Newsgroup: it.hobby.scacchi
Titolo: Intervista di Anand (Lungo)

siccome mi hanno segnalato che non e' facile da trovare seguendo il
link ecco qua il cut&paste dell'intervista
enjoy 
gianluigi
---------------------------------------------------
INTERVIEW WITH VISHWANATHAN ANAND
'Karpov is the world champion in political lobbying'
The Rediff Sports Interview/ Vishwanathan Anand
Rediff On The Net, via News Plus
Click on the Rediff On The Net link at
http://www.mantra.com/newsplus
January 10, 2000
The year gone by wasn't all that good for Grandmaster
Vishwanathan Anand. At least not how he hoped it would be
in terms of success on the chess board. Just a couple of
good tournaments including a 5-1 victory over Anatoly
Karpov. By his own admission, it was indeed "a lousy
year" though he had the honour of winning the Chess Oscar
for the second consecutive time for his fine showing in
1998.
The 30-year-old World No 2 was in Madras recently to
spend some time with his parents, as the 'big' match
between Garry Kasparov and him was cancelled. Shobha
Warrier caught up with him at his home. He was relaxed
and in a mood to talk. Which he did for nearly an hour.
Do you generally make any New Year resolutions?
I make resolutions but not on January 1st. It could be in
June or in September or anytime. I don't think January
1st has got anything special. I work differently. If I
have a really good tournament ahead, I might tell myself,
'okay I have to be on the right track. I must win this',
or something like that. I might take resolutions of that
sort. So, it has nothing to do with any date. It could be
at any time in the year. Same with the millennium too!
Do you plan your tournaments well in advance for a
particular year?
Yes, as much as possible. You know when most tournaments
are held. They have been like that for decades. So, they
are fairly stable. But there are also many new
tournaments emerging every year. For instance, there is a
new tradition in Israel, just started. Now I am going to
play a tournament there. This is the first year or the
second year of the tournament. Obviously, it was not easy
to plan that far in advance. But it is quite nice to plan
things.
Do you plan in advance how you are going to play a game
against a particular player?
You keep working in general because chess itself is
constantly changing and you cannot plan well in advance.
What you can do is, get yourself in the habit of working
so that you are more or less up-to-date.
In what way is chess as a game changing?
I mean the technical stuff. The theory, evaluations, etc
are constantly changing.
1998 had been a dream year for you. You won the Chess
Oscar, won tournaments at Linares, Madrid and Frankfurt,
but 1999 was not as good as 1998?
It was pretty lousy. Okay… but I had had one really good
result, excellent result, in Holland. After that, it was
a very, very average year. Yes, I had a very good result
in Spain where I beat Karpov 5-1. I had these two very
good results, a couple of stable results and then one
really bad result. So, there was nothing special last
year. I was working for the climax, which was the World
Championship against Kasparov, and it didn't happen. You
can do nothing about that. Obviously, 1999 was not my
best year.
By the end of every year, do you analyse all the games
that you had played?
In general, yes. But a year doesn't mean much to me. If
you are playing badly, for instance, in April, then in
May you have to do some work and figure out what's going
on. It is not like, every December you look back. It's
not like an accounting year. You are continuously working
on your game. Yes, I do look back often but it has
nothing to do with the end of the year.
Was it because Kasparov came back with a bang in 1999
that your results look not that good? He achieved a
remarkable rating of 2852!
 He had a spectacular year, especially the first two
events. I think he won everything that he played this
year. I think, it is also clear that this year's Oscar
will go to him. But I don't think it is because he had a
good year that I had a not-so-good year. It so happens,
after two years, sometimes you get a bad year. If I keep
on winning year after year, it will be very easy. It is
true he played extremely well. But he played very well in
Holland and I did equally well there. I was just half a
point behind him. I wouldn't say his good play affected
me. Probably, well, at Linares I had already gone wrong.
Some experts say the rating of 2852 is very difficult to
achieve. Is that so?
No, not really. He had some very good results and he got
it at the right tournaments. In the lower category
events, you get only less points. Whereas he did them in
category 19 and 20 events and as a result, his ratings
went up proportionately.
Do you feel he is unbeatable? Is there any aura of
invincibility around him?
He is very good. I don't think he is invincible.
How do you describe him as a player?
Is the whole interview about him?
No, no…. I am sorry.
I was just joking.
Chess is a game where mental toughness is essential. Is
physical fitness also as important? Does physical fitness
help you become mentally tough?
Yes, absolutely. You have to be able to concentrate and
concentration, okay, is a mental thing. But you need
physical stamina. Of course, you need to train to
concentrate. It is not enough to be able to run ten
kilometres. You need to train yourself to concentrate.
You can do training exercises like practicing by placing
a clock and thinking for half an hour and things like
that. It is very easy to get distracted. You cannot let
your mind wander.
You have to really be able to concentrate. It is also
physical because if you don't have the energy, if you
have a weak body, your mind is also weak. Only a strong
body has a strong mind.
What kind of exercises do you do to remain physically
fit? Do you play any other games?
I do a lot of exercises, but not so much games with other
people. I tend to do things alone. For example, I go
cycling. I don't go with any group; I go alone. I also
cycle at home. I go swimming. Once in a while, I play
some tennis or table tennis. But in general, I try to do
exercises alone.
Are you basically a loner?
No, not at all. If you want to exercise at 11 o'clock, it
is very difficult to find partners! They all go to work.
When you are cycling alone, do you try to concentrate?
No, I think it is too much. I don't think you should be
obsessed with the idea of concentrating. You should build
up concentration naturally.
You are the number two chess player in the world and you
have been playing chess for a long time. How much has the
game changed you as a person?
I don't know. I think people evolve over the years
anyway. It is very difficult for me to say about myself.
Just because I am a top player, nothing changes.
Life is different for a top player, isn't it so?
It is. I don't deny that. On the other hand, I tend to
meet other top players too. So, I don't think it is
something so special. Okay, certainly it is an
achievement. But it is not like, 'okay I am a top player.
So, I am different'. I think I am a very normal person. I
don't think I changed this way or that way because I am a
top chess player.
You are a celebrity in India. Is it because you stay in
Spain that you feel your life is as normal as anybody
else's?
I think it all depends on how you deal with it. If you
are a sportsman, you will always have fans. Generally, I
don't think, it bothers me that much. In fact, I like it.
It is a pleasant feeling that what you do means something
to lot of other people. On the other hand, life goes on…
You are the first Indian to break into the international
chess scene. Till then it was dominated only by Europeans
and Russians. How did they look at a person from India
winning major tournaments?
I think only the press looks at it from that angle. The
organisers were quite happy initially because a player
from India was there. Okay, may be in the first year,
people talk, 'there's an Indian in the tournament, let's
see how he plays'. After that, it doesn't matter much
from where you come. They realise it doesn't make much
difference.
Yes, there was some novelty value in the beginning. But
now they just see me as Anand, they don't see me as a
player representing any country. I don't see the other
players in terms of their nationality too. Very often,
you speak to them and you know them as friends, that's
all.
What is the kind of relationship that exists among the
top chess players? Can you be friends?
Of course, we can be friends. In fact, among the top ten,
I think, almost all of them have at some point, come and
stayed with me in my house. I have gone out to dinner
with almost everyone in the chess world. Sometimes, after
we play a game, we go out and eat together. Generally, I
think, the relations are excellent.
In general, I am friends with boys of my age, or let's
say five or six years younger but not more than that.
They are the ones I tend to hang on. You get to know
people in the circuit after a while. Then, even age
doesn't matter. There are fifty year olds with whom I go
out for dinner quite often and then you don't think of
the age difference at all. After all, we share so much
time in front of the chessboard and that is what counts.
Of course, there are always one or two people I wouldn't
really become too friendly with. I wouldn't say, there is
a problem. For instance, Karpov and Kasparov. Their
rivalry is quite intense, still they talk to each other.
But there is a certain amount of tension between them.
That is one famous example. Also, Korchnoi had this tense
relation with Karpov. For the lower part, this is not the
norm.
Do you have such tense relations with anyone?
No, not too much. I mean, in general. If I really don't
like someone, we just avoid each other. We don't make a
big deal out of it by fighting or anything of that sort.
When you go out for dinner with a chess player after a
game, do you discuss chess or something else?
We discuss everything. We discuss chess too. Sometimes we
discuss a game we played or something like that.
Karpov is in his forties and Kasparov in his thirties.
What do you feel is the reason why they remain at the top
even at this age?
They are both all-time greats. You can also say the same
thing about Korchnoi. Korchnoi, I would say, was there at
the top more by the force of his will power. But these
two are really all-time greats. But it is not the norm.
What they are doing is something really amazing. Karpov
has been at the top for almost thirty years, since 1970
roughly, when he broke into the top twenty! So, he is in
the top twenty for the last thirty years!
It is because of a lot of factors. It is will power, it
is talent, it is luck; it is a bit of everything. There
are many great players who did not have Karpov's luck.
Sometimes they don't make it in the crucial events,
sometimes their family life was not happy and sometimes
they have health problems… A lot of such factors can
intervene. They are talented, they have tremendous will
power and they could overtake whatever problems that came
along and thus they could stay at the top.
In general, I would say, definitely Karpov and Kasparov
had luck. It is not to take any credit away. For
instance, we can look at someone like Keres or Spassky.
The State did not support them the way it supported these
people. Still, I would definitely place these two as all-
time greats.
Karpov manages to play only in the finals of the FIDE
world championship, while the other players have to go
through several hurdles. Last year, you went to play
against him tired, after playing for a month. Is he not
manipulating the championship?
I think, it is just a farce! I consider Karpov as the
World champion from 1975 to 1985, that is it. I do not
consider him world champion any point afterwards.
Didn't you protest last year?
There is no use. He is very good in politics and FIDE
basically was very irresponsible in what they did. They
made him the world champion for the second time. This
time, he had no right to it. And then, he got the
privileges of the World Champion, like playing only in
the last round and so on. Anyway.. I consider him an all-
time great because he was the world champion from '75-85.
After that, he is the world champion in political
lobbying. FIDE really disgraced itself by doing this.
You must be very disappointed because the much-awaited
match between you and Kasparov did not take place.
Obviously.
The whole world was looking forward to the match.
I was really looking forward to the match. But sometimes,
these things happen. You cannot do anything about it.
Will it take place sometime in 2000?
I don't know. There are some chances. I think it is
better not to get excited about it till it actually
happens. In fact, I can tell you honestly that in the
last one month, I haven't given it any thought.
Newspapers described it as the match of the titans.
There were many people who thought it would really be an
exciting match. It might have given a real boost to chess
at this time. Chess is becoming very popular these days.
Why couldn't they find a sponsor?
They had a sponsor but at the eleventh hour, he pulled
out and they didn't have time to find another sponsor. I
think, if they started looking, they could have. It might
be April, it might be June… things might change. So,
there is no point in speculating till it actually
happens.
Continued in next segment 'I have to improve, not just to
beat Kasparov but anyone'
'COMPUTERS DON'T WIN GAMES BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO
HUMANS. THIS IS A MYTH. THEY WIN GAMES BECAUSE OF PSYCHOLOGY'
The Rediff Interview / Vishwanathan Anand
Click on the Rediff On The Net link at
http://www.mantra.com/newsplus
January 11, 2000
In the second part of his conversation with Shobha
Warrier, Vishwanathan Anand discusses, among other
things, the role of computers in contemporary chess.
Recently, in one of your interviews, you said that you
had to improve a lot to beat Kasparov. Which are the
areas that you feel you have to improve?
 I think I have to improve a lot. Period. Not to beat
Kasparov alone but beat anyone. Generally I am happy with
my game but it is time now for me to look back. I think
it can happen after years of very good results. If I look
at my own games, it is clear that I was not playing
perfect chess. I don't think anybody plays perfect chess!
I didn't play perfect chess in '97 and '98. I just took
chances and I won a lot of games and had very good
results.
If I look at the games, I find that I made a lot of
mistakes, like everybody else. I think Kasparov made a
lot of mistakes in '99. You don't understand chess if you
think people can play perfect chess. It doesn't work that
way.You will always find new things. So I made that
comment in that sense.
A lot of people, after reading the interview thought,
felt the difference between him and me has grown! I don't
dispute that I am the one who has to prove. His results
over the last fifteen years are far more impressive than
mine. I had a couple of very good years but he has been
the world champion. But I don't think the difference has
grown or anything like that. I was talking in general
about having to improve as a player.
To beat the Number one player ...
Yes. Anyway, I have to improve not just to beat him but
anyone.
Do players become complacent after sometime, especially
if you are winning more and losing less?
This can happen. You would say it is complacence. But it
implies somehow that you become careless. What happens is
that, when you are playing, you tend to look at the
problems that you had before. And if you don't have many
problems for quite sometime, then you get stuck at where
you are. In that sense, a few setbacks from time to time
are very good because it motivates you to perform better.
I wouldn't say, I was really complacent. I think what
happens is your self-confidence - something which is very
good, as without self-confidence you can do nothing in
chess - grows, grows and grows. But at some point, other
people start getting used to you and your style. So,
after sometime, you have to start developing new ideas
and new trends.
So you also must be changing your style quite often
Yes. You are always looking at all your old analysis,
games and try to find out new ideas and new positions.
Without that, it is not possible to play chess because
things get worked out. If you don't find new ideas,
people can just stop you in your lane.
Since mental toughness is very important in chess, do
players try to intimidate the player on the other side of
the board psychologically?
Generally, no. Maybe, it is a bad habit. It was very
popular in the Soviet days. Now nobody does it anymore.
The young Russian players don't bother about doing this.
Like I said, if you have a good relationship, you don't
try to do such things. You just try to play good moves
and yes, intimidate the other guy by playing good chess.
I wouldn't say, it is a big problem anymore.
Certainly there are a few people like Kasparov who is
well-known for his faces and things like that. Again, I
wouldn't take it too much out of context. In general, it
is not a major problem. I think, the best way to
intimidate someone is play good moves!
While playing, do you try to suppress your real feelings?
After a good move, do you show your satisfaction? What do
you do if you feel very angry or disappointed inside
after a bad move?
It varies from person to person. It varies from moment to
moment too. Sometimes, you are so happy that you can't
control it. Other times, you keep a poker face! You make
a really lousy move and sometimes, you are able to hide
that very well and pretend that everything is very
normal, hoping that the other guy won't notice it.
Sometimes, you make such a bad move that you can't help
hitting your head. It varies. In general, the basis of
chess as a sport is, you try not to let your opponent see
what's inside your mind. And, I have a poker face most of
the time. At least that is what other people tell me.
Generally Indians are supposed to be very emotional. Do
you consciously suppress your feelings and remain poker
faced?
You can be emotional and at the same time have a poker
face! My emotions go up and down during a game but there
are other people who really don't care. Of course, I feel
all the tension inside. But I try to remain poker faced.
Your mother can always spot the emotions, you know. She
just looks at your face and tells you, this is the same
face you had when you were four years old and you did
something wrong. They know immediately.
You said the other day that when you first started
playing chess there was no software available at all. On
the other hand, today's young players can have access to
so many software programs to improve their game. How much
has chess as a game changed or benefited due to Internet
and the software revolution?
It's made everything much faster. The information cycle
goes much faster. For example, if I play a good idea in
one tournament and by that evening, that is, within five
minutes, everyone in the world has it. All the other top
players know about it immediately. Earlier, you had to
wait one month till a booklet with all the games played
in certain important tournaments was mailed to your
house. Now, it takes just five minutes.
Also, you have to work much harder; so does everyone
else. A lot of things have become easier. Technology
won't make your life more difficult or easy, it just
changes the rules. It has closed some areas of the game
too; the areas of the game that you can work on the
computer. A lot of things are more difficult to do. You
can't catch people and trap anymore as they check
everything, the probability of error, on the computer.
On the other hand, it has opened up new doors. There are
many positions which were terribly complicated. Humans
can generally decide these things in five minutes but we
cannot be hundred percent sure unless you check
everything mathematically. There are positions which you
used to leave to a team of four people to double check
for two weeks but now you leave a computer running
overnight and by morning, you are almost sure that it's
been checked. You still have to test one or two things
because the computer can evaluate things badly. In
general, everything has become much faster. In a
nutshell, it has been very good for the sport.
 Earlier, someone like Karpov had a big advantage over
the others because the Soviet state arranged seconds for
them; arranged training camps for them. They used to tell
five or six Grandmasters to work for this guy. So, people
from outside had enormous disadvantage over the Soviet
players. Take for example, someone like Fisher. The
reason why he was such a hero was because despite such a
big disadvantage, he was still able to beat them. You
will see that these two guys had a big advantage in the
eighties because they had this team constantly supplying
them with fresh ideas.
Nowadays, if I find a good idea, I check it with my
friend by e-mail. He may be living in St.Petersburg or
Israel or Moscow but I can e-mail and ask him, what do
you think of this idea? I do this a lot with my friends.
In a way, we are able to train together despite the
distances. So, there are many aspects. It is difficult to
say whether it is good or bad. In certain areas, it has
been good and in certain areas, it has been bad.
Bad, in what way?
It forced us to work a lot on computers and the number of
variations has grown enormously. It is easier because you
can double-check everything. But now you have to remember
much more. Also, it used to be an art in itself to
analyse the adjourned games. Now that area has completely
disappeared. We don't have adjourned games anymore
because we have computers everywhere.
The older generation who are not very conversant with
computers probably feels that computers came along and
outclassed them. Maybe people who are around 45 could
have had a longer career if they knew how to use
computers. Okay, this is true with any technology. My
point is, if you ask hundred people, twenty may say, it
is a bad thing.
You talked about the kind of help the Russian players got
from the state even in the eighties. It might have been
tough for you too initially
I think it didn't help many of the Russian players as
well. Only the Russian top benefited from the state
support and a lot of others didn't benefit. Now many
players have access to all the best tools.
Were you also disadvantaged in the beginning?
No, I wouldn't say in general I was disadvantaged. I was
one of the first people to get used to the new
technology. In 1987, I was only a World junior champion.
At that time, there was still quite a bridge to be passed
to reach their level.
You played against Fritz and Rebel last year. How
different was it playing a machine and a human being?
I don't mind playing against a computer once in a while.
It is a different experience because you try not to play
tactical positions and that's a disadvantage.
Do you have to change your game against the machine?
Yes, you change it. You try to play strategic positions,
very boring positions because computers are quite
helpless in these positions. And, there is no psychology
involved in a game against the computers. For the human,
it has only negative effects because in almost any
position, the first impulse is not to play the natural
move. The first impulse is to play an anti-computer move.
This is not natural. Against a human being, you wouldn't
do that. You wouldn't say, I am going to play an anti-
Karpov move or an anti-Kasparov move. You try to play
only the best move. And, this will produce the best
result in the end. But against computers, you are almost
always trying to avoid tactics because the odds are
against you in this matter.
Sometimes, I can save some positions very easily with the
computer that I could never save against a human being.
Many computers simply don't understand certain things
till it's too late. I have saved many games with
computers because they had no clue. I know immediately
what's going to happen in 25 moves, let's say. Because
certain positions are like that you can tell, okay after
the next fifteen moves, you can manoeuver and you can
wait. But the computer doesn't know the concept of
waiting. It calculates. It can calculate infinitely and
get into a position whereas I understand that it can't
escape a trap.
A human understands that without any calculation, but a
computer, no matter how much it calculates, it cannot
understand that. So, as soon as it gets into such
positions, you can completely relax. Then, the psychology
is working positively. You feel very good and start
playing excellently.
In general, I think, it is negative because it affects
the humans. We have not learnt how to be really cold and
emotionless against these machines. May be they should
program some emotions also into computers to even it.
Clearly, computers don't win games because they are
superior to humans. This is a myth. They win games
because of psychology. The human cannot understand how
the computer thinks perfectly. The present format of
human versus computers is simply unfair. The computers
are allowed to access database whereas we are not. I have
no access to any database and I have to remember
everything. People argue that computers simply use its
memory and the database is in its memory. These are
questions that you can't argue but I think it is quite
unfair.
For instance, if you were to remove the database, you can
have a computer ten times faster than it is today. Ten
times faster than Deep Blue, easily. If it couldn't
consult its opening book, my result would improve
immediately. I think most of the top twenty, thirty
players could beat Beep Blue if it wasn't allowed to
consult an opening database. Or, even the opening
database is restricted to a certain size. What happens
is, their opening database is almost 400-500 MBs of
information. It has access to all the games that are
played but we have to remember all that. Or, if I am
allowed to have a computer with me, okay, I can't check
my thoughts but I can see what was played at any given
time. My result would then go up.
Also, humans versus computers is being held at very
unfair circumstances. I am not saying, unfair in terms of
handicap. What I say is, these rules were set when
computers were so weak and didn't matter. Now it is
difficult to change them.
Did you enjoy the games that you played with Fritz and
Rebel?
They were okay. As a professional, you have to play many
events; you have to accept these challenges. It is
satisfying in its own way.
Not as satisfying as playing against a human being?
It is different, that's all.
Fritz was described as a monster machine and you defeated
it. But Rebel defeated you. How different were these two
machines?
In my opinion, Fritz is far superior to the other one.
But the day I played Rebel, I was really in bad shape and
we played four games of five minutes and I didn't play
Fritz in five minutes. Of course, if you play five minute
games, the odds are heavily stacked in favour of
computer. It is a hugely misleading impression that the
other program beat me.
Before the game against Rebel, the programmer reportedly
said, you would beat it comprehensively.
If I played the match again, maybe I could win also. In
all the normal games, the games of reasonable time limit,
I won against Rebel. They try as hard as possible to
publicize the fact that it defeated me and they hope to
sell a few programs. There is not much you can do about
it. I don't have the time to run ads in the paper all the
time. I think, it is just misleading. In the blitz games,
computers are already far superior. At least the odds
will always go their way.
Fritz was said to be calculating well over 4 lakh
positions in a second still you defeated Fritz. How can a
human brain think faster than that?
No way. We do about one position a second! I don't know
what the number means. These numbers don't mean anything
to me. I can't relate to these figures at all. We have a
different way of thinking.
After you became the world champion, we have a bunch
young boys and girls making their names on the
international scene. How do you feel about being an
inspiration to them?
I am very happy. I am very proud.
All of them say they started playing chess only because
of you.
I am very happy to hear that.
It was reported that you have plans to start a chess
academy.
That's something I can't do right now. But it is
definitely in the plans.
Do you plan to start it in India?
Yes.
This is a very hypothetical question. Still...Do you plan
to play chess even when you are in your thirties and
forties?
I don't think in those terms. I am just going to play as
long as I feel like playing, as long as I enjoy playing.
How do you relax?
Well, it depends. Sometimes not thinking about chess.
Sometimes thinking about chess. Sometimes I watch movies.
I listen to music. I go for walks. Whatever catches my
fancy.
What kind of movies do you watch?
Generally action films. Comedies too. In the last few
months, I haven't seen many movies. I was training for
the World Championship. Maybe I will make up for that
now.
What do you generally do when you come to Madras? Of
course, journalists like me pester you for interviews.
(Earlier, Anand spoke to rediff for the millennium
special too.)
I think there is not much time left after rediff!
(laughs) I think I spent most of my time in India with
rediff! Yes! (laughs) I like spending time with my
parents and we play cards together a lot. And, in the
evening, I go to the beach for twenty minutes or half an
hour.
Don't you get mobbed?
I generally go when it is pretty dark. Generally I like
to just sit at home and talk to my parents.
Do you still discuss chess with your mother?
We discuss. I tell her all about the games I played and
update her with all the gossip. We talk about how the
tournament went and what happened there and things like
that. Yes, she can follow the technical stuff if I
explain it to her. But we generally discuss other
stories. I tell these stories to both my parents. In
fact, my father is also interested in these stories.

