Kasparov Interview Part 2

"You need a structure... You have to sell a package where no player is more important than the system."
--Following the demise of the old WC cycle Kasparov at least tried, during the years 1993-2000, to establish a new structure. After 2000, however, the greatest impediment to the re-establishment of structure in the chess world was Garry Kasparov. The Kasparov-Kramnik 2000 contract evidently envisioned the loser's participation in a WC qualifying event. But Kasparov demanded an immediate rematch, ignoring the aspirations of fellow competitors Anand, Leko, etc. and ignoring the need for a new structure.

"My attempts to change the rules failed, and I didn't have much support. I spoke to many leading players at the time and no one wanted to come on board."
--Two years after London 2000, those attempting to set up a new structure could have benefitted from Kasparov's coming on board. But Kasparov had announced he wouldn't play in any qualifyer and Dortmund 2002 went on without him. He's made no contribution to the ACP's fledgling attempts to set up a new structure. And for the past several years Kasparov has, in the words of one prominent supporter, attempted to invalidate the world champion's title.

"Ten years after Intel left chess we’re still at square one. Not even there, we’re off the board!"
--One may forgive, or even credit Kasparov during 1993-2000 for trying to set up a new structure. But after 2000 he must be faulted for working against those who were attempting to create a new structure. Imagine the state of the chess world if, following London 2000, Kasparov had immediately begun talking up a qualifying event with Anand, Leko etc. and talking about how he couldn't wait to win the qualifier and get his title back!

"That’s why I think that without me they have a chance. Maybe not a big one, but a chance."
--Kasparov's chess will be missed. But maybe without him those hoping to set up a new structure will indeed have a chance.

Mig, Enjoyable as usual. In the replayer applet(the link to Kasparov's best games), the first game, Kortchnoi-Kasparov points to the wrong game.

Mig, you wrote "Of course players are getting worse, but with faster time controls I don't think the games are getting any better" Do you mean to say "of course the players are getting _better_"?

Thanks Mig! It's always a pleasure to hear from Garry. Let's face it, give the man his props. He's a take action kind of person, and didn't sit around complaining "why doesn't someone do something" like a majority of the professional players do. He's enthusiastic and well motivated for his goals. Was he always 100 percent correct? well of course not, but who is? He at least tried. He even has an open mind about Chess960. Is it exactly what Fischer wants? No, but it seems like there is room for discussion. Now he has new goals ahead. I fully expect him to deliver his words to actions. I wish him all the luck. I just hope he can catch a break, cause I believe he's on the right track. Thanks again Mig

Thanks, Mig!
The interview was real joy to read.
And note, this time not as many critics as usual when you say a word about Garry ;-)

I personally agree with Garry's 960 because you do not want games to be weakly played. A certain amount of analysis makes sense... it just when it is carried out to the 31st move it starts to become excessive. Then there is no risk to chess being played out ever. I don't think it is humanly possible to analyze and remember 960 starting positions even a few moves in advance. And 960 years from now they can come back and analyse some more and so forth and so on. Probably certain starting positions will be favored and groups will organize tournaments for the 2011 position. It will be alot of fun... but as I have said before, I think the computer will become the strongest player at that point.

I personally agree with Garry's 960 because you do not want games to be weakly played. A certain amount of analysis makes sense... it just when it is carried out to the 31st move it starts to become excessive. Then there is no risk to chess being played out ever. I don't think it is humanly possible to analyze and remember 960 starting positions even a few moves in advance. And 960 years from now they can come back and analyse some more and so forth and so on. Probably certain starting positions will be favored and groups will organize tournaments for the 2011 position. It will be alot of fun... but as I have said before, I think the computer will become the strongest player at that point.

"That's why I think that without me they have a chance. Maybe not a big one, but a chance."

It's hard to know if they have more chance with or without Garry. With him, FIDE at least had something on the table to negotiate with. Kramnik would have never attended the Prague meetings without Garry on the other side of the table. On the other hand, maybe now that someone "without the right" (Kramnikly put) to ask for a seed to a Championship Match, a qualifier could be staged. Things seem really simple for Kramnik now, don't they? I mean, he defended the general interests of chess in Prague so much, that now that his main obstacle is gone, he can finally make an inclusive qualifier, right?

Just an opinion, but doesn't he sound a little bit more cocky than usual in this interview? I mean, the chess between him and Karpov in 86 was awesome, but I doubt that players are never gonna reach that level. Besides, he himself recognizes that he had a lot of other higher peaks than that match, so I guess he was a little too farfetched saying that. The Dortmund qualifier where neither he nor Kramnik played had incredibly high-leveled chess also. I'm sure there will even be some that think that Fischer played at least at that same level. My point is that this is a subjective thing and it's a little arrogant to say that no one is gonna reach the level you played at almost 20 years ago. Well, even so, it's what he thinks, and I believe that having so much knowledge at chess, he's entitled to give a well-informed opinion.

Tal,

I actually love it when interviewees let go. It seems the quality of chess journalism has risen dramatically in the last few years. CJs seem to ask far more meaty questions than they did, say, ten years ago, and interviewees seem to reveal more, not afraid to say something stupid or controversial.

A decade ago my impression of CJs is they ask only safe questions and interviewees responded only guardedly. I mean Karpov had to be cattle-prodded to have him say he won clear first. Today, Karpov still needs to be cattle-prodded but even he is starting to say less than diplomatic words.

Just sit back and enjoy the riot!

My new sig:
"A painter paints, ok, but don't ask us to pay for it." - Kasparov

I know it may be off topic, but
1. Shoud not FIDE respond to national federations? What is the USCF position, among other federations, with respect to the current state of disarray concerning FIDE?

2. I wish Kasparov good luck in russian politics, but it is my feeling that he is not a big fish in that deep water. It won´t be a surprise if he gets very disappointed and comes back to safer professional chess.

3. When does Kirsan´s mandate expire? Who will be next? Could FIDE politics be another topic?

Regarding how dangerous can be Russian politics for Kasparov:
Today, April 15, during his meeting with Russian youth activists one of youngsters ask Garry to autograph the chessboard he brought with him. After that he appeared behing the back of Garry and made a single bite on Garry's head with this chessboard. Fortunately, Kasparov got only gematoma and said after the accident that it is good that it was chess the popular Soviet game, and not baseball ;-)

The source:
http://www.newsru.com/russia/15apr2005/kasparov.html

I wasn't quite sure to make of the above comment previously, but it's on the Chessbase site now also:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2329

Naturally they are blaming it on Yakemenko and the pro-Putin "Nashi" movement.

Before today I had no idea what a "hematoma" was, but as I look for information on the net it looks pretty serious. Seems odd (and stupid) that he declined immediate treatment after such a blow to the head. Needless to say I hope he'll be OK.

"After 2000, however, the greatest impediment to the re-establishment of structure in the chess world was Garry Kasparov."

Really? Did Garry stand in the way of Kramnik or Lautier organizing a candidate's cycle? Had they managed to put a good system together, Garry would have been left standing aside looking like a proud old fart. One person, aside from champion, simply can not prevent a structure from standing.

"But Kasparov had announced he wouldn't play in any qualifyer and Dortmund 2002 went on without him. "

Kasparov should not be forced to play in any qualifier Kramnik comes up with any more than Kramnik should be forced to obey Garry's conditions. Dortmund 2002 was a bad qualifier, but I did feel Garry should have participated.

There was no "single" impediment to creation of a new chess structure between 2000 and 2005. It takes participation of top GMs, champion's willingness to play and financial sponsorship or ability to obtain finanical sponsorship for a structure to be established. In the absence of any of these components we have a quick fix like Dortmund 2002-Brissago 2004. Which is much better than anything.

"Imagine the state of the chess world if, following London 2000, Kasparov had immediately begun talking up a qualifying event with Anand, Leko etc. and talking about how he couldn't wait to win the qualifier and get his title back! "

Well, I would imagine the chess world would be in an uproar over the world's #6 suddenly getting a personal invitation as well as wondering why Garry, no longer a champion, is still dictating the rules of upcoming qualification. The truth is Garry's efforts to create a qualifier possibly would have been as successful as they were in the second half of 90's, but probably less so since he could no longer guarantee the champion would play the winner.

"But Kasparov had announced he wouldn't play in any qualifyer [sic]"

Not true.

"He's made no contribution to the ACP's fledgling attempts to set up a new structure."

Such as? What attempts? And why should Kasparov toss in with every group that pops up if he doesn't agree with them? As usual, the only thing worse than Kasparov doing something Kasparov not doing something. Topalov's not a member either.

Kramnik, the champion, did (has done) squat to put together a qualifier, but Kasparov is blamed for not creating one? And yet when Kasparov was champion, he was blamed for not getting a qualifier together. Internal consistency is for suckers, I guess. I can only imagine the roars of complaint had Kasparov organized a qualifier to participate in. Talk about a throwback. Almost as bad as not organizing one, I suppose the logic goes. Why not blame Anand, Leko, and every other player for not organizing a qualifier for Kramnik?

Anyway, it's over now, at least the Kasparov part. It's already well past time for them to do something, or at least find a new scapegoat.

Prior to the London 2000 match Kasparov and Kramnik both contracted, in the event they lost, to participate in a qualifying event for the next World Championship. When Kasparov lost the London match the prospects for setting up that qualifying event looked bright. How hard could it be to market a qualifier in which Kasparov would be fighting his way back to a title shot?

But rather than publicize and support a WC qualifier, Kasparov sat silent and then took the first opportunity (when the contract's qualifying event proviso expired) to renounce the qualifier concept and demand a rematch. Given that the era's best and most marketable player was not only refusing to play a qualifier but was loudly challenging the legitimacy of such an event it was no surprise that it took two years to finally set up the Dortmund 2002 Candidates event.

"Kasparov probably wouldn't have participated in ANY qualifier because he didn't feel he should have to. I disagree with him on this." --Mig

After London 2000, Kasparov's cooperation with those trying to re-establish a WC qualifying structure would have greatly increased their prospects of success, to the great benefit of the chess world, and, very likely, to Kasparov's own benefit. Unfortunately, Kasparov took the opposite tack. And his consistent opposition to those seeking to re-establish a WC quailifying structure has hurt the game.

"How hard could it be to market a qualifier in which Kasparov would be fighting his way back to a title shot?"

I don't know. Ask Ilyumdzhinov. Or ask Kramnik who said a few months before the Kas-Kaz match was going to start that he felt he was no longer under any obligation to play the winner.

But seriously I would love to hear how Garry was the reason it took that long for Kramnik-Leko to take place or for Kramnik or ACP to propose (and not just mention as a footnote) a system for candidate's cycle. Not sponsor a system (which Kasparov tournaments haven't had much more luck with than non-Kasparov tournaments in the past five years).

Yuriy, after London 2000:

--if Kasparov had pushed for and promoted a qualifier we'd quite possibly have had a Candidates event in '01 and then, Kramnik-Leko, Kramnik-Anand, or Kramnik-Kasparov a year or so later.

--if Kasparov had, like Fischer after 1972, simply taken a powder, these events may have taken a bit longer to organize,

--as it happened, Kasparov hung around, seeking to invalidate the Classical champion's qualifying event (Dortmund) and his WC match (Kramnik-Leko), making it even harder to attract sponsors for both events.

And now Kasparov speaks slightingly of the top grandmasters, as if, by achieving or +1 or even scores against them over the past four or five years he's proven he's far better than they; while organizers discuss how to generate interest, excitement, and sponsorship for a qualifying event involving these same grandmasters.

"Promoted" in the sense of "talking up".

It must be said that Kramnik and Kasparov and Anand have not played a good game against each other that I can remember for a while. The exception is the game between Kramnik and Anand from I believe Corus 2004 where Kramnik had a strong attack but Anand succesfully defended. Anand had Kasparov in a spot of trouble in Linares. Any other interesting games in 2004 or 2005?

"--if Kasparov had pushed for and promoted a qualifier we'd quite possibly have had a Candidates event in '01 and then, Kramnik-Leko, Kramnik-Anand, or Kramnik-Kasparov a year or so later."

As clearly demonstrated by the success and speed of all other Kasparov-involved championship cycles over the past decade.

"--if Kasparov had, like Fischer after 1972, simply taken a powder, these events may have taken a bit longer to organize,"

And had he shot himself in the head the surrounding hoopla chess coverage would no doubt instantly resulted in Kim Jong Il paying twenty million dollars to host the next candidates cycle.

"--as it happened, Kasparov hung around, seeking to invalidate the Classical champion's qualifying event (Dortmund) and his WC match (Kramnik-Leko), making it even harder to attract sponsors for both events."

Invalidation? What chess committee did Garry take his task to? I am aware of him saying Dortmund was a badly designed tournament, designed to potentially generate a lower challenger to Kramnik. I remember him saying he was not going to play. Then we had Prague, and from that point I don't recall Kasparov saying much about not going to play the winner of Kramnik-Leko or calling that match illegitimate.

"And now Kasparov speaks slightingly of the top grandmasters, as if, by achieving or +1 or even scores against them over the past four or five years he's proven he's far better than they; while organizers discuss how to generate interest, excitement, and sponsorship for a qualifying event involving these same grandmasters."

I am not going to argue that he is far better. I am going to argue that a 40-something Garry, with his fingers in about a dozen pies, somehow managed to continuously perform as good or slightly better than all of them consistently.

I mean, these guys are in their prime. They are supposed to be exciting. They are supposed to hold our attention with their combinations and victories.
The fans, who I wouldn't think of as bious, seem to agree. Anand is the only who has come close to Kasparov in quality of play and he still was unable to surpass his great predecessor. Kramnik paints. Leko draws. If Linares 2005 and Wijk Aan Zee 2005 is the level of work we can expect from these artists in the future, chess is dead and Kasparov won't need to state the obvoius.

Yuriy--

Kasparov-Shirov, Kasparov-Ponomariov, and Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov would have matched the era's top player against a punching bag. Not surprisingly, each match failed.

Kasparov-Kramnik II, on the other hand, could have been a match for the ages. Which of these four matches would you have paid the most to see? Which of these matches would you, as a sponsor, have wanted to stage? Kasparov's refusal to participate in a qualifier perhaps deprived chess of one of its greatest events.

You don't recall Kasparov questioning the legitimacy of the Kramnik-Leko match? Then you haven't been reading Kasparov's interviews. In the "Karpov on Kasparov" thread the blogmaster acknowledges Kasparov's attempts to invalidate Kramnik's title.

Athletes who have trouble graduating high school understand that in praising your opponents you praise your own accomplishment in beating them. Kasparov hasn't figured this out yet. His slighting re references to the game's top grandmasters diminishes his own achievement and diminishes chess.

Greg-

Kasparov-Shirov, Kasparov-Ponomariov and Kasparov-Kazimdzhanov were each one step away from taking place and failed because of individual swerves, whether they were Ruslan's, Kirstan's or Garry's. Dortmund was short not because Garry wasn't there, nor was Brissago nor was London. Chess sponsors for the most part don't have the knowledge or the involvement to care about head to head records. Stage a show, get some media, get some good will points.

To answer your question, chess fans would undoubtedly have chosen Kasparov-Kramnik. However, fan polls are not yet sufficient financial ground to hold a match. If, however, you believe that Kasparov-Kramnik was the only match good enough to generate financial support, then it makes sense to have such match without any qualifiers and worry about that once the dust settles.

I looked through Karpov on Kasparov thread. Didn't see it, so could you please tell me what interview we are referring to? Did Garry call the title he was at the time challenging for illegitimate?

Kasparov's speeches do not state anything chess fans do not already feel. You can hype up Ponomariov, Radjabov or the Atlanta Hawks but until they start winning or playing spectacularly people will not believe the hype.

Yuriy

"Kasparov's speeches do not state anything chess fans do not already feel."

Here you must mean "chess fans who support the disingenuous ravings of a poor sport." Kasparov became the strongest player in history but failed to achieve humility and objectivity towards his opponents. Whether or not he is agreed with, his speeches make this clear.

"You can hype up Ponomariov, Radjabov or the Atlanta Hawks but until they start winning or playing spectacularly people will not believe the hype."

Pono defeated a handful of super-GM's in short matches to become FIDE world champion, then performed strongly at Linares. Radjabov beat Kasparov at Linares. So perhaps they started winning when you glanced away for a moment to check on the Hawks.

"Whether or not he is agreed with, his speeches make this clear."

I have never said anything about Kasparov having humility. He doesn't have it but it doens't take away from the fact that the quality of his opposition on average is far below that of yesteryear. Oh, how I long for yesteryear :)

Ponomariov did play rather well in late 2001-early 2002, and subsequently was considered to be a sign of hope for the future AT THAT POINT. He has done absolutely nothing since. The only super-GM however he has defeated in standard time during that period, aside from Ivanchuk, was Svidler. I do not consider Vallejo Pons to be a super GM. He drew Bareev, Moro, Adams, Anand and Shirov. So Pono's impressive record pretty much amounts to a great showing against Ivanchuk during late 2001-early 2002. You are right, that's impressive. Radjabov had one win over Kasparov. That is the extent of his accomplishments. I don't even remember if it was a quality win or a blunder by Garry.

Maybe you are right. While I flipped the channels to NBA basketball, the one second during which Ruslan and Teimur did something impressive ended. But it couldn't have been the Hawks. I don't follow bad teams.

"But it couldn't have been the Hawks. I don't follow bad teams."

Watch for the next bandwagon, jump on and we'll catch you later.

Prophecy:

When people start to complain about the delay from Kramnik or the ACP for definition of the new cycle, a person will post on this forum and put the blame on Kasparov. This person will say that Kasparov’s retirement is the biggest obstacle for the new cycle.

Wait and see.

------------------

Not that this is too important, but we are already six months past the Brissago match. Soon it will be time to hear from Kramnik or the ACP about the structure of a new cycle. Until now, no word was said.

I hope that I am wrong, but my bet is that the ACP will end up pointing again to a traditional tournament that would take place anyway (perhaps Dortmund again) and saying “this is the qualifier”.

Had Kasparov played in the Dortmund qualifier, chess world fans would have probably agreed on a unified world. Anand would have probably joined, also. Had Kramnik staged a rematch we would have also agreed on this.

Why chess champions are so full with pride and stubbornly look only after themselves, even damaging the sake of the sport that feeds them, will always be a mistery for me. Even Pono complicated things for his match against Kasparov. That's why chess stands where it is: the players are always above the structure. A tennis player not wanting to play a big tournament is something simply unthinkable. I know contracts and rules are important, but sometimes sacrifices must be made thinking long-term. Every NFL season, Peyton Manning is forced to go into New England to play the Pats. He certainly doesn't like it, but the NFL-schedulers love the ratings the game gets, so they'll keep doing it. He is forced to accept it because it greatly benefits the sport. For once, only once, the main chess-playing-heads should settle for going all into a qualifier to define a WC and establish the next qualifier two years later. In five or six years the qualifier would be a structure stronger than any player and things like sponsorship would flow back again into the chess world. But hey, I guess it's easier to play a match against a computer and cruising through two or three tournaments a year and still be called World Champion, right?

Chess players are supposed to play, but nowadays, some have certainly forgotten that.

What chess fans agree on doesn't matter much if FIDE is still holding separate championships. Remember Dortmund was pre-Prague and FIDE was still going to do its own thing. Btw, Anand wouldn't have played in Dortmund and had said as much a year in advance.

Golfers and tennis players hold out and drop out of events all the time. Every sport sees prima-donna champions. They complain more and demand more because they get more. There's no structure in chess even close to strong enough to force the players, especially the top ones, to do anything at all. It's simply not an organized sport. FIDE is a corrupt coalition of federations, not individuals. The players all want more money and more freedom, but aren't willing to give up anything for the greater good, or the long run.

If the "long run" and the "greater good" are defined as a healthy WC cycle, then

--Kramnik can't be blamed for signing on to the Prague agreement or for staging Dortmund 2002 or Kramnik-Leko 2004.
--Leko can't be blamed for participating in both events.
--And Anand can't be blamed for choosing the FIDE side of the split, but avoiding Libya to protest Kasparov's special privileges.

The blogmaster's characterization of a player unwilling to give up anything for the common good or the long run certainly fits Kasparov, however.

Greg, Kasparov is retired :-) Let's see who is able to give up something....my guess is nobody.

On the FIDE-proposed tournament: better tahn nothing. I would prefer to see this tournament as a qualifier for a Kramnik match (even with Leko participating).

Hi Mig,
You said you would ask him again about the Deep Blue logs, after showing him they were available...
Don't see anything about that :-)

Guess you're right, Mig. Just one note: when sports prima-donna champions do hold out tournaments, public humiliation is on the way, even if they do get more money (if they do, it's because the money is there and someone was trying to save it). Just watch Terrell Owens right now. Structure ends up winning the battle.

The fact that chess doesn't have an organized structure doesn't mean it can't have one. My point is, in chess, for every Seirawan, there are 30 or 40 Kramniks. It simply stinks, and makes me wonder if it's still worth to continue to follow so closely the game. Guess my love for the game gets the best of me in this, but I can't help it but feel like top chess was hijacked.

Maybe our hopes lie in the teens, who are the ones really screwed up (besides us fans, obviously) by not being able even to get a shot at a WC?

"The fact that chess doesn't have an organized structure doesn't mean it can't have one. My point is, in chess, for every Seirawan, there are 30 or 40 Kramniks."

That's an odd example. Why choose Kramnik of all people? He has been working actively to achieve exactly "an organized structure" again. First thing after defeating the strongest and most powerful player on the planet on the board was to take on a tough struggle *off* the board just to get one inch closer to a structure and get away from the disgusting handpicking practice. Then signing Prague. Not his fault that FIDE completely ignored it. By the time his post-Brissago statements came and caused such scandal, said Seirawan among others had since long realized Prague was irrelevant.

"Working actively"? When, where, what? Examples? Results? What struggle? He makes a couple of comments in interviews once or twice a year and is hailed as a great chess activist? Sorry, no.

Kramnik was arm-twisted for months and days to come to Prague, which was in no way his initiative. FIDE didn't ignore it, they screwed it up, with considerable help from Ponomariov's advisors. Kramnik has had over four years to "work actively".

Prague wasn't abandoned until Kasparov withdrew from the Kasimdzhanov match. Had that gone off as scheduled in 2004 it would have been up to Kramnik to make good his statements that he wouldn't play the winner.

After London, Kramnik stuck to the agreement and to his principles, which perfectly coincide with the "organized structure" principles. He kept on doing that and still does in spite of this making him the target of a horridly spiteful smear campaign orchestrated by Kasparov + friends.

Kramnik made more concessions in Prague than any other World Champion ever. He didn't have to do anything. Nobody dragged him to the table. Nobody forced him at gunpoint to sign. Prague was not primarily about who would play this and that match against whom then and there. It was about a completely new structure. He let the alarm bell ring early on: http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/krambled.html

Since Brissago, not much has happened, no. He called for a dialogue with FIDE and they ignore him. They don't even reply to ACP e-mails. What remains is trying to do the best of it while the split remains. I assume he is doing something as an ACP board member. Of course he's primarily a player, not a politician or activist.

What principles? And what has he done to "stick by them"? Unless his principles are based entirely on inaction, in which case I agree with you completely. Prague was about many things, and if you actually read the papers they signed you will learn what they are.

I was at the Prague meetings and spoke extensively with people on all sides. He was dragged to the table. It was only under threat by Einstein (RIP) that Kramnik signed. He's been quite the talker about rights and democracy in interviews since. Sure he made concessions, on paper. None of them ever happened and he lost nothing, so let's not cry him a river.

Sorry, as long as Kramnik wants to go it alone he must be a politician and activist. If he continues to abdicate these roles and also refuses to unify the title, he is part of the problem, not the solution. Since Brissago? How about since 2000? Why wait for a match delayed for two years to work on a new cycle?

There's no best side to the split. It's constant decay and loss of interest and investment. At least when the PCA was around the players could benefit from having two cycles. Now it's none.

I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net