Interview with Irina Krush
U.S. Championship, January 2003

Interview by Jim Perry

This interview was recorded following the completion of the final round of the tournament, but prior to the 3-way playoff involving Anna Hahn, Jennifer Shahade, and Irina Krush.

JFP: You became very strong at chess very early in life. When you were 14-years-old, you were rated about 2400.

Irina Krush: Yes, right, in fact I was even over 2400.

JFP: How did you manage to combine an active chess life with your schooling?

Irina Krush: Probably because school was not very strenuous. It was kind of easy. At one point, I went to school like everybody else. I went pretty often, and I didn't play chess abroad that often when I was young. It wasn't very difficult. Maybe once a year I would go somewhere or I would play in the summer and I would just play every weekend at the tournaments in New York. So it wasn't very difficult to go to school and do the schoolwork.

Then later on, when I was in about the seventh grade, that's when I started to go to school less. I played in the World Youth Championships one year and my dad saw that the other children, from countries like Russia, weren't going to school at all. It's much easier to study chess when you don't have to go to school. My father talked to the principal and explained that I should have an opportunity to study chess at home. I had a free schedule so I could go whenever I wanted.

I was still going to school, but I started going less and I finished very well. Junior high school was all so very easy and I was there often enough. As for high school, I went to high school less. I didn't even go at all in my senior year because I had finished the requirements in my junior year. I didn't go for most of my junior year either -- I had about one class per day.

This helped me to improve because I started studying not only with my coach but by myself.

JFP: And now?

Irina Krush: Now, I go to New York University. I just started my first semester and I don't know yet what I'm going to major in. I'm just taking some required classes, some electives.

JFP: In the background information which the Foundation [America's Foundation for Chess] supplied those of us in the press, it says (in reference to yourself), "She is confident that her best achievements in chess are yet to come". But about 4 years ago you were rated 2400 and your current rating is about the same. Have you hit a flat spot in your development as a chess player?

Irina Krush: Well, the thing is about my FIDE rating, at 15 my highest rating was 2432 and right now it's 2433. It has been much less than that. I've had some bad times. At one point, I went from 2432 to 2354. Then, it gradually rose up again.

But the first thing I want to say is that when I first hit the rating 2432, I was actually a bit overrated. I don't think I was quite that strong at that time. My rating right now is very solid. Whatever it is, I'm definitely not overrated. I was definitely weaker back then than I am now. I had just a lot less knowledge about chess.

I'm not oblivious to the fact that my rating is essentially the same now as it was 4 years ago. It's not because I haven't improved in the chess sense. I have other things going on, but actually I feel like right now is the time when I can improve a lot and my rating can go up. The past is just the past -- you get experience, you grow as a person and then your rating gets higher.

JFP: Do you consider chess to be a sport?

Irina Krush: Of course it's a sport. It's not an easy thing. It can't be just a game when there is so much nerves involved and it's not like an art because there is a lot of pressure, people are nervous, they have to have stamina, concentration, qualities like a warrior. So I don't see why it wouldn't be a sport.

JFP: Do you think chess should be in the Olympics and if so, do you think this would benefit chess?

Irina Krush: Actually, I have no idea, because I'm not involved in all of those things. I don't know from what point of view it would benefit chess. Maybe sponsorship or something. To me it makes no difference really because I like the Chess Olympiad the way it is. If it would help chess to be in the Olympics, then sure I would be for that also, I just don't know how much it would help.

JFP: What role does chess play in your life? How important is it?

Irina Krush: It's very important. It's the main part of my identity. It's how I identify myself -- as a chess player. I don't know what I would be doing if I didn't play chess. I don't know how I would form my own conception of myself.

I think it's not so easy for a lot of people -- who are they? What are they doing? What do you say to a person when you meet them? You can say, "Hi, I'm Irina" but you can also say, "Hi, I'm Irina and I play chess." It's part of who I am. That would be the first thing I would say to someone because it is so essential to who I am.

It's something that's stable in my life. Many things change in life. Chess is the one thing I'm sure is not going to change. My interest in chess, the fact that I keep on studying and playing in tournaments -- I don't think that is going to change.

I think it is actually very good for myself because when you branch out into different things in life, you have one thing that doesn't change. It's always going to be there and it is where I can come back to if things don't work out in some other area. If I'm tired of being some random unknown face in the crowd, I go to the tournament where I'm familiar with the people and I'm in my familiar atmosphere. I like chess, I like playing, I like studying, I like the whole life. I don't necessarily think it is the best thing to do if it is the only thing you do, though. I don't think that would be ideal for me.

JFP: How do you feel about the current format of the U.S. Chess Championship? Is it good, bad, indifferent?

Irina Krush: I think it is interesting. For me, basically it is just like I was playing in a strong tournament. Most of my opponents were quite good, so I've played players who have quite a lot of strength and it is a good opportunity for me.

Okay, it is a Swiss system. I think it is a pretty good idea for the men's championship because there it is not so much about chance. It is hard to distance yourself from everyone else, but still whoever plays better in this tournament can win and he still gets a chance to play the people that he is trying to win the tournament from. For example, Shabalov gets to play Kaidanov and Akobian and Guljko and all those people at the top.

On the other hand, the women don't play each other. They can just wind up not even playing each other by the end, like what just happened with the other two people I tied with here. I didn't play them. But still, I think it is interesting. For the men's championship it is interesting. For a woman it is just a good opportunity to play chess.

For the women, I think you just have to have a good tournament. Just come here and do your best and it doesn't matter what kind of pairings you get or whether you are playing higher up or lower. Strange things happen in a Swiss system, especially for the women because they are playing up like all the time. One person has more points, plays a stronger opponent and loses, while another person plays a very weak opponent and wins. They wind up with the same amount of points, but it is totally different where they started from.

JFP: I think one of the ideas behind this new format is that if the women are consistently paired against top male players, eventually the standard of play of the women will rise. Do you think this might happen?

Irina Krush: I'm not sure. I think the championship might help this happen, but it can't do this all by itself. It's just one tournament per year. By itself, it means nothing in the life of a chessplayer. You can't just play one tournament per year. This tournament is useful, but it doesn't change too much by itself. It's a tournament and if all your tournaments are like that, then it's good for the women, but if it's only one tournament per year, things aren't really going to change that much.

For someone who is going to play, say, twice a year, okay, big deal, she'll play some men, she'll lose, she doesn't study the rest of the time, it's not going to change much. But if you are studying, you're always playing men, there's always a chance to improve. That's why I think the championship is good. I'm just happy to play in a strong tournament.

JFP: There has been some criticism of the format on grounds that the women will be overmatched -- out of their league, so to speak. Another point I've heard raised is that maybe the women should be getting equal prizes.

Irina Krush: Oh, really! About the women getting in, obviously they have expanded. Now 12 women play here. Previously, in the invitational round-robin women's championship, when it was women only, it was 10. So now they have expanded it, given a couple of more spots to women. Obviously, some of the women are not that strong. Maybe it is too much for some of the women. I don't know. They want more women to play, want more women to improve; it's a good start. It's good they are giving us this opportunity.

It also depends a lot on the women themselves, what they want to do with this opportunity, how much they are going to train the rest of the year to prepare for this tournament.

JFP: Do you think the girls will ever beat the boys and win this tournament outright?

Irina Krush: It can happen. I'm sure it is possible. I don't think there is ever going to be a tournament where there are going to be like 25 women and 25 men playing and all are equally strong and they are going to be interchangeable. That is probably not going to happen very soon if it ever happens.

But at some point it really depends. One exceptional woman may come up and be able to win this tournament. There is probably not going to be a whole group of them. There might be one special person. It is possible.

JFP: What is the one thing about chess in America that you would like to see different?

Irina Krush: The two rounds a day tournaments are very bad. There are no round robins. I would like there to be Swiss system tournaments but with one round per day, so you can prepare and actually have a serious tournament. Or round robins. It's a real flaw in the American system that there are no tournaments like that.

For the young players, they have to go to Europe just to  play in them whereas in Europe it is a totally normal thing to have one round per day, to play in a serious tournament. Round robins are not in abundance, but they do exist in Europe whereas here they don't.

I think that if you play two rounds a day very often, it is just not a lot of fun. You don't improve as much. It's not fun playing chess for 10 hours.

Also I guess the USCF could do more to sponsor junior chess or women's chess, though I'm not sure. Right now, maybe they could do something to help the women and young players, because there are a lot of young chess players that don't get any support and maybe if they would then our junior chess would be better.

JFP: Let's finish off with a lighter question. I have this card. [The reference is to a souvenir trading card featuring Irina. You can find it here:http://www.amchesseq.com/Products/UltimateChessCards/index.php]. There are cards for other players as well. Does it bother you that they are charging more money for the Yasser Seirawan card than for yours? No one has yet been able to figure out why this is so.

Irina Krush: Actually, I had no idea that they were. I don't know how much they were charging and I don't know how much Yasser's card was [laughter], but it doesn't bother me.