Kasparov on Carlsen

Below is an excerpt of an interview with Kasparov on Magnus Carlsen. Earlier, I criticized Seng Sun for distorting Magnus' comments on quitting the World Championship Cycle. But I disagreed with Magnus' choice to quit it.

I suppose, my take on the issue may not have a lot of weight, but it would be safe to say Kasparov's take on the matter does count for something. He has more or less said the same thing that I did about Magnus' poor attitude. Of course, he has greater insights on Magnus' poor work ethics considering that he did work with him very closely.

Once again, I wish to stress that attitude is one of the most important factors to chess improvement. Even Magnus needs to work hard. What more our juniors? In fact, they would probably have to work twice or three times as hard just to catch up. So when I hear this talk about getting seniors to coach juniors and what not, it is again the entitlement attitude. The juniors must first demonstrate that they are hardworking enough just to keep up with the level of the senior players. Not just by the fact that they have "fighting spirit". Chess is more than just fighting spirit. Merely the evidence that despite all that fight in the juniors, they find it hard to keep up in terms of level of play shows that the foundation that they have is lacking. This is mainly caused by the lack of hardwork that was found in what some people call "seniors".

Granted, the seniors may not be fighting as hard as they should, but they did at one point in their lives worked their asses off just to get to where they are. I don't even see that in most of the juniors today. What good is fighting spirit without effort in preparation and training?

Anyhow, here is the interview:

Kasparov says that Magnus Carlsen's decision not to participate in the current World Championship cycle is the wrong decision. "At his age and with his development he should fight – on the board." When asked whether he understood the motives of his former charge Kasparov said:

    "He is right to criticize the system as unfair. FIDE has created chaos in the whole cycle. I myself do not like the way the Candidates matches are going to be played, without a pause between the quarter-finals, the semi-finals and the finals. Magnus would still be the favourite, but there will be greater physical and psychological aspects that play a role, a certain element of luck. But I think his criticism of the system is an excuse. He seems to feel uncomfortable taking on such a serious challenge."

So what did Kasparov think when he first heard that Magnus was withdrawing?

    "I wasn't surprised. Already at our training camp in Marrakech a year ago he sidestepped the subject when I discussed his lack of experience in match play. I advised him to play a training match against a world class grandmaster who is not amongst the world championship candidates."

When he led the world rankings Kasparov used to lose an average of one game per year, the newspaper says. In the last three months Carlsen lost seven. What is the reason for that?

    "He does not work as hard as he should. That is my only explanation. Working means to be constantly occupied by a subject, to keep your wits sharp and active. The way he lost against Anand in London was terrible. He should also have lost against Kramnik. The fact that he won the tournament in spite of this shows that he can do better. He is phenomenal at the board. And if he can work hard enough he will dominate chess."

Kasparov says he cannot imagine coaching Carlsen again.

    "He is his own master, he is in the process of becoming an adult. He needs time to think about his future. Everything seems to go his way, but the competition is not sleeping. A year ago he dominated chess, but that is no longer the case. If he had worked hard he could have broken my record of 2851 Elo points. That would have produced great headlines for chess and for him. A player of his talent and medial attraction – the first western player to reach the top of the world rankings since Fischer – would be great for chess. For that he has to prove his dominance incessantly. But he is no longer succeeding in that, and that is not enough to stay in the headlines and to catch the interest of people who are normally not involved in chess. Magnus is twenty. At that age one has to fight. It strengthens character to absorb set-backs and take on difficult challenges. Avoiding them is self-defeating."

Quah Seng Sun on Magnus Carlsen

After reading Quah Seng Sun's article on Magnus' withdrawal from the Candidates matches, I found it very disturbing that Seng Sun failed to paint a balance and true picture to the whole issue. So, to do the whole world justice and give them the whole truth, let us read what Magnus had to say when he withdrew from the World Championship cycle (with my comments in bold and parentheses).

To: FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov & FIDE World Championship Committee.

Reference is made to the ongoing World Championship cycle.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my decision not to take part in the planned Candidate Matches between March and May 2011.

After careful consideration I’ve reached the conclusion that the ongoing 2008 - 2012 cycle does not represent a system, sufficiently modern and fair, to provide the motivation I need to go through a lengthy process of preparations and matches and, to perform at my best. (OK, Seng Sun pointed this out, but I will return to this point later)

Reigning champion privileges, the long (5 yr) span of the cycle, changes made during the cycle resulting in a new format (Candidates) that no World Champion has had to go through since Kasparov, puzzling ranking criteria as well as the shallow ceaseless match-after-match concept are all less than satisfactory in my opinion. (These are the main points why Carlsen withdrew. Seng Sun did not point out at all that CHANGES were made DURING the cycle. Carlsen's frustration should be noted because how would you feel if the tournament directors were to change the format of the tournament after playing a few rounds? This is just common sense)

By providing you with 4 months notice before the earliest start of the Candidates as well as in time before you have presented player contracts or detailed regulations, I rest assured that you will be able to find an appropriate replacement.

Although the purpose of this letter is not to influence you to make further changes to the ongoing cycle, I would like to take the opportunity to present a few ideas about future cycles in line with our input to FIDE during the December 27th 2008 phone-conference between FIDE leaders and a group of top-level players.

In my opinion privileges should in general be abolished and a future World Championship model should be based on a fair fight between the best players in the World, on equal terms. This should apply also to the winner of the previous World Championship, and especially so when there are several players at approximately the same level in the world elite. (Why should one player have one out of two tickets to the final to the detriment of all remaining players in the world? Imagine that the winner of the 2010 Football World Cup would be directly qualified to the 2014 World Cup final while all the rest of the teams would have to fight for the other spot.) (While Seng Sun dismissed Carlsen's comparison to football, I believe that Carlsen could have just as easily picked another sport, like badminton or squash or pool or snooker or darts or swimming or athletics or... (need I say more...), where the World Champion is not seeded into the final. Seng Sun totally ignored the point that the champion is seeded straight to the final. The argument was that this system was not fair. Carlsen may have picked the wrong sport to compare chess against, but the point still stands. In what sport do we see a champion seeded right into the final, be it team or individual?)

One possibility for future cycles would be to stage an 8-10 player World Championship tournament similar to the 2005 and 2007 events. (Seng Sun also made a big hoo-hah about this in saying that Carlsen totally wanted to throw away the match system and preferred a tournament system. Carlsen's intention was to provide an example of a fair system. He did not in any way say that he preferred a tournament system)

The proposal to abolish the privileges of the World Champion in the future is not in any way meant as criticism of, or an attack on, the reigning World Champion Viswanathan Anand, who is a worthy World Champion, a role model chess colleague and a highly esteemed opponent.

Rest assured that I am still motivated to play competitive chess. My current plan is to continue to participate in well-organised top-level tournaments and to try to maintain the no 1 spot on the rating list that I have successfully defended for most of 2010.

Best regards,

IGM Magnus Carlsen

Now, my take on the issue. While my comments above may appear to defend Carlsen's actions, rest assured that my intention was only to straighten out the facts misconstrued by poor reporting. I still think that Carlsen is being a stupid spoilt child for withdrawing from the cycle. Yes, the system is flawed. Yes, it is not fair. But it would only seem very unprofessional to just quit the World Championship cycle, considering his goal would be to prove that he is the best in the world. He should find added motivation that by winning the world championship with the odds stacked against him is even more proof that he is that great a player.

Despite all the muck-ups by FIDE throughout all these years, almost every other chess player has chosen to abide by the decisions of FIDE (poor or otherwise), and continue to compete. The renegades here are none other than Bobby Fischer, Kasparov and a few others. Is Carlsen trying to go down that road? Unlikely. However, I do think that he still has much to grow in terms of maturity and conduct. Even Kasparov has discontinued from working with him because of his poor work ethics. Maybe he is beginning to think he is too good for the system. While the technique and finesse in Carlsen's game is my cup of tea, I have always found it hard to root for a young upstart who has very little regard and respect for the system.