As I wrote before, I have been on the lookout for a Kramnik interview in Russian press. Apparently, I missed
the interview he has given to Yuri Vasiliev of Sport-Express more than a week ago.
Anyways, here is my best effort at a translation:
The night after the loss to Anand in the world championship match, Vladimir Kramnik was in good spirits, was making jokes, was smiling and didn't seem to be disappointed at all.
Since I had Vladimir's manager Carsten Henzel standing right next to me with a stopwatch, while the editor-in-chief of the New in Chess Magazine was eagerly awaiting his turn to be given an audience with the ex-king outside the door, I set a quick pace for the interview and Kramnik followed suit.
Vladimir, when we met the last time, after Tal Memorial, you told me "When the right time comes, and the match is over, I will tell you everything about the preparation and the team". The match is over now. Do tell.For me the whole year was marked by the preparation for this match. I had to make certain professional sacrifices: play things that were not exactly what I would want to play in tournaments and play them not exactly the way I would want to. Everything was done with sights set on this match. I've put so much of myself and so much effort into it - and it ended up being fruitless. I understand that nothing just happens, and I will learn serious lessons from my defeat. But nevertheless the bitter taste does remain: so much was put into the preparation and it didn't work.
What was the principle behind the selections for your team?I always do it according to just one criterion: the professional level. A person who enters the team should be a battle worthy chess player, a hard worker, and, of course, I should be able to fully trust them.
Was the addition of Leko some sort of psychological move, as it was considered by some?No. I needed a chess player of a very high level for the team. And Leko's level is exactly that.
Did he help a lot?Yes, as did everyone else.
The young Fressinet, too?Everyone worked hard, tried hard, and I have no complaints about anyone. Of course we made some mistakes. This loss was the loss of the whole team. And above all, it was mine.
Well, it is true they tried. But, for example, GM Landa told me that the Meran novelty 14... Bb7 was not only known to Anand and his seconds. Why did you and your seconds miss it?I can't say how Landa knew it, but the move was unknown to me.
Was it a major novelty, as it was able to sidetrack you?Well, it is a very practical novelty. I don't think it is good objectively. Anand is a powerful practician and he directs everything to the goal of winning a particular game. I don't think this move will change our view of the variation. And the novelty is a little dubious. But if it is worked out deeply with a computer and you are sitting at the board and are trying to calculate a huge number of lines, you are not exactly on equal footing. The novelty worked brilliantly in practical respect. Anand was taking a risk, as he could not fail to understand that the idea was so-so. And he was especially risking by allowing it the second time.
Oh, really? Everyone decided that was a mistake on your part. Karpov even used the word "stubbornness".Probably, it wasn't worth it to repeat that line. But everything could have went the other way! Had I won game 5, everyone would say right away: it was the only right decision! In this particular case a very unfortunate string of events happened. It was my own last minute decision to repeat the variation.
You made the decision yourself?(Smiles). I always make the decisions myself. But we overlooked something. I won't go into the details, but Anand managed to beat me to it by just a bit. In some sense, it was unlucky. However, I do understand that one cannot explain a loss by bad luck alone.
It has to be acknowledged that his preparation was both better and deeper [than mine]. Whose fault is that? Is it mine, my team's, my manager's or someone else's? That is a different question that doesn't worry me too much. One could try to dig up things and examine them and everyone would come to different conclusions.
But it is not about
"Who is to blame?" It is about
"What is to be done?" How to avoid such failures in the future? I am absolutely sure Anand didn't work more than I did, because I worked a lot. But he and his team did it more effectively. And I should draw conclusions from the lesson he has taught me. Some things need to be changed. At this time, Anand is the model of preparation; he is the best in the world! And when two equally matched opponents face off, that becomes a decisive factor.
The Meran practically became an insurmountable obstacle for you here. You lost two games with white! It is an absurdity for a World championship match!Yes, it is a rare thing indeed. The thing is, Anand has built his opening repertoire around his style very deeply. He plays not just the openings that are good, but those that fit him perfectly. This work took him years, but thanks to it, he shows his best chess now. And his whole team wasn't merely looking for just any ideas during preparation, but for the kind of ideas that would fit Anand. The Meran, which he played, wasn't any better or worse than other lines, but it fits him ideally in terms of style! It leads to calculating play that is very trick-based, has a large risk factor; you can fool people in it as well as set traps. That is, it is exactly his kind of play!
Many of your colleagues are convinced that you shouldn't have entered the sharp, calculation-heavy play with Anand in the Meran.I wanted to punish him for knowingly taking the risk. It was a gauntlet, of sorts, that was thrown to me. And I picked it up. I entered an open fight, but my opponent was much better armed. Perhaps my main mistake was that I was unable to drag him into my territory. But it wasn't so easy to do. I was much more successful in playing my kind of chess in the second half of the match, but too much was lost in the first half.
In game 10, when the game was waged on "your territory", it appeared that Anand didn't stand a chance. Was it not possible to pick variations like that from the very beginning- variations where the struggle is based around tiny nuances?That was the whole thing: the opponent didn't allow that, thanks to his preparation that was most ingenious. A match is a fight between two concepts. We have completely different styles. In that particular game I managed to drag him into the territory where he wasn't that strong. And indeed, I outplayed him rather easily. But his preparation was great and he purposefully imposed his style upon me.
Why didn't you manage to do that to him?I don't want to go into technical details, but, unfortunately, I didn't have a sufficient number of ideas. That is the major reason behind the loss.
But you were also close to victory in game 9, with black. There you were able to outplay your opponent on "his turf": in a sharp position. Had you found Rg8, after which computer said it would be won for black, the flow of the match could have changed drastically. In my report I wrote you played "like an old man", no offense.Well, first of all, I am not a computer and I exchanged queens because I didn't have time to calculate everything. I felt I shouldn't have done it, but it was a serious time trouble, and I thought he could play Re1 and attack the e6 pawn.
How much time did you have at that point? 4 minutes for about 8 moves. This is to say, not a lot. But again, this is just a game situation. It is impossible to avoid minor mistakes.
What was especially surprising about Anand in this match?The huge number of new ideas (was surprising). He wouldn't run out of novelties: in any opening, in any position, there were fresh and well-worked out ideas. That was, frankly, a little discouraging in the beginning. Everything pointed to the fact that he had a lot of good ideas pouring in, and that he had a large team working for him.
A rumor was floating around that you were on the verge of quitting chess. That is not true, is it?That is false. I am not about to quit chess. Quite the contrary: there is a good incentive now [for me to work harder].
You've said you are going to change your game. Does that mean you are going to make your repertoire with black more aggressive?In general I don't think I have some sort of game problems. I need to change my preparation approach. It is in that respect that I am behind Anand, and perhaps, behind Topalov, too. I don't have a team that works constantly. There is a need to create it. This is exactly what I am going to work on. If I succeed at that, I am sure I will be on the very top again.
Where are you going to play in the near future?Most likely it is going to be in Linares, and then Monaco. Everything is as it usually is. And in a couple of weeks the Chess Olympiad will start in Dresden, and I really want to win the gold for Russia. Especially since the Russian Chess Federation does so much for our sport now. And [the federation] helped me a great deal in my preparation for the match. I am seriously motivated and I will make an all-out effort in Dresden.
Well, you are not giving up hopes to regain the title, are you? I am not old yet. Anand and Ivanchuk will be 40 soon, but the game is at the very highest level. I still have time. I am sure I haven't shown all of my potential in this match and I expect to enter the struggle for the world championship title again.
Previous Topic
Index
