Разрыв с Учителем. 24 ЧАСА С ГАРРИ КАСПАРОВЫМ // Серия 18

В новом видео рубрики “24 часа с Каспаровым” Гарри Кимович вспоминает турниры 1988 года года — наконец-то турниры, а не бесконечные матчи против Анатолия Карпова!

Кубок мира в Бельфоре, чемпионат СССР 1988 года и разрыв в отношениях с Ботвинником — в новой серии!

Таймкоды:
0:00 Турнир Optiebeurs в Амстердаме 1988
6:16 Кубок мира в Бельфоре 1988
14:58 Гарри Каспаров – Андрей Соколов
23:54 Общение с Артуром Юсуповым и шахматный дресс-код
28:12 55-е первенство СССР, Москва 1988
30:40 Разрыв с учителем
38:39 55-е первенство СССР, Москва 1988
41:08 Гарри Каспаров – Василий Иванчук
46:25 55-е первенство СССР, Москва 1988
47:45 Анатолий Карпов – Гарри Каспаров
52:48 55-е первенство СССР, Москва 1988
55:05 Гарри Каспаров – Илья Смирин
59:43 55-е первенство СССР, Москва 1988

✅ Подписывайся на канал https://bit.ly/Levitov и не забудь поставить 🛎️
🎥 Наш канал с нарезками – https://www.youtube.com/@LevitovChessClips
📱 Наш канал в Telegram: https://t.me/chess
🌏 Официальный сайт – https://www.levitovchess.com/
🎤 Наш канал на Twitch – https://www.twitch.tv/levitovchess
🏆 Первыми смотри новые стримы и видео от Levitov Chess
💻Наша группа ВКонтакте: https://vk.cc/ayH4HW

💰 Поддержите наш канал через Boosty: https://boosty.to/levitovchess/donate

Подписался? Вот список того, что теперь тебе доступно на канале Levitov Chess:
— просмотр регулярных стримов с комментариями лучших шахматистов;
— эксклюзивный анализ партий с комментариями выдающихся шахматистов;
— терабайты обучающих видео;
— обучение игре в шахматы с нуля до профи;
— обзоры шахматных приложений и многое другое.

#шахматы #levitovchess #каспаров

Episode eighteen. Break up with Botvinnik This whole cycle of clashes versus Karpov came to an end in 1987. The epopee finished! The epopee era, that’s how to put it! There were not only sportive results for me, but also political results, because the whole country was changing obviously, but a failure in Seville might have had undesirable consequences for me, because of the book "Child of Change" because of texts that did not yet meet the allowed level of transparence in the country -the book was a few steps too far ahead of its time, still! A normal chess life finally started. I was very happy, because finally I could prepare for games against other opponents! Yes, finally! This feeling made itself felt, I could finally play chess! I played a little with other players, but all these years all my attention and preparation time went to my matches against Karpov. We had this new challenge, you see? We were all set on Karpov and on matches generally speaking, but now we had to switch to playing tournaments. Nikitin really apprehended these very strong line-ups. I had to win. Not just go and play, but win. My first tournament in 1988 was in fact not the World Cup but rather an event in Amsterdam that Bessel decided to hold. (Bessel Kok, Dutch businessman, chess organiser, one of the minds behind the GMA, he run for FIDE President in 2006 and lost to Illyumzhinov) It was an old and forgotten format, four players playing against one another four times. Why rush, eh? Of course. So that was me, Karpov, Timman, and they had added a local boy, Van der Wiel. We would play 12 rounds. I scored plus six. I finished on +1 versus Timman, +2 against Karpov and +3 against Van der Wiel. It was a classical event, wasn’t it? Yes, yes, it was. We went there together with Nikitin. I must say I played with pleasure there. It was very easy against Van der Wiel. With Karpov… Our four games were very tense, I had two Grunfelds with black, I made two draws. Good-quality games, Karpov couldn’t do much. He employed new ideas, but I kept control over the situation. With white I faced two Caro-Kanns. In one of them I played in a sparkling way, I sacrificed, we reached a crazy position, I even was actually completely lost! But in chess there is a time factor, and Karpov lost on time, as he couldn’t deal with the problems he had. That’s about the moment where he started doing that, right? I mean, yes, but… Not only was he in zeitnot I mean, but even more than that. He permanently faced problems against me, because I played back-breaking chess. He didn’t always manage to solve the problems without significant time losses. It must be said that he played remarkably well in zeitnot, and he kept this ability for quite a long time, I even recall, in 2001 I think, in Linares, he played in the final round against Leko. He had a very dangerous position and was in zeitnot, he hardly had any time left and he found a series of great moves, a series of great instinctive moves that left Leko completely horrified! Well, that’s the champion’s wizardry, for sure! Yes, he could play in zeitnot, I must say that in his matches against me he scored many points as I sometimes lost my cool there. There were nevertheless games where he didn’t have enough time left. Game eight in London, we watched it together, a good-quality game, but he lost on time on move 31. Which is not a good thing to do! Sure, that’s problematic! In Amsterdam, he lost on time even closer to move 40. I had some problems with black against Timman, but then I beat him in the third round. By the fourth round, everything was clear already. I played Timman in the final round, so yes, basically I played against Karpov in round eleven, and I found myself comfortably ahead by that point. It was yet another Caro-Kann. I obtained a small edge that I started milking, but the funny thing is that the construction we obtained resembled game twenty-four in Seville! It was again a bishop versus a knight, there was a similar domination scheme. Razuvaev saw the game and said "Interestingly enough, not only did Kasparov start to regularly outplay Karpov, but there’s now a specific style to it!" It was a good positional game, a very clean one. This game against Karpov resembles the game I had against Hübner, you can put the two side by side, this is a game from 1986, in the second round in Brussels. There we also had a position that was symmetrical at first, then the central pawns disappeared with white holding the initiative then white takes over via the weakness on e6 and we end up in a position of bishop versus knight, and this is where it all begins. And in both games with Hübner and Karpov I managed to undermine black’s defenses. In both games the knight on f8 defended the weak e6 pawn, but the analogy with game twenty-four in Seville imposes itself somehow. I won the tournament with a +6 score, that was a good start! And then… The first tournament came, the World Cup, in Belfort, France. This was my first tournament after the match, while it was Karpov’s second event. Before that he had won Brussels. We were sixteen players there. "Upon request" of the organisers, the schedule was, if not pre-arranged, but at least it had to be that Karpov and I played towards the end of the event, really during the three or four final games, that’s what they had in mind for us. As a result, we played with Karpov in the penultimate round. He was number 16 in the drawing, and I had gotten myself 15. Karpov played Sokolov in round one -he lost, in the last round he played Spassky. He was black in both games. Given he was number 16, he had black in both the first and the final round. And considering I was number 15, we played together in the penultimate round. Oh, and Spassky was still there! Yes, Boris Vassilievich played indeed! He didn’t play badly, as far as I can tell! You’re right. He finished in the first half. The tournament started with me beating Yusupov with the black pieces, then I beat Nogueiras I’m pretty sure… Yes, I beat Nogueiras. Then I made draws, and my play wasn’t too convincing, first against Ribli, then against Hübner. After that there was a game I must have won, who was that against… Timman? You’re right, against Timman. We continued our debate in the Grunfeld along the same lines of what we had had in Amsterdam. I had prepared an improvement in the endgame, I obtained a slightly better position and I outplayed him. I started playing better. After that I couldn’t beat Hjartarson in a position up a pawn "with the compensations" and him being in zeitnot! Then I started drifting, I blundered a pawn, a horrendous game… Ehlvest was ahead! Sure. (Jaan Ehlvest, American, Estonian Grandmaster in the footsteps of Paul Keres as the best Estonian player. Olympic Champion with team U.S.S.R. in 1988) Ehlvest was leading (Jaan Ehlvest, American, Estonian Grandmaster in the footsteps of Paul Keres as the best Estonian player. Olympic Champion with team U.S.S.R. in 1988) and the situation was that Ehlvest represented the new generation, didn’t he? Yes, the competition for third place went between Salov and Ehlvest. (Valery Salov, one of the strongest Grandmasters in the late 80s, he was a top-10 player for many years. He quit chess in the late 90s) Jaan played well indeed. Regarding the "new generation", well… I’m almost sure Jaan is one year older than me. We played together twice in youth events. We played in the 1977 U.S.S.R. Youth Championships, but also at the 1978 Students’ Spartakiad. In 1977 I think I won with black being quite lucky, while I won a crazy game in 1978 with white. Ah, so we cannot quite say this is the new generation. Well, I had played him already! I had also played against Sokolov already in 1978 at the Students’ Spartakiad! But considering I had already changed categories… Yes, by age, they were players of my category, but by time of arrival on the bigger chess scene they were the new generation indeed. I was the only representative of this generation, because Artur is older than me. How much older is he, by the way… He is three years older than me, he was born in 1960, while Seryozha Dolmatov was born in 1959. These were people born in 1962, 1963… You wouldn’t quite say they were a "new generation", but there was definitely a little time gap between the two groups. Essentially, this 1988 World Cup represented the final encounter between the "new" leading generation, my own, with the old guard, that is, Portisch, Korchnoi, Spassky, it was Elbe day! Ehlvest was leading after eight rounds. He was ahead of you by half a point. Yes, Ehlvest was leading. He was on +4. I had made one more draw along the way… Ah, I had made a draw against Spassky, this I know for sure! I made one more draw, but I was on +3 Karpov was on +2 and Ehlvest was on +4 with seven rounds to go. Karpov went on a fantastic finish. He scored 5.5 out of the last 7 rounds! Not only that, but he beat Ehlvest and myself along the way! However, this proved to be insufficient for first place, because regardless of the fact I had lost to Karpov, I nevertheless scored 6 out of 7! Overtaking everybody in the process! The streak started after round eight. By the way, for some reason my streaks lasted five games, I either scored four and a half or five in a row. The only time where I managed to do more than this was Wijk aan Zee 1999, but during those years I could win five games in a row, and then my play stopped flowing. What’s unfortunate is that I had to face Karpov precisely after five victories. First I took down Ljubojevic (Ljubomir Ljubojevic, one of the strongest Yugoslav players of the 70s and 80s, rated world number 3 in 1983 behind Kasparov and Karpov) then I beat Ehlvest (Ljubomir Ljubojevic, one of the strongest Yugoslav players of the 70s and 80s, rated world number 3 in 1983 behind Kasparov and Karpov) then I beat Beliavsky in a Grunfeld, a 5.Qb3 Grunfeld, Beliavsky picked a rare system there. I figured out everything over the board, I calculated very quickly. A difficult combination, but everthing appeared clearly in my head. I was in very good shape and was able to play quickly. Then I beat Andersson in my favourite Carlsbad, I didn’t give him a chance, I played quite well. (Nigel Short, British Grandmaster, chess prodigy, he played a World Championship match against Kasparov in 1993) Later we played a Sicilian against Short, an English Attack. When I look at these games now I understand how primitive our approach was back then… Yes, but think about when it dates back to! It was 1988. I had +8 with two rounds to go, and I was ahead of Karpov by two points. What’s really unfortunate is that I had to play against him in the next round after a five-win streak. We played a Grunfeld once again, he played 12.Bxf7+ (the line he employed in Seville, -ed) and came up with a novelty. I saw on the board what I should have done, but… Anyways, I played with black, you’re in my boots again! 6…Bg7 7.Bc4 c5, we played everything very quickly, 8.Ne2 Nc6 o-o Oh well, hang on, 9.Be3 o-o 10.o-o Bg4, at the time this was our chess tabiya with Karpov, 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7 13.fxg4 Rxf1+ 14.Kxf1 Qd6 15.e5 Qd5 16.Bf2 Rd8 I look at this position now from the other side! Karpov went 17.Qa4 b6 18.Qc2, it was important to provoke b6 and here during the game I saw that I should play Rc8, but I couldn’t get myself to play it. I calculated other lines, but I should have created the threat of capturing on d4, chasing the queen away. I played very poorly here, and Karpov quickly took over. I think the idea was that after Qc4 Qe4 the move Nc6 wouldn’t be available to black, that was the point of provoking 17…b6. But what’s the point of cxd4? Well, he wouldn’t be able to recapture with the pawn, and therefore he would lose e5. Ah, gotcha, right! I should have started to deal with his center. Yes, it would have been logical indeed. White has a great structure, black’s bishop is boxed in. The variation I calculated led to an endgame. I calculated quite a lot but didn’t play well… The position is dangerous, of course, black can’t force a draw on the spot. White is up a pawn, my bishop is cut off. Karpov shut me down completely and won quickly. A dreadful game. This wasn’t too nice, right? No, for sure, I felt pretty lousy. I was ahead of Karpov by a mere point before the last round, and I played Sokolov with white, while Karpov played Spassky with black. From the tournament standpoint, I need to play carefully with white, make a draw and ensure first place. Yes. But that’s not the way I play chess! I know! I felt like playing. And proving! Yes, get a full-fledged game. And besides, I wondered whether Spassky with white could lose to Karpov. This couldn’t take place, could it? Not possible, not possible… Everything is possible, eh? So I decided to play chess with Sokolov, and play for real. We followed our analysis there, we had worked on the English opening quite a lot. 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 c5 4.e5 Ng8, I liked these positions, because the fight began early on and I sacrificed a pawn. A big fight ensues. 8.Ndb5 a6 9.Nd6+, this was all theoretical, 9…Bxd6 10.Qxd6 f6 11.Be3 Ne7 12.Bb6 12…Nf5 I suppose? Absolutely! 12…Nf5, and at the time everybody took on d8 basically. White would have compensations in this endgame, but… Nothing more. I decided against trading queens, we had studied this position before the match against Karpov. 13.Qc5 d6 Or Qe7 maybe? No, he went 13…d6 Yes. 13…d6 14.Qa5, and now he played Qe7 I suppose, right? Hm, yes. 14…Qe7, and I must have castled here, right? Yes, long castle. Yes, 15.o-o-o, you see, looking at this position, I see it so full of life! Ok, black is up a pawn, but we will soon start kicking knights around, white has a blockade on b6 with his bishop, he has managed to create life in this position. Some time later I actually won against Beliavsky, a few years after this game, in Linares in 1991. He wanted to verify something, he played a bit differently, but I always look at this position with… I think Beliavsky went Qd7 instead. Yes, that’s absolutely correct. Beliavsky played Qd7, but I went f4 straight away kicking away his knight, in order not to give him the possibility of going Qc6. So yes, 14…Qe7 15.o-o-o o-o, and I started hitting his knight, didn’t I? 16.f4 Nc6 17.Qa3, and that’s about the moment where our analysis ended. It’s obvious white has compensations, I thought "Fine!". But Sokolov played quite well, I think he felt fairly optimistic, he was, after all, up a pawn, and he went 17…e5. You’re right! He went 17…e5, and what about now, did I play Nd5 or Bd3? No, you went for 18.g4 Ah, yes, forward! 18.g4! And now after 18…Nfd4 we will play 19.Nd5, and problems will start for black with their d6 pawn. And that’s what he played, as he went 18…Nfd4 Ah, ok, 18…Nfd4 And now 19.Nd5, that’s right. 19.Nd5 Qd7 No, 19…Qf7 Ah, 19…Qf7, and now I imagine I played 20.f5 most likely, didn’t I? Spot on, 20.f5 A full-scale attack, see? There’s a huge press there, right? Yes, for one, d6 is hanging also. Sure, black still has his knight in the center, but we shall survive, right? The question shall soon be what is black going to do about his d6 pawn? And besides, how are his pieces going to come out? If black goes g6, his position is likely to open up. This is about the moment when the tournament situation started shaping up a little. After the opening, Karpov had a Caro-Kann against Spassky. Black had a thankless position. Karpov could and would save it, sure, but the position was quite thankless. Black was clearly worse, deprived of any counterplay. I said to myself "Alright, let’s keep going!" for there was no world in which Spassky could lose such a position. Yes, yes… Whether he would win or not… Although I thought white could win effortlessly, given how passive black’s position was. I could relax a bit. And now… 20…g6 right away. Yes, Sokolov decided it was time for him to lash out considering he had a good position in the center, but now the position opens up after 21.Rg1, doesn’t it? 21.Rg1 I took pleasure in playing such complex positions, it was interesting to see how things would unravel from here. He took on f5, didn’t he? He did! 21…gxf5 And now 22.g5 Naturally! Black tries to open up his bishop, therefore we immediately go for the attack! The position is risky for white too, though, the position is double edged, many years later of course… I recall that during the game I felt comfortable at this point. Now what? He played 22…Kh8, not the best move. Again, he goes for something natural. Taking on g5 looks dreadful! Rxg5+ followed by Qxd6… These days it’s easy, of course, with the help of the computer telling you how to play… At the time, it definitely was not an easy decision to take here! 22…Kh8 23.gxf6 And now bishop… 23…Be6 23…Be6 24.Qxd6 I believe, no? 24…Bxd5 25.cxd5 Qxf6 Yes. We thus reach a very interesting endgame. 26.Qxf6 Rxf6, we don’t take the knight because of Rxc6+ I played 26.Kb1, didn’t I? Indeed. 26.Kb1 And somewhere around this point I took a look at the game of Karpov. I could hardly believe what I saw: in this position, Spassky blundered a rook. And resigned on the spot. I looked again, but there was nothing to see: alright, he had blundered a rook! This usually only happens when players agree on the result beforehand, right? I was so shocked that I returned to my table and sat down thinking I needed to regain my composure. I was then able to refocus and tell myself that this was not important and finish the game. I could sense that this was an interesting and "tasty" position. I managed to abstract myself from these considerations and proceed with my own game. Where did his knight go here? 27…Nd8 That’s right, 27…Nd8, and now a bishop move… 28.Bc5 We naturally don’t want to take the pawn, we have the two bishops after all. But the fight is still on! Had I taken on d4 black is completely fine, he will place his knight on d6. I played 28.Bc5, and now I’m actually threatening to go Rxd4. Be7 is also in the air, and if Nf7 then Rxd4. He played 28…Rc8, didn’t he? Yes, 28…Rc8 You’re right. 29.Be7? 29.Be7 Rook somewhere I presume. 29…Rf7 29…Rf7 30.Bd6 30.Bd6 then. The bishop makes its presence felt more and more! This is a very move-per-move position, in fact. Black is a hairbreadth away from being completely fine, but somehow he is not in time, and his king is stuck in the corner. 30…Nf3? What else? No? Yes, 30…Nf3 31.Rg3 e4 Yes. 32.Be2 probably, right? 32.Be2 By this point I understood I was not running any risk of losing whatsoever. Rd7? No, 32…Rf6 actually. 32…Rf6, yes, and I presume 33.Bf4 Indeed! 33.Bf4 Now we will reclaim our pawn, our f4 bishop is strong, and we have a d-pawn that is going to run forward very fast! Sokolov went 33…Rg6 Yes. 34.Bxf3 Ah, alright. 34.Bxf3 Rxg3, and now the fun starts, 35.Bxe4 35.Bxe4 A pretty shot, white’s bishops dominate here. If black retreats his rook then Bxf5, attacking the other rook, and everything starts falling apart. He went 35…fxe4, didn’t he? 35…fxe4 36.hxg3 And now the material may be equal, but white has a winning position. Sure… 36…Kg7 now, right? Oh yes, because if black were to play Nf7 then d6 and my pawn his home. Here you played 37.Rd4 Ah, sure, but it’s the same basically. 37.Rd4, it’s clear where this is all headed. Black is only barely playing on here. 38.Rxe4 38…Rd8 39.Re7, I would imagine. That’s right. 39…Rxd5 40.Rxb7 Yes! He played a couple of moves more, but the game ended, I won. I finished on +8, but of course it pissed me off a bit that Karpov won such a game! We started watching the Grunfeld then, although… I say "we started", but I’m practically sure I was on my own in Belfort. Nikitin hadn’t come to Belfort. I was on my own in Belfort. Alone, eh? Yes, I remember that before the game against Sokolov I sat somewhere in a park thinking what to do and what to go for, and these were my own considerations. Let me interrupt you for two seconds: what was the atmosphere like in tournaments back then? Did you guys talk together, have meals together, or was it?… Well, at the World Cup for one, I wouldn’t say the atmosphere was friendly, but it was definitely very professional and adequate, some people were friends, there were no open conflicts… When long tournaments took place, I’m thinking about Reykjavik, for instance, where we had to spend 23 or 24 days there You did live there somehow! Yes! In Reykjavik I talked to Artur a lot. We had ties that dated back from our childhood at the Botvinnik School! The two of you got on well, didn’t you? Yes, we got on really well. I recall this episode at the Botvinnik School I must have been 12, he was thence 15, we had a training session in Dubna, and I remember that something happened, either we forgot something at the hotel, as a result we arrived late for the train, I was quite upset and Artur waited for me instead of taking the train. Overall, we got on very well. Later there would be competition between us of course, we spoke about that together already, but our relations remained what they were from that time period, and during the World Cup we spoke together pretty often. We talked quite a lot during the tournament of Reykjavik, but we haven’t gotten that far yet. We also talked in Belfort. Sometimes we had more general discussions on the meaning of life with players from the west, (British grandmaster and mathematician who entered Oxford at age 15, U-20 European Champion) I can think of Nunn, I think it took place in Brussels during our first GMA meeting in 1988 on the topic of rules and whether we would or not enforce a dress code. Ah, this already was a topic back then? Yes, but hold on! A topic that’s been here forever! I was obviously in favor of a dress code, the old-school way! Yes, on top of which you had dressed up for this rapid match against Short! Yes, but it was the time when chess meant playing on a stage, and I had learnt my lesson. Nikitin always said that when there’s a stage… I therefore almost always played with at least a suit jacket and a tie. Attempts to enforce a dress code encountered opposition along the way. I remember discussions with Nunn, and how he started to explain that there was no room for dress codes in a free society. Pointing at me he added "Some people that do not come from the free world do not understand what freedom is about and how much it has to be respected". I replied and said "Of course, no problem! A free man can play in a park for $10, but should he want to play for $10.000, he must respect those it depends on, namely, the spectators and the prestige of the game!" (Jonathan Speelman, British grandmaster, winner of many medals with the national team of England) We in the end couldn’t find an agreement, and it must be said that Nunn and Speelman showed how free they were there and then! There were though minimal steps in the right directions -people didn’t come to play wearing t-shirts!- but overall we didn’t go too far in this direction just yet. Dress codes are an incredibly important point, it hasn’t been fully figured out to this day actually. To me it seems absolutely conspicuous that whatever the sport, its professionalization has to go hand in hand with the growth of its prestige, and that’s the reason why we must show respect to our audience. The sustainability of the economic model depends on the size of the audience and its benevolence towards us. And it seemed completely obvious to me back then already! Whereas to this day these two things are not linked together! And this dates back to 1988! After Belfort, after the World Cup, a new experience was looming: the U.S.S.R. Championship! It was called the Superfinal. The Soviet leaders decided that it was time for a proper Soviet Championship where everybody would play, because such an event hadn’t taken place for a while. Karpov and I would play, everybody would, basically. The young Vasily Ivanchuk played (Vassily Ivanchuk, Ukrainian grandmaster. World number 2 in 1991 behind Garry Kasparov, European Champion in 2004, Blitz World Champion in 2007, Rapid World Champion in 2016) Vassily Vassilievich came to shake it up, there was nobody missing. Mikhail Nekhemievich (Tal, -ed) was also there I believe, wasn’t he? No, he wasn’t. Oh, wasn’t he? No. Lev Abramovich (Polugaevsky, -ed) did not play either, by the way. Their careers were coming to an end already. Gavrikov played, Malaniuk played, I mean, I’m talking about the new generation here. Leonid Yudasin played too. (Leonid Yudasin, Soviet grandmaster who participated in many Candidates’ cycles. Winner of the Olympiad in 1990) Khalifman was around at the time, wasn’t he? (Leonid Yudasin, Soviet grandmaster who participated in many Candidates’ cycles. Winner of the Olympiad in 1990) You’re right, he was indeed. (Alexander Khalifman, one of the strongest players in the world in the nineties, FIDE World Champion in 1999) I was by far not the youngest player of the field, which, by the time, was a rare occurrence! This tournament turned out to be a contest between me and Karpov, even though… Salov took part in that fight too until almost the very end of the event! It was his best year, as it is. His best years, say. I think he finished third at the World Cup, while at the U.S.S.R. Championship he was leading at some point, with some rounds to go. I won a super important game against him close to the end of the tournament. Wow, 17 rounds! Yes, you’re right, there were 17 rounds, that’s quite some distance! That’s a month! Now think about the World Championship match! Very short in comparison, right? No, look: it went from 12 games… to 14! A 17-round event! With adjournments of course, with weekends… It lasted south of a month, in fact. Yes, yes. We played in the most famous hotel in Moscow, the InterContinental. In Minsk? No, the InterContinental was on the Krasnopresnenskaya Embankment, at the Hammerovsky center. Ah! Alright! Yes, and that’s where we played. But at the time it can’t be that it was the InterContinental already, or can it? I would think it was, in fact, I think it was… We were still in the Soviet period, it was the main hotel in Moscow, it was very prestigious and for the prestige of the event to be at the highest possible levels, Botvinnik was made the main arbiter of the event. At the time already, I had serious problems with Mikhail Moiseevich, serious ideological problems. Thinking about it now of course, the situation could have been dealt with in a softer way, but it all takes its sources in our different opinions on Soviet history. We had always had disagreements, but they appeared clearly in 1987 in Druskininka, because we took over the school there as new young students came, and 1987 was the time where the "Soviet debates" began on all kinds of topics, for instance, the role of Stalin, for whom Botvinnik had piety; he was fairly critical of him, but he had piety nevertheless. He had this idea that the totalitarian planification’s advantages have not been demonstrated because we are lacking the computers that would have calculated… Look, Botvinnik had this primitive idea of capitalism that it was all chaotic, and that in order to overcome chaos -which he hated, actually- everything had to be planned strictly. In order to deal with chaos, we would need a centralised planification, but it couldn’t work for now because people wouldn’t be able to establish it just yet. Therefore his idea was that if we were to succeed in creating a computer correctly, then… Ah, that’s what he had in mind, didn’t he? He wanted for everything to be structured, right? Absolutely, his idea was that everything in life could be structured. Botvinnik had that kind of approach spread on all the areas in life. He took quite ill the moment where articles started surfacing already in 1977 when Gavril Kharitonovich Popov wrote on the administrative system. The articles wer denouncing not only the underlying repressive methods of the regime, but the very repression itself, and Mikhail Moiseevich didn’t like that one bit. During one of the sessions, right before Druskininka -it was during the summer actually, I believe it to have been the last session, this is where Kramnik appeared and we played our first game during a simul then, -he played the Budapest Gambit, I won our game although the position wasn’t so clear, in fact, and unfortunately all these games are lost, which is really a pity. That’s a pity for sure. Yes! Botvinnik kept for some time but then they disappeared, and it’s a pity, because he had over seventy games, and basically almost all the students became grandmasters! And so Botvinnik started -anyways, he liked these interruptions during our sessions- indulging in memories and things that were important to him and I think he said that was keen on sharing knowledge with us, and it’s in the context of all these revelations that he started saying something about World War II and the role of the Comrade Stalin. I don’t remember what it was refering to, maybe it was on planification, it must have been an attempt to demonstrate something. I don’t recall who was showing his game at that moment. I got irritated! I said "Mikhail Moiseevich, let’s not get into an ideological debate. As you know, I don’t feel the same way as you do with regards to the role of Stalin during World War II!" Botvinnik was not happy. The session continued, but he was quite unhappy. These discords over the same topic started to add up. Gavrilin, the Deputy Chairman of the Sports Committee -he was the right-hand’s man of Gramov, "Milligramov", the friend of Gorbachev and at the time they were quite influencial because they represented sources of hard currency, we were in 1988. The Olympiad took place in Seoul, and from there they retrieved cars… For the time, it meant an incredible amount of resources on which they counted! Gavrilin was in charge of all these financial questions, but also in charge of chess! Interesting, enit? He was with Gramov at first, then he took care of my matches against Karpov. He was in charge of the organisation that took care of the financial aspect of things, and it worked really well, as it is. The commercial aspect was taken care of, while of course the professionalisation aspect left to be desired. And that’s the moment when my fight with them for the professionalization of chess began, and by that point I was helping everybody, Slava Fetisov, we were in 1988-1989, there were also basketball players, Volkov, Marčiulionis… Fetisov wouldn’t remember that of course, whereas Marčiulionis remembers that the first time they could leave officially -not being on the run- was when I found a way via the Children’s Fund (equivalent to the UNICEF, -ed) so that they could leave the country with a contract. 1988-1989, I was already fairly influencial as the reigning World Champion, and Yakovlev was already one of the most influencial figures there (Alexander Yakovlev, Soviet politician, Secretariat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, one of the ideologists of the Perestroika) And he was one of your protectors, wasn’t he? (Alexander Yakovlev, Soviet politician, Secretariat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, one of the ideologists of the Perestroika) Yes, yes. In fact, that was an ideological question. In fact, he saw the development of the country via a certain lens, and it turns out I fitted in his general understanding. We were in very good terms for this reason. I remember when we first got to meet in 1985, the case was brought to Gorbachev who said "Let him play chess", and I then had written a telegram where I complained about this and that and I showed my telegram to him, and I said "Alexander Nikolaevich, can you have a look at what I wrote?" He took a close look at it, and he exclaimed "Good, but don’t overuse adjectives, ok?" And that’s pretty good advice! That’s the bureaucratic way of looking at things, to date I still remember the piece of advice! Gavrilin started goading Botvinnik. He always had the feeling that something unfair was taking place. You mean, this is how Botvinnik felt? Yes. Look at how many World Championship matches he played. There he won ₽1000 and a wall clock! True that! I remember he would always, I wouldn’t say "be exasperated" but be pissed off, saying "How come Spassky could lose to Fischer and still earn so much money?" Yes yes yes… We were in Dubna during the first session of the school, and, speaking to the students, he would always come back to that, saying that this injustice had taken place. Gavrilin took notice of his computer project, he said they would help him because it was around the time where the trade unions stopped financing the Botvinnik School, and thus Botvinnik found himself under the Sports Committee’s wing, and they made good use of it. In 1988, they named him the main arbiter of the U.S.S.R. Championship. What happened at the end… Conflicts always have deeper roots than we think. I remember that at the start of the event, when all the participants met Botvinnik read out the rules of the event -the main arbiter only has a formal role, although, as we know, when there are events such as those that took place in 1985 the main arbiter is due to act while Gligoric bowed down! I remember he was reading the rules, -this was a formality!- until the point where we mention the possibility of people sharing first place. They had just touched upon the topic, and I think it is Nikitin that got back to it asking "And what happens in case of a shared first place?" -Well!… "We’ll figure something out!" "We’ll figure something out…" And it was a rather important question, because there was no pre-established system for the U.S.S.R. Championship. There had been cases of people sharing first place, but there had also been cases where the situation had been tackled in another way. For instance, in 1977 In 1978? No, in 1977, Gulko and Dorfman shared first place. I’m talking about 1977 here. At the time, the head of the Sports Committee was Pavlov, and I was told by Nikitin that he was incredibly unhappy that two jews finished on shared first, and that he said "Have them play a match together so that there be only one in the end". But they tricked him in a way, because they played down to 3-3! In 1978, Tal and Tseshkovsky shared first place, and there was further no match between the two of them. In 1981, I shared first with Lev Psakhis, and there was no further playoff either. But by the way, there were problems there too, because I remember that in 1981 there was only one medal for two! Lev was furious, because I had been given one and they’d forgotten him! I think that in 1987 there was a playoff between Beliavsky and Salov. In a word, it was never too clear: either you would have to play a match or there would be two outright winners. Or I don’t know, they could have used the Bucholz for instance, despite the fact it had never been done before I believe. The question was pending. The tournament was extremely long. And you don’t really want to think about these things at the start of the event, sure. Whereas at the end of the tournament the question would begin to be pressing. I played worse than I had in Amsterdam and Belfort, maybe because I felt some pressure. Moscow… Psychologically, it wasn’t too easy. Karpov was motivated there. I was leading, Salov broke through… Ah, and I won a good game against Vasya! Please show! A miniature, what’s more! Yes yes yes, that’s right! 1…Nf6 2.Nc3 e5, and Vasya played at blitz speed, 4.g3 Bb4 By that point I had understood everything. Vasya was quite young but a star already, it was clear to everyone already that he would have a great future… And he was coming from a joint training session with Karpov. So the game began, and I was making my moves very calmly -the champion’s way!- while Vasya blitzed out everything. I looked around, Karpov was there watching. I understood everything. The interest of Karpov for that game would be that Vasya would check out my opening preparation! Still, Vasya never completely admitted! It was more "Well, yes, we had talked about that with Karpov, I wanted to check something…" Well, sure, eh? He probably fooled him a bit, don’t you think? In what sense? 6…e4 7.Ng5 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Re8 9.f3 exf3 10.Nxf3, and now he went 10…d5 And here I played out my novelty, 11.d4 Sure. They were prepared for that more or less, they obviously were counting on something of that sort. The idea is a bit anti-positional because white gives away a lot of important squares, but the threat is to go Bg5 In fact, after black goes dxc4 there’s nothing much. The position is dangerous, but according to theory black is able to hold his own. Black has this interesting move h6 at his disposal, we had looked at it. But the move 11…Ne4 begs to be played here, because why would you let the knight in here? 12.Qc2 dxc4, Vasya kept playing very fast. But this is where it all begins, and I have the very important move 13.Rb1 here. I came up with this idea alone in fact, and it turns out that black has problems here. White is not in a hurry actually, he shall not play Ne5 straight away. 13.Rb1 Now black has to decide how he wants to further develop his pieces. But it seems that 13…f5 begs to be played here, because that’s the most natural move. And this is how he went. This is what he played indeed. He played this move rather quickly, too. White’s main idea now is to play 14.g4 All of this looks a bit weird, because it looks as though black is completely fine, but I could feel the dynamic potential of white’s position, it clicked somehow. This caused Vasya to tank, he was shocked. If I remember correctly, he went for 14…Qe7, which is a bad move. You’re right. I think this was a bad move. But the position "Difficult choice", as you put it. He thought for 46 minutes over this move! Yes yes yes, no of course. fxg4 Ne5 would have led to a very dangerous position, too. fxg4 Ne5, this was the main idea here. Black must take on e5, and, I don’t know, maybe black has to give up the exchange? Play a knight move somewhere, go Nd6? Yes yes yes. Nxc6 bxc6 followed by Be6, but this is still better for white. Whereas now the position black obtained is very bad, because after Ng6 Bxg6 hxg6 Qg6 and it feels like black won’t be able to survive, because Yes, it’s a very difficult position here. Yes, no but white is threatening to go Rb5 and Rh5, and it’s likely that black won’t even be in time to get his pieces out before he gets attacked. Qd7? Yes, absolutely. Qd7, and now some move… White needs to… Rb5 immediately! Yes, Rb5! Yes, Rb5 anyway, because if black takes on b5 we go Rf7. It turns out black is compelled to go Qe6, isn’t he? Yes, Qe6 Qh5. That’s it, Qh5. That’s correct. I was very proud, because this was one of our best pieces of preparation, mind you, this occurred before the computer era! Sure, obviously! And we had come up with that. It was World Championship preparation! On 14.g4 Vasya played 14…Qe7, and now after 15.gxf5 No, Bxf5 Ng5, we exchange bishops and take on b7, black would get himself into a difficult endgame, but this is what he should have played. Vasya played 15…Nd6 here, and, as he later told me, this is where he blundered. It looks as though everything is about fine for black here, but white starts attacking him on the spot, 16.Ng5 Qxe2 17.Bd5+, right? 17…Kh8 18.Qxe2 Rxe2 and now 19.Bf4 Indeed. And here, out of nowhere, white creates a mating attack. White is threatening to take on d6 and play Nf7+ Vasya played 19…Nd8 here. Yes, 19…Nd8 Obviously, you’re lost when you’re obliged to make such moves! 20.Bxd6 cxd6 And 21.Rbe1 All the pieces participate now. Well, yes! Black must trade. Sure. White is threatening mate. 22…Bd7 23.Re7, and on 23…Bc6 we have 24.f6!, in order for the game to finish as nicely as possible! If Bxd5 Re8+ followed by f7. This game inspired me, as you can guess! In round three I played against Misha Gurevich. (Mikhail Gurevich, winner of the World Team Championship with team U.S.S.R. in 1989, U.S.S.R. Champion in 1985, he worked with both Kasparov and Anand) Before the game Misha suggested that we better not play considering we were friends but I said we would play, and he tried to make a draw in the 5.Qb3 variation of the Grunfeld. He knew the variation well, he thought the position was going to simplify but black obtained a small initiative, and Misha couldn’t deal with the problems ensuing, which resulted in me winning rather easily. So I was on 2.5 out of 3. In round four I played against Sokolov, once again I should say. I played 1.c4, he went for 1…e5, but this time around he went for 4…d5 upon encountering 4.g3 We followed our home analysis once again, and I was up a pawn in return for some initiative for black, and I blundered in an equal position! What’s more, it was part of our preparation. Sokolov was able to find counterplay, he forced me to return the pawn. I found myself worse on the spot. I was able to make a draw nevertheless, but I was upset. Things started to look… A bit depressing? Depressing, exactly. I made a draw against Gavrikov, I made a most uninteresting draw against Vassily Vassilievich, things didn’t work out. Ah, and then I played Karpov! Now I remember, it was round seven, everybody was getting ready for that one, important political figures were due to come visit us! (Egor Ligachev, high-ranking official in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) I think Ligachev came along. Egor Kuzmich was an ideologic opponent of Gorbachev. I don’t recall whether he came for that precise game, but I am sure officials did come. Most likely, yes. We thought about what to do for that game with Nikitin, we had ideas in the Grunfeld, but I suggested the Nimzo-Indian in order to see what Karpov would have prepared there. We got ourselves a good game in fact. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4, and Karpov played 4.Qc2 and I castled I’m pretty sure. 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 Yes, 6…b6 7.e3 Bb7 8.b3 Ah yes, exactly. He went for this setup, opting to keep his knight on g1 for now. Maybe black should go Ne4 somehow, but maybe at some point white will be able to play f3, I don’t know, although looking at it now I can’t get why I didn’t play Ne4 and f5, this is very weird, because if f3 happens black always has Qh4+, there’s nothing to worry about here, in principle. This 8.b3 is a very strange move… There must have been a reason why he wanted to keep his knight on g1! Anyways, I decided to play 8…d5 9.Nf3 Nbd7 10.Be2, right? Yes! 10…dxc4 11.bxc4 c5 White castled, 12.o-o Rc8 13.Bb2 cxd4 14.exd4 b5 Yes! 14…b5 15.c5 15…a6 16.a4, that’s right. Here I played 16…Nd5, and then I played 17…b4 I got worse, in fact. I was able to regroup very well, Karpov pressed me with 18.a5, so I played 16…Nd5, his queen moved somewhere, 17.Qd2 I suppose, 17…b4 And now he went 18.a5, and the position suddenly becomes unpleasant for black. But I proved able to maneuver very well in the next stage of the game. 18…Qc7 Yes, 18…Qc7, now a rook move. 19.Rfc1 19.Rfc1 Qf4, yes, we want to trade the queens. 20.Bf1 20.Bf1 20…Rfd8 20…Rfd8, that’s an interesting game, I realise that now. This pawn on a6 is a bit unsettling! 20…Rfd8, I think he took on f4. Yes, 21.Qxf4 Nd2, right? 22.Ra4 Ah, right, 22.Ra4 Yes, he’s looking to take your pawn! Of course! 22…Nd5 22…Nd5 23.Nd2, and now the knight wants to creep in on d6 or b6. At that point I thought he was going to start to turn the screws on me, but here I started doing everything right, 23…Rc7 Nc4, right? 23…Rc7 24.Raa1 Ah, he returned to a1 first. Yes, had he gone Nc4 I would have played Bc6 Bb5. I need to try to alleviate the pressure on the a6 pawn here. 24.Raa1 And now 24…Nb8 Ah, yes, the knight sneaks back in. 25.Nc4 25.Nc4 25…Bc6 25…Bc6 What’s the point of 25…Bc6? That’s a defensive move! I want to play Bb5. 25…Bc6 26.Nd6 26.Nd6 What an interesting game. 26.Nd6 Ra7 The pawn is now defended, and we’re able to get the knight out. Black has consolidated. This was an unusual game for me. White has his knight on d6, one could think "that’s it", but… You stuck to your guns the whole time. Yes, exactly. 27.f3 27.f3 What’s this move? What did I play here, 27…Ne7? I played à la Karpov with my knights. Now I want to play Bd5 and put my b-knight on c6. 28.Rc4 28.Rc4 28…Nd5 The pawn is loose. 29.Rcc1, the game ended here. Black is threatening Bb5 and then Nc6. It was an interesting moment, I was quite happy, because such maneuvers were not typical for me. I learnt such things from Karpov. I’m threatening to play Bd5 followed by Nc6. Then I’ll kick this one out of here, and his bishop doesn’t play either, as it is. I was proud of the maneuver Bc6-Ra7, there was something karpovian or petrosianesque to it. Still, it meant one more draw, and I still had to win. Then I drew against Malaniuk, and what about the rounds there, ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen, ah, there you go. After nine rounds -I drew another game, I can’t recall against whom- I was only on +2. Not where you should be! I mean… It’s even embarrassing! Then I posted a streak. Not five out of five, but four and a half. I round nine I drew Ehlvest. Yes, Malaniuk and Ehlvest, I drew both. We prepared for Malaniuk together with Nikitin, and he played things that at the time seemed revolutionary. He played the Leningrad Dutch against 1.d4, and I obtained a slightly favourable position, but let go of my advantage there. Against 1.e4, he played the Arkhangelsk variation of the Spanish with 5…Bc5, which seemed completely revolutionary at the time, nobody played chess like this, but it was still difficult to prove anything there. My matches against Karpov had given me a certain "idea of the world", but it changed as people started playing new openings. After that I started winning. We had played five games with Yudasin, I was black in all five, and the two of us starting playing one another in 1975. You didn’t play? No, we did. We played for the first time in Peterhof at the Spartakiad. We played at the Spartakiad first, then in 1976 in Tbilissi, then in 1981 at the U.S.S.R. Championship, then at the tournament we’re now talking about and then at the European Cup in 1995. Five games, five Sicilians, I was black each time, I won all the games! Did you? Yes, I beat him rather easily this time around. You beat Kharitonov, then drew Beliavsky. Right, then I drew Beliavsky, then I beat Smirin, and then I beat Yudasin and Salov. As far as the game with Smirin is concerned… Well, the combination is beautiful. (Ilya Smirin, Soviet and Israeli Grandmaster, member of the team "Rest of the World" in the match versus Russia in 2002 where he beat reigning World Champion Kramnik) The game itself isn’t bad, but the main thing there is the combination. Let’s get there, because the finish is pretty. 3.Nc3, he played the Kng’s Indian, 5.Nf3 o-o 6.Be2 e5 7.o-o, Smirin went for these positions often. I played the King’s Indian at that point, I actually had problems with Gavrikov in this opening with black in the same event, in round five. I played 9.Nd2 here, 9…a5 10.a3 10…Nd7 10…Nd7 11.Rb1 11…f5 12.b4, right? Yes. 11…f5 12.b4 b6 Oh yes, and 12…b6 is a bad move. A strange one, yes. Yes, a bad move. There were many ways to play this position for me here. I think I went 13.f3 Yes, 13.f3 f4 13.f3 f4 14.Na4 I don’t actually think that this is the best move here, but anyway… 14.Na4 14…axb4 15.axb4 Yes. 15…g5, going all out. 16.c5 16.c5, right? Yes. 16…Nf6, following the standard procedure! 17.cxd6 cxd6 Yes, 17.cxd6 cxd6 And now 18.b5 18.b5 Here he started defending somehow. 18…Bd7 Yes. 19.Nc4 Nc8, I must say I slightly missed this possibility. Black has defended himself well here. I remember that here I started being a bit horrified because now black was fine and about to crash through on the kingside, King’s Indian style! Did I go Bd2? 20.Ba3 Ne8, right. Ah, yes, 20.Ba3 Ne8 Yes, I exerted myself to the utmost in this position, and now I played 21.g4 Yes, that’s the moment of 21.g4 21…fxg3ep 22.hxg3, and now he went 22…g4 himself, and now I played a retreating move, didn’t I? Yes, and now 23.Bc1 Yes, 23.Bc1, I’m on my way back! 23…gxf3 24.Bxf3 Yes. 24…Nf6 once again. 25.Bg5, right? Hm, yes, you’re correct. Yes, 25.Bg5 The position is complex, but I started feeling more confident, because there won’t be an attack on the kingside while there is pressure on the queenside, although it bothered me a bit that in some lines the knight on a4 could be loose. What did he play here? 25…Ra7 25…Ra7, and I would guess I played Rb4, right? 26.Rf2 26.Rf2… Alright… At least we’re defending against a potential Bh3… 26…Rb7 Making room for his knight. 27.Rb3 27.Rb3, getting ready. He played 27…Ra7 once more. 27…Ra7 Going back. Now he’s attacking the knight. Rb4? 28.Rb1 here. Ah! What’s that about? 28…Rb7, ah, it seems like you repeated the position once, ok. Bla-bla-bla, and 30.Rb4 once more, in fact! Yes. With the rook on a7. Yes, I’m of course not interested in making any kind of draw here. Yes, and now 30…Kh8 Bg2? 31.Qf1 Ah, 31.Qf1 Ah, this is where it begins. Here he snaps a pawn. The most interesting part is now. 31…Bxb5 32.Rxb5 Rxa4 33.Bg2, right? Yes. 33.Bg2 33…h6 33…h6 34.Bh4 34…Qe8, with a threat! And now’s the time. Of course, I was… 35.Bxf6, I had seen everything already. 35…Rxf6 36.Rxf6 Qxb5 36…Qxb5 37.Re6 37.Re6 Rxc4 No, apparently he played 37…Kg8 Ah, if Rxc4 too soon then Qf7 is a threat, this would lead to mate, simply. Hence black’s playing 38…Kg8 This is the moment where he felt my attack was in a cul-de-sac, because what was I supposed to do here? My knight was hanging, the key squares were under control, and my bishop was far from the action. A bit far, it seemed. I played 38.Bh3, didn’t I? 38.Bh3 38.Bh3, now probably Qc5+, right? No, 38…Rxc4 instead. 38…Rxc4 But now I have the move 39.Rxh6! After Qc5+ Kh1 Rc1, white gives mate while his queen is pinned! Mate with a pinned queen! Very very pretty! I played the move 39.Rxh6 with great pleasure. He played 39…Bxh6, but ok… Now white is mating. White gives a series of checks He played 40…Kh8, and 41.Qf6, and that was it. Kh7 Qf7+ That’s it actually: he resigned. Of course, yes, because black is just getting mated here. Yes. The queen and bishop just mate here. After that I played with Salov. Salov and I were precisely the two leaders. I had a slight lead over Karpov. The game against Salov was a bit depressing, I didn’t get anything, I even felt Salov could be ambitious with black, but I managed to outplay him, and I think I was winning by the time the game was adjourned. I found myself leading for the first time after this game. I was I think on +6, while Karpov was… On +5 Yes, Karpov must have been on +5, while Salov was on +4. Karpov beat him also I think, and he beat Gavrikov and Malaniuk on demand. In round fifteen I played Khalifman, he went for the English Attack, and I faced problems for the first time. I started to understand that my old chess conceptions could do me disservice, because I was fundamentally convinced that there was the Keres attack on the one hand, while on the other hand here white played f3 and g4. The same down a tempo. It turns out it wasn’t all that simple. I solved my problems nevertheless, the position was extremely complex, and we made a draw eventually. With Rafik (Vaganian, -ed) we played a King’s Indian defense, he got a slightly worse position with white but we made a draw and Karpov won again, and at the penultimate round we find ourselves with the same amount of points. (Vjacheslav Eingorn, Soviet and Ukrainian Grandmaster, European Champion with team U.S.S.R. in 1989, he later had many successes with team Ukraine) I was due to play Eingorn with white, and Karpov played black against Ehlvest. (Vjacheslav Eingorn, Soviet and Ukrainian Grandmaster, European Champion with team U.S.S.R. in 1989, he later had many successes with team Ukraine) I didn’t think Karpov would beat Ehlvest with black, but I would have to fight against Eingorn. It sometimes happens that games don’t pan out the way you want them to. I remember we played some kind of… What about the colours there? I played white, yes. 4…Nbd7, and I decided to go for the Carlsbad here. And I went with my bishop… Yes, I went 5.Bf4, and he replied with 5…Nb6 I could of course have opted for the more normal move Bg5, but there he went 5…Nb6, and basically it all finished pretty quickly, after that he played 7…g6 and 8…Bf5, and we made a draw, just like that, and I was quite upset. I went to have a closer look at Karpov’s game. But Jaan was solid! They made a draw as well. And on that, Karpov and I shared first place! What about Mikhail Moiseevich there, what decision did he take eventually? Well… Mikhail Moiseevich discovered that he had to take a decision, in fact. If we were to make an analogy with the year prior to the event and think about Beliavsky and Salov, they played a match. But, once again, there were no set rules. Karpov didn’t want to play anything, of course. He didn’t want to have to play any kind of match. I couldn’t say I was longing to play either, but some rules had to be followed! At the closing ceremony I remember saying "People played a match last year, has that come to nought?" They handled the situation like they could. We were both deemed winners. It was no big deal to me, but I couldn’t say I like the way it unfolded. And the way Mikhail Moiseevich conducted himself… I understand, by that point he already was on old-age dependency. But I was furious. And so was he. You know, the usual reaction to a mistake you allow to happen is usually agression. He understood the situation he had landed himself in, especially being Botvinnik: the man constantly surrounded by rules, structured to the marrow. I remember that we left the room during his final press conference, because Botvinnik tried to mumble something… This wasn’t typical at all for him. This only added to the degradation of your relationship, didn’t it? Yes, our relationship ended after that, that’s right. On mutual agreement, because… He was clearly uneasy and offended that I went after him like I did, and I was young and impulsive, incapable to understand why he would behave like that. It is a pity, obviously. Many years have passed now… That’s it. Life went on.