Насколько я понимаю, Вы процитировали общеизвестного и общепризнанноо подонка Топорова.

Это статья известного журналиста (ныне уже покойного) Леонида Гвоздева, в 64 2006 года.

What according to you has been the outstanding feature of this world title match?

I think it was extremely close. Although from the outside many may think it was slightly boring in the initial phase, basically the reason was that it was played at the very highest level. Both sides were very well-prepared playing black. Just as we were unable to crack Gelfand's preparation with white, the same went for Gelfand's team. They also produced some very nice games.

I would say hats off to Gelfand, who, despite getting into some bad positions and playing against a player like Anand, managed to keep his cool; in many games he defended exceptionally well and managed to survive. Till the very end, he fought back like anything.

You have been a part of Anand's team in his world title matches against Kramnik and Topalov too. Can you tell us the main differences between the three matches?

All of them are very great players, but each has his own characteristic playing style. Kramnik is a very positional player, with a profound theoretical knowledge. He is probably the best technical player. Against him we were choosing all the lines that would precipitate a complicated battle, because in a complex position Anand is much superior. So we were trying to avoid any kind of dry or strategical positional play, where Kramnik is strong. With Topalov, it was the exact opposite. There we chose Slav defence and Catalan [opening]. We were trying to play very solid, because Topalov is a guy who really likes complications. Against Gelfand, our strategy was very broad. We had lots of openings and lots of variations ready so they would not be able to catch us.

Of these three, the toughest was Gelfand. Also, one should consider that in each world championship the pressure on Anand increases. But he is extremely cool. I think this championship was the toughest surely so far.

Did Kasparov's comment midway through the championship that Anand had lost his edge affect Anand and his camp?

Anand is not bothered about such things. He does not even look at such reports. He has to play a world championship match. But we have to keep track of what is happening on the side, mainly to know what moves were being suggested, etc. and keep ourselves updated. What Kasparov said did not make any sense. If he has to say something, why does he not come back to chess? Let him qualify and challenge Anand. I mean the man [Anand] is the world champion for the fifth time. It's very easy to criticise. We just didn't give it any importance.

Kasparov said that you didn't play at your highest possible level. You've already responded to that, but still, how do you look back at your games...

It's funny, in 2008, when I played Vlady, he said: these are not the two strongest players in the world. I think at that point we were 4 and 6 on the Elo list. I think Magnus and Topalov were more representative. Then, in 2010, when I played Toppie, because Vlady had just won Tal [the Tal Memorial - CV] the previous year and so on, he said it was Magnus and Vlady who were probably more representative. This time again he said it's not playing for the title of strongest person in the world. [Laughs] So it's a theme he's coming back to quite often, but OK.

…Nigel Short said more or less the same, that you were sort of struggling with your form. Do you agree that you didn't play at your best possible level? Is it possible to compare the level with your previous title matches?

It's no secret that a lot of people thought the same thing. But in Wijk [2011] I played extremely well, I was pleased with plus four, it was a good result. But after that, Bilbao, Tal, London, I played so badly, and then I don't give the impression of someone who is recovering in the Bundesliga. I think a lot of people continued with this impression, perhaps even some people in the local audience in Moscow, they were still remembering this horrible player from the Tal Memorial and they were not able to adjust.

But I want to put it this way: I actually think people simply underestimate what Boris did in this match. How well he had prepared and worked. The first thing I'll say is that my play was by no means weaker than, let's say, Kasparov's in London.

There, if you didn't know that he didn't like playing the Berlin, you could have said the same things: he lacks motivation, he's lost his way, he's not interested, blablabla. Everything let's say Nigel and Garry said, could be used: he's old, he's fed up, he's moved on, whatever. Any of this could have been said about Kasparov in London in 2000 as well. There he lost game 2, he was lost in game 4, I think he was worse in game 6, in game 8 he was not worse out of the opening and in game 10 he lost. I think it's only around game 12 and 14 that he even stabilized with Black. I'm not even mentioning the white games because there was nothing happening. So my point is, when your opponent has neutralized you, it's very difficult to do wonderful things.

It is not how badly I played with Boris, but what happens when someone like Vlady actually walks into someone's preparation. I mean, Vlady is an unbelievable player, I mean just a really great player. But when he walked into an ambush in Bonn, in these Meran games, well, it's tough. You tend to make mistakes, you become shaky and all that. So if you keep comparing everything to that... It's not going to happen every time, it happened once and even Topalov learnt something from that. Definitely there were more chances but... I mean we were doing well in the openings there. At least with White, with the Catalan I was scoring lots of points... But with Boris it was very difficult to find a weak spot to aim at.

Then, Boris explained rather well that although a draw was agreed at an early stage in many games, in fact it was really quite drawish in most of them, more perhaps than people realized. But what about the 12th game. Svidler said he was mildly surprised, Vladimir was shocked. So what was it?

The problem was, his last move was a mistake. His rook to d8 is a mistake. Just before that I was thinking that if he plays Bxf3, gxf3 and then Rd8, we could more or less shake hands immediately. I don't think Vlady or Svidler would have disagreed there. But his last move was a bit inaccurate because I can maybe take and go Nd2 some Rc3 and play on. So in a certain sense Vlady is right and I also realized this as soon as I left. I had been waiting for him to play Bxf3 and Rd8 and somehow when he didn't, I didn't change. Of course it was a mistake not to play on for a few moves, not because there's anything in the position, I think Black still has full compensation. I strongly disagree that I had some hope in the position. OK, he has to find a way to at least liquidate the queenside or exchange a pair of pawns and double somewhere there. At least he would have had to show something.

When you left the stage you already regretted your decision?

Vaguely, I suddenly realized that he had not played Bxf3 and I short of jumped the gun and offered a draw. When I got back home the seconds told me that Vlady was very surprised that I had agreed to a draw, but according to them I had nothing.

So I have some mild regret and I can understand some of the criticism. Here you can really say there's no harm in us playing out a few moves. But like I said, I was simply under the influence of Bxf3 and Rd8, when there's nothing to play for.

And what about his clock situation?

Well, I don't think 12 minutes is too little for Boris, I don't think that is a factor at all. But, yes, it was a mistake. It was a wrong reflex as a result of just not adjusting in time. If fans complain that we stopped early, I respect that. I think it was a mistake.

And wasn't it the same in the previous game? Morozevich told me that a3 wasn't the best move to offer a draw with, and that Boris should have played on.

Maybe, though I had seen the idea that I just simply stay passively and he can do nothing. I think Morozevich is right: in practical terms it's no fun to sit passively, but once you see that you have to, I don't see it's such a big deal.

And then in the third game you were hanging by a thread. To what extent did you actually see that even this rook ending was lost?

I was extremely surprised by Rh7, because somehow I was hallucinating that I was getting a Vancura. (quantoforum.ru/lab/487-teoriya-endshpily...hpil?start=150#90564
) So I found it very funny that you had the same thought, at least from your question to Boris. In fact when I got back to the room, I told the guys. They said: Nice escape! and I said Well, but I'm getting a Vancura, and they said: No, you're not, you're not getting anything remotely, you're getting a Vancura like three tempi down, forget about it. Only later, when I got back to the hotel, I realized how lucky I'd been. It again strikes me that sometimes, even if you're deluded, it can give you confidence and confidence is the most useful thing in chess. But of course, Gelfand should have almost the same hallucination.

He told me he didn't really play Rh7 to avoid a Vancura, but he couldn't really explain why he played it.

It was inexplicable, because Rh7 is about the only move that draws. Even a king move keeps the win. So it seems that White can even afford to lose a tempo but losing two tempi is too much.

I had the feeling I had nailed the draw, and then I got myself confused. First of all, it's just a trivial draw if I play a Kh5 somewhere, it's just a trivial draw. There were just a lot of things wrong. Both of us were hallucinating a lot. But still at the end of it, if you ask me, I would have to say that I was lucky. You can't pretend that there's some logic to all this.

Only later, when I got back to the hotel, I realized how lucky I'd been.

Лаки Вишик...

А вот если бы это был Карлсен, то мы бы услышали от фанатов и про гениальное понимание, и бойцовские качества и счет на табло

На самом деле и Гельфанда и нынешнего Ананда может обыграть добрая половина нынешней элиты.

с таким же успехом можно сказать что Карлсена в матче сейчас может обыграть любой из первой десятки.

BB
и из первой двадцатки и из первой сотни.

везет сильнейшим.

А вот если бы это был Карлсен, то мы бы услышали от фанатов и про гениальное понимание, и бойцовские качества и счет на табло

Но не думаю, что бы мы услышали это от Карлсена

Но не думаю, что бы мы услышали это от Карлсена

и из первой двадцатки и из первой сотни.

Бывает ли, что везет слабейшим? - вот самый лучший вопрос на утверждение везет сильнейшим. Если не бывает, то это - не везет. Но мы-то знаем, что бывает

Пятница, 13.07.2012 00:33
В интервью сайту Sportbox.com экс-чемпион мира Анатолий Карпов, в частности, поделился впечатлениями о недавнем матче на первенство мира между Вишванатаном Анандом и Борисом Гельфандом:

Если оценивать противостояние Ананда и Гельфанда по качеству сыгранных партий и по их зрелищности, то, боюсь, это худший матч на первенство мира, по крайней мере в послевоенное время. Одна из главных причин — формат поединка. Конечно, 12 партий — это уже не то издевательство над шахматами, которое мы наблюдали на чемпионатах по нокаут-системе, но всё равно этого явно недостаточно. Для полноценной, творческой борьбы требуется не менее 14-18 партий: тогда у соперников есть возможность рискнуть. А в коротком матче вся борьба, если шахматисты близки по силам, по сути сводится к тому, как бы не проиграть и поймать при возможности «надежный шанс». Это мы и увидели в Москве. И конечно, это выхолостило матч, сделало его более скучным.

Карпов также подверг жесткой критике тот факт, что чемпион мира может быть выявлен в быстрых шахматах или блице. Я категорический противник смешения различных видов шахмат. Определять чемпиона мира по классическим шахматам в быстрых партиях, а уж тем более в блице - это просто абсурд.

Экс-чемпион в очередной раз отметил, что руководство ФИДЕ допустило огромную ошибку, когда не стало бороться за участие Магнуса Карлсена в матчах претендентов.

Думаю, у него были крайне высокие шансы выиграть этот турнир [имеются в виду матчи - CN], а участие норвежца в матче на первенство мира придало бы этому событию другое измерение, значительно больший интерес. Что же касается Гельфанда, то, конечно, это серьезный шахматист, он давно и много работает, но все же я не ожидал, что он выиграет отбор. Наверное, тут не обошлось и без удачи.

Нынешнюю ситуацию с розыгрышем титула Карпов сравнил со временами позднего Ботвинника.

Помнится, тогда и Петросян, и Спасский, и даже Керес (хотя он и сам почти того же поколения, что Михаил Моисеевич) говорили: главное - добраться до чемпионского матча. А уж с постаревшим, ослабевшим Ботвинником справиться будет проще. Сейчас очень похоже: практическая сила Ананда в последние годы тоже заметно упала. Возможно, дело в недостатке мотивации, возможно, в чем-либо еще, но это очевидно.

Экс-чемпион в очередной раз отметил, что руководство ФИДЕ допустило огромную ошибку, когда не стало бороться за участие Магнуса Карлсена в матчах претендентов.

Viswanathan Anand’s recent and difficult defense of his world chess title against Boris Gelfand left the Indian grandmaster in an uncharacteristically tense, rather than celebratory, mood.

His narrow victory provoked more than a little unsettling criticism.

Anand was affected. “I think this is the first time I have played a match where so many people seemed to have negative opinions about my play,” he said.

Most notable among his critics was former world champion Garry Kasparov.

Anand’s play has lost motivation, Kasparov observed. In fact, for the past several years, he said, Anand’s play “had been sliding downhill.”

“Vishy is a brilliant player. But it is very difficult to compete at 40,” Kasparov said. “I will be surprised if he can go on any longer.”

With the aplomb of a five-time world champion, Anand seized the opportunity for a counterattack.

“Kasparov retired in 2005, but he was trying to make me retire all through 2011. I am going to disappoint him,” said Anand, laughing.“It seems to me he is a man who regrets leaving chess, who misses the attention.

“This win has boosted my morale. I am looking forward to playing chess and winning tournaments

Если оценивать противостояние Ананда и Гельфанда по качеству сыгранных партий и по их зрелищности, то, боюсь, это худший матч на первенство мира, по крайней мере в послевоенное время.

Злобный критикан Гарик был в мягкой форме послан Вишиком

Карпов говорит ровно о том же, что и Каспаров.
И этот  чемпиончик ничего не пониманиет в шахматах,  и лишь завидует славе лучезарных Ананда и Гельфанда?

Для полноценной, творческой борьбы требуется не менее 14-18 партий

Определять чемпиона мира по классическим шахматам в быстрых партиях, а уж тем более в блице - это просто абсурд.

В отличие от Вас, Карпов указывает на первопричины.

Если оценивать противостояние Ананда и Гельфанда по качеству сыгранных партий и по их зрелищности, то, боюсь, это худший матч на первенство мира, по крайней мере в послевоенное время.