Kamsky bares his soul

Earlier last week the popular Russian chess site Chess-News.ru published a long interview with Gata Kamsky that had originally appeared on TNV.ru on the 27th of November.

Most of my readers are familiar with the name Gata Kamsky, and his exploits when he first fled to the USA in 1989/90 right up until the time he played a World Championship match in 1996 with Anatoly Karpov.

But most readers will not know the inner torment that he suffered day in and day out at the hands of an over-bearing father, and how it is that Kamsky — to the surprise of the whole world — abruptly retired from competitive chess and soon afterwards ended his relationship with his father.

Kamsky looks back at this period of his life and intimately reveals painful details of this difficult time. Now approaching 50 years of age (he is 46 today), Kamsky has reconciled with his past, found true love (Vera Nebolsina) and seems to have genuinely achieved peace of mind.

In this interview Kamsky also speaks of the world of chess today as he sees it, of the decline of fairness and transparency within FIDE, of the success of the Queen’s Gambit and of many other pertinent issues today.

Excerpts from the interview

Unfortunately, I have not yet learned Russian and so I had to painstakingly translate this interview using an online tool.  I present key excerpts here.  The interview was conducted by Arthur Khalillulov (A.K)

Gata Kamsky Interview

“I think that chess has ceased to be fair play”

Part I

Even then, my father was planning this escape to the West.

A.K.: Since 1989 you have been living in the USA. It is known that you and your father made the move for your chess career. But what does political asylum have to do with it, were you persecuted in Russia?

Kamsky:  We are going to start from the beginning, right?  Ok. I was 14 then. A child at this age cannot make serious decisions. My father decided everything for me. He planned this step in advance. In 1988, we played in the junior championship, and my father was going to meet with representatives of the American federation there to get an invitation from them. Even then, my father was planning this escape to the West.

A.K.:   What for?

Kamsky:  The Soviet Union has always had a problem of the highest competition. There have always been phenomenal talents. And despite the fact that I twice won the Russian Championship among juniors, I could not go to international competitions. All decisions on these points were made by the State Sports Committee for Chess, which consisted of a narrow circle of “its people”. In this way, they received enormous power into their own hands over everything related to chess in the USSR. They decided the fate of all chess players. If they didn’t like you in any way, they could completely close your talent.

Once my father and I went to Chisinau for a tournament, but even there we were told that they could not admit it without the approval of the Sports Committee. They contacted Moscow, and there they said: do not allow this person, we protect his talent. Dad after that realized that it was difficult to deal with this if we were not someone’s favorites. Or if we are not at the school of Kasparov or Botvinnik.

Kramnik has always been Kasparov’s favorite. It turned out quite ironically that Kasparov insisted that it was Kramnik who should get the opportunity to play a match with him for the title of champion, and in the end he lost to him. And after that, Kramnik’s side did not offer him a rematch (laughs). Well, this is also  ancient history …

A.K.: Let’s return to the ‘escape to the West’…

Kamsky:  They didn’t want to let us in, but we got an invitation to a tournament in New York. Our federation then said: why should a little boy go, let us send some famous Soviet grandmaster. My father complained terribly. For this we even joined the St. Petersburg society “Dynamo” and there we had a strong acquaintance, lawyer Yuri Sergeevich Yakovlev. He still works, he is now 90 years old. In the end, we somehow managed to agree that we would go to the tournament.

Later I was told that the federation understood perfectly well that dad was eager to go there to stay there. But so that heads would not fly, three influential functionaries at once agreed on my departure for the tournament, so that if someone was punished, then three famous people would have to be punished at once. But they decided not to mess with my father, he was so punchy. Could bring administrative troubles, complain somewhere. And by dividing the responsibility for the decision into three, these people secured themselves from punishment.

A.K.: And how did things then develop?

We first met with the mediators because the American Chess Federation could not immediately figure out whether it was worth working with us. In the end, they somehow agreed.

As a result, we were contacted by the FBI. And it was known that representatives of the USSR special services were often sent with Soviet athletes for protection. As a result, on the last day of the tournament in New York, the FBI people entered the hall and, as my game ended, they took my father and me to the room and cordoned off the security room.

Then they loaded us with our things into a van and took us to the main building of the FBI in New York. After that, dad was given a long interrogation, in which 3-4 people took part. My father, of course, has a talent for speaking and describing events in a way that makes people feel empathy. The interrogation lasted 4-5 hours. In general, he painted everything for them there so that in the end we were given political asylum. My father managed to explain that I could bring America the title of world chess champion.

A.K.: Weren’t there other Russian chess players in the USA who could help you?

Kamsky:  There were not so many like today. At that time, most chess players in America were amateurs, they did not earn real money and played before University or for 2-3 years more, after which they switched to another professional activity. And I believed that I could really compete for the title of the strongest on the planet under the US flag.

In principle, this is what happened. When I first moved in I had a 2300 rating with something. And literally a year later, in 1990, my rating rose to 2650. Such growth was considered unheard of, never in history has there been such a growth – 300 points per year. At that time, I was already 5-6th in the world. It is interesting that I became a grandmaster by jumping over the international master stage.

A year later, I entered the candidate cycle of candidates for the match for the world title. And in 1996 he played for the title of champion with Karpov. That is, 7 years living in the United States and I achieved all this. Of course, if I had stayed in Russia, then none of this would have happened. Therefore, in hind sight,  such action on part of my father –in a sporting sense — turned out to be very successful.

A.K.: You have lived in the United States since 1989. Who do you feel you are an American, a Russian?

Kamsky:  In fact, today I no longer live in America. I left in 2015. I was often asked the question: why did you leave America? The main reason is that in the United States they did not help me in any way when I approached the struggle for the highest ranks. Despite the fact that I became an American by my passport, for the main sponsors and many influential people, I remained Russian. It’s funny, but much more help was rendered to the American Japanese Hikaru Nakamura.

And this is despite the fact that I have lived in the country for almost 20 years and participated not only in the match with Karpov, but also was one step away from the second championship match when I lost to Topalov. There was exactly zero support. The main sponsors who organized the famous St. Louis chess club were all waiting for the American to finally appear, despite the fact that I became the US champion four times, between 2009 and 2015.

“Of course at this time America’s relationship with Russia changed dramatically and that was a big factor.”

Kamsky: Hikaru had tremendous support even though he was not a champion match candidate and I was. But I received exactly zero support. The Japanese was considered more American than I am Russian. Of course at this time America’s relationship with Russia changed dramatically and that was a big factor. In general, I, of course, got sick of it and offended me, but I tried not to say anything special … Now when it’s not so important, I say, maybe I’m wrong, or I’m becoming paranoid like Bobby (laughs).

I played for America for so many years. Gave them the opportunity to win the World Team Championship for the first time in history. After they practically did not help me before going to Kazan for the candidate tournament – they collected only 5 thousand dollars, which was not enough even to pay for one of my trainers – I decided: enough is enough and stopped playing for the USA.

As a result, Hikuru Nakamura never made it to the match for the world title, but a few years later, Wesley So from the Philippines will immigrate to St. Louis and Italian American Fabiano Caruana will return to his homeland, who will be given such support that even Nakamura has never seen. As a result, Fabiano will go to the world championship match with Magnus, and everywhere in all newspapers and news they began to trumpet how, for the first time since Bobby Fischer, an American plays a match for the world chess title, of course, immediately forgetting about my match with Karpov. Here comments are superfluous when such words come from Fabiano himself.

A.K.:  Is that why you left the USA?

Kamsky:  Yes, I thought, why do I live there? At first I was not sure, but then I met my second wife, she is from Russia. And we decided to try to go back to Russia. At the end of 2015, I came back to Russia. Life has turned out funny. I was born in Siberia, then moved with my father to St. Petersburg, from there to America, and then returned to Siberia. The wife is from there.

In 2017, we moved to St. Petersburg again. It’s still closer to chess tournaments there – both in Europe and in Russia. And this year she entered a French university and we moved there. Literally this September.

A.K.: In 2015, you took part in the Tatarstan Federation Cup. How has Kazan changed compared to 1988, when you played here at the Nizhmetdinov Memorial?

Kamsky:  It recall that I had come to the same competition in 2016 or 2017. My wife and I came. And in Kazan, before leaving for America, it was like in 1988, because a year later in March we participated in the New York Open. As for the change in Kazan, well,  in 1988 I was very little so I remember little. We lived in a small hotel, in the Writers’ House we played simul-sessions, and met with Alisa Galliamova. But in 2015 it was nice to look at Kazan – such a clean city.

A.K.: We have a photo of you with Alisa Galliamova already in 1988. Did you study together in Kazan? Friends? Do you keep in touch now?

Kamsky:  We have always had a good relationship. We have known each other since childhood. She married my good friend Vasily Ivanchuk. Then, unfortunately, of course, their marriage did not succeed, but I always treated Alice with respect. She, by the way, like me, also played for the Kazan Ladya. Together with her we went to the European Championship, she played for the women’s team, and I for the men’s team.

Alice, in general, is a great talent. She stopped playing for a long time, and then returned and twice more became the champion of Russia. She is a true champion and I have lots of respect for her.

---

“Not everyone in the US knows that Beth Harmon from Queen’s Gambit is a fictional character.”

A.K: Speaking of women in chess, have you watched the Queen’s Gambit series about Beth Harmon? What are your impressions?

Kamsky: Of course I did. To be honest, this series needs to be approached from two positions. First of all, you need to understand that Beth Harmon is an absolutely fictional character. For example, we have a problem in America: they call and ask, what was really such a lady? And this Soviet grandmaster Borgov, or whatever it was, did not exist either. Moreover, almost all of the characters in the series are fictional.

There has never been a female grandmaster who beat the male world chess champion. The strongest in reality was the Hungarian chess player Judit Polgar. At the peak of her career, she was in the top ten among men. And she almost never played in women’s tournaments. Only once represented Hungary at the Olympics in the women’s category. But it was like the only time.

A.K.: But back to the show?

Kamsky:  The second point about this is that the series is really compelling. The character is very controversial in fact, but beautiful and interesting. The girl beats the top chess players, of course, many people liked it. Plus there are quite a few adults in the movie, which is pretty dubious. She kind of got into a relationship with all the guys American chess players who helped her.

“Children who watch the show may think drugs are beneficial.”

Kamsky:  And the most controversial moment of the film, in my opinion, is that there are not enough warnings about the use of these tranquilizers by the heroine, which supposedly helped her see chess combinations and so on on the ceiling. For professionals, it is clear that they would not help the chess player in any way, or, more precisely, they certainly would not. As is the constant consumption of alcohol. It is clear that this is fiction. But imagine kids watching or even teenagers. They have the misconception that drugs and alcohol can help achieve tremendous results. And tranquilizers in such large doses are addictive and become drugs.

And after all, people may think that if they help in chess, they can help in other, for example, intellectual spheres, to achieve genius. A famous mathematician, physicist and God knows who else. In my opinion, there should be a lot of warnings in the film that drugs do not actually help to achieve success in chess, and in general this topic is given excessive attention in the series.

Well, in general, the series is certainly well filmed. All these costumes, composition. Light, the acting is generally brilliant. In these respects, the series, of course, really liked.

“It is known that Alekhine lost his World Title title during a drunken binge”

A.K.:  As for the pills. In the history of chess, have there been players who had problems with drugs or alcohol?

Kamsky:  Well, as far as I know, it only hurts them. As for drugs, I don’t know a single great chess player who used them.   Alcohol is different. I do not in the least condemn the famous Mikhail Tal, but it is known that his smoking and drinking alcohol were out of control. But from other world champions in the history of chess, I do not know of other examples who would use this.

Alekhine was also famous for drinking. It is known that Alekhine lost his World Title during a drunken binge. And after that, he abruptly stopped drinking. There was such an anecdote that he bought cows in Holland, settled there, drank cow’s milk and played chess. Under the contract, he was entitled to a rematch. And he managed to regain the title of champion.

There is not a single sport where smoking or alcohol is a positive factor.

A.K.:  And what about doping in chess?

Kamsky:  There were rumors about the use of certain pills, but I do not remember officially recognized cases. Although there is a topic that was discussed 2-3 years ago. It was said that they had invented pills that improve the functioning of the brain. But we are talking about a medicine for people who suffer from the corresponding ailments. But then some enterprising guys decided to test how these pills affect healthy people. And it turned out that they really increase the state of focus and concentration of brain activity. That is, a kind of mental endurance.

In chess, especially in the past, I often had to play for 5-7 hours without a break. In such conditions, it is important to maintain mental energy and the ability to play as collected and accurately as possible. It’s not that easy. So, these pills supposedly helped in this regard. But again, this is all from the realm of fantasy, unconfirmed facts and theories.

I once asked Facebook subscribers about this topic, and people wrote that there really is such a drug. But I know that the International Chess Federation in such cases asks for a medical justification for the need to take such drugs during tournaments.

“I don’t believe that chess playing can cause mental disorders.”

A.K.:  So we can conclude that the consumption of drugs and alcohol is not so widespread in the chess world, and that doping really belongs to the category of myths. But at the same time, it is known that chess is such a complex phenomenon that it can cause mental disorders?

Kamsky:  I don’t believe that chess playing can cause mental disorders. There is a phrase that chess, like music, makes people happy. And about driving you crazy, Fischer is certainly the most famous example. But chess was only a factor that contributed to his mental illness. But first of all, this was due to his seclusion. He had very big problems communicating with other people. He was very suspicious; he saw conspiracies against him everywhere. Now such people are called paranoid.

But pay attention, at the chess board in tournaments he always behaved adequately and extremely respectfully to his opponent. There was a case in the match against Spassky, when Fischer really wanted to become a champion. Then Fischer did not behave quite adequately, but the world champion Spassky forgave him.

I met Boris Spassky personally, he was always very sympathetic to me. He once gave me a very valuable lesson. He told me that you need to learn to feel the moment in the game when its move becomes critical for you. And it is right to find a move so as not to miss the initiative. I used to think, okay, we have to look for a strong variation every move, but then I realized that it is also important to choose the right moment for the strongest move.

Returning to the topic of insanity, Bobby really became known as a paranoid after giving up chess for a long time. For a long time he lived alone, even at some point he became a homeless person. And after he returned to chess, he began to make statements that put him on a par with really crazy people.

A.K.:  But back to Tatarstan. In Kazan, with whom do you communicate when you arrive? Are there any relatives or friends left?

Kamsky:  Actually, in Kazan, I play for the local chess club Ladya, which is run by the Chess Federation of Tatarstan. My colleague Ildar Ibragimov is in charge of chess and we have very good relations. I have played for the Kazan team at the Russian championships since 2013. We became champions in the team event. They even wanted to introduce us to the President of Tatarstan, but something did not work out.

A.K.:  Why would a world-class grandmaster take part in the team competition of the Russian championship?

Kamsky:  All of the strongest grandmasters of Russia and many  foreign players also play there. I think this is a very prestigious tournament. It is also interesting to watch who is progressing, who is a bit unlucky and so on. There are different teams: adults, juniors, a women’s tournament. So, I would not phrase the question like you did.  The Russian championship is not a local  championship. Most of the strongest chess players have historically played in Russia.

“FIDE wants to ban us from playing for different clubs. Nonsense!”

A.K.:  When are you planning your next visit to Kazan?

Kamsky:   I don’t know yet, we’ll see about the tournaments. Now the situation around the world is very difficult in connection with the coronavirus, it is difficult in terms of movement across countries. I am currently in France as my wife is studying at the university. By the way, she is also a chess player. And now I play for a French club.

It’s good that now you can play chess for different clubs. And then the international federation (FIDE – ed.) Is trying to introduce some kind of nonsense, honestly. Namely, to make chess players play for only one club. This means that all players with a rating of 2600 will not be able to make money on chess at all.

A.K.:  Why?

Kamsky:  Because not one club can afford to pay a lot of money to play only with them. That is why chess players play in different clubs, countries, leagues in order to earn at least a little.

A.K.: Did FIDE seem to think that chess is football?

Kamsky:  I hope FIDE will nevertheless reconsider their initiative and, on the contrary, will create even more tournaments in different formats, including online. They were great for hosting the Chess Olympiad this year.

Now they have agreed with Chess.Com to do something else. But again, everything is very complicated there. Chess.Com is a private company and they have a number of rules that I disagree with. Therefore, I do not join their community. And if FIDE trusts a private corporation to host some kind of official international tournament sanctioned by the federation, then this is a very controversial decision.

And now, due to the coronavirus, many tournaments cannot be held at all, in Russia, for example, the Candidates Tournament was canceled. In France, too, chess club competitions were canceled.

“It’s a shame that Russia with a rich chess tradition does not have an online chess platform”

Kamsky:  It’s a shame that Russia, being a country with a much richer chess tradition than the United States or any other country in the world, does not have its own online platforms, like Chess.com, for hosting major international tournaments. Moreover, in terms of the time of the games, it would be more convenient for many chess players of the world to play according to Moscow time, and not according to American time. For example, chess players from China and Japan simply cannot play on the same Chess.com due to the difference in time zones. And China is one of the most powerful chess countries in the world.

I wanted to organize something similar in Russia when I lived in St. Petersburg and talked in Moscow. I even tried to find out in Kazan if this could be done. But nowhere did I notice interest in this idea. It’s a pity, because the online platform, especially in the context of the coronavirus, would go very well now.

A.K.:  By the way, did the coronavirus affect you personally?

Kamsky:  Thank God I was not sick. It’s just that I almost don’t play chess in person, all tournaments are online. I myself often play in this format, I stream on Twitch. This is how I adapted, playing on different sites, online tournaments. Earnings, of course, not much – but better than nothing.

“I understand him perfectly, you can go crazy.”

A.K.:  You agree that your chess fate with Gallyamova (which we talked about above) is somewhat similar to hers. Do you remember the famous match between Alice and the Chinese chess player…just one step away from the World Championship?

Kamsky: I understand him perfectly, you can go crazy.  Every chess player has games that he cannot forget – either with horror or with delight. I also had those. For example, when I lost to Topalov in the seventh game (2009). This match was specially invented by FIDE in order to take away my chance to play for the championship with Anand. And no one could help me, because FIDE sympathized with Topalov. Ancient history, let’s not focus on.

He squeezed me in time trouble, and I blundered first a victory, and then a draw. And so, I had a winning position, but I could not correctly assess the moment – to move with a rook or a pawn. I didn’t see the difference, but it was, because there was a devil’s trap, but I didn’t understand and yawned. In the end, I lost the game, and then the whole match. Topalov then played for the title of champion with Anand.

This was after I won the 2007 World Cup. And again it started, there was a huge part of politics. Okay…

And the second moment when I played the famous Candidates Match in Kazan. It was a great event, the President of Tatarstan Minnikhanov met us. I settled with Topalov in the first round, beat him.

And in the second round I played with Boris Gelfand. All our main games were drawn, then tie-breaks were played, and in the third game I unexpectedly beat him with Black in rapid. And all I have to do is draw in the fourth game in order to reach the final against Grischuk. The winner of this match would go to the championship match again with Anand.

Then my coaches were Sutovsky and our mutual friend Volokitin from Ukraine. I only need a draw, which means I need something plump. Emil (Sutovsky) said that it is necessary to play in principle to win. And he is my friend, and at the same time I understand that he is from Israel, like Gelfand. Such a delicate situation has turned out (smiles). And I understand that my friend will have big problems in Israel if he helps me to beat a compatriot (laughs).

Well, I decided to play for a win and went 1.e4.  We reached a sharp Sicilian with Boris, with whom I also have a very good relationship. I know him from childhood, like Alice and Ivanchuk. We all come from Russia. As a result, in that game we entered a position in which I see a draw line. But then I had some kind of overshoot and I forgot about this variation and lost the game. And he was very upset. And I could not understand why I saw the option, but did not go for it. Such are the psychological jumps that chess players have. Naturally, Borya was inspired after such a victory, but I could not recover psychologically. I lost two more blitz games, and the match. But still, it was not as painful as I lost to Topalov.

I hope I have answered your question partially, though not too succinctly? (laughs).

A.K.: Here you answer, but you yourself do not feel the resemblance to the story of Alice. Take her championship match against a Chinese woman? Galyamova, like you, is more intuitive, if I may put it that way as a chess player, but is that Chinese woman more systemic, like Karpov in the match with you?

Kamsky:  Well, professionals don’t evaluate themselves like that. After all, at such a high level, little things are decided and the factor of luck is very important. There is no such and such a style, and there is another. As in martial arts – one kung fu fighter is a “drunkard”, another “praying mantis” is there. In the famous films of the 80s, if you remember, “I found a counter to his style and we won” (laughs).

A.K.:  It is clear that at this level everyone is engaged in systematic preparation for games. But there were and are chess players who are almost genius by nature, and there are those who, through titanic work, take their toll. Is not it so?

Kamsky:   Of course, there is a natural component. Otherwise, the famous Tal would not have been Tal, without his cascade of figure victims and all that …

A.K.: Capablanca!?

Kamsky:  Let’s go back to the more modern guys. Capablanca, Lasker is almost two centuries ago (laughs). It is known that the next generation always adds their knowledge to the treasury of this ancient game. Kasparov wrote in his book that every new world champion brings something different to chess.

As for the resemblance to Alice … To be honest, I haven’t studied her games much. I had enough of my own problems then (laughs).

---

PART 2

A.K.: You already said that there was little support for you in America. Is it true that the United States doesn’t like Russia and Russians?

Kamsky: This is actually a difficult question. First, people and government must be separated. But there is indeed serious anti-Russian propaganda in the US. The common American believes in what he reads or watches on TV. It amazes me how much this propaganda works.

For Trump, despite the fact that everyone scolds him in the news, almost half of America unexpectedly voted. And under him, relations between the United States and Russia were, I would say, normalized, compared to when Obama was. Now Biden will come to power, and I am afraid that the Democrats, having come to power, will again incite political confrontation between America and Russia. I think this is dangerous.

At the same time, a lot of Russians live in New York, and when I came in 1989, there were much fewer of them. There was only the famous Brighton Beach area, in which we lived for some time. This area was considered Little Russia in New York. And now the Russian language can be heard not only throughout New York, but also in any small town in America.

A.K.: You already said that there was little support for you in America. Is it true that the United States doesn’t like Russia and Russians?

Kamsky: This is actually a difficult question. First, people and government must be separated. But there is indeed serious anti-Russian propaganda in the US. The common American believes in what he reads or watches on TV. It amazes me how much this propaganda works.

For Trump, despite the fact that everyone scolds him in the news, almost half of America unexpectedly voted. And under him, relations between the United States and Russia were, I would say, normalized, compared to when Obama was. Now Biden will come to power, and I am afraid that the Democrats, having come to power, will again incite political confrontation between America and Russia. I think this is dangerous.

At the same time, a lot of Russians live in New York, and when I came in 1989, there were much fewer of them. There was only the famous Brighton Beach area, in which we lived for some time. This area was considered Little Russia in New York. And now the Russian language can be heard not only throughout New York, but also in any small town in America.

A.K.: If relations between Russia and the United States are worse under Biden, how far can all this, in your opinion, go?

Kamsky: I really hope it doesn’t go far. There was a famous film in America, I do not know under what name it was shown in Russia, but literally “Spies like us” is translated. There, two losers try to change their lives and decide to go to the FBI to become spies. As a result, they were sent to Afghanistan, where they became friends with Russian agents.

In the future, an international conflict occurs, they all meet in the same room, and an excited press awaits outside. An American spy comes out and answers difficult questions about the international conflict, he is asked about the “terrible Russians.” Then the spy returns to the meeting room, where he and the Russians are drinking and joking.

So I hope that in reality, “behind closed doors”, Russia and the United States are doing well. I hope that everyone in the leadership of the countries understands that a serious confrontation is not beneficial to anyone.

A.K.: How do you feel about Vladimir Putin as a world-class politician?

Kamsky: You pose a difficult political question. I have always respected Putin, he was able to raise Russia after the 90s. I still remember the times when Yeltsin gave greetings on TV every New Year and what Russia was like in the 90s, I came in 94 or 95. It was just awful. Since then, of course, Russia has become much better.

Putin has done a great job for Russia, but again, what the local American guys think of him is a completely different matter. I can also say that there are plenty of problems in America too. For example, in an economic sense. The middle class has practically disappeared in the United States. When I arrived in the late 1980s, life in America was much better than it is now. Things are much worse now.

A.K.: The elections have passed, maybe the new president will change something for the better?

Kamsky: It is clear that something can be changed, but our president does not influence anything. For many Americans, Trump is a kind of demon, they joke at him, mock him, but I will say one thing: under him there were no wars that were under other presidents. Relations with Russia have more or less normalized. He also did a number of other good things.

He even made peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia. They officially normalized relations, but it was almost impossible. Other presidents, including Bill Clinton, have fought against this wall for years and could not do anything about it. And Trump did.

A.K.: Tell us about your impressions after returning to Russia.

Kamsky: It was interesting, of course. St.Petersburg has changed a lot. My mother still lives there. My father is in America. I don’t communicate with him so much now, because there are a lot of difficult family issues. But I saw my mother, because I had not communicated with her since childhood. They parted with my father when I was very young. When they left, it was decided that I would stay with my father, and my sister with my mother. Mom came to me in St. Petersburg about once a year, when I was still very little. But this is not much for a child.

Therefore, I have talked with my mother with pleasure in the last 3-4 years. It was important. I learned about my mother’s relatives. She is Shorka by nationality. These are the people in the “Red Book of Russia”. There are 15-20 thousand of them left. And my sister went to the American army. What is this unit called? Marine something there …

A.K.: Seals?

Kamsky: Well, not cats (laughs). She did not go there, but she was one of the best snipers in her division.

A.K.: Whoa!

Kamsky: Yes, I have such a little sister, but I look at her with apprehension and respect (laughs). As a result, she married a Spaniard, whom she met in the army. They now live in Texas and have three children. So I have all kinds of connections – Christian and Muslim.

Although my wife and I met about the fact that I have always been interested in Eastern philosophy. I am attracted to China and Buddhism. A little bit of everything, as they say. In fact, I believe that man is born on Earth. And it is common. Dividing people into countries, nationalities, religions is somehow not for me. I feel like a man of the world. This, of course, was not my idea, I read a lot on this topic.

A.K.: Well, since we have raised this topic, I cannot but ask a question: are you a Muslim or a Christian by faith?

Kamsky: I would not say that he is a strong believer. But I believe that there is God or some kind of higher power. I am more spiritual about this. That is, there is inner faith, but I try not to relate to any faith. I do not want any label on myself. As one wise man said, faith must be within. Difficult topic, how many people have so many opinions. I respect all religions in the world, but my approach is a little different.

A.K.: Let’s get back to chess. We have already talked a lot about the second part of your chess career. But let’s get back to the first one. After so many years, can you explain why you took such a long break in chess – 8 years after losing the championship match with Karpov? You have lost the “golden time”, it’s not a secret for anyone that in youth chess players are stronger than in about 30 years?

Kamsky: This is also a difficult question. Indeed, one can assume that I could have become the world champion, if not for that pause and all that. But again, for me chess has never been the most important aspect in life. It was more important then to get an education.

I also had a very difficult relationship with my father since childhood. He was born right after the war and those were very difficult years. And the mentality of people born in those days is very different from subsequent generations.

And I was brought up in strictness and rigid goal setting. We always had a very difficult relationship, and in many ways I disagreed with my father. According to the Tatar tradition, which was instilled in me since childhood, I did not have the right to speak at all. The son must obey the father unquestioningly and this created even more problems.

Therefore, people are mistaken when they say that I gave up chess. This was his decision. But, to be absolutely honest, I was happy that I was not forced to play chess and travel with my father to tournaments. Finally, I had my time, I could go to college, live a normal life. If you don’t know, many modern chess players have no education at all. Or they are students of sports and physical education departments at universities.

A.K.: But back to 1996?

Kamsky: In Elista, Karpov had a very strong team. Also, the practice of postponed games unexpectedly returned to chess. This moment helped him a lot in the match with me. In one of the games he saved a very bad position after resuming a postponed game. And in general, he tricked us a lot about the postponed games. Initially, we had an agreement with him that there would be no postponed games in our match with him.

Their main problem is the ability to consult with partners in the coaching staff and the spirit of rivalry between the two chess players at the chessboard disappears. Later, with the advent of powerful computers, this problem became even more acute. In 1996, Karpov’s strong team helped him in postponed games.

But on the whole, Anatoly Evgenievich played very well, well prepared. He was much more experienced. Karpov was able to prepare for all my strengths and nailed down all my weaknesses. And we had no connection with the world, there was no Internet. We didn’t even have the opportunity to consult with someone on the phone during the postponed games, as it was in the same TV series about the chess player Harmon. Remember, the entire US chess team was helping her over the phone to win.

On the whole, the match ended naturally, I covered all these games in my book – I published a two-volume book with my best games. Unfortunately, this book is not available in Russia, it was published in English. I hope there will be a translation sometime later.

A.K.: What about the decision to quit chess?

Kamsky: In fact, my father decided this in a fit of rage. After the match, we lived in Elista for about a week. And for my father, my victories and defeats were always perceived even stronger than me. For him it was like he was playing himself. In fact, this is not very good, because I was forced to live the way my father would like to live.

I was often asked as a child: why do you have such a serious look? Why rejoice if you understand that in case of defeat, your father will very sharply criticize you. And you are a child and you cannot argue with anything. I felt completely defenseless.

Literally a year after Elista, my father came up with a proposal to return to chess. And of course I said no. He could not argue with me, because he himself decided to end my career in Elista. And I didn’t want to play chess while my father was going to travel with me.

But when we parted company, and I graduated from the law school, then I calmly returned to chess. I decided to play on my own, without my father’s help. And almost immediately returned to his level. I went to the World Cup, got into the tournament of candidates for the championship match. And then I made a plan for myself: if I don’t become a world champion before the age of 40, I’ll finish.

A.K.: You were close to the crown the second time.

Kamsky: Yes, in 2008 I felt ready. Won the World Cup. And then there was a rule that the winner of this tournament immediately had the right to play the match for the world title. But a political and behind-the-scenes intrigue came into play. And in the end it was decided to organize an additional match with Topalov for the right to play with the champion. It is very bad that chess players in FIDE do not have the right to vote. People from the federation simply decided that it would be more interesting that way, and no one needed the sports component and fair selection.

Since then, I believe that chess has lost the sporting spirit of fair selection. And later, in general, people began to be included in candidate tournaments without any selection. And all that is needed for this is to play in small-town supposedly elite tournaments. They played only there and nowhere else, because they were afraid of losing their rating.

Then they came up with another rule that organizers can include one chess player in a candidate tournament. But the person who wins the candidate tournament gets the right to fight for the title of world champion.

That is, ordinary people go through a huge and long sieve of selection to get into the candidate tournament. Local tournaments, states, national, World Cup. Others just need to be a favorite of the organizers or FIDE and get in without any selection at all. In this respect, I believe that chess has ceased to be a fair game.

A.K.: Let’s return to the father’s theme. From the height of the past years, after all, your father lived in the United States for a long time, his mentality has changed. He did not approach you, they say, son, I was in something wrong. Maybe he apologized?

Kamsky: Such people do not change with age. On the contrary, he always looked at life from the point of view of achieving a result, no matter at what cost. Now we very rarely communicate with him – once a year, two. It is simply impossible for him to say “I’m sorry” to someone.

As for life in the United States, it was she who changed it for the worse. There he felt complete permissiveness. My sister and brother and I tried to reconcile with my father, but it’s uselessly simple.

A.K.: And the last question that worries the Tatars, especially in our republic. In Russia, the population census is now underway and the question arises: can the Tatars dissolve as a nation, assimilating with other peoples?

Kamsky: For me, the Tatar nationality has always occupied some place in my heart. I was always warmly received in Tatarstan. I remember how I played with your adult learned men, who watched as a little boy beat them at chess. Now I understand that I was given a great honor then.

And in general, yes, the problem of national minorities is always quite acute. The most important thing is to preserve your culture and language. Assimilation is a complex issue. On the one hand, it is necessary to unite culturally so as not to feel like a stranger in the world, in a foreign country and culture.

But to some extent, self-identity must be maintained. But this is more a question for each person, and not a state issue. In the West, all immigrants from the former Soviet Union are Russians or Russians, despite the fact that there were Ukrainians, Armenians and Belarusians and so on. Children already forget their native languages ​​and speak Russian. But in normal families, parents still pass on a piece of their native culture to their children. So this is primarily a question for every person. And the question is personal. For some it is the dissolution of culture, for others it is enrichment. It is different for each person.

A.K.: Thank you for an interesting and frank interview.

Kamsky: Thank you too.