International Grandmaster Mark Taimanov was one of the best chess-players in the world for more than half a century.  He was twice a World Championship Challenger (1953, 1971), Chess Olympiad World Champion (1956), four times the European champion, World Champion among students (1955), twice the Senior World Champion (1993, 1994), USSR Champion (1956), and the winner and/or prizewinner inmore than 80 international tournaments.  Taimanov is the author of more than 20 books on the theory and practice of chess, and has been published in many different countries and languages.

Taimanov's parallel career as a concert pianist was also of world-class stature.  He and his long-time partner, Lyubov Bruk, were recognized as the best piano ensemble of the Twentieth century, and were included in the series "Great Pianists of the Twentieth Century" by the Philips and Steinway companies.

Chessville proudly and warmly welcomes Grandmaster Mark Taimanov!

Chessville:  Mr. Taimanov, most of our readers are, of course, familiar with your great chess career, but you also pursued a concurrent career as a world-class pianist.  What influenced you to study music in the first place, and then chess as well?

MT:  It all began with music.  From childhood I learned on a grand piano and quickly achieved success.  When I was 11 years old, I was invited to act in a musical film, "The Beethoven concerto", where I played the leading role of a young violinist (it was necessary to persist in endeavoring to master violin skills during that year).  After a movie festival in Paris in 1937 I became "a famous actor".  In the same year in Leningrad the Palace of Pioneers opened where talented children might develop their abilities in a variety of directions.  I just began to comprehend chess there as introduced to me by my father.  After two years I became a pupil of Mikhail Botvinnik - and to him I am obliged for my chess career.  So, music - cinema - chess.  A later developed interest includes journalism in this circle of activities.

Chessville:  Although you were for quite a long time one of the top chess players in the world, there was a considerable gap between your two appearances in the World Championship Candidates Matches (1953-1971).  Was that due to the time needed for music, or is there some other reason?

MT:  The years from 1953 to 1971 were perhaps the most active and the most successful in my chess and musical careers.  But peak form is not necessarily coincident with Candidate's tournaments of the World Championship.

Chessville:  In an interview with Lev Khariton you compared certain Grandmasters with great composers:

"Well, for me the resemblance between Capablanca and Mozart is absolutely evident.  I would compare Lasker with Beethoven, and Steinitz with Bach.  Alekhine with his wealth of ideas and sense of harmony is akin to Rachmaninoff.  Smyslov's harmony is closer to that of Chaikovsky's.  Fischer is as monumental as Liszt.  Tal reminds me of Paganini - the same self-abandon and fatalism.  Botvinnik is associated for me with Wagner.  Karpov's chess is as simple and as complicated as Prokofiev's music.  Kasparov with his dynamic play brings to mind Shostakovich and his symphonies..."

Are there any similar comparisons you can draw between some of the younger generation of chess talents now appearing on the world chess stage?  Which composer would you compare your own chess play with and why?

MT:  It is more difficult to me to compare present young chess leaders to any outstanding composers for two reasons: first, I do not communicate personally with them very much and seldom meet them over the chess board, and therefore do not know them very well.  Second, in my opinion, their narrow professionalism limits an enrichment of their personality and prevents development of a brighter individuality.  You see the majority of them do not even have a higher education.

As to my style, by comparison to names of great composers I feel an involuntary certain shyness… But, probably, a parallel with creativity of Frederic Chopin is the closest, as his compositions occupy a significant part of my piano repertoire and especially correspond to my spiritual world.

Chessville:  You have said in earlier interviews that for you both chess and music are creative in nature.  Please tell us what other parallels you see between chess and music, and talk about your state of mind when engaged in each activity.  What about the competitive aspects of chess as opposed to music?

MT:  A combination of chess and music is, I think, ideal and harmonious - giving both reason and feeling an open space.  History illustrates some examples: Francois-Andre Danican Philidor, Sergei Prokofiev, David Ojstrah, Vasily Smyslov, Lajos Portish and others…

There are basic general properties between chess and music: they are both creative processes, both chess and music awaken the imagination, both incorporate a logic of development of events, both chess and music in essence have special strategic plans, both allow an open space for designing of form.  The competitive aspect is much brighter in chess, but in music there are also competitions by musical performers.

Chessville:  We Westerners know least, perhaps, about the Soviet Union of the late 1940s.  What were conditions like for chessplayers in the immediate post-war era, when you won the first of many Leningrad Championships?

MT:  Chess had huge state support and public attention in the USSR.  We were the recognized world leaders, and it served as a subject of general pride, and for the management of the country it was an instrument of international propaganda.  The state did not stint on means of chess development, and grand masters in the USSR were held in deserved respect.  Sufficient to say, that my business trip to Liverpool for the World Student Championship in 1952 was personally signed by Joseph Stalin.

Chessville:  Zurich 1953 is considered one of the greatest tournaments of the 20th Century.  How did you feel it was going, round by round?  What was it like to play Reshevsky, and did you feel any extra pressure to do well against the American?  Any comment on Bronstein's recent allegations?

MT:  I think that the Candidates tournament in Zurich in 1953 was the greatest chess event of the last century, and I was happy to have played there.  Certainly for the Soviet politicians the success of our chess players was very important - they might resort to backstage maneuvers David Bronstein has related about the mid-century.  I shall say frankly, at that time I did not know anything about it - as we say in Russia, it was not accepted "to carry out the rubbish from the izba" (Editor's note: an izba is a peasant's hut).  All this was usually done secretly.  The most of what was demanded of me, for example, - was the threat to not finish ahead of our leaders, (and most of all Smyslov), i.e. to not aspire to win against them.  And to play with special attention versus our leader's chief competitors.

Chessville:  We are aware that words attributed to various Soviet players were sometimes penned by government officials and published under the player's name.  Was your name ever used in this way?  In particular we are thinking of an article on the World Chess Network wherein Larry Parr suggests that words attributed to you might have been penned by a Soviet official:

"`Fischer is too deeply convinced that he is a genius,' wrote Mark Taimanov in 1960, and statements with the same tone often appeared in Soviet chess publications." [e.g.] "... after Fischer lost to Spassky at Siegen 1970. "Even some Americans (whose names I am not going to disclose, being a neutral party) were not too upset by the defeat of their leading player. ‘It’s time Fischer was shown that after all he is not the genius he styles himself to be,’ was their comment.""

MT:  I never responded to a "prompting" by officials.  But I have to admit, that I also had no dissident insights.

As to Robert Fischer I really think of him as a great chess player though I do not remember that I named him genius.  My attitude to Fischer and a history of our match was described in my book "I Was Fischer's Victim" published in St. Petersburg, Russian in 1993.

Chessville:  Did you ever know (or strongly suspect) in advance, by instinct or by reason, that some young player would certainly become World Champion?  Did you think that about the young Spassky or Karpov, for example?  Or Petrosian?

MT:  I knew Boris Spassky since childhood (he is my fellow countryman and the pupil of the Palace of Pioneers, as I was) and immediately I appreciated his huge talent.  His harmonious way to the chess Olympus was easily predicted.

Chessville:  Who did you simply like best among your fellow Soviet GMs?

MT:  I was lucky to have many Grandmaster friends among my colleagues.  These were chess players of the senior generation - Salo Flohr (he was my second for many years) and Andre Lilienthal; the chess players of my age - Yuri Averbakh, Efim Geller, Tigran Petrosian; and younger - Mikhail Tal, Boris Spassky.  I always not only appreciated our mutually friendly attitude, but also admired their chess advantages.

Chessville:  What did the Soviets feel when Larsen started winning tournaments?  What was the difference in how he was perceived as opposed to Fischer?

MT:  Though Bent Larsen is undoubtedly a very strong chess player, he, as opposed to Fischer, was never considered as a dangerous competitor to our best Grandmasters.

Chessville:  Your games are known for your strong attacking play.  What do you think your best attacking games have been, and which attacking games of others do you admire most?

MT:  I do not think that the strongest part of my play is attack.  It seems to me that it's possible to consider my chess trumps to be a harmonious style of play, imagination in the opening, a tactical ingenuity, a sequence to realize a strategic plan, and … optimism.  My idols of attacking skill are Alexander Alekhine, Mikhail Tal, and Garry Kasparov.

Chessville:  Regarding the current state of the World Championship - do you think the traditional system with Zonals, Interzonals, and Candidate's matches can ever be revived, or should they be?  What is your opinion of the FIDE knock-out World Championship events?  What is the best way to determine the World Champion?

MT:  I think over time the three-year selection cycle justified itself completely, but today it is not so real.  Unfortunately, nobody has offered a new worthy program.  In the present chaos only the Prague agreements gave hope, but these turned out to be unrealized.  The knockout system looks rather dynamic and democratic, but the element of chance in it is too great.  In my opinion it should determine not the World Champion, but the candidate for a match with the Champion.  It would be interesting to see a match tournament on the lines of the "Moscow, 1948" format.

Chessville:  Do you have a favorite player today, and if so, who is that and why?

MT:  Most of all today I appreciate Garry Kasparov's creativity, whose dynamic style reflects the spirit of modern life.

Chessville:  In your interview from 2002 with Joel Lautier you said about your famous 1971 Candidate's match with Bobby Fischer "The terrible feeling that I was playing against a machine which never made any mistake shattered my resistance."  This is strongly echoed by what Konstantin Sakaev said about facing Kasparov, "Really, an energy radiated by Kasparov during the game..."  Have there been other players about whom you would say the same sort of 'energy' effected their opponents, much to the same degree that Fischer & Kasparov did?

MT:  I think that this enormous charge of energy is present with R. Fischer and G. Kasparov and radiated in even greater degree by Misha Tal.

Chessville:  Do you have any experience personally playing with the Distance Chess technology produced by Shahcom Company?  What do you think about it's potential for use in international competitions?

MT:  Undoubtedly broadcasting live chess games plus audio and video images on the Internet has a huge future.  The Shahcom Company continues to play a leading role in the development of Distance Chess.

Chessville:  What recent chess books or authors do you enjoy or recommend?

MT:  To admit the truth, I appreciate the old classical chess literature - S.Tarrasch, A.Nimzovich, A.Alekhine, M.Botvinnik which reveal a depth to the content of chess art.  I think it's necessary to know books about world-title matches.  D.Bronstein's book about Zurich is magnificent.

From modern books I expect much from G.Kasparov's series "My Great Predecessors" though I am not pleased by the prospect of analytical computer intervention in many axiomatic games of great masters of the past.  All the same, what to do?  Computer research in chess is akin to using a computer to create a color palette of ingenious artists, or "prepare" the perfect compositions of composers - the classics.

Chessville:  In all your battles vs. the King's Indian Defense...what line did you find (as White) gave you the best chances?  Which fit your style best?  Was it "your" move of 9. Bd2 in the Classical?  Or perhaps another was your favorite?

MT:  Over time I gave much attention to analysis of the substantial branchings of the classical variation of the King's Indian Defense which till now has retained it's viability and still arouses interest by the chess elite.  Certainly, modern methods of research this into this opening massif with the help of computer programs considerably deepens and supplys concrete analysis.  But strategic motivations of double-edged global offensive on opposite sites of the chess board - attacks on different flanks - has kept its appeal.

Chessville:  In an interview with Sergey Bystrov last year you talked about the efforts of Ilyumzhinov to provide for the financial security of senior chessplayers.  Now that it appears FIDE's money is drying up, has this support continued?

MT:  The noble idea of financial support to outstanding chess players of the senior generation who have brought about enormous contributions to the development of chess art, put forward by FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, was realized partially; and such leading figures as N.Gaprindashvili, V.Smyslov, A.Lilienthal and some others earned the deserved privileges given to them for several years.  But now this process has unfortunately come almost to a standstill (no funds have been received by myself or others within the past year), which I would like to count as temporary…

Chessville:  You have been interviewed frequently; what questions are you tired of answering, and what questions do you wish to be asked that no one ever has?  Of course, we would enjoy your answers to the second part of this question!

MT:  It's natural throughout various stages of my career and in numerous interviews to reply with a necessarily standard set of answers based on concrete events.  Now more often correspondents are curious about my meetings with great persons of the last century whom I had the good luck to meet. About W.Churchill, N.Khrushchev, F.Castro, E.Che Guevara; and D.Shostakovich, D.Ojstrah, M.Rostropovich; and M.Botvinnik, R.Fischer, T.Petrosian…  I retell all this in my (Russian language) book "Remembering the most - most".

Chessville:  What are your future plans, both in chess and in music? What would you still like to achieve in these areas?

MT:  In my life as a chess player I have played thousands of games, won hundreds of tournaments, have written over twenty books, received the highest sports ranks and State awards; as a musician have acted in thousands of concerts, have made a recordings of tens of disks, in the genre of piano duets my partner, Lyubov Bruk, and I were recognized as the best ensemble of the XX century, and were included in a series "Great Pianists of the Twentieth Century" by "Philips" and "Steinway" companies.  So I have that to look back upon with satisfaction.  But God grant me still to serve both my callings.