Unbeaten run to the final

``I THINK, Vishy is playing at a level higher than ever before. He has shown the maturity to handle this enormous pressure of playing at home. I would like to believe that he's ready for the title.''

That was Michael Adams talking about Viswanathan Anand soon after their four-game semifinal of the World Chess Championship in New Delhi. The Briton was all praise for Anand's preparations and his near- flawless display. Unbeaten on his way to the final, Anand indeed emerged as the one who looked best equipped and almost ready to become the 15th World Champion of this cerebral sport.

A day after ensuring a berth in the final being played in Teheran, Anand, as NIIT's Brand Ambassador, parked himself at his sponsor's office and in this exclusive interview, shared his views on many subjects, including what the World title meant to him. He touched briefly upon his previous final-appearances in the PCA World Championship in 1995 and FIDE World Championship 1997-98, spoke about the pressure and pleasure of playing at home, his passage to the final, the much-awaited clash with Alexie Shirov and significantly, why the World Chess Championship lacks certain ``legitimacy.''

Question: After the experiences of 1995 and 1998, do you think you have matured enough to handle the pressure on way to the World title?

Answer: In general, yes. I think, I'm more mature every time and its showing. Maturity does seem to have come at the expense of anything else, so I am very happy about that. Basically, I don't look at the history aspect at all. I think, 1995 was too long back and 1998 was held under hopelessly unfair conditions. I dismiss it totally.

Q: Does winning the World Championship help crossing the line that separates a good player from a great player?

A: I think, its a milestone. First of all, if you have a competition and you become the World Champion, its something. Many people have more or less accepted careers in chess but this is the way to stand out. And its the same as you have the distinguished services awards or they give a medal to the Armed Forces. In Sports, you have highlights. You can have a great player, who goes out in the semifinals here and there, keeps his ranking as World No. three or whatever, but if he wins a big tournament, its a way of standing out. I think for instance, winning whole lot of tournaments is not the same as calling one the World Championship. Raising the stakes, raising expectations and then seeing how he performs under pressure. And if he does it, that makes him stand out.

Q: Given your all-round skills, how is it to prepare and plan for the knockout format?

A: I feel most comfortable in a knockout tournament by not having any plans. Whenever you have a plan for the fourth round, I have this feeling that something is going to go wrong in the second round. I've noticed already in tournament where no knockout is happening but if I am worried about what is going to happen in the fifth round, I play like a moron in the fourth round. And then comes the point when the fifth round goes in a dream but you've already squandered the points earlier. So, basically, my plan was to turn up for the tournament, play the second round and take it from there. Given that, I have to say that my dream could not have gone any better. Here I am in the final. You can't hope for anything better than to qualify for the final, and to win it.

Q: Did the matches against lesser-known opponents like Viktor Bologan, Smbat Lputian and Bartlomiej Macieja prepare you better for the bigger matches ahead?

A: Bologan, Lputian and Macieja, in general I would say, are very strong Grandmasters. On a good day, they can beat anyone. They are not so famous, so people think you are the odds-on favourite. But it is also true that, perhaps, they don't have enough experience. They don't play in all the top tournaments as often as you, so they haven't got this kind of grind, this everyday grind. May be, it takes a bit of training. So every once in a while they flag. But in a two-game match, may be these little things make a difference. May be they get overawed by the occasion or something. Basically, their chess strength does not leave much... and I don't think it is such a huge difference that it'll show in two games. I might show in a long match.

So in these three matches, I was very focussed and tried to get past. In general, these went as well as you could hope for, I mean, no tie- breaks, pretty relaxed. Khalifman and Adams, of course, are in the big league. They are also really confident and they really come at you.

Q: Can you elaborate on the games against Khalifman?

A: Khalifman knows if he draws with black, he is happy to draw again with white and then go into the tie-breaker. You saw him in the tie-break, both against me and Leko, he just made a draw immediately in the first game. You can see, this is someone who knows himself very well. He knows, at the moment, he is not very strong with white. He just says that's okay, I want to play you with black and passes the buck to you. And he knows that because you have white, you feel this responsibility to win. He did this in Groningen (in the 1997 World Championship). With white, he was always finishing the game in ten minutes and it was with black that he was struggling like crazy, he was fighting hard.

Q: When facing Khalifman, did you feel any extra pressure before that lucky escape to victory?

A: Whenever you have this sword hanging above you, it cramps your style and this is the first match I noticed it. When you have something like that, you are unnecessarily making yourself work harder, you are walking with weights. Once I had passed through this `near- the-death' experience, then things went fine. Somehow I couldn't care anymore. I was not afraid of losing any more, because it had happened already but it didn't once, and then you just feel liberated. Suddenly I felt very good and this had some impact on my play. Suddenly I played much better.

Q: In your clash against Adams, did just one mistake really make all the difference?

A: In fact it was even more pronounced. He played `c5' (in the second game) then I saw him wince, it was almost as if his hand disobeyed him. And Mickey (Adams) is normally expressionless. He's `The Rock.' He's got this calm face. Immediately, it went back to where it was. And I looked at it, I knew it was a bad move and there was the confirmation - his body language. Okay, this was fortunate. Normally, I would have expected my match with Mickey to go the whole distance. I thought barring something, we'll go to tie-break. Of course, I was very, very happy with this result. Beating Mickey in four games... it's a luxury. The guy has never lost like this. Three times, three semifinals. Very impressive record.

Q: How do you look at Shirov?

A: Shirov is basically a very dynamic player, very emotional player. His emotions fluctuate a lot but he is very creative. Emotional doesn't mean he is necessarily fragile. As you've seen here (in the World Championship), whenever he needed it, he managed to pull back. He's lost a lot of games in this championship but he has managed to fight back and really hang in. But he's emotional. You'll often see what's happening on his face, unlike Mickey. It'll be a tough match. He is one of the best players in the world. All players have their strengths and weaknesses. I'll try and see if I can exploit those and he'll try and exploit mine.

Q: Does your better head-to-head record with Shirov mean anything?

A: I don't think its very relevant. He's a strong player who on a good day can do anything. Of course, I am rated higher than him, probably have a better record than him but its irrelevant. The match will be decided on what we do in Teheran and not what we did in the past.

Q: How do you view the two-game, four-game and six-game matches?

A: Basically, in a two-game match, you get just one shot at hitting the guy, with either colour, and that's it. Also because of this pressure, often people are more cautious than they need to be. A four-game match is less so because you still feel you have the distance. A six-game match is more so, more preparation. Now we play three whites, three blacks and everything gets multiplied by three. So it adds a whole new dimension. A six-game match is a full match, like an eight-game match.

Q: How difficult is it to play the first five or six rounds at one venue and then move out to another country for the final?

A: ``Somehow every year I play (the World Championship) they move the venue (for the final). And last year (at Las Vegas) when I didn't, they had all the matches in one place (laughs). Well, what can I say? Let's put it this way, I wouldn't mind if it is at one venue... because you just don't have to pack your bags and go. On the other hand, when they have a break, you get a few days rest so it's also not too bad. If it was the same venue, it would just continue. I think, in general, the whole event should be played in one venue. I think, this time it was a specific problem as Iran did not allow Israelis. So they had to wait with (Boris) Gelfand to see where the venue would move. I think that aspect was an awkward thing. In 1997-98, they could have had the whole championship at Groningen or Lausanne, but since they wanted to impress the IOC (International Olympic Committee), as part of their growing association, they moved it. Again, I understand the whole thing. But having said that if it comes to three or four- day break, then I am not complaining.

Q: Does the choice of venue make much difference?

A: Not too much. Once you move the pieces, you forget where you are. You can play anywhere else. I mean most chess players could be in Paris and they are only discussing chess with each other. That's the way we are.

Q: Don't you think the chess followers have reasons to feel that the World Chess Championship stands devalued in the absence of Kasparov, Kramnik, etc.?

A: In fact, the FIDE's World Championship somehow lacks some legitimacy, because for two years, they tried to parade (Anatoly) Karpov as the World Champion, even when he obviously was not. In fact, they've been parading him for seven years when he's not been the World Champion. If you do that, eventually you can't sell the public a lie any more. Whatever their reasons for doing it, you just can't take someone and say, ``We call him the World Champion'' and expect yourself to be taken seriously. I think the credibility is being lost they are recovering slowly now.

Q: If the champion was to play only the Challenge Round, his `achievement' too may not get the same attention or admiration...

A: I think it is like flogging the dead horse but 1997-98, it was hopelessly unfair. You think about it. If Pete Sampras was seeded to the final of Wimbledon every year because he won the previous year, he would keep winning every year. And people would laugh at him. His achievement is great because he started like anybody else and still won, what, six out of the last seven titles. That's what makes him great. The same thing you can say about Kasparov's title. He is a great player. But if Sampras and Agassi decided every year that that will be playing the Masters final between themselves, hoping one of them wins... If it always goes on like that, it gets you no where. Kuerten would have never won (the Masters).

Q: However, Khalifman did not get his due even after winning the World title?

A: I think Halif (Khalifman) suffered because of the `Karpov Problem' - seven years of trying to peddle Karpov as the World Champion, when he obviously was not. He had never earned it, he earned it in 1975 but not now. The people just don't buy your story anymore. I think Halif has already gained some recognition because he won it fair and square.

Q: Unlike in any spectator sport, when watching chess, the crowd cannot show its support vocally. But does their sheer presence bring pressure on you since they all had come for you?

A: You still feel the pressure even if they are not shouting for you. Frankly, even if they are not sitting there, shouting your name, or raising a banner, it is still there. It is not any less. I think the spectator participation is a lot great except that you don't feel it directly. Lot of people follow it live on internet, you get hundreds of thousands of hits over a period. So in that sense, the pressure is there.

Q: So are you relieved to go away from these pressures and play in Teheran?

A: Not at all. It is just a new atmosphere, you get used to it and get on with the job. I would have been perfectly happy to play the final here (in New Delhi). I think, it is just a question of drawing a line. In Sanghi Nagar, and it is my fault and not of the organisers, that on the fifth day, I was two points up and needed two more draws, I really allowed myself to get into this euphoric mood. And I paid the price. This time, even after victory, I never lingered too long because it creates that feeling of euphoria. You do your job, you meet the Press, meet a few fans. I hope they understood this. But after that, I had to leave, lock myself up to avoid this feeling of euphoria. I couldn't even stay and be around with everyone as much as I would have liked to. You know you have a job to do.

RAKESH RAO

New Delhi

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Sport
Previous : Meenakshi starts favourite
Next     : She changed the history of women's chess