Polecam wywiad z tegorocznym wicemistrzem świata:
Part I
Part II


Poniżej kilka fragmentów:
Vishy started playing much faster in the tiebreak, but you spent quite some time in a lot of positions. Was this a mistake?

You've been in Monaco, so you know that I'm always playing like this. In most of the games I'm behind on the clock. This happened in most of my rapid tournaments and tiebreaks, it's like a style of play.

You don't think you could play at a higher level with a different time management?

Probably, but if you look at my results in rapid chess I don't think it could be higher, in all modesty. My results in rapid chess are probably even better than in classical chess. I won two Monaco's in rapid, I've beaten Aronian and Leko in matches, or the tiebreaks... If it's my style, I think I should stick to it even at critical moments. You have to feel good with yourself, to play the way you feel it's correct to play.



During the match once more there was this big debate between two groups, one that is saying that chess is fine like this, and one that wants changes, e.g. the Sofia rule, the football score, et cetera. What is your opinion?

It's a very good question. I also think there are two groups of people, who see chess differently. I think chess is not for everybody. Chess is for people who want to make an intellectual effort, who have respect for the game, and we shouldn't make the game more simple so that more people would enjoy it. I think we have millions of people worldwide who enjoy chess games. Let's respect them and do the utmost for them. They follow, the respect the game, they respect the players.

But there are also a lot of people who think chess should be different. I read one comment, that chess was boring, that the Eurovision was much more interesting, that chess is dead. My message is: if you want to watch Eurovision, go watch Eurovision. If you want to see cheap shows on TV? Watch cheap shows on TV. But there are millions of people who enjoy the game of chess, so let them enjoy the game of chess.

It's like classical music and pop music. If you go to a concert of a great violin player or piano player, you don't tell him: "OK, but Lady Gaga is much more entertaining. We have millions watching Lady Gaga, and only thousands are watching you in this theater." I think these are different things.

Let's focus on the people who love chess. Let's go to the schools, and make sure the children will love chess. You have people who appreciate the game and people who love the game. If people are coming only to be entertained, I wouldn't mind if they would go and see Eurovision instead. These people don't respect the players, they undervalue the game, so I don't see why we should try to please them.

In Moscow the live commentary was excellent, so the best service was done to people who love chess. Journalists came from all over the world... If people can't make the intellectual effort, they will never appreciate chess. A game of chess by itself is a pretty complicated thing, and you cannot change it so that one can appreciate it without an intellectual effort. This is my point of view.

For [Silvio] Danailov chess in a museum is like a curse, while Toiletgate in a museum would be totally outrageous! For me, it's a blessing that chess is played in such a prestigous museum. Let's say, Lady Gaga would never be invited to play in the Tretyakov Gallery! We should have respect for our profession, and do everything for the people who love chess. I don't know how it was translated, but this was what I wanted to say with my comment.




Vishy said that you always greeted each other warmly backstage before the game. In general the match will probably go down into history as the one between good friends. To what extent this influence the games? Is it easier or more difficult to play against someone you don't like very much?

For me I think it influenced in a positive way. Different people have different opinions, but I think a World Championship match is also a cultural event and we should set an example for children who watch it, for the public who watches it. This is a different thing: people who love chess want to see the best possible games, while people who want to see a show would prefer to see scandals, low-level accusations, et cetera. We should see to whom we apply. Do we apply to public whom we respect, to children whom we want to learn chess, or do we want to apply to the same public who want to see the same show as they watch on TV every day?



Could we say that you see chess more like a play in a theater than as a sport?

I think it's part of it, it's not only sport. With chess you also set a good example for the society. You see so many people trying to promote chess in schools nowadays. The agenda is that chess is good, chess is teaching important things. We should do something so that his will become true, that these are not words to the outside, but we should believe in it. We should set a good example instead of cheap scandals. The fact that in a World Championship match the players treat each other with dignity and respect, I think it gives a lot to chess.