Alexandra Kosteniuk Interview by WIM Beatriz Marinello

Grandmaster Alexandra Kosteniuk: Woman World Champion, Mother and Wife…Aspiring Fashion Model and a Role Model for our chess community.

Women’s World Champion Alexandra Kosteniuk lives part of the year in Miami, USA and is planning to help promote chess in the USA in a positive way. I would like to thank her for allowing me to interview her.

We would also like to take this opportunity to announce a U.S. Chess Trust Fundraising Event in New York City with Alexandra Kosteniuk!

Alexandra has been very generous to offer to donate her time to the U.S. Chess Trust by giving a 20-Board Simultaneous Exhibition.

This event will be held in NYC on March 21, 2009 at the British International School of New York.  We would like to thank the British International School of New York for allowing us to host the event in their school campus!  For more information about British International School of New York – please visit their website at www.BritishInternationalSchoolNY.org.

This Invitational Event will exclusively benefit the U.S. Chess Trust. Stay tuned for more details!

An Interview with Alexandra Kosteniuk by WIM Beatriz Marinello

BEATRIZ: Hello Alexandra, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to do this interview with you!  You were crowned the 12th Women’s World Champion in chess history a little over four months ago. How does it feel to achieve such an accomplishment? This is chess history in the making, one that comes with a lot of responsibility. How has this affected your outlook? Do you feel a need to give back to the community and live up to a certain legacy, so to speak?

ALEXANDRA: Victory in the World Championship made me very happy and I felt so proud. It was definitely the happiest moment in my chess career.  But, at the same time I had a hard time realizing that I had become the World Champion and entered all chess history books. But then little by little it sank in and I understood that life needs to go on. Even though it was the goal of my life, I needed to find more goals and more motivation for the game I love so much. I now feel very strongly that I have to do much more to promote and popularize chess in the world and attract both the media and as many kids as possible to our wonderful game.

BEATRIZ: Considering that you already achieved the World Championship title, how do you re-focus your goals as a chess player and in which direction do you see yourself going?  Have you had an opportunity to reflect and determine which course to take next?

ALEXANDRA: After winning the World Championship I had a very tough schedule, I was playing non-stop almost all of the second part of 2008 and only now, after settling down in Miami, I have some time to rest and to think about my plans and goals for the future.  I still enjoy playing in tournaments and, especially, studying chess with my coaches, since there is no limit to progress in chess and I love the constant search of perfection that chess allows. I’ll also definitely try to do a lot of promotional events for chess, such as giving lectures, simuls, interviews and also promote chess as an educator.  I also want to spend more time with my family and especially with my daughter, since I was away from her for quite a long time while I was preparing and playing in the World Championship and being so far away from her, I missed her very much.

BEATRIZ: What are your thoughts about the future of women in chess?  How do you feel we could attract more girls to the game?

ALEXANDRA: More and more girls are starting to play chess. I think in the last decade we’ve seen a constant increase in the number of girls playing chess. That’s why it’s important to speak not only about men Grandmasters and Male Champions but also about women who play chess successfully. Girls who are just starting to play chess have to have female role models they can relate to in order to see that they might also one day become a champion.

BEATRIZ: As you gain a broader audience and fan club, do you feel that being a fashion model, in a sense breaks the misconception that beauty and brains aren’t always the norm?  Do you think this message has a positive impact in promoting chess to a much broader audience?

ALEXANDRA: Chess is a very ancient game and I believe it deserves much more attention than it has right now.  Unfortunately, the modern world is more interested in nice-looking faces than in intellectual values. Role-models of today’s kids are mostly TV and movie stars, they follow their lives and try to look like them. Chess has now, unfairly in my opinion, a rather dull image that makes it hard to attract media and spectators and therefore sponsors. That’s why I feel I have to try to find ways to show the world that chess is a very cool game, it’s very useful for kids and what’s more if girls will play chess they will still be normal girls and at the same time they will have better chances to succeed in life.

BEATRIZ: You started playing chess at the age of 5.  Tell us about your experience as a young chess player. Are there any specific events that led up to your passion for chess?

ALEXANDRA: My father was a hero to me. I valued his words very much and when he said that he would teach me how to play chess I was very excited and happy to start studying chess with him.  After a while my father’s passion passed on to me and from that moment I started to study chess even more assiduously and with true passion.

BEATRIZ: Your father was an army officer who gave up his career to support you as a young chess player. Now, that you are a mother yourself what are your thoughts about parenting young, gifted and talented children?

ALEXANDRA: Actually, now I understand what a tremendous job my parents have done in order to educate their two daugthers.  Now, being a mom, of course, I think all the time about my daughter’s education and I hope that she will be a happy child. I believe that every child is talented and the most important thing is to help these talents to develop.  Childhood years, in my opinion, are the most important ones in life so I’ll try to do my best in educating my daughter. It’s quite a difficult task and I look forward to giving it all my heart.

BEATRIZ: How has motherhood affected you’re training? Are you still able to maintain the five hours per day training?

ALEXANDRA: I was very fortunate when my husband and my mom agreed to support me fully when I told them I wanted to try to prepare and play in the Women’s World Championship, last year in Nalchik, when my baby was not even 1 year old.  Having a baby changes everything and it was very difficult for me to get back into shape and to start again after a break of close to a year. Now I’m very happy that all my efforts paid off.  I still train now, but on a different schedule.

BEATRIZ: What do you feel are the positives and negatives as you work your life around a passion for chess, family, and a sometimes hectic schedule.  Has traveling been more difficult considering the changes in your life? Is your family a part of your travel schedule?

ALEXANDRA: When you have a baby traveling is much harder. So now we try to travel not as often as we used to.  I’m not so flexible as I was before and am planning all my future tournaments and events more carefully in order not to be far from my baby for too long. I prefer to take my baby with me to regular tournaments or to most events but of course she stays with my husband or my mom if I go to very important tournaments such the World Championship.

BEATRIZ: GM Xu Yuhua of China became the Women’s World Champion while she was four months pregnant, and you became a Women’s World Champion with a young child.  It has become increasingly apparent that women can have it all – including a successful career in chess.  You are a great example of this. Do you feel that biologically speaking , given that chess is a very competitive sport, men have an advantage over women?

ALEXANDRA: Technically, I believe men and women’s minds are equal. It’s men’s physical additional strength that gives them an edge in long games.  In speed games the difference is less, as I have shown, by beating many male Grandmasters at Blitz.  Also, chess requires a lot of studying, and men have an easier time to devote all their time to studying chess, without thinking of anything else, while women have many more responsibilities, such as taking care of the home and founding a family.  I read recently a study, in which it was argued that the relatively lower results by women were due principally to the many fewer girls who start to play chess. If we had an equal number of boys and girls who started to play chess and continued til’ their 20’s, the difference in levels at the top would be almost insignificant.

BEATRIZ: What are your goals for the future?  Are your planning to spend more time in the United States?  Any plans to write more books?

ALEXANDRA: My first goal, is to give back to chess all that I can since it is chess that has given me all that I have. I will promote chess all over the world, and I will do so both on the web with my upcoming online academy, with my DVD’s, and personally in my chess academy.  I am on the way to becoming a permanent U.S. Resident and plan to make Miami my home. I feel Florida is the best place for my daughter to grow up and for me to have my base.

BEATRIZ: In Russia chess is being taught as part of the school curriculum.  I personally believe that the future of chess lies in integrating chess as part of our culture, the best way to approach this is through chess in the schools. What are your comments and thoughts about chess in the schools?  Do you plan on teaching your own children at an early age?

ALEXANDRA: You are absolutely right, chess in schools is the best way to go.  The educational value of chess is totally clear, it helps kids succeed in life.  I will definitely teach my daughter to play chess, she’s not even two yet, and she knows what pawns are, as well as knights, chess pieces are pretty much her favorite toys, she sees her mom playing with them all day, so it must be really fun!  I’m looking forward to when she’s 3 or 4 so I can start showing her the beauty of our wonderful game.

BEATRIZ: That is wonderful. It is great to see such a well-rounded, intelligent young woman with such a postive outlook, such a passion for chess and a desire to promote and do positive things with the game we all love!

Well, Alexandra, let’s wrap this interview up. It has been a great pleasure talking with you.  Thank you for taking the time. We look forward to seeing much more of you and wish you and your family the very best.

For more information about World Champion Alexandra Kosteniuk – Please visit Alexandra’s website.

• Website: www.Kosteniuk.com
  
• Her podcast: www.ChessisCool.com
  
• Video podcast at www.ChessKillerTips.com
• You can also find more on her YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/chessqueen

Don’t forget to check back for more information on the U.S. Chess Trust’s Fundraising Event with Alexandra Kosteniuk!

Want to access the Spanish Version of the Interview? CLICK HERE – Entrevista con Alexandra Kosteniuk (Español)

An Exclusive Interview with Harold Dondis by Jim Eade

An Exclusive Interview with Harold Dondis by Jim Eade

C.T. When and where were you born?

H. D. Rockand, Maine Oct.1, 1922.  I was educated in the Rockland Public Schools, Bowdoin, and Harvard Law School.

C. T. How did you learn to play chess, and how old were you?

H. D. I first learned chess in boy’s summer camp in Maine at the age of ten. My camp counselor taught it to me. I lived in Rockland Maine and found one book in the library on chess, by Howard Staunton.

C. T. Where did you play?

H. D. In high school, I finally found an opponent. We played after school at a table at the back of the library set up for us. In college I played some but decided it would take up too much of my time. So I avoided the game at Bowdoin and Harvard Law School. There was very little chess in those days. We had a chess League, consisting of the local and college clubs, and a major tournament every couple of months or so, sometimes having trouble getting ten players. The chess was mostly at chess clubs. Then Bobby Fischer came along, and everything changed.

C. T. When did you suspect that a life long interest in the game was in the works?

H.D. I took it up again as the result of an unusual turn of circumstance. I had a date, who asked me if I would like to attend a modern poetry group in a lower class section of Dorchester. I agreed to go, expecting to encounter a group of amateurs. I prided myself on my knowledge of poetry. The group was organized by one Syd Corman (actually a poet of note according to Tim Redman). When I talked, the group quickly put me in my place, and I became very interested in modern poetry. A member of the group was Jim Burgess, who was writing the Boston Globe chess column with Harry Lyman. Later on, after I was married (not to my date in Dorchester) my wife brought me home a small chess set from Mexico. Now established in a legal career, I decided to take up chess.

I met Harry Lyman at the Boylston Chess Club and played in my first tournament game at the age of 30. I have never been much of a player. My best record was sharing the Class A first prize at the U.S. Open. Coming back to Burgess, we used to meet weekly for lunch. He was an accomplished novelist, a child of the depression, but failed to get his work published because he would not agree to changes. Burgess suddenly passed away in 1964.

At that time I was President of the Massachusetts Chess Association, so since there was no one to write the column, I took it on, after some debate with a law partner, who was counsel for the Boston Daily Record. Later, John Curdo joined me as co-columnist. I stuck with chess, because I love the game and because I have found it is an unusual key to the problem solving process.

C.T. What do you mean when you say that you consider chess to be “an unusual key to the problem solving process?”

H.D. Answering this question is like writing Rousseau’s confessions. Chess was for many years the fruit fly of artificial intelligence. When I started to play seriously at the age of 30, I started to wonder how problems were solved. I began accumulating notes on what I thought was a science of procedure. I then came across G.Polya’s work “How to Solve It” which introduced the word heuristic. This became a buzzword for artificial intelligence or effective methods of problem solving. I felt that this was what I was working on. I continued taking notes, amassed a large bibliography on the psychology of problem solving, and over a 16 year period wrote a book called the “Problem of Problem Solving.” , explaining the process in detail .

Without credentials I could never get it published and there was really no market for the book. DeGroot turned it down cold in no uncertain terms. Though I disagreed with De Groot, I gave up the idea of publication and turned to practical application of my work; I framed a very simple personal routine off problem solving, which I have observed for over twenty years. I like that routine very much, apply it in law and all personal matters but doubt that I can get anyone interested in it. l have nearly finished a second book explaining the routine and the theoretical basis of it. I may or may not self publish it with possibly an Appendix on Chess study. I might add that I never became a great chess player. Some victories, but chess remains an enormous puzzle for me. It involves great energy, computational ability, knowledge and steady care. I find it esthetically pleasing, instructive, and by the way very helpful in keeping active in one’s old age.

C.T. How and why did you found the Trust?

H. D. At that time the U.S. Open was held in Boston, and Ed Edmundson asked me about a charitable organization. I formed the Chess Trust for him. He was the sole trustee and ran into trouble with the IRS because of money laundering to the Lone Pine Chess tourney. Ed asked me to come on the Board and I did, but the IRS pulled the Trust’s exemption. I applied to get it back and succeeded, but Edmundson resigned from the Trust, leaving me with it. The USCF, at the insistence of Eli Wallach of the U.S. Chess Foundation who was worried about the danger to other chess charities, voted to terminate the Trust. I, along with other trustees, refused to do so and managed to keep it alive through the years.

C.T. Who was Eli Wallach, and what position did he have in the chess world? What danger did he think the Trust posed? Who were the early Trustees? Were there other rocky times for the Trust?

I remember only by hearsay that Eli Wallach was the CEO of the American Chess Foundation which I believe still exists and runs Chess-In Schools.- I was many years later told that Wallach was worried that the loss of the Chess Trust exemption might spread to other chess charities. I rejected the idea of liquidation of the Trust, as I felt that the USCF members had to have their own charitable organization. I knew nobody on the USCF board, but turned them down on their vote to liquidate, claiming tax liability problems of the Trustees. Mark you, we had a corpus of only $50,000.

The Board later appointed a young Boston lawyer named Phil Coolidge to report back to them. He reported favorably for the Trust and I applied to the IRS to get the exemption back. This application was granted. At one point a lady named Nearing made a substantial legacy in her will for the USCF, but provided that the gift must be tax free. Accordingly the Trust could accept it, and that proved the worth of the Trust. But most members were contributing to the American Chess Foundation especially, because of the great integrity and standing of Fan Adams who founded Chess-In Schools with Bruce Pandolfini, a wonderful program. Unfortunately Fan Adams passed away and the new donors decided that all funds would be used in the New York program, so all these donations by members over the years were lost. So was Cramer’s gift intended, but not expressed, for journalist awards.

However, the Trust hung on and gradually grew. I refer you to the sketchy minutes to determine the early trustees. Al Boczar was a Trustee with Ed Emondson when I went on, I think in 1977, but both resigned. I am not sure of the other early trustees. Phil Coolidge was a trustee by 1980. The 1982 Minutes show the trustees to be Coolidge, George Cunningham and myself. George was a rock of Gilbraltar, a Professor at the U. of Maine (and incidntally had been principal of Rockport high school next to Rockland, Maine). George served until his death in 1983. Coolidge left the Board in 1985. In that year C. Norman Peacor had come on the Board. Alfred Hansen went on but soon left in 1986. Lee Hyder (an atomic scientist) was a Trustee by 1987, and served until just before his death. Steve Doyle came on in 1989. Gradually other Trustees came on thereafter and made substantial contributions. I will not try to name them all. I would also say that the Executive Directors, Gerry Dullea, Martin Morrison and their successors saw the value of the Trust. We were able to get things done through Barbara De Maro, who had, I believe in the beginning, a part time job with the USCF. I found her very reliable, and worked with her for a good ten years without ever meeting her. She never failed to carry out our wishes. The Trust did grow. We gambled by purchasing the Hall of Fame, moved it to Washington, from whence it moved to Florida. A big advance was getting approval of the CFC. We also received a number of legacies, which fell out of the sky. At various low points, a number of Trustees urged me to merge the Trust with the American Chess Foundation. I considered that seriously but always decided that it would result in loss of membership representation.

C. T. How has the Trust made an impact over the years?

H. D. I think that the Trust has emerged as the charitable source of the USCF, and we channel quite a bit of money for these purposes. The members know that no Trustee profits from the Trust. We have a corpus of about $500,000, not large, but it is possible that this money could have been lost, if it had been contributed to the USCF. The existing Trustees cut off from the USCF for fear of USCF bankruptcy, but, not speaking for other Trustees, I feel the main purpose of the Trust is to carry out USCF charitable activities. I feel, however, that the corpus is still too small. I often scratch my head as to how to improve it. Presently nearly all of the donations are used for current charitable purposes and overhead. I hope that the new Web site will help. I feel that we need to add millionaires, who have a passion for chess to the Trust Board, and we should have a program of soliciting them, either for additions to the Board or to replace present members, including myself. Some trustees contribute no money at all. However, I have been hesitant to alienate members of the Board. One good thing about the Board is that it is managed honestly and there is little or no rancor among Trustees, though often there is disagreement.

C.T. What has been your greatest frustration regarding the Trust? If there was one thing you could change, now or in the past, what would that be?

H. D. One problem was the firing of Barbara De Maro by the USCF in order to cut costs. It actually put us virtually out of business for a year, but we subsequently hired her and she takes care of the myriad details. They are very time consuming. We also spent a lot of money on the Hall of Fame. I do not regret this as it is a fine institution, but we cannot put up any more money. Consider that we are small compared to the America’s Foundation for Chess, which is the Seattle group, and Chess in Schools. We have not enough funds to sponsor school programs. As I have said we need to locate large philanthropists to come on our Board and sorely need to solicit them. We will grow some from legacies, but what makes the other Seattle and New York charities effective are the major donors. Another thing that worries me greatly is the financial condition of the USCF. We rely on the members for charitable contributions. The lack of harmony in USCF politics has been disastrous, and the present law suit must be crippling.  Possibly the USCF was overcome because of the presence of the Internet. I have thought a lot about how the USCF might be saved, but I have not come up with any answers. One possibility is that it might become a 501 (c)(3) organization, though the IRS rejected its application in the 70’s. If it were, it would be competitive with the Trust, and I have opposed such a situation. Also, the USCF might have trouble getting donors. . I have thought that we might identify various charitable programs that the USCF pays for and try a special money raising program for these projects, thus helping the USCF cash problems. Perhaps such a program is completely impracticable.

An Exclusive Interview with Larry Kaufman by Jim Eade

An Exclusive Interview with Larry Kaufman by Jim Eade

C. T. How did you learn to play chess? How old were you?

L.K. My father taught me at age 7, and I had a lesson on how to do the king and rook checkmate at age 8 from Harold Phillips, the first USCF president and a New York champion in the year 1895 (!!). His daughter and my mother were best friends from college.

C.T. Who were you biggest influences?

L.K. Fischer was my biggest influence in my teens, although the book that influenced me the most was Reshevsky’s (“How chess games are won”). On a personal level I would say Steve Brandwein.

C.T. How so?

L.K. When I was a college student at M.I.T., Steve lived nearby and we became friends. I was very impressed with his intellect, knowledge, and memory; he was (and presumably still is) a very brilliant man. At the time I was a high Expert while Steve was already retired from regular tournament play with a 2300 rating, which was pretty good back in the mid 1960s. At blitz chess he was much better still, certainly way beyond my level. He taught me a lot about chess (and other things too), but the biggest impact was a twenty game match we played.  Due to the rating disparity we agreed to a 2-1 time handicap; I think Steve took 30′ to my hour.  I thought this would make for a fair match, but I was soon to realize how wrong this was. After 19 games I was still seeking my first win; the score was 10 wins for Steve and 9 draws. Finally by some miracle I won the final game. Just a few weeks later, I was the American Open Champion!! This shows both how much I learned from this match and how strong Steve must have been to score so well against me giving me time odds; my own rating soon hit 2300.

I played many other training matches over the years with various masters, but this was the only one I lost. My match victims in these matches included Bill Hook, Mark Diesen, Larry Gilden, and Arnold Denker. There was also a drawn match in my very early days with Frank Street, who soon became the nation’s second Black chess master.

C.T. When did you begin to suspect a life long love for the game was in the works?

L.K. During high school I oscillated between chess and bridge, but by the time I entered college (at 16) I dropped bridge for chess.

C.T. What was it that attracted you to chess?

L.K. Probably the fact that I was much better at it than almost all my contemporaries, and I made so much progress.  By the time I realized I would not be one of the World’s best players, I was already hooked. I was also attracted by the scientific nature of the game, I always expected to be a scientist or mathematician.

C.T. When you first started, where could you play?

L.K. From the age of 8 to 14, I only played with school mates and occasionally with my father and his chess friends.  But this plus a lot of reading was enough to bring me to Class A level.

C.T. When did you first play a formal game?

L.K. My first tournament was the Maryland Junior Championship in 1961 (age 14).  I placed second.  It was not rated. My first USCF rated game was a D.C. League win over a player rated close to 2000, in 1962.  By 1966 I was American Open Champion and briefly after that the nations’ top rated Junior.

C.T. What was the organized chess scene like back when you first got involved?

L.K. There were tournaments, but very few specifically for kids. We also had the D.C. chess league; I played on the high school allstars team.

C.T. Where there multiple chess clubs or hang-outs?

L.K. D.C. area had the Washington Chess Divan downtown, which I went to when I could get down there.  There was (and still is) the Arlington Chess Club, but I rarely went there.  There was also the Takoma Park Chess Club run by Larry Gilden, which was my main club until it folded.  Gilden was the first really top level player I met, and was my chess hero for years. Many years later we played a 20 game match of game/30, which I won by a single game.

C.T. What was your most memorable game?

L.K. Some games are memorable because of the importance of the game (for example my 1966 win over Jerry Hanken made me American Open Champion, but it was a very easy win) or because of the level of the opponent (my World Open victory over GM Ehlvest about ten years ago when he was rated over 2750, but he made a blunder) and some just due to the game itself.  One that combines all of the above is my last round win in this Senior Open over IM Foygel, a very nice win over a strong opponent in a crucial game.  Of course it’s too recent to call it “memorable” yet, but I think it will qualify a decade from now.

C.T. If you had to choose one chess book as your favorite, which would it be.

L.K. Well, my own book “Chess Advantage in Black and White” must be my favorite, as I invested half a year of my life into it!  But as previously mentioned, the book that taught me the most was Reshevsky’s “How chess games are won” (I think it was later reissued under a different title).

C.T. Has technology (Internet, databases etc.) fundamentally changed the game?

L.K. Very much so.  It is vastly easier now to become a strong player, and the advantage of years of tournament experience is much less than it used to be.  That’s why the peak age for chess has declined from about 35 to under 30.

C.T. How has it affected you over the course of your playing career?

L.K. I’m one of the relatively few players 60 and older who has embraced the new technology.  I am co-developer of “Rybka”, the world’s strongest chess program on all rating lists, and teaching Rybka has apparently improved my own game, as my rating is now at a five year peak despite my age and rating deflation.  Although my calculation ability has surely declined with age, my understanding of chess in general and openings in particular is much improved due to the engines and databases.  Imagine forty years ago if a player could have had Bobby Fischer available 24/7 to answer any chess question to the best of his ability.  Having Rybka at my disposal is even better than that would have been.

C.T. How did it feel to win the Senior Open?

L.K. At the start, I was only really seriously hoping to win the 60 and over prize — the trip to the World Senior in Germany.  Winning the whole shebang was a very pleasant surprise! I never got to win the U.S. Junior championship as the year I was top Junior it conflicted with the Student Olympiad, to which I gave preference.  The Senior title and my American Open win back in 1966 nicely bracket my chess career.

C.T. Will you play in the World Senior tournament?

L.K. Yes. I would play anyway, but the fact that the winner gets the GM title makes it mandatory for me to go, in my first year of eligibility.  I know that winning the World title is no easier than making a GM norm and hence a huge longshot for me, but I would only have to do it once, not three times!

C.T. You son just qualified for the IM title, how did that make you feel?

L.K. It was a great sense of relief for me (and for Ray); the thought of his having to spend many more months globetrotting in search of the final norm after several very near misses was unbearable.  He made the final norm on the same day as the Senior Open awards ceremony!  We believe that we are the only parent/child combination in the U.S. to earn the IM title, though there are some where the parent is an FM.

Congratulations from everyone at the US Chess Trust!

An Exclusive U.S. Chess Trust Interview with Nick de Firmian by Jim Eade

An Exclusive U.S. Chess Trust Interview with Nick de Firmian by Jim Eade

CT: How did you learn to play chess?  How old were you, and who were you biggest influences?

NdF: I learned to play chess one day when I was 5 years old and sick. My Uncle Phil came over that day and showed me the rules and patiently tried to play with me. Playing with my Uncle and family was all I did for many years, though later there were some games and even a small kid’s tournament at the YMCA.

CT: When you first started, where could you play?  What was the organized chess scene like back when you first got involved?  Where there multiple chess clubs or hang-outs?

NdF: I went to the Junior High chess club in Santa Barbara, and then when I was 15 years old I learned about the Santa Barbara chess club and the USCF. The reason was that Bobby Fischer was playing Boris Spassky for the World Championship, so all of America was learning about chess.

CT: When did you begin to suspect a life long love for the game was in the works, and what was it that attracted you to chess?

NdF: The Santa Barbara chess club was a great place and in 1972 there was a lot of activity. By 1973 I was winning class prizes consistently in the USCF tournaments. This seemed more fun than digging ditches and helping out at my father’s construction sites. Also some of us juniors were able to get beer in the chess club, so that was a pretty good deal.

I found chess fascinating and perhaps addictive. There was a good weekend tournament scene in Southern California and an active chess club in Santa Barbara. I loved seeing the games of Tal and Fischer and trying to find new ideas in the openings. So in 2 or 3 years I became a master and then went off to college.

CT: I have you finishing first in the US Championship in 1987, 1995. 1998 and 2002.  Is that correct?

NdF: For the US Championships, I tied for first in 1987 and 1995, sole first 1998, in 2002,  I tied for highest score but lost the blitz playoff to Larry C. and thus took no part of the title.

CT: You played on some successful Olympiad teams.  What was that experience like?  What was it like to play against a formidable team such as the old USSR ones?  How did the competition change over the years, if it did?

NdF: Yes, it used to be great fun in the Olympiads. We Americans almost always did better than our ranking, with several silver and bronze medal finishes. The match with the Soviet Union was always a great event, as they were by far the best team and also still the “evil empire.”  I won my individual game a couple of times in these encounters and sometimes the US would score a team upset of the Soviets. Now there is no single super team, though the Russians are still very strong.

CT: You decided to turn pro after college, and you have been a successful one.  If you hadn’t, what do you think you’d be doing today?  What would your advice be to a talented young player today faced with the decision of whether to turn pro?

NdF: Going pro after college wasn’t something I had planned, but it was so interesting and so much fun to travel around the world playing chess that I just fell into it. Today it’s harder to suggest a young man should choose chess as a profession as there seems to be less money or opportunity in America for a chess player. Still, if one can break into the top 10 in the world then it’s a good lifestyle.

CT: What was your most memorable game?

NdF: My most memorable game is my game against Miles in the 1990 Manila Interzonal for which I won the brilliancy prize. I like games with lots of sacrifices and action, like the player that inspired me when I was a teenager, Mikhail Tal.

(652401) Miles, Anthony J  (2595) – De Firmian, Nick E (2560) [E38]
Manila Interzonal Manila (6), 1990

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 c5 5.dxc5 Na6 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.Qxc3 Nxc5 8.f3 d5 9.cxd5 b6 10.b4 Na4 11.Qb3 b5 12.e4 a6 13.Ne2 0–0 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bh4 exd5 16.e5 Re8 17.f4 g5 18.Bf2 Ne4 19.Bd4 Be6 20.Qf3 Rc8 21.f5 Bd7 22.Ng3 Rxe5 23.Be2 Qe8 24.Nh5 Rxf5 25.Qe3 Rc3 26.Bxc3 Naxc3 27.Bg4 d4 28.Qxd4 Nc5+ 29.Kd2 Nb3+ 30.Kxc3 Nxd4 31.Bxf5 Qe3+ 32.Bd3 Bf5 33.Rad1 Ne2+ 34.Kc2 Qe5 35.Kd2 Qb2+ 36.Ke3 Bg4 37.Rd2 Qd4# 0–1

CT: If you had to choose one chess book as your favorite, which would it be?

NdF: Either “My System” or Fischer’s “My 60 Memorable Games.”

CT: You end up spending so much time with other American GMs over the years, I assume you end up with friendships, or at least mutual respect.  What is it like playing against a friend over and over again in top competitions?

NdF: One makes good friends through chess – from all over the world. My fellow American players from the Olympic team – Christiansen, Benjamin, Fedorowicz, Seirawan- became good friends. One starts out in the early days as a competitor, but you quickly learn mutual respect.

CT: Has technology (Internet, databases etc.) fundamentally changed the game?  Has it made life easier or more difficult for you as a professional?

NdF: Preparing for chess tournaments has become more structured and technical over the years with databases and programs. The world in general is more computerized. These days I don’t play so often. I still go to the Olympiads to coach the Bermuda team (and mix the rum swizzle). I spend a lot of time teaching young players in the New York area.

CT: How does it feel to be elected into the Hall of Fame?  What are your future plans in chess?

NdF: I’m very happy to be elected to the hall of fame. I look forward to seeing friends there and drinking to some toasts!

An Exclusive Interview with An American Grandmaster Joel Benjamin by Jim Eade (USCT)

Grandmaster Joel Benjamin is one of three players (Nick de firmian and Larry Christiansen are the other two) to be inducted into the Hall of Fame this year.

In his book “American Grandmaster,” Joel notes that only Walter Browne has played in more U.S.  Championships. Joel won the tournament in 1987, 1997 and 2000.

In the introduction to his book, he notes that he is “a forty-three year-old Pisces. I like sports, crossword puzzles, nature programs, and controlled mating attacks.” He is married to Deborah Quinn Benjamin.

Joel agreed to be interviewed for the US Chess Trust’s web site. Interview by Jim Eade .

C.T.: How did you learn to play chess? How old were you? Who were you biggest influences?

J.B.: I learned to play at eight from my brother and played within my family. My first major exposure to chess was the Fischer-Spassky match, so I guess Fischer was an early influence (though throughout my career I’ve never really been a favorite player type of person). My uncle was a USCF expert and it was an early thrill to be a able to win games from him.

C.T.: When you first started, where could you play? When did you first play a formal game? What was the organized chess scene like back when you first got involved? Where there multiple chess clubs or hang-outs?

J.B.: I first played in Goichberg’s Greater New York Primary School Championship in December 1972.  Scholastic chess was just beginning in those days, thanks to the Fischer boom producing players and Goichberg running events. There was a fair amount of activity at clubs.  The Manhattan was thriving then (I had a longtime connection with them) and the Marshall of course, but I played a few times at clubs in Brooklyn and Queens as well.  Most of my early tournaments were Goichberg CCA events.

C.T.: When did you begin to suspect a life long love for the game was in the works? What was it that attracted you to chess?

J.B.: I was good at chess and successful when I competed–I think that is pretty much the attraction for all prodigies. By my tenth birthday I was playing in tournaments regularly and it became the number one thing in my life.  It was only after college though that I decided to make it a career.

C.T.: I have you finishing first in the US Championship in 1987, 1997 and 2000.  What other tournaments stand out in your memory? You played on some successful Olympiad teams. What was that experience like? What was it like to play against a formidable team such as the old USSR ones? How did the competition change over the years, if it did?

J.B.: The Estes Park Championships, 85-87, were the most fun and satisfying of the 23.  In 85 I came second and made my first GM norm. In 86 I came equal second and qualified for the Interzonal.  The Olympiads were wonderful experiences.  Great competition, great opportunities to meet players from all over the world, great camaraderie with my teammates.  The match with the Soviets was the highlight of the early Olympiads.  Later the world got smaller and so many players changed countries, a lot of the mystery was lost.  The competition got much stronger; in my first few tournaments there were only five or six serious medal contenders; now finishing in the top ten is a strong result.  I don’t think Americans realize just how successful our teams have been over the years.

C.T.: You decided to turn pro after college, and you have been a successful one.  If you hadn’t, what do you think you’d be doing today?  What would your advice be to a talented young player today faced with the decision of whether to turn pro?

J.B.: I had no idea what else I could do when I finished college, but with hindsight it would be a writing career, perhaps as a novelist or journalist.  I would have to be honest with young players today.  We live in good times for chess professionals, with many opportunities for steady income through teaching, writing, and Internet work, but bad times for chess players. The competition is extremely intense with too many players for the market to bear.  Conditions for players in the U.S. have not improved over the years. Anyone who wants to devote their career to playing chess has to be prepared to put their work above everything else.  I think that to compete with players overseas you have to move to Europe for a more professional environment.

C.T.: What was your most memorable game?  If you were to be remembered for only one game, would you want it to be that one or another?  If you had to choose one chess book as your favorite, which would it be?

J.B.: I have many favorite games, but my win over Seirawan in the 1979 U.S. Junior Championship stands out.  I don’t think I’ve played a better game, and I was only fifteen at the time.  I think the games of mine that people will remember are the ones that were most significant to them at the time they were played.

I love the books of my childhood. “How to Open a Chess Game” with chapters written by several different grandmasters, was the most significant to me.  My autobiography, “American Grandmaster: Four Decades of Chess Adventures,” is particularly meaningful because it is the culmination of everything I’ve done up to this point.

C.T.: You end up spending so much time with other American GMs over the years.  I assume you end up with friendships, or at least mutual respect.  What is it like playing against a friend over and over in top competitions, and who was your toughest competitor?

J.B.: Several of my colleagues are dear friends of mine.  I’m especially pleased to be enshrined with Christiansen and de Firmian because we have shared many great experiences and they are both brilliant players.  I can’t say I enjoy playing against my friends, though I’ve had some good games with Larry and Nick.  My favorite opponent, though, was Seirawan, even though he is a good friend as well.  We didn’t play in as many tournaments together so we played rather less often.  He had such an unusual style that I felt every game was a challenge, a strategical duel of sorts.

C.T.: Has technology (Internet, databases etc.) fundamentally changed the game?  Has it made life easier or more difficult for you as a professional?

J.B.: The technological revolution has of course changed the game radically.  Young players dominate much more, because experience is much less valuable.  Players can catch up on everything that happened before with their databases.  The chess engines find the “truth” of a position, though I preferred when annotations were more personal, if flawed.   It’s harder for a veteran player today because strong new players pop up all the time and even mediocre ones can play a decent opening.  On the other side, all the computer advancements have brought grandmasters and fans together.  I like that I can now educate and entertain people on the ICC in a way that was not possible for a big chunk of my career.

C.T.: How does it feel to be elected into the Hall of Fame?  What are your future plans in chess?

J.B.: Hall of Fame represents the pinnacle of achievement in any endeavor.  This honor puts the exclamation point on of a lifetime of wonderful experiences in chess.

I’m essentially retired as a professional player.  My main activities are in teaching classes and individuals, coaching at camps and youth events, writing columns, articles, and books, and Internet commentary and shows.  I play when the mood strikes and my other activities permit the time.  I don’t think I’ll ever stop playing completely.  I’m not fond of most of the tournaments on the landscape, but I love the game as much as ever.

C.T.: On behalf of the Trustees, congratulations on your enshrinement in the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame.

See Other Related Articles: GMs Larry Christiansen, Nick De Firmian, and Joel Benjamin Voted Into U.S. Chess Hall of Fame