Evgeny Bareev once more dismissed all concern for political correctness in his account of the Russian men’s teams’ wins against Italy and Peru. He focussed on how Alexander Grischuk snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, but also found time to make a perhaps overly sweeping generalisation about the Peruvian nation.
Bareev was again talking to Yury Vasiliev of Sport Express. The game discussed here is given at the bottom of this report:
If this game hadn’t been played by Grischuk, but by someone else, we’d simply have lost it, and the match would have ended up a draw. But as it was Grischuk playing this most difficult of positions, there was still some hope of a successful outcome right up until the last moment. Alexander is a good practical player and plays excellently in time trouble – he’s resourceful. And ultimately he wasn’t the one who lost his way in time trouble, but his opponent – out of an excess of tempting continuations, each of which, it seemed, should have brought success. Grischuk could have forced a draw, but instead of that he played for a win – and won, while after the game he solemnly informed me that I wouldn’t have any easy days at this tournament. If Sasha keeps to his word then you’ll need Validol. But Grischuk, by the way, offered his opponent a draw, but was refused…
Sasha offered a draw when he had an extra pawn and his king wasn’t yet under a mating attack. But the situation in the match was such that if Grischuk drew we would win, so the captain of the Italian team went over to his protégé and, bringing an end to peace talks, very strictly said: “Play!” And so he deprived Vocaturo of the tempting possibility of making a draw with our outstanding grandmaster, the winner of Linares, an Olympic Champion and a World Blitz Champion.
Grischuk isn’t winning on account of his class, but on account of his outstanding gaming qualities…
But isn’t that class? The ability to defend a dangerous position, to find chances and to win a game despite it looking impossible. That’s what Grischuk’s doing. And it’s genuine class.
And how does our second team look, to you?
They played the Peruvian peasants and achieved the desired result without particular trouble. They only conceded half a point on the first board.
“Peruvian peasants”, a nice image…
As far as I know, having flown above Peru, the majority of inhabitants are involved in farming. And moreover, Peru’s first board – Julio Granda, left chess for a while and became a farmer. And then he returned to chess. So I supposed that the Peruvian team might be peasants, or the children of peasants. Their play, by the way, was a little gutless.
Do you manage to follow our main rivals?
To be honest our rivals don’t particularly bother me, as I’m mainly interested in the play of our sportsmen. I want to see who I’ll be working with in the coming years in the post of head trainer. I want to follow them all in action, to understand how the grandmasters conduct themselves under conditions of maximum stress.
Game viewer by Chess Tempo
View Comments (6)
I think Bareev talks too much for a head coach of a national chess team.
Saying the Peruvians are peasants is not funny neither polite.
What's the point of singling out Galliamova as the weakest element after a blunder, it's not exactly encouraging.
Even if it is true, it's something a head coach shouldn't yell out in the press.
Bareev reminds me of a Russian general (forgot his name) who once said : "Strategy is for women and lieutenants".
Being rude is not the same as being political incorrect.
Why do they nominate someone as a head coach who doesn't get along with their finest talent (Ian Nepomniachtchi) ?
I think this may be a hidden reason why Nepo plays in team 2 and Malakhov in team 1.
Nepo is in much better shape than Malakhov the last half year or so.
Nepo would crush most opponents on board 4 of team 1, while Malakhov is struggling for draws.
Good point about Nepo (I summarised the interview by Bareev where he talked about throwing Nepo out of his school: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2009/12/bareev-and-the-shoe-thrower/). Though on the other hand getting to play board one for a serious medal contender might also spring-launch Nepo's career - and Malakhov's not a bad board 4.
Overall I also tend to agree about Bareev - though for journalistic reasons I wouldn't want him to stop commenting! There's also the argument that a team of stars like Russia needs a very strong manager to motivate/control them - a bit like Azmaiparashvili for Azerbaijan, though that ended in the appalling treatment of Gashimov.
Or maybe he just knows the psychology of his players (who to give a pat on the back, who to shout at!?) e.g. Galliamova went and won a match for her team after Bareev's criticism. Doing it in public's a high-risk strategy, though.
I admired Mr. Bareev, but now I realized that he is just a good chess player, the way he describes my countryman (peruvians) is very nasty, I could expect that of ignorant people, I could expect that of someone who never went to school, who never was in touch of geography or political science or who never is in touch with internet!!!, but I could never expect that kind of expression of a chess grand master, anyway Mr. Bareev can ask Karpov and Kasparov who were in Peru three months ago, if my country is a peasant community, or even better if he can think as a true good chess player he would understand that Peru as most countries around the world has modern cities as well as peasant communities, but I feel sorry for Mr. Bareev because it seems that chess is so much into his mind that he can not appreciate the real beauty of life.
Bareev is coming off as an asshole in these reports. I don't the Hungarian team will make any comments about Russia after today's round.
Bareev' s comments get worse every time. Now he comes up with the grossy "peruvian peasants". It's not only nasty, it's racist. It's really awful to have a man like this as a team coach.
I don´t think that Bareev´s words weren´t polite. They were just unethical. Our chessworld is not formed by GM´s, or IM´s, or NM´s. It´s formed by chessplayers, no matter what level we have. When somebody plays in India, Russia or in a little city as the one I live in, there is something that connects all of us, we don´t move our opponnent´s pieces, we don´t cheat. We are Ethical Human Beings. We treat our rival as we want them to treat us. The basics of our chess rules are "ethical". I guess Mr. Bareev learned how to play chess but forgot the best part.