Topalov Responds

I believe the main reason is that Kramnik refuses to pay the 20% tax to Fide out of the sponsorship money.
And the match was being billed as a "Match between 2 World Champions", with Kramnik having an equal status to Topalov. This probably was displeasing to Fide and Topalov.
However, I think we should read between the lines. Topalov feels, (rightly so) that Kramnik does not deserve a shot at his Fide Title. He will accept if the prize fund is astronomically high, but it is not and therefore not worth it.

If Topalov is willing to play a match against Kramnik without the title on the line, then why not go for it?

If Topalov wins then he will be recognized as the undisputed champion, even the most hardcore Kramnik nuts couldn't argue.

Whether the title is on the line or not is irrelevant, if Topalov beats him in a match then Kramnik no longer has a leg to stand on.

You have to combine the two press releases in order to get the whole picture:

Danailov:
"According to the new rules of FIDE due to be published very soon, each grandmaster with ELO of over 2700 can officially invite the World Champion to a match for the title if he provides an appropriate prize fund and pays a 20% charge to FIDE as designated by law. Of course, our proposal to the organizer UEP was rejected."

Koth:
"As compensation Mr. Topalov’s manager requested a fee of US $1,000,000 (net) for Mr. Topalov and an additional net sum of US $300,000 for FIDE. After the announcement of these demands by the Topalov management UEP made it clear that at the present stage UEP did not consider such demands as realistic, and repeated the existing offer."

So the "appropriate prize fund" to play Topalov is at least $1,300,000, and in this case the challenger would get nothing even if he wins (!).

Goddammit, just play the match.

The situation is very simple: If Topalov wins, FIDE can do whatever they want regarding WC format (read: WC tournaments and pointless middle term matches).

However, if Kramnik wins, he will insist on a match format for future title defenses.

Current FIDE doesn't want to risk the latter, so they obstruct the negotiations.

Kramnik knows he has to play a match against Topalov AND win it in order to save the classical title and match tradition.

Kramnik wants to save the classical tradition, FIDE just wants full control of the title. I know where my sympathies go.

I just saw that I forgot to include taxes, as Topalov was talking about "$1,000,000 (net)" and a "net sum of US $300,000 for FIDE". So the total sum is even higher, depending on the tax rate for prize money.

Peace...

Quite frankly, Danailov is full of it and needs to stop insulting people's intelligence with this world rankings BS. Topalov is not #1 in rankings, but rather #3. If he wants to talk about January rankings, then is Topalov's rating the only one that has moved? How is Kramnik's #7 current standing to be compared to Topalov's #1 standing in January? If he is to compare the current list, then do so. If he is to compare the January list, on which Kramnik likely has moved ahead of other competitors who have lost points, then do so. Do not create some hybrid and hope to confuse us all with these shenanegans. In either case, this argument based on rankings is bogus, and Danailov knows this. He is hoping that people buy the BS and lay off of him and Topalov, but the truth is that they are now making up excuses not to meet a man whom Topalov has had poor results against and has not been able to make headway against even in his top form and with Kramnik playing below par. This is about the good of Topalov, not the good of chess, and while it is fine to look out for one's self-interests, they should refrain from pretending that they are just taking some principled position, because they clearly are not.

Hotep,

Maliq

Agree from the beginning to play the match under the auspices of FIDE and then be bound by their rules? Including their going back to tournaments on a complete whim and with their current trustworthiness overall? I don't see why that should be necessary or desirable. I can see why they would want to first negotiate about the match coming up at all and *then* start negotiating with FIDE about the necessary conditions for treating the match as one for unification. This looks like a reasonable starting point. I don't see why that means Kramnik won't put his title on the line, on the contrary. Even if it's outside FIDE he loses it if he loses the match, obviously. But if it's inside FIDE the classical line is dead even if he wins.

Actually I have said before that after FIDE's post-San Luis changes I currently don't see unification as desirable. Go back to a well-defined system ending in a WC match or else. But Topalov should also be allowed to play Kramnik as a challenger for the classical title if he wants to and is allowed to by FIDE. But, well, it seems not.

===

Alkelele put it well: "Kramnik wants to save the classical tradition, FIDE just wants full control of the title. I know where my sympathies go." I'm in full agreement.

Maliq is completely right about the surprisingly transparent "#1 vs #7" trick. I also like the fascinating development in which Danailov in little time went from recognizing Kramnik's classical title to, well, not doing it.

"The match against Kramnik is interesting from a different point of view. He is, in spite of everything, the successor of the Classical Chess World Title. Kramnik defeated Kasparov and defended his title in the match against Leko."

This just what I have said many times before, there is no reason at all to give the classical title back to FIDE until FIDE gets new leadership and a true cycle, with a match at the end of it, is developed. To give them control of the title now is a crime in my opinion. Thus all talk of reunification right now is just plain silly.

Kramnik should want to play Topalov for one reason only- the classical title calls for a title defense every couple of years against the best possible challenger. In this case it is Topalov, but if Topalov won't play then it should be the next logical candidate, Anand. Any way you look at it logically, Topalov has no real leg to stand on, with his fake title from a corrupt FIDE. All he has is a really nice tournament win, nothing more. The FIDE 'title' is meaningless in the big picture.

The problem isn't that Kramnik doesn't want to "put his title on the line", but that Topalov and FIDE don't recognize his title and thus don't accept that he is "putting it on the line" in a match.
It is clear that in order to be able to talk about "unification", there has to be some form of recognition of Kramnik's title, otherwise it would make no sense to call it a "unification". What do you "unify" if not the two titles of "classical" and "FIDE" champion?

Sick of it but like an addict keep going back to see if there will be a unification match. Kramnik has some claims, Topalov has some claims. Chess world needs the match badly. If Topalov, Kramnik and FIDE put chess first they would play match but they are too fearful and making ridiculous excuses. Kramnik made loads of stupid excuses in the past and Topalov hasnt taken long to get up to speed: Saying Kramnik is too lowly ranked to warrant getting out of bed for a match is just too ridiculous. Topalov played great fearless chess in San Luis but alas.......

Enough. I'm playing poker now. Just as interesting, $7.5 million world championship, every year, and it hasn't been hijacked by crazies.

Cheers.

Definitely FIDE is the problem when it is suppose to be the solution.

FIDE simply does not want unification. it wants independence. It is trying to prove that Kasparov basically lost his title when he left FIDE. and now FIDE will give no legitimacy to the classical title. it is all games man ship. it all has to do with the fact that fide was almost destroyed by Kasparov after leaving fide.

Kramnik is correct. FIDE wants to destroy the idea of a Classical Match title. and if Kramnik plays the title is destroyed no matter who wins. fide and kirsan played their little game until Kasparov retired and now it only has to outlast kramnik. it intends to outlast kramnik.

the solution is so simple but Fide ( Kirsan ) does not want a solution they want a problem so they can refuse to play and play the blame game of blaming the other side.

the solution is to make the san luis type tournament the winner is the challenger. and the challenger plays the current champion in a match. I am sure if fide agreed to that then kramnik will quickly agree and the match will take place.

the beauty of this solution is that it gives fide the san luis type tournament and it gives kramnik and all the chess fans a match to determine the champion.

Now it looks like the only solution will be to have Kirsan voted out of office in May 2006. but I am not so sure that will happen.

I believe that Anand is a worthy opponent for Kramnik for the classical title but I am not so sure that Anand will be willing to play. he might be locked up legally by fide also.

tommy

"The World Champion’s title belongs by law to FIDE"

which law?

I just went over to Susan Polgar's blog site. I really like what she has to say. she has things well thought out and she has a professional's opinion. I learn much from her blog site.

I hope it is ok for me to bring her opinion here. If this is not ok then just delete this posting.

http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com/

here is what she says. you can also read what others have posted at her web site on this topic.

*************

Sorry Mr. Kramnik! You're stalemated!

In 2000, Kramnik broke from FIDE for a shot at Kasparov and money. Now, he wants a shot at unification. Pardon me! What unification? FIDE is the official governing body of chess worldwide. You broke away from FIDE. If you want to unify your title with the FIDE World Champion, don't you have to recognize FIDE and follow FIDE rules?

Silly me! The answer is of course not, not according to Kramnik and his people. Most professional players no longer care about the title that Mr. Kramnik has. I am sure somebody will agree to play him for the next title defense if the price is right. But his title is worth less and less each day.

Mr. Kramnik, you had your shot in San Luis. You chose not to play. If you want this unification match to work, you need to get down from your own pedestal.
*************

well I dont know what to say. it is certainly a different view than what was in my mind when i went there to see what she had to say. as of this moment there are no comments on her blog. I am sure people will respond.

May I add that back after the san luis tournament Susan Polgar said that she thought that Topalov was world champion and that he should not play Kramnik. so I guess that fits in with what she is now saying.

for me, I want to see the match take place. I am addicted to watching the world's best chess players duke it out in over a chess board. great fun for me to watch. I will be willing to support the winner as the Champion.

tommy

While she is certainly entitled to her opinion, I think the chess world would be better served if we followed what is best for chess in the long run and not what Polgar and other professional players think. It has been shown repeatedly that the professional players are naturally going to do what they think is best for their own short-term self interests rather than what is best for them in the long run.

knight_tour you mean the Chess world as you see it would be better served. you have an amazing logic, and an equally amazing pomposity. So you know better than Polgar what's best for her long term interests?

"Topalov's manager gives reasons and states that his client is willing to take on [i]any[/i] player above Elo 2700"

Isn't Fischer's rating above 2700?
He should send his letter of intent.
Getting blown off the board would be worth the consolation prize fund.
What flag would Fischer play under? Icelandic?

Susan Polgar writes:

"If you want to unify your title with the FIDE World Champion, don't you have to recognize FIDE and follow FIDE rules?"

This is certainly correct, but the idea of "unification" at the same time has to include some form of recognition of Kramnik's title on the part of FIDE. How can Kramnik "follow FIDE rules" in order to "unify" his "title" if the very rules fail to recognize that title? This is beyond me.

its not beyond me. Kramnik is a challenger, over 2700 and with a pot of money. Doesnt matter whether previously he's been the queen of Sheba. Or not.

If this is not beyond you, "d", you are certainly able to explain us how the scenario described by you constitutes a "unification". What precisely is "unified" in your scenario?
:D

tommy:
I don't know what she is talking about. Seems like she does not know about 120 years of WC title tradition, and its historical value. what a shame.

Did anyone notice about Topalov's manager remarks earlier and now? Earlier, they wanted to play Kramnik. He was very humble. Now suddenly, he talks very arrogant and in a insulting way. The best thing for Kramnik is to arrange title matches on his own. No more FIDE business.

Well, as expected, "64" had its own correspondent, Vladimir Barsky, give Kramnik a jingle, to get his take on this. A translation:

VLadimir KRAMNIK: THIS TWO-HEADED WORLD, ALAS, CONTINUES...

VB - How did the negotiations for a match with Topalov go, and why didn't the agreement get signed?

VK - I don't know the details, because my manager handled most of the negotiations - although of course he kept me apprised of what was happening. In principle, the press-release describes the details of the situation. At first, we were quite sure that Topalov and his manager wanted the match. We had a meeting with our managers and the UEP representative, in which agreement was reached on every question - there were no problems remaining. Complete financial guarantees, absolute mutual understanding. Topalov's manager said that he was absolutely satisfied with everything, but that he would have to talk with FIDE first. And after consulting with FIDE, the situation changed sharply - they decided against the agreements. FIDE made some sharp statement against it - that's the firm impression I got. Of course, we should ask Topalov about this, too.

— Is this the final decision - does this mean there will be no match, under any circumstances?

— I think the chances are slim-to-none: nobody can force them to do anything. As far as I'm concerned, everything was just brilliant: complete financial guarantees of a minimum prize fund of $1.4 M - and a very good possibility that it could have gone even higher, since in the time between now and the match date, additional sponsors certainly might have been found.

The match conditions and regulations looked completely satisfactory to everyone - we had agreed on everything. What more do you need? If you could refuse to play a match under these circumstances, then what circumstances WOULD you play under?!

— What was the idea behind creating this new organization - Universal Event Promotion?

— First of all, it wanted to host our match against Topalov, and guaranteed the prize fund. Its future plans included tournaments, as well. But better you should ask them this question.

— Did those sponsors you managed to attract want to finance just this unification match, or will their interest in chess continue?

— Their interest continues. But now the situation has changed, because all of this was based on unifying the chess world - that was what the sponsor wanted, but what happened, has happened.

My understanding is that these sponsors are prepared to host something different, as well - we will have further conversations with them about this. But for now, it's clear that this unfortunate "two-headed" situation, with its parallel championships, et cetera, is going to continue.

— How will the next cycle be organized?

— Well, this has all just happened, so a little time is needed, before things can move in a different direction. I put forth every effort to make the unification match happen. But this wasn't something terrible. Of course, it's a shame that everything that was begun in 2002 ended up nowhere. Quite honestly, I understood long ago what FIDE's real position is: in point of fact, they do not want unification, and gave their agreement only for some short-term tactical purposes. This became clear after the multiple postponements of Kasparov's matches. In other words, FIDE may have paid lip-service to unification, but all the actions of the international federation testified to the reverse. We kept hoping that perhaps this was not so...

— It looks like we will soon see Vladimir Kramnik in Moscow?

— On November 25th, I will give a simul, organized by the Swiss watch company "Blancpain". On December 16th, there will be a short match with my good friend Andrei Minkov - for entertainment purposes, sort of a soiree, which I hope everyone will enjoy. And of course, at the end of December - the Championship of Russia.

Peace,

its not my scenario. Its FIDE's scenario, and that is, there is nothing to unify. Topalov is champ, Kramnik is a challenger, end of story. What's hard to understand about that?

What is Topalov's record against Kramnik? I heard it is pretty dismal.

So how about this angle? Topalov will try to steer clear of Mr. Kramnik until an "easier" opponent is lined up, after which Kramnik will be completely marginalized.

my 2 cents Or is it up to a quarter now days.
Lat

If I may just be allowed, as a longtime Russian-chess observer, to add a comment of my own:

It seems clear that FIDE is hell-bent on one thing, and one thing only: control. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS: not commercial sponsorship, not the validity of anyone's title, not unification - NADA. They sank this ship in harbor, because THEY didn't "organize" it (translation: "take their cut of it"). But the money is meaningless to Illuzhionov's FIDE: controlling the world's strongest players, making THEM dance to HIS tune, is all that matters.

What. A. Total. Waste.

d:
True only in your FIDE history book.

"d", logic doesn't seem to be your forte.

Susan Polgar was talking about "unification", and so was I in my comment. I asked:

"How can Kramnik "follow FIDE rules" in order to "unify" his "title" if the very rules fail to recognize that title? This is beyond me."

To which you replied:

"its not beyond me."

In the given context, the only possible meaning of your optimistic assertion is that you could indeed explain how Kramnik could "follow FIDE rules" in order to "unify" his "title" while these same rules fail to recognize that title.

But now instead of addressing the problem you simply state that "there is nothing to unify"... Obviously, your optimistic assertion that it wasn't "beyond" you didn't make any sense.
:D

Well,
As I already mentioned before, if we compare what Kramnik, and FIDE did during last 5 years, Kramnik's approach, even being far from ideal, was the most fair and consistent, IMHO.
I still hope Topalov will play Kramnik. If not, Topalov's legitmacy will go down, and in a year nobody will remember he is a Champion, and Vlad will have to find a way to get a new Challenger for a Classical title. Even if this will be a single tournament like Linares 2006. And because FIDE can/will penalize a Challenger, this will be just a matter of who can bring more money for their participants, Kirsan or Kramnik.
Now, everything depends on the FIDE Congress. Honestly, I am not sure the unification is a good deal if Kirsan becomes re-elected. The new cycle can be easily turned into a joke, and we'll have no signle force to oppose this.
May be, the best way for Kramnik would be to wait until elections, and only after this to choose what to do.

ok Martin you got me!! well done! I bow down to your logical reasoning power. And what a rapier sharp wit to boot. Actually I wasnt concerned about unification, but was talking about Fide's position. You're right though, as a response to your comment, my logic breaks down. Well done old son.

Ryan the truth is not the point. The point is that is what Fide say, and understanding their point is not beyond me, which is kind of the point. Follow the point?

Is the match really gone?
Kramnik will never play under the FIDE umbrella, because it is clear FIDE wil do their best to drag their feet on him, and to cancel the match later, anyway. Kasparov and Ponomariov already came through this.
Danailov said Topalov will play only under the FIDE umbrella, no exceptions. Well, we know how many times Danailov changed his mind, but in this case he is legally binded to follow what FIDE says.
Laet's take a rest until the Congress?

OK, the following is a sincere and serious question to which I honestly don't know the answer. So I would appreciate sincere and serious replies... :)

As you've all seen me say no doubt too many times, I personally believe sponsors won't come back into the cycle until we have a situation where the format for the NEXT cycle is defined before the first day of play of the championsihp event. so that it is a process uninfluenced by whoever holds the title at the moment.

OK, that said...I'm confused about why people who believe in the "over 100 years of chess tradition" or as some put it "the champ who beat the champ who beat the champ" sequence don't recognize Bobby Fischer as the still reigning world champion.

What would make Fischer's split from FIDE in 1975 any different from Kasparov's split some years later?

Again, I'm really sincerely confused about this. Forgetting individual personalities and talents, just looking at process, what's the argument for saying that GM Kramnik is the world champion instead of GM Fischer?

I know Kramnik beat Kasparov, of course...but Kasparov never beat anyone in a sequence that included the defeat of the still living Fischer.

As I said, I don't want to get into any arguments over the individual players. Just from a process sense. Why doesn't the classical match branch follow the 1972 champion?

Thanks,
Duif

to mrs. polgar: how should kramnik take shower without getting wet?

btw: i think it is about time for some open letters....lol

Duif: Fischer was defeated, only by forfeit instead of OTB. He refused to play the legitimate challenger and retired. How is that situation even remotely comparable to Kramnik's?

acirce,

My understanding is that GM Fischer refused to play because of the conditions of the proposed match.

How is that different from what GM Kasparov did in England?

(GM Fischer later did play a second match against a handpicked challenger. He himself never said he "retired," only that he refused to play under the organization's conditions.)

So I am just trying to follow the logic for arguing that the match play branch leads to one destination rather than another.

thanks,
Duif

He retired for 20 years no matter what he called it. If Kramnik had refused to play Leko (or Kasparov Short in 1993, etc) and then done the same, of course nobody had taken his title seriously. If Fischer and Karpov had played their match outside of FIDE, that would have been analogous to what Kasparov did, but they didn't.

I just don't get one thing. If Kramnik is not a champion, everybody knows that Fischer was
#11 champion, Kasparov #13, so what number is Topalov?

i've just got to say that things didn't look this messy when it was just Kramnik trying to duck Kasparov...interesting how things have actually been able to deteriorate from what i'm sure many thought was an absolute disaster.

In spite of all the disagreement from various sides, I see all the discussion as a good sign if things are to be sorted out. It's when the parties aren't talking and pointing fingers of blame that we really need to get worried. The principles all need to flex their muscles for a while so that when they compromise they'll appear to be heroic. It's similar to labor union vs. management negotiations in that sense...isn't it? All sides must be allowed to "save face" somehow in the end.

Duif,
Fischer could have ended up in a situation just like Kasparov's, IF he had gone on to organize alternate matches on a regular basis. Many of us would have seen him as the logical continuation of the classical title. However, he did not do this. It is crazy to suggest that one could just keep the title for decades without playing matches. This is the same thing we have with Kramnik now. He has, regardless of the less than optimal circumstances, played a recent match for the title, but he must continue to have legitimate matches every couple of years if he wants anyone to still consider him to be the champion. Right now it seems obvious that the only viable challengers are 1. Topalov, 2. Anand (as the runner-up), or 3. Kasparov (as the actual strongest player in the world).

If FIDE won't develop a legitimate cycle with a title match at the end, then there is no reason for them to get the classical title back.

Thank you both for the responses.

I suppose the reason I prefer to see the titles for any competitive activity vested in an organization is that it can be difficult to tell when a champoin is accepting the "right" individual challenges.

I know an organization can get htings wrong as wel, of course, but it does seem a bit easier to concentrate on process with an organization-based title.

Oh, well. One way or another, one branch or another, I'm just waiting for the day when we'll know on the first day of a championship event just what the qualifying rules will be for the NEXT cycle. That's beginning to feel pretty utopian, however. :)

Duif,
I doubt there are any of us out here who prefer the title to be out of the control of an organization. We would love to see FIDE run properly enough to take control of the title! However, if they are driven to demean if not outright destroy the whole meaning of the title then it is actually better if the title is kept out of their hands until such time as FIDE gets its act together. All they really need to do is make the tournament at the end of their cycle be for selecting the challenger to play in a match with the champion rather than for selecting the champion. A tournament such as San Luis just is not good enough for having a true world champion. At least the tournament Botvinnik won had five cycles, which made it better than San Luis.

While the results might have been slightly different, i doubt there would've been a significant change no matter who would've been to San Luis. One of the three main contenders won, and this likely would've happend had Ivanchuk or anyone else been a participant.
All the talk about no qualifiers for San Luis is academic and inconsequential.
Of course it's good to have qualifiers and many as possible having a chance, but regardless the roster in San Luis was good enough. GM #59 complaining for not having a chance at the title is just silly (and i know Chucky isn't #59), whilst some might think he could deserve a chance as good as any.
Long-term standings are reliable...as reliable as any qualifying tournament, anyway, that is also largely influenced by short-term peaks and streaks of "luck" etc.
i see preference in general for short-term successes and don't know why that is.