|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
 Interview
with GM Raymond KeeneBy Rick Kennedy
Kennedy:
First, GM Keene, congratulations on a very fine book (with Julian Simpole)
on the 9th World Chess Champion, Petrosian vs the Elite (Batsford
Chess, 2007). It was a pleasure to read (and reread) and review. Keene: Many thanks. Kennedy: Tigran Petrosian (1929 - 1984) is still largely unappreciated amongst average chess players, more than 20 years after his death. What do you see as some of the reasons for this? Is he still "unknown", unheralded, or misunderstood? Keene: He suffered under Fischer’s shadow and many journalists* were hostile to him, as I explained in the book.
Kennedy: The prejudice of Western journalists is duly noted. Did he have any personal feuds with Soviet journalists? Did things get better for Petrosian with the Soviet press after he began working on "64" [Petrosian was chief editor of “64”, Russia’s largest chess magazine, from 1968 until 1977.] Keene: I think things got better after he won the USSR Championship. [Petrosian won the 26th USSR Championship, Tibilisi 1959; the 28th USSR Championship, Moscow 1961; and the 43rd USSR Championship, Yerevan 1975] Kennedy: Going against his reputation as a strategist, Petrosian was actually a sharp tactician – when he needed to be (e.g. Geller - Petrosian, Gagra 1953)*. This was clear as well when he tangled with top players at blitz. Why do you think this part of his chess play is not as well known?
Keene: He was typecast by the press. If you look at our book it is full of combinations – but unlike Tal he liked them to be sound!
Keene: The player who caused him most trouble was Fischer, but the best games he played were against Spassky. Kennedy: In Petrosian vs the Elite you work to balance things out between the popular image of Bobby Fischer as "the shining knight" versus Petrosian as a "craven Soviet villain." You suggest that it was more an issue of public relations than actual fact. Young Chessville readers may not remember what the fuss was all about. Can you elaborate a bit on this? Keene: There was a big age gap between Fischer and Petrosian – 14 years or so – enough for Petrosian to dominate in their early encounters but for Fischer to move ahead nearer the end. When Petrosian won at the start he tended to be accused of sharp practice by the vociferous Fischer lobby – see Curaçao 1962 and Havana 1966. I explain in the book why this was unfair. I think Fischer’s abandonment of chess from 1973 - 1992 was far worse than anything Petrosian may have done. This was dereliction of duty to the fans who expected so much.
Keene: My proof is that Fischer was taking short draws as well but no-one before our book seems to have spotted this!! Kennedy: The significant difference, it seems to me, is not so much the presence or length of draws at Curaçao, but the allegation that Soviet players agreed with each other before the games to split the point. You're not suggesting that Fischer's short draws were likewise pre-arranged?? Otherwise the comparison seems strained...
Keene: I don’t think the Keres - Petrosian draw was pre-arranged either – in fact I think Keres turned down a draw at one point.
Keene: It doesn’t surprise me at all. Now that adjournments have been banished this sort of thing is not possible. Kennedy: Have you seen, or do you care to comment, on some statistical analysis presented in the following paper? (I admit that in part it interests me in that the authors teach at a University from which one of "The Kennedy Kids" graduated.) Keene: I will take a look at this. I am afraid I don’t put much credence into this collusion stuff. Just see for example in the 1959 candidates Tal, USSR, 1st lost 1-3, all games decisive, to Keres, USSR, 2nd . Any idea of collusion was ridiculous. While it existed the USSR, which was a huge multi-national empire, was the greatest chess machine the world has ever seen or is likely to see. It’s hardly surprising that its players dominated the rest. Just compare now - the [upcoming] Mexico City World Championship* has 8 players:
Kramnik ex-USSR I think that makes the point. Just look at how many top ex-USSR players there still are! Maybe the Soviets drew too much with each other, but if somebody else was winning games that wouldn’t help them at all! I think Keres, Geller and Petrosian drew because they were being ultra- cautious, and Fischer would have drawn quickly as well if they had let him – see his games v Petrosian in that event. The reason Petrosian drew in a winning position as Black v Keres towards the end at Curaçao was that he was praying for a draw and when Keres was amenable he grabbed it. It suited his tournament tactics. Only later did he realize he was winning! It’s happened to all of us. I happen to think Petrosian also stood better v Fischer in two of his draws while Fischer was clearly better in the other draw.
Kennedy: One criticism of Petrosian is that he was often too willing to split the point, even against lesser players. Thankfully, none of these games show up in your book. "Homo Sovieticus was meant to be a prodigy of Stakhanovite over-production, not a pusillanimous compromiser, only too willing to agree to a draw!" is how you put it. How to contrast Petrosian's very hard work in some of the games highlighted in Petrosian vs the Elite with this other "laziness"? Too much dedication to Spartak? :-) [Spartak was the Soviet Sports Society; Petrosian was a serious soccer fan.] Keene: Compared with Fischer he played too much. He complained that the USSR Federation had too strenuous a schedule and he got tired. I agree it was often disappointing to see him agree to short draws with weaker players. However events such as the 1956 Candidates seem to be drawn-laden but in fact he played magnificently – if incompetently – as I point out in the book. [Petrosian finished third, with 3 wins, 2 losses and 13 draws.] Kennedy: Knowing that Petrosian was overworked makes his take-a-breather draws more understandable and seem more "modern." I'm not sure how many readers are aware of this. We talk of chess becoming more and more a young person's game -- perhaps Petrosian was on to something... Keene: In the UK the trend is for out best players to get the GM title as sort of second degree and then give up chess for something else such as the law, accountancy or computing. In such categories are GM Stean, GM Watson, GM Sadler and several others. Kennedy: Much is made of Petrosian's impenetrability, as in your comment that "Petrosian was a deep player whose ideas do not readily manifest themselves." What, after all, is Kasparov trying to say when he writes "The harmony of Petrosian's creativity in chess is represented by a fine alloy of the theoretical and the practical. The theoretical foundation was deeply connected with practice. He had a profound feeling for methods which would enable him to reach his purpose, and for additional resources which could serve up the perfect solution"?? I know that Petrosian vs the Elite is your whole "thesis" of what Petrosian's games were about, but can you boil it down to "25 words or less" for Chessville readers? Keene: Petrosian didn’t like losing. He chose closed openings by and large so that events wouldn’t run away with him as they might in open Sicilians. Sometimes he came badly unstuck in such defences, as in the famous loss to Spassky of 1969.* He wasn’t a highly theoretical player and often chose off-beat systems. His aim was to build slowly and architectonically and if there was the slightest whiff of danger he tried to snuff it out.
Kennedy: On his way to the World Chess Championship, Petrosian almost didn't get there, as you write in Petrosian vs the Elite. After the 1956 Candidates Tournament (Petrosian came in 3rd) he considered abandoning chess. Can you elaborate on this? Keene: Again it was the press. He was heavily attacked for draws, but they were caused by incompetence, not lack of fighting spirit. He was so demoralized he considered giving up chess. Fortunately he didn’t. Kennedy: You played Petrosian twice*, in the European Team Championship in 1973, and in the 1974 Olympiad - two grueling games that eventually slipped from your hands. The latter game began 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d3 Bb4. Petrosian liked to play Bg5 in his Queen-pawn openings, and here he played 5.Bg5, the first time he did so in this position, as far as I can tell (more popular was 5.Bd2) although not to any advantage. Any reflections on this game, or the "gift" of facing Bg5 in this position for the first time? The former game was a 96-move hammer-and-tongs affair, with a time-troubled ending. Did Petrosian actually forget to hit his clock? Can you share this story with Chessville readers?
Keene: In our first game he did forget to press his clock, in severe time trouble. I pressed it for him and I went on to lose an equalish ending. The 1974 game was also equal until I blundered in the second session – see my notes in the tournament book of Nice 1974. Kennedy: Any chess tournament interactions with Petrosian's wife, Rona*? She was quite a powerful force herself, and "inquiring minds want to know!" Keene: I never met her.
Keene: Leko, perhaps Karpov, though he is of the older generation. Now, Kramnik certainly. Oddly, Aronian, Petrosian’s fellow Armenian, doesn’t seem influenced at all by his style! Kennedy: Indeed, Aronian seems at times to be the anti-Petrosian! Both share(d) sharp tactical insight, it's just that Petrosian's often showed up in the annotations, in "the road (wisely) not taken" as it were? Keene: In a recent interview Aronian said that the top Armenians admire Petrosian for his results more than his style. Kennedy: Oh, Petrosian's two wins against Kasparov (#65 Kasparov - Petrosian, Moscow 1981 and #66 Kasparov - Petrosian, Tilburg 1981) do not show up in the "Index of Opponents." Further proof of a "conspiracy"?? <grin> Or simple type-setting error? Keene: Index writer’s blunder. The publishers compiled the index, not us! Kennedy: I know how that happens. Supposedly there is a cadre of retired free-lance spinster librarians out there who index-for-hire... <grin> Keene: No, it was the Batsford Chess editor. Kennedy: Petrosian vs the Elite has got to be about book number 150 for you by now? What are you working on currently? Care to guess how many more you have in you? Keene: More like 140. I am hoping to do a book on the Mexico World Chess Championship and I have a book coming on the 2006 Match. Meanwhile, I have also compiled a 100-book set of my best books – limited edition to 1,000 sets world-wide for connoisseurs and collectors. I am also producing DVDs, e.g. “The 12 Best Games of Chess Duels of the Mind” is my first one. Kennedy: I'll be sure to have my Chessville Editor request a review copy of that 100 book set. :-) Keene: I think they may have to pay for it. In fact, I am hoping they may wish to agent this exclusive product in the USA!
Kennedy:
Many thanks for your answers.
GM Raymond Keene Plays 20 Questions with Chessville
|
The
|
|||
|
|||||
Kennedy:
You take the "Fischer lobby" to task in your book, time and again (rightly
so, for the most part, in my opinion) for a one-sided view of a number of
controversies -- including the 1962 Candidates Tournament in Curaçao, where
Bobby claimed afterwards in an article in Sports Ilustrated (later,
Life) that "The Russians Have Fixed World Chess." Rather than a
"conspiracy" of Soviet players agreeing amongst themselves beforehand to
draw their games with each other, in order to save energy for their games
against
Western
players, you suggest that it was a simple case of Petrosian being practical
so that he didn't burn himself out like he did in the 1959 Candidates
Tournament. To take the devil's advocate position, reading GM Jan
Timman's 
Kennedy:
In Curaçao, Keres seemed to have the worst luck, missing the top place by
1/2-point. What of Pal Benko's claim in his
