Garry Kasparov talks about Mikhail Tal and Soviet chess history

Spektrowski on 12/8/08 10:49 AM.

Share on favorites Share on twitter More Sharing Services
8
This is a translation of a one-hour radio feature about Mikhail Tal, aired on th
e radio "Echo Moskvy" on November 30th.
Mikhail Tal, the great Soviet chess player, wasn't a "classical" chess prodigy l
ike Jose Raul Capablanca, who, as the legend says, learned to play at tender age
, just watching the adults playing. The Riga schoolboy Misha Tal learned how to
place and move the little wood figures soon after the war. In 1946, he was 10. L
ater than some of his peers. But when he learned to play, there was no doubt tha
t he'd become a genius. Three years later, Tal would play for the Latvia youth t
eam. At the age of 17 he would win the Latvian championship, and at 21, the USSR
championship.
To say that chess were much popular in the Soviet Union then than in Russia now
is to say nothing. Chess were something of a national sport. In most schools, th
ere were chess circles. The world championship games were analyzed in newspapers
and on TV. Millions of people were able to comprehend the style and beauty of l
eading chess players' games.
Mikhail Tal became so quickly popular and famous because he played completely di
fferent chess than most of the other Soviet grandmasters who more or less imitat
ed their acknowledged leader, the world champion Mikhail Botvinnik who preferred
quiet, calculating, rational if not somewhat boring playing style. Tal played "
wrong" chess - entertaining, spectacular, dramatic, combinational. He was like t
he legendary American Paul Morphy, the unofficial world champion of the mid-19th
century. And he was like Russian chess emigree Alexander Alekhine, the only che
ss world champion who died undefeated.
Tal would sacrifice minor and major pieces, creating positions so complicated th
at most of his partners couldn't calculate all the possible variants and choose
the right one during the game. They got nervous, made mistakes and lost. Later,
after the quiet analysis, especially in recent years when powerful chess compute
rs became available, it was often proved that many Tal's combinations, with pawn
, knight, bishop, rook, queen sacrifices, were unsound and could have led him to
defeat. But in the game, they brought Tal one win after another.
In 1960, before his 24th birthday, Tal met in a world championship match against
Botvinnik, crushed him and became the then youngest world champion. It was his
career peak. There were many more victories for him afterwards, but Tal didn't o
ccupy the chess throne for long. Just a year later, in 1961, Tal was utterly des
troyed by Botvinnik in the return match. Almost up to his death Tal remained in
the chess ratings top 10. But he never managed to become first again.
His health, quite frail since his childhood, often failed him, as well as his ha
bit of living at large. The charming, witty, highly educated, lady's man and a k
een partygoer, Tal was very ill in his later years and died in 1992, just 56 yea
rs old.
Eugeny Kiselev: And now let me introduce today's guest. Here in the studio, acro
ss from me, the 13th world champion Garry Kasparov.
Garry Kasparov: Good day.
EK: Thank you for taking part in our program. The first question I'd like to ask
, did you know Tal personally?

GK: Yes, indeed. I played against him.

EK: What's the score?
GK: We played some games, there were many draws, I won one. That's the classical
chess score. The quick chess, blitz - the score is even, I think. But one game
against Tal, I remember the most - a simul game, in March 1974. There was a comp
etition in USSR: the Pioneer Palace teams played each other, captained by their
grandmaster alumni. Our team reached the final and played against Riga. Tal gave
us a simul. And this handshake... I wasn't 11 yet, and Tal himself was against
me. I was so shocked that I couldn't play well and quickly lost. But I still rem
ember those feelings. Then we played in 1978 USSR Championship, our first offici
al game. Then we played a blitz match of 14 games, scoring 7:7. I looked through
these games recently. After than, we met many times. Our relationship was good.
I worked a bit with Tal. Around 1980, he visited Baku, we played a couple of tra
ining games, and the chess contact wasn't lost until Tal's very last days. There
was a blitz tournament in Moscow, one month before Tal's death. He looked horri
bly. But Tal was still Tal. In this blitz tournament, I lost my only game to him
. I retaliated in the second round, but the fact was that until the very end, he
still had this vision of games. He was the only one I knew who didn't calculate
the variants, he saw them.
EK: Can you elaborate?
GK: We calculate: he does this then I do that. And Tal, through all the thick la
yers of variants, saw that around the 8th move, it will be so and so. Some peopl
e can see the mathematical formulae, they can imagine the whole picture instantl
y. An ordinary man has to calculate, to think this through, but they just see it
all. It occurs in great musicians, great scientists. Tal was absolutely unique.
His playing style was of course unrepeatable. I calculated the variants quickly
enough, but these Tal insights were unique. He was a man in whose presence othe
rs sensed their mediocrity.
He led a very unusual life. He didn't think of anything. He lived here and now,
and this enormous energy was always around him. The positive energy. Tal was one
of the few completely positive people I knew, he wasn't contentious. Chess is v
ery contentious game by its nature, and he wasn't.
EK: That is, he was an easy man.
GK: Well, not so much as easy as willing to be in normal relations with the worl
d around him, not to enclose but to try to change something for the better. This
easiness in a chess player of such level was unique.
EK: What if we'd try and compare him with other chess history figures? There was
Botvinnik, for instance. He didn't lose just to Tal, but also to Smyslov, and f
inally resigned his chess crown to Petrosian. But still, the late 40s and 50s is
the Botvinnik era. What changed in the chess after Tal? There's a theory that T
al was a part of Krushchev Thaw.
GK: I think that the world champions conformed to the spirit of their respective
eras. This can be traced back to the first world champions, and this quite nice
ly fits Botvinnik's bio in particular. Botvinnik's domination was actually in th
e 30s. He was already the leading Soviet chess player. All those congratulations
from the Soviet government, Botvinnik's letter to Stalin, the special privilege
s for the first Soviet chess player who competes at the world championship level
, it's 1936-1937.
When Botvinnik met Tal, there was a 25-year era behind him. Botvinnik's style, i

t's very important, conformed to the spirit of that era, very rational, cold, sc
ientific, he tried to divide chess into individual squares and analyze all them
one by one. That was a revolutionary breakthrough in chess. This dogmatism worke
d. Smyslov was different, but also played in that classical style.
EK: How was Smyslov different from Botvinnik?
GK: Smyslov was a practitioner, while Botvinnik was a researcher. Vasily Vasilie
vich played more intuitive chess. Botvinnik wanted to study all the nuances, and
Smyslov's playing was like a stream of chess consciousness. Though in his best
years his principle was quite simple: I make 40 good moves, and if my partner al
so makes 40 good moves, then there's a draw.
So the quality of the moves was incredibly high, but in the eyes of general ches
s society, those were two different, but ultimately similar chess philosophies.
Tal's difference was complete. From the very beginning, he played chess that sho
uld have been condemned by those classical canons. But the problem wasn't just t
hat he played, and he won. He created such situations on chessboard... Today, wi
th computers, it becomes clear what happened there.
But then, the people were just shocked, they weren't used to such playing, and a
t 21 Tal becomes a USSR champion, and in the 1958 - a two-time USSR champion. It
's impossible to comprehend that now, the USSR Championship was by far the world
's strongest tournament in those times.
EK: Almost a world championship.
GK: Botvinnik didn't play, but it still was a super-elite tournament, stronger t
han any other in the world. It was incredible to win a USSR championship twice i
n a row.
EK: Well, yes. There weren't many strong players in the world. Reshevsky, the yo
ung Fischer...
GK: But still, Reshevsky already wasn't a competitor, and Fischer wasn't yet. Th
e very young Larsen appears. But still, the USSR Championship was first-class. I
n 1959, he didn't play too good and shared 2nd-3rd with Spassky, Petrosian won.
The championship was held in Tbilisi. Tal with his playing very quickly reached
the base of chess Olympus. Many thought that the USSR Championship had a number
of weaker players, but in the Candidates' Tournament, where it's needed to play
Smyslov four times, Tal wouldn't achieve much.
But he won that Candidates' Tournament in Yugoslavia. A splendid victory, in sty
le to which commentators weren't used. He'd win a game against Smyslov, sacrific
ing material, and Smyslov couldn't find defence. It's still a question whether t
here was any defence. And the next game, he would win it while a piece behind. H
e played completely different chess. It was a great sensation. But many still th
ought that it wouldn't work against Botvinnik. But it worked! Botvinnik was crus
hed.
But in the return match, Botvinnik found Tal's weaknesses, and Tal, due to his y
outh and openness, failed to prepare well. He played worse. But the very fact of
the win against Botvinnik was impressive. It was really a thaw. Politically, it
coincided very well. Tal's open style conformed well to the current political e
ra. If you allow me to continue this analogy, Tal's victory couldn't last long b
ecause the thaw was coming to an end.
EK: Still, what happened in that year? What happened with Tal?
GK: I think that he wasn't prepare for the thick and thin, to begin really worki

ng, to continue the self-perfection. His playing style required an enormous stra
in, also he had to understand the threats of the return match against Botvinnik.
Botvinnik prepared, despite being 50 years old he had that ability to dissect a
nd study the causes of his defeat and find the playing concept which would be in
convenient for Tal. It's revealing that Tal defeated Botvinnik five times in the
return match.
EK: And six times in the first one.
GK: But he also lost ten games. Tal still won many enough games, but the novelty
that struck Botvinnik was gone. And, of course, Tal should have prepared differ
ently for the return match. But if he prepared, he wouldn't be Tal. He lived dif
ferently, it was simpler to him than to us. From my conversations with Tal, I th
ink he didn't consider the things obvious to us to be of any importance. Tal was
much lighter on his feet, much more prone to anxiety than other chess players.
EK: Do you want to say that results didn't mean as much to him as to other chess
players?
GK: Well, the result meant much to him, but bad results weren't such drama for h
im as for other players. Tal was an artist, he deemed any game worthy if it was
interesting. Nevertheless, he was an immensely strong player, until the very end
he was dangerous for any partner.
In 1988, there was a blitz world championship in Canada, all the leading players
took part. And Tal became the blitz world champion.
EK: Did you play?
GK: I did. I lost in quarter-finals. Karpov lost even earlier. It was play-off.
In the final, Tal defeated Vaganian. It was a very difficult tournament, and yet
he won it. He was 51, his health was already declining. But he still remained T
al. He didn't even seek the truth in chess, he sought beauty. It was a concept c
ompletely different from most of ours.
EK: Why then couldn't he compete for a world championship again? As you just sai
d, until his last days he remained one of the world's strongest players. If I re
member correctly, he was always in Elo rating Top-10 list.
GK: Yes, we can say that Tal was in Top-10 until he was 50. Moreover, in 1973, t
here was a string of tournament wins that sadly ended in the Leningrad Interzona
l. He was in the top three then, perhaps even second. Karpov probably didn't ove
rtake him yet. And he rose again in 1978-1979. Another sequence of wins and, I t
hink, world's second rating once again. Karpov was first then.
He probably lacked that solidity. Even after his superb win in 1979 Interzonal,
he lost a quarter-final match against Polugaevsky. He was stronger than Polugaev
sky, but he had to prepare, he needed other qualities, sporting, researching one
s. Tal always lacked them, and this always hindered his efforts.
After 1961, he failed to find an adequate solution to his chess problems. Still,
in 1965 he played a final match against Spassky.
EK: I just wanted to ask, was Spassky stronger?
GK: He was more versatile. Undoubtedly. By the way, Tal never played too good ag
ainst Spassky. There were some "inconvenient" partners: Spassky, Korchnoi. And i
n 1965, it became obvious that it's too hard for Tal to make that final effort.
The next generation arrived, they knew Tal's lessons.

EK: But wait, weren't Spassky and Tal about the same age?
GK: Spassky was a year younger, but in 1965, he already played other chess. The
era of dogmatic Botvinnik ended. Tal made efforts, but he couldn't concentrate o
n the results.
EK: We compared Tal with other players. We can't help but remember Karpov. Did t
heir ways ever cross?
GK: Tal worked with Karpov, very seriously worked. It seems to have began before
the match against Fischer, but Tal played an important role when Karpov played
Korchnoi.
EK: Did you mean the cancelled match against Fischer?
GK: Yes. In Bagio, and, I think, they were still in touch in Merano, when Karpov
played Korchnoi again, but the peak of their collaboration was in 1978. This pe
ak also indicated Tal's rise, because such collaboration helps both sides. It wa
s very important for Karpov to have Tal's support, but Tal also learned a lot ab
out the new trends in chess. So his rise in 1978-1979 was also a result of this
work.
EK: They seem so different.
GK: Well, that's why their work helped them both. They are indeed different. But
Tal played more pragmatically then. In the late 70s, he became a more technical
player. He still could start a combinational storm, but it wasn't all-important
to him anymore. He did understand that it was necessary to do some boring thing
s at the chessboard and learned to do them quite well. He'd always find some pec
uliarities in the positions that his equally famous colleagues couldn't.
EK: Did Tal play Fischer?
GK: Of course, he did. And he was like a curse for Fischer, because he beat him
viciously. In 1959, in that Candidates' Tournament, Tal finished ahead of Keres
despite losing to him 3:1, because he thoroughly defeated all the foreign player
s. And he crushed Fischer 4:0. Fischer first won against Tal in 1961 Bled tourna
ment. But still, Tal was always a trouble to Fischer, especially in his youth.
EK: Why?
GK: I think that
rong". He played
al's approach to
one-sided until

Fischer also tried to be a "right" chess player, and Tal was "w
in the way that irritated Fischer. He was very emotional. And T
chess unnerved Fischer, so he couldn't play well. It was pretty
a certain moment.

EK: You mentioned two more names. Talking of Tal, we're remembering the entire h
istory of Soviet chess. Two men who very nearly missed the chess throne, Paul Ke
res and Viktor Korchnoi. Do you agree?
GK: Of course. Keres was called "forever second", he never could cross that barr
ier to become a candidate, even though he was a real competitor as early as the
late 30s, and I think only because of the WWII he didn't get to play Alekhine. B
ecause the young Keres' results were good enough to challenge Alekhine. It was a
competition of sorts between Keres and Botvinnik.
Botvinnik succeeded. He got the right position in this historical dispute. Botvi
nnik represented the Soviet Union, Keres couldn't find a place for himself becau
se he lived in Estonia during the war, on German territory, he played in German
tournaments, he played Alekhine there. And that was a serious problem that could

have ended tragically for Keres, because he didn't emigrate, there are many ver
sions why this didn't happen. The first years of living in the Soviet Union were
a severe ordeal to him, and the broken man had no strength to challenge Botvinn
ik.
And then he just couldn't. Someone was always a step ahead: first Smyslov, then
Tal, then Petrosian. Keres always came second in those tournaments. Korchnoi's s
ituation was different, he played a world championship match, but later, when th
e performance of other players of his age declined. Korchnoi played in USSR Cham
pionships since the 50s, he won silver medal in 1954. He couldn't surpass Tal, P
etrosian, Spassky. And when their results declined, Korchnoi was able to progres
s rapidly, especially after his escape, emigration from the USSR. Korchnoi playe
d very well in 1977.
He had several more years, despite his age. He approached 50, played extremely w
ell, his playing was fresh. Well, he wasn't strong enough to beat Karpov. But Ko
rchnoi's contribution to chess is enormous. Viktor Lvovich is near 80 now but st
ill plays inventively, with interest. It was interesting to watch how a 75 years
old veteran defeats those who could be his great-grandchildren.
EK: They say that Korchnoi had a particular style, he was very defensive. Was he
?
GK: His playing was non-standard, as Tal's was, it was unbalancing. But while Ta
l attacked, Korchnoi accepted those attacks. That's why it was so hard for Tal t
o play against him, Korchnoi didn't react to his attacks. Korchnoi drew the fire
. Tal created a storm, and Korchnoi waited patiently until it calms. But don't f
orget that it's just the distinctive features of their styles. Don't think that
their other aspects of playing were worse. Korchnoi's technique grew with age, h
is endgame technique in the 80s was so strong that even Karpov had serious troub
les against him.
EK: Could you tell me what you think about the cause of the phenomena called the
great Soviet chess?
GK: It's hard to tell, but don't forget that chess was rapidly developing in Rus
sia even before 1917. There was a Russian chess school. Chigorin was its most pr
ominent player, but there were good players before him, and with him, it had jus
t gone to a new level. So in the early 20th century there were some brilliant ch
ess players from the Russian Empire, not just Alekhine: for instance, Rubinstein
, Nimzowitsch, it's all Russian Empire. Baltic states, Poland, but still it was
Russia then. There was Germany, but Russia was among the most prominent chess na
tions.
And the regular chess tournaments, two greatest pre-WWI tournaments were in Sain
t-Petersburg in 1909 and 1914. They contributed a lot to the development of ches
s. And then this effort was exploited by the Soviet government. They attracted v
ery many young talented chess players. Chess became an integral part of a new, i
ncipient culture. And again, the international tournaments. Moscow 1925. The fam
ous movie "Chess Fever". In addition to many internal tournaments, there were in
ternational ones. And all that, the attention to chess, the state support, led t
o the development of a chess school. And it developed. Talent is everywhere, you
just have to create the conditions to search for it.
Sadly, in Russia, something completely opposite happens. Then intelligence seeme
d very important, and everything possible was done to find and develop this inte
lligence, but the current disdain for intelligence also has an impact on chess.
I think that the results of Russian national chess teams, both men and women, ar
e disastrous...

EK: I remember my school childhood. In my class, it was considered that if you'r

e getting good marks, you should also play good chess.
GK: It was a part of some culture. Chess was one of Soviet Union's calling cards
. Hockey, chess, figure skating - we knew that we're better than everyone else t
here. But now, sadly, it's all lost mainly because the regard for intelligence d
eclined sharply, especially from the government.
EK: There were the Pioneer Palaces, various tournaments.
GK: Yes, there was a system.
EK: The "White Rook".
GK: Yes, there was the "White Rook", the Pioneer Palace tournaments for the priz
es from Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper - another system. They allowed to pass th
e experience from generation to generation. There were chess schools, there was
Botvinnik's chess school, later to become Botvinnik and Kasparov's chess school.
There was always a possibility to get that past experience. The generations cha
nge took many different forms. Speaking of Tal, I became a world champion on Tal
's birthday, November 9th.
EK: On Tal's birthday?
GK: Yes. I remember than on November 8th, before the last game with Karpov, I go
t calls from my teacher Botvinnik and from Tal, with whom I was on friendly term
s. Botvinnik gave me a speech. He was like, "You lead 12:11. No matter what happ
ens, you have proved that this match should have been played". Very stern he was
. Tal didn't say anything like that. He just reminded me, "Don't forget, young m
an, that tomorrow is my birthday". The bond of generations was always there. The
chess teams constantly changed, in 1980 I played my first Chess Olympiad, and T
al also was in the team.
The generations changed. And it was obvious that it's all possible because there
was fresh blood. It was. But now, even despite there are many talented chess pl
ayers around, there's no such system that made parents search for a chess talent
in their children.
EK: But we now play good tennis. That's also en example.
GK: They built a lot of tennis courts, that's actually good.
EK: Nothing bad. But there was some kind of a monarch's will. "Make it so".
GK: And the results came quite quickly. This also proves the conception that tal
ents are everywhere. You just have to create conditions for them.
EK: We need a chess-loving president.
GK: You don't have to spend so much on chess as you have on tennis or soccer.
EK: That's true, no need to spend a lot.
GK: In 1989-1990, when Shamil Tarpischev just began his activities that later en
gulfed the whole country, there was already a strong chess base. Nothing needed
to be reinvented. The remnants of those chess centers still exist. But the most
interesting thing is that the chess activity has moved into the ex-Soviet republ
ics. Who won the Olympics? Georgia and Ukraine woman teams tied for first.
EK: Georgia had a lot of strong woman chess players.

GK: Of course. In some cases, for instance in 1980, Georgians comprised the whol
e Soviet woman chess team. Nevertheless, Maya Chiburdanidze is 47, in 1976 we wo
n USSR championships in Tbilisi, she won girls' championship, I won boys', she w
as 15, I was still 12. January 1976. She plays on the first board, she gets the
best result. It was joked that of all her partners, only one was born before she
became a world champion. That's the reserve they still have, even though there
are many young Georgian players, and the Ukrainian team is also quite young. But
they have different determination to win.
Who won the men's Olympics? Armenia. Twice in a row. Before that, Ukraine won in
2004. Different determination. They need to win. And I think there's no need to
remind where did the whole Israel team, who claimed second place, come from.
EK: I can imagine.
GK: Even though there are many young players there. Determination for a result.
There was an understanding that in USSR any place except the first is a failure.
There's nothing like that now. I don't know how to explain that. But still, the
Soviet chess history is something we can be proud of. It's worth noting that ou
r relationship with Karpov could be very tense, but when we played for our count
ry, we understood that we're pursuing a common goal and worked together quite we
ll.
EK: Speaking of politics. Was Tal a dissident or not, was he interested in polit
ics at all?
GK: He was a freedom lover. And, obviously, couldn't accept all that official fr
ippery. He was indifferent to all that. He wasn't interested in the confrontatio
n. He wasn't a contentous type. He could never accept Korchnoi's approach. But b
ecause of his personality, his intellectual determination Tal obviously didn't a
ccept what was going on. But he just lived his own life, abstracted away from al
l that, and still he had some problems, some fallout with Karpov, and that had a
n impact on his ability to play in tournaments.
EK: Even like that?
GK: Very often.
EK: But why he fell out with Karpov?
GK: I can't tell exactly why he fell out with Karpov. They say that one of the r
easons was that Tal highly valued my chances to become a world champion. Karpov
considered that attitude defeatist. I can't say for sure. I think that Tal was a
man who could say something, but never tried to conform to the moment. He could
fall into troubles. Though then came perestroika, it became easier to go abroad
and play in tournaments. But Tal in Soviet time constantly encoundered some tro
ubles, both in the 60s and 70s, if he wasn't on top of the chess hierarchy, he c
ould have been easily left out of the Olympic team.
He had those troubles when he wasn't on his peak.
EK: Non-standard, inconvenient. Health problems...
GK: Yes, they always could find them. And he was absolutely incontrollable. One
couldn't expect from him some Korchnoi-style escapades. Tal would make statement
s, go abroad... He was, to put it that way, socially alien to the system.
EK: Well, there were very few chess players who emigrated to the West.

GK: Well, there were some, but we have to make distinction between emigration an
d defection, like Korchnoi's.
EK: Well, I'm not saying... As far as I remember, only Korchnoi openly stated ab
out his defection.
GK: And what about Lyova Alburt and, for that matter, Gata Kamsky in 1989?
EK: Different times.
GK: Of course. From that era, it's, of course, Alburt and Korchnoi. They were pl
ayers of different level, but Lev Alburt nevertheless was also a grandmaster, pl
ayed in the USSR Championship finals. And Tal, I think, was free everywhere. He
didn't care where he was.
EK: But the people emigrated.
GK: Yes, a lot of people. Not the elite players, but they did emigrate. And spea
king of defectors, we may remember Igor Ivanov. He was an international master f
rom Uzbekistan.
EK: I can't remember him.
GK: His greatest achievement - he defeated Karpov at the USSR Spartakiad of Nati
ons in 1979.
EK: I remember Leonid Stein, a strong player.
GK: Lyonia Stein died. He didn't go anywhere. His career was also very distingui
shed and unique. He was unlucky because there were quotas on Soviet players. Tou
rnaments comprised only of Soviet players were unacceptable. Stein twice fell vi
ctim of those quotas, because there were Keres, Tal, Spassky ahead of him. He al
ways narrowly missed his chances. And his three USSR Championship titles is a un
ique result.
Still, to win a USSR Championship in these times was quite an achievement. Those
who won it more than once were undoubtedly extra-class players. He died very ea
rly, he was 38 years old. In 1973, right before the Interzonal.
EK: What did Tal think of your competition with Karpov. You said that he just re
minded you of his birthday...
GK: It was before the last game.
EK: And in the previous years and months? Especially during the first, most dram
atic match.
GK: Tal openly sympathized me. The most momentous event happened before the play
-off of the 27th game, which I lost, and the score became 5:0. Tal visited us in
the "Russia" hotel, we analyzed the game a bit, it was clear that my position w
asn't good, and I went to finish the game without much enthusiasm. Though when I
analyzed the game recently for the book about this match against Karpov, I lear
ned that I had good chances to save the game. Many things become clearer with co
mputers. Tal said that this position is unlikely to be saved.
And after this game, when the score became 5:0, I again met him, and he said, "Y
oung man, you stand no chance now. Now all you can do is to shut the door with a
bang". Tal sympathized me and gave some playing tips.
EK: And what did he say when the score was 5:3?

GK: We weren't in touch at that point, Tal wasn't in Moscow. For the older gener
ation of chess players, what happened in this match wasn't unlike a miracle. An
omen. They understood that a new era had begun, because 5:0 is a diagnosis. And
if Karpov can't win after 5:0, then something had happened. Both Botvinnik and T
al felt that very sharply.
The fresh style that I brought into chess and that was finally formed in the mat
ch against Karpov seemed to them, the patriarchs of our chess, an important brea
kthrough. Chess can't be in a balanced state for long. Something always should b
e moved. These matches, the playing level I managed to show, drew positive react
ions from Botvinnik and Tal, this style was more favourable for Tal.
EK: I never had an opportunity to ask you this question before, though other peo
ple most likely did. If the match wasn't stopped, could you have equalized?
GK: It's too hard to analyze hypothetically.
EK: And how about your feelings?
GK: If to analyze it now, we have to take in account that Karpov was in a very d
epressed mood: how's that, he can't win just one more game and keeps losing. And
I started to play stronger. That was the thing that unnerved and depressed Karp
ov the most. It was obvious that I progressed in the match's course. And my play
ing in the end was very different from what whas in the beginning. That was pres
sing.
Most probably, I could've won a fourth game. And then... that's not a question o
f whether I win or not anymore. I could have lost. One mistake is enough. It's a
ctually the law of averages - how long can you hang down the rope. If the match
continued after 5:4, anything was possible. It's very easy to make one mistake.
EK: It's still a game, isn't it?
GK: Of course. I think, the match would have ended soon enough, maybe 7 or 8 gam
es or so, and I don't know if I'd have the strength to avoid that fatal mistake,
or Karpov would have the strength to wait for it. I don't know. It was the firs
t time Karpov faced the real threat of losing a match. It still wasn't 50:50, I
believe in the law of averages, and it was, of course, on Karpov's side. But the
risk of defeat had become apparent because Karpov could lose every week.
But still, Karpov is Karpov. The quality of last games suggested a high probabil
ity of me making... just one mistake, little more was needed. But there also was
a chance to win. And so the match cancellation psychologically helped Karpov. B
ut it also gave me a great psychological drive for the future.
EK: And Mikhail Tal probably helped you. I don't know if he was religious, but h
e prayed for you, for your victory.
GK: I think Tal never prayed for anybody. Tal just wanted some changes. He could
n't do anything else. He wanted the stiff, very much Karpov-oriented system to c
hange. And he didn't even attempt to hide his sympathies and his expectations.
The link to the original article (in Russian): http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/a
ll/555933-echo/