FIDE Drops Matches

i'm all done caring. The only thing I found intriguing is, can anybody over 2700 challenge for the crown in a mtch if he brings the money? What's with the match there? This could be an ideal scenario for Gary to come storming onto the scene if he ever tires of having his head bashed in by various thugs...

Yeah, this whole World Chess Championship politics thing is too bothersome and irritating to keep up. Done caring for it too.
Hey, maybe the 2700s can just pass the title around like a baton.
Just have to accept the fact that after Kasparov, there will Never Ever be a strong or undisputed lineage for the chess crown again. Never Ever.

I wonder if Kasparov still concurs with this latest decision by FIDE.
Recognizing Topalov as champion is one thing, giving up title matches is quite another.

It would also be interesting to hear the opinions of the other elite players. I remember an interview with Anand where he was in favour of watering down the title in a similiar way. Of course, it would give him and the other players better chances to win the title at least once. FIDE bureaucracy is also in favour of weak champions who are much easier to control.

I can only hope that the ACP somehow manages to preserve tradition until the Kalmykian Capivity of FIDE is over... The threat of WMDs should be a very good argument for regime change.

Mig,

What you are saying in this post is the height of hypocrisy and double standards. A day earlier you were arguing for the opposite when it came to the US championship because it suited your interest.

If rapids and tie-breaks are fine for USCh, then why not WCh? If media coverage, sponsorship etc. are critical for one, then why not the other?

San Luis was a huge success, so I see nothing wrong with FIDE changing their mind. And how do you know other players were not consulted? I suppose Toppy would prefer that as the format suits his play as also the others who get a direct entry. Also, the double round robin could be mathmatically/statistically one the fairest ways to decide a champion. If you talk of what other players think, then they would prefer a 128 player KO, but that is only for selfish reasons and doesn't make it the best option.

Regards,
Kapalik

we have said the magic words.

FIDE wants a weak champion.

FIDE is super angry that Kasparov broke away and stole the championship title. FIDE came close to total collapse several times since Kasparov broke away. The low point was when Kasparov had financial support from Intel. but then Kasparov messed it up by doing the match with IBM. that killed him. and put new life into FIDE.

FIDE never intended and never would allow Kasparov to reunify the title. he might break away again.

FIDE hates Kramnik for similar reasons. he holds Kasparov's title. FIDE has done everything to make sure Kramnik does not get a shot at the reunification title. but it plays the game well. always saying it will support a title. that stops Kramnik from developing independent sources to keep his title active with matches.

FIDE will continue to lie and plot to make sure it, FIDE holds all the power and the champion holds no power.

by eliminating the match it means that FIDE no longer has to cater to anyone to hold the championship match. FISCHER can not make any demands. the tournament will just go on. the Champion has no rights.

this is not about finding the best chess player as Champion. this is about FIDE controlling everything. and they are succeeding right now. succeeding because no one is doing anything but sitting around watching FIDE do whatever it want to consolidate its power over the players.

Come what may. FIDE will never never never allow Kramnik to take the FIDE Championship title away from FIDE's control. no way. not after all these years of coming back from the brink of extinction.

FIDE is going to punish every chess player for the Kasparov break away.

Peace

Tommy

This is why FIDE cannot be trusted with the World Championship. It's nothing against Topalov. Sure, Kramnik is a weak champion, but he is the true champion. People who want to scrap tradition for this garbage have an unfeeling, indifferent view in my opinion. How is FIDE's perpetual chaos a valuable alternative to the classical legacy? Because of one weak champion? So shortsighted.

FIDE is too unreliable. Just like in 2002, they had a good thing going, and they're going to squander it as usual.

Lord, that's a lot of lies and misinformation for one post, Kapalik. You need to pace yourself and save some for later.

Ah, so every event in the world should have the same format. Good thinking. I'm sure it's fun to be an absolutist who doesn't have to think. Which should be the universal format? Let us know so we can stop wasting time with swisses, round-robins, knock-outs, double round-robins, matches, and team events.

I know you are a troll who doesn't read for comprehension, but I'll try anyway.

1) The US has very different different needs for promoting chess than FIDE. Classical world championship matches have received relatively good coverage in the past. There is precedent. There is no such precedent for positive coverage of a US championship so experimentation is required.

2) I don't like change in format in the US championship and would prefer the same as last year, as I said several times. You cannot understand people who can actually see both sides of a discussion and talk about it intelligently. The AF4C has their reasons and I understand those reasons, but I disagree with the actions.

By what definition was San Luis a huge success? Please define your metrics. It got sponsorship so it was a success before it started. Or was Topalov's +6 the success? In this world the only success is having another one and by that definition the KO's were successful.

I didn't say the other players weren't consulted, I said that if they had been no one had mentioned it. At least read the posts before replying. I didn't say they should do whatever the players said to do. You don't know what they think either, nor do you know what "could" be the fairest, whatever that means anyway. FIDE said they would have candidates matches and a long final match. Now, with the cycle starting in December, they bait and switch. This is poor behavior at best, and illustrative of why they can't be trusted. What if they switch to another rapid KO tomorrow?

Unbelievable. This is like a horrible dream of which there is no waking up.

on the face of it. the fide comment that it will allow a 2700 to challenge is rediculous.

first. there is no champion who loses his title by match.

second there is a new champion every 2 years by tournament.

why bother with a match. it will take a year to set up and then if you win the match. a new champion will be crowned a year later in the new tournament. so winning the title will be nothing. the title will be a temporary 2 year title with very little meaning.

the title of Classical World Champion will be destroyed and FIDE will have total control. what else to be expected from a dictator.

bye bye chess championship
hello all powerful fide

Tommy

i think Karpov kind of got it wrong when calling Kirsan a d..khead...it's more like a d..ktator.

The thing that made me happiest about the San Luis event was that, on the day it started, before we had any idea who the winner would be, we knew the rules for qualifying in the next cycle.

This kind of continuity is essential for rising stars, for western corporate sponsorship, for fans who like to play "fantasy league" in their heads.

With this change, all of that is swept away.

If you wait until you find out who the champion is, then the process will inevitably be shaped by his/her individual nature, and that's not good for the long term viability of the event.

With that gone, it is hard to find the same meaning in an event. What is being #1 going to be worth, anyway? Let alone #2, #3, #4.

I will still certainly enjoy individual games, and individual events. But the sportlike nature of chess is gone, from a fan's perspective. There is no season, no cycle, and barely a championship.

Sincerely,
Duif

p.s. Has anyone heard what it will mean if, say, Kramnik and Topalov play one of these extra matches and Kramnik wins? Would that mean Topalov was OUT of the next world championship tournament, with Kramnik taking his place? So that Topalov could only get back in by being a top finisher in the World Cup? That's unsettling...

Mig,

It is convenient to dismiss one with a contrary opinion as a troll and a way to avoid discussing the core arguments/issues.

Hiding behind relativism when talking about two championships is again a fig leaf. Relativism is a good excuse for taking any stand that suits you (or Kasparov :))

You have generally talked about bad coverage for FIDE Ch and now you say the opposite. You had talked of rapids not helping with coverage in the past but changed your stand with USCh.

Why is it difficult to see that for the same number of games/duration, round robin is the fairest. It is statistically obvious as the one-to-one bias is eliminated. You can verify that with Jeff Sonas.

Cheers,
Kapalik

Maybe they'll just seed the loser too. Soon enough we could have the entire world cup and matches just to find one entrant in the next round robin.

I don't like people lying about what I said and making things up in order to call me names, Kapalik. Very Bush of you to say that thinking is some form of despicable relativism, as if different circumstances don't require different solutions. Leave one size fits all for slippers, not chess.

I don't even understand your next paragraphs. I've generally done this, generally done that, all after you've shown you simply make things up, saying I'm in favor of rapids for the US Ch when I've said repeatedly I am not.

The long Kasparov matches were very well covered in major capitals of the world. The FIDE KO's were largely ignored and held in remote locations with no chess tradition. The San Luis event had more in common with the latter. So moving back to long matches made sense from at least that perspective.

One-to-one bias? Eh? It's a world championship match! Having one or two players do terribly in a round robin can skew things and there is the likelihood of tiebreaks and arbitrary results when scores are low. Maybe you should run Bologan and Naiditsch through your statistics class.

"Basically anyone over 2700 can buy a match with the champion."

Maybe we'll finally see a reunification match then!

This is ACP's golden opportunity. If they secure adequate funding, they can announce their own qualification cycle and finally create a replacement for FIDE.

Also, Maybe Karpov's bid for the FIDE Presidency just got a little boost.

I don't think that FIDE wants to disappear the matches for the World Championship. They are just saying that they want to see the money first from anyone believing that such matches can be funded seriously.

FIDE has proven that for their cycle, knock-outs and San Luis type, they can always attract sponsorship.

At best, FIDE has mistaken the success of San Luis as being an inherent part of the format. At worst they knew all along that no one would care unless the tournament was leading to something better and just lied. Either way players, especially Kramnik, have even less reason to participate or care about the 2007 event.

There are 3 things that I don't like:

(1) The tournament format to decide the World Champion.
Here I fully agree with Mig. It whould be a series of knock-out matches as in the earlier decades. There does not seem to be much difference with WC tournament with other super-GMs like Corus, Linares etc, except that of the FIDE "tag" of "World Championship".

(2) What kind of logic is that to schedule a World Cup and a World Championship within a space of 30-45 days?

It would be better to arrange these two in alternate years. (Man, sometimes I get so frustrated at the thought process of these FIDE officials...No wonder the chess world is in chaos!)

(3) The idea of 2700+ rated players to (randomly) challenge the World Champion!
(a) Everybody will keep challenging (they don't have anything to lose and a chance to earn money if the match materializes!)
(b) If the WC is not obliged, he can keep declining (what a funny situation!)
(c) Who will decide whether a player's challenge should be accepted and under what criteria? (Just like in the good old days, the WC would decline the challenge from stronger players and accept from the weaker ones!)

FIDE: Somebody stop them!

-Amit

The FIDE evil motives are clear now. They are not interested in any reunification. Kramnik, if he is a wise man and a true defender of classical chess tradition should stop all consultations with FIDE. Thank God, we dont need any match. Its fine with me, I can accept 2 champs. the classical WC and the other one as FIDE champ.

A question for those familiar with FIDE people:

Now, say, Kirstan were shot by a rabid Fischer fan tomorrow. Would things change with the new leadership or is it more than just him who are pushing for a non-match based world championship?

Any cycle not based on the challenger having to beat the champion in a one-on-one chess match will not be considered legitimate by me.

How can the players be agreeable to this?

I don't think it's bad for the players in the short run, just like the KO's weren't. They are professionals, they need to make a living and want the best chance to display their skills in open competition. Matches are very elitist and only four or five people in the world have a real shot at such a final match. From the players I know, if you aren't in the top ten you don't really worry about the final and worry more about how many players will be able to participate in the process in the early stages.

Even a player as strong as Shirov is going to be more concerned about how many slots are available in the final matches than about vague speeches about chess tradition and sponsorship. I think having a "big" world champion as selected in a long match enhances the reputation and mystique of the game and draws sponsorship and attention that helps all the pros over time. But that's theory and they have bills to pay. They want the best chances to get into the money, and those chances are better with eight spots, or even four, in a final. Still, only four is a joke if you're going to have a tournament. Why should Anand, Svidler, and Moro get a free ride into the final? Really weird.

Mig, Anand, Svidler and Moro had a free ride to the 1st round of the candidates before, which were the last final 10 contenders for the title. So now they are in the final 8. Big deal. Not much of a difference to me.

Understandable, but kind of shatters the romantic image of professional chess players as part of the tradition of a noble and ancient game battling for the crown.

i've playd non-serious chess all my life, but it was the idea of seeing the legend Kasparov play live that really got me interested in chess and got me to play more seriously, and none of this would've happened if chess didn't have such great figures and prestige in my mind. Of course, that image was largely created by knowing vaguely that there is a huge history behind the whole thing and that being the WCC means something more..

There are plenty of prestigious super-tournaments, and to try and heighten the prestige of one new one and labelling it WCC, at the expense of the classical, traditional and elitistic WCC, is a grave mistake. i don't believe chess can get media attention by the same tactics as ordinary sports, chess gets media attention only when something extraordinary is going on. By maintaining that the WC is nothing more than a winner of a pre-ordained tournament that's held every two years will lessen the public interest.
Fischer, Kasparov and Karpov have shown that media interest in chess depends upon charisma and extraordinary achievements, and it is through that chess can gain new friends. When the WC ends up being just somebody every two years, no one will care to remember their names, and they most certainly will not become legends.

FIDE seems to hope that it is their attachment to the tournament that makes a difference, but that's a ridiculous idea. The prestige of WCC is not in the name..

Unless of course FIDE hopes to become the center of the public interest instead of the chess players and chess itself..
(i wonder if i would get interested in chess because the great dkhead of FIDE, Kirsan, has organized a wonderful tournament...nevermind who's playing or what they are playing for, or what the format is...FIDE and dkhead Kirsan arranged it!)

While I can understand the desire for a tournament type of WCC there is only one other sport that I can think of that mimics this; which is American college football. And every year there is controversy over which team is actually champion.

Every other sport has some sort knock out system which pairs down winners until a absolute champion is decided. I think the WCC needs to follow this format also.

Right?

Dear friends, my 2 cents here:

1) Let's separate FIDE as organization, and FIDE leaders at the moment. FIDE is still able to restore respect to the title and to itself as professional chess regulatory organization. What we need is another Thomas Jefferson Johnson (remember Eddie Murphy in "The Distinguished Gentleman"?)

2) Personally I'd prefer a pretenders tournament with winner playing for a title with current Champion. There are no reasons for not coming back to this formula. As a result we'd get a Champion strong in both tournament and match chess, which require different skills. This could also make some equality between the FIDE and the Champion influence, preventing domination of any single force and forcing them to collaborate (in absence of such dangerous minds as Kasparov and Campo, of course ;-).

3) Both Anand and Topalov (especially Anand) can't be considered favorites in the match chess, and have much better chances of winning with a tournament formula, they will support the new formula, especially Anand who can't manage the high psychological pressure of playing in a long match, IMO.

4) Kramnik (and, may be, Leko) is the only active top GM who is currently better suited for the match chess (thanks to his long experience) compared to the tournament one; unfortunately, this match experience played a bad role in changing his playing style; I hope we'll be able to return to more aggressive chess, at least he tries.

5) Does anybody care about opinion of second tier GMs? Not at the moment :-(

What? FIDE is not going to keep thier end of the bargain? That is impossible. Someone please let them know they represented a different cycle as I'm sure they will then correct this.

They put out the original cycle right when they were waiting for players to agree to go to Argentina. (in that agreement the palyers also appearenly agreed not to participate in any other WC qualifiers) Well the players put thier faith in FIDE and all signed - except Kramnik and Kasprov. In classic Bait and Switch FIDE pulls the plug and reverts back to Kirsan's preference for a "tournament champion." (Yes indeed a much less credible/legitimate variety of champion)

What exacly has to happen before these players figure out that FIDE's leadership can't be trusted? They are *chessplayers* they are supposed to be able to see a few moves ahead!

Mig: I do question your statement about interest in and sponsorship for matches. Although there was a whole lot of controversy Kramnik and Leko still managed to get a very nice place to play and @ $900k in prize money for thier match. They played 14 games. That means each player recieved about $450k. I would also point out it was from a *private* sponsor. The fact that it is from a private sponsor I beleive is important. Private sponsorship implies that there is *real* interst in the event. Not Just a political favor being exchanged between Kirsan and some guy willing to give away his peoples tax dollars.

But anyway $450k per player for 14 games seems better to me than $125k (1 million divided by 8) per player for 14 games. Moreover look at the prize funds these matches used to draw when there was a good cycle. (dortmund was not that great of a cycle it was perhaps the best possible under the worst possible circumstances - to wit, no Kapsarov or FIDE) Kasp Karpov 1990 drew somethign like $3 million and allot of press and celebrity interest. This was the case despite the fact that both players were from the soviet Union, they had gotten criticism for many draws- agaisnt eachother, and these exact two players did in fact have a neverending match. Yet the interest was there in droves.

Many peopel say they are tired of this issue. Me I'm gettign tired of elite chess unless they get this cycle back on course. This used to be the event. If it gets trashed countless fans will get tired of following chess - if they havent' already. Countless others who would follow it if it had grand events like the candidates matches will never materialize. You can certainly count me in that former camp. Linares, WAZ, Dortmund, Sophia and Sanb Luis are nice events but just repeating these torunaments over and over with no overarching goal is lame.

Oh yeah and havign a big complicated system to get into a tournament just like the several we have every year is bizzare.

It took Kramnik and Leko years of scrounging around and the result of their match: horrible chess, many draws, drawn match, little global publicity - is unlikely to help the situation. I was referring positively to the big K-K matches and the millions they brought in. I don't think we need to turn back the clock entirely, but the popularity of the big match format has precedent. Unified title (huge), big players (definitely helps), and a showdown head-to-head match. Worked before.

Haha, yeah, with these surprise moves at every turn, maybe Kirsan should arrange himself to play for WC title match against anyone but Kramnik or Kasparov... he could change the time controls in his favour if he was about to lose the actual game and opponent would be unwittingly accomodating..

The popularity of the Big Match had two things going for it:

1. East-vs-West contest (1972, 1978, 1981).
2. Kasparov's personality, charisma and strength (1984-2000).

Because, let's face it, before 1972, the chess world championship was viewed primarily as a Soviet internal affair and not followed closely at the West. With Fischer-Spassky (and to a lesser degree, Karpov-Korchnoi), it became an embodiment of the Cold War, and things suddenly got interesting!

And then, chess lucked out with a champion like Kasparov, but he's one in a century. And now he's gone.

In my opinion, the Big Match is currently inadequate for drawing sufficient financial support. Unless of course Topalov can turn into Kasparov MKII, which I doubt. Kramnik certainly couldn't.

Mig we have some differencces of opinion but by and large are on the same page. We both thought the original 2005 -2007 cycle was extremely promising and what the chess world shoudl be striving for.

Here is my prediction: You can have a unified title and big players, but if you continue to have a "tournament champion" you will never see much more interest than we had in San Luis. Which is pathetic.

The chess politicos had it in for Brissago before the match started. (you can blame it on horrible chess and I can disagree but its really collateral so I won't go there more than to say I disagree)

But how much better did San Luis do as far as getting global press outside the chessworld? How did the global press like Tripoli? If it didn't like these events much more then it is not necessarilly the match system that *casued* the lack of interest.

Also don't forget that the interest in San Luis was buttressed by two things:

1)Kramnik agreed to play a match agaisnt the winner. (For me, at least, this was the most important part of this tournament. Just like the real reason to watch Tripoli was to see who woudl replace Pono and paly Kasparov. For me the FIDE title in and of itself did not gain any credibility in the last year or so.)

2)The San Luis winner was supposed to get placed in the semifinals matches of the originally proposed 2005-2007 cyle. This cycle really looked good on paper (again depending on how long the candidates matches would be)

Now in the next FIDE "WC tournament" neither of these factors will play any role. It will just be one tournament champion after another. For these reasons I say if they continue with a "tournament champion" chess will continue to hurt. Indeed even unification will not bring more interest to these events than the interest shown in San Luis.

People will indeed wonder what is so speacial about this tournemant instead of Linares or sophia or Dortmund. (other than the average ratign of the players will be lower in the FIDE WC) With time FIDE's "torunament world championships" will indeed bring no more interest than these other super tournaments.

Oh and even the other supertournaments will be hurt by this because there will be no more big names created by having a legitimate world champion participate. How much more money can Linares draw due to kasparov or Kramnik playing instead of Pono or kasim or other "tournament champions"? If we just have tournament champions you jsut took a big draw away from these sponsors.

Only thing to say : Kramnik is world champion. Not because he's better than Topalov (Topalov has better performances, even if I'd give a plus to Kramnik in a match), but since no credit can be given to the FIDE, the FIDe world champion is worth peanuts.

Kirsan Illumjinov is a pityfull leader. I've asked my national federation to get rid of my fide rating and of my fide affiliation. Maybe if every fide player asks for that, maybe there would be some pressure against Illumjinov tyranic power.

The problems of FIDE WC center around Kasparov and Kramnik trying to break FIDE and start off some half-baked private lineage.

Only by ignoring the imposters (Kramnik) and allowing FIDE to build up a new WC system can we get any sense back.

There have been weak WCs before (Euwe and Khalifman) - but with honesty and legitimacy; but among destructive fake WC's Kramnik is king.

... hmm I have a question : why is Topalov FIDE world champion, and not Naiditsch? I think Naiditsch deserves to be world champion almost as much as Topalov.

I have also won a tournament a few years ago. Can I be world champion? Please com'on guys ... can I?

Scep,

Thank you for your clever and competent comments. Euwe was clearly a weak player. On chessmetrics.com (best way to have player's real value), Euwe was in 1929 5th world player, with a 2740 playing force.

Therefore that's nice to compare him with Khalifman, and that - probably - shows how many of his games you've analyzed, and your overall chess understanding.

Last point, your understanding of "modern chess politics" seems to be clearly under your chess understanding. Please, next time feel free to add clever ideas to this forum.

why don't we simply accept the fact that the "classical" tradition of world championships is over or, to say the least, adjourned?

In my view, one should concentrate on optimising the rating formulas in order to more properly reflect current strength of the players and to introduce specific rating categories, e.g. rapid or blitz ratings and then let's have the #1 and so on be determined by rating which may, or most probably will, fluctuate according to the respective "form" of the players. Inactivity should be rewarded by loss of rating points.

Just tell me, who really needs a "world champion" if this is not at the same time the undisputedly best player on earth or at least one of the top 3 players? If the title is needed to raise funds for the players, then in fact FIDE's approach does not appear so bad after all, just use the title to get sponsors and that is exactly what they are doing by the suggestion that anyone who can bring the money may challenge their "world champion". Great deal, but unless FIDE is not willing to re-establish the old cycle (interzonals, knock-out matches, classical time controls) why should we care about "unification"? Let Kraminik defend his title, against whomever he decides, the legitimacy of the cycle/qualifier etc. just lies in the fact that he's gonna have to find a SPONSOR...

(detail that I forgot : Euwe was an amateur. Scep, you're probably a 2750+ player to say that Euwe was weak. I have rarely seen such bright comments)

There's a basic question chess fans should answer: What do you want out of a world championship?

If you want to retain the lineage of match play champions, that's fine. There are good arguments for that. After VK's last two matches, though, I don't think you can argue that such matches produce the best player in the world.

If you want to identify the best chessplayer in the world, I think a round robin of the world's best players is a better option.

Sometimes the two methods produce the same player, of course, but not always, and maybe the sentimental attachment to a head-to-head match between a champion and his challenger is misplaced. The concept doesn't mix well with how chess is played professionally anyore.

(destructive fake Kramnik has, with 2809, the 2nd all time highest rating. Even if he has had his worst year in 2005, his young year performances show that he's one of the 2 most talented players ever. His young age rating curve sometimes surpasses Kasparov, sometimes is lower, but this is significant on the fact that Kasparov and Kramnik are the two most talented players ever)

Who is the better chess player.

Staunton or Morphy.

Staunton Morphy Staunton Morphy.

well we have to settle this matter. how to do that well lets have a match were Staunton and Morphy play against each other and we shall see who wins the most games.

simple problem,
simple solution.

Who is the better player Kramnik or Topalov.

Simple problem lets look at some complex solutions.

ask FIDE for assistance to settle the matter. the entire purpose of the founding of FIDE was to settle the matter of who is the best chess player. who is the world champion. that was the original purpose of FIDE.

so what does fide propose to decide the matter of who is the better player Kramnik or Topalov. well of course it proposes a long complex series of matches and tournaments to bring together 8 people who will play each other and then we will know who is better Kramnik or Topalov. of course Kramnik will probably not be one of those 8 to play in the tournament.

Oh God why does everyone look to FIDE for guidance. dump fide. start all over.

Fide doe not give a damn who is the best chess player. IT has ONE and only ONE interest to consolidate POWER into itself. power for FIDE. that is the one and only agenda for FIDE.

Stop asking FIDE to set up a procedure to find out who is the world champion or best player. FIDE has NO interest in that. It never will. It has and will always have only one interest. Consolidate all power under itself. and thus take all power away from the chess players. reduce them to nothingness. not allow them to dominate chess. FIDE will dominate chess.

Sad but True

Tommy

Tommy

RedIvan:
I think the candidates system with candidates matches produced the best player much more effectively than a single double round robin. That is what I and many others want - Candidates matches.

Stefan:

I want a world championship because I find following ratings and one regular tournament after another boring. Its like the NFL without playoffs or a superbowl.

You may find the various rating systems exciting enough to keep your interest and that is fine. (and I'm not saying stop rating people just becasue i think they are boring and not as informative as to relative strength as matches)But why not also have a chess event that many like myself think is exciting? Why not have a *great* World championship cycle? With candidates matches and a large world championship final match! Just becasue it is not of interest to you does not mean many others woudln't be interested - and therefore bring interest to our game.

(1) How can players agree with FIDE, on this matter?
(2) Do national Federations support FIDE?
(3) How things would change with elections? When is it going to be? Do other candidates have different platforms or they all agree?

Well, I predicted all of this :)
Suddendly Topalov's credibility decreased dramatically (a champion without a chance to defend his title?). On the other hand, Kramnik's stocks stand a bit higher. And we are in the same mess again.
Let's admit that our great tradition of world chess champions is history long dead. Time to stop debating about any reanimation.

FIDE's announcement that it is out of the WCC match business opens up a wonderful possibility.

Kramnik invites all San Luis participants to a WCC qualifier. Citing their FIDE contracts, all decline. Except Kasparov, who didn't sign the FIDE contract. So the qualifying tournament dissolves and its Kasparov-Kramnik II. A sixteen game match!

By this means Kramnik's insistence on a qualifier is satisfied. And Kasparov's refusal to play a qualifier is safisfied and he has his clear road to the title.

The Kasparov-haters and Kramnik-haters put down their swords and gleefully celebrate the match which will decide the "real" champion. Topalov takes his proper place in the pantheon of FIDE champions among Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kasimjanov.

{Kasparov recently made some comments that only FIDE has the right to determine the conditions of championship play, but these comments would probably not be operational where FIDE abandons the WCC match concept.)

Some people have strange ideas about this whole WC thing (pun intended).

All that matters is that in 10 years, who will the pundits and fans accept as world champion. Lineage won't matter and won tournaments won't matter.

This schism will probably be mostly forgotten except as a footnote in some article or book.

The world champion, in this case, is the player that survives with reputation intact.

Lineage and match play don't matter. All that matters is what we forget and what we accept in the future.

It's mostly a political issue.

c'mon boys....let's get real!
stop thinking about reunification, start thinking:- how can we change fide?
- if this is not possible: how can we kill fide?
- how can we strengthen ACP?
- which organisation is able to take over fides duties?

only a naive thought: as a chess enthuiast i would surely donate, let's say 100€, just to see a fair cycle and a great championship match. And i am sure we will find more than 10000 fans who would donate a similar amount....but to whom?
Is Bessel Kok our man?

That's why Kramnik is the worldchampion. We don't need those FIDE-gang.

That's why Kramnik is the true and only worldchampion. FIDE is just joke, and ACP is just an organisation with no influence and - more important - zero money. We don't need such joke-pseudo-gangs like FIDE or ACP. At least I do not.

This latest move is insulting and I think the last, if not THE death-blow to fans of chess who want to see a world championship cycle and finally a match - whereby a culture can be built around the actual battle.

I remember staying up all night waiting to get my hands on a New York Times to see who won the decisive game. (there was no internet at that time)

My friends gathered at my place and we talked all night about chess and why we like certain players. Having a real true world championship built a culture that was good for chess and allowed the majesty of the game to grow in each of us.

Now, there's nothing accept fly-by-night changes, and groupies who have hijacked the game doing nothing to help endear the game to future players.

When I'm asked what I think of world chess, I simply reply "Chess Sucks."

signed
Disappointed & Disgusted

"Although there was a whole lot of controversy Kramnik and Leko still managed to get a very nice place to play and @ $900k in prize money for thier match. They played 14 games. That means each player recieved about $450k."

That's not true at all. The prize money for the 2004 Kramnik-Leko match was $750,000. The 14 game match was drawn, so both received $3750,000. In contrast, the 2000 Anand-Shirov FIDE Championship match had a prize fund of $844,000, and it was only 4 games. Kramnik can't get good funding, FIDE delivers good money. Top professional chess players prefer FIDE.

Will Dionyseus the prize money for Anand-Shirov was from the days when Kirsan still had money to bleed from Kalmikya. Now that that is gone, the prize money for FIDE chess events has gone down.

As Mig pointed out, most of the GMs don't care about a unified title, they care about money. FIDE gives them the most of that, so they will side with FIDE. Kramnik is the only one with an incentive to fight FIDE - Topalov also would like his title to be worth more, but unfortunately he is FIDE's puppet now.

I wish chess fans' wishes made a difference to FIDE. They don't. Maybe we could change FIDE with blogs. Apparently we can't.

I find myself now wishing that Topalov gets outraged at the devaluation of his title (as indicated by FIDE's new plan for determining the new WC), relinquishes his $300K San Luis prize money, and breaks away from FIDE to play a match with Kramnik. It would be all 1993 again, and even though Kirsan's attitude would undoubtedly be "screw them, Anand is now FIDE champion, let us proceed as if nothing had happened", we'd all be vindicated in knowing that FIDE once again has a non-credible champion.

Murali, Kirsan is still president of Kalmikya, the resignation wasn't real, Mig just didn't understand how politics work in that region. Oh and just to clarify, Putin reappointed Kirsan as President of Kalmikya.

Here's a link: http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2005/10/24/66019.html

Absolutely agree! FIDE is out of their minds to come up with something as rediculous as 'match-tournament'. It is an insult to the sport and all of us who play. I do not wish to be accused of racism or sexism but you know what I mean... I did not appreciate that we were all deprived of watching Ivanchuk, Shirov to name but two...I don't care about the ratings, for all I care Ivanchuk can be 2600 he'd still be a class higher over some who played in san Luis. You want to promote chess for chess-minorities do it in the Bahams with tax-payers money...It has nothing to do with the World title. Match (between two Titans) is the only way chessplayers worldwide will recognise the new King of chess. Anything else is second hand. Mig's spot on: we were lucky this time to have gotten a worthy champion but what if...? Also we all recognise that Topolov is cooler that Kramnik whichever way you look, but...we also have to look at Kramnik's position with compassion. The guy has won the title by beating Kasparov. A match between Top and Kramnik will probably also resolve the match-tournament situation. No offence but Topolov must show that he is not really afraid of Kramnik and accept his challenge. And if he loses (which is quite possible given Kramnik's rock-solid style) what can you do? It will prove that at the moment Defensive style has taken (again!) the upperhand. I don't buy Garry's remarks that because 'defence' was followed by 'attack' in the 80's (Fischer-Karpov-Kasparov-Kramnik-Topolov) that there's a 'scientific' trend that should follow.

Dionyseus, my comment had nothing to do with Kirsan's "resignation" from Kalmikya. It had to do with the fact that Kirsan and his republic no longer have enough money to finance the prize funds given in the early KOs (or did you not know that Kirsan always bled his own republic to finance chess?). You can find several articles/comments by Mig on this, but I am too lazy to look up a link.

"I find myself now wishing that Topalov gets outraged at the devaluation of his title (as indicated by FIDE's new plan for determining the new WC), relinquishes his $300K San Luis prize money, and breaks away from FIDE to play a match with Kramnik."

How is his title getting devalued? He's automatically qualified for the 2007 World Chess Championship. He is free to play a money match before the championships. If he's still the best in 2007, he will retain his title by outscoring his field in the championships. How could anyone have a problem with this format? Jeff Sonas stated this format is superior to the match format.

Ask yourself what is a champion. Is a champion someone who is able to prepare better than his opponent in a match, or is the champion the player who dominates an entire field proving his overall superiority? I choose the latter.

About 50 comments passed me by while I was sleeping, so sorry if there are any direct questions in any of these popular threads.

Jeff's statistics saying something is superior is still his opinion, not a fact. Superior for what? Was Naiditsch superior to Topalov? He was in Dortmund. Even double round robins can be fairly arbitrary among the top few players if there are 70% drawn games. Look at Linares 2003-04. Unless Topalov really proves to be another Kasparov, domination in tournaments cannot be expected. A final-round win over a tail-ender to go to +3 isn't what the world championship title should be about.

Proving superiority in match play cannot be compared statistically to doing so in a round robin, for one. Second, we already have two, even three or four, events like San Luis. Winning the world championship tournament is a show of form under more stress, sure, but it's still nothing special as an event and long matches are. The inevitable tiebreaks and the possibility of someone losing the supposedly hallowed title because someone else blundered horribly on another board are other good reasons why there is no history of all-play-all championship tournaments. (1948 at least went four rounds, making the result definitive and making a tie much less likely.)

Topalov is not free to play a money match, FIDE has veto power. His competition has increased from winning two matches to winning a tournament against seven players where he doesn't control his own fate.

Guys wake up. If chess needs to be popular we need to relinquish these antiquated rules and move with times. I think FIDE is trying things and that is commendable. Its experimenting to see what will succeed. The San Luis experiment was a total success. We need more of that and not less. The so-called "Classical title" has lost relevance in the modern world.
Even staid old games like Badminton, Cricket are experimenting with new rules and changing to get spectator attention.
Topalov is a worthy champion and if the championship changes hands every year it may be a good thing. I personally think that Chess should follow ATP (Tennis) like rules. The knock-out idea was too revolutionary i guess, but the San Luis format is more palatable for chess. People are too emotional and blind about FIDE, but they are doing a fine job from what I can see. New ides always get criticism, but some that I have seen here are just blind prejudiced criticism.
When Kasparov held the title, people could believe that we was the WC because of his strong showing everywhere else. He was a real Champion. A Champion in today's world needs to be live and kicking like Topy. Spectators want to see blood and sweat like they did at San Luis... More the merrier.
As for Kramnik - that he defeated Kasparov gives him credibility, but he is trying to save it and protect it by not playing in tournaments like San Luis. If he were brave, he should have played San Luis and put to rest all factionalism. He did not and he lost the opportunity. I think he should be consigned to the dust bin of history.
Let the rules change!! Well done FIDE!

FIDE killed his own world champion. It is clear, that Kram is the WC. Topa will loose his title automaically in 2007. What a joke! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Rouslan,

Of course I do not think Euwe was weak in an absolute sense, but weak relative to the domination we want ideally from a WC. And of course I am not over 2750 myself, likely neither are you.

Euwe had a peak 3-yr average chessmetrics rating of 2750 (40th historically). Khalifman had 2717 (79th), not exactly vast difference taking account of the huge problems inherent in the chessmetrics system. After all, a system that gives Zukertort or Nimzovich above 2770 is not perfect. Euwe was not dominant in his time, and Khalifman was not in his.

Rouslan studying Euwe's games to detect his strength - that's just a joke.

By the way, Rouslan, for 'clever' comments with deep knowledge of chess, your postings don't cut it:

"... hmm I have a question : why is Topalov FIDE world champion, and not Naiditsch? I think Naiditsch deserves to be world champion almost as much as Topalov.

I have also won a tournament a few years ago. Can I be world champion? Please com'on guys ... can I?

Posted by: Rouslan at October 25, 2005 14:45"

Scep,

Thank you for your clever and competent comments. Euwe was clearly a weak player. On chessmetrics.com (best way to have player's real value), Euwe was in 1929 5th world player, with a 2740 playing force.

Therefore that's nice to compare him with Khalifman, and that - probably - shows how many of his games you've analyzed, and your overall chess understanding.

Well said Apawn, I agree completely. Traditions die out, perhaps it's best if we leave the championship match tradition to die.

Mig, you're right that FIDE has veto power over who their champion can play, but I believe that has a positive aspect. We need to end this idea that players can govern their titles, it needs to end. Look at Kramnik, currently no organization sanctions his title, he is free to hold on to it forever without defending it, he is now free to defend his title against anyone he chooses. That is unacceptable, unethical, and unfair to all professional chess players.

"Topa will loose his title automaically in 2007. What a joke!"

That's a lie. Read the regulations, Topalov automatically qualifies to the 2007 World Chess Championship. If he's still the best in 2007, he'll outscore the field and he'll keep his title.

Off topic, but does anybody know what has happened to chessgames.com ??

I can't believe some of the things I see written on here! People saying, 'What do we need a world champion for?' or suggesting that chess needs to change with the newly impatient times. What exactly do you think drew so many of us into chess if not the mystic power and history of the true world championship title? I know this is what sucked me in and many of my friends. If I were growing up now with the title becoming a joke, I would certainly not bother. And that is what you will see, fewer and fewer people having interest in chess in the long run.

"does anybody know what has happened to chessgames.com ??"

The owner and his servers are located in Florida. I think over 9 millions residents are currently without power, and in some counties it is estimated that power won't be restored for at least a couple of weeks. Last year the website went down for a couple of days because of hurricane Charlie. I don't know how long it'll stay down this time, hopefully he's all right and they'll come back up soon.

Knight_tour, I got interested in chess when my 6th grade math teacher introduced the game to our class. He's an expert class player, and he occasionally played simuls against us. He also showed us the movie Searching For Bobby Fischer, which I liked a lot. I love chess because it's fun and complex, the world chess championships are just a bonus.

*Karpov's* view on "matches vs tournaments" would now be very interesting to hear. It would be sad to support Karpov for FIDE pres' now only to later find out that he too favours non-matches.

Meanwhile: My congratulations to Kramnik for retaining his title again...

It never occurred to me that Karpov could actually be in favour of tournaments for deciding WCC. Karpov at least seems to me as someone who would work for chess and loves it, and would want to do what's best for it, instead of debasing it with discarding what makes WCC matter.

Sacetea, there's a flaw in your argument. You are assuming FIDE's format is considered bad for chess. That is simply your opinion, and I for one disagree with it. San Luis 2005 was a great success, and I'm anxious to watch the World Cup and WCC 2007.

Dionyseus: i think a lot of people, me included, have argued in the favour of the merits of matches and WCC being something of an extraordinary achivement.
In short, to make WC the winner of yet another tournament, is simply absurd, from the point of view of history and tradition, and from the point of view of making the WCC being someone who truly matters.
Also i'm of the opinion that in the end debasing the title like this will only harm the popularity of chess. i can't be the only one, and judging from the accounts of many here, i'm not, who got attracted to chess at first because of it's mythical, epic, and legendary World Champions.
Who can remember the names of winners of for example the last twenty Linares? i can mostly remember that Kasparov won it most of the time he was there, and some little details on top of that.

In the end, there are enough super-tournaments, and there's no reason to stop the epic WCC tradition. Some people favour tournaments, that's fine, but they have their tournaments. Those who are in favour of WCC matches, have nothing else to fall back on.
Also, the players are short-sighted if they think debasing elitistic WCC would give them more credibility/fame/success. No, it will rather lessen the prestige of all chess players. By devalueing one thing, you don't raise the value of another.

Btw, there's also a lot of people who don't mind watching chess computers battling against each other. However, for me chess is, first and foremost, of human achievement, and i firmly believe that this is the case for most chess fans.
Most people would not be interested in watching a computer tournament, but it's only in the interest of those who have some specific reason to be interested, like computer geeks (no offense meant to anyone, they are welcome to be computer geeks and i pass no judgment, but chess, as creative and beautiful game, or even as a sport, is not the primary concern in their case).

In the same vein, some chess fans may not care about who's playing, but again, for majority i believe that it does matter whether the player is a legend or just another strong faceless grandmaster.
Titanic battles are not where everyone fights against everyone, but battles between two titans who sort out which is the last one standing.

In chess, the human drama is of consequential difference, if the game wants to be of public interest. As proved by Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. They were titans battling against a worthy opponent.
Consequently, during San Luis my father was telling me that during the old WCC matches there was quite a lot of media coverage, but guess what was the level of media coverage during San Luis where i live? Very close to nil. Why? i think because there was no public-grabbing human aspect to the thing.
Oh, chess was last in the news when Fischer got into Iceland and Kasparov's retirement was also mentioned.

"Even worse, they lie about it, as we can see from this spontaneous rule change."

Lying became extremely popular after former USA President Clinton lied on the witness stand, without any consequences. Lying today has a different meaning, it is a part of politics, politics is a part of chess. It is not something to be very worried about.

Classical chess belongs to Steinitz, we must move forward and modernize the game we love. Long matches are a thing of the past. Kramnik, if he wishes to maintain matches for WC titles, can also retire. Matches are great for $$$ and advertisements only.

That's my 43 cents.

Dionyseus, I did not say that ALL players play chess for the mentioned reason, however do you want to lose even just a large fraction of those players who DO join in because of the fascination/inspiration they get from the historically elite world champion title, now reduced to a joke?

I agree with sacateca that chess is a human drama and needs heroes to thrive. We cannot have such heroes with a joke title. The titleholders become totally unmemorable and lose their mystique.

Dionyseus, I did not say that ALL players play chess for the mentioned reason, however do you want to lose even just a large fraction of those players who DO join in because of the fascination/inspiration they get from the historically elite world champion title, now reduced to a joke?

I agree with sacateca that chess is a human drama and needs heroes to thrive. We cannot have such heroes with a joke title. The titleholders become totally unmemorable and lose their mystique.

And Ninja friend, you have a very limited knowledge of history if you think Clinton introduced the concept of lying into public discourse.

So lying is okay, got it. Modernize what? New pieces? You need goals, not change for the sake of change. What do you want to achieve? Not money, not publicity, then what?

P.S.

I am against lying, don't get me wrong there....

About matches for WC, please tell me which chess federation organizes long matches for national champion titles? None, to my scarce knowledge. What more proof is needed?

Why not forget all about classical chess and just play blitz in ko-tournaments! That'd be great for MTV generation. Maybe we could have a television match between Jackass and Ozzy Osbourne...

Sorry, i forgot, it has to be a tournament so let's throw Jerry Spinger or Dr. Phil in...chess quality might not be that great but that's hardly the point when it comes to modernized chess..

More on WC:

To prepare successfuly for a WC match, I guess a chess player needs to spend at least 6 months. Winning such a title would, under such stressful preparation, would be worth one's while, if the title would last a long time (a few years). Seems too long to wait for another WC match, in modern days. In the past, 4 years being a champion was something. Another point, so many players say, that if a tournament was played again, we would have another winner, in most cases. That means chess strength depends on moments, succesful preparation, good tournament colors. Did Topalov succeed because of good tournament colors in the first half? We will never know really. Will he win his next super GM tournaments? There are so many great players today. I cannot still forget the Kasparov-Karpov match which lasted until they both collapsed from mental and physical exaustion. This should not happen again. Look at Kasimjanov. No one respected him, yet he proved he can play on almost even terms with the very best. Kramnik beat Kasparov, yet no one respected him as the better player over Kasparov ever. So, I guess again, the WC title is not as before, it has to be moderated. To say the truth, I have no idea what the current WC rules are, I guess they will change again and again, but I know that long matches ending in Champions that are not respected well enough are not a good solution. I know there will never again be a 4 year Chess Champion in chess, that's for sure. I offer no solution at the moment.

More on WC:

One very good thing I noticed from the San Luis match is that all participants were rewarded with cash prizes. This is very good for chess players. It is very good if more and more players could earn a better life from chess, not only a few. Do chess players get a pension, anyone knows? In other sports? I don't know, but if they don't, thsi would be a great addition to popularizing the game.

Blitz World Championships would be great, why aren't they organized?

More on WC with classical time controls:

Here is something I dislike about long time controls: the two players think for 3-6 hours during the game, later they publish the game comments which can be read in about 30 minutes maximum. So, where did the thinking go? If the comments were a two-four hour read, then I one could respect the long time controls more?

On that thought, I would not mind classical matches reinstated, but with shorter time controls.

On another thought, whatever the chess WC will be, I will always follow them with joy.

"FIDE has weapons of match destruction"

That's a great one!!! It reminds me, when people say, chess will die because of theory. It will never die, as the writer's pen will never cease to invent new phrases, never seen before!

"chess quality might not be that great"

What chess quality? Where is the proof of chess quality?

Only 0.0000001% percent of the chess population understood what was going on in the San Luis games. I didn't. If the games are thouroughly commented afterwards, as they were in the past, then there would be quality.

The chess quality can only be measured if one would have an infininte time of thinking on each move. Any lowering of the mark results in theoretically lower quality.

But, the GMs have already established their quality, by becoming GMs, one should not pursue quality in WC tournaments, as they are played with different strategies, with quality in the 2nd plan. Quality can be seen not in the games itself, but in the pre game preparations and post game analysis only, by the players themselves only. A good analysis can override any blunders made in the games. Unfortunately, chess players today have little time for writing and educating others. Chess is a tough sport.

Blitz comment: Alexander Khalifman

Q: What is your attitude to sudden change of the world championship formula?

A: I approach it according to my basic principle: never get surprised about anything from FIDE. Although, or course, such a spontaneous change may look strange to an unprepared man.

Q: Do you think the new system is better of worse than the previous one in principle?

A: One that was accepted before at least took a slightest consideration of the sporting principle. And now the participants of San Luis, who were invited to the event without any qualification, got a gigantic priviledges, while the rest of players have to compete for only four spots. "Such can not be done" (c) V.Petrzela.

Q: Will the championship unification match Topalov-Kramnik, if organized in 2006 under FIDE aegis, benefit chess?

A: Maybe it will, However, the key word here is "in 2006". In practice is does not look realistic. And if endless negotiations about such match would ruin the new cycle, then it is unambiguously harmful.

Q: Does Kramnik, in your opinion, have moral or juridical rights to challenge Topalov?

A: Juridically it is all casuistry. The consequences of "The Prague collusion" and everything that followed can be interpreted differently, however there will always be a bold question mark in the end. For a moral right Vladimir has, in my opinion, needs to produce in the near future at least one result, comparable to Topalov's achievements in 2006.

http://chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=453

Ninja friend, if you really feel that way there's nothing i can say to that. We obviously have both stated where we firmly stand and there is no common ground on sight.
But, that's not a reason to stop traditional and epic WCC matches is it? Like i said before, you have your tournaments, and you can follow countless of master-class blitz games on chess server every day. If you don't care for more, that's fine...but what of us, who do?
i wouldn't say that in favour of classical chess all blitz must cease, also stop all below super-GM tournaments, cause i don't care for them. No, you're free to have them.

But WCC has an established foundation for which there is no reason to break it down.
On the side, you can have all the KO and blitz champions you could ever want.
i only want one WCC. Is that much to ask?

Alexander Khalifiman is somebody I've long respected, his comments are always measured and sensible. he is a former WC after all!! Maybe there should be a Khalifman-Kramnik match. Why? Both are are of similar strength, both are former WCs, and most important of all: Both have surnames beginning with K! I really cannot understand why nobody has seen this before, and why such a match is vitally important.

I think Khalifman is right. Kramnik needs to produce a strong performance in a tournament next year, preferably one with Topalov in it.

I think the future of chess actually rests on Kramnik's shoulders. Should he do the magic which he is capable of in Wijk and Linares then the classical tradition may be saved. If Topalov or Anand prove more dominant it's all over.

WC matches created drama...something that was lacking in san luis. The matches had stories around them. THey even had great games. Lets not forget that the last two WC matches (Kasp-Kram & Kram-Leko) produced great games despite their image as boring WC's. Kramnik's 2nd game win over Kasp was considered the best by Informator...along with the best novelty...Kram-Leko also produced the best game for the informator.

A tournament will just look cheap in the long run. The novelty will wear off.

It all depends on Kramnik. Never before did Caissa want its champion to deliver. Time to deliver Vladimir.

d,
I seriously doubt a player as well grounded as Khalifman would consider himself to have been a true world champion. Unless I am mistaken, I think he knows the qualitative difference.

Digging into "Daily Dirt" archives, I found a comment, posted in February by Rod Fatland. I repost it below in its entirety.
Sadly enough, perhaps I start to agree with him..........

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

Ok here's a remark from a different perspective. First I will summarize my point:
Not to 'hijack the thread', honestly, but what if there's an alternative to putting time and energy (and the occasional dram of vitriol) into thinking about WCH/unification? What if...

- WCH Ain't The Issue.
- High-level OTB Chess Is The Issue.
Corollary: Let's Abandon The WCH As A Going Concern For The Next Decade. Seriously.
Yes WCH/reunification would be nice but so would peace in Palestine. If as I assert: Top-level human chess (and how it relates to our personal versions of the game) is the issue, then we're really not so badly off. Consider what we DO have in the bag; it's quite sufficient as far as I'm concerned:
- An enormous legacy of games.
- Two top tourns per year (Wijk and Linares).
- Other good current tournaments to watch/study.
I fully concede per Yermolinksy that the absence of the WCH is bad for top-level chess and the game on the whole... I'm simply suggesting that when faced with an implacable barrier to the north the best thing to do is head southeast. Time will wash away the deadlock folks eventually. (It caught up with Arafat, after all.)
Finally this is not a criticism of Mig's reporting on the various comic twists in WCH developments. Which are entertaining in the way that Seinfeld is entertaining. Instead my remarks are in response to how Mig's WCH-related blogs tends to generate lots and lots of comments, typically 25+. Compare this to his January 25 note on National Chess Week in the UK. Total responses: 1.
Anyway I'm barking up the wrong chess tree and I know it; it's like telling people to stop giving money to Oprah. But I thought I'd mention that it is possible to change focus to the chess that we Do have rather than that we Don't. Just repeat over and over "There's no such thing as a chess world championship; there's no such thing as a chess world championship..." and the rest follows.

The problem with putting otoo much weight on views of various players, as opposed to chess fans, is the top players have thier own self interest whcih can conflict with whats good for chess as a whole. If someone is past thier prime and rated @ 50th in the world they will of course be all in favor of a large KO tournament that gives the best chances for the weaker players to win.

It is only a very few (or even possibly one player) that wants a system that gives the best chance that the best player wins.

Many agree a system with Candidates matches followed by a world champ final match is the system to find the best player. Since chess fans primary intest is to have the most legitimate champion possible they favor that system in every poll I have seen. Since the majority of top players figure they have better chances of being the next Khalifman Ponomariov or Kasim, than of being the next Fischer Karpov or Kasparov thier self interest steers them away from a legitimate match cycle.

Scep,

Your postings are ridiculous. You're not even able to cut and paste properly a text.

About comparing Khalifman and Euwe, it's clear that a player like Euwe, 5th player of its period, and a player like Khalifman, rated 80th player in the world when he won his title, can clearly be compared. You have strange arguments. Trying to prove desperately that you're right is a typical attitude on forums, where very few people admit to be strong.

My question about Naiditsch deserving the WC title as much as Topalov was a joke. As I told you already, as soon as you get clever ideas, feel free to post them. But again, you didn't get the point...

More on WC:

Anybody know who invented the first WC with candidates matches?

I wonder now, who really is qualified enough to say what the right system is??

I believe most of the GMs and IMs are obviously NOT, as they haven't the faintest idea what it is to become a World Chess Champion, unless they coached one at the moment of becoming a WC.

Why isn't anyone asking Smyslov on this issue?

Even Korchnoi may not be qualified enough?!

I recommend asking the World Champions, all, FIDE, I forgot what Kasparov's (now Kramnik's) WC name was, and any other that exist. Only they may really know what this is all about.

Kirsan has already prepared his tombstone with the epitaph: "President of FIDE, Produced 100 World Champions"

Now he is in a hurry to live up to that epitaph

Even if Fide was fixed up and the World Championship was restored to something close to its old format (which it should be), chess would still need heaps of skilful promotion, more than it has ever had, to counteract the effect that computers beating the strongest players has had on the game's prestige. So they have to do things much better than they ever have, not just as good as before.

Maybe a top player will devote his (or her) time to study computer play and then beat one in a match. Kasparov came close last time and I still hope it can be done.

With the Hydra-Adams match, the computer has overtaken the human on the evolution curve to never ever relinquish the lead again.

Chess has been "solved" in the eye of the general public, just like the human fingernail has been "solved" by the advent of the screwdriver.

Obviously, I love my fingernails and won't get rid of them, just like I won't get rid of my chess-playing hobby. But what about professional chess?

What could entice the public to fund not just screwdrivers but also human fingernails?

Whatever it is, that may attract public funds, it cannot be based on human fingernails being better than screwdrivers at that specific function.

What a joke! One would think that this was FIDE's April Fools message, but it is in October. (Perhaps spring in Argentina confused them?) And just think about the poor players from San Luis who had know idea that they should have been fighting to finish in the top four so as to qualify for the next tournament!

i don't believe the damage caused by computers being strong is so great in rusting up the public image of human chessplayers.
Also, computers haven't beat the strongest chessplayers. Last time Kasparov drew the computer match.
But it has come to a point where coping with a chessplaying computer does take the very best to give a decent opposition.
And it's not like Adams-Hydra match, whilst being a slaughter in general sense, didn't have any shimmering points of light for Adams. Hell, who knows, maybe he was even paid to lose.

Though these are, of course, subtleties, that bear little interest to the general public. But they would if they were interested in chess to begin with.

What has power in influencing chess?

1) Money
2) Public Interest (demands of fairness and competitions)
3) Titles

in that order, IMHO. FIDE has Money. There is no real public interest, at least enough that the public interest (and the dollars that flow from it) can influence chess or the players in any significant way. Kramnik and Topalov have titles, but this 'power' is a distant third to 1 and 2.

So we live with FIDE, unless someone else can produce more money for chess (not likely now, and less likely every day that goes by). Public interest will never be a big influence in chess. Chess has had millenia to attract a wide public audience, and has not done so. Even with chess being ideally promoted by the internet, interest levels have not hit a critical mass to influence how chess is run.

So it is now a battle between FIDE's money and the faint power of 'title holders', which FIDE is doing a fine job of weakening by cranking out a different one each year. The only title that has any power outside of FIDE is the lineage one of Kramnik, and that has been weakened beyond repair.

People complain about FIDE, but in reality without FIDE and Kirisan, the truth about chess would have been realized 10 years ago - it is dead as a mainstream sport that people actually care about and generates money. That is the sad fact, hammered home even more to the general public as computers wipe out humans consistantly.

Of course people here will disagree, but look at your sample data - people who post on a chess blog in no way represents the general population's interest in chess. We are a niche sport, growing more niche all the time. Just like the public does not care who the world champion of lawn bowling is, so to is chess fated to irrelevance.

Unification? Candidates Cycles? Only one body of influence cares enough to even fund chess regularly at this point, so if you don't like FIDE's rules, you might as well give up fandom of chess, because there ARE no alternatives. And they will never create a champion title that could overtake their money on the power list that influences chess again.

Lineras or Dortmund has money you say? Well then we are just back at having a selective tournament determining who is champion.

What has power in influencing chess?

1) Money
2) Public Interest (demands of fairness and competitions)
3) Titles

in that order, IMHO. FIDE has Money. There is no real public interest, at least enough that the public interest (and the dollars that flow from it) can influence chess or the players in any significant way. Kramnik and Topalov have titles, but this 'power' is a distant third to 1 and 2.

So we live with FIDE, unless someone else can produce more money for chess (not likely now, and less likely every day that goes by). Public interest will never be a big influence in chess. Chess has had millenia to attract a wide public audience, and has not done so. Even with chess being ideally promoted by the internet, interest levels have not hit a critical mass to influence how chess is run.

So it is now a battle between FIDE's money and the faint power of 'title holders', which FIDE is doing a fine job of weakening by cranking out a different one each year. The only title that has any power outside of FIDE is the lineage one of Kramnik, and that has been weakened beyond repair.

People complain about FIDE, but in reality without FIDE and Kirisan, the truth about chess would have been realized 10 years ago - it is dead as a mainstream sport that people actually care about and generates money. That is the sad fact, hammered home even more to the general public as computers wipe out humans consistantly.

Of course people here will disagree, but look at your sample data - people who post on a chess blog in no way represents the general population's interest in chess. We are a niche sport, growing more niche all the time. Just like the public does not care who the world champion of lawn bowling is, so to is chess fated to irrelevance.

Unification? Candidates Cycles? Only one body of influence cares enough to even fund chess regularly at this point, so if you don't like FIDE's rules, you might as well give up fandom of chess, because there ARE no alternatives. And they will never create a champion title that could overtake their money on the power list that influences chess again.

Lineras or Dortmund has money you say? Well then we are just back at having a selective tournament determining who is champion.

As usual FIDE leaves ample room for democratic discussion about these monumental changes which abolish over 100 years of chess history. Therefore it has given a generous deadline until... October 31st!!! Well...

Kamsky:
I must add that time is of the essence here, as the FIDE has placed a deadline on the players to submit their contract before October 31st, which, if signed, would effectively make players agree to the changes that were made on October 24th.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2699

This is certainly the way things are done in Kalmykia, but I don't understand how chess federations from democratic countries can tolerate such practices. It's time to stand up and be counted.

Very saddened, but not surprised, that FIDE, has once again, changed their tune. After agreeing a few months ago to bringing back the long standing tradion of candidates matches to determine the logical qualified challenger for a World Championship Match, they NOW change again! Just unbelievable, uhmm wonder if they would be changing had say, Kasim won San Luis? Or Adams? It was very fortunate in some ways (great unified chance for a match with Kramnik) that Topa won cause he has been having a great couple of years showing his strength. Was really anticipating a final unification match with champ Kramnik, but no, why would the chess world want closure to this obsurd lunacy of chess champions, I'm disgusted and embarrassed to love chess due to the corruption, lies, false hopes, ect. Damn Fischer must be so right on, saying chess at the highest levels is so totally corrupt. For all the honest promoters out there, you're wasting your time and efforts, chess will never be a mainstream sport able to gather a unified following. The heads at the top of FIDE are immoral. I just feel sad for the young generation of players whom will never see the drama of head to head match play that produces excitement, anticipation, in who the winner of these matches will be. FIDE seems to have nailed the last nail to the coffin. World Championship Matches are dead. I just hope I live long enough to see a rebirth maybe in 10-20 years if another organized body of chess, non corrupt, can bring back some decency. Shame on you, FIDE.

Very saddened, but not surprised, that FIDE, has once again, changed their tune. After agreeing a few months ago to bringing back the long standing tradion of candidates matches to determine the logical qualified challenger for a World Championship Match, they NOW change again! Just unbelievable, uhmm wonder if they would be changing had say, Kasim won San Luis? Or Adams? It was very fortunate in some ways (great unified chance for a match with Kramnik) that Topa won cause he has been having a great couple of years showing his strength. Was really anticipating a final unification match with champ Kramnik, but no, why would the chess world want closure to this obsurd lunacy of chess champions, I'm disgusted and embarrassed to love chess due to the corruption, lies, false hopes, ect. Damn Fischer must be so right on, saying chess at the highest levels is so totally corrupt. For all the honest promoters out there, you're wasting your time and efforts, chess will never be a mainstream sport able to gather a unified following. The heads at the top of FIDE are immoral. I just feel sad for the young generation of players whom will never see the drama of head to head match play that produces excitement, anticipation, in who the winner of these matches will be. FIDE seems to have nailed the last nail to the coffin. World Championship Matches are dead. I just hope I live long enough to see a rebirth maybe in 10-20 years if another organized body of chess, non corrupt, can bring back some decency. Shame on you, FIDE.

A question Bruce: Why is someone "corrupt" if he changes his mind? I think we begin to lose the real meaning of words here...

Rouslan,

Well as you like to be patronizing and insulting, I can return in kind - you are both silly and foolish (to borrow Maliq's favorite words).

You are also naive to think that chessmetrics is such a great system to rank across generations.

The fact is that Khalifman was a 2700 level GM, surely pretty respectable compared to Euwe. And neither Euwe nor Khalifman were in Kasparov league. Both of them were decent WC's in difficult political circumstances (in Khalifman's case, the damaged WC environment caused by Kasparov thinking he owned world chess).

So Rouslan, try to learn something about chess or about thinking, or about being polite. If you dish out less insults from your very meager level of understanding of chess, then at least people could discuss things with you. As it is you just sound opinionated and intolerant, not to mention ridiculous.

Martin,
>I don't see how federations from democratic countries can tolerate such practiaces...
It's a fair question. Have the federations relinquished all their authority and influence to the fide executive. I'm a long way from defending anything Kirsan does, but why don't the federations insist on ratification of something as important the WC cycle.
billc

Peace and goodwill,

Yes, Bill C, one would think, but it is not so. The corruption spans decades and is well-entrenched even in “democratic” federations. I remember many years ago (8 or 10) during a Federation convention an ad hoc group of Philippine chess organizers with the support of Kirsan was organized and challenged for admission into FIDE in place of the elected delegates from the Philippines. Some federations, including the U.S. protested the action as improper and the U.S. lobbied for the legitimate delegates. But, when it came time to vote the best the U.S. delegate leadership was willing to do was abstain. That’s right. Instead of showing support for the legitimate delegates from the Philippines after so much flash and dash, the U.S. delegation punted. Thus, without a unified front all the protesting disappeared, Kirsan’s Kronies were installed, and as far as I know, remain. I haven’t been a member of the USCF since and never will be again.

As mentioned before in other places on this site, I emailed Y. Seirawan during the initial phase of the Prague agreement inquiring how he could possibly imagine FIDE would honor or live up to it’s agreements. He honored me with a reply and his response to me was, in short, ‘Is there any choice?’

We (chess players, fans) had a window of opportunity over a decade ago when Kasparov announced FIDE was not an organization in the best interests of chess and he would establish the PCA to compete and replace FIDE. Kasparov idealistically believed the federations of the “West” would jump at the opportunity to shed themselves of the Stalinist FIDE in place of a more democratic institution. He underestimated the depth of corruption into the individual federations, the envy and mistrust of his peers, and the power of FIDE money and threats to force players to toe the line. Still, he almost succeeded.

So now FIDE lies to its participants and the entire world about a World Championship cycle (not the first time), probably never intending at any time to establish such a thing, being only a ploy to leverage legitimacy onto the San Luis tournament. No surprise since they never lived up to the Prague Agreement which they signed and supported with much fanfare and I have no doubt the substance and specifics of the current FIDE world championship event will change drastically from what we see now from what may take place in 2007. Quite possibly, if Topalov, an obviously great player, establishes a clear dominance over the field of competitors over the next 2 years, FIDE may not even see the need for a World Championship Tournament again.

Why would I say such a thing? Because they have their lapdog in Topalov who will do tricks at will for Kirsan. Why would FIDE risk getting someone who may want to think for themselves.

As for Topalov is he content to be a Kirsan puppet for a title he does not own and which may disappear in two years? For enough money, would you? Or will he strike off on his own? Is it possible in two years we have not 2 but 3 World Champions?

This is too much. The Ghost needs his rest.

Peace and hope to all y’all Ninjas

NBA Commish David Stern = FIDE's Kirsan

WNBA = Chess

Public interent in the WNBA = Chess = zero, if not negative

Why does the WNBA continue on, when it is long proved to be a dud with the public and does not come close to being a self-sustaining economic entity? Because a benefactor (David Stern) with tons of cash (the NBA's) has the benefit of tilting at windmills as long as he wants to pour in money into this endevor. He has enough funding to create his own reality surrounding the WNBA, even if only David Stern lives in that reality. The WNBA players, with no alternative markets for their not-in-demand skills, will play by all of Stern's rules just to feed themselves, rather than getting real jobs. If Stern wants to radically change the rules for the WNBA playoff system so that LA and NY always qualifies or some other questionable system, neither the players (powerless) nor the public (indifference) will rise up enough to even catch Stern's attention. Those few (very few) WNBA fans might go to message boards and blogs and scream and yell and offer a ton of more logical and fair systems for the WNBA playoffs, but they don't realize how small the choir they are preaching to really is, and how irrelevant their voices are in change.

They also don't realize that if David Stern were to walk away from the WNBA, it would die the same minute he did so. There is no magic patron or hidden fans just waiting for Stern to leave so they can rise up and take control and turn the WNBA into what it SHOULD BE. Obvious market forces proven over years (if not decades) would overwhelm any good intentions from those few WNBA fans, and shut down the system immediately.

Kirsan is to chess what Stern is to the WNBA. And we "WNBA" fans are irrelevant in dictating how our 'league' should REALLY be run. Either you live with Kirsan's chess or Stern's WNBA, or not. Giving suggestion on who should play whom and when and where and what Cycle is a futile, foolish game that goes nowhere when the basic truth is that your sport is being artificially propt up after market forces have long declared it dead.

Stern, there is a difference between the WNBA and FIDE. FIDE is a recognized sports federation by the International Olympic Committee, a great asset if you follow the international sport politics. If Kirsan goes, be sure, someone else as filthy rich as him will step in...

A ChessBase report about the next Mobiltel tourney in Sofia and an interview of Topalov to the New York Times: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2702

LAWN BOWLING

I think to myself. is this for real. is there such a sport. and on top of that is there a World Champion.

I just had to use Google to find out if there was a World Champion of Lawn Bowling.

well after some work there is one. he is picked only once every 4 years. so he will be champion from 2004 until 2008 and he is australian.

Steve Glasson

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/wlbowlsmen.shtml

but I do think Chess is more popular that Lawn Bowling.

He he, Lawn Bowling. Keep`em coming, Tommy :)

I do not have a clue about the champions in Bridge either. Bridge has more followers than chess? In my county anyway.

Yes, lets face it, we have no more brand name as Capablance, Fischer, Kasparov. Is it important to have a brand name? To be preferred, but no world known name fronting chess today. Anand the biggest name today, but only in India?

Giannis: “Stern, there is a difference between the WNBA and FIDE. FIDE is a recognized sports federation by the International Olympic Committee, a great asset if you follow the international sport politics. If Kirsan goes, be sure, someone else as filthy rich as him will step in...”

Hilarious. What is the relationship you are so sure of between the IOC and guaranteed funding from some fat, wealthy sponsor? I can go down the IOC list and pick out sport after sport that does not have this fat-cat sponsor that is trying to prop-up that sport’s presence in the marketplace. Hell, Track and Field suffers from lack of interest, and it is one of the Olympics’ biggest draws (not to mention Archery, rowing, short track speed skating, water polo, handball, field hockey, on and on and on)

Even if there were some connection, who is this other person besides Kirsan (who loves chess so much that he wants to create a chess city (for real!)) AND controls enough money to willingly throw off millions a year? Kramnik’s personal sponsor Madam Orgasm and her demands that Kramnik perform touch-moves – and not with the chess pieces (simply rumored of course)? Will she be extending this policy to fat guys like Svidler or guys with huge moles like Moro or even Judit Polgar? I don’t think so.

Between Giannis and 'gg', the amount of logic on this board is just enough to run the USCF. There is less of a chance that there is a guaranteed sponsor for chess because of it’s mere listing by the IOC than there is of chess being played as an Olympic sport.

You don't have to throw millions of dollars to be FIDE president. Kirsan was spending $$ in his early years at his own choice. He has stopped sponsoring FIDE a long time ago.

It's obvious that you didn't get my point though (I'm not surprised). FIDE is not only a sport federation, it's also a political organization. There are many people like Kirsan (politicians, businessmen, etc.) who love the idea to be leaders of international organizations, especially if they are recognized by bodies like the IOC. It provides them with international connections, extra prestige within their countries and of course extra media coverage. You think anyone outside Russia would know Kirsan if he wasn't president of FIDE?

That was my point. Next time I will be charging for the seminar...