Never on Thursdays

ALl this ta-da must be SO irritaing for the players. It's bad enough in football or rugby where you have to stand listening to the national anthems when all you want to do is get on and play, but three hours' worth of inspecting markets and watching Kalmyk dancers.......and that's just on arrival at the airport, never mind what is sure to be an utterly balls-aching opening ceremony. Worse than being the Queen, and just at the worst moment too.

Never take a taxi cab ride in Russia if you can at all avoid it. They drive at warp speed and death is 30% likely.

You might be interesting in looking at the official list of World Champions on the "official website" - beginning with Steinitz. http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=875

To quote: Wilhelm Steinitz
(World Champion 1886 - 1894)

Anatoly Karpov
(World Champion 1975 - 1985, 1993 - 1999)

Garry Kasparov
(World Champion 1985 - 1993, World Champion according to ACP 1993 - 2000)

Alexander Khalifman
(World Champion 1999 - 2000)

Vladimir Kramnik
(World Champion according to "Brain- Game" and "Einstein-Group" from 2000)

Veselin Topalov
(World Champion from 2005)

Is there any expectation that after this we will see a return to the classical cycle of candidates matches and regular title defenses, or will "unification" simply be an excuse to perpetuate the tournament method for deciding the champion? I fear if Topalov wins it will be the latter; that's why I'm rooting for Kramnik.

what about Pono?

Oh, god! Its the worst mascot I have seen since Microsoft introduced clippy

http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=898

Clippy was a unifying mascot, holding together complex ideas into neat bundles.

So Ponomariov and Anand never won the FIDE World Championship? Or that the KO was not the champion...unless your name starts with a K?

parsnips, if you are referring to the quotes I gave above, please read the link. I only picked out certain ones, to show that according to Kirsan the only World Champions were those who were given a title by FIDE.

Pono and Vishy were WC according to Kirsan. Kasparov only until 1993 and Kramnik not at all.

Of all the terrible things that Kirsan may, or may not, have done to our beautiful game, making that abomination the official logo of this long anticipated match may be the worst! Chess used to be up to its eyeballs in dignity, if not money or sex appeal, but this logo is a severe blow... :-)

My list of World Chess Champions will never read like that. As far as the logo goes, another prime example of Kirsan's dumming down the title.

Is it just me, or is that antelope looking just a bit *too* friendly?...

The Russian version of FIDE site for the match just put up a release that Inarkiev will commentate the first half of the match.

No comment on how the baby antelope felt.

I agree Ben, if World Chess Champion Kramnik can prevail, this will be our only hope of possibly preserving head to head matches for the title. Believe also that Vlad would like to see candidates matches return as well. Topolov from what I can ascertain from his comments, would be Kirsan's puppet. If Topalov prevails, then he has the right to call himself the 15th World Chess Champion as far as I'm concerned. The tradition of head to head matches will probably die with this last one. The future of our chess championship lies in the hands of Kramnik.

Topalov only took the match because he thought Kramnik was ill/finished. I bet he wasnt expecting Kramnik's resurgence. He is under much more pressure as despite San Luis if he loses consensus opinion may never grant him World Champion status. Kramnik already has that in the bag having beaten Garry the Great. Great to have a match anyway despite all the issues.....

There are a few ridiculous comments here. Let me repeat: Kramnik and Topalov have BOTH committed to play in the next FIDE WC tournament should they win, so we will be in the same position regardless of the outcome.

Kirsan seems to change the rules with every cycle, so the best possible outcome is a highly competitive match with lots of media attention. Kirsan loves attention, so the more attention this gets, the greater the chances it will be repeated. The worst possible outcome is a dull match that only chess junkies care about.

Topalov would be delighted to have the original system return. Remember, in that system the champion had a guaranteed three-year reign with draw odds against the next challenger. What champion *wouldn't* want that system?

Topalov did not take the match because he thought Kramnik was ill. He took the match because there's a $1 million purse. For that kind of money, Topalov would be happy play Kramnik, Fischer, my grandmother, or Mig's cat.

I do agree that there is more pressure on Topalov than on Kramnik.

would Mig's cat get $500,000 though? that is the question.

TO: Marc Shepherd

You claimed "Topalov would be delighted to have the original system return" (of matches to decide the WCC title).
I feel this claim is discrepant with Topalov's behavior.

You probably have more information about this than I, so I will not say you are mistaken. But I will say I have read things that were consistent on the point that Topalov initially refused Kramnik's invitation to play a WCC title match. Topalov insisted that Kramnik first sign a contract, designed by Kirsan, that required Kramnik to agree that the 2007 FIDE Championship tournament would transfer the WCC title to the tournament winner.
The main purpose of the contract was give Kirsan control of the WCC title.

If Topalov really did that, then I say Topalov's actions tend to argue against your claim. Actions speak louder than words. Topalov's actions would show disrespect for the proper match treatment of the WCC title.

Further, Topalov has been quoted, and recently quoted again saying that he Topalov is the one and only WCC title holder since San Luis 2005.
How wrong, how ugly. Less than a year prior, Kramnik had successfully defended his hard won title against the highly regarded challenger Peter Leko.

Yes there is the 1948 precedence for awarding the WCC title to a tournament winner. But Alekhine was dead by then. Kramnik ain't dead.

The blunt truth is that Topalov is not yet any kind of a world chess champion. This match cannot "re-unify" the WCC title because it has never yet been split.

Topalov never will be WCC, until he wins a WCC match. That is why there is more pressure on Topalov. No pressure on the current WCC title holder Kramnik. Kramnik knows, by already signed contract, that they are taking away his next year even if he defeats Topalov.

As for the prediction made in an earlier post, that Kirsan would somehow ensure a spot for Topalov in the 2007 FIDE Championship tournament even if Topalov loses to Kramnik in 2006/10 -- I can only hope Topalov would have more class than to accept such a tainted gift of favoritism. It was a stupid idea by Kirsan to exclude the match loser from the 2007 tournament. But since we know Kirsan favors Topalov and would likely maintain the exclusion if Kramnik loses in 2006/10, Topalov would be undignified to accept such a post-match change in his favor.

Thank you.

I interpret Topalov's pre-match comments as the usual mental games that opponents play on one another. (You could write a whole book about Bobby Fischer's mental games.)

All I said was that if you put Topalov under a truth serum and ask, "Would you rather be champion for three years, with draw odds against your next challenger?", he would say "yes." However, that is not the system Kirsan has created, and I'm sure he'd rather be champion under Kirsan's system than not be champion at all. Even with the debased championship Kirsan has created, being champion has been very lucrative for Topalov. Most of us would happily take that deal, if it were available.

It was entirely correct for Topalov to insist that Kramnik join the FIDE system should he win. Why should Topalov put his title on the line, unless Kramnik is agreeing to the very same thing? In saying this, I am not suggesting that the FIDE system is the one I want. But today there simply is no other system out there. Kramnik needed this match too, because he has no infrastructure that can produce a credible challenger in any other way.

'The blunt truth is that Topalov is not yet any kind of a world chess champion. This match cannot "re-unify" the WCC title because it has never yet been split.'

Hmmm, you seem to have noticed something that was missed by everyone else who talks about re-unification. How nice of you to let us in on it.

The blunt truth is that every other major chess player in the world is tied into the FIDE system. If Kramnik didn't take this match, then whatever title he has would quickly become irrelevant before withering and expiring of old age.

I do agree that if Topalov loses, he will be reduced to the same footnote in chess history that Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Khazimdjanov currently occupy. Kramnik, on the other hand, is in very select company no matter what happens, although a win here would certainly burnish his credentials.

"It was entirely correct for Topalov to insist that Kramnik join the FIDE system should he win. Why should Topalov put his title on the line, unless Kramnik was doing the very same thing?"

I don’t follow this at all. Kramnik puts his title on the line, Topalov puts his. The winner has both titles. Why should Topalov insist that should Kramnik win he will then give both titles to FIDE? It doesn’t make any sense. It’s as if Kramnik were to say that if Topalov wins he has to agree to defend his title only in a proper match.

It does make sense, of course – it’s good ol’ Illy’s condition for putting up the money. But it’s nothing to Topalov: it’s just another gambit in Ilyumzhinov’s campaign to get the world championship under his control and destroy the match play tradition.

What I can’t for the life of me fathom is Ilyumzhinov’s motives. It’s so unbelievably, incredibly, bleeding obvious that world championship matches are the best publicity the game gets. Maybe that’s what he doesn’t like – he actually dislikes other sponsors coming into the game and rivalling him?

It’s like the rapid-style Olympiad time controls. I simply can’t imagine what Makropoulos thinks they’re good for. Other than wilfully sabotaging the game, I just can’t see what he’s trying to achieve. I note that for serious events at least they’re playing something sensible, in fact what all events should obviously do – the usual seven hours with an increment in the last session only.

In view of the fact that the prize money will be split evenly regardless of the result of the match, I suggest an additional incentive:
The award of a life-size sculpture of the mascot (to the loser, of course).

"What I can’t for the life of me fathom is Ilyumzhinov’s motives. It’s so unbelievably, incredibly, bleeding obvious that world championship matches are the best publicity the game gets."

To tell you the truth, I've never figured that out either. Anyone ought to be able to see that a mano à mano classical duel is more compelling drama than a semi-rapid KO tournament. One possibility is that Kirsan simply doesn't understand the beauty of the classical game. Perhaps he just thinks rapid chess is more interesting.

However, I have another hypothesis. It's about power. In the current lottery system, no one is world champion for very long, so no one (other than Kirsan) has a chance to accumulate a power base apart from FIDE bureaucrats.

In the old system, the world champion tended to remain at the top of the heap for many years. The champ became the most important and powerful figure in chess until he was defeated, which sometimes took a long time to happen. Kirsan doesn't like it when someone has more power than him, so he's created a system where the champion is relatively disposable and unimportant.

If anyone has another hypothesis, feel free to weigh in.

Quoted from Marc Shepard:

"To tell you the truth, I've never figured that out either. Anyone ought to be able to see that a mano à mano classical duel is more compelling drama than a semi-rapid KO tournament. One possibility is that Kirsan simply doesn't understand the beauty of the classical game. Perhaps he just thinks rapid chess is more interesting."

From a chess enthusiast's point of view, a traditional match produces finer chess, unquestionably. However, how many people can appreciate the finer points of an exquisite game, as compared to the populist thrill of KO games?

"From a chess enthusiast's point of view, a traditional match produces finer chess, unquestionably. However, how many people can appreciate the finer points of an exquisite game, as compared to the populist thrill of KO games?"

I don't see any evidence that FIDE's KO tournaments have, in fact, generated much populist attention. Who, exactly, has been "thrilled" by a FIDE KO tournament?

Yes, it's true that the average person cannot appreciate the beauty of a well-played classical game. But a head-to-head match between the two best players generates interest that a KO tournament simply doesn't.

I can guarantee you that Kramnik-Topalov will get more attention (press, public) than Topalov's victory at San Luis, or heaven help us, Kasimjanov's win in the last WC KO tourney.

Kramnik got White in the first game at the drawing of lots.

Given the reversal of colours half-way through the match, does this mean Kramnik has White in both the first game AND the last game?

Marc Shepher posted :

"What I can’t for the life of me fathom is Ilyumzhinov’s motives. It’s so unbelievably, incredibly, bleeding obvious that world championship matches are the best publicity the game gets. Maybe that’s what he doesn’t like – he actually dislikes other sponsors coming into the game and rivalling him?"

Ilzhyuminov's motive is to make chess an Olympic sport. He once gave an interview that the old candidates' cycle gave the defending champion too many privileges. The defending champion sat on his laurels whereas the challenger had to go through a gruelling series of Zonals, interzonals and candidates matches. It is like in a 100 m race, the defending champion has a 50 m headstart. ( I believe that was the comment of Juan Antonio Samaranch, the then IOC president). So, he wanted to level the playing field for everybody. The fast time controls were , of course, Makro's idea as Makro prefers fast games. I personally think that the problem needs to be rectified (i.e the defending champion's privileges need to go away) but Kirsan's solution is not the right move.

Plus they have had bitter experience with matches. Witness Kasparov and Short hijacking the world championship. In a tournament championship, or a KO the players don't have so much power. Giving the players too much power (e.g. Kasparov or Karpov) may not really be such a good idea.

Destroying the prestige that the traditional WC system (matches+candidates matches)has in search of desperate acceptance by the mainstream sports community seems utterly silly to me. Chess will never be treated as a 'sport' in the meaning most of the world understand that concept.

I think chess should search sponsorship and acceptance based on its own traditions and strengths - the things that make it unique.

To me the quest of 'making chess an olympic sport' sounds like chess leaders just have a bad self esteem and are searching for wide acceptance (whatever that may be) by anyone. Too bad that in that process the two things that make chess special are forgotten (or destroyed): tradition of World Championship and beauty (or at least possibilty to it!) of the game (shortened time control is the enemy of this!).

To me chess shouldn't be sold out for vague and mostly unrealistic 'gains'. With that said, I hope Kramnik wins this match and stands up against Kirsan and hopefully saves the prestige of the tradional WC system.