
Garry Kasparov:
A Topalov-Kramnik match won’t resolve anything
Interview with Eugeny Atarov (ChessPro)
Do you believe in omens? Personally, I do. They are like a chain of stars
in the dark sky indicating the right way and foretelling seemingly unexpected
events. Twenty years have passed since the beginning of the new era in chess,
the era of Kasparov that changed our perception of the ancient game once and
for all. Garry Kimovich, back then 22-year old Garik, wrested the championship
crown from another chess colossus, Anatoly Karpov, who had not felt the bitter
taste of defeat for a whole decade. Twenty years down the road the chess world
has a new World Champion, one who has upturned the existing chess hierarchy…
Kasparov observed this change like all the rest of us from the
outside. This spring he retired from chess. When choosing someone to summarize
the outcome of the World Championship in San Luis, it is hard to think of a
better expert. Topalov’s style and energy are reminiscent of Kasparov himself.
With this in mind, the Thirteenth World Champion’s evaluation of Topalov’s
performance seems all the more interesting.
Garry
Kimovich, how unexpected was the outcome of the event in San Luis for you?
What is so unexpected about it? I think the result is as logical, only so
far as the outcome of any tournament could be. Certainly, some results might
have been different. Topalov’s victory could have been not that convincing,
but he deservedly won the title. Veselin has been playing better than anybody
else the whole year. He came better prepared for tough, hard fight. Some element
of luck is an integral part of success, but with rare exceptions Topalov deserved
all the points he scored.
In other words, you would not say that it was the tournament of his life?
Topalov’s triumph in San Luis became the logical conclusion of his rise throughout
the year. At present he plays more powerful, interesting and fresh chess. After
the event he will back up the high quality of his game with best rating in
the world (excluding mine which is a bit higher). This “triple multiplier”
makes Topalov’s success quite logical. Moreover, it is the resolution of a
longstanding conflict – for the first time since 1993 the player demonstrating
the most interesting, succinct play became FIDE World Champion.
You are talking about Veselin’s victory as “logical”, but before the event
many experts, including you (although indirectly) had prophesied Topalov being
somewhere in the top trio but had not proclaimed him the #1 favorite. For example
your former coach Alexander Nikitin called him a “merely elite GM”.
Actually, it is very difficult to resist the magic of big names. When trying
to forecast, most people looked at the problem in the historical context. They
analyzed the results of the last ten or five years. A more realistic approach
was called for. They should have followed current developments! I had no doubts
whatsoever that Anand and Topalov would be at the top. I was wrong only about
Leko, but thought that two of this trio would compete for the title and placed
them in this order.
However, had I been asked to pick just one I would have bet on Topalov. Actually,
I said it on many occasions in private talks. I wrote in the article for “New
in Chess” that this format favored Topalov. I still think that the result of
a match Anand-Topalov would be unclear. Vishy’s chances would not be worse,
to say the least. On the other hand, in a long tough tournament, Veselin was
a clear favorite.
One should take Topalov the way he is right now, not a replica of himself
five or even three years ago. He is capable of winning several games in a row
– take for example his performances in Linares, Sofia and Dortmund. He is eager
to fight, to fight to the very end, finding inner resources and energy to continue
the battle. I don’t know any other player like him!
I know one – you!
I was talking about those who are in the active circuit. I don’t belong to
the group fighting for chess titles and trophies anymore.
Don’t you think that the Bulgarian made a great quality leap in San Luis?
I would not use this term. I think Topalov consolidated his game and kept
advancing in the direction he had taken. He made a breakthrough similar to
that of Kramnik in 2000. The question remains, what happens next?
Do you feel some sort of succession, the continuation of “Kasparov’s vector”?
After all, Topalov plays in the style that you displayed.

Topalov wins the title |
It is quite obvious. Kramink’s style and perception of chess are similar to
these of Karpov whereas Topalov is closer to me than to anyone else. One can
observe some sort of pattern in chess: the adherents of a dry, positional style
are succeeded by tacticians. These two tendencies have been swaying to and
fro for 20 years. I see the logic of chess development here. Chess changes
by its own inner rules to guarantee against self-exhaustion. The San Luis tournament
saw tense and interesting fights in many games. It means that classic chess
in not dead! The restoration of a normal time control brought chess to a new
level, boosted its popularity, and gave a stimulus for further development.
Up to 80,000 people followed the games from San Luis in Playchess.com portal!
Topalov’s victory looks unconditional. In your opinion, what happened
with Anand?
Nothing serious. Anand staged a normal performance. Does he not lose heart
in tough situations, when someone shoots ahead? Did it happen for the first
time? So, no wonder. Had Anand been on track from the first round he could
have won the tournament. However, another player wiped everyone out of his
way. As soon as things did not go the way they were expected for Vishy, he
crumbled. Anand losing heart, Anand buckling under pressure – it looks so natural
and familiar.
With all the above mentioned in mind, would you feel upset if Anand had
won?
Should I care? Well, probably in that case I would try to find different logic
in chess development.
Did not you go up to Anand in Linares and say: “I am leaving, you are
in charge now”?
First, I did not go up to him – we were seated at the same table. Secondly,
back then for me he was the second player, in terms of his game, rating and
status. However, after Linares there was Sofia. After that super-tournament
the power balance in chess changed drastically. Topalov won the event in a
brilliant style, with a powerful finishing spurt, including an excellent victory
over Anand. Many forgot about this encounter, but it was extremely important
from a psychological standpoint. For some reason, before the World Championship
the results of Sofia were apparently disregarded. Personally, I realized that
Topalov was gradually taking the top position.
Why did Leko flop?
Leko had a real breakthrough in 2002, which lasted till the match with Kramnik.
He kept the momentum and won Wijk-an-Zee 2005. However, Peter has never had
enough energy to be on the top permanently. Besides, it looks like Leko (and
not only he) feels uncomfortable after my retirement. Suddenly they all had
to fight for first place. Previously it was okay to be second, if Kasparov
won the event. The Hungarian was not prepared to fight for the first prize
in this new psychological situation…
Topalov is better adapted to modern chess that requires constant work
with computers, precision in all areas, incessant self-perfection. He seized
the spirit of the time, whereas Anand and Leko did not quite catch it. Let
me repeat that Topalov closed the “time gap” that has gaped since 1993. The
chess player embodying the leading tendency is first in the rating list. For
the time being the topic is closed.
My next question echoes the letter you wrote back in January before the
tournament in Wijk-an-Zee. You said that your heart was bleeding as you did
not take part in this event. Did not you see yourself among the participants
of the World Championship?
It was not the case. The decision that I made in March is final. I just enjoyed
watching the games, guessing the move (by the way, quite often I guessed right),
evaluated the positions (again, my evaluations for the most part were correct).
But I have switched over, so to say. My mind drifted in a different direction.
I did not project myself to this event.
In other words, all these talks and hints that have been circulating about
your return to chess are groundless?
If anyone wants to believe in such a thing, he is welcome to do so.
Actually all these rumors amuse me. For many years a lot of people were waiting
for the time when I would finally leave. Ironically, when I satisfied everyone
and left, all these talks about my return started to pop up.
Frankly speaking without you the vacuum is felt...
I don’t know. I see it philosophically. I rejoice at good chess, good games.
As a spectator I really enjoyed the event: a gripping fight, many decisive
encounters. For me and I think for many spectators the issue of who held the
world championship title was finally resolved. But now it is time to switch
to building a normal system. After all, the event did not solve any of FIDE’s
problems! It has no real money; the structure of this organization hinders
an effective work with corporate sponsors. It is necessary to work out an effective
anti-crisis program that I have been talking about for many years. I still
believe that the chess world should switch to a unified rating system incorporating
rapid and the most important blitz games. There are plenty of things to do…
Speaking of the doping issue, I think it is high time to introduce
anti-computer control to rule out any possibility of contact with a machine
in the course of games, rather than taking steroid tests. Chess must be reformed
to make our game really professional well-to-do sport. Chess players should
not have to watch every penny…
It does not look like San Luis solved even a single one of FIDE’s problems…
At least one is settled. FIDE has Topalov – a real, legitimate world champion.
He has the highest rating, best play and the official title. However, this
fact did not solve other problems. Even in San Luis the prize fund was provided
by the city budget! We see the same situation in Khanty-Mansyisk. FIDE is still
dependent on the ambition of individual bureaucrats. There are no corporate
sponsors, clear schedule, etc. There are no components that are necessary for
chess transition into a different quality. Things will get moving only if FIDE’s
administrative resources are combined with corporate money, as was the case
back in the 90s, when the PCA signed the sponsorship contract with Intel.
If you were Topalov, which path would you take: play in the new multi-stage
FIDE cycle or pick up Kramnik’s gauntlet?
In my opinion Kramnik has no weight right now. He can’t influence the situation.
He might have some questionable legal rights, due to Prague Agreement. But
he has no moral or chess rights. Presently, it is up to Topalov. He is his
own master. His match with Kramnik will trigger chaos, it won’t resolve anything!
But go ahead, if someone who is ready to fork out millions for a parallel cycle
appears on the scene, the situation might change. But for the time being that
is just a hypothetical chance.
If Kramnik, who beat you in 2000, has lost his status, then who is the
successor of the 120-year old tradition of world championships?

Kasparov in his final round game – and last competitive game
– against Topalov in this year's Linares tournament |
Troubling times have already come. It is not clear how to define the branch
stemming from my 1993 match with Short. Many respectable people changed their
opinion many times. Those who did not recognize me as the World Champion, did
so with Kramnik. Unfortunately, for many people it was bias rather then principle.
In my opinion we signed a very important agreement in Prague. The World Champions
acknowledged that the title had to belong to an organization rather than to
a person. The fulfillment of this agreement depended on public recognition,
which rests on the results shown by a particular player in the best tournaments.
It is now the end of 2005, not Prague 2002.
Kramnik’s results speak for themselves. He slipped down to the seventh position
from the second one. Do you take his draw in the match with Leko seriously?
After all Peter won no cycle. It was some sort of parallel reality, which could
have materialized had Kramik and Leko had impressive victories to their names.
If Kramnik had won Sofia or Dortmund things would have been different! As soon
as Kramnik started demonstrating stable result (unfortunately stably bad) the
issue was over. It is clear that my claims to FIDE were founded not only on
my victory over Karpov in 1985 but also on my top rating and tournament victories.
That was the gist of the split. The best GM did not possess the FIDE title.
I was someone to reckon with. What split are we talking about right now? Did
Kramnik win Sofia or tie with me in Linares?
Allow me the last question. In martial arts every champion defeats his
predecessor. It just happened that you lost your last game to Topalov. Was
it not the finger of fate?
Maybe. I did not think about it very much, but if it helps the chess world
to solve its problems, I can admit that it was the finger of fate. Go ahead!
I can live with that. I know why I lost that game. I stopped playing chess
and thought only about the press-conference, where I was going to announce
my retirement. Nevertheless, it was the omen symbolizing a new era in chess.
I am very glad! If it was necessary for me to lose just one game to open a
new era, I am ready to make this sacrifice.
- Original interview in ChessPro
(translation provided by Eugeny Atarov)
The
ChessPro.ru site was started in July 2004, mainly to organize and promote blitz
tournaments. In the first “Moscow blitz” twelve GMs played, include Morozevich,
Grischuk, Dreev, Tkachiev and Rublevsky. Authors of the site are Morozevich,
Grischuk, Shirov, Sutovsky, Radjabov, Karjakin, etc. The editorial staff consists
of Eugeny Atarov (chief in editor: interviews, reports, photos, statistic,
web), Sergey Shipov (main chess analysis, chess champion portraits), Maxim Notkin
(monthly tournament review), Sergey Voronkov (literature editor, book reviews
and archives).