Kamsky Writes to FIDE

It's great that Gata Kamsky wrote this letter, at least there are now three active guys - Gelfand, Kamsky and myself. The main problem is however that even these three players have different opinions about certain subjects and if more players become active the situation might even get worse.
However one thing seems well established - no other players want World Champion to have the direct seed into the final match. I personally think that even semifinals is too much a privelege - quarterfinals (or the tournament of 8) seems fair to me.
As for Gata's concern of a possible collusion - maybe the formula used in Dortmund 2002 is more apropriate for the tournament of 8 rather than the double-round tournament like in San Luis. I would recommend the Dortmund formula for Mexico 2007 as well.

In reply to Alexei Shirov's post, has Gelfand complained about the proposed new system, as opposed to about the rescheduling of the candidates matches in the present cycle?

When Gata Kamsky referred to the champion's privileges going back to the Karpov era, he surely meant back to the Steinitz era, didn't he? There has never at any time been a system where the champion had to start on a level footing with everyone else.

Of course the other top players would like to see this; they've been wanting to see it since Spassky at the very least and I dare say before that. Personally I don't care for it - there's a good reason the heavyweight boxing crown is (or was) the supreme prize in sport, and part of it's to do with the fact that the Man is the Man until you beat him, and then you're the Man, and so on. Otherwise it's like the European Championship in football; teams like Greece and Denmark get lucky on the day, and it doesn't mean very much.

rhd wrote :

>When Gata Kamsky referred to the champion's privileges going back to the Karpov era, he surely meant back to the Steinitz era, didn't he? There has never at any time been a system where the champion had to start on a level footing with everyone else.>

Of course, Kamsky's main point

>The main point that I protest is allowing the world champion to have the old privileges that were revoked ever since the 1993 split between FIDE and Kasparov...>

but are they "privileges" or rights and is it the answer to this so self evident so as not to need an argument ?

is it a "privilege" or a right to make the most useful for you out of, for instance, the money you have earned ? And can anyone revoke your "privilege" ? He may try of course but usually he has to bring a gun with him if he wants to be convincing.

> The current success or for some shame of the re-unification match hype as well as the interests of the world champion should not take precedence over the interests of fair play, fair competition and other professional players.>

Yes it is a conflict of interests and what is so special about this ? Srange (absurd) enough Kamsky is accusing, is finding at fault, the Champion precisely for not acting so as to serve Kamsky's (and other's who want the prize) best interests but instead acting to serve his own best interests.

Naturally most professional players will want to make the world title more democratic. It is their livelihood. This is exactly why they are not the people to be deciding the best way to hold the world championship cycle! Their best interest is in their chances of winning the title, not in what is best for chess and the millions of common people who make up the fan base. Chess is for everyone, not just GMs. What makes chess magical and wonderful for most of us is the legendary status of our world champions. Having the title appear to be so difficult as to be almost unattainable is what gives the champions their legendary status. We all know the names of each true champion. This would all change if you devalue the title by making it 'democratic'. It may not seem fair, but if you are jealous of the power of the champion all you have to do is knock him/her off the throne and take the privileges for yourself. That would make you a legend. Weaken the title and all you end up with is a stream of forgettable 'champs' who quickly get forgotten, and the loss of everything that makes world championship chess magical for us fans. No thanks!

Am I the only one who shakes his head in disbelief? An official letter, one I even make public, I would check for orthography, at least spelling consistency and choice of words...

Anyway...

I don't agree every last detail, but I think Kamsky has the 3 basic ideas right to get a fair World Championship: (1) a big swiss tournament to determine most of the candidates (fairer than a knockout because one loss isn't fatal); (2) the candidates play matches of a decent length (8-12 games), not tournaments or 2-game matches; and (3) the champion is seeded into the candidates matches, but doesn't have the enormous advantage of going direct into the final.

[My humble opinion is to expand this to also include the top couple of point scorers from the ACP tour, to ensure the top couple of elite performers are in the Candidates. So 8 candidates consisting of something like: the existing champion, 3 from the ACP tour, 4 from the swiss.]

The main problem getting this off the ground seems to be difficulty in finding sponsorship for candidates matches. Why, then, are there a number of supertournaments which CAN get sponsorship? Why not, in alternate years, replace (for example) Linares and Dortmund with candidates' matches? It's been done before. IMHO, the interest would be greater, so it'd be better for the sponsors.

Whilst I have opinions on the world title format I think it is time that the top players got together and talked about a format.

Shirov has been around forever in the top 20, Kamsky has played for the world title and is clearly back as a force. Both are in the top 20.

Shirov is clearly right that if you get three players in a room you'll get three opinions (maybe even four 8-)) but things have got so bad there is surely greater room for agreement amongst the top players than would otherwise be the case. The ACP is a fine idea but the guys that should be setting the rules are pretty much the top 20 or 25 plus maybe a couple of fast rising juniors.

I've made the point a couple of times but I think it absurd FIDE are trying to get 128 players into one event. Have qualifiers by all means but its quite clear that the core of players who should be playing for the title is much smaller than that (although not as small as the 8 that played in Dortmund to qualify to play Kramnik).

I don't know how you'd get the top 25 to all to meet and come to an agreement but perhaps it might be possible to get at least a concensus as to the parameters of what should happen. At the moment they're subject to the whims of FIDE and that can't fill them with confidence.

I agree 100% with Kamsky. I'd like to see a few more top players provide their opinions.

I personally don't see why the champ should get any special priviliges, but seeding them into the match phase would be a reasonable compromise.

Mark, there is not so much wrong about 128 players' event as you think. Magnus Carlsen was far in the second half in Khanty-Mansyisk by ELO, yet he made a tremendous performance. If he didn't have a chance to compete in Khanty-Mansyisk, he would probably just stick to his school studies, not even prepare for WAZ2 properly and we might have not seen his amazing rise.

GM Shirov:

Why don't you and other top 25 players write to FIDE as well? There is at least agreement on key issue - the champion should not be seeded directly into the Final. If at all he should have any privileges, at best he should be seeded into the quarter finals of a match cycle or into a San Luis like tournament of 8 . You have some leverage as you are on the ACP board.

Alexei, of course there are going to be players of low rank who are improving which is why you can have qualifiers. But its also why a spoke of fast rising juniors. Carlsen has long been picked out as a potential champion and a certain top 20 player.

In 2005 would have been the kind of junior player you would have wanted to find a place for and I think he was going to continue playing chess whatever.

The world championship is at its best the shop window for the game. With so many players we're having to make terrible compromises as to the format as a whole.

Can I ask a question Alexei? One of my feelings about the FIDE knockout format is that players don't prepare as hard for the event as they do for some of the older style formats. Its a bit random not least in the players you might meet after a few rounds so players take their chances. Did you prepare much harder to play Kramnik than your successes in the FIDE format?

Its one of the reasons I think the players need to be involved in creating the new format, I think they'd be a lot more committed towards something they created rather than was imposed upon them.

Mark, I prepared very hard for all the World Championship cycles that I played, that means Groningen 1997, Kramnik match, Las Vegas 1999, Delhi 2000, Moscow 2001 and even Dortmund 2002 even though I wasn't going to play Kramnik in case of winning that. Of course, other players prepared too, so my success wasn't always the same :).

One of the disadvantages of 64 players' event is precisely that it's very difficult to find wildcards for junior players. Nowadays you have more than 20 players with 2700 rating, then you need to please all the continents, the official World Junior champions etc. 64 is simply not a high number then.

OK well I was wrong on the preparation!

Its clear that finding the ideal solution to a world title cycle is difficult. Yes, you want to be inclusive as possible but also it has to be financable and be workable in the modern chess players time table. It also has to be satisfying in its format so that the champion looks like a real champion not someone who has had a real slice of luck (although luck can play a part in every championship).

I think it clear that the knockout didn't capture the general public's imagination whereas matches and tournaments do. I think it clear that the format has failed and that's why I'm very disappointed its been brought back, even in this modified form. They bring their own problems. I can't see how in the modern era a series of Candidates matches can work. They might have done if we had continued the tradition but once they went getting them back again I think is impossible.

What is clear is that we need to get a format people are happy with (and I think the leading players should be the most important audience) and then stick to it. We need above all else stability and continuity.

Posted by Mark Crowther..."What is clear is that we need to get a format people are happy with (and I think the leading players should be the most important audience) and then stick to it. We need above all else stability and continuity."

You last sentence first...because it is the most important thing after all these years of instability. Thank you for emphasizing that.

The format I believe most of the professional chess players would be happy with is one that will bring them a substantial income.

The format that amateurs who are interested (those that write on this blog and other blogs and who read ChessBase, TWIC and the other Chess News sites) would be most happy with is getting to see interesting games in a live format with a good commentator such as Yasser Seirawan doing some analysis.

The format that the majority of chess players would be happiest with is watching exciting (not live) shows that talk about chess, show some tense moments, and end up with *STARS* to adulate over.

It is not an impossible task to provide all three elements, thus making everyone happy.

This, however, has to be orchestrated by a non-affiliated professional chess marketing and organization entity. Now we only have to convince Kirsan.

With all due respect to Kamsky and Shirov, I think they are partly missing the point. It seems clear that the great events in the past were the undisputed worldchampionship matches. Back in 1972 Spassky-Fischer made it onto the front pages of the major newspapers, and similarly the Karpov-Kortchnoi and Kasparov-Karpov matches were regularly on the front page of the New York Times. Those were memorable battles, and that is what generates interest from the fans and from potential sponsors. Making the cycle more democratic by taking away priviliges from the champion will not increase sponsor interest. Nor will six game matches generate as much interest as the epic battles of the past. It is unfortunate for Mr Shirov that he never got to play a match with Kasparov, but neither he nor Mr Kamsky seems to realize that their choices and actions affect the likelihood of sponsormoney coming in. Insisting on fairness in the process may not be the best way of increasing the outside interest.
It would be great if Mr Kok would be in charge of setting up a commerially viable system, but I fear that letting the players decide on a system would not improve the sponsor situation.

I'd think that not only the top contenders should have say on the World Championship cycle, but the reigning World Champion himself and the public (fans, federations, FIDE) should have considerable say also.

That's the lofty theory, but which has been a hopelessly unrealistic pipe dream with an autistic FIDE and Kirsan at the helm.

The only real success of FIDE in this regard is San Luis, so make Mexico = San Luis II to determine a credible challenger. Let's face it, it's the only realistic thing we can hope for!

I appreciate the comments of Alexei Shirov and Gata Kamsky, but I would like to make one comment in support of the old world championship (c. 1951-1972)--it discouraged the accidental champion, and for that matter the accidental challenger as well (Korchnoi, Short, Anand, Kamsky all deserved their shots at the title). As a chess fan, not a professional player, I like the idea that a challenger must overcome a difficult series of barriers, and in the end the best challenger awaits the most daunting task of all, dethroning the world champion. Regarding democracy, I'm not in favor of rematches if the world champion loses, or even retaining the title in case of a 12-12 tie, and I'd prefer to see a match every two years rather than three. I think chess will have a stronger sportive resonance and historical flow only when a new champion dethrones the old champion. Of course, there are exceptions (Botvinnik, Karpov, etc.), but from a fan's point of view I don't like the idea of a challenger becoming world champion without having to directly dethrone the champion. I think the final match (match! not tournament!) should always be reigning champion vs. top challenger. As a chess fan, just my opinion.

I ABSOLUTELY resent the tendency to give the GMs the privilege of being the ones to play for the world title. It is called world chess championship and not world GM championship, isn't it? In a democratic and fair system, every chess player in the world should be in the ssytem competing for the title.

The current success of long-term matches (reunification especially) and excitement of chess fans over this possibility as well as the interests of the chess-playing interest should not take precedence over the interests of fair play, fair competition and other players.

Where is Nigel Short when you need him?

I strongly disagree with GMs Kamsky and Shirov, too.

In fact, I am very surprised that great players like that would prefer that the world champ would not be seeded in the final match. I mean, I know it gives the champion a certain advantage, but isn't the idea to have the champion that is the best player? If I was a top level player and was in the top 10, and for some reason I never won the world championship, it would be easier on my ego to know that even if I didn't win, the champions in my lifetime included people like Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik than if the world champions included some people that were more random, like the line of the KO winners (no offense intended to them, btw).

Here is a reason why I think the champion SHOULD be seeded into the final: it seems that the idea is to have the world champion that is also the best player in the world. The traditional system of world championship matches where the champ is seeded into the match works great for that. While it can be argued that the world champions in the line from Steinitz to Kramnik at times were NOT the best players in the world, most of the time they were. And that is something that we cannot expect of the formats that are more random, even if they are also more democratic. We already know the KO is random. The tournaments like Dortmund 2002 are less random, but they don't give nearly enough chances to the best player that the traditional system does.

There are other reasons for the champ to be seeded into the final. One is the interest that the traditional world championship matches generate. Fans don't want the champion to lose at some early stage of a knockout tournament in a blitz game. The only real way to prove that the champion is not the best player in the world anymore is to beat him in a long match, and at this point we cannot afford to have many long matches that we would need if the champion is not seeded into the final.

There is also another reason: tradition. Steinitz and Lasker and all those guys up to Kasparov were not told that they should be seeded into a semifinal of the world championship cycle. Why should Kramnik, or whoever beats Kramnik be told that? Steinitz title is the match title by definition and the champion is part of the final match by the very definition. If you want to have another sort of a world title where the winner starts at the same stage as everyone else, have that. Call it a world cup or something. But don't pretend that it is the same title that Steinitz and 13 others had. It's not. The title "Chess World Champion" refers to a very specific sort of competition that has been very successful for 120 years. Frankly I don't see the need to hijack the title from traditional champions and the fans of the traditional system.

>What is clear is that we need to get a format people are happy with (and I think the leading players should be the most important audience) and then stick to it. We need above all else stability and continuity.>

What "we" need ? Does anyone here bother to ask what the champ needs ? No, everybody is busy making plans for him to follow.

I would hope that Kramnik reads this blog and gets a good laugther reading how others making plans and "worrying" over what is to be done with what he owns.

Relax people, the WCC matches will go on when he will choose who and under what condition to play. This isn't a problem for us to solve.

In the long term the champion will be a different player, what we're talking about is a system that's going to last a lot of years and we should get right. A Champion that wins and then appears in the semi-finals or earlier or is committed to playing in a final tournament or match.

As to Kramnik the current champion, it was the general understanding that he should defend in Mexico City. It emerged that Kramnik doesn't think that, so I imagine the contract says Kramnik should defend his title under FIDE which would allow for a final match in his eyes. That's something for FIDE and Kramnik to iron out.

I'm talking long term, and I don't rule out a match final with the champion as being the right solution. As I said before, the top players should meet and find what parameters they can agree upon. But we need a perminant solution and I think FIDE aren't getting it done so the players who are most closely interested should have a crack at finding a solution they can live with. I think that's in Kramnik's interest as much as anyones.

Long live chess's tradition of the championship match. Yes to a two-year cycle; yes to eliminating draw odds for the champion; yes to a final of 12 games (rather than 16 or ... 24); yes to any qualifying system that addresses the questions of fairness and practicality. But let the challenger overcome the reigning champion in a match.

I don't think anybody has pointed out that, while FIDE has mixed recent results with organization of, say, the Candidates' Matches, they have plenty of organizer-volunteers for the Chess Olympics. So I have to agree with Kasparov that FIDE is fine for amateur chess, but not necessarily right for the pros. Which suggests that the later stages of the world championship cycle should be signed over to a new body which is at arm's length from FIDE, and also from the Champion (another truth that we learned from Kasparov). Much tricky detail omitted.

The new body would have to be 100% trustworthy on dates, formats, agreements (e.g. Prague) and not necessarily having X, Y, and Z on the Appeals Committee! Their contracts would commit both sides, not just the players. I think that such an arrangement would be in the best financial interests of FIDE, even though, of course, part of their current cut of the prize fund would go to the new organization/company.

The tradition of having a historical string of world champions in chess is somewhat unique in sports. It's a tradition that is worth preserving, but there is not a guarantee that any particular format will be comercially viable. Are potential sponsors weighing in on this debate? What do they believe is the best format, one that they are willing to support with money? In an earlier post, someone asked how did some of the other chess super-tournaments manage to get funding year after year. For some its because the sponsor and the organizer are one in the same - therfore the tournament meets the needs of the sponsor... for others they have had to fight hard to get a new sponsor when their current one declines to continue.

Keep in mind that some sports don't even bother with a world chamionship .. tennis & golf being examples. They each have their annual set of super tournaments and lesser tournaments, most of which are locally sponsored. Sure, like chess they publish a rating (or ranking) list, to identify the "world's best player", but they don't have a structure to determine a world champion.

It's clear to me what drives Gata's and Alexey's agenda. They have beaten Kramnik in the past in head-to-head matches and don't consider him a worthy champion. In their eyes Kramnik doesn't deserve a king's treatment afforded to the champions of the past.
The people who speak up on this blog may or may not represent a fair slice of chess fandom. It's a matter of opinion (and uninformed wishful thinking) for some to state that a Kramnik-Anand match will magically turn the clock back to 1972, and the corporate money will begin pouring in. Others (and I among them) sincerely doubt that.
I also happen to disagree with Mark. You can't let the lunatics run the asylum. From my experience one can't even make dinner plans that involve more than two chessplayers.

"...don't consider him a worthy champion..."
"...doesn't deserve a king's treatment..."

In football, baseball, basketball, and just about every other sport, even the dumbest player (whatever his private thoughts) has sense enough to publicly PRAISE the champion and BUILD UP the title. The player thus enhances his sport and, by beating (or losing to) a "great" opponent, raises his own profile.

Chessplayers on the other hand....

I agree with so much that has been said here. I personally like the idea of a match between champion and challenger. I think this brings the maximum prestige to chess. This brings the biggest money from sponsors.

As Greg says we need to build up the reputation of the champion so as to build up the sport. If we all build up Kramnik into a great mythological figure much bigger than life, then what does it say about the wonderful challenger who finally defeats him. Well it immediately puts the new champion as the worlds greatest.

This is what we want. Build up chess. Have great champions. NO more tearing down the champion.

And as I said in a previous posting, I would favor the top 16 or 17 players in match elimination or even a tournament to decide the challenger. Every 2 years is much better than every 3 years. I also would do away with draw odds and rematch clauses.

And yes the champion owns the title. He does have a right to pick his challenger if he so chooses. The champion does not need fide. but fide needs to pick a worthy challenger and set up the match every 2 years. If fide fails then the champion can go off on his own. fide wants to charge 20% then they need to do a good job to earn their commission. no free ride for fide.

>It's clear to me what drives Gata's and Alexey's agenda...>

Perhaps so but irrelevant for the arguments they make.
No judge in a trial would reject the evidence and the arguments brought up by the parts on reason that they are driven by the ulterior motive which is to win the case ( as opposed to being driven by the love of truth and scientific objectivity).
They are just wrong whatever the secondary motivations.

>It's a matter of ..uninformed wishful thinking for some to state that a Kramnik-Anand match will magically turn the clock back to 1972, and the corporate money will begin pouring in. >

Is it so ? Then it is all hopeless, the chess world has got stuck in Kalmykia and should appoint Borat as the arbiter for the next WCC match.

Leko could find money, Radjabov gets 1M for a match, Topalov(aka Danailov) claims that he can get sponsorship anytime and I believe him, but Anand the Hindu superstar can not(you say).

Out of such fears everbody will cling to the evils that he knows well (i.e. Kirsan's money) rather than break away with this "Kirsan the Chess"&FIDE folly.

Much of the prestige of the World Chess Champion title comes from the fact the reigning WCChamp is seeded into the the final match (the title defense match).

Kamsky's proposal would increase the title hopes of other GM's, but at a penalty to the chess title and the chess public.

The faster and more modern 2-year WCChamp cycle is a big enuf step toward giving other GM's a better chance to win the title.

Although not a soccer fan, I can't help but revel in the *success* of the World Cup. Teams qualify to play in the big tourney...get seeded into groups and then matches are played. And in the vast majority of cases, one of best teams wins the whole thing! Granted it would be a new paradigm for chess; it might be tough to swallow for traditionalists.

Although not a soccer fan, I can't help but revel in the *success* of the World Cup. Teams qualify to play in the big tourney...get seeded into groups and then matches are played. And in the vast majority of cases, one of best teams wins the whole thing! Granted it would be a new paradigm for chess; it might be tough to swallow for traditionalists.

"As to Kramnik the current champion, it was the general understanding that he should defend in Mexico City. "

I disagree. My opinion is that most chess fans do not want Kramnik to play in Mexico. They want Kramnik to play the winner of Mexico city. I am one of those who also feels this way.

Does anyone know if Kramnik has made a statement yet about if he will play in Mexico City or not. Mark Crowther seems to imply that Kramnik does not feel he is necessarily obliged to play in Mexico City. But I have seen no news to this effect.

>The faster and more modern 2-year WCChamp cycle is a big enuf step toward giving other GM's a better chance to win the title.>

Yes but it also devalues, debases, it.
It is in fact a kind of inflation, of fraud by printing more "money", staged by the eternal Kirsan in his never ending quest for miracles.
(read in "12 Chairs" by I&E Petrov the speech of GM Ostap Beneder)

4-5 years would be ok

Two points

"you can't let the lunatics run the asylum" although I understand you mean the players I think we have the lunatics in charge right now.

Frank said "As to Kramnik the current champion, it was the general understanding that he should defend in Mexico City. "

I disagree. My opinion is that most chess fans do not want Kramnik to play in Mexico. They want Kramnik to play the winner of Mexico city. I am one of those who also feels this way.

I'm not talking opinion on the format, Kramnik played a reunification match (which really secured his place in chess history) with Mexico City in place. It would have been reasonable to suppose that FIDE had made it a condition of the Topalov - Kramnik reunification.

As I've said before I don't think it reasonable to mess around concrete sponsors. But if FIDE didn't have that as a condition then its not Kramnik's fault if he holds out for a match. I'm not against matches either, in fact I think the Topalov - Kramnik match was way too short. But we're trying to present chess as a responsible sport.

Of course I was in near dispare that Kirsan won again, and don't see him ever giving up (losing) the Presidency.

Jeff Sonas has written several articles explaining which tournament-style is most likely to result in the highest rated players winning, and has done statistical comparisons between types of chess tournaments. See here:

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/sonas1.html

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/sonas010704.html

One short quote from Jeff Sonas (from 1st link):
"If you describe a typical world championship format to me, I can tell you, with reasonably good accuracy, the average percentage chance of the strongest player in the world winning the championship cycle. I call that percentage the 'effectiveness' of a world championship format."
--- end of quote

Some types of chess tournaments have more "noise" than others, i.e. they allow more chances for the lower rated players to come out on top (luck, chance, etc. play more role). Other tournament styles result in the top rated players coming out on top most often, which if the rating system is to be believed, means the best players are the winners.

So Mark's idea that we poll the top 25 GMs and find some agreement between them has this problem: the lower rated half of the 25 will all want the higher risk tournament styles, while the upper half, or the top 5, will prefer the system that reduces their risk of any "aberrant" result.

I assume they will vote taking into account their own best interests. So basically Mark is asking the 25 top players to come to some agreement, while we can see by statistical analysis that it is not in their individual best interests (at least in the short term) to agree to a tournament style.

tjallen

A World Championship would be inherently less meaningful in both Golf and Tennis, since both those sports play each tournament on a different surface or course.

It is accepted that you'll have have Clay Court specialists in Tennis, even though they are not apt to do well on grass, etc...

Also, in both sports, the Grand Slam tournaments started (more or less) as independent events, and predated the time when the respective sports were developed enough to even entertain the notion of a World Champion. Of course, a top player can always win the Grand Slam, which is much more prestigious than being a world Champion.
=============================================
Keep in mind that some sports don't even bother with a world chamionship .. tennis & golf being examples. They each have their annual set of super tournaments and lesser tournaments, most of which are locally sponsored. Sure, like chess they publish a rating (or ranking) list, to identify the "world's best player", but they don't have a structure to determine a world champion.

Of course, getting GMs to agree and to cooperate with each other is akin to herding cats. The real problem is not the GMs; it is FIDE, and Kirsan's leadership. However, given the reality that FIDE is such a poorly run organization, it certainly behooves the Professional Chessplayers to come together and hammer out some sort of rough consensus with respect to a position on the World Chamionship cycle, and other issues. "Divided they fall". In an anarchic chess world, even if GMs can be trusted to rationally opt for what is in their own best interest, they will only reap chaos. And of course, their career prospects suffer as a result. Collective bargaining (i.e. Unions) almost always yields better results than going it alone.
==========================
You can't let the lunatics run the asylum. From my experience one can't even make dinner plans that involve more than two chessplayers.

Posted by: Yermo at December 12, 2006 13:47

I acknowledge that a top 25 GM might take different attitudes toward his tournament-format preferences.

He (or she) might think, I am the Best and I want the tournament format that will show it. I believe I can Earn the title of being the best, and I want the format which allows me to prove it.

Or he might think, I want a long-term comfortable lifestyle, and maybe somewhere along the way, if luck and fate and fortune shine on me, I may get a chance to play for the World Chess Championship. And I might even play against the strongest player, though I grant that given the tournament format, it is a crap-shoot (luck plays a big role).

Doug - You overlooked that chess was also "independent" tournaments for most of the history of those world championship matches. FIDE didn't step in until 1948, when the title was left vacant after the death of Alekhine. I don't see why a WC is inherently less meaningful in golf or tennis. Those sports have just realized that by catering to sponsors, they can bring in a lot of dollars ... they don't seem to have the same level of angst over the "legitimacy" of the world champion that we do in the chess world.

have candidates matches to determine who plays a match with the champ. have a world championship match every two years. have interzonals or some giant tournament like Khanty-Mansiysk to determine who plays in the candidate matches. if you do not qualify for either, too bad. start now by having the 16 play in mexico to determine who plays Kramnik. two years is a pretty short cycle and something will always be going on. simpicity attracts sponsors. everyone wins.

Another obvious obstacle is money. I wish chessplayers made tons of it, but the fact is that the glory days and huge paychecks of Fischer-Spassky and the Kasparov-Karpov matches are over. I wish more top GMs would follow in the footsteps of Susan Polgar and spend more time publicizing the greatness of this sport. If not, they can't expect paychecks to get any better. In fact, they'll probably just get worse.

The success of the World Cup is not the success of the format but of football itself.

> but the fact is that the glory days and huge paychecks of Fischer-Spassky and the Kasparov-Karpov matches are over>

to my mind there have been 4 peak and defining moments in the history of chess :

1.Paul Morphy's brilliant sweep ("the genius")
2.Capablanca-Alekhine match (the Match par excellence, the fight of the "sacred monsters")
3.Spassky-Fischer ( symbolically amplified by the Cold War context)
4.Kasparov-Deep Blue ("the raise of the machines")

For the public, for the western culture to which the chess belongs, these were the "glory moments" when chess fully captured their attention.
What/When is next ?

The success of the World Cup is most certainly strongly related to the format. Not on single game of Soccer or even any series of games gets nearly as much attention as the World Cup.

It´s success lies partly in the qualifiers, which build up to the final tournament, and the rare opertunity to see the best national teams in the world compete against each other. It just happens every 4 years...

It´s definitly a format worth considering for the World Chess Champoinship, although many aspects don´t relate very well.

There are also a number of other sports events with extremely professional championship cycles. Look at track and field, poker, even dart... much smaller clientele than chess!

The Problem of the chessworld is not the format of the Championship Cycle, but its inabillity to organize a professional world wide event.

I don´t think the format has any relevance outside of a small group of "very interested people". In most sports, the world champion is not the "strongest" athlete or team, but the one, who was able to adept to the requierements of the format most effectivly. The german soccer team was never the best team in any Cup they won. When they were the best team (this year) they didn´t win!!! Nobody complains though...;)

P.S.:Sorry for the grammar and spelling...

In my humble opinion, anyone who wants to become World Chess Champion, has to wrestle the title out of the hands of the reigning champion in a match. This has been the basic rule in chess since Steinitz, and the chess world has benefited from it.

Furthermore, I think the champion should be obliged to defend his (her?) title every two or three years.

How to determine a challenger, an ideal method simply doesn't exist since there are too many different interests. Every mode has its pros and cons, if you play an 128-participants candidate tournament or confer the selection of a worthy candidate to a board of trustees (drafting a somewhat afield approach, nevertheless interesting, just try to assemble such a body ;-) So the main task at the moment is to generate a procedure whatsoever on which the prospective candidates can rely on for at least a couple of years. Let's see if FIDE can provide this... contrary to expectations ;-)

To have the current World Champion directly in the final match is the most natural thing in chess. Why are Mr. Kamsky and other players trying to end this tradition? Because chess is better without the Champion having the right to defend his title?

Has the Chess World Championship been better since 1993, when the Champion was excluded of this right? I think that every person in his right mind would agree that the WCCs before 1993 were much better than the mess we have today, and certainly the fight between the World Champion and the candidate was a very special part of it. So, I don't agree at all with Kamsky or Shirov.

> So the main task at the moment is to generate a procedure whatsoever on which the prospective candidates can rely on for at least a couple of years.>

No such thing will ever be achieved again.

FIDE's authority fell apart with the fall of Soviet Union ( to which almost all important players belonged) and the system simply returned in 1993 to what was before 1948.

Even the short reign of Fischer ended with a break up because, as a non-soviet player, Fischer could not be simply ordered to conform in case of unsolvabale conflict.

I completely disagree with Kamsky and Shirov. Of course the champion must be playing in the final and he must be conquered by his challenger in a direct fight in order to be stripped of his title. The Chess World Championship is not about equality and democracy - it is about climbing towards the summit for the challenger, to prove his worth in the ultimate fight against the Champion that he is trying to dethrone. All according to tradition that was born long ago. That is what makes Chess World Championship exceptional and prestigious amongst sport.

Even if Kramnik was exceptionally hand picked to fight against Kasparov, yet he proved his worth in that match in 2000. I think it is time for the top players and all chess fans to forget that and try to reinstate the situation from before 1993 when there was a credible system in order to find a credible challenger for the fight over the Championship.

To seed the Champion in any other stage but the World championship is madness and degrading the title. If that is what we will see in the future then to me the Championship is dead and I don't care if any Kamsky, Shirov or Mr Z wins the 'title' - it will be a devalued title and everyone will lose interest in it in short order and with that they can kiss goodbye the sponsorship money. And that is all these guys are actually after.

So here is my advice - free of charge!: Don't try to cut off the branch you guys are sitting on! It may be a long fall down!

The reason our GM's insist on moving the champion into semis is that the chance for the proposed format to produce a worthy challenger is minimal. So current champion could sit on the throne for decades.
Personally, I would like to see the champ defending his title, but not against a lucky player who won a few games in timetrouble.

It looks like some people in this thread forget that the winner of Mexico 2007 will be the World Chanpion regardless Kramnik plays there or not. And there is nothing wrong in keeping up with San Luis/Mexico tradition, Kramnik-Topalov match had nothing to do with traditions nor legitimacy, it was just sanctioned by the Russian government. And those two players were definitely the only ones sitting on the branch.

with all due respect Alexei, the "San Luis/Mexico tradition" does not exist. two events (one that has yet to happen) do not constitute a "tradition". World Championship matches, on the other hand, date back a few years. Kramnik is the World Champion now. that's that. No one wants the champ to be able to sit on his title. Having a candidates cycle and match system would bring order and give something for chess fans to follow. Imagine if there was a world championship match. six months later have an interzonal or something similar. six months after than candidates matches. six months later a candidates final, and six months later another world championship match. hooray!

As per Kirsan, Kramnik has already agreed to defend his title in San Luis.

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001409

As per Kirsan, Kramnik has already agreed to defend his title in Mexico.

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001409

"with all due respect Alexei, the "San Luis/Mexico tradition" does not exist. two events (one that has yet to happen) do not constitute a "tradition". World Championship matches, on the other hand, date back a few years. Kramnik is the World Champion now. that's that. No one wants the champ to be able to sit on his title. Having a candidates cycle and match system would bring order and give something for chess fans to follow. Imagine if there was a world championship match. six months later have an interzonal or something similar. six months after than candidates matches. six months later a candidates final, and six months later another world championship match. hooray!
Posted by: fluffy at December 13, 2006 14:34 "

As long as the fans or fluffy pay for it, Hurray !

dirtbag (great name), there is some money in chess. it needs structure to be allocated properly, for the sake of the players and the spnsors. at least then we'll know how much money would there would be. no one is going to invest in chess the way things are now. do you think baseball would have sponsors if no one knew when (or if) there would be a world series. create the structure and see what comes. if it is only XX dollars, then that is what chess is worth....

Alexei Shirov:

I have doubts whether the Mexico 2007 winner will be declared the world champion. FIDE still can change its mind like it did so often in the past. and declare this a candidates tournament.

Also, Kramnik can refuse to play and choose to split with FIDE again like Kasparov did in 1993. While some people will not recognize him as the champion anymore, my guess is the majority will, just like Kasparov was considered the champion by the majority after the 1993 split.

Also, some sort of compromise is possible, since Kramnik holds both FIDE and classical title: Kramnik can choose to put his FIDE title in Mexico, but not the classical title. This would be analogous to boxing where the champion who has several championship belts can choose not to put all of them on the line in certain fights.

Even if Kramnik plays and agrees that the winner of Mexico will be the only legitimate champion, it is not clear whether the fans will accept the winner as the world champion in the Steinitz line. Many will, but there are some that consider that it is impossible to lose the classical title in a tournament because it is the match title by definition.

As for Kramnik-Topalov match having nothing to do with traditions or legitimacy - I am sure pretty much all of us agree that what happened to you in 1998-2000 was an outrage and since then you were/are/will be the sentimental favorite in any sort of a game/match against Kasparov or Kramnik. But I have to say that within the context of the classical world championship tradition, I have to recognize Kramnik as the world champion, simply because he beat the previous world champion in the world championship match in 2000.

Apparently, as I was typing my response, there was news of Kramnik agreeing to play in Mexico "world championship" in September. No word of whether Kramnik will put the classical title on the line too or if he considers the FIDE title to be the only one.

http://www.chesspro.ru/ has the story on its front page.

This is what I (and I suppose, in a certain way Gata too) meant. The World Championship should be a fair sporting contest and it's great that Mexico 2007 makes this important (at least more important than San Luis 2005) step forward. And whoever wins he shouldn't get old WC priveleges in the future. Times have changed. Chess is an individual sport where like in tennis all the contenders should be equally respected.

Russianbear: No word of whether Kramnik will put the classical title on the line too...

:-)

But of course, not... Anyway, the matter is settled, the question is ridiculous. There's one title and it will be played for.

D.

Alexei Shirov:

but what about the classical/Steinitz match title? Should it just die? Or will the new order in chess be the continuation of the classical line?

And what about the fans? It seems like the matches between top level players are a bigger deal and are more exciting to the fans than a tournament, even if the tournament is called a world championship.

>Apparently, as I was typing my response, there was news of Kramnik agreeing to play in Mexico "world championship" in September.>

lol..how this "tradition" ends..Kramnik (who else ?) has solved it but, however, he did it by suicide.Maybe he had enough of being WCh and wants to live a life without pressures, a peaceful life where he draw everyone.

The world champion Vladimir Kramnik agreed to play in Mexico-2007:
http://www.chesspro.ru/

Just as expected, but it was good to finally get it confirmed. Too many rumours and too much trashtalking.

And apparently Kirsan is ruling out the possibility of a rematch between Kramnik and Weaselin. All great news. Quite a good day for chess!

There may be an understanding between Kirsan and Kramnik: if Kramnik does not win the Mexico tournament he gets dibs on challenging the winner to a long match.

The Mexico tournament winner would then be the final member of the proud Khalifman-Pono-Kasim-Topalov tradition.

And Kramnik would remain the "real," long-match world champion (but wouldn't declare himself so) and the winner of the Kramnik-xxxx long match would carry on the Steinitzian legacy.

> Quite a good day for chess!

really ? you may have missed most of the posts here... it has been a "Steinitz-Kramnik" saga with the last one voluntarily giving up to end this long story.
From now on we will have only big tournaments winners, no more real champs. Interesting.

Well, in any case the understanding is clearly that the match system is retained, which Kirsan announced before this "proposal" arrived. Kramnik was clear before and after the match that he would use his leverage as champion to push for this in negotiations and it surely looks like he got it.

2007 becomes a temporary interruption, just like 1948, which was necessary not to mess with the sponsors and the other participants - but then the World Championship will still be based on matches like it always was.

Definitely the best thing that could happen under the circumstances. That is, if FIDE doesn't change their plans again. Not that they would ever do that...

Ovidiu: you might have missed what this thread is about to begin with.

--Kramnik said that he does not own the classical title, but has simply borrowed it. He's thus saying, (between the lines) that he couldn't put the classical title on the line in Mexico even if he wanted to. So don't be so glum, Ovidiu.

--After our favorite goofball accused Kirsan's people of wiring Kramnik's restroom, it's hard to imagine that Kirsan will plug Topalov into the Mexico tournament.

>There may be an understanding between Kirsan and Kramnik: if Kramnik does not win the Mexico tournament he gets dibs on challenging the winner to a long match.>

Doesn't seem to be anything like this, Kramnik is giving up to his title/rights if he plays.

Why does he do it ? Did Kirsan succeed to put some pressure on him or Kramnik is just fed up with all this WCh bubble ?

--Kramnik said that he does not own the classical title, but has simply borrowed it. He's thus saying, (between the lines) that he couldn't put the classical title on the line in Mexico even if he wanted to. So don't be so glum, Ovidiu.>

maybe you are right, he is going along with Kirsan
to play a farce for the sake of seemingly honouring the Mexico 2007 "World Championship" contracts...but then who will take 2007 seriously ? The fools ?

and what is/will be in truth Mexico 2007 ? 'The FIDE cup ?"

Can somebody give me a good reason NOT to play in Mexico if we keep the match system after that?

Who will take the Mexican tournament seriously?
--the sponsors
--Mr. Kamsky, Mr. Shirov
--seven of the eight players

Polite, diplomatic Kramnik will say all the right things.

"Can somebody give me a good reason NOT to play in Mexico if we keep the match system after that?"

acirce, by all means, you should play in Mexico, don't miss your lucky chance!

Eight of the eight players. Otherwise they wouldn't play.

what a mess again,

Kramnik feels secure enough as the WCh so to play in this masquerade. A farce meant to give to the organizeres of Mexico the illusion that they have an world championship in place so their contract is respected. Only Kirsan could have come with such deception/solution. Chess players are imaginative indeed.

But if Kramnik doesn't win the winner will nonetheless claim that he is the champ just as Topalov did after San Louis.

And if a match between them is staged later then who will be the challanger ? Kramnik who did not win and challanger to what? To his own title ?
Or maybe the winner of Mexico is the challanger ..a challanger to a guy who has defeated to get his right to challange him...the lunatics are runing the asylum indeed.

If there are no draw odds it doesn't matter who's the challenger.

If there is a match afterwards it feels fairly obvious that the winner of the World Championship in Mexico is the champion and the other guy, whether Kramnik or anybody else, is the challenger. I don't really understand why there is so much confusion about these simple things.

I do not know, we will have to wait and see, for the moment it seems to me that Kramnik has given up.
There will be no way to claim that he is the champion after Mexico ( if he doesn't win).
He owns the title in fact and what he, implicitly, does now is to put it at stake.
His business after all, and he may also be under pressure to do it.

After Mexico there will one Champion: Kramnik and this despite the result of the tournament. That is a good deal for Kramnik and a bad for all the rest. Where does FIDE stand in all this? I think they just want to get over with Mexico and perhaps in case Kramnik doesn't win in 2007 there will be a match between Kramnik and the winner of Mexico. So Mexico will end up being a candidates event de facto.

To become a champion you must beat the champion in a match. Tournaments are nice, but won't decide the champion. Put it under any heading you want - but it is just nice.

You guys have to remember, Alexei got screwed out of a title shot in the "traditional system" when he became the rightful challenger to Kasparov. In my opinion, his views on the percieved legitimacy of "tradition" are very relevent, since the system failed to produce the rightful challenger (ie Kramnik should never had played Kasparov to begin with)...

I disagree with Alexei's sentiment that the world champ shouldnt be seeded into the finals, however. The issue isnt a matter of respect between a group of highly talented players. It is always about who is the best, and which person has the best shot of dethroning the best. Chess is boxing, pure and simple. What we want is chess to be the golden era again (kinda like heavyweight boxing does at the moment)... and the best way to do that is to have a fair cycle to determine a challenger for the champion.

What's the "Alexei-got-screwed" statute of limitations? Aren't we now working on year nine?

Well I think that the point is, GM Shirov didnt get a fair cycle to produce a challenger, and he now (incorrectly) views the system as having a flaw and thus wants to toss out the system (presumably in something more in favor of what FIDE was trying to accomplish..."democratizing" the title)..

If Alexei got his match with Kasparov, I sincerely doubt he'd have the same opinion of the 'classical' qualifying cycles.

I think the ideal solution for both the Mexico/Classical title issue and the future cycle would be for the final tournament to be BOTH a world Tournament Championship event AND a qualifier to play for the classical world match title. The classical world champion could play in the tournament if he/she chooses simply to try to win the tournament championship title, but if he/she wins then the 2nd place finisher becomes the challenger for the classical title. You would not need two cycles for this, and it may draw more sponsorship money for the tournament since it would also be an official FIDE world title event. This would solve the Mexico issue, because they would get their 'world title' event and Kramnik would play, but it would not harm the classical match title. Heck, this might really appeal to the professional players out there, because the cycle would have two official world titles at stake each time.

IMHO, there is no way to satisfy everybody's wishes.
The Champion would like to play in the final directly. This make his life easier and brings enough money.
A small bunch of, say, top 10, would like to revoke this traditional privilege to increase their own chances to play in the final, and at the same time to limit the number of cycle participants for the same purpose.
And the rest is talking about additional seeds in hope to get onto the train to get some buck or two.
This is understandable and legitimate. But let's see what is in the whole chess community interests?
I see that first of all, every chess pro should be able to make money for living. KO FIDE Cup as preliminary stage serves this very well. Everybody can participate, we can use it to let top 4 or 8 to participate in the next stage. Last year Challenger or the former WC qualifies directly. And the next stage could be the double round robin of 9 of quad robin of 5, where the winner becomes a Challenger. After that - the final match with a Champion.
Every cycle we'd see a great tournament and a great match.
And no qualification by rating. Only winners qualify. ELO was never intended to serve a sa qualifier.
What makes chess World Champion so special? It is very hard to become one. Community demands a Champion to be the best of the best.
According to my proposal we'll have a Champion who has proved to succeed in a stressful and dynamic KO with limited time to prepare vs. an unknown opponent, in traditional style Round Robin vs. top opposition, and in a match vs. a top match player! If you can do this, you are the best, no questions arise.
And IMHO, if you did this once, you have the privilege to qualify directly to the final match. Let others show their toughness first.