Our message board mod with the most, Russianbear excerpts a translation of Yuriy Vasiliev's report on Wijk aan Zee that includes the following (The FIDE Presidential Board was Jan 27-28 in Antalya, Turkey.):
Vladimir told me he knows nothing about being guaranteed a rematch in case of his failure in Mexico. In any case, his manager, who is now in Antalya, did not tell him anything about it. But the world champion stressed that regardless of what the rules will be, he plans to play and win the tournament in Mexico.
The summary from the Presidential Board adds: "The Presidential Board gladly took note of the announcement that current World Chess Champion, Mr. Vladimir Kramnik will play in the Mexico City tournament."
The good news just keeps on coming. Fun and parity at Corus, now this. Now if only the forces of darkness in FIDE don't manage to ruin everything. The old guard is terrified of new clean sponsorship like Mexico and someone like Bessel Kok running things professionally. Mexico City, then a new cycle ending a long match with serious organization, feel the love. As for the aforementioned rematch (an imprecise term) for Kramnik, of course it's in the air. Kramnik is within his rights to ask for such special treatment because Elista was an extraordinary situation, although he shouldn't get it and he should play in Mexico even if he doesn't get that guarantee. He can challenge under the new challenge rule just like anyone if he doesn't win. Topalov might just sit on his bank guarantee and serve papers the day Mexico finishes. Especially if Kramnik wins! The challenge line forms to the right...
By the way, I don't get all this guff about Topalov being "excluded" from Mexico City. He courageously – and for a nice paycheck – put his FIDE title on the line against Kramnik in Elista last October. He knew full well that losing meant he was out of Mexico, that if he lost his spot would be taken by the new FIDE/unified champion, Vladimir Kramnik. Yes, it's sad, but no sadder than having the tournament without Kramnik had Topalov won. We'd love to have every great player in every event, but you plays your games and you takes your chances.
"you plays your games and you takes your chances".
Is this a grammar mistake or a standard phrase ?
Mig says:
"By the way, I don't get all this guff about Topalov being "excluded" from Mexico City. "
---
In my case, I agree that Topalov and his manager must be aware of the implications of putting a FIDE title in risk, so they should accept the rules they agreed in first instance.
...
On the other hand, this does not mean that the rules and the structure of the tournament are good at all. The structure of such tournament is one of the worst moves FIDE has ever made; when Chess fans were hoping that the unification (loss of ambiguity) of the World Championship was meant to be the starting point of a better structure of chess, they do the opposite:
- Sacrifice the match system that decided the last World Champion.
- Contrary to the good sense of logic in competition, they automatically invite to the tournament players based in merits they got 3 years ago!! (yes, three years, because they were invited to a tournament based on results in 2004, without having to earn the invitation for a qualifying system like other players are going to do for being in Mexico). In the matches, for example, players like Leko and Polgar are invited by default??? Yes, for results they got until 2004, they have ensured a place for the world title without need to do anything!!!
- Players with merits and goals for being World Champions based on performance since 2005 are even excluded to participate: Radjabov, Mamedyarov, Ivanchuk, for example. I tend to believe that in a World Championship participate people who has gained a right to be there in at most one year before. Players like Svidler, Morozevich and Anand should have played matches (I remember the original system two years ago forced them to play matches too, but was cancelled) like the other qualifiers.
- Of course, I forgot to say that the #1 player and previous challenger is excluded for the cycle (although I previously mentioned he accepted that, so he should be silent)
---
In other words, the structure of Mexico 2007 damages everything that was believed to be restored in 2006 and is an example of absolute incompetence by FIDE (and Bessel Kok seems to be a zero to the left in that issue). Not even San Luis elegibility criteria were that outrageous.
To Sridhar Vijendran-
The language is Brooklyn.
If Aronian qualifies for the Mexico city, which is highly probable, I'd give him highest odds on winning it, together with Kramnik.
Sandorchess is pretty much correct in my opinion.
Mig: Kramnik is within his rights to ask for such special treatment because Elista was an extraordinary situation
This part I'm not sure I understand -- Elista being an extraordinary situation is true, but how is that different for Kramnik more than for Topalov. Why should Kramnik get an automatic insurance policy in case he loses the title in Mexico07? Shouldn't there be a queue for the rematch offers in FIDE? :-)
As far as Topalov signing off his Mexico participation, that's fact. But it seems to me that Chess had the chance to do something right and get a Championship that makes sense... It's not like Topalov is #12 and not one of the best, probably the best tournament players in the last couple of years (running)... As a fan, I'd feel equally odd if the roles were reversed -- cheapening the competition. Anyway, if that doesn't dawn on people naturally, particularly those in FIDE, then what more can possibly be said...
D.
Mig there is an important difference on Topalov not playing rather than Kramnink:
It was Kramnink's fault that the loser of the match does not participate in the new cycle!!
The rules of FIDE were that in the case of a challenge match, the winner of the match is the champion and the loser takes the place of the challenger in the new cycle.
Kramnink had qualified for the candidates circle from rating, but he turned down the position. (before the match of Elista) (Not to mention that he was also supposed to play in Saint Luis)
Had Kramnink accepted that position, the loser of the Elista match would have qualified for the candidated matches. So it was Kramnink's fault.
The rule of fide has some basis. Since they allow to any 2700+ to challenge they are faced with this problem. Say Akopian that has 2700 challenges the champion. Being worse player he is smashed by a big scor. Then why would he directly qualify for the next circle for losing a match, while otherwise he wouldn't?
The hole to this rule, comes when Kramnink, while he deserved to be on the candidates (ratingwise) and he could have signed in, he did NOT. And thus the loser of ELista was out...
To correct Russianbear's translation a bit - Kramnik will play in Monaco and a rapid match against Leko. That's how Vasiliev report goes.
"The language is Brooklyn."
As Mickey Rourke says in "Angel Heart": I'm from Brooklyn.
Quick correction (as I sent it earlier but was not displayed, yet): the Kramnik-Leko friendly match will be held in Miskolc, Hungary not in Monaco (it is a rather large city in northeastern Hungary) and mainly sponsored by the City council as they have organized Leko-Adams and Leko-Karpov matches last year, too.
PMR
I'd have preferred Kramnik NOT to play Mexico. It will devalue the World title yet again if he fails to win Mexico. Imagine anyone else scraping a victory in Mexico. Would you consider them a worthy successor to Steinitz et al
Or indeed Kramnik winning and then losing the title in a rapid play-off; perhaps even in a three-way playoff without losing a game.
I have mixed feelings; of course it's good that the Mexico sponsors aren't getting screwed, and let's hope that FIDE have seen sense and guaranteed Kramnik a rematch. Then all they would have to do is revoke the random challenge, institute a sensible challengers cycle of some kind, and we just might be back where we were in 1993 before Gazza and Nige did their thing.
Derida is right above about Topalov getting screwed from the interaction between the period when FIDE were putting in place their ludicrous rules and trying to freeze Kramnik out and destroy the match tradition, and the period during which FIDE changed their minds, presumably as a condition of Russian support for Ilyumzhinov in the election. Pity you didn't support Bessel Kok, eh, Vesko?!
Speaking of which, I remind myself that FIDE undertook in the Prague agreement to hive off commercial organisation to a body to be headed by Kok, as they are now promising to do again. Last time they took exactly no steps towards arranging it. Wonder what efforts they'll make this time.
Wasn't Bessel Kok involved in the first attempt(s) to steal Shirov's WC match?
Being somewhat of a chess purist as far as WCC's go, I am forlorn to endorse Mexico City as the Championship strictly because of the lack of Match play. However, given the state of chess as it's been the past several years, thanks to Mr. Kasparov's brain aneurism to defect (subsequently admitted by him as his biggest mistake, by the way), we have a workable, yet not ideal, configuration.
Although from a chess point of view I'd like Topalov to play in Mexico 2007, being a Kramnik fan, I for one am glad he is excluded, and FIDE is following it's own rules in that regard.
For the good of chess and the WCC, Kramnik must win Mexico 2007 to 'set things right' and give Chess a firmer footing from which to stand tall again. Then only can FIDE explore a better championship configuration with the hope of a similar series of qualifiers, then a series of candidates matches to arrive at the legitimate challenger for the crown.
If Kramnik does not win Mexico 2007, what do we have then? I have no idea...
Probably wishful thinking but I remember the old interzonals/qualifiers and candidates matches with a fond heart...
Dimon: "To correct Russianbear's translation a bit - Kramnik will play in Monaco and a rapid match against Leko. That's how Vasiliev report goes."
Oops. Dimon is right about that. I corrected my message on the forum.
A very interesting perspective from derida. You can take that argument all the way back to each decision, made by the parties that led to the current situation, for example:
Had FIDE agreed to the original Topalov-Kramnik match (proposed in fall of 05), the candidates matches could have been organized in a manner that would incorporate the loser of "unification" match.
But I think the most significant observation is that Topalov did not have any sway in the Elista proposal: according to FIDE contract, he had to accept it as champion and his title of FIDE champion was the only thing he really had. There is a small moral here about having a title whose only basis is an organization. Einstein, Braingames, PCA, ACP, have all come and gone, but because the title means something it survived.
Khalifmonodzhanovs of this world have to do as FIDE tells them.
Topalov's standing was slightly higher; due to him having won several tournaments many fans thought he was the strongest player in the world at a time. But, since the title meant something to him, he had to follow FIDE rules. Which are: do what FIDE says until FIDE says something else.
I'm not sure if it's Brooklyn. I always thought the phrase "you pays your money and you takes your choice" was working-class London...
Rather: "... takes your chances". Are my roots showing?...
Rather: "... takes your chances". Are my roots showing?...
Dimi,
If you ask for the Championship to make any sense, then you should not support both San Luis and Mexico, IMHO, as true Championship sites.
Here are Vasiliev's interviews with Kramnik and Topalov in full (in Russian):
http://sport-express.ru/art.shtml?133811
http://sport-express.ru/art.shtml?133812
Is this Spassky- or Bronstein-like unhappiness with the worldchampionship innate to Kramnik or caused by Kirsan? If the latter, Kirsan has Kasparov and Kramnik on his conscience.
"You pays your money and you takes your choice" is Cockney, immortalized by the English humor magazine _Punch_ in the 1840s. "...and you takes your chances" is a later derivation, implying that you don't necessarily get what you pay for; not sure where it came from.
So to answer Sridhar Vijendran's question in the first comment: both. It's bad grammar turned into an idiomatic catch-phrase.
I'd have preferred Kramnik NOT to play Mexico. It will devalue the World title yet again if he fails to win Mexico. Imagine anyone else scraping a victory in Mexico."
That's why Kramnik says he will prepare accurately for the tournament. I believe in him, you can call him Mr. Confidence.
Nice job, Ed!
A tournament is for sure not the best solution. I guess that not even the half of the players try to win the championship because they know they don't have a chance. They just play for the pay check. Others, like Big Pete Svidler might lose "accidently" against Kramnik to give the pal the points.
Vlad, the match tradition is great, but it clearly was broken in later years. It became more a game of trick and evade than true search for the next big one. And I'm not sure who's to blame if that matters at all. A couple of things come to mind immediately.
1) Handpicking opponents (or not, when inconvenient)
2) Kasparov not getting a re-match -- this was bad. It's like Botvinik never getting his re-matches after losing the title.
That severely marred the tradition to an extent of invalidating it, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, Chess is well on it's way to repeat its self-mutilation in the stoogiest way possible by holding a tournament excluding (not including, if you prefer :-) it's best player…
D.
About self-mutilation: the DRR tournament in Mexico City for the world title in chess compares to a DRR tournament for the world title in boxing. Just imagine 4 rings with 8 boxers slugging it out for 14 rounds, and the one boxer gathering the most points is declared the world champ.
If the combatants are equally strong, then each one has a 12.5% chance to win the world title. But even favorites like Kramnik will only have 25% or less chance to win the world title in a tournament, which is about the same as with previous FIDE lotteries.
Compare this to a match. If the combatants are equally strong, then each has a 50% chance to win the world title, and the favorite has a perhaps 70% chance. Much better for avoiding self-mutilation, and much better for the image of chess and its world champ.
"Unfortunately, Chess is well on it's way to repeat its self-mutilation in the stoogiest way possible by holding a tournament excluding (not including, if you prefer :-) it's best player…"
Yeah. It's a shame Fischer won't be there.
As the person who introduced the word "excluded" in the previous thread, I guess I could chime in. The San Luis format is flawed in many ways. I'm not going to lambaste FIDE here. Wasn't it Dr. John Nunn who suggested a lot of it, such as using rating averages? Nunn is not a FIDE insider. In particular, the RR format for choosing a winner had been abandoned after Bobby Fischer's objections. Topalov rescued the process by beating down the opposition and winning clear first. If it had come down to a last round where two players from the same country (or friends) met and the one who was not in the running for first prize lost, then of course the format would be changed for 2007. It is an avalanche waiting to be called.
Let's not forget that despite the technical flaws of San Luis, it was a success in human terms. It went a long way towards uniting the chess world, and the credibility of the result was sufficient to galvanize the first face-to-face match in 13 (16?) years between the FIDE Champion and the Classical Champion.
Sure, Topalov signed away his rights. No question. But when Mexico 2007 is remembered in later years, that may be forgotten, and the bare fact that Topalov was excluded remembered. I'm not saying that Topalov should be imposed upon Mexico, rather that the Mexican sponsors might *want* him included.
In the absence of (a player such as) Topalov, the challenge match provision somewhat rescues the process. But the challenge match provision itself needs some rescuing or clarification. If, say, Anand wins in Mexico, and the next day bids of equal merit from Radjabov, Topalov, Kramnik and the Mexico 2nd place finisher arrive at FIDE's offices, what happens? Or if Kramnik and Anand tie for first with Kramnik winning the tiebreak, what happens when bids of equal merit arrive from Anand and Topalov?
Hmm... I think you people (and more importantly, FIDE officials) should have a look about how well organized competitions work for games where a decent professionnal association exist. For instance, how Go "titles" are awarded. In many case, it goes as follows:
- Each title has a champion (the title holder). The champion disputes a long match with a challenger. The winner becomes the new title holder.
- The challenger is decided by a tournament with a limited number of players - the league. The league includes the following players: the players that performed well in the league tournament of the previous cycle (i.e. after the previous league tournament, the worst performing players in the were thrown out), plus the players from preliminaries,
- The players of the preliminaries come from various tournaments, mainly partial knockouts (with more preliminaries to win for the lowest ranked players).
Of course, this is in countries where a 14-year old professional player displays more maturity than several top GMs.
This WCC business has become a total mess. For every potential solution there is tons of cons. The Mexicans organizers must not be screwed, I think we all agree with that. Therefore I suggest to invite Kramnik, Topalov and a Mexican GM to play in order to make the number of participants even. The winner is declared the new WCC. New World Champion to play a match with challenger every two years. Finito.
Why does chess need a world champion? Matches made sense longer ago when there were a few good players who dominated for years and that is over with Kasparov resigning. Now, with 1000+ GMs and much greater fluidity in the rankings it is better to move to something like the way professional tennis is organized and just have tournaments. With matches basically you need to reserve your sport in the challenger list two years in advance, but in two years the top 10 player list can change considerably.
plus, you want to get rid of a parasite organization like FIDE which charges something like half of the prize fund for nothing. more decentralization and chess driven by the competition between tournaments will bring in more sponsor money and raise the quality of play.
>> Compare this to a match. If the combatants are equally strong, then each has a 50% chance to win the world title, and the favorite has a perhaps 70% chance. Much better for avoiding self-mutilation, and much better for the image of chess and its world champ.
This is true, but you need to take into account the process for selecting the challenger. There is some percentage chance that the the strongest player was eliminated in the qualifier/candidates stages.
There are always two competing interests in setting up such a cycle.
1. You want to reduce randomness and increase the chances for the true strongest player to demonstrate their superiority. The way to do this is to have a large number of games.
2. You want the process to be democratic, so that the true strongest player is very unlikely to be omitted completely from playing. The way to do this is to have a large number of players.
puzzled,
Your point is taken. However do not forget that a match for the world title in chess has a tradition that is not present in other sports like tennis. Therefore I am opposed to just dumping that tradition in the garbage bin. But I agree with you that some changes in the cycle to determine the challenger should be implemented in order to capture to the extent possible the fluidity you referred to. Shortening the cycle to 2 years goes in this direction.
Vlad Kosulin mentioned a Sport-Express interview that Kramnik did. I translated it here:
http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001449
Russianbear!
Russinanbear, thanks for taking the time for all the translations!
Wow, what a great World Champion we have in Kramnik! He is satisfied with 4th position!! What kind of loser's mentality is this?
Real champions like Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov or Topalov would never be satisfied with a ranking other than the very top...
OT: Tata Steel is buying Corus.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,16614-2576211,00.html
I guess this means Anand will still be invited when he's Korchnoi's age....
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/01/31/tata_steel_wins_corus_with_113_billion_offer/
Giannis, Kramnik is not concerned with ratings. He's concerned with who handles the business when the combatants sit down, and in beating both Kasparov and Topalov in match play, he's shown that he is, indeed, at the top.
Has someone compiled stats on previous World Champions (post 1948) and their tournament results during their tenure as a Champion?
D.
Khalifman:
"Pyrotechnician of the tournament: Ivan cheparinov
24,2% of games were completed by the victory of white
60,4% of games were completed a draw
15,4% of games were completed by the victory of black
98,9% of games began and were completed by the handshake"
Giannis, old chap, why don't you look up Petrosian's tournament record?
Russianbear, thanks again.
Thanks for a wonderful translation, Russianbear!
Oh yeah rdh,
Let's also go back to Steinitz, to Morphy and to Philidor... Even Napoleon, don't you agree that Kramnik is playing better than Napoleon? LOL
2cents' proposal for credible WCC system:
1. the highest rated player excluding WCC is candidate A
2. other players (excluding WCC & candidate A) play in a candidates tournament, the winner is candidate B
3. candidate A plays candidate B in a candidates match, the winner is the WCC challenger
4. The challenger plays WCC in a championship match, the winner is the new WCC
As of now that would be:
1. Topalov
2. Kramnik & Topalov do not play in Mexico 2007, the winner of Mexico 2007 is candidate B
3. Topalov plays candidate B in a match
4. Kramnik plays the winner of that match
The idea is that the candidates match should eliminate unworthy challengers and the championship match should eliminate accidental champions at the end (some of FIDE champions were accidental). Positives: the status of the champion is preserved (no need to play in tournament), the highest rated player is recognized and rewarded, there is a large pool of overall challengers with a quick selection process, matches prevent accidental results. Lastly, a champion has to be defeated in order to lose the crown - thats important and traditional.
In order to keep the current Mexico 2007 sponsors in line, the final championship match in the current cycle would/could also be in Mexico months later after Mexicio 2007.
1. Kramnik should be able to support this system
2. Topalov as well
3. Fide should be fine (fide likes tournaments)
4. sponsors too (note Mexico would get to host 2 great events).
5. good for fans over all.
12.12.2006 "Echo of Moscow"
Kramnik on Corus: "I hope for a good result and will try to prove in all tournaments in which I will play that I am the strongest chess player in the world"
01.30.2006 "Sport-Express"
Q: Are you upset that only half a point separated you from the winners?
Kramnik: "Not really...I didn't really [push/stress/strain--I am not sure what the best translation of napryagalsya is in this context] myself in this competition. Wasn't much of a motivation. This isn't a world championship."
well, regardless what happens in mexico. the classical/unified champ himself agreed to put that title on the line in that tournament. the winner will be the one and only world chess champ. after that the WCC will be determined by matches. i too hope kramnik wins mexico, but i doubt it.
i just hope we dont get this from fans, "even though classical champ agreed to unify titles by playing fide champ, and agreed to put that unified title on the line in a tournament, i would still consider kram the wcc if he loses in mexico."
it doesnt matter what we all think of all these rules, tournaments, etc. only thing that matters is that the classical champ himself agreed to it all.
So, JC, if Kramnik agreed to put his title on the line in a single game of blitz chess, that would make the winner of that game the new world champion in your eyes?
I like 2cents' suggestion a lot. Perhaps you should sent to FIDE and also try to get the chess world movers and shakers on board...
what choice would i have Yuriy? if kramnik loses mexico, he himself will admit he is no longer the WCC. that is what he is saying by agreeing to play and put his title on the line in mexico.
are u saying u would consider kramnik the champ even kram himself wont consider himself the champ?
"Kramnik on Corus: "I hope for a good result and will try to prove in all tournaments in which I will play that I am the strongest chess player in the world""
Thanks Yuriy, funny how he seemed to change his mind there. Although I'm not sure how you're supposed to prove in any single event (tournament or match) that you're the strongest player in the world.
JC,
You would have two options: one, consider the title to be forfeit. two, consider the Kramnik to still be the world champion.
That's something for many fans to consider. But the point is, "champion says so" or "champ himself considers to it" is hardly a good standard. Otherwise, the champion can transfer the title on a whim to anybody he sees fit. For the title to mean something, it has to have a connection to the idea of "the best chess player in the world" or even more importantly "champion," one who has produced best results against the world's best.
Acirce,
That's why he said "tournamentS".
But I would say a decisive victory against the world's best in a match is a pretty good proof. There is always a possibility it's a one-time fluke but there is also a possibility your opponent is hiding a 2-week battle with Ebola virus and is playing accordingly.
FIDE has very little time to react and avoid making a mockery out of the World Championship in Mexico07. World Championship without the World's #1 is an oxymoron. History reflects on things like that.
Whatever the format, the sponsors should be extremely excited to host a true celebration of Chess rather than an event compromised from the outset.
D.
Dimi,
All these questions should have been raised BEFORE the contracts for Elista match were prepared and signed. Consider, what people would be saying had Topalov won Elista: World Champion and #1 in rating is playing in Mexico and Kramnik - who is Kramnik? Who cares if he is not playing? But it did not work that way. And now we have the World Champion playing in Mexico and #1 - not. Why should our reaction to THIS situation be any different that what I described in my hypothetical example? I see no reason it should be!
Besides, what if Topalov loses his status as #1 in rating between now and September? What then?
Topalov has exactly four points on Anand in the FIDE ratings. If that situation was in reverse, would the FIDE tournament suddenly gain credibility? Does one extra victory over Motylev really give one premier qualification for the world championship?
In order to play in Mexico, all Topalov had to do was beat Kramnik in a match. Not too much for an undisputedly superior best player World's #1 to accomplish. That's one less match than Leko has to win and 7 less than Aronian would have to win to qualify.
What if Topalov is put into the tournament and does not win? Would this be making a mockery out of the World Championship since that would make it likely the next world championship match would not include #1? Clearly the only way to give integrity to the world championship is to do the most to hand it straight to Topalov as long as he has enough ELO points. God bless Danailov for doing the utmost to save the title.
From '2cents' at January 31, 2007 09:16
{
"In order to keep the current Mexico 2007 sponsors in line, the final championship match in the current cycle would/could also be in Mexico months later after Mexicio 2007."
}
An additional match, shortly after Mexico 2007 tournament: Fine.
Except you neglected to mention who is supposed to give $1 million of their money to the two match players?
The Mexico sponsor does not want to spend any more money than he has already committed. And the Mexico sponsor wants to host a WCChamp title event.
Yurii, as a Kramnik fan you're excused for feeling uncomfortable to see Topalov play in the Tournament. I understand that.
But if you take your "Kramnik Fan" hat off for a second, if you can, and look at it like a Chess fan you'd realise just how absurd the situation is. To have a World Championship without the #1 rated player and the winner from the last such tournament is [choose your own words here].
Andrei, raised some good points to which I will respond a little bit later today because I need to rush now. If one thinks like an "aparatchik" and allows such absurd situations to occur while justifying them vigorously based on some crazy previous decisions then Chess has little hope. I am reminded often of Kasparov's words...
D.
nice one kramnik he is at least an honest chap. marriage must be good for the soul...
All of this pointless argument is doing a good job of proving to me how bad an idea deciding the championship with a tournament is. You'll always get people whining about how arbitrary the invitations are, and what a travesty it is because their favourite isn't there instead of [fill in the blank].
I don't doubt that once Topalov's Elo rating slips a few more points that this isn't going to slow down the endless "World's #1" repetition for more than five minutes. There'll always be _some_ reason he's still the best ever.
Dimi,
It would be absurd to let Topa play in Mexico, because he signed in to play in Elista, and agreed the loser does not participate in Mexico. You can consider Elista as one of qualifier events for Mexico (winner plays, loser does not). This is direct consequence of current FIDE WC match regulations (every 2700+ can challenge the Champion, the winner gets all WC rights, the loser loses all).
If you believe Topalov qualifies by rating (this is your main point), then remember, this is event where only the winner matters, and Topa have already shown he is not the best by losing in qualifier to Kramnik.
I have no idea why Dimi assumes that I am a Kramnik fan. I guess it’s easier to dismiss me as one and reiterate his earlier post than to respond to any of the points I make.
Allow me to ask a few more questions:
When you were made familiar with the setup for Elista-Mexico last year, did you raise any loud objections on this forum?
If holding on to absurd situations based on previous contracts/decisions/match set-ups is “crazy” and “absurd” I take it you won’t be supporting Topalov’s demand for a match, which is based on the “crazy” and “absurd” provision that the world champion must face any GM above 2700 regardless of the schedule at the drop of a hat?
After Topalov, the next highest rated player who is definitely not participating in Mexico is Mamedyarov. If he surpasses Topalov in rating between now and September (they are only 30 points apart or so) will you insist that a slot be opened up for him?
If FIDE ratings and being a winner of the past round-robins make one undisputedly the world’s best player, shouldn’t such player be able to beat to defeat anybody in the world in a face-to-face battle?
Can I dismiss your future arguments as Topalov fan being uncomfortable at Topalov losing his slot in this tourney?
Do you have your “Topalov fan” hat on?
Andrei, good questions. What you're saying is true and the situation would probably have been exactly as you describe it. But it misses the point -- my objective is not to try to untangle the labyrinth of stupidity that goes far back, long before Elista.
What I am concerned about is the situation we’re in _today_. As a Chess Fan! Forget about Topalov for a second, for a number of reasons it’s better for him to sit out Mexico anyway.
How does running a sub-par Tournament help Chess? Or the sponsors? Or the fans? Tournaments prestige is based on who plays there and in all sports it would be looked as a diminishing factor when the top player(s) are missing. It’s a very simple question. Try to explain the current situation in Chess to someone outside, a Wimbledon fan, let’s say. There we’ll be one ringing question left (unanswered) “But why?”
D.
P.S. Here is the role of FIDE to react and make things meaningful. There is no doubt that Danailov, for example, does not stand a chance in Lozanne, similarly to Kramnik earlier. These things are well in the jurisdiction of the federation. And here is why I referred to “apparatchiks” – I honestly think that even the most retarded apparatchiks from the Communist era couldn’t concoct such a crazy situation. And stick to it.
P.P.S. Oh, and Topalov’s merits – I think his record speaks clearly. No point to elaborate further. He could have become a mute point after Elista, had he broken down and fallen aside (as predicted at times). But that clearly did not happen and he’s back kicking at the top door. I am sure the organizers would feel excited to be able to have that caliber of player. But the “apparatchiks”, yes, for them answering the simple questions has always been very, very difficult…
There was a World Cup about a year ago. Lots of Matches. Some players lost. They do not go to Mexico.
Topalov played in a qualification Match with Kramnik in Elista. Topalov lost in the qualification Match. It would be stupid to include the loser Topalov in Mexico if Mexico is a WCC.
This is all more mind games with Danailov wining and crying that he wants the cookie jar for himself.
Elista was basically a high level elimination match. Topalov got paid half million dollars for it. If he did not want to play the match, then he could have chosen to skip the Elista match and play Mexico where the winner will probably get maybe $50,000. Topalov already received 10 times that money for losing. Topalov said he does not care about the title. For him it is all about money. So he got paid 10 times the winning amount in Mexico. Stop wining.
My main position is that Fide needs to ban Topalov and Danailov for 3 years for violations of ethics. They should be glad they can still enter fide tournaments.
These 2 guys are terrible for the reputation of Chess. If Topalov was banned from fide, he would lose his elo and not be number 1.
If Anand's games played before Jan 1 in the Bundesliga had been counted then Anand would have been number 1 on the January list. So in terms of real rating on Jan 1, the number 1 is really Anand. So please shut those 2 guys up. What a pain in the arse.
Fide has to also modifiy some of the rules for challengers. One good rule would be to say that the champion can turn down a challenge if he does not want to play. etc. fide needs more control over what they will accept and not accept.
honestly, i dont get your points Yuriy.
u mention kramnik playing a blitz game for the title, the champ transfering his title on a whim. these are hypothetical extremes. no way would either of these 2 scenarios happen.
how on earth would anyone still consider kramnik the champ if he loses. after mexico, all GMs (krmnik included) will be playing in cycles, and tournaments, mini matches, etc, etc organized by FIDE in order to have a chance at playing the winner of mexico.
none of the GMs will think to themselves, "i consider kramnik the champ so im going to do what i can to challenge him."
but your telling me that kramnik will be the champ eventhough no one will be seeking him out to play against for a title, kramnik himself lost the title in a tournament where he played his best to win (he didnt transfer the title on a whim) and he's playing in all these fide cycles for a chance to play against the winner of mexico???
and about considering the title forfeit if kramnik loses... just dont know how to respond to that. i think your just being sentimental about kramnik. if u and your friends and all their friends etc etc would consider kram the champ if he loses really wont matter. i honestly think most fans will consider mexico winner the new WCC because theres nothing left to back them up. before elista kram was holding on to his title, but if he agrees to put it on the line and loses it, then theres nothing left to claim kram is the champ.
Kramnik is the champ, he is owning the title and he has the right to gamble it in a contest just as anyone has with his money.
Thus if he plays and loses in Mexico then that's the end for him as WCC.
Yuriy Kleyner:
>I have no idea why Dimi assumes that I am a Kramnik fan.
Yuriy, you should have some idea. You're a torch carrying Kramnik fan. Nothing wrong with that.
> I guess it’s easier to dismiss me as one and reiterate his earlier post than to respond to any of the points I make.
No, no, no, I am not dismissing you, sorry if you felt that way. As you see, we're talking. You avoid cheap shots, and despite our differences, which we should not be ashamed of, we can have a descent discourse.
>Allow me to ask a few more questions:
>When you were made familiar with the setup for Elista-Mexico last year, did you raise any loud objections on this forum?
No. First, I joined this forum well into Elista. Second, I became aware of the implications only during Elista. Thirdly, why raise objections for something so hypothetical, so far away when there were other more pertinent topics of the day. The sport and FIDE in particular have for a long time been in a confused (at times) "reactive" mode, rather than "proactive". Hey, we didn't know until yesterday if the Champion will even honor his contract to play in Mexico. What do you expect me to comment on?
>If holding on to absurd situations based on previous contracts/decisions/match set-ups is “crazy” and “absurd” I take it you won’t be supporting Topalov’s demand for a match, which is based on the “crazy” and “absurd” provision that the world champion must face any GM above 2700 regardless of the schedule at the drop of a hat?
The Topalov demand for a rematch was clearly not within the time allowed _if Kramnik was to play Mexico_. You never heard an objection about that from me. I wrote that it puts a forking move on Kramnik to "agree to some kind of achallenge" and that played well for Kirsan. I believe that that challenge played a significant role, if not decisive (we'll never know) in "stimulating" Kramnik to fulfill his Mexico obligations.
>After Topalov, the next highest rated player who is definitely not participating in Mexico is Mamedyarov. If he surpasses Topalov in rating between now and September (they are only 30 points apart or so) will you insist that a slot be opened up for him?
Mamedyarov is a super player, no doubt, but as of this point Topalov is #1 and climbing. That's unlikely to change for awhile, at least until September.
>If FIDE ratings and being a winner of the past round-robins make one undisputedly the world’s best player, shouldn’t such player be able to beat to defeat anybody in the world in a face-to-face battle?
Not always. Players beat stronger players and lose from weaker. You know that, of course.
>Can I dismiss your future arguments as Topalov fan being uncomfortable at Topalov losing his slot in this tourney?
Well, you can do anything you want, but would it make sense? As a Topalov fan I'll be rrelieved if he sits out Mexico. For many reasons.
>Do you have your “Topalov fan” hat on?
Sometimes yes.
Right now I have asked a simple question -- "What sport concocts a World Championship without the World's #1 rated player?"
I've heard no good answer.
Hey, I know I will be showered by zombie comments from all over the place, that's the nature of the game when sailing hostile waters and throwing rocks in the muddy pond of "group think". But being from a small country, we never had the strength of numbers, so a little individual courage is necessary at times to ask the right questions. But, I will not be able to respond to every silliness once they stack up to the brim, for which I apologize in advance.
Best regards,
D.
dear Dimi,
The answer to your question is very easy. The Championship is not held without the #1 rated player. This player already lost during this cycle. Mexico is only the final stage. If he won in Elista, he'd qualify to play in this FINAL STAGE, but he lost in preliminary. Blame him, if you wish.
JC, from your original post:
"it doesnt matter what we all think of all these rules, tournaments, etc. only thing that matters is that the classical champ himself agreed to it all."
If the champion's say-so or agreement is the only thing that matters then you would have to consider a single blitz game, a whim or anything else that Kramnik agrees to as acceptable.
You don't seem to think that that's a good standard. The one you discuss in the more recent post involves world acclaim and organization of a good competent cycle by FIDE. Neither of those can be granted simply by Kramnik's agreement. In fact, you imply (and I agree) it is not necessary for either.
I would not consider the title forfeit if Kramnik loses--you misunderstood that part. I am saying one could consider title forfeit if he puts it up on the line in the Mexico format. The idea is that a title must be defended in an appropriate format: not a single blitz game, not a coin flip, and not through less extreme but nonetheless inappropriate deviation. Some people here feel that Mexico is an appropriate format. Some don't. If you consider it to be an inappropriate format, you might consider Kramnik to forfeit the title by putting it on the line in this format.
Kramnik knows if he does not win Mexico, he loses his title, BY CONTRACT. Why is that so hard to accept?
Topalov KNEW if he lost in Elista, he would be excluded from the next cycle (Mexico 2007), BY CONTRACT. Why is that so hard to accept?
All these pedantic 'what ifs' beiing tossed about here are simply fantasies of Topalov love-children, really.
The REAL question is, what will happen after we crown a 2007 WCC in Mexico, be it Kramnik or Kamsky or - God Forbid! - Judit Polgar! Imagine That! The Sexism! The Jokes!... :)
Are we locked into the 'Grand Prix' suggestions? Are we locked into some sort of Knock-out of the top 128 players to reduce the field to a manageable number to hold candidates matches to arrive at a challenger? And doesn't that make those players unavailable for some of the best tournaments during that cycle? Isn't the logistics just not kosher? Are we held hostage by the first 2700+ player to come up with 2Mil?
I got more questions than answers....
Dimi,
You used tennis analogy. Notwithstanding the obvious differences between tennis and chess (tradition of championship, etc.), the answer to your point is very simple: right now Roger Federer is undisputed #1 in male tennis with no one coming even close to challenging his position (which cannot be said about Topalov's ranking - just marginally above the nearest rivals!). Obviously, the organizers of Wimbledon would LOVE to have him play there. However, if he CANNOT play - either because he is ill, or has other contractual obligations, or for any other reason - Roger's NOT playing in Wimbledon will NOT make the lustre of the winner shine any less: he will still be the winner of the most coveted title!
Dimi,
Get off your rating fixation. Last I looked, Topalov tied with TWO other players at Corus. He was not better than at least two players by that standard.
Being #1 rated does not mean so much, and the only player you can blame for not playing in Mexico is Topalov. He signed the CONTRACT for the Elista event specifically stating that the loser is EXCLUDED from Mexico 2007. He had his chance and LOST. GET OVER IT.
So, I ask you. Who is really to blame?
Kramnik is going to make Topalov the champ.
He will play in Mexico and lose and after that only the "ELO No.1 status" will count as worth something in chess, i.e., chess will become as tennis.
Andrei: However, if he CANNOT play - either because he is ill, or has other contractual obligations, or for any other reason - Roger's NOT playing in Wimbledon will NOT make the lustre of the winner shine any less: he will still be the winner of the most coveted title!
It certainly will make the news if Federer can't join!! Clearly, if he died in an airplane crash the Tournament will go on. BUT WIMBLEDON WOULD NEVER WILLINGLY DIMINISH THE CHAMPIONSHIP BY NOT INVITING THE TOP. That's the difference between good and bad management of the game.
Mark: Get off your rating fixation [...] Being #1 rated does not mean so much...
Well, it does. I didn't invent the ELO rankings, but they are used as the primary indicator of strength in this sport. They are based on cumulative performance over a period of time and have served quite well, I've been told.
--------------------
Fellas, all I am suggesting is -- this sport has to get back to its right footing instead of being stuck to reactive and senseless decisions of the past? FIDE has a chance to make a decision that makes sense, rather than stay hostage to the recent schisms and all of the wiggling surrounding them.
D.
Ovidu,
That might be so but to be #1 and to be the WC is nowhere near the same! Is it not the reason why Topalov wants the WC title so badly (albeit he claims he only cares about the money and not the title)?!
Dimi,
Your analogy is not correct: Mexican ORGANIZERS have nothing to do with Topalov not playing there: it was not up to them to invite or not invite someone PERSONALLY. Topalov signed a contractual obligation that prevents him from playing there. That's the end of it - what's to discuss?
I like the argument of Vlad (16:35): Topalov played in the cycle for the 2007 world championship. He just did not qualify for the final eight. These things happen at sports.
C'mon, guys, do not compare tennis with chess. Any chess tournament is KO. Nobody can win a tennis tournament if they lost to any opponent. If you want to build chess championship using tennis as a model, then it would be KO cycle with (mini)matches. Add 3-year cycle, and you get the old proven cycle.
I meant "any tennis tournament is KO".
Dimi said "Right now I have asked a simple question -- "What sport concocts a World Championship without the World's #1 rated player?"
I've heard no good answer. "
I think someone here or over on the message boards said many sports do, and gave some specific examples. Not being a sports fan, none of the examples stuck in my head but it does seem someone gave a good answer.
And even if there were no examples, it wouldn't matter as Topalov knew the consequences beforehand if he should lose. I'd like to see him in Mexico, but he signed that agreement and I don't see him whinging about not going (kudos to him).
FIDE does need to help get the sport "back on the right footing instead of being stuck to reactive and senseless decisions of the past", but breaking existing written contractual agreements is not the way to do it. Ruling definitely needs to change though and it will take the wise men and sage counsel at FIDE to do it right. Ow. Hurt myself laughing hysterically.
Nice quote! Kasparov by the way, not Kramnik.
"If FIDE wants to organize its own events, let them do so, but the chess world will recognize that they will have nothing to do with a real world championship. The title is owned by the World Champion, not by an organization that has lost legitimacy. I stand at the end of a line which started with Steinitz in 1886, and this will be so until I am defeated in a match. With FIDE I will have absolutely nothing to do, and what they say and do is irrelevant.”
In any case, the plain truth is that the world chess champion has not always been the strongest player in the world. What he *has* always been is the guy who beat the last champion, simple as that.
And, as I've said before, all that "World's #1, World's #1, World's #1" bleating isn't going to survive a fall in Topalov's Elo. Suddenly there'll be another reason, repeated with the same maddening frequency, why he's supposed to be playing in Mexico.
Daniel Andrews: FIDE does need to help get the sport "back on the right footing instead of being stuck to reactive and senseless decisions of the past", but breaking existing written contractual agreements is not the way to do it.
Good point. In general I agree with a more conservative approach to changing rules and regulations too. Of course, I do not question the existence of the contract, nor its binding powers. Not even its muddy history. I've read those scriptures too :-)
What I question is whether it makes sense. And the fact that it so much doesn't make sense that leaves us in an absurd territory (again!). Since everything has been quite in flux and in a rather reactive mode, I see no great harm to address that problem sooner rather than later. It's no good to have another Championship that is impaired by bad decisions of the past.
Let me pose the question otherwise -- who would object to a wise decision by FIDE to include its best Tournament player (currently) in its most prestigious Tournament of the year? The fans? The sponsors? Kramnik? Who?
That's all.
D.
Calling Jeff Sonas: what is the statistical probability of Kramnik winning Mexico given what we know today and making reasonable assumptions wherever appropriate?
Agreed it is not good to have another impaired championship.
As for the second question, I can think of a number of people who would object to Topalov in Mexico. The players themselves: will Danailov accuse them of cheating if they begin to beat Topalov; Kramnik: he just plain doesn't like Team Topalov anymore; some fans: they don't want to see a wonderful event marred by unfounded allegations and a resulting media circus (in Elista we only had two managers to worry about...imagine the chaos in Mexico if they all decided to have their say). Sponsors: well, all publicity is good publicity so they may not mind.
As much as I'd want to see Topalov in, I'm not even sure I'd vote for it. At the moment the risks seem to outweigh the benefits. FIDE and tournament organizers could enact rules of conduct and order (e.g. strict step-by-step procedure to deal with suspicions and penalties for anyone who publicly accuses someone of cheating without following procedure (and they should enact these procedures even if Topalov isn't there. It's just good sense).
If I was in charge, I'm sure I'd get it right, but would botch things up royally in some other area instead, and create a media disaster instead of just a media circus. :)
To Dimi:
I am pretty sure that the other players would object. They don't want their chances of winning the event jeopardized. I would say the sponsors and other players may have problems with the extra days but maybe, that is manageable.
D.J. Andrews, you raise some painful, but valid points.
Clearly some of Topalov’s remarks after Elista were way over the top. I have written a couple of 'concerned citizen' e-mails suggesting that it is totally self-defeating and unjustifiable for any reason to issue such. Outside of events surrounding ‘Toiletgate’ though, I have not heard any similar situation occurring despite many critical lost games, some of them very painful at that.
Having said that, I'd like to put things in a broader perspective. Since I've followed chess closer in the last few months I've noticed that there are a number of things that could never happen in a well managed sport. Starting with the most benign issue – the rhetoric… There has been a lot of rhetoric that is just not acceptable. Take that Seiravan-Gijsen back & forth – left a bad taste. Humorous moments like Nigel bursting out on the radio, showed me that Chess is not the high-class society that it probably ought to be. These, of course, are not new. Rampant rhetoric has been part of the game at least since I remember. Professional jealousy is unavoidable and the cause of some of that. Scandal too. Much bigger and more globally political, if you wish. But the top players are always sought after because that’s what people care about the most after all.
Therefore, I do not share your view that somehow Topalov is a risk to the game, its integrity, or good image. On the contrary, the events in Weijk and many other tournaments tend to show the opposite. The interest is great, the attention astounding, and the reception warm.
By far the biggest problems with Chess have been of structural nature and they outweigh 100 to 1 anything dealing with excessive rhetoric. The attempt to mend the schism has left the sport almost paralyzed to hold a decent Championship – one of the most important reasons for the existence of this Federation. Until yesterday we didn’t even know, if the Champion is going to defend, when or how… Here, despite his clean sheet on the rhetoric end I have a strong reason to be unhappy with Kramnik and probably the powerful forces that back him up. The entire saga has been about what one player wants all along. What happens next is still unfolding… We’ll see soon enough.
Anyway, now we’ve got the absurd situation that I outlined earlier. Not that I have any hope for FIDE to act, but it would be remiss of me not to share what I see is obvious – weakened Tournament to select the Best… Who needs that…
There’s a lot more to be said, of course, but I need to rush. Thank you for the thoughtful comments.
D.
"On the contrary, the events in Weijk and many other tournaments tend to show the opposite. The interest is great, the attention astounding, and the reception warm."
Indeed. But I don't see how bringing up Aronian and Radjabov exactly sell your point.
"The old guard is terrified of new clean sponsorship like Mexico and someone like Bessel Kok running things professionally."
Funny, we didn't hear Giannis react to that one... ;-))
Dimi:
>>I have no idea why Dimi assumes that I am a Kramnik fan.
>Yuriy, you should have some idea. You're a torch carrying Kramnik fan. Nothing wrong with that.
I don’t even like Kramnik as a person. The only two super GMs I can think of off the top of my head who I would call myself a fan of are Morozevich and Kasparov, who is retired.
I don’t know if your defense of Topalov is based on you liking him. My defense on Kramnik and attack on Topalov is based on the principal that champion should be dethroned in a match with the winner declared the new champion. Had Topalov beat Kramnik in Elista I would not be arguing that Kramnik should be placed in the Mexico round-robin.
>> I guess it’s easier to dismiss me as one and reiterate his earlier post than to respond to any of the points I make.
>No, no, no, I am not dismissing you, sorry if you felt that way. As you see, we're talking. You avoid cheap shots, and despite our differences, which we should not be ashamed of, we can have a descent discourse.
Thanks, Dimi. It feels good to know that it’s possible to have a decent discourse on this forum.
>>Allow me to ask a few more questions:
>>When you were made familiar with the setup for Elista-Mexico last year, did you raise any loud objections on this forum?
>No. First, I joined this forum well into Elista. Second, I became aware of the implications only >during Elista.
Ok, whenever you did become aware and in whatever forum you felt like then :)
>Thirdly, why raise objections for something so hypothetical, so far away when there >were other >more pertinent topics of the day.
Well, Dimi, because otherwise one might ask if your attack on the idea of “player with highest rating not being in the final stage” is based on the player’s identity rather than finding the rule unfair.
>The sport and FIDE in particular have for a long time been in a confused (at times) "reactive" >mode, rather than "proactive". Hey, we didn't know until yesterday if the Champion will even >honor his contract to play in Mexico. What do you expect me to comment on?
A significant provision of the contract which was very publicly pronounced by Kirsan in the interview the day after the match was signed.
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/04/sport_express_on_vtvk.htm
What is so hypothetical about it? Topalov losing to Kramnik and not qualifying for Mexico 2007 as result is a pretty realistic outcome.
>>If holding on to absurd situations based on previous contracts/decisions/match set-ups is “crazy” and “absurd” I take it you won’t be supporting Topalov’s demand for a match, which is based on the “crazy” and “absurd” provision that the world champion must face any GM above 2700 regardless of the schedule at the drop of a hat?
>The Topalov demand for a rematch was clearly not within the time allowed _if Kramnik was to play Mexico_.
Actually, no, the FIDE rules do not say anything about the champion having those six months only if he participates in the next championship.
>You never heard an objection about that from me.
You never wrote that Kramnik as the new FIDE champion was under obligation to play Topalov?
>I wrote that it puts a forking move on Kramnik to "agree to some kind of achallenge" and that >played well for Kirsan. I believe that that challenge played a significant role, if not decisive (we'll >never know) in "stimulating" Kramnik to fulfill his Mexico obligations.
I believe, and it seems like FIDE had no interest in putting on the Kramnik-Topalov rematch. Probably was afraid of Danailov and his insanity being anywhere near the title again. Nor am I still sure that Kramnik was at any point going not to play Mexico. He might have tried to negotiate a better world cycle, or to see if he can work out an alternate match to play but barring any such manna, was going to play.
>>After Topalov, the next highest rated player who is definitely not participating in Mexico is Mamedyarov. If he surpasses Topalov in rating between now and September (they are only 30 points apart or so) will you insist that a slot be opened up for him?
>Mamedyarov is a super player, no doubt, but as of this point Topalov is #1 and climbing. That's unlikely to change for awhile, at least until September.
Today’s rating list falls at half point between July of 2006 list and the one which would be active at the time of Mexico, July of 2007. Comparing 07/06 and 01/07 list I see that Topalov has fallen 30 points, Kramnik gained 23 and Mamedyarov gained 32. Right now four points separate Topalov from #2 and 17 from #3, Kramnik.
A hypothetical scenario in which Topalov becomes replaced at #1 by another player between now and Mexico is not that unlikely. Since you feel that a large part of the reason for Topalov’s automatic qualification for Mexico is his #1 ranking, a logical and impartial observation on your part would be that the ninth slot should be given to the player who ends up #1 at the ranking list at the time of the tournament.
>>If FIDE ratings and being a winner of the past round-robins make one undisputedly the world’s best player, shouldn’t such player be able to beat to defeat anybody in the world in a face-to-face battle?
>Not always. Players beat stronger players and lose from weaker. You know that, of course.
Huh?
>>Do you have your “Topalov fan” hat on?
>Sometimes yes.
Should it matter whether you are a Topalov fan in discussing your points or should one focus on the points themselves?
>Right now I have asked a simple question -- "What sport concocts a World Championship without >the World's #1 rated player?"
>I've heard no good answer.
Allow me to repeat one shared by many others: Topalov had participated in this WC. In order to qualify for Mexico, all he had to do was beat Kramnik. This is a lot less than was asked of many GMs, and a reasonable thing to ask of a man who claims to be the world’s best chess player.
Ray Derivaz,
On top of everything I'm a Topalov fan. I like his uncompromising style in chess and I follow closely all of his games. Even after losing the world title in Elista, I still believe that he is the true No. 1 in the world today.
So, as you can understand, I have no interest in defending FIDE as long as they are in war with Topalov. What's so strange about this? If you feel bothered by Mig's comment about "FIDE's old guard" you can go on and defend FIDE by yourself.
Ovidiu: i.e., chess will become as tennis.
I am excited about the Grand Slam idea that these guys are working on. Ultimately it boils down to getting the dough and Danailov seemed quite bullish on the subject. Based on past performance, I am an optimist and do like the 'can do' attitude. Get more cash for the players, make them work harder (Sofia rules, no 17 poor excuses to a draw). Compete for the attention span of the public by delivering a superior product. If that works then who needs those other guys, the aggravation and arguments with bunch of bureaucrats and apparatchiks who have less business sense than a popcorn vendor -- they wrap up their most important asset "The Title" as an inferior product until they ruin it.
D.
Kramnik himself confirms to play - and to play to win - in Mexico.:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=131
Well, that's a 75% chance that the match tradition for the world title will die.
(Assuming that there is a 25% chance that Kramnik wins, and that in this case there is then still a chance to salvage the match tradition for the world title.
In my book, the other 25% chances go to Anand and Aronian each, with the remaining 25% divided up among the rest.)