|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Chessville Plays 20 Questions with GM András Adorján Interviewed by Phil Innes
It is true that I was working with both Kasparov (1979-86) and Leko (between 1993 and ‘99 in a few ‘waves’, amounting to 3 years altogether), but neither these two players/persons nor the relationships I had with them can be compared. I met 16-year-old Garry at the Banja Luka’79 GM Tournament, which he won with a 2-point margin(!!) ahead of the field consisting of 14 Grandmasters (led by T.Petrosian, Andersson, Smejkal and myself) and two untitled players, Sibarevic being the other one! It would be hard not to see a genius in him, not only because of the result itself, but also looking at his games. He played both 1.d4 and 1.e4 and he produced some wild attacking games, but when it was needed he also had the patience for positional play, fiddling about around an isolated pawn for quite some time and reach his goal in such a way. He had a very strong willpower (as well as a threateningly strong physique!), an obviously true LOVE for chess, very rich fantasy and more than serious opening preparation. When he was already the BEST (since 1985), many of his rivals made envious remarks, claiming that his priority over them was due to more seconds, better databases and analyzing programs. This is all garbage. Even at the time I went for two secret missions to the USSR, first before and later during the match ‘84-85 with Karpov, he had the following seconds: 1.Sakarov, 2.Nikitin, 3.Timoschenko, 4.Vladimirov. That was the team, of which the first two were his trainers since childhood, still devoted and useful helpers, but could not be compared to nr.3 and 4. Dorfman was also added to this team, but only for the match, and my humble self was mostly a ‘correspondence partner’. I say this because we somehow did not have the chance to get together for serious face-to-face work, except for 2 weeks ‘somewhere in Russia’ in his training camp. Also, my contribution in Moscow lasted only for a month (as a ‘secret agent’), and most regretfully I arrived there when the score was already 0-3 and it became 0-4 on the following week. You can easily guess the mood this put Garry all the others in. Meanwhile, Karpov’s army (only the ‘visible’ people) numbered much more well-known people, some of them from the world’s elite. In Kasparov’s 3 other matches (against Andersson, Timman and Miles) I was his only second. I don’t know much about what happened after we parted in ’86, certainly Kasparov was in a position to hire further specialists. Dolmatov or M.Gurevich, for example, are very strong aids – and let me add that they are also very nice people. I heard that Kasparov was generous in money matters (unlike Karpov). We did NOT have such experience, because I never asked or accepted anything from him (although he insisted) but my expenses. It may sound crazy, for he could afford it and I deserved it, but I felt honored to work with one of the greatest players of all time on a friendly basis. It’s all the same, others employ seconds too, and good preparation is possible not only for leading players but even for the ‘middle-class’ in this age of databases. All that matters is face-to-face performance; good preparation does not mean to memorize what others played and/or analyzed, but to go beyond it. To have some original ideas of yours or your helpers as early as possible. But it is not so that anybody can win game by game at home. Finally all I can say: I predicted that no one shall take Kasparov’s throne as long as he can still move the pieces. I have never seen anybody of the ones alive (including Misha Tal and Tigran Petrosian, with whom I played altogether 9 games, and I really admired these strikingly different giants) who even came close to him. Too bad that I became a GM in 1973, just missing Bobby Fischer. He is of course another hero, an idol for me and many others! Peter Leko is the second biggest talent after G.K. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. The difference is that I have known him since 1990, and next year we played our first and last very serious game in a GM tournament he entered at the age of 11. I should have caught him, but I did not, and at the end he managed to escape cleverly. We started our studies in 1993 when he was 13 and an IM of a strong kind. He already had a repertoire, knew a lot about chess because he was industrious, in love with chess as myself, and had a very good character, balanced and calm. Just like his father! There were and maybe are still a lot of hocus-pocus vegetarianism and whatever you can think of, but fortunately I was not required to follow all these. (Between us: both Karpov and Kasparov ate meat, what is more, bloody beefsteak, sometimes twice a day!) It is somewhat funny to me that people are searching for the ‘secret’, when it is all so simple: talent, hard work, pure love for your subject (this case it is chess), strong will and faith. I understand that it is suspicious for a lot of people. They look for the ‘winning variation’ when they should know such a thing does not exist; they look for the key that opens every door. They try to copy the great ones’ repertoires, even their habits. Let me just tell you that Bent Larsen usually went to bed around 4 o’clock in the morning and got up at noon during his tournaments. We met 4 times. From the Riga Interzonal, he gave daily reports by phone (and that was not very easy from the USSR!) to the Argentinean newspaper Clarin! I guess they paid him well. Still, I would not do it for a fortune. Would you? If there is a secret, it is to find your own style, the weapons fitting it, build up a personality that differs sharply from anybody else. If you look at the World Champions, you won’t find any example for somebody becoming the new Champ playing the old one’s style, only better. No, Lasker was followed by Capablanca who was replaced by Alekhine. Three different worlds! And this is what the principle of development - or should I say evolution? - means. It seems so simple. It is very hard to do. Chessville: Your books championing Black’s prospects are a challenge to the entire chess-playing community to reassess their attitude. Who are the current champions of this philosophy? I do not know of any. There are of course people, among them Morozevich, the best who play with BLACK with an excellent score. There is no telling however if he is achieving this result based on belief in BLACK’s case or (rather) studying hard certain systems – such as the Slav – and working out concrete novelties. It would be interesting to ask him! Chessville: What do you think about China’s emergence as a strong chess nation? It was 1992 when I made sample copy with a little help of my friends of an intended periodical called ‘BLACK is OK!’ One of the articles carried the title: ‘The most welcome yellow danger…’ At that time China already had a World Champion: Xie Jun, who took away from Chiburdinadze the title a year before. But it was not the beginning! Some time already in the 80’s Liu Shilan suddenly became a Candidate. Also, the Chinese Men’s Team usually scored rather well in the Olympiads. I think this is very positive and natural. There is no point to be afraid of the Chinese over-running the chess scene – although they are better and better, their Women's Team won twice in the last Olympiads – in return there were already a number of international tournament in China. I’m sure there are more to come. All in all: let there be fair rivalry among the nations for the sake of healthy development in the Royal Game! Chessville: In how many years do you predict a Chinese player will become world champion, and what will her name? There IS a Chinese Ladies’ World Champion again, so the question I believe belongs to the case of men. My scientific answer: I do not know. But it is clear that leading Chinese players will play a serious part in the International Chess for a long-long time. With a culture ancient as theirs, with their diligence, toughness there can be no question about it. Chessville: Other than your own published work on black’s prospects, which other authors have written well on this subject during the past 15 years? I don’t know of any. It doesn’t mean there couldn’t be, but those titled ‘A complete repertoire for Black’ in 100 pages are shameless junks. I am also trying to finish something like a real complete repertoire, it is actually contains 6 books, average of at least 150 pages: 1./ Gruenfeld 2./ Sveshnikov (these are the targeted variations) 3./ Queen’s pawn 4./ Rare Openings (everything but 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4) 5./ Sicilian Subvariations 6./ 1.c4, 1.Nf3. Now this goes to be a good 900 pages. Of which the Rare Openings has been published just like Sveshnikov, Gruenfeld, Sicilian Subvariations and I do have 80% ready the manuscript of Queen’s pawn. So it is number six to be done, and you may guess I shall suggest Hedgehog in the first place and take a look about the variations avoiding it too. I do pay attention to my works, still, even this repertoire may have little holes. On the other hand I understand I cannot compete those who promise their readers the ‘perfect solution’ in hundred pages… It must be some kind of masochism in the chess players (actually all the people) to buy stories like this, and never get disappointed enough to reject at least the same kind of rubbish. It may sound crazy, but I do not produce anything like that. I do make mistakes I don’t know of, but my aim is not to please readers (who could be satisfied with something average with my name and proud titles), I don’t try to gain credit from the reviewers. I’m not targeting perfection either for God’s sake, what I want is to be satisfied with the fruit of my efforts. This is something that matters. We all know when we perform well, and with a bit of self-criticism we are aware when we blow something. I am too timid of the guilt feeling of not be worthy to my mission. I don’t want to hate myself (too much). I do it still in another basis. Chessville: What is you opinion about modern ‘short draws”. Is there a mechanism to fix it? There is only one way to fix it. But before there should be given human conditions for the players: oxygen, light, space, free day(s) and the minimum dignity. Organizers who don’t do all these – and there are very few actually do it! – have no legal or moral rights to criticize poor devils playing every day, sometimes double round! Double round tournaments should not be rated at all, if it would be up to me, I strictly forbid them. Supposing the NOT excellent, only normal, conditions are going to be given to ALL players and ALL levels, the solution is: draw is only possible in the following ways: 1./ perpetual check 2./ repetition of moves (3-times) 3./ three time mirror 4./ Stalemate. And that’s it. There is no way of avoiding fixed draws, but to get rid of the draw offers during shall produce a lot more real chess. I myself should have been born into this imagined world: I was so many times hesitating about offering or not, finally doing it many times. Thank God, many of the games in which my proposal was rejected I won. Which shows if there would not be a choice (temptation) between stepping out or staying in the game, I could take the tension. Sure I could do better. And this belongs to most of other players as well. Chessville: Is the traditional Fide World Championship cycle broken forever? Not being a fortune-teller I have no idea. But one thing I can say: it is just gangsterism in the Chess World to organize any ‘Upperhouse Tournament of Candidates’, when those who have 2650 or more never have an opportunity to join. Nor to make real money. Those times when the cycle was composed of Zonals, Interzonals, and KO matches among the Candidates, theoretically anybody could become a Champion. And this chance was not just symbolic: there was indeed somebody who did it! His name is Garry Kasparov. I happened to be once among those Candidates, ‘79-80, when I came =3-4 with Ribli in the Riga Interzonal. At that time he was one of the favorites, I had a tiny 2525 and the 11-12 place by rating before the start. And then we played a 6-game match which ended 3-3 after he was leading by 2,5-0,5!! By this I qualified because of my better Sonneborn in Riga. Against Hübner I experienced similar treatment: he lead by two points in half time. Yet I won the sixth, could win the next, and was absolutely winning in the 9th penultimate game, overlooking a Stalemate at the end! This is just one of the stories when some ‘black horse’ played a serious part in this procedure. It is understandable that Kramnik and Leko and all the others prefer to decide everything in the ‘Club’. It is just a violation of all principles that are based on ‘Gens una Sumus’, it’s not enough that just 25-30 members of the ‘Club’ takes everything, but they and their supporters want to handle the World Championship as a private matter! It was scandalous enough to call Kramnik-Leko a World Championship Match. If my memory serves well, Kramnik was knocked out by Shirov 5 years ago. Then the good Garry overlooked the fact that the winner has qualified, and played a match with Kramnik which he lost like a child. This match however could not be renown as anything official! Not even in Garry’s Association. As to Leko: He won a very strong tournament in Dortmund. But still it was just one tournament! A tournament in which Anand, the World’s Number Two did NOT take part. So what the bloody Hell is going on? In addition, Kramnik is not going to play among the 8 ‘Übermensch’. And that leads us to a question: with all the credit for the Great Ones, whose is the Chess World? Is it for the millions or for the ‘Blue Blooded’ only? Chessville: Do you have opinions on how to teach young people to play chess, or of its value to them? It’s been partly answered in No.1. Otherwise I think chess can bring joy and consolation to everybody, but success at any level requires human qualities such as objectivity, good concentration, self-discipline, willpower, the ability to handle defeat - and many more. These are all useful whatever profession you choose. With some of my friends, our acquaintance goes back to a good forty years, it started when we played together in Béla Papp’s (Hungary’s Greatest Ever Chess Teacher!) teams. The best-known people are Faragó and me, who became GMs. Then come the IMs: J.Tompa, P.Petrán, P.Geszosz, Dr.E.Nagy, A.Szieberth, as well as a bunch of FMs, but this still tells little of his achievements as a trainer. He set a World Record with one of the teams, called ASI, an abbreviation for Angyalföldi Sport Iskola =Angels’ Field (it is the 13th district of Budapest) Sports School. Starting in 1957 the lowest league, the team (with largely the same players!!) moved up one league every single year till it reached National First Division! Only then did we have to strengthen the team, bringing Béla Bácsi (= Uncle Béla) to the first board!! We did not relegate but both of his teams (the other was JOSI = Józsefvárosi (8th district of Budapest) Sport Iskola) were dismissed with no sound reason. (Except most probably the envy and jealousy of the ‘Master Trainers’. It is a title that was awarded to Béla Papp only two years before his death, 1988. As Kurt Vonnegut would say: ‘That’s how it goes.’) One thing is sure: we did not cost a cent apart from travel expenses when played out of Budapest. The whole thing meant a disaster to all of us, especially to our beloved Master. It went unnoticed internationally as well, although I don’t believe anybody anywhere has ever equaled the performance of Béla Papp. Both teams were composed entirely of the children he himself discovered by giving a large number of simuls in schools. Uncle Béla was a true genius in selecting the talented ones from 20-30 seemingly equally patzerish children. This is a skill very few people have. I’m sure haven’t got it myself. So at a time he had two of his own clubs, plus the one where he played. He trained all 3 teams, organized and ‘managed’ the two youth ones. What did it mean? Well, put us to qualifying tournaments, organize the venues of our trainings and matches, take care of our trips to other towns, and on most Fridays and Saturdays making a private ‘roundtrip’ of Budapest reaching as many family homes as he could. Very few people had phones at that time, but anyway Béla Bácsi knew it from experience that he stands more chance to convince parents to let their boys or girls play chess on Sunday if he is there in person. How could he otherwise say to a mother: ‘Sweet lady, I personally guarantee that your son Stevie shall improve his maths by the end of the school year. It is as sure as my name is …’ (never finishing!) With his humble eyes and begging pose this usually worked… It ‘only’ took him 2 full days. As much as the training concerns: we had one session for each team (of course we visited each other) a week. People keep asking me about another secret, but I do not remember almost anything he taught in particular. There were many things. He liked (and so we did) tasks like 2-move miniatures (less than 7 pieces). Needless to say we studied the games of Tal, Fischer, but indeed the so-called secret was his enthusiasm, flaming love for chess and children. A man who was not a Master till the age of 49 – when he took the title easily – because he simply did not pay any attention to his own ambitious. He lived in poverty with his widow mother having no children of his own, but 300 like us. When we finished the trainings we went home and continued. By ourselves, because we loved chess. And that was that! The most talented have become GMs or (semi-) professionals, while others chose professions like economist, lawyer, doctor, psychiatrist, mathematician – as I like to say, they have become decent citizens unlike myself – but all of them have kept chess not only as a nostalgic memory, but many still play in clubs (Dr.Ervin Nagy for example for Honvéd, Adam Szieberth for Statisztika – 1st league, etc) and I’m sure that most of them still play through the chess columns, visit tournaments personally or on-line time to time. What was the question? Well, I do not see many children recently – my own daughters were seriously interested in chess at the age of 4-6. It would be of course stupid of me not to teach them to play chess, as it was all based on their curiosity. And they were able to give smothered mate! From time to time we also visited Béla Bácsi – I played in the same club with him anyhow – and the kids were sometimes literally on his neck. Children’s instincts work 100 % right! Yet later on their interest turned to music and other things and I did not force anything. I have noticed that the smaller one called Anna is too sensitive: she couldn’t take defeat and things like that. I was worried that maybe she inherited only my psychological weaknesses but not my talent… Now there comes the first important point for parents. DON’T LET ANYONE ANYWHERE NEAR YOUR CHILDREN IF YOU OR YOUR CHILD DOESN’T LIKE HIM! NO MATTER HOW MUCH HE KNOWS ABOUT CHESS! There is much more to a trainer-pupil cooperation than inputting or changing information. MUTUAL SYMPATHY is not just a romantic attitude, but worth a million dollars when it comes to effectiveness. When one knows that there is somebody whom (s)he can always rely on and trust (who can also protect sometimes from your own parents…) and may be critical about you, but whatever he says is in your best interest, you really can fly. How to start? I think all beginners, especially children love to see wonders. When – as we say – the idea overcomes material. So when somebody sees an economic mate with just enough pieces against a whole army, it is like a miracle. It indeed is! It’s just so that today we know that no attack can be successful without canny preparation. All these combinations target the seemingly impossible. They will love it – if not, you saved a lot of time, money and effort. Sure there’ll be something else to make a living of it. Professional chess with the hope of success is entirely for original characters and devoted or rather fanatic people. Quite a few parents tried to have my services (‘…whatever it takes, Grandmaster!’) even for 9 to 12-year-olds. What I usually say is: ‘You see, it’s not a question of money. Your child simply doesn’t need a Grandmaster for his studies.’ And before they get hurt by this elementary truth (my mother was a teacher in an elementary school, and you bet she could do much better for that ‘audience’ than a professor from the University), I invite them for a free visit to meet the little guy and – because it’s inevitable – the parents. It consists of an overview of his games (I like them verbally annotated), a couple of things in the presence of the parents and a face-to-face friendly chat for only the two of us. There is sometimes mutual sympathy, so the kid can trust me. I try to find out if the children THEMSELVES want to become serious chessplayers, or it is more of their clever parents’ big idea. One thing I must say: experience shows that two parents are necessary to have a child. But if I would teach somebody who has a shining talent like Lékó, I would prefer the boy to be an orphan. I hardly ever met some chessplayer-to-be whose parents were not total idiots, arrogant and aggressive tyrants, pushing the little unfortunate toward a direction of their 2nd career ambition. Some of them are ready to give a push publicly after a lost game! Once I saw it with my own eyes, but unfortunately the father’s size was shocking even for me. I mean for going there and simply butcher him. Words in such cases are wasted. As far as the kid is concerned, anybody who says something like he wants to play chess in order to make money, headlines, traveling, becoming famous – in short, using chess as an instrument – is a dead man for me. For chess is to be loved for itself, and when somebody does so, chess loves him back! And then all those things mentioned above come to you, but THAT IS NOT THE POINT! That is a logical consequence when you do anything on a high level. It is like love and marriage. You cannot love somebody through a lifetime with the same heat when it all started and blossomed. But the basis of the feeling stays and together with respect and appreciation it becomes something of a deep, positive emotion. When somebody becomes a professional that means marrying Caissa. But beware of becoming a money-maker by using a game called chess! In this case, chess could be replaced by anything. I can guarantee that such an attitude leads to empty routine, and is disgusting anyway. These people don’t deserve big success and usually don’t make it, either. Chessville: How many Grandmasters around the world can earn a living solely by playing chess? My estimate is 25-30, Ribli’s 50. The truth lays somewhere between our guesses. Which is depressing. Others play all those dirty opens to earn their daily bread and occasionally teach rich people’s stupid children who are, of course potential geniuses. It is of course completely wrong, and I would love to see an open for the 100 best in 13 rounds, and I wonder where would the ‘Great Ones’ finish? Bloody Hell! Let me give you another example. At that time when rapid chess was called wrongly ‘active’ there was an European and a World Championship in 1988. I won the Hungarian ‘Active’ Championship and together with the other medalists qualified to the Gijon (Esp) Europe Championship. From there there were 3 Hungarian qualifiers Csom, Kállai, and me. The World Ch. was held in Mazatlan (Mexico). It is true, that some guests who never qualified like the Polgar-‘Brothers’ and others showed up as invitees, but apart from this every qualifier had a right to play. And there were surprises! The biggest was that Kállai who was not even a GM reached the best 8!! I won a prize too by beating Alburt in the last round with (of course) BLACK. Will you tell me if this system has ever been repeated? For I don’t remember! The Rapid World Championship (or Cup) is reserved for players of the Chess Olympos. To put it mild, this is scandal. I don’t doubt that Anand might be the best rapid player in the world, but I’d like to point out two things: 1./ Rapid chess is special. People like Kállai or P.Szekely (who has died at the age of 48) have never played serious part in the traditional time-controlled chess. But both of them played devilish rapid and blitz – Szekely beat Tal himself in a friendly encounter of quite some games, and many great ones. 2./ When Bobby Fischer started the cycle which ended with Rejkjavík ’72 beating Boris Spassky very few people doubt that there’s going to be a change of guard. Especially seeing him killing Taimanov (6-0) even Larsen (6-0) and finally Petrosian easily. But nobody, not even Bobby objected why should he bother with anybody else but Boris. So what happens those who play all the decent tournaments and make real lot of money anyway took away the rapid WCh from everybody else who are breaking their backs to earn their living playing all the rubbish opens! This is wrong, selfish and most of all simply provocative to the rest of the chess world. I could go on without an own interest since I haven’t played a tournament game for 5 years. Chessville: Describe your preparation for a GM tournament. Good question after I seem to finish tournaments except maybe some kind of special events. But I remember. Today it would have been much more easily done because you have all the databases with say, 3 million games, so that you can search for the opponent with one color, the openings that are likely to appear. But until the early ‘90s we did it all like people of the middle age or so: collected the sources, went through many-many bulletins, chess magazines, it was still good to have the Chess Informant. I estimate the time this manual paperwork could have taken about half of the amount we were spending on chess. Therefore I’m really disgusted about the level and the style of modern chess. Because they have a minimum of 40 % more time for clearly professional chess matters. Yet I see a sea of well-educated, middle-strong IMs whom you cannot beat easily at all; on the other hand there’s a very-very little original contribution to the science and art of chess. Even so they should know that from this grey mass you can only climb out if you create new ideas, surprises. I know people who stare at the monitor 6-8 hours a day, watching, memorizing, using Fritz but think of anything? Never! Capablanca said ones: ‘You aren’t supposed to know the best move, but to find it!’ It is of course an exaggeration, I’m sure deliberately, but on the whole this is the truth. If you are a skillful, well-educated and rightly confident, cold-blooded player, there’s a fair chance that you discover something over the board, or find the refutation of an unsound surprise. I remember seeing GM Jan Smejkal doing it quite a few times. There’s no way to learn EVERYTHING, even if it would be possible you’d get nowhere, because others use the same or similar sources. But I started questioning early sometimes in very frequently played positions or variations why don’t they play this move? Many times I found my candidate not at all worse than the popular one(s), even better when you improve on a line that has bad reputation! Anyway: Even if you only find out something in the morning and have just an hour to analyze when you through it in the afternoon the guy may have no idea if it is an ‘old’ preparation but anyhow if the move of yours only as good as the usual one(s) you still have won the ‘opening debute’. There is also a Hungarian phrase: ‘Need is the best teacher’. In the 1991 Hun. Super Championship I was going to play Portisch, who had this unpleasant habit of beating me. Fortunately I was BLACK this time and just 3 days before round 4 I have created in the Gruenfeld-Exchange .Be3-Qd2-Rb1 b6! (instead of a6 or cxd4). The effect was incredible: Lajos thought about it forty minutes and made finally wrong decision – tried to refute it. Well, since I checked it out just recently and found 139 games with the help of my friend IM Végh. I’m glad to tell you that the idea still lives, developing, and promises good chances for BLACK. The fact I blew the game missing no less than 5 wins (see it in the ‘BLACK is OK Forever!’ – 2005 Jan) shows another extreme ability. Who else could be as stupid as I was? Summary: I was only talking about the chess part of the preparation. But naturally there is psychology involved, sometimes you can't explain personal results compared with the general achievements. For example both Ribli and Sax did (much) better than I, yet my score against them 7-4 and 8-1(!!). There were of course, people – not at all better than these guys – who were very nasty to me, and even now it is hard for me to find a rational explanation. As to the physical part I liked to swim. But of course it is fairly individual. Finally: just to see the mystery of chess, there were tournaments I went well-prepared and almost happy. Such occasions sometimes ended by a catastrophe. And then the opposite, when all of your life is in ruins, and you got a phone call - an invitation to Luhacovice ‘73. I asked IM Kozma is there a GM norm? Yes, he said. And when does it start? It did a half an hour ago! – he said somewhat embarrassed. So I jumped in and made my final result. Consequency? Nothing matters! WRONG! Permanent work will naturally pay off. But you don’t know when!
Read Part Two Of This Interview Return to Index of 20 Questions Interviews
|
The
|
|||
|
|||||
