Recuperación

childhood and continued my studies. It was equally there that I learned to play chess.

Indeed, tell us how you came to know chess.

I must have been about ten years old, and it was in the "Pioneer Palace" in Kuybishev. There it was possible to participate in many different activities. When I went the first time I didn't know what to choose, as at school I was inter­

ested in many subjects: mathematics and geog­

raphy for example. Nevertheless, I had to make a decision, so I said to myself "O.K. then, I'll open the door on the left and take a look!". You can imagine what particular activity was going on in that room.

Did your parents encourage you to play chess ? Apart from me, no one in the family was inter­

ested in chess. My father had never played but soon began to read chess columns in the press.

He always supported me because, early on, he understood that I had talent for the game. With hindsight, I ask myself how he could have under­

stood this as he didn't play himself, but it was so:

he closely followed my results and progress throughout various competitions. When I started to win tournaments, people in Kuybishev started talking about me and that made him very proud.

Lev Polugaevsky during Hoogovens 1 9 79, a tournament he won

mathematics never declined and I stayed with it. When it was time to enter univer­

sity, my choice was simple because if one loves maths there are only two possibili­

ties: either one goes in the direction of the mathematics faculty and studies only that subject, or one enters an engineering col­

lege where mathe­

matics is also taught at an advanced level.

It's true to say that my choice was dic­

tated to a great extent by one particular fac­

tor. At that time, the engineering profes­

sion was considered a prestigious career, and in Kuybishev, the engineering college had an excellent reputation. It was there that I enrolled.

The process of selec­

tion was very tough but the courses were of a remarkable qual­

ity. The lecturers gave us an excellent foundation in differ­

ent types of engineer­

ing, but equally so in other disciplines.

But in tris eyes the most important was that I continued my studies.

It was him who pushed you to become an engi­

neer?

Yes, without any doubt, but I was totally in agreement with him. I was attracted to mathe­

matics at a very young age. I believe that I had the right character and a real aptitude for this subject. Throughout my education my interest in

34

There was only one area which was deficient:

foreign languages. Fortunately, things have changed, but at that time the study of foreign languages was not taken so seriously. There were of course some language schools in the country but they were few and far between.

When was it that you started to study chess seriously and who were your different trainers ? In 1 948 I played a tournament in the Pioneer

Palace and it was there that Alexey Ivashin no­

ticed me. I was a first category player and he was only a candidate master but he had great experi­

ence as he had played many tournaments, not only in Russia but all over the USSR. At that time he was the Kuybishev champion and I remember that all the members of his family played chess, his brother but also his sister and mother! His house was almost a club and served as a meet­

ing-place for the city's players and others who were passing through. Ivashin was the first to give me any real lessons, not on a regular basis, only when he had time. Due to him I too became a candidate master at the age of 15. Then it was Kulikov's turn, another candidate master, who was city champion before Ivashin. After him came the International master Lev Aronin, of whom I have the fondest memories and most owe for my success. Aronin was a truly strong player who had participated in the Soviet championship several times, and even finished equal second on one occasion. His main regret was never to have achieved the grandmaster title. This fact he sup­

ported badly, sometimes saying "Lev, if I don't merit the title, who else does, then?". He lived in Moscow, but he visited Kuybishev from time to time to see his brother, and it was then that I had the chance to work with him. Our collaboration lasted nearly ten years during the 1950's. Then he left me to become Boris Spassky's trainer.

From 1 950 to 1953, as well as the sessions with Aronin, I participated in the group courses of Rashid Nezhmetdinov who was training the Rus­

sian junior team. He was someone very likeable but rather strange. I remember that no one had ever seen him eat(!); one really didn't know how he managed to nourish himself. All day he drank very strong tea that he had spent hours himself preparing. Rashid had his own philosophy about chess. For him the result wasn't of any impor­

tance, and the only worthwhile thing to him was the way that one had played. He loved the "beau­

tiful game" and was a master of sacrifices. He was a fantastic player, a particularly formidable opponent in complex positions and it wasn't by accident that he achieved some brilliant victories against Tal. His lessons were orientated towards tactics. He was very friendly, but unfortunately had poor health and he died whilst still fairly young.

Following that, when I came to Moscow I didn't have a trainer until the early seventies. It's then that I met someone who was equally to have a strong influence: Isaak Boleslavsky. Just as Aronin, he had had a brilliant career but his had been held back during the Petrosian era. It was well known that the two didn't get on. With him I began to realize that I could become one of the best play­

ers in the world.

Was it then that you decided to become a profes­

sional player?

Yes, in 1973, but much later than most people think. During the 50's and 60's I had pursued two activities: my studies and then work as an engi­

neer and chess competitions. I must admit that being an engineer is an enthralling profession and I gave it much of my time. Looking back, I don't regret anything but not having given one hundred per cent of my time to chess, during that period, must have certainly slowed my progress.

When one is young one learns better and above all quickly. However I must confess that even so I had the benefit of a favourable working arrange­

ment. When I was to play a tournament I needed to have two or three weeks in order to prepare and in such cases I obtained permission for time off from my director. On my return I plunged back totally into my role as an engineer. Frankly, these two careers weren't always simple to pur­

sue and I know of only two people in the USSR who were in this situation: Botvinnik and I.

Nevertheless, putting things into perspective, there were many less tournaments then and I played rarely more than two or three a year, although they tended to be longer than those of today. So during twenty years I thus split my time, but progressively my passion took over from my profession. I had obtained excellent results in chess and it was beginning to become clear to me that it was time to make a choice. In 1973, qualification for the Candidates' , follow­

ing my second place in the Petropolis Interzonal, was the decisive moment. It was then that I officially became a professional chess player.

He was never your trainer but one feels that Botvinnik is someone who influenced you greatly.

This is what you seem to express in your last book Grandmaster Achievement.

Yes, it's true. I've always had a strong admiration for Mikhail Botvinnik. He's someone who has meant a great deal to me, as he has given me much in both the chess and the human domains.

We have become rather close as we have three points in common: we were of course highly ranked chess players and lived in Moscow (I moved there in 1 962); but what really brought us together was that we were both engineers, he in electricity, myself in thermodynamics.

From the age of 1 5-16 years old Botvinnik be­

came my idol. I liked his style of play and I believe that in a certain manner it has much influenced mine. In Grandmaster Achievement I recount faithfully my state of mind from that period: "Since my youth, Mikhail Botvinnik has been my idol and practically the first game that I studied seriously was his brilliant victory over Lilienthal from the 1 944 USSR championship. I was so delighted by that game that, for the first time in my life, instead of going to school I went to the park, and there on the bench I played through the game for perhaps the seventieth time on my chess board. From that time on I lived under the influence of Botvinnik's style. I had a book of his selected games that I kept under my pillow and I have always followed his advice, even after also becoming a grandmaster ... ".

I met Botvinnik for the first time in Moscow in 1950 at the Russian championships that took place in Saratov. I didn't speak to him but in his chess column in the magazine 'Ogonyok' he published my best game with his comments. A decade or so later, when I came to live in Moscow we got to know each other. He was very attentive of both my chess and engineering careers, he gave me much sound advice, and due to him, I met many important people. One day he intro­

duced me to Dmitri Gemerin. One time he was the energy minister but, having had some prob­

lems with Khrushchev, became director of the Energy Institute in Moscow. It was there that I worked. Gemerin loved chess and never missed a chance to go and encourage his friend Botvin­

nik, our mutual friend. I always maintained a good relationship with Gemerin and it was due to him that I was able to sometimes have time off to go and play in tournaments.

I owe Botvinnik my 'career' as an author, be­

cause let's not forget that it was him, on that

famous 1 7th of December 1969 in Belgrade, who pushed me into writing my first chess book by asking: ''Are you at present writing a chess book?".

I replied in the negative and then he 'assassi­

nated' me with the remark: "Why don't you accept that you are lazy? You should be ashamed of yourself. It is the responsibility of all grand­

masters to write books".

Do you remember your first USSR champion­

ship ?

Yes, it was in 1 956 in Leningrad and I shared fifth place with 10.5117. I remember that I was par­

ticular! y proud of having participated because at that time I still lived in Kuybishev, a very modest city in chess terms. It was the first time that a player from the city had succeeded in qualifying for the final of the USSR championships. My participation was a great surprise, not only for me but for my family and the chess world. In that period there were far fewer players than now and the elite were concentrated in the larger cities such as Moscow and Leningrad. In my personal case, the fact that I was so distanced from the 'chess capitals' manifested itself in a lack of informa­

tion. I didn't have many books at my disposition, and above all I didn't have access to many pub­

lished games, not only those from the USSR but also from elsewhere. Therefore, from the quality point of view, I couldn't compete equally with the nation's most prestigious players and perhaps didn't gain the full benefit of the experience.

For all that, the championship was not all negative for me. True, I didn't have as much information on my opponents as I would have liked, but from their point of view they didn't have much on me.

In a sense, I was a new member of a family and it probably took them some time to adapt. There was, without doubt, the benefit of surprise that worked in my favour, and don't forget that I had nothing to lose and everything to gain! I gained in confidence as the competition progressed.

Do you like studies and problems ?

All through my career I have been close to those for whom the creation or solution of problems is almost a profession. I must say that I have enor­

mous respect for them, even if in my heart I've always thought that composition is a totally dif­

ferent world from competition with a clock.

Frankly, problems have never really been a passion for me, without doubt because of their irrational nature; on the other hand studies are rather differ­

ent. When I was young, above all when I had free time, it has been known for me to immerse my­

self for hours into a collection of studies. After­

wards, I even composed some, but never wanted to show them to others. The spectacular nature of the solutions enthused me, but the most im­

portant feature was to find a solution to a set problem; in fact I believe this to be part of my nature: finding solutions to any particular prob­

lem that interests me, in chess of course, but also in other domains such as politics, economics and so on.

When one chats with you there is one subject that comes up often and seems close to your heart:

computers.

Yes it's true that it's a subject that often occupies my thoughts, not only at a personal level but equally because it concerns the future of chess in general.

Before explaining my point of view I would first like to say that I'm not at all against computers, on the contrary, because they are a godsend for humanity. Let's not forget that I am trained in engineering and therefore can hardly be opposed to scientific progress. Computers allow one to do an enormous number of things and, in particular, for everyone to have access to knowledge. My principle preoccupation, in chess terms and the rest, is to know how to integrate this new phe­

nomenon. How are we going to live with com­

puters and how are we going to manage their use?

What are our objectives and how are we going to achieve them?

From a chess angle, the replies to these questions have become of vital concern, as after only a few years, computers have taken on an important role, too important in my opinion. I think that the players but also organizers and different types of managers have yet to get to grips with the ques­

tion. Here and there, everybody knows that com­

puters have allowed the enlargement of the field of knowledge, notably in respect of games and opening databases, but practically nobody has sufficiently thought out the consequences for the game of chess. At the end of the 1970's I myself suggested a round-table, a sort of think-tank, in

order to study what we should do and not do concerning computers. Basically I think that no clear reply has been worked out and I have the feeling that no one wants to really reflect on it.

I think that there are different perverse effects linked to the use of the computer but in the main this depends on the operator. The main problem for the player to watch out for, and no doubt the worst, is a progressive decline in his under­

standing of the game. Chess is above all based on personal research and reflection, which neces­

sitates certain 'mental gymnastics' . Chess end­

lessly poses new problems and we must face up to them to find the appropriate solutions. The danger is to confine this responsibility uniquely to computers. You have a problem, you then turn on the computer, go to sleep, and on waking next morning the answer is before you. Of course, that rather over-simplifies matters but in reality it sometimes happens that way. If we repeat many times this process there ^are several consequences:

the player becomes passive and his mind loses certain powers; in tournament play, facing new problems he would have less chance of finding the adequate solution, and in a general sense, the quality of his game will decline. Another danger:

excessive confidence in the qualities of a com­

puter. When you need to calculate horribly com­

plicated multiplications, you are sure that the computer will obtain the right number because it's the only possible solution, but in chess it is not always the case and it happens that several moves are worthwhile. In some cases computers even commit errors of calculation. It is therefore appropriate to stay objective and be very critical towards its proposed solutions; in essence to use efficiently and intelligently the computer's re­

sources. All these shortcomings can fade the style of a player, at whatever standard, from a simple amateur to a GM. These days, we can discern perfectly the players whose style has been influenced by computer science, those who have the 'ChessBase' culture. Frankly, I am far off believing that these young grandmasters have a better understanding of the game than those of 1 964 for example; I even feel that the opposite is the case and we are indeed witnessing a regres­

sive phenomenon. To clarify what I have just expounded, it is sufficient to look at the results of certain veterans like Smyslov, Portisch,

In characteristic pose behind the board. Amsterdam 1 984

Kortchnoi or even Bronstein. Evidently, they aren't as strong as before, due to their age, but it doesn't stop them embarrassing the new generation on occa­

sions. Bronstein takes a certain pleasure in beat­

ing those programs which he is playing! It would be really interesting to bring together several representatives of each generation and confront them with some totally new problems. In the past we were more used to thinking by ourselves and it was precisely that what made us strong.

In the field of openings, the influence of comput­

ers is more and more important. Without having arrived at the point of saturation, we have cer­

tainly come to a point of over-information and I'm convinced that it is to the detriment of crea­

tivity. In Buenos Aires I clearly observed what happened in several games. After several moves some positions were already virtually lost. The computer had had its effect. One of the players had simply deeper knowledge than the other and

that's what enabled him to win. The intrinsic strength of the winner had nothing to do with the result.

Is there an answer to all this? Perhaps. In his time

Is there an answer to all this? Perhaps. In his time

In document UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID (página 137-150)