Anand on Chess –
from square one to the World Championship in Bonn
Interview Transcript
Location: Chennai
Date: 26th December, 2008.
Interviewers: Sriram Srinivasan and Jaideep Unudurti (Outlook
Business)
You started off playing tournaments at the age of eight or so?
Yes. I would guess its probably even sooner. I learnt roughly when I was six.
Probably for the first six months I was at home, then joined a club, so very
likely my first tournament was round about that age.

At that time how was the chess scene? Where there any tournaments around
to take part in at regular intervals?
Sure, we had a reasonably good chess scene. We had some very enthusiastic organisers
if you like. Some guys who got together as a club. I remember they used to come
there practically every day. I remember seeing many of them for years on end.
So it was a small circle but a very passionate and committed circle. We still
had not even gotten our first grandmaster at that stage. I think we only had
one International Master when I started.
Manuel Aaron. By 1980 we started to get to four. So it was a very small world.
But I had enough chances to play. I remember at the Tal chess club, at one point
those guys decided they were going to just organize a tournament every week.
For practice it was fantastic. I could go to the club every week. Every weekend
they had the tournament. I would go and play the whole tournament. It was good,
because this is the best way to grow.

Manuel Aaron (born 1935) was the first Indian chess master in the modern
tradition. He dominated chess in India in the 1960s to the 1980s, was the national
champion of India nine times between 1959 and 1981.
You were 8-9 years old? Were there other kids your age? Or were you the
only kid in the club?
There was a little break. I think I was eight, eight and a half when we left
for the Philippines. I spent a year and a few months there and came back sometime
in 1980, when I was ten. When I got here I started playing chess again. I think
1980-81 was when I started playing tournaments every weekend practically. I
would maybe play 30 tournaments a year. The whole of 1981 went like this. Nothing
(much) really, in the sense that I had the habit of going to the club for playing
blitz games – five-minute games. Every Monday evening, Thursday evening,
second Saturdays and Sundays, the club functioned so that was my schedule to
go to the club.
To go back to the Philippines, is it fair to say that was a critical
year because at that time Philippines had better chess infrastructure?
I think that is correct. The Philippines had just organized a world championship
match between Karpov and Korchnoi. So at that stage they were further down that
road. They had a very active federation. I remember even they had a TV program
on chess in those days. Every day between 1 and 2 in the afternoon. So when
I was at school my mother would write down the games and the puzzle at the end.
When I came back from school she would show me what had happened. I also remember
joining a club there and going to play very often. My interest in chess deepened
in the Philippines and by the time I got back I was pretty much hooked.
In the beginning was it just “Ok, chess is a fun activity”.
You also played tennis. When did you think, “I’m really good at
this and should stick with it”? Was it a conscious decision or did you
get into it gradually?
Well tennis I really didn’t get past the coaching camps and that sort
of thing. I never got into tournaments. So very soon my chess was much further
ahead then my tennis. I still remember going to these tennis camps in the morning,
with all these other kids. It drove me nuts that at 5:30 in the morning I couldn’t
even play tennis. They would make you run around the courts a few times (laughs)
and then you got four forehands, four backhands and then you were off, the next
group came in.
I liked the chess scene simply much more because I got to play as much as I
wanted and it was more my style. But I was playing lots of other things, I was
playing badminton. My father was in the railways so in the Railway Club we had
badminton, table tennis. I would play with all the other railway kids. I had
a mixture of other sports. But none of them came close. Already by the second
or third year I had gone further in chess than in any of the other games because
I was playing tournaments.
Did you watch the Karpov-Korchnoi match in the Philippines?
No, we arrived in the Philippines about a month after it had finished. We went
to Baguio. It is a lovely hillside resort. While we were there, my parents took
me to this place, see this is where the Karpov-Korchnoi match took place. We
went to see the hall. I didn’t know that then of course, but nine years
later I would win the world junior title in the same hall.
 |
An inspiration to the young Anand: the great battles
between Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi. The first was a Candidates Final
in 1974, when the winner, Karpov, went on to become World Champion by forfeit,
when title-holder Fischer did not appear for the match. After that Karpov
was challenged twice by Korchnoi, 1978 in Baguio City, Philippines and 1981
in Merano, Italy. Karpov won both these matches. |
Did you subconsciously believe, even then, that you could take chess
as a career?
Probably yes. I never saw anything else as my career. The moments when you
would hesitate, is first in the tenth standard, because you need to get a group
of your choice, and then in the twelfth standard, when you are going to university.
Until then, you could put off the decision and pretend that both streams were
going okay. But what I wanted to do clearly was chess. The reason I might not
have taken chess would be if I hadn’t got the breakthroughs. Then you
begin to weigh your career options. “Can I make a living playing chess?”
and all that stuff.
But for me at those critical moments I had incredible results. Around the ninth
standard I had very good breaks, then again in the tenth standard I had a good
year. Got my International Master title a bit earlier. So that was good. And
in the twelfth standard, just after I had finished, I got my world junior title
and the grandmaster title within the space of a few months. So at the moments
when I might have hesitated I did not need to hesitate at all, The choice became
clear. But I decided to go to college anyway and do my B.Com, just to keep my
options open. I had a feeling that as a grandmaster it was possible to play
chess for a living. I felt somehow I wanted to go to college simply because
I didn’t want to miss that part of life, I didn’t want to have never
gone to college.
After I finished college things became clear. I was already number five in the
world. I had very very good results. I would basically say that from the age
of six, unless I saw very good reasons not to play chess, it was what I wanted
to do. There were no logical arguments against it.
In the 70s, Philippines had Torre. Eventually India overtook Philippines
as a chess power. Can we speculate that it was because Philippines didn’t
have an Anand, a star player who could capture the people’s imagination?
Can we say that that is why you were able to start a chess revolution in India?
I think that is possible. It must be said that Torre’s effect on the
Philippines was very similar. There was a boom. It petered out after a while.
But Torre had the same effect and he is, I am guessing, 15-16 years senior to
me. So that effect also started much earlier in the Philippines, around 1974.
The Philippines was a very strong Asian chess country. Now it’s less so
but they still field a decent team. Clearly no one has come along to replace
the stature of Eugene. In India it has come further along. India has several
players in the top 100, one other in the top 50. We have a women’s game
going. It is more broad-based in India. The situation is comparable, they started
much earlier.

A legend in Philippino chess: GM Eugenio Torre
Do you need stars to crop up at constant intervals to prop up the scene
or can the infrastructure keep it going?
I think it is both. It is not really one or the other. They feed off each other.
If now, a very strong Filipino player emerged, there is already a base on which
he can build. I think you need both. You need to have the infrastructure, but
children watch lots of sports and when you have somebody they can follow they
go for that. In Spain, tennis and F1 have got so big recently. You can see the
effect literally from the day Alonso started competing in F1. If he were to
disappear I don’t think that F1 will last there. You can see this in Germany,
after Schumi, F1 is decreasing fast. You need a constant feed of good players
to keep that alive. To fire people’s imagination.
One very important factor is age-group tournaments. You need that conveyor
belt of U-10, U-12, U-14 so you can keep going up. What was your experience?
Did you go past the age groups very quickly?
Well in those days we only had U-16 and U-20. Subsequently they found the need
to break it up so much because what was happening was that GMs were becoming
so strong at the age of 18 they were skipping the best years of the world junior.
Or maybe they became grandmasters at 14, and then people became afraid they
would never play a world junior. At this point I would say Under-20 is not that
important, there are 17-year-olds like Carlsen who are not going to participate.
It’s still a very impressive result but it is not quite what it used to
be. Once upon a time people like Spassky, Kasparov, Karpov, myself we all won
world junior championships at some stage. Till about 1990 that was a real gold-plated
achievement. It still is good, but Kramnik was already so strong at 17 he didn’t
play in the world junior, he didn’t win one. So there you already have
to look at their sub-junior results, which is U-16. Now you need to see people’s
U-14, U-12, and that’s where you make out what they are doing. Surya Ganguly,
for instance, played many other people like Aronian, Grischuk at the U-14, U-16
stages. Now they are all at the top of world chess.

Generations: seated: Mikhail Tal, Joel Lautier, Anand; standing: Bent
Larsen,
Viktor Korchnoi, Garry Kasparov, Bessel Kok, Jan Timman, Boris Spassky
I think the earlier you start the better your chances are. The system maybe
producing very young players, eventually they become senior stars, it is almost
unheard of that someone starts at 16 and has any realistic chance of getting
to the top.
In cricket you can see a very clear path. You play well, you get into
the zonals, the Ranji and so on. The entire emphasis is on getting into the
Indian team. Once you get in, the system takes over. When you were starting
off in the 1980s, how much of that infrastructure was there?
Basically the goal was to become a grandmaster. I think there were some support
systems in place in India. There were a few, let us say, patrons or well-wishers
who would sort of look after chess players, who would give them employment when
they became International Masters. When you became a grandmaster that is when
they paid you to take part in tournaments. As International Master some events
would give you some compensation but essentially you knew you had to become
a grandmaster to have this chance.
I had a double bonus because I became world junior champion and grandmaster.
I got invited to some very prestigious events, like the Corus tournament, Wijk
aan Zee. That was a very big break for me. And when I won that, everything opened
up. I started getting lots of good invitations. That was basically what you
needed to do. Grandmaster was the place to be. Now there are far more grandmasters
than they used to be in 1987, so now you need to be probably 2650 before you
can have the system take over. At my time that was 2500 or 2550.
Have you thought of another way of making the chess economy run? Till
now people here have been very cautious of taking sport as a career. Chess
players are supposed to be of above average intelligence so they presumably
have more career options. How would an ideal chess economy look like?
I think in general it’s a fairly good system. We have tournaments at
every level. I think once you make your mark, some way or the other, either
you become the best player of your country or you become one of the best in
the world. In the case of Russia you could be number eight in Russia and could
still have some work to do before you’d be the first choice. I think the
system as it is now, as long as it stable, we are back to the system of having
only one world championship; that is very good for the game. And now lots of
new countries are turning up. There is a Norwegian, Magnus Carlsen, who is fourth
in the world, there is an Italian, there is an Armenian, there is a Ukrainian.
So already the top ten is looking very diverse and nice. Which is a very interesting
face to present to the world. So I think the system is healthy. Now if we keep
the stability of the world championship and grow it from here it will be very
healthy.
I think the argument still holds, when you get to the age when you are in college
you may be very good for chess but you may not be cut out for it. It is not
just that if you can play chess you should. You also have to want that kind
of lifestyle, which has travelling, playing tournaments. It is a different kind
of lifestyle, some like it, some don’t. I mean there are chess players
who did it for 4-5 years, they really loved chess and then they said they couldn’t
take the travelling any more and wanted to get into different things. That is
such a personal decision you can’t really influence that further. But
you make the set-up interesting and go from there.
Going back to the 80s, there was a competition - who would become the
first Indian GM? There was you and there were other promising players like
GM Barua. Can you describe those years?
It was really a mental barrier. Round about 1982 we had this idea that, okay,
at some point some Indian has to become a grandmaster. It just seemed so elusive.
It was a big block. Somehow when I was playing, if the GM norm was 7, I got
to 6 several times or 6.5 even. It seemed that ultimate half a point was very
tricky. I had a conversation with an arbiter in the UK once. He was telling
me actually when you finally become a GM it will be very smooth. You’ll
keep on missing for many months and at one point you will become strong enough
you will get it easily, you might even overshoot. So don’t fret about
it. I had gone through three attempts, the first in Calcutta, the second in
London. I’d missed it by half a point each time. I needed to win the last
game in every case. I won the world junior, which gave me one norm. Then in
Delhi I made it with a round to spare. Not exactly a round to spare, but I just
needed a draw in the last round and that’s much easier. In Coimbatore,
I even overshot. I needed a draw in the penultimate round. When it finally happened
I seemed to just sweep past. So it’s clear that I had become much stronger
while trying for the GM title.

Teenage Anand on his way to a GM title
It is funny that the first two or three tournaments after becoming a GM I couldn’t
make the GM norm. When you become a Grandmaster you lose this target in front
of you and suddenly you have no idea what you are doing or what you are playing
for. By the end of that year there was a deep feeling inside that I had to aim
for something much higher otherwise it is easy to drift. But it was a big deal.
I remember when I got the world junior title and grandmaster I was everywhere
in the press because it was really seen as a big, big deal. Finally we get one
grandmaster in this intellectual game, that sort of a thing.
Forget about becoming a GM, there were very few Indians who had actually
beaten a GM in a tournament game. There was Mr Aaron who had beaten one…
Max Euwe…
Your first win was against GM Mestel in 1985. Can you tell us about that?
For me it was big because for the first time I had beaten a grandmaster. Of
course subsequently I was beating grandmasters quite easily, so it is funny
to think of that as a block. Your point is essentially correct, the very fact
that you remember that you beat a GM means we hadn’t beaten many uptil
that point. Barua’s win over Korchnoi, we spoke about it for some years.
My win against Mestel.
In the early 80s first of all it was a big barrier to become a grandmaster
so as a result you tended to look up to people who had become grandmasters with
a certain amount of awe, and it was difficult to break through. In 1986 I was
beating grandmasters very regularly. That stopped being the achievement; it
had to be getting a GM norm, because you knew one of them could be having a
bad tournament. Your achievement had to be winning the tournament or making
a GM norm.
Again looking at the scene in India in the 1980s, in the pre-liberalization
era. I think you had trouble travelling abroad for tournaments. Can you tell
us about those times?
We had this system – because you needed to get foreign exchange, you
first needed the federation to approve your trip or pass on your application
to the sports ministry, which would sanction it. I don’t remember exactly
what the procedure was. From the sports ministry we went to civil aviation,
with the sports ministry’s approval, and they would issue an Air India
ticket. Once you got that ticket you went to the Reserve Bank and got your foreign
exchange approval. Then there was this one branch in the city, of SBI or Thomas
Cook, somewhere in Delhi, where you could buy your foreign exchange. I remember
always at some really late hour, because the ticket would be issued only at
five in the evening. At nine o’clock we would go to this one Thomas Cook,
which would be open late, get our foreign exchange, and the flight would be
at 11:30 p.m. This was funny because, even I think to fly to Colombo there where
people who went to Delhi to get their foreign exchange sanctioned, did the loop
and then came back. Sometimes it happened that we would arrive late for tournaments
because the sanction didn’t come quickly enough.
Basically we would spend two days floating around in these various ministries
in Delhi. It is a story I cannot tell to anyone anymore, because India has liberalized
so much that you can’t explain this. Essentially now, given the possibility,
if you don’t go it’s because you don’t have the money, not
because (of the regulations). At that time the regulations were quite absurd.
Given all this, if you had the choice would you prefer starting your
career now?
I wasn’t unhappy. To be fair, the sports ministry did give us a lot of
support. They always gave us some support to going to important tournaments,
one important tour a year and the Olympiads. If we qualified for any world championship
again they approved that very easily. FERA [Foreign Exchange Regulation Act]
was a nuisance, but it wasn’t directed against chess. The sports ministry
supported chess a lot for the results it had achieved till then. They had to
bankroll other sports as well. In that sense, the support structure was good.
I don’t really have that feeling that I should have started somewhere
else. Clearly if I had been born in the Soviet Union I would have been trained
in a different way. Because I was the best Indian, that had a certain cachet
as well. Many organisers invited me first because I was the number one ranked
Indian player, so they had a nice Asian player to bring to the tournament. I
would have to be the third or fourth best Russian Russian before I got an invitation.
So their eight best guy might have had better training than me, but I think
in the end the breaks even out. It is really a question of what you do with
the chances you have. I managed to do that very well, and getting my GM title
during college was also very nice, because it took the pressure off me in college.
I went through my B.Com, but mentally I knew I was not going to be an accountant.
Were you a star in college? Did people point out and say, “Oh there
is Anand”?
Yes and they would always want me to turn up for the culturals. They would
parade me around so they could pick up girls (laughs). The principal and all
of them were very affectionate. The vice-principal would ask me, “Why
are you coming to college? We have given you all the leave you want”.
I would say, no, no, I just want to meet the guys. It had gotten to the point
where there was very little resistance in missing classes as long as I turned
up for the exams.
You have mentioned the Soviet Union. In retrospect your success seems
incredible because the Soviets had a very comprehensive system in place for
spotting and then training that talent, not only in chess but other sports
as well. They also had world-beating players, so you could get practice partners.
Apart from the Soviets there is you and there is Fischer. Fischer at least
had the advantage of coming from the US, which is a rich country. You didn’t
have that advantage either. Do you think you would be an even stronger player
if you had gone through the rigorous training of the “Soviet school
of chess”?
No, I believe that my days in the Tal Club [in Madras] was more important than
getting training. Nowadays you see lots of kids like Magnus Carlsen who didn’t
come through some training program. They came through playing chess on the Internet.
Instead of going to a physical club they played 40 games a day on a server.
You can see the results. You can see the tactical reflexes they have. Training
does help; it has its role, not to demean it. I don’t think it’s
necessary at that stage.

Anand in 1988
I would almost say that it is the inspiration for what we are doing at the
NIIT Mind Champions Academy. We are trying to introduce kids to the game and
get them playing with each other. We think that’s 90% of the work. If
you reach a certain level, it’s so easy nowadays, and technology has bridged
the gap we had in the 80s with information and so on. In the 80s, for instance,
with the Chess Informant, we would wait four months, six months after it was
published. If some friend happened to travel to the Philippines for a tournament
he could buy it even sooner there, and you had this advantage for three weeks
before your opponents. And you had lots of the latest development you could
use on them. These days of watching games live and instant downloading of entire
bases – it’s hard to imagine that world.
Technology has levelled the field quite a lot. There is for instance no big
disadvantage to being an Australian in chess. If you get good, the breaks are
there. It’s very easy to play anyone you want. For someone in a remote
part of the world as long as you have an Internet connection, you can practice,
interact with people and get to the initial stages. Now it’s just a question
of whether you get good enough. Not to dismiss training and tournaments but
this is a big help. That’s why in the academy it is important for me that
they simply begin to learn to play. They play a few games with their friends
in school and they get into this habit of playing often.
I don’t feel training was a problem (for me). When I was preparing for
the candidates matches, then yes, training was very important. If you go into
this, with and “oh I’ve played a few blitz games” attitude
then you are walking into it a bit innocently. There you need somebody to guide
you through some real-world strategies, what your opponents might do. (Training)
is not necessary at an early stage. I don’t think it was a disadvantage
at all.
The Soviets had the House of Pioneers. Is the Mind Champions Academy
something on those lines? You want to widen the talent pool to see who has
that ability?
It is very similar. These pioneer houses had one man. Kids who had the opportunity
to come there would have chess sets, the atmosphere, the infrastructure was
created that if they wanted to play they could play. Russia didn’t need
to push its kids very much, they did so naturally. This man’s job was
to sort of be an enabler, to help things happen, and if someone was interesting,
sort of point him out. Very basic level and then they would take it to further
stages.
Our idea is very similar to this whole concept. We hope to have someone in
each academy who is maybe very passionate about the game and starts the ball
rolling. The idea is not to get into coaching. That’s for someone else.
Our idea simply is that millions of kids learn to play the game. We are approaching
it from that side so if in the next few years I can grow this from a student
base of 2.5 million to lets say ten million, then the number of kids who are
taking part is 170,000, and we can build that to say half a million. Those are
the numbers I am looking forward to. The idea is not get into one-on-ones. The
idea is to get a lot of kids into the game. Automatically that is wonderful
for the sport as well. The idea is that playing chess will help them to spend
their time more productively and also maybe improve their academic skills a
little bit.
You are getting a spin-off because you are increasing the potential audience
for chess as well.
Exactly. The biggest hurdle for chess as a spectator sport is that people don’t
know the rules. In fact the thing isn’t that it can’t be a spectator
game, but that there is this initial hurdle. If you don’t know the rules
you have no clue what is going on. You can’t even see an object moving.
That is the biggest hurdle. That is why this project is exciting me. If ten
million people have somehow come into contact with the game at some stage, just
learnt the rules, then you know one day, even if they have not taken chess seriously,
they may want to watch it, and obviously that is a huge opportunity for the
sport. So the biggest hurdle will simply be to get them in contact with the
game. Clearly we are still very regional. Chess was always big in Tamil Nadu
and the South. It had a foothold in Bengal and Maharasthra as well. These were
the strongholds of chess. The North-East, the North generally had almost no
real chess going. Here there is a levelling effect, we are actually teaching
chess in several areas where chess never had any foothold. And that is also
very exciting to me.

Sriram Srinivasan, Viswanathan Anand and Jaideep Unudurti at the time of
the interview
Part two (of three) to follow soon
Copyright ChessBase