"I´m incredibly solid"

Here is some of what he has to say about Game 5:

<Another White bites the dust! Anand goes up 2 games.

The day started with a visit from a German TV station (MRD?) who interviewed Werner and were then granted permission to follow us through our pregame routine on stage and backstage. They aired about an hour ago and they promised Werner a DVD of their proposed 2.5 minute clip. As game time approached I was chatting with GM Ian Rogers' wife Cathy when Anand suddenly arrived and I had to rush off mid sentence.

Anand retreated three times today to his private area. On the first occasion I could see from my monitor that he was struggling to open a container. He came out of his room. I met him in the hallway and he asked for some help to open his flask of hot chocolate. The lid was far too snug but I could not fail him! When presented the open flask he looked at me and said "ah, stronger". So I am stronger than Anand. Hmmm.

I give Kramnik a lot of credit. Almost all of the questions at the post game press conference were directed at him, and he was great. They asked about the repeat variation and he was ready for it. He granted that anand made some very nice preparation but " My team has also done some work. It's a sharp game and one mistake can decide the game... Nd4 was a blunder of course, I didn't see ...Ne3" This move does happen at the end of the combination, about 5 moves later mind you.

According to the prematch bulletin, Kramnik had won 6 times with white prior to the match, while Anand had won 4 games- 2 whites and 2 blacks. Now their career score is 6-6 and Anand has won 4 times with Black! Israel Gelfer was suggesting that this is the first time in the history of the World Championship that black has scored the first 2 wins.

It has a link to various interviews with Vladimir KramniK. To read these is a good way to get to know the man AND the player...

Question: When there were these short draws they were heavily criticized. There was a lot of negative press. Do you understand this criticism?

Kramnik: It’s a complicated matter. From one side I can understand this, but basically, I may be subjective, I may be wrong, but still I think this criticism is not justified. It’s about your philosophy, how you see things. I believe, and now I may be a bit too harsh, that there should be more respect for the players. I’m not arrogant, I am not trying to present myself as a big star, but I think there should be more human understanding and respect. First of all, there are short draws like in the third game. What can you do? It’s completely drawish, it would be ridiculous to continue playing. Then there were a couple of games where we agreed a draw in a more or less playable position, but there were not too many of these. These draws you have to understand. A player can feel badly, anything. Amateurs want to see a game, but we are also entitled to some understanding from them, that sometimes you have certain problems. For example, if I go to a concert of a great pianist or violinist, I respect this person so much that if he plays 15 minutes and then says, I am sorry, I’m not able to play, okay, I don’t mind, because I know how high is his level, how hard he works and how much he gives of himself. In fact, how much he sacrifices to achieve what he achieves. This is a matter of respect. I don’t know what happened, why in the years that we may almost call the golden period of chess, there was so much respect for chess players. Petrosian and Spassky had no fewer quick draws than us, but they were maestros and could afford it. Because in the next game they would do something enjoyable for us, they would give us a present, some nice fight. We agreed that sometimes they needed to rest, whatever...’ Interview, 2005

Site with various interviews with Vladimir Kramnik
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/intervie...

Question: I see you coming back after the first game saying, guys, we have a problem. Our schedule has been turned completely upside-down.

Kramnik: Yes, of course, I didn’t expect this turn of events. In the first game you play something solid to get into the match. Of course it can happen that you win, but it’s a completely new situation after Game 1 already. Probably I didn’t do very well in this situation.’

Question: Was it psychologically difficult?

Kramnik: Well, psychologically it is still more difficult to be behind. You can say that everything is difficult psychologically, but this is basically easier to deal with. I don’t know what happened after this game but for a while I lost touch. I was having problems with white, not getting much. And Peter was playing very solidly with white. Before the match I was thinking that we would both press with white and that we would have complicated games. But somehow it started to become a little bit dry, not because we wanted to, but simply because we couldn’t find the keys with the white colour. Something was wrong for some strange reason. Maybe I got too confident after this early win and thought that nothing could happen, that everything was under control, and in Game 5 I paid for this. Partly because I was too relaxed. ’

Question: The second game you lost was beautifully played by Leko, but on the other hand it was clear that something went seriously wrong in your preparation.

Kramnik: It was an incredibly strange coincidence. It was a brilliant game from Peter’s side, because over the board it was not easy to find all these moves in such a sharp position, but from my side it was stupidity. It was clearly a hole in my preparation, but it was a very strange hole. We analysed this whole line and then some hours before the game we found this idea with 18...Nf6 and 21...Qg6. We briefly checked 22.Ne4, okay White is slightly better, but Black can hold. Then somehow we got this idea of 22.ab5, but there was very little time to check it. We looked at 22.ab5, did some analysis, it seems that White is better. Of course, I understood how dangerous it is, but the fact that we ended up in this position after 25...Qd3, was a complete coincidence. If Peter had not had 19 minutes but, say, 49 minutes in this position after 21...Qg6, I would, of course, sit quietly and find all this and never play ab5. But he was clearly under pressure, clearly suffering and while he was taking all this time and thinking about 21...Qg6, I made this decision. I was in the rest room and decided to play fast, not to give him time to think. To put further psychological pressure on him by responding immediately. I was checking variations and I already saw queen d3, but I thought it was just a perpetual. After all we had probably checked this with a computer so it shouldn’t be lost, because otherwise the computer would have shown that such a position is clearly lost. I was also checking 22.Ne4 again and thought it is probably drawish, and then, just two minutes before he made his move, I decided that if he played 21...Qg6, I would play 22.ab5 immediately and just see what would happen. Of course, it was fully my mistake, I should have thought, no matter how much time he had. This kind of thing had never happened to me before. You are White, you play all moves according to your preparation and you shake hands. This is something unbelievable, especially in a world championship match with a limited number of games and an incredibly tough opponent. You just give a point with white. I don’t know if this ever happened in a world championship match before.’

Question: Was it easier to cope with because it was such a coincidence?

Kramnik: No, for me it would be easier to lose normally. This can happen. Still, I started to play better after this. This is something I HAVE NOTICED VERY OFTEN: THAT AFTER A LOSS I PLAY BETTER. So it was both a blow and it helped me in a way to play better. In world championship matches one of the most important things is not to make, in tennis language, unforced errors. This you shouldn’t do. You really should make your opponent suffer before he can beat you. He really has to show everything, but just giving a point like this is strictly forbidden.’

http://www.kramnik.com/eng/intervie...

Question: Leko miraculously saved a couple of his black games. Were there moments when you began to despair that you were never going to tear down his defences?

Kramnik: I NEVER LOST HOPE, not even before the last game. There was something I had, probably wrongly, put into my mind. Some time ago, I don’t remember for what reason, I was checking all world championship matches. I cannot speak about the matches of Steinitz and Chigorin, because this was different chess, but for instance if you start with Lasker and Capablanca, when it is already becoming serious, I noticed something interesting. It never happened that the one who played worse or not better than his opponent, managed to win. The outcome was always fully deserved. The person who won or kept the title was at least not worse than his opponent. Not in one single match. Here I had the feeling that I didn’t play worse. Maybe I didn’t play much better than Peter, but I didn’t have the feeling I was playing worse. And that’s why I had this psychological thing that I should not lose this match. According to this idea I should equalise the score and not lose the match. (Smiles) But of course one thing is to think about this, another thing is reality. I might not have won this last game and then my theory would have been proven wrong.’

Question: Judging by the 13th and 14th games an outsider might say that if you had played more aggressively sooner, you wouldn’t have had these problems.

Kramnik: Partly you are right but it is also about your opponent. In a way Peter also became a bit too defensive, he allowed me to play more aggressively. In a match it’s always about both players; you are never alone in a match. I allowed him to play as he did in the middle of the match and here it was partly his fault that he allowed me to press really hard. You can call this a mistake, but it is unavoidable. When I played against Garry, he was also pressing very hard at the end of the match. We’re humans. You are very close, you want to make a draw, you want to defend, you want to take the title. Even with a lot of experience you do this.’

http://www.kramnik.com/eng/intervie...

enjoy!

That seems like the sensible course, but also both players have to take into account what they've prepared over so many months. I would guess that includes different weapons for different match situations, but this was a difficult one to have anticipated.

<Ipecac>

Kramnik was talking about black's position when he said "I'm incredibly solid" in the game 4 press conference. He wasn't bragging.

<The Rocket>

enjoy!

It makes sense, but what do you suggest? The Semi-Slav I guess would otherwise be ideal - ambitious yet perfectly sound, and Kramnik knows a lot about it - but the problem is that his opponent also knows one thing or two, and recently even won a couple of fairly impressive games with it...

But OK, it might be a bit uncomfortable for Anand playing it from the White side. I don't know.

Once again more crap from the biased Kramnik basher team. Why bringing again the Kasparov match at this moment? This is the Anand vs. Kramnik match, there's no need to mix things.

All Anand's fans should remember that this match isn't over yet. It's simply naiveté, or something worst, to consider Kramnik dead at this early point of the match.

<Press Release

To the Organizing Committee
of the match Kramnik vs Anand

To the Appeals Committee
Mr. Campomanes
Mr. Freeman
Mr. Gelfer

To all mass media

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The careful study of the video recordings from the rest rooms done by the technical experts of the Russian team revealed the following facts which we would herewith like to bring to your attention:

1. After each move Mr. Anand immediately heads to the rest room and from it directly to the bathroom. During every game he visited the relaxation room 25 times at the average and the bathroom more than 50 times – the bathroom is the only place without video surveillance.

2. Unlike Mr. Anand, the World Champion Vladimir Kramnik spends his time mainly at the playing table. The average number of times he visited the rest room and the bathroom is 8 and 4 respectively.

A short statistical sample derived from the camera recordings in the rest room during the third game shows:

15.54 – Anand plays move 15
15.55 – Goes into the bathroom
15.56 – Goes out of the bathroom
15.57 – Goes into the bathroom
15.59 – Goes out of the bathroom
16.03 – Goes into the bathroom
16.04 – Goes out the bathroom
16.07 – Comes out for move 16

The behavior of Mr. Anand is very similar to the above during all games played so far.

The logical question arises: How many times during a game does a player need to go to the bathroom and with what regularity? The logical answer is: between 5 -10 times at the most, but not 50 as the statistics from the games played so far shows.

We would like to once again remind you that the bathroom is the only place without video or audio surveillance.

In our opinion these facts are quite strange, if not suspicious.

In relation to the above, and to ensure the best conditions for fair play and rule out all suspicions we demand:

1. To stop the use of the rest rooms and the adjacent bathrooms for both players.

2. If a player needs to go to the bathroom, he can use the public bathroom, but only with permission from the Arbiter and accompanied by an assistant arbiter.

3. The Organizing Committee should present the video tapes from the rest rooms to all journalists accredited in the press-center so that they can verify for themselves the facts described by us.

Should this extremely serious problem remain unsolved by 10.00 o’clock tomorrow (October 21th, 2008), we would seriously reconsider the participation of the World Champion Vladimir Kramnik in this match.

according to the arbiter Hal Bond

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/s...

Kramnik still outperforms Anand in this department by a wide margin: