 |
| Alexander Morozevich |
Alexander Morozevich, the top-seed in the Jubilee-Open, does indeed have a special position in the world of chess. He may not be a World Champion, at least not yet. But he is one of the few players who almost has his own "brand" and position in it's own right in the chess world – due to his playing style. The many chess enthusiasts who support him from all over the world enjoy his entertaining games and hope to see him play regularly in the super tournaments. During the Jubilee-Open, we had the opportunity to talk to him. Take a look at his views on chess, his games and his reputation.
Interview conducted by Christian Rohrer
In Biel you played – and eventually lost – a sensational game against Vachier-Lagrave, which included some incredible positions. After the game, were you just completely disappointed or did you feel rewarded for having played such a great game?
Morozevich: Every defeat is a small lesson; You can take it from a philosophical point of view. During the game, I was in an all-in mood. After the game, though, I did not feel good, and I didn't have the impression that it had been a great game – lots of sparks and desire, but very poor calculations. In general I never give an additional meaning to a game. Following the defeat against Vachier-Lagrave I lost interest in my last two rounds, but after a lucky win against Ivanchuk, suddenly in round 10, I had the chance to win the tournament. Unfortunately, I didn't manage to beat Caruana. So after the last game I felt sorry for those people who wished I would win. I've received hundreds of SMS, e-mails with thanks and consolation from all over the world.
Do you have an ultimate goal in chess? Becoming world chess champion? Just as Anderssen did, to play an "Evergreen Game" which is admired for centuries? Or simply to make the most of your talent whereever this may lead?
Morozevich: What an "Evergreen Game" is, is a subjective question. Chess is a sport. I participated in the World Championship tournaments in 2005 and 2007. I played unevenly both times, but in general, I became a mature and experienced player, so it is my goal to fight for the Championship.
Are you completely absorbed by chess, or do you like gambling in general? Do you have other areas of serious interest?
Morozevich: I have never liked poker, it's even boring for me to watch it. When I was younger and broke into the chess elite, I played belot in the early Wijk ann Zee and other super tournaments, relaxing my brain a bit this way and enjoying the good company of chess friends. Now my desire to play means I fully concentrate on chess. I work much more on chess now then in my earlier days. I also feel a certain responsibility to do that.
Do you have a role model? Someone who influenced your play fundamentally?
Morozevich: No, I never had a real chess hero, even not back in my childhood. Of course there were many great players whose games I studied. But I couldn't name a single person.
You are widely thought of as a creative, unconventional and unpredictable player ...
Morozevich: Unpredictablility and unconventionality add up to an old image which dates back almost 15 years. And for that time, my experiments were okay. Compared to then, I play a totally different game today. Unpredictable? They link this to my results, though I have been among the top players for many years now. I am quite a universal player with a classical approach. True, I play a little bit more aggressively than other players, try to win with both colours. But nowadays I play normal openings. And in these, I found new ideas at a very early stage. I am one of the few who always tries to invent something new, and one of the main fashion leaders in chess at the present time.
You excel at blindfold chess. Apart from a great capability of visualisation, what else can we assume about someone especially strong at that? Does it tell us something about playing style? About creativity?
Morozevich: Chess-wise, blindfold games are quite similar to other chess games. Probably, if you were shown two games of a player from the traditional Monaco tournament, say, it would be hard to distinguish which was played blindfold and which was played rapid. For some players, it is just easier to deal with the positions in their minds – players like me (smiles). For other players, it's harder, and sometimes they're simply trying to skip it – going for rapid by playing as safe (or stupid) as possible.
Top professional athletes often talk about the "flow" – everything just falling into place. Tennis champion Sampras occasionally said that he was "in the zone" – where nothing could go wrong. He could have closed his eyes and still would have hit a winner. Did you ever experience this flow-feeling over the board? If so, could you remember it happening in a particular game?
Morozevich: I think in chess you are always playing consciously; You are always calculating. There is no "automatic pilot". Even in typical positions, you always have to look closely at nuances. In my game against Caruana, for example, it made a huge difference that my pawn was on h3 and not on h2. With a pawn on h2 it could have been really automatic: I've played enough French with black to understand that. So okay, maybe in the endgame or in a desperate situation, there may be something like this "automatic pilot". There is a general difference between chess and tennis, though. In tennis, you can come back after a mistake and play really well; In chess, one bad move, and the game can be over, no matter how well you play afterwards.
Subscribe