Kingpin Chess Magazine logo

the satirical chess magazine

Kingpin Chess Magazine header image 1

WGM Maria Manakova: 20 Questions

December 26th, 2011 · Features, Interviews


 

 What is your earliest memory of playing chess?

I don’t remember this but my father told me that nobody taught me to play chess. Whenever he played chess with friends I’d watch intently and one day (when I was about 4 years old) I startled him by challenging him to a game. ‘But you even don’t know rules!’ he said. He was even more taken aback when I showed him I knew a few tactics.

 

What is your most memorable game?

Against Rusudan Goletiani in 1999. Oh, it was fantastic! It was the last round of Interzonal in Georgia and I had to win to qualify for the World Championship. I was certain that I would win but ran short of time. When we reached the time control at move 40 I realised that the position was completely drawn. I couldn’t believe it but then a miracle happened (as they usually do in my life).

Manakova v Goletiani, Tbilisi 1999

Her last move was 58…Be1-d2. I played 59 Kc5 (the last chance!). And now something unbelievable happened! Maybe thinking that any move would draw, she played 59…Bc3?? (instead of, for example, 59…Be1 or Be3+). Now White is winning. Can you see how?

 

What was your worst defeat?

All defeats are so painful that I try to banish them from my mind.  

 

Which living player do you most admire?

Kasparov.

 

How do you relax?

I try to live a life of relaxation. I relax in everything I do.

 

What/who is your favourite band/music/composer?

I like classical music. My favorites are Prokofiev, Beethoven, Bach, Rachmaninov, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich. An hour before every game I listen to Russian rock music.

 

What is your favourite record?

Mozart’s Requiem.

 

What do you consider to be your greatest weakness as a chess player?

Openings and lack of common sense.

 

What is your greatest strength?

Unusual ideas and an ability to defend lost positions.

 

What is your most unappealing habit?

In chess? I am trying to overcome my superstitious attachment to ‘lucky’ pens.

 

Which book would you take to a desert island?

The Old Testament.

 

Against which player do you have the worst results?

Polish players.

 

If you could edit your past, what would you change?

I have made many mistakes in my life but regret none of them!    

 

Who or what is the greatest love of your life?

My son.

 

What has been your biggest disappointment?

I’ve had some but prefer to forget them.

 

What is your most treasured possession?

I don’t have anything. Anything I can lose at any moment.

 

What was your most embarrassing moment at the chess board?

During the Russian Women’s Championship one of my opponents reached a lost position and developed a persistent nervous cough. I complained to the arbiter and he spoke to her about it but it had no effect. Even now I don’t know what to do in such foolish situations.

 

Which single thing would most improve the global chess scene?

FIDE employing professional PR managers.

 

Who is the most irritating opponent you have faced?

Only players who intentionally try to irritate me.  

 

Who is the most courteous person you have played?

Maya Chiburdanidze.

 

What are your passions?

Meditation, sex, tasty food and chess.

 

What is the most important lesson life has taught you?

Every . . . 2-3 months I get ‘the most important lesson in my life’. It’s so cool!!!   

 

 

 

 See WhyChess for more on Maria’s life as chess player and actress.

→ No CommentsTags:

A Bad End to the Year

December 24th, 2011 · Features

Olimpiu G. Urcan offers the following tragic-comic true story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer of December 30, 1910 (page 11). It’s not clear who won the game but we hope it was Carman.

 

G.B. Carman and his brother-in-law, Arthur Gradolph, living at 1343 E. 112th-st., are chess players.To that can be blamed a fire in the dining room of the Carman home last evening. To that fact also can be blamed the good start which the fire got before it was discovered by Carman, who was severely burned in the attempt to extinguish it.

Carman’s wife and child are away on a visit and to pass the time the two men have been spending the evenings playing chess. Last night when they set up the pieces for the first game they found that the queen was missing.

Carman searched for it with a lighted match under a sofa.

Both men were later on deeply absorbed in the game when the smoke began to come in little wisps from under the sofa.

They were still absorbed when the smoke poured in great clouds from the sofa and flames began reaching out toward the wall, and not until one of the men had called “checkmate,” and the game was ended did either of them notice that the house was full of smoke.

While Gradolph ran to the street to turn in the alarm Carman seized the flaming sofa and started out of the house with it.

The front porch was covered with snow and Carman slipped, falling down with the sofa on top of him. Before he could throw the blazing article of furniture from him he was severely burned about the arms, hands and chest.

He was assisted to the office of Dr. B.B. Colvin, while the firemen extinguished the flames which had spread to the curtains and carpets in the house. The loss was not great.

→ No CommentsTags:

10 Seconds with Garry Kasparov

December 10th, 2011 · Interviews

Kingpin reader Eileen Bristow quizzes the former World Champion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eileen Bristow: Do you accept that you often contradict yourself?

Garry Kasparov: No I do.

 

If you would like to interview a chess personality, send your question to kingpinchess@yahoo.com

→ No CommentsTags:

‘The high-voltage board’: Arthur Koestler on chess

December 4th, 2011 · Features, Quotes

‘Chess is a game too noble to be left to the chess-players.’ So wrote Arthur Koestler, covering the Fischer–Spassky match for the Sunday Times in 1972. So bitter had he found the pre-match shenanigans that he likened his job to that of war correspondent. Of his two reports on the match, ‘Reflections of an Addict’, on the ’scandalous preliminaries’ to Reykjavik, is the most interesting. Snapshots of the players and evocations of the game’s drama and allure reveal a genuine enthusiast, a ‘passionate duffer’. The second report, a narrative of the match itself, concludes with a discussion of computers and artificial intelligence which, forty years on, seems remarkably quaint.

Both are wonderfully cast for their roles; Fischer the rugged individualist, adventurous and occasionally reckless both in his life-style and chess-style; Spassky the more benign type of Soviet bureaucrat, cautious, non-committal, evasive.

Poor Bobby. He does not drink, does not read, takes no interest in women, or music, or nature. He lives in hotel rooms out of two large plastic suitcases. A reporter once asked him what chess really meant to him. His reply was: ‘Everything.’

Only one writer could have invented him: Franz Kafka. Spassky, on the other hand, could be the hero of any Stalin Prize-winning novelist . . . Poor Bobby? Poor Boris. One wonders who is more to be pitied; a state-owned gladiator or a freelance samurai.

 Arthur Koestler, ‘The Glorious and Bloody Game’, The Heel of Achilles: Essays 1968–1973 (1976), pp.198, 209

 

Koestler with wife Cynthia

For all his insight, Koestler is sloppy on chess history. You can sense Edward Winter’s hackles rising as he writes about the ‘Frenchman’ Damiano, ‘world champion’ Morphy, ‘Taimonov’ and trots out hoary canards about ‘insane’ chessplayers, but he writes vividly on the beauty, violence and almost paranormal properties of the game:

chess is the perfect paradigm for both the glory and the bloodiness of the human mind. On the one hand, an exercise in pure imagination happily married to logic, staged as a ballet of symbolic figures on a mosaic of sixty-four squares; on the other hand, a gladiatorial contest. (p.196)

each chessman, whether bishop, rook, knight or queen, embodies a dynamic threat, as if it were alive and animated by the desire to inflict maximum damage (by attack or defence) on the opponent’s men. When a chess-player looks at the board, he does not see a static mosaic, a ‘still-life’, but a magnetic field of forces, charged with energy – as Faraday saw the stresses surrounding magnets and currents as curves in space, or as Van Gogh saw vortices in the skies of Provence. Thus there is a strong element of animism and magic in the game. (p.200)

It’s a theme that Kasparov takes up in his purple preamble to Korchnoi–Kasparov (Lucerne 1982):

. . . It can happen that the pieces as though receive an invisible impulse from the players, come alive, and begin to live their own lives. And when the energy invested by both sides reaches a critical point, the game begins to develop according to laws unknown to anyone, and it is no longer possible to control its course. The flood of concentrated chess thought washes away the usual contours of the board, and after twisting the pieces into violent pandemonium, it crashes down the depths of chess art.

The Test of Time (1986), p.129

Koestler's masterpiece

Koestler proudly declares himself a member of the fraternity of  ’Passionate Duffers’. ‘We worship Caissa, the Muse of Chess, but owing to the inadequacy of our mental equipment can never hope to attain to her favours, condemned as we are to remain lifelong amateurs in the double meaning of that word: dilettantes and aficionados‘ (p.195).

In the weeks to come we shall have the opportunity of watching two men facing each other in silence across the high-voltage board, where every move could make the fuses blow, each in a kind of waking trance, making the figures form a poetic dance which exists only in their mind’s eye, then mentally rearranging them in a different configuration, and yet another one, variation upon variation, while the ballet-master himself remains immobile and the kaleidoscopic changes of scenery all take place inside his skull.

While the game is on, it is only the choreography that matters – aggression is sublimated into dazzling acrobatics. There may be more unedifying episodes to come, but whatever happens, the fraternity of Passionate Duffers craves your indulgence for the magicians of the glorious and bloody game . . .  (p.202)

 

 

 

→ No CommentsTags:

Generous to a Fault

November 10th, 2011 · The Penguin Files

From Grandmaster Tony Miles

Sir,

I was stunned to read your recent issues casting doubt on the legendary and overwhelming generosity of International Grandmaster Raymond Keene, OBE. I cannot allow such malicious rubbish to go unanswered.

No doubt some readers will be quite surprised to learn that GM Keene gave sums of up to £20 each day to a poor beggar – after all, few of us would be quite that generous. However, as I can personally testify, Raymond Keene is such a man. Why, at the 1985 Interzonal in Tunisia, recognizing a poor chess players down on his luck he offered to give me almost £600. ‘For what?’ you sceptics are asking. For nothing. For doing, and more specifically saying, absolutely nothing.

At first, showing foolish pride – and perhaps a little conscience – I declined. But GM Keene literally refused to take no for an answer. Well do I remember our conversation:

K: ‘Tony, are you sure you don’t want a second?’

M: ‘Yes thanks, Ray. Quite sure.’

K: ‘Well, how would you like to make some money then?’

M: ‘Uh?’

K:  ‘According to my calculations, since John [Nunn] didn’t go to Mexico, David must have a lot of money to spare.’ [Here he began to scribble on a napkin] ‘If you’ll back up my story that I was your second, I’ll split the profits with you.’

Annette K: ‘Raymond, you can’t.’

M [laughing]: ‘Well, Ray, you know the way the money was collected, all those well-meaning chess players giving their few bob to support the cause, I just couldn’t. I’d fell I was stealing from them.’

K [instantly]: ‘Oh no, you wouldn’t be stealing from them, you’d be stealing from me’ (!)

 

At this point I realised that he was utterly serious. Of course I could, perhaps should, have just said no firmly. But I was intrigued. Firstly he couldn’t. Any payment would have to be authorised by David Anderton who knew full well my views. Secondly he wouldn’t, would he??

Anyway, motivated by malicious curiosity (interpret it otherwise if you wish, dear reader), I said that if consulted I would at least not contradict his story, but merely give my view that seconds were an underpaid species.

After the tournament I waited with interest to be asked about the performance of my ‘second’, since I had specifically refused to take one. The silence was deafening. I read tournament reports which made no mention of a second. I thought little more about the whole business until three months later at the start of the British Championship Keene casually handed me a cheque for £589.

I decided that I didn’t have a particularly conclusive case without a look at the relevant BCF accounts. After all, where exactly had the money come from, and who had authorised it? I concluded that, knowing the BCF’s normal speed of operation, it would take time to probe further. I cashed the cheque, having first made a photocopy.

Thereafter I spent some time trying to get to see a copy of the BCF accounts for the relevant event, but they proved particularly hard to obtain.

Eventually I gave up and in August 1987 went to visit David Anderton (who, incidentally, had been responsible for authorising payments of seconds’ fees), and gave him, at his request, a written account of these events and a cheque for £589.

The BCF duly investigated.

By a curious coincidence, two months later, in October, Raymond Keene resigned his posts as BCF Publicity Director and FIDE delegate, purportedly to start the English Chess Association (ECA).

Well, what can one say, except perhaps that next time there is an Interzonal appeal, please give generously – the Murillo Gardens beggar will appreciate it – and of course that the previously maligned generosity of Grandmaster Raymond Keene OBE is, quite literally, second to none.

 TONY MILES

 P.S. I should point out that your correspondent, Mr Walker, is under a misapprehension when he implies that ‘Raymond and Stewart’ effectively ‘are’ the BCF. As it was pointed out to me, Stewart is merely the BCF Congress Director and Raymond was merely the Publicity Director and FIDE delegate. Any other task they perform, for nominal sums, are strictly freelance.

So, for example, if a particular Grandmaster happened not to be invited to any tournament in this country for four or five years it would not, in the immortal words of Newsflash, ‘necessarily reflect the views of the BCF’, merely the wishes of the individual sponsors on the advice of their freelance advisors – like Raymond and Stewart.

 

First published in Kingpin 15 (Summer 1989)

→ 1 CommentTags:

New York 1927: Pen-portraits by George Currie

October 30th, 2011 · Features

Olimpiu G. Urcan

Literary descriptions of scenes from chess tournaments of the past were habitually the work of insiders (e.g. experienced chess columnists). How would a talented sportswriter with little or no chess expertise describe such an event? The February 24, 1927 edition of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle (page 2A) provides an interesting example. It features an essay by George Currie (1895–1953), a Canadian-born, Harvard-educated leading sportswriter, literary editor and book critic for the Eagle. Currie, who also wrote a popular column known as ‘George Currie’s Brooklyn’, began work for the newspaper in 1915. When the U.S. entered the war he volunteered and served in the infantry as a 1st lieutenant. After the war, he became known as a top sportswriter on football but also contributed pieces on other sports  to The New Yorker and The Literary Digest. The essay reproduced below was written by the 32-year-old Currie after visiting the Hotel Manhattan in February 1927 where six of the leading chess masters of the time were competing in one of the world’s most famous tournaments.

 

No Asking or Giving Of Quarter as Chess Masters Match Brains

By George Currie

If you were to ask Capablanca, champion of the world, why the necessity for the Grand Masters International Chess Tournament at the Hotel Manhattan, he would merely shrug his shoulders, beam from out his smouldering brown eyes and call for another pot of coffee and cake.

But if you should wander into the ballroom of the hotel and wait patiently for half an hour, to see one of the master minds of the chessboard make a move, then you should be able to answer your own question.

For there, seated before you at three tables, would sit six of the most gigantic intellects in creation, quietly eyeing their chessmen. A modest picture. But wait.

As the mesmerism of silence bestirs the imagination and lulls the offended senses – senses which reeled from the shock of being assigned to go to a chess tournament – faintly there comes through the ether a Wagnerian ring of steel on steel as a psychic wave flames through the air, is met and is exploded by a resolute psychic resistance. Thoughts struggle in No Man’s Land, that little space of mahogany and boxwood squares lying between the two combatants. It is man to man, in brain to brain conflict. Titanic is no name for it.

As one thought gives away to another, a pawn falls. Desperately the retreating thought strives to rally its forces and after 20 minutes it causes a black knight to bite the dust. Finally, as in the case of Nimzowitsch vs. Spielmann, enough thoughts met in one place on each side to form an inspiration and when the two inspirations had done with smiting, hip and thigh, both queens had been laid to rest.

So weak were the two master minds from this heroic effort that it took 30 minutes to bring them back to the carnage, stripped for more bloodshed.

 

Aron of Latvia – A Mighty Champion

Probably the two most colorful players at the tournament are this pair.

Nimzowitsch

Aron Nimzowitsch, born in Riga, Latvia, in 1886, is not only one of the masters, but he is also an author. He has written “Die Blockade” and “Mein System”; but it is at the board he shines. He swings a mean rook and his white bishop packs a nasty wallop.

Once he had lots of black hair on the top of his head. But by the time he is ready for his first move it stands in wavy dismay, revealing that so many thoughts flashing from out that great intellect have worn most of the hair from the top of his dome. He is square-jawed, tight-lipped, wears glasses and watches his opponent like a hawk, with eyes as bright as buttons.

He is the Suzanne Lenglen of the tournament, that is, he has most of the temperament. But as Dr. N.L. Lederer truly says, he remains on good terms with everybody. Even a chess tournament needs some temperament and Aron, the mighty warrior from Latvia, fills the bill.

Before he makes a move he grows visibly ecstatic. Ah, one sees him reason, here is a move that will drive my adversary’s thoughts into wildest confusion. And he advances a pawn with the resolution of a Napoleon at Austerlitz.

 

The Lightning of Thor and Thunder of Woden

The move sets Spielmann’s head a-wagging. Dear, dear, what a catastrophe! Rudolf Spielmann, born in Austria in 1884 [sic], has long since ceased to pretend he has any hair on his head whatsoever. It is rosy and shiny, and gives a clear path to all thoughts issuing from out the intellect beneath. His profile is square and long. His jaw juts out like the bow of a dreadnought. His little eyes snap with the lust of battle. He trembles from head to foot as he ponders the counter-move.

He was an officer in the Austrian army during the war and last year he beat this same Nimzowitsch, who so ruthlessly a moment before had advanced a pawn. Ha, have at them! his intellect cries, letting lose a rain of thoughts. This cannot keep up long. Spielmann fingers his collar, trembles again, gets a grip on himself and like the flash of Thor’s lightning, followed by the reverberations of Woden’s thunder, hurls his inspiration to check the attack of Nimzowitsch, whose hair is now standing on end, like a pussycat stripped for action. Thus it was that the queens died and I passed on to the table of Capablanca and Dr. Vidmar.

 

A Millionaire Amateur and Electrical Player

Here was an epic battle in another world. Dr. Vidmar is known as the foremost European expert in electro-dynamics. He is a millionaire and a university professor. According to Dr. Lederer, secretary of the tournament, he is strictly “an amateur.”

But should he win the tournament, it will be quite all right to take the $2,000 prize, or the $1,500 second prize, or the $1,000 third prize, according to his skill. It seems the chess people have no qualms about letting amateurs win money. The master minds do not wake up in the morning with a small fortune under their pillows. Neither are they driven to play badly in bad plays to preserve their amateur standing.

He was born in Ljubljana, Jugoslavia, in 1885, and is now professor in Ljubljana University. He, too, is an author of books on electricity.

He is pinkly well-fed. He has a double-chin, smooth, rosy cheeks, a little light mustache and all the hair on the top of his head. His face is round and boyish. And his eyes beam with the warmth of good living and human kindness through highly polished glasses, as he reached forth his ravening hand to destroy one of Capablanca’s bishops.

 

Capablanca Strikes an Anti-Climax

Now witness the anger of Wotan! Capablanca is the Grand Master of the International Lodge of Chess Minds. To capture the black bishop of Capablanca is either a feather in Dr. Vidmar’s cap or an outrage upon the steps of the altar, according to the way you happen to look at one or the other.

Returning to his seat in haste, on tan shoes that squeak cheerfully with each step, the great master from Cuba folds his hands on the table before him and scans the board in ominous leisure.

His handsome dark face is alight. His hair, theoretically parted in the middle, is rising in bristling affront. It is black hair, shot with occasional streaks of gray.

Capablanca

One waits breathlessly for the revenge of a great master – the stroke of Jove, about to hurl a thunderbolt from Olympus that will utterly wipe out his presumptuous challenger. Dr. Vidmar pleasantly strokes his pink second chin and awaits, oozing confidence.

At last Capablanca is ready. We on the sidelines know it, for he fingers his red necktie thoughtfully.

He reaches forth, while the cosmos pauses in its mad flight through time. Here is to be the move of the century – the simple flash of strategy that will set a thousand chess players wild with glowing acclaim.

He moves a pawn.

 

The Smoke of Battle is Havana Tobacco

Let us pass to the table at the far end of the room, surrounded by a serious-faced Episcopal clergyman, three schoolboys, one woman and diverse men of deeply knit brows, the sign manual of the amateur chess player.

Here we have Dr. Alexander Alekhine, the Paris lawyer, born in Moscow in 1892. A slight, boyish, pale-faced man, smooth-shaven, devoid of the appearance of emotion, unless one happens to look at his feet, which dance a wild jog upon the floor as he thinks out his next move.

Marshall

Pitted against him is Frank J. Marshall, the American champion, with the face of a great tragedian. For all his red hair, the best-dressed man of the meet, even down to the grey spats and quiet, dark brown shoes. He is a symphony of double-breasted navy blue. How can so natty a man have a single thought in his head?

He smokes a cigar. Not one of Dr. Lasker’s 5 cent stinkos, which caused the recent chess scandal with its aftermath of charges of dirty work upon the field of play. Marshall carefully blows the smoke high over the head of Dr. Alekhine. Dr. Alekhine retorts by lightning one of those things we’d walk a mile for.

They resume play, this skirmish over.

They don’t knit brows. They smile. Marshall shifts uneasily in his seat. He hasn’t been in form this meet. He has drawn only one game and lost two. He runs his hand over his head, and his neatly-combed hair loses its decorum and strays wildly. Both he and Dr. Alekhine are great thinkers, who have saved all their hair.

 

Marshall Shrugs and Alekhine Lights Up

Marshall, with a shrug of well-fitted shoulders, advances a bishop. Alekhine lights another four-footed cigarette and calmly settles down to study a defense against this ecclesiastical intrusion.

His feet do a livelier jig under the table. He looks like a rather handsome marionette, dancing on the end of a string. He runs his hand over his face and shuts his eyes, stern eyes that look coldly from behind gold-rimmed glasses. He fingers his wing collar and adjusts the knot of his tie. He looks all around the room, everywhere but the chessboard.

Then he decides to swap bishops, and the fight is on again.

Alekhine

 

 

Money Makes Masters Think Great Thoughts

What is it all about? Money prizes, fame and contracts. For it seems that there is such a thing as exhibition chess, with a good fat gate.

Where does the prize money come from? From enthusiasts, such as George Emlen Roosevelt, Felix E. Kahn, Lessing Rosenwald and a host of others, including Edward Lasker and Albert N. Hallgarten.

Governor Smith will present the prizes at the banquet, over the peace table. For chess is warfare in miniature and there is no asking or giving a quarter upon the field of honor. But at the end of the tournament the player, who train on coffee and cake, will turn their attention to sterner feats at trencher. There does seem to be some reason for chess tournaments, after all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

→ No CommentsTags:

Pen-portraits by Julian Barnes

October 18th, 2011 · Nosher, Quotes

Edward Winter bemoans the lack of pen-portraits in chess writing:  ‘a highly demanding form of writing which requires no particular chess expertise yet is almost universally avoided nowadays’.

Chess writers are, with a few exceptions,  chess experts rather than writers and rarely venture outside their area of expertise. Writers who are chess enthusiasts, on the other hand, have penned some sharp vignettes. Take Booker Prize winning novelist Julian Barnes on the Short v Kasparov World Championship match:

Short, a boyish figure in a bottle-green suit, with boffinish specs and cropped hair, cut a nervous, adolescent, halting figure, and spoke with the slightly strangulated vowels of one who has had speech therapy.

[Kasparov] handled the conference by himself and with presidential ease; was just as much at home with geo-politics as with chess; attended courteously to questions he was mightily familiar with; and generally came across as a highly intelligent, worldly, rounded human being . . . Short, by contrast, gave the impression of being thoughtful, considered, wise and precise when talking about chess, and barely adult when talking about anything other than chess.


‘TDF: The World Chess Championship’, Letters from London 1990-1995 (Picador, 1995), pp.260-1


Kasparov fizzingly coiled, scowling, frowning, grimacing, lip-scrunching, head-scratching, nose-pulling, chin-rubbing, occasionally slumping down over his crossed paws like a melodramatically puzzled dog. Short more impassive, bland-faced, sharp-elbowed and stiff-
postured, as if he’d forgotten to take the coat-hanger out of his jacket. p.272

There are also sketches of Speelman, Keene, Hartston, Divinsky, Crouch and others, and Barnes is especially strong on the language and theatricality of chess.

The Editor discusses Informator's existential subtext with novelist and critic Julian Barnes.

This photo was taken just after Barnes had been ‘slaughtered in a charity simultaneous by a fourteen-year-old’ (Matthew Sadler).

For more on this event which featured celebrities such as Stephen Fry and Greta Scaachi see Kingpin 14.

→ No CommentsTags:

San Luis 2005

October 16th, 2011 · Reviews

San Luis 2005

by Alik Gershon and Igor Nor

paperback, 443 pages

Quality Chess, 2007

www.qualitychessbooks.com

Review by Nagesh Havanur

A great tournament is an ensemble act. While there may be only one protagonist, others also have their roles to play. It’s the combined effort that matters. San Luis 2005 was a memorable event with the likes of Anand, Svidler, Morozevich and Leko followed by Mickey Adams, Judit Polgar and Rustam Kasimdzhadanov. But who won the tournament? Veselin Topalov. The Bulgarian was on form and turned out a performance that would have pleased a Fischer or Kasparov. He fought in every round, spurning draws time and again.

San Luis was an unusual tournament in that it was for the world championship. In previous years FIDE had experimented with the knockout format and these events had produced title holders like Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov. With all respect to these players no one believed that they were in the class of world champions. Kramnik, the player with real claim to that title, remained outside the cycle. So FIDE resolved that the winner of this tournament would meet Kramnik in a subsequent unification match. The outcome of that event came to be known as Toiletgate, familiar to Kingpin readers.

In a way this tournament set the tone for future controversies. At least two of Topalov’s rivals (Leko and  Kasimdzhanov) alleged that the Bulgarian received outside help while playing. Nigel Short, who was present throughout the event, added fuel to the fire demanding a thorough inquiry. The allegations continued to fly in spite of Topalov’s manager Silvino Danailov threatening to take the accusers to court. This book does not name Topalov’s detractors but the authors have taken the trouble to examine the charges. They present a detailed analysis of critical moments in Topalov’s games showing how the computer would not have helped him with moves, good or bad. Their scrutiny of the internal evidence, i.e. the games themselves, leads to the conclusion that the allegations are not proven. As the authors have no axe to grind, one is inclined to believe them. However, in his preface to this book Nigel Short does not appear to agree. While refusing to commit himself to direct allegations against Topalov in print he does warn against the silicon menace of cheating.

One problem that the authors fail to mention is the conduct of Danailov. His constant efforts to be close to his principal during the games did arouse the suspicions of at least one participant, Kasimdzhanov. It’s a pity that he did not complain to the arbiters as he was being disturbed. But he didn’t, as the ensuing dispute would have disturbed him even more.

As for other players, main rivals like Anand acknowledged Topalov’s superiority in this tournament. What they thought in private about Danailov never came to light.

This work commemorates the contest. The production values are of the highest order. Quality paper, clear layout and superb printing make it a collector’s copy. The book is richly illustrated with colour photographs, capturing the moods of players at crucial moments. There are diagrams on every page (on occasion as many as four). The introduction offers a detailed preview of the tournament, offering not only individual portraits of players, but also a comparison of their styles and mutual encounters. The round-by-round summaries are full of incident and anecdote. While the winners are applauded, the losers are treated with sympathy. Few books have captured the agony and ecstasy of tournament chess as this work has done.

Notes:

  1. San Luis did miss players like Shirov and Ivanchuk, not to mention Boris Gelfand who has won the right to play the world championship match only now.
  2. In response to a questionnaire from readers of Crestbook, Svidler had an amusing comment to make on the book:

Question: What are your memories of San Luis 2005? What’s your opinion on the tournament book devoted to it (if you’ve had your hands on it)?

Svidler: It was one of the best tournaments in my life, so I remember it fondly. The book wasn’t bad, though why they wrote that I had two daughters who were born in 2004 – I don’t know.

http://crestbook.com/en/node/1364

3. In a subsequent interview with the Indian newspaper, the DNA, Short was to confirm Danailov’s ubiquitous presence in the tournament arena and his frequent arrivals and exits disturbing the players. There is only one point that he does not mention. During the tournament he shared the dinner table with the same Topalov and Danailov day after day and in his reports on ChessBase jokingly claimed that he was their ‘lucky mascot’. In the initial reports Short does mention that there was an allegation against Topalov that he was receiving outside help but he dismisses it out of hand.

Notwithstanding subsequent contradictions his reports on San Luis deserve to be read along with this book:

http://www.chessbase.com/eventlist.asp?eventname=%20FIDE%20World%20Championship%20San%20Luis

 

More Links:

An interview with the authors:

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/SanLuis2005Interview.pdf

A pdf excerpt from the book:

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/SanLuis2editionpage41-51.pdf

More on the mother of controversies and its aftermath:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4083

http://www.chessbase.com/previewdetail.asp?newsid=3843

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3649

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3644

 

→ No CommentsTags:

10 Seconds with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

October 7th, 2011 · Interviews, Kirsan

FIDE’s star-gazing President speaks to journalist and translator Sarah Hurst, author of Curse of Kirsan: Adventures in the Chess Underworld.

Sarah Hurst: What do you consider to have been your greatest contribution to chess?

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: Alienating everyone.


If you would like to quiz a chess personality, send your question to kingpinchess@yahoo.com

 

→ No CommentsTags:

10 Seconds with Brian Eley

October 6th, 2011 · Interviews

Former British Champion Brian Eley achieved notoriety by absconding while on police bail relating to an investigation into paedophile activities. Brian enjoys the distinction of being the only British Chess Champion to appear on the television programme Crimewatch. Here he breaks 20 years’ silence to Kingpin reader Ron Bishop.

Ron Bishop: How would you describe your approach to chess and life?

Brain Eley: Touch and move.

[Should you ever come across Brian please contact the police immediately. Ed]

 

If you would like to quiz a chess personality, send your question to kingpinchess@yahoo.com

 

→ No CommentsTags: