Kram-Topa Rematch Redux

That's mighty arrogant of the Topalov team, to think that they deserve rematch so soon after the way they've acted. They've given Kramnik a perfect out, timeline or not, to refuse a match to Toppy.

Round 12, I am wondering if they will shoot some pool in memory of THE HUSTLER and THE COLOR OF MONEY. I believe the first step is to lose a few with low money. Then get them into thinking they can win and up the stakes.

Well Kramnik put on a fine performance of THE HUSTLER. He dropped his rating, he got good and sick, dropped out of chess. He was really hurting. Topalov took the bait and played a match. Or should we say lost the match.

Now it is Topalov's turn. Except he seems to want to win all his games to prove he is a worthy challenger.

If I was Kramnik I would feed Topalov in Game 12. Let Topalov have a good crush when there is no money on the line. Set him up good again for the big money game. Topalov will negotiate away everything to get the match.

Go Krammy crush Topalov. Send him back to the stone age. You dont want to play a Match Championship in a Mexican Tournament. But remember Topalov has to play all the games with a muzzle. and Danailov has to be a minimum of 5000 miles away with no communication equipment.

Right now I have to go watch Paul Neuman shoot some pool. Minnisota Fats is coming to play tonight.

Right now at Corus Topalov is playing as forcefully and sharply as normally does without making all of those horrible ??-blunders that plagued him at Elista.

That is a scary combination for his opponent's.

When I saw FIDE's last propoasal for a new cycle I wondered:

Surely this rule saying anyone rated above 2700 and able to guarantee the $ can challenge the world champion, has to go ?

If a candidates cycle is really meant seriously then this can not continue, right ?

I am certain Kramnik has already stated decidedly that he will not play a match in Bulgaria. Sorry that I can't remember where I read it, but I am really sure about it.

>>That's mighty arrogant of the Topalov team, to think that they deserve rematch so soon after the way they've acted.>>

Assuming they even really want one. Considering that they knew all about the 6 Month Rule but took this long to file a challenge, suggests that they don't really want the match, only sympathy for not playing one.

And after all, why WOULD they want one, when they can just use the 2700 Rule to challenge the Mexico City winner? They'd have more prep time, and might luck out and get someone who hasn't always dominated Topalov in the past. Topalov would probably walk over anyone except Kramnik or Anand in a match.

Frank H: Don't forget that Walter Tevis, the author of the novels "The Hustler" and "The Color of Money," also wrote one about chess: "The Queen's Gambit."

A rematch so soon after the first match? Doesn't that mean that, effectively, Kramnik has to beat Topalov twice to keep the crown for a decent length of time? At least give the champion draw odds if a second match must be played so soon after the first.

Being asked to drop something off your schedule in exchange for the right to be recognized as world champion is really not that much of a price to pay nor is it unheard of in other sports. There is attention, sponsor flow and invitations that flow from the champion status that in a proper model compensate for any such disadvantages.

The problem with the two-year cycle model FIDE has proposed is it essentially allows for only one-two match defenses in-between cycle. Anything more and you are crowding the champion's time.

A few men mention that Topalov's moves at Corus have been matching DF. Has anyone looked into this further?

"I assume Kramnik would rather eat glass than play a rematch so quickly, especially against Topailov and in Sofia (although the first was in Russia, after all)."

Yeah, but Kramnik's team was rather unenthused about the idea of playing in Elista, since both Kalmykia and FIDE are run by Kirsan, and there was concern that in the re-unification match, Kirsan would be tempted to favor the then FIDE Champion, Topalov. And indeed, it was Topalov, not Kramnik, who was the beneficiary of the gift of a forfeit win. Prior to the match, Topalov and Danailov were on very good terms with Kirsan, and they expressed no qualms about playing in Elista, or that doing so consituted some sort of "Home Board" advantage for Kramnik. But Topalov lost, and Danailov starts up with the Don King excuses and rationalizations.

The Challenge Match provisions were poorly thought out, to say the least. One way to improve it is to give the World Champion the right of refusal. Unlike in the era before FIDE controlled the Title, the World Champion would only be able to "duck" challenges for so long. Within a couple of years, he would need to defend his title in a **scheduled** World Championship cycle.

Given the choice, maybe Kramnik would refuse all challenges. However, what if Radjabov, had renewed his challenge (that he had made to Topalov), and simply challenged Kramnik. Prior to Corus, Kramnik might have assumed that it was a match that he had good chances of winning. He'd therefore get a big payday, and get some utility out of being the Title holder. There would always be the chance that he could cherry pick other 2700+ opponents.

With the right of refusal, it would be much less likely that the Champion would be asked to play on the home turf of the Challenger. But if some extra money were thrown in, it might be arranged. Finally, if the Champion had the option of refusing, he could negotiate with the putative challenger to come up with dates that allowed for adequate preparation, and didn't conflict with previous commitments.

Danailov has put pressure on Kirsan to come up with a new excuse for not forcing Kramnik to accept the challenge. We'll have to see what it is. Surely, Kirsan must be aware that the majority of the chess world would support Kramnik--and that forfeiting Kramnik from his Title would be another debacle.

It is a sad day for any sport when:

1) the #1 rated player is excluded from a competition defining the next Champion.

2) there are no definitive rules as top how the next Champion will be defined.

3) the title defense rests solely on the whimsical desires of the current holder.

D.

"Surely, Kirsan must be aware that the majority of the chess world would support Kramnik"

Several wierdos writing on a chess blog aren't the chess world.

I'm not so sure Kramnik won't play.
If the money is real, he'll sure think about grab it.
He and Toppy have a hot marketing thing going now, who knows how long this rather silly feud will generate so much money?

Besides, if I remember his statements concerning his health correctly, Kramnik can't be sure about how long he will be able to compete at the highest level.

If he considers "eating glass", just now he would be in a perfect position to enter into negotiations. He may use the 6 months rule to get concessions like playing in a neutral country of his choice. He should be more confident to defend his title in match-play than in a tournament, and if he plays some clever moves, a won re-match could help him maneuver around Mexico City.

I have just seen an interview of Topalov in Dutch TV.

Want to guess want was it about?
- corus tournament?...nah...toiletgate once again

A short interview with Topalov on Dutch tv, a few minutes ago. They said Kramnik was not willing to comment on the match. Surely somebody will able to give a link soon, where everybody can see it.

Some things Topalov said (not 100% verbatim, sorry):

- There was big political pressure in Russia that protected my opponent.

- He went to the toilet more than 10 times an hour and had other strange behaviour.

- It became clear that I was playing an untouchable opponent, who stood above the law, who changed the referees he did not like.

- The building we played was changed especially for the match. The cable was there especially for the match. The only place not supervised had internet access.

- I asked if it would be possible not to shake hands. In the end I did it only for the pictures. A handshake is not just a handshake, it is also something symbolic.

- I do not see the game of Saturday, when we play again, as a revanche. It is different. Winning would not give me back my title.

Especially the last sentence might be written down incorrectly. Maybe he said "the title" instead of "my title", which would make a huge difference in my opinion.

No questions about a future rematch.

Well, I can see topalov's reasons for wanting a rematch, but why did he agree to play in Russia at all?

Do you feel that Kirsan is supporting Topalov? I might get the feeling if the news about the fide reply on http://veselintopalov.net is correct one and not just something mumbled by Danailov.

And why does everything happen right before the match Kramnik-Topalov?

For me it is clear

(a) Kramnik does not want a rematch with Topalov, under any circunstances; because he wants to preserve his title as much time as possible; the only way he would like to face Topalov again is if Topalov wins the WCC tournament in 2009 (I mean, not this cycle) and this guarantees the right to face the WC, assuming it is still Kramnik.

(b) Fide had the stupidity of banning the challenger of the World Championship from the next WCC tournament. In the past, the challenger and former champion (under FIDE) had even the right to get a rematch; now he doesn't have the right to participate in the qualifiers????

In my opinion, the only decent way to solve this; -even if is too generous for Kramnik- is to allow Topalov the participation in Mexico instead of Kramnik. Then, the winner of Mexico faces Kramnik.

Note: I consider Kramnik should be in Mexico too and maybe the tournament format could be changed to a match format. Kramnik outside of Mexico is too generous for him, but I don't believe he would facilitate the negociation for something completely fair.

Oscar: Maybe he said "the title" instead of "my title", which would make a huge difference in my opinion.

And what difference would that make Oscar? Topalov lost "his" title, that's a fact. Actually, the way the Elista match was formulated, Topalov was the Champion and Kramnik the Challenger.

D.

I quoted this paragraph from the regulations in an earlier thread. Not later than 45 days before the start. Doesn't this already mean they are too late (legally - though of course the match was never going to happen anyway)?

"3. 21. 1. 1 After the Presidential Board (or the FIDE President) has approved who shall be selected to organize the event, the challenger’s side shall deposit, not later than 45 days before the start of the match, in escrow, net and free of all taxes, with the FIDE bankers the full sums of money, as described in articles 2.1.a, 2.1.b and 2.2, and all costs related to FIDE as stipends, travel, full board and lodge and other administrative costs for communications etc in accordance with a budget agreed between FIDE and the Organizers.

Not later than 45 days before the start of the match, FIDE shall also be reimbursed for its direct expenses incurred in the organization of the match. This shall be a fixed sum of 35,000 USD towards the budget of the World Chess Championship Committee (WCCC) plus a fixed sum of 25,000 USD for the expenses of the live transmission of the games via the internet, as described below in article 3.21.1.4. The WCCC shall advise and help the Organiser(s) on protocol, budget, infrastructure, media, commentary, bulletin and other technical problems."

This is another example of how unfit FIDE are to run a World Championship cycle. "Got the cash? We'll bring you the Champion to play with! He can't refuse, otherwise he loses his title". Absolutely ludicrous.

I am also amazed to read comments to the effect that Topalov and, more importantly, Kramnik are bound to these rules because they agreed to be FIDE champions. This assumes that when you play a match under the auspices of FIDE you are agreeing to whatever rules they might have. Or, even more naively, that you should refuse to play under FIDE unless all their rules are exactly to your liking.

The situation is admittedly different when third parties have relied on those -however flawed- rules and have spent money on organization (see Mexico). But there is no reason to perpetuate FIDE's blunders by insisting on the money-challenge rule when no tournament yet has been set up and no-one has spent money on it. They should say right away that the rule was the result of a failure of judgement, apologize to Danailov and Topalov and get on with it...

I'm not even sure if they are up to that phase yet. Has FIDE "validated" Topalov's challenge? Having the guarantee is just part of the submission process. Then they have to approve the challenge as valid, which involves a laundry list. But the 45 days is clearly incompatible with the six months even if they started counting from yesterday. Again, I could see FIDE trying to waive these rules to get the money, but that would create the crisis we've already had a preview of: Kramnik disobeying because FIDE is violating its own rules and a potential schism if FIDE insists on the rematch.

This is another example of how unfit FIDE are to run a World Championship cycle. "Got the cash? We'll bring you the Champion to play with! He can't refuse, otherwise he loses his title". Absolutely ludicrous.

I am also amazed to read comments to the effect that Topalov and, more importantly, Kramnik are bound to these rules because they agreed to be FIDE champions. This assumes that when you play a match under the auspices of FIDE you are agreeing to whatever rules they might have. Or, even more naively, that you should refuse to play under FIDE unless all their rules are exactly to your liking.

The situation is admittedly different when third parties have relied on those -however flawed- rules and have spent money on organization (see Mexico). But there is no reason to perpetuate FIDE's blunders by insisting on the money-challenge rule when no tournament yet has been set up and no-one has spent money on it. They should say right away that the rule was the result of a failure of judgement, apologize to Danailov and Topalov and get on with it...

I like the "Topailov" tag - was that intentional?

Don't forget that Kramnik's side has lodged with FIDE a complaint against Topalov re: his interview in the Spanish newspaper. Whatever other rules and regulations are, I think, until this complaint is properly dealt with, Kramnik doesn't have to agree to any match.

"But the 45 days is clearly incompatible with the six months even if they started counting from yesterday."

Yeah, exactly my point.

Kramnik can't be forced to play now no matter what - not even the "he agreed to the rules when he agreed to play in Elista" argument works, except to his favour. Topalov insisting means nothing, but FIDE insisting on violating their own rules would of course, as you say, bring us to the brink of a renewed crisis. But I doubt even FIDE would want that at this moment.

In other words, if FIDE says "Because of this great opportunity we have decided to waive both the 45 day rule and the six month rule. These rules are in place to protect the financial interests of FIDE and it's up to us if we want to do without them."

Legally, a word always used with trepidation around here, it's a strange situation for Kramnik to insist FIDE follow its own rules on such matters. Obviously there should also be laws spelling out deadlines and such with the champion's rights in mind, but there don't seem to be any. Regardless, on the face of it forcing the champion to play on such short notice is ridiculous.

Yes, Topailov is the new hotness. If they are, as Danailov said, one person, they need a hybrid name. And writing them both with a slash was annoying. Topalov has only embraced the statement saying that Danailov always speaks for him, so in such matters it seems more accurate. I don't want to keep saying Danailov because it absolves Topalov of responsibility, at least on a certain semantic level. And to say Topalov ignores that I do think Danailov is a pernicious influence. That's the lesser sin so I was usually just saying Topalov, but Topailov has a ring to it.

Mig, Bulbank is hardly a Bulgarian bank anymore, but you might do well with the banks in Bulgaria these days. I had very positive experience. The pre-EU real estate boom was excellent and I wouldn't have committed to push cash around if the banking situation wasn't vastly different than 10-15-20 years ago.

A challenge against the Champion, padded by 2 million good reasons, was presented. I think Danailov should issue the challenge against the Champion, not personally named. No reason for that to happen before Mexico2007? No reason for that to be Kramnik who may not be the Champion after Mexico2007 anyway.

D.

This could be a nice cash cow for Kramnik. They're likely to keep re-challenging him forever, presumably until he loses some day.

On the other hand; I wouldn't trust Topalov one hair, especially not on his own turf. They've been suspected of cheating and have shown to have no morals whatsoever so are certainly capable of it. And they have strong GM's on their team (even Danailov is an IM of around 2400) instead of those patzer KGB idiots to operate the chess engines like they accused Kramnik of using in Elista...

Remember: the one who asks "Who farted?" is usually the one who did it.

Realistically: if Kramnik does not desperately need the money he'd be crazy to join that circus again.

1. I think Mig has a good point in that the matter of the challenge carries about a million potential schisms. What determines the champion: another match? Mexico? a further challenge match lined up 6 months afterwards, in which case what happens if the championship changes hands? How many rules can be broken here? And oh yeah, what about those candidates matches? If the championship will be decided right away by a match, or within 6 months of post-Mexico, then what are they (possibly) playing for?

2. Given the radio interview debacle, perhaps Topalov should be making sure that Danailov speaks for him. Always.

3. Yes, I remember Topalov and Kirsan being on good terms pre-Elista. Topalov weighed in with some encouraging words of support for Kirsan in a critical time before the elections. Perhaps he feels burned that K. didn't do more for him?

"... I wouldn't trust Topalov one hair, especially not on his own turf. They've been suspected of cheating..."

"Remember: the one who asks "Who farted?" is usually the one who did it."

Aha, so it is Kramnik's buddies Moro, Barsky, etc. who farted according to your logic, right?

Yes, the question goes to the core of "how the next Champion is determined." Tournament, match, etc. That is the core of the debate and I have not heard a solid position from any side, except the one insisting that the current champion is not obliged to play either, until all stars align to his own liking in the indeteminate future.

As far as radio interviews, etc. -- one is entitled to his opinion and as long as the journalists keep asking the same questions, they'll get the same answers. Not the best PR strategy in my opinion, but nothing to make a tragedy of. In fact, it may have a direction.

D.

Hah, interesting point sab. Still, if Moro is ever caught cheating, I will eat my shirt. And my pants. ;)

But this is so absurd: in every new interview they accuse Kramnik of cheating.
Then they challenge him to a match.

Is it just me or does this not make any sense?

What's happened to Radjabov's challenge?

Over the past 6 years, Kramnik has defended his title twice (an average of 3 years) against the top contender determined in a fairly objective rational manner. Both times successfully. This is the same interval used by FIDE champions during the 48-92 era.

As long as this continues, who really cares what kind of hand wringing about him not entering the latest FIDE cycle continues?

It truly is a sad day for chess when fans complain it's unfair that a world champion wipes Topalov then refuses a) to play him again in 6 months with no advance warning or b) to enter whatever cute little tournament FIDE decides to stage this time.

In the old days nobody complained when it was three years between matches. It's been less than 4 months now. What's with the mandatory gang (space for the censors) bang?

I don't believe anybody is blaming Kramnik for this. In my opinion, between accepting Topalov's challenge and changing the whole cycle (otherwise, the idea of playing a tournament in Mexico after previously have accepted a match offer in such a short period is ridiculous), and rejecting Topalov's offer and keeping the cycle the way it was designed, I prefer the latter; even if there is a lot of money at stake (I believe Kirsan could be reasonable at least once, right?)

However, this does not hide the fact that the cycle is ill-conceived. Why the WC challenger has no rights to participate as a contender as happened in the past? Why the WC should put his title in jeopardy in a different way he earned it?

As I mentioned before, given the fact other players have invested their time preparing for this championship in the original plan and it is not fair for them to change things; FIDE should allow Topalov to participate in Mexico instead of Kramnik and then setting a suitable date to match the winner with the World Champion. This might be a lot of work for Topalov if he wants to have the chance again, but after all, he agreed to last year's match in first instance.

Yuriy,

every sport has a legitimate organization that manages the title and sets the rules for its bestowment. When these rules are not respected the title is taken away. Happened to the greatest of them all. The idea that Kramnik controls and administers the Chess title is a
pre-1948 concept. Not surprising at all, the previous title holder took the title to his grave. Love them or hate them, understand them or not, these rules are there on the books and have to be followed. Changed, if needed, voted officials, etc. Competition or match, whatever -- set some time frame, not necessarily 6 months. Make it an year, but there has to be a predictable round of championship games and format.

I do not share your view, nor Mig's fear of a new schism being possible.

D.

P.S. It has been less than 3 years for title defense in some very prominent cases -- Tal, Smislov come to mind. But that's secondary.

P.P.S. I'm sure that Corus has some serious anti-cheating checks, but I believe that the less announced they are, the greater deterrent and chance to catch the unsuspecting intruder.

In my previous comment, the reason I might criticize Kramnik is not because of his willingness to face Topalov without preparation time (this thing of bank guarantee, etc is secondary); it is because as a WC he could take active participation in proposing reasonable solutions to this situation and not only thinking in terms of him as "owner" of a title. So far the only participation we have seen from him has been to accept a commercial match again a computer program to give publicity to the latter, so his actions have been questionable.

So, I hope Kramnik (and his manager) could take a stand and propose reasonable solutions; not for individual gain, but for the stability of a title that could finally gain its value, after so many years of uncertainity.

Yurij says: "In the old days nobody complained when it was three years between matches."

Yurij: In the old days Chess was not a massive game all around the world, there was no Internet or other media that collected the opinions of thousands of fans that could complain and there was a country that had most of the top players of the world at that time. So, I guess now sports need a serious management to survive instead of the improvisation and unilateral decisions of the old days and World Championships should be more dynamic, corresponding to the fact that the number of strong players is more than 10 times that number fifty years ago (after all, more people now have access to chess knowledge).... do you really wish to go back to the old days???

We might as well still be in the old days:

"With all the setbacks that have happened, the chance for a championship match to take place this year is very slight. The possession of the title of champion is manifestly a hindrance to one's freedom of movement, and the question is not out of place whether it serves any useful purpose whatever. As the chess world is organized at present, the title may as well be dropped. Its duties and privileges are undefined, and it confers no benefits on the possessor. The chess history of the last twenty years would not be different if the title had not existed."

-Emanuel Lasker, 1912, quoted in Edward Winter's "Capablanca", p.65.

>>every sport has a legitimate organization that manages the title and sets the rules for its bestowment.>The idea that Kramnik controls and administers the Chess title is a
pre-1948 concept.>Not surprising at all, the previous title holder took the title to his grave.>Love them or hate them, understand them or not, these rules are there on the books and have to be followed.>Make it an year, but there has to be a predictable round of championship games and format.>I do not share your view, nor Mig's fear of a new schism being possible.>P.S. It has been less than 3 years for title defense in some very prominent cases -- Tal, Smislov come to mind. But that's secondary.<<

You are right that that's secondary. Especially as those were rematches, and in at least one occasion the forced scheduling of a rematch severely hurt one of the players' chances.

Whoops, sorry, Dimi, my post got mangled--I will try to go back and edit it.

This rematch gambit is nonsense; because the bottom line is FIDE could never 'force' the issue if the sitting WCChamp refuses to accept an extra/early challenge.

FIDE's rematch rule in essence boasts/claims that FIDE could issue a press release announcing Kramnik (or whomever) is no longer the champ. It would say the new champ is some player who delivered a big $ guarantee for an extra/early challenge match.

The chess world would supposedly be impressed and reply "Okay Kirsan, we are with you as always, all hail the new champ".
Would never happen.

*** RE-SPLIT THE TITLE AWAY FROM FIDE ***

If FIDE ever tried such an outrageous announcement it would fail, and badly. That failure would again give Kramnik near universally recognized control over the title, again split away from FIDE.

Mexico 2007 would be de facto changed to a tournament to determine the next title challenger, which is what even its sponsors should want it to be anyway.

*** TOPALOV SHOULD CHALLENGE THE MEXICO 2007 WINNER ***

Topalov would have a solid 50% chance of defeating whomever wins Mexico 2007. He should be quiet about making a WCChamp challenge until immediately after Mexico 2007. At that time the indignation about his exclusion will be ripe, and the chess world would be receptive to his challenge.

The Mexico 2007 tournament champ, the new tournament chess champion of the galaxy, might welcome a match as a prompt payday much bigger than Mexico. (Or maybe the new champ would prefer to enjoy his title for a short two years.)

Instead, Topalov is prematurely exposing the silliness of FIDE rematch rules. This exposure may mean those rules will be fixed before Mexico 2007; which could be bad for Topalov post-Mexico challenge hopes.

Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/

Ok, let's see if I can remember what I was saying:

"every sport has a legitimate organization that manages the title and sets the rules for its bestowment."

First of all, that's not true, as many sports have multiple organizations and do not have a single unified champion.

More importantly, however, it is the fact that the organization does a good job managing the title and setting the rules for its bestowment that makes it a (or even THE) legitimate organization. FIDE was authority from 48 to 90 because it did a fairly good job managing the title.

"The idea that Kramnik controls and administers the Chess title is a
pre-1948 concept."

If Kramnik does a good job controlling and administering the title, why should it matter? There is no need to set up a random three-letter organization when the title is being defended on a regular basis against top contenders.

"Not surprising at all, the previous title holder took the title to his grave."

World War II along with Alekhine's anti-Semitism had a lot more to do with it than anything else. Again, Alekhine is not a good example because he failed to defend the title regularly against top contenders. As champion, his record was two matches against Bogoljubow and one against Euwe. Over the course of twenty years. WWII had a lot to do with that, but still, pretty sad. AND he was in negotiations defend the title against Botvinnik, which very likely would have led to him not taking the title to his grave.

"Love them or hate them, understand them or not, these rules are there on the books and have to be followed."

According to that logic, if FIDE, which I can only assume is what your idea is of "a legitimate organization that manages the title and sets the rules for its bestowment" were to make a rule that world champion is to be determined by a single blitz game every five years, that rule would have to be followed.

"Make it an year, but there has to be a predictable round of championship games and format."

Because San Luis and Kramnik-Topalov weren't scheduled for years to come did not in any way hurt their standing. On the other hand, the advanced scheduling of Mexico is causing no end of problems. I disagree that there has to be a schedule, just regular title defenses.

"I do not share your view, nor Mig's fear of a new schism being possible."

I do not see a possibility of a schism until somebody presents a good case for somebody other than Kramnik being the champion.

"P.S. It has been less than 3 years for title defense in some very prominent cases -- Tal, Smislov come to mind. But that's secondary."

You are right that that's secondary, especially since all of those were rematches and on at least one occasion the forced schedule led to one participant playing under unnecessarily adverse conditions.

"P.P.S. I'm sure that Corus has some serious anti-cheating checks, but I believe that the less announced they are, the greater deterrent and chance to catch the unsuspecting intruder."

I believe that complete lack of appearance of anti-cheating checks is the surest indication that they exist and are 100% fullproof. Just like I believe that lack of evidence of cheating is a surefire way of proving that it is going on.

sandorchess says: "Yurij: In the old days Chess was not a massive game all around the world,"

Of course it was.

"there was no Internet or other media that collected the opinions of thousands of fans that could complain and there was a country that had most of the top players of the world at that time. So, I guess now sports need a serious management to survive instead of the improvisation and unilateral decisions of the old days and World Championships should be more dynamic, corresponding to the fact that the number of strong players is more than 10 times that number fifty years ago (after all, more people now have access to chess knowledge).... do you really wish to go back to the old days???"

Some of these things I agree with (that we have Internet now). Some of these things I disagree with (that the old days had more improvisation and unilateral decisions from the top). Some of these things raise my eyebrow (not sure at all that there are more strong players today, certainly not that there are ten times more now--chess had advanced, but if anything, the elite seems more tapered). But what I don't see at all, sandorchess, is why any of this necessitates a shorter chess championship cycle than we had in 1990.

Dear Yurij,

I never said that that the old days had more improvisation and unilateral decisions from the top, I meant that doing that is "the old way of doing it" and chess today need something well planned; of course, so far with the current organization, our hopes are vanishing.

I do believe that a World Champion could be decided every two years; the cycle in 1990, for example could be done in two years (in fact Kramnik followed the idea by playing two matches in 2004 and 2006), and certainly, with the exception of a few "super strong" players (Kramnik, Topalov, Anand ...), the number of "strong" players is much higher after all they should have the opportunity to contend for a WC title; but well, this part of the discussion is secondary. So far, it seems that FIDE is only interested in respect and negociate with the point of view of a few top players (and everything is focused just in Topalov, Kramnik) neglecting all the people who want to have a chance.

I even consider Mexico 2007 a bad idea (and the fact that the participants are chosen for a criteria that goes back to the end of 2004 and beginnings of 2005!!!), bad just for the sake of stability and the benefit of the participants, I prefer this to be kept, with the only exception -as mentioned earlier -of allowing Topalov to participate instead of Kramnik- and consider this a "Candidates tournaments" who would challenge the WC in 2008 or the end of 2007.

Don't (Topa,Danai)lov know that Kramnik doesn't believe in rematches...

stringTheory: Don't (Topa,Danai)lov know that Kramnik doesn't believe in rematches...

That's precisely why it should never be left up to him to decide. I take Kirsan, Shmirsan, FIDE, SHMIDE, ayone, but being at the mercy of Kramnik's dynamic personality. He'll sit on it until he becomes a chess mummy...

D.

Peace...

Dimi, string, both of you speak as though this is some similar circumstance to anything that has gone on in the past. You both know quite well that the current situation is quite unique, because one side is led by a pariah who has openly continued to badger the other and assault his character. Topalov should not even be permitted to play high-level tournament chess, much less get a rematch for the World Championship that he and his team tried to steal through despicable means. Let Veselin now whine about "unfairness" after getting a point he never earned, having a corrupt contingent make bogus rulings in his favor, etc., but do not side with the fools in that camp and misrepresent your own sense of rational thinking ability or standard of decency.

Hotep,

Maliq

Sandorchess,

We seem to agree on almost everything (except I don't think today's situation requires more players to participate, if anything, with scheduling being a major difficulty, I am ok with 6 slots based on rating and 2 based on random haphazard qualifying such as ladder tournaments FIDE employed in the past). Consider this scenario: Kramnik skips Mexico. FIDE strips him of the title. Player X wins Mexico. Kramnik then gets two million and Player X has to face him. The title goes to the winner, unified. FIDE now continues with its proposal of two-year: tournament/match cycle. I would be quite content.

Maliq: [...pariah...] Topalov should not even be permitted to play high-level tournament chess...

Yes, of course. We'll leave it to people with your wits to blow off steam and occasionally entertain us.

D.

@ RS: I believe Radjabov's challenge became null and void when Topalov lost the FIDE title.

Regarding challenges: FIDE should put a limit to them, unless they want to receive 10+ challenges per year from 2700+ players and be unable to fit all matches within a year. ;-)
I guess a limit of 2 challenges per year should be OK.

Perhaps Kramnik is not eager for the money (he has good prizes and sponsors) but I am sure his "structure" needs to be paid: doctors, trainers, analysts, general helpers, and his manager, they all surely want to get paid. And letting go of these opportunities for prizes might require of him to "indemnify" them. For example, his manager might want a cut of the potential prize, even if Kramnik refuses to play.

> All that's there now is something that says the money has to be in FIDE's hands 45 days before the start of the match. FIDE could waive that, too.

And monkeys could fly out of Kirsan's posterior. It's all about the Benjamins (or Benjaminovi) for that mob.

If we're comparing chess to an actual sport I'd have to go with boxing. Both require long preparation times and substantial cash purses for a championship defense. Whatever one might say about boxing and boxing promoters on the one hand, and about FIDE on the other, one would be hard pressed to come up with a situation where a boxing champion was required to defend his title in a rematch within a few months of a championship bout.

P.S. Alekine of course played two matches against Euwe, losing one when drunk and winning the rematch when sober. He also won the title originally from Capablanca. So to his three title defenses add two successful challenges for an overall record of 4-1 in world championship matches from 1921 until his death.

With that comment I meant that money is all that matters to them. I.e., since the money is there they could choose to waive the deadlines to get their hands on it. It's a tragi-comic situation with FIDE, as usual. We've seen this sort of thing in pro football too (soccer), or similar. The leagues and federations are always looking to play the players to death in various cups and exhibitions in order to make more money. A few times we've seen pros playing three games in one week. (Only 270 minutes total on the field, I suppose, but still.)

I like your play on names Mig:

"Topailov"

At first, I thought it was just a mistake, but when you repeated it, clever.

I think Kramnik will take up the challenge. He is a better player in candidate matches than in tournaments. After his loss to Shirov, he has defeated Kasparov, defended against leko and defeated Topalov in match play but his tournament play is not at the same level. Afterall, in the end it is a money game. See the options Kramnik has:

- Play Topalov, Win, Give a best shot at San Luis. Accept the result whatever it is. (made a million bucks already before San Luis).

- Play Topalov, Lose, make half a million, complain about home advantage for Toplaov in Sofia and quietly miss San Luis riding on Chess lovers' sympathy ready for next shot (And Fide may somehow rope him in for San Luis as Mig suspected for Toplaov, better still, make that as a condition to play Topalov)

- Don't play Topalov, do not make money, play the tournament and most likely lose.

I think the choice is clear. Kramnik will play Toplaov.

SJ

I confess that I first thought "Topailov" was just a typo! But now I get it, I get it! Great.

And: "The Queen's Gambit" by Walter Tevis deserves the same comment Tony Miles awarded a Schiller book ("Unorthodox Chess Openings").

My word - is there any reliable betting exchange where those of us with any sanity can relieve those who would like to bet on a Kramnik-Topalov match in Sofia taking place any time before hell freezes over of some of their money?

jcm

rdh, I cannot bet on a match happening. But if the match happens, this time I am ready to bet $1000 on the outcome. Mig can be the escrow manager... C'mon, that way you chance to get some descent quality Champaign afterwards.

D.

Peace...

Dimi, my wits are perfectly in order. I am not alone in the opinion that such unethical behavior as has been displayed by Veselin Topalov and Silvio Danailov should result in Topalov being sanctioned by the chess world for his reprehensible behavior.

Hotep,

Maliq

Thankfully Maliq, no serious organiser has swallowed the crap stories of ChessBase.

Topalov continues to be around and kicks some butt, whether you like it or not...

Kramnik is the consumate Match player. NO one can defeat him in a Match. Which says that he is the best player. Now, as explained in an article on risk at chessbase,

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3528

Kramnik is not a tournament winner even though he is the best player. My understanding of this article is that the World Championship must use a match format to find the best player who then might not win tournaments. Tournament winners do not show who is the best player. They show who was lucky and who took bigger risk.

The Champion is the one who can defeat all other players. Kramnik is the Champion. He always defeats all other players.

I do not want Kramnik to play in Mexico.

I would like Kramnik to take a million dollars from Topalov in a Match. However, Topalov must have a muzzle on him to control him to be respectful. If Topalov, Danailov continue to shout that Kramnik is cheating then the match will become a big mistake for chess.

I would put into the rules that any statements of cheating without solid proof made public will mean an immediate end of the match and Kramnik retains his title and is declared the winner. Something like that. Very stiff penalty. No fooling around. I would also add other behavior deemed undesireable by Topalov and his team will result in immediate loss of the match.

Peace...

Giannis, there is no evidence that anything has been falsified for Chessbase articles, which have been able to cite their sources fairly well with regard to this entire ordeal. Topalov's behavior is, indeed, reprehensible and worthy of some sort of penalty. I have no doubt that Topalov is capable of playing dominating chess -- this much speaks clearly and loudly for itself. I do, however, consider that superior talent should not be license to make a mockery of the sport on its biggest stage without repercussion.

Hotep,

Maliq

"Kramnik is the consumate Match player. NO one can defeat him in a Match...He always defeats all other players."
Have you not heard of Shirov? Or Kamsky? Or Gelfand? In fact, Kramnik has lost more matches than he has won.

Please use honest arguments, not disinformation.

Not since he won the World Championship.

"The Champion is the one who can defeat all other players. Kramnik is the Champion. He always defeats all other players."

The point wasn't Kramnik's career record.

"Not since he won the World Championship."
But that's not what you said, you mentioned a blatantly false fact.
Also, which WC? After beating Gary he had one match which he drew. After beating Topalov, he hasnt played any matches. So his sum total is: -3, =1, +2
Hardly the definitive match player.

Giannis, could you provide us with an example, a link to "a crap story of Chessbase"? Are those just stories you don't like, or stories that are made up in your opinion?

I think point is that Kramnik has better record at matches than tournaments. In the tournaments, he can be at most +3 may be +4 and that's when he has tied first places. But he can not imagine to be +5 or +6, the kind of win that Topalov has been achieving (or Kasparov can and has, and even Anand may dream of). So with Toplaov, Anand playing Kramnik can not get tournament victory unless the winner can be +3.

Given this, bottomline is that Kramnik should take up the challenge as I had identified earlier.

SJ

I don’t really get this stuff about Chessbase bias. You can go to chessvibes and see Topalov in person saying things that would have him thrown out of any decent sport and in addition ordered to pay Kramnik considerable libel damages were Kramnik that kind of person. Or for that matter read it in New in Chess.

Of course Topalov supporters like their hero will come up with any lie convenient, but this particular one doesn’t even seem to be convenient.

Sorry, it's an audio link not a video, isn't it? 'Hear' rather than 'see', then.

Indeed, Kramnik should take up the challenge if money is the most important thing in the world for him.

But I have the impression he has other values, and I can understand him very well. Why play somebody who day after day accuses you of cheating and foul play? Only to earn even more money?

Top level chess can survive Topnailov because there's only one of him/them. If all top chess players spoke and acted in that manner you'd have professional wrestling.

Well, Kramnik is less important to top level chess than Topalov.

Quite, gg.
If Kramnik retired next week, he would be little missed. But if Topalov did so, it would leave a huge hole. One has only to look at the tournament currently in progress to see that.

SJ, I do essentially agree with you. I was correcting Frank H's exaggerations making Kramnik looking a lot stronger than he really is.

Mexico is meaningless unless both Topalov and Kramnik are included.
As FIDE have bent, changed and broken so many of their own rules in the past, one more time is not going to make any difference. They should therefore extend Mexico to 10 players by including Topalov and Leko (and Leko to be replaced in the Candidates by Ivanchuk); and also get a cast iron guarantee from Kramnik that he will participate.
Failing this, another Topalov-Kramnik match soon, as absurd as it seemed to me a couple of months ago, actually starts to look like a really good idea. Especially as the first one, at only 12 games, was hardly a decent tryout anyway.

There is a big chance chess follows the pro boxing way where it was 10 years ago when Don King dominated the world.
What if we got FIDE (or FIDE Commerce, or whatever Bessel Kok is supposed to build), the weak official organization, being challenged by Danailov in establishing new professional chess rules? He got the #1 rated player, he builds the personally controlled umbrella for all top level tournaments with very strange requirements for participants, and he considers week as lost without some lies in an interview and without outraging his most dangerous opponent, Kramnik, and, recently, FIDE.