Token

We present a vintage retrospective which joins two facts together: the comeback of 13th World Chess Champion Garry Kimovich Kasparov — who will play the 2017 Grand Chess Tour Rapid & Blitz event in Saint Louis, United States from 13 to 19 August 2017 — and the announced death of twelve-time Italian Chess Champion Stefano Tatai, to whom Italian chess review Torre & Cavallo Scacco! dedicates its summer issue No. 7-8, July-August 2017.
Our reprint is a bit more dated, as it refers to a 1985 interview for la Repubblica in which Tatai discussed — with his usual enthusiasm — the new world chess order after the first two matches between Anatoly Yevgenyevich Karpov and Garry Kimovich Kasparov.

K-Factor Change Carlo Marincovich, la Repubblica, November 13, 1985 — Master Tatai, what exactly did chess journalists mean when they speak about Kasparov’s genius and imagination? “Let me tell you a story, it is happened Saturday during the last game of their match in Moscow. Previously, Karpov had been given a mimeographed bulletin, which the World Chess Champion examined carefully. It was the bulletin of Montpellier’s Candidates Tournament where the challengers for the World Chess Championship were playing. The mimeographed bulletin listed all the moves of a game between the young Soviet Sokolov, 22, and the Hungarian Ribli. Just think what a coincidence: Karpov and Kasparov are at move 18, it seems to me, and until that point the two games were almost equal, move by move. Karpov’s seconds analyzed it, and deepened it in variations. There is a Black Knight on a5 that then jumps to c4. Karpov feels himself relaxed, Kasparov is playing like Ribli. I don’t know whether Garry Kimovich, too, was aware of such game, nowadays information spread quickly in chess circles, especially on the occasion of great matches. But here comes the genius, the Knight moves to b4, just a square next, but what a difference it made on the game, which has just ended as we know it”. — In your opinion who is the greatest between Karpov and Kasparov? And who will outstand the other in chess history? “Kasparov, no doubt, I’m absolutely sure about it. Well, in September of last year, while they were beginning their first match, the one that was interrupted in February, I was playing a tournament in Zürich. Spassky also was there, and one day he asked me: ‘Do you wanna bet on Kasparov’s win?’. I answered no, first because I’m not used to bet, secondly because then I still thought that Karpov would have won. The world challenge continued and when Karpov was leading 2-0 I asked Spassky: ‘So Boris Vasilievich, would you still bet on Kasparov?’. And he: ‘Any sum, Stefano, any sum’. You know, there are players who excel in technique and players who are gifted, creative and talented, authentic researchers of new ideas. Karpov belongs to the first category, like the famous Capablanca, as well as Petrosian. Kasparov is a creative, like Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, Kortschnoi himself and the American Fischer, who, however, also was a great technician”. — What does it mean to be a great technician? “Observing every well-defined principle in order to commit less mistakes. Playing by technique may be a profitable method mainly for subduing weaker players. But there are players who by their mental strength and love for the game — or for both of them together — come out of such schemes, breaking them with new moves or old moves played with new ideas. Well, here we have to debunk a myth, viz. that the new moves come out of the opening. No, almost always the true novelties come out in the middle game. For instance in the 16th game, a Sicilian Defence, which Karpov suffers, there has been that move, ... d6-d5, which almost everyone regarded as a novelty. But no! I myself had seen it played at Budapest in 1965, and yet now, as Kasparov played it by second-hand, it turned the tables. Who knows if Kasparov knew it or not. That’s why I think that Karpov’s era is over and that Kasparov will outstand him in chess history”. — Why was Karpov — who is regarded as computer — surprised so many times? “Just because his great technique induces him not to take risks. Yet, looking at the games of their second match, Karpov took many more risks than ever before. Unfortunately, almost always it went badly for him because it is a kind of play contrary to his attitude. In the 1st game, for instance, he didn’t play a move of proven safety, something that left us astonished and that it happened again and again. In my opinion Karpov was afraid of his opponent’s novelties, which unveils his psychological subjection to the adversary. So, I would not be surprised at all if the first match had been in fact suspended for certain reasons...”. — For what reasons the match was suspended? “Suspicions were there, but then The Players Chess News, a well-known chess periodical, wrote it: ‘As it is known, Anatoly Yevgenyevich uses tonics, and beyond a certain limit he breaks down, so it was necessary to suspend the match...’. It is the one with the weaker nerves who suffers more at such levels, and I am not surprised that Karpov may have resorted to the use of tonics. On the other hand, you know, the psychological factor is decisive. Nimzowitsch codified a principle: the threat is stronger than its execution. And he himself took care to test it. One time, having to play with Lasker who drank coffee and smoke cigars all the time, he asked him in advance not to drink and smoke. Lasker promised he wouldn’t. Then, during the game, Nimzowitsch suddenly got up and went to make complaints to the arbiter that Lasker was keeping a cigar in his mouth. But the cigar is not lit, the arbiter objected to him. Yes, but he could do it, Nimzowitsch answered. And, bit by bit and drop by drop, Lasker collapsed. — So, psychologically speaking, would Kasparov be stronger? “Yes, he plays against the man, he spots his opponent’s psychological essence and then he can do everything. Like a judoka, he subtly pushes his opponent into unbalance, where he himself usually excels. And Karpov has fallen into such traps. Let’s take, for instance, the 16th game: Kasparov sacrifices a Pawn, Karpov cashes in and finally loses. But the paradox is that Kasparov had already offered him the same sacrifice in the 12th game, which Karpov then declined eventually achieving a draw. But the most amazing thing about the 16th game is that Karpov needed only a draw: so why did he go searching for a win, grabbing the Pawn and venturing into a minefield so much contrary to his own attitude? Perhaps his seconds provided him with a wrong analysis, or maybe it has been his panic fear that brought him to self-annihilation. I mean, in the second match Karpov took many more risks than in the past, but things often went badly for him as that was not his kind of play”. — So do you take revenge’s outcome for granted? “I don’t take anything for granted, but, if I may express an opinion (that indeed I am not able to prove it as right), I think that an early revenge is unlikely to happen. In any event, it will not be now or within few months. It would be a débâcle for Karpov, who would feel himself as an already defeated challenger. Furthermore, I believe that Soviets have no interest at all in showing Karpov destroyed and humiliated from an early third match. Yet, despite all, Karpov is always a great player who gave his homeland so much”.

(English translation by I, Robot)