Boris Gelfand: "I was by no means inferior in this match" | Interview, part 1 of 2

Exactly one week after the end of the World Championship match in Moscow, challenger Boris Gelfand of Israel speaks out. In the first part of this interview, the Israeli tells us about his preparation, his choice of openings, and his view on chess and its the different types of audiences.
Photos by Alexey Yushenkov & Anastasia Karlovich

The interview was conducted via Skype, on Tuesday morning, June 5th, 2012. Gelfand was at this home in Rishon-le-Zion, sitting behind his computer, and many mouse clicks could be heard during the talk. Afterwards he would explain that during the interview he was also looking at some of the tiebreak games, the openings, middlegames, endings, the missed chances... It must have been difficult to get these games off his mind.

Part 1 of 2
Vishy said he felt 'relieved'. What was your biggest emotion after the last game? Were you disappointed, perhaps even angry at yourself? I was remembering of course Barcelona-Chelsea. You had the advantage, then you didn't take your chances and then the opponent takes his chances. I think for me it's very similar. It's sport. You should accept it, but of course you know you could do much better. If we look back, can we say that you lost the match in the third rapid game? I wouldn't say so because also in the fourth rapid game I had all the chances. How big was your advantage, now that you look back at it? I didn't analyze it yet, but the problem is I didn't realize I had to exchange one pair of rooks and develop an initiative on both flanks, but technically it's not so easy to execute because you have to be very careful and I wasn't. But basically I think there are good winning chances. White played the opening very passively and the only thing he can hope for is a fortress. However, generally speaking, if White stays passive, I think the chances he gets a fortress are not very big. But of course you have to play extremely precisely and in rapid chess it's not so simple. How do you explain this rook ending in the third tiebreak game was it the pressure? I didn't feel like I was under pressure, it was a hallucination. You know, I started studying rook endings at the age of nine. I'm sure that when I was nine, I would win this ending! I played a game against Tony Miles, and he was not familiar with an ending which I knew at the age of nine. Were you afraid he would reach the Vancura position? No, it was obvious that the Vancura was not possible. It was just a hallucination, and I think I had about twenty seconds left there. Vishy started playing much faster in the tiebreak, but you spent quite some time in a lot of positions. Was this a mistake? You've been in Monaco, so you know that I'm always playing like this. In most of the games I'm behind on the clock. This happened in most of my rapid tournaments and tiebreaks, it's like a style of play.

You don't think you could play at a higher level with a different time management? Probably, but if you look at my results in rapid chess I don't think it could be higher, in all modesty. My results in rapid chess are probably even better than in classical chess. I won two Monaco's in rapid, I've beaten Aronian and Leko in matches, or the tiebreaks... If it's my style, I think I should stick to it even at critical moments. You have to feel good with yourself, to play the way you feel it's correct to play.

Probably, but if you look at my results in rapid chess I don't think it could be higher, in all modesty. My results in rapid chess are probably even better than in classical chess.
What went through your mind when Vishy played 5.e5 in the last rapid game? This is quite a wellknown line, and you thought for about six minutes. There are two moves, 5...cxd4 and 5...Qa5. Probably I was hesitating too much. But you know, somewhere in 1981 or 1982 I remember we analyzed this, my trainer [Albert] Kapengut and me and since then I didn't update my knowledge. However, I don't think the theory changed much. But OK, since then thirty years have passed, and I was trying to remember what we considered correct. Well, I didn't try to remember, I tried to make a decision between the two moves, because obviously I was afraid to fall into some forced draw. I kept double checking, because if I'd do something wrong I wouldn't have a chance. I chose correctly and got a chance. But yes, if I had only spent two or three minutes, it would have made a difference.

Let's go back in time. How do you explain your success in Kazan and Khanty. How is it possible that you manage to peak at all these important events? I don't know. Basically, I am capable of playing really well, but I need to concentrate. Besides, for events like the World Championship and Kazan, I was preparing for months. I am an "aged" player, so I need to focus on something. It doesn't mean that I'm playing weaker but I do believe that I have to be very focused, I cannot play well if I play two or three tournaments in a row, I cannot keep consistency. But if I can focus on something, I think I can do probably even better than in the years when I was younger, because of experience. Towards Kazan and towards the World Championship match I really spent like six months to be in physical shape, to be in mental shape, to be ready chess-wise. If I have the time to prepare, I think my results shouldn't surprise anybody.

If I have the time to prepare, I think my results shouldn't surprise anybody.

Was your result in Wijk aan Zee below par because you were less focused, and in the middle of your preparation? No, I don't think so. The difference is that my attitude is a bit different than with most of the players. If I'm in bad form I keep on playing as ambitiously as usual; I don't care if I lose some Elo points or win Elo points. For me it bears no value. So when the tournament didn't go well, I just thought that I should keep on trying my best, play as ambitious as possible, to try my best and to get a lesson. You remember my game with Levon Aronian in the penultimate round? It was a sharp game. At first I was better, then it was complicated, then probably better again and then he was better but I could hold but in the sixth hour I made a mistake. Some other players would think: I'm in bad form, I'm playing the leader of the tournament, so I should play safe, make a draw and go home. But for me it's much more interesting and important to have a fight with a great player rather than calculate how many Elo points I would keep or lose. So I kept on playing too ambitiously and I didn't, how to say it, "minimize the damage". Besides, of course I couldn't devote half a year to preparing for Wijk aan Zee. I did my best; for me it is a very important event. But of course there's a difference if you can prepare for the event of your life or not.

To what extent were you "hiding your openings"? Maybe it was easier for you than for Anand, because you would not play the Grnfeld or the Sveshnikov, but instead you could play your regular openings! Indeed, I wouldn't blame the openings, because I played the openings I was pretty familiar with, Najdorf, Petroff. And when there are three or four months before the event, normally you are not prepared yet. Most of the preparation happens in these final months, so you cannot say you have a "killing novelty" and you hide it. You had about a year to prepare for the match. What did this year look like for you? How did you form your strategy and what kind of schedule did you follow? I think it was a great year, I really enjoyed it. I started thinking about what I should do, and what strategy to adopt, already in the summer. I started thinking about different openings, with White and with Black... And before the match you took your team to Austria. Yes, we were in the Austrian Alps. We were getting energy there, it's a wonderful place, and we were working on chess intensively. We tried to combine both. We stayed there, then we went back to Israel, and then back to Austria again. Altogether we spent about one and a half month there. Before that, in Israel my normal schedule would be to go for a training session for a couple of weeks, then go home to calm down, to rethink everything, to get new ideas and then go back for another training session and go deeper.

How and when did you decide on going for the Grnfeld and the Sveshnikov as your main weapons? Last year already, I don't remember exactly but certainly before the Tal Memorial [which was in November 2011 - CV]. I looked at Vishy's games and I thought this was the opening that could cause him the most problems. The Grnfeld is... even if you play it with Black, it's not easy to play with White. Against each system Black has a big choice. If you play it with Black and you have a certain system against let's say the Bc4 variation, there are seven other systems which you can adopt. I thought if he would consider the main choice, it would be difficult for him during the match to learn the whole opening. About the Sveshnikov, I played it like ten years ago and I thought that I had great results, and I abandoned it in 2003, 2004 for more for emotial reasons than for practical reasons. Maybe I lost a game, or something. You just play an opening, and then you go to another one, it happens. Viktor Kortchnoi was always saying: if you want to make progress, you have to learn new openings all the time. If such a person gives you such an advice, you should listen to it.

Viktor Kortchnoi was always saying: if you want to make progress, you have to learn new openings all the time. If such a person gives you such an advice, you should listen to it.
Of course there's nothing wrong with the Petroff or the Najdorf. Is the surprise effect more important than the opening itself? Both are important. The difference is, some people think that any surprise is good but I think a good surprise is good! It's a different opinion and I'm not sure it's so obvious. Some people say: if you surprise your opponent, it's already good. But especially in such a match, when your opponent is preparing for so long, if you play a bad surprise, maybe it works for one game but in the next he would crush you.

How is it possible that in Kazan everyone played the QGD and that we didn't see it in this match? Maybe Vishy was planning to play it but I played Nimzo-Indian. [By going for 3.Nc3 instead of 3.Nf3, White is allowing Black's main response 3...Bb4, the Nimzo - CV.] We don't know if he would play the Queen's Gambit, or Queen's Indian, or Benoni or Vienna after Nf3. Maybe in the next tournaments we'll see what Vishy had prepared if somebody would play Nf3 against him. In Moscow I've seen Alexander Huzman, Evgeny Tomashevsky, Maxim Rodshtein and Pavel Eljanov. Who else did you work with? What is true about the rumour of you working with Levon Aronian? Well, I wouldn't comment on rumours but Mikhail Roiz was helping us all the time. You don't want to confirm or deny working with Levon? Well, I wouldn't confirm. He's a good friend of mine and of course we often discuss different things, but to "work" is a different story. But were you in contact with him during the match, for example? I wouldn't comment on it. Let's say: I was not in more contact than usual, this I can say.

OK, on to the match. Although your colleagues were less sure, before the match the general public considered Vishy to be the big favorite. You always say you don't think about these things. Didn't you rate your chances at all? Basically the opinion of my colleagues is always very different than the opinion of the public. They thought I could do it, and I knew I could do it... I knew it would be a tough match, and I was very focused on trying to be concentrated. I knew that if I'd manage to be concentrated and play my best chess, that my chances would not be inferior. And at the end anything could happen, so I was by no means inferior in this match.

I was by no means inferior in this match.

What exactly did you say about this, at the press conference after the tiebreak? Because I'm not sure the translation was accurate there. In the rapid games I was dominating; I had the advantage in most of the games. Over the the whole match, well, my feeling I was at least slightly better. But of course the match was so even... He missed chances in game 3, I missed chances in game 9, et cetera. I think that... let's say, I had some pressure. But indeed, the interpretor was not up to the task. Most of the times the translation had nothing to do with what I was saying and also the translation into Russian was also not what Vishy was saying exactly. I think it was the only drawback of the whole organization. Did you and your team consider the first game a success? Well, I got a certain advantage, and I was considering for long to play this ...Bd7 move, and I could force Vishy to play one or two more accurate moves. However, I miscalculated something. I really wanted to play on and when I didn't play ...Bd7 the position was really drawn. This was not bad, as I played this opening for the first time and he played a rare system which I was not very familiar with. How much time does it take to pick up such an opening like the Grnfeld, and learn everything?

It takes quite a lot of time to get a feeling for the position, it's not only about learning the lines. You can learn the lines pretty quickly, but you need to get a feeling as well. Fortunately I had more than half a year to prepare so I spent this time on this. It's not like people think, that you press the button and that the computer tells you what are the best moves and you go and play them. On such a level it's different. You go much deeper than the theory says. You have to look for where your opponent may try to surprise you so you basically have to recheck all the theory of the opening, learn and then recheck everything. Did you also play training games? I played some but not as much as I wanted. In the end I didn't have enough time. On to game 2; did you expect this Chebanenko/Semi-Slav from Vishy? I thought it's possible but basically I didn't think it's so realistic because it's a normal opening but it's not so popular... It wasn't considered to be a main line. No, but of course you should consider everything; your opponent can play anything, you cannot get into his head. You don't use spies [laughs], you cannot know so you have to be ready for anything. So most of the work you did on this Chebanenko stuff was done during the match? Yes. Before, you just think: if he plays this, I'll play this in game 1, and you think of something for game 2 but of course you cannot prepare for four games against each opening. In the third game you more or less escaped with a draw. Did this disturb your confidence? No. Of course it's not nice that I didn't play this ...Nb6/...Rd5 which would equalize immediately, but before the match I knew that you cannot play the whole match without making a mistake. It's part of the game and you should be ready to through it. The fact that this mistake didn't cost me a point gave a better feeling. If you're not punished, and you escape, it's OK. Normally you're not going to make a lot of mistakes, so if one mistake goes unpunished, it's... how to say... you're "forgiven". That "Caissa is on your side". Yes, exactly.

It seems that in some of the games a draw was agreed while one of the players could have played on... I wouldn't say so. ...well, for example Nakamura has said that he liked a number of positions in which a draw was agreed. Let me think, let me go back, because I don't want to speak in general terms. In game 1, in the final position it makes no sense to play on. OK, if I find ...Bd7 it makes sense, but after I took this double rook ending is just a draw. Yes, this is also what Nigel Short said.

In game 2 it's the same; he built a fortress and I cannot attack even one pawn. I can continue with some senseless moves, but there is nothing to play for. Game 3 was a perpetual... What about the bishop versus knight ending in game 4, you could try this Rc6? Yes, it's true, but he's simply waiting. Of course it was my idea to continue playing as long as I have chances, but here I didn't see any chance. He puts his knight on f5 and he protects everything, and he checks on d4. I didn't see how I could pose a single threat. Game 5 was this Sveshnikov, which is obviously a dead draw in the final position. Then, game 6, this rook ending is also a dead draw. Game 9 is a fortress. OK, in game 10 I could play a move or two but if he simply waits, it's also a fortress. Alexander Morozevich told me that Vishy's a2-a3 was not a very good move to offer a draw with. Exacty, I thought the same but I realized this is also a total fortress. If White puts his rook on the a-file, his knight on b3, play g3, Kg2, Kf1, it's simply a fortress. Of course a3 is not the best move to offer a draw, there Black can at least pretend his better but there Kg2, Kf1 is a pretty solid solution. In game 12, probably Vishy could play on, you should ask him. Of course it's a drawn position but taken into consideration that I was short on time, probably he could try a bit. Vladimir Kramnik was much surprised that Vishy offered a draw there. Were you? I was a bit surprised but basically I saw how I would make a draw. I had invested some time on the previous move and I planned the whole defensive concept so I was confident that I was not in trouble. But of course, you never know, if the opponent keeps on making moves, how you would answer. By it's quite simple. you just exchange the a-pawn, keep your rook active... Related to this is what you said at some point: "We're not here to entertain the public. We don't have to play out the moves; commentators can explain that." During the match once more there was this big debate between two groups, one that is saying that chess is fine like this, and one that wants changes, e.g. the Sofia rule, the football score, et cetera. What is your opinion? It's a very good question. I also think there are two groups of people, who see chess differently. I think chess is not for everybody. Chess is for people who want to make an intellectual effort, who have respect for the game, and we shouldn't make the game more simple so that more people would enjoy it. I think we have millions of people worldwide who enjoy chess games. Let's respect them and do the utmost for them. They follow, the respect the game, they respect the players.

I think chess is not for everybody. Chess is for people who want to make an intellectual effort, who have respect for the game, and we shouldn't make the game more simple so that more people would enjoy it.
But there are also a lot of people who think chess should be different. I read one comment, that chess was boring, that the Eurovision was much more interesting, that chess is dead. My message is: if you want to watch Eurovision, go watch Eurovision. If you want to see cheap shows on TV? Watch cheap shows on TV. But there are millions of people who enjoy the game of chess, so let them enjoy the game of chess. It's like classical music and pop music. If you go to a concert of a great violin player or piano player, you don't tell him: "OK, but Lady Gaga is much more entertaining. We have millions watching Lady Gaga, and only thousands are watching you in this theater." I think these are different things.

Let's focus on the people who love chess. Let's go to the schools, and make sure the children will love chess. You have people who appreciate the game and people who love the game. If people are coming only to be entertained, I wouldn't mind if they would go and see Eurovision instead. These people don't respect the players, they undervalue the game, so I don't see why we should try to please them. In Moscow the live commentary was excellent, so the best service was done to people who love chess. Journalists came from all over the world... If people can't make the intellectual effort, they will never appreciate chess. A game of chess by itself is a pretty complicated thing, and you cannot change it so that one can appreciate it without an intellectual effort. This is my point of view. For [Silvio] Danailov chess in a museum is like a curse, while Toiletgate in a museum would be totally outrageous! For me, it's a blessing that chess is played in such a prestigous museum. Let's say, Lady Gaga would never be invited to play in the Tretyakov Gallery! We should have respect for our profession, and do everything for the people who love chess. I don't know how it was translated, but this was what I wanted to say with my comment.

Boris Gelfand: "Kasparov offered his help, but I said no" | Interview, part 2 of 2
One week after the end of the World Championship match in Moscow, challenger Boris Gelfand of Israel speaks out. In the second and last part of this interview, the Israeli tells about the second half of the match, about his favorite player Akiba Rubinstein, about his coaches whom he invited to Moscow, about chess in Israel and... about saying no to Garry Kasparov, who offered to help preparing for the match.
Photos by Alexey Yushenkov & Anastasia Karlovich

Part 2 of 2
Read the first part of this interview here. Then, you win game 7. Everyone quoted the same statistic: that you didn't beat Vishy since '93. Were you extra relieved because of this? Not at all. First of all I don't believe in statistics. I think it's very often misleading. It's very nice, but it doesn't have big value. For example, if you look at our games, from the year 2000 Vishy and I only played five or six games. So what does it mean that I didn't win any of these game? He won one game out of this five. What does it mean? I was very happy that I played a really good game, really in Rubinstein-style, in the style of my favorite player, and it gave me a very good feeling. Rubinstein is your favorite player? Yes, sure, definitely. So it must have also given some pleasure that you were able to play his 4.e3 move against the Nimzo-Indian in a title match. Yes, indeed, I had it in mind. That's nice. But also from the Black side, all Meran is Rubinstein's system, even though it's called Meraner system. Most of the modern openings are based on Rubinstein. Sorry that I divert...

That's no problem! Let's divert just a bit more: do you think that at some point in history, Rubinstein would have had a good chance to become world champion? It's hard to say. From the chess point of view of course he was much ahead of time. But as a practical player, I'm not sure if he'd be good enough to beat Lasker. Unfortunately we never had a chance to test this. Definitely the match would be extremely interesting, but history didn't let us see this match.

What was it that you won this game 7, I mean, you played a fine game, but it also seemed that Vishy didn't have his day. Especially ...g5 was criticized. Yes, but there he's already in serious trouble. The problem is that computers always give White's advantage in very moderate terms, while from a practical point of view, White has a long-term plan and Black doesn't. That's why White's advantage is pretty big. Of course, probably it was possible to defend more stubbornly, but White has a serious advantage, much more serious than computers suggest. Maybe this is something computers still not understand these days: if one side can still find a lot of (useful) moves while the opponent has nothing to play for. Exactly, and I'm happy because it was actually... I think Lasker said about Rubinstein that in his games, I don't remember exactly, I could be misquoting him, but that from the first move till the last move it's like "one game", and in this 7th game it was the same. The same concept was executed from start to finish. Based on Black's queen's bishop. Yes, the b7 bishop was not so good. And then the next day of course everything changed, again. What happened? How do you look back at this oversight, two weeks after? It's hard to say. I think I played according to the demands of the position. After the [king's] knight went to c3 I had to play on the kingside. I calculated some deep and beautiful lines, but OK, one line escaped my attention. I calculated some unbelievably complicated lines and they were correct, but... OK, it happens. At the press conference, Vishy wasn't very happy after his loss but you seemed quite down-to-earth after that blunder. How do you cope so well with such things? Or do you only look cool from the outside? No, I felt totally confident. The match goes on. It doesn't matter if you have +1 because there are still four games to play. You can lose the next game or something. I took it as I said: each game you should be ready to play your best, and go on like this. So I thought OK, we go on with an equal score, you can miscalculate something. Do you have such a strong personality? Do you cope with losses like this all the time? Well, probably. I don't know about personality, but I do think that probably I cope with these things better than most of my rivals. Probably it's my strong point.

Probably I cope with these things better than most of my rivals.

Has it always been like this? I wouldn't say so, but I learnt it over the years.

An important moment in the match was, I think, your decision to play 19.c5 in that first Nimzo-Indian, game 9... Exactly. ...do you regret it? I mean, some grandmasters said White's advantage was quite big after 19.a3 or 19.h3... Yes, White's advantage is big but the problem is that Black is simply waiting, Black has nothing to do, and I didn't see how White can break through. Probably I miscalculated something, I didn't have time to look at it yet. Maybe it was not practical to calculate it till the end. I tried to find a forced win and I found this queen against rook and knight, and I believed that if I'd play on both flanks... I saw that I would get my pawn on a6 and I believed that I would create a second weakness on the kingside and that would be enough. Of course I realized that the risk that he would be able to build a fortress would be big, but still the risk that he would simply wait, if I played 19.a3 and he would play like Kh8, Kg8, that the risk that I wouldn't find a way to break through was also big. It's difficult, because if you play slowly and you don't win, than people will say that "he could force matters and win, and if you force matters then people say "he should have waited and he'd have good winning chances." This is the kind of positions where you don't have a perfect solution. Whatever you do, you may be making the right decision, or you make a mistake. Did you, or your seconds, try to win this ending afterwards, in your hotel? Maybe by playing this g4 earlier? They told me... Yes, I understand that the only try is to play g4 earlier. I considered this, but I didn't see how I would break through there. They told me that they looked at it and that it gave good winning chances, but we decided to go back to it after the match, to be focused for the tasks which were ahead of us.

Then you showed fantastic preparation, in a sideline of the Rossolimo. Was this an example of how hard you worked on your openings? Probably. I got this idea to play ...e5, not to follow the main, theoretical couse. It seemed like a good idea and it worked well. In the last two games it seemed that both of you were even more cautious than before. No, I don't think I played cautiously. Again, I had the same problem as in game 9. I think after I played Bf4 in the opening, he played Rc8, I do believe that I have a certain advantage, but it's probably not good enough. Probably Ne5 was a bit premature, but it's hard to say. About game 12, you cannot say we played cautiously, because I got caught in the opening and I think it's maybe the nicest moment of the match, this c5-c4 move. Even some great guys in the commentary room didn't see it. Yes, it was praised by Vishy too... It's really a great move. The computers don't even show it. It's beautiful, and such moves make a real difference. If, in a drawn position, you make ten more moves, it would add nothing to chess, if you look at the whole picture. Probably you would get some entertainment for twenty more minutes. But such moves like ...c4 I think would go to each book would be studied all over the world for many years. This move is more important than, let's say, a few more moves in game 4 or Vishy playing a few more moves in game 12.

Such moves make a real difference. If, in a drawn position, you make ten more moves, it would add nothing to chess.
You took some time on it. Did you spot it very quickly, or only after excluding alternatives? It took a while. I immediately realized that I'm in trouble and that urgent measures are necessary. If White would manage to develop his pieces and castle long, my position would be really dreadful. I first looked at all the possible moves with my queen, but I couldn't make them work. Then suddenly it occurred that I have other ways to disturb White's piece composition. If you look back, is there anything that you would do differently? Well... maybe certain technical things, but the attitude, the opening choice... they would be the same. What technical things? Maybe I would analyze some lines deeper and pay less attention to others. And maybe in my preparation I would change time management. I would spend one more week on this, and ignore something else. Certain openings I analyzed for three weeks, and about certain openings I thought: OK, it's very unlikely to happen so I'll ignore those. But I probably spent too much time on things which were unlikely to happen, but I wanted to be on the safe side.

Vishy said that you always greeted each other warmly backstage before the game. In general the match will probably go down into history as the one between good friends. To what extent this influence the games? Is it easier or more difficult to play against someone you don't like very much? For me I think it influenced in a positive way. Different people have different opinions, but I think a World Championship match is also a cultural event and we should set an example for children who watch it, for the public who watches it. This is a different thing: people who love chess want to see the best possible games, while people who want to see a show would prefer to see scandals, low-level accusations, et cetera. We should see to whom we apply. Do we apply to public whom we respect, to children whom we want to learn chess, or do we want to apply to the same public who want to see the same show as they watch on TV every day?

I think a World Championship match is also a cultural event and we should set an example for children who watch it.
Could we say that you see chess more like a play in a theater than as a sport? I think it's part of it, it's not only sport. With chess you also set a good example for the society. You see so many people trying to promote chess in schools nowadays. The agenda is that chess is good, chess is teaching important things. We should do something so that his will become true, that these are not words to the outside, but we should believe in it. We should set a good example instead of cheap scandals. The fact that in a World Championship match the players treat each other with dignity and respect, I think it gives a lot to chess. You have stated several times that you hope that chess will become a bigger sport in Israel. Are there signs already that the popularity and importance are growing? I do believe so. As I heard, from game 9 the whole country became "chess crazy". It was the first news on TV, they built a projection [of the live coverage - CV] in the prime minister's office, so during the games he was permanently watching what was going on... Basically the whole country has greeted me like I'm the

biggest hero of the country, to my surprise. The budget from the government funds for chess is doubled. We have a very low position here, and it's a long way to go, but probably we'll go up. Are you planning to contribute yourself in some ways in Israel? Maybe something with children, simuls... I think my name gives a lot. I want to contribute with my results. I could have started with all this a long time ago, but in this case I wouldn't have reached a World Championship match, I wouldn't have played with dignity and chess wouldn't get such a big push. I think my main task is keep on playing well, keep my level and try to go even higher. You have no less ambition. No, no. My ambition is to learn day after day. This match taught me a lot of important lessons, the match and the preparation for it. I hope I will benefit from these lessons and my level of the game will get even higher.

At the closing ceremony, Vishy said some very nice words about you, but in your speech you did not mention Vishy. Was this on purpose, or...? No, it was not on purpose. I have high praise for Vishy and want to thank him for his sportsmanship. You know, the last days after the match were very hectic, and I didn't know I would be called to make a speech. I want to apologize for Vishy if I congratulate him warm enough or didn't praise him enough. I think he was a big fighter and he showed his very best and I'm thankful to him for this match. As usual he behaved with dignity and with big respect and I want to wish him all the best of success in all forthcoming events. Of course we have to speak about the comments made by Garry Kasparov, because he actually said that Anand was not showing his very best, that he was not playing at the same level as against Kramnik in 2008. What is your reaction to this? You know, I want to tell you something. In September last year I was approached by people representing Garry, and they suggested that he would help me during the match. They asked my representative if we wanted negotiations or not. This was while I was playing in Rogaska (at the European Club Cup in Rogaska Slatina - CV]. Wow! What exactly did they offer? That he would be my second during the match, and probably during the preparation. They wanted to have negotiations about the format of his collaboration. And how did you respond? I was really shocked. He had just been helping Vishy in the previous match, I knew he was working with Hikaru [Nakamura], so obviously I said no. For me it was unthinkable to receive help from somebody who has access to secrets of my colleagues.

In September last year I was approached by people representing Garry, and they suggested that he would help me during the match. (...) I was really shocked. (...) For me it was unthinkable to receive help from somebody who has access to secrets of my colleagues.

You would never have the guarantee that certain information might become accessible to others... No, not only this, it's my personal point of view. I think it's unthinkable. Only two years have passed when you helped one player, and now you help against him. I would feel very bad' it's against my convictions to use this.

And you think this is why Kasparov made these comments? From the moment I said no, only negative thing were said by him about the match, about me, about Vishy... I couldn't think that such a great player would take such a revenge, but nobody has managed to provide me with a better explanation so far. During the match I asked my seconds to brief me about what was written in the media, and there were only negative things. Like now, it was also said that under any other system I wouldn't have qualified. You know, it's like Winnie-the-Pooh, wrong bees are producing wrong honey. OK, under Garry's system I couldn't qualify but he was picking up the challengers. But I think I proved enough, in a tournament like Mexico, in short matches, long matches, I can do well in any format. I think I proved this throughout my career, and I don't need any other proof. I don't think Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Petrosian would ever think of such an attack at their colleagues.

I don't think Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Petrosian would ever think of such an attack at their colleagues.
Vishy's response was that Kasparov should return to chess. Do you agree? I would be very happy. Really? Yes. He's a great player, probably the greatest in history, so I think he does much better playing chess rather than being outside chess. I think he would please the chess world with his games much more than with his comments. Do you think he could still compete among the very best players? I don't know. It's hard to speculate, but I think he should give it a try. The chess public would appreciate it a lot.

It was wonderful to see that you brought your four coaches to Moscow: Tamara Golovey & Leonid Bondar, Eduard Zelkind, and Albert Kapengut. Please briefly describe what they meant for your chess development. Sure, it's my pleasure because they did a lot and they're part of my success. I was very happy when they accepted my invitation and came to Moscow to see the match and to cheer for me. Eduard Zelkind was my first coach. I started to work with him when I was six and we worked until I was 11, when he moved to the United States. So he was the one who taught you that rook ending?

Yeah, exactly! He taught me the rook endings. I still have notes with the rook endings. So it's kind of a disappointment for me that I didn't win this totally winning rook ending in game 3 but it has nothing to do with chess knowledge. Tamara took over when he moved to the States, and she accompanied me to many events, in Soviet Union Championships, and she gave me some valuable lessons, like before each game you should not only try to remember what you'll play, but you should also move the moves at a chess board because then you'll remember them well. I still do this. Leonid Bondar is her husband and he was my teacher at the Chess University, the same as where Andrei Filatov was studying, and Ilya Smirin, and Zsuzsa Polgar... He had a lot of prominent students. His passion for chess is incomparable. There we talked about cities, and he told me that Geneva is the best city in the world because in the city parks they have big chess sets! I learnt a lot from his passion and his love for chess. And of course Albert Kapengut was my trainer for many, many years, till 1993. With his help I won the first Interzonal; I worked the whole first Candidates cycle with him. He taught me a lot of things. Most importantly, he taught me how to deal with information and the importance of information, and how chess players should work on chess. This is the most important thing, I think. You can have the best trainers, the best computers, but if you don't know how to work, if you don't have passion for it, nothing else can help you. These are the most important lessons I got from them. And of course all of them taught me that you should win with dignity and lose with dignity.

So... what's next? You'll probably take some rest now, and then... the Olympiad? Actually I would be happy to play. I have so many ideas and I did so much work, so I'm rushing to put it into practice and to see what I learnt. But for the moment I don't have many invitations, so maybe the Olympiad will be the next tournament.

Actually I would be happy to play. I have so many ideas and I did so much work, so I'm rushing to put it into practice and to see what I learnt.
Of course there is only one question I can finish this interview with. How do you rate Holland's chances in the European Championship? I really hope they do well. Holland is normally not doing so well the World Cup, but the European is our territory! I believe in, and I hope for a big success. The attack is fantastic, so if the balance can be found between defence and attack, all the chances are there. Of course the group is difficult [Netherlands faces Denmark, Germany and Portugal - CV] but as long as we get through the group, it should be easier. Of course I will root for Holland and watch each match.