‘I am very proud that I could win by such a margin’

Published : Nov 08, 2008 00:00 IST

“For me, Mexico was beautiful because you win the title for the first time, the unified title, and here you hold it. Both are very nice. You really can’t choose between memories,” says Viswanathan Anand to Rakesh Rao, who caught up with the World Champion in Bonn.

The morning after conquering the world title in the time-honoured match-play format and retaining the crown won in 2007, Viswanathan Anand looked relaxed as he settled down for a chat with Sportstar in his Suite 344 at Hotel Hilton in the former German Capital of Bonn.

Having accomplished the mission of winning the “Battle of Bonn” against Russian challenger Vladimir Kramnik, Anand spoke at length on various aspects that led him to this historic triumph.

Question: Congratulations. The chess world thinks, your latest world title has more value than your previous triumphs in 2000 and 2007. What do you think?

Answer: For me, I still believe, it is impossible to choose. In fact, I was talking with Rustam Kasimdzhanov (former World champion and one of Anand’s ‘seconds’ for the match) yesterday, and he said, “It’s actually nice that you’ve done all three. That has a special merit. I know, there are people who don’t give importance to knock-out (format). But you have to try a format before dismissing it.

Knockout is not easy (playing a maximum of seven opponents by turns in four weeks). You’ve got to navigate it. It is not all luck. It is easy to say luck. But then what do you say in matches when people blunder. That also happens. It’s pressure. I would say, mainly for me here, I know what they (the sceptics) would have said, if I had not won. In that sense, I had to deal with it.

Secondly, though ironically, if you want to make a case that matches are just one format but you believe that are not superior to others, you have to win a match. Then you are more credible when you say that.

How would you place this triumph as compared to the one in Mexico City last year?

Mexico is in no way a lesser achievement. But if I had not won there, I could not have made it here. In that sense it is very nice.

For me, Mexico was beautiful because you win the title for the first time, the unified title, and here you hold it. Both are very nice. You really can’t choose between memories. I can’t even say that I prefer this more to my Baguio win (the world junior title in 1987). At that moment, it was very beautiful. And now, it is pretty much like that.

Everyone expected a close match but your winning margin makes it look far less tough than it actually was.

I am very proud that I could win by such a margin here. It (the margin) could have been even three points. That would have been incredible against someone who doesn’t lose three games in a year!

Here, Kramnik lost three times in four games. But in the second half, he clearly showed what he could do. He pulled himself together.

Through the match, it was evident that you and your team had out-prepared the rival camp.

Clearly. In this match, we hit the ground running. I am sure his preparations were excellent but we managed to show what we had. It’s just an ambush. But the thing is to get what you want to do correctly. Before the match, I thought it was a nice excuse to play open with the queen pawn (with white pieces). It has been on my “To Do” list for a while. So, I thought the match was a good excuse to start. That paid off as well.

Can you elaborate on the psychological warfare between the two camps during the match? How did it all start?

The psychological thing is more or less game theory. It has a runaway point as well. At some point, we started like this. What if we just play this way (opening with queen-pawn with white pieces) in the match? That was always my decision because your ‘second’ can’t decide for you. They said, “we like the idea, we find it exciting and we’ll work.” At the same time, I said, I understand the risk involved. I made this decision last November. But once you decide, in a way, you are kicking away the ladder because if you invest a month in preparing a new opening, and then decide to switch your choice to king-pawn opening, you have lost a month and it has a slightly negative effect.

So by when were you completely ready to stick to new opening lines with white?

I would say, by April, we had kicked the ladder away. There is no way that you can climb back and start again. Because there is so much work to be done, the volume of work is huge. So once you are halfway in queen-pawn opening, you cannot say actually I am going to play king-pawn opening in the match. It doesn’t make sense. And the reason is this. It is nice to say, “Well, he is going to play the Petroff or the Berlin (two opening choices that Kramnik has played with fair amount of success with black pieces).” He, too, had several months (preparation) for the match. He could also prepare so many other things. And after covering all that ground, it is not easy to recover just like that. So, more or less, we decided to go all out. In fact, we did not look at the king-pawn opening (from white) till day before yesterday (the eve of the 11th game)! So, we did not look at the king-pawn opening. We had a little emergency solution in case he replied with the king-pawn opening. We considered it a low priority. The risk we took paid off. But, that was nice.

How long did it take you to be comfortable with the choice of opening?

We are all humans and we play for some kind of enjoyment. I enjoyed playing the queen-pawn opening because it was something new for me. It was nice to play it again. If you do something mechanically, it becomes boring. And I really enjoyed working on these new positions, and may be, it made the work more exciting.

You mentioned something about the runaway game theory.

Yes. It went like this. At some point we said, “but he (Kramnik) will know that we will stop this, then he would do this. And then we will do what he thought of and so on (laughs loudly).” Then I said, “let’s just stop this here. We are not getting anywhere.” But we knew that there is no way that he was going to be completely surprised by our opening choice with white. It’s just not realistic. Peter Leko (in the 2004 World title match) did the same thing to him. And he was not going to fall for the same thing twice.

Now that it is over, will it be wise to say that he underestimated your preparations?

I think in a match, it is nice you can sidestep your opponent’s preparations completely but it is unlikely. But it seems he had not given enough attention to this Slav Meran complex before the match. So we were able to hit hard there. But our idea was for the second opening. We had not prepared just one opening for this entire match. So the whole Vienna complex came up. He hit me in the Nimzo. That, in a way, was expected. He had done all the work there but he had gone deep into the position and found something. That was a blow. But to be able to restrict my problems to just one game was very nice.

Since you never played your favourite opening with white except in the final game, most of Kramnik’s preparations from black were not of any great use.

Nonetheless, he could not ignore the king-pawn opening (from black). He had to take into account that I might play my favourite line. I don’t know how much time he had spent on black, preparing against the king-pawn opening, might have been a month, might have been a month and a half, I don’t know. But we thought, at least that amount of work he would have wasted.

Generally, let’s not forget that we are going into his territory. So there is going to be an experience lag. But at least, there is a month, or a month and a half of work that we have gained. We had taken a gamble and decided to go with it. That worked very well.

Also we were able to get very dynamic positions. And that I think was important. I like it when interesting things are happening and so on. I think, he plays these static positions very well and feels very comfortable. It was nice that we were able to get challenging positions.

What do you think about the quality of the match?

As high as many other matches. Matches are generally dominated by tension. These are not contests about who is the best player. It’s just an ambush. You try and guess what the other person will do. You try to ambush them. You prepare unpleasant surprises here and there. You take into account weaknesses. It is not a pure chess contest or a contest for the truth. In that sense, I think the quality was pretty good. Certainly there were mistakes. But there always will be mistakes, otherwise you won’t have a decision.

How do you look at Kramnik’s decision to test you in the fifth game like the same way he lost the third game?

I think, it is a very normal decision. It’s something I could entirely see myself doing. I mean you have this choice. You must be guided by your chess considerations. You cannot second-guess these things on the basis of a result. I think, when he played Game Three and lost, the normal thing is to go back, and see if you find some chink in the armour. If you find something, you repeat the variation and beat your opponent in the same thing. On the other hand, if you are stuck, then you move on. In history, you’ll find as many examples of people switching openings as people staying and neither strategy by itself is a mistake. As it turned out, he had not quite caught up and I scored a second win. But there is no way that he could know this before.

Do you think a second straight loss with white pieces had its impact in the sixth game, the following day?

I thought, it might have had an impact. While he was still shaky, I managed to sneak in another win. And it was very important because, that win in the sixth game was what helped me finish (the match).

How do you look at a defeat, the kind you suffered in the 10th game?

There is no universal answer. Let’s see what are the different kinds of losses: One, where you lose without a fight. Two, where you were winning but you lost. Three, the one where there was a mess but you think you could have drawn.

I don’t know if it was tougher for me to lose Game 10 than it was for him in say Game Three and Five. Those hurt more.

How did you spend the rest day before Game 11?

I could have done without this rest day. My team-mates said, “You may not have liked it, but it actually helped us to catch up with the king-pawn opening from the white side. It is probably better that you don’t go back, yearning to play the next game without healthy preparations. It is like a gambler who has just lost and says, ’this time I am going to win, just one more time,’ ” and goes on. It is that kind of thing, you know. Better you calm down. But heaven forbid, had I lost (the 11th game), I would have had to sit and prepare. That would have been a torture. I mean, every rest day eats you alive. In that sense that problem came only towards the end.

How do you take the uncharitable comments that come your way?

I find it surprising that these things happen. It simply comes in the territory in matches. Part of the strategy is to taunt and get under your opponent’s skin. And surprisingly, some of these people can get back and put things in perspective. In some cases, the players take these wounds after the match and don’t speak for years or decades. Some wounds heal, some don’t. I guess, it’s life. So you expect some sort of taunt. This particular taunt (from Kramnik), about “lending” me the title, was ridiculous. When I won the title in Mexico, one guy in the press room first asked me, “Are you ready for your match with Kramnik? I said, “I’ve just won the world title, can you give me five minutes?” I found it very irritating. It is almost like they are saying, “Yes. Now that you’ve won, let’s talk about the serious thing.”

Whether he was taunting me, but didn’t believe it or whether he believed it and then he was taunting me, I don’t know. And it doesn’t matter. We also hit back on certain things. I mean, he taunts me and I taunt him back, it comes with the territory. I think, you have to put it aside.

It even helped me motivate myself more. You have to think in terms of legacy when you are preparing for a match. Win, if not, hold the title or draw and move to the tie-breaks. You have such limited goals and you are not thinking any further. But, clearly, it is not just for in terms of legacy that I was playing here. I wanted to retain my title. I was sick of giving it up after a year.

How did you handle the pressure in the end?

Every player is aware of the problem. Every player knows it can come. But when you are there, you are almost powerless. When you know you need that half a point, it affects you badly. Everyone can tell you this is typical, happens every time and don’t let this affect you. But it still affects you. But in the end, I only shed that one point in Game 10.

Unlike many other players, you neither made remarks about your rivals nor on the format.

You know, I have nothing against matches. I just don’t see any point in disparaging tournaments. Nothing that I or Kramnik said comes to the level of some of the other matches, much less to talk about when compared to what players like Kasparov, Karpov and Korchnoi said in their matches. This was at a higher level. These days, we are very much staid.

Did you expect Kramnik to be so polite on the final day?

To be honest, I didn’t expect anything. But okay, I was impressed. He was quite warm. It was tough for him and I empathize with him, and feel how it would feel in his situation. It was very easy to turn this one around. And before this match, we knew this was going to be a big one. First of all, you want to play the World Championship. I want to retain the title. But also, the next (World Championship) cycle is so weird. It is important actually to give this a shot. Also there are so many players who are competing in the next cycle. Nobody is assured of a further shot. When you are here, you have to really give your all. As you can see, the next Grand Prix is turning out be very competitive. I could certainly empathise with his situation.

Do you agree with Kramnik that match-play format adds value to the world title?

It certainly helps and also Kramnik is very tough in matches simply because he does not lose very much. In tournaments, there is a difference. If you beat others and you have a dynamic style, you go ahead. But in a match, if you can’t beat Kramnik, you are stuck with him. So in that sense, beating him in a match is a big achievement.

Clearly, that adds to my resume but I don’t know. To be honest, I am simply relieved. It must also be said how many chess players sent me such warm notes. Couple of them said, “just hold on. We are rooting for you and so on.” That was very touching. It is not like the chess world is against me. I am not getting anywhere there. But there are different thoughts. Some very strongly like the match format. They are very passionate about it. You have such people in every sport. You have people wedded to one format or the other. I don’t feel bad that they have this viewpoint.

Now that you’ve won the world title in all three different formats besides claiming every major title in all time-formats at least once, what next?

At the moment, it is simply like kicking back. But things come, you know. At this point, I cannot think what I want to do next. Next year, I’ll be playing at Linares and take it from there and new things will turn up. Okay, after some rest, I’ll have to start working because everyone in the world is working and the chess world is not sitting still.

More stories from this issue

Sign in to unlock all user benefits
  • Get notified on top games and events
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign up / manage to our newsletters with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early bird access to discounts & offers to our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment