Ivanchuk talked to Denis Bilunov for Kasparovchess:
Q: Vasily, how would you evaluate your performance? Are you absolutely satisfied with your play in this event?
A: First of all, the tournament isn’t over yet. I have the final match ahead of me, so it is too early to draw conclusions. As for my play — well, it is hard to say. Every match was a tense fight. There were no “clean” games, logical from the beginning to the end. I already noticed some of my mistakes, other are yet to be revealed. Naturally, my opponents made mistakes too. This time I managed to reach the final, so I am quite happy about it.
Q: Was your breakdown in the match with Macieja just an accident?
A: I don’t think it was a breakdown. A breakdown is a blunder or really poor play. In my opinion, I lost that game in a tough fight. I went for a piece sacrifice in a slightly inferior position. I thought that it would allow me to seal a draw quickly. I misevaluated the position and my opponent subtly proved it. He played in almost a study-like manner toward the end. Such a game hardly can be called a breakdown.
Q: Which games do you consider your best achievements in this tournament?
A: It’s hard to say. Maybe one was the second game of my match with Sutovsky. However, this encounter still should be analyzed in depth. I did not play as well as I initially thought. I think I was too emotional about this game.
Q: What is your impression of the match with Anand?
A: It was a complicated fight throughout the match. In the beginning of the last encounter I had to ward him off and equalize. My opponent made a few slack moves and gave me a chance to attack. I decided to gamble and played f3; he immediately made a mistake, after which the game barely could have been saved.
Q: In his commentary on the semifinals Kasparov called f3 a brilliant move, after which White’s position is hard to defend, almost hopeless…
A: I am not that sure about this evaluation. Had Anand replied g3… In truth, after he captured on f3 I obtained a big advantage.
Q: What do you think about the innovations tested in this tournament? A new time control, a new system of pairings, the doping control?
A: You know, I think that the system of pairing did not change much. At least I did not pay much attention to it. I just found out on whom I was playing in the next round. I was not particularly interested in what was going on around me. Regarding time control – it is hard to say whether it is better or worse. I played with this control in Yerevan. In any case, it evokes no negative emotions. It is a normal time control, which has a full right to exist. My attitude toward it is neutral.
Q: It looks like you are ready to play under any conditions offered by organizers. Can it be said, that it is your credo – Ivanchuk wins in any format?
A: I have not always managed to win. Besides, I can’t remember when I agreed to play under conditions that are a priori disadvantageous for me.
Q: Which conditions are a priori disadvantageous for you?
A: I don’t know. I haven’t been put in such a situation.
Q: Having made it to the final of the FIDE Championship you have acquired a sort of public status. Are you going to support the president, Illumzhinov?
A: It depends. A person can’t enjoy universal support on in all questions. Let’s see what he is going to do; then I will express my opinion.
Q: Is knockout a normal system for the World Championship?
A: Certainly, it is much more pleasant to win, and much more painful to lose under this system. It has a full right to exist. There are no other offers and suggestions anyway.
Q: After his victory in Las Vegas, Khalifman came out with an initiative to change the system. Some FIDE officials even said that it would change. Are any actions possible on your part?
A: First I should play in the final, and then think about something else. One must not undertake any public activity as long as the competition is not over.
And Svidler was interviewed by Chess Base
Svidler: “The match against Ruslan was fairly interesting, up to the middle of the third game. In the first game I thought that I was at some point better, perhaps almost winning. But he replied in a very calm manner and, and then I realised that my position may actually even be worse. It was a very complex, strategic battle and ended in a draw. In the second one I was probably much worse after the opening, but he misplayed it somewhat, spent half an hour at a critical junction and decided to play for a win being a piece down in the endgame. I reacted in a very correct way and I was better, but not much better. Then he misplayed it some more and the position was most probably winning. But from some point on he made something like fifteen only moves in a row, and I failed to capitalise (is that a word? should be!). By this time I realised that I am seriously tired and can’t really tell when I’m going to collapse in a heap. So I decided to go for the throat, which may not have been the wisest of all possible decisions. This was after the rest day, and I had looked at the first game and realised that my idea of how to deal with it was correct, but then I decided that it was not enough and I had to switch to 3.d4 instead of Nxc5, which is something I don’t play any more and don’t know too much about. Just go for a playable position and play it, because I could feel and still can feel that I am not really a worse player than him. Why not just play chess. And that is what we were doing up to a point, and then, you know, for ten minutes I just went blank and blundered a very important pawn in a position which did not allow it. Then I could probably hold after an inaccuracy of his, but I missed this point because the position looked hopeless and I felt that it should be hopeless, and I sort of resigned at this point. This is something I am really kicking myself for.
What was even more unpleasant was that there were some people sitting in the first row, five metres from me, and when I was getting my coat they actually told me how I could have made a draw, like five moves before I resigned. They weren’t nice about it, and I got really pissed off with them. I couldn’t believe it for some time because of the way they told me that. But when I cooled off a bit I realised that actually these two guys had understood the position much better than I did. That was unpleasant.”
Q: What was your impression of the young man?
A: Favourable in general. He played very well, he plays very sensible, calculates well. We analysed a bit after each game. He sees a lot, he’s a very good player, I think. He played much better in this leg, in the finals he was unrecognisable – he played really badly. Obviously the time controls and the format suit him. He is young, full of energy, he doesn’t tire easily. He doesn’t really blunder, which is one of the most important things in this format.
Q: A lot of people compare him to Karpov…
A: It’s an obvious comparison, and I’ve heard it many times, so there must be some truth in it. But I really fail to see why people feel such an urge to compare somebody to somebody. For me the turning point in the evaluation of the young man was the game he won against Dreev in the final of the European Cup in 2000. He got a miniscule endgame edge after 15 moves against Alexei Dreev, whom I consider a really good player who understands the game really well. He really very, very slowly built it up and won the game, in 65 moves, in no hurry anywhere. This is not something you see very often. This was for me a kind of a turning point, it proved something to me. I never really doubted after that that he would play really well at some point. At his age you normally see people sacrificing, attacking. He can do that, no doubt about it, but this kind of mature understanding of small advantages and his ability to play for them, and the patience it requires, this is something I don’t think I have. It impressed me. And it’s still there, he keeps on doing it, getting a small edge and working with it, staying with it and not letting it go.
Q: In the final against Ivanchuk he wasn’t that impressive.
A: They were both really below par. Basically he just collected whatever Vassily threw at him – which is also an achievement, but not something to be especially proud of. I think that this month they had was simply counterproductive, because it gave them time for the idea that they were playing for the title to settle in. They lost the rhythm and it weighed very heavily on them. The schedule was extremely demanding and difficult, but on the other hand you would get into some working rhythm, and there was absolutely no time to think about what was going on. Which in some ways is a good thing, because you don’t really get a chance to reflect. I think it was very heavy on them, the understanding that whoever wins is going to be the new world champion, and the first Ukrainian world champion. It obviously weighed more heavily on Ivanchuk, as we could all see.
Q: How would you design a world championship?
A: I’m not answering that. There is no ideal system. As usual it is much easier to say what shouldn’t be done than what should. This is not really productive, and my two pennies are not really better than anyone else’s. As for this knockout form, one thing that really should not be repeated, ever again, is tiebreaks on the same day. This is just murder. The quality dropped so dramatically compared to let’s say Vegas or Delhi. There tiebreaks used to contain at least some games of value. This time there was one decent tiebreak game, which everybody mentions, which is Shirov-Topalov. This was sport, this was cutting down on art (if there ever was any). It is a direction chess can be taking, but it is not necessary to make it happen.
During this month of December Moscow was quite busy with chess. In famous Hall of Collums Kramnik- Kasparov competed in a rapid chess match for the Botvinnik Memorial. During a press conference both continue to proclaim their legitimity:
A: What responsibilities does the world champion have that other strong players don’t have?
Kramnik: Well it’s only very personal, very individual; I don’t think it depends very much on your title. I always felt a lot of responsibility for my results, but not only for the public but also for myself.
Kasparov: I disagreed; it does depend on your title. I can only regret that Kramnik does not see this. Everybody carries a certain responsibility for the current status of chess in the world. And of course the World Champion is not a magician who can change the world, as I discovered during the 15 years of my crusade to change the chess environment. But now when classical chess is on the verge of extinction, after FIDE is trying to eliminate it from its agenda, Kramnik can’t deny the simple fact that unless he acts as the World Champion he will be presiding over the end of the chess we played and love.
In one of the press conference, FIDE President was once more was asked to comment about the split in the chess world.
Q: Kirsan Nikolaevich, so what is the background of this extensive conflict between Kasparov and FIDE?
A: The conflict is, to my mind, all about money. 90% of the whole amount of money in chess in the recent times used to be divided among Kasparov and those who were close to him. The others used to get little. And when I was nominated for FIDE presidency, first, I declined the offer. It was too unexpected for me. I called up Kasparov and told him: “Garry, Campomanes is leaving his position and they proposed me. This is great. We can do a lot for chess, including Russian chess!”. Kasparov replied: “No, Kirsan, don’t go for it. FIDE is breaking into pieces. It must die. We must reign ourselves”. This was his exact expression. But why must we reign. One person can not reign all alone. This would mean breaking of over a hundred years old tradition of world chess championships. Kasparov himself is a product of this tradition. He is the thirteenth FIDE World Chess Champion. I tried to explain this to Garry. But he said: “We are about to earn money ourselves.”
I emphasize that the problem is in money. He does not want to transfer 20% of income for FIDE for the development of chess. But FIDE is the organization that unites 162 National Chess Federations, millions of chess players around the world, organizes thousands of tournaments among adults and juniors including Olympiads. But many people wrongly believe that FIDE should drop everything and concentrate exclusively on World Chess Championships. This is not right. We are obliged to carry out all the functions we are entitled with.
Q: Is it true that the chess elite for a long time lived from the means of shadow cash? Grandmasters elite did not start to play until a certain sum of money appeared on their accounts unofficially.
A: I did not want to speak on this matter before, but now I would like to make an official statement to your newspaper that before my tenure, there used to be shadow cash in FIDE: participants of the top international tournaments like Linares, Wijk aan Zee and so on, were paid the so called appearance money, which did not depend on the subsequent results. The average rate was about $50 000. Some were paid more, some were paid less according to their position in the world ranking. I must draw your attention to the fact that that money was not taxed. And when I was elected the President of FIDE in 1995, the first claim from the chess players and National Federations was to put an end to this outrage. For six years of my presidency in FIDE no one can reproach me that there is shadow cash in FIDE. There is $3.000.000 of the prize fund money for this year’s Moscow Championship and we put this amount on the table. We give the opportunity to young and talented players to earn money for their living also.
The final
FIDE President K. Ilymzhinov has decided for another prestigious venue for the final: The Hotel Metropol in Moscow. This place is associated with the history of chess in the Soviet Union since the famous tournament of Moscow 1925. R. Ponomariov was coached by V. Topalov and G. Kuzmin and the young Karjakin. Ivanchuk had a couple of friends and O. Gritsak only.
Ruslan Ponomariov was born on October 11, 1983 in Gorlovka (Eastern Ukraine). Ruslan learned the rules of the game at the age of 7. When he was 11-12 years old virtually all the players familiar with Ruslan’s games already called him the future World Champion. Ruslan’s achievements look quite impressive, even if we forget just for a second that nobody played the world championship matches being 18-years old before. His victories in the European (1996) and World (1997) junior championships in the under 18 category at the age of 12 and 13 speak for themselves. At the age of 14 Ruslan became the youngest GM in chess history. Before turning 15 he debuted (7 out of 9) in the 1998 Olympiad. Nevertheless, even after such a period of relative stagnation Ponomariov became (at the age of 16) the leader of the world rating in the category «under 20. In the year 2001 Ponomariov tied for first in an unprecedentedly strong European Championship in Ohrid (203 participants, mostly GMs), but lost to Emil Sutovsky in the tie-break match. In the fall of 2001 he was a member of the Ukranian team which won the World Team Championship.