The literary content of the interview is no doubt partly due to the interviewer, Yarina Senchishin, who describes herself elsewhere as “poet, translator and FIDE master”. She introduces the interview at “Den” (Day) by explaining how she knows Ivanchuk:

Vassily Ivanchuk and I met in front of the Taras Shevchenko statue in Lviv and went to one of the cafes close to the market square. We’re old friends who’ve known each other since the second half of the 1980s. We met when we were both seventeen and played in the same team, achieving our first chess successes. Even back then no-one had any doubt that Vassily was going to have a brilliant chess future. One of the world’s best chess players, when you talk to him he’s emotional, unpredictable and not given to saying too much. Therefore I had to try and get Vassily talking. Here’s what came of that.

On modern chess

Vassily, what, in your opinion, is modern chess? You started playing when the old regulations were still in force and games were adjourned. Now it’s all very different.

In regard to adjournments I think I was very lucky, because that helped me to improve my chess analysis skills. If games were adjourned nowadays people would undoubtedly use chess programs for the analysis. On the other hand, when I sit down to play a game now I know it’ll be over after a certain number of hours. What the result will be is another matter, but we’ll finish the game and there won’t be an adjourned position “hanging” over me.

Is it possible to play chess at quite a high level today without using computers?

It all depends on how you use them. If you don’t use computers for the work at all, then it’s unlikely you’ll achieve great results. But if you use them too much or unskilfully, then that can also do serious harm.

Now that there are very powerful chess programs is there still room for human creativity? Do you still produce new ideas in the openings?

Of course, I’ve been doing that all my life.

On literature

Have you ever thought: “If I hadn’t taken up chess what else would I have done?”

Perhaps some kind of scientific activity, or else I could have become a writer. I like writing.

That’s an area where it’s still perfectly possible for you to fulfil yourself. We still don’t, after all, have a good chess novel in Ukrainian literature.

And there aren’t many in world literature either.

But why? There’s Nabokov, for example. Have you read “The Luzhin Defence”?

A very poor novel. I didn’t like it. But the “pearl” is, of course, “Marabou” by Kuprin. In those six pages chess players are represented in an unimaginably unappealing light. An anti-advert for chess. [You can read “Marabou” here]

I also didn’t particularly like Nabokov’s novel, although his style is wonderful. I constantly had the feeling that the author wasn’t an active player and the situations he described seemed artificial.

Yes, perhaps Stefan Zweig’s “Chess” novella is more or less ok. There are decent films about chess – “Grandmaster”, “Queen Sacrifice” about Mikhail Tal, “White Snow of Russia” about Alexander Alekhine… I read a lot. I can read anything. Sometimes it depends on my mood. It wasn’t long ago at all that I read about the philosophy of Epicurus. I want to read about the history of the origins of different religions. I’m interested in philosophy, history and also fiction. Out of modern literature I recently read books by Iren Rozdobudko, Natalka Sniadanko and Maria Matios. I liked Rozdobudko’s works the most. Among the classics I like the work of Mikhaylo Kotsyubinsky and Olga Kobylanska. I recently reread “The Land” and other works. I liked them. It’s not a straightforward style of writing to take in, but you can feel the inner depth.

Where do you get the books you read: from your home library or do you visit book shops?

I’ve got a big library at home, but sometimes I drop into shops. There I can choose a book based on the advice of acquaintances or listen to the advice of the book sellers. Sometimes I exchange books with colleagues at tournaments. Almost every chess player brings books to tournaments and sometimes they recommend them to colleagues/rivals. For example, Grandmaster Alexei Shirov gave me “Norwegian Wood” by Murakami to read, while Grandmaster Kramnik gave me “Time Regained” by Marcel Proust. Sometimes the “vice versa” principle operates. I remember when my coach was still Mikhail Nekrasov and we once talked about literature and he told me: “Don’t read Hugo. He’s a very boring author”. The first thing I did when I returned to Lviv was to find the works of Hugo. I read and enjoyed them.

Did you read “Les Misérables”?

Yes. In Russian translation. And also “The Last Day of a Condemned Man”.

And did your and, as it happens, also my former trainer, Vladimir Stepanovich Buturin, recommend anything for you to read?

Yes, he did of course, and he talked a lot about history and geography. He was a very intelligent man.

Chess is often described as a model of life. Do you agree with that thought? If yes, then has chess helped you to find a solution to real life situations?

It’s an obvious fact that many people don’t play chess and there’s no reason to assume that someone who doesn’t play chess is somehow deprived. On the contrary, perhaps doing some other activity allows them to achieve a higher level of development. Chess players of course have their own particular world view, although it also depends on the person as you can’t say that all players perceive the world in the same way. There are certain qualities, however, both positive and negative, that are inherent to chess players.

For example?

I’d say that for a top-level chess player sincerity and openness are negative qualities.

But why in particular for a top-level chess player?

Because sincerity can work against a chess player when he blurts out some important information.

Nobody said you had to use your hand... | photo: Fred Lucas

On school

You look back with some nostalgia when you recall your school. Did you have any favourite subjects?

I didn’t so much like subjects as teachers. I remember my Ukrainian teacher very well – Gikavets Miroslava Dmitrievna. I still remember much of what she talked about. By the way, she once told me: “I’m amazed you’re capable of playing such a serious game as chess, as you’re a born clown”. In some ways she was right.

What’s your attitude to the idea of introducing chess lessons into schools? Is that a possible means of intellectualising the nation?

Chess can have a place in schools, of course, but exclusively as an elective subject. Why torture children with chess if they don’t like it? Those children who like it, on the other hand, should go to chess clubs. By the way, since the second half of December 2011 the Vassily Ivanchuk Chess School has been operating in Lviv. Children are going to study there from the age of five.

You don’t think it’s worth studying chess like mathematics or literature?

In general our school syllabus isn’t well thought out. For example, I remember my own school years. All those logarithms and integrals… Why did we study all of that? Of course, for the children who took an interest in maths it was necessary, but how many such children were there in the class? They could easily have studied all that in clubs. When the school syllabus is being established they should take into account what to offer all the pupils, and what should be individual or at least for those interested.

On happiness and success

In order to maintain your form do you work every day or do you give yourself longer breaks?

I study chess when I want to, because when I don’t want to the proportion of useful activity is low. When your head’s working well you can do a great deal in a short period of time.

Professional success and happiness – are they mutually compatible?

Here’s what I’d say. Take Julius Caesar. Not a stupid man. When Julius Caesar was asked what he considered the greatest happiness in life, he replied – freedom of choice. I can’t say I’m 100% in agreement with that thought. Moreover, for the majority of humanity freedom of choice in difficult situations can hardly be considered happiness. It gives rise to doubts, and if you take the wrong decision – to serious disappointment, but every hour, every minute, we make a choice, taking decisions that are more or less important. It’s a process that continues all the time.

Happiness is freedom of choice? | photo: Fred Lucas

Do you remember the moment when you clearly realised: “That’s it! I’ll do chess and nothing else?”

I can’t recall it because there never was such a moment. I simply work on chess and continue to work on it, without posing such questions.

So chess is the natural sphere of your existence?

Yes. It’s something I’ve played and something I’ve achieved success in. I continue to play and it’s natural for me. It’s like a centipede. If it thought about how to place its feet it would be difficult for it to move, but instead it just moves, and everything works out well for it.

On public fame

Do you watch television?

Barely at all.

Do you follow news on the internet?

I still sometimes read chess news, but it’s very rare for me to read general news.

Where do you get your information about what’s happening around you?

I talk to people. If I’m interested in something I can ask those who know more about it: “Please tell me what’s going on”. Then I draw my own conclusions. Sometimes when I’m interested in something in particular I can go onto the internet and look, but I don’t read everything at once.

Do people recognise you on the street?

They don’t recognise me that often. I’ll tell you a story. I was once travelling in a train from Kiev to Lviv. Apart from me there were three other people in the compartment. Overnight, of course, they didn’t recognise me. And then in the morning one of them went somewhere, and when he returned he started to talk excitedly: “You know what a celebrity’s travelling with us? Vasyl Virastuk himself!” And they ran to have a look at him. They called me as well, but I said no. They were really amazed by that.

• Interview at “Den” (in Russian)
• All the photos above are the work of Fred Lucas from this year’s Tata Steel Tournament in Wijk aan Zee

The original article in Russian can be found at the RCF website.

Anatoly Karpov

Spassky is a genius of a chess player. He was and is a part of the great history of chess. He trained himself and his character, because at one point he was impressionable and emotional, which prevented him from achieving victories. But he worked on himself and was able to change, to become World Champion. His matches against Petrosian and Fischer have of course become part of the treasury of chess history. I know he’s had health problems and I wish Boris Vasilievich a quick recovery of the old strength he always had. I also hope he can continue to promote chess actively and come to visit us often in Russia!

Vladimir Kramnik

I want to congratulate Boris Vasilievich on his birthday and to wish him, above all, good health! He’s had a difficult time in the last couple of years but it seems the situation has stabilised and things are on the mend. I’d like Spassky to return to active chess life as soon as possible, especially as that’s something he really wants himself. He’s a sociable man and loves meeting different people.

Today I don’t want to speak about him as a chess player – plenty’s been said about that, including in the long interview I devoted to the World Champions. I’d like to speak about him as a personality. For me, the main lesson of his life is that Spassky always acted in accordance with his own convictions. It seems to me that he lives in harmony with himself.

Boris Vasilievich never flirted with the authorities. He never settled for awkward compromises. When the Soviet system collapsed many people had a favourite excuse: “That’s just how the times were. What could we have done?” Those people joined the party at the first possible moment, then left it at the first chance they got, they informed to government agencies… They say: “We’re not to blame, that’s what the times were like!” I really don’t like that, as I think a person always has a choice. Spassky, as well as Tal, prove that really was the case. Adapting to the “rules of the game” imposed by the times is the fate of weak and calculating people. Always remaining true to himself is, in my view, one of the main personal achievements of Boris Vasilievich.

Spassky is now living in the Parisian suburbs, while I’m in the city itself. Of course, we sometimes talk on the phone and I’ve visited him at home a few times. Boris Vasilievich was at my wedding, for which I’m very grateful to him.

In 2001 or 2002 on the way to the tournament in Monaco I spent a few days with him at his dacha near Grenoble. The nature there is fantastic: the air is pure and there are wild boars running about! Each day we went for a long walk. I was really amazed at Boris Vasilievich’s physical condition back them: he was something like 65 but could walk around for 3-4 hours, and at a good pace. Frankly, after such walks I felt pretty tired, but Boris Vasilievich urged me: “Come on, maybe we can do another circuit!” That was quite a decent circuit, a couple of kilometres. He told me a lot of stories. In general, he was a wonderful story-teller. About Mikhail Moiseevich [Botvinnik] and other chess legends. In the evenings we’d dine together with his wife, always over wine. But the food was in the Russian style – baked potatoes, something else, and the conversation continued.

He showed me his office, his old journals. I dug around in his chess library – it was incredibly interesting. We had a great time! We even went to play tennis a couple of times.

I think everything will be ok and Boris Vasilievich will recover, because overall his health is very good, herculean. The main thing is that he doesn’t lose heart and believes that he’ll soon be back among society.

Of course, I want to personally congratulate Boris Vasilievich, so I’ll phone him now and, I hope, I’ll be able to see him soon!

Spassky analyses with Kasparov and Larsen in Tilburg 1981

Garry Kasparov

Boris Spassky was my first chess idol. 1969, when I started to play chess, was precisely when he became World Champion, and my dad supported him. The “Petrosian – Spassky: 1969” match collection was my first chess book. And years later, on the foothills of Olympus, it was precisely under the influence of Spassky’s games that as Black I armed myself with the Tarrasch Defence and the Tartakower-Makogonov-Bondarevsky System.

At the time Boris Vasilievich gave me, a young man, valuable chess advice, and always had a friendly attitude towards me. As my elder he didn’t call me anything other than “Akimych”. His wit was the stuff of legends. In 1985 he christened the FIDE President “Karpomanes”, while in 1986 at the Olympiad in Dubai, when I started to fight for chess democracy and was busy creating the GMA, he instructed me: “Chess, Akimych, is a monarchist game…”. It’s a pity Spassky still hasn’t got round to writing a book – there’s a lot that he could tell.

While congratulating you, dear Boris Vasilievich, on your glorious anniversary, I want to wish you the quickest possible recovery. And please continue to delight us with your brilliant aphorisms!

How many chess legends can you recognise?

Acknowledgements (as given at the Russian Chess Federation website):

Photographs: Lev Poletaev (www.e3e5.com), Vladimir Barsky, ITAR-TASS, www.kramnik.com, Garry Kasparov’s archive, www.chessbase.com
Material prepared by: Eteri Kublasvili, Vladimir Barsky and Dmitry Plisetsky

Kirill Zangalis states that the interview, published today by the Soviet Sport newspaper, was actually conducted by him in Moscow in September 2010, shortly before Spassky suffered a stroke. The grandmaster’s recovery meant the text of the interview, which took place outdoors in warm autumn weather, was only approved in recent days. The photos, unless indicated, are taken from the “Congratulations to Boris Spassky on his 75th Anniversary” at the FIDE website.

I don’t like Moscow. It’s a difficult city. What linked me to it was the “Chess Week” newspaper. That was intended for the provinces and children and had a circulation of around 20,000 copies. I was the editor-in-chief for one and a half years. It suffered from a lack of money and at some point everything fell apart. And now I mainly only come to the capital on business…

You correctly noted that the best times for chess are behind us. I think the golden age came to an end somewhere in the late 1960s, which corresponded to the peak of my career. At the time everyone knew Botvinnik, Smyslov, Keres, Tal, Petrosian, Bronstein, Geller, Korchnoi, Stein, Polugaevsky and a few others.

Spassky - Larsen at the USSR vs. World match in 1970 | photo: ChessBase

In 1970 the so-called Match of the Century took place in Belgrade: the USSR team vs. the Rest of the World. All the great grandmasters were present at that match. We should have been at least about six points better, but we almost lost. Our team wasn’t unified team because the board order was decided by the USSR Sports Committee. I decided not to engage in an argument with such authority – I recalled the history of the powerful Persian King Darius III, who once, on surveying his 100,000-man army complete with powerful battle elephants, each of which in contemporary terms would be equivalent to an intercontinental missile, wept.

“What’s wrong, your highness?” someone close to him asked.
“I was imagining that in a few decades nothing will remain of this power. My soldiers and I will all have grown old.”

I experienced something like that myself, as the leader of the Soviet chess armada.

Boris Vasilievich, is it true that you almost died from hunger in an orphanage?

That happened too. In the summer of 1941 I was evacuated from the besieged Leningrad with my older brother Georgy, to the village of Korshik. That’s 50 kilometres from Vyatka. We were incredibly lucky as we slipped out in the second group: the first and third were bombed.

Your parents died?

No, miraculously they survived. My dad was a soldier. My mum buried my grandmother and survived only because she inherited her ration card. My father was on the verge of death from starvation and even ended up on the death ward. You’ll never guess how my mother saved my dad: she sold all her things and bought a bottle of alcohol. She arrived in the ward and started to look for him among dozens of people, but he’d lost so much weight that she didn’t even recognise him.  My father was stern despite his weakness and shouted at her: don’t you recognise your own husband? After that he drank the whole bottle and got up. A miracle? No, they say vodka has calories. The moment my father recovered they immediately travelled to our orphanage, when I was dying from hunger. My parents took my brother and me to the outskirts of Moscow where we lived until the summer of 1946.

How did you learn to play chess?

In the orphanage I learned the rules of the game while watching the older children playing. One evening, when there was no-one there, I took away an outside pawn and used the rook to eat up the whole white army.

In 1946 you returned with your family to your native Leningrad…

Yes, and a couple of months later I was in thrall to chess. Once, on the Kirov Islands in the Central Park of Culture and Rest, I accidentally came across a glass-enclosed veranda, which had a black knight on the front. It was a sunny day and the wind was rustling the leaves of the birch trees. It seemed as though there was nothing particular to catch the imagination of a child, but I saw a fairy-tale world.  And it captivated me. Behind the glass there were tables, on the tables were boards, and on the boards were pieces. I lost my sense of reality. Each morning I’d rush to the park.

You were only on the chess throne for three years, or one cycle…

You can’t imagine what a relief it was when I ceased to be World Champion. Those were the very toughest years of my life, when responsibility pressed on me and I didn’t get any outside help. I was the king and I had to answer for every word.

The moment I became the Champion my trainer, the Don Cossack Bondarevsky, told me: “Now you can arrange your own life: enter the party, become the editor-in-chief of “64” (Petrosian was the editor), travel to the Damansky Peninsula and take up some social activity. “No, vater, that’s not for me”. “Well, you’ll see for yourself”. (I called my trainer “vater”.)

You made it into the Candidates very early on, buy you only won your match in 1969.

Yes, at age 19 in 1956 I played in the Candidates Tournament. It was obvious that sooner or later I’d become World Champion, but it was sooner said than done. “You’ll suffer from girls”, said my trainer Alexander Kazimirovich Tolush. And he was right. The first time I got married was early on, at 22. Almost immediately I realised that my wife and I were opposite-coloured bishops. Military actions commenced. I ended up in hospital because of nerves. I was saved by Mikhail Yurevich Cherkes, the manager of the Moscow railway. He provided me with a one-bedroom flat while my militant wife moved into my socialist mansion. That was how we split up, and it was the green light for the chess throne.

When did you sense it was time to storm the heights?

It was in 1963 at the match between the teams of Hungary and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in Ordzonikidze. At the time I told my trainer: “Vater, perhaps I should become World Champion?” – “Ok, let’s do it!”. That was how our work began. I remember all my trainers with great reverence and respect. Vladimir Zak gave me a weapon, Alexander Tolush sharpened it, Bondarevsky hardened it. With that weapon I became World Champion. But that took six years of fierce struggle against Petrosian.

People say you weren’t particularly hard-working?

I played my systems and didn’t particular like to learn new ones. I relied on my skill in the middlegame. By the way, it was the same for Capablanca. Overall, of course, I knew the openings badly, but in my own systems I felt confident.

But after all without openings you can’t make progress, it’s the ABC of chess!

That’s nowadays. At the time I quickly got my bearings in any position. I’d find a plan and my main strength was that I had a good feel for the critical moment. If you’ve got that talent you have the ability to find the only correct path in a critical position. By that I mean not only an individual move, but a whole concept based on calculation and an evaluation of the variations you’ve analysed. That’s a talent that even the World Champions haven’t always possessed.

So why didn’t you manage to overhaul the iron Tigran Petrosian in the first match?

I came into the match against Tigran Petrosian completely exhausted after getting through 98 difficult qualifying games. During the final stages there were bloody matches against Keres, Geller and Tal. The most difficult match was against Keres, which turned into a street brawl. Geller was relatively weak in defence and I only needed to attack him at all costs. I didn’t allow Tal to seize the initiative. That approach brought me success. However, in order to beat Petrosian I needed something new. It’s very important to be imbued with a sense of the inevitability of your own victory. Your opponent senses that. But for that you need to have spirit and matter in harmony. In my case I was a poor student, unsettled and very far from higher thoughts. In the first match I flung myself at Petrosian like a kitten at a tiger, and it was easy for him to parry my blows. But by the second I’d matured and turned into a bear that was always putting the tiger under pressure, by which I mean I held him in a grip that even if it was loose was constant, and he didn’t like that.

How did you manage to withstand such pressure?

I restored my strength through sleep. Sometimes I’d sleep for ten hours a day. Of course, it also helped that I did sport. In my student years I did the high jump – my usual result was 175 cm. Later tennis became my faithful assistant.

Could Petrosian have held on in the second match?

It seemed to me that Petrosian was mentally tired of being the Champion. After all, he held the crown for six years without being the strongest player. That was evident from his tournament results. Perhaps that had a certain effect on him.

Finally, a quick story. After the 17th game (I think that was the decisive one) there was a terrible knocking on the door of my Khrushchev-era flat, and then an unknown voice with an accent said: “Listen, Boris, don’t you dare beat our Tigran!” “I’ll be sure to beat him”. Strangely enough, my reply calmed the rabid fan down.

There are legends about your relationship with the World Champion Robert Fischer.

I was friends with Bobby. He was an unusual man. I saw him for the first time in 1958, when he was 14, and liked him immediately. I got to know him better in 1960 at the tournament in Mar del Plata. Fischer was an absolutely unsocial man, an alien.

During the match in 1972 you were enemies?

Of course, but only during the struggle. We always had great respect for each other.

You won the first game easily, but Fischer made a point of not appearing for the second. You could have retained your title and left.

I could. And I was advised to do that. I’ve even heard criticism that I played that match for money. As World Champion I considered I was obliged to play the match. I had to play and there was no point in thinking about anything else. Victory brought me inner balance. The loss – clarity and financial compensation.

Why did Fischer win?

From a chess point of view Fischer was already stronger than me. His time had come. But in that particular match he put himself in quite a tough psychological situation. His conflict with the producers, his haggling with the Icelandic organisers to get paid box-office receipts, his fear of sitting at the board as after all up until that moment Bobby hadn’t won a single game against me and I was leading with a 4:0 score – all of that left him in a state of extreme uncertainty. But nevertheless, at the decisive moment, when the third game was supposed to take place, I made a serious psychological error: during an argument with the chief arbiter for the match, Grandmaster Schmid, Bobby behaved quite badly. I should have made a show of getting up and refusing to play – I’d have resigned that game and got a zero, but at the same time I’d have preserved my nerves. In that case Bobby would have got an empty point and nothing more, and my moral conviction would have grown.

What were the special features of Fischer’s chess?

Strict logic and a computer-like approach.

How can you be friends with such a strange person?

Easily. For example, he couldn’t stand it when people phoned him, but I never bothered him. He always called me himself. Only on one occasion did I write him a letter. I was already living in France and had no money. At all. I needed work. I was invited to work on the Karpov – Korchnoi match in 1975 as a commentator. I asked Robert for advice. His reply was as follows: “Boris, whatever those people offer you, no matter what dirty money they promise you, never have anything to do with them. You’re an honourable man.” I listened to Fischer and turned them down.

Did you meet often?

Yes. Once we had a rendezvous in an empty restaurant. Robert, who had a persecution complex, rushed to search the premises. He was always looking for spies. I calmed him down: “Everything’s ok, Bobby. I’ve already destroyed all the Soviet surveillance cameras”.

Have you visited his grave?

Yes. I paid my respects at it in Reykjavik.

In 1976, after marrying your third wife, a French woman with Russian roots, you left the USSR.

Yes, I never hid the fact I wanted freedom. I dreamt of calmly playing those tournaments I was invited to. And Marina Stcherbatcheff gave me that option. For a long time they didn’t want to allow us, as after all back then marriages between socialists and capitalists were forbidden. But thanks are due to Leonid Brezhnev. At least he did one good deed. Marina appealed personally to the French President Georges Pompidou, and he managed to persuade Brezhnev.

A story like that of Vladimir Vysotsky and Marina Vlady…

I wouldn’t compare it. The whole world followed the romance between Vysotsky and Vlady.  It was a little different with us.

Where do you feel at home?

In France. It’s a good stepmother. Russia’s a sick mother.

But you’ve started to come here regularly.

I do a lot of work in Russia. I opened a school in Satka, where I teach little kids.

Do your children play chess?

No. Boris Junior, who’s now working in Tajikistan in the cotton business, once asked me to introduce him to the game. However, when he made the moves h3 and Rh2 for White I realised it was something he simply didn’t need.

Are you a happy person?

I’ve lived a good life.

Can you allow yourself not to work?

No, I need to feed my family.

There’s no prize money left?

You want to hear a story about prize money? In 1972 after losing to Fischer I got my hands on around 93,000 dollars.

A fortune for those times!

I’d lost it all four years later!

That’s impossible!

It turned out it was possible. Do you recall “Mimino”: “Vakh, what kind of person comes to Moscow without money? They went out on the town, drank it all”…

In the second showcase match against Fischer in 1992 the two of you received an unheard of fee of five million dollars. What happened to that money?

I bought my family and friends eight flats. Why did I need so much money? As long as I was fed and clothed. I’m a man of few needs.

Twelve renowned chess figures have so far answered readers’ questions for the Russian-based Crestbook website, providing perhaps the best available insight into life at the top of world chess. The last three, Peter Svidler, Ruslan Ponomariov and Levon Aronian, also answered questions posed in English here at Chess in Translation. Judit Polgar has now kindly agreed to be the next in line.

The way it works is as follows:

• You can leave your questions for Judit Polgar in the comments section below (or in Russian at Crestbook, or now also in Spanish at Ajedrez De Entrenamiento). Please only post questions there.
• You can ask up to 10 questions, on any topic whatsoever, but remember to be polite and that Judit will have limited time. Also try to read through the earlier questions to avoid too much repetition.
• The deadline for questions is Sunday, 27 November.
• After that deadline Judit will be sent all the questions. The only editorial control might be to correct obvious spelling/grammar mistakes and group them thematically.
• As soon as Judit has answered your questions we’ll get down to translating, editing and publishing the results.

The comments section is below this post, but first you’ll first find an introduction to Judit Polgar written for this occasion by Sergey Shipov (grandmaster, commentator extraordinaire and Crestbook’s editor-in-chief), and below that a short (or as short as Judit’s achievements allow it to be!) biography of the world’s best female chess player. Both may serve as inspiration for your questions!

Sergey Shipov on Judit Polgar

Judit Polgar is the greatest female chess player of all time. She’s never been, and is unlikely ever to become, the Women’s World Champion, as that’s a goal that makes no sense. The Hungarian queen is so superior to all other women (including her sister Susan Polgar), that you can only talk about her in the context of men’s chess.

Judit has spent her whole career only playing against men and I see that as one of the reasons for her rise. The stronger your opponents, the greater the demands, and the more you have to push yourself to achieve your goal. But that factor is only third in order of importance. What comes first is still the colossal natural talent of the youngest Polgar. Her extraordinary abilities. As they say, it’s God given – and that’s that!

The second reason for her success is the unique family in which Judit grew up. The atmosphere of chess fanaticism created by Laszlo Polgar, the head of the family, and his older daughters, was the fertile soil on which the divine seed fell. The talented child had no doubt why she’d come into the world. From childhood onwards she studied with the best coaches, worked a lot and devoted herself entirely to her goal – which is why she became great.

If you created such conditions for the youngest child in millions of multiple-children families it’s by no means certain that even a single one of them would grow into a chess player… never mind a chess player of Judit Polgar’s level. She’s a phenomenon. Unique.

Judit Polgar’s mission on Earth has, by and large, already been completed – she’s successfully destroyed the remnants of male chauvinism. She’s proved that women are capable of competing with men at the very highest level. All the preconceived notions about the fundamental superiority of the stronger sex above the weaker in chess, and about an upper limit for women, have turned out to be wrong.

I’ve commented on many of Polgar’s games and I’ve never found myself bored. She always plays with great invention and is capable of seeing hidden resources in positions and posing her opponents unexpected problems.

Judit’s natural style is dynamic – she plays for complications and is always ready to sacrifice for the initiative. Her attacking potential is great and multi-faceted. However, her long stay among the elite has forced the warlike Amazon to moderate her fervour and master all the means of combat, including stubborn defence, patience and taking the psychology of her opponents into account. Of course, Polgar never became a technician on Kramnik’s level, but she was still able to grow into a player almost devoid of weaknesses. Except, perhaps, that her sense of danger isn’t at the elite level. Sometimes she gets carried away with activity, though that recklessness merely adds to the number of her fans. Bold play, shooting from the hip – what could be more beautiful in chess?

I’m endlessly amazed by the fact that getting married and giving birth to children hasn’t led to a serious lowering of Judit Polgar’s level of chess. Who could have imagined that family matters and an entirely natural lack of time and energy for preparation wouldn’t be reflected in her results? But that’s how it is.

I was there in person to see our Madonna play at the 2011 European Championship in Aix-les-Bains and also at the 2011 World Cup in Khanty-Mansisyk. It was simply incredible! Judit demonstrated colossal drive, a will to win and high class chess. Just as in her best years… though it’s still not certain which years will be considered her best.

I don’t want to get ahead of myself and predict how Judit the grandmother will play chess. I hope many of us will live to see and appreciate that.

One way or another, after centuries have passed all of us will be registered in small print in the Great Book of Life as contemporaries of the great Polgar.

Judit Polgar knocked rating favourite Sergey Karjakin out of the 2011 World Cup | photo: FIDE

Short Biographical Sketch

Judit Polgar was born on the 23rd July 1976 in Budapest. Unquestionably the strongest female chess player in history, she’s achieved outstanding success in men’s competitions. She can claim wins against World Champions Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov, Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand and FIDE World Champions Alexander Khalifman, Ruslan Ponomariov and Rustam Kasimdzhanov, as well as against many other leading grandmasters. She’s been awarded seven Chess Oscars, and been named “Women’s Chess Player of the 20th Century”. She lives with her husband Gusztav Font (a veterinary surgeon) and two children, Oliver and Hanna.

The Hungarian chess player became a men’s international master in 1988 and a men’s grandmaster in 1992. Her current Elo rating is 2710 (35th in the world). Her highest rating is 2735 (July and October 2005, 8th in the world). She’s headed the female rating list since 1989.

Judit and her sisters Susan and Sofia were brought up according to a unique system worked out by their father, Laszlo, and mother, Klara, who were both teachers. The sisters didn’t go to school but were instead educated at home. As well as their general studies they worked on chess, with the older sisters also becoming strong chess players. Grandmaster Susan Polgar achieved outstanding results, and after winning a match against the Chinese player Xie Jun in 1995 she became the 8th Women’s World Champion. She now lives in the USA. Sofia Polgar is an international master and lives in Israel.

The greatest success, however, was achieved by the youngest sister – Judit. Her talent was soon evident – at six years of age she started to play in tournaments and by nine the Hungarian Chess Federation had established her rating at 2080. At seven Judit played blindfold games against masters, while at 11 she beat Grandmaster Vladimir Kovacevich in a tournament game. Judit won her first international tournament when she was nine, and at 12 and 14 she won the Boy’s World Championships in those age groups. She claimed her first prize of $1000 when she was nine, winning one of the tournaments of the New York Open.

In the Women’s Chess Olympiads of 1988 and 1990 she became an Olympic Champion as part of the Hungarian team (together with her sisters Susan and Sofia, and also Ildiko Madl), posting the best individual results (in 1988 on board two she conceded her opponents only half a point in 13 games!). After the second Olympiad win (aged 14!) Judit began to play exclusively in men’s tournaments. That decision looked natural, as already as a 12-year-old Judit had achieved a rating of 2555, which was 35 points higher than the rating of the then Women’s World Champion, Maia Chiburdanidze.

Judit was awarded the title of (men’s!) international grandmaster in 1992 at the age of 15 four months and 28 days, becoming the youngest grandmaster in the world at that point, and surpassing Bobby Fischer’s achievement by a month. In January 1996 Judit’s rating reached 2675 and she entered the World Top 10 for the first time.

She’s taken part in the official men’s World Championship qualifying cycle on a number of occasions. Back in 1993 she became the first female chess player to qualify to take part in an interzonal tournament. In the 1999 FIDE World Championship in Las Vegas she reached the quarterfinals, where she lost to the future winner, Alexander Khalifman. In 2005 she took part in the “tournament of eight” in San Luis (Argentina), finishing eighth. She narrowly lost a 6-game Candidates Match to Evgeny Bareev in Elista in 2007. At the 2009 FIDE World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk Polgar lost on tie-breaks in the third round to the future winner, Gelfand (inflicting the only defeat he suffered in the whole tournament). She finished 4th at the 2001 European Championship in Ohrid.

Polgar has won or finished among the prizes in a great number of international tournaments, including those at the highest level. Her most notable successes are winning: the Hungarian Championship (1991), Hastings (1992), Madrid (1994 – with a 2778 performance, 1.5 points ahead of Kamsky, Bareev and Salov), Leon, Spain (1996), the US Open (1998), the Hoogeveen tournament (1998, 2001 and 2003), Bali, Indonesia (2000 – ahead of the then reigning FIDE World Champion Khalifman and his predecessor Karpov), Malmo (2000). Among her significant successes are: the OHRA Open in Amsterdam (1989, sharing 3rd place with Gelfand), the Madrid International in Linares (1992, sharing 2nd place behind Karpov), the Reshevsky Memorial in Manhattan (1992, 2nd place), the Donner Memorial in Amsterdam (1995, 3rd place ahead of Seirawan, Khalifman, Morozevich, Salov and Shirov), Vienna (1996, sharing 3rd place with Kramnik and Leko behind Karpov, Topalov and Gelfand), Linares (1997, 5th place ahead of Ivanchuk, Short, Gelfand and Shirov – Kasparov was the winner), Dortmund (1997, 5th place ahead of the then FIDE World Champion Karpov), Wijk-aan-Zee (1998, sharing 6th place and winning a game against the overall winner Anand), Merida (2000, 2nd place behind Shirov), Linares (2001, sharing 2-6th places behind Kasparov, against whom she drew both her games).

Judit’s greatest achievement might be considered to be her second place at the Wijk aan Zee tournament in 2003 (8/13, with no losses). Only Anand finished half a point ahead of her, while a point or more behind were Kramnik, Topalov, Karpov, Ponomariov, Grischuk, Ivanchuk, Shirov and Radjabov.

On her return to chess after an extended break connected to the birth of her son Oliver, Judit played in the super-tournaments in Wijk aan Zee (2005, shared 4th place with Kramnik, Adams and Grischuk – Leko was the winner) and in Sofia (2005, shared 3rd place with Ponomariov, behind Topalov and Anand but ahead of Kramnik and Adams). After another break from chess activity due to the birth of her daughter Hanna Judit successfully appeared at the small but prestigious Essent tournament in Hoogeveen (2006, shared 1st place with Mamedyarov, winning both games against the then leader of the world rating list, Topalov), and then in Biel (2007, shared 3rd place, Carlsen was the winner). In a 6-player tournament in Vitoria, Spain, Judit shared 3rd place behind Topalov and Ponomariov and ahead of Kasimdzhanov and Karpov. Her last appearance to date at Wijk aan Zee was in 2008, when she finished in 9th place with a 50% score.

Judit celebrated her 35th birthday at the World Team Championship in Ningbo, China | photo: FIDE

Judit has frequently represented Hungary at team events. The greatest success came in the 2002 Olympiad in Bled, when the Hungarian team won silver medals (Judit had the 3rd best result on the 2nd board, after also playing a few games on the 1st). In 1999 the Hungarian team finished 2nd at the European Team Chess Championship (Judit had the best individual result on the 2nd board). At the 2000 Olympiad the Hungarian team finished without medals, but Polgar had the best performance on the 2nd board (2772). Great interest was aroused by Judit’s rapid chess victory over Garry Kasparov in the Russia – Rest of the World match that took place in Moscow in 2002, as it was the first time in history (and not only in chess but also in other sports) that the highest rated man had lost to the highest rated woman.

She’s played in a number of high profile exhibition matches. In 1993 she won a match against former World Champion Boris Spassky 5.5:4.5. In 1995 she defeated Dutch grandmaster Jeroen Piket 6:2. In 1996 she won a match against Junior – the computer World Champion at that time. A rapid chess match in 1998 against Anatoly Karpov, who was then the official FIDE World Champion, ended with Judit winning 5:3. Another rapid chess match against Viswanathan Anand in Mainz in 2003 was a fierce struggle without a single draw and finished with Judit losing 3:5.

Judit has always taken an interest in non-classical forms of chess. She’s played a few times in the Amber Tournament in Monaco (her best result was 5th place in 1993). In 1998 she shared 1st place with Anand at the prestigious Wydra Memorial (rapid chess) in Israel. In 2007 Polgar finished 4th at the Blindfold World Cup (6 chess players took part and the winner was Bu Xiangzhi, who Judit beat). In the 2001 Rapid Chess World Cup in Cannes, France, Judit reached the semi-final, where she lost to Bareev (who lost to Kasparov in the final). In the Blitz World Championship in Israel (2006) she shared 5th place with Gelfand (the winner was Svidler).

After that period of moderate chess activity related to the birth and taking care of her two small children, 2010 marked the fully-fledged return of Judit Polgar to contemporary chess. Among her greatest successes were: winning a rapid chess exhibition tournament in Mexico (2010, winning matches against Ivanchuk and Topalov), a crushing victory in a rapid chess match against David Navara (Prague, 2010) with a score of 6:2, sharing 1st-4th (3rd on tiebreakers – there were 167 grandmasters in the tournament) at the 2011 European Championship in Aix-les-Bains, France and, finally, getting into the quarterfinals of the FIDE World Cup 2011 in Khanty-Mansiysk, where after defeating such well-known grandmasters as Movsesian, the tournament’s rating favourite Karjakin and Dominguez, Judit, in what’s already become a tradition, lost to the tournament’s future winner, Svidler. The numerous fans of this wonderful chess player admire her combative and creative style of play, and don’t doubt there’s still a lot more to come.

Books and documentaries have been produced about Judit Polgar, while she recently published her own book aimed at children (with illustrations by her sister Sofia), called “Chess Playground”. http://juditpolgar.com/book_en.html

Judit Polgar’s official website can be found at: http://www.polgarjudit.com/index_en.html

The best way of seeing how the “KC-Conferences” work in practice is to read through some of the earlier examples. Those currently available in English are:

• Levon Aronian: Part 1, Part 2
• Ruslan Ponomariov: Part 1, Part 2
• Peter Svidler: Part 1, Part 2
• Alexei Shirov
• Alexander Grischuk
• Michal Krasenkow
• Alexander Khalifman: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Judit back in the limelight at the 2011 World Cup | photo: FIDE

The comments section below is now open until Sunday 27 November  for your questions for Judit Polgar!

The interview came as part of Vladimir Barsky’s fifth round report for the Russia Chess Federation website. At the time Hungary had recovered from a slow start to post a remarkable sequence of three wins over Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Israel. Peter Leko was instrumental, winning his games on top board against the latter two teams (note you can play through all Leko’s games in China in the viewer after the interview). 

To begin with, why is it so long since we’ve seen Peter Leko in action?

I wanted to take a certain break. For the last 10 or even 15 years I’ve been playing non-stop at the very highest level, and after last year’s Dortmund I decided to take a break. True, I still had to play at the Olympiad for the Hungarian team; I didn’t perform very well there, but that no longer had any influence on my decision.

You simply wanted to take a rest from chess?

Yes, that was the original plan. But after two weeks I sensed I couldn’t get by without chess, it was my life, and I started to work on it. I decided that I wouldn’t play before the World Team Championship, and it was very pleasant simply to work while not experiencing the continual stress of knowing that tomorrow you’re again playing against Anand, Kramnik, Aronian or Carlsen, and you’ve got nothing in the opening!… Simply to work on chess and not think about what to play tomorrow. Of course, it was very hard in the first round here. It’s even hard just now! My head isn’t yet working automatically. After a 9-month break it’s not so easy. You can play training games at home but that’s completely different – you don’t feel as though a real battle’s going on.

What happened against Ivanchuk?

That game proceeded in a very, very interesting manner, and also from a psychological point of view! I played a very strong novelty. 17…f5 had already been played, but no one had sacrificed with the move 18…f4. I’d prepared that idea many years ago and had already lost hope that someone would go for that position. I couldn’t remember a thing! He found the reply 20.Re4; I thought for an hour and couldn’t see any more than a draw. In actual fact, after the sacrifice I wanted to play differently, but at the board I considered the path I chose to be objectively the best. There was a very interesting psychological moment: if I’d played my analysis at blitz speed then he wouldn’t have played 30.Bg2, and after 30.Kf1 we’d have agreed a draw. But he sensed that I was playing on my own rather than playing out computer analysis, so he decided to play 30.Bg2. The two bishops and rook are very strong, and he also has a dangerous passed pawn. However, I also pick up a lot of pawns, and the c4-pawn will always give me counterplay. Kamsky also asked me afterwards: “What was going on in your game? I couldn’t work out if you were winning, losing or it was going to be a draw”. Ivanchuk and I didn’t know either! When you’ve got less than 10 minutes left it’s very hard to correctly evaluate such a position.

Vassily Ivanchuk – Peter Leko
Ruy Lopez C89

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Qe2 Bg4 16.Qf1 Qh5 17.Nd2 f5 18.c4 f4

19.cxd5 c5 20.Re4 c4 21.Bc2 fxg3 22.hxg3 Bxg3 23.fxg3 Rxf1+ 24.Nxf1 Qh3 25.Re3 Rf8 26.Bd2 Bf3 27.Rxf3 Rxf3 28.Be4 Rxg3+ 29.Nxg3 Qxg3+

30.Bg2 Qd3 31.Be1 Qxd4+ 32.Bf2 Qxb2 33.Rf1 Qd2 34.Bc5 g6 35.Rf8+ Kg7 36.Rf2 Qd1+ 37.Rf1 Qd2

38.Kh2 c3 39.Rf2 Qe1 40.Bd4+ Kh6 41.Bh3 c2 White resigned

And what can you say about the game against Roiz?

That also ended up being a good game. When you haven’t played for a long time and look at all the openings you find you know a great deal, but you can’t remember a thing! After all, I play both 1.e4 and 1.d4 and you can’t keep every variation in your memory. On the other hand, when you can start with either move it gives you confidence. In the game against Roiz I also spent an hour thinking about two moves, 15.Be3 and 16.Ne1. The position there’s already somehow “inhuman”! To be honest, I couldn’t see how Black could equalize after 16.Ne1, and I also couldn’t see any other move for White. Arshak told me just now that the computer doesn’t give 16.Ne1, but I thought it was a very strong move. After it Rois also thought from 40 minutes, but he probably missed the very strong move 21.Qc2! in advance. Most likely he was counting on 21.Qxb4 Nxb4 22.Be4, but then 22…Rac8, and Black can probably draw. I’ve got two bishops and the open b-file, while his bishop is stuck on a7. That was a key moment.

So maybe the manoeuvre 15.Be3 and 16.Ne1 is very strong, or perhaps the computer will say you can’t play like that at all. It needs to be looked at. In any case, I’m very glad I found it. It was very important to prevent the Bxf3 exchange.

Peter Leko – Michael Roiz
Caro-Kann B12

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 Ne7 6.0–0 c5 7.c4 Nbc6 8.Na3 a6 9.dxc5 d4 10.Qa4 Ng6 11.Rd1 Bxc5 12.b4 Ba7 13.c5 0–0 14.Nc4 Be4

15.Be3 d3 16.Ne1

16…Qd5 This is the principled move – everything else is weaker. For example, 16…Ngxe5 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Nxd3 Bxd3 19.Bxd3 Nxd3 20.Qa3 – I win back the piece and the bishop remains on a7. Black’s position is very unpleasant.

17.Nd6 Ngxe5 18.Nxe4 Qxe4 19.Nxd3 Nxd3 20.Bxd3 Qxb4

21.Qc2! 21.Qxb4 Nxb4 22.Be4 Rac8, and Black will probably draw.

21…Qh4 22.g3 Qh5 23.Rab1 Rab8 24.Be2 Qe5 25.Rd7 Rfd8 26.Rxd8+ Rxd8 27.Rxb7 Rb8 28.Bxa6 Nb4 29.Qa4 Nd5 30.Qd4

Black resigned

During the break you must have continued to follow what was happening in the chess world closely. What impression did you have of the matches in Kazan, and of all this talk about the draw death of chess?

I simply watched all the games as a chess player. I know very well that sometimes you put a great amount of energy into a 20-move draw and then they criticise you for it, which is very unpleasant. However, it’s much more unpleasant when everything’s decided by blitz in matches at that level. I don’t think draws are the greatest problem we have in chess nowadays; Gelfand’s games showed that you can’t talk about any draw death.

Look: in the match against Kramnik Grischuk took a draw with White on the 8th move in order to get to blitz. Grischuk’s actions were reasonable: if those are the regulations then he picked the optimal path for himself. But you can understand the bewilderment of people who ask: what’s going on? Why are they taking 8-move draws? Grischuk’s strategy justified itself as he got to the final where, initially, he played very well and perhaps objectively should have won – in the first two games he let good chances slip. But then Borya also started to play very well and deserved his victory.

At the kind of level where World Championship qualifying is taking place there should be 6 or 8 classical games, so it won’t be possible to just to “sit tight” through all the black games. Of course, it’s hard to find an optimal format. If there are 8 games then everyone will ask: why not 4? When it’s 4 everyone will ask: why not 8? But still, the matches in Kazan reminded me of the World Cups in Khanty-Mansiysk, where you only have two games and then it’s rapid and blitz. You don’t even understand why you’re advancing or getting knocked out. You seemed to have been playing well, but you lost one blitz game and that’s that – out! Or perhaps you were winning but you made a one-move blunder – and you’re out! It’s not pleasant when something like that happens in the classical cycle. Things need to be changed a little, but how – I don’t know, that’s not a question for me.

Emil Sutovsky didn’t ask you to express your opinion?

It seems he held his survey among the top-20, while I lost all my rating points and no longer get asked about anything! But actually I’m glad I can concentrate on chess; we’ll see where I am in a year’s time.

I liked the fact that during the matches in Kazan my nerves were calm and I could simply watch. There was a great number of interesting games. All this talk about what they were doing there, that it was bad for chess! – I don’t share that opinion. I also really liked the live commentary by Mark Glukhovsky and Sergey Rublevsky, and then Alexander Khalifman. I listened to them all the time and they did a very good job. Watching the live broadcast and listening to the commentary is simply brilliant! When you look at computer analysis you think: “Ah, so they didn’t see that, or that”. But the way it was done you were drawn into the process. What’s going on? What does Rublevsky think, or Khalifman, or Glukhovsky? All of that was very interesting. I heard from many people who understand Russian that both during the Tal Memorial and the matches in Kazan they listened to the commentary with great pleasure.

Peter, how do you rate Hungary’s chances in the Championship?

The very best teams are playing here, and you can see that there’s something going on every day. Yes, on paper the Russian team is a little stronger than the rest, but on any given day it can all go differently. Ukraine has been weakened by the absence of Ponomariov, but everything’s still to play for. I don’t even know what day it is or what the standings look like. I play my games and enjoy it when Hungary wins. We started off very badly: Almasi lost a totally won position to Sashikiran, Balogh missed a win and we drew with India. It was a shock for us. On the following day we lost to Russia; perhaps that was a fair result, although Almasi also had good chances against Grischuk at one point, but again he lost. In the beginning he lost two games with White, but he was playing well until he let everything slip in time trouble. After that we managed to put things right, but the real struggle’s still ahead. We want to compete, but who can say what’ll happen next?

Will you start playing regularly again now?

Yes, I hope so. I’ll be playing in Khanty-Mansiysk. After that I don’t have any invitations yet, but if I play well then that question will resolve itself.

Thank you, Peter, and good luck!

In the viewer below you can play through all Leko’s games from the World Team Championship in China.

Game viewer by Chess Tempo

Peter Leko is playing in the 2011 FIDE World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk. His first round opponent is Sam Shankland from the USA.

They began their conversation by talking about the aftermath of Ningbo, where the Russian team had failed to win a medal:

Peter, how did you manage to recover so quickly after China? 

I don’t need to convince you of all people that the sky fell down on us in China – it was a localised end of the world, a localised hell. Nothing fundamental had changed for the better in life in the next 10 days. I managed to spend some time with my loved ones, get my head straight and get out of that nose dive I was in. I didn’t consider myself a favourite at all; I’ve never tended to consider myself a favourite, never mind now… I’d had some conversations with people who said they felt I was going to play well. That’s nice, of course, but it wasn’t something I had any confidence in. However, it turns out they were right.

Before the Superfinal you looked fresh and rested. I can still remember very well how our whole team looked after Ningbo…

I managed to spend a certain interval of time as I imagine a perfect four days would go. It almost perfectly coincided with the picture I’d got in my head of how I’d like to have spent them. In actual fact, before and after that interval there were two very different people.

What goals did you set yourself for the Superfinal?

Well, what goals? Usually people ask me before the Superfinal: “Peter, what would you like to achieve?” Coming to the Superfinal and not wanting to win it would be absurd. But this time I simply wanted to play better than in China. I didn’t want to play the kind of chess I’d periodically played in Ningbo. That championship turned out uneven: I played a couple of very decent games, and a couple that made me want to go away and pretend I wasn’t there; please, don’t come near me! Here my main goal was to escape from that condition and play at least approximately at the level I’m capable of. And to a large degree that worked out for me. Of course, it would have been better without the last game, as that spoiled the overall good impression from the tournament, but nevertheless – it was a very good result.

In the very first round Kramnik flung himself at you with the black pieces. How surprised were you by his mood?

He’d already played that way before, and I think he simply considered Black’s position to be very good.

In the previous game he didn’t give up a bishop, though.

He encountered f4, so he had to react like that. And moreover, that was a blitz game, and it seems he was left with the impression that Black’s position was wonderful, that it was possible and necessary to aim for it. Did I expect him to throw himself at me like that? I consciously went for that position as White in order to get a complex strategic position where we’d play chess. I thought that was where my chance lay. I don’t want to say that I considered myself the favourite in a complex, confusing battle: it’s clear that Volodya doesn’t have any problems understanding where he needs to put his pieces. But I wanted a complex, unconventional position in which he’d be thinking, because the match in Kazan was one long illustration of what happens to people who get involved in theoretical discussions with him. That was something I absolutely didn’t want.

Svidler demonstrates his game against Kramnik

Did I expect I’d have a won position after 15 moves? Certainly not! It ended up being a strange game: we reached a position in which play was only getting started, and then 4 moves later it was essentially over. My slightly shaking hands made it seem as though Black had drawing chances, but the real fight was over very quickly. Of course, it was easier to play after that win. In almost every game there were interesting moments. For example, against Karjakin I found an idea that wasn’t self-evident – b4 and Nb3. A strange pawn sacrifice, after which the picture had completely altered. And against Grischuk I was also applying pressure with Black. Then there was that streak of three wins. Of course, I got pretty lucky over that stretch, but it was chess luck. I posed certain problems; on another day, perhaps, they’d have solved them better, but on that day it all went the way I wanted.

Have you ever had to play such an extremely short format before?

Yes, I’ve played single round-robin tournaments with 8 players. In Dortmund I shared first place with… probably with Kramnik – who else could you share first place with in Dortmund? That was 2006, it seems. It’s an interesting format – not so bad. Of course, now I’ll be the number 1 fan of such a format as I’ve got no cause to complain. I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with a tournament with 12 players either. In Russia you can always find 12 good chess players. The problem a smaller country would have is that a tournament with 8 people could be Category 19, while with 12 it would be Category 16, but we can easily find 12 people. But they tried it this way, and it was very upbeat and lively; there were key encounters in each round. The format has every right to exist.

It seems you’ve already won the Russian Championship by every possible system?

Yes. 1994 and 1995 (Swiss tournaments), 1997 (knockout), 1998 (Swiss [Vladimir Barsky notes Svidler was second on tiebreakers]), 2003 (Swiss), 2008 (a round robin with 12 players), and this one.

Which victory was dearest to you, the most memorable?

Probably the first and the last. Well, the first for obvious reasons, and this one – because in the last few years… I can’t say I haven’t demonstrated anything good at all, but a success like this one that you can point your finger at and say – look at that! – there haven’t been any of those. The victory in Gibraltar was good, there was a mass of good chess players and I scored quite a lot of points, but nevertheless it was an open tournament. Therefore this was a very important victory and I’m very glad about it.

You played a very interesting, fighting game against Grischuk. You’ve worked closely which each other and recently you were together at the Candidates Matches. What’s it like to play someone you know that well?

Sanya [a short form of Alexander in Russian] and I haven’t simply worked together a lot – we’ve got a very good relationship. He’s an extremely interesting chess player and one who’s very interesting to play against. Therefore if it was possible to find something to play that we hadn’t looked at together… The main problem was that there were some regions of opening theory which it would be uncomfortable for him to play against me, or me against him, as we’d built up a certain baggage of common analysis. As for simply playing against Sanya – it’s interesting and a pleasure because you’ve got a strong and unconventional chess player sitting opposite you.

If you’re talking about the goals I set myself before the tournament then I wanted to stretch myself as much as possible, to play every game at some sort of limit. From that point of view any game against Grischuk is interesting for me as I rate him very, very highly as a chess player. When I’m in a normal condition and not getting beaten around in every game then I relish the chance to play against strong players.

How interesting did the tournament end up being from the point of view of opening theory?

I’m not sure we’ve significantly advanced opening theory, although there probably were some interesting and important games. In terms of overall entertainment, however, it turned out to be a wonderful tournament!

Due to the 40-move rule?

That as well. I think that’s one way in which the short format was definitely a good thing, as you could allow yourself to play every game. You knew that unless you fell ill you should be able to last the distance. Therefore you don’t have to think – today I’m playing Black against Kramnik, then Morozevich, then Grischuk, and after that there are still 6 games to go! And at some point it’s necessary to try and organise an extra rest day as otherwise you’ll be on your last legs. Here that problem didn’t exist. For a Category 19 tournament the number of decisive games was absolutely awesome. If you include today’s round – above 50%! When you’ve got this number of chess players all of approximately the same class the games usually end in draws. I think it was a never-ending feast for the spectators.

Film studio in the Botvinnik Central Chess Club

The tournament should undoubtedly be included in the chess federation’s success stories. People I wouldn’t have expected told me they’d watched the tournament broadcast. It’s absolutely clear that broadcasting chess in this manner will interest and attract people who otherwise would never in their life have opened up a chess website. If you’ve got the resources then that’s precisely how chess should be covered. There’s a huge class of people who would very soon tire of simply watching the pieces on a screen, but who would watch, let’s say, “Chess TV”. You’ve got a non-stop live broadcast in which you’re told about what’s happening on the board, you can see what the people look like, how they sit, and you’ve also got two commentators who help you to understand what’s going on. And that’s a way of attracting people who otherwise have a look in the evening to see how the round went, and that would exhaust their interest in the tournament. Or else they’d read a final report after the tournament was over.

We’re not pioneers; as far as I know the same was done at the US Championship. It’s obvious that in the near future that’s the main resource for attracting attention for chess. Because in the internet age, and taking into account what a brilliant spectacle our sport is, it’ll be a little difficult to drive millions of people into playing halls. I think the Gelfand – Anand match in Moscow will fill a hall, but not the KPC [Kremlin Palace of Congresses]. We won’t fill the KPC, even if we really wanted to. You need to reach people who won’t go to a stadium and show them a high-quality picture with some commentary, and then on one of the days perhaps they’ll come and have a look in the hall, and tell their friends. That was what was done well, and it’s precisely in that direction that we should be working.

How was the organisation overall, the living conditions?

Of course, having finished first I can hardly complain about anything connected with the tournament. I really love playing in this club and I feel very comfortable here. We all lived in the “Arbat” hotel. It’s got a series of drawbacks which everyone knows about, but it’s got one advantage that cancels out all the rest. I wouldn’t want to travel to a round in traffic jams or on the metro, while from this quiet hotel in the centre it’s 10 minutes’ walk to the club. Yes, it would be good if the internet was better. Yes, for someone 1.9 metres tall it would be nice if your legs fitted on the bed. But it’s all there is! From the point of view of holding chess tournaments in the club the “Arbat” hotel has a natural monopoly.

We’ll see you next at the World Cup?

Yes, the circus is travelling to Khanty. And then the circus will travel to the European Club Cup. This autumn the circus won’t be standing still, the whole tent will be packed up and transported from one venue to another. The European Club Cup, then, perhaps, there’ll be some sort of event with our Armenian brothers, then the European Team Championship; I don’t know if I’ll be taking part in that after how I played in China. Frankly, I won’t really be able to catch my breath until December. Given my love of the Russian winter I really welcome the fact that the World Cup’s taking place in August-September. The leaves will be yellow… The Olympiad was the first time I arrived in Khanty and it wasn’t winter and I thought: wow, it’s simply great here! The people were always very friendly, but the absence of sun and “-25”… But when that’s not an issue I’m simply a great fan of that city!

Thank you, Peter, and good luck in your upcoming tournaments!

Perhaps the highlight of the Russian Championship (although it helped to know Russian!) was watching Peter Svidler demonstrate his games afterwards for the audience that gathered in the press centre. He explained five of his seven games, and if you count Alexander Morozevich’s demonstration of beating Svidler in the final round all but one of his games were covered: 

• Svidler demonstrates his win against Kramnik (Rd 1)
• Svidler demonstrates his draw against Grischuk (Rd 3)
• Svidler demonstrates his win against Galkin (Rd 4)
• Svidler demonstrates his win against Timofeev (Rd 5)
• Svidler demonstrates his win against Nepomniachtchi (Rd 6)
• Morozevich demonstrates his win against Svidler (Rd 7)

Standing room only

Peter Svidler talked about his commenting on the games in another interview with Elena Klimetz for Chess-News: 

I can tell you a semi-anecdote about that. Yesterday we were leaving the club: my wife, Sasha Grischuk and me – and we were buttonholed by a chess fan. He asked me about something and then he waited until Olga and I had gone about five meters – but nevertheless, it was perfectly audible, although perhaps he thought it wouldn’t be – he caught up with Sanya and said: “Tell me, Alexander, is Peter also such a joker in life as he is at the press conferences?” That absolutely wonderful word ‘joker’ [the actual Russian word is the odd-sounding 'balagur'], which I’d never heard used about me before.

But yes, you could say I’m an artist of the conversational genre. But it’s always a little awkward for me… In particular, there was a press conference, I think actually with Sasha, when we were sitting there together and over the course of the whole conference he said about five words, while I said all the rest. That’s probably not very good, but when I start to talk I can’t stop.

But do you really enjoy it? Because observing you it seems as though it’s not only the spectators who’re enjoying themselves.

Generally yes. I love chess and I love talking about chess. And then you have to add in the fact that if I’ve been invited to speak then it very likely means I’ve won a game. And at such moments I’m generally in an extremely blissful mood. Life strikes me as something entirely tolerable and even, perhaps, pleasant in places. So why not talk about what went on? 

In the viewer below you can play through all seven of Svidler’s games from the Russian Championship:

Game viewer by Chess Tempo

Morozevich’s demonstration was transcribed by Vladimir Barsky in his Round 7 photo report for the Russian Chess Federation website, and I’ve translated it below:

Alexander Morozevich – Peter Svidler
Notes by Alexander Morozevich 

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 0-0 7.e4 a6 8.e5 b5 9.Qb3 Nfd7 10.Be2 A rare move, to which I think Peter reacted correctly.

10…c5 11.e6 fxe6 12.Qxe6+ Kh8 13.dxc5 Ne5 Also possible was 13…Nxc5 14.Qe3 with a sufficiently playable position.

14.Qd5 Qxd5 15.Nxd5 Bb7 It seems Peter mixed something up. I thought Black had to start with 15…Nxf3+, and here you get an approximately equal ending: 16.Bxf3 (there’s nothing after 16.gxf3 Nc6) 16…Bb7 17.Nc7 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Ra7 19.Ne6 Rxf3. White can try to make use of the c5-passed pawn, but overall I think the position’s about equal.

16.Nc7 Nxf3+ 17.gxf3 White wouldn’t have had this option if Black had started with 15…Nxf3+, although probably nothing terrible has yet happened.

17…Bxf3 An amazing move which is hard to comment on. It seemed to me that the exchange sacrifice with 17…Nc6 was going too far: 18.Nxa8 Bxa8 19.0-0 Nd4 20.Bd1, and it’s not clear Black has enough compensation. Normally here you’d have to play 17…Ra7 18.Ne6 Bxf3 19.Nxf8 Bxh1 20.Ne6. Here Peter hadn’t noticed in advance that if the dark-squared bishop retreats there’s the move f2-f3, and he wasn’t too thrilled about that prospect. While after 20…Bd5 21.Nxg7 Kxg7 White can still torture his opponent. Svidler tried to avoid that unappealing defence, but the move he made works out badly.

18.Bxf3 Ra7 19.Nxb5 axb5 20.Ke2 White’s got an extra pawn and, in my view, a won position.

20…Ra6 A tricky move. 

21.Bb7 The only trap, which it’s a miracle I didn’t fall into, was 21.Rd1 Raf6 22.Rd3 Na6, and somehow the knight starts to jump around.

21…Re6+ 22.Be3 Bxb2 23.Rab1 Bd4 24.Rxb5 Here Black already has great difficulty making moves.  

24…Na6 25.c6 Nc7 26.Rb3 Rf4 27.Rd1 Kg7 28.a4

28…Bc5 After 28…Bxe3 29.Rxe3 Rxa4 30.Rd7 I couldn’t see how Black could save himself.

29.Rd7 Bd6 30.Rd3 Ne8 31.a5 Black resigned. After, for example, 31…Ra4 32.a6 Bxh2 33.Kf1 there’s no salvation.

Unfortunately the video of Morozevich’s demonstration no longer seems to be available at the Russian Chess Federation website, though if it does resurface I’ll provide a link here.

Here are all the other demonstrations I translated from the 2011 Russian Championship:

• Svidler demonstrates title-winning games (Rd 6)
• Svidler demonstrates his win against Timofeev (Rd 5)
• Nepomniachtchi demonstrates his win against Morozevich (Rd 5)
• Svidler demonstrates his win against Galkin (Rd 4)
• Morozevich and Grischuk demonstrate their wins (Rd 4)
• Karjakin demonstrates his win against Kramnik (Rd 3)
• Svidler demonstrates his draw against Grischuk (Rd 3)
• Kramnik demonstrates his win against Timofeev (Rd 2)
• Svidler demonstrates his win against Kramnik (Rd 1)

Maria Fominkykh ready to photograph Timofeev and Svidler

A key moment came on move 27. Suffice it to say that, in full accordance with Murphy’s Law, when Peter Svidler says, “It seems to me I made a very strong move here” about 27…f6, he actually made the move the chess engines least approved of in the whole game. The tricky 28.Ra7! might have led to a different outcome… Fortunately, however, chess is still a game between humans, and we can enjoy Peter Svidler’s analysis rather than computer evaluations.

The commentary below is translated from Vladimir Barsky’s transcription in his photo report for the Russian Chess Federation website.        

Alexander Timofeev – Peter Svidler
Notes by Peter Svidler 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nge7 This is a new-fangled variation of the Ruy Lopez. I’ve played like this once before. The move looks a little awkward, but in the last year and a half it’s been played by Grischuk, Aronian… The idea is that there isn’t yet much theory and in the majority of cases you get lively positions, which is something Black welcomes.

 5.c3 After 5.Nc3 you can’t play 5…g6 because of 6.d4 exd4 7.Nd5. You have to play 5…d6, and then you get duller positions. In April in the Russian League Frolianov played the following against me: 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 g6 7.0-0 Bg7 8.c3 and we got the same position as in today’s game.

5…g6 6.d4 exd4 7.Nxd4 An alternative is 7.cxd4 Bg7 8.d5 b5.

7…Bg7 8.Be3 0-0 Black has mixed feelings here. On the one hand, White has declined to try and refute his play in the opening. On the other hand, White has a solid position without a single weakness and a certain edge in the centre.

9.0-0 b5 Artyom and I disagreed about the evaluation of the position after 9…d6 10.Nd2 f5 11.exf5 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bxd4 13.cxd4 Nxf5 14.Nf3. He tried to explain that everything’s great for me, but it seems to me that Black’s position is strategically extremely dangerous – because the wrong pieces have been exchanged and the pawn’s standing on g6 instead of g7. It seems at some point you’d have to play с7-с6 and d6-d5 in order to get rid of your weaknesses, but then you’d need to plug the whole on e5 with your bare hands. So I didn’t like that plan.

10.Bc2 Ne5 An attempt to refine the structure and place some pawns in the centre.

11.a4 Rb8 12.axb5 axb5 13.Nd2 d6 13…d5 14.N4b3, and the bishop goes to c5. I’ve got some holes in my structure, while White doesn’t have any. If I play accurately I’ll be able to draw.

14.h3 c5 15.N4f3 N5c6 If 15…Qc7, then 16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Nb3 c4 18.Ra7 Rb7 19.Rxb7 Bxb7 20.Nc5 Bc6 21.b3. Sergey Tiviakov has won a million such games in the Sicilian with 3.Bb5.

16.Bf4 Rb7 Here I was still happy with my position: it seemed to me that I’d manage to play Rd7, Qb6 and Bb7. 

17.Qe2 After this move I realised that perhaps everything wouldn’t go quite as smoothly as I’d thought, because I’m not in time to play Qb6 and Rd7.

17…c4 A conceptual move: cutting off the c2-bishop and d2-knight once and for all. I want to play d5-d4.

18.Rfd1

18…Rd7 It was more accurate to play 18…d5 19.Nf1 (19.exd5 Nxd5 20.Bg5 f6 21.Bh4 Re8 22.Ne4 Rbe7) 19…d4 20.cxd4 Nxd4 21.Nxd4 Bxd4, and there’s no way White can win the bishop.

19.Nf1 d5 20.Bg5 I still hadn’t completely worked out what was going on and this move sobered me up a little. I thought White had to take: 20.exd5 Nxd5 21.Bg5 Qc7 22.Qe4 f5 23.Qh4 Bb7 – and Black’s wonderfully centralised.

20…Qc7 After 20…d4 21.cxd4 h6 22.Bxe7 Qxe7 23.e5 Rfd8 24.Qe3 it’s not even clear how I can attack the d4-pawn again. After 20…h6 I was planning on 21.Be3, but I was incredibly worried about 21.exd5 hxg5 22.dxc6 Nxc6 23.Qe4 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 Qf6 25.Ne3 Ne7 – Black’s position is extremely perilous.

21.Qe3 Here I finally realised I’d ended up somewhere entirely different from where I’d planned, because  White’s very effectively defended against the threat of d5-d4, and he’s got a mass of obvious moves that strengthen his position.

21…b4 22.Bf4 Artyom unexpectedly gave me a little oxygen. Probably out of general considerations you had to go 22.Bh6 here – to exchange the dark-squared bishop and then have a think. And after 22.Ng3 bxc3 23.bxc3 Ne5 24.Nd4 Black’s position isn’t quite “the real deal”.

22…Qd8 23.Bh6 There was an unclear position after 23.e5 Rb7.

23…d4 Artyom underestimated this move. I thought that things were suddenly very good for me, but in fact Black is still fighting for a draw.

24.cxd4 Nxd4 I rejected the move 24…b3 for a “Romantic” reason: 25.Bxb3 cxb3 26.Bxg7 Kxg7 27.d5. I’ve got an extra piece, but frankly, it isn’t felt.

25.Bxg7 Nxf3+ I didn’t even start to calculate 25…Nxc2, because I was sure that after 26.Qh6 I’d be mated.

26.Qxf3 The position also continues to remain extremely dangerous after 26.gxf3 Kxg7 27.Rxd7 Qxd7 28.Ra7 (28.Qc5 b3, but not 28…Nc6? 29.Ba4) 28…Qd6. 

26…Kxg7 27.e5 It seems to me I made a very strong move here: 

27…f6. I include my remaining pieces in the game. Worse is 27…Rxd1 28.Rxd1 Qc7 29.Qf6+ Kg8 30.Qd6, and here the most Black’s dreaming of is to get an endgame with “4 v 3 on one flank”.

28.Ne3 28.Qe2 Rxd1 29.Rxd1 Qc7 30.Rd4 Be6 31.exf6+ Rxf6 32.Re4 Kf7 33.Ne3 b3 34.Bb1 c3 35.bxc3 Qxc3 36.Ng4 Qc1+ 37.Kh2 Qc7+, and move by move I manage to defend everything and draw.

28…b3 This move destroys the coordination of the white pieces. 

29.Be4 Qc7 White would like to have his queen standing on e4, but there’s no way of getting it there. Here I didn’t have a single thought about an advantage, but the possibility of setting traps arose. 

30.Rdc1 This move would be good and strong if it wasn’t for Black’s reply. Better was 30.exf6+ Rxf6 31.Qe2 c3 with equality.

30…Rd4 Frankly there no longer seems to be equality for White – he’s losing a whole pawn. 

31.Qg3 A clever move, but now White gets into tactical difficulties.

31…f5 32.Bf3 f4 33.Qh4 h6 At this point I thought my position was objectively won, and moreover Artyom only had a minute left. I’m often worried about strange things, and here I was worried by the move 34.Nxc4. But after 34…g5 35.Qh5 Rxc4 36.Rxc4 Qxc4 37.h4 Rf5 (37…Qf7 38.Ra7) 38.Qe8 Rxe5 White has neither a piece nor an attack.  

With seconds left he made the move 34.Ng4, and after 34…Nf5 White loses his queen. Therefore Artyom resigned.

You can watch Svidler’s demonstration as a video highlight at the official website.

Other demonstrations from the Russian Championship:

• Svidler demonstrates title-winning games (Rd 6)
• Nepomniachtchi demonstrates his win against Morozevich (Rd 5)
• Svidler demonstrates his win against Galkin (Rd 4)
• Morozevich and Grischuk demonstrate their wins (Rd 4)
• Karjakin demonstrates his win against Kramnik (Rd 3)
• Svidler demonstrates his draw against Grischuk (Rd 3)
• Kramnik demonstrates his win against Timofeev (Rd 2)
• Svidler demonstrates his win against Kramnik (Rd 1)

It’s fair to say Alexander Morozevich’s win over Alexander Timofeev wasn’t the toughest of his career, but any Morozevich win is a delight for his legion of fans. He’s now moved up to no. 17 on the live ratings list. 

Alexander Morozevich – Alexander Timofeev
Notes by Alexander Morozevich 

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 Nf6 I expected the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, but after 3.е4 Artyom usually plays 3…Nc6, and my preparation was mainly reduced to that move. Fortunately I’d guessed that I also needed to look at 3…Nf6. 

4.e5 Nd5 5.Bxc4 Nb6 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Ne2 Bg4 8.f3 Be6 9.Nbc3

9…Bc4 Mainline theory here is 9…Qd7 10.Ne4 Bd5, while the move 9…Bc4 is considered a little dubious. 

10.Bxc4 Nxc4 11.e6 fxe6 12.0-0 A few games have been played on this theme, perhaps not at the very highest level, but Black’s always experienced problems. I thought: maybe he’s got something in mind? 

12…Nb6 The main line I had written down is 12…Qd7 13.Qb3 Nb6 14.Rd1 0-0-0 15.a4 or 15.Ne4 – Black doesn’t fully equalise. 

13.Ne4 g6 13…e5 14.dxe5 – an advantage free of charge.

14.Nc5 I simply couldn’t understand his idea; it seems as though I’m making the most logical moves. 

14…Qd6 This move simply stunned me: giving up the b7-pawn with tempo – that’s really something! I’d calculated 14…Qd5 15.Be3 e5 16.Nc3 Qc4 17.dxe5 (17.d5 Nd4 is worse) with an advantage.  

15.Nxb7 Qd5 16.Be3 Bg7 16…Nc4 17.Bf2 looks pointless – Black’s knight will simply hang. 

17.Nf4 Qf5 18.Rc1 There was a trap here: 18.Nc5 Nxd4 19.Bxd4 0-0-0.

18…Nxd4 19.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 20.Qxd4 e5 21.Qb4 It seems to me that whatever White plays here he has an advantage. 

21…Qxf4 22.Qb5+

22…c6 22…Kf7 23.Qb3+ Kg7 24.Rxc7 – Black doesn’t manage to regroup.

23.Qxc6+ Kf7 24.Nc5 Qd4+ It’s hard to play with queens on. Here if 24…Rhc8 there’s the following tactic: 25.Qe6+ Kf8 26.Qxc8+.

25.Kh1 Qd5 Black has to exchange queens and look for some sort of practical chances on account of the fact that his king is closer to the centre.

26.Qxd5+ Nxd5 27.Nd3 Kf6 28.Rc6+ e6 29.Re1 Rhc8 30.Ra6 Rc2 31.h4 A logical move: I give myself some luft, take control of the g5-square and maintain all my options.

31…Rc4 32.Re4 Rd4 Looking for practical chances.

33.Nc5 Nf4 34.Rxd4 It was possible simply to retreat – 34.Re3. 

34…exd4 35.g3 Rc8 35…Nd5 36.Rxe6+ Kf7 37.Rd6, and Black’s got no play. And here I started to do inexplicable things… 

36.b4 It was also possible to take a piece: 36.Ne4+ Ke5 37.gxf4+ Kxf4 38.Kg2 Rc2+ 39.Nf2 e5 40.b4 Ke3 (40…d3 41.Rd6 d2) 41.Ra3+. But I thought that in time trouble I might blunder something.

36…Nd5

37.Rxe6+ Originally I was planning on playing 37.a3 Rxc5 (the only chance) 38.bxc5 d3 39.Ra4. Artyom hadn’t seen this move at all, but I saw it. 39…e5 40.Ra6+, and here it seemed to me that Black starts creating a study: 40…Nb6 41.cxb6 d2. But there’s no study, if only because of: 42.b7+ Ke7 43.Rd6. But I didn’t see that and thought the pawn would promote. I don’t know why I thought that: the variation doesn’t seem to be the most complex.

37…Kf7 37…Kf5 38.Re4 Nxb4 39.Nd7, and Black doesn’t have a normal defence from two mates. But now such “intricate” ideas don’t work for White because he’s lost the most important pawn.

38.Ra6 Nxb4 He made this move too slowly and lost on time. After 39.Rxa7+ White maintains practical winning chances, but it appears to be the best position Black’s had in the game after the 14th move.

You can still watch the video of Morozevich’s demonstration of his game (where he of course speaks Russian), at the official website.

Sergey Karjakin came back to earth with a bump after his win against Vladimir Kramnik. Although the Ukrainian player clearly wasn’t at his best, Sergey Shipov described Alexander Grischuk’s win as a “positional masterpiece”.  

Sergey Karjakin – Alexander Grischuk
Notes by Alexander Grischuk

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 Only a win suited me, which is why I played such an opening as the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence. Sergey has had it a lot recently in his games against Ivanchuk. Sergey crushed him in the tournament in Bazna (Romania), while at the World Team Championship Ivanchuk managed to survive. It would be better if it had been the other way around – in Romania a draw, but a win in Ningbo! 

4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 Ivanchuk castled on both occasions, while c5 is the second main move.

6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.e5 Ng4 8.e6 fxe6 9.Ng5 Bxb5 10.Nxe6 Bxd4 11.Nxb5 An awful lot of people know that you can make a draw in this position: 11.Nxd8 Bf2+ 12.Kd2 Be3+. 

11…Qa5+ 12.Qd2

12…Qxd2+ This move is encountered less often, but it’s got a better reputation. The main theoretical continuation is – 12…Bf2+ 13.Kd1 Ne3+ 14.Ke2 Qxb5+ 15.Kxf2 Ng4+ 16.Kg3 Na6, and Black has quite a dangerous position. You just have to make sure you don’t take the g4-knight (it’s won back after Qd7, Kf7, Nc7).

13.Bxd2 Kd7 14.Nbxd4 The principled continuation here is – 14.Nec7 a6 15.Nxa8 axb5 16.a4 bxa4 17.Nb6+ Kc6 18.Nxa4. You get a very sharp ending, which was seen in the games Radjabov – Ivanchuk and Muzychuk – Hamdouchi. It seems Sergey wasn’t prepared for that line as he played quite toothlessly.

14…cxd4 15.Nxd4 It’s clear that this position has huge drawing resources, but if people want to play for a win then that’s also an option.

15…Rc8 This move is recommended by the computer, and I decided to trust it.

16.0-0 Rc5 It’s hard to say if Sergey wanted a real fight or not. But he started to play poorly here. 

17.c3 Nc6 18.Nf3 b5 19.h3 19.a4 bxa4 20.Rxa4 Rb8 21.b4 Rc4, and White’s got nothing. 

19…Nf6 20.Be3 Rd5 21.Nd4 Na5 If I want something then I have to jump somewhere. 

22.Rad1 Nc4 23.Bc1 a5 I think Black’s better here. Strangely enough, the rook is very strong on d5. Sergey decided to exchange it – at the cost of a couple of tempos.

24.Nc2 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 Rc8 26.Kf1 Nb6 Dangers are beginning to emerge for White – Black wants to play b5-b4. It was necessary to play 27.a3, but after 27…a4 the two black pawns cancel out White’s three pawns and therefore I end up with an extra pawn in the centre. 

28.Rd4 Nfd5 It’s difficult to comment here as time trouble was starting. It seems to me that the way we played from here onwards was reasonable. Without e7-e5 it’s hard for me to make progress, and in order to play e5 I have to block the d-file.

29.Ke2 e5 30.fxe5 dxe5 31.Rd1 Ke6 32.Rf1 I was sure that Sergey would play 32.Ne1. I really didn’t like this move.

32…Nc4 33.Rf3 I didn’t particularly understand this manoeuvre.

33…h6 34.Nb4 Nxb4 35.axb4 g5 36.g4 When you’ve got such an overwhelming position you want to prevent any counterplay at all. Here I probably started to get a bit too clever.

36…Rg8 After a normal move like 36…Rd8 there might follow 37.h4 gxh4 38.Rh3. But with the rook on g8 in that line the g4-pawn will hang.

37.Rf1 Nb6 A promising plan – transferring the knight to f4. I think if you exchange rooks then Black will be winning, but there’s no way of exchanging them: if 37…Rg7, then 38.Rf8, and the white rook becomes active.

38.Be3 Nd5 39.Rh1 Rc8 Here I set a trap and he fell for it.

40.h4 Better was 40.Bc5; perhaps I shouldn’t have allowed that bishop move.

40…a3! 41.bxa3 Rxc3 42.Bc5 42.Bd2 Nf4+, and Black is winning.  Interesting is 42.hxg5 Rxe3+ 43.Kd2 hxg5 44.Rh6+ Ke7 45.Rh7+ Kf6 46.Rh6+ Kg7 47.Rd6 – the knight’s won back and you get a draw. But after 43…Rxa3 44.gxh6 you get a position which is very similar to my second game in the match against Gelfand in Kazan. Incredibly similar – it gave me goose bumps! But Sergey correctly pointed out that the move 44…e4 was winning, and after 45.h7 Ra2+ I take the rook.

42…Nf4+ 43.Kd2

43…Rxa3 Later on I regretted not including the check 43…Rd3+ here, but that was very tricky to foresee in advance.

44.hxg5 hxg5 45.Rh8 Kd5 I have to try and weave some sort of mating nets in order to use the power of the knight.

46.Rd8+ Kc4 47.Re8 Kd5 48.Rb8 Kc4 49.Re8 Ra2+ If Black had included the check on the 43rd move the white king would now be standing on c2 and would have to retreat to the back rank. 

50.Ke3 Nd5+ 51.Kf3 All White’s moves are only moves: 51.Ke4? Nf6+. 

51…Ra3+ 52.Ke2 52.Kf2 Nf6, and you can’t take the e5-pawn because of the fork. 

52…Nc3+ 53.Ke3 Ra2 I was lucky to find such a move, after which White can’t take on e5. Now he’s probably lost, although I’m not 100% certain. 

54.Rc8 Re2+ 55.Kf3 e4+ 56.Kg3 Rc2

57.Kh3 57.Be3+ Kd3 58.Bxg5 Ne2+, and Black wins the rook. 
57.Be7+ Kb3 58.Re8 Ne2+ 59.Kf2 Nf4+ 60.Ke3 Nd5+, and Black wins, because you can’t take the pawn: 61.Kxe4 Nxe7 62.Rxe7 Re2+. 

57…Nd5 Threatening mate in two, so White is forced to exchange rooks.

58.Be7+ Kb3 59.Rxc2 Kxc2 60.Bxg5 Nxb4 61.Bh4 Nd5 62.g5 b4 63.Kg4 b3 64.g6 b2 65.g7 b1Q 

White resigned, as he loses the “newly-born” queen.

You can watch Grischuk’s demonstration as a video highlight at the official website.

As readers will have noticed I haven’t posted at Chess in Translation for a long time now. I hope to change that situation soon, but the reason has been doing translation and producing news for WhyChess. That’s included the following translations of the players’ commentary on their Russian Championship games:

• Svidler demonstrates his win against Galkin (Rd 4)
• Karjakin demonstrates his win against Kramnik (Rd 3)
• Svidler demonstrates his draw against Grischuk (Rd 3)
• Kramnik demonstrates his win against Timofeev (Rd 2)
• Svidler demonstrates his win against Kramnik (Rd 1)

The World Team Championship in Ningbo, China is shaping up to be a fantastic event. Russia is again the team to beat, though with Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Armenia and hosts China breathing down their necks, it won’t be easy. It might, however, be easier than the team’s journey, which was described by Bareev.

Russian team captain Evgeny Bareev probably has the sharpest tongue in chess, and that was in evidence once more as he turned a description of a frustrating trip into a minor comic masterpiece. Here’s how the Russian Chess Federation website quotes Bareev describing the Chinese leg of their journey:   

The journey wasn’t the easiest. After a month of regular contact with our Chinese friends they nevertheless managed to persuade us to set off from the airport in Shanghai to Ningbo using the “convenient” train…

Intuition suggested we should sit in a coach and drive straight to the hotel – without any adventures. But they persuaded us. First at the airport they stuffed us and our things into two cars – to drive to the train station. Then we drove at a speed at which rickshaws overtook us at bends, and passenger buses sped past like Ferraris.

At the station our guide and translator suddenly started rushing around, but in vain – the train had left, in his words, 10 minutes ago. We spent an hour discussing what to do next, but the attempt to get a coach fell through, and they suggested we waited 4 hours for the next train. So we waited. A lot of people live in China. Along the way the train, that can achieve speeds of up to 250 km/h, kept stopping to pick up all-comers. It covered a distance of 200 km in 3.5 hours. Finally, a coach was waiting for us in the station, and 30 minutes later we were in the hotel. “Tired but happy”, as they say – banal, but extremely accurate.

The hotel is high class, and it’s cool and quiet in the rooms. After a quiet team dinner each of us went off to readjust to the local time. Some managed, and got up for breakfast the next day, while others didn’t even make it to lunch. We’ve still got a few days until the opening, but the teams are already gathering, which emphasises once more how serious the favourites are, and how much the event means.

Grischuk (and shoes and laptops) in the Chinese hotel

The RCF website has also being keeping tabs on the Russian team’s preparation for the event in China, which included a week spent at the Ognikovo training camp 50 km from Moscow. Vladimir Barsky produced a remarkable photo report from which I’ve taken most of the photos below.

Fitness regime in Ognikovo

It also included an interview with Peter Svidler. Note that when Svidler talks about teaching kids he’s referring to his winter session for the Russian Chess Federation’s grandmaster school (as captured by Anna Burtasova in another photo report). The project has been somewhat controversial, as people have argued both that children should be taught by experienced trainers, and that top-GMs have more important things to spend their time on (though when e.g. Nakamura is playing in the World Series of Poker a week before Dortmund you do wonder!).

Are you familiar with Ognikovo?

No, not really. I was here with the kids in January, but I’d never been before that.

And what are the conditions like?

If there was a mobile phone reception then it would be great. There’s not too much lacking except that people with the misfortune of having the wrong mobile phone operator are forced to “beg” their colleagues to phone anywhere. That can be awkward at times, but it’s not a matter of life or death.

And is there Wi-Fi?

Haha! We’re completely cut off from the outside world. In a way the visit to the medical examination turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as it was possible to have a good talk to my family and those back home.

The room and food – is everything ok?

Normal. I can’t say that each day we have something “gourmet”, but it’s perfectly satisfactory. The air’s wonderful here, and there are trees and water near by – the nature’s great! Perhaps they don’t want to darken the landscape with mobile phone masts – which in that case would be understandable. Sometimes you want to talk to your family, but otherwise it’s all fine.

How do the days pass at the training camp?

Breakfast, some sort of work on yourself, lunch, sport, dinner, work on yourself.

And how did teaching the kids go?

Evgeny Tomashevsky and I ended up absolutely exhausted back then. The pair of us had to teach 16 children from the younger and middle school classes, and by evening we were pale shadows of ourselves. I remember when we’d discussed the sessions on Skype and I said: “Perhaps in the evenings we can look at something”. He replied: “I’d love to!” We imagined we’d be able to push the pieces. However, by 6 or 7 in the evening, when the sessions with the children ended, the very thought of moving some chess pieces about seemed absolutely absurd! The children were cute, however, and it was pleasant and interesting to talk to them. Overall, I had a positive impression, but I was just crazily tired.

Super-GM teacher

 Did you have to do a lot of preparation?

I had to give some lectures and look at their games. There were all very active and bright-eyed!

Have you been to Ningbo before?

I played in the Russia – China match there. In 2008 or 2009, I don’t remember precisely – all the tournaments merge into one for me.

What do you expect from the championship?

The same as always. It’s clear that if we all play well then we’ll be favourites. Not the only ones, as the Ukrainian and Azerbaijan teams also have brilliant line-ups. Of course, “the ball is round”, and it’ll all be decided in 2 or 3 key encounters. The tournament will be very difficult, but which of us can remember easy ones in living memory, and I don’t think we’re going to start getting them now. Of course, we’re capable of winning the championship if we all play well.

The Superfinal was recently switched to August, which means the summer calendar has become much tougher…

Before that November and December were completely crazy, and people were barely conscious by the time they got to the Superfinal. The autumn and winter schedule was always totally mad, so now they’ve slightly unloaded winter at the cost of packing the summer. No problem – we’re used to it! Of course, it would be good if everything was more balanced and spring and the start of summer were busier, then you could take some of the strain away off autumn and winter. But it seems there’s been no progress in that direction, and it’s not clear who to blame. There’s an official FIDE calendar without very many gaps, and you have to work around it. This year the switch from December to August was… I can’t say it was directly my fault, but I was one of the indirect causes of it happening. That’s because in December there’ll be a tournament in China, in which Sasha [Alexander Grischuk], Sergey Karjakin and myself would like to play, and the federation tried to help us out – rather than it being the other way around. I definitely can’t complain, as in many ways the switch happened at the “request of the workers”.

So that’s the situation. First China, then the Superfinal, then in a week and a half – the World Cup. That’s probably not entirely healthy, but then it’ll be easier in December.

Spot the ball! Morozevich helped out in the training camp.

Recently there was some news about the modernisation of FIDE. What do you think about that idea?

I suspect I’m not up to date, and I don’t know the details you’re talking about.

They’re planning to put the emphasis on rapid and blitz chess.

It seems to me that in the early stages you can completely ignore FIDE’s declarative statements, which is what I’m busy doing just now. When the declarative statements grow into some sort of changes in the schedule and it’s possible to see what they had in mind then there’ll be something to talk about. In principle, I support the idea of increasing the number of tournaments in rapid and blitz chess, as it’s interesting for the spectators and draws attention. Right now we’re not in a position to reject any ideas that might draw attention to chess. They might be right, essentially. It’s a different story, however, and we’ve long since become accustomed to it, that far from all of FIDE’s ideas ever get implemented. Let’s wait and see!

Ilyumzhinov said that the matches in Kazan made a depressing impression on people.

Perhaps for non-specialists the matches really did create such an impression. I wouldn’t say depressing – they weren’t as bad as people are inclined to imagine. As a person who was on the inside of that process, I can say the following: people are inclined to underestimate a) how much was at stake for the participants, and b) to what degree the format of three matches in a row puts absolutely brutal limits on what you can allow yourself to do in the opening. I don’t want to represent the position of “Grischuk’s Team”, but if over three matches everyone exclusively plays the Queen’s Gambit against you, and for 1. e4 they’ve got the Petroff in reserve and won’t be afraid to use it, then of course it becomes less of a spectacle. But it’s not clear what you can do about that. If the matches had been spread out over a period of time then it would have been possible to prepare for that to some degree. But in the situation Sasha found himself in… Yes, the spectators were occasionally stunned by what went on, but the weight he had to lift – it really was a weight. 

Grischuk on the attack

In general, is it still too soon to bury classical chess?

Yes, it’s almost always too soon to bury anything or anyone, except in cases when you can confirm the death of the individual. I perfectly understand the critics. When the process is criticized by people who don’t understand a thing then that doesn’t provoke any particularly strong emotions. Well, they don’t understand! But some of the criticism has come from people who could think a little about why things happened precisely the way they did and not otherwise. All of that wasn’t, from my point of view, entirely justified. Have a look, for example, at the Kramnik – Radjabov match, in which the Queen’s Gambit was played with both colours. Vladimir Borisovich himself at some point started to play for a draw with White and wait for blitz. People didn’t want to draw conclusions, and then when they see quick draws in the Kramnik – Grischuk and Grischuk – Gelfand matches they think: that’s where the guilty party lies! And that’s what’s annoying: when people could understand but don’t want to. They could think about it for 30 seconds and restrain their righteous anger. But what can you say? Good luck to them!

Goalkeeper extraordinaire!