The following interview gives a precious insight into the laboratory
of the most profound chess journalist since the time of Tartakower.
Aryeh Davidoff

An Interview with Lev Khariton
by Abdul Karim
Just right after the match between Kasparov and Karpov in the ABC
Studio in New York Abdul Karim interviewed Lev Khariton for Pakistan
Chess Player. Below is the transcript of this interview.

Mr. Khariton, you have been contributing to our site for almost two
years, and we, the editors of PCP, together with the readers, would
like to know more about you, your life, your views...

I am really flattered to hear that. To begin with, it is a great honor
for me to write for PCP. I see here people completely dedicated to
chess, real enthusiasts of the game, whose priority is chess and
chess, but not the financial remuneration. Judging by the mail we
receive here, most of the readers love chess and chess history, their
questions are always relevant, and it is a great pleasure for the
chess writer to have such a fantastic feedback. I hope that the two
columns that I have been editing here - ChessPress and 200 Words -
attract and will attract considerable readership. For me this site is
a unique chance to express myself, to express my views, to discuss
important issues of chess life.

When did you start playing chess?

I remember I learned to make moves when I was six. It was in 1951 and
Botvinnik was playing the World Championship match with Bronstein in
Moscow. My father and my elder brother were waiting for each game to
be played and I remember how my father, who could not see well since
he was suffering from glaucoma, asked me to play over the games of the
match from newspapers. So I had to look at the text of the game in the
newspaper and to move chess pieces on the board. I was getting very
nervous: I had just learned to read Russian, but I did not know Latin
letters and I did not simply know the notation of the chess board.
Struggling through tears, little by little I came to know the
notation, although I did not quite understand the game itself. I was
just mechanically moving chess pieces on the board and my father was
straining his eyes to catch up with me since my chess reading soon
considerably improved. But I really started to play chess one or two
years later, when my brother's friends, usually two or three, came to
our house and played blitz games. Now I understand that, of course,
they were not strong players, but at first I almost always lost to
them crying bitterly, but soon I learned to play very quickly (we
played three-minutes' blitz). For about a year I usually played all
"home" blitz tournaments. In 1954, in autumn, my father took me to a
chess club for children and since then I started playing in
tournaments, learning chess seriously, with all dedication to the
game.

When did you start chess journalism?

Well, I started writing articles for chess magazines quite late. I
remember well that my first article was written in 1969, when I was
24, and it was published in the Soviet chess magazine (weekly at the
time) "64". In general, it was my friend Yuri Razuvayev's idea to
write on the great American chess player Harry N.Pillsbury. Already at
that time Yuri was making great strides in chess and he was very much
attracted by Pillsbury's strategic plan in Queen's gambit with White's
Knight posted on e5. Actually, we wrote that article on this subject.
Most of the literary work was done by me, and Yuri only checked up the
purely chess stuff. And of course, he made sure that I got the fees
since he knew well Petrosian and all the editors in "64". From that
time on I was writing more or less regularly for "64" even when
Petrosian was replaced temporarily by Yakov Neischtadt, my friend and
the well-known chess author and journalist ( he resides now in Israel)
and finally by Karpov with Alexander Roshal. At the same time I
contributed on and off to "Chess in the USSR" edited by grandmaster
Yuri Averbakh and the Latvian magazine "Schachs" edited by Mikhail Tal
and Aiwar Gipslis.

Which things motivate you to be a journalist?

I don't think that I can answer this question briefly. To begin with,
to write well on any subject or issue, you have to love it with all
your heart. I have been committed to chess wholeheartedly all my life
and the more I advance in years, the more I am convinced that chess is
a godsend to mankind, as any other form of art, whether it be music,
poetry or ballet. Alekhine was absolutely right when he called chess
an art and himself an artist. Unfortunately, in the kaleidoscope of
today's tournaments and matches the leading grandmasters seem to
forget these words of the Great Russian champion. More and more often
we hear that chess is "a product that has to be sold lucratively".
Kasparov's words! I am sure that this approach can lead us nowhere;
what is more, it is dangerous because one day chess players may
discover that by commercializing chess they can lose the beauty and
the charm of the game, to destroy its glorious history. And this is
probably, if I answer your question, the strongest motivation for a
chess journalist: to defend chess as an art from, I would say, against
moral degradation! One famous Russian journalist recently said: I am a
journalist, and I have no right to have a position. But having no
opposition or attitude, is already a position and attitude! And a very
dangerous position! In today's life the role of a journalist is
tremendously important; he cannot sit on a fence and stay above the
battle. Some four or five years ago Sarah Hurst, the young English
journalist presented me with her book and on the cover she wrote the
words that are dear to me: "To Lev Khariton, the journalist who is
always honest, a very rare type". Yes, without honesty you have no
right to call yourself a journalist!

Well, summing up, for me writing on chess is a way to express myself.
It does not in any way mean that I am always 100% right. On the
contrary, I like to receive critical mail that helps me to see many
things in a new light, to revaluate them etc.

You have translated many books and articles in several languages,
could you name some of them?

That's true. While living in Moscow, I translated some chess and
non-chess books. However, of all my translations I would single out
the memorable translation of Bobby Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games"
It was my first try at translating a book. As you well understand, it
was not a usual book. Besides, I was doing this translation at a time
when Fischer was scaling chess Olympus and the book had become a
bestseller in the Soviet Union before it appeared on the counters of
bookshops. Regrettably, many years later Fischer accused the Soviet
publishers of violating his copyright. I have written about it more
than once and I repeat here again: at the time when Fischer's
masterpiece was translated and published in Moscow, the Soviets had
not yet joined the Copyright Convention (it happened only in May
1973). So, all the publications, as regards foreign authors, were, so
to speak, illegal, and really the Soviet publishers were acting in
violation of the International Copyright Law. So, Fischer's appeals
should have been addressed to the Soviet Government, but not to
individual publishers who were only representing the State. If Fischer
had only known how chess fans in the Soviet Union appreciated his
book, how they learned every move and every comment by Fischer, how
they respected him as a chess player! How different is all this from
American chess players! Just read, for example, their postings at
www.chesscafe.com in which they practically curse Bobby as a human
being and do not give him even due respect as a chess player. I think
that Fischer felt really lonely in America, and may be, it is not by
chance that finally he left his country.

In 1994 Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, reportedly, paid Fischer $100,000
royalties for my translation I was a little bit surprised that
Fischer, who in the past is said to have spurned far lucrative
millions' dollars offers from various tycoons, accepted Kirsan's gift.
Did Fischer know from whom he was taking the money? But as we know
today, Kasparov has followed in Fischer's footsteps: he is now, after
years of mutual accusations, on the best of terms with Ilyumzhinov.

Incidentally, about 8 years ago, the Russians published a two-volume
book of Fischer's games with all the 60 games in my translation. My
name as a translator was not even mentioned. I wonder if Fischer knows
about this piracy. Otherwise, he could have sued the Russians for
royalties. At any rate, I have tried to reach the editors for my
royalties as a translator (after all, Fischer was not translating
himself his book into Russian!), but to no avail.

Possibly, the readers of PCP remember my piece from ChessPress "Dr.
Nunn or Mr. Batsford?" in which I dwelt upon my translation of
Kasparov's book "Kasparov Teaches Chess". I am not going to repeat the
sad story again. One thing is clear: translating World Champions'
books has not made me a millionaire!

When did you start writing chess articles?

Well, as I have said, I started writing articles in Moscow, when I was
24, but I began to work on a regular basis for a newspaper in January
1991 in "La Pensee Russe" in Paris. This Russian weekly has been
published in Paris since 1947. It is a Russsian emigrant paper; it was
always in opposition to the political regime in the Soviet Union.
Actually, this newspaper was forbidden in the USSR. Once not long
before I left Moscow for good, I saw this newspaper in the house of my
friends Vladimir Kislik and Bella Gulko (the elder sister of
grandmaster Boris Gulko). They were famous dissidents in Moscow and
they helped many people, either would-be emigrants or human rights
activivsts. They gave me the newspaper and warned me not to read it on
a bus or in the subway. Certainly, it was dangerous because for
reading "La Pensee Russe" outside your house you could be easily
denounced by anyone. If I could imagine that one day I would work for
this newspaper! When I came to live in Paris (in August 1990), one of
my Russian friends told me that there was a vacancy in the paper for
someone who could play chess and could do journalism. I went for an
appointment with Mrs. Irina Ilovayskaya, editor-in-chief of "La Pensee
Russe". She was (she died three years ago) an extremely intelligent
and educated person (she, for example, spoke eight languages). I think
there was no other person in the world who understood the danger of
communism more than Ilovayskaya! It is interesting to note here that
for several years she worked in Vermont as secretary of the Great
Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he was exiled by the Soviet
authorities to the United States. We talked for about 15 minutes, and
I felt that she appreciated me, first of all, on a human level. Later
when I was already working in the paper for some years, Ilovayskaya
told me she trusted her intuition when she chose me. She had spoken to
some Russian grandmasters, who also wanted to edit the chess column in
the paper, but she preferred me, and she never regretted the choice.
It is interesting that the first article I wrote for "La Pensee Russe"
was on Kasparov winning his match against Karpov in Lyons.Since then I
have been working for "La Pensee Russe", and I am very proud to work
for this newspaper!

In general, I remember with warmth the 9 years that I lived in Paris.
I am grateful to my destiny that gave me the chance to know such
people as Ilovayskaya and Alexander Ginzburg, who was the most
outstanding Soviet human rights activist. He was arrested by the
Soviet communists several times and spent, all in all, about 15 years
in prison. In Russia we called such people "prisoners of conscience".
Ginzburg was the founder in 1975 of the famous Group on the
verification of the Final Helsinki Act. Actually, this organization
defended human rights all over the world. More than anything else in
the world, I always loved freedom, but I think that such people as
Ilovayskaya and Ginzburg taught me well that freedom should be
defended every minute, that we should not be slaves, we should not be
brain-washed, and we must fight for freedom day and night!

You used to write for chesscafe.com, I was used to read your articles
and then there were some kind of arguments between you and Hanon
Russell. What was that and why you suddenly quit writing for them?

I think you know more or less the issue why I stopped writing for
ChessCafe. Mr. Russell inspired by Mr. Winter accused me of
plagiarism. This was an absolutely ungrounded accusation, and if there
is someone to accuse of plagiarism I should be the last person to
deserve this accusation. I was writing articles for ChessCafe for four
years without getting a cent while most of Mr. Russells columnists
work as paid journalists. Moreover, most of my publications, which
received the best critical acclaim, were used by other sites (isn't it
plagiarism?), but I never complained, I never protested. On the
contrary, I appreciate very much when my work reaches other sites, so
that more and more people get acquainted with my writings and my
thoughts. I think this makes me different from some other journalists
who accuse each other of plagiarism. It is interesting that Mr.
Russell is using censorship as editors in the former Soviet Union: for
his Bulletin Board he picks only postings that suit him, and if
occasionally I send him now some comments concerning chess life or
great chess personalities, he never posts them. I am sure that chess
fans lose a lot: I know chess life very well, I knew many great chess
players. But Mr. Russel, though a 100% American, follows for some
unknown reason, the "best communist tradition". Obviously, it is not
enough to live in a free country, one has to be free inside his own
soul and mind, or one must know such people, as I used to know in
Paris!

In your life you met lot of chess players, world champions, could you
please name them and could you please tell us about those moments that
you spent with them?

Well, in my life I really had the luck and honor to know many talented
chess players and even World Champions. I grew up in my younger years
with such chess players as Yuri Razuvayev and Boris Gulko. Both became
well-known grandmasters. Gulko was even a challenger for the World
Title (he lost a candidates' match to Nigel Short).In some way, he is
a unique chess player: he is the only one in the world who was USSR
and USA Champion. Also, he is one of the few chess players who have a
positive score with Kasparov: 3:1! I played with Gulko twice, and I
won both games. So, today I am joking that I am stronger than Kasparov
for I beat the man who has a victorious score against Kasparov. Here
is my first win against Boris in the Moscow Junior Championship in
1960 (I was 15, and Boris 13!).

L.Khariton - B.Gulko

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.d3 Bb4+ 6.c3 Bc5 7.0-0 a6
8.Ba4 Ne7 9.Bg5 0-0 10.Bb3 Kh8 11.Kh1 f6 12.Bh4 Ng6 13.Bg3 f5 14.f4 d6
15.Nd2 fxe4 16.Nxe4 dxc3 17.bxc3 Be3 18.Ng5 d5 19.Nxh7 Kxh7 20.Qh5+
Kg8 21.Bxd5+ Rf7 22.Bxf7+ Kxf7 23.f5 Qxd3 24.fxg6+ Ke6 25.Qe5+ Kd7
26.Qxc7+1:0

Yuri Razuvayev was always my "bete noire" at the chess board: I always
lost to him. Moreover, each time I lost in a spectacular fashion. The
thing is that Razuvayev was, even in his boyhood, an excellent
theoretician and I could not compete with him in opening preparation.
Suffice it to see the two games he won against me in 1960.

L.Khariton - Y.Razuvayev
Junior Moscow Championship, 1960

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 0-0 5.f3 d6 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Qd2 c5 8.d5
a6 9.Bh6 Qa5 10.Bxg7 Kxg7 11.g4 b5 12.cxb5 axb5 13.Nxb5 Qb6 14.h4 Ba6
15.a4 c4 16.Bxc4 Rfc8 17.b3 Nc5 18.Rc1 Bxb5 19.axb5 Ra3 20.g5 Nxb3
21.gxf6+ exf6 22.Bxb3 Rxc1+ 23.Qxc1 Rxb3 24.Ne2 Rxf3 25.Qc4 Qa5+
26.Kd1 Ra3 27.Nc1 Ra4 28.Qc2 Rd4+ 0:1

Y.Razuvayev - L.Khariton
Junior Team Ch.,Moscow, 1961

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2 Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6
8.dxe5 Nb7 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Bf4 Nc5 11.Rfe1 Re8 12.Ne4 Ba6 13.Qd2 Nxe4
14.Rxe4 d5 15.exd6 cxd6 16.h3 c5 17.Rae1 Bb7 18.R4e3 Bxf3 19.Bxd6 Bc6
20.Rxe7 Rxe7 21.Rxe7 Rb8 22.Qf4 Bd5 23.c4 Rb4 24.Qg5 Rxc4 25.Be5 Rc1+
26.Kh2 1:0

In the early 70s Razuvayev was Karpov's consultant in opening
preparation. At that time Grigory Goldberg, a chess master and
Botvinnik's friend for years, told me that Razuvayev knew opening
theory better than Geller, Boleslavsky and Furman together! I am sure
Goldberg knew what he was saying. When I lived in Moscow, Razuvayev
and I used to be friends for years. But time and different countries
seem to be driving old friends apart...

In my memoirs "English Lessons" I wrote about my chess contacts with
Mikhail Botvinnik, the first Soviet World Champion. He was certainly a
chess legend, a most charismatic personality in modern chess history.
His contribution to chess, the progress of chess can be compared only
to that of Steinitz! He was a very proud person, but at the same time
he was a humble and modest man. I am surprised that today some
journalists describe Botvinik as a political opportunist who did
everything possible to destroy the lives and chess careers of his
adversaries. Suffice it to read the articles by Taylor Kingston "
("Botvinnik vs Keres") or Kingston's interview of grandmaster Yuri
Averbakh in which the latter does everything to provoke readers'
disgust with Botvinnik. One Russian journalist (now quite prosperous
in US) went as far as to say that Botvinnik demanded everything for
himself from the Soviet Government: for instance, he asked before the
un-played match with Alekhine that the government should provide him
with 300 grams of red caviar and his wife with a fur coat. At that
time, writes this journalist, all the Soviet people were starving and
Botvinnik was demanding those luxuries! But why should Botvinnik have
been denied a good coat for his wife? Should she have gone with him to
London in old rags? Don't forget that for years Botvinnik was the
world's strongest chess player and he represented the Soviet Union as
a political entity.

Also, for many years I have known closely David Bronstein. I have
written a number of articles on this outstanding man and original
chess philosopher. But even all those articles cannot convey the
respect and admiration I feel for the grandmaster. Unfortunately, for
the reasons we still don't know today he did not win the title match
against Botvinnik in 1951. I am sure, if that had happened, his whole
life would have panned out differently, he would have had more
invitations to tournaments, he would have never been disregarded, the
way he was, by the chess authorities in the Soviet Union.

I am proud that while living in Paris I came to know closely Boris
Spassky. For me he is not only a great World Champion, but primarily a
brilliant man living in his own, very special moral dimension. He is
one of the people who have never committed an act later they are
ashamed of. For example, although his relations with Korchnoi were
very tense, he did not sign the notorious anti-Korchnoi letter of
Soviet grandmasters after Korchnoi had decided not to return to the
Soviet Union in 1976. Many people, even knowledgeable people like
grandmaster Averbakh, accuse Spassky saying that he was too much after
money in his match against Fischer in 1972, and therefore he allowed
Bobby to win the Chess Crown. Nothing can be further away from the
truth! Boris understood too well that without this match chess history
would have been much poorer, the "no-match" Spassky-Fischer would be a
gap as glaring as "no-matches" between Lasker and Rubinstein or
Alekhine-Botvinnik.

I could speak about great chess players for hours, but I think it is
also important to remember less known people who were my chess
teachers: Yuri Brazilsky, Grigory Ravinsky, Alexander
Konstantinopolsky. All of them passed away a long time ago, but they
are always alive in my memory.

How do you compare Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov and Anand?

Of course, all these are great chess players, and each of them
deserves a special profiling. Frankly speaking, all of them represent
what chess, as an art, a sport, and a science achieved in the second
half of the 20th century. Without their chess legacy young chess
players cannot go ahead! Certainly, all of them are great fighters at
the board, and Fischer and Kasparov off the board as well! If you want
me to compare them, I would say that Fischer was a chess player with
his own principles, he lacked the flexibility, or I would say, the
opportunism of "2 Ks". One of the reasons why Fischer finally quit
chess (apart from the pressure from FIDE and the Soviet Chess
Federation) was that he felt, as an intuitive genius, that the time of
straightforward chess, chess based on principles and rules rather than
exceptions was long past. He had a clear-cut view of chess, his games
were, metaphorically speaking, as transparent as the water in the
Mediterranean on a fine, sunny day! Although the media ascribed to
Fischer scandals, money-grabbing and intrigues, we know that he was
totally dedicated to the game. I am not going to speak about
differences between Karpov and Kasparov as chess players, the whole
world knows that they are different in this respect as day and night,
but many years ago I noted in one of my articles that as human beings
they are much alike: both, even today, in their mentality, remain
typical Soviet people, communist (paradoxically!) in their way of
thinking. But their temperaments are different. Karpov leaves the room
quietly closing the door, whereas Kasparov always slams the door...As
to Anand, he is a fantastically talented player, maybe a genius, but
as a human being, it seems to me, he is colorless...

Who do you think is the best player now these days? And who is the
strongest regardless of the ratings?

Doubtless, even today Kasparov is the world's strongest player.
Anyway, so far no one has surpassed his tournament performances.
However, no one can cheat Time. Today Kasparov is not the same as he
used to be 10 or 15 years ago. If in the past he used to win owing to
inspiration and preparation, today it is his professionalism that
helps him. As soon as he starts losing his energy, and he has an
enormous energy potential, he will be replaced by other chess stars.
Today, I believe, he is no stronger that Kramnik or Anand. Ponomariov
is growing up rapidly, and his playing potential is an unknown
quantity. Don't forget about such young players as Rajabov, Grischuk,
Kariakin, or some juniors in China, Hungary, England...

As regards Kasparov's matches with computers, I think that the match
with "Junior" will be a hard trial, if not an ordeal, for the
40-year-old champion. Already five years ago playing against "Deeper
Blue", Kasparov failed to show his mettle. This time things will be
much harder for him, unless certainly the whole venture is not
prearranged by the organizers and the computer's team. In one respect
I was right in my article "Gazza will not go to Gaza!" I predicted
that Kasparov would not play in Jerusalem. Now the match will be held
in New York. I hope I am wrong about the prearranged outcome of the
match.

When were in playing hall in the match between two K's, Karpov said in
the press conference that he is not happy with the system of world
chess championship... and that why he doesn't play in that KO system
championship... Why? And what is your opinion?

The only truth is that Karpov cannot now fight successfully for the
Chess Crown. No system would ever satisfy him now Of course, he is a
brilliant chess player, and he is still playing very well, but as
World Champion he belongs to chess history and that's all there is to
it!

As to the system of World Championship selection, we must have the
courage to accept the reality of our time. The chess world will never
return to those interzonals, candidates' and World Title matches that
existed from the 50s through the 90s. As you know, in many articles I
called for returning to this, so to speak, classical system of the
challengers' selection. Now, however, I understand that something has
changed in this world, and the new time calls for something utterly
different. Chess players do not want to play in tournaments that last
for months and each World Championship cycle taking three years! On
the other hand, it is ridiculous to consider KO tournaments with 100
or more participants and blitz tie-breaks as World Championships!
Seriously, how many tournaments had Khalifman won before he became
World Champion in Las Vegas? Or did he win any important events after?

Is Kasparov still strong enough to play against the computer next
month?

What do you say about his chess strength after his match against
Karpov?

Doubtless, Kasparov is going to have it tough against "Junior" soon.
All these computers are getting stronger and stronger. Here in New
York Kasparov's play against Karpov was, to say the least, quite
disappointing. I have the feeling that today Kasparov cannot totally
concentrate on chess. He has too many things on his mind. First of
all, business and big money. And why does get involved in the problems
of world history? Why does he want to reconsider the annals of
history? Is he an expert on history, human culture, and human
civilizations? Unfortunately, many outstanding people, political
leaders, for example, when people around start worshipping them,
believe that they are know-alls. We know this from history - Stalin,
Mao... But Kasparov is a chess player, a great chess player, he must
not forget his art and he must give the joy to all those who love
chess instead of doing something in which he is utterly incompetent.

We must not forget that soon Kasparov will be 40. And I think he
cannot play now as let us say, 10 or 15 years ago. In his match with
Karpov here I noticed that he can no longer calculate variations as he
used to. What will he do against the computer? His intuition against
the silicon monster is not enough...

In the past Kasparov did not play a world title match against Shirov.
Was that Kasparov was scared of him as we already know that Shirov is
a strong GM and he scored 7/3 in the match of Russia vs World ...?

I do not know exactly who is to blame for the "no-match" between
Kasparov and Shirov. But whatever it may be, it was not in the
interests of Shirov to break off this match. For any challenger such a
match, and we know it from history, is the dream of his life.
Regardless of the financial backing of the match, Kasparov as acting
World Champion could have done everything to organize the match;
moreover, it was Kasparov who proposed the idea of the Kramnik-Shirov
candidates' match. And Shirov won that match brilliantly!

I think that Kasparov was not scared of Shirov. Rather, he
overestimated his chances, considering the lop-sided score in his
favor in their tournament encounters. And that would have been
Kasparov's hindrance in such a match. We know from chess history that
Capablanca and Spassky were too self-confident in their matches
against Alekhine and Fischer respectively. The pre-match score
sometimes may be a confusing factor.

A couple of years back, Kasparov and FIDE president were enemy of each
other now they are in the same boat. Does Kasparov realize that he is
nothing without FIDE or they both realized that they both have common
interest, so let's go with that? Is that common interest is Chess,
money or dictatorship or all three at the same time?

Frankly, I was not surprised that Kasparov finally joined
Ilyumzhinov's ranks. Compromises with his own conscience, the total
lack of principles make up the logic (if we can speak of any logic!)
of his life. He accused Kirsan even of money-laundering (which is
simply a crime in the jurisdiction of any country) just to join him
some years later. But if you trace back Kasparov's life you will see
that very much the same happened to him when Campomanes was FIDE
President. I remember Kasparov saying and writing that his struggle
against Campomanes was tantamount to fighting against fascism. And
then, all of a sudden, he supported Campomanes re-election! When
Kasparov complains that chess players do not support him, he must well
understand: they do not believe him. As simple as that!

The present-day Kasparov-Ilyumzhinov alliance is based on both men's
interest in money and political power. Today they are ruling the chess
world. They are supported by Seirawan, the American grandmaster who
has also shown the total lack of principles. Just remember his "angry"
letter against Ilyumzhinov last year in which he asked Kirsan to
resign as FIDE President. Today he is Kirsan's best friend!

Tell us something about Tal and Fischer and their games.

You are asking a very interesting question. To tell the truth, I am
going to write an article on both chess giants. I want to write about
them as great chess players, about their outstanding contribution to
chess and chess history. I want simply to write about them as human
beings, exceptional human beings!

The young years of chess players of my generation are inseparably
associated with these two names: Tal and Fischer! Frankly, in 1959,
1960, that is when I was 14 or 15 years old, I thought that there
would be never greater chess players than Tal and Fischer. These were
just magnetic names! At that time Tal was obviously stronger. It was
his heyday in chess. Suffice it to remember that in the 1959
candidates' in Yugoslavia he beat Fischer in a 4:0 shutout! At that
time nobody could resist to Tal and in 1960 he won the World Title in
his match against Botvinnik. Fischer, although already a strong
grandmaster, did not understand Tal`s irrational sacrifices. Besides,
psychologically, his play was naive compared to Tal's. In the 60-s Tal
was harassed by various diseases, whereas Bobby was making steady
progress save for his disappointing "walkouts" from important
tournaments. However in the 1962 candidates' at Curacao he won against
Tal (2:1) who was sick by the end of the tournament and was obliged to
be hospitalized. What is more important is that Fischer was the only
player in that tournament who visited Tal in the hospital and played
with him blitz games. None of the participants ever came to see their
colleague! This is what I would like to remind of, when I hear people
speaking or writing about Fischer's anti-Semitism and even cruelty. In
general, Fischer had good, friendly relations, with all outstanding
Soviet grandmasters - Petrosian, Keres, Smyslov, and Geller. It is not
by chance that 20 years after winning the World Championship he chose
Spassky to play a match with in Yugoslavia. He understood well that
the evil came not from chess players, but from all those, as he called
them, "creeps" who were hanging around the world of big chess.
Certainly, I think nostalgically about Tal and Fischer, it was a
"belle Иpoque", "golden age" of chess, something that we shall
never see again. At the same time I am happy and proud that I was a
witness of that epoch!

Mr. Khariton, many thanks for your interview, and we hope to speak to
you again!