The world of chess has recently witnessed a fascinating blend of triumph and controversy, specifically surrounding the meteoric rise of Indian chess prodigy, Gukesh Dommaraju. Following Gukesh's historic victory at the World Chess Championship, becoming the youngest ever to achieve this feat, and his strong performance at the Norway Chess 2024 tournament, some prominent figures in the Western chess community have made comments that have been perceived as critical and even condescending. This has sparked a debate: is this mere competitive banter, or does it stem from a deeper sense of envy as India's chess stars begin to dominate the global stage?
Gukesh's victory over Ding Liren in the final game of the championship in Singapore was met with widespread celebration in India. However, it also drew some negative reactions. Former world champion Vladimir Kramnik expressed disappointment in the quality of play, describing Ding Liren's blunder as "childish" and even proclaiming it the "end of chess as we know it". Similarly, Magnus Carlsen, while acknowledging Gukesh's win, downplayed the significance of classical chess as the ultimate measure of a player, suggesting that rapid chess is a "pure" form and that the championship looked like a second- or third-round match in an open tournament. Levon Aronian echoed Carlsen's sentiments, further fueling the debate.
These remarks have not gone unnoticed, particularly in India, where chess is rapidly gaining popularity. Many view these comments as indirect digs aimed at Gukesh and the emerging Indian chess scene. Some have suggested that these criticisms reflect a discomfort with the shift in chess power from the West to the East. The rise of Indian chess is undeniable. Besides Gukesh, talents like Arjun Erigaisi and Nihal Sarin are making waves. The strong support system, exemplified by Viswanathan Anand's Westbridge Anand Chess Academy (WACA), plays a crucial role in nurturing these young talents. The success of Indian players at the Olympiad, including individual gold medals, further underscores their growing influence.
Viswanathan Anand, Gukesh's mentor, has responded to the criticism by advising Gukesh to ignore it, emphasizing that success often invites scrutiny. Anand pointed out that criticism "comes with the territory" and that Gukesh's achievements, including winning the Candidates Tournament, speak for themselves. He lauded the "golden generation" of Indian players and highlighted Gukesh's strategic depth and psychological approach during the championship match. Anand's stance is that Gukesh's focus should remain on his game and continued improvement, rather than being distracted by external opinions.
The debate surrounding the Western criticism also touches on broader themes. Some observers suggest that there is a deeper issue related to the perception of India and its growing global influence. Others point to isolated incidents and stereotypes that contribute to negative biases. However, it's important to acknowledge the accomplishments of Indian individuals in various fields, including chess, and address the criticism with a balanced perspective.
Ultimately, whether the criticism is rooted in envy, genuine concern about the quality of chess, or a combination of factors, it is clear that Gukesh and other Indian chess players are here to stay. Their talent, dedication, and strategic brilliance are reshaping the landscape of chess. As the "golden generation" of Indian chess continues to make its mark, the focus should be on celebrating their achievements and fostering a more inclusive and supportive global chess community.
