Kramnik on the Anand-Topalov Match
Saturday, May 8, 2010 at 10:22AM The original interview, from Zeit Online, is in German, but regular reader Thomas has translated the portions relevant to Anand, Topalov and their match here. I reproduce them below, with Thomas's own editorializing in brackets:
[On game 9:] "This gives me pleasant memories. They play the variation which gave me my second victory in the WCh match against Kasparov. ... Anand played 13.Bd3, I had chosen 13.Qb3. This is now said to be analysed to a forced draw. Ten years ago computers weren't as powerful yet. ... Almost every game of the match has an opening from my repertoire. I am flattered that both players appreciate my ideas."
Q Did it surprise you that particularly Anand copies your openings, and played the Catalan four times?
"It's a logical choice. Topalow didn't have good results against the Catalan. At least statistically this opening was his weak spot. This strategy was actually easy to predict, but for Anand it worked."
Q With black Anand copied a rare line of the Slav Defense from you.
"That's my discovery which became rather popular. It doesn't make much sense to play it in a tournament because one gets practically no winning chances. But you have excellent chances for a draw. That's a typical strategy for black in a WCh match, and hence it's a typical WCh opening."
Q Were you shocked about game 8?
"Both played horribly, but I have to say that it was the only weak game of the match. Altogether the level is very high. The match shows that Anand is the better player, Topalov plays very well but not quite at his [Anand's] level."
Q It is well-known that you don't like Topalov
"I don't say this because I don't like Topalov, but I try to be objective. His trademark is excellent results, not excellent games. Sometimes he also plays fantastically. But, different from others, he still has good results when he doesn't play well. Maybe he knows tricks unknown to us mortals."
[I will skip the part on the Elista match which doesn't have anything new ...]
Q Anand is 40. How come he still plays that strongly?
"Because he is one of the really great players. And because he lives very professionally. Of course he doesn't have that much energy any more. He completely focuses on being in top form at the WCh. My impression is that Vishy plays better than ever. The last three years were the best of his career. This may sound strange as he is already 40, but Ivanchuk and Gelfand also play their best chess with 40. This gives me hope, maybe I will achieve the same [Kramnik is 35]."
Q How did you see the end of game 9?
"Topalov was completely dead. I don't know when I saw that much luck the last time. [Hmm, has Kramnik forgotten game 2 of the Elista match?] It's close to a miracle that he didn't lose. Vishy must be very deceived."
Reader Comments (16)
Thanks for the translation Thomas. Anand has to win the match to be considered the better player IMO. His general level of chess understanding seems slightly higher but chess is combat and a sport - perfection in 99% of the moves but tiring out at the end and losing is not rewarded - we all know Anand has the ability and the skills - lets see if he lasts the distance...till then I for one will suspend my thoughts about who is the better player...
It clearly shows (not for the first time) how Kramnik doesn’t understand chess as a sport. In every sport the results is what matters and what gives fans excitement. Come o-o-on, the same old (and very boring!!!) concepts of “deep understanding of chess”. No thanks, too cheap for me!
Kramnik feels about the same way I do; Topalov is a determined and inventive player, but he doesn't think about chess the way Anand (and probably Kramnik) do. His wins tend to result from blunders in equal positions by his opponents, or preparation. This is great sometimes; in San Luis 2005 it made him a superstar. But you can't outprepare Anand the way you can outprepare an Adams or Judit Polgar. Topalov's performance there was the shape of things to come: draws with Anand and a 75% score against the tourists.
"The better player" -means- who is better in a match. I doubt very many non-Bulgarians think Topalov understands chess like Anand does. But nerves and toughness are part of being a player too, and Topalov appears to have Anand beat there - as he did not have Kramnik beat.
Of course, Kramnik doesn't have Anand's advantages either; he isn't a universal player and his preparation is a step below, I think.
I must say, I do agree that Anand is the better chess player in this match, and this is visible even to me. However, Topalov is clearly the superior athlete. If you treat chess as a sport, i.e. play tournaments and World Championship matches and the like for a living, then you're a professional athlete just like a tennis player. And this consists not only of actually playing your game of choice better, but also of many other aspects, like adjusting your strategy to the opponent and tournament situation, mental toughness, the will to win, ability to fight till the end and so on. Topalov has already proven that he is clearly superior to Anand in this respect.
Who is the best chess player on Earth? That's the question we have the ratings for. The World Championship on the other hand (of any game, be it a biathlon tournament, a boxing match, a swimming race or a chess match) is an athletic event and just like a biathlete who runs and shoots perfectly at his training sessions or a swimmer who consistently comes first at races may fail to win the World Championship, the better chess player may fail to win the World Championship match.
Anand's biggest problem seems to me to be his physical preparation. He would quite obviously fail to win a fitness contest among chess players and I think that fatigue may have taken as much as 1 1/2 point from him in this match (a possible draw in game one, a very likely one in game eight, a win in game nine).
I do hope that his superior chess strength in this match will prove enough to overcome Topalov's superiority in the mental and physical department. It's certainly good for Anand that there will be an additional rest day between games 11 and 12. All in all, I think all Anand fans can be quite confident in his ability to win the match; true, it is drawn as of now, but he could've just as easily won by now, which can't be said of Topalov.
Speaking of chess quality I have a question to ask about game#7 (I’m not a master myself). Is there any other game played at this high Super-GM-level that one player keeps fighting for 42 moves with a piece down? IMO, that’s exactly what brings new fans to any sport. If we agree on that then we would easily agree on what’s good for chess. BTW, FIDE made their position known officially. It comes to no surprise that Krimnik missed that one too.
While the argument "the winner is per definition the better player" has its merits, it is sometimes also questioned in other sports. In football/soccer, some people occasionally argue that "the better team didn't win"! Only in some sports there can be no doubts, e.g. my other hobby running: whoever is a (split) second faster is obviously the winner and the best one ... .
To those suggesting that Topalov has already beaten Anand as far as "nerves and mental toughness" is concerned: The latest press conference (after game 10) may leave a different impression: Topalov seemed rather tense - as always after a drawn game (except game 9) he claimed that he let a win slip away. Anand was cheerful and joking, when asked about his openings (away from the Catalan, back to the Grunfeld) his answer was a smile and "Sorry Peter [Doggers], you'll have to ask me after the match is over."
In defense of Kramnik: He made the interview at a moment when the match is even - or Anand is "hypothetically leading" if the atypical eight game is discarded. And the Kramnik we saw lately (2009/2010) is also a universal player - he may have learnt from Anand, and Anand has learnt from him.
I agree with Schroedinger,
After 10 games here is my "cold" resume.
Anand blunder twice and lost twice.
Anand win twice with good prep. (outplayed despite any obvious blunder)
Anand CREATED really good chance in game 9.
Despite the fact the Topalov have a excellent prep. and play with great stamina, nerve and determination, and tried very hard to generate momentum on his side, Anand have been responsable for what happened so far.
Anand is in the driver seat and Topalov can just wait for his chance to steal the wheel.
It is sad to says, but I have the feeling that Anand will win or he will beat himself, end of story.
Topalov been the happy or sad spectator.
Agree with Kramnik completely.
Anand, to my mind, is the best chess calculating mind of the modern game. His positional understanding as well as his ability to calculate are supreme, and better than any other human being now or before (That's a strong statement, I know, especially with all-time greats like Kasparov in the mix. Beat me up for that!)
There are 2 problems though. The chess mind comes encased in a human body and a human mind. The first needs supreme fitness, which Anand unfortunately does not have. The second comes with a debilitating baggage of nerves, fear, anxiety etc all of which erode the power of his chess mind.
If the comparison were purely of the chess mind, Anand has Topalov beaten and butchered. A full 12-game match between the 2 would be tennis-like 6-0 or 6-1 (in terms of wins). Throw in the encasing human body and human mind (and, that infernal 'preparation'), and it's 6-6.
How I wish though, there was some way to just measure the power of the chess mind...!!
At the end of the interview, "deceived" is a clear mistranslation; "enttäuscht" means disappointed.
Non-Anand fan, I'm not sure what your beef is with Anand and Kramnik. It's fine to prefer Topalov's chess, but I don't really get why you're beating the drum against his rivals. As for game 7, it was a very nice opening concept, but hardly something epochal in the history of chess. Even bad players have beaten strong grandmasters with long-term sacrifices of a piece for two pawns, as you can see for yourself here: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1531057
I think Anand's greatest strength is in evaluating the transition of positions---one of the hardest things in chess.
Not only does he calculate exceptionally well, his judgment about resulting positions is exceptionally accurate.
Although I really dislike Topalov's chess and his personality, i think he has an unusual ability, which is to find a larger choice of acceptable or strong moves than other players. His moves are often surprising, even if they are not best.
I think this trait comes from his desire at every point not to make the best move, but to keep the struggle as intense as possible.
Aronian plays somewhat in this manner, in my opinion.
Thanks for your reply, Dennis.
And Congratulations! Your game is as amazing to me as Topalov’s. My guess is that it takes [DM: guts (can we please stop using the locker room expression?)] to play like that. I’m not sure how but fans (in any sport) can always sense this attitude. That’s exactly the type of games I’d like to see played at 2700+ level. As opposed to playing for a boring draw while employing your “deeper understanding of chess”. The latter isn’t going to make chess more popular. Without fans any sport is just a hobby.
I have spent a lot of time going thru the Anand wins and the Topalov wins in this match - I do not know whether i can be objective as an Anand fan but it does seem to me that dull drawish positions like the slav games as well as tactical skirmishes like game 9 - Anand seems to have everything - a truly universal player - and I would rate his potential higher in "pure chess terms"- however chess is combat - in this match it is also about physical and mental strength - I am still waiting for the knowckout punch from Anand. If he does land the punch, I think the argument will be decided - also travelling to Sophia, beating the lion in his den etc - all would all to his glory - can't wait for tomorrow-
n-af: It's true that if all good players always played only for draws with Black, it would be a problem in the chess world. But they don't!
@Phil Adams: Fair enough - I am a German native speaker, not an English one. Also I am a hobby-translator, not a (semi-)professional one, and I didn't spend time double- and triple-checking for a very accurate translation.
That being said: While I agree that "disappointed" is better, is "deceived" completely wrong? It could have a connotation such as "Caissa deceived him [Anand]" !?
Now the 12th game is over and Anand proved himself and to others that he is the better player , fighter and winner.
To beat the lion in his den is beautiful at the age of 40. Karpov was a player of consistancy at the age of 40 also.
Now Anand has become second only to Kasparov, as the greatest ever.player