Inspired by Peter Doggers' news post, I found the old Match Of The Century book, edited by Mikhail Yudovich. Along with the forty games, there were short interviews by all 24 players, including non-playing reserves Bronstein and Darga. All players were asked the same 4 questions, and gave quite different answers!

The interviews were conducted before Bobby Fischer entered the Candidates' cycle, so some answers might look... interesting because of that.

1. What is chess for you? What attracts you to this game more than anything else?

Boris Spassky: It's not simple to clearly say what attracts me in chess. I know what I like in them: the unknown, the inexhaustible amount of possibilities, the creative process. Long ago, chess was only for fanatics, but now everything changed. It's hard to highlight just one thing in chess, because chess is many things at once.

Bent Larsen: For me, it's different thing each time. In one case, it's fight, in the other one, it's art and creativity, then it's psychological battle, struggle of different plans, etc. Chess is, above all, art. That's my perception. I'm a chess professional, playing with optimism and confidence, I'm not afraid of losing. Someone said that I feared playing Spassky and Petrosian. But it's wrong, I'm afraid of no-one.

Tigran Petrosian: The unattainable ideal of chess is to play without mistakes. The quest to eliminate mistakes is what attracts me to the game. Perhaps at the peak of their form, the grandmasters sometimes play without mistakes, but at all other career stages, inaccuracies are unavoidable.

Each chess player, while facing their opponent, struggles with themselves at the same time. Each game, each match is also an internal fight. I lost many important games because I couldn't overcome myself.

Every grandmaster has a complex personality, and the popular conceptions about them aren't always completely true. Tal is not solely "sacrifices", Fischer is not solely "electronic machine", Petrosian is not "caution". Some say that I'm too cautious in my games. But I think that it's different. I'm trying to avoid random factors. Those who hope for random chance should play cards or roulette... Chess is a very different game.

I've never thought I had to necessarily become a world champion. The loss of the title wasn't a personal tragedy for me. Both before and after that, I've been just playing chess.

Bobby Fischer: The thing that attracts me the most in chess is the ability to travel, money, and chess atmosphere. I can earn money with chess more easily than with any other occupation. Chess is indisputably an art, but I haven't been thinking much about that. I love chess very much, but I'm interested in many other things as well - music, sports, politics.

Chess professionals can live a full life. In chess, I've achieved things I would never have achieved in any other area. I quit school, and I'm not sure if I needed the education.

I haven't been playing in tournaments for some time, but I earn a living with chess. I got $10,000 for Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess, and about a half of that sum for My 60 Memorable Games. I also earn $300 a month writing chess columns for a youth magazine.

There are rumours spread about me, for instance, that I use ghostwriters, demand a fee for interviews, hate photo reporters, set unacceptable terms. They are wrong. I'm working constantly, I'm trying to be amicable, I'm not doing everything for money, but I earn my living with chess...

Viktor Korchnoi: Chess is, above all, a sport. The sporting side is what attracts me in this ancient game. In chess struggle, you have an opportunity to take risks, go for complications. Many things in chess are already know, but we still have a lot to learn. The highest mastery in chess elevates this game to scientific levels.

Lajos Portisch: Chess is a struggle of different personalities, temperaments. It's hard to say what attracts me the most in chess. I think that everything taken in complex makes it unique. It's hard to resolve the dispute "is chess an art or a science". Chess is chess, with all attributes of its singular beauty. Of course, it's not purely a game. You need a lot of talent and hard work to succeed, like in any other occupation.

Lev Polugaevsky: Beauty, fight, logic - this is what attracts me in chess. Another thing is creative process, struggle against the opponent. It's hard to say why I decided to dedicate myself to chess. Perhaps long ago, it was because of my childish curiosity, the desire to learn something new. Still, if I was offered to start my life anew, I would've still chosen chess.

Vlastimil Hort: The main essence of chess is struggle, and winning a chess game gives you creative joy.

Chess is a peculiar form of art, and as any art, it's powerfully attractive. I like the intense atmosphere at the tournaments, facing friends over the chess board.

I stumbled upon chess almost randomly, when I was 7. Now, when I'm much more experienced, I understand a simple truth: in chess, you have to work a lot and take part in competitions. Your talent is nothing without hard work.

Efim Geller: In chess, I like logic the most. It gives you an opportunity to analyze and create. Chess is a game that requires clear logical thinking.

Svetozar Gligoric: It's hard to explain how chess became my calling. My first encounter with chess in my youth was similar to the first love: you love, and you can't explain why. Now, the thing that attracts me in chess is creativity. Searching for the right way, the decisive idea that illustrates the beauty of the logic.

For me, chess is a search of the ultimate truth about chess itself. In their long quest of the law that governs the board, each grandmaster finds their own truth. Truth is the most valuable thing in chess. The chess pieces are impersonal: they prefer the one who gets closer to the truth. In my games, I'm trying to defend the ideas and concepts that I think are right.

Vasily Smyslov: The search for truth is my main motivation in chess. The chess game is a constant quest for the best concept, best plan, strongest moves, for non-obvious, but strongest and interesting ways.

Samuel Reshevsky: The fight, the competition - that's what attracts me in chess. Chess is intellectual struggle, the competition of minds. Chess is art, science, and least of all, game. I also like the atmosphere of chess competitions.

Mark Taimanov: For me, chess is an art, and that's what connects me with chess. Chess also helps establish friendly contacts with people, create a collaborative atmosphere. As a pianist and a chess players, I have two loves. When I'm busy with music, I'm thinking about returning to chess, and, conversely, when I'm playing chess, my thoughts return to music.

Wolfgang Uhlmann: When you play a whole game without mistakes, chess gives aesthetic pleasure. But there are other attractive elements in chess too. In the opening, it's psychological study of your opponent, their ideas and plans, and then the opposition of different styles. Also, chess prove how close and friendly are people between each other.

Mikhail Botvinnik: From the cybernetical point of view, chess is a mathematical game of the highest type.

It's hard to say what led me to chess. I had many interests as a kid, but when I learned chess in autumn 1923, I set everything else aside. I think it has something to do with people's fascination with problems that don't have a definitive solution.

Milan Matulovic: In chess, I'm attracted by the sporting side: the fight for a win, for validation. Chess brings popularity, fame, travel. Chess has elements of both sports and art.

Mikhail Tal: Chess is a specific form of creativity; the chess player is the author, the critic and the performer at the same time. In chess, I'm most attracted by the intellectual rivalry, the struggle of ideas, the personality clash.

Chess reflect the essence of a person, their peculiarities. I think that a machine will never demonstrate individual character traits and the struggle of ideas. To succeed in chess, you have to love it strongly and be talented. Great chess players are born, good players are made.

I'm an optimist, and I remember Napoleon's words, "Bad is the soldier who doesn't carry a marshal's baton in his knapsack". I'm not disheartened by losses. You lose today and then win tomorrow.

Miguel Najdorf: Chess for me is creative life. My whole life is dedicated to the art of chess. What attracts me the most in chess is struggle.

Chess is mirror of the soul. Look at how a person plays chess, and you'll see their essence. Chess is a combination of art, knowledge, game and gamble. Yes-yes, gamble, because chess players often take risks, tempting fate. Success often depends on random factors.

A good example is Larsen's second game against Spassky. In such an important game, played in a historical match, Larsen used a new move. Was it necessary? Larsen is a fighter. He's always in search. I'm a realist, and he's a romantic.

To be successful in chess, you need to work a lot, be disciplined, moderate in everything, sometimes even... a monk. I once played a match with Reshevsky and lost the first third 0-6. Reshevsky said of this result, "It's normal: Najdorf is facing Reshevsky himself..." But the reason was different: I was in love with a local girl. I won the next third 5-1 and, of course, said, "It's only natural: Reshevsky is facing Najdorf himself." But the explanation was very simple: the girl left town.

Paul Keres: Chess is the most interesting game of all. Chess is competition, rivalry, showing of personality. I can't imagine a machine that can replace a chess player. A machine can calculate, but it cannot create. Electronics is calculation without heart, and chess is art, creativity, the clash of individuals.

Chess culturally enriches people, broads their horizons and help establish friendly contacts between people.

Borislav Ivkov: The sporting aspect, the struggle, the beauty - that's what attracts me in chess. In chess, you're fighting for the truth, for the correct idea, but there's an element of unfairness too: you can destroy everything you'd achieved with a single move.

Leonid Stein: Chess is art that has much in common with sport. I'm attracted by the struggle, the psychological side of it.

Fridrik Olafsson: What attracts me the most in chess is struggle, the quest for improvement. I'm not a professional, but I'm tied to chess closely.

David Bronstein: Chess is a creative dispute between two opponents. The attractiveness of chess is in the endless opportunities, constant novelty and unrepeatability.

Klaus Darga: I'm not a chess professional. What connects me to this game is inspiration, I like the friendly atmosphere at the tournaments that makes chess players a united family. Maybe chess is an art, but I would say that chess is chess. To move forward, as in everything, you need talent and hard work.

2. What's your evaluation of sporting and creative results of this match?

Boris Spassky: The Match of the Century was interesting, both for sports community and spectators. It attracted a lot of attention. It was a chess festival unlike any others. This match will, of course, influence the development of chess. Yugoslavia made a great contribution to chess, and both teams are thankful for that.

Almost everyone predicted a win for the Soviet team. Even computers calculated that USSR would win with a 3-point margin. But the end result gives hope to both teams.

They changed my partner at the last moment. Still, I knew I would be facing either Larsen or Fischer. Facing Fischer would've been more interesting. Lately, he rarely played, so his style was a bit of mystery for me. Fischer's distinguishing feature is the quickness of his positional understanding. I've always sympathized with Fischer. And I was happy when he suddenly ceded the first board to Larsen.

I've been asked a lot about who was my most dangerous opponent in the future world championship match. Since Fischer voluntarily quit the cycle, I would name Larsen among the foreign players, and Petrosian, Korchnoi, Smyslov, Polugaevsky, Geller and Taimanov among the Soviet ones. To defend the world champion's title, you have to maintain your best form, carefully watch your possible opponents, study their strengths and weaknesses. While preparing for the match with Petrosian that I won, I prepared a whole monography, which could be called What Is Petrosian? I'm going to do something similar before the next match too.

Tal is especially well-liked by the Yugoslavian spectators. I like his playing the most. While he was healthy and in good form, he created trully brilliant creative masterpieces. Tal is unrepeatable. He plays "his own chess". He plays chess and plays with chess. Only very bright and distinctive players can do that.

Bent Larsen: The Match of the Century is an extraordinary competition. The games were very intense. I liked the first Fischer - Petrosian game. Najdorf said that I lost the second game to Spassky because my opening experiment was "too fancy". But this wasn't an experiment, it's a normal opening. Only the awful move f4?? led to defeat.

I think that the next such match should be played by the Scheveningen system.

Tigran Petrosian: I can only say good things about the Belgrade match - except for my personal result. The match showed that when the strongest players face each other without worrying about qualifying somewhere, they're always going for fight. It's much better to spend resources for one such great event, rather than numerous bland tournaments that are organized everywhere! I think that the next such match should be played by Scheveningen system.

There was a number of theoretical novelties in the match, particularly in the games Taimanov - Uhlmann, Geller - Gligoric, Larsen - Spassky.

Bobby Fischer: The Belgrade match is truly a match of the century. I was attracted by the idea of playing in this event. The organization was very good, I'm completely satisfied. In America, we don't have such great organizers devoted to chess as in Yugoslavia.

The result of the match is good for the Rest of the World team. I think if there are more boards, the world team might even have winning chances. I haven't looked through all other games yet. I'm happy with my first two games; in the third one, I played poorly in the opening, but Petrosian, despite a better position, had no clear win. I'm going to return to tournament practice, even though I know that many are against me. I hope to become a world champion soon, because this match made me sure that I was again stronger than everyone. I ceded the first board to Larsen myself because I saw that the team was demoralized; I also thought that it would be easier for me to face Petrosian.

Viktor Korchnoi: It's hard to compare this match with anything else. We should be grateful to the organizers. The match took place in a good time for the Soviet team: I'm not sure that in, say, five years we would be as strong.

The match was very intense, but without any major sensations. Among the highlights were the games Larsen - Spassky, Fischer - Petrosian, Hort - Polugaevsky, the first two games of Najdorf - Tal match.

Lajos Portisch: The match between the Soviet Union and best players of the world is a unique competition that is very important for the progress of chess art. The result isn't as important as the opportunity to take part in such a historical event. It would be good to hold more such matches in the future. The results show the Soviet players' advantage. This is a result of popularity of chess in the Soviet Union, good working conditions for the Soviet chess players, and the talent of the players, their coaches and teachers.

The struggle was very intense. The players were uncompromising, and, of course, it's hard to avoid mistakes in such conditions. I think that the best games were Larsen - Spassky (round 2) and Fischer - Petrosian (round 1). The theoretical preparation and technique of the players are so good that it was very hard to win.

Lev Polugaevsky: The Match of the Century is a unique competition. I saw huge interest in chess, and this is further proof that both from sporting and creative point of view, organizing such a match was the right move. I was quite impressed with the uncompromising struggle, the boldness of all participants.

There were some good creative games in the match. Taimanov's new idea in the first game against Uhlmann's was noteworthy, as was Fischer's peculiar interpretation of the opening in the first game against Petrosian, and Geller's round 1 victory against Gligoric. There were interesting games on every board. It was only expected, because the strongest players in the world played each other.

The Soviet team won, as was expected, even though the win margin was very small.

Vlastimil Hort: The sporting result of the match is successful for both sides. The quality of games was very high, even the draws were interesting. Especially interesting were the first three Tal - Najdorf games, the first two Taimanov - Uhlmann games, the second Larsen - Spassky game, the first Geller - Gligoric game, the first two Fischer - Petrosian games. The match will surely go down in history as a unique event.

Efim Geller: The match was very interesting, and the result is successful for the Rest of the World team. The younger Soviet players didn't show their full potential. I think that if the veterans played on top boards, the score would have been better for us.

The competition attracted huge interest, there was no chess event that was followed that closely, and this is good for the popularity of chess.

Svetozar Gligoric: The match in Belgrade is a magnificent event, one of the greatest in our country, even though Yugoslavia hosted many great chess competitions. All the best chess players were involved, except perhaps for Unzicker and Benko.

The Soviet team's victory wasn't a surprize, it was deserved. And yet, the final result is also a success for the world team. The intense struggle affected the quality of some games. The participants played bold, interesting chess, attractive for the spectators. Especially interesting were the Smyslov - Reshevsky games from rounds 2 and 3, Spassky's win against Larsen in round 2, Geller's win against me in round 1. Fischer played well, but he wasn't in his best form. After Petrosian recovered from two defeats and started playing at his full strength, it became obvious that Fischer had his shortcomings too.

Vasily Smyslov: The match was superb. I wasn't surprized by the fact that the world team successfully competed with our team. There's a lot of outstanding grandmasters in the world now, and, of course, you can assemble a team that can compete against one country, even such country as USSR. The younger players of the Soviet team haven't shown their best form, but I don't want this to sound as a veteran's indictment.

Samuel Reshevsky: This is an outstanding match, and I hope that there would be more such competitions in the future. The organization, the quality of the games - everything was high class. I think that in a 7-board match, the world team might have won, and in a 20-board match, too. Our team's line-up wasn't very best, we had to include Unzicker and Panno, and maybe other players. Also, our team did not specifically prepare for the match.

The quality of the games, the intensity of the struggle are great. We all fought for the prestige, we weren't risk-averse, as in tournaments. In such a situation, there's no sense to play "grandmaster draws". I liked the Najdorf - Tal and Portisch - Korchnoi games.

The minimal victory of the Soviet team was better than expected for the world team. The advantage of the Soviet chess is based on the fact that chess has state backing in USSR. (Some "specialists" say that chess in USSR developed so well due to good climatic conditions, but this is nonsense.)

The Soviet team was well prepared, and it's very important in chess. Good physical preparation is especially important.

Mark Taimanov: One word: superb! Great idea, excellent organization. This is a great contribution for the chess world. Such events attract millions to chess. The idea was discussed earlier, but here, it was finally brought to life.

The match's best success is the fact that we'd managed to gather all strongest players. I'm happy and thankful for the organizers for an opportunity to play in such an interesting competition.

Concerning the results - I was too optimistic in my predictions. I thought that the Soviet team would win 22-18. After the first round, I understood that my optimism (I'm always an optimist) was too excessive.

The match allowed the grandmasters to fully express their fantasy and creativity. I'd like to highlight the games Geller - Gligoric and Fischer - Petrosian from the first round, and Larsen - Spassky from the second. That's an instructive example that shows that even the strongest players can make mistakes and still have things to learn.

Wolfgang Uhlmann: About the Match of the Century, I can only say that it was a fantastic event, full success both organization- and playing-wise. The grandmasters played without fear that sometimes plagues them in tournaments. The struggle was intense, without so-called "grandmaster draws". At first, it seemed that the world team wouldn't get a good result; I'm personally at fault too, losing two games in a row. There were several good games in the match: Hort's win against Polugaevsky, Najdorf's game from round 2, Taimanov's first two games (in the second game, my Soviet friend converted my microscopic inaccuracy - just incredible). Spassky won a beauty in the second round. Fischer's playing is stunning.

Mikhail Botvinnik: The struggle in this match was much more intense than in normal tournaments. The players fought for every half-point (there was basically only one peaceful draw). This can be explained by the fact that tournaments don't attract so many strong players at the same time. Of course, mistakes are unavoidable in such fights, but they are very attractive for the spectators.

It was hard to predict the outcome of this match. The minimal victory of the Soviet team is a success for both sides.

10 to 15 years ago, only Soviet players truly competed for the chess crown. Now, strong grandmasters started appearing in other countries too. The reason for Soviet players' bad results on the higher boards is mainly psychological.

Milan Matulovic: The Match of the Century was very captivating, with good-quality games. There were some theoretical novelties introduced, several interesting endgames were played. Fischer and Keres played best. The end result is a success for the world team, which, I think, didn't feature the best possible lineup.

Mikhail Tal: Chess players are always eager to play in tournaments that have no ties to qualifying system and don't burden them with thoughts of "how many points should I score". The Match of the Century is an event many dreamed of. It would be interesting to organize the Tournament of the Century. This is going to be a true chess battle, great advertising for the art of chess.

The match gave us a lot of interesting games, especially in the round one. Fischer, Hort, Najdorf, Taimanov, Geller, Keres played very well. In the second round, Spassky won a game that would surely be featured in learning books. They say that Larsen played badly, but it's not Spassky's fault.

You want to know how would I rate the participants? Without a doubt, I'd give first place to Spassky, and not because he's the world champion. He's truly the number-one chess player now. His results and playing style speak for him. Except for Fischer, I think nobody can expect a good result in a match against Spassky. Fischer is a bit mysterious because he doesn't play in tournaments too much. Still, in his first game against Petrosian, the American grandmaster showed that he didn't lose his form. Fischer's playing style is very practical. He's like an electronic machine, but a talented machine!

What can I say about Spassky? Every chess player evaluates his strength differently. I personally am amazed by his technique, because this is my main weakness. For Geller, that might be Spassky's attacks, because Geller doesn't like defending. For Larsen - probably, manoevering, the Danish player doesn't like that.

Miguel Najdorf: Match of the Century was an exciting competition, which will go down in history as the greatest chess event of our time. The value of the match was in an incredibly sharp struggle and a lot of novelties. The match showed the undeniable strength of Soviet chess. Of course, this is the result of many years of state support.

Paul Keres: Match of the Century is an outstanding event. All the best grandmasters playing in one competition! The result isn't too important, the main thing is that we all got together, showing our solidarity and love for the chess art... Almost all games were interesting.

I've been dreaming for quite a while about a Tournament of the Century, with all the best players facing each other.

Borislav Ivkov: The very fact that the Match of the Century took place is a great success. The outcome, I think, is more successful for the world team, but it could've been even better if the team was more cohesive and trained together. We lacked the spirit of collectivism. Everyone was concerned only with their own results.

The games were very intense. But there were mistakes in many games.

Leonid Stein: Match of the Century is an unprecedented event in chess history. Among the best games, I'd name Geller - Gligoric (round 1) and Larsen - Spassky (round 2). I wouldn't say that there were many opening novelties. It's hard to discover something new, much more often, it's something old and forgotten.

Fridrik Olafsson: Match of the Century is a most interesting competition, a truly historical event. The Yugoslavs can be proud. I'm very glad to be invited to the world team. I liked the games Larsen - Stein, Geller - Gligoric, Reshevsky - Smyslov, and Fischer's playing in general. I think that the result is good for the world team.

David Bronstein: The Belgrade match was a true feast of chess art, an event worthy of chess giants. I think that the next match should be played by Scheveningen system.

Klaus Darga: The match is a historical event in and of itself, not only in chess history. The entire chess elite took part and showed their high class. The Soviet team won with a small margin - it's natural, considering the sheer number of chess players in USSR. When a talent appears in the Soviet Union, they're treated very well and given the best conditions to develop their talent.

3. What game of yours do you consider your very best?

Boris Spassky: It's hard to name only one game. I like the game against Reshko, a Leningrad player, that I played about a decade ago. But tastes change with age...

Bent Larsen: Best game? I have at least a dozen of them. If you insist, I can name the games against Gligoric (Havana 1967) and Geller (Copenhagen 1960).

Tigran Petrosian: I think that such questions can only mean "which games of yours do you like the most". My two favourite games are 5th game of the 1963 World Championship match with Botvinnik and 7th game of the 1966 World Championship match with Spassky.

Bobby Fischer: My best game yet is the one against Donald Byrne, New York 1956.

Viktor Korchnoi: My best game was against Geller at the 1960 USSR Championship.

Lajos Portisch: It's hard to evaluate your own games. I think I played my best one relatively recently, at the 1969 Raach Zonal against Dueball.

Lev Polugaevsky: I remember my game against Tal in the 1956 USSR Championship semi-final. After numerous adventures, it ended in a draw.

Vlastimil Hort: I played my best game in Moscow in 1962, against Shamkovich.

Efim Geller: I think it's the game from the 1965 Candidates' match against Smyslov.

Svetozar Gligoric: You're asking me about "the game of my life". I don't have such a game: I've played more than 4,000 tournament games overall. I think that my most important game was the win against Petrosian in Belgrade 1954. It gave me hope: I was seriously considering quitting chess before that.

Vasily Smyslov: If you want me to remember only one game, I think I'll settle for the 22nd game of the second Botvinnik match: I won it, and the World Championship with it.

The last game of that World Championship match was a very quick, 11-move draw. Smyslov's last win was in the game 20, so he probably meant that game. [Sp.]

Samuel Reshevsky: Of my numerous games, I would highlight the game against Alekhine in Nottingham 1936 and against Botvinnik in Moscow 1955.

Mark Taimanov: I'd like to highlight my game against Lutikov from the 1969 USSR Championship. Another very instructive game was against Unzicker in Stockholm 1952.

Wolfgang Uhlmann: My best game? It's hard to say. Probably my win against Unzicker in Varna 1962.

Mikhail Botvinnik: I've played a lot of games during my career. I can single out several of them as "most important". The earliest one was probably the Leningrad championship semifinal of 1926. Me and my opponent, Shebarshin, competed for the first place. I needed to win, because Shebarshin had half a point more.

Milan Matulovic: I think that my best game was against Korchnoi in Sukhumi 1966.

Mikhail Tal: I haven't played my best game yet, but I can single out the game against Nezhmetdinov at the 1961 USSR Championship, which I lost.

Miguel Najdorf: Who knows how many games I'd played in my life!.. How do you choose only one? Maybe the best one was played in the 1928 Polish championship against Glucksberg. It's know as the Polish Immortal.

Paul Keres: It's hard to choose the best game. I can only think of the most important game, and even this would be strictly my opinion. It's my win against Fine at AVRO 1938.

Borislav Ivkov: It's hard to say what game is my best. How do you rate your games? When a chess player wins, he thinks that his win was great. I think that there are two games I can consider my best: against Najdorf at Mar del Plata 1955, and Petrosian in Belgrade 1954.

Leonid Stein: There are many fascinating games in my practice. I liked the game against Keres at the Moscow 1967 international tournament.

Fridrik Olafsson: I haven't played my best game yet.

David Bronstein: It's hard to say which of my games was best. Probably the one I've played at the end of my match against Botvinnik.

I'm taking an educated guess here: Bronstein probably meant the 22nd game.

Klaus Darga: I remember the game against Spassky in the 1964 Zonal.

4. What's your opinion on the current world championship system?

Boris Spassky: This question should be answered by those who participate in the current cycle.

I said before that the system of short matches was quite exhausting, and that I personally preferred the Candidates' Tournament.

Bent Larsen: The current world championship system is very exhausting. We have to select 16 strongest grandmasters to meet in matches. They say about me that I'm more successful in tournaments than in matches. It's only natural: I'm playing tournaments more often than matches. When I accumulate a similar amount of match experience, I'd be playing them as well as tournaments.

Also, in tournaments, you can play bolder: in a match, it's often enough to lose just one game. But I believe in myself. I'm sure that I'll win the Candidates' cycle, I believe that I'd win the world title in 1972.

I heard that Fischer said in American press that he was the strongest chess player in the world. I disagree. Larsen is now the strongest chess player in the world. I'm not saying that to boast or to cause a stir, but only because I believe it with all my heart.

Even in this match, I played on the first board because in the last few years, I achieved the results Fischer never could. I personally didn't ask Fischer to cede the first board to me. Perhaps he'd planned that from the very start?

Tigran Petrosian: It's hard to find an ideal world championship system. The main thing is to play well, regardless of the system. The main drawback of the Candidates' Match system is that the participants don't play everybody else. So I think a more logical thing, in my opinion, would be a 6-player quadruple round robin or a 4-player octuple round robin.

Bobby Fischer: The Candidates' Match system doesn't bother me, but the matches themselves should be longer - for instance, for six wins, draws not counting. I'm not afraid of anyone in a match. We have to hold World Championship matches every other year. Larsen and Korchnoi have the best chances of reaching Spassky in the current cycle. Of course, I would like to see a Fischer - Spassky match, but...

Viktor Korchnoi: I think that the Candidates' Match system is the right one. But we should get rid of Zonal and Interzonal tournaments: it's enough to feed the latest results into a computer and have the machine select 32 players for the matches. It would me more interesting that way.

Lajos Portisch: The world championship system is too unwieldy. I think a Candidates' Tournament would be better than the matches.

Lev Polugaevsky: I would have preferred a Candidates' Tournament.

Vlastimil Hort: The current system has numerous defects. The cycle is too long. You have to successfully play in several tournaments to make it to the top. I think that the Candidates' Match system is satisfactory, but the qualifying process should be simplified.

Efim Geller: I think that the current world championship system is too complicated. It's hard to play in numerous qualification tournaments. We have to make this path shorter. It's also clear that we should give an opportunity to younger players to prove themselves in this fight. But they can't immediately get the right to play on the highest level. I think that a Candidates' Tournament is preferrable to matches.

Svetozar Gligoric: The current world championship cycle is too long. We need to decrease the number of tournaments and have only those who really have the grounds and rights to compete for the world championship take part in qualification. Those who aren't interested in winning the world championship shouldn't play.

Vasily Smyslov: The current world championship system is much discussed, both positive and negative features are pointed out. The criticism isn't entirely unfounded. I've never liked the fact that for the truly strongest grandmasters, the road to these competitions is sometimes closed off. The Candidates' Matches aren't the best solution. Subjective factors play too much of a role, such as the opponent's style or the opponent himself, who might be psychologically uncomfortable for you.

Samuel Reshevsky: The qualifying system for the world championship should be radically changed. Too many tournaments. I would leave the Candidates' Matches as they are.

Mark Taimanov: The current system has a number of positive qualities. It's quite good that there's a qualification system with equal chances for everyone, but those who can't seriously compete for the world championship also take part in the tournaments. On the other hand, the path for many strong players is barred. I think that there should be a quadruple round-robin qualification tournament.

Wolfgang Uhlmann: The current system is not bad, but, sadly, it's too drawn-out. There's only about a dozen players who are really able to compete for the world championship. Both Candidates' Tournament and Candidates' Matches are interesting, but I think that the match system is better.

Mikhail Botvinnik: The current world championship system is wrong because it limits the number of participants from one country. This is an artificial limit. I think that the world championship candidate should be determined in a quadruple round robin.

Milan Matulovic: The current world championship system is not good. It discriminates against the Soviet players, limiting their number. You have to give the truly strongest players, regardless of the country they represent, the opportunity to take part in all world championship qualifying stages.

Mikhail Tal: What the current system really needs is to get rid of the numerous qualifying stages. We have to organize a tournament of the strongest players, similar to the Match of the Century.

Miguel Najdorf: The current system is too unwieldy. Many players who clearly have no chance of winning take part. I think that the right way is to organize a tournament of the strongest grandmasters. The winner and the runner-up play a match, and the winner of this match faces the world champion.

Paul Keres: Did I abandon my quest for the world title? I'll decide one way or the other when there would be a new world championship system, one that's better than the current one.

In essence, I'm always ready to take part. But the qualifying tournaments are too exhausting. I think a Candidates' Tournament would be a better choice. Essentially, all the participants of the Match of the Century are worthy candidates.

Borislav Ivkov: The existing system is too cumbersome. We have to abolish the Zonals and Interzonals: it's quite easy to determine who isn't going to qualify.

Leonid Stein: I think that the current system is not good. The world championship match should be held every other year. The candidate should be determined in a Candidates' Tournament.

Fridrik Olafsson: The existing world championship system takes way too much time. On the other hand, it's easy to criticize its shortcomings, but it's not easy to propose anything better. I support the Candidates' Matches.

David Bronstein: I have stated my thoughts about the world championship system in the Sahs magazine in 1969. The current system is not inherently bad, but it doesn't work as intended. All chess players begin at the same starting position, the grandmasters' previous results are not considered. It's clear that there are no more than 20 or 30 players who should play for the chess crown. I think that the candidate should be determined in matches between grandmasters.

Klaus Darga: The current world championship system is logical. On the other hand, for non-professional players, it's too drawn out. We need to decrease the size of some tournaments. There's a dilemma: matches or tournament? I personally support matches.