Anand and the edit writers

BY Darius Nakhoonwala| IN Opinion | 02/10/2007

 You don¿t say! 

Darius Nakhoonwala

Leader-writers, I have said a million times before, are a breed apart – lazy, smug, opinionated, all that sort of thing. Yet, from time to time, they manage to rise to the occasion, as they did when writing edits about Vishwanatahn Anand¿s great achievement in becoming the first non-Russian since Bobby Fischer did it 35 years ago, to simultaneously hold the No.1 rank and the world title. Most edits were  top-class in that they were well-informed, balanced and served the purpose of paying homage to a great Indian.

The Telegraph pegged its edit not on the win but on Mr Anand¿s remark that he was waiting to see what sort of reception he would get when he got back to India. Mr Anand was referring to the 8-hour victory parade of the cricketers when they got back to Mumbai after winning the 20/20 World Cup. "Chess does not lend itself to mass hysteria. This is true for anywhere in the world, not just in India" said the paper rightly.  It then pointed out that while other countries treated chess masters as celebs, "… Vishwanathan Anand has not enjoyed even a small proportion of the prestige and status enjoyed by top-class chess players…" in other countries. But it said "Mr Anand should not lament the absence of a people¿s reception in a stadium, but enjoy the dignified and reasonable way he will be received by chess enthusiasts." Absolutely.

The Hindu described Mr Anand¿s game and his reputation and standing in the world of chess. " In 2000 some in the chess world did not consider him the true world champion since his title victory came in the absence of Vladimir Kramnik…. There is absolutely no such doubt now: the field, which included Kramnik, was stronger than what Anand faced seven years ago… Anand has the unique distinction of being in the top three of the game for more than ten years. …over the last few years, Anand¿s victories with black pieces have been on the rise while his defeats with white remain a rarity…He is also responsible for transforming sports journalism in the country by obliging the news media to cover the most cerebral of sports competently…"  Believe me, that last takes some doing.

The Times of India, like the Telegraph, pegged its edit on the cricket comparison. "Even chess players would admit that the game doesn¿t quite make for riveting viewing except for the initiated... Since Anand became grandmaster, more than a dozen Indians have achieved that exalted status... the age at which they¿ve become GMs has been coming down.

The Business Standard edit as one might expect from a business paper, was the only one to mention money –the  Rs 1.5 crore prize money won by Mr Anand. It did add though that "To play tournament chess at any level requires natural talent, strong will, good nerves, physical fitness and the acquisition of a huge body of knowledge about the ways in which the pieces interact across the 64 squares. While the other qualities may be genetic, acquiring the theory requires hard work. The game is taught in schools across much of Western Europe and across all the former Soviet republics by top-class practitioners. It is an amazing act of self-pedagogy for somebody to consistently beat the best products off those assembly lines. It is roughly equivalent to learning a foreign language with enough fluency to write in it and win a Nobel. "

The Hindustan Times and the Pioneer wrote pedestrian edits. It was clear these had been written by persons without much idea of the game. While HT compared chess to wine -- "Chess players are like wine, maturing with age, and their peak performance usually comes in the late 30s" -- Pioneer mouthed silly platitudes which gave the game away that the writer had no clue as to what chess is all about.  

Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com