the file in the "Filename" box and click "OK"; a new empty opening book has now been created on your harddrive.

For this example we're going to name our opening book "kinggamb.ctg" as shown below: .and then we'll click "OK". The dialogue will disappear and we'll see the Notation pane switch automatically to this view under the "Openings book" tab:The book is currently empty because we haven't added any moves to it yet.

We need to do two more things before we start adding moves to the book. First we need to go to the Engine menu and click on "Switch off engine"; this will put a check beside that command to show that the engine is "off":

When the chess engine is turned off, Fritz won't respond after we move a piece on the chessboard. Next we need to right-click in the Notation pane and select "Allow move adding":Enabling this feature means that we can manually add moves to the opening book. Now we're ready to start putting in the moves. Let's say that we want to add this variation to the opening tree:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.d4 d6 7.Nd3 Nxe4 8.Bxf4 Qe7 9.Qe2 Nc6 10.c3 Bf5 11.Nd2 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 Re8

All we need to do is start making these moves on Fritz' chessboard; as we do so, they will be added to the opening book. For example. after we make the move 1.e4 on the board (and then step back one move by using the Left Cursor ["left arrow"] key on the keyboard), the Notation pane under the "Openings book" tab will look like this: We see that the move 1.e4 has been added to the book. Single-click on this "1.e4" entry in the book (to make that move on the board again), then make the move 1...e5 for Black, and follow it up with the rest of the moves in the variation. After making the move 12...Re8, we can double-check the work by stepping back one move and looking at the Notation pane:.and we can see that the variation has been entered successfully.

Let's say now that we want to add another variation which starts with the same first three moves (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5) but branches off beginning with the move 4.Bc4. Use the left cursor key on your keyboard to step back through the moves until we get to the position after 3...g5 has been played. Now we just make the move 4.Bc4; when the following dialogue appears, just click the "New variation" button: It's interesting to note here that the value listed for "probability" has changed from the "100" we saw in earlier views to "50"; since we now have a branching point (and one in which there are two possible moves), the engine's probability of playing a particular move has changed to 50%.

We can continue to add variations in this manner for as long as we like. You'll recall that we listed four main King's Gambit "systems" earlier in this article. We can add "main variations" for all four of these systems, plus branching subvariations for each of them as well. Later (after we've finished constructing this book), as Fritz plays the opening and reaches one of these branching points it will randomly play one of the moves it finds in the opening book.

After we've finished adding variations to our opening book, we need to turn off "Allow move adding"; otherwise the moves of the games that we play will be added to the book. Right-click on an empty spot in the opening tree and click on "Allow move adding" to uncheck it in the popup menu. We also need to turn the chess engine back "on", so we'll go to the Engine menu and click on "Switch off engine" to uncheck that as well.

We're now ready to play a game using our new opening book, so we just set our levels or time controls as usual and then start playing against Fritz. Since our new opening book contains only King's Gambit moves, we're forcing Fritz to play nothing but that opening.

Creating such an opening book by hand is a good training tool, since entering the moves manually helps reinforce those variations in our memories. And using such a book in actual play against Fritz is also good training because we'll always know when we've played a move which isn't in the opening book (either because we've reached the end of a variation or because we've erred and played a "non-standard" move): at the point at which we've departed from what's in the book, we'll see Fritz' engine analysis pane spring to life as it shows us what the engine is "thinking". As long as we're playing moves which are in the opening book, Fritz will reply without delay (or after a very minimal one of a second or so), but as soon as we depart from the "known territory" of the opening book's moves, Fritz will start calculating moves instead of playing "book" replies.

We can create as many of these specialized opening books as we like, easily switching between them as we decide to train in different openings. If we want to load another opening book (be it one we've created or the one which came with the Fritz program), all we have to do is go to the File menu, select "Open", and then "Openings book" to get to this dialogue: ust double-click on the name of the opening book you wish to load.

Now you know how to create a special opening book by hand; in the last article in this series we're going to learn how to take Fritz' database games and create an opening book from them.
http://www.chesscentral.com/Chess_Opening_Book_a/137.htm

Kramnik on Chess, Anand, Topalov and his future

Vlad Tkachiev: Vladimir, have you ever tried to determine you biorhythms when establishing your tournament schedule? For example, I always play badly in January.

Vladimir Kramnik: For me winter is a difficult period. For example, I always play in Wijk aan Zee, and it always goes badly, while correspondingly I play well in Dortmund. In winter I simply don’t get enough daylight. I go to sleep and get up very late, and at Wijk aan Zee I have the impression I don’t see daylight at all. So there are perfectly rational reasons to explain it.

V.T.: For an outside observer there’s been the impression in recent years that you’ve tried to sharpen your style. Is that true?
V.K.: No, I haven’t tried. My play always depends on how I’m feeling, and that simply changed when I lost the title. Perhaps I became more indifferent or liberated. Before a tournament I never decide what style I’m going to adopt, and although some changes do take place, they’re out of my control.

V.T.: Do you agree with the widespread view that while preparing for the match against Kasparov you changed your style so much that it later began to hold you back? Perhaps the seeds of your loss in the match against Anand were sown in your victory over Kasparov?

V.K.: Perhaps, but you always need to choose, as after all I don’t consider myself capable of playing brilliantly in any style. Yes, in order to beat Kasparov I had to make real changes, though that had already started to happen to my style before then. And afterwards I again tried to somehow transform myself by starting to play 1.e4, but for various reasons that didn’t work out. Above all, I was lacking a certain inner harmony. There was a lot of squabbling and political problems that I’d never enjoyed dealing with, but I considered myself obliged to do something as the situation was so difficult. Perhaps I was wrong and should have… Either way, those attempts to play sharply no longer corresponded to my inner state. My style is in any case more positional, and sharp play isn’t my thing. Of course, you’re partly right, but I don’t regret it. After all, I achieved a lot, becoming World Champion three times. I lost to Anand, but I could also have lost to him in my very best form.

V.T.: It seems to me that you’d already won the match against Kasparov before it started, as he wasn’t expecting to see such a Kramnik. And then Anand managed to do the same thing against you, undertaking a colossal amount of work to drag you into a concrete struggle from the first moves.V.K.: In the match against Anand everything went wrong from the very beginning, just as it did for Kasparov in his match against me. I’m actually a fatalist to a degree, and feel that if that’s how something goes then that’s how it was fated to happen. Of course, Kasparov’s preparation couldn’t be compared to Anand’s – there’s no question Anand managed to do things much better, more intelligently and cunningly. Yes, he completely outthought me.

V.T.: Everything he did came as a surprise for you?

V.K.: Yes, my preparation period didn’t go well and I had practically nothing for white, although I’d worked a great deal, more than before the match against Kasparov. The things I’d put my emphasis on in preparation simply didn’t pay off. I had absolutely nothing against the Meran, although I’d spent months working on it, and I realised that I simply needed to make draws up until around the tenth game, but I couldn’t reconcile myself to such cynicism – after all, it was a World Championship match. So I was in two minds to a degree, although I realised that was my only chance.

V.T.: But you didn’t have an easy life with black either.

V.K.: No, with black everything was actually fine. I started to create some problems for myself when I had to win, for example in game six. It’s simply that Anand played better and would have won the match in any case, though I committed hari-kari.

V.T.: But don’t you think that in order to get into optimum form you need to use some potent remedies?

V.K.: I don’t use them anymore. That was back in the 90s…

V.T.: I’m not talking about that just now, but about the way you placed great restrictions on yourself: the Petroff, the Berlin, which, by the way, have started to unravel. After all, we can still remember the old Kramnik – the Sicilian Defence against anyone, trading blow for blow. Perhaps you made a mistake?

V.K.: Yes, but as the years pass, unfortunately, you don’t have any particular choice. Firstly, everyone limits themselves. Even Kasparov would always play the same thing. Moreover, your memory is no longer what it was at 20 years old, and you can’t do the same amount of work as before: family, a child. Of course, if you’re a fanatic and work 24 hours a day you can play all the openings, but that’s very hard to do if you want to spend time with your family and not forget about the pleasures of life.

V.T.: Especially if you live in Paris?

V.K. Perhaps. Over the years a new circle of acquaintances has emerged, certain social obligations, and so on. I’m no longer ready to sacrifice everything in order to get half a point more in each tournament. Therefore I make a choice and work with what I’ve got, and it turns out the way it turns out. Of course I understand such an approach has its drawbacks, but what can you do? Name me another option and I’ll think about it. I don’t see one.

V.T.: For the one and only time in this interview I’ll allow myself to pay you an open compliment.
.K.: But of course you’ll then compensate for that with tricky questions (laughs)!

V.T.: I consider you to be one of the most productive chess players in terms of openings in the whole of history. Moreover, I think your positional understanding is also among the purest I’ve come across. Do you agree with that?

V.K.: I always worked a great deal and really did dig up a lot, more than others. I’m not sure it was more than Kasparov, but it was at a comparable level. But in any event, a very large part of that nevertheless goes to waste. Little gets used; in percentage terms perhaps it’s 5-10%. That’s a problem for chess players in general, which is why you also get people who are lazy. In football things are much simpler: you go to training and know that if you run around and work on shooting it’ll benefit you later. But in chess it might very well work out the opposite: it often happened that I did a great deal of work on some line or other, and then someone refuted it a move earlier, meaning it all gets thrown in the rubbish bin. That’s the real reason, in my view, why chess players work relatively little in comparison to other sportsmen.

As for the positional style, I don’t know how pure it is. That’s something for others to assess, although I do agree it’s my speciality. Positional play is a very complex matter. I’ve often noticed that it’s strung together from short-range calculation. When Karpov began to weaken it wasn’t that he’d stopped understanding, but simply that he’d begun to miscalculate short variations. When he’d make one move in one direction and then go off course on the next you might get the wrong impression. When I’m in bad form I also understand chess badly, while in good form everything seems to be fine. But overall, positional play is my strong point, as are playable endgames.

V.T.: I had the impression that you’ve deteriorated a little in that regard in recent years. I can recall a few won positions that you couldn’t…

V.K.: No, I’ve always played won endgames poorly and couldn’t even tell you why myself. Perhaps I relax too soon. It’s when the evaluation isn’t yet clear, += or =+, that I play well and turn those endings into won ones, which I then sometimes make a mess of, just as I did in my younger years. To be honest, I’ve never particularly stopped to think about the features of my own style, while I could give you a full breakdown on Anand.

V.T.: Let’s try that.

V.K.: I always considered him to be a colossal talent, one of the greatest in the whole history of chess. Each champion has had some sort of speciality, and his is creating counterplay in any position out of absolutely nowhere. He’s got an amazing ability to constantly stretch himself so that even in some kind of Exchange Slav he nevertheless manages to attack something and create something. He also plays absolutely brilliantly with knights, even better than Morozevich – if his knights start to jump around, particularly towards the king, then that’s that, it’s impossible to play against and they’ll just sweep away everything in their path. I noticed it’s better to get rid of them when you’re playing against him. In general, he’s improved a great deal in recent years, at some point after 2002. He’s a chess player of genius, but previously he didn’t work enough, by and large.

V.T.: But how has he managed to improve? Did marriage help?

V.K.: Perhaps. He’s matured, while previously he lacked the character to become World Champion. I remember in 1995 against Kasparov it was enough just to poke him a little and he simply fell apart. In the match against me things were completely different. Plus, he’s started to work a great deal and now his opening preparation is among the best, if not the best. At the given moment I don’t see who can compete with him when he’s on form. Perhaps only Carlsen in his very best condition, though probably not. I think he’ll only leave the stage when he weakens himself and ceases to maintain that extremely high level.

V.T.: His weaknesses?

V.K.: The trouble is there almost aren’t any…

V.T.: So nowadays it’s impossible to play the psychological card against him?

V.K.: Yes, though in any case I never wanted to do something on the level of slamming doors (it seems this is hinting at the well-known case of game ten of the Anand-Kasparov match in 1995, when Kasparov, or so many people claimed, slammed the door noisily on purpose in order to affect his opponent – V.T.) and so on. That’s something that in any case probably wouldn’t work now. His main weakness is that he’s no longer so young, and now he’s also got a child. I can’t imagine he’s still going to work his socks off as before. But at the given moment I think he’s the best in the world in terms of play, namely in terms of play.

V.T.: And the defence of passive positions?

V.K.: He’s doesn’t get passive positions, as they immediately become active.

V.T.: It seems to me he’s got a very big weakness, only it’s difficult to get at it – his play in blockaded positions. I could list half a dozen examples.

V.K.: He does have weaknesses. For example, he doesn’t sense some nuances or move orders very well. But the thing is that in modern chess you can arrange the whole play to suit your style – that’s the problem. So with a computer you can create your own little chess world and live in it. Ok, blockaded positions, but then he probably knows about that too. If you can tell me how to block everything in the Meran and still get an edge I’d be very grateful.
I think that namely in terms of play Anand is in no way weaker than Kasparov, but he’s simply a little lazy, relaxed and only focuses on matches. In the last 5-6 years he’s made a qualitative leap that’s made it possible to consider him one of the great chess players. Perhaps it doesn’t look like that to observers, but when you play against him you sense what a great range he has.

– Part two to follow –

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8042

Kramnik on Chess, Anand, Topalov and his future – Part 2

Topalov

V.T.: What’s going on with Topalov just now?

V.K.: I don’t know. It’s not even a matter of his having a bad period. I don’t understand why he’s not playing just now. After all, you usually get out of that by playing, and if you play only one tournament every six months it’s very hard to get back into the rhythm. Of course he’s a phenomenal player, but it’s clear that he’s out of form and has suffered a real decline of late. His main problem, I think, is that for some reason he doesn’t want to play. If you do want to play then you can always find an option.
V.T.: And do you understand why that’s happening?

V.K.: Perhaps he’s simply bored of it, or it’s because he got married. I don’t know, but I can’t understand it.

V.T.: The toilet scandal. Why were you so offended? After all, isn’t it legitimate to suspect each other of cheating during a World Championship match?

V.K.: It’s legitimate to suspect someone but, to put it mildly, it’s illegitimate to publicly state your suspicion as fact. Personally I’ve never suspected anyone, not least because it’s extremely ugly in human terms and crosses all the boundaries of minimum decency.

V.T.: You don’t accept such methods of conducting the fight?

V.K.: No, I don’t accept them.

V.T.: What happened to you there? Was it an emotional breakdown? To an observer it seemed as though the whole scandal was simply a means of putting you under psychological pressure.

V.K.: In part, yes. But in actual fact all these “appeals” started earlier, right after the second game; it was totally clear that the appeals committee was absolutely hand-picked by them, and they began to contravene all the match regulations. When I learned the composition of the committee, and it included Makropoulos and Azmaiparashvili, I was immediately very unhappy about it, if only because Azmaiparashvili has direct financial relations to Danailov; that was already known about back then. It was clear nothing good could come of that. However, I wanted to keep them in check with legal contracts. Almost all the points were clearly defined there, including one which stated that any complaints should be made before the match began. But not during it! I was later extremely upset by the fact they gave Danailov the video of my going to the rest room. That was complete madness! Well okay, the arbiter has the right to look at it at any moment, but no-one else. I’ve got nothing to hide, but it’s a matter of principle. Today Danailov, tomorrow they’ll post it on the Internet. What were they thinking? It was absolutely disgraceful. V.T.: Did you get so upset because you felt as though you were in a hostile environment?

V.K.: Yes, of course. And then they started to satisfy all these “requests”, although I showed them the contract and the regulations. It turned out there was an incredible legal conflict there, which I hadn’t spotted before the match. I think it had all been prepared in advance by Danailov. The thing was that despite the contract the decisions of the appeals committee were final, and no-one could do anything about them. It was an absolutely crazy situation: they could even take the decision that a game that had ended in a win for me was a draw; there was nothing you could do about it. The only option would be to take them to court after the match, and the court would decide that they could no longer work on an appeals committee. And then I realised that things would get worse, they’d already unlawfully taken away my rest room; tomorrow they’d do something else. All of four games had been played and they’d already poured a bucket of crap on me; and they were breaking all the rules.

V.T.: But, remembering the matches between Karpov and Kasparov, you must have realised that it would turn into a war at some point?

V.K.: But you know, times are a little different nowadays. I had the illusion that in Russia things wouldn’t become so outrageous. But they did, unfortunately. I’ve got no complaints about Ilyumzhinov; it’s clear it was nothing to do with him, but the situation got completely out of his control. They simply deceived him, while everyone else there was playing for the one team. So I had the sense that I was completely helpless. I simply didn’t know what to do.
There were a million violations; for example, in the fifth game they completely unlawfully adjudged me to have lost, as there was a point stating that a decision to change the time of a game even by a minute could only be taken with the written permission of the FIDE President, who wasn’t there. The game was moved half an hour, which was unlawful.

V.T.: But you only realised that in hindsight?

V.K.: Well yes, of course, in hindsight, as I’m not a jurist. My lawyer later explained everything to me; and I told FIDE that I’d simply sue them for the point they’d taken away. And then an absolutely incredible thing happened – they falsified Ilyumzhinov’s signature; and that’s absolutely provable. At 3:30, I think it was, they showed me a piece of paper with the FIDE President’s signature, saying something like, “I consider the appeal committee’s decision lawful. Vladimir should continue the match” and so on, with Ilyumzhinov’s signature. But at that moment he was together with Zhukov at a government meeting. Zhukov later told me that he was prepared to confirm that Ilyumzhinov hadn’t left the building and hadn’t signed any paper. They simply put his signature as a stamp, without him knowing a thing about it.

V.T.: But why didn’t he react to that in any way later?

V.K.: But how can you react – by admitting you’ve let the situation get completely out of control?

V.T.: Why didn’t he fire anyone afterwards?

V.K.: Because he’s indecisive and never gets rid of people when necessary. In actual fact he was incredibly angry at that point, because he understood that they’d simply deceived him. He’d been deceived by Azmaiparashvili, who was following his own private interests. He needed to make Topalov champion in order to then hold a match in Baku with Radjabov. He was going to get something for that. People don’t understand that the whole crux of the situation was that match in Baku, for which a contract had already been signed. The match was supposed to happen in April, and Topalov would get a million dollars for it, but in order to play he had to be World Champion. Therefore when that whole mess with the interruption began he was ready for any option, even to later continue the match in Elista with the same score.

V.T.: But why was that match in Baku so important for him, as after all your prize fund wasn’t any less?

V.K.: Ours was less, plus that was money that he’d in any case already received. Azmaiparashvili was a direct broker in that business with Azerbaijan, and therefore an interested party. Before the match they held a press conference in Sofia to promote the match in Baku, and said that everything had already been agreed. Afterwards a journalist asked what would happen if Topalov lost the match in Elista. Azmaiparashvili answered with a smile: “he won’t lose it”. How can a member of the appeals committee say something like that? All those statements made me wary; I realised what was going on and started to prepare for such things.

V.T.: But you didn’t know how exactly it would happen?

V.K.: I didn’t expect everything to be so sudden, brutal and absolutely shameless. Perhaps that’s because I’m already a man of a somewhat western mentality, and they’d signed the contract, which had to mean something. But it meant absolutely nothing! It was clear who “Azmai” was working for. As for Makropoulos, I don’t think, by the way, that he was the same; he simply didn’t know what to do. The situation got completely out of control; and, of course, I was mad. At the moment they took away the point I wasn’t planning on continuing the match, but then I saw that mug (laughs) and thought: “No, you can’t beat me that easily”.

V.T.: Which mug?

V.K.: Danailov’s, of course. He simply shone at the press conference, calculating that things would start to fall apart and they’d get that match in Baku along with the money. The decision, of course, was illogical, but at the last moment, sometime before the 6th game, I decided that I wouldn’t give him any freebies and I’d continue the match.

V.T.: Which, it seems, you’re very glad about now?

V.K.: Yes, of course. It was a tough decision, as I might also have lost.

V.T.: And what were those around you telling you before the game?

V.K.: Nothing. It’s absolute nonsense that I received an order from the Kremlin. All I had was a conversation with Zhukov and he made it clear to me: “We, the federation, will support you whatever decision you take”. Among my coaching staff that was also the message: “It’s your decision”.

V.T.: And if the match wasn’t in Russia would you have continued it?

V.K.: Yes, of course, what difference does it make? In actual fact, that decision was very much a spontaneous one on my part. On their part? I’m not convinced.

V.T.: A lot of years have passed since then. Is it still very personal between you and Danailov and Topalov?

V.K.: Well, what does personal mean? I simply don’t have any respect for those people.

V.T.: So you won’t shake their hands?

V.K.: No.

V.T.: But what did you do when you played against him?

V.K.: There’s a trick there – you don’t have the right not to shake someone’s hand, but you don’t have to offer your hand. For me that person won’t exist until he repents and publicly apologises for his behaviour. If that happens then it’s a different matter. We’ll talk and I’m perfectly ready for that. I don’t have any particular resentment. In the meantime, he’s of no interest to me, and I find his moral and ethical norms unacceptable. I don’t want to talk to him or shake his hand. It’s the same with Danailov. Despite all that, I have to admit that he’s not such a bad chess manager, in the sense of finding money, and he’s come up with some sensible ideas.
The Future

V.T.: You said that perhaps the next Olympiad will be your last and you might soon bring your chess career to an end. What will you do?

V.K.: First and foremost, while my career’s still in progress I don’t want to think about that too seriously.

V.T.: But still, some thoughts must have occurred to you?

V.K.: I’ve got a few different variations, a few spheres that interest me. I’m quite a sociable and open person and I’ve got friends in the most varied of fields. I’d like to be involved in implementing some sort of project I believe in, whether it’s social, chess, political or something else instead. I’d like to put in effort and see a result.

V.T.: And you feel you’ve got that potential?

V.K.: It seems I’ve got energy, brains and the desire as well. I’m not yet old. I’ve played a lot and achieved a great deal, but most likely my career will start to go downhill at some point.

V.T.: Yes, I think it’s unlikely you’ll be able to settle for number ten on the rating list.

V.K.: That’s not even the issue. I’d be able to do it, but I simply don’t see the point. If I can see I’m playing worse and worse, and things aren’t going to get any better, then why go on with it? As long as I can still play pretty well and win some tournaments from time to time, the Olympiad, for example, or Dortmund for the tenth time, then it’s all still relatively interesting. That drive will drop a little, however, if I don’t get into the next cycle. Turning up just to play a bit part is of abso V.T.: And when are you going to quit?

V.K.: I suspect it’ll be by around 40. I can honestly tell you, though, that if a very interesting proposal came along I could end my career tomorrow.

V.T.: But so far there hasn’t been one?

V.K.: I’m not talking about financial proposals.

V.T.: Could you go into any more detail, as “social or political project” all sounds very vague?

V.K.: I don’t know for certain myself. Some kind of project, let’s say, to do with promoting the image of Russia in France. In other words, I’d be interested in some sort of wide-ranging, conceptual project, and in promoting it. I’d like it to be something comparable in scale to becoming World Chess Champion.lutely no interest to me.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8052