November 22, 2024 • 65 mins
109 The upcoming World Championship should be a fascinating one! GM Ding Liren is the reigning world champ. While he’s an extraordinary talent, his rating and performance have backslid this past year. And, sadly, Ding has been struggling with psychological issues...
Meanwhile, India’s brightest chess talent and Ding's opponent, GM Gukesh Dommaraju, will be the youngest player to ever compete in the World Championship at 18 years old.
Gukesh, though he’s been stellar in his recent competitive performances, will have to face a lack of experience at the highest level.
To help explore and illuminate the different issues at play, FM Carsten Hansen returns to the podcast for another World Championship preview.
Carsten is one of the most prolific chess authors around we discuss the unique challenges for each player, whether their styles will be a factor, and clues to look for in the early games to help you know who may win the match.
The event begins on November 25th, 2024…
BUT…this episode will be worth listening to even several days later to help understand the match and gain some fascinating chess insights.
More From FM Carsten Hansen:
How You Can Support the Pod:
Join this show’s Patreon called “Podcast Perks” and get benefits like:
- Submitting questions to guests
- A shout-out of your name on the pod
- Vote on future topics/guests
- Exclusive behind-the-scenes updates about the show
- DM me any month for a brief chat on chess or episodes
Click here to join the Patreon for The Chess Experience.
Or you can…
>>Support this pod by grabbing a chess.com membership which will help you improve your chess & defeat your enemies. A small portion will fund this pod - and every bit helps! Just click this link.
>> Neither? How about checking out Daniel's chess.com profile? Witness his countless, embarrassing blitz losses. He even accepts some friend requests. (Ad)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, welcome to the chess experience On this show.
It's all about helping adultimprovers.
I want to make learning chesseasier for you to navigate and I
also want you to have a morefun experience along the way.
I'm your host, daniel Lona, afellow chess amateur.
Let's get to it.
This show is sponsored bychesscom, the world's largest
(00:46):
chess amateur.
Let's also a great way to havea lesson between a student and a
coach, and you can check thatout on chesscom slash classroom.
Welcome to this bonus episodewhere we preview the 2024 World
Chess Championship between DingLoren and Gukesh Domoraju.
First let me say I know this isbeing released only a few days
(01:07):
before the event, but hopefullyyou'll get a chance to listen to
it before the match begins.
That said, if you don't get achance before the match begins,
I still think you'll find ituseful and engaging to listen to
several games into the match.
And to help us betterunderstand this event, I've
invited returning guest FIDEMaster Karsten Hansen.
Karsten is one of the mostprolific authors in the
(01:29):
community, having written andco-written dozens of chess books
.
His knowledge of chess historyis extensive, to say the least,
which means he really brings agreat perspective on how this
match compares to previous worldchess championships.
In this episode we discuss towhat extent Ding's struggles
over the board this past yearwill affect his performance
(01:50):
against Gukesh.
Is Ding the underdog, eventhough he's the world champion?
Does Gukesh's strongperformance this year and
extraordinary talent offset hislack of experience at the world
championship level?
And, finally, what you shouldlook for during the match, aside
from just wins, that indicatesGukesh or Ding is doing really
well?
Also, after discussing thematch, karsten and I chat about
(02:12):
one of his most recent bookscalled Century of Chess, which
he co-authored.
A link to that awesome book isin the show notes and we finish
the episode with my series offun, rapid questions with lots
of great insights from Karsten.
Here's my interview withKarsten.
I hope you enjoy it.
Hi, karsten, I'm excited tohave you back on the show.
How are you doing?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I am doing great and thanks for having me back.
I appreciate the opportunity tocome and talk to you.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yeah, my pleasure.
Well, you were a fantasticguest last year when we covered
the World Championship.
We did a preview episode lastyear when we covered the World
Championship.
We did a preview episode lastyear for it.
You had fantastic explanationsand insights, so I'm really
excited to have you back for theshow.
Yeah, so thank you for beinghere.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Thank you, I'm looking forward to our
conversation today.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, me too.
I always appreciate gettinginsights into a World
Championship match from someonewho knows chess a lot better,
both from just you know theactual game itself, but also the
history of chess as well.
You know, I know you're a veryprolific chess author, so you
have fantastic insights.
And at the end of ourconversation, or near the end of
our conversation, we'll talk alittle bit about your published
(03:20):
works and what's recent for you.
But let me let me start verybroadly about this world
championship, because I feel,like you know, there can always
be a range of enthusiasm andinterest in any given match,
depending on the person.
You know just just a person'sown interest in the players or
the context of the game.
So, very broadly, howinterested are you in this
(03:42):
particular match?
Are you excited about it?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
I must have been.
I've been looking forward to it.
I mean I would have loved, ofcourse, that Magnus would have
been playing in it, but with himbeing absent, I think we
actually have a prettyinteresting match.
Even if it's not necessarilythe two highest rated players or
even close to the two highestrated players, I still think we
(04:07):
have an interesting match.
I mean, the world championobviously doesn't necessarily
need to be the highest ratedplayer and, of course, certainly
has been one of the mostexciting players here over the
last couple of years.
I mean not only his run intothe candidates, but also just
the way he's been conductinghimself and the way he's been
(04:30):
playing lately makes him a veryexciting player, despite his
youth and everything else tohave in a match.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Yeah, absolutely.
You know I want to talk aboutthis.
I mean the match basically,kind of, as you alluded to, it
seems like both players arecoming at this from different
angles in terms of theirmomentum in their own chess
careers, and I'll preface all ofthis by saying that, you know I
say I ask all these questionsand mention these things for
(04:59):
Ding in particular, with all duerespect as he's one of the best
players in the world particularwith all due respect as he's
one of the best players in theworld, but just looking at this
from the perspective of hisstandards, from world
championship standards.
Let's talk about where Dingstands before the match.
So, from a pure chessperspective, by his standards,
ding hasn't been performing welllately.
His rating has fallen from apeak of 28-16 to 27-28 currently
(05:21):
, with this year alone seeing a60-point drop, and Ding is also
now ranked world number 23,which is the lowest ranking for
a reigning world champion.
He's also not even won one ofhis past 28 classical games.
So clearly the momentum for himis not great.
It's probably not at all whathe would want himself.
So what do you make of that?
(05:42):
What's been going on withDing's chess?
Is this slump, whatever youwant to call it.
Uh, just a purely psychologicalthing for him.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
I think it has a lot to do with psychology, but I
mean you could even tell beforethe last match that he was
struggling a bit uh, anddefinitely during the last match
he was uh, he was struggling uh, emotionally.
I I don't know exactly what itis, but I mean it sure showed
signs of depression and thingslike that.
But nevertheless, I mean,during the match against
(06:15):
Nepomniachtchi he fought his waythrough it and found a way,
even against adversity, andfound his way back to victories.
And I think that's kind of whathe's been fighting with ever
since.
I mean I think he's played atotal of maybe 49 games since
(06:37):
the World Championship match,has only won three and lost 10,
and then with the rest beingdraws, and I think the last game
he won was in in vikanze.
So so clearly he's goingthrough a slump of some sort and
I mean he has been very, veryto winning uh, several games,
and then just at the olympiad,uh against abdul satarov was one
(07:01):
of the games where he wascompletely winning, and then he
made a one-move blunder in theendgame and then it became a
draw.
And I think the fact that hehasn't won any games is probably
wearing on him quite a bit,because I mean, when you start
(07:22):
questioning your own ability towin games and I think most of us
have been in that situationwhere we feel that we can't win
unless our opponent doessomething truly remarkably
stupid I know I've had spoutslike that where it just felt
like unless they jumped on thesword there was just no win to
be had for me.
(07:42):
And I think that's what he'sbeen struggling here with lately
and I think once he gets overthat I think he will have
excellent chances.
But again, the lack isdefinitely a problematic one.
I think he has mentioned it insome interviews as well that he
(08:05):
hasn't won any games for I thinknine months now, and obviously
that can wear down even a reallygood player like Ding, and I
mean of course his rating hasjust crashed in that period
(08:46):
no-transcript.
I think it might Also, becausehe did struggle with this here
during the last match as welland he found his way through to
the other side and becamevictorious.
So I think this could be theset of circumstances where he
(09:07):
finds his way back to chess.
But then again, I mean, if itis in fact depression that he's
struggling with, then I mean,that's not something you just
shake, that's something that'swith you for a long time, and
I'm sure he works with apsychologist and has the best
people around him and peoplethat care for him and all that
(09:28):
stuff there.
But the way they support him isalso important.
So if he feels that he is in asafe place with people that care
for him and has his bestinterest at heart, I think
there's a way for him to breakthe spell that he seems to be
under at the moment struggleswith something psychological,
(10:03):
but I mean even just if he justeven looked at the chess.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Regardless of wondering about what's causing
his poorer chess performance, Imean just the rating decline,
not having won any classicalgames in a long time.
Have you seen anything likethis before?
Speaker 2 (10:16):
No, I can't imagine somebody having directly this.
But I mean, if we look back wayback to 1921, lasker actually
wanted to hand over his titledirectly to capablanca without
playing, and in that match, whenhe had lost I think four games
and with a bunch of draws, hejust resigned, even though I
(10:41):
think they had I don't't know ifthe terms were the best of six
wins or ten wins or somethinglike that but after four losses
he just gave up the match andhanded the title to Capablanca.
So I don't know if we can saythat that's a direct parallel,
but there's certainly somethinglike that we can also.
(11:01):
I mean, there's othersituations like, for example,
korchner in 1981, where he wasplaying against Karpov, where
his family was stuck already.
A similar situation in 1978where he did really well and was
close to winning the match, butin 1981, kostner was a shadow
(11:37):
of himself and lost in aone-sided match.
So you can say that, but otherthan that, I mean I don't recall
any matches otherwise that weredirectly like that.
I mean, uh, I know um roberthübner in the candidates
tournament.
So the, the german grandmasteralso abandoned a couple of his
(12:00):
matches, I think.
Uh, one of them in the 1971Candidates Tournament against
Petrosian and later on, I thinkin 1980 against that was the
final of the CandidatesTournament against Korchnoi.
Both of those matches were notplayed to the end, with Hübner
(12:22):
dropping out even though therewere several games to play and
he had plenty of opportunitiesto get back into the match,
because I think in the one in1981, there were four games left
of the match and he was justone loss down.
So obviously something else wasgoing on with him at that time.
But world championship matchesno, I can't think of any others.
(12:46):
That's uh where the similarsituation was at.
Uh at stake here, yeah,probably.
Otherwise it was mostly hubriswhere somebody went into the
match thinking they were waybetter and got got the snot
knocked out of them.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
So, uh, but uh yeah, well, I mean that's a perfect
point to finish on because itsegues nicely into my next
question, which is you know, wecan look at ding's chess uh, in
his rating, you know, over thepast year or so and say, oh,
that doesn't look good goinginto the match.
But something else that's reallysurprised me about this is
ding's own perspective.
(13:21):
I mean, if you look at, like,what would ding say himself
about this going into it, hiscomments have been pretty
surprising to me because, as yousuggested, people at that level
tend to be pretty confident intheir abilities, not just in
chess but in any worldchampionship event, for any
sport or game.
They tend to be prettyconfident people about their
abilities.
But Ding said himself that heconsiders himself the underdog
(13:46):
in this match and also that he'sworried that he will lose very
badly is something he said in arecent interview with Kais Nair.
So let's talk about his ownperspective and mentality on
this match going into it.
First of all, do you think Dingis right about being the
underdog in this match Based?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
on how both players have been playing over the past
year, I would absolutely say so.
I mean Gukesh has been playingfrighteningly good chess.
I mean really really impressivechess.
I mean top scorer on board, oneof the Olympiad, won the
candidates and picked up a bunchof rating.
I mean he was by no means thefavorite to win the candidates
(14:28):
and then, ever since becomingthe challenger, he's just gone
from success to success andplayed really really excellent
chess.
So, whereas Ding, as we justtalked about, has struggled.
So I would say, based on whatwe've seen recently, I would
definitely say he is theunderdog in the match uh, and of
(14:49):
course that's unusual for aworld champion.
But then again, I mean we sawit in uh in 1972 also, where
Fischer was absolutely ridinghigh uh and having uh beaten
Taimana of Larsen and Petrosianin the candidates tournament and
also, of course, won theintersonal in dramatic fashion
(15:10):
also, where he just won with abig gap down to Brent Larsson,
so where Spassky definitely wasconsidered the underdog, also
result-wise, not havingperformed nearly as well.
I mean I think he finishedthird in a tournament or
(15:30):
something like that in 1970 or71 with Botvinnik, larsen, and
the Dutch Grandmaster Donner wasin it as well.
And so, yeah, we have hadsimilar situations where the
world champion was the underdogand here definitely I mean ding
(15:52):
uh, with his recent struggles,definitely would be considered
the underdog, even with hismatch experience.
And who catches the lack ofmatch experience?
Speaker 1 (16:00):
yeah, um, yeah, that's.
That's really great perspective.
They're having that historicalperspective on things.
Maybe this is a little bit ofan off-the-wall question, I
don't know, but I'm just soshocked to hear a world champion
say that they're worried thatthey'll lose very badly.
You know in chess and sports ingeneral of how they want to
(16:29):
talk publicly, to frame asituation.
I mean, I suspect ding is beinggenuine is is there any chance,
any kind of strategy on hispart to say that he'll lose very
badly, to to lower expectationson the part of his opponent or
anything like that?
Again, just because it's sostrange to hear a world champion
talk that way yeah, I mean,maybe there's a little bit of
that.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
I, I, but honestly, ding, in every interview he has
given, has seemed incrediblysincere to to a degree that, uh,
to a degree where it almostseems like bone chillingly
honest, which is uh, like,really like baring his soul, um,
uh, to a degree.
I mean also during the matchagainst Nepo, where you're like,
(17:07):
why are you telling us this?
You should be keeping this toyourself.
But again, I mean, ding is avery, very honest guy.
He's very sincere, very humble,very, very likable.
But I don't, I mean, maybe he'strying to do a little bit of
lowering the expectations of himhimself and then trying to make
(17:31):
, give Gukesh the pressure ofbeing the favorite.
I, I, I, I fear that it's.
It is, it is completely becausehe's afraid of us and be a
little worrisome.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Yeah, I think, as you're saying, the unfortunate
reality is that he's beinghonest about his feelings on
this.
Okay, so let's turn to Gukesh.
So, at just age 18, he iscurrently the world number five
with a rating of 2783.
He recently scored nine out of10 at the Chess Olympiad, with
an impressive performance at thecandidates as well.
Gukesh has far better momentumgoing into this event than Ding,
(18:13):
as we've established.
But I mean, I don't want tojust say that, oh, he has it in
the bag or something like that.
Of course, we don't knowexactly how this will all play
out.
Gukesh has the disadvantage ofnot having been in a world
championship match before, andyou could also even argue that,
being only 18 years old,emotional maturity is sort of
(18:34):
just beginning at that point.
So when you look at who willwin, are the main concerns his
age and inexperience, or isthere anything else chess-wise
that could suggest he wouldn'tbeat Ding?
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Chess-wise?
No, absolutely not.
I mean, I think honestlychess-wise there's only a few
players in the world that matchhim at the moment, carlsen being
one, and of course, nakamuraand Caruana as well, and then I
(19:07):
would say Edeguize.
But other than that I mean theway he's been playing no, he
doesn't have any clearweaknesses.
He calculates phenomenally welland is incredibly dangerous
with the initiative.
I mean fantastic player, sochess-wise.
(19:28):
I don't see any immediateweaknesses.
He just plays very, very welland has been just improving
steadily.
I mean, if we had talked aboutahead of the candidates I was I
thought his opening openingswere very weak at that point
there, or let's just say weaker,I'm very weak, it's.
(19:50):
It's the tricky thing to sayfor somebody that's well over
2700, but but for somebody his,but for somebody his level, uh,
clearly that was his, uh, hisweak spot, um, but um, uh.
He's definitely been working onthat and you could already see
that in the candidates, but alsoin every event that he's been
(20:12):
playing in this year.
The guy that has been workingwith him on the openings,
gajewski, the Polish grandmaster, has definitely helped him up
his opening game dramaticallyand has made him very, very
strong.
So I mean, what leaves us arethen his age and inexperience
and maybe also his psychologicalstate.
(20:36):
I mean the way he's carriedhimself both in the recent
tournaments but even also in theprevious Chess Olympiad that
took place in India, where healso played board one, but on
the second team, I think it waswhere he was unbeatable until he
(20:59):
lost a very, very advantageousposition against Abdul Sattaroff
.
That's really the only timeI've seen him struggle with
psychological issues where hefelt unbeatable, and then when
his opponent resisted him andkept resisting, that's when he
(21:25):
kind of fell apart.
But in the last year or so Ihaven't seen anything comparable
to that kind of coming together.
But then again, the matchsituation, along with his age
and experience in matches, coulddefinitely affect a young
player like that, also becausehe's carrying the burden of all
(21:47):
of India on his shoulders,because he's standing to become
the heir to the throne thatAnand built, and Anand is sort
of like a demigod in India,where I mean and rightfully so I
mean he's the one that createdthe foundation that the Indian
(22:12):
chess revolution has been builton.
And now, all of a sudden, gukesh, at the age of 18, stands to
maybe becoming the next worldchampion, and that could be a
lot of pressure for a young manif the match doesn't work in his
favor in the beginning of it.
So these are the things thatconcerns me with him, with
(22:33):
Gukesh, because if it was purelychess that we're looking at, I
would not want to be sitting infront of Gukesh Almost no matter
who I would be I mean with theexception of a few of the others
, but especially with Ding beingthe opponent.
That is just a frighteningprospect.
(22:53):
But again, who knows?
I mean there's so many thingsthat can play in to the
situation and definitely I thinkthe psychological aspect is
probably maybe Gukeshi's weakestpoint at this point, because
anything else, I think he'sprimed to take this.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Yeah, I mean that's a great summary of the situation
there.
With Gukesh, I was thinking asyou talked about it.
I mean, okay, so nothing isquite like the world
championship and very brightlights of that and the pressure,
but maybe arguably the closestthing to that is the candidates
and it sounds like you're sayingyou didn't see any poor
performance on his part.
That was that could be clearlyattributed to the psychology of
(23:35):
it all or emotions getting tohim.
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (23:37):
that's definitely the case.
Yeah, I mean, the way heconducted himself in the, in the
candidates, it's just like heseemed like he was destined to
do what he's doing right now.
Uh and uh, he's such a coolcustomer.
I mean, honestly, the thing is,when you see him and you see
him at the board and the way heplays, you don't think he's 18
(23:59):
years old.
This, this guy, is just amazingand I mean I'm just
flabbergasted every time I I Ican see him playing in a
tournament and how he justcarries himself and his just
sharp focus and just seems likenerves do not bother him.
That's just for somebody likeme who has always been
(24:22):
struggling with performanceanxiety when playing chess, with
performance anxiety whenplaying chess, it's just
fantastic to see somebody thatjust seemed like unworried about
any of those things.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Right, right.
So let's talk a little bitabout playing style here.
Gukesh said that Ding is auniversal player, but Gukesh
also noted that all players ofthe top level have to be
universal and that there areonly minute differences between
them.
Do you feel like that's truehere, in this particular match,
(24:57):
or do you think there's anymeaningful style differences
between the two players thatcould be relevant?
Speaker 2 (25:03):
No, I think you and Gukesh hit the nail on the head
with this one here.
I mean the players are prettywell-rounded in all aspects of
the game.
But then again, I mean thereare tiny differences.
Just like everybody knows thatMagnus is a phenom at the
endgame, I wouldn't say thatGukesh is as strong as Ding
(25:29):
tactically, for example.
Both of them are, of course,fantastically strong tactically.
But I would say, if I had topick an advantage that Ding
might have, while otherwisebeing universal, that would
probably be in the tactical area.
But again, both of them aresuper strong calculators.
(25:49):
So a lot of it is somethingthat they would catch in their
calculations.
The tactics but again,self-confidence and so on can
definitely play a role here.
Positionally, both of them areincredibly strong.
Positionally, both of them areincredibly strong, making very,
(26:11):
very few positional mistakes oreven inaccuracies.
So in that aspect also, veryevenly, I mean again, if
anything where I would give Dingan advantage, that's the
tactical aspect of it.
If you play through his gamesfrom his younger years, he was
(26:33):
terrifyingly good at tactics.
I mean some of his games wereamazing masterpieces in tactical
chess.
So, whereas Goukesh, with theinitiative, is probably one of
the best players in the world,maybe almost matching Magnus, I
(26:54):
would say.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
So you mentioned earlier that if there was any
weakness that Gukesh had goinginto this, it might be openings.
Is that relevant here?
Do you think?
I know you said that he'simproved on that recently, but
do you think that could be arelevant difference here?
Speaker 2 (27:12):
No, I don't think openings will play a tremendous
role.
I mean Ding with the whitepieces used to be very, very
strong.
He was very disciplined, eitherplaying the English opening or
D4, and having a very, verysolid repertoire and just
playing the openingsexceptionally well.
But then we saw in the lastworld championship match I mean
(27:35):
he played something differentbasically in every single game
and some of it was truly bizarreversions of Queen Porn's
openings where you're like whyin heaven's name is he playing
this for somebody who is usuallysuper well-prepared to just go
completely offbeat right fromthe get-go.
(27:55):
And I mean I know he workedwith Rapport, the Richard
Rapport, the Hungariangrandmaster.
But I don't think the point ofhis openings in that match were
to get an advantage.
It was probably more to getNepo to think for himself and
maybe play a little carelessly,which again to some extent
(28:17):
worked in some of the games.
Gukesh with the white pieces isvery, very dangerous.
I mean Ding has to be supercareful when playing black
against Gukic Because Gukic'swide openings are very, very
(28:38):
well prepared and he's verystrong and understands them
exceptionally well, whereas Dinghas, where he used to be solid
I mean he had, I think, a streakof more than 100 games where he
used to be solid.
I mean he had, I think, astreak of more than 100 games
where he didn't lose a singlegame at one point in his career.
But the way he's been playinglately he's been playing a lot
(29:00):
of different openings and notplaying them particularly well
as black.
So there could be an issuethere.
But I don't think the openingpreparation as such is that
we're going to see advantagesfrom any side out of the opening
.
It's more going to be a matterof if Gukesh gets the initiative
(29:23):
as white, it's going to betricky.
If Ding can equalize as black,I think he's going to be okay.
Then it comes down to playingregular chess and there I don't
see any meaningful differencebetween the two players.
Ding with white I don't thinkwe're going to see anything
(29:43):
scary coming out of his openingprep.
Then again we don't really knowwho he is working with coming
out of his opening prep.
Then again we don't really knowwho he is working with in
preparation for this match here.
So who knows what they haveprepared?
But again, I think they arejust playing openings to start
the game and then see what comesout of it and then hopefully a
match experience and maybe whostarts best in the match is
(30:08):
going to be able to decide whatthe match is going to be able to
decide what the match is goingto end up looking like.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Yeah, and that leads to my next question, which is
what we can look out for duringthis match to kind of tell us
who may be performing betterthan the other.
I mean, obviously, wins andlosses are a pretty strong
indicator of that, but there canbe more to look for than just
that.
It sounds like we've framedthis as a very psychological
match.
So how do we tell first four,five, six games and not lose any
(30:40):
of them?
Then I think some of hisconfidence will be restored.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
If Gukesh wins, especially if he wins one of the
first two or three games, thenI can foresee that Ding is going
to get in trouble.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
Psychologically.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Yes, I mean also because just everything he has
expressed, I'm afraid,especially if he loses a game
badly, like where he just doessomething really dumb and just
loses his threat and loses inpoor style, then I can see that
affecting him quite badly.
But on the other hand, if, ifDing wins a game and then
(31:39):
doesn't lose right away again agame, then I think it's wide
open, then I think anything canhappen in this match here and
honestly that, honestly thatthat's what I'm hoping for.
I, I I really like ding as aplayer.
I obviously I like gucash aswell.
But for the match to beinteresting, I think, uh, we
(32:00):
would be best served by um, byhaving ding win one of the first
games um interesting.
And and honestly, I, I think itcan happen.
Uh, that that's the thing.
Yeah, I, I, I think, I thinkthe the match is is it could
likely be end up becoming a lotmore even than we anticipate.
(32:21):
Um, but again, it can also gocompletely in the opposite
direction in a horrible fashion.
If, in the opposite direction,in a horrible fashion, if Gukesh
picks up a win very early onand then puts Ding under
pressure in some other games,then I can see Ding potentially
falling apart.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Yeah.
One thing I wanted to commenton about all of this is with
respect to Ding.
I think there's two aspects tohis psychological state.
One is for him, the playerhimself.
I feel badly for him that he'sgoing through all this and I
hope he can find his way to abetter place.
From the perspective of aspectator and fan of the game,
(33:06):
what I want is for both playersto be at their best.
I want to see the best thateach one can give and bring to
this event, and I felt that wayin sports too.
If you watch sports, I don'twant one of the star players to
be injured.
I want everyone at fullstrength to kind of see what
each side can do when they bringtheir best.
I mean just from, like I said,just from the spectator, fan
(33:28):
know, fan of chess perspective.
Is that how you feel as well,that we want everyone to just
bring their best?
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Oh, absolutely.
I mean I uh, I love a goodfight I really do and and a
well-played match with a lot ofexcitement.
I mean one of my favoritebetween Karpov and Kasparov, I
think in Seville in 87, I thinkit was, or 88, where I mean they
(33:53):
were incredibly evenly matchedand Kasparov had to win the last
game to even the match and savehis world championship and
managed to do that.
But again, these were twoplayers that were at the very
top of their game and theyplayed phenomenal chess.
There was a lot of interestingopening ideas and Karpov won
(34:18):
with the black pieces in one ofhis games in the English opening
.
And then, a few games later,kasparov crushed Karpov in the
English opening in another line.
It was just fascinating chess,honestly.
That's what I'm dreaming abouthere.
Obviously, we've seeninteresting matches, both before
(34:38):
that match and since.
The match between Anand andGelfand was also terrifyingly
close, and the same thing withTopalov and Anand were also
fascinating.
Again, there's so many.
I mean against Kajakin.
(35:00):
Carlsen had to win towards thevery end of the match to
equalize, because, again, Ithink in that match that Carlsen
had underestimated Kajak andthought he was going to win
rather easily.
And then, when he didn't andthen lost the game, then all of
(35:23):
a sudden something completelydifferent happened.
We also had the Caruana againstCarlsen match, where Carlsen
was very, very close to winningthe first game, but when he
didn't win that, the matchbecame very, very close and
Carlsen had to fight to keep thematch balanced and was only
(35:45):
really able to match balancedand was only able to put himself
apart from Carana in theplayoff, in the rapid playoff.
So there's been many, manybalanced matches and honestly,
that's what we want.
We want matches where peopleare fighting on even terms and
(36:05):
they're battling it out andthere are wins on both sides.
That's what chess is all about,and that's what world
championships should be allabout.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
Yeah, well, said Um, and here's hoping that that's
what we get in this event.
Final question for youregarding this match regardless
of each player's odds of winningand what you think those are,
do you have a just a personalfavorite in this match that
you'd like to see win?
Just a personal favorite?
Speaker 2 (36:27):
in this match that you'd like to see win.
I would like Ding to win.
I like him a lot.
I think he's a fantastic player.
I am saddened to see what hehas been going through lately
and I think I would love to seehim come back to playing the way
(36:47):
he played, let's just say, fiveyears ago ago in 2019, when he
was clearly number two to Magnus, and we're challenging Magnus
in every tournament they played.
I mean, that's the thing Iwould like to see back and I
really hope we can get to seehim again.
Gukesh, I think, will have hischance again, purely because of
(37:10):
his age and how strong he'sbecome and how he continues to
develop.
So I don't think this will behis last shot at the World
Championship by any stretch ofthe imagination.
So, from that perspective, Iwould like it to be Ding.
That being said, I think Gukeshis a favorite, but I don't know
(37:30):
if he is as big a favorite assome people say.
I think maybe he has like a uh,55, 45, 60, 40 chance of winning
uh if we just look at at purechess and uh the uh how they've
been playing lately.
But again, as we talked about,psychological factors can play
(37:55):
such a huge role here.
I mean, even strong players canreact very, very badly to a
single game.
I mean we saw what Nepo, how hecollapsed against Carlsen in
Dubai where he looked like hewas in charge of the match, and
then when he lost I think it wasgame six of that match all of a
sudden he just started playingterrible chess.
(38:18):
Despite being phenomenallywell-prepared, he started making
strange mistakes and poorcalculations because the
pressure just got to him.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Yeah, that's a great one to bring up because I think
that was such a clear example ofhow much emotions and
psychology affect theirperformance.
I'd almost not seen myselfpersonally such a clear example
of that in a world championship.
Speaker 2 (38:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
Yeah, so, yeah, you're right.
I mean, psychology is the thingto look out for for both
players, I think, in this game.
Uh, as we've discussed.
So, yeah, I think that's a goodwrap on on this event, this
upcoming event, which, uh, yougot me even more excited about
carsten, so definitely lookingforward to this now and I feel
like I have a much better, uhperspective on it all, and I
(39:05):
hope people listening do too.
Uh, so I'd like to have thislast part of our discussion be
about some of your own works andyour own publications.
You're very prolific publishingchess books, so it is a little
difficult to know which one totalk about.
But let's talk about theCentury of Chess book that you
recently published.
Can you talk about that alittle?
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Yes, that's actually a very exciting book that I'm
thrilled to have been part of.
It was actually an opportunitythat came to me.
Sam Khan has a blog on chesscomwhere he writes about chess
history and it has a small butdedicated following of readers.
(39:52):
And he came with the idea onthe recommendation of one of the
content staff of chesscom andwanted to hear if I would be
interested in publishing a bookon it, and I'm like that sounds
very interesting.
(40:13):
And then, of course, many ofthe games that he presented in
his column or his blog wereunannotated and the first step
was, of course, to see if we canget those annotated.
So the majority of theannotations for those games were
, when the book came about, wasdone by Cyrus Lachterwaller.
(40:36):
I did some of them myself andthen I did all of the editing of
the book as well.
So this is actually the firstbook of several in a series here
of A Century of Chess, which iswhat his blog is called on
chesscom.
The first book here covers thefirst decade of the 20th century
(41:02):
, so from 1900 to 1909.
Of course there are severalinteresting tournaments.
At that point Lasker is theworld champion, but Marshall
wins in Cambridge 1904 ahead ofLasker in an impressive fashion.
Even before that there's theHanover tournament in 1902 where
(41:27):
Pillsbury was also playing init and was still considered a
world championship candidate,but still Alaska was the
champion.
Taras was a big player in thatage.
Also, rubin Stein made hisfirst appearances at that point
and we see a lot of the playersthat dominated the first few
(41:53):
decades of chess really makingan appearance there.
And I mean you would think Imean someone like Marshall who
went, I think, in seven or eighttournaments almost without loss
in those tournaments so I meanalmost compared, comparable with
how Goukesh has has made anappearance similar was was
(42:18):
Marshall's appearance.
I mean he came basically, itseemed from nowhere and was
propelled to to the foremostranks of players at the time and
he seemed like a naturalchallenger to Lasker.
But then when he played againstLasker he was utterly destroyed
(42:38):
.
I think he lost a match thatwas supposed to go to 16 games
but he lost eight and a half,one and a half without winning a
single game.
I think he got three draws.
But there was a lot ofinteresting games that were
being played there and of coursewe have included them in the
book and there's about 40 gamesin the book, all annotated, with
(43:04):
tons of history behind it.
It's very thoroughly researchedby Sam and with references to
all sorts of books and blogs andGod knows what else.
I was riveted when I read thefirst bit of the manuscript and
I'm like let's get this in print.
So I'm excited to havepublished it.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Yeah, that's awesome.
So this is a 10-part series,then One decade.
Well, I mean that's awesome.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
So this is a 10-part series, then One decade.
I mean that's what we're hopingfor.
I mean so far Sam is gettingtowards the end of the 1920s now
on his blog, so there'sdefinitely Volume 2 should be
possible.
He's right now selecting gamesfor Volume 2.
Cyrus and I are going to bebusy annotating those games when
(43:53):
he's made his selection and Ireally hope we're going to have
10 volumes because it's qualitymaterial from Sam and I think
Cyrus and I are just happy to bepart of the journey.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Yeah, that's fantastic Do you know the
criteria he uses for selectinggames.
Speaker 2 (44:26):
I think his criteria is that it has to, or some that
had an effect of the outcome oftournaments and so on.
So I mean he's carefully chosenthose games where you see the
best of some of these playersand how they typically played,
but also what was the differencemakers between them and the
(44:46):
runners-up.
But again, also I like how heis selecting a different player
from more or less every year.
So, for example, there's aprofile in this first volume on
Pillsbury, there's one onMarshall, there's one on Duras,
(45:07):
the Czech player, and severalothers.
So it makes for a veryinteresting read.
So it's not just thetournaments but it's also like a
broad view of who that playerwas and what other people
thought about them and what theythought about themselves and
what has been written about them.
So it's a lot of historicalinsights and I I have to say I
(45:32):
enjoy that part of chess and theuh historical chess books uh is
something that I love reading.
Speaker 1 (45:39):
I see yeah, well, yeah, I appreciate the.
You know how you described thebook, uh, century of chess and
all that it includes.
I appreciate that it hasmultiple dimensions, including
that historical aspect, whichseems fairly rare to get that
component to it as well.
So that sounds very exciting.
I'll have a link for that bookin the show notes so people can
take a look at it and hopefullybuy it as well.
(46:01):
So I just want to finish byasking you, because I know
you're always working on it itseems like a lot of different
projects, cause I know you'reyou're always working on it.
It seems like a lot ofdifferent projects, um, but uh,
like what?
What stand out?
What stands out to you rightnow in terms of what's upcoming
for you?
Speaker 2 (46:16):
Interestingly enough, I am trying to finish a book on
Ding Liren, so I have beenworking on that for a while
together with Cyrus, so I'mhoping to have that out soon.
But again, I'm working on somany different things.
There's a couple of openingbooks that I'm working on.
(46:37):
I'm working on an instructionalbook for beginners, also
together with Cyrus, and acouple of monographs, one that
I'm co-writing with anotherfriend of mine, and some books
that I'm writing on on my own.
If I should look at everythingthat I'm working on right now, I
think I may have 10 or 12 bookseasily that I'm working on at
(46:57):
the same time.
It also means that I'm workingon right now I think I may have
10 or 12 books easily that I'mworking on at the same time, and
I mean it also means that I'mnever bored.
So that thing that other writerssometimes suffer from the
writer's block has neverhappened to me, or at least it
hasn't happened lately.
Let's just say it that way.
But when you're writing on somany different books At the same
(47:20):
time, yes, it takes a bitlonger to get a book finished,
but at the same time you'renever bored, and the fact that
you're never bored also meansthat you're working faster and
you enjoy it more and, honestly,that is one of the things I
enjoy more than anything.
I wish I could play more chess,but because I write so much
(47:42):
about chess, I never get tiredof it.
So whether you're writing aboutchess history, or you're
working on chess in-game studies, or a game collection or
working on some openings, thereare so many different ways you
can dive into chess and enjoy it.
Dive into chess and enjoy it,and that makes it so much more
enjoyable than if you're justsitting and repeating lines that
(48:04):
are leading to equal playerversions of it.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
Well, I love your enthusiasm for chess, Carson.
It's exciting to hear just howmuch it interests you, even
after all these years, and justyour commitment to writing all
these books it's amazing.
Well, Carson, I really enjoyedtalking about everything that
we've discussed the WorldChampionship event that's coming
up, as well as what you'reworking on with all of your
(48:27):
chess books and your love forthe game.
So now I just want to finishour discussion with a handful of
fun questions.
It's a regular segment thatfinishes my interviews with
guests.
So the first question for youknights or bishops.
Speaker 2 (48:44):
I like bishops more.
I love the bishop here, butagain, I love an imbalance even
more.
So that's part of what makeschess interesting to have these
imbalances between knights andbishops.
Imbalances between knights andbishops.
(49:05):
Personally, I favor bishops,but a good imbalance with minor
pieces is, I think, even moreinteresting than just defining
it pure knights and pure bishops.
Speaker 1 (49:11):
Great point.
Yeah, what's your favorite timecontrol to play?
Speaker 2 (49:16):
Right now 3 plus 1, or 3 plus 2.
I find that I am a little tooslow to write play 3.0, but
that's typically the games thatI get when I'm playing online,
when I have to play in personeither 10 minutes or an hour
plus uh, plus a few seconds, uh,so, uh, something like that.
(49:37):
I mean, the last tournament Iplayed was in New Jersey Senior
Championship earlier this yearand that was, I think, an hour
plus 5 seconds or something likethat, 10 seconds, and I enjoyed
that time control.
Otherwise, 10 minutes is goodfor Rapid, and 3 plus 1 or 3
(49:57):
plus 2, I enjoy a lot Awesome.
Speaker 1 (50:02):
This next question might be a little unfair to ask
someone like you, consideringjust how much you've covered all
these great players of the pastand I'm sure you have, you know
, an affinity for many of them.
But the question I ask myguests is who is your favorite
player of all time?
Speaker 2 (50:18):
That is a fantastic question.
I would probably.
I mean I love Magnus a lot.
I think his games are probablythe most well-rounded and
interesting, but there are a fewplayers from earlier days that
I really like a lot.
(50:38):
I love Petrosian's games fromnot all of his career, but like
from 1959 to 1963 when he becameworld champion.
He played I mean I'm gettingalmost goosebumps thinking about
how well he played at that time.
Also Ben Larsen and mycompatriot from Denmark.
(51:03):
I mean the way he played in thelatter half of the 1960s and
beginning of the 70s.
He was outrageously good andhad it not been for Fischer, he
could have been a worldchampionship challenger.
So his games are incrediblyinstructive and probably also, I
(51:25):
would say in, uh, in my topthree.
Um, but it is difficult.
I, I mean I, I love so manyplayers I know, I know, uh so.
But I mean, I've had so manyfavorites over the years but
those are probably, uh, uh,probably the top three on my
Mount Olympus, if I should pointany out.
Speaker 1 (51:48):
Yeah, absolutely.
If you could play a greatplayer of the past who is no
longer alive, who would it be?
Speaker 2 (51:56):
I would love to play against Capablanca or Nimzovich.
Nimzovich was a strangecharacter.
I also lived in Denmark for along time was the last part of
his life.
Capablanca I find very, veryfascinating, also because he
seemed to play in a way wherehis opponents had a decent
(52:17):
chance of saving draws againsthim, because he wasn't actually
super precise and gave peoplemost of the games that he played
against them, but he saved adraw in one of his games, as
(52:42):
well as against other topplayers of the time.
He saved draws against Oiverand Alikain and Budvinnik as
well, but he also lost anothergame that he should have drawn,
and the fact that so manyplayers got close to a draw
against Cablanca would make itfeel like that I could possibly,
if I had a really really goodday, maybe sneak a draw out of
(53:05):
him, whereas, for example, if Ihad played someone like Alikain,
I am certain he would havebeaten the snot out of me
because he was just brutal.
I mean very, very, veryefficient, and I mean also Bart
Wienig at his best was alsoterribly efficient.
So I would have wanted to playagainst somebody that I felt I
(53:26):
could have possibly had a chanceagainst if I had a really good
day and things just worked outfor me and I think some of those
players could have been fun toplay against.
Also, nimzovich played suchoriginal and creative chess, so
sometimes he got himself introuble with his strategic
(53:50):
maneuvering.
That didn't always make anysense and he seemed to allow a
lot of tactical opportunitiesfor his opponents.
But yeah, but yeah.
I mean, those would probably beplayers I would have loved to
play.
I wouldn't want to play againstsomeone like petrosian because
he would just have.
I was uh like, uh, completelylike, uh, like a snake just push
(54:12):
the air out of my lungs slowlybut surely and then uh, then I
would have died.
No, I wouldn't want to do that.
But yeah, cabo Blanco andNemtsovich.
Speaker 1 (54:23):
Great answers.
If you could play any of thetop players in the world right
now, who would it be?
Speaker 2 (54:29):
Magnus, I would love to play against Magnus.
I mean, I find him such afascinating player and his
understanding of chess and Imean the ideas that he brings
about when he's playing.
It's just fascinating to seewhat he does.
(54:49):
I mean, again, somebody likeNakamura.
I think he's just tacticallyjust terrifying.
I mean what he sits and doeswhen he plays Bullet Arena and
Title Tuesday and can sit andtalk about it while playing on
these very short time limits,just boggles my mind.
(55:13):
But, magnus, because I treasurehim as a chess player, because I
treasure him as a chess playerand I'm just feeling so lucky to
be alive, to see him play, andI mean we're so lucky also that
we can see him on camera.
I mean earlier today he wasplaying against Fabiano in
(55:33):
Singapore and we're sitting andwatching it live.
I mean, how lucky are we tohave the opportunity to see
somebody that good who is,without a doubt, uh, one of the
top three players of all time inin the history of chess?
Uh, and we can watch him live,uh, while he's playing the games
(55:54):
.
I mean I I'm just feeling soprivileged and and and the level
of chess that he's producedover the last decade and a half,
I mean wow.
Speaker 1 (56:03):
Right, right, yeah, great points.
What's your favorite opening toplay as White?
Speaker 2 (56:11):
That is, I mean, an opening I've written more about
than anything else is, of course, the English opening.
But a few years ago, um, I Iwrote a book about the orangutan
, one before, uh, my dad, my dadused to play it uh when, when I
was growing up, he, he fell inlove with it, the hopeless fell
(56:33):
in love with it, uh, in the1960s, um, and played it uh,
with, let's say, unimpressiveresults, but, but he enjoyed
playing it.
I'm sure at one point he hadgood results with it.
But the thing is, when I thenstarted writing the book, I felt
, you know what, if I have towrite about it, I need to play
it a little just to get a betterfeel for the ideas and stuff
(56:55):
like that.
So I started playing it inevery single white game I had
for a period of time and, um,even though it's not supposed to
be that good, obviously it'snot the best first move, but I
scored something like 75 withthe white pieces, with the
opening against grandmasters,and I mean some of these
(57:16):
grandmasters that I was playingagainst were rated.
I mean I think the best one Iplayed against was ranked 18th
on League Chess at the time andI won the game.
Speaker 1 (57:27):
Do you attribute that to the surprise value, or is it
yeah?
Speaker 2 (57:31):
in part.
I mean, because the thing is,of course, they're not going to
lose out of the opening, becauseit's not that kind of opening,
but there are some certainstrategical aspects that are
unusual, and once you're playingagainst somebody that strong, a
grandmaster strength, there's acouple of ideas that I found
(57:56):
that they struggled with, andone of them is a positional
error in one of the lines of itthat I saw very strong players
repeat over and over and overagain.
It was just Sometimes I wasjust sitting and staring at the
screen in abject horror on theirpart.
I'm like how can you make thispositional mistake?
(58:18):
You are supposed to be waybetter than this.
They just played 200 ratingpoints below their normal level.
I mean, some of them lost inpathetic fashion.
I mean sometimes I barelyneeded to think during the games
because he was on autopilot andthat I enjoyed, uh, that
(58:43):
somebody that strong wereplaying against a knucklehead
like me, um, and, and I couldscore that well with an inferior
opening, uh, so, uh, so I Ithat's why I've enjoyed playing
it.
I think it's a fun opening.
It is obviously not the bestmove, but I'm enjoying it at the
moment, and when I played theNew Jersey Senior Championship.
(59:08):
I also played it.
I lost one of my games with itagainst a 2,500-rated player.
But again, that's what happenswhen you play against somebody
that strong, you can actuallylose.
Happens when you play againstsomebody that strong, you can
actually lose.
But the Orangutan is probablymy favorite wide opening at the
moment.
Speaker 1 (59:27):
That's great.
And the reverse question what'syour favorite opening as Black?
Speaker 2 (59:32):
I have written a lot about the Accelerated Dragon but
I went away from it because Ilost some terrible games with it
.
So I have been playing severalthings since, but the most fun
I've had as Black has been twodifferent openings.
And that's the Dirty HarrySicilian, where black after E4,
(01:00:10):
c5, knight F3, knight C6, d4, c6, d4, knight C6, d4, knight F6,
knight C3, black plays H5.
And it was Christoph Selecki,the German IM and superstar
author of accessible courses.
He wrote a course about it andI was working with him on a
repertoire for the Englishopening for Chessable at the
time and I was asking him aboutit and he showed me some ideas
(01:00:32):
and I started playing it andit's objectively horrible but it
is fun.
It is.
I have lost some terrible games,but the thing is, even the
games that are lost in terriblefashion, I enjoy them because I
made my opponents think and Iforced myself to think as well,
(01:00:57):
and I mean I have picked up somenice victories against many,
against IMs.
I even beat Grandmaster Kushmin, a guy that was a coach for, I
think, mamajarov and severalothers.
I beat him in 14 moves with theblack pieces, with a silly
opening, and so that is onething.
(01:01:18):
And then there's another oneagainst D, against d4, and I'm
writing on a book on it.
At the moment, the um, we'recalling it my, my co-author and
I are calling it the tacticalbenko.
Uh, that is after uh, whenwhite accepts the benko and
takes an a6, black plays e6.
Um, so it's like a bit of amixture of the Blumenfeld and
(01:01:40):
the Benko, and also that too isobjectively incorrect.
But in Blitz it is terriblydangerous and even strong
players can get themselves introuble.
So from that perspective I mean, I wouldn't play it in a
regular tournament game I can'tsee myself doing that.
(01:02:00):
But in blitz, wow, that's a lotof trouble that white has to uh
to stay clear of, and noteverybody manages.
Speaker 1 (01:02:08):
So those are my two favorite openings at the moment
fantastic and my final questionfor you in this, in this segment
, karsten and um, it's kind of abig question, so you can take a
moment to think about youranswer first.
If you'd like, if aquote-unquote chess genie
existed and could grant you onechess wish, what would you wish
for?
Speaker 2 (01:02:29):
Hmm, that is a good question.
I would probably wish to havean opportunity to play in one of
those older tournaments in thefirst two or three decades of
the 20th century and play in oneof the top tournaments, like in
(01:02:50):
Carlsbad or Bad Kissing in 1928or San Sebastian 1911, or one
of these tournaments where allthe top players were playing and
then just having an opportunityto play against all these
greats, I think that would be it, more than titles or anything
(01:03:12):
else, just the opportunity tosit across from all these old
masters, that would be my wishthat's a fantastic answer.
Speaker 1 (01:03:23):
I love that.
It's uh, it's a great one.
It's not one that I've had aguest give, but, uh, I love that
perspective and I and I thinkit's it's uh, it's perfect for
everything that you've done inyour in your own chess career to
have that as an answer.
Um, so that's a great way tofinish our discussion.
Carson, I want to say thank youso much for being on this show.
You offered so many greatinsights and perspectives.
(01:03:43):
Love discussing all of thiswith you and discussing all
things chess.
It was a fantastic conversation.
I want to say thank you forbeing on the show.
Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
Thanks for having me.
I loved every second of it.
I hope to come back anothertime.
Hopefully they'll soon playanother world championship.
Speaker 1 (01:03:59):
Yes, absolutely For sure, For sure.
You have been my go-to on thatdiscussion, but we'll definitely
have you back, whether on thattopic or another on the podcast.
So thank you so much for beingon the show.
Thank you, I love this.
Thank you, thanks for listening.
This has been a production ofmy Business, adult Chess Academy
, and that has a website withthe same name.
(01:04:21):
If you want to look for it, youcan also find me being way too
active on Twitter by searchingmy username, lona underscore
chess.
See you next week.
Hey, welcome to the chess experience On this show.
It's all about helping adultimprovers.
I want to make learning chesseasier for you to navigate and I
also want you to have a morefun experience along the way.
I'm your host, daniel Lona, afellow chess amateur.
Let's get to it.
This show is sponsored bychesscom, the world's largest
(00:46):
chess amateur.
Let's also a great way to havea lesson between a student and a
coach, and you can check thatout on chesscom slash classroom.
Welcome to this bonus episodewhere we preview the 2024 World
Chess Championship between DingLoren and Gukesh Domoraju.
First let me say I know this isbeing released only a few days
(01:07):
before the event, but hopefullyyou'll get a chance to listen to
it before the match begins.
That said, if you don't get achance before the match begins,
I still think you'll find ituseful and engaging to listen to
several games into the match.
And to help us betterunderstand this event, I've
invited returning guest FIDEMaster Karsten Hansen.
Karsten is one of the mostprolific authors in the
(01:29):
community, having written andco-written dozens of chess books
.
His knowledge of chess historyis extensive, to say the least,
which means he really brings agreat perspective on how this
match compares to previous worldchess championships.
In this episode we discuss towhat extent Ding's struggles
over the board this past yearwill affect his performance
(01:50):
against Gukesh.
Is Ding the underdog, eventhough he's the world champion?
Does Gukesh's strongperformance this year and
extraordinary talent offset hislack of experience at the world
championship level?
And, finally, what you shouldlook for during the match, aside
from just wins, that indicatesGukesh or Ding is doing really
well?
Also, after discussing thematch, karsten and I chat about
(02:12):
one of his most recent bookscalled Century of Chess, which
he co-authored.
A link to that awesome book isin the show notes and we finish
the episode with my series offun, rapid questions with lots
of great insights from Karsten.
Here's my interview withKarsten.
I hope you enjoy it.
Hi, karsten, I'm excited tohave you back on the show.
How are you doing?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I am doing great and thanks for having me back.
I appreciate the opportunity tocome and talk to you.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yeah, my pleasure.
Well, you were a fantasticguest last year when we covered
the World Championship.
We did a preview episode lastyear when we covered the World
Championship.
We did a preview episode lastyear for it.
You had fantastic explanationsand insights, so I'm really
excited to have you back for theshow.
Yeah, so thank you for beinghere.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Thank you, I'm looking forward to our
conversation today.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, me too.
I always appreciate gettinginsights into a World
Championship match from someonewho knows chess a lot better,
both from just you know theactual game itself, but also the
history of chess as well.
You know, I know you're a veryprolific chess author, so you
have fantastic insights.
And at the end of ourconversation, or near the end of
our conversation, we'll talk alittle bit about your published
(03:20):
works and what's recent for you.
But let me let me start verybroadly about this world
championship, because I feel,like you know, there can always
be a range of enthusiasm andinterest in any given match,
depending on the person.
You know just just a person'sown interest in the players or
the context of the game.
So, very broadly, howinterested are you in this
(03:42):
particular match?
Are you excited about it?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
I must have been.
I've been looking forward to it.
I mean I would have loved, ofcourse, that Magnus would have
been playing in it, but with himbeing absent, I think we
actually have a prettyinteresting match.
Even if it's not necessarilythe two highest rated players or
even close to the two highestrated players, I still think we
(04:07):
have an interesting match.
I mean, the world championobviously doesn't necessarily
need to be the highest ratedplayer and, of course, certainly
has been one of the mostexciting players here over the
last couple of years.
I mean not only his run intothe candidates, but also just
the way he's been conductinghimself and the way he's been
(04:30):
playing lately makes him a veryexciting player, despite his
youth and everything else tohave in a match.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Yeah, absolutely.
You know I want to talk aboutthis.
I mean the match basically,kind of, as you alluded to, it
seems like both players arecoming at this from different
angles in terms of theirmomentum in their own chess
careers, and I'll preface all ofthis by saying that, you know I
say I ask all these questionsand mention these things for
(04:59):
Ding in particular, with all duerespect as he's one of the best
players in the world particularwith all due respect as he's
one of the best players in theworld, but just looking at this
from the perspective of hisstandards, from world
championship standards.
Let's talk about where Dingstands before the match.
So, from a pure chessperspective, by his standards,
ding hasn't been performing welllately.
His rating has fallen from apeak of 28-16 to 27-28 currently
(05:21):
, with this year alone seeing a60-point drop, and Ding is also
now ranked world number 23,which is the lowest ranking for
a reigning world champion.
He's also not even won one ofhis past 28 classical games.
So clearly the momentum for himis not great.
It's probably not at all whathe would want himself.
So what do you make of that?
(05:42):
What's been going on withDing's chess?
Is this slump, whatever youwant to call it.
Uh, just a purely psychologicalthing for him.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
I think it has a lot to do with psychology, but I
mean you could even tell beforethe last match that he was
struggling a bit uh, anddefinitely during the last match
he was uh, he was struggling uh, emotionally.
I I don't know exactly what itis, but I mean it sure showed
signs of depression and thingslike that.
But nevertheless, I mean,during the match against
(06:15):
Nepomniachtchi he fought his waythrough it and found a way,
even against adversity, andfound his way back to victories.
And I think that's kind of whathe's been fighting with ever
since.
I mean I think he's played atotal of maybe 49 games since
(06:37):
the World Championship match,has only won three and lost 10,
and then with the rest beingdraws, and I think the last game
he won was in in vikanze.
So so clearly he's goingthrough a slump of some sort and
I mean he has been very, veryto winning uh, several games,
and then just at the olympiad,uh against abdul satarov was one
(07:01):
of the games where he wascompletely winning, and then he
made a one-move blunder in theendgame and then it became a
draw.
And I think the fact that hehasn't won any games is probably
wearing on him quite a bit,because I mean, when you start
(07:22):
questioning your own ability towin games and I think most of us
have been in that situationwhere we feel that we can't win
unless our opponent doessomething truly remarkably
stupid I know I've had spoutslike that where it just felt
like unless they jumped on thesword there was just no win to
be had for me.
(07:42):
And I think that's what he'sbeen struggling here with lately
and I think once he gets overthat I think he will have
excellent chances.
But again, the lack isdefinitely a problematic one.
I think he has mentioned it insome interviews as well that he
(08:05):
hasn't won any games for I thinknine months now, and obviously
that can wear down even a reallygood player like Ding, and I
mean of course his rating hasjust crashed in that period
(08:46):
no-transcript.
I think it might Also, becausehe did struggle with this here
during the last match as welland he found his way through to
the other side and becamevictorious.
So I think this could be theset of circumstances where he
(09:07):
finds his way back to chess.
But then again, I mean, if itis in fact depression that he's
struggling with, then I mean,that's not something you just
shake, that's something that'swith you for a long time, and
I'm sure he works with apsychologist and has the best
people around him and peoplethat care for him and all that
(09:28):
stuff there.
But the way they support him isalso important.
So if he feels that he is in asafe place with people that care
for him and has his bestinterest at heart, I think
there's a way for him to breakthe spell that he seems to be
under at the moment struggleswith something psychological,
(10:03):
but I mean even just if he justeven looked at the chess.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Regardless of wondering about what's causing
his poorer chess performance, Imean just the rating decline,
not having won any classicalgames in a long time.
Have you seen anything likethis before?
Speaker 2 (10:16):
No, I can't imagine somebody having directly this.
But I mean, if we look back wayback to 1921, lasker actually
wanted to hand over his titledirectly to capablanca without
playing, and in that match, whenhe had lost I think four games
and with a bunch of draws, hejust resigned, even though I
(10:41):
think they had I don't't know ifthe terms were the best of six
wins or ten wins or somethinglike that but after four losses
he just gave up the match andhanded the title to Capablanca.
So I don't know if we can saythat that's a direct parallel,
but there's certainly somethinglike that we can also.
(11:01):
I mean, there's othersituations like, for example,
korchner in 1981, where he wasplaying against Karpov, where
his family was stuck already.
A similar situation in 1978where he did really well and was
close to winning the match, butin 1981, kostner was a shadow
(11:37):
of himself and lost in aone-sided match.
So you can say that, but otherthan that, I mean I don't recall
any matches otherwise that weredirectly like that.
I mean, uh, I know um roberthübner in the candidates
tournament.
So the, the german grandmasteralso abandoned a couple of his
(12:00):
matches, I think.
Uh, one of them in the 1971Candidates Tournament against
Petrosian and later on, I thinkin 1980 against that was the
final of the CandidatesTournament against Korchnoi.
Both of those matches were notplayed to the end, with Hübner
(12:22):
dropping out even though therewere several games to play and
he had plenty of opportunitiesto get back into the match,
because I think in the one in1981, there were four games left
of the match and he was justone loss down.
So obviously something else wasgoing on with him at that time.
But world championship matchesno, I can't think of any others.
(12:46):
That's uh where the similarsituation was at.
Uh at stake here, yeah,probably.
Otherwise it was mostly hubriswhere somebody went into the
match thinking they were waybetter and got got the snot
knocked out of them.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
So, uh, but uh yeah, well, I mean that's a perfect
point to finish on because itsegues nicely into my next
question, which is you know, wecan look at ding's chess uh, in
his rating, you know, over thepast year or so and say, oh,
that doesn't look good goinginto the match.
But something else that's reallysurprised me about this is
ding's own perspective.
(13:21):
I mean, if you look at, like,what would ding say himself
about this going into it, hiscomments have been pretty
surprising to me because, as yousuggested, people at that level
tend to be pretty confident intheir abilities, not just in
chess but in any worldchampionship event, for any
sport or game.
They tend to be prettyconfident people about their
abilities.
But Ding said himself that heconsiders himself the underdog
(13:46):
in this match and also that he'sworried that he will lose very
badly is something he said in arecent interview with Kais Nair.
So let's talk about his ownperspective and mentality on
this match going into it.
First of all, do you think Dingis right about being the
underdog in this match Based?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
on how both players have been playing over the past
year, I would absolutely say so.
I mean Gukesh has been playingfrighteningly good chess.
I mean really really impressivechess.
I mean top scorer on board, oneof the Olympiad, won the
candidates and picked up a bunchof rating.
I mean he was by no means thefavorite to win the candidates
(14:28):
and then, ever since becomingthe challenger, he's just gone
from success to success andplayed really really excellent
chess.
So, whereas Ding, as we justtalked about, has struggled.
So I would say, based on whatwe've seen recently, I would
definitely say he is theunderdog in the match uh, and of
(14:49):
course that's unusual for aworld champion.
But then again, I mean we sawit in uh in 1972 also, where
Fischer was absolutely ridinghigh uh and having uh beaten
Taimana of Larsen and Petrosianin the candidates tournament and
also, of course, won theintersonal in dramatic fashion
(15:10):
also, where he just won with abig gap down to Brent Larsson,
so where Spassky definitely wasconsidered the underdog, also
result-wise, not havingperformed nearly as well.
I mean I think he finishedthird in a tournament or
(15:30):
something like that in 1970 or71 with Botvinnik, larsen, and
the Dutch Grandmaster Donner wasin it as well.
And so, yeah, we have hadsimilar situations where the
world champion was the underdogand here definitely I mean ding
(15:52):
uh, with his recent struggles,definitely would be considered
the underdog, even with hismatch experience.
And who catches the lack ofmatch experience?
Speaker 1 (16:00):
yeah, um, yeah, that's.
That's really great perspective.
They're having that historicalperspective on things.
Maybe this is a little bit ofan off-the-wall question, I
don't know, but I'm just soshocked to hear a world champion
say that they're worried thatthey'll lose very badly.
You know in chess and sports ingeneral of how they want to
(16:29):
talk publicly, to frame asituation.
I mean, I suspect ding is beinggenuine is is there any chance,
any kind of strategy on hispart to say that he'll lose very
badly, to to lower expectationson the part of his opponent or
anything like that?
Again, just because it's sostrange to hear a world champion
talk that way yeah, I mean,maybe there's a little bit of
that.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
I, I, but honestly, ding, in every interview he has
given, has seemed incrediblysincere to to a degree that, uh,
to a degree where it almostseems like bone chillingly
honest, which is uh, like,really like baring his soul, um,
uh, to a degree.
I mean also during the matchagainst Nepo, where you're like,
(17:07):
why are you telling us this?
You should be keeping this toyourself.
But again, I mean, ding is avery, very honest guy.
He's very sincere, very humble,very, very likable.
But I don't, I mean, maybe he'strying to do a little bit of
lowering the expectations of himhimself and then trying to make
(17:31):
, give Gukesh the pressure ofbeing the favorite.
I, I, I, I fear that it's.
It is, it is completely becausehe's afraid of us and be a
little worrisome.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Yeah, I think, as you're saying, the unfortunate
reality is that he's beinghonest about his feelings on
this.
Okay, so let's turn to Gukesh.
So, at just age 18, he iscurrently the world number five
with a rating of 2783.
He recently scored nine out of10 at the Chess Olympiad, with
an impressive performance at thecandidates as well.
Gukesh has far better momentumgoing into this event than Ding,
(18:13):
as we've established.
But I mean, I don't want tojust say that, oh, he has it in
the bag or something like that.
Of course, we don't knowexactly how this will all play
out.
Gukesh has the disadvantage ofnot having been in a world
championship match before, andyou could also even argue that,
being only 18 years old,emotional maturity is sort of
(18:34):
just beginning at that point.
So when you look at who willwin, are the main concerns his
age and inexperience, or isthere anything else chess-wise
that could suggest he wouldn'tbeat Ding?
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Chess-wise?
No, absolutely not.
I mean, I think honestlychess-wise there's only a few
players in the world that matchhim at the moment, carlsen being
one, and of course, nakamuraand Caruana as well, and then I
(19:07):
would say Edeguize.
But other than that I mean theway he's been playing no, he
doesn't have any clearweaknesses.
He calculates phenomenally welland is incredibly dangerous
with the initiative.
I mean fantastic player, sochess-wise.
(19:28):
I don't see any immediateweaknesses.
He just plays very, very welland has been just improving
steadily.
I mean, if we had talked aboutahead of the candidates I was I
thought his opening openingswere very weak at that point
there, or let's just say weaker,I'm very weak, it's.
(19:50):
It's the tricky thing to sayfor somebody that's well over
2700, but but for somebody his,but for somebody his level, uh,
clearly that was his, uh, hisweak spot, um, but um, uh.
He's definitely been working onthat and you could already see
that in the candidates, but alsoin every event that he's been
(20:12):
playing in this year.
The guy that has been workingwith him on the openings,
gajewski, the Polish grandmaster, has definitely helped him up
his opening game dramaticallyand has made him very, very
strong.
So I mean, what leaves us arethen his age and inexperience
and maybe also his psychologicalstate.
(20:36):
I mean the way he's carriedhimself both in the recent
tournaments but even also in theprevious Chess Olympiad that
took place in India, where healso played board one, but on
the second team, I think it waswhere he was unbeatable until he
(20:59):
lost a very, very advantageousposition against Abdul Sattaroff
.
That's really the only timeI've seen him struggle with
psychological issues where hefelt unbeatable, and then when
his opponent resisted him andkept resisting, that's when he
(21:25):
kind of fell apart.
But in the last year or so Ihaven't seen anything comparable
to that kind of coming together.
But then again, the matchsituation, along with his age
and experience in matches, coulddefinitely affect a young
player like that, also becausehe's carrying the burden of all
(21:47):
of India on his shoulders,because he's standing to become
the heir to the throne thatAnand built, and Anand is sort
of like a demigod in India,where I mean and rightfully so I
mean he's the one that createdthe foundation that the Indian
(22:12):
chess revolution has been builton.
And now, all of a sudden, gukesh, at the age of 18, stands to
maybe becoming the next worldchampion, and that could be a
lot of pressure for a young manif the match doesn't work in his
favor in the beginning of it.
So these are the things thatconcerns me with him, with
(22:33):
Gukesh, because if it was purelychess that we're looking at, I
would not want to be sitting infront of Gukesh Almost no matter
who I would be I mean with theexception of a few of the others
, but especially with Ding beingthe opponent.
That is just a frighteningprospect.
(22:53):
But again, who knows?
I mean there's so many thingsthat can play in to the
situation and definitely I thinkthe psychological aspect is
probably maybe Gukeshi's weakestpoint at this point, because
anything else, I think he'sprimed to take this.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Yeah, I mean that's a great summary of the situation
there.
With Gukesh, I was thinking asyou talked about it.
I mean, okay, so nothing isquite like the world
championship and very brightlights of that and the pressure,
but maybe arguably the closestthing to that is the candidates
and it sounds like you're sayingyou didn't see any poor
performance on his part.
That was that could be clearlyattributed to the psychology of
(23:35):
it all or emotions getting tohim.
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (23:37):
that's definitely the case.
Yeah, I mean, the way heconducted himself in the, in the
candidates, it's just like heseemed like he was destined to
do what he's doing right now.
Uh and uh, he's such a coolcustomer.
I mean, honestly, the thing is,when you see him and you see
him at the board and the way heplays, you don't think he's 18
(23:59):
years old.
This, this guy, is just amazingand I mean I'm just
flabbergasted every time I I Ican see him playing in a
tournament and how he justcarries himself and his just
sharp focus and just seems likenerves do not bother him.
That's just for somebody likeme who has always been
(24:22):
struggling with performanceanxiety when playing chess, with
performance anxiety whenplaying chess, it's just
fantastic to see somebody thatjust seemed like unworried about
any of those things.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Right, right.
So let's talk a little bitabout playing style here.
Gukesh said that Ding is auniversal player, but Gukesh
also noted that all players ofthe top level have to be
universal and that there areonly minute differences between
them.
Do you feel like that's truehere, in this particular match,
(24:57):
or do you think there's anymeaningful style differences
between the two players thatcould be relevant?
Speaker 2 (25:03):
No, I think you and Gukesh hit the nail on the head
with this one here.
I mean the players are prettywell-rounded in all aspects of
the game.
But then again, I mean thereare tiny differences.
Just like everybody knows thatMagnus is a phenom at the
endgame, I wouldn't say thatGukesh is as strong as Ding
(25:29):
tactically, for example.
Both of them are, of course,fantastically strong tactically.
But I would say, if I had topick an advantage that Ding
might have, while otherwisebeing universal, that would
probably be in the tactical area.
But again, both of them aresuper strong calculators.
(25:49):
So a lot of it is somethingthat they would catch in their
calculations.
The tactics but again,self-confidence and so on can
definitely play a role here.
Positionally, both of them areincredibly strong.
Positionally, both of them areincredibly strong, making very,
(26:11):
very few positional mistakes oreven inaccuracies.
So in that aspect also, veryevenly, I mean again, if
anything where I would give Dingan advantage, that's the
tactical aspect of it.
If you play through his gamesfrom his younger years, he was
(26:33):
terrifyingly good at tactics.
I mean some of his games wereamazing masterpieces in tactical
chess.
So, whereas Goukesh, with theinitiative, is probably one of
the best players in the world,maybe almost matching Magnus, I
(26:54):
would say.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
So you mentioned earlier that if there was any
weakness that Gukesh had goinginto this, it might be openings.
Is that relevant here?
Do you think?
I know you said that he'simproved on that recently, but
do you think that could be arelevant difference here?
Speaker 2 (27:12):
No, I don't think openings will play a tremendous
role.
I mean Ding with the whitepieces used to be very, very
strong.
He was very disciplined, eitherplaying the English opening or
D4, and having a very, verysolid repertoire and just
playing the openingsexceptionally well.
But then we saw in the lastworld championship match I mean
(27:35):
he played something differentbasically in every single game
and some of it was truly bizarreversions of Queen Porn's
openings where you're like whyin heaven's name is he playing
this for somebody who is usuallysuper well-prepared to just go
completely offbeat right fromthe get-go.
(27:55):
And I mean I know he workedwith Rapport, the Richard
Rapport, the Hungariangrandmaster.
But I don't think the point ofhis openings in that match were
to get an advantage.
It was probably more to getNepo to think for himself and
maybe play a little carelessly,which again to some extent
(28:17):
worked in some of the games.
Gukesh with the white pieces isvery, very dangerous.
I mean Ding has to be supercareful when playing black
against Gukic Because Gukic'swide openings are very, very
(28:38):
well prepared and he's verystrong and understands them
exceptionally well, whereas Dinghas, where he used to be solid
I mean he had, I think, a streakof more than 100 games where he
used to be solid.
I mean he had, I think, astreak of more than 100 games
where he didn't lose a singlegame at one point in his career.
But the way he's been playinglately he's been playing a lot
(29:00):
of different openings and notplaying them particularly well
as black.
So there could be an issuethere.
But I don't think the openingpreparation as such is that
we're going to see advantagesfrom any side out of the opening
.
It's more going to be a matterof if Gukesh gets the initiative
(29:23):
as white, it's going to betricky.
If Ding can equalize as black,I think he's going to be okay.
Then it comes down to playingregular chess and there I don't
see any meaningful differencebetween the two players.
Ding with white I don't thinkwe're going to see anything
(29:43):
scary coming out of his openingprep.
Then again we don't really knowwho he is working with coming
out of his opening prep.
Then again we don't really knowwho he is working with in
preparation for this match here.
So who knows what they haveprepared?
But again, I think they arejust playing openings to start
the game and then see what comesout of it and then hopefully a
match experience and maybe whostarts best in the match is
(30:08):
going to be able to decide whatthe match is going to be able to
decide what the match is goingto end up looking like.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Yeah, and that leads to my next question, which is
what we can look out for duringthis match to kind of tell us
who may be performing betterthan the other.
I mean, obviously, wins andlosses are a pretty strong
indicator of that, but there canbe more to look for than just
that.
It sounds like we've framedthis as a very psychological
match.
So how do we tell first four,five, six games and not lose any
(30:40):
of them?
Then I think some of hisconfidence will be restored.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
If Gukesh wins, especially if he wins one of the
first two or three games, thenI can foresee that Ding is going
to get in trouble.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
Psychologically.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Yes, I mean also because just everything he has
expressed, I'm afraid,especially if he loses a game
badly, like where he just doessomething really dumb and just
loses his threat and loses inpoor style, then I can see that
affecting him quite badly.
But on the other hand, if, ifDing wins a game and then
(31:39):
doesn't lose right away again agame, then I think it's wide
open, then I think anything canhappen in this match here and
honestly that, honestly thatthat's what I'm hoping for.
I, I I really like ding as aplayer.
I obviously I like gucash aswell.
But for the match to beinteresting, I think, uh, we
(32:00):
would be best served by um, byhaving ding win one of the first
games um interesting.
And and honestly, I, I think itcan happen.
Uh, that that's the thing.
Yeah, I, I, I think, I thinkthe the match is is it could
likely be end up becoming a lotmore even than we anticipate.
(32:21):
Um, but again, it can also gocompletely in the opposite
direction in a horrible fashion.
If, in the opposite direction,in a horrible fashion, if Gukesh
picks up a win very early onand then puts Ding under
pressure in some other games,then I can see Ding potentially
falling apart.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Yeah.
One thing I wanted to commenton about all of this is with
respect to Ding.
I think there's two aspects tohis psychological state.
One is for him, the playerhimself.
I feel badly for him that he'sgoing through all this and I
hope he can find his way to abetter place.
From the perspective of aspectator and fan of the game,
(33:06):
what I want is for both playersto be at their best.
I want to see the best thateach one can give and bring to
this event, and I felt that wayin sports too.
If you watch sports, I don'twant one of the star players to
be injured.
I want everyone at fullstrength to kind of see what
each side can do when they bringtheir best.
I mean just from, like I said,just from the spectator, fan
(33:28):
know, fan of chess perspective.
Is that how you feel as well,that we want everyone to just
bring their best?
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Oh, absolutely.
I mean I uh, I love a goodfight I really do and and a
well-played match with a lot ofexcitement.
I mean one of my favoritebetween Karpov and Kasparov, I
think in Seville in 87, I thinkit was, or 88, where I mean they
(33:53):
were incredibly evenly matchedand Kasparov had to win the last
game to even the match and savehis world championship and
managed to do that.
But again, these were twoplayers that were at the very
top of their game and theyplayed phenomenal chess.
There was a lot of interestingopening ideas and Karpov won
(34:18):
with the black pieces in one ofhis games in the English opening
.
And then, a few games later,kasparov crushed Karpov in the
English opening in another line.
It was just fascinating chess,honestly.
That's what I'm dreaming abouthere.
Obviously, we've seeninteresting matches, both before
(34:38):
that match and since.
The match between Anand andGelfand was also terrifyingly
close, and the same thing withTopalov and Anand were also
fascinating.
Again, there's so many.
I mean against Kajakin.
(35:00):
Carlsen had to win towards thevery end of the match to
equalize, because, again, Ithink in that match that Carlsen
had underestimated Kajak andthought he was going to win
rather easily.
And then, when he didn't andthen lost the game, then all of
(35:23):
a sudden something completelydifferent happened.
We also had the Caruana againstCarlsen match, where Carlsen
was very, very close to winningthe first game, but when he
didn't win that, the matchbecame very, very close and
Carlsen had to fight to keep thematch balanced and was only
(35:45):
really able to match balancedand was only able to put himself
apart from Carana in theplayoff, in the rapid playoff.
So there's been many, manybalanced matches and honestly,
that's what we want.
We want matches where peopleare fighting on even terms and
(36:05):
they're battling it out andthere are wins on both sides.
That's what chess is all about,and that's what world
championships should be allabout.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
Yeah, well, said Um, and here's hoping that that's
what we get in this event.
Final question for youregarding this match regardless
of each player's odds of winningand what you think those are,
do you have a just a personalfavorite in this match that
you'd like to see win?
Just a personal favorite?
Speaker 2 (36:27):
in this match that you'd like to see win.
I would like Ding to win.
I like him a lot.
I think he's a fantastic player.
I am saddened to see what hehas been going through lately
and I think I would love to seehim come back to playing the way
(36:47):
he played, let's just say, fiveyears ago ago in 2019, when he
was clearly number two to Magnus, and we're challenging Magnus
in every tournament they played.
I mean, that's the thing Iwould like to see back and I
really hope we can get to seehim again.
Gukesh, I think, will have hischance again, purely because of
(37:10):
his age and how strong he'sbecome and how he continues to
develop.
So I don't think this will behis last shot at the World
Championship by any stretch ofthe imagination.
So, from that perspective, Iwould like it to be Ding.
That being said, I think Gukeshis a favorite, but I don't know
(37:30):
if he is as big a favorite assome people say.
I think maybe he has like a uh,55, 45, 60, 40 chance of winning
uh if we just look at at purechess and uh the uh how they've
been playing lately.
But again, as we talked about,psychological factors can play
(37:55):
such a huge role here.
I mean, even strong players canreact very, very badly to a
single game.
I mean we saw what Nepo, how hecollapsed against Carlsen in
Dubai where he looked like hewas in charge of the match, and
then when he lost I think it wasgame six of that match all of a
sudden he just started playingterrible chess.
(38:18):
Despite being phenomenallywell-prepared, he started making
strange mistakes and poorcalculations because the
pressure just got to him.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Yeah, that's a great one to bring up because I think
that was such a clear example ofhow much emotions and
psychology affect theirperformance.
I'd almost not seen myselfpersonally such a clear example
of that in a world championship.
Speaker 2 (38:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
Yeah, so, yeah, you're right.
I mean, psychology is the thingto look out for for both
players, I think, in this game.
Uh, as we've discussed.
So, yeah, I think that's a goodwrap on on this event, this
upcoming event, which, uh, yougot me even more excited about
carsten, so definitely lookingforward to this now and I feel
like I have a much better, uhperspective on it all, and I
(39:05):
hope people listening do too.
Uh, so I'd like to have thislast part of our discussion be
about some of your own works andyour own publications.
You're very prolific publishingchess books, so it is a little
difficult to know which one totalk about.
But let's talk about theCentury of Chess book that you
recently published.
Can you talk about that alittle?
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Yes, that's actually a very exciting book that I'm
thrilled to have been part of.
It was actually an opportunitythat came to me.
Sam Khan has a blog on chesscomwhere he writes about chess
history and it has a small butdedicated following of readers.
(39:52):
And he came with the idea onthe recommendation of one of the
content staff of chesscom andwanted to hear if I would be
interested in publishing a bookon it, and I'm like that sounds
very interesting.
(40:13):
And then, of course, many ofthe games that he presented in
his column or his blog wereunannotated and the first step
was, of course, to see if we canget those annotated.
So the majority of theannotations for those games were
, when the book came about, wasdone by Cyrus Lachterwaller.
(40:36):
I did some of them myself andthen I did all of the editing of
the book as well.
So this is actually the firstbook of several in a series here
of A Century of Chess, which iswhat his blog is called on
chesscom.
The first book here covers thefirst decade of the 20th century
(41:02):
, so from 1900 to 1909.
Of course there are severalinteresting tournaments.
At that point Lasker is theworld champion, but Marshall
wins in Cambridge 1904 ahead ofLasker in an impressive fashion.
Even before that there's theHanover tournament in 1902 where
(41:27):
Pillsbury was also playing init and was still considered a
world championship candidate,but still Alaska was the
champion.
Taras was a big player in thatage.
Also, rubin Stein made hisfirst appearances at that point
and we see a lot of the playersthat dominated the first few
(41:53):
decades of chess really makingan appearance there.
And I mean you would think Imean someone like Marshall who
went, I think, in seven or eighttournaments almost without loss
in those tournaments so I meanalmost compared, comparable with
how Goukesh has has made anappearance similar was was
(42:18):
Marshall's appearance.
I mean he came basically, itseemed from nowhere and was
propelled to to the foremostranks of players at the time and
he seemed like a naturalchallenger to Lasker.
But then when he played againstLasker he was utterly destroyed
(42:38):
.
I think he lost a match thatwas supposed to go to 16 games
but he lost eight and a half,one and a half without winning a
single game.
I think he got three draws.
But there was a lot ofinteresting games that were
being played there and of coursewe have included them in the
book and there's about 40 gamesin the book, all annotated, with
(43:04):
tons of history behind it.
It's very thoroughly researchedby Sam and with references to
all sorts of books and blogs andGod knows what else.
I was riveted when I read thefirst bit of the manuscript and
I'm like let's get this in print.
So I'm excited to havepublished it.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Yeah, that's awesome.
So this is a 10-part series,then One decade.
Well, I mean that's awesome.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
So this is a 10-part series, then One decade.
I mean that's what we're hopingfor.
I mean so far Sam is gettingtowards the end of the 1920s now
on his blog, so there'sdefinitely Volume 2 should be
possible.
He's right now selecting gamesfor Volume 2.
Cyrus and I are going to bebusy annotating those games when
(43:53):
he's made his selection and Ireally hope we're going to have
10 volumes because it's qualitymaterial from Sam and I think
Cyrus and I are just happy to bepart of the journey.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Yeah, that's fantastic Do you know the
criteria he uses for selectinggames.
Speaker 2 (44:26):
I think his criteria is that it has to, or some that
had an effect of the outcome oftournaments and so on.
So I mean he's carefully chosenthose games where you see the
best of some of these playersand how they typically played,
but also what was the differencemakers between them and the
(44:46):
runners-up.
But again, also I like how heis selecting a different player
from more or less every year.
So, for example, there's aprofile in this first volume on
Pillsbury, there's one onMarshall, there's one on Duras,
(45:07):
the Czech player, and severalothers.
So it makes for a veryinteresting read.
So it's not just thetournaments but it's also like a
broad view of who that playerwas and what other people
thought about them and what theythought about themselves and
what has been written about them.
So it's a lot of historicalinsights and I I have to say I
(45:32):
enjoy that part of chess and theuh historical chess books uh is
something that I love reading.
Speaker 1 (45:39):
I see yeah, well, yeah, I appreciate the.
You know how you described thebook, uh, century of chess and
all that it includes.
I appreciate that it hasmultiple dimensions, including
that historical aspect, whichseems fairly rare to get that
component to it as well.
So that sounds very exciting.
I'll have a link for that bookin the show notes so people can
take a look at it and hopefullybuy it as well.
(46:01):
So I just want to finish byasking you, because I know
you're always working on it itseems like a lot of different
projects, cause I know you'reyou're always working on it.
It seems like a lot ofdifferent projects, um, but uh,
like what?
What stand out?
What stands out to you rightnow in terms of what's upcoming
for you?
Speaker 2 (46:16):
Interestingly enough, I am trying to finish a book on
Ding Liren, so I have beenworking on that for a while
together with Cyrus, so I'mhoping to have that out soon.
But again, I'm working on somany different things.
There's a couple of openingbooks that I'm working on.
(46:37):
I'm working on an instructionalbook for beginners, also
together with Cyrus, and acouple of monographs, one that
I'm co-writing with anotherfriend of mine, and some books
that I'm writing on on my own.
If I should look at everythingthat I'm working on right now, I
think I may have 10 or 12 bookseasily that I'm working on at
(46:57):
the same time.
It also means that I'm workingon right now I think I may have
10 or 12 books easily that I'mworking on at the same time, and
I mean it also means that I'mnever bored.
So that thing that other writerssometimes suffer from the
writer's block has neverhappened to me, or at least it
hasn't happened lately.
Let's just say it that way.
But when you're writing on somany different books At the same
(47:20):
time, yes, it takes a bitlonger to get a book finished,
but at the same time you'renever bored, and the fact that
you're never bored also meansthat you're working faster and
you enjoy it more and, honestly,that is one of the things I
enjoy more than anything.
I wish I could play more chess,but because I write so much
(47:42):
about chess, I never get tiredof it.
So whether you're writing aboutchess history, or you're
working on chess in-game studies, or a game collection or
working on some openings, thereare so many different ways you
can dive into chess and enjoy it.
Dive into chess and enjoy it,and that makes it so much more
enjoyable than if you're justsitting and repeating lines that
(48:04):
are leading to equal playerversions of it.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
Well, I love your enthusiasm for chess, Carson.
It's exciting to hear just howmuch it interests you, even
after all these years, and justyour commitment to writing all
these books it's amazing.
Well, Carson, I really enjoyedtalking about everything that
we've discussed the WorldChampionship event that's coming
up, as well as what you'reworking on with all of your
(48:27):
chess books and your love forthe game.
So now I just want to finishour discussion with a handful of
fun questions.
It's a regular segment thatfinishes my interviews with
guests.
So the first question for youknights or bishops.
Speaker 2 (48:44):
I like bishops more.
I love the bishop here, butagain, I love an imbalance even
more.
So that's part of what makeschess interesting to have these
imbalances between knights andbishops.
Imbalances between knights andbishops.
(49:05):
Personally, I favor bishops,but a good imbalance with minor
pieces is, I think, even moreinteresting than just defining
it pure knights and pure bishops.
Speaker 1 (49:11):
Great point.
Yeah, what's your favorite timecontrol to play?
Speaker 2 (49:16):
Right now 3 plus 1, or 3 plus 2.
I find that I am a little tooslow to write play 3.0, but
that's typically the games thatI get when I'm playing online,
when I have to play in personeither 10 minutes or an hour
plus uh, plus a few seconds, uh,so, uh, something like that.
(49:37):
I mean, the last tournament Iplayed was in New Jersey Senior
Championship earlier this yearand that was, I think, an hour
plus 5 seconds or something likethat, 10 seconds, and I enjoyed
that time control.
Otherwise, 10 minutes is goodfor Rapid, and 3 plus 1 or 3
(49:57):
plus 2, I enjoy a lot Awesome.
Speaker 1 (50:02):
This next question might be a little unfair to ask
someone like you, consideringjust how much you've covered all
these great players of the pastand I'm sure you have, you know
, an affinity for many of them.
But the question I ask myguests is who is your favorite
player of all time?
Speaker 2 (50:18):
That is a fantastic question.
I would probably.
I mean I love Magnus a lot.
I think his games are probablythe most well-rounded and
interesting, but there are a fewplayers from earlier days that
I really like a lot.
(50:38):
I love Petrosian's games fromnot all of his career, but like
from 1959 to 1963 when he becameworld champion.
He played I mean I'm gettingalmost goosebumps thinking about
how well he played at that time.
Also Ben Larsen and mycompatriot from Denmark.
(51:03):
I mean the way he played in thelatter half of the 1960s and
beginning of the 70s.
He was outrageously good andhad it not been for Fischer, he
could have been a worldchampionship challenger.
So his games are incrediblyinstructive and probably also, I
(51:25):
would say in, uh, in my topthree.
Um, but it is difficult.
I, I mean I, I love so manyplayers I know, I know, uh so.
But I mean, I've had so manyfavorites over the years but
those are probably, uh, uh,probably the top three on my
Mount Olympus, if I should pointany out.
Speaker 1 (51:48):
Yeah, absolutely.
If you could play a greatplayer of the past who is no
longer alive, who would it be?
Speaker 2 (51:56):
I would love to play against Capablanca or Nimzovich.
Nimzovich was a strangecharacter.
I also lived in Denmark for along time was the last part of
his life.
Capablanca I find very, veryfascinating, also because he
seemed to play in a way wherehis opponents had a decent
(52:17):
chance of saving draws againsthim, because he wasn't actually
super precise and gave peoplemost of the games that he played
against them, but he saved adraw in one of his games, as
(52:42):
well as against other topplayers of the time.
He saved draws against Oiverand Alikain and Budvinnik as
well, but he also lost anothergame that he should have drawn,
and the fact that so manyplayers got close to a draw
against Cablanca would make itfeel like that I could possibly,
if I had a really really goodday, maybe sneak a draw out of
(53:05):
him, whereas, for example, if Ihad played someone like Alikain,
I am certain he would havebeaten the snot out of me
because he was just brutal.
I mean very, very, veryefficient, and I mean also Bart
Wienig at his best was alsoterribly efficient.
So I would have wanted to playagainst somebody that I felt I
(53:26):
could have possibly had a chanceagainst if I had a really good
day and things just worked outfor me and I think some of those
players could have been fun toplay against.
Also, nimzovich played suchoriginal and creative chess, so
sometimes he got himself introuble with his strategic
(53:50):
maneuvering.
That didn't always make anysense and he seemed to allow a
lot of tactical opportunitiesfor his opponents.
But yeah, but yeah.
I mean, those would probably beplayers I would have loved to
play.
I wouldn't want to play againstsomeone like petrosian because
he would just have.
I was uh like, uh, completelylike, uh, like a snake just push
(54:12):
the air out of my lungs slowlybut surely and then uh, then I
would have died.
No, I wouldn't want to do that.
But yeah, cabo Blanco andNemtsovich.
Speaker 1 (54:23):
Great answers.
If you could play any of thetop players in the world right
now, who would it be?
Speaker 2 (54:29):
Magnus, I would love to play against Magnus.
I mean, I find him such afascinating player and his
understanding of chess and Imean the ideas that he brings
about when he's playing.
It's just fascinating to seewhat he does.
(54:49):
I mean, again, somebody likeNakamura.
I think he's just tacticallyjust terrifying.
I mean what he sits and doeswhen he plays Bullet Arena and
Title Tuesday and can sit andtalk about it while playing on
these very short time limits,just boggles my mind.
(55:13):
But, magnus, because I treasurehim as a chess player, because I
treasure him as a chess playerand I'm just feeling so lucky to
be alive, to see him play, andI mean we're so lucky also that
we can see him on camera.
I mean earlier today he wasplaying against Fabiano in
(55:33):
Singapore and we're sitting andwatching it live.
I mean, how lucky are we tohave the opportunity to see
somebody that good who is,without a doubt, uh, one of the
top three players of all time inin the history of chess?
Uh, and we can watch him live,uh, while he's playing the games
(55:54):
.
I mean I I'm just feeling soprivileged and and and the level
of chess that he's producedover the last decade and a half,
I mean wow.
Speaker 1 (56:03):
Right, right, yeah, great points.
What's your favorite opening toplay as White?
Speaker 2 (56:11):
That is, I mean, an opening I've written more about
than anything else is, of course, the English opening.
But a few years ago, um, I Iwrote a book about the orangutan
, one before, uh, my dad, my dadused to play it uh when, when I
was growing up, he, he fell inlove with it, the hopeless fell
(56:33):
in love with it, uh, in the1960s, um, and played it uh,
with, let's say, unimpressiveresults, but, but he enjoyed
playing it.
I'm sure at one point he hadgood results with it.
But the thing is, when I thenstarted writing the book, I felt
, you know what, if I have towrite about it, I need to play
it a little just to get a betterfeel for the ideas and stuff
(56:55):
like that.
So I started playing it inevery single white game I had
for a period of time and, um,even though it's not supposed to
be that good, obviously it'snot the best first move, but I
scored something like 75 withthe white pieces, with the
opening against grandmasters,and I mean some of these
(57:16):
grandmasters that I was playingagainst were rated.
I mean I think the best one Iplayed against was ranked 18th
on League Chess at the time andI won the game.
Speaker 1 (57:27):
Do you attribute that to the surprise value, or is it
yeah?
Speaker 2 (57:31):
in part.
I mean, because the thing is,of course, they're not going to
lose out of the opening, becauseit's not that kind of opening,
but there are some certainstrategical aspects that are
unusual, and once you're playingagainst somebody that strong, a
grandmaster strength, there's acouple of ideas that I found
(57:56):
that they struggled with, andone of them is a positional
error in one of the lines of itthat I saw very strong players
repeat over and over and overagain.
It was just Sometimes I wasjust sitting and staring at the
screen in abject horror on theirpart.
I'm like how can you make thispositional mistake?
(58:18):
You are supposed to be waybetter than this.
They just played 200 ratingpoints below their normal level.
I mean, some of them lost inpathetic fashion.
I mean sometimes I barelyneeded to think during the games
because he was on autopilot andthat I enjoyed, uh, that
(58:43):
somebody that strong wereplaying against a knucklehead
like me, um, and, and I couldscore that well with an inferior
opening, uh, so, uh, so I Ithat's why I've enjoyed playing
it.
I think it's a fun opening.
It is obviously not the bestmove, but I'm enjoying it at the
moment, and when I played theNew Jersey Senior Championship.
(59:08):
I also played it.
I lost one of my games with itagainst a 2,500-rated player.
But again, that's what happenswhen you play against somebody
that strong, you can actuallylose.
Happens when you play againstsomebody that strong, you can
actually lose.
But the Orangutan is probablymy favorite wide opening at the
moment.
Speaker 1 (59:27):
That's great.
And the reverse question what'syour favorite opening as Black?
Speaker 2 (59:32):
I have written a lot about the Accelerated Dragon but
I went away from it because Ilost some terrible games with it
.
So I have been playing severalthings since, but the most fun
I've had as Black has been twodifferent openings.
And that's the Dirty HarrySicilian, where black after E4,
(01:00:10):
c5, knight F3, knight C6, d4, c6, d4, knight C6, d4, knight F6,
knight C3, black plays H5.
And it was Christoph Selecki,the German IM and superstar
author of accessible courses.
He wrote a course about it andI was working with him on a
repertoire for the Englishopening for Chessable at the
time and I was asking him aboutit and he showed me some ideas
(01:00:32):
and I started playing it andit's objectively horrible but it
is fun.
It is.
I have lost some terrible games,but the thing is, even the
games that are lost in terriblefashion, I enjoy them because I
made my opponents think and Iforced myself to think as well,
(01:00:57):
and I mean I have picked up somenice victories against many,
against IMs.
I even beat Grandmaster Kushmin, a guy that was a coach for, I
think, mamajarov and severalothers.
I beat him in 14 moves with theblack pieces, with a silly
opening, and so that is onething.
(01:01:18):
And then there's another oneagainst D, against d4, and I'm
writing on a book on it.
At the moment, the um, we'recalling it my, my co-author and
I are calling it the tacticalbenko.
Uh, that is after uh, whenwhite accepts the benko and
takes an a6, black plays e6.
Um, so it's like a bit of amixture of the Blumenfeld and
(01:01:40):
the Benko, and also that too isobjectively incorrect.
But in Blitz it is terriblydangerous and even strong
players can get themselves introuble.
So from that perspective I mean, I wouldn't play it in a
regular tournament game I can'tsee myself doing that.
(01:02:00):
But in blitz, wow, that's a lotof trouble that white has to uh
to stay clear of, and noteverybody manages.
Speaker 1 (01:02:08):
So those are my two favorite openings at the moment
fantastic and my final questionfor you in this, in this segment
, karsten and um, it's kind of abig question, so you can take a
moment to think about youranswer first.
If you'd like, if aquote-unquote chess genie
existed and could grant you onechess wish, what would you wish
for?
Speaker 2 (01:02:29):
Hmm, that is a good question.
I would probably wish to havean opportunity to play in one of
those older tournaments in thefirst two or three decades of
the 20th century and play in oneof the top tournaments, like in
(01:02:50):
Carlsbad or Bad Kissing in 1928or San Sebastian 1911, or one
of these tournaments where allthe top players were playing and
then just having an opportunityto play against all these
greats, I think that would be it, more than titles or anything
(01:03:12):
else, just the opportunity tosit across from all these old
masters, that would be my wishthat's a fantastic answer.
Speaker 1 (01:03:23):
I love that.
It's uh, it's a great one.
It's not one that I've had aguest give, but, uh, I love that
perspective and I and I thinkit's it's uh, it's perfect for
everything that you've done inyour in your own chess career to
have that as an answer.
Um, so that's a great way tofinish our discussion.
Carson, I want to say thank youso much for being on this show.
You offered so many greatinsights and perspectives.
(01:03:43):
Love discussing all of thiswith you and discussing all
things chess.
It was a fantastic conversation.
I want to say thank you forbeing on the show.
Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
Thanks for having me.
I loved every second of it.
I hope to come back anothertime.
Hopefully they'll soon playanother world championship.
Speaker 1 (01:03:59):
Yes, absolutely For sure, For sure.
You have been my go-to on thatdiscussion, but we'll definitely
have you back, whether on thattopic or another on the podcast.
So thank you so much for beingon the show.
Thank you, I love this.
Thank you, thanks for listening.
This has been a production ofmy Business, adult Chess Academy
, and that has a website withthe same name.
(01:04:21):
If you want to look for it, youcan also find me being way too
active on Twitter by searchingmy username, lona underscore
chess.
See you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.