70 Jahre Bent Larsen

04.03.2005 – Heute feiert der dänische Großmeister Bent Larsen seinen 70sten Geburtstag. In seiner besten Zeit war Larsen zusammen mit Fischer der beste Schachspieler außerhalb der Sowjetunion. Beim legendären Wettkampf der Sowjetunion gegen den Rest der Welt 1970 überließ Fischer Larsen das erste Brett. Ein Jahr später veröffentlichte Larsen eine Partiensammlung mit dem Titel "Ich spiele auf Sieg", traf aber bei diesem Versuch im Kandidatenhalbfinale auf eine Betonwand namens Fischer. Larsen ist der einzige Spieler der Welt, der drei Interzonenturniere gewonnen hat. Larsen gegen Petrosian, Piatgorsky  Cup 1966...Mehr Larsen...

ChessBase 15 - Megapaket ChessBase 15 - Megapaket

Kombinieren Sie richtig! ChessBase 15 Programm + neue Mega Database 2019 mit 7,4 Mio. Partien und über 70.000 Meisteranalysen. Dazu ChessBase Magazin (DVD + Heft) und CB Premium Mitgliedschaft für ein Jahr!

Mehr...

Bent Larsen wurde am 4. März 1935 im dänischen Thisted geboren. Schach lernte er als Austodidakt weitgehend selbstständig und ohne Lehrer, mit 12 Jahren trat er einem Schachclub bei. Mit 19 Jahren wurde er Internationaler Meister. Im Alter von 21 Jahre wurde ihm bereits der Großmeistertitel verliehen, nachdem er bei der Schacholympiade 1956 in Moskau mit 14 aus 18 am ersten Brett der dänischen Mannschaft noch vor Botvinnik den ersten Preis erzielt hatte.

Eines seiner größten Erfolge seiner Karriere war der geteilte erste Platz (zusammen mit Mihail Tal, Boris Spassky und Vassily Smyslov) im Interzonenturnier von 1964, wodurch er sich erstmals für die Kandidatenwettkämpfe qualifizierte, die er später noch dreimal erreichte.

Seine erfolgreichste Zeit hatte Larsen zwischen 1967 und 1970, als er von Sieg zu Sieg eilte und dabei u.a. die Turniere Havanna 1967, Palma de Mallorca 1967 und 1969 und das Interzonenturnier in Sousse 1967 gewann. 1970 war er hinter Fischer und Spassky die Nummer Drei in der Welt (nach Jeff Sonas).

Beim legendären Wettkampf "UdSSR gegen den Rest der Welt" (1970) ließ Bobby Fischer Larsen den Vortritt für das erste Brett. Im folgenden Jahr verlor der Däne beim in Kandidatenhalbfinale in Denver 1971 sensationell hoch mit 0:6. Ein Grund für seine klare Niederlage war sicher auch sein kompromissloser Stil mit Hang zu skurrilen Systemen und Ideen. Seine 1971 erschiene Partiensammlung trug den treffenden Titel: "Ich spiele auf Sieg". Auch in späteren Jahren konnte Larsen noch einige Aufsehen erregende Erfolge verbuchen und gewann das Interzonenturnier Biel 1976 und das Turnier in Buenos Aires 1980. Durch seinen Sieg beim Interzonenturnier in Biel stellte Larsen einen Rekord auf: Als einziger Spieler gewann er drei Interzonenturniere (1964 Amsterdam, 1967 Sousse und 1976 Biel), wobei er die Turniere in Sousse und Biel ungeteilt gewann.

1988 geht Larsen erneut in die Schachgeschichte ein, als er gegen einen Vorläufer von Deep Blue als erste Schachgroßmeister unter Turnierbedingungen eine Partie verliert. Die Eröffnung 1.b3 wurde nach Bent Larsen benannt.

(André Schulz)

Das folgende Interview erschien 1998 bei kasparov.com:

At first, I’d like to ask you a rather imprudent question: Do you feel sorry that you didn’t become the world champion?

No. I even don’t know what to tell you in this regard. (I continued to wait for his answer) Well, I don’t want to talk on this subject. Obviously, you expected that I would answer something like “it’s a tragedy of my whole life”, didn’t you? Now I understand that at that time there were some chess players who played better than me.

Nevertheless, you were in the top five in the late 1960s. And each time, there was something that prevented you from getting the chess crown.

It was not something, but somebody. To be objective, I fought against outstanding chess players!

When did you understand that you wouldn’t get the title?

Frankly, I don’t remember the date. Anyway, I didn’t think about it when Fischer defeated me. Maybe it happened in 1973, when I was taking part in an Interzonal tournament in Leningrad. I felt nervous before the tournament. The beginning of the competition turned out to be successful for me. However, then I lost my energy and the hunger for battle - I wanted to fight, but I couldn’t.

However, after this you won many strong tournaments!


Yes, three years later I won the Biel Interzonal tournament. Nevertheless, this time Portish immediately stopped me in the quarterfinals. I was 40 years old, and I didn’t want to go through this again. I retained my ambitions, I wanted to fight and to win but… Well, did you ask me about my inner feelings?!

What helped you to get so close to the top of chess pyramid?


Persistence and strong will. Perhaps, I worked a lot! When you achieve a success in something you always want to get more in future. After all, you can’t do without being self-confident…

Oh, yes. Bent Larsen and his self-confidence was a pet subject for facetious remarks in the Soviet press!


Yes, I guess so. Nevertheless, I have never put on a show of bravado. I always was a frank man.

Was it your ambition that pushed you when you asked for the first board at the “Match of the Century” in 1970, or did you really think that you played stronger than Fischer at the moment?


There is nothing to discuss! By that moment, I had won almost all tournaments, while Fischer kept staying at home and didn’t want to fight… Why did I have to yield to him in this respect? Generally, I was very much surprised when Euwe made this proposal. With all due respect to Fischer’s style of playing, I think that it was tactless to make such a proposal to me. Ambitions? No. It was a matter of principle!

Did this episode somehow affect your relations with Fischer?


I was on good terms with him. We respected each other and nothing more… We had no choice – we did one business, and took part in the same tournaments.

Did Fischer’s fine gesture have an effect on you one year later when he defeated you in that match?


Yes, it was an insufferable match… The organizers chose the wrong time for this match. I was languid with the heat and Fischer was better prepared for such exceptional circumstances... I saw chess pieces through a mist and, thus, my level of playing was not good. It was a nightmare that I will never forget! Fortune didn’t give me a single chance to win over him…

How did you take your loss?

At first, I wasn’t very much disappointed -- things happen! However, it’s very difficult to forget this and to start everything from the very beginning. I think that I haven’t managed to do this.

Well, in this case let’s talk about your boyhood. Why did you choose chess?


I doubt whether we can knowingly choose something when in our boyhood. I was a sick boy, and in order to entertain myself I started to play chess. I learnt how to play chess at the age of 6, and when I was 12 I became a member of a local chess club…To my great surprise, I easily won over other children, and I liked it!

How did you manage to develop your skills of playing provided that you had never had a coach and the level of playing in Denmark was not so high?


I became a grandmaster when I was 21. Today, it’s a pension age for a grandmaster (he laughs). It happened at the Moscow Olympiad of 1956. Two years earlier, I had become the champion of Denmark. So, nobody could stand up to me. The point is that in 1956 I won a match over Olafsson and got the title of the strongest Scandinavian chess player!

How did you achieve such a great success?


I am a self-made man. I didn’t have an instructor, and I wasn’t engrossed in chess manuals except the books of Nimzovitch, I just worked a lot playing chess.

Was it your talent or your capacity for work that helped you to make a success?


Generally, I don’t know. Probably, it was a combination of the former and the latter.

It seems to me that the year of 1956 was a turning point in your chess career. At that time, you had to fight against very strong chess players. Nevertheless, you got the first place at the first board. How did you manage to do this?


I felt my power and understood that I had a grandmaster’s level of playing. However, many people didn’t know about this, and, thus, I managed to get so many “spare” points. I won over Gligoric and drew against Botvinnik – it was a pretty good result for “an unknown master”! When I returned home, they greeted me like a victor…

How did you become a candidate for the championship title?

Everything comes with experience. At some moment, you understand your advantages and disadvantages in chess and make a qualitative leap. Provided that I didn’t play in the strongest tournaments, I could experiment with my style. In two different tournaments I could play in two different ways. I became more experienced and I wasn’t afraid of making a mistake. On the contrary, I have spent a lot of time correcting my mistakes. Besides, I trained myself to become a real fighter…

You said that Nimzovitch, a positional chess player, was your teacher and, at the same time, you usually played very sharp chess. Did you look for the golden mean?

Yes, I did. Sometimes, in the beginning of a game I had to choose either to play the King’s Gambit or the Catalan System! It’s the Nimzovitch style - your play can be too complicated or too easy, but the main thing is that your opponent won’t discover your intentions!

Tell me, who of modern chess players has a style of playing that is similar to yours?


It’s a difficult question. Certainly, I don’t keep up with modern chess, but I don’t see a congenial candidate.

Probably, any chess player of your generation had this style.


Maybe it was Petrosian. We had the same basis: “My System,” by Nimzovitch. We are so called foster-brothers. However, we had different feelings of a position -- and of danger. On the one hand, Petrosian hasn’t lost so many games as I, but, on the other hand, he hasn’t won so many of them.

Have you ever wanted to play like some other chess player?


Certainly, I have. When I was young, Tal was my idol! Fortunately, I have never tried to play in his style – I just liked to watch him playing. Tal was a fearless fighter. Nobody could successfully accomplish so many incorrect maneuvers! He simply smashed his opponents…

Did you really want to play “correct” chess, to make only correct evaluations?


Not so fast, mister! The point is that chess doesn’t have a strict criterion of correctness – chess is a multiform game!

When did you feel yourself strong enough to enter the elite group?


I think that it happened when in 1964 I shared the first place in Amsterdam with Tal, Spassky, and Smyslov! Moreover, at that time I thought that I would have taken the first place if I had played more accurately. Perhaps, this tournament was my heyday of mastery: that time I played with great pleasure.

By the way, whom do you call the greatest chess player in the history of chess?

The question is too abstract. However, I have the answer. Undoubtedly, it is Philidor. At the end of the 17th century he formulated the principles that we use even now.

And whom would you name from your former opponents? Is it, probably, Fischer?

I don’t know… Probably, it’s Korchnoi – his chess longevity is amazing! We all are on pensions, while he continues fighting. And he is successful.

Bent, can you tell us about your life today? I haven’t heard anything about you for the last few years.

Now I play chess very rarely. Generally, I spend a lot of time at home.

Do you still live in Denmark?

No, I live in Argentina. My wife is Argentinean, and we have lived there from the beginning of the 1970s. I like the way I live: I lead a quiet and measured life. This journey to Moscow is like a convulsion of nature for me -- I had to change everything in my life. However, I am very pleased that the world of chess didn’t forget about me.

Do you regret that you have devoted yourself to chess?

I don’t think that it’s useful to complain about your destiny, since you can’t return to the past. I don’t regret anything. Chess gave me many happy moments. Sure, professional chess is a severe and exhausting struggle. Nevertheless, I am not sorry.

Did you have any hobby that competed with chess?

Yes. At some moment, I was ready to go in for politics! I found it interesting to politicize. However, later on I decided to continue playing chess…

Why? You were so popular in our country. You could even have become a president, couldn’t you?

This point of view is a bit naive. Finally, I decided that a chess player has to play chess and a politician – to fight against his political opponents.

I know that you have written a perfect book, “50 Selected Games”. Do you have any other books?
Yes, I have. I have written a lot of books during my life. Now I am planning to write the continuation, “100 Selected Games”.

Bent, what do you think about modern chess? Does it impress you?

On one hand, many interesting chess players have appeared in chess lately. Formerly, chess players didn’t have such serious ambitions. Then Kasparov came into the world of chess, followed by a group of young grandmasters, and they showed us their hunger to fight and to win! Just look at Shirov, Ivanchuk, and Anand: they are amazing! On the other hand, these Kasparov-computer matches exasperate me. And as for advanced chess, it’s simply inadmissible! It’s a road to nowhere. Chess loses its mysticism. Nobody will consider chess as an art. It’s a pity that it’s the very champion who destroys chess.

Who do you think, will become Kasparov’s successor at the chess throne?

Do you consider Kasparov as the world champion?

It’s quite obvious -- he is the strongest chess player in the world and nobody could defeat him in a match so far!

It doesn’t mean that he is the world champion!

Who is the champion then? Probably, Karpov?

Karpov is the FIDE champion. I think that there is no world champion today. Moreover, it seems to me that the world champion cannot be defined in the knockout tournament. Frankly, it’s a very complicated question.

What are the FIDE disadvantages?

Obviously, FIDE has its weak points. However, it’s the sole chess organization that is still held in respect in the world of chess. I think that Kasparov has to sign a peace treaty with it. I don’t like that every year he creates a new chess structure.

Who do you think is the strongest chess player now?


Yes, you are right. Today Kasparov is the strongest player. A few years ago, Vishy Anand had this title. However, nobody has the title of the world champion now.

Is there any sense in this title in general?


I think that it doesn’t have much sense. In chess we can use the tennis system when there is no champion. The first position in the rating list is quite enough!

By the way, what title does Fischer have nowadays, considering that in 1992 he played a return match against Spassky and was crowned with laurels?


Oh, yes. It was a “great” return match (he breaks into a smile). Perhaps, I should also play a return match against somebody?

What awaits chess in future?

I think that chess has a bright future. I like how they play chess now. Kasparov showed us very strong play this spring at Wijk aan Zee and Linares!

Well, who do you think would win if the strongest chess players of your generation at their heyday met today’s elite chess players?


It is a very difficult question. I think that we would win! However, I like Kasparov ’89 more than Fischer’72.

(http://bent-larsen.netfirms.com/)
 

Quellen:
Martin Breutigam, Portrait in "100 Jahre Schach".
Karsten Fyhn, Vikingchess
http://bent-larsen.netfirms.com/
 

 

 

 

 

 



Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Diskutieren

Regeln für Leserkommentare

 
 

Noch kein Benutzer? Registrieren