Vijay Tagore
Sunday, July 20, 2008 04:08 IST
It is not Viswanathan Anand’s style to make controversial statements. He believes playing chess, across the board, not off it. When Garry Kasparov was slamming the door on him during the 1995 PCA World championship final in New York, the Indian Grandmaster, then a challenger to the ‘world champion’, chose not to whine. Now when Vladimir Kramnik, now a challenger to Anand’s crown, has launched an attack on his status as a world champion, Anand chose to ignore him too. Vijay Tagore finds out what effect Kramnik’s outburst has had on Anand. Excerpts:
Kramnik has made some strong remarks on Mexico world championship and some of them were trained at you. Do you see it as an attempt to psyche you ahead of your match in Bonn?
I prefer not to give too much attention to interviews. I think you should just play your chess and not find excuses. I understand that there will be a lot of out-of-the-board tactics and this could come under that category. I remember before and after Mexico also similar kind of rhetoric was used from their side.
He rubbished Mexico 2007 as a compromise.
As a champion you should learn to play all formats and accept the results. I think this topic has been discussed a lot. We have to get to the present situation. You don’t see Federer complain about Nadal winning Wimbledon. Nor do you have the debate whether a grass court player is a classical player and hence better. They play on different surfaces. One plays better than another on different surfaces. But you try to play your best on all courts.
Do you think Kramnik is yet to reconcile to the defeat in Mexico?
If there is an event called the World Championship and someone wins it he or she is the World Champion. You can’t suddenly find conditions that make them a lesser champion, if it doesn’t favour you. I played in Moscow 2001 and Ponomariov won. He rightfully has a claim to the title.
Is it binding that only match-play should decide a world champion, not a tournament play?
How to find a true World Champion is an enigma all chess players are very keen to solve. The tournament format seemed very just and interesting now we have a new format to find the World Champion. In my opinion a champion is someone who plays tournaments, shows his preparation, is unafraid of challenges and not too scared to put his title on the line. There is no use of a title if you play badly.
Kramnik claims to have saved the world chess from another split by taking part in Mexico.
I don’t know if that is the popular opinion. I think analysing his games keeps me fairly occupied these days, I don’t want to start analysing his words.
Is it case of being a bad loser?
No comment. Kramnik is a world class player and he will be a tough rival in October and that is what I will be focusing on. I am not really thinking of his past results or his interviews. He has shown he is a good match player and has played matches in the last few years.
Here is the full article.
If you could rate one chess player’s ego, how much would you give to:
1. ANAND
2. KRAMNIK
3. KASPAROV
4. FISCHER
5. ALEKHINE
6. MORPHY
1. Fischer
2. Kasparov
3. Kramnik
Don’t know Alekhine and Morphy.
Anand is the coolest.
Topalov is the true world champion. If you subtract the games Kramnik won using Fritz and the wire in the bathroom, Topalov won the championship without question. since Topalov is the premier Tournament player in the world he wouls have won in Mexico had he been allowed to participate. No matter what people say the REAL world championship will occur between Topalov and Kamsky the winner of which will either of these two posers.
Actually, I think that Anand made a wonderful point… you can’t have someone win a World Championship, then say the conditons were unsatisfactory and declare someone else the winner.
Kramnik may be arrogant, but he isn’t stupid. He knew that losing the title in Mexico was a possibility. Yet he still agreed to it; so he can’t now say that Anand isn’t really the champion.
Obama is the world chumpion.
With Anand saying Ponomariov was World Champion in 2001, he has made it clear he is clearly just a other fide pretend champion.
The Match in Oct will show whos is the real Champ !!!
With this interview Anand shows his class again. The only thing that matters is what happens on the board.
He is not like all other crybabies who find 1001 reasons why they lost.
Almost everyone would give interviews like Anand and Kramnik. Kramnik did not say anything bad about Anand and was also praised for his objective interview right away.
Why?
Because they don’t say much. It’s like: no comment, and my opponnent is a very good player. Of course he is.
But to Anon(1): you should never even consider to put Anand above Kasparov in a best-ever-list! Shame on your chess knowledge.
Anand is greater than Kramnik. Kramnik had a lucky break not having to qualify to play Kasparov and catching Kasparov at an all time low. He is the weakest champion of all time. Anand is clear number 1 in the world which Kramnik never was- especially not when he had the title.
It is important for Anand to play well and defeat Kramnik to put an end to this sad period and we can go back to proper champions again.
Kramnik should have offered a rematch to Kasparov for his own sake to prove that it was not just a fluke result- otherwise his title is the most contreversial in history, given that he rests so much on the one result for his legacy. Kasparov had to defeat Karpov several times before Karpov even had to start at the begining of the candidate matches. Kasparov did not put a rematch clause in- however there was nothing to stop Kramnik allowing a rematch anyway.
Euwe was better than Kramnik. (Sorry I shouldn’t have insulted Euwe picking him out like that)
I agree with previous Anon on most, except the strange, likely untrue, but surely irrelevant pick of Euwe to compare Kramnik. You’re probably a dutch player. Euwe was the first to admit he wasn’t the strongest player of his time, let alone to be on a best-ever-list.
I believe Euwe said that in 1935 match he wasn’t better than Alekhine and yet he won. In 1937 he was better than Alekhine and yet he lost.
Just like Kramnik was better than Anand in Mexico, and lost. C’mmon!
Euwe was an interesting champion and amateur which he was well aware of. He was modest and all respect. But not close to a champion in the top-10 of course.
It’s simple. Kramnik, Kasparov and Topalov just like many other champions are good at trash-talking.
Anand stands apart from any of these former champions. He is unalderated with all his achievements, does not involve in cheap psychological tactics that the Russian elites were so dependent upon to win matches.
To hell with these matches. Make chess more open to chess skills and less of these off-the board tactics. Kill the old system. Make the tournament format they way champions should be determined. Include rapids into it. Just like tennis. Play on different surfaces to determine the world#1 at the end of the year.
– Gans, USA
Amen.
Kramnik a world champion ? A guy who matched Kasparov for the World Champion title after… losing his candidate match vs Shirov ?