"I think he was better, but between a slight plus and plus minus, nothing more. He wasn't winning, like his people were claiming after the match. Of course, against a computer you would be doomed! The computer plays some line which you cannot find and would prove he could exploit the advantage, but in practical terms I don't think my position was that traumatic."

- Interview with Gelfand by John Saunders, Chess Magazine (UK), July 2011.

FWIW, I agree with Gelfand - who goes on to talk about internet chess watchers with engines fired up, ready to pour scorn on a GM for missing an 'obvious' move. They're not so obvious OTB without computer assistance, even to world class players.

Yes, I want to laugh sometimes when I read such comments by someone who's likely got their engine at the ready, waiting to pounce, for their moment in the sun when they can refute some idea or other by a stronger player.

<....(Gelfand...is) no computer luddite, but he knows that human beings don't play perfect chess, and a slight disadvantage does not mean a loss. If you're patient and persevere, there will be chances even in difficult games.>

A lesson for those ready to turn to silicon assistance at the first sign of difficulty-we old-timers had to learn to fight, the hard way-there weren't none of them-those silicon monstahs back then.