The Chess Experience
The Chess Experience
Ding vs. Gukesh - World Championship Preview w/ FM Carsten Hansen
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:
>> Join my official FREE club for The Chess Experience on Chess.com<< (PROMOTION)
Hey, welcome to the chess experience On this show. It's all about helping adult improvers. I want to make learning chess easier for you to navigate and I also want you to have a more fun experience along the way. I'm your host, daniel Lona, a fellow chess amateur. Let's get to it. This show is sponsored by chesscom, the world's largest chess amateur. Let's also a great way to have a lesson between a student and a coach, and you can check that out on chesscom slash classroom.
Speaker 1:Welcome to this bonus episode where we preview the 2024 World Chess Championship between Ding Loren and Gukesh Domoraju. First let me say I know this is being released only a few days before the event, but hopefully you'll get a chance to listen to it before the match begins. That said, if you don't get a chance before the match begins, I still think you'll find it useful and engaging to listen to several games into the match. And to help us better understand this event, I've invited returning guest FIDE Master Karsten Hansen. Karsten is one of the most prolific authors in the community, having written and co-written dozens of chess books. His knowledge of chess history is extensive, to say the least, which means he really brings a great perspective on how this match compares to previous world chess championships.
Speaker 1:In this episode we discuss to what extent Ding's struggles over the board this past year will affect his performance against Gukesh. Is Ding the underdog, even though he's the world champion? Does Gukesh's strong performance this year and extraordinary talent offset his lack of experience at the world championship level? And, finally, what you should look for during the match, aside from just wins, that indicates Gukesh or Ding is doing really well? Also, after discussing the match, karsten and I chat about one of his most recent books called Century of Chess, which he co-authored. A link to that awesome book is in the show notes and we finish the episode with my series of fun, rapid questions with lots of great insights from Karsten. Here's my interview with Karsten. I hope you enjoy it. Hi, karsten, I'm excited to have you back on the show. How are you doing?
Speaker 2:I am doing great and thanks for having me back. I appreciate the opportunity to come and talk to you.
Speaker 1:Yeah, my pleasure. Well, you were a fantastic guest last year when we covered the World Championship. We did a preview episode last year when we covered the World Championship. We did a preview episode last year for it. You had fantastic explanations and insights, so I'm really excited to have you back for the show. Yeah, so thank you for being here.
Speaker 2:Thank you, I'm looking forward to our conversation today.
Speaker 1:Yeah, me too. I always appreciate getting insights into a World Championship match from someone who knows chess a lot better, both from just you know the actual game itself, but also the history of chess as well. You know, I know you're a very prolific chess author, so you have fantastic insights. And at the end of our conversation, or near the end of our conversation, we'll talk a little bit about your published works and what's recent for you. But let me let me start very broadly about this world championship, because I feel, like you know, there can always be a range of enthusiasm and interest in any given match, depending on the person. You know just just a person's own interest in the players or the context of the game. So, very broadly, how interested are you in this particular match? Are you excited about it?
Speaker 2:I must have been. I've been looking forward to it. I mean I would have loved, of course, that Magnus would have been playing in it, but with him being absent, I think we actually have a pretty interesting match. Even if it's not necessarily the two highest rated players or even close to the two highest rated players, I still think we have an interesting match. I mean, the world champion obviously doesn't necessarily need to be the highest rated player and, of course, certainly has been one of the most exciting players here over the last couple of years. I mean not only his run into the candidates, but also just the way he's been conducting himself and the way he's been playing lately makes him a very exciting player, despite his youth and everything else to have in a match.
Speaker 1:Yeah, absolutely. You know I want to talk about this. I mean the match basically, kind of, as you alluded to, it seems like both players are coming at this from different angles in terms of their momentum in their own chess careers, and I'll preface all of this by saying that, you know I say I ask all these questions and mention these things for Ding in particular, with all due respect as he's one of the best players in the world particular with all due respect as he's one of the best players in the world, but just looking at this from the perspective of his standards, from world championship standards. Let's talk about where Ding stands before the match.
Speaker 1:So, from a pure chess perspective, by his standards, ding hasn't been performing well lately. His rating has fallen from a peak of 28-16 to 27-28 currently, with this year alone seeing a 60-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 of his past 28 classical games. So clearly the momentum for him is not great. It's probably not at all what he would want himself. So what do you make of that? What's been going on with Ding's chess? Is this slump, whatever you want to call it. Uh, just a purely psychological thing for him.
Speaker 2:I think it has a lot to do with psychology, but I mean you could even tell before the last match that he was struggling a bit uh, and definitely during the last match he was uh, he was struggling uh, emotionally. I I don't know exactly what it is, but I mean it sure showed signs of depression and things like that. But nevertheless, I mean, during the match against Nepomniachtchi he fought his way through it and found a way, even against adversity, and found his way back to victories. And I think that's kind of what he's been fighting with ever since. I mean I think he's played a total of maybe 49 games since the World Championship match, has only won three and lost 10, and then with the rest being draws, and I think the last game he won was in in vikanze. So so clearly he's going through a slump of some sort and I mean he has been very, very to winning uh, several games, and then just at the olympiad, uh against abdul satarov was one of the games where he was completely winning, and then he made a one-move blunder in the endgame and then it became a draw.
Speaker 2:And I think the fact that he hasn't won any games is probably wearing on him quite a bit, because I mean, when you start questioning your own ability to win games and I think most of us have been in that situation where we feel that we can't win unless our opponent does something truly remarkably stupid I know I've had spouts like that where it just felt like unless they jumped on the sword there was just no win to be had for me. And I think that's what he's been struggling here with lately and I think once he gets over that I think he will have excellent chances. But again, the lack is definitely a problematic one. I think he has mentioned it in some interviews as well that he hasn't won any games for I think nine months now, and obviously that can wear down even a really good player like Ding, and I mean of course his rating has just crashed in that period no-transcript.
Speaker 2:I think it might Also, because he did struggle with this here during the last match as well and he found his way through to the other side and became victorious. So I think this could be the set of circumstances where he finds his way back to chess. But then again, I mean, if it is in fact depression that he's struggling with, then I mean, that's not something you just shake, that's something that's with you for a long time, and I'm sure he works with a psychologist and has the best people around him and people that care for him and all that stuff there. But the way they support him is also important. So if he feels that he is in a safe place with people that care for him and has his best interest at heart, I think there's a way for him to break the spell that he seems to be under at the moment struggles with something psychological, but I mean even just if he just even looked at the chess.
Speaker 1:Regardless of wondering about what's causing his poorer chess performance, I mean just the rating decline, not having won any classical games in a long time. Have you seen anything like this before?
Speaker 2:No, I can't imagine somebody having directly this. But I mean, if we look back way back to 1921, lasker actually wanted to hand over his title directly to capablanca without playing, and in that match, when he had lost I think four games and with a bunch of draws, he just resigned, even though I think they had I don't't know if the terms were the best of six wins or ten wins or something like that but after four losses he just gave up the match and handed the title to Capablanca. So I don't know if we can say that that's a direct parallel, but there's certainly something like that we can also. I mean, there's other situations like, for example, korchner in 1981, where he was playing against Karpov, where his family was stuck already. A similar situation in 1978 where he did really well and was close to winning the match, but in 1981, kostner was a shadow of himself and lost in a one-sided match. So you can say that, but other than that, I mean I don't recall any matches otherwise that were directly like that.
Speaker 2:I mean, uh, I know um robert hübner in the candidates tournament. So the, the german grandmaster also abandoned a couple of his matches, I think. Uh, one of them in the 1971 Candidates Tournament against Petrosian and later on, I think in 1980 against that was the final of the Candidates Tournament against Korchnoi. Both of those matches were not played to the end, with Hübner dropping out even though there were several games to play and he had plenty of opportunities to get back into the match, because I think in the one in 1981, there were four games left of the match and he was just one loss down. So obviously something else was going on with him at that time. But world championship matches no, I can't think of any others. That's uh where the similar situation was at. Uh at stake here, yeah, probably. Otherwise it was mostly hubris where somebody went into the match thinking they were way better and got got the snot knocked out of them.
Speaker 1:So, uh, but uh yeah, well, I mean that's a perfect point to finish on because it segues nicely into my next question, which is you know, we can look at ding's chess uh, in his rating, you know, over the past year or so and say, oh, that doesn't look good going into the match.
Speaker 1:But something else that's really surprised me about this is ding's own perspective. I mean, if you look at, like, what would ding say himself about this going into it, his comments have been pretty surprising to me because, as you suggested, people at that level tend to be pretty confident in their abilities, not just in chess but in any world championship event, for any sport or game. They tend to be pretty confident people about their abilities. But Ding said himself that he considers himself the underdog in this match and also that he's worried that he will lose very badly is something he said in a recent interview with Kais Nair. So let's talk about his own perspective and mentality on this match going into it. First of all, do you think Ding is right about being the underdog in this match Based?
Speaker 2:on how both players have been playing over the past year, I would absolutely say so. I mean Gukesh has been playing frighteningly good chess. I mean really really impressive chess. I mean top scorer on board, one of the Olympiad, won the candidates and picked up a bunch of rating. I mean he was by no means the favorite to win the candidates and then, ever since becoming the challenger, he's just gone from success to success and played really really excellent chess. So, whereas Ding, as we just talked about, has struggled.
Speaker 2:So I would say, based on what we've seen recently, I would definitely say he is the underdog in the match uh, and of course that's unusual for a world champion. But then again, I mean we saw it in uh in 1972 also, where Fischer was absolutely riding high uh and having uh beaten Taimana of Larsen and Petrosian in the candidates tournament and also, of course, won the intersonal in dramatic fashion also, where he just won with a big gap down to Brent Larsson, so where Spassky definitely was considered the underdog, also result-wise, not having performed nearly as well. I mean I think he finished third in a tournament or something like that in 1970 or 71 with Botvinnik, larsen, and the Dutch Grandmaster Donner was in it as well. And so, yeah, we have had similar situations where the world champion was the underdog and here definitely I mean ding uh, with his recent struggles, definitely would be considered the underdog, even with his match experience. And who catches the lack of match experience?
Speaker 1:yeah, um, yeah, that's. That's really great perspective. They're having that historical perspective on things. Maybe this is a little bit of an off-the-wall question, I don't know, but I'm just so shocked to hear a world champion say that they're worried that they'll lose very badly. You know in chess and sports in general of how they want to talk publicly, to frame a situation. I mean, I suspect ding is being genuine is is there any chance, any kind of strategy on his part to say that he'll lose very badly, to to lower expectations on the part of his opponent or anything like that? Again, just because it's so strange to hear a world champion talk that way yeah, I mean, maybe there's a little bit of that.
Speaker 2:I, I, but honestly, ding, in every interview he has given, has seemed incredibly sincere to to a degree that, uh, to a degree where it almost seems like bone chillingly honest, which is uh, like, really like baring his soul, um, uh, to a degree. I mean also during the match against Nepo, where you're like, why are you telling us this? You should be keeping this to yourself. But again, I mean, ding is a very, very honest guy. He's very sincere, very humble, very, very likable. But I don't, I mean, maybe he's trying to do a little bit of lowering the expectations of him himself and then trying to make, give Gukesh the pressure of being the favorite. I, I, I, I fear that it's. It is, it is completely because he's afraid of us and be a little worrisome.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think, as you're saying, the unfortunate reality is that he's being honest about his feelings on this. Okay, so let's turn to Gukesh. So, at just age 18, he is currently the world number five with a rating of 2783. He recently scored nine out of 10 at the Chess Olympiad, with an impressive performance at the candidates as well. Gukesh has far better momentum going into this event than Ding, as we've established. But I mean, I don't want to just say that, oh, he has it in the bag or something like that. Of course, we don't know exactly how this will all play out. Gukesh has the disadvantage of not having been in a world championship match before, and you could also even argue that, being only 18 years old, emotional maturity is sort of just beginning at that point. So when you look at who will win, are the main concerns his age and inexperience, or is there anything else chess-wise that could suggest he wouldn't beat Ding?
Speaker 2:Chess-wise? No, absolutely not. I mean, I think honestly chess-wise there's only a few players in the world that match him at the moment, carlsen being one, and of course, nakamura and Caruana as well, and then I would say Edeguize. But other than that I mean the way he's been playing no, he doesn't have any clear weaknesses. He calculates phenomenally well and is incredibly dangerous with the initiative. I mean fantastic player, so chess-wise. I don't see any immediate weaknesses. He just plays very, very well and has been just improving steadily.
Speaker 2:I mean, if we had talked about ahead of the candidates I was I thought his opening openings were very weak at that point there, or let's just say weaker, I'm very weak, it's. It's the tricky thing to say for somebody that's well over 2700, but but for somebody his, but for somebody his level, uh, clearly that was his, uh, his weak spot, um, but um, uh. He's definitely been working on that and you could already see that in the candidates, but also in every event that he's been playing in this year. The guy that has been working with him on the openings, gajewski, the Polish grandmaster, has definitely helped him up his opening game dramatically and has made him very, very strong. So I mean, what leaves us are then his age and inexperience and maybe also his psychological state. I mean the way he's carried himself both in the recent tournaments but even also in the previous Chess Olympiad that took place in India, where he also played board one, but on the second team, I think it was where he was unbeatable until he lost a very, very advantageous position against Abdul Sattaroff. That's really the only time I've seen him struggle with psychological issues where he felt unbeatable, and then when his opponent resisted him and kept resisting, that's when he kind of fell apart. But in the last year or so I haven't seen anything comparable to that kind of coming together.
Speaker 2:But then again, the match situation, along with his age and experience in matches, could definitely affect a young player like that, also because he's carrying the burden of all of India on his shoulders, because he's standing to become the heir to the throne that Anand built, and Anand is sort of like a demigod in India, where I mean and rightfully so I mean he's the one that created the foundation that the Indian chess revolution has been built on.
Speaker 2:And now, all of a sudden, gukesh, at the age of 18, stands to maybe becoming the next world champion, and that could be a lot of pressure for a young man if the match doesn't work in his favor in the beginning of it. So these are the things that concerns me with him, with Gukesh, because if it was purely chess that we're looking at, I would not want to be sitting in front of Gukesh Almost no matter who I would be I mean with the exception of a few of the others, but especially with Ding being the opponent. That is just a frightening prospect. But again, who knows? I mean there's so many things that can play in to the situation and definitely I think the psychological aspect is probably maybe Gukeshi's weakest point at this point, because anything else, I think he's primed to take this.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean that's a great summary of the situation there. With Gukesh, I was thinking as you talked about it. I mean, okay, so nothing is quite like the world championship and very bright lights of that and the pressure, but maybe arguably the closest thing to that is the candidates and it sounds like you're saying you didn't see any poor performance on his part. That was that could be clearly attributed to the psychology of it all or emotions getting to him. Is that right?
Speaker 2:that's definitely the case. Yeah, I mean, the way he conducted himself in the, in the candidates, it's just like he seemed like he was destined to do what he's doing right now. Uh and uh, he's such a cool customer. I mean, honestly, the thing is, when you see him and you see him at the board and the way he plays, you don't think he's 18 years old. This, this guy, is just amazing and I mean I'm just flabbergasted every time I I I can see him playing in a tournament and how he just carries himself and his just sharp focus and just seems like nerves do not bother him. That's just for somebody like me who has always been struggling with performance anxiety when playing chess, with performance anxiety when playing chess, it's just fantastic to see somebody that just seemed like unworried about any of those things.
Speaker 1:Right, right. So let's talk a little bit about playing style here. Gukesh said that Ding is a universal player, but Gukesh also noted that all players of the top level have to be universal and that there are only minute differences between them. Do you feel like that's true here, in this particular match, or do you think there's any meaningful style differences between the two players that could be relevant?
Speaker 2:No, I think you and Gukesh hit the nail on the head with this one here. I mean the players are pretty well-rounded in all aspects of the game. But then again, I mean there are tiny differences. Just like everybody knows that Magnus is a phenom at the endgame, I wouldn't say that Gukesh is as strong as Ding tactically, for example. Both of them are, of course, fantastically strong tactically. But I would say, if I had to pick an advantage that Ding might have, while otherwise being universal, that would probably be in the tactical area. But again, both of them are super strong calculators. So a lot of it is something that they would catch in their calculations.
Speaker 2:The tactics but again, self-confidence and so on can definitely play a role here. Positionally, both of them are incredibly strong. Positionally, both of them are incredibly strong, making very, very few positional mistakes or even inaccuracies. So in that aspect also, very evenly, I mean again, if anything where I would give Ding an advantage, that's the tactical aspect of it. If you play through his games from his younger years, he was terrifyingly good at tactics. I mean some of his games were amazing masterpieces in tactical chess. So, whereas Goukesh, with the initiative, is probably one of the best players in the world, maybe almost matching Magnus, I would say.
Speaker 1:So you mentioned earlier that if there was any weakness that Gukesh had going into this, it might be openings. Is that relevant here? Do you think? I know you said that he's improved on that recently, but do you think that could be a relevant difference here?
Speaker 2:No, I don't think openings will play a tremendous role. I mean Ding with the white pieces used to be very, very strong. He was very disciplined, either playing the English opening or D4, and having a very, very solid repertoire and just playing the openings exceptionally well. But then we saw in the last world championship match I mean he played something different basically in every single game and some of it was truly bizarre versions of Queen Porn's openings where you're like why in heaven's name is he playing this for somebody who is usually super well-prepared to just go completely offbeat right from the get-go. And I mean I know he worked with Rapport, the Richard Rapport, the Hungarian grandmaster. But I don't think the point of his openings in that match were to get an advantage. It was probably more to get Nepo to think for himself and maybe play a little carelessly, which again to some extent worked in some of the games.
Speaker 2:Gukesh with the white pieces is very, very dangerous. I mean Ding has to be super careful when playing black against Gukic Because Gukic's wide openings are very, very well prepared and he's very strong and understands them exceptionally well, whereas Ding has, where he used to be solid I mean he had, I think, a streak of more than 100 games where he used to be solid. I mean he had, I think, a streak of more than 100 games where he didn't lose a single game at one point in his career. But the way he's been playing lately he's been playing a lot of different openings and not playing them particularly well as black. So there could be an issue there.
Speaker 2:But I don't think the opening preparation as such is that we're going to see advantages from any side out of the opening. It's more going to be a matter of if Gukesh gets the initiative as white, it's going to be tricky. If Ding can equalize as black, I think he's going to be okay. Then it comes down to playing regular chess and there I don't see any meaningful difference between the two players. Ding with white I don't think we're going to see anything scary coming out of his opening prep. Then again we don't really know who he is working with coming out of his opening prep. Then again we don't really know who he is working with in preparation for this match here. So who knows what they have prepared? But again, I think they are just playing openings to start the game and then see what comes out of it and then hopefully a match experience and maybe who starts best in the match is going to be able to decide what the match is going to be able to decide what the match is going to end up looking like.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that leads to my next question, which is what we can look out for during this match to kind of tell us who may be performing better than the other. I mean, obviously, wins and losses are a pretty strong indicator of that, but there can be more to look for than just that. It sounds like we've framed this as a very psychological match. So how do we tell first four, five, six games and not lose any of them? Then I think some of his confidence will be restored.
Speaker 2:If Gukesh wins, especially if he wins one of the first two or three games, then I can foresee that Ding is going to get in trouble.
Speaker 1:Psychologically.
Speaker 2:Yes, I mean also because just everything he has expressed, I'm afraid, especially if he loses a game badly, like where he just does something really dumb and just loses his threat and loses in poor style, then I can see that affecting him quite badly. But on the other hand, if, if Ding wins a game and then doesn't lose right away again a game, then I think it's wide open, then I think anything can happen in this match here and honestly that, honestly that that's what I'm hoping for. I, I I really like ding as a player. I obviously I like gucash as well. But for the match to be interesting, I think, uh, we would be best served by um, by having ding win one of the first games um interesting.
Speaker 2:And and honestly, I, I think it can happen. Uh, that that's the thing. Yeah, I, I, I think, I think the the match is is it could likely be end up becoming a lot more even than we anticipate. Um, but again, it can also go completely 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 on and then puts Ding under pressure in some other games, then I can see Ding potentially falling apart.
Speaker 1:Yeah. One thing I wanted to comment on about all of this is with respect to Ding. I think there's two aspects to his psychological state. One is for him, the player himself. I feel badly for him that he's going through all this and I hope he can find his way to a better place. From the perspective of a spectator and fan of the game, what I want is for both players to be at their best. I want to see the best that each one can give and bring to this event, and I felt that way in sports too. If you watch sports, I don't want one of the star players to be injured. I want everyone at full strength to kind of see what each side can do when they bring their best. I mean just from, like I said, just from the spectator, fan know, fan of chess perspective. Is that how you feel as well, that we want everyone to just bring their best?
Speaker 2:Oh, absolutely. I mean I uh, I love a good fight I really do and and a well-played match with a lot of excitement. I mean one of my favorite between Karpov and Kasparov, I think in Seville in 87, I think it was, or 88, where I mean they were incredibly evenly matched and Kasparov had to win the last game to even the match and save his world championship and managed to do that. But again, these were two players that were at the very top of their game and they played phenomenal chess. There was a lot of interesting opening ideas and Karpov won with the black pieces in one of his games in the English opening.
Speaker 2: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 about here. Obviously, we've seen interesting matches, both before that match and since. The match between Anand and Gelfand was also terrifyingly close, and the same thing with Topalov and Anand were also fascinating.
Speaker 2:Again, there's so many. I mean against Kajakin. Carlsen had to win towards the very end of the match to equalize, because, again, I think in that match that Carlsen had underestimated Kajak and thought he was going to win rather easily. And then, when he didn't and then lost the game, then all of a sudden something completely different happened. We also had the Caruana against Carlsen match, where Carlsen was very, very close to winning the first game, but when he didn't win that, the match became very, very close and Carlsen had to fight to keep the match balanced and was only really able to match balanced and was only able to put himself apart from Carana in the playoff, in the rapid playoff. So there's been many, many balanced matches and honestly, that's what we want. We want matches where people are fighting on even terms and they're battling it out and there are wins on both sides. That's what chess is all about, and that's what world championships should be all about.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well, said Um, and here's hoping that that's what we get in this event. Final question for you regarding this match regardless of each player's odds of winning and what you think those are, do you have a just a personal favorite in this match that you'd like to see win? Just a personal favorite?
Speaker 2: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 he has been going through lately and I think I would love to see him come back to playing the way he played, let's just say, five years 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 I would like to see back and I really hope we can get to see him again. Gukesh, I think, will have his chance again, purely because of his age and how strong he's become and how he continues to develop. So I don't think this will be his last shot at the World Championship by any stretch of the imagination. So, from that perspective, I would like it to be Ding. That being said, I think Gukesh is a favorite, but I don't know if he is as big a favorite as some people say.
Speaker 2:I think maybe he has like a uh, 55, 45, 60, 40 chance of winning uh if we just look at at pure chess and uh the uh how they've been playing lately. But again, as we talked about, psychological factors can play such a huge role here. I mean, even strong players can react very, very badly to a single game. I mean we saw what Nepo, how he collapsed against Carlsen in Dubai where he looked like he was in charge of the match, and then when he lost I think it was game six of that match all of a sudden he just started playing terrible chess. Despite being phenomenally well-prepared, he started making strange mistakes and poor calculations because the pressure just got to him.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's a great one to bring up because I think that was such a clear example of how much emotions and psychology affect their performance. I'd almost not seen myself personally such a clear example of that in a world championship.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so, yeah, you're right. I mean, psychology is the thing to look out for for both players, I think, in this game. Uh, as we've discussed. So, yeah, I think that's a good wrap on on this event, this upcoming event, which, uh, you got me even more excited about carsten, so definitely looking forward to this now and I feel like I have a much better, uh perspective on it all, and I hope people listening do too. Uh, so I'd like to have this last part of our discussion be about some of your own works and your own publications. You're very prolific publishing chess books, so it is a little difficult to know which one to talk about. But let's talk about the Century of Chess book that you recently published. Can you talk about that a little?
Speaker 2:Yes, that's actually a very exciting book that I'm thrilled to have been part of. It was actually an opportunity that came to me. Sam Khan has a blog on chesscom where he writes about chess history and it has a small but dedicated following of readers. And he came with the idea on the recommendation of one of the content staff of chesscom and wanted to hear if I would be interested in publishing a book on it, and I'm like that sounds very interesting. And then, of course, many of the games that he presented in his column or his blog were unannotated and the first step was, of course, to see if we can get those annotated. So the majority of the annotations for those games were, when the book came about, was done by Cyrus Lachterwaller. I did some of them myself and then I did all of the editing of the book as well. So this is actually the first book of several in a series here of A Century of Chess, which is what his blog is called on chesscom.
Speaker 2:The first book here covers the first decade of the 20th century, so from 1900 to 1909. Of course there are several interesting tournaments. At that point Lasker is the world champion, but Marshall wins in Cambridge 1904 ahead of Lasker in an impressive fashion. Even before that there's the Hanover tournament in 1902 where Pillsbury was also playing in it and was still considered a world championship candidate, but still Alaska was the champion. Taras was a big player in that age. Also, rubin Stein made his first appearances at that point and we see a lot of the players that dominated the first few decades of chess really making an appearance there.
Speaker 2:And I mean you would think I mean someone like Marshall who went, I think, in seven or eight tournaments almost without loss in those tournaments so I mean almost compared, comparable with how Goukesh has has made an appearance similar was was Marshall's appearance. I mean he came basically, it seemed from nowhere and was propelled to to the foremost ranks of players at the time and he seemed like a natural challenger to Lasker. But then when he played against Lasker he was utterly destroyed. I think he lost a match that was 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.
Speaker 2:But there was a lot of interesting games that were being played there and of course we have included them in the book and there's about 40 games in the book, all annotated, with tons of history behind it. It's very thoroughly researched by Sam and with references to all sorts of books and blogs and God knows what else. I was riveted when I read the first bit of the manuscript and I'm like let's get this in print. So I'm excited to have published it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's awesome. So this is a 10-part series, then One decade. Well, I mean that's awesome.
Speaker 2:So this is a 10-part series, then One decade. I mean that's what we're hoping for. I mean so far Sam is getting towards the end of the 1920s now on his blog, so there's definitely Volume 2 should be possible. He's right now selecting games for Volume 2. Cyrus and I are going to be busy annotating those games when he's made his selection and I really hope we're going to have 10 volumes because it's quality material from Sam and I think Cyrus and I are just happy to be part of the journey.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's fantastic Do you know the criteria he uses for selecting games.
Speaker 2:I think his criteria is that it has to, or some that had an effect of the outcome of tournaments and so on. So I mean he's carefully chosen those games where you see the best of some of these players and how they typically played, but also what was the difference makers between them and the runners-up. But again, also I like how he is selecting a different player from more or less every year. So, for example, there's a profile in this first volume on Pillsbury, there's one on Marshall, there's one on Duras, the Czech player, and several others. So it makes for a very interesting read. So it's not just the tournaments but it's also like a broad view of who that player was and what other people thought about them and what they thought about themselves and what has been written about them. So it's a lot of historical insights and I I have to say I enjoy that part of chess and the uh historical chess books uh is something that I love reading.
Speaker 1:I see yeah, well, yeah, I appreciate the. You know how you described the book, uh, century of chess and all that it includes. I appreciate that it has multiple dimensions, including that historical aspect, which seems fairly rare to get that component to it as well. So that sounds very exciting. I'll have a link for that book in the show notes so people can take a look at it and hopefully buy it as well. So I just want to finish by asking you, because I know you're always working on it it seems like a lot of different projects, cause I know you're you're always working on it. It seems like a lot of different projects, um, but uh, like what? What stand out? What stands out to you right now in terms of what's upcoming for you?
Speaker 2:Interestingly enough, I am trying to finish a book on Ding Liren, so I have been working on that for a while together with Cyrus, so I'm hoping to have that out soon. But again, I'm working on so many different things. There's a couple of opening books that I'm working on. I'm working on an instructional book for beginners, also together with Cyrus, and a couple of monographs, one that I'm co-writing with another friend of mine, and some books that I'm writing on on my own.
Speaker 2:If I should look at everything that I'm working on right now, I think I may have 10 or 12 books easily that I'm working on at the same time.
Speaker 2:It also means that I'm working on right now I think I may have 10 or 12 books easily that I'm working on at the same time, and I mean it also means that I'm never bored.
Speaker 2:So that thing that other writers sometimes suffer from the writer's block has never happened to me, or at least it hasn't happened lately. Let's just say it that way. But when you're writing on so many different books At the same time, yes, it takes a bit longer to get a book finished, but at the same time you're never bored, and the fact that you're never bored also means that 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 about chess, I never get tired of it. So whether you're writing about chess history, or you're working on chess in-game studies, or a game collection or working on some openings, there are 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 just sitting and repeating lines that are leading to equal player versions of it.
Speaker 1:Well, I love your enthusiasm for chess, Carson. It's exciting to hear just how much it interests you, even after all these years, and just your commitment to writing all these books it's amazing. Well, Carson, I really enjoyed talking about everything that we've discussed the World Championship event that's coming up, as well as what you're working on with all of your chess books and your love for the game. So now I just want to finish our discussion with a handful of fun questions. It's a regular segment that finishes my interviews with guests. So the first question for you knights or bishops.
Speaker 2:I like bishops more. I love the bishop here, but again, I love an imbalance even more. So that's part of what makes chess interesting to have these imbalances between knights and bishops. Imbalances between knights and bishops. Personally, I favor bishops, but a good imbalance with minor pieces is, I think, even more interesting than just defining it pure knights and pure bishops.
Speaker 1:Great point. Yeah, what's your favorite time control to play?
Speaker 2:Right now 3 plus 1, or 3 plus 2. I find that I am a little too slow to write play 3.0, but that's typically the games that I get when I'm playing online, when I have to play in person either 10 minutes or an hour plus uh, plus a few seconds, uh, so, uh, something like that. I mean, the last tournament I played was in New Jersey Senior Championship earlier this year and that was, I think, an hour plus 5 seconds or something like that, 10 seconds, and I enjoyed that time control. Otherwise, 10 minutes is good for Rapid, and 3 plus 1 or 3 plus 2, I enjoy a lot Awesome.
Speaker 1:This next question might be a little unfair to ask someone like you, considering just how much you've covered all these great players of the past and I'm sure you have, you know, an affinity for many of them. But the question I ask my guests is who is your favorite player of all time?
Speaker 2:That is a fantastic question. I would probably. I mean I love Magnus a lot. I think his games are probably the most well-rounded and interesting, but there are a few players from earlier days that I really like a lot. I love Petrosian's games from not all of his career, but like from 1959 to 1963 when he became world champion. He played I mean I'm getting almost goosebumps thinking about how well he played at that time. Also Ben Larsen and my compatriot from Denmark. I mean the way he played in the latter half of the 1960s and beginning of the 70s. He was outrageously good and had it not been for Fischer, he could have been a world championship challenger. So his games are incredibly instructive and probably also, I would say in, uh, in my top three. Um, but it is difficult. I, I mean I, I love so many players I know, I know, uh so.
Speaker 2:But I mean, I've had so many favorites over the years but those are probably, uh, uh, probably the top three on my Mount Olympus, if I should point any out.
Speaker 1:Yeah, absolutely. If you could play a great player of the past who is no longer alive, who would it be?
Speaker 2:I would love to play against Capablanca or Nimzovich. Nimzovich was a strange character. I also lived in Denmark for a long time was the last part of his life. Capablanca I find very, very fascinating, also because he seemed to play in a way where his opponents had a decent chance of saving draws against him, because he wasn't actually super precise and gave people most of the games that he played against them, but he saved a draw in one of his games, as well as against other top players of the time. He saved draws against Oiver and Alikain and Budvinnik as well, but he also lost another game that he should have drawn, and the fact that so many players got close to a draw against Cablanca would make it feel like that I could possibly, if I had a really really good day, maybe sneak a draw out of him, whereas, for example, if I had played someone like Alikain, I am certain he would have beaten the snot out of me because he was just brutal. I mean very, very, very efficient, and I mean also Bart Wienig at his best was also terribly efficient. So I would have wanted to play against somebody that I felt I could have possibly had a chance against if I had a really good day and things just worked out for me and I think some of those players could have been fun to play against.
Speaker 2:Also, nimzovich played such original and creative chess, so sometimes he got himself in trouble with his strategic maneuvering. That didn't always make any sense and he seemed to allow a lot of tactical opportunities for his opponents. But yeah, but yeah. I mean, those would probably be players I would have loved to play. I wouldn't want to play against someone like petrosian because he would just have. I was uh like, uh, completely like, uh, like a snake just push the air out of my lungs slowly but surely and then uh, then I would have died. No, I wouldn't want to do that. But yeah, cabo Blanco and Nemtsovich.
Speaker 1:Great answers. If you could play any of the top players in the world right now, who would it be?
Speaker 2:Magnus, I would love to play against Magnus. I mean, I find him such a fascinating player and his understanding of chess and I mean the ideas that he brings about when he's playing. It's just fascinating to see what he does. I mean, again, somebody like Nakamura. I think he's just tactically just terrifying. I mean what he sits and does when he plays Bullet Arena and Title Tuesday and can sit and talk about it while playing on these very short time limits, just boggles my mind.
Speaker 2:But, magnus, because I treasure him as a chess player, because I treasure him as a chess player and I'm just feeling so lucky to be alive, to see him play, and I mean we're so lucky also that we can see him on camera. I mean earlier today he was playing against Fabiano in Singapore and we're sitting and watching it live. I mean, how lucky are we to have the opportunity to see somebody that good who is, without a doubt, uh, one of the top three players of all time in in the history of chess? Uh, and we can watch him live, uh, while he's playing the games. I mean I I'm just feeling so privileged and and and the level of chess that he's produced over the last decade and a half, I mean wow.
Speaker 1:Right, right, yeah, great points. What's your favorite opening to play as White?
Speaker 2:That is, I mean, an opening I've written more about than anything else is, of course, the English opening.
Speaker 2:But a few years ago, um, I I wrote a book about the orangutan, one before, uh, my dad, my dad used to play it uh when, when I was growing up, he, he fell in love with it, the hopeless fell in love with it, uh, in the 1960s, um, and played it uh, with, let's say, unimpressive results, but, but he enjoyed playing it.
Speaker 2:I'm sure at one point he had good results with it. But the thing is, when I then started writing the book, I felt, you know what, if I have to write about it, I need to play it a little just to get a better feel for the ideas and stuff like that. So I started playing it in every single white game I had for a period of time and, um, even though it's not supposed to be that good, obviously it's not the best first move, but I scored something like 75 with the white pieces, with the opening against grandmasters, and I mean some of these grandmasters that I was playing against were rated. I mean I think the best one I played against was ranked 18th on League Chess at the time and I won the game.
Speaker 1:Do you attribute that to the surprise value, or is it yeah?
Speaker 2:in part. I mean, because the thing is, of course, they're not going to lose out of the opening, because it's not that kind of opening, but there are some certain strategical aspects that are unusual, and once you're playing against somebody that strong, a grandmaster strength, there's a couple of ideas that I found that they struggled with, and one of them is a positional error in one of the lines of it that I saw very strong players repeat over and over and over again. It was just Sometimes I was just sitting and staring at the screen in abject horror on their part. I'm like how can you make this positional mistake? You are supposed to be way better than this. They just played 200 rating points below their normal level.
Speaker 2:I mean, some of them lost in pathetic fashion. I mean sometimes I barely needed to think during the games because he was on autopilot and that I enjoyed, uh, that somebody that strong were playing against a knucklehead like me, um, and, and I could score that well with an inferior opening, uh, so, uh, so I I that's why I've enjoyed playing it. I think it's a fun opening. It is obviously not the best move, but I'm enjoying it at the moment, and when I played the New Jersey Senior Championship. I also played it. I lost one of my games with it against a 2,500-rated player. But again, that's what happens when you play against somebody that strong, you can actually lose. Happens when you play against somebody that strong, you can actually lose. But the Orangutan is probably my favorite wide opening at the moment.
Speaker 1:That's great. And the reverse question what's your favorite opening as Black?
Speaker 2:I have written a lot about the Accelerated Dragon but I went away from it because I lost some terrible games with it. So I have been playing several things since, but the most fun I've had as Black has been two different openings. And that's the Dirty Harry Sicilian, where black after E4, 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 and I was working with him on a repertoire for the English opening for Chessable at the time and I was asking him about it and he showed me some ideas and I started playing it and it's objectively horrible but it is fun. It is.
Speaker 2:I have lost some terrible games, but the thing is, even the games that are lost in terrible fashion, I enjoy them because I made my opponents think and I forced myself to think as well, and I mean I have picked up some nice victories against many, against IMs. I even beat Grandmaster Kushmin, a guy that was a coach for, I think, mamajarov and several others. I beat him in 14 moves with the black pieces, with a silly opening, and so that is one thing. And then there's another one against D, against d4, and I'm writing on a book on it.
Speaker 2:At the moment, the um, we're calling it my, my co-author and I are calling it the tactical benko. Uh, that is after uh, when white accepts the benko and takes an a6, black plays e6. Um, so it's like a bit of a mixture of the Blumenfeld and the Benko, and also that too is objectively incorrect. But in Blitz it is terribly dangerous and even strong players can get themselves in trouble. So from that perspective I mean, I wouldn't play it in a regular tournament game I can't see myself doing that. But in blitz, wow, that's a lot of trouble that white has to uh to stay clear of, and not everybody manages.
Speaker 1:So those are my two favorite openings at the moment fantastic and my final question for you in this, in this segment, karsten and um, it's kind of a big question, so you can take a moment to think about your answer first. If you'd like, if a quote-unquote chess genie existed and could grant you one chess wish, what would you wish for?
Speaker 2:Hmm, that is a good question. I would probably wish to have an opportunity to play in one of those older tournaments in the first two or three decades of the 20th century and play in one of the top tournaments, like in Carlsbad or Bad Kissing in 1928 or San Sebastian 1911, or one of these tournaments where all the top players were playing and then just having an opportunity to play against all these greats, I think that would be it, more than titles or anything else, just the opportunity to sit across from all these old masters, that would be my wish that's a fantastic answer.
Speaker 1:I love that. It's uh, it's a great one. It's not one that I've had a guest give, but, uh, I love that perspective and I and I think it's it's uh, it's perfect for everything that you've done in your in your own chess career to have that as an answer. Um, so that's a great way to finish our discussion. Carson, I want to say thank you so much for being on this show. You offered so many great insights and perspectives. Love discussing all of this with you and discussing all things chess. It was a fantastic conversation. I want to say thank you for being on the show.
Speaker 2:Thanks for having me. I loved every second of it. I hope to come back another time. Hopefully they'll soon play another world championship.
Speaker 1:Yes, absolutely For sure, For sure. You have been my go-to on that discussion, but we'll definitely have you back, whether on that topic or another on the podcast. So thank you so much for being on the show. Thank you, I love this. Thank you, thanks for listening. This has been a production of my Business, adult Chess Academy, and that has a website with the same name. If you want to look for it, you can also find me being way too active on Twitter by searching my username, lona underscore chess. See you next week.
