Raise a Genius!

RAISE A GENIUS!

By László Polgár

Interviews by Endre Farkas
Selected tournament games of Zsuzsa, Zsófi, and Judit

Originally published as: Nevelj zsenit!
Budapest: Interart, 1989

Translated directly from Hungarian by Claude Opus 4.6
For Piotr Farbiszewski and ultimatelaw.org
March 2026

FOREWORD

Here, entire generations were taught not to think. Not to doubt, not to argue. To cram. To recite. Only those who excelled in every subject could advance to higher education. With what pedagogical cruelty did they punish a child gifted above average in mathematics for lack of physical agility in gym class?! How did they torment young minds with special interests through the terror of subjects that meant nothing to them?! The cult of raising everyone to the super-average could only tolerate the tamed genius — the one already under surveillance. Whoever passed the "test" could become a "great subject." Here, entire generations were taught to conform to inaction, and with those generations we now wander the desert of quasi-reform.

Our school is not the one that brings happiness, not the one that gives wings, but the one that disrupts and confuses — where the prize goes to the super-average person who has already learned to fit in.

When someone tries to pull a small child out from under the inciting terror of mediocrity, the authorities immediately cry for the police. They invoke the law that makes the acquisition of a minimum education compulsory. So they use the law intended to eliminate illiteracy to trip up anyone who wants to rise above average. The council sends armed police to deal with a "troublemaking" father. Here, over the past forty years, sons have forgotten the biblical commandment to honour their fathers and mothers, but fathers and mothers too have forgotten — cramped in their tiny flats, in their housing misery — that in the constancy of parental love for their children lies joy, happiness, humour, goodness; that they should cherish the future in their sons and daughters. They forgot to respect a child's inexhaustible flood of questions with never-ending answers, with patience, and with that extra something that only they can build into the receptive biological reality of a young imagination, from infancy to age six.

A glaring example from the late 1970s: a chief inspector reprimands a young female teacher and drives her from the school on the grounds that she "mesmerises her audience" during Hungarian language classes at a technical college. The dismissed teacher did not write on the blackboard during lessons, did not use the recommended teaching aids, but recited Arany's Toldi by heart from beginning to end, likewise Kossuth's speeches, and "performed" with near-theatrical conviction rather than merely teaching. Indeed: whenever the teaching or subject inspectorate caught an individual personality in the act of teaching, it promptly warned, threatened, reprimanded, restricted, or dismissed them. It punished the teacher who did not conform to the prescribed mould.

It is not enough to state this — it should be shown through drama: how, under the guise of scientific and quasi-official objectivity, schools became petty dictatorships, and how the fear and dread of the teaching inspectorate created a dark intellectual empire. How educators were turned into shrivelled puppets. How politically appointed cadres, kicked out of universities, degraded entire teaching staffs as they moved from one principal's chair to the next.

How the standard of textbooks was brought down by the simple "solution" of the Textbook Publisher paying authors by manuscript length rather than rewarding concise, clear, plainly written textbooks. How much lasting damage was caused to countless good young minds by rambling, confused texts that neither heart nor intellect wanted to absorb, yet had to be "recited back." What harm all this did to a child's moral and psychological equilibrium.

This society not only does not believe in the genius — it fears him. It does not trust him. The dictatorship turns the genius into a fool so it can exploit, humiliate, and kick him. Geniuses under a dictatorship pretend to be the jesters of petty and great dictators alike.

The crucial question: is there any social demand for excellence? There is not. Science has been severed from industrial practice. In industry there is no money for research and development. Factories turned into scrap heaps survive on the slag heaps of time. The bureaucracy, ossified in verbal reformism, merely feigns standards. Even today it is a "problematic" exception. A nuisance. This society cannot steward its values. There is still no need for specialised knowledge, because politicians with no real competence have decided and continue to decide professional matters.

The genius emigrates. An outstanding technical manager in his field supplements his meagre livelihood with physical labour. It was not the domestic market that made Ernő Rubik wealthy, but international success. What can an inventor-genius hope for here, when Hungarian industry was unable to manufacture the rotatable plastic cube in the right quality and quantity, or deliver it on time?! When, as a result of the world market's verdict, Rubik's Magic Cube is produced not in Hungary but in the People's Republic of China?!

Why would a father share his knowledge with his children at home, in a Polgár-style family school, when out here neither physical nor intellectual goods are valued objectively, and the market's verdict counts for nothing either? When the majority of the newly rich are rich not because they gave greater value to society and received more in return, but because scarcity serves them? The necessary evil is not yet the good. The brilliantly educated child-mind comes to the crushing realisation that he is not needed here — just as the Polgár girls were not needed by the Chess Federation. Internal competition does not only reach for the gun within the Chess Federation when some monopoly feels threatened. Competition is "obscene."

Success is suspect here. Here, only the "difficult people" of failure could be "successful." There, a team of brilliant minds supports the genius, freeing him from every unnecessary physical and intellectual burden. Here, the genius turns in his own bitterness, and there is no longer any team that could help him. There is no deal.

They slaughter the geese that will lay tomorrow's golden eggs right along with today's hens. This is the country of the three T's. The shame of "Support–Toleration–Prohibition" still burns here. Here, barely four or five years ago, the greatest shame was still a bloody reality: to be someone who is "supported"! "There will be no elite education here!" — a leading politician screamed at me, beside himself, at the Writers' Union, when I innocently dared to suggest it. Here, Sándor Haraszti's initiative in Sárospatak was stamped out. The old folk colleges, the Eötvös Collegium — gone without a trace. There are no FAMILY houses anymore. They have been blown apart. Here, the rhythm of the ancestors could not be passed down from hand to hand, from old thinking into new.

Yet the school forcibly MANUFACTURED knowledge from things that cannot merely be KNOWN, because pedagogy is also an art. This society has failed to recognise even this: that the greatest value-creating force is love, because in its presence physical and intellectual power multiply. Love is a kind of knowledge that can only be KNOWN in a way that almost transcends our human capacity for judgment. Yet from Nazareth to our own day, countless examples proclaim it: love is capable of miracles. Love is also the highest form of "thinking," because human beings do not create out of hatred. Hatred narrows the mind. Love is receptive. Appreciative. It makes people happy and active.

To create the creator, to bring forth the one who brings forth — this is a service of almost biblical inspiration. A divine calling. Rising through humility. To make someone more, someone greater from within ourselves — this is the most selfless of human gestures. The school of upbringing that begins at the moment of birth is, in every age, love and service: the lifelong stewardship of the future.

A teacher cannot be a servant — unless it is in service to education and knowledge. A teacher is a person with a calling. A sense of mission. A compelling personality whom one must love, because from those we did not love we could never learn. I know a young architect who, at the start of every year, at the first class of every cohort, asks anyone who is bothered by something about him, who does not like him, or who positively dislikes him, to leave the classroom and not attend his lectures — because they will be unable to learn from him. Two or three students do stand up from every cohort, and this is as it should be: from those we do not love, we cannot absorb knowledge or experience. Teaching is perhaps the greatest art. Simultaneous intellectual procreation.

The sin of the education system is not that it wanted to make decent mediocrity universal, but that time and again it used force to reduce even those above average to mediocrity. It banned elite education, as if excellence were anti-democratic. Under the pretext of "equal opportunities," it stunted budding talents. It created a situation where teachers in overcrowded classrooms had more to fear from the above-average child than from the below-average one — because while the system provided remedial classes for the latter, the gifted child simply sat there in the classroom, bored and growing dull.

Poor, poor Gyula Juhász said: "Talent protection often amounts to the need to protect oneself against talent."

Yes, here in Eastern Europe the geniuses' struggle for freedom is far from over, even though they play an ever more important role in the competition between nations. But here, not even in words is it yet acknowledged that nurturing genius is the fundamental precondition for a society's advancement. Sharp-tongued "public intellectual" academicians, just a few years ago, still considered it more important to organise campaigns against individual inventors and their inventions than to cultivate — yes, deliberately cultivate — an intellectual elite, precisely so that our country would not fall irrevocably behind the international vanguard.

Here, in the name of "realism," they denied the new reality that — like all progress — only the creative imagination can bring into being. Here, every economic, political, or pedagogical innovation was seen as the mad fantasy of a lunatic by those in power, who were themselves incapable of conceiving anything great.

Yet there is no one more democratic than the genius. The genius is a person of the community even when he withdraws into his "ivory tower," because what he creates becomes common treasure. And there is no one more vulnerable than the genius when he must exist in a petty, stupid, malicious environment. Let those read on who cannot yet forgive their own mediocrity. They see their own counterfeit reflected in the genius, for the genius is their measuring stick. It is they who reveal the difference. There are no more wretched people than geniuses when they live in an age where political dictatorship levels everything down "in the name of the people."

"Who is a genius? I decide that!" — This was the principle the regime practised in countless cases. Although the Polgár girls were the best chess players in Hungary, for years they were still not allowed to compete in the World Youth Championship. The regime quite "simply" wanted to erase Zsuzsa Polgár from the top of the women's world rankings! Here, time and again, the world of appointed geniuses rose up against the facts. The case of the three sisters, following a ban by the Interior Minister, nearly turned into a witch trial. Here, competition is a bloody battle, not a joy. To come second is a tragedy. A disgrace.

They don't understand how elsewhere people can already be happy simply to have participated in a competition.

Who claims that one cannot educate a person toward happiness — indeed, toward humour — from infancy itself? That temperament, even a disposition toward cheerfulness, cannot be cultivated? That in the pre-verbal stage, metacommunicative intelligence cannot be developed? That the parents are not merely the conceivers and bearers but also the first experiencers of the fact that the newborn truly becomes SOMEONE.

Who claims that from the very first moment of being born into existence, it is too early to embrace, hold, rock, radiate, and nurture the child with body and voice and loving warmth? Who claims that praise and admiration — with a touch of exaggeration — starting from the very first roll onto the belly or back, all the way through to the never-surpassable triumph of standing on two feet, is not more indispensable than mother's milk itself? And does education not truly end when the child has been imbued with that gift which can no longer be acquired merely as a concept, because it is already too late to learn it verbally: that a person should feel comfortable in their own skin, in every possible situation in life.

Who claims that any human child is born other than as a blank slate? Whose knowledge of light, shapes, objects, concepts, and everything else — about which it will later be too late — cannot be expanded from the very first days of life, month by month, year by year? Who would say it is bearable to stand by watching their child's abilities gradually atrophy in today's kindergarten system? Accepting that someone who could have been anything is nothing, because they are just another little subordinate of the education bureaucracy. Obedient. A story-listener calibrated to expectations. No longer dreaming. No longer imagining. Not bad. Not good. SUITABLE.

Who would not sense the genius in their own child? But who takes it seriously? Who says: not to mine it is a sin. It is a crime against humanity not to live with it, not to develop it. If in the multiethnic city of Munkács, children learned to speak Hungarian, Rusyn, Yiddish, Romani, and Slovak while playing in the courtyard, then why couldn't they also speak chess and mathematics in "six languages"? — asks László Polgár — and so that the answer is already contained in the good question, he doesn't merely ask it, he does it, makes it habitual in his own home and yard. He consciously creates and operates what others have operated since ancient times.

What is wrong with them?

The Polgár enterprise is nothing other than a deliberate family innovation, in which they themselves "produce" their "raw material," their value-bearing substance. In the Polgár enterprise, the healthy child is the first "divine spark," to which they strike all the rest — the parents-researchers-developers, also acting as implementers, presenters, and managers. The Polgár girls are today the leading intellectual products in the chess world. The Polgár parents' method is cutting-edge technology. Is it shameful to create and sell intellectual capital? Would it be a sin to work toward the development of genius? Is this not precisely the demand of the scientific and technological revolution, of the twenty-first century? Is it not a blessed reality in which the greatest value is not gold, not oil, not anthracite, not even diamond, but the sharp mind, the creative spirit, as the supreme substance, the supreme productive force?

The Polgár experiment proves that specialisation enriches the soul, and that a person who is truly outstanding in something is not narrowed by it — on the contrary, it makes them more receptive, more versatile.

Early specialisation can make one capable and versatile not only in a family enterprise but also in an institutional setting — provided the institution does not sacrifice the still pure, supple receptivity of the child to soulless intellectual drilling. If it allows the child not merely to cram but also to understand. If it encourages. Praises. Gives marks, does not punish.

It is not true that everything cannot be accomplished institutionally with genuine educators.

Society bears responsibility for talent. Masses of geniuses are lost without ever learning what they could have become.

Let us bring the concept of genius down from the isolation chambers of dictators and dictatorships into democratic human society as a model, to show that it is not unattainable, but rather a special ability that resides within us, built upon our universally inherited human endowments, and which can be developed. Let us demonstrate the boundless human possibilities of malleability.

YET ANOTHER FOREWORD

What on earth does this book need a foreword for?

The answer is obvious. The publisher would like to tease the reader. It knows full well that the reader (whom I hereby congratulate for choosing this serious, weighty, yet enjoyable work instead of some light pulp fiction) is going to have an extraordinary experience, and would resent the publisher for letting them straight at the "meat and potatoes" without building up a bit of anticipation first, as is only proper...

Joking aside: this is no joke! This book is genuinely a foundational work, and from several perspectives at that. The reasons are as follows:

1. As we know, the Polgárs' family-pedagogical experiment is unique in the world. This is by now simply obvious, correct, and true.

2. The factual material presented in the book is realistic, correct, and true. László Polgár's individual value judgments and ideas are naturally subjective — but the documents, the results, the games, and the positions are irrefutable. (That this should be a basic requirement? It ought to be, in our recently published books...)

3. László Polgár, who is today one of Hungary's greatest educators (and please take this with a grain of restraint rather than as exaggeration), could have written up his experiences for himself, self-published them, or perhaps turned them into candidate and doctoral dissertations. Instead, he simply lays it all out clearly, logically, and comprehensibly: here you go, help yourselves — anyone who can replicate it, go right ahead! What can I say — that's decent of him. (Even though he is otherwise a tough businessman.) As a foundational pedagogical work, this book will need to be added to the recommended reading lists of teacher training programmes.

4. And of course this is also a chess book. The reader will find brilliant games and dazzling combinations in the second half of the book. It is not my task to analyse these — this is not primarily a chess manual! — but I would like to draw attention to one characteristic trait the girls share: the hapless opponent plays along, just keeps playing an equal or slightly worse position, when suddenly — whoosh! — a bolt from the blue — Zsuzsi, Zsófi, or Jutka suddenly "delights" the victim with an unstoppable mating attack. They feel it in every fibre of their being that this game is played for checkmate — this is natural for beginners, but most professionals have long since forgotten it... (compare: scoring goals in football).

What is this book still unable to convey? The incomparable magic of the family's everyday life simply cannot be captured in these pages. You have to visit the Polgárs in person. (Good Lord! What will happen when people actually take this seriously!)

The apartment, which started out very modest and has now grown to a respectable size — by Hungarian standards — (though you can barely move for all the books, medals, trophies, and chess sets) is indeed filled with children's laughter! Look, Zsuzsi, a young but already world-famous grandmaster, is working out a new opening innovation, and she really couldn't care less about the votes, loans, and end-of-year deadlines going on around her. Zsófi is solving combinations — and good heavens, I haven't even set up the pieces on the board yet and she's already "spitting out" the solution. No, she doesn't know it — her mind just works that fast. Jutka is playing blindfold chess with a Belgian gentleman who is tearing out his (nonexistent) hair; he cannot believe this is possible: a little girl is thrashing him without even looking at the board, and you can tell she's slightly bored, while delivering a recalled checkmate — but she laughs good-naturedly and says nothing.

Oh dear! I'd "cut the parents out of the picture" too!

The following instructive incident took place in the summer of 1989. During George Bush's presidential visit to Budapest, the presidential couple chatted amicably with the Polgárs at an informal reception. A photograph was taken, but regrettably the sports newspaper cropped out Mrs Klára's image, cut both parents out in favour of the chess angle, and published the photo that way.

No! We will not leave Klára out (even though at the moment she happens to be in the kitchen, poor thing) — because without her daily, quiet, yet all the more fundamental work and her whole-hearted devotion, none of this would have amounted to anything. And we certainly cannot leave Laci out either (he has of course been on the phone for the past half hour), all the less so because he is the protagonist of this book.

The objections that laypeople and experts alike have been voicing for years are being quietly laid to rest by time. The sceptics have been resoundingly answered by events: the team world championship victory, the earned (men's) international master titles, and the forthcoming grandmaster titles. However, let me respond here to one frequent objection. Are the Polgár girls one-dimensional specialists? Only to the same extent that Zoltán Kocsis, Ernő Rubik, or András Balczó are. They know something at world championship level in their mother tongue — and a great many other things not just adequately, but far better than their age peers generally do. The transfer effect of an intellectual pursuit mastered at a very high level clearly radiates into numerous other areas of life! In their everyday lives, then, they are very much versatile. How was this achieved? That is what this book is about.

And one final thing. The history of this unparalleled series of successes is unfortunately full of battles, hostility, lawsuits, and unpleasant articles. I know I am asking the impossible, yet still: Ladies and gentlemen! Let us put an end to it! Let us draw a veil over what was shameful, let us be magnanimous — and this is addressed to everyone.

Gaudeamus igitur.

János Szabolcsi
International Master, Teacher

PART I: THE MYSTERIES OF A PEDAGOGICAL EXPERIMENT

Instead of an Introduction... the Polgár Family

An interview with László Polgár by Endre Farkas

You are famous abroad. Far more famous than at home. Why is that?

— It is unfortunately true. Abroad, wherever we go — whether to the Soviet Union, to Cuba, to China, to Western Europe, or to the Americas — there is enormous interest. In Hungary, however, the resistance is palpable. There are several reasons for this.

First: incomprehension. People simply do not understand what we are doing, or they understand it but refuse to accept it. A pedagogical experiment of this kind has never been attempted before, and it is difficult for many people to accept the results.

Second: sexism. The girls play in men's tournaments. They defeat male players. This is very hard for many men to swallow — not just in Hungary but everywhere, though here the resistance is particularly stubborn. When Zsuzsa first entered men's tournaments, she was treated with open contempt. A little girl daring to sit down at the board against grown men!

Third: rivalry. Hungarian chess life is full of bitter rivalries, jealousies, and turf wars. The Chess Federation regarded us as interlopers. We did not come up through their system. We did not follow their methods. We were not under their control.

Fourth: envy. Pure envy. Hungary is a small country where success provokes resentment. When a family achieves something extraordinary, many people cannot bear it. They would rather see you fail than acknowledge that you have succeeded where they have not.

Fifth: our minority status. I am Jewish. Klára is Jewish. In Hungary this still matters, even though people prefer not to say it openly. It is an undercurrent that runs beneath much of the hostility we have faced.

There is an accusation that keeps coming back: that you treat the girls as puppets, as marionettes. That you have stolen their childhood.

— This accusation infuriates me more than any other, because it is the exact opposite of the truth. What have we done? We have given our children the gift of purpose, of mastery, of self-confidence. We have given them the ability to do something superbly well. We have given them the experience of victory, of overcoming obstacles, of pushing through difficulties and emerging triumphant. What childhood is more rich than that?

Go and look at the so-called "normal" childhoods. Children parked in front of television sets for hours on end. Children bored out of their minds in schools that teach them nothing of value. Children who reach the age of eighteen with no skills, no passions, no sense of what they are capable of. That is the stolen childhood.

My daughters are free. They are free because they are competent. They are free because they have the power to shape their own lives. They are free because they know their own worth. The puppet accusation comes from people who have no idea what genuine freedom looks like.

But are geniuses happy? Can a child who spends hours each day studying chess be happy?

— Come to our home. Spend a day with us. You will hear laughter. You will see joy. The girls play chess because they love it. They have always loved it. If they had not loved it, the whole experiment would have collapsed in the first year.

People have a completely false picture of what our daily life looks like. They imagine a grim household where the children are forced to sit at the chessboard under threat of punishment. The reality is that we are a warm, loving family. We eat together. We joke together. We go on holidays. The girls have friends. They read widely. They learn languages. They are among the happiest children I know — and I know a great many children.

Happiness comes from the exercise of one's abilities. Happiness comes from growth, from challenge, from the satisfaction of a difficult task well done. This is not my private theory; it is as old as Aristotle.

Tell me about your philosophy of life. About your own path.

— I joined the Party at twenty-two. I left it at thirty-five. That tells you something about my trajectory. I was a believer. I believed in the ideals of socialism, in equality, in the possibility of building a just society through collective effort. I lost that belief — not suddenly, but gradually, through the accumulation of disappointments, lies, and betrayals.

What I never lost was my belief in work. I have been working fifteen-hour days since I was fourteen years old. That is not a figure of speech. Fourteen years old, fifteen hours a day. First as a student, then as a teacher, then as a researcher, and now as a father and educator. Work is the foundation of everything.

Montaigne wrote: "My trade and my art is living." I could say the same. My trade and my art is education. I have devoted my entire life to understanding how human abilities develop and how they can be cultivated to the highest level.

You are a controversial figure. Tell me about your personality, about the attacks you have faced.

— I am a Hungarian Jew from a provincial town. I am stubborn. I am combative. I do not back down when I know I am right. These traits have served me well in my work, and they have made me many enemies.

The attacks from the authorities have been relentless. Szerényi — who was the head of the Chess Federation — called me a "scoundrel" and an "anarchist." These were his actual words, delivered to my face. A scoundrel because I dared to challenge the Federation's monopoly on chess education. An anarchist because I refused to submit to their authority.

They denied me a passport until 1985. Think about that. In a country where chess was supposedly valued, where chess was supposed to bring glory to the socialist state, the father and trainer of the most talented chess players in the nation was not permitted to travel abroad with his own children. They went to international tournaments without me, chaperoned by Federation officials who understood nothing about their preparation, their psychology, or their needs.

The reason was simple: control. If they could not control me, they would punish me. And the passport denial was the most effective punishment available to them, because it struck directly at the girls' development.

Do you consider yourself a genius?

— That is an interesting question. I am not a genius chess player. I am a strong amateur, nothing more. I am not a genius in any conventional academic sense. I do not have a string of advanced degrees.

But I have created something that no one else has created. I conceived a pedagogical experiment — the deliberate raising of genius from birth — and I carried it out successfully. Three times. With three daughters. Each one a world-class chess player. That has never been done before in the history of education.

So if the question is whether I possess some exceptional ability — yes, I believe I do. It is the ability to see what is possible when everyone else sees only what is customary. It is the ability to persist in the face of overwhelming opposition. And it is the ability to love my children so fiercely that I would move heaven and earth to give them the best possible start in life.

Are you happy?

— I believe I am happy. I have a wife I love. I have three extraordinary daughters. I have meaningful work. I have lived to see my ideas vindicated by results that no one can deny.

There are sorrows, of course. The years of persecution took their toll. The battles with the Federation, the passport denials, the press attacks, the whispering campaigns — these things leave scars. There were times when I wondered whether the whole enterprise was worth the suffering it brought upon our family.

But when I look at my daughters — when I see Zsuzsa analysing a position with that absolute concentration, when I see Zsófi's face light up as she finds a beautiful combination, when I see Judit demolish a grandmaster twice her age — then I know that every sacrifice was worthwhile.

I believe I am happy. Yes.

The Tipping Point: Heredity or Education, Giving or Receiving?

"The artist is not born but made."
— Max Reger

"I was obliged to work hard. Whoever works equally hard will succeed equally well."
— Johann Sebastian Bach

"One rarely arrives at great things by following the rules."
— Cardinal de Retz

The essence of my pedagogical programme can be stated in a single sentence: every healthy child can be raised into a genius with proper education, begun early enough and conducted with sufficient intensity, love, and dedication.

This is not a modest claim. I am aware of how it sounds. But it is the conclusion I reached after years of systematic research, and it is the conclusion that the experiment with my three daughters has confirmed.

Klára and I began our research long before the children were born. We studied the biographies of hundreds of outstanding individuals — scientists, artists, musicians, mathematicians, chess players, writers, inventors. We wanted to understand the common patterns in their development. What did they share? What distinguished their upbringing from that of ordinary people?

The findings were remarkably consistent. In virtually every case, we found the same elements: early exposure to the field of future excellence, an intensive and sustained programme of practice and study, and a dedicated parent, teacher, or mentor who guided the child's development with passion and expertise. Mozart had Leopold. The Brontë sisters had their father and each other. John Stuart Mill had James Mill. Capablanca learned chess at the age of four by watching his father play.

The earlier the specialisation began, the greater the eventual achievement. The more dedicated and knowledgeable the guiding adult, the faster and further the child progressed. The pattern was overwhelming in its consistency.

From this research, we drew our fundamental conclusion: genius is not born. Genius is raised.

This does not mean that biology plays no role. Of course it does. A healthy brain, a functioning nervous system, adequate nutrition — these are prerequisites. But they are prerequisites that virtually every healthy child possesses. What separates the genius from the ordinary person is not some mystical inborn gift, some divine spark that either strikes or does not. What separates them is education — in the broadest sense of the word.

Let me set out my position in five theses:

Thesis One: Personality is the product of three factors — biological endowment, environment, and the individual's own active response to both.

A human being is not simply a passive recipient of genetic instructions. Nor is a human being simply a passive product of environmental forces. The individual actively engages with both, selecting, interpreting, and transforming the influences that act upon them. This active engagement is itself shaped by the early environment, which is why the first years of life are so decisive.

Thesis Two: Of the three factors, environment is the most important and the most amenable to deliberate intervention.

We cannot choose our children's genes. We cannot fully predict or control their individual responses. But we can shape their environment — comprehensively, systematically, and from the very first day of life. This is the lever that is within our power, and it is an enormously powerful lever.

Thesis Three: Every healthy child has the capacity to achieve exceptional performance in a chosen field, provided that specialised education begins early enough and is conducted with sufficient intensity.

I emphasise "every healthy child." I am not speaking of children with severe neurological damage or profound developmental disorders. But within the vast range of what constitutes a healthy child, the differences in innate potential are far smaller than people believe. The differences in outcome are overwhelmingly the product of differences in education.

Thesis Four: The development of genius cannot be left to chance. It must be organised deliberately and consciously.

The romantic myth of the genius who springs forth fully formed, who needs no guidance and no cultivation, who creates masterpieces in spite of rather than because of his circumstances — this myth is almost entirely false. In the real world, genius is cultivated. It is the product of thousands of hours of dedicated work, guided by someone who understands both the field and the child.

Thesis Five: Pedagogical humanism demands that we strive for the peak, not for the average.

It is not enough to ensure that every child reaches some minimal standard of competence. That is the philosophy of mediocrity, and it has dominated education systems throughout the world. The truly humane approach is to help every child reach the highest level of which they are capable. This means early identification of the child's strongest aptitudes, early specialisation, and a relentless commitment to excellence.

These five theses constitute the theoretical foundation of our experiment. Everything that follows — the methods, the daily routines, the curriculum, the results — flows from these principles.

The question that most people ask is: but what about heredity? What about talent? Surely some children are simply born with more ability than others?

My answer is: within the normal range, the differences in inborn ability are swamped by the differences in education. Give me a healthy child and let me educate that child from infancy, with full dedication and a sound method, and I will produce a person of exceptional ability. The child need not be "gifted" by any conventional measure. The child need only be healthy, and the education must begin early, proceed intensively, and be guided by love and knowledge.

This is what we set out to prove. This is what we have proved.
PART II

OPENING: THE POLGAR PEDAGOGY

For School or for Life?

The history of mankind is a race between
catastrophe and education.
H. G. Wells

We have succeeded in transforming one of the
greatest joys of human endeavour into boredom,
tedium, and a soul-crushing experience.
Holt

Alas, to learn day by day:
the little ones suffer because of the stupid big ones.
La Fontaine

It is well known that you are a pedagogy enthusiast -- or even a pedagogy maniac -- yet you did not send your children to school: all three studied as private pupils. Why not?

— That I took the children out of school is naturally connected to the fact that I have a low opinion of this institution. My objection to today's school is that it does not prepare children for life, that it levels down to a very low standard, that it cannot handle talents, and that the average child cannot bear the differences between students.

Let us take these in order, starting with your first observation: the school does not prepare for life. But is the old Latin saying not true: "Non scholae sed vitae discimus" -- "We learn not for the school but for life"?

— Today's school has become so detached from life that it functions as a kind of peculiar laboratory. There is no connection to business, politics, local community, daily life concerns, or the school itself.

My own children, who did not attend school, are far more prepared for life. Today's school does not instill a love of learning; it does not motivate great achievement; it does not raise autonomous beings; it does not develop communities. The school does not bring out, does not develop the potential abilities latent within people -- at least not as much as they could.

Perhaps this is also connected to your second point of school criticism, namely how low the level is. What is behind this?

— It is quite simple. If only one type of school exists in a country, then the model is roughly as follows. One or two good students sit in each class alongside a mediocre majority, and there is also a weak student or two. The mediocre student is somewhere closer to the weak end than the good end. The teacher naturally must adapt to a few students in terms of the material, in terms of the content that the majority follows. Consequently, the classes become boring for the students. In the large class, the pedagogue cannot let students work at their own pace to the extent that they could; much is forced into a mechanical, assembly-line system. The organisational form in which students supposedly work on problem-solving is, in practice, virtually impossible. And so both the teacher and the student suffer.

Let us turn to the third objection. To what extent does today's school hinder the development of talented children?

— Teaching in school is countless times boring, and it is a proven fact that boredom burdens a person more than optimal exertion. Furthermore, today's school not only fails to tolerate the psyche of outstanding talent, but actually discriminates against children who deviate from the average. It is no coincidence that, to this day, a letter attributed to Kosztolanyi is frequently quoted, one he purportedly wrote upon leaving school: "Let me go from here, my hands are itching, my elbows are pushing, I feel that branches are trying to grow from me." The truant is often the one who proves that today's school is a disadvantage for outstanding talents.

Very often, the symptoms of illness arise in talented children at school: insomnia, heart palpitations, headaches, stomach problems, neuroses, and psychoses. And the best thing is that these set them apart from the rest. As an interesting aside, I should mention that many famous, talented individuals often experienced failure at school: Thomas Mann received poor marks in his studies; Einstein was rated as extraordinarily poor by one school's report card. Everyone called him lazy, scattered, absent-minded, a foolish dreamer. Robert Rontgen was deemed to have "extraordinary, boundless talent," and James Watt was considered "difficult and stupid." And so on.

Clement Launay and his colleagues, who studied school aggressiveness, collected many examples showing how merciless -- no, downright viciously merciless -- the school group can be toward children. The school group is still very unstable, and children in their early years are susceptible to mass suggestion. All it takes is for one child or another to be the group leader who, for the slightest reason, feels hostility toward their peers. Benjamin Spock mentions that a child of exceptional abilities quickly earns disparaging labels from the others: "striver," "buzzing fly," and so on. The latter tends to become more of a clown, often dropping into the role of idiot for months on end. Hermann Imre and Alice, Hungarian psychologists, drew attention to children's cruelty, emphasizing that "cruelty is unconscious, but for the affected child, it is all the more painful." One might even quote Plutarch: "Boys hurl frogs in play, but the frogs do not die in play; they die in earnest."

All of this means, then, that the frequently raised critical question is not coincidental: would it not be better to eliminate the disadvantageous situation of talents and put an end to it? A German-language magazine, Bunte Illustrierte (1980/12), ran an article with the following title: "The Luck and Misfortune of Extraordinary Talent."

Many in our country, too, have stressed the need to establish conditions for the talented. Czeizel Endre, the famous geneticist, says: "It is a paradox that disabled children are moving forward, that special schools exist for them in growing numbers, yet on the other side, there is absolutely no solution for the talented."

In America, however, a talent-support programme was established, and moreover, at pedagogy faculties they teach the education of children with exceptional abilities. In Hamburg, an organisation called the "Society for Helping Exceptionally Talented Children" was founded in 1978. In the Soviet Union, much was being done to teach the exceptionally gifted outside the regular school system. For instance, there was the novosibirsk school operating alongside Lomonosov University in Moscow, and a sports school in Tashkent.

Well, as far as I know, the general school system has so far had no official alternative form of education available in which exceptionally talented children could be educated for their future.

— Precisely. When we analysed the fate of outstanding talents with expert friends, we decided that rather than struggling to fulfil the traditional compulsory-schooling requirement, we would educate our children privately through home schooling. When my eldest daughter, Zsuzsa, reached school age, I felt that her abilities were endangered at school. I could point to foreign examples and to progress in the fields of study, and I applied -- well before the school year began, in April -- for an exemption from compulsory school attendance.

My petition was supported by many in writing as well. The documents exist.

Let me cite just two excerpts from the petition. Szabolcsi Janos, a secondary school teacher and international chess master, expressed his opinion: "I support the request, because the risk involved in its fulfilment is outweighed by the realistically expected, indeed world-class, results." Alfoldi Laszlo stated: "The Polgar-Zsuzsakind will certainly achieve world-level results and very rapid development is to be expected. Her studies could be successfully continued through private tutoring even over a longer period, making it possible for her talent to be fully and maximally developed."

My petitions were rejected every time, even when an official from the enforceable authorities came to intervene in the matter. I received notifications from various places many times about initiating the necessary proceedings for violating the compulsory schooling law.

We lost a great deal of energy fighting this battle, and only the following January 5th did we finally receive the exemption from the Ministry of Education. This was the ruling: the child's exceptional talent requires strict exemption from daily compulsory school attendance.

We had to wait nine months for this exemption. Then, five years later, the whole thing started again from the beginning with the next child. With great difficulty, we managed to arrange for her to be a private pupil as well.

Every Child is a Promise

As we grow older, we become wiser,
yet we learn more easily when young.
Aristotle

Many things can be achieved with money,
many things with deceit, many things
with falsehood. But there is one thing
that can only be achieved through honest work,
and for which the king must toil just as hard
as the charcoal burner -- and that is knowledge.
Talmud

Occasion gives birth not only to thieves, but
sometimes to great men as well.
Lichtenberg

What are the main educational principles that apply both to the average child and to exceptional talents -- and therefore to the entire educational system?

— Pedagogical principles should give the child's interest in learning a prominent place, maintaining it with respect for achievement rather than with demands for achievement; what is needed is a sense of the child's ability, trust in the child, and admiration -- yes, admiration -- for achievement. (Plutarch writes: "According to Xenophon, there is no sweeter music than when a person praises another.") In the Soviet Union, they conducted an experiment in which the school's fundamental principle was admiration for children's achievements. The result: an enormous development in the children's abilities.

My pedagogical principles also include the principle of success. A few days ago, when I returned home from New York after a school visit, my attention was drawn to the motto posted on the main wall: "Every child is a promise." Yes, pedagogy at every level, and every form of education, must start from this optimistic foundation. It is extraordinarily important that the child be given the chance to work on a subject he or she can engage with productively over a long period. The special

field of interest that is to be developed plays a very significant role in the development of personality, particularly in the area of ability development. When the child pursues an activity of great interest, he invests less energy and achieves greater results, and gradually his whole personality becomes less fearful.

What do you think about the relationship between success and failure in regard to one another?

— In general, I favour positive motivation. In my view, the teacher should create pedagogical situations in which success is many times greater than failure, and often so. It is important for every child -- and especially critical for children with exceptional abilities. The experience of success and failure is important for children. W. Adler was the first to demonstrate that practising self-awareness frequently leads to increased self-confidence or feelings of inferiority, and this naturally propels further achievement. As others have more succinctly put it -- P. Michel says the key is success -- the recognition by teachers is a vital stimulus to further effort, significantly boosting the child's trust in his own knowledge and abilities. According to Frank, failure, anxiety, and the feeling of inferiority can turn an otherwise gifted performance sour, and a series of misfortunes can in turn become self-fulfilling prophecy. Such tension can make the child's activity more superficial, more hectic, and produce a calmer demeanour.

According to Jucknat's findings, the success or failure of one subject or field of study can positively or negatively influence the development of another.

Helm's experiments have demonstrated that the consequences of success include a shortened sense of the passage of time, greater care in thinking, enhanced sense of responsibility, and consideration. In contrast, failure leads to superficiality, sloppy deductions, rigid thinking patterns, stiffness, a relative increase in malice, and a decline in morale.

Is it not often the case that achievements are under- or over-evaluated? Which is worse pedagogically?

— Naturally, the correct evaluation is the right one: as can be established, a slightly higher evaluation can psychologically produce less harm than an undervaluation. But let us not forget: the extent of external success (praise, distinction, reward) -- in the ethical and broadly understood pedagogical sense -- can not only distort but also reduce achievement. As Nemencsne M. Marta puts it: "It is more important to forge ahead with inner determination than to look for outside taps." External recognition alone is never success. While external recognition is important, when it remains purely formal rather than substantive, it gives only the appearance of genuine achievement.

It is therefore essential that achievement and external recognition be in harmony, and to this I would add that external and internal evaluations should also align. The favourable response of a good audience increases the joy of creators -- not just from the loud success, but rather from the understanding, the warmth of recognition.

Does success not diminish disciplined work? What is your view on discipline in general?

— I consider discipline a very important pedagogical factor. I am not an advocate of blind discipline, nor of discipline that is freely embraced without guidance. I favour rational and self-directed discipline equally -- in childhood and in adulthood alike. From this perspective, I have learned much from Selye Janos: "In the natural order of things, I allow myself -- I permit myself to enjoy everything that I can in the office, in the laboratory, at home, yet alongside that I increase opportunity and enjoy pursuits that have meaning and purpose." I can see it too. The truth is that in most cases, genuine discipline is almost like monastic life: removed from worldly affairs, devoted entirely to one's work. Voluntary strict discipline is needed to possess the ability to carry out a sustained and purposeful task: to experiment, to try things, to compile and synthesise. Those who stroll elegantly through the comforts miss the point: time is also a resource to be spent wisely.

I reject blind discipline completely, because it does not come from within. With the awakening of interest, by vigorous encouragement, I achieve discipline, not through force. According to Comenius, discipline is a necessity: "Education should be such that it needs no water, no whips."

A civilised person needs not an external shell but rather an inner psychological capacity. Discipline is a matter of searching, cultivating character, and educating through attentiveness. This is the view of Lono Bolin as well: the intensity of childhood upbringing is lesser, not greater, than that of adulthood.

So this is connected to the role of early childhood. Do you share the view of early childhood advocated by today's pedagogical experts?

— My pedagogical system places early childhood at the centre. My view is that early childhood means the period from three to six years of age -- that is, the pre-school years -- which is more important and useful, and which the child should especially be allowed to practise and make the most of.

I believe that early childhood, from the learning standpoint, is by no means trivial. Nor is it from the standpoint of specialisation. For instance, R. Rose, a specialist in brain biochemistry, has demonstrated that in early childhood, in the cradle, the brain grows with new cell-branch developments, new connections form together with new nerve pathways, and the brain can develop entirely new capabilities. Once the brain has fully matured, however, it significantly loses this capacity. This is the reason that as years pass, people find it increasingly harder to learn.

B. Bluhm, a professor at a Chicago university, develops in her book "The Constancy and Variability of Human Personality" the thesis that 50% of a person's intellect is formed in the first four years, and that a child's remarkably receptive learning ability gradually decreases in subsequent years. Under adverse environmental conditions -- she argues -- the first four to five years can cause more damage than what follows in the ten to twelve years of educational opportunity.

Research by the World Health Organisation has found generally that the development of a child's behaviour is two to three and even five times more important. In Torsten's view, it is practically impossible to fully compensate for the neglect of developing abilities in early childhood. Problems related to ability are among the most difficult to solve; they could best be addressed by beginning education as early as possible.

The idea of early education is also frequently opposed. There are, in fact, arguments against it. In reality, no argument is more right or more wrong; the question is whether it fits the evolutionary mechanisms of the human organism. What is clear even now, as an American scientist writes, is that the environment affects the brain's own structures. The more accurately and appropriately we teach a child, and in due season, the more fully we can know its nervous system's development. But we still cannot give a definitive answer to the question, as what happens in a given period often only manifests its results much later, and conversely, what is taught early can only show its value much later.

What can be acquired easily in early childhood?

— First and foremost, foreign languages. For a small child, the construction of language poses no obstacle; it does not encounter native-language interference, and the native language itself is easily enriched through it. Today we already know that infants at an early age can begin learning a foreign language. Experiments in early language instruction are being conducted in the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, France, Japan, the USA, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, and so on. Multilingual studies have shown that children at an early age naturally speak several different languages, separating them from one another and using them selectively. Frantisek Marek states that learning a foreign language in early childhood is of particular importance, because later a person has difficulty expressing himself spontaneously, quickly, and instinctively.

According to Deak Miklos, the child's vocal apparatus is most supple between the ages of four and six: it is flexible, easily shaped, and solidifies after the age of ten. Thus the pre-school child's vocal apparatus is extraordinarily well suited for the flawless mastery of foreign languages.

Let us return to our daughters. What are your experiences?

— I will speak about my daughters. I called all of the previous things to their attention. From the age of five, all three freely spoke Russian beyond Hungarian, and Zsuzsa was already fluent in Esperanto as well. So it would have been possible to begin the "serious work" earlier than the usual age.

Yes. I was responding to the previous question about whether children of four are not too young to begin learning, but I usually say that adults (parents and teachers) are not mature and well-prepared enough to teach children, and that is really the point. If we want to meet the demands of the future, we should take children in hand as young as possible. My educational view is that from around the ages of four to five, one should already begin instruction -- which in my opinion is not much more than a carefully started programme of meaningful play. The child of exceptional ability is especially important, because the earlier we begin, the better.

Does this not undermine what we call early childhood? Would it not damage the child?

— Not in the least. In the usual parlance and in the professional literature, the dominant view of childhood is different from mine. This may be because psychologists tend to place play on a pedestal while seeing it as the opposite of work. For a child, play is itself important, and play must have an element of work. Let us not confuse these two things: the child's value system is not yet developed like the adult's, so the concept of play should not be cut adrift from it. Looking at it this way, a child wants to play not only -- but is still a child, and in the broadest sense, childhood is a "level of self-sufficiency," not a born status but rather a pedagogical product. The extent to which a child is capable of self-sufficiency is already a "level of maturity," the result of pedagogical work. The fact is that a child must be raised from the first perceptions to gradually develop a certain degree of independence.

What is the role of play in a child's life? When you hear the word "child," does everyone immediately think of play?

— My concept of a child's play is different from the conventional one. Perhaps that is why it is possible that I and my children were not seen as playing too much among psychologists, who place play on a pedestal. For a child, play is truly important, and the work element must be present in play. In this sense -- and so I think -- a child does not merely want to play; the child also wants to learn about information acquisition, to find joy in problem-solving: in other words, that child's work -- that is, learning -- can also be sufficiently motivating, and if it meets the child's needs, it provides constant problem-solving satisfaction.

I believe that learning can be carried out playfully, and play can be constructively built into a full information system. Everyday language unfortunately tends to rigidly separate a child's play from a child's work, and a child's work. The Hungarian Explanatory Dictionary captures the narrow-mindedness of everyday speech well: it interprets play as "One does not want to study, only play."

Children do not need a separate play area; play is their natural activity.

This is further reinforced by the results -- as demonstrated by the research of L. M. Terman in the 1920s, a thorough and lengthy Californian study that uncovered numerous differences between gifted children and their peers in the realm of play. Contrary to expectations, gifted children were found to be interested not primarily in play demanding intellectual activity, but rather these children played less with their peers overall, and within the control group, the concept of play appeared more frequently.

As a result of all this, in general, I do not rigidly separate study and play, work and hobbies. I am also of the opinion that the person should do what he or she loves -- which includes hobbies too. One can only do this if the passion has been felt deeply. This is also why the game of childhood must be the child's serious schoolwork before school begins -- and later, any favourite play or hobby-like activity.

How much can a child be burdened in early childhood?

— The burden on the personality is a complex matter and depends entirely on what is meant. Instead of distinguishing between over- and under-burdening, it is more correct to distinguish between good and bad burdening. Good burdening is one that is in harmony with the child's health, physical status, mental state, and developmental potential. Bad burdening can be either over-burdening or under-burdening.

What are the conditions for good burdening?

— Arousing interest and curiosity. The child loves what he is engaged in, and interest grows after it. Gradually, the child must be accustomed to work, and yet play must still be allowed to create unity between playfulness and work. Furthermore, the child must become accustomed to study, to the workplace. Appropriate rest is also needed for the burden. Good organisation is needed, and focused work must be alternately active in terms of rest. Two things must be kept in balance: do not burden the child to the point of exhaustion, as in a worker's shift. If the teacher provides a lecture of such quality that the audience listens, enters, and is inspired -- they feel it as rest, not as a burden. If a teacher is bad, the listeners are almost completely exhausted from fatigue and boredom within an hour.

So the conditions that are in place mean that today's children's burden can be significantly increased?

— I take the position that with proper methodology, the quantity of material can be significantly increased. I agree with the pedagogical position of intensive education. The essence of intensive education is precisely that it makes full use of the possibilities of sustained effort, of maintaining interest, and of thoroughness and comprehensive review.

This is also the opinion of the American G. Doman. He uses the analogy that just as the body's various muscles can only be developed and strengthened through regular exercise, so too can abilities only be increased through regular training. Regular logical thinking or learning readiness is the result of intelligent reduction, just as the body's neglected muscles show up as atrophy. Doman's three decades of

practical experience have shown that the brain grows best between the first and sixth years of life, and it absorbs information most effortlessly during that period. The playful learning ability of the brain diminishes after the sixth year; at that point the uptake of information becomes what one might call "inflated." (See IPM 1989, VII.)

In my view, intensive education should be extended to all areas. My children, for example, all learned every language in an intensive format. Naturally, they also learned chess that way.

Once more, a direct question: is early burdening not harmful to a child's personality development?

— According to the current state of science, this problem has not been fully resolved. The traditional path -- that is, burdening without structure in early childhood -- is just as likely to be harmful as the path I propose and advocate. In my view, the useful approach applies as well.

Have you conducted a concrete examination of stress and fatigue -- under natural conditions -- with the children?

— Yes. My daughters, for instance, in 1985 and 1986, took part in twenty-four-hour marathon chess tournaments in Dresden. The event went roughly as follows (in 1985, Zsuzsa was fifteen, Zsofi nine and a half, and Judit eight): according to the rules, a hundred games had to be played in twenty-four hours, with intensive play and attention; in between, resting was allowed with eyes closed. (There were about three times when it was necessary to take twenty minutes for a meal.) On top of this, sixteen hours were spent on trains going and coming.

Well, both tournaments were won by Zsuzsa, with a ten-point lead, and the two younger girls also competed. (The field was 90% men between twenty-five and thirty years old.) Zsuzsa scored 50 points from her first 50 games in 1985 -- the same as winning every other game -- and her second 50 were also among the top. In 1986, Zsuzsa and Zsofi each scored the first 50 games at something slightly above the second 50. Zsofi and Judit scored several points more from the last 40 games, making it into the top 40 for each. All this shows that the children's ability to bear the burden was remarkable (they were no more tired than the adults, in fact...), and the sustained concentration held at a set level can be fully maintained for the purpose intended.

That they could bear the burden is shown not only by the results (in 1986, Zsuzsa scored 91.5 out of 100, Judit 68.5, and Zsofi 66), but also by the photographs taken at various points during the twenty-four-hour tournament. (See the photo plates in the appendix -- Ed.)

Genius: Treasure or Burden?

We see only what we want to see,
and hear only what we want to hear.
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

Many who defend talent understand that
one must defend against talent.
Juhasz Gyula

People deny their prophets
and kill them, but they love
their martyrs and honour those
whom they have slain.
Dostoevsky

A pedagogical system's crystallisation point -- like that of Freud's libido, or that of Wallon's emotion, for example -- is, beyond doubt, the genius.

— The concept of the genius, as well as the theoretical and experimental work related to it. Not, of course, because I would want to base the ideology of genius-rearing on some kind of a literature of genius, or because my pedagogy's sole purpose would be the worship of geniuses. No. I am against all forms of elitism; I am against the snobbery of geniuses. I am against all one-sided pedagogical hobbyhorses, and I am in favour of that which is not a method to be applied as a template, planted everywhere like a formula.

To what extent does the concept of genius as you use it differ from the common and the professional understanding?

— In public opinion, it is still widely believed that the genius differs from the average person in being a wonderchild, an extraordinary phenomenon, a freak, and that only a hair's breadth separates genius from madness. Other times, genius is identified with court jesters, with charlatans, with strange people. Naturally, I distance myself from both conceptions: I do not identify genius only with the famous, but with everything in which any field of endeavour perceives genius.

I also want to make it felt that the genius is not something otherworldly, but a living, achievable, and educable product. I would like to prove that there is nothing to be afraid of: conversely, every healthy person has the potential to develop, and the chance of potential being realised is a normal aspiration. I feel, however, that it is a general category, one that can serve the characterisation of various special fields of manifest ability: it can be art, science, organisation, work, sport, politics, a teacher -- yes, a teacher too. In these fields, the common denominator shared by outstanding quality is what the concept of genius expresses;

it is for this reason that I use this concept (and its category) because every healthy person can potentially become a genius. I do not bind it to caste or heritage. The genius is a democratic concept. It is the duty of pedagogical work to lead people in this direction -- but at the same time, every person has the right to live a life free of ambition without being looked down upon. That is why I use this concept: so that an appreciation for quality may encourage excellence, and so that in our society, genius (quality, excellence) is not a source of shame but a matter of pride.

So for you, the genius is not merely a concept but an entire system.

— First, I distinguish between the potential genius and the realised genius, because whether a child becomes one or the other depends on circumstances, on upbringing, and springs from the genius itself. Evidence for this is also that in the twentieth century -- given social demand, among other things -- there are far more "realised" geniuses than there were in, say, the nineteenth century or the eighteenth. The potential genius has a creative force that leads not to nothingness, but to a process of liberation, self-realisation. The future society will most likely develop according to the principle of free individuality, where the genius becomes the normal form of everyday life, and is not a singular "oddity."

We are still, however, far from this. If most of the population has a general idea, and the outstanding ones (who might otherwise be geniuses -- albeit many more think of it than acknowledge it) are few indeed.

Let this be set out in more detail.

Not coincidentally, Einstein says that genius has a planned component and a lucky component, but the lucky one is subject to the whims of fortune. I put it this way: genius = work + fortunate circumstances (fortunate circumstances meaning favourable social conditions).

Any healthy child can be brought to the peak. This is proven by the fact that we, the majority, can learn roughly five or six languages by the age of ten. Think about it -- is that not a form of genius? If so, consider that it is primarily the result of education and self-education.

How many examples need be given of the greatest figures? A few:

Edison: genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
Chaplin: "Talent is nothing -- discipline is everything."
C. Cuvier: "Genius is first and foremost patience."
Gorky: "Talent is love of work!"
J. S. Bach: "Anyone who works as hard as I have, and on the same scale, will be just as talented as I am in life."
Goethe: "Genius is diligence."
Balzac: "Every human talent consists of two constituent elements: patience and time."

The same question is addressed by contemporary psychologists studying creativity. According to B. Nikitin, every physically and mentally healthy newborn has enormous reserves of ability to develop, and the sooner we begin to develop them, the better. It is better to start before school age, because then the child has an enormous learning capacity, which could be much better utilised. (The following is based on personal experience with my own children: the line can be drawn at two years and eight months, or three and a half years: by then the first-grade-level

reading, writing, and arithmetic skills, and the appropriate initial subject material for the first class, were already in place.)

According to Maya Pines, millions upon millions of children are irretrievably harmed because at the critical age -- from birth to about six years -- their intellect is not properly nurtured. G. Dumaref puts it this way: "Every child born is a genius." A similar thinker is Glenn Doman, one of the most noted specialists in Philadelphia, who says that any small child can be raised to be a genius up to the age of three, and that "every talented child should be programmed as a genius." Critics who say that producing geniuses is undesirable, that the intention is to "manufacture" them, replied: "Yes, what a life we lead if we do not know how many children should have become geniuses but did not. They would need to exist. Currently, there are perhaps half as many geniuses in the world as there should be."

To summarise (taking the civilised countries into account): 80% of the population born are potential geniuses at age one. By age three, only 60%; by age six, 50%; by age twelve, 40%; by age eighteen, 30%; by age twenty, 20%; and by age sixty and above, a mere 5% are still potential geniuses.

And between the ages of twenty-two and thirty-five, where does the relatively rapid social development stand?

— By then, the question is essentially about how many realised geniuses there are. The realised genius, by my definition, is identical with excellence. Roughly 0.001 to 0.0001 percent of the population. The excellence of the outstanding is broader, more versatile than that of the average; they are more valuable in terms of society, more original, and offer more distinctive achievements.

The level of excellence has several layers. Three levels of genius can be distinguished:
1. Semi-genius (1-5% per field)
2. Genius (0.2-0.5% per field)
3. Super-genius (one genius per field per generation)

As follows:

[Table showing the spectrum from consumers/normal to exceptional (geniuses):
idiots - imbeciles - debilitated/mild deficiencies - adequate/moderate (functional impaired) - average (normal) - good abilities (talented) - outstanding abilities (semi-genius) - extraordinary abilities (genius) - supreme abilities (super-genius)]

(Naturally, this classification is only approximate. It is clear that any person may move from one category to another.)

Can you give an example or two to help us feel the meaning of this classification?

— Obviously, each person knows their own field best. I will therefore use chess as an example. If a good chess player passes through, let us say, 2,350 to 2,450 Elo points on the way to the elite, then the following characterises a genius: an outstanding ability, and those are the semi-genius candidates -- from 2,450 to 2,550 points. The genius, whose outstanding abilities range between 2,550 and 2,650 points, can be called 50 to 60 persons in the world. And above 2,650, we may speak of super-geniuses.

The situation in Hungary:

— there is no super-genius

— genius: 4-5 persons

— semi-genius: 15 persons

— talented: 70 persons

Where would you place the Polgar girls, and where do they stand?

— Zsuzsa, given her age group, is in the super-genius category; even at the adult level, she earned the category of genius. For example, the kind of achievement Zsofia displayed at the Rome tournament in March 1989 was a super-genius-level adult result. In general, considering her performance as an adult, she is near the semi-genius level, and given her age group, she corresponds to the super-genius category. Jutka, who received an Oscar award for her 1988 performance (if one may call it that), also falls within the age-appropriate super-genius category, and she too already belongs in the semi-genius category at the adult level (twelve years old!!!).

Congratulations. But in connection with this, I would also like to raise a perhaps somewhat unpleasant issue: is it not the case that wonder-children are no longer wonders as adults? History knows, after all, many wonder-children who later became unremarkable. What is the reason for this?

— A child becomes a genius, or rather a semi-genius, at five to seven years of age. I am convinced that any child who is not a wonder-child will not become a wonder-adult either. This is well-founded: the better the conditions, the more regularly and systematically a child works, and the more favourable the circumstances, then every wonder-child will become a wonder-adult. Whoever says that geniuses emerge early and fade early is wrong. I would put it as follows: not everyone has the same capacity for breaking through to brilliance. Better conditions are as welcome as the breakthrough itself (and this includes the element of luck and the workings of fortune). Under less favourable conditions, things happen later. There are also fields in which a person can become a genius at an older age (philosopher, writer).

I know, and as the Spiegel of February 1989 reported, a journalist noted somewhat maliciously that not many had yet delivered on the promise. Specifically: "The geniality of a million people stays inside them until they die; it will never emerge from them, and society gets nothing from it." If we distinguish genius merely "quantitatively" from the average, then we would have to call, for example, "a sinning genius, a genius who behaves sinfully" a genius as well. But I do not want to apply this kind of genius concept.

Yes, this would be confusing. And it is not meant to be so. In my view, only those are geniuses who produce socially useful achievement. So the true measure of genius is: quantity and quality as one.

— Jacques Barzun writes: "The new truth inevitably sounds like irresistible madness; the truer the new truth, the greater the madness." Because people find it hard to tolerate novelty. The more something deviates from the average, the less it is tolerated, and this extends not only to the residents of a building but also to the professional representatives of a given field of science. When they heard about Einstein, even his fellow colleagues -- indeed, some were even physics professors at universities -- who had been steeped in conventional thinking, attacked his theory of relativity. My daughters' achievements also frequently come under attack from professional colleagues and sports partners.

So the genius's life is not easy, then? Andre Malraux says: "Talent is a natural disaster of divine origin -- a tempest, a curse, a crossing through a burning hell, through cold, through mud and slush in the darkness, and an ascent to the peaks." How do you see this: is the genius's life a blessing or a curse? And how do they view themselves?

— In two ways. On the one hand -- most of the time -- they consider themselves cursed. Most of their satisfaction comes from their work, their creativity, achievements, successes. But at the same time, both the public and the professional world often fail to give them the recognition they deserve. On the other hand, there are those who, when things go well, do reach the set goal and find satisfaction. Genuine joy comes from creation itself, and it does not depend on whether the level of demand one imposes on oneself is met by one or another person. The sense of reality and self-education also fades in time.

Real curses, however, come more from the outside. When -- and especially when -- people underestimate the genius, when they do not recognise it, when it does not receive moral and material support for its work. The uninhibited critic can be terrible. All this can poison the life of a genius. "Things are even worse from the perspective of today," says Selye Janos, "in the Middle Ages, all it took was one wealthy, publicity-savvy demagogue with a few tools to sway public opinion within months and turn public sentiment against the greatest representatives of their national culture.

This raises yet another question: is genius a treasure or a burden?

— In every respect, unambiguously and objectively, it is a treasure. Now, when connections between nations are rapidly developing, when the pace of exchange of material and intellectual products between different peoples is accelerating, and when national economic, scientific, technological, cultural, and sporting affairs are increasingly characterised by competition, an ever-greater role is played by geniuses. It is not at all irrelevant how many bright spots of genius a country has. Among the preconditions for social advancement, the further one looks, the greater the share that belongs to education; education alone can bring forth the social dividends of genius.

Hans Eysenck, a professor, is one of the most eloquent advocates of genius-rearing. He argues that through the artificial methods that can be used to produce genius-level intellectual development, a society that falls behind will lag behind in international development as well. In the end, among the average there are some who become celebrated, who discover new fields, who create new patents, new industries, and thereby new workplaces. (See IPM 1989, VII.)

It is no coincidence that the leaders of the largest international conglomerates -- and their awareness of this is growing -- are supporting genius-rearing. Pioneers and examples of the Doman Institute's patronage network can already be found at the American Steel Corporation and the Japanese Sony Corporation.

But what if something goes wrong -- if a genius ends up in a "disadvantageous" position?

— The other question is whether the environment can cope in every case with a genius. Let us naturally not blame society. Let us make an effort: it is not easy to accept a genius in general. We have already seen in schools that the talented child is pushed aside by the class. Teachers do not always know how to handle talent: in such cases, the teacher recognises the talent, yet is afraid, and this inhibits its full flowering. In adulthood, one can assert oneself more insistently, if possible.

Is there not something to the claim that a genius is a nonconformist and overly sensitive, which itself provokes a more forceful critical response?

— I am not sure. I am certain that genius tends to have a stronger critical sense in every direction, but this does not necessarily mean the genius always sees the relationships between people negatively; it is not generally the case. Rather, the genius is hurt. The hurt is not caused by the genius's behaviour but by the genius's achievement. Why should a painter genius, a musical genius, or a chess genius provoke upset? Because they are different -- because they think differently from the norm.

Perhaps the grievance lies in the fact that thinking differently does not yet equal provocation. At most it causes discomfort, irritation. If the genius exists -- and it does -- then

it must be accepted, and its personality must be shaped accordingly.

— I agree with this. I do not mean to say that a genius cannot have a warped personality. It can, and it must be the personality that is developed from all sides. The goal is to set before oneself human goals worthy of a good person. Self-knowledge, self-education: these too must exert their influence in this direction. I have always encouraged my children to develop positive human qualities that naturally serve the achievement of ever-greater performance.

There are great chess players who surely have enough character to match, but many...

— Yes, it is true. But in my view, they also have to possess ethical qualities. Ethics include those that are connected with the society's relationship to health. They must have these. It is not a matter of adopting external ethical properties but of having genuine ethical properties that relate to society -- in the sense that the genius becomes neither too big nor too small, that it serves the interest of the community, and that it channels itself -- in science, the arts, or any other useful field.

I accept this too, and this leads me more to the obligation of society, which should not regard genius as a burden but rather as a treasure.

— I would add to this: as a touchstone, a standard to aspire to. Treat it like a milestone, a goal to reach. It makes no difference how each society structures its values. Let it be set as a societal value: let people be luxury homes or luxury cars or whatever, but let society also value that which constitutes real achievement. When real achievement is elevated to its true rank, it elevates the rank of the work itself.

The nurturing of talent and the appreciation of genius is therefore one of the preconditions for social progress.

— The society that reaches higher will be the one that can better realise this. The call to "Raise geniuses!" is not merely a pedagogical task. It should become a societal aspiration. It ought to become a societal goal.

"Everything we see realised in the world is, in fact, nothing other than the external result, the practical realisation, the embodiment of those thoughts which were sent into the world by the great people who were born there -- the whole of world history is their soul; we may rightly say that theirs is all of history," writes T. Carlyle, a Scottish-born English historian and literary critic.

MIDDLEGAME: 64 BLACK AND WHITE

The Chosen Game

"Whoever thinks that chess is only an art
is a bad chess player! Whoever thinks that
it is only a sport is also a bad chess player! Finally,
there may be those who think chess is only a science.
Such people are no less bad chess players!"
-- Najdorf

Chess is one form of intellectual activity...
perhaps the greatest joy in life...
-- Tarrasch

Chess is everything for me -- the whole world,
but the world is not made of chess alone.
-- Karpov

Why did you choose chess as the subject of your experiments?

— When my wife and I began to lay the practical foundations of our theory of genius education, we first thought of mathematics, chess, and foreign languages as fields where we would conduct experiments. Ultimately, driven by sound considerations, we decided in favour of chess.

We wanted to demonstrate our theory in the field of intellectual creative work, but no experiment of this kind had been attempted -- neither in our country nor abroad.

Within this, the choice fell on chess because we saw that in other fields, relatively measurable results can be achieved more quickly. It is easier to demonstrate, or rather to document, an achievement objectively, since the assessment criteria are more circumscribed, more objective in a word -- more precisely the system of performance evaluation. And this makes the experimental proof more unambiguous. And we made the right decision, because we had no idea how many difficulties we would face in the course of our work. Had the children, or rather we ourselves, known in advance the unambiguous nature of the results

[page 70]

we could demonstrate and prove, then these attacks would have hindered our work even more. The case for chess can also be more easily proven objectively -- who is better, who is stronger in competition.

We also thought that chess is such a complex cultural phenomenon that specialisation here carries few dangers; it passes through entire stages of life, and is not only an activity practised by the young -- since anyone can become an active competitor even in old age -- furthermore, it develops generally convertible abilities in the person, because if someone decides to leave chess and excel in another field, in some other profession, they can quickly do so while maintaining a high standard of living. So specialisation in this field would by no means turn a child's life into a series of pointless tricks, or the child into a performing animal, even if any mishap or setback were to befall them. Thus in this area, too, specialisation does not harm a child's life, nor does it render them indifferent.

After our first child, then a second who turned out to be a girl, was born, this provided yet another motivation for the choice. Additionally, the pre-existing prejudices about the differences in intellectual abilities between boys and girls could also be demonstrated as a particularly relevant topic -- one where the opposing position can be driven to prove the opposite.

And finally: because chess in itself is complex, a precious, beautiful field of activity: game, science, art, sport, and psychology combined. Tarrasch says with wit: "I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't play chess, who doesn't know how to play chess. Just as I feel sorry for anyone who has never been in love -- chess, like love, can make a person happy."

Many people I've spoken to think the Polgars would have been better off pursuing something less complicated, shall we say languages, mathematics, or music.

— That can be handled in other fields too, and I can certainly do it myself, since these are all areas of study. Chess is not simpler, and it is certainly no less complicated, than other fields of activity. (Only people who don't know much about chess speak lightly about it!) Chess experts and the strong know and feel that the cultural value of chess is the same as that of any other field of science or branch of art.

Can chess be compared to science and to art? Is it really such a multi-layered game?

— Chess lies in the complexity of all these. In that it is at once science, art, sport, and game. And beyond these four aspects, there is still something else that I still cannot articulate well to this day. The fact that all of this comes together at once -- that is what is complex, and that is the fifth characteristic of complexity.

[page 71]

In what sense is it a science?

— In the sense that its outcome is not determined by random chance (as in card games, for example). It has a lasting framework, an internal logic that is equally comprehensible, calculable, and discoverable for everyone. Its laws can be grasped analytically, through synthesis, through intuition, and can be applied in creative composition. It is, then, like other sciences. Just as in mathematics, for example, there is a problem that must be solved, one must find the building blocks and the method of solution, so too in chess. To create a position, one must find the objectively best possible move, that is, the one which, based on the objective recognition of the lawful regularities, leads to the best result. And in all of this, there exist theories of opening, middlegame, and endgame. A strategy and a set of tactics have developed. And much more...

Is science whose results are useful for human civilisation...

— Chess is useful; it satisfies people's manifold needs for intellectual recreation, entertainment, sport, game, art -- and it meets these needs with scientific rigour.

On this basis, could we not equally speak of a sporting theory in general, or is football and swimming theory perhaps also a theory on this level? Or does chess theory go beyond these?

— It is certainly more, because the things listed earlier include physical sports. There, one also has a theory of athletics, but to play football well, one need not memorise the theory of passing in detail, nor plough through volumes of specialist literature in that field. To use a chess term, it would be a gambit move.

That's true, football specialists, coaches, researchers, and academics also need to be acquainted with the theory.

— But ultimately, and the layperson rarely speaks of this, what matters is this: whoever engages in the activity (chess), must also personally acquire the science, and the competitor himself is a co-creator of the theory.

In chess, if you attempt a variation and it is bad, you lose; you must correct it. It must be started again, created anew, and unless you personally acquire the scientific insight, you simply will not be a successful player. Chess theory is not enough to know -- it must be known in a creative, constructive manner. Players must be continuously discovering. The discoveries of chess players must become a reality; otherwise, no one can achieve success. Moreover, improvements in chess today already require scientific teamwork.

I accept that. I can see there are about 4,000 volumes and 200,000 game databases, and the girls do the kind of typical laboratory work one would see in equipping and developing capabilities. How long can this research continue? Is there no talk of exhaustion?

[page 72]

— I maintain that chess, though a relatively closed system, can never be fully exhausted. It is certain that no single person can ever survey it in its entirety. Human capabilities have limits; there will always be unconquered boundaries, limitations, and imperfections. And let us not forget that chess is a sport as well. Often we fear the danger of exhaustion, but the more scientific it becomes, the better we get to know it, the more problems and tasks to solve we find in it. And this makes the experiment even more unambiguous in a way.

Is it an art as well?

— Yes, the law of beauty also prevails in chess. Each game that is played through with consistent tactical and strategic execution is uplifting not only logically but also emotionally, aesthetically, and if the combination is unknown (or a new facet of a possible combination is discovered), it also provides an artistic experience. That is why the aesthetic chess game, which is not merely a present-day phenomenon, has always existed -- past, present, and future. It is the same in art: the creator and the recipient. Just as a "wandering" artist produces, for those who are prepared, purely intellectual, emotional effects -- a cathartic experience -- so too can chess lead to this. Chess is a "miracle." The compositions, combinations, endgame studies, or teaching games that are produced without being the result of artistic creation can be called craftsmanship.

On what basis do you distinguish a beautiful game of chess?

— There are typically two types of beautiful games one can identify. One is played with logical precision, one might say with scientific thoroughness, while the other, an alternative creative combination, is a game built on the element of surprise, on cunning play. The second yields equally beautiful results.

Did your daughters play beautiful games?

— Naturally. There are and there aren't beautiful games. A beautiful game of chess truly delights very few, one might say a beautiful game truly satisfies almost no competition, and is not an obligation either. Most of the time, the most beautiful game of a tournament is one that never received a beauty prize.

To what extent is chess a sport? After all, a considerable part of the public thinks of sports as mainly physical activities.

— First of all, let me tell you something that the public doesn't know well enough and that is also important: chess requires physical stamina. It is no accident that every grandmaster who wants to maintain adequate supplementary physical sport is involved in some form. And our daughters exercise one and a half to three hours of table tennis or swimming every day.

What kind of sporting attributes can we speak of in chess?

— The same as in other sports. A sport is governed by rules, regulated, with a performance-oriented approach, systematic logic.

[page 73]

All of this is characteristic of chess. It is also played according to fixed rules in tournament-style flowing play, with results (performances) assessed primarily on the basis of Elo ratings and competition results, which qualify and rank players according to their regular preparation for and participation in chess.

Chess is one of the most popular, so-called major sports, like football, ice hockey, basketball, or tennis. It has amateur and professional competitions. Spectators and participants. Official, league-organised competitions.

Chess develops precisely those qualities in athletes that are characteristic of sportspeople: character, fighting spirit, the ability to endure, the desire to win, stamina, as well as the rules of sporting conduct, competitive behaviour, and their consequences as related to significantly more serious matters than most other sports. Chess is remarkable in that performance can come from a momentary disposition, or rather from a more favourable mood or longer-lasting successful performance, and it is often the case that someone plays well or a poor competitor does badly.

Chess has fair play rules, and there are sportsmanlike behaviours. The sportsman-like relationship extends all the way to the smoking zone, or beyond the chessboard -- the forced use of cigarettes, for instance -- to cleaning one's face, being loud, roughing up the chair (the partner may sit, etc.). This includes psychological warfare as well: the masking of opening strategies, established bluffing, calculated pettiness, gossiping, etc.

In this respect, the state of affairs is quite poor, and in several respects, chess is one of the worst. Among others, for example, D. Bronstein, the Soviet grandmaster, expressed himself thus: there is technical trickery, cunning, sacrifice, a slyness that is permitted at the chessboard and beyond, and also physical insults, with everything that is harmful and morally reprehensible regarding the partner's personality.

And I always try to tell the children the most important thing: above all, they should be decent, honest, upright people. From this it also follows that I expect fair play of them. This also means that they must sometimes accept that others may be given half a point. Once it happened that Zsuzsa would have won the tournament and with it a hundred-dollar prize, but Judit missed a first-round move and Zsuzsa did not give her the necessary extra point that turn.

Do the children also play chess?

— Naturally, since chess is not only etymological, but by its very nature, is also a game. A kind of activity that is not always competitive in nature. An amateur, a professional and an amateur; the recreational form of chess is the game of chess. In a coffeehouse, in a square, on the beach, in a circle of friends, at the family table. They play it at beginner and advanced levels. And this is where the game as play, as a creative and self-affirming activity, and its acceptance brings

[page 74]

joy, a result. Our daughters therefore enjoy playing chess, and it is unambiguously a game for them.

I also believe this, since on one occasion in the second-grade class of the elementary school where they teach chess, I asked the children whether they didn't pity the Polgar girls for having to play chess five or six hours a day. The answer was: no, it is we who should be pitied, since we who don't play chess miss out.

— You see, children often understand, feel things better than adults. How many times have people tormented us with their worry: aren't we wearing out the children, won't we ruin them, and aren't we restricting them? Do they play enough? The question is whether they understand that our children love chess, and so do they.

So chess is not only serious work, but also a cultural game and pastime?

— Yes, since high-level activities can transform into one another. Scientific work is also artistic in character, high-level art is also scientifically grounded, and high-level sport is built on scientific foundations and contains artistic elements -- all of this is present in the game, and more: what is valuable is that chess is a direct means of communication, a direct tool for human contact.

Perhaps as the last drop into the cup of praise, as a pedagogue, you should also regard chess as a compulsory subject to be introduced in the general school curriculum. (This was previously stated by the famous Soviet pedagogue Sukhomlinsky, and in our country this is the wish of József Zsolnai, who developed a new type of educational system, and a considerable part of those in the field of education.)

— On this one point, let us be careful not to insist on making it a compulsory subject that makes children cry. It would be right to introduce it into general education as a fundamental element -- not only from a sports perspective, but also from a pedagogical point of view. We know, for example, how difficult it is to teach children to concentrate. Chess, because of its concentration-demanding nature, could more easily teach children concentration. Through the game, one could develop perseverance and the ability to concentrate. Regular chess playing teaches systematic problem-solving.

I am not saying that chess should replace music in schools. For example, if there is a first-grade class in a school, then one should give children the option, in one of the classes, of choosing drawing, music, chess, or perhaps even bridge.

I don't see why any of these should have priority among themselves. Children can also be raised through chess, educated and helped by it.

[page 75]

— I would mention that besides school education, chess could be used in many other settings as well. For example -- as stated by a leadership training expert, dr. Tamas Barna -- in management training too. After all, leaders frequently face a similar dilemma in practice as in chess. And probably in many other areas as well. Don't you have a suggestion for how to further increase the popularity of chess as a leisure sport?

— Naturally. Many kinds of new tournament formats, game formats could be introduced. For example, having two players play two games at once so that one plays white in one and black in the other. Chess players call this a four-game match. In this game format, there could be a quick-chess pair tournament and a rapid-pair tournament (for men and women), and a shortened game clock would need to be arranged alongside it.

It would be possible to organise so-called rapid chess tournaments (not for the faint of heart or to reduce audiences), also with shortened time controls using chess clocks. They should be popularised with 5-minute and 30-minute games per player. They could frequently be organised by telephone, fax, radio, and TV matches. The great disadvantage of traditional chess tournaments is the slow pace of play (and it has even been getting longer), with long durations, sometimes lasting an entire week. But this is just it -- it's fine; the families of the chess players should visit, and in the evening, the spectators have no time to spend on following the game. The slow game can also be boring for laypeople.

It would be worth considering the rating system in practice, so that in the case of active competitors, the grandmaster classification would be as follows: 2650 rating and above: super grandmaster; 2550 rating and above: grandmaster; 2450 rating and above: grandmaster candidate.

It would be worth including chess among the Summer Olympic sports. Individual and team world championships should be held every year, with various time controls (5-minute, 30-minute, normal time). All of this would increase interest, attract more followers, sportspeople, amateurs to the chess table and its circle.

[page 76 -- blank]

The Chess Citizens

In a chess game, the partner is just as
indispensable as in love.
-- Stefan Zweig

Chess is a preparation for life.
-- B. Franklin

You can play chess when the house is burning.
-- Italian proverb

Public opinion considers all chess coaches to be initiated into certain secrets, and many are convinced that they possess some kind of secret knowledge.

— Let me say from the start: I apply my general pedagogical approach to a specific field. I could have applied it to any other field as well. I am certain, or would have been, that similar results would have followed. The existence of chess coaching is not even noticed; that is why I called it "genius after all" in the subtitle. The pedagogical methods, the psychological foundations can be found by the reader in the pedagogical, psychological, and methodological textbooks.

What is the essence of the teaching methods? What is hidden in them that others have unsuccessfully tried to find?

— I would think there is nothing miraculous, no hidden secret. Most of it is psychological and pedagogical knowledge that I try to apply in chess instruction. I naturally supplemented this with my own ideas and imagination, and in practice I try to implement these consistently. I naturally always seek suitable collaborators, who have been my support. They were naturally suitable.

To be sure, no significant pedagogical results can be achieved with any method alone, especially at a high level. Chess can only be taught with love, with dedication and with the ability to play games. If you should

[page 78]

heed this, then sit down to play chess, rather than making the child always win, giving the child a sense that they are achieving something, feeling something, that they can. Do not overburden them: (There can be various coloured pieces to play with.) At the end of the game, we evaluate each other's performance. The next step is to learn the names of the squares (dark or light). For this, one must learn colours. Then they repeat what was said, and I placed a piece there. (Different coloured pieces can be used for this.) At the end of the game, we evaluate each other's task completion and performance.

The next step is to learn the square colours (dark or light). And then learning to name the squares using the coordinate system. (For this, one can also use the previously mentioned coordinate method.) This procedure is somewhat similar to the game of torpedo [Battleship].

And when do the pieces come?

— Here, gradualness is very important. First they learn the king's moves. We practised this for several more days, then a king-king game was played. The task was as follows: with the king, one had to reach the other side of the board, that is, one had to get to the other side of the board. Whoever got there sooner won. If one king could stand next to the other, then the game ended in a draw.

When this was thoroughly mastered, the next piece came: the pawn. At the pawn game, there was a crossing to the other side. After a few days, the rook appeared, then the bishop, and later the queen.

We got to 3-4 moves in, and then came the checkmate against the king. Then the endgame followed. Then knowledge of the elements was applied; in the following weeks, we played pawn battles. Finally, we also played only pawn-on-pawn games on the board. In between, the children began to enjoy this a lot. They learned the longest, but it presented no problems; it simply needed plenty of practice.

Then came the turn to get to know successive combinations more closely. First, we collected approximately 1,000 one-move combinations, then two-move and multi-move mating patterns were progressively sorted, and the appropriate ones were identified. Only after this did we begin to play real chess games. Since by then, the children had mastered the basic material and had gotten accustomed to the working atmosphere, and had become more skilled, 2-4 months had passed by now. Don't be alarmed! We didn't only teach them basic knowledge (and this was good), but we accustomed them to a well-grounded, methodical approach to the work; this then made the following tasks easier to learn and quicker to do. They developed determination, self-confidence, and a taste for knowledge and its application.

The "start at the beginning" is the next step in the combination. We developed many combinations, such as the following: lots of pieces are given away, the king or a rook is sacrificed, and in the end a

[page 80]

small piece can still be stronger than a queen -- the material advantage is something more significant. We can and must learn from this. A known checkmate model makes it easier to think ahead, more accurately, more efficiently. The endgame is useful in developing the vision of pure positions that lie ahead, the ability to foresee. Miniature games are worth learning as well (for the purpose of acquiring knowledge) even outside the context of individual small games.

That is already a task of "adult" weight. Does it come easily to the children?

— Yes. More easily. For example, learning a poem. Because when one verse is learned by heart, a verse that still doesn't always make complete sense to them, in chess, one knows that one move follows from the other, so one is able to follow the "stories."

Roughly how should one teach a child to play "playfully"? Any more advice?

— One must be very patient. One must allow the child to experience success, but not give them a fist-fight (a clean or practice game), since the structure of the game changes at that point. The parent or teacher should rather intentionally give the child a chance, or subtly steer into the game those elements that the child can exploit. The game should flow naturally from the position on the board, the child's development, their studies at that time being just as necessary.

A more practical question: should we recommend the use of the chess clock, or is it superfluous, and if so, to what extent?

— Chess clocks have a special role in making the game more interesting for the child. (In particular, the chess clock makes other types of games, and study, more colourful and lively.)

Something like a school curriculum framework -- could teachers teach chess in a similar structured way, following the Zsolnai system, for example?

— Yes, they can teach it better that way, with less effort, but the essence is always on the teacher's side. It always depends on how well the teacher conveys it, with what level of interest from the students.

And let us stay with the "chess school," since we are now at structure rather than content; how do we motivate students through the grades? How do we classify them?

— For chess instruction, there is absolutely no need for separate grading. Grades in chess have no special distinction. It is better to organise competitions within the class and between classes. An external competition, for example, is only worth sending the child to if I feel they perform well there.

Ha! There one discovers who has ability, who has developed, and on this basis, greater achievements can be encouraged. One shouldn't allow a bad situation to arise! Nurture those students with promise!

— Those at higher levels should be taken to a club or should be entered in competitions. Tournaments provide opportunities to offer

[page 97]

a variety of adult competitions. This is why the school's chess organisation is so poor -- they don't really work with the children according to their given abilities. Because it is pointless to push a child up to 120 centimetres when they already know 180. They won't develop further from that.

What is your opinion about whether parents should also be trained in chess within the framework of family pedagogy? Are there no organised chess activities in Hungary?

— Unfortunately, there isn't a solution. Individual local initiatives can be found here and there (for example, there are no regular chess activities in Tapolca at the moment either). The world has made great strides in this field. In Hungary, there is no regular, everyday chess training at the national level either. The Hungarian Chess Federation's youth coach does not hold regular training sessions either. This is peculiar, as this is the only sporting field where there are no regular training sessions for young people. Chess clubs either don't exist or are in the process of disintegrating, and even the young workers have not yet completed their work. The better chess players only enter competitions and pass on their experience without giving it away. Yet one must know this: a results-based chess education does not work without effort. Moreover, the task goes from 10 years of education onward, fitting the seriousness of the chess world.

In which country in the world is there a well-functioning chess school?

— In the Soviet Union, there are many like that. The Soviets begin chess instruction early. There are such nurseries, and even general schools (boarding schools) where children play chess every afternoon. The remarkable thing for me is that not enough efficiency is achieved there either; it is as if something should be eliminated from the schools. I see that they are building it up, and it does go well for a child, but a lot is also taught with merely sufficient thoroughness. In England, the Netherlands, France, in the NSZK [West Germany], there is a lot of chess being played; experience is frequently shared at tournaments.

What kind of modern teaching tools could help to promote chess and improve the effectiveness of its teaching?

— There are two main categories of modern teaching tools: the television and the video recorder. In the USA, many chess instruction video cassettes are already being produced. In some places, for example, a Seirawan chess instruction programme is being broadcast. That should be commended. As for chess on TV, I will not elaborate in detail, but at a minimum, there should be chess on TV. In the NSZK and in the Soviet Union, there is plenty: interviews, broadcasts, competitions, paired matches, explanations, etc.

Perhaps the most necessary teaching and working tools for chess are computers. Specifically: 1. the personal computer, primarily as a database, the computer can serve several functions; 2. the chess microcomputer is mainly for beginning chess players, as a partner (my daughters play chess against it), 3. endgame studies, and the computer for the establishment and identification of errors in openings is an irreplaceable tool; 4. the high-performance computer can primarily be used for the precise analysis of complex endgames.

[page 99]

Would it be up to you to establish a chess school, and if so, what method would you employ there?

— I cannot answer the first part of your question, but if one were to be established, I would primarily implement those ideas that I have tried out and successfully applied with my children.

Could it be assumed that with the functioning of such a school, Hungary could stand competitively among the nations over a long period of time?

— The question is whether others would do the same thing, or not. Because if they were to work with a similar method in twenty other countries, they would achieve similar results there too. They would achieve the same level of results as I could promise.

[page 100 -- blank]

Chess in Psychology, Psychology in Chess

The game of chess, just like scientific
research, is first and foremost a passion.
-- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

A good player falls into the opponent's trap,
a bad one into his own.
-- Jeno Szekely

I never shy away from the fight,
I always ponder how to win.
-- Fischer

The genius education system is built on the close unity of pedagogy, chess theory, and psychology. Let us think it through, and since it may be worth discussing the connections separately, let us look at psychology.

— Chess and psychology are intertwined in many ways. Chess plays a role in psychological research, and psychology is present in competitive chess.

The competitor expects help from, and can receive help from, psychology. The competitor needs a special mental state whose conscious cultivation is theoretically grounded, and contributes to successful competitive performance.

Psychological knowledge can significantly help a person's self-awareness. What am I? What are my weaknesses, and what are my strengths? How do my opponents think? What is the extent of my willpower? What style suits me better? Many questions can be posed about oneself, and it is true that without some self-knowledge, we cannot truly function effectively in any area of life -- and all the more so in competitive play, with a heightened focus.

A psychologically well-grounded approach to competition can play a significant role in the development of personality traits: it shapes the will and

[page 102]

emotions, builds perseverance, self-discipline, fighting spirit, etc.

Botvinnik, for example, stressed that a competitor must reach a state of maximum working capacity during the competitive period, and he considered it very important to maintain the appropriate emotional state and mood. He learned from special training how to fight with negative emotional manifestations. He developed his concentration abilities to the maximum, and there was a combative readiness about him as well. Psychology also serves as a supplementary science for every great competitor.

But then to use it to get to know the opponent...

— Naturally, since chess is a mirror of the soul, and the opponent's earlier games can also reflect certain psychological characteristics. Every study of a chess player provides information not only about the player himself as a chess expert, but also about their partner's aptitude. It is important to note, however, that in chess, training sessions take place without the opponent being present in a psychic atmosphere. But from the game itself, one can analyse the opponent's reaction and arrive at the most appropriate counter-tactic. I can know about the weakness and so I can choose game variations that are suitable for the opponent to find uncomfortable. I know that when they like surprises, I have to play a certain way, and I know that if they play aggressively, then I try to channel the game into calmer waters.

Emanuel Lasker was the chess player who truly understood the value of the chess pieces' "life" on the board through the prism of the opponent's personality. He, for instance, never played the objectively best continuation against any opposing position, but rather one which was the most unpleasant for the opposing player in a deeply personal sense. He was able to create a worse position for the opponent even in the most hopeless of situations. As the saying goes: don't checkmate a chess player on a bet.

If it works one way, can psychological knowledge also be used openly in the other direction?

— Naturally. It must be understood that in certain cases one can use all kinds of different approaches. For this reason, the ethical oversight and moral conduct mentioned earlier must be maintained -- a clean competition is the proper one.

Which are the abilities whose development you consider particularly important?

— I could list several from among those that can be found in analyses related to chess. For instance, Djakov, Petrovskij, and Rudik (whose interesting experiments were conducted with famous grandmasters in 1925), and also Em. Lasker, Krogius, Fine, Kotov, Hartston, Pfleger, A. D. de Groot and others. In their works, the first thing mentioned is: physical fitness, the achievement and maintenance of a good health and appropriate mental state. The chess player must sit at the board with physical endurance and strong nerves, in order to withstand the pleasant and

[page 103]

unpleasant effects that often arise -- such as press attacks, which can have significant impact on performance.

Endurance and physical, intellectual, and emotional stability have the same value as in physical sports, for in reality, it is the long-lasting, repetitively demanding nature of the work that a chess player faces in a professional partnership.

Here I would list: tolerance of monotony, sustained interest and the persistent concentration of attention. The lack of these leads, for example, to wasted opening advantages, overlooked errors, and missed combinations. Stability is the most subtle essential element. A player's "queen" can be concentrated in "normal mode," can "disengage" from distracting peripheral influences, and can "carry" knowledge and character. And more...

Then: alertness, attention. A matter of vigilance and self-mastery. Because in the middle of a game, a joke from friends, the previous round's result, the knowledge of the opponent's tendencies, the clock time, one's own tactics and plans -- these are all things that can agitate the emotional elements, that can make appropriate variations exciting for the opponent, that can deliberately or accidentally make the environment "rattle."

An important highlighted factor: self-awareness based on realistic self-assessment, the ability to self-educate, which is constantly manifested in a healthy self-criticism. Decisiveness, self-confidence, a secure sense of confidence in chess -- this is the foundation. A healthy self-esteem is fundamental -- the feeling of self-worth in chess.

An important, indeed very important area is the development of a healthy fighting spirit, which is primarily necessary for competitors but of course can be useful for anyone. The struggle takes place simultaneously in several different fields:

- struggling to surpass our own (achievements, limitations);
- struggling within the group, within the community, to win a position within it;
- struggling against the opponent;
- struggling for some "extra-competitive" goal or value, to approach or reach it.

Naturally, sport is one of the available legitimate tools for individual self-assertion, alongside many others -- and it should never be directed against others, to the detriment of others. This is the fundamental prerequisite of being a sportsperson. The struggle presupposes getting to know the opponent, assessing their strengths, assessing

[page 104]

their style's capabilities for self-reinforcement and self-conquest, but we should never regard our opponents as our enemies. The fighting ability in chess is that one must always strive to win -- that is, make a move that is decisive even when the position looks hopeless. That is the spirit.

The three girls together -- a small community.

— A community in itself can sometimes be beneficial or harmful. The girls work at it. They try to do well with each other, alongside the other competitors. The good team-work naturally strengthens the results; with that said, results can also be damaging, and the other should also be a strong combination, a creative force. Stronger or not is the overall evaluation of the team -- the most honest assessment is to see whether the team's elaborated theory proves true and worthy -- when the team wants to justify it, they rejoice in each other's successes, and in their joint work they help one another to confirm each other's achievements.

How is it that the better player is also the one the others have to follow -- listlessly, half-heartedly?

— Certainly. Surely. It is easier to fight if one is not alone, if others believe it too, and if the others also want to win and achieve -- that is the most important thing. For the other's victory is important, because the result does not only matter to them. The key thing is that a good team player plays well in a team, but that doesn't mean they also play well alone -- a team player is not always a good individual player. In chess, one must know everything -- one must play in pairs, solo, at team events, at simultaneous exhibitions, and in open tournaments.

Has something changed in the lives of your daughters because the Polgar family prestige also opens the door wider for women's equality? Are they not inclined?

— Perhaps indirectly, yes, but this is primarily reflected in the results; individuals must achieve them. The second is the real struggle; but it is also true, although it may sound like heresy, that on that very spot, the power of the inhibiting forces has already had less of an inhibiting effect on their development. Had they not hindered their development, they would certainly be further along.

The greatest difficulties were caused by the political bodies' representatives, since all six of them were subject to the control of various authorities. The responsibility for this falls even on the "highest" leadership. I could cite references, list them, or refer to the discrimination our views have always faced. Szerenyi Sandor, the then President of the Hungarian Chess Federation, said at the time (as reported in 1989, V. 30, Kepes Sport): "I always followed the same line as when Janos Kadar, Istvan Buda, or anyone else -- former or current head of the chess sports association -- was leading it."

In what way was support given by the Chess Federation, by Szerenyi Sandor?

— They provided us no professional support. For example, many times they didn't send Zsuzsa to the youth World Championships through administrative channels, even though she was one of the strongest. They wanted to keep the girls at home. The newspapers wrote about Zsuzsa's achievement at the women's world ranking list top, but they

[page 82 -- continued from the book's pagination]

are still fighting with coaches' worries. It is in vain that the children are at the top of the world ranking list, in vain that they were first at the Olympics, in vain that Judit received the Oscar Award -- Zsuzsa has not had a coach, a training partner for years. The girls' situation has not been made much more favourable. Even though Zsuzsa already has a small, professional team working together with her, the resources she has within herself are always meagre. Only in recent days -- with the help expected from Holland -- has any progress been anticipated in this regard. In our time, it is being said: only Jelena has one -- a famous Hungarian chess player, but it is quite another matter when she is not really a Hungarian player.

Have there been favourable developments regarding the domestic chess scene?

— There have, but they are still rather bad. We would certainly be much further ahead, with the support of a chess federation, but only a sporting, fair, non-bureaucratic, and genuinely sporting support.

How do the children judge themselves?

— Ask them directly!

[page 83]

— I have asked them. They unanimously felt that Zsuzsa was more of a positional player, Zsofi was more inclined to take risks, and Judit was closer to Zsofi but was trying to embrace both styles. In this connection, it would be interesting to know who their coaches are and who has worked with the girls over the years.

— Barcza Gedeon, Benko Pal, Bernei Andras, Csaba Laszlo, Danos Laszlo, Florian Tibor, Forgacs Gyula, Haliasz Tamas, Hazai Laszlo, Kallai Gabor, Karakas Eva, Knezevics Milorad, Lengyel Levente, Lukacs Peter (until recently also Pinter Jozsef), Meszaros Andras, Morvai Miklos, Puschman Laszlo, Sapi Laszlo, Szabolcsi Janos, Szekely Peter, Zentai Gyula. There are about fifteen or even more. Not all of them can I recall.

And are there those whom you would rather not fondly recall?

— Just one, exceptionally: Szabo Laszlo. Why? Because his assessment was uselessly superficial, instead of being thorough as it should have been.

In your wife's opinion, what makes a good chess coach-trainer?

— Make sure they conduct their coaching-training work honestly. Be demanding, possess coaching and competitive experience, and if they are themselves a competitor (their past results should not be the sole factor in assessing the quality of their work). Special importance should be given to maintaining a couple-like partnership of mutual respect. Close, tight work, mutual cooperation for joint effort, should be natural. In no circumstance should the young competitor be placed alongside an opposing coach, but rather alongside the one the child wants. Let them have their self-criticism, and this serves as a valuable lesson for the student's development. Pay attention to the fact that the growing child should not always be overwhelmed by their helper's presence. If they possess great professional skill, they should be cautious by nature, for their great reputation alone can create a sense of awe.

Know how to handle young people! Genuine research-competitor activity should support and help them. Let there be recognition of the work, and let them be able to express results and achievements. Avoid indifference; be spirited (as Selye said, "apathy is a painful disease"). Be fit for the occasion, so that they can raise the other's abilities to an ever-higher level.

In one person, you are father, coach, and manager. How do you reconcile these functions?

— The truth is that at first it was only in my mind, but now that my daughters have outgrown me so far, I can no longer be their coach; I could never have been that. And now only their coaching team remains. I am a manager-father, and I'll be honest -- that dual role is hard to fulfil well.

[page 84]

It would be easier to be a manager without the father role, or a father without the managerial functions. The biggest worry, though, is that as a father, one must demand that the child deliver even the toughest training sessions -- those about which one might say, "I don't feel like it."

But that I believe, since fathers -- "by nature" -- often still fail to meet even the minimum of follow-through with their daughters.

— This is not just a matter of question. A coach, that is, is a person who expects from their students what they themselves fulfil beforehand. They can send off anyone who doesn't deliver, they can experiment with someone else. A ping-pong coach from the European Championship, Batori Csilla's coach-father, put it this way: "I do not demand things from my student that would make the child turn away from me with disgust."

But it is also not such a big problem. Its advantage is that they know the child, and it is easier to fulfil their wishes.

The three girls together established approximately 40 Guinness records. Obviously they also determined each other's peaks. Let us devote attention to the children's most important chess results in chronological order.

ZSUZSA

4 years old:
- 100% result in the Budapest Championship final (Budapest, 1973), among schoolchildren.

12 years old:
- Women's Championship (Varna, 1981 - Bulgaria): 1st place out of 11 games with 9 points.
- "World Under 16 GIRLS CHAMPIONSHIP" (WESTERGATE 1981 - England): 16 years and under girls' unofficial world championship, undefeated in first place.
(1982-1984, as a socialist country, travel to a 1982-1985 capitalist country could not be attempted -- due to the lack of permission from Hungarian official bodies.)

14 years old:
- The Hungarian (men's) International Open Championship (Kecskemet 1983): fulfilled the men's international master norm (finishing in the prize zone).

15 years old:
- International Chess Championship (Varna, 1984 - Bulgaria): 3rd place (men's international master norm fulfilled).
- International Open Chess Tournament (ALEN-MAK 1984 - Bulgaria): tournament winner (men's international master norm fulfilled).

15 years old:
(for three consecutive half-years at the top of the women's world ranking list (1984, 1985, 1986). This was when, through discrimina-

[page 85]

tive means, the other players were given a rating of 100 as a "gift." The first three, however, have remained in it since then.

16 years old:
- Czechoslovakia (men's) International Tournament Championship final, 4th place (TRENCENSKE TEPLICE 1985). The 5 Czechoslovak Olympic men's grandmasters finished behind with a result of 4:1.

17 years old:
- Hungary (Tournament) Championship final: undefeated on the 2-3 spot. The regulations of the competition ensured the right to play in the men's zonal tournament, but the Hungarian Chess Federation did not send her.
- International Open Chess Tournament (ALBENA 1986 - Bulgaria): the Soviet Zajcsik and other grandmasters finished behind with 9 games, 7.5 points, 1 point ahead, undefeated in first place.
- International Blitz Chess Tournament (PILZEN 1986 - Czechoslovakia): Uhlmann and other grandmasters finished behind in first place.

18 years old:
- International (men's) Grandmaster Tournament (STARY SMOKOVEC 1987 - Czechoslovakia): 2-3rd place.
- International blitz tournament (PILZEN 1987 - Czechoslovakia): Pszahisz, Ceszkovszki (Soviet grandmasters) and other grandmasters finished behind, even with large margins, in first place.

19 years old:
- International Chess Tournament (EGILSTADIR 1988 - Iceland): Men's grandmaster tournament 1-2nd place.
- International (tournament) Grandmaster Tournament (ROYAN 1988 - France): 2-3rd place behind a world championship candidate grandmaster. With this performance, she fulfilled the men's grandmaster norm.

20 years old:
- International (tournament) Grandmaster Tournament (LEON 1989 - Spain): Undefeated 1st place. Fulfils the men's grandmaster norm for the second time.
- International Active Chess Tournament (PARIS 1988 - France): Campora grandmaster finishes 1-2nd place behind, undefeated.
- International Active Chess Tournament (NORDHORM 1988 - West Germany): 1st place, Pfleger grandmaster finishes behind.
- Chess Olympiad (THESSALONIKI 1988 - Greece): Olympic champion. Unbeaten on the first board.

In the past five years, she has defeated many men's grandmasters, including Ljubojevic and Speelman among others. The Hungarian men's international masters' results against her in tournament games by score: 11.5:4.5. Out of 16 games, she only lost one (at the age of 15), and in blitz games, the ratio is 4:1 in Zsuzsa's favour. She has won many blitz tournaments.

[page 87]

— I think we should digress a little here, to shed better light on the controversy surrounding the 100 rating points.

— Judit stands at the top of the women's world ranking list, with the 1984, 1985, 1986 lists each showing Zsuzsa at first place. On 1 January 1987, she was still at first place, and the second was her shadow -- it was natural that the first place was maintained in a natural way. A world chess authority also considered it unjust that every player received a 100-point rating as a "gift," except Zsuzsa. For example, Larry Evans, one of the best chess experts, criticised the FIDE decision, and in response to one of his self-references, Kaszparov himself wrote the following in one of the New York newspapers: "I am not one to give gifts to others, so don't give any to me either, and so on." It is clear that Campomanes, the FIDE President, had to finance the re-election campaign with Soviet support in Dubai. Similarly, Sloan, writing in the Gulf News, reported: "An open letter revealing that 100 Campomanes stamp-collecting certificates were used to get Soviet votes." It was about FIDE's most disgraceful episodes in its legislative history. There was no choice in the matter; the FIDE could not openly oppose Kaszparov (the world champion against FIDE at the time), yet Kaszparov's following statement was inevitable: "The title of 'World Champion' will be eliminated along with the organisation in which the leaders are corrupt and even their removal cannot help." (Sakkelet, 1988/371. old.)

Tell us more about what you know of this.

— And then, the Zsuzsa case was joined by all sorts of discriminatory measures. They were a major obstacle in her development. Then first I had to realise that we were not only in Hungary -- we were being treated unfairly, irrationally, unsportingly -- but they were being mistreated here too.

First, only the Hungarian Chess Federation sent a letter to FIDE, and specifically to Sandor Szerenyi himself in Manila, requesting what steps should be taken to remove Zsuzsa from the world ranking list. With an English chess grandmaster title and more, she herself is a world ranking list keeper, and reported this to The Spectator on 1988, XI. 5: "I was precisely present at the Manila congress. Szerenyi's proposal to the congress to remove Polgar Zsuzsa from the ranking list was rejected and dismissed." His proposal that "FIDE should distribute misinformation in the press regarding Zsuzsa's men's zonal competition refusal -- because the Hungarian men's championship gave her no right to the zonal -- was not sent by the Hungarian Chess Federation."

— The International Chess Federation, FIDE. Misinformation from FIDE officials and their consequences in the press. They didn't send Zsuzsa to the men's zonal competition, even though she had the right to be in the Hungarian men's championship. The Hungarian Chess Federation's women's commission secretary -- Samarian, who supplied false information -- sent a report on behalf of the 1986 Dubai FIDE Congress Qualification Committee. The committee was composed of Veroci, Csiburnanidze, Gaprindashvili, and Alexandria -- with a chess background -- and their work was assessed. The results at that meeting were not only in this matter heard in favour of the Polgar family's detriment. (Elo Arpad 1970-1986 -- that is, during the period of his writing -- is a FIDE Qualification Committee secretary.

[page 88]

The Elo Arpad report is worth looking into: "Polgar Zsuzsa should not be given a rating + rating points; Pia Cramling 35 points, Sheila Jackson 25 points, Gisela Fischdik 70 points should be given." After this, an 84-year-old gentleman, Elo Arpad continued: "Between 1982-1986, Csiburnanidze played against men in 63 games, and based on this, her performance rating of 2528 was achieved." The commission, Veroci and Csiburnanidze's interference, naturally with the support of the Hungarian and the Soviet Chess Federation, through Elo Arpad's report, achieved what they wanted: that every woman player -- except Polgar Zsuzsa -- received the 100-point rating boost. The American journalist Sloan subsequently investigated and then noted the following (all of which I elaborate in detail because it is a small instalment in our domestic chess war):

Csiburnanidze between 1982-1986 played the following tournaments against men:

Game count Performance rating achieved

1. MONTPELLIER 1986 11 2325
2. BAD WORISHOFEN 1986 9 2360
3. PRISTINA 1983 13 2403
4. HAVANNA 1985 13 2437
5. FRUNZE 1985 14 2437
6. VINKOVCI 1982 13 2439
7. ATHENS 1984 9 2483
8. NEW DELHI 1984 11 2540
9. POLANICZA ZDROJ 1984 15 2564
10. BANJA LUKA 1985 13 2569
11. DORTMUND 1983 11 2574

Games: 132 Average: 2465

This is the "performance rating" (achieved performance) list, compiled according to the above figures. Based on this list, the following can be noted:
1. In the indicated period, Csiburnanidze did not play 63 games against men, but more than 132.
2. Her "performance rating" is not 2528, but only 2465.
3. In 1986, Csiburnanidze's performance rating against men, based on the results of her inclusion of Popovic and others from the same period, is only 2410.
4. If we look only at the best results from tournaments 6-11 in the list, which are the best 63 games, then we get Elo Arpad's calculated result of 2528. How large is the omission of the 5 largest (i.e., 1-5) results from the statistics!

[page 89]

5. According to Sloan, Csiburnanidze only played in men's tournaments from 1984 onwards (77 games). Sloan rightly asks the question (July 1986): why is Csiburnanidze's rating 2435, and why isn't it 100 more?!
6. Why does Elo Arpad recommend a reduced "gift" for Cramling, Fischdik, and Jackson; Polgar receives nothing, and Csiburnanidze receives nothing either?

Other observations: If one attends a competition, one can never lose a rating. It doesn't matter whether the opponent's rating is lower than one's own, or higher, since in every competition, one plays against the opponent whose rating is higher or lower. There is no significance to the fact that the starting rating of women players is lower than that of men, since this is where the first half of the rating differential has already appeared.

Those women who received the 100-point rating on 1 January 1987 (thereby making Csiburnanidze finish at 2530, edging ahead of Polgar Zsuzsa), did not earn much from the obtained 100 points -- though they did play in men's tournaments regularly, since the portion of the received 100-point rating was lost now. For example, the 1986 Hungarian Olympic team had the following:

1987 January 1989 January
Veroci 2315+100=2415 2335
Ivanka 2200+100=2300 2275
Madl 2250+100=2350 2270
Grosch 2100+100=2200 2145

I believe that from all the above, everything becomes clear.

—

Tell me, how did the Hungarian press react to all this?

— Overwhelmingly, the press sadly supported the chess federation's erroneous position. A typical example is the March 1984 issue of Magyar Sakkelet (related to Polgar Zsuzsa): "At the FIDE congress, the president spoke about the dissolution, and we would appreciate it if our national competitor were not to be featured, because according to all nationalities, we should present the FIDE Elo list (world ranking list), and next to the article, they published the women's world ranking list from which Polgar Zsuzsa's name was not included. This unambiguously constitutes the falsification of the world ranking list, since Zsuzsa's name is in the official FIDE world ranking list. Her name appeared everywhere in the world (in all countries, even in the Soviet Union).

[page 89 continued]

The Hetfoi Hirek (Monday News), July 9, 1984 issue (by Novotny Zoltan): "A sensation has occurred in Hungarian chess; Polgar Zsuzsa is here." At the beginning of the week, the newspaper featured the world ranking list holder tournament led by the Swede Cramling. Well, this was the first success, which, beyond the Polgar family, nobody else in all of Hungary was delighted about. One could say the back door of the fortress was found, and with it, the competitive manipulation was exposed.

In Vilag es Nyelv (World and Language), 1985/4, Fenyvesi Ervin writes the following: "It is simultaneously appalling that the Hungarian Chess Federation, among other things at the Manila FIDE congress, wanted to remove Polgar Zsuzsa from the world ranking list! That is, it acted precisely against Hungarian interests -- against the Hungarian glory -- and it would have further liked to bring about a ban on Zsuzsa starting in women's competitions. Fortunately, the foreigners defended Hungary's interests, and they confronted the officials, pointing out the rules to them. I wouldn't think there has been anything like it in our sporting history."

In the Szabad Fold (Free Land) newspaper (December 1988), Florian Tibor, the international chess master, international competition judge, and high-ranking secretary-diplomat of the Hungarian Chess Federation for three decades, formulated the following: "The FIDE (International Chess Federation) barely accepted the fair play prize, awarded in 1986 to every woman competitor whose rating was raised by 100 points except Zsuzsa, on the grounds that she won 6 of the required points in men's competitions. This is not quite right, since the men -- at least to the same extent -- play stronger against the women, and therefore, it is harder to score points against them."

The Sport plusz (Sports Plus) newspaper (1988. II. 4.) published Szerenyi Sandor's letter, entitled "More is more about the person," in which the following can be read about the 100-rating matter: "Dr. Lako Laszlo was the one who convened the congress -- not even a congressman -- but his endorsement is not something we can rely upon. I don't recommend it." (Dr. Lako Laszlo is a professor at the MSZMP Political College, and secretary of the Chess Federation.)

That's all about that!

ZSOFI

5 years old:
- Hungarian champion among schoolchildren.

11 years old:
- At the age of 14, at the world championship for girls 1-2nd place, at the boys' 2-3rd place, ahead of the 14-year-old LAUTIER (SAN JUAN 1986 - PUERTO RICO).
- International Youth (men's) and (women's) Women's Tournament 1-2nd place, undefeated (TETEVEN 1986 - Bulgaria).

13 years old:
- International Active Chess Tournament (PARIS 1988 - France):

[page 91]

3rd place behind Campora grandmaster and Polgar Zsuzsa (among many famous competitors) in a rapid tournament.
- Active Chess Tournament (Budapest, 1988 - Hungary): A (men's) Budapest Championship final 2-3rd place.
- International Open Chess Tournament (ZALAKOS 1988 - Hungary): finishing behind an international grandmaster in a rapid tournament, second.
- International Open Chess Tournament (EGILSTADIR 1988 - Iceland): 1st place, 9 games with 8.5 points.

14 years old:
- Chess Olympiad (1988 Thessaloniki - Greece): Olympic champion.
- Active Sakk World Championship (MAZATLAN 1988 - Mexico): At 20 years old, the men's youth world championship winner. She defeated the adult world championship winners Larsen, Henley grandmasters, and Joszeliani, a women's grandmaster.

- International Open Chess Tournament (Roma 1989 - Italy): 1st place, 9 games with 8.5 points. The men's grandmaster norm by 1.5 points, the men's international master norm by 3.5 points fulfilled. The tournament was won by 2 points ahead of the following: Nyeri Dolmatov (2580) and Csernyin (2580), Soviet grandmasters. She defeated the following named grandmasters: Csernyin (Soviet Union) 2580, Razuvajev (Soviet Union) 2550, Suba (Romania) 2515, Palatnik (Soviet Union) 2470. Fantastic performance rating: approximately 2900, around the same level (see New in Chess 1988/7 issue, pages 48-49, and the B tables in the appendix).
- International Open Chess Tournament (NEW YORK 1989 - USA): men's international master norm fulfilled.
- International Open Chess Tournament (Nyugat-Berlin 1989): Men's international master norm fulfilled for the third time.
- International tournament Grandmaster Tournament (VEJSTRUP 1989 - Denmark): 4th place; on this occasion, she fulfils the men's international master norm, which also signifies a women's championship.
- She has defeated many men's grandmasters.

JUDIT

7 years old:
- International Youth (Boys') Tournament, 100% performance, 1st place (TARGOVISTE 1984 - Bulgaria).

10 years old:
- At the age of 14, at the world championship (SAN JUAN 1986 - Puerto Rico): at the boys' 2-3rd place, at the girls' 1-2nd place.

11 years old:
- International Open Chess Tournament (NEW YORK 1988 - USA): Men's international master norm fulfilled.

[page 91 continued]

- International VII Category men's chess tournament (EGILSTADIR 1988 - Iceland): Undefeated in first place. The men's international master norm fulfilled with 1 point above.
- International Open Chess Tournament (BAGNEUX 1988 - France): Men's international master norm fulfilled.

12 years old:
- International Chess Tournament (LONDON 1988 - England): 9 games out of 7 points, undefeated in first place, 1 point ahead of Kraidman grandmaster. The men's international master norm fulfilled with 1 point above.
- International Chess Tournament (VARNA 1988 - Bulgaria): 15 games out of 12 points, undefeated in first place. The men's international master norm exceeded by 2 points.
- Under-12 boys' world championship (TIMISOARA 1988 - Romania): 11 games out of 9 points, undefeated in first place. The first girl who competes in the boys' VB tournament.
- Chess Olympiad (THESSALONIKI 1988 - Greece): Olympic champion. 13 games out of 12.5 points. The greatest Olympic performance (performance rating) is 2694. She achieved the best combined score of the men's and women's Olympic results. Out of 3 Olympiad championship titles, she received 6 gold medals.
- Active Sakk World Championship (MAZATLAN 1988 - Mexico): In the adult men's rapid tournament, she finishes 12th, 1.5 points behind, ahead of Csiburnanidze, the world champion, and 2 Joszeliani world championship candidates. She defeated Djurics, Busquier, Ivanov (Canadian) grandmasters.
- International Open Chess Tournament (HASTINGS 1988 - England): 10 games out of 8 points, tied for first place. The men's international master norm fulfilled by 1.5 points. (The tournament was won by such grandmasters as Flear, Gufeld, Suba, Plaskett, and others.)
- She has defeated many men's grandmasters.
- Based on the 1988 competition results, she receives the adult women's chess OSCAR Award on 6 occasions.

13 years old:
- International Chess Tournament -- 22 men's grandmaster tournament (AMSTERDAM 1989 - Holland): Men's grandmaster norm fulfilled, at 13 years and a few months the youngest in the world.
- Women's world ranking list leader.
- International tournament (VEJSTRUP 1989 - Denmark), X-rated category men's grandmaster tournament 2-3.
- The world's youngest woman grandmaster, the world's youngest "men's" international master, the world's youngest woman Olympic champion, the world's youngest chess OSCAR winner, the world's youngest world ranking list leader, the world's youngest men's grandmaster norm-holding competitor (at that age, no one had yet fulfilled this norm).

[page 93]

But let us change the subject! How does today's press evaluate your daughters' chess achievements?

— The recent press has been very positive. I'll offer a taste of some comments, though I must say that those from the previous era were not at all inclined to help a woman in chess -- not even close, let alone the best male chess player -- in the way they approached things from this angle. One should therefore regard the current statements in a relative light.

M. Gurevics (one of the world's strongest grandmasters) wrote in the Actuell sakkmagazin (July 1988): "...the girl is a giant. Surely, having matured in 12 years -- having Fischer and Kaszparov included -- such results are never produced without being noticed. Where on earth is it written that a future multiple-world-champion must be a man?"

Keene, grandmaster (Chess, August 1988, 8-1 issue): "Judit can carry on their family's victorious tradition with a minimal effort: it seems perfectly likely that by the turn of the millennium, she could play the challenger's role in the world championship. At the age of 12, she was stronger than Fischer, Kaszparov, or even Nigel Short, and success still hasn't come to its full height."

The New York Post, September 10, 1988, in an article by A. Soltis grandmaster on chess Tal's world championship: Soltis' assessment of current wonders: who among them is the most suitable candidate to take Kaszparov's place? Tal: Ivancsuk and Polgar Judit.

The Spectator (London, October 29, 1988) writes under the heading "Miracle worthy of the Polgars": "Judit is the most fabulous phenomenon in chess history... Such flattery no one has ever received like this, not even Kaszparov... Bobby Fischer says... Well, I bet you anything, and I wager that by the end of the century, she will not become world champion." Speelman, grandmaster (world championship candidate), reported it with cold blood: "I don't understand; they claim it's impossible."

Molnar Daniel (Reform, December 1988): "When Kaszparov was asked about this a few years ago, it was perhaps possible that he casually dismissed (Polgar Judit, after all) 'the men's' world championship title -- more men and women were guessing about something from the small differences," and then a blitz player said: "Thank God -- he closed down this conversation." Speelman grandmaster (world championship candidate) stated it with cold blood: "I don't understand; they claim it's impossible."

A New in Chess article, February 1989 issue, under the heading of Zsofia's photograph: "Super Sofia." In Inside Chess 1989/7, this reads: "Zsofia conquers Rome!" Both Kaszparov and Karpov would be proud to claim this result for themselves.

A Reform article states, "Judit is better, even now" and cites an April 5, 1989 article by Harle Tamas, asking the following question of Karpov: "What is your opinion of the Hungarian girls' Olympic championship performance?" Karpov: "Zsuzsa is remarkably

[page 94]

strong, besides Judit. At this age, neither I nor Kaszparov played the way Judit plays now."

Florian Tibor wrote in the Szabad Fold (Free Land) newspaper (December 1988) about the girls: "Zsuzsa's play is characterised by many-sidedness. She has enormous opening knowledge, and she is also accustomed to applying the openings she has never been accustomed to applying in the middlegame. Her middlegame interpretation is clear and realistic, and she can handle any type of position. She is precise and circumspect in defence -- she very rarely loses initiative and drive in attack... She lacks none of the qualities, and the most important thing in the endgame is patience.

Judit's play is characterised by thorough opening knowledge, childishly unbiased assessment of positions, and good endgame technique. She resembles Zsuzsa in many respects, though there is perhaps even more dynamism, initiative, and enterprise in her game, and sometimes audacity.

Zsofi is perhaps in the most disadvantageous situation as a child: the biggest and the smallest are always in the spotlight, yet in-between there is no one. She too studies a lot and sees a lot on the chessboard, though perhaps she ventures less. She loves artistic, aesthetic solutions.

All three sisters are modest and charming. While a common phenomenon is that children who play chess are morose and withdrawn, the Polgar sisters have remained open-minded, cheerful children. This is certainly thanks to the family environment..."

Chess Traps: Step by Step

There are two kinds of people: one comes to terms
with circumstances and plays cards; the other
wants to govern circumstances and plays chess.
-- Mortimer Collins

If you knock down your opponent with the chessboard,
it doesn't yet prove that you play better.
-- (English proverb)

It's easy to get lost on the chessboard,
since the squares are all alike...
-- Jeno Szekely

Let us continue with chess traps. Surely there are parents who are interested in how to teach chess to a 4-5-year-old child.

— I'll describe a few steps. First, we get two grid-squared sheets of paper, one for me and one for the child. We make an 8x8 grid of squares. First they learn the names of the pieces. They say one piece's name, and I say another. Then I pick one up, and I place it on the board. (Different coloured pieces can be used for this.) At the end of the game, we check each other's task completion and performance.

The next step is to learn the square colours (dark or light). And then learning to name the squares without seeing the board, stating the square's colour. (For this, the previously mentioned coordinate method can also be used.) This procedure is somewhat similar to the game of Battleship.

And when do the pieces come?

— Here, gradualness is very important. First they learn the king's moves. We practised this for several more days, then we played a king-king game. The task was as follows: with the king, one had to reach the other side of the board, that is, one had to cross to the other side. Whoever got there sooner won. If one king could stand next to the other, then the game ended in a draw.

When this was thoroughly mastered, the next piece came: the pawn. With the pawn game, there was a crossing to the other side. After a few days, the rook appeared, then the bishop, and later the queen.

We got to 3-4 moves ahead, then came the checkmate against the king. Then the endgame followed. Then all the element knowledge was applied; in the following weeks, we played pawn battles. Finally, we also played only pawn-on-pawn games on the board, and in between, the children greatly enjoyed it. The longest was the hardest to learn, but it presented no problems -- it just needed plenty of practice.

Then came the acquaintance with successive combinations. First we collected approximately 1,000 one-move combinations, then two-move and multi-move mating patterns were progressively sorted, and the appropriate ones identified. Only after this did we begin to play real chess games. By then, the children had mastered the basics and had become accustomed to the working atmosphere, and 2-4 months had passed. Don't be alarmed! We not only taught them basic knowledge (and this was good), but we also habituated them to a well-grounded, methodical approach; the subsequent tasks then became easier to master and quicker to accomplish. They developed determination, self-confidence, and a taste for the application of knowledge.

"Start at the beginning" is the next combination step. We developed many combinations for this, for example: lots of pieces, from a king to a few pawns, and from these it wasn't clear for a long time -- we can learn from it. A known mating pattern makes thinking ahead easier, more accurate, more productive. The endgame is useful for developing the ability to see what lies ahead in clean positions. Miniature games are also worth learning by heart (for knowledge acquisition purposes), even beyond individual miniature games.

That is already a task of "adult" weight. Does it come easily to the children?

— Yes. More easily. For example, learning a poem. Because when one verse is learned, one that still doesn't always make sense to them, in chess, one knows that a move follows from another, and one can follow the "stories."

Roughly how should one teach a child to play "playfully"? Any more advice?

— One must be patient above all. One must let the child have a sense of success, but should not give them a clean game (an exhibition or practice game), since the structure of the game changes at that point. The parent or teacher should rather give the child an opportunity intentionally, or subtly steer elements into the game that the child can exploit. The teacher should play naturally from the board position, and the child's development and study at that time are equally necessary.

A practical question: should we recommend using a chess clock, or is it superfluous at certain points?

— The chess clock has a particular role in making the game more interesting for children. (Specifically, the chess clock can make other types of games and study more colourful and lively.)

Could teachers teach chess in a structured way, following a curriculum framework like the Zsolnai system?

— Yes, they can teach it better, with less effort, but the essence always lies with the teacher. It always depends on how well and with what interest the teacher conveys it.

Let us stay with the "chess school" -- now that we're at structure rather than content; how do we motivate children through grades and classify them?

— For chess instruction, there is absolutely no need for separate grading. Grades in chess have no special distinction. It is better to organise competitions within the class and between classes. An external competition is only worth sending a child to if I feel they can perform well there. There, it becomes clear who has talent, who has developed, and on the basis of this, greater achievements can be encouraged. One should not create a bad situation! Those with promise should be nurtured!

— Those at higher levels should be taken to a club or entered in tournaments. Tournaments provide opportunities with

[page 97 continued]

different kinds of adult competitions. That is why school chess organisation tends to be poor -- they don't really work with children according to their given abilities. Because it's pointless to push a child up to 120 centimetres when they already know 180. They can't develop further from that.

What is your opinion about whether parents should also be trained in chess within the family pedagogy framework? Are there no organised chess activities in Hungary?

— Unfortunately, there is no solution. Individual local initiatives can be found here and there (for instance, there are currently no regular chess activities even in Tapolca). The world has made great strides in this area. In Hungary, there is no regular, everyday chess training at the national level. The Hungarian Chess Federation's youth coach doesn't hold regular training sessions either. This is peculiar, as it is the only sport where no regular training exists for young people. Chess clubs either don't exist or are in the process of disintegrating, and even the young workers have not yet finished their apprenticeships. The better chess players only enter competitions and share their experience without giving anything away. Yet one must know: results-based chess education doesn't work without effort. And the task extends from 10 years of training onward, fitting the seriousness of the chess world.

In which country is there a well-functioning chess school?

— In the Soviet Union, there are many. The Soviets begin chess instruction early. There are nurseries, even general schools (boarding schools) where children play chess every afternoon. What surprises me is that not enough efficiency is achieved there either -- as if something should be eliminated from the schools. I see that it is being built up and goes well for the child, but much is taught with merely adequate thoroughness. In England, the Netherlands, France, and the NSZK [West Germany], a lot of chess is played; experience is frequently shared at tournaments.

What kind of modern teaching tools could help promote chess and improve the effectiveness of its teaching?

— Two main categories of modern teaching tools: television and video recorders. In the USA, chess instruction video cassettes are already being produced in large numbers. In some places, for example, a Seirawan chess programme is being broadcast. That should be commended. As for chess on television, I won't elaborate in detail, but there should be at minimum chess on TV. In the NSZK and the Soviet Union, there is plenty: interviews, broadcasts, competitions, paired matches, explanations, etc.

Perhaps the most necessary teaching and working tools are the computers: 1. the personal computer, primarily as a database -- the computer can serve several functions; 2. the chess microcomputer, mainly for beginning chess players as a partner (my daughters play chess against it); 3. for endgame studies -- the computer is irreplaceable for identifying errors in openings, since it is an irreplaceable tool for this purpose; 4. the high-performance computer is primarily useful for the precise analysis of complex endgames.

[page 99]

Would it be up to you to establish a chess school, and if so, what method would you lead it with?

— I cannot answer the first half of your question, but if one were established, I would primarily implement the ideas that I have tested and successfully applied with my own children.

Can it be assumed that with such a school operating, Hungary could compete among nations over a long period of time?

— The question is whether others would do the same or not. Because if they worked with a similar method in twenty other countries, they would achieve similar results. They would reach the same results I could promise.

[page 100 -- blank]

Chess in Psychology, Psychology in Chess

The game of chess, like scientific research,
is first and foremost a passion.
-- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

A good player falls into the opponent's trap,
a bad one into his own.
-- Jeno Szekely

I never shy away from the fight;
I always ponder how to win.
-- Fischer

The genius education system is built on the close unity of pedagogy, chess theory, and psychology. Let us think it through, and since discussing the connections separately may be worthwhile, let us look at psychology.

— Chess and psychology are intertwined in many ways. Chess plays a role in psychological research, and psychology is present in competitive chess.

The competitor expects and can receive help from psychology. The competitor needs a special mental state whose conscious cultivation is theoretically well-founded and contributes to successful competitive performance.

Psychological knowledge can significantly help self-awareness. What am I? What are my weaknesses, and what are my strengths? How do my opponents think? What is the extent of my willpower? What style suits me better? Many questions can be posed about oneself, and it is true that without some self-knowledge, one cannot function effectively in any area of life -- all the more so in competitive play with heightened focus.

A psychologically grounded approach to competition can play a significant role in personality development: it shapes the will and

[page 102]

emotions, builds perseverance, self-discipline, fighting spirit, etc. Botvinnik, for example, stressed that a competitor must achieve maximum working capacity during the competitive period, and he considered maintaining the appropriate emotional state and mood very important. He learned through special training how to combat negative emotional manifestations. He developed his concentration abilities to the maximum and maintained a combative readiness. Psychology also serves as a supplementary science for every great competitor.

But then, to use it to get to know the opponent...

— Naturally, since chess is a mirror of the soul, and the opponent's earlier games can reflect certain psychological characteristics. Every study of a chess player provides information about both the player's chess expertise and their partner's aptitude. It is important to note that in chess, training sessions occur without the opponent present, in a psychic atmosphere. But from the game, one can analyse the opponent's reactions and determine the most appropriate counter-tactic. I can identify weaknesses and choose game variations that make the opponent uncomfortable. I know when they enjoy surprises and must play accordingly; if they are aggressive, I try to steer the game into calmer waters.

Emanuel Lasker was the chess player who truly understood the value of the pieces' "lives" through the prism of the opponent's personality. He never played the objectively best continuation but rather the one most unpleasant for the specific opponent. He could create worse positions for opponents even in the most hopeless situations. Don't checkmate a chess player on a bet.

If it works one way, can psychological knowledge also be used openly the other way?

— Naturally. One must understand that in certain cases, all kinds of different approaches can be employed. For this reason, the ethical oversight and moral conduct mentioned earlier must be maintained -- clean competition is proper competition.

Which abilities do you consider especially important to develop?

— I could list several from analyses related to chess. Djakov, Petrovskij, and Rudik (who conducted interesting experiments with famous grandmasters in 1925), as well as Em. Lasker, Krogius, Fine, Kotov, Hartston, Pfleger, A. D. de Groot, and others. Their works mention first: physical fitness, achieving and maintaining good health and an appropriate mental state. The chess player must sit at the board with physical endurance and strong nerves to withstand pleasant and

[page 103]

unpleasant effects -- for instance, press attacks can significantly impact performance.

Endurance, physical, intellectual, and emotional stability have the same value as in physical sports, since what the chess player truly faces is long-lasting, repetitively demanding professional work.

I would list: tolerance of monotony, sustained interest, and persistent concentration. Their absence leads to wasted opening advantages, overlooked errors, and missed combinations. Stability is the subtlest essential element. A player's ability to concentrate in "normal mode," to "disengage" from distracting peripheral influences, and to "carry" knowledge and character.

Then: alertness and attention. A matter of vigilance and self-mastery. During a game, a friend's joke, the previous round's result, the opponent's known tendencies, clock time, one's own tactics -- all these can agitate, making variations exciting for the opponent, or deliberately or accidentally causing the environment to "rattle."

A key factor: realistic self-assessment leading to self-awareness, the ability for self-education, manifested in constant healthy self-criticism. Decisiveness, self-confidence, a secure sense of assurance in chess -- this is fundamental. Healthy self-esteem is the foundation -- the sense of self-worth in chess.

An important area is developing a healthy fighting spirit, primarily for competitors but useful to anyone. The struggle occurs simultaneously across several fields:

- struggling to surpass our own achievements and limitations;
- struggling within the group, the community, to win a position;
- struggling against the opponent;
- struggling for some "extra-competitive" goal or value.

Naturally, sport is one available legitimate means of individual self-assertion -- and should never be directed against others to their detriment. This is the fundamental prerequisite of being a sportsperson. The struggle presupposes getting to know the opponent, assessing their strengths,

[page 104]

their style's capacities for self-reinforcement and self-conquest, but we should never regard our opponents as enemies. The fighting ability in chess means always striving to win -- making a move that is decisive even when the position looks hopeless.

The three girls together -- a small community.

— A community can sometimes be beneficial or harmful. The girls work at it. They try to do well alongside other competitors. Good team-work strengthens results, though it can also be damaging; the other must be strong too, a creative force. The team's evaluation is the most honest: to see whether the elaborated theory proves true and worthy. When the team wants to justify it, they rejoice in each other's successes and help confirm each other's achievements through joint work.

How does one determine which player others must follow -- listlessly, half-heartedly?

— Certainly, surely. It is easier to fight when one is not alone, when others believe in it too, when others also want to win. The other's victory matters because the result concerns everyone. But a good team player in a team doesn't necessarily play well alone. In chess, one must master everything: pairs, solo, team events, simultaneous exhibitions, open tournaments.

Has anything changed in your daughters' lives because the Polgar family's prestige opens the door for women's equality? Are they inclined toward that?

— Perhaps indirectly, yes, primarily reflected in results that individuals must achieve. The real struggle is secondary, but it is also true that the inhibiting forces have had less effect on their development. Without those obstacles, they would certainly be further along.

The greatest difficulties were caused by political representatives, since all six of them were subject to the control of various authorities. Even the "highest" leadership bears responsibility. I could cite references or list the discrimination we've always faced. Szerenyi Sandor, the then-president of the Hungarian Chess Federation, said (as reported in Kepes Sport, 1989, V. 30): "I always followed the same line as when Janos Kadar, Istvan Buda, or anyone else was leading the chess sport."

In what way did the Chess Federation and Szerenyi Sandor support you?

— They provided no professional support. For example, many times through administrative channels, they didn't send Zsuzsa to the Youth World Championship, even though she was among the strongest. They wanted to keep the girls at home. The papers wrote that Zsuzsa's rise to the top of the world rankings was a women's triumph. But the real story includes the fact that they wanted to strip Zsuzsa's title. The Chess Federation even tried -- unconscionably -- to have her rating of 100 points given as a "gift." In those times, only later were the women's grandmaster titles proposed to the International Chess Federation, FIDE. Misinformation from FIDE officials and their consequences in the press. They didn't send Zsuzsa to the men's zonal competition, even though she had earned the right through the Hungarian men's championship. The Hungarian Chess Federation women's commission didn't send a delegation to compete. "We didn't trust our children; there was a quiet atmosphere around them, and we could wait a long time."

[page 105]

Until now, we are still fighting with coaches' worries. Futile for the children to be at the top of the world rankings, futile to be first at the Olympics, futile for Judit to have received the Oscar -- for years Zsuzsa has had no coach or training partner. The situation has barely improved for the girls. Although Zsuzsa now has a small professional team working together, her internal resources remain meagre. Only in recent days has progress been expected -- thanks to Dutch support. It is commonly said: Jelena is the only one who has something -- but a famous chess player who is not truly Hungarian.

Have there been favourable developments on the domestic chess scene?

— There have, but they're still rather poor. We would certainly be much further ahead with proper chess federation support -- sporting, fair, non-bureaucratic, genuinely sporting support.

How do the children judge themselves?

— Ask them directly!

— I have asked. They unanimously felt Zsuzsa was more positional, Zsofi more inclined to take risks, and Judit -- closer to Zsofi -- was trying to embrace both styles. Who are their coaches and who has worked with the girls over the years?

— Barcza Gedeon, Benko Pal, Bernei Andras, Csaba Laszlo, Danos Laszlo, Florian Tibor, Forgacs Gyula, Haliasz Tamas, Hazai Laszlo, Kallai Gabor, Karakas Eva, Knezevics Milorad, Lengyel Levente, Lukacs Peter (until recently also Pinter Jozsef), Meszaros Andras, Morvai Miklos, Puschman Laszlo, Sapi Laszlo, Szabolcsi Janos, Szekely Peter, Zentai Gyula. About fifteen, perhaps more. I cannot recall all of them.

Are there those you'd rather not fondly remember?

— Just one exception: Szabo Laszlo. Why? Because his assessment was needlessly superficial rather than properly thorough.

In your wife's opinion, what makes a good chess coach?

— They should conduct their coaching work honestly. They must be demanding, possess coaching and competitive experience; their past results shouldn't be the only measure. Special importance belongs to a partnership of mutual respect. Close, tight cooperation should be natural. The young competitor should never be placed with an adversarial coach but with one the child wants. Self-criticism should serve the student's development. Be attentive: a growing child shouldn't always be overwhelmed by their helper's presence. Great professional skill requires natural caution, since reputation alone creates awe.

Know how to handle young people! Genuine research-competitor activity should support them. Let there be recognition of work and expression of results. Avoid indifference; be spirited ("apathy is a painful disease," as Selye said). Be fit for the occasion, to raise the other's abilities ever higher.

In one person, you are father, coach, and manager. How do you reconcile these functions?

— At first it was just in my mind, but now my daughters have outgrown me so far that I can no longer be their coach. Only the coaching team remains. I am a manager-father, and honestly, that dual role is hard to fulfil well.

It would be easier to be a manager without being a father, or a father without managerial functions. The biggest worry is that as a father, one must demand the toughest training sessions -- those about which one says "I don't feel like it."

I believe that, since fathers "by nature" often fail to meet even the minimum follow-through with daughters.

— This isn't merely a question. A coach expects from students what they themselves fulfil first. They can dismiss anyone who doesn't deliver, experiment with someone else. Batori Csilla's coach-father, a European ping-pong champion trainer, put it thus: "I don't demand from my student anything that would make the child turn away in disgust."

But it's not such a big problem. Its advantage: they know the child, and it is easier to fulfil their wishes.

The three girls together established approximately 40 Guinness records. Obviously they also influenced each other's peaks. Let us turn to the children's most important chess achievements in chronological order.

— The account of the three girls' Guinness records and chess achievements has been detailed above.

Now let us also address the chess memory and its development, as that is a significant matter.

— Chess memory development is very important. In tournament chess, there is also a game going on alongside the contest: whether the players have a good memory or are good at time management. Consider that during a competition, one cannot use books, directly or from memory, go to texts or go on. One must remember, and one needs different information. The point is to be able to analyse the plan, to prepare it and not mind how many levels ahead one can look and assess. The good chess memory makes everything easier: better, more accurately, more efficiently. The endgame will help to develop anticipation easier.

How does one develop and improve opening preparation?

— First, one starts by learning the games by heart from outside the board, with the pieces standing still on the board, and the pieces analysed. Then: memory exercises; through repetitive learning, the games become familiar through pattern recognition. Always keeping in mind how deep our first thought should be, and how quickly we can respond to something.

There is already an "adult" weight to this task. Does it go easily for the children?

— Yes. More easily than, say, memorising a poem. Because when you learn a verse by heart, the child doesn't always understand the logical connections, but in chess they know that one move follows from the other, so they can follow the "stories."

Approximately how should you teach the child to play "playfully"? Any further advice?

— Great patience is needed. Let the child experience success, but don't give them a practice match (an exhibition game), because the game's structure changes. The parent or teacher should intentionally give the child a chance, or subtly direct the game toward elements the child can exploit. The teacher plays naturally from the position; the child's development and current study needs are equally important.

About the chess clock: should we recommend it, or is it sometimes superfluous?

— The chess clock specially enriches the game for children. It makes other types of games and study more colourful and lively.

What is your opinion on the five-minute blitz game, where only a couple of minutes are given to think?

— Many people are against it, but that is because they are serious about chess as something etymological in nature. Blitz chess serves as a good exercise for developing intuition. Chess clocks in games are very good for practising the opening

[page 80]

variations. What is natural is that blitz games and the use of the blitz game's exercise method are most felt in blitz tournaments.

There was talk about the girls regularly writing professional articles, and also for foreign magazines. Why is this important?

— Because when a person thinks through an article as though they were the only one thinking, without purpose, they might as well have talked with the children. With a chess topic, it's something completely different. That is why chess instruction also provides the framework. The basic preparation and active analysing work it demands.

Can foreign languages also be counted as tools belonging to chess?

— Yes, they are indispensable working tools. On one hand, one needs (foreign) chess manuals and literature; on the other, one must read chess periodicals. Therefore, it must interact with referees, tournament directors, and others. That is why great emphasis was placed on teaching foreign languages. But by now, my opinion has changed: that fewer languages for Zsuzsa would have been sufficient. The two lesser ones -- primarily English and Russian -- could have been enough, although there is no harm in knowing Esperanto and being familiar with its use through an entire chapter within all fields of chess development (Zsuzsa achieved 7-8 levels, and this is probably somewhat superfluous).

In your view, where should the emphasis be placed: on opening theory, middlegame, or endgame theory?

— It is very important to find the right balance. Children typically neglect the openings in their chess instruction; later, a middlegame-centric bias takes hold. And above all, the chess player should be made to realise that they play from the opening through the middlegame to the endgame, that if the wrong opening is played, the thing may go wrong at the very start of the game, or it may work out in the end, and the game ends quickly. The importance of early study of opening theory also speaks to why the opening repertoire should be worked out: 2-3 openings are needed at minimum. Naturally, one should not encourage merely mechanical learning of opening moves but rather analysis based primarily on understanding.

You have mentioned several times that you support rather than hinder, and that you have placed obstacles before your children's development. Have you succeeded -- or were they set back in their style and development?

— Naturally, it had an effect on their style. Zsuzsa, who received the most "bashing," got most of the hardest challenges, and that dealt with "the powerful," with the authority figures. But these three could stand up against them and still develop to some extent, because the inhibiting forces' negative impact on their development was already less pronounced. Had they not hindered their development, they would surely be further along.

The greatest difficulty was caused by the political bodies' representatives, since they were all subject to the control of various authorities. The responsibility of the "highest" leadership. I could cite sources, or point to the discrimination our views have always faced. In Szerenyi's words, "The coaches should be required from the group, not to obstruct, to try to surpass this with the team -- these are the attempts with which they tried to enforce the 100 point 'settlement.'" And then the article next to it published the women's world ranking list from which Polgar Zsuzsa's name was absent. This is an unambiguous falsification of the world ranking list, since Zsuzsa's name is on the official FIDE world ranking list. It appeared everywhere in the world (in every country, even in the Soviet Union).

Do the chess players utilise the results of psychological research?

— They should use it, and it could be used, but consciously they rarely do. They instinctively use the scientifically proven practices. Take, for example, the principle: many study logic, but who are those who live by the principles of logic as a chess-psychology discipline? Well, somehow we are getting there. Often we are warned about the danger of exhaustion, but the more scientific it becomes, the better known it is, and the more problems and tasks to solve are found within it. Alas.

— Let me state my formulation of many parents' question: through what psychological-pedagogical means can I recognise in my child whether they have a chess talent? Many people also say they raise and lovingly teach their children chess, and yet I have no way or opportunity to discover whether they have a chess talent -- is that true, or not?

— I maintain that every child is a potential chess talent. Specific abilities are not innate endowments of human beings; they must be cultivated. So it is not a real problem whether we recognise the chess talent or not. The question is: does the parent want to, or not -- does the parent have enough self-confidence, courage, perseverance to raise them? I believe a healthy child could be trained to become a chess master. The parent should look into how chess masters became chess masters, and equip themselves to create the same psychological and professional conditions for their own child. Don't look at whether they're talented or not.

[page 108 -- blank]

Checkmate to Male Prejudice

Let the standard be the same: let women be free
to do what men are free to do, or let men be
forbidden from what women are forbidden.
-- Bela Bartok

Among all the well-known scientists,
Madame Curie was the only woman
whom fame did not corrupt.
-- Albert Einstein

It is just as necessary to educate girls well
as to educate boys, since both are equally
useful to the country.
-- Mikes Kelemen

Whether at home or abroad, great interest accompanies your daughters' fight for equality. What is the general opinion about the time when the so-called "men's" world chess champion will no longer be a woman?

— They are wrong about that. A women's chess champion will never exist in that sense, because there is no such thing as a men's chess champion -- nor does one exist. A chess champion can be either a man or a woman. Kaszparov's title is not "men's champion" but simply "champion." For a long time, the game's activities were so overwhelmingly male that no one even thought of designating "men's" tournament titles. Therefore, there is no men's chess competition -- there simply isn't one.

So the women can compete in men's competitions without any examination?

— Our daughters can play in men's competitions at any time -- this accords with the rules, and no one opposes it. However, in some competitions -- the Olympics and the World Championship -- only women may participate, and this signifies that women's performance is not equal to men's, since it is only a "second-class" competition.
PART IV

ENDGAME: EVERYONE CAN WIN...

The Family

Do not spit into the well, for you may
come to drink from it yourself one day!
Krylov

Among the most intimate needs of man
is the other person.
Marx

It is impossible to be as good a father
as one's own father.
Sukhomlinsky

Many consider not their daughters' achievements to be their greatest accomplishment, but rather the family atmosphere in which they lived. "In this family," writes the German Reinhard Munzert, "harmony and love prevail. This is perhaps the Polgars' greatest achievement." Do you agree with this?

— Naturally the good feeling is what you feel, what warms you from within, the outside is perceivable. That we have produced great results is the central question. But the children's happiness is also a product of ours. "Harmony and love prevail among us," though perhaps that is not the most important, not the sole factor of our happiness. And one thing can be stated with full certainty: a good family background, a loving family environment -- without my daughters' success, it could never have come about.

Do you know how your children see you?

— I feel that they genuinely love me, though of course there are conflicts as well. The children, I believe, can hardly find a family where there are no conflicts. Quarrels must be tried to make smaller and reduced further. With us, the principle is that we spend our days only in peace and affection. But of course I do not wish to say by this that when the matter goes badly, when we must part, then let us learn that we also put that to the children, and with that we relieve the collective togetherness of a genius's upbringing, and the genius's success becomes doubtful.

I feel that the children love me, that they feel safe. Many doubt whether they were happy, whether there was childhood for them. I say to them: they had not only childhood but a childhood in which their whole life was prepared for, and this lays the foundation for their happiness. A person is truly happy when they do what they love, what delights them, and even others respect and esteem them for it. They found themselves. Take it seriously. Make them do something they do not like, in which they feel at home, in which they feel assured, in which they take pleasure in themselves.

The need for siblings in the genius upbringing?

— Yes, a good sibling is a great value, in that from how much will be the outcome, when it is decided not by the parents but by the upbringing as well. The bad sibling, however, is better than a good friend. I am very glad that my children are siblings, that they are friends, colleagues, and also that they love each other very much. And this is a question of upbringing too: one must create a healthy rivalry between them, but raise them to support each other's development. Many believe that human relationships will improve by themselves. Everyone must understand something, must constantly improve, shape, and form it, and this takes a great deal of energy and effort.

It is said that anyone who has three children, given today's circumstances...

— I take that on. I note, however, that where there are plenty of children, where life flows in a generally normal fashion, where the parents are well-balanced, the children develop splendidly. They learn to take each other into account in everything.

Perhaps there is no excessive sacrifice involved in having three children?

— That is not easy to answer. The housing problem has already been solved, and when a family of average means stands on its own feet, the sacrifice is perhaps not too great. For example, I have never chased fashion. I raised my children such that a clean, sporty, simple garment takes precedence. As for meals, we do not go to much trouble either. One must

[p. 122]

learn to manage money. This must be taught to the child even if they are young girls, whether they want to or not.

Is it not timely to prepare for the father's role?

— Of course. I should have married even sooner. When I had planned this whole experiment, I read masses of so-called "professional" books on it. Emotionally I then had to set myself to thinking about this "work."

To what extent can one speak of the child's fate? Does one influence career choice, partner choice, party membership?

— Let us begin with career choice. It concerns those parents who seriously try to balance their children's fates. Among them there are two types. One says that the child should be versatile, should taste everything, and when later, in adulthood, they should be close to what they want to do and love. I also understand the adult who, if they put the child on the path that brings the child's genius to fruition, then it is the parent's decision, and they must begin the specialization at quite an early age to choose the path.

But does the parent have sufficient knowledge, ability, to endure this, to see the child through? Will it not be that some tragedy intervenes that the parent can no longer help?

— Let us first see whether the question is whether the parent is capable of making the decision, or not? I say yes, if there is a decision, and appropriate to the parent's viewpoint, when they find a specialist by themselves, read the relevant literature, and are not shy about seeking the help of others, then they are indeed capable of this work. But of course I do not wish to say by this that when the matter goes badly, we must part.

The other thing: that it might accidentally intervene. That is possible. But in plain terms, as if it were nothing more than what someone else has travelled a longer path, and yet they still turn around. A good job, a good teacher, a good civil servant, and so on. It can come from a child, and it can come from circumstances that intervene in some tragedy, of course.

Both the versatile and the specialized training produce healthy, happy children, creating a moderate family atmosphere. One is to choose wisely, the other is to build it up consciously. And it is a basic human right and freedom to choose and consciously construct the upbringing.

Let us turn to partner choice. What is the parent's role today?

— History has perhaps taken a somewhat narrower direction with this. At one end: the parents chose a spouse for their children. The other end, which I believe has already arrived: nowadays parents are virtually shut out of partner choice as well. I think the ideal would be a combination of the two, a point of intersection at which the child's opinion is considered and heeded. That is why it is important, rightly so,

[p. 123]

that the parent wants what is good for the child, is more experienced, wiser, and is not taken by emotion -- that is, by love -- but sees perhaps more clearly from objective considerations. Not to mention that when we speak of a healthy family, to a certain degree, directly or indirectly, the generations will "work together," and the "together" will operate in the upbringing of the next generation too.

That is why I believe that the good decisions must be made as a shared legacy within the family, where of course the word also belongs to the pair entering marriage.

In your view, would there be a veto right for the parents?

— There are independent, adult people, nobody else can have any kind of veto right. In practice, perhaps five to ten percent of an intervention might be possible. Forty years ago it was still only families that decided, so the next in line after that had a far greater percentage share in partner choice. And in fifty percent of the cases, the parental instinct produced a result that was well-earned, and in many the wonderfully strange marriage based on the experimental genius -- marriage of happiness -- would probably not have come about without it.

To what extent can the family influence the child's career choice -- a worldview, a political orientation?

— I smile to myself when they say this: one must not, one must not at all influence the child, and they will decide for themselves later in life on their worldview. It is always decisive what is in the family, what influences take effect, what example is set, in what direction they are guided -- not merely from a worldview perspective, but on the political level as well. I fully believe that the parent gives the child their own worldview, for they cannot do otherwise, since they cannot stand aside either. So it is pointless if someone says to the children: do not be followers! And also: do not give the children moral values to emulate -- and do not take those that are traditionally understood by certain worldview or political party identifications to be concrete.

What should be the role of the family, of the parent, in preparing the child for sport?

— Sport is one of the best educational tools in the parent's hands, and there is no need for a special effort on their part, since almost everyone has the instinct for movement, for active competition. At the same time, sport also instils certain rules of conduct, fairness, and generally also fair play, orderliness, and discipline. Not to mention that it is additionally useful when the family members play sport together. It has no substitute. The family that spends more time together is irreplaceable in this too. But if this cannot be arranged, then the child should be put in some club,

[p. 124]

and train daily for an hour or two -- even then they would not be a sportsman. But if they want to be a competitor, it must then be clear that the parent and the coach have plans, and these must be understood by their minds.

In Hungary, people always look askance at experiments, even those involving chess, and partly also those in which a parent has some degree of influence over the children's sporting career. They are mocked as "skating mothers," "tennis parents." Do you not feel this applies to you? And the media: to what extent should it support the parents?

— Such intrusion is, of course, harmful, since it tries to shake the parent's faith in sport. And the child is easily made insecure too. On the other hand, through crude influence, such family conflicts can arise that could be avoided. One must be watchful; one must protect the family's reputation and prestige.

Another question: who wears the hat in the household?

— In general, my wife does the housework, though when one of our daughters is abroad with us -- and this happens quite often --

[p. 125]

I run the household. Besides this, she too could have educated herself during our marriage, learned languages (she speaks seven or eight), earned a third diploma, travelled the world, practised the languages along the way, gained enormous experience, saw much beauty in nature, in architecture, in museums; her life was full -- aside from managing the "trivial" tasks, that is.

In part she goes on to further pedagogical experiments where she herself creates something, because we do little group or small-group joint pedagogical experiments. I would wish that the material conditions would make it "possible" for them, that they perhaps do the housework, so that one part can see the other more broadly, so that she can dedicate herself more to her career and have the capacity to use her abilities to a greater advantage. But the women's share of work in practice has put her at a slight disadvantage. The family model then became one of compromise, unlike the principle, in that she either runs the household as her domain, or this part of child-rearing alone is creative work.

From the tone of the interview, I sense a slight guilty conscience...

— I confess honestly that there is a little guilty conscience, but I do not accept that any orthodox family model should be implemented.

How does your wife feel about this?

— I think our result is the joint product of our activity. But ask her yourself.

Mrs Polgar, Klara's Example:
The Thread Follows the Needle

I have already spent days visiting here, and I see that every day is a bustling, buzzing, quiet affair. The flat is in order, the lunch is being prepared, and I can say it is delicious. Has the division of labour come naturally to you?

— It has, and it has not. Just as the family's health is the foundation of their life, so it all stands at the centre. I see to everything that the girls need to prepare. Around it, life unfolds, and I believe my area of responsibility is: everything. The textbooks need doing, the translations done, the correspondence with foreigners done, I must travel with the girls, and I have no cleaner and I am not an interviewer either. I prepare the lunch, wash the clothes. So I believe my role is such a wide one, an arrangement in which there is never any boredom.

If the family of the Polgars were compared to a great tree, then the husband would be the trunk and the thick branch, and you would be a three-branched flowering stem that binds together and connects the three glistening, healthy children to the trunk. Am I right?

— Laci is by nature the initiator, and I have always been the one for realization. For the three children to yield results, one must understand that it requires the work of us both. But the trunk and the root -- instead of the simile -- I would rather say that the thread follows the needle. I am the thread. So he thinks things up, and I try to carry out in practice what in practice I am capable of.

I would also like to ask a provocative question. On this point, you see, will you reject, for instance, that view which holds that men and women are equal, at least on the intellectual level, that there is equality between the sexes. In your family, there is indeed a needle and a thread -- the one who leads and the one who follows. But is there nonetheless a difference between man and woman?

— If one had to respond easily to this, one might simply note that physical work is indeed divided: there is the physical man and the physical woman. In practice, though, when my husband, Laci, has the spirit of a fighter, I am at home among the whole of the rest. But that is how it often happens, and I have no objection to it.

Together, did you devise your pedagogical programme?

— In fact, Laci's story runs smoothly. When I first met him, in 1965, in Budapest, I just sat and listened to him and was amazed. He had that quality: I felt he was a fantastical person, one with such ideas that one could scarcely believe them. And I said to myself: I wonder how he will manage. I came to know a very ambitious man, but I do not believe he would have become my husband.

Then we corresponded for a long time. A pity that these writings did not remain, for we sent each other marvellous letters. At first, much was not even about love, but about pedagogical ideas; we shared our views.

Is there something he believed that you did not?

— I did not believe that in twenty-four hours one could fit everything into it, as much as one wished. Where shall I begin? With psychology, pedagogy, philosophy, the arts, he is interested in mathematics too; besides all this, he raises children, teaches, lives the Communist Youth League life, goes to the library, goes to the swimming pool, and

[p. 127]

so on. He lists it all, and I did not believe him. And then as time passed, and all we had were our letters...

And the pedagogical views?

— In that regard, I began doubting how one could start taking a child seriously so young. With Zsuzsa, I was three and a half years old -- I mean she was -- when we started her education.

When did you plan the experiment, what were your first thoughts?

— We knew we wanted to produce something great from our daughters, but it was not entirely clear at first which specific field we would choose. That is why, for example, Zsuzsa had already progressed well in mathematics; meanwhile, a chess set was ready in the drawer, and this was a "lucky accident."

So it was an accident? Not a planned choice?

— Actually, it was not planned in advance that chess would be the field in which the children were raised. In Russian, Zsuzsa first learned Russian, then German, then chess came into it -- a game she simply found very interesting, and it seems she truly did.

Did Laci know how to play chess?

— He knew, and loved it very much; I even remember how once he asked me to sit down and look at the pieces, and I did not know the moves. He said it does not matter, he said, for the game was boring and uninteresting. But sadly, the truth is that when Zsuzsa started playing chess, I got more interested too, seeing how the girls took to it so naturally.

Was there ever some particular reason, cause, that chess would become the family's main pursuit?

— Let us move on to something else; we could have continued with mathematics, or anything else, and even so the chess came alongside it, and we liked it, because I felt, too, that Zsuzsa was very happy at the chessboard. That is why we started at chess, and the results also came at chess.

Many people found the choice strange. Obviously you also know that common sense says that this kind of activity makes a child joyful and happy. Have you heard people criticise this?

— Of course, we had to battle. The truth is that chess is indeed not a traditional children's activity. People had heard that a girl playing chess is more of a boy's sport, since it is more of a mental sport.

[p. 128]

Many asked: what kind of mother are you? Why do you let your husband have Zsuzsa play chess? I had no choice but to fight my own inner battle, and I had to think it through, whether I was doing the right thing, and whether I was consenting to it -- and I consented. I look back at the whole now, and I believe the saying "greatness" was quite apt, well chosen, and I let go of it; you see the way ahead.

You are the most diplomatic one when it comes to saying the children have led rich, eventful lives. Are the children truly happy?

— I think my children are at least as happy as any other little girl of similar age. Perhaps that makes them even happier. Because then, you see, they are organized differently. Many people doubt whether they were ever children. I say there is no need to doubt: they have been children, they have had fun, they have had childhood joys, and they have a rich inner life. A person is truly happy when they do what delights them, what the world also holds in esteem.

How many languages does your husband speak?

— Seven or eight languages I could call my own: Russian, German, Esperanto; besides these, English, Ukrainian, and I know a little Bulgarian and Spanish too.

Were the children healthy?

— Fortunately yes. With Zsuzsa, apart from an ear infection, there was never anything; with the others, nothing serious either.

Was there, has there been, a family ideal? Did you succeed in realizing it?

— I would very much like it to be a beautiful, peaceful family life, that is: well-behaved, hardworking, high-achieving people should come from the children. That, I think, we have achieved. In the end, we are a balanced family -- a very happy, balanced one. I feel

[p. 129]

that within the family there is love, and mutual respect, and the most important thing is already in place.

What is your opinion on open marriage?

— I strongly disapprove. In this respect I am conservative: I cling to the family's traditional role. In this rapidly changing world, perhaps this is the small community's last remaining bastion where a person can feel absolutely free, can feel completely released. I feel I need this very much.

Did you raise the children in a religious spirit?

— No, not at all.

Are you religious?

— No. And my parents were not either, and this is how I was raised. There is no need for it.

Did you stop the children from taking on so-called female roles -- for example, learning to cook as well as you can?

— If you knew how much we have in the way of serious freelance data, the quantity of energy, resourcefulness, hard work these demand -- why should they learn to cook? With us, the principle is that our days are to be spent only in peace and affection. I could not even cook when I first started, at a moment's glance, and I am not ashamed.

What are your plans and dreams?

— The plans and dreams? What we have started, I would like to continue further, so that the girls reach ever-higher levels, and my work contributes to this, so that they benefit. There is no mother who does not want this: that her children flourish, that they have good health, that they become happy grandmothers, and that when I retire, I enjoy the fruits of my labour.

You also wanted to raise geniuses. The children really have become like that. Does your husband also consider them geniuses?

— They are the greatest geniuses by nature. There is much truth in what my husband says. And it is true. In the end -- it was five years ago when the idea had been conceived and we put it into practice. When I first told a reporter that my husband is a genius, they were unable to suppress it. That the girls have become what they have, very serious, level-headed, balanced -- that has come about; and that is important. Especially Mrs. Klara Kasparov (the mother of the world champion) has stated: "...without gritting one's teeth, without visible striving, one cannot reach the ultimate goal. For us, the word 'rest' did not exist; the concept of 'calm' did not exist. 9-year-old Garrinak [Garry] did not have a single day without rigorous, purposeful work. We worked constantly, and the result came of its own accord." (Dr. Reinhard Munzert: Die Familie Polgar und ihre Bedeutung fur die Anlage-Umwelt-Kontroverse -- Deutsche Schachblatter 1989/9 p. 32-36)

And do you see yourself in the same way?

[p. 130]

— I believe I am the adaptable type. I have adapted myself to this great idea. I subordinated myself to chess, and for me the "genius" lay in my adapting.

And if Laci were to establish a school for outstanding abilities?

— Then I too would take part in the work, would teach languages, and would try in every way to help the school function well.

[PHOTO PLATES -- pages 162-177]

[p. 162] Photo: Laszlo Polgar. Caption: "You see, I told you?"
[p. 163] Photos: The Polgar family, Budapest, 1988. The Polgar family, Budapest, 1989.
[p. 164] Photo: Mood picture -- with a knockout.
[p. 165] Photo: Protyovin Laszlo -- Gyongyos, 1949. [Childhood photo of Laszlo Polgar]
[p. 166] Photo: Polgar Laszlo -- 1989. [Profile portrait]
[p. 167] Photo: Alberger Klara -- Ungvar, 1965. [Young Klara portrait]
[p. 168] Photo: Mrs Klara, 1982.
[p. 169] Photo: The grandfather, Protyovin Armin, aged 90 (Budapest, 1989).
[p. 170] Photo: Zsuzsa and Zsofi (1974).
[p. 171] Photos: The Polgar data bank is being prepared. Home tournament (1985).
[p. 172] Photos: Team play (1984). Let us stay on the ground! (1989).
[p. 173] Photos: Paris (1988). The conquest of Rome (1989).
[p. 174] Photos: The two winners of the grandmaster tournament (Iceland, 1988). Iceland, 1988. Beer-Sheva -- MTK: 8.5:3.5 at the European Champions Cup (1988).
[p. 175] Photos: What news on the Dead Sea? (Israel, 1988). Among ancient ruins (Israel, 1988). Israel, 1988.
[p. 176] Photos: Sisters -- Israel, 1988. At the Wailing Wall (Israel, 1989). At the Straits of Magellan. The land of the kangaroos (1986).
[p. 177] Photo: "This will become a book!" Farkas Endre and Polgar Laszlo, 1989.

In a Minority...

Learning is a Jewish sport.
Proverb

What does the non-Jew learn from the Jew
most easily? How one must
hate and persecute the Jew.
Talmud

"I was ashamed of being a Jew; I could not be;
of not being a Jew at all,
even less."
Lessing

It seems that belonging to Judaism means more, and also something else, than mere attachment to a community. It is also an important source of your pedagogical conception. Am I right?

— Yes. My sense of identity has been bound from birth, beyond doubt, to the Jewish community; above all, intellectually I am attached to Judaism. That my pedagogy undeniably stems from one of the cornerstones of this is indisputable, but the analysis of the situation also has a philosophical dimension.

It is well known that Jews have achieved enormous results in the field of intellectual endeavour. The question arises on a theoretical level: is this due to genetic-biological causes or to social determinism?

The fact that a Jew born as a baby, statistically speaking, has a far greater chance of winning the Nobel Prize than if they had been born into a non-Jewish family -- many would regard this as proof of genetic determination.

— I have an entirely different view. I trace the Jewish situation to the consequences of social reaction to what is called "heredity" and derive it from there. I accept -- it is a fact -- what Czeizel Endre mentioned on Magyar Radio on 23 May 1987: that the proportion of Jews among Nobel Prize winners is around 30%, and if someone is born Jewish, they are 100 times more likely to win a Nobel Prize. The majority of Hungarian Nobel Prize winners are Jewish; among the world chess champions too, there have been Jews -- more than 50 percent of them: Lasker, Steinitz, Tal, Botvinnik, Szmiszlov. Kasparov and Fischer are half-Jewish. Yet I still maintain: here it is social determination at work.

Why?

— Let me enumerate a few points. The first essential point is that the Jewish family -- in part because of the strength of tradition -- is a relatively stable unit, and within it people have always devoted great attention to upbringing. The next point is that the Jewish minority position, arising from historical turning points, has given rise to a fairly widespread persecution complex. To what extent have these contributed to intellectual development? I could offer the negative example that virtually every Jew, through no fault of their own, must overcome obstacles to find their place -- much more so than others. And having recognized their position, they had to prove themselves doubly. If the persecuted person knows this, if they remember the flight, they must begin their life anew. So I have shaped the Jewish commandment for myself: son, learn, for 1) you can make yourself useful; 2) your knowledge no one can take from you, wherever you may be driven. The Jew cannot bring their house with them, because generally they did not own a house; nor their land, because they were not landowners in most countries. Knowledge is useful and portable. And it always had to march on, always had to move from place to place.

Secondly, the Jewish person enters my reflections, and this resulting tension makes them an "eternal adolescent." When a growing person knows -- and from this a child, too, boy or girl -- the uncertainty; generally they know they are Jewish, but they do not know how Jewish, how many others are, and this is the dilemma. In this predicament they develop a problem-sensitive, conflict-seeking nature. On the one hand this refines and develops their adaptability. (Its parallels in certain negative Jewish traits are also observable: hypersensitivity, loquaciousness, aggressiveness, extremism, overly harsh self-criticism and criticism of others, obsession with or pursuit of achievement, overdriven work, restlessness, heightened activism, etc.)

Have these traits become historically fixed, or do they remain changeable?

— No. The acquired psychic capacities of man are not inherited. I accept, of course, that certain diseases may pass from one people to another. But the causes of illness must be sought above all in circumstances and way of life. I could cite typically Jewish diseases, for instance. But psychic traits are collectively determined by society.

So in your view, both intellectually and in moral qualities, every people is potentially equal?

— At birth, every person is equal. At birth they adapt to their cultural traditions and to their upbringing, to the so-called national characteristics. Of course, historically these characteristics change. I would like to deal with the so-called Jewish qualities. How long do they endure? As long as they are said to endure. It becomes like an appointment: the familiar environment becomes more familiar; a good outcome grows more familiar, a bad one remains. How difficult it is: the good side of people is in general less noticed, the bad more so.

What characterises Jewish pedagogical traditions?

— The Jewish religion prescribes for parents that the young child's first teacher should be the parent, because the child's feelings are closest to them. It is important that the child feel what comes from the parent, which significantly influences them -- first in terms of expectations, then in performance. In the Jewish family, knowledge is raised to a level of reverence: the love of books, of mutual respect. Parents are not sparing when it comes to the material sacrifices needed to unlock the child's abilities. They dare to begin teaching children from an early age, in an intensive, focused manner.

In terms of the pedagogical system's essentials, how much belongs to Judaism and how much to you personally?

— I think pedagogy is the greater part, the certainty. But I believe that in Jewish literature you can find everything: it is the most convincing on a personal level. I stand by what my grandparents and great-grandparents taught me. My grandfather already knew how to teach languages, and in this respect the work was similar. My grandfather was a pedagogue, and many school-age languages were his own; he taught foreign languages intensively and also taught four- and five-year-old children. He was an exceptionally capable person by every measure. For example, the world-famous Patai Jozsef attended his school in the sixth grade. In one of his volumes, he fondly remembers his great-grandfather.

What does Judaism mean for your family? Religion, culture, identity, nationality, pedagogy?

— That the pedagogy is certain, yes. More broadly, I accept both the nationality and the Jewishness; likewise I accept the Hungarian identity just as much.

Of course, the good Hungarian culture has influenced me, and so has the good Jewish culture; and in general, so has the good European culture.

The Jew carries it in their own skin: it means, for nationalists, that the Soviets see them that way. Therefore they strive to reject every kind of prejudice; it would be more apt to say they advocate equal rights and equality. Understandably, they are often called cosmopolitan.

Cosmopolitan!

— I say frankly: that too I accept. Practically speaking, whether I am Jewish or not, I am Hungarian, I am a Hungarian Jew, and within me the human values I respect above all, not nationality. I accept cosmopolitanism. Hungary is my home, and the Earth we consider home. And I also say what Bartok Bela said: "only good and valuable culture must be made one's own bread, that which becomes the property of any nation."

What else connects you to Judaism?

— That 600,000 Hungarian Jews and 6 million European Jews perished in 1944; that in itself I could set myself a monument and wish to become one. And there is more: not only am I a Jew, I also accept it; but there would be times when I would not accept it, for others in their opinion of Jews determine the situation.

From a worldview-religious standpoint, what has Judaism meant in your life?

— I was born into a religious Jewish family. My father was also a religious Jew. He kept the spirit more than the letter, a rabbi from Gyongyos had a Talmudic seminary; around the age of 12-13 I became very religious, and I attended youth services. More than once, I prepared children and led them to the bar mitzvah, to becoming adults, and wrote the text of their address. Later I entered the university and confronted a biology and physiology teacher who had steered me in a materialist direction. Initially, in the transitional period, it was embarrassing, but by now I have long since integrated it. For a Jewish person, two possibilities exist: one is assimilation, the other is integration. When I unequivocally understood that assimilation was the goal, I felt that there was nothing special binding me to Judaism. I was primarily raised in Hungarian culture; I believed I could assimilate. But I was soon made to realize -- more precisely, to realize through experience -- that Hungarian antisemitism -- or rather, the general antisemitism, not only in Hungary but generally in the world -- from the Jewish side, does not make the path of assimilation a viable one. The refusal to be accepted. Others' refusal makes a permanent Jewish existence inevitable. So at the age of 23, I awoke to the fact that the path of assimilation was in practice impossible. It is not feasible. Other people's attitudes, their ultimate Jewish prejudice, make it impossible. So I understood that the task of integration would be: to try to fit in, to integrate, and to openly embrace the Jewish identity.

Have you encountered antisemitism, do you encounter it today?

— I have had a great many unpleasant experiences, in childhood too (my parents'), as an adult, and there is plenty of it today. I can say that our letterbox often receives filthy, hateful letters, threatening phone calls, and the like, saying: "You cleaners, get out of here -- the places in Auschwitz are available."

Where do you see the reason for today's persistent and vocal antisemitism?

— In Hungary there has always been antisemitism, whether under the dictatorship, when the tensions that had built up partly came to the surface, partly because economic difficulties have increased. Rossz's correct observation in a bad situation: people in general look for scapegoats, and most often the Jew is found. On top of that, one can add concretely that when people see that a few Jews prosper in their spirit and material goods, an additional hatred of Jews has arisen.

What can be done against antisemitism?

— Antisemitism can only be overcome by organizations. Only organizations and alliances can confront it. I have never been able to understand those Jews who, on the one hand, concealed their Jewishness and, on the other, were fending for themselves. It is not something one should be shy about, and one should not shy away from enlisting the help of others; they are indeed capable of this work.

I am deeply convinced that only groups, organizations, can fight antisemitism -- including Jewish organizations. And I am very glad that the democratic Jewish associations of Hungary have been formed. They exist in practice, for there is much in the organizations that these people can believe in, and there is far more than just fighting antisemitism: the force to break the antisemitic climate is a constructive one. It is an advantage when a group can take on the antisemitic blow, rather than an individual having to bear it alone. Even a small community gives strength in stressful times, a sense of belonging; it offers encouragement, support. There should be Jewish organizations that take on this struggle with a sense of responsibility, and in this regard, one might even expect that a non-Jewish organization and its members would also fight against antisemitism.

Of course, one should not trivialize antisemitism, as I believe is often unfortunately the error. Think about the fact that sadly, in Auschwitz they said "death sentence" -- their deportees were made to believe, were duped, into thinking they were going to work camps, and there was work to be done until the war was over.

Do you think it is possible to fight prejudice through education?

— Through education alone, with arguments, one cannot effectively fight antisemitism, fight prejudice. But still: one must often speak honestly and forthrightly about it. If, in addition to arguments, various constructive social forces gain strength, then one can expect it to retreat, to diminish. Long-term, patient, persistent work is needed. But I -- looking at the whole world -- am optimistic in this matter.

The Crown Witnesses:
Like Three Happy "Princesses"

A person is happy when they work
and are able to love.
Freud

There is no modest happiness that could
escape the attacks of malice.
Valerius Maximus

A person lives in order to be happy,
and to give that happiness to others.
Lunacharsky

I have experienced that the ordinary person, when you say you can raise a genius, looks at you with incredulity: viewing the matter with distrust, they generally do not allow such strange notions near them. Many young people, too, I have asked: would you raise a genius? The responses: if there were a guarantee, yes, but since there is none, one takes too great a risk, then no.

— I believe this response is fair and sympathetic; that is how I was too. My children's fate is not my concern, and my main ambition is that they should be happy. For one need only wish their children happiness; one must develop and nurture the capacity for happiness. Much leads to happiness, but all of them -- I believe -- do not arrive with equal certainty at the goal; the surest, the one with the greatest guarantee, is the path I have chosen. That is why I chose it.

The common view has it, on the contrary, that the genius's path is difficult -- that is, that it is more dangerous to follow the path of the unconventional, the non-average life.

— That is yet another fallacy. It is indisputable that the genius's lot can be hard, but it does not mean that the hard-working person cannot also be happy; and above all, it does not mean that the idle person's life is enough for people to be happier. Among geniuses, the percentage of

[p. 138]

the unhappy -- alcoholic, drug addict, dropout, neurotic, disillusioned, bored, listless, aimless, and so forth -- is much smaller.

If I accept this wager, does it still not follow that geniuses will arrive at happiness?

— Let us first look at this: an individual is either able to or is not, and secondly, whether the parent is up to the task, or not. I say: if there is the decision, and there is a suitable and reliable viewpoint, when they have a decision and it is appropriate and they read one specialist text, then it is also not a matter of getting others to help; they are indeed capable. And the other thing is that it might by chance intervene: in a certain tragedy it may not help any more.

— The second: how chance could intervene. It can happen. But this applies to the versatile person who tried much and did not achieve a lot, just as to a good craftsman, a good teacher, a good civil servant, a good person in some other field. It can come from the child themselves, or from circumstances and some intervening tragedy.

Both the versatile and the specialized approach produce healthy, happy children, nurture a well-tempered family atmosphere. The one must choose wisely, the other build it up consciously. It is a matter of personal freedom and right.

Can you prove that the genius and happiness are linked?

— In theory it can be demonstrated, and in practice I can support it with the results of my experiment. In theory, the argument holds that genius and happiness are not in opposition but rather mutually reinforcing states. That is why I chose this formula: genius = work + love + luck.

And happiness itself is a complex phenomenon (both a process and a state), which encompasses within itself the genius's building blocks. It has countless components: the joy of work, decency, health, material conditions, trust, the calm of a settled life, care, fulfilment of duty, satisfaction of spiritual and material needs, gratification of the desire for joy, contentment, perspective, proper self-assessment, good rest after well-performed work, creation, success, purpose, high aspirations -- and still we could enumerate further. When we summarize and categorize these elements, we arrive at the following alliterative

[p. 139]

formula: happiness = profession + love + freedom + luck. Where in the word "profession" we place work, achievement, the creative act; in "love" we place the emotions given and received from others, feelings of solidarity, and freedom -- the ability and resourcefulness to be an independent, creative personality; and "luck" means a protection from the outside (recognition, peace, family environment, etc.) and inner resources (health, vitality, intelligence, and the material situation, etc.) factors working together.

Thus, insofar as happiness is a full and complex phenomenon, it is perceivable from without: it does not separate but rather encompasses the genius in all their parts.

I know that happiness is connected to the adult-genius-child set, but I cannot find a direct answer to the question of how the genius child's happiness depends on the adult's happiness.

— A great many important questions the journalist asked me, but even the majority of people would, I think, not let those things pass as though they were nothing. Only gifts, only a hi-fi tower set, they would buy, and even then reluctantly, but not devote attention to developing the child's abilities. The parents think of everything; they seem always to think of everything. And in the end: like the Jolly Joker, when everything counts and is morally important and currently valuable, the previous nine points do not suffice alone.

Do you actually have to prove, in the face of this, that your children are happy?

— Yes, I can state most decidedly that among our successes in upbringing, I consider this the most important. On the one hand, this is true, and on the other, it is because my method -- the genius-rearing that has been tried, proven, and tested in practice -- has its value, its worth, its usefulness.

How would you prove this claim?

— First and foremost with reality. Look at my children, and there is some slight psychological method: from their glances, their faces, their bearing, their playfulness, their spontaneity, their open-spiritedness -- you can determine much. I did not suggest by chance that we publish many photos in our book, so that others too can see them.

[p. 140]

The children love what they do. It would be clear from even a few facts. They have exchanged handshakes with: ministers, grandchildren of kings, Diana, princesses; millionaires and mayors have played host. They have taken part at ENSZ [UN] delegation receptions. World-famous artists, Olympic champions, and world-champion athletes have befriended them. They appear on all kinds of programs in many countries on television; on radio and in newspaper interviews they answer questions. They participated in the Kahlotzer campaigns in Canada. In particular, they have appeared on American television, radio, and in newspapers.

At the South Cape, at the Straits of Magellan, in Australia among kangaroos and koala bears, in the Negev Desert we played our travel chess game. Scores of Esperanto-speaking friends we have met in the baths, playing bowls, at the ski resorts, at birthday celebrations, and we saw the famous northern lights in Iceland. In New York the fog and clouds rising from manholes seemed like gigantic antediluvian creatures. They took an excursion to the Central American jungle, to the Mexican coast by steamer.

The world's most celebrated museums have received our visits: the Louvre in Paris, the British Museum in London, the Vatican Museum, and so forth. Marvellous commercial districts are found in Tokyo, in Singapore and in Dubai. The most beautiful luxury hotels they have stayed in. Wonderful sights they have seen in Paris and in Swiss Biel. They walk through lovely cities and admire the sights, including New York, Vienna, Reykjavik, Zurich, Paris, Cannes, Varna, Sofia, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Sidney, Melbourne, Copenhagen, Brussels, Buenos Aires, San Juan, Moscow, San Juan, Madrid, London, Mexico City, Prague, Jerusalem, Amsterdam,

[p. 141]

Monte Carlo, Las Vegas, Baden-Baden, Bukarest, Belgrade. I could go on and on. They regularly attend Esperanto meetings. When their time and mood permits, they take photographs, watch videos, listen to music. They collect chess books, chess stamps, chess-themed pictures, chess sets. They have a great interest in music-creation and collections.

They have many friends scattered around the world, with whom they correspond by letter, in person, and by telephone. The light -- the fire -- is always here at home, lit -- and it is always open to guests.

So much about their lives "on stage." But I am right about this too -- that what matters most is not the travel, not the famous people they have met, but the family, the siblings, the successes, the shared joy.

I add: they could not have brought this much: guest, friend, chess colleague here without you. Are they happy? Ask them!

— Do not be afraid of them!

— They are not becoming hostile; they are treating me exactly as they do a fellow-sufferer, like their peers of the same age, looking back to their childhood memories. And on my part, too, I find that they are really very good, very happy children. Not a soul among them has experienced that they really do not like what they do; I can see it in their behaviour. Their convictions are strengthened by others too. Ancsel Evani I read in the papers: "Look closely at the child's face, and see the future: there is luck, there is also great corruption coming soon."

The parents also want their children's happiness in terms of value -- they do not even regard them as the best, they do not want them to be better, and they do not prepare them well for the future: not a sufficiently rich content for what they could give in their lifetime. They seem always to think of everything. Only gifts: Christmas presents, a hi-fi tower, they would buy -- and even reluctantly -- but devote no time to developing the children's abilities. And it is not even all that helpful when there is appropriate support. The system does not merely not support them; it does, indeed, occur that it criticizes the parent who wants to get the most out of the children, those parents being seen as worthless nuisances.

Naturally, society does not merely fail to assist. A society, too, gives them the necessary support. That it occurs, and that it happens that the parent is criticized, well: the parents are merely one or two people. The child is easily made insecure by that. The mass media are a different story: the society, the culture-creating medium, the peer group, and many others, and it is not enough that help is given, but there should be constructive support.

[p. 142]

I shall cite a few quotations from foreign psychologists as well that nicely corroborate the family. This year, for instance, a Stern magazine article appeared, and a Hungarian-language periodical, Kepes Sport 1989, issue no. 7, carried a detailed account of it. The author listened to the girls' upbringing and summed it up with: "...it has to be said that these are happy children."

Reinhard Munzer, the noted psychologist (in the FRG, a book appeared last year: Schach Psychologie), also writes: "Finally: whether or not to call it an experiment? Or not? Is this not too much to say, that these are happy people? Aren't they deprived -- are they not too isolated from outside in their thoughts, and robbed of a carefree childhood?" He observed

[p. 141 continued]

the Polgar family... and what he saw, he found absolutely convincing: three utterly natural, friendly, high-spirited, and playful girls he saw. He could see they were happy.

He quotes Leon Pliester, psychologist, international chess master, whose article "Child Prodigies" appeared in Schaakkroniek Hollandia, 1986 issue, which speaks of the family, personally and by name, on the days when these things were being discussed and which was written with the individuals in view: "Creditable, since it also makes one stop and think, that they are happy children."

These are opinions, quotations, diary entries -- they would not by nature seem to be of sufficient scientific worth to prove the three girls' happiness, and there are enough refutations of the claims that, according to children, genius-raised children are being called "prodigies," should they not have their own opinion?

— If I could get hold of one, I would try it myself. My purpose was to discover what kind of child prodigies these are, what their secrets and experiences are, and at what level they emerge.

— Actually, it cannot really be planned in advance for that, and it is enough that there is an adequate refutation of the claims, if the children's own opinion differs from the characterizations.

These are opinions, quotations -- are they enough?

— They are not scientifically sufficient alone, but they are not meaningless either. But what is most important is: look at the children yourself. Enough with this. They are credible. As for the "tests" and "evidence": I was not shy about going to them; I went to the Egri Teachers' Training College too. According to them: "It can be seen that the children are happy."

— And finally, these are also facts: that we have regularly exchanged views, that we have participated in events, and that these corroborate the portrait.

These are opinions, quotations, event-calendar entries -- taken separately, they would not seem of sufficient scientific worth to prove the three girls' happiness, yet there are adequate refutations of the claims that children should not be genius-reared, and that "child prodigies" should be pitied. But might they not have their own opinion?

They lived in so many places, so many times, and were clearly never bored. The chess was not all: there was more. In various parks they strolled through: Disneyland, Tivoli in Copenhagen, the Prater in Vienna, and among the world's most renowned botanical and artistic gardens. At the San Juan casino they were entertained. On the Atlantic Ocean, in the Pacific Ocean, in the Mediterranean Sea, in the Caribbean Sea, in the Black Sea -- and they swam in them all; and in Australia and Mexico they vacationed. (Now it is our turn, particularly the one upstairs.)

[p. 143]

So, what is it like when someone's main concern is a problem -- as, for example, Judit's now, whether to train a bit more at table tennis or instead become a world-class player, or perhaps not try too much, lest potentially harmful influences damage her chess career. Everyone wants to be happy, only that kind of thoughts do they wish.

I feel that this latest letter we must still discuss is one more theoretical question. Can one consciously raise a child to be happy, or are we left only to let things take their course? Freud said: "Let a person's intention be to be happy; the plan of creation has taken it upon itself."

— I am a pedagogue; for me the goal of upbringing naturally has to embrace happiness, and it is natural that the goal of upbringing should be consciously pursued. In my view, yes, but it is not easy, as a certainty, just as one cannot teach any specific subject of knowledge. In my view, happiness is a skill that can be taught. Can one consciously teach it? I believe so, and I believe one can. But of course, I do not wish to say that when it goes badly, when one must concede, there is no learning whatsoever. Of the "spontaneous" route, I can say: it lets a person's natural development build happiness, but the prerequisites for happiness are: first and foremost, that one must want, must wish, must build the capacity for happiness. Every person wants their children's joy, and it is their wish -- and they love them dearly -- but if that is not enough, then we need the conditions. Not just that.

The professional literature is indebted to the exploration of this topic.

— The professional literature does not really have a foundation for a methodical approach to happiness education; it remains waiting. But the insights from the genius-education concept do provide models for eventually working out a system of happiness-cultivation.

In the pedagogical system, which is the goal and which is the means?

— The comprehensive goal is the pursuit of happiness, and genius-education is simultaneously both a tool and a goal; it counts as both, and this is a dialectical process: the real things in each can merge, can mutually reinforce, can give each other strength. Thus the goal becomes a tool, and the tool a goal.

So happiness becomes the tool, and genius-education the tool for greater motivation toward higher achievement.

But what if genius-education turns against a child's happiness?

— The risky thing is this: if something does go wrong in the method, and it is beyond doubt that the goal is primary, then I would shut down the bad methods for that reason. Fortunately, no such thing threatens at present.

— Most decidedly and most emphatically, yes. Worthy, for it is

[p. 144]

also an entry into happiness; it is useful from a social perspective as well.

Do you see, somewhat bluntly, that the question before all else is this: is it necessary to positively promote genius-upbringing? Is it needed? Might it not be better to leave things to the so-called "pyramid-building" system? Or is a positive programme needed?

— What can one say about this? I do not claim that the path by which, on the average, people do not become equally happy, we should now make into a social goal! The person has a past, and history is history, and nations need ever more good professionals, and ever more geniuses are needed. There is no progress without this. If society takes the wrong path, then it will not progress. If the top of the pyramid is richer, the lower levels too will be.

But is it the case that the intellectual development of a person is the decisive factor in how upbringing determines them? Can it not easily happen that one who is intellectually undeveloped is ethically more harmful than one who is ethically well-formed but of merely average intellectual capacity?

— For humanity, badly-capable people are a danger (that is: not geniuses), and morally undeveloped people are the most dangerous, especially those who acquire power. That is why I say: genius-education, the pursuit of happiness, and humanism's unified goal -- one must not be developed without the other. Whoever has outstanding ability and wants to raise a child must be certain not to raise merely an ethically well-formed, decent person. In history, the genius indicates what is good, and is not what is bad.

Indeed, a genius-education method should be the least obstacle; it can turn any device, and any direction should be converted to the benefit of humankind, and it can be used for a negative purpose too. There are no scientific scruples -- nor should there be -- and then we would accept the idea. Only out of a sense of duty would I draw attention to the possible hazards of misuse.

Education -- as they say -- even Szegedi Tamas would say it -- is both a "miracle" and a gamble. You yourself accept the risk better than most.

— We must also discuss this: Ertl Klein Sandor has stated: "One must say about the Polgar phenomenon that I do not love it, but that a genius can be raised." If someone could achieve this, but I do not see how, then why not simply agree. If indeed the greatest danger is that by raising a genius this strongly, we are raising them, then the fantasy-like responsibility lies on the

[p. 145]

shoulders of the one who uses it. If we do not use this method, then the responsibility is enormous too: what wonderful things are at our disposal already, and we are not making use of them.

You Can Raise a Genius -- for Happiness...

The innocent does not shrink from punishment.
Talmud

What is humanism? Love of humanity,
nothing more, and by that very token a revolt
against everything that soils, defiles,
and degrades the human person.
Thomas Mann

Beauty does not always accompany virtue,
but pleasure always accompanies virtue.
Aristotle

Looking back over the preceding chapters, I now notice that whereas the majority of your responses to the mostly rational questions always revealed emotional nuances too, and here moral values were brought to the surface as well. I feel a bit like being in the midst of reading Kant, the most rigorous logician, the coldest consistency and, alongside the cold consequentiality, he too rose to an elevated pathos when the subject of morality was broached. What is the cause of this?

— Whoever wants to live at peace with themselves and with others, whoever wants their conscience to be clean, who by vocation is engaged with upbringing, who loves their family, who wishes to create harmony in their own personal and social environment -- they will not bypass ethics. Without moral values there is no guide to life. A person's business on this earth is to perfect themselves and to guide others toward perfection.

During our conversation, the feeling kept growing in me that one who has absorbed so many blows, so much resentment, who was received with hostility, who was hurt and wounded, who drew back -- and was not offended -- why now, why at this moment, when their work and efforts have at last borne fruit, and the selection of their own path has been vindicated, when there is no longer any need for proofs, for these testimonials: why does one still feel the need to make a case?

[p. 146]

— My inner law is to act rightly, to do good. Throughout my life, I have striven to realize high moral values; I have always believed in moral ideals, as a pedagogue and as a parent I have proclaimed these. I could not be content merely to live differently from what I preach, lest I betray myself. The harmony between words and deeds, between the aspiration for the ideal and its practical implementation, is an organic part of my moral conception and my praxis. That is why every little thing is a petty flight of annoyance, vengeance, or scheming -- the answer to all of these stands as a natural, organic part of it. That is why I say: I am not overdoing it, I overflow not, I am not bitter. It is almost nothing hard: people's good side in general is less conspicuous, and bad more so.

Many who know you from close up say that you are above all a morally driven person -- and that chess was not primarily a game of the mind but rather the most convincing model of an educational system proven by experience. They say: well, our age is ethical, but the most convincing thing is the moral model, which experience has confirmed. That is what they say: your age's ethical hero, not the genius-raiser, the one who keeps creating -- not these, but the moral model that has been confirmed.

— Sokan, many of those who know me up close, attest to this: that what I care about is above all not chess as a methodological tool, and not even the most advanced pedagogical model -- but rather the most honest, which experience has proved. They say: let it be so. But I would not call myself above all a morally driven person.

From a worldview standpoint, there are some who say that chess was not the primary thing at all, but rather the morally most convincing educational model confirmed by experience, beyond that, a more advanced, more refined, stronger morally established social model.

— That is an overstatement. It was. What they are saying is not wrong. I have done what I could. But I know it, and my acquaintances know it: I never changed what the world demanded of me, remained true to my beliefs -- I was modest and humble. Not everyone can say that.

The book of genius-education is also a moral inquiry -- do you accept that?

— Let us try to approach it from the other side. "Genius" as a concept -- if we are on the cutting edge and carry on pursuing activities, if we call that "perfection" -- that means we call the morally "perfect" person one who also has a genius for ethics. In extraordinarily extreme situations, this transforms all extraordinary individuals (Joan of Arc, Kossuth Lajos, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Herzl Tivadar, Raoul Wallenberg, Semmelweis Ignac, Albert Schweitzer, etc.) -- and we may call them ethical geniuses. Not only do extraordinary situations produce them; one who becomes an ethical genius from ordinary situations counts too.

Let us add to this what Brecht thought: "Pity the land that needs heroes."

— I agree that one should pity the people who need heroes, but let me add: one should pity even more the people that have no heroes to look up to, none available to it. In moral education, one must not merely say: be a hero! Rather, there should be such values, and their mediation, by which, in times of need, every person might become an ethical hero. The moral genius is a borderline

[p. 147]

phenomenon too, in consolidated times as well as a model. And the model finds its followers.

Gyimesi Janos, the master coach, told me that when he was asked whether there is a genius in basketball, he replied: "It's slow on the court; but when the American Larry Bird (the professional player) shows up, it's another ball game." Yes, geniuses are cast out. By what quality -- choosing from among ethical qualities -- would you sort and select those you would call moral geniuses?

— Self-sacrifice, honesty, courage, a good friend, a good community member, someone who does not push ahead, is not cynical, not an egoist; is helpful, empathetic, and humane; a responsible, conscientious judge, attentive and trustworthy, who does not misuse their power, does not grovel, does not let the desire for gain rule them; is honest, demanding, internationalist, not envious; who generally displays friendly behaviour and does not follow the fashion of the times but rises above it; who is active, enterprising, who has a sense of duty, who is self-critical, and who is genuine; whose relationship with work, with achievement, with skill is proper; who is capable of self-education (self-improvement); who is self-aware, and who respects themselves and the freedom of others; whose ethical stance is clear, modest, and tolerant and courteous; who has a healthy competitive spirit, is helpful, kind, and well-disposed; who is respectful -- this person serves as an exemplary, model-making ethical authority. In those who possess a high level of such qualities, who also happen to become ethical geniuses, that is when they arise, and their surroundings do not always recognize them as such.

And how can one raise a person to be morally upright?

— A human being is not born morally ready-made -- they cannot be born with the most refined moral values, with the most developed capacity for being a humanist, a fascist, or a communist entity. But that is no matter. Every person's moral capacity depends above all: first on genetics and finally on upbringing and the environment. Every capacity must, then, be raised, including the moral one.

It is true, the most important among these are the childhood influences. For a child can be shaped into anything. It is possible to turn a democrat into a fascist, or someone from a prison cell into a good and decent person.

Here one may rely only on the spontaneous, but the shaping of morals must be consciously carried out. In our century, ethics is an almost forgotten territory of education and upbringing. Much more must certainly be accomplished in this area than has been done so far. Not only in the family and in schools, but also in the direction of society's scientific endeavours and in the use of communication tools,

[p. 148]

the significance could be enormous. Education's natural influence is itself -- though nothing more, nothing less. The practice of morality must be respected as a precondition.

What is your view on the so-called "Ten Commandments" of moral values?

— I feel that such a codex is superfluous. The moral life of a person is so complex, broad, and wide that it cannot be compressed into twelve -- let alone ten -- or even 128 rules of any sort. Moreover, such a rigid and closed system I consider dogmatic. But of course, one should not dismiss the possibility that, taking the viewpoint of upbringing into account, one could formulate a changeable, modern set of ten commandments.

Do try it! What principles do you hold for yourself?

— Let it be known -- this does not mean anything else, and let me tell you -- that I do not stand on barren ground (I shall strengthen these) but that other values may be ranked among the following ten:

1. Set an example: live so that others may follow you.
2. Study, work much, be fair and generous with your material goods and with others.
3. Also know how to give; know that devotion, love, and gratitude must come and be received.
4. Live with yourself and with others in a healthy, moral, and measured way.
5. Strive for happiness, and try to make others happy too.
6. Be a humanist in conviction, and fight against prejudice.
7. Take care of the common peace, the tranquillity of your own; raise your child with no pretension of superiority.
8. Be honest, and respect your own freedom and that of others.
9. Trust in the development of people, nurture the small and the large community alike.
10. And finally -- like the Jolly Joker -- when everything counts, when all is morally important and currently relevant, the previous nine points do not suffice alone.

Can these be called "commandments"? Would it not be better to say "recommendations"?

— I cite the ancient Hillel from the Talmud: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law; the rest is merely commentary."

The above list is also a kind of humanist, Puritan conception. I think it follows truly and simply, and it may be that some of those listed seem as though they would want to be careerists or materialists.

— I am not an ascetic, and I am not a Puritan. Although there are such times when people must restrain themselves. There was a time that began, when amid the constraints of necessity -- on the fat of the land -- we began with my wife and girls with a pittance. But I do not consider myself ascetic either. True, asceticism and the enjoyment of its other side is my principle.

[p. 149]

I do not say that I do not desire what is mine, what comes to me, and what strikes me too. This year, for example, when we signed a contract with MTK, the press reduced it, and last year we received 600,000 forints. The year before, the total was much less. That is a great deal of money it sounds, but let us not forget that this is about five people, and it amounts to not more than 10-10 thousand forints per person gross (computer charges, competition fees, training costs, travel expenses, and so on). Is that so much?

A misunderstanding also: I do not say that someone should sell their own value below cost. We compete as more professional competitors than the amount of our worth. We compete and advertise accordingly. The money comes and I gladly ask for it -- but not luxury items but rather books, clothing, utilities.

Do you think the children are not spoiled by the choice?

— To my knowledge, our lifestyle is normal, and extraordinarily so. I am convinced that others could well do the same; there are times when there is nothing to envy about it. And these are not merely pedagogical models, but I hold to what I have; they too may change nothing about the older customs. They look perfectly normal to me: people, human beings.

Many who know you from near attest to being deeply moved by you, that you are above all a moral person whose moral force guides and inspires.

— "The Polgar phenomenon is a serious lesson" -- wrote Mezei Andras -- "and the Hungarian man's lot is bound up with it. He who is able to see through it and recognize it, who is capable of grasping it and cultivating it. A groundbreaking work of creative endeavour lies before us, one that the public should appraise, and crown with a medal!" (Magyar Hirlap, 1989. II. 10.)

The pedagogical experiment of which you have been speaking, in its entirety -- is it consistent with the ideal of human moral values? Is it permissible to experiment on people?

— The subject of the pedagogical experiment can only be a human being; it is in their interest not merely their right but their obligation to carry out a pedagogical experiment. Not to mention that every parent, if they are a conscious, well-informed, "knowledge-raising" parent, is already experimenting. It is to be done consciously, in a humanist manner, and this kind of well-organized experiment is fully justified. The experiment's aim is to advance scientific knowledge -- one of its tools -- by which one can also anticipate and foresee the conditions, the circumstances, and the methods in advance. Under the experiment, I mean: we observe the presumed effects with attention, and we can modify them as desired. The faculty of Tetenyi Pal, the academician, who shared our view

[p. 150]

of experiments. Our experiment's particular distinction is that it operates within the open system, and that its risk is: nil.

Our programme has already been spontaneously confirmed many times in the course of history. And this is well known: without exception, every life is a unique achievement. We did what only we could: we consciously did it, and with this we raised the standard. The experiment shows that it is morally sound, because for the participants it is useful, providing happiness. The professional and moral advancement, the development of the personality's harmonious growth: these are not hindered; on the contrary, they are promoted by it. The setbacks, the failures, the possibility of unhappiness -- with the reduction of "ideal" circumstances -- these become increasingly less relevant to the shaping of one's life and the demonstration of one's effectiveness.

The experiment must naturally be carried out with a sense of responsibility and optimism. For this, society -- including tolerance -- should have been more broadly based. For such a jellyfish-like complex experiment lasts 15-25 years, and in terms of foreseeable results -- as it were -- the official bodies, the press, and the public opinion might not have been unanimously welcoming. It is useful, and there is nothing wrong with it. The traditional upbringing -- as it turns out -- has proven itself, I believe, to be on the right track. I think my example -- and of course, the examples of others -- could emerge as well.

I agree with you. Gardos Peter, the filmmaker, puts it this way: "In my view, the Polgar family's experience is the finest and newest lesson of our time's experimental education. It is still one of the most impressive things I have encountered, for having been convinced that this is really something genuinely fine, a brilliant human phenomenon that one can also learn from to build the future."

Mocsomba speaks respectfully of it as well, though some try hard to invalidate it, to discredit it; there are also those who have not yet been able to, and they are not even able to, but the achievements speak for themselves.

I feel that this final message, this final chapter, must still address one more theoretical question. Can one consciously raise happiness, or are we limited to hoping? Freud says: "Let a person's intention be happiness; the plan of creation has embraced it."

To sum up, somewhat too long perhaps, but I would nevertheless like to hear from you: is it permissible, can one, and is it worth it to do this -- genius-rearing?

[p. 150 continued]

inspiration and sensation, a subject of living discourse or debate: your valuable social influence flows. Above all, you have put into practice what you had devised yourself. In pedagogy -- that is, you have brought theory and practice together -- you have created models of their value.

Perhaps too much, and I have spoken too long with too much praise in words; but let me close with the power of what it is to be convincing by quoting Szent-Gyorgyi Albert: "Let us honour the creative artist not with fine words but with the best words: by understanding and appreciating their work." So then: to whom have you written this book? To whom do you address it?

— Naturally, to my colleagues, to professionals, to psychologists, to pedagogues, to those interested in chess, but above all to parents, to grandparents, to future fathers, to mothers, to educators. May they consider this outlook, and this, that one can also raise a happy person.

I give no recipes, only an outlook, and I do not wish to persuade anyone to raise a genius. I only wanted to show that it is possible to raise a genius. I do not incite, I do not urge anyone; everyone must decide for themselves what they wish to do. But I do wish to lead everyone along the road on which my own pedagogical system and garden have been walked, the path I too have trodden. With the certainty that you can raise a genius, and it is worth doing, because a happy person will come of it.

Budapest, 3 August 1989.