|
A.G. : Maybe, not the result but the very quality of Kasparov's play is surprising. It's very
strange not to win a single game. What has actually happened?
V.T. : It is difficult to say what had actually happened and I think that, to some extent, it can be clarified by Kasparov himself. However, it is evident that the result is linked with such obscure play. The impression of the match was very strange from the beginning. It seemed at first that it is temporary and that something has to change with the progress of the match, and not so much in the score but by the way how Kramnik, generally speaking, dictated his own terms throughout the match. But nothing has changed till the match end.
Probably, the relationship between personalities is a very important factor for Kasparov and, respectively, for his opponent. The majority of Kasparov's adversaries are simply afraid of him and it influences the course of purely chess struggle. Probably, this factor gives additional strength to Kasparov and tends to reduce his opponents' capacity. Kramnik was not afraid of him absolutely and, clearly, is not afraid of him now. Quite possible that it is a very important factor for Kasparov. If I may compare it with the other match against Deep Blue that was lost by Kasparov, I believe about the same thing happened.
Kasparov played the kind of chess that was absolutely alien to him, the approach to openings was absolutely uncharacteristic to Kasparov. There was an impression that he kind of wound trying to avoid the opening schemes and the general opening approach imposed on him. Absolutely the same thing can be traced in his match with Kramnik. Certainly, the short match with the computer does not provide the grounds for making exhaustive conclusions but it is evident that the computer was not afraid of him. Similarly, Kramnik did not feel any humbleness playing against Kasparov. Generally speaking, just this kind of personality might be mostly contradictive to Kasparov: phlegmatic, absolutely calm, full control over himself and over the situation.
However, this explanation only is not enough, some chess explanations are required because it was generally assumed that Kasparov's strength, as compared with all his chess adversaries, is concentrated to 60-70% in the opening stage. If there was any advantage in the openings, then it was clearly Kramnik's and Kasparov could not oppose absolutely anything to it. There was a feeling that Kramnik was so assured by the end of the match that, I believe, he made a gross mistake in the 14th game when the match result has been already predetermined. He found himself in a difficult position but still, so I felt, was sure that he just could not lose.
Really, he saved this position surprisingly easy, I do not know anybody who could have saved it against Kasparov, to say nothing about the fact that the position in question was really difficult. On the whole, it was a strange match.
A.G. : You mentioned now that Kramnik was sure that he could not lose, but because of the quality of the play plenty of questions arise after the match, these questions are not technically of chess nature. In particular, some consider that it was some very strong and long-term reckoning by Kasparov. For instance, it is clear that the end of the struggle «Kasparov vs Karpov» somewhat reduced the interest to chess. Confrontation between man and machine is, seemingly, no longer actual after the loss of Kasparov. That is, many aspects that caused interest to chess with usual amateurs somehow became obsolete and, respectively, sponsors do not allocate so much money. Isn't this result a bait for the same sponsors?!
Now, when Kasparov has lost, everybody is agitated and the interest to chess revives. The next revenge match may collect not two but three, four, five million. Some people assume that some combination of two Ks took place...
V.T. : Really, there were plenty of speculations around the match after its beginning. But these were of quite different nature. I argued and was almost alone who contradicted the conceived opinion that the result of the match is known.
A.G. : Even Karpov told in Odessa this summer that Kasparov would win with the advantage of one point.
V.T. : Yes. Some people were «absolutely sure» about the score 2:1 in Kasparov's favour as if they sat somewhere and bugged all talks between Kasparov and Kramnik. They talked so convincingly! I did not sat with them, so I thought, out of general considerations, that it is absolutely impossible - if one takes into consideration the personalities of Kasparov and Kramnik...
Kasparov cannot organize the loss inherently. He can lose as he lost but not voluntary, to say nothing about the fact that this loss involves the loss of the champion's title which he considers he owns. The alternative that was forecast by many grandmasters was based on the fact that Kasparov cannot lose, and the score 2:1 looks appeasing - no harm done, everybody is happy, meaning that Kasparov is happier than Kramnik.
However, on the other hand, how one can assume that Kramnik, the young, immensely gifted chess player who occupies if not the second than the third place in the world may bury at 25 all his hopes and ambitions (if the match result was agreed beforehand)? Naturally, every sportsman, being in his prime, at the peak of his chess potential, aspires to become the world champion if he feels that he can achieve it.
As to money: certainly, the prize is great but I don't think this amount can change something for Kasparov or Kramnik, change their life essentially or elevate them to some other level. Clearly, for a man of mould a million is a huge sum but for these people this amount is not so great, and I am sure it would not change anything in their life for them. I say nothing about technical details. Suppose, they have agreed. How to accomplish it technically? Can all 16 games be planned from the very beginning till their end? Is this not a torture if every day you start to play one of 16 games and is making moves for 6 hours adhering to somewhere put down on paper order?
Besides, the stake is high, so everything should have been arranged from the legal viewpoint. What to do? Sign the agreement? On top of that, Kramnik's team included such chess players as Lautier and Illeskas who, from the money viewpoint, are far from being cheap. Again, if the result is predetermined, the course of events is known, then why one should pay substantial amounts to seconds? We may elaborate for long but I was convinced that these are speculations.
A.G. : You have been arguing with everybody so heatedly. Why were you so assured? What was it based on?
V.T. : I did not have any material basis for these guesses. I had no reliable data as contrary to my opponents who presumed they had some data, even the overhead talks, therefore there is nothing to talk about - it is known and evident...
A.G. : What was your own forecast?
V.T. : I had no forecast whatsoever. I considered Kasparov to be the favourite and in this sense my position contradicted everything I told: should Kasparov win with a score of 3:2, then nobody could have been overpersuaded that this match is not an «agreed» one. But I have lived long enough, and particularly in chess, so I faced such situation many times...
Well, this situation is banal - people play the last round and one needs a win while the other wants nothing. Under these circumstances everybody, especially those concerned in the outcome, say that the result of the game is known. That person, who does not need it, will lose, and that one who needs it, will win. And it is just the opposite result of the game that can convince them about the contrary: just if the other player, not the one who needs it, wins, or if the game ends in a draw. Same thing happens here.
Moreover, as soon as the match ended with the score that had not been forecast, a new theory appears... I believe, it's just the depravity of mankind and its inherent vices that manifest themselves.
A.G. : As a result, a still more interesting situation develops. What Kramnik is? Is he the fourteenth World Champion?
V.T. : This question is more interesting in the sense that nobody knows the answer, me including. It is evident that Kramnik won over Kasparov. This is the first that comes to mind if you know the match result. As far as the titles, both official and unofficial, are concerned, one may argue. As to the World Champion, he is being revealed now at the World Championship.
As to the strongest chess player of the world, then everybody, including the opinion of the acting World Champion Khalifman, considers that it is Kasparov. However, in respect of Kramnik this assertion is more contestable because quite recently he convincingly lost the match to Shirov. If we continue the logical chain, then Shirov also has the right to be called the strongest chess player in the world. In this sense the situation is completely in the air.
Certainly, we understand that Kramnik is happy and proud to have overcome the clearly strongest chess player in the world in the match of 16 games. Still, it did not clear up a rather confused situation at the chess top. Probably, it contributed to still greater disorder.
A.G. : It may be paradoxical but this confusion might assist in resolving this uncertainty. Suppose, Kasparov won and remained unbeaten. Naturally, he could have been dictating his terms to FIDE and Ilyumzhinov. Today the FIDE position and the position of Ilyumzhinov are improving, the latter may tell Kasparov that he does not seem to be the strongest. Can it be that just Kramnik's victory would help to resolve this idiotic situation that now exists in chess world?
V.T. : In theory, yes. It tends to make Ilyumzhinov's task or the task of the organizations and people who wish to unify the title and reduce it to a single system and a single world champion.
However, I am not so sure of that from the practical viewpoint because Kramnik, and that is absolutely understandable, is not eager to defend, in a week's time, God knows what title that he conquered in his match with Kasparov. Naturally, he wants to enjoy this victory and take some rest. It is clear that he devoted several months to preparation and the match required plenty of efforts. He does not participate in FIDE World Championship. Everybody plays there - except Kasparov who is not the strongest world chess player and Karpov who also is not the strongest chess player in the world for much longer period. So, the winner of this Championship is considered as if he is a champion. Then, to resolve the situation, it is necessary to invent something.
It is but natural that under these circumstances it is now easier to come to agreement with Kasparov than when he had the reputation of the reigning champion. However, it is unclear whether it will be easy or not to reach agreement with Kramnik, and what system should be invented in general.
A.G. : Presumably, the 1948 Match-Tournament can make the basis...
V.T. : But before the 1948 Match-Tournament it was evident that there is no world champion.
A.G. : Then let us come back still further to 1941. The famous Match Tournament of all Soviet champions for the title of the Absolute Champion of the USSR. This is the likely scheme that can be used.
V.T. : The matter is that in 1941 the absolute champion title was created artificially so as to give Botvinnik a chance to become the only leader. Besides, it all was taking place in the USSR, within the notorious political system when the people could be ordered to sit at chess board and play. Now, everything takes place in quite different times when it is necessary to negotiate and not prescribe, therefore it will be much more hard to reach consensus. By the way, who will play there? It is clear that Kramnik and Kasparov should play, and that the new world champion should play as well. Are they three or four? It is not so easy to invent such a system and it is still harder to come to an agreement with the characters.
A.G. : How do you assess the results achieved by our Ukrainian teams at the Olympiad?
V.T. : These are univocally good. Both by men and women. However, my personal impression of the clearly good results is mixed. It is so because these very successful performances create impression that the chess movement in Ukraine develops well. Nothing of the kind.
Objectively, these results work in favour of only one person - the federation chairman who is absolutely incompetent. Ukraine has so many really strong chess players that they can achieve such results without any extra support. The paradox is that these achievements make it possible for the federation leadership to claim that the chess federation is working, something is on-going, etc. The reality is that nothing happens. If some event takes place in Lviv, it does not mean that it is connected with the federation, moreover it looks like it is on the contrary. So, I have a mixed feeling from the Olympiad results. On the one hand, I heartily congratulate my colleagues with success and their magnificent performance, and other hand I am somewhat discontent because the fruit are reaped not by those who deserve it.
A.G. : Two years ago you have highly appraised Ponomariov, who is very much like Karpov by his character. He developed himself well. Can you comment on his perspective?
V.T. : I am of even higher opinion of Ponomariov now than two years ago. At that time one could have said that he was a child prodigy, taking into consideration all circumstances. Now he is clearly a very strong chess player who has his own original approach that testifies an enormous inherent ability. He does not have his own coach as yet, nevertheless he develops very fast. He has a huge inherent chess talent and character.
© Chess-Sector.odessa.ua |
