9 responses to “Gata Kamsky: I can’t play like Grischuk and Kramnik”

  1. Thank you very much for the translation, but I have to say, the interviewer did a very bad job, most questions were very generic and showed a general lack of interest & info about chess.

  2. Thanks again for translating and sharing! I expected something else behind the headline “I can’t play like Grischuk and Kramnik” … .

    I am puzzled about Kamsky’s answer to the second-last question: I wish he had been at least a bit specific about “incredible moral support from … the organisers” for the opponent. I got his point when playing Topalov in Sofia, but now it sounds like paranoia and sore loser.

    As to lack of support from the local audience and commentators: it might have been different if he had taken some care of the “school” he opened (BTW a chess school or a “normal” one?) – for example as a slight detour after playing the Aeroflot Open. It might also have been different if he had been more talkative at earlier press conference – maybe it’s not enough just to play chess, even if it’s enterprising and entertaining.

    But for local people Kamsky may have (re)gained some sympathies by finding nice words about the venue – while many western chess fans and journalists were, IMO unfairly, critical about a major chess event in Kazan.

  3. “… a Tatar originally named Gataulla Sabirov”.

    Somewhere I read that his grandfather was a theater director in Kazan, that used the pseudonym “Kamsky”. “Kamsky” = “coming from the river Kama”.

    Just some trivia if you don’t mind. ;)

    Can’t wait for Kramniks interview now!

  4. Yep, a Kramnik interview would be just wonderful :)

    mishanp, I’m afraid to tell you that you’ve already spoiled us. Now we have the power to turn into angry mobs asking you why such and such translation isn’t ready yet :)

  5. I wouldn’t say that the interviewer asked the wrong questions, rather we (anyone visiting this site) are the “wrong” audience, i.e. not the intended one. If one doesn’t care about a sport and hardly knows the rules (in my case – just an example – cricket, one GM will strongly disagree), which type of questions might make an interview still worthwhile reading?

    Somewhat related (similarities and differences :) ): I will soon be interviewed by the local newspaper because I became champion of a small chess club. The journalist actually knows a thing or two about chess – he is or was a rather decent chessplayer until other things took over (busy job, family, main hobby football). Still I don’t expect “very chessic” questions because 99% of the readers couldn’t follow.

    P.S.: We might have to wait for a Kramnik interview until Dortmund. Then it could by my job translating from German!?

  6. These short draws in important matches with the world watching are very damaging to professional chess. Want to reduce GM draws to zero? RULE: “Assuming no player is checkmated or resigns, each player is required to play sixty moves; the first player to be on the move and repeats the same position a third time loses.”

  7. Why put the onus on the players to reduce draws? At least give them an incentive. Monetary compensation for winning or losing a game or taking a game to move 40. I guess the idea is just give them something to compensate them for thinking very hard for an extra 4-5 hours.

Leave a Reply