You know how sequels are usually worse than the original? This is actually the fourth or fifth edition of FIDE's plans for the current and future world championship cycles in the past year or two. First they said matches, then tournament, then matches again, then a world cup, then a unification match, then a challenge match. We had Topalov, then Kramnik, then Kramnik in his own qualifier, then Topalov is back. Now they seem to have done something truly remarkable and have tried to have it all by taking a "one of each" approach in a convoluted and anti-logical new plan. (Which, of course, could also change just as our indigestion begins to pass.)
ChessBase does their best to explain things, and there is a handy diagram that is only lacking a little cartoon guy with his head exploding. The most relevant addition in the short run is that Topalov has been added back into the mix no matter what happens in Mexico City. If Kramnik wins in Mexico, he has to play a match with Topalov in 2008 and then the winner of that will play the winner of the 2007 World Cup (in 2009?). If Kramnik doesn't win in Mexico, he plays the winner in a match in 2008. At the same time, Topalov will face the 2007 World Cup winner in a "challengers match," the winner of which will face the winner of the match between Kramnik and the Mexico winner.
It was obvious at the time of the Elista unification match between Kramnik and Topalov that it was really going to suck to lose. The winner would be the first unified champion since 1993 and hold a ticket to Mexico as defending champ. The loser would be out of the world championship cycle already underway (the 16 candidates had been decided nearly a year earlier) and would have to fight for qualification in the next cycle at the 2007 World Cup just like the piss-ant rabble, god forbid. Both players accepted those conditions and we know that because they both showed up to play. We don't even need to wave the contracts around.
Kramnik won, Topalov lost. Yep, it sucked for Topalov and his many fans. The battling Bulgarian, the #1-rated player at the time, lost his FIDE world championship title and handed his spot in Mexico to Kramnik. In early March, FIDE announced that Kramnik would get a match against the winner of Mexico if it wasn't him (which is as bizarre as it was expected) and that Topalov would get a match against Kramnik if it was. A month later, an interview with Ilyumzhinov confirmed the Kramnik vs Mexico winner match and appeared to disavow the Topalov vs Kramnik match. A later semi-clarification from FIDE said that Topalov would have the "right to challenge" Kramnik, which didn't exactly carve things in the marshmallow that passes for stone in FIDEworld.
The Bulgarian federation has been beating the drums to get Topalov back into the mix quickly instead of making him wait to play in this year's World Cup with everyone else. Why, exactly, Topalov deserves special treatment because he won in San Luis nearly two years ago is not clear. That is, unless you subscribe to the theory that winning any sort of world championship title alters human brain chemistry, instilling a massive sense of entitlement. (Uzbekistanis seem to be immune, to their credit.) Yes, it was sad and in many ways silly that the Elista unification match loser was booted out of the cycle. But they both went in eyes open.
This latest version makes even less sense because it imagines a supernatural bond between Kramnik and Topalov. If Kramnik wins Mexico, Topalov gets a direct world championship rematch, which wasn't in the Elista rules. If Kramnik doesn't win Mexico, a new match is created from thin air, demoting the World Cup winner from WCh challenger to semifinalist in an instant. If Topalov deserves an automatic WCh challenge, why is it only against Kramnik?! (I.e., if these extraordinary matches are to make any sense at all, first Kramnik would get his bonus match with the Mexico winner and then Topalov would play that winner.) Why drag the World Cup winner down? And how about the Mexico winner (if it's not Kramnik)? Not only does he have to play a match against Kramnik, but then a match against the winner of the Topalov-World Cup winner match! Of course that's all good money assuming it can be conjured, so maybe it's the more the merrier. (Which is why it's unlikely the Mexico players will complain much.) But it's likely to be a short time at the top and a hectic year as these matches are squeezed into the calendar. FIDE went with convenience and faux-symmetry over logic.
I'm not saying it wasn't stupid hold a unification match in which the loser was out of the ongoing cycle. It was. And, not unreasonably, FIDE prefers to create new events instead of modifying ones that are already in place. So no expansion of the Mexico City field or fiddling with the candidates matches. And Topalov is an exciting player and one of the world's very best, no doubt at all. But now we've yet again postponed fair play and logic in the WCh process. When they couldn't come up with a way to put Topalov into the cycle, they put him on top of it, giving him the exact same post-Mexico rights as Kramnik, who, you may remember, beat Topalov. If Kramnik wins Mexico, they are both finalists. If Kramnik doesn't win, they are both semifinalists. Why? I'm going to take a wild guess and wonder if some of the money Topalov raised for his rematch challenge to Kramnik didn't come in handy in making a persuasive case to FIDE's finest.
As for the long run, the creation of a Grand Prix sounds dandy, and I'm all for more events and more money, but do we need both a Grand Prix and the World Cup? The announcement says "The Grand Prix series will span a period of two years with one tournament every year in America, Asia and Europe." So either they can't count (three continents, two years...) or that means three events per year wedged into the calendar and in need of sponsorship. That's not impossible, and Bessel Kok is up to the task if anyone is, but it contributes to the Frankenstein nature of the proposal. Why choose a coherent system when we can mix and match two or three different ways of doing it!
This Grand Prix, still a glimmer in FIDE's eye, also raises the specter of conflicts with traditional events and the nascent Grand Slam program proposed by Silvio Danailov and the organizers of most of the world's top events. There is the possibility that these two "Grands" may overlap or even combine, but that's a long way and a lot of "ifs" into the future.
Since Topalov lost to Kramnik in a match he has lost to Polgar and Mamed in Essent, had the last place in Linares and had a narrow win in Sofia over the same guys who are suffering in Aerosvit currently.
It´s like the game 5 in Elista in a larger scale. What Topalov cannot do on the chess board, is compensated by Danailov.
>But now we've yet again postponed fair play and logic in the WCh process.
ROFLMAO
It is absolutely unjustifiable that the painter gets a guaranteed rematch if he loses Mexico (while Topalov at the same time gets nothing). This degrades Mexico 07 to a candidates tournament with the weird fact that the "champion" participates. This is an insult to the other seven partipicants, to the sponsors and to the audience.
Can you spot logic and fair play ? I can't.
With the off-board antics he is famous for the painter - with his shorts having turned brown again - managed to dodge the million $$$ challenge. Topalov and team were robbed of this possibility which they were clearly counting on when they signed the Elista 05 contracts.
Can you spot logic and fair play ? I can't.
Topalov - leading player in the world, ex world champion - and his team which have revolutionized chess the last couple of years get locked out for two years by the painters famous off-board antics. Doesn't this sound fanmiliar ? Havn't we had this before ? Has the painter not already ended another prominent chess career with his political off-board manoevering (i.e. brown-nosing political figures / quasi dictators ?)
Can you spot logic and fair play ? I can't.
"It is absolutely unjustifiable that the painter gets a guaranteed rematch if he loses Mexico (while Topalov at the same time gets nothing)." Kramnik's the undisputed world champion, and the only player around to have beaten the last recognised world champion (Kasparov) in a match.
Topalov once won a tournament and then lost a world title match...
Personally, I'd rather Topalov played Mexico with then Kramnik playing the winner, but if no-one has to beat Kramnik in a match it would seriously devalue the title.
"With the off-board antics he is famous for the painter - with his shorts having turned brown again - managed to dodge the million $$$ challenge." The challenge was always just a farce/negotiating tactic (exploiting FIDE's stupidity in having a clause about automatic challenges). No-one's going to play a rematch so soon, especially when already committed to serious tournaments. Nevermind the "challenger" is slandering you in public.
"Topalov - leading player in the world, ex world champion - and his team which have revolutionized chess the last couple of years get locked out for two years by the painters famous off-board antics." Have a look at the rating list and Topalov's recent performances. All Danailov's done is lower the reputation of chess to unheard of depths. To be honest, I'd love to see Danailov encouraged to sue FIDE and then FIDE could simply obey their rules and ban Topalov for 2 years for unethical behaviour. Everyone would be happy ;)
p.s. how pathetic do you have to get to start trying to make fun of Kramnik for the fact that he said for him chess is art!??? Yep, let's through out the noble tradition and trade in schoolyard insults.
Two comments:
Someone said all Topalov's failures after the loss but failed to mentioned that he won Wik Aan Zee ahead of Kramnik and Anand...
Also, Topalov gets privilaged position in the qualifying for the NEXT cycle. This means that he is excluded from the current one, as his contract said. Then, since FIDE altered the rule that you can directly challenge the World Champion if you find founding, they gave Topalov (that had already made one such offer, and obviously to everyone he was (unfairly/stupidly or add your preferred adjective) excluded from this cycle) some privileges for the next cycle in order to avoid people complaining as well as some possible legal actions. It seems straight forward the motivation for this suggested solution.
Two comments:
Someone said all Topalov's failures after the loss but failed to mentioned that he won Wik Aan Zee ahead of Kramnik and Anand...
Also, Topalov gets privilaged position in the qualifying for the NEXT cycle. This means that he is excluded from the current one, as his contract said. Then, since FIDE altered the rule that you can directly challenge the World Champion if you find founding, they gave Topalov (that had already made one such offer, and obviously to everyone he was (unfairly/stupidly or add your preferred adjective) excluded from this cycle) some privileges for the next cycle in order to avoid people complaining as well as some possible legal actions. It seems straight forward the motivation for this suggested solution.
"Then, since FIDE altered the rule that you can directly challenge the World Champion if you find founding"
Stop repeating this idiotic lie. By now you should have learned that just beause Danailov says something it doesn't become true.
FIDE didn't alter the rule. FIDE looked at the rule, something the Bulgarian side either didn't or pretended not to, and saw that the rules said it was too late for the match to take place in time.
There are no ifs and buts about that. The rules are absolutely clear.
(Even apart from this, there was STILL no absolute right to get a match even if all the formalities are fulfilled. The rules clearly said that the final decision to rule a challenge valid lies with the Presidential Board or the President.)
Why there should still be a debate about something this plain is beyond me. Just use your eyes, you brain, and read the rules.
http://www.fide.com/news/download/regsmatch.pdf
As always, FIDE comes up with the most stupid of all plans.
If the intention is to insert Topalov into the WC Cycle as soon as possible (Topy is a pitiful human being, but his chess skill is undeniable and a good case can be made that he deserves to be in the mix), then it would have been much better, simpler, faster, cheaper and logical to have him replace Kramnik in Mexico, with the Mexico winner facing the World Champion (Kramnik) as originally planned.
As always, FIDE comes up with the most stupid of all plans.
If the intention is to insert Topalov into the WC Cycle as soon as possible (Topy is a pitiful human being, but his chess skill is undeniable and a good case can be made that he deserves to be in the mix), then it would have been much better, simpler, faster, cheaper and logical to have him replace Kramnik in Mexico, with the Mexico winner facing the World Champion (Kramnik) as originally planned.
Acirce,
Do your homework before accusing other people of lying.
The whole issue is in Topalov's contract with FIDE, not in the regulations you mention (see Danailov's interview). FIDE guaranteed to Topalov that the 2700 rule, which was initially made especially for Kramnik, would stay in effect until 2009. Surely a mess but this means that Topalov had the right to challenge the Mexico winner, which would then jeopardize Kramnik's match in 2008 if Kramnik didn't win Mexico.
Mig: "And, not unreasonably, FIDE prefers to create new events instead of modifying ones that are already in place."
Actually, quite unreasonably. We have this mess partially due to the fact that Mexican organizers insisted that their tournament have the status of the world championship. If they didn't then there probably would be no problem with putting the loser of Elista into Mexico. This tournament would then become the last qualifying event for the world championship and hold a lot of prestige. Now, while formally still a championship, no one will take its winner (if it is not Kramnik) seriously. At best, it is still a qualifying event for the championship. At worst, it is a qualifying event for semifinals. Thank you, Mexico. Thank you, Mig, too, for supporting them. And special kudos go to FIDE, of course.
So what? Topalov has to win one or two matches to become champion, and all this for the benefit of putting an end to complaints. If Topalov is the best man, he will win. If he is not, there is no need to fear.
On the subject of the challenge clause, the fact that the banks were closed for the holiday or that you didn't have a bank or that 179 days rather than 180 required were left to run the match is all nonsense. You don't decide not to hold a championship match because of stuff like that. This is all technicalities and I am sure you can find reason like that to get out of almost any contract. FIDE decided to let people challenge to get money in its pocket. Then they didn't want to give Topalov rematch and also realized it was impractical to have this caluse, since it was going to wreak havoc with a champion's schedule, forcing him to cancel all other commitments and potentially play a match every few months. Right decision to cancel the clause, but Danailov is right, for once--Topalov could have reasonably expected a rematch.
Houray! Topa is in the cycle :) That is a great news for the chess world and finally posted here as well. Now only one thing is left - enjoy Topalov crushing everybody on the board.
It seems Topalov and Danailov are bullying FIDE for a spot in the World Championship cycle and this has really messed everything up.
So I'm going to Danailov's interview, where he says:
"Yes, this is true, but when we sign this contract there were official FIDE regulations and according to them every former world champion or player with rating above 2700 can challenge the world champion in a match for the title if he can present bank guarantee of USD 2 million. When Veselin lost the match in Elista we immediately made this challenge and presented to FIDE this bank guarantee of USD 2 million. The rest of the story is well known, FIDE declined our rights for this match with very poor arguments."
Then I'm looking at the official regulations and conclude that he is lying.
What's in the contract I have no idea, as I haven't seen that (and presumably nobody here has). I'm talking about the stupid claim that FIDE violated the regulations when they turned down Topalov's challenge. If that was not derida's point I apologize.
Perhaps people who can't spot logic and fair play should leave arguing about those subjects to those who can spot them.
On the other hand, if people don't see logic and fair play in a given proposal, perhaps they should leave arguing about it to those people who are able to use the correct combination of English words to indicate so.
Houray! Topa is in the cycle :) That is a great news for the chess world and finally posted here as well. Now only one thing is left - enjoy Topalov crushing everybody on the board.
Behavioural norms of players in chess events. PB decision
From FIDE main page:
"Having discussed several recent cases in different chess tournaments where the attitude of players toward their opponent or officials, journalists etc. was not acceptable under conventional social behaviour, the FIDE Presidential Board –at the suggestion of President Ilyumzhinov- decided on setting up strict rules regarding such behaviour.
Any player who does not shake hands with the opponent (or greets the opponent in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the game starts in a FIDE tournament or during a FIDE match (and does not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) or deliberately insults his/her opponent or the officials of the event, will immediately and finally lose the relevant game."
hmmm... who comes to mind?
Re-posting this to this correct thread.
Back in 1998 Karpov the reigning FIDE Champion was waiting for about 3 weeks to see who would emerge from Groningen Knockout tournament (like World Cup) to challenge him for the FIDE title. Anand was victorious and he had to relocate in a day or 2 to Lausanne to play Karpov. Karpov won in rapid games. Anand was completely exhausted after the knockout phase and was clearly not himself in Lausanne - yet he managed to draw the classical games. Karpov had the nerve to say that he had no advantage - on the contrary, The Challenger had had time to 'play himself into form' and he himself was waiting 'rusty'...
Be that as it may, I remember the outrage the decision to give Karpov this advantage was met with. But at least Karpov was the FIDE Champion. (Kasparov was of course the REAL Champion.)
Now FIDE has chosen to give Topalov not only one but TWO chances (ok, the match against Kramnik depends on the fact whether Kramnik wins Mexico or not) to RE-enter this WC-cycle from which he was excluded by a CONTRACT he and his manager signed along with Kramnik and FIDE. The question is why? Topalov is no champion, so why the privileges? Why does #2 get such advantage concerning the WC-title, when #1 has to slug it out with the others? And personally to me it is not actually about #2 vs. #1 issue, but simply about the fact that for no reason FIDE has chosen someone to be their golden boy and hand him - against previous contract - two more chances, two shortcuts to fight for the title. This is extreme injustice towards everyone else.
Why would Kramnik tolerate this kind of breach of agreement? Why would the future winner of World Cup 2007 accept another obstacle on his way to the title match? FIDE is proving once again that they are completely irresponsible. Perhaps Kramnik should break away to preserve the tradition of the World Champion Title and let FIDE have fun with Topalov and Danailov.
Just repeating myself like everybody else:
Who cares about the silly Topalov clause? (well a lot of people obviously, but I don't see why).
Like the other people said, he doesn't deserve the opportunity, but one thing for sure is he won't be World Champion if he doesn't beat the World Champion in a match, and if he does, good for him.
Why is no one discussing what happens after that? Is the system good or not? That seems a lot more important in the long term than Topalov getting a shot or not.
Of course, long term for FIDE is until their next reversal, so maybe it doesn't matter either...
What is for sure is we will be seeing a lot of good chess.
I hope we'll be seeing a lot of good chess, and not a lot of brown substance throwing from somebody's mouth.
Acirce,
What Danailov interview????
Jean-Michel,
What system are you talking about? I can't see any. Just one in a long list of usual FIDE BS proposals, not intended to stand for more than a couple of months.
http://interviews.chessdom.com/silvio-danailov-interview
acirce,
>What's in the contract I have no idea, as I haven't seen that (and presumably nobody here has).
Which may not be a correct presumption... Why not listen to people in the know ?
YK,
I won't waste time pointing out how error-ridden your posts (even in this thread) are. Just for the record, in case my English was not correct enough for you to understand: I was referring to the state _before_ the current FIDE decision (it's not really a "proposal" isn't it - or is my English THAT incorrect ?) which was a blatant injustice toward Topalov and his team but Mig made it sound like it was logical and fair play. As Topa fan I am of course happy with the new development - I don't know if those guys who faught their way through the candidates matches feel the same way though.
a, ok, I remember, the one that Mig will never mention cause it says some things that are so true.
"In his recent big interview in Chessbase Kramnik said that his opinion about your ethical code is not very high.
Well, it's very strange for me that the guy who never qualified for any WCC cycle, and now is building with great enthusiasm cycles for the other players, can speak about ethical code. The man who always received the WCC matches like gifts, first from Kasparov and then from Ilyumzhnov, is speaking about moral? Mr.Kramnik, who harmed gravely the career of such a great player like Alexei Shirov in such a cynical way? "
And Danailov continues:
On the other hand, Chessbase needed to promote desperately the match Kramnik-Fritz 10 last year in Bonn. Unfortunately for them, Fritz 10 nowadays is much weaker program then Hydra, Rybka, Junior, etc. At the same time Kramnik was only the third player of the world, Topalov and Anand had much better results at that moment. So, how to promote the “World chess challenge” between Player Number 3 and Program Number 4?
So, so sad that Mig never said those things.... Here was a good place to cite the interview (that was done when I do not know???), but of course Mig is Migbase, he will never say a bad word against Fritz, respectively Kramnik who is Fritz choice. Mig, that is sad.... you are pathetic. Look all your readers in the eyes and keep on saying all that is not true and that Topalov is the bad guy.
I keep on reading and I seriously think you either get paid good money or you simply want to favoritize some player on the back of others. But yet you remain Migbase.
Acirce, thank you for the link. Any others that Mig decided to skip? I am sure in Russian news there is, if you find something pls pass it.
Danailov's comments for chessdom make some sense. I mean, some of them. Karmnik destroyed Shirov because he played kasparov 2+ years after Shirov was supposed to? Kramnik did not pass any qualification cycle? Did Topalov pass any? Kramnik at least defended his title in 3 matches in a row.
Famous cables in bathrooms is nonsense. What would Kramnik connect it to? And why not to use Ethernet over power line instead if you got the computer implanted?
And let separate the last cycle which finished after FIDE lawfully declined Topalov's revenge request, the current one which should finish after the match of Mexico Champion with next Challenger, and the next cycle.
How could they come up with this complicated scheme, with "ifs" and privileges for some players? I need a flow diagram to follow it...
http://fide.com/news.asp?id=1391
well, they will at least have to shake hands
The proposal is not that complex. It's just hard to figure out who they are talking about advancing to what stage, since there is a thousand different Grand Slam, World Cup, Grand Prix, none of which have even taken place yet. This flow chart, I think, is very helpful:
http://www.fide.com/news/download/NewWorldChampCycle.pdf
"I won't waste time pointing out how error-ridden your posts"
That's ok. You can't spot logic and fair play anyway.
Kirsan probably did sign away too many concessions in his Elista World Championship contract with Topalov. Danailov would be likely to prevail in Lausanne. And Danailov would be likely to receive roughly the same amount of money that Zsuzsa Polgar and Karpov received, when they brought their claims against FIDE. They won about $50,000.
I doubt that Kirsan was worried about the consequences of losing the lawsuit. Rather, he seems to have maneuvered things to make it as likely as possible that there will be a re-match between Kramnik and Topalov.
It's assumed that Kramnik will refuse to play Topalov. It is almost certain that Kramnik would never agree to play Topa in Sofia...or in Elista. But, if Kirsan agrees to give Kramnik a solation payment of 1 million $$ or so, I'd expect that he be willing to play. After all, he must be confident that he is a better Match player than Topalov is, and so would have good chances to prevail against him. Anand, Leko, and Aronian would be tougher match opponents for him. Of course, if Kramnik fails to win Mexico City, the chances are that he will have to face one of the above.
Looks like Topa is willing to get some rating points from Moro without actually playing him ;-)
I can hardly believe the new promised guidelines for players (will they provide training pictures and specs on how much pressure should be applied during handshake, separate for males, females, juniors, senoirs, and those with disabilities) change anything compared to current regulations from FIDE Handbook. I guess, they should also include the requirement that both players should stand during handshake, males have their hats removed (special exclusions for jews, buddhists, and muslims), and the player playing white should stand up first, except military force tournaments, where the player of lower rank shall stand first and shout the greeting loudly. Also, before the game every player should provide a notary public verified medical record confirming they do not have any dangerous skin deceases and ther is no poisonous chemicals repelled.
Seriously, they'd better bring a decision from Ethics Committee regarding Topa case. Silence of the lambs?
>Kramnik at least defended his title in 3 matches in a row.
Huh ? I count one (if you _really_ want to count the charade of Brissago). Before that there were FOUR YEARS of dodging the real deal (i.e. GK) through off-board political maneuvering (hard to believe, isn't it: FOUR YEARS). After that he was challenger and made +1 in blitz games in Elista under most dubious circumstances (apparently hiding in his internet enabled toilet for a considerable amount of time during standard time control games). Not exactly champion like all this.
This whole affair reinforces that FIDE would appear to be codependent and can not hold up their own regulations and contracts (yet again).
It should be obvious, regardless of your "affiliation", that both players went to Elista expecting to win. The loser being excluded from the next WC cycle wasn't an issue for either of them. How else could such a questionable stipulation go unquestioned and approved?
Perhaps Kramnik would have made an issue of it had he lost, but there's little in the way of historical to support that hypothesis.
Now, as I predicted elsewhere, if Topalov loses then there will be a circus due to Danailov's grandstanding and propoganda. Bringing someone from the Bulgarian government to the FIDE meeting? Apparently, he has the whole country in his pocket. I believe that were he a barrister, his lack of ethics would have him disbarred anywhere in the world yet somehow the Bulgarian government supports him. Were he to tell the world that the sky was green, I believe all of Bulgaria would support him without so much as a glance upward.
Lastly, this type of issue is something the Global Chess will not be able to influence. My worst nightmares parallel this situation - what happens in a major event they set up only to have everything turned upside-down by someone crying foul and complaining to Kirsan. It does not bode well.
Well, a symptom of systemic corruption is that the system does not error correct the existing structures (let alone continuously improve on them), but adds layers over layers over layers of c*** ad infinitum, which is what is happening here since decades with no end in sight.
poisoned pawn,
He won Kasparov +2,
He drew Leko.
He won Topalov +1 classic control, +1 rapid.
Four years is not that much different from usual 3 year cycle we all had for decades, especially considering sponsorship issues the Champion had to deal with.
Compare to what Topalov achived. Won 1 championship tournament, lost 1 match, and sold a bunch of toilet pots.
I'm not sure I'm that fussed. It's regrettable we have to see Topalov and his dishonest and foul-mouthed fans on the world scene in any capacity at all, but since we do, at least he's being used to stiff the winner of the next KO event, sponsored as usual by Mickey Mouse. When is FIDE going to learn that if you run KO events you get winners like Khalifman, whatisname, and the other feller, who, while no doubt good sorts, are no more world champions than my aunt's cat.
If Kramnik did win Mexico, do we reckon he'll play Topalov at all? I wouldn't in his shoes, but I think probably he will.
poisoned pawn. Your remarks are completely idiotic. First of all You claim that Kramnik Cheated in Elistra - please show me the evidence. Topalov should have been banned for at least 2 years and Danailov, the biggest fool ever conected with chess, should have been banned for life. Period.
Topalov has swhown abosutely no class and i have no respect for him what so ever.
Vlad -
I am talking about the system for after this cycle ends (after the Topalov clause plays out).
Basically you have the winner of a Grand Prix series of tournaments playing a match against the winner of the World Cup knock out for the right to play a match against the World Champion.
It just seems like a step in the right direction, having matches to determine the Challenger and the World Champion instead of some random tournament winner being given the title for no particular reason.
I thought it was good to see the dictatorship was moving towards some form of enlightenment, but it seems the Topalov issue is more important to everyone.
He will not be World Champion unless he beats the champion in a match, and if he does that, well done to him, even though he didn't deserve the chance to be there in the first place.
It's like in boxing, getting the match is mostly politics, but you stll have to beat the champion to be the champion. That is the only comfort we have in such a corrupt sport. With the WC tournament we were losing even that.
Kramnik's first reaction to this news:
http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=980&lp_lang_view=en
'poisoned pawn' is famous here for not letting the FACTS get in the way.
Backhanded insults not withstanding, your BOY Topalov lost a legit match for the unification title and, by contract, excluded himself.
UNCONTESTABLE.
Now with all the bulgarian drumbeating going on in his camp, he has 'convinced' (read: BRIBED) FIDE into weaseling him back into a cycle where he was legally and legitimately eliminated from. He was GIVEN a free point, but STILL could not Top-ple the great Vladimir.
And you are right about one point:
"Topalov, [a] leading player in the world, EX WORLD CHAMPION."
"Ex" being the operative.
I rate Topalov's ex-championship status as high as Pono's and Kasimzhanov's.
Disposable and Irrelevant. He does not deserve, yet continues to get, special treatment from FIDE.
poisoned pawn: "After that he was challenger and made +1 in blitz games in Elista under most dubious circumstances"
Kramnik won the classical games +1 in Elista despite the extra white for Topalov. Then he won the rapid games +1. FYI there were no blitz games in Elista. I agree that the circumstances were dubious due to the dirty tricks Topailov arranged in a -2 situation.
rdh: It's regrettable we have to see Topalov and his dishonest and foul-mouthed fans
RDH, being biased is Ok, but pompous and cheap --
c'mon, you can probably do better if you try...
The current mess started long before Topalov. It started with Kasparov
and reached its zenith with Kramnik who turned into a modus
operandi. [Hopefully Gary learned a lesson about politics -- the
precedent you set can burn you at the end...] With Kramnik you never
know which contractual obligations he likes, which he doesn't, when
he'll play, when he'll not, when he'll be, or get sick at the last
moment, when indisposed, etc... A constant soap opera.
Had there been no Kramnik - San Luis 2005 would have been followed by
Mexico City 2007 and that's it. Simple and straight!!!
Enters Kramnik - he wins the Elista match. Ok, now the wiggling and
weaseling goes on. The contract requires he plays in Mexico, right?
No, but the rules for Kramnik and the Kramnik-bots are always
different. First, he will not play - the World split again. Then he'll
play with special provisions - the mess started right there. Kramnik
killed the Mexico Championship! Wonder why people are looking for
other venues and why Mexico City joined the Grand Slam?
Anyway, the mess started long before Topalov and his only mistake is
failing to put an end to it when it counted the most... But someone
else will do so, hopefully soon.
D.
Jean Michel,
My point is we first have to survive this cycle with all it's oddities. And given the past track record of FIDE, current regulations just mean nothing. They will be changed, thrown away, disposed, and rewritten 10 times before the next cycle begin.
In God we trust, in FIDE we don't. I hope this comparison does not insult anybody.
Mark,
Extremely well put. There is absolutely no reason Topalov should be seeded anywhere. Notice how, when asked why Topalov deserves a shot (you are absolutely right about him being like the KO champs- who after all never lost their titles in a match!) , Danailov immediately begins babbling about Kramnik and matches that happened 10 years ago...
The only clear thing to come out of this is that FIDE is an organization with absolutely no spine, no sense of integrity or decency. Their words means absolutely nothing.
Dimi: "Had there been no Kramnik - San Luis 2005 would have been followed by
Mexico City 2007 and that's it. Simple and straight!!!"
Fortunately there is Kramnik and there is the match tradition.
Zombre: Fortunately there is Kramnik and there is the match tradition.
Well, he killed that too -- in more than one ways.
I gather you like chaos, the chaos that first got Kramnik to play for
the title and the chaos that denied Kasparov his re-match. And all of
the subsequent, never ending chaos. "Will play, won't play" -- toss a
dime... In all this chaos there is one constant factor -- Kramnik.
Before Topalov, after Topalov, during Topalov, this will continue and
you can enjoy it to the fullest. But I don't and many other hate that
situation. The World and the sponsors need more competitive events,
more frequent, more predictable.
D.
Looking at that flow chart on ChessBase, one thing is clear. They have done what Mig said they promised not to do: demote the Mexico tournament from a world championship to a world championship qualifier (whether or not they admit that that is what they have done). The Mexico tournament now has equal prestige to the World Cup tournament - each tournament will choose one of the four players to play matches for the title.
Vlad -
I totally agree with you that the specific system is meaningless and will probably change ten times between now and next cycle.
But I do feel that His Majesty Kirsan in his great wisdom has figured out that matches are a good thing and the most marketable way of deciding the World Champion, and hopefully his challenger as well.
That is the important thing for me, as until now he seemed quite attached to the idea of the World Championship being given out as a prize in a tournament, which is to be avoided at all costs as it brings us back to the dark ages of the inter-regnum between Kasparov and Kramnik.
Dimi, yes, the constant factor is Kramnik due to the constant successes in the matches.
For the people who are driveling about the great "match tradition":
Wake up ! This is solely a product of the painters marketing machinery BECAUSE THE PAINTER DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO JUSTIFY HIMSELF. Times have changed, there are pros and cons, but San Luis 05 title is as much worth as London 2k, and if you think otherwise show me the KO World Champion who has reached > 2800 / #1 spot on FIDE rating list and won every super tournament at will several times. And here comes the real shocker: if Steinitz were alive and could see how his tradition is being abused by the painter HE WOULD BE PUKING FROM DUSK TILL DAWN EVERY DAY !
and constant failures in tournaments.
As can be inferred from the interview at http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=980&lp_lang_view=en Kramnik as member of the FIDE Presidential Board was not aware that such a WC cycle proposal was on the agenda of the FIDE Presidential Board meeting that approved the proposal.
This is definitely not how Kok works, he would have sent the proposal to stakeholders first (including Kramnik), ask for feedback, recycle to mature the proposal, etc. The announcement uses the name Global Chess but I am positive that FIDE has used an uncooked draft proposal from Global Chess/Kok for decision at the meeting.
I predict that Kok will step down shortly, he is quickly being made a puppet.
Markos - some tournament results:
* 1990 Russian Championship, Kuibyshev (classical) I
* 1991 World Championship (U18), Guarapuav (classical) I
* 1992 Chalkidiki (classical) 7.5/11 I
* 1994 Overall result PCA Intel Grand Prix'94 I
* 1995 Dortmund (classical) 7/9 I
* 1995 Horgen (classical) 7/10 I-II
* 1995 Belgrade (classical) 8/11 I-II
* 1996 Monaco 16/22 I
* 1996 Dos Hermanas (classical) 6/9 I-II
* 1996 Dortmund (classical) 7/9 I-II
* 1997 Dos Hermanas (classical) 6/9 I-II
* 1997 Dortmund (classical) 6.5/9 I
* 1997 Tilburg (classical) 8/11 I-III
* 1998 Wijk aan Zee (classical) 8.5/13 I-II
* 1998 Dortmund (classical) 6/9 I-III
* 1998 Monaco (blindfold and rapidplay) 15/22 I
* 1999 Monaco (blindfold and rapidplay) 14.5/22 I
* 2000 Linares (classical) 6/10 I-II
* 2000 Dortmund (classical) 6/9 I-II
* 2001 Monaco (blindfold and rapidplay) 15/22 I-II
* 2001 Dortmund (classical 6th win!) 6.5/10 I-II
* 2003 Linares (classical) 7.0/12 I-II
* 2004 Linares (classical) 7.0/12 I
* 2004 Monaco (Overall result) 14.5/22 I-II
* 2006 Gold medal at Turin Olympiad with overall best performance (2847) 7/10
* 2006 Dortmund (classical) 4.5/7 I
* 2007 Monaco (blindfold and rapidplay) 15.5/22 I
Jean-Michel, yes, in the grand scheme of things the most important is that we keep the match system. In this sense, of course I can live with some temporary pro-Topalov silliness.
But the thing is that this was already the case the LAST time FIDE announced how the WC system would look like. So we already HAD a match system, and then it doesn't feel too unnatural to concentrate attention on the additions. In this case, for example the unfairness of the World Cup winner suddenly being relegated to semifinalist status, just because Danailov is making noise.
Also the very fact that unnotified modifications keep coming is worrying. But I do feel pretty strongly that they are not going to touch the match system itself for at least a while.
poisoned pawn,
During 25 long years of professional chess career His Excellence The Great Champion Veselin Topalov managed to win in 5 supertournaments, 2 of which were held in Sofia:
Linares 2005
Sofia 2005
San Luis 2005
WIZ 2006
Sofia 2006
Yes, he had a very strong tournament performance during less that 2 years in a row, that's it, nothing less, and nothing more, and he in no way "won every super tournament at will several times."
Quick question: will Topalov be ranked third in the July rating list, behind Anand and Kramnik?
I'm still trying to figure out what my opinions on this have to do with ChessBase. Maybe I need to be more of a brainwashed lunatic? One of my favorite things is being accused of saying the exact opposite of what I said. I've said many times in the past and said again above that Kramnik playing the Mexico winner makes no sense, at least not if he's also playing in Mexico and it's really a world championship. Now I see above claims I said it was fair play. Amazing. I really wish computers were harder to use.
I didn't update anything for quite a while. But I'm not obliged to link to everything that comes out of Kramnik and Danailov's mouths. I didn't link to the Kramnik interviews at ChessBase either. Not much of interest, really. And with Danailov still comically fixated on toilets and cables I simply find nothing of interest in his interview. Old news and stupid news. Kramnik cheated, Topalov didn't really lose, ChessBase hates us, cable, toilet, cable, toilet, yes we signed a contract but that's not what matters, we deserve a rematch even though we accused our opponent of cheating, FIDE broke the rules even though they didn't, FIDE violated the contract but I'm not going to tell you how, etc. Yawn.
Plus, Topailov have managed to buy their way into a much better deal and have nothing to complain about at this point. Mexico is now practically a qualifier to play Topalov. Not bad for losing a match! I'm sure Azmai and Makro appreciate the business. I bet they didn't even require a bank guarantee!
As for the match system and anything resembling permanence in the FIDE cycle, much depends on who wins. If Kramnik goes out FIDE will feel even freer to do whatever they like, including dumping matches if they get a good offer for a tournament. This has been the problem for years. They keep changing the system according to whim and cash, making it nearly impossible to establish a consistent calendar anyone will sponsor or pay attention to.
Folks,
I see why the wheel has been re-invented..
Topalov has to be given a shot at the title otherwise FIDE will be in trouble. The compromise could be to make Topalov play the world cup winner and then the winner play Mexico winner (or Mexico vs Kramnik if funds were there). To justify Topalov's inclusion and make it look like a one-time exception, this Grand Prix/Slam concept is being re-invented now. So logically this invention has to see its end after Topalov plays against the World Cup winner!! (if I understood the concept correctly, haven't read it though to understand it first) :):)
Quick question: will Topalov be ranked third in the July rating list, behind Anand and Kramnik?
Quick answer: no. I think it's still shared 2nd, as they both lose 3 points. And then he is probably still technically no.2 because of more played games (?)
well, depends on the dortmund outcome really. kramnik is on a little plus there right now, while topalov lost already 3 points in Sofia despite having it won.
>I really wish computers were harder to use.
Mig,
Assuming you have understood the concept of a (discussion) thread: I don't care what you said ten years or 10 GB ago, the fact remains that in THIS THREAD WHICH I WAS COMMENTING ON you made it sound as if with the new FIDE decision the situation has aggravated things whereas before it was all fair play and logical (which it was not).
And regarding computer usage: if the time span of you failing to fix your blog for the insert errors/delays causing double postings is any benchmark of your computer knowledge then trust me baby between the two of us you are going to be on the short end coz I can code such stuff from scratch with bare hands & vi if need be.
I would be extremely surprised if Dortmund is rated on the July list.
Has anyone else noticed some inconsistancies on the FIDE rating list? For example, the Liberty Bell Open 2007 was not rated. It took place in January and should have been rated in April. It still has not been rated this list, although the USCF insists that they submitted it.
Sorry, but being an offensive prat doesn't compensate for a lack of knowledge. It only compounds the problem.
Of course FIDE has aggravated things. It's called going from bad to worse. Two wrongs don't make a right. Insert your own platitude here. I specifically stated it was already bizarre that Kramnik was playing Mexico and had a rematch. And I said it long ago as well.
Since you're so prone to lying and foolishness on other matters, I'm sure we have no reason to believe you would even know what code is. Certainly the defunct veselintopalov.net is a poor indicator.
Mig,
Calling me a liar w/o proving or even explainnig it and covering your uncertainty by using pluralis majestatis seems sub-standard for you. Anyway be assured that I would not waste my lifetime programming WEB pages let alone doing content management professionally (as opposed to a good cause ;-)
The clone army of toy toilet brandishing Topalov boosters rarely comment about anything not involving that "gentleman." Should we be annoyed or grateful?
"I really wish computers were harder to use."
ROFL. Thanks, that made my day :-).
Your analysis is spot on, as usual. All these discussions about whether this is fair are pretty pointless: This is just another utopian scheme that'll never fly. All these fancy World Cup/ Grand Prix tournaments won't just pop out of the ground just because FIDE says so. You have to find some new sponsors - but how are you going to do this, when you can't even explain to them how the system works?
Without the controversy in Elista the solution of putting Topalov in at the stage they do looks half reasonable. Its certainly not even half as bad as the way they favoured Karpov a decade ago.
Kramnik's point is that a champion of his lineage gains the title and loses it through a match. Although he stands the chance of losing it in Mexico City he has the chance of regaining it through a match. This provision was definitely the only way he was going to put his title on the line in Mexico (and by extension probably the only way he put it on the line in the first plce). That's why the provision is there.
The whole system does look like a major compromise of trying to please as many people as possible. I was pretty scandalised when I first saw the proposals but on second thought it isn't that terrible, at least in the long term. The inclusion of matches at the semi-final and final stages look like the input of Kramnik, the World Cup is Ilyumzhinov's baby and the Grand Prix is a way of trying to make sure a really good player gets through.
Mexico City will produce a world champion, for however brief a time so its not quite irrelevant.
The Grand Prix looks like an accident waiting to happen. We're low on details on who gets invited but fairly obviously if you're not invited you're not going to qualify from that half so that's going to be pretty important and political. Also the whole question as to what these events will be, the only thing I hear that they will be on three continents. One question that comes to mind. If some tournaments are going to be traditional events included as part of the Grand Prix will the world champion be excluded from participating? Seeing as they are qualifiers.
If Kramnik wins in Mexico City I think we can pretty much guarantee that he will simply refuse to play Topalov in Sofia, maybe he will agree to play somewhere else, but that's going to be a sticking point given the extreme emnity that occurred during the Elista match.
The next two World Cups are already spoken for so sponsorship shouldn't be a problem there, and the matches look reasonably attractive options but any problems in the World Cup section could hold things up and destroy the system.
I think there are too many stages to the cycle, and therefore too many parts that can go wrong.
We'll have to see how it works out, if it all works well then I can live with the new system, its not the way I would like to see it done, but then again I don't think anyone would say that the situation is easy. But this should certainly be the last system proposed by the current FIDE leadership. If it fails, they have to resign, or be forced out, they've had a lot of chances.
"lost pawn" (and assorted other aliases): You have a small typo in your posts. The correct spelling is, "You're right, and I'm sorry for making crap up and accusing you of saying things you never said and for not saying things you've actually said over and over, including in the post at the top of this page."
Sorry to be so picky about spelling.
>Mark Crowther: Kramnik's point is that a champion of his lineage
>gains the title and loses it through a match. Although he stands the
>chance of losing it in Mexico City he has the chance of regaining it
>through a match. This provision was definitely the only way he was
>going to put his title on the line in Mexico
Mark, that's wonderful, but why wasn't that discussed prior to Elista?
Topalov & Co. get slammed for this or that, but here we have far more
glaring example of make the rules as you go. The attitude of -- 'I
have the title therefore I set the rules for its defense because I'm
"Mr Untouchable"' is at the bottom of how this mess started. And it
wasn't with Kramnik, he just took full advantage of it and perfected
it by playing the same route on the man who first started it.
D.
I'd agree with most of Mark's post. Karpov got a similarly sweet deal in 1998. (And he was parachuted in against Sokolov in 1987.) But at least he had beaten Kamsky! I'm still waiting to see if they even bother trying to justify this. They couldn't put "the loser goes to Mexico" in the Elista rules because that's where the winner was going and there should be some punishment. There was no way to put the loser into the candidates. So they put Topalov at the end!
Had the Elista unification match never happened, Topalov would be 1 of 8 in Mexico. Now, after LOSING that match, Topalov is guaranteed at least a world championship semifinal match and has a decent shot getting a direct rematch without playing in Mexico. The Mexico players were demoted once by the "winner plays Kramnik" match and now they have been demoted again and the World Cup winner as well. Why? (Well, we know the real answer. Money that will never be seen in the light of day. But will they even bother to present a public answer?)
As I said above, in my experience most of the players care more about making a buck than all the politics and tradition talk that heats us up so much. Some of the Mexico players may just figure this means an extra payday or two and who cares about a title that that has been treated so shabbily. After this latest insult, I'm finding it hard to disagree with that line of thought. But Moro and Grischuk might kick a little even if Kramnik doesn't. Kramnik and Anand have been around longer and have played real world championship matches. They might care more about the principle of the thing. I hope we'll find out. (I agree with whoever said above that scheduling this announcement during Dortmund was a gratuitous kick in the groin to the other players.)
The Mexican organizers, whom I no longer work with, by the way, have had their heads in the sand about this stuff for a long time and won't change on that count. Even Kirsan isn't paying much attention anymore, I hear. Most of this went on below him and he signed off on it. Not that I'm lamenting the loss of his wise leadership and micromanagement, but this deal makes it clear that the lunatics are running the asylum. Or the wolves running the hen-house, or whatever.
Vlad Kosulin obviously has a short memory concerning Topalov's tournament victories:
Novgorod 1996:
1. Topalov 6, 2. Ivanchuk 5.5, 3. Short 5, 4-6. Gelfand, Polgar, Kramnik 4.5
Dos Hermanas 1996:
1-2. Topalov, Kramnik 6, 3-4. Anand, Kasparov 5.5, 5. Illescas 4.5, 6-7. Kamsky, Gelfand 4, 8.Ivanchuk 3.5, 9-10. Shirov, Polgar 3
Αmsterdam 1996:
1-2. Topalov, Kasparov 6.5, 3-4. Short, Anand 5, 5-6. Kramnik, Lautier 4.5, 7. Seirawan 4, 8. Gelfand 3.5, 9. Piket 3, 10. Timman 2.5
Madrid 1997:
1-2. Topalov, Shirov 6.5, 3-4. Beliavsky, Akopian 5.5, 5-7. Illescas, Short, Polgar 4.5, 8. Salov 3.5, 9. Piket 2.5, 10. San Segundo 1.5
NAO Cannes 2002:
1-2. Topalov, Gelfand 6, 3-7. Karpov, Leko, Bareev, Fressinet 4.5, 8-9. Lautier, Nataf 4, 10. Morozevich 2.5
etc.
etc.
We don't know what Kramnik agreed to prior to the match in Elista. Post-Elista their bargaining point was that so many provisions had been broken by FIDE that they were clearly legally in default. They were pretty sure on this so he could have walked away with the unified title.
Many World Champions and leading players have also been politically tough. Botvinnik won off the board against Tal who hadn't a clue when he was world champion (Tal wanted to defend in Riga, Botvinnik said that he had a rematch under "exactly the same conditions" hence Moscow, a tougher politician would have had the power to tell him where to go). Smyslov was also strong, Spassky pretty weak at it.
You can't blame the players for getting on with their careers, if they waited until the situation was fixed they'd never end up playing. Its a fantasy, a nice one maybe, that they'd all walk out and play under their own ideal system, although I think they'd be better off if they did. (Women's tennis is a unique but sobering example, Billy-Jean King pursuaded the players of the time to stand together and organise their own tour, its the richest women's sport because they steer their own ship. I'm sure their were plenty of disagreements at the time).
I try not to get annoyed anymore, there really isn't anything I can do about it.
Wow, what a surprise poisoned pawn continues his blathering drivel about nonsensical garbage:
"Wake up ! This is solely a product of the painters marketing machinery BECAUSE THE PAINTER DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO JUSTIFY HIMSELF. Times have changed, there are pros and cons, but San Luis 05 title is as much worth as London 2k, and if you think otherwise show me the KO World Champion who has reached > 2800 / #1 spot on FIDE rating list and won every super tournament at will several times. And here comes the real shocker: if Steinitz were alive and could see how his tradition is being abused by the painter HE WOULD BE PUKING FROM DUSK TILL DAWN EVERY DAY!"
Good on ya! Although you sound hauntingly like a right-wing conspiracy theorist...
I'll do better than that.
I'll show you a player (Kramnik) who was insulted by his opponent (Topalov) as unworthy to play against and summarily got his ass handed to him:
Vladimir Kramnik, UNDISPUTED WORLD CHESS CHAMPION
I know that's gotta hurt just a little...
:)
And STEINITZ (by the way, you haven't earned the right to even speak his name) would look you in the eye and say "Well, Kramnik did beat the so-called best player in the world, at least by your standards, in a match where your player was gifted 1 point. Not sure what you are complaining about, but please continue. Can I get an expresso?"
JH did type:
"All these fancy World Cup/ Grand Prix tournaments won't just pop out of the ground just because FIDE says so. You have to find some new sponsors - but how are you going to do this, when you can't even explain to them how the system works?"
That's the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. All this petty infighting about Topa's great and Kramnik's a pointy-headed cheating artiste OR Vlady's great and Topa's a toilet obsessed cheater OR Shirov got railroaded OR Anand got a raw deal against Karpov is minuscule in importance compared to this: THE RULING ORGANIZATION FOR WORLD CHESS CANNOT MARKET A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TO SPONSORS BECAUSE IT DEMONSTRATES INSTABILITY BY CONSTANTLY ALTERING ITS PLANS.
I'm sorry to shout. Continue bickering.
Outrageous is the fact that Topalov gets to play with Kramnik, if Kramnik wins Mexico. It should have been the other way round.
Let Topalov try and win the super-strong 8 player tournament, as he was begging for. What chance would he have to win? 1/8. I would not think that would be fair, but now Topalov got himself a much better deal. He just waits to see who the winners will be, and will face them in a match (1/2 chance) or two matches (1/4). He is in a much better position now than Gelfand, Aronian, Grischuk and Leko, those people who have _already_ just struggled through two rounds of tough matches.
The hopeful sign is Kramnik has shown he owns Topalov in a match, anyway.
Whatever happened with the stories about Topalov and Danailov cheating using hand signals?
I was looking forward to some Information Theory based analysis of the possibilities. The only thing we are getting is that the same rabid crowd is now offended by something else.
Come on guys, time to let it go. These guys are all professionals trying to make a living. It is not easy. The fans are not helping, they are not paying any tickets, but have really tough demands. It is not easy :-)
I don't recall any other sport that frequently changes the format in identifying the champion. Did all this fiasco happened to pre-Fischer champions?
Some players may not care too much as long as they get paid based on their performance. But if sponsors are walking out of the doors due to all this uncertainty, can chess always rely on Kirsan's money?
Anyone who says the new decision is complex is insulting their own intelligence, a quick look at the flow chart and you can understand what is going on.
As for whether Topalov should be included, I would suggest that the FIDE expect that they may lose a case should it be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). I have little doubt that at least verbally Topalov's management were promised by FIDE a challenge re-match should he lose in Elista.
FIDE are doing the right thing by resolving the situation without involving CAS. If Topalov were to win the case at CAS they could order the FIDE to give him a rematch imdediately, which would stuff up the cycle again.
Also since Kramnik gets a re-match if he loses the WC in Mexico, why shouldn't Topalov get the same privelidge after losng in Elista?
Anyone who says the new decision is complex is insulting their own intelligence, a quick look at the flow chart and you can understand what is going on.
As for whether Topalov should be included, I would suggest that the FIDE expect that they may lose a case should it be referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). I have little doubt that at least verbally Topalov's management were promised by FIDE a challenge re-match should he lose in Elista.
FIDE are doing the right thing by resolving the situation without involving CAS. If Topalov were to win the case at CAS they could order the FIDE to give him a rematch imdediately, which would stuff up the cycle again.
Also since Kramnik gets a re-match if he loses the WC in Mexico, why shouldn't Topalov get the same privelidge after losng in Elista?
>I can code such stuff from scratch with bare hands & vi if need be.
Ya, well I can do it with vacuum tubes and switches!
I think one fo the problems the FIDE faces, is that the WC has to much power, if he refuses to participate in the cycle, fans will generally still consider him to be the WC, until someone beats him in a match. It means that the WC can dictate the terms for the cycle.
For example if Kramnik pulls out of Mexico due to the current decision, fans will still consider him the WC.
The FIDE needs to contract all the top 10 players so that they are not allowed to participate in any chess events that aren't FIDE sanctioned. That way you won't get rogue champions like Kasparov.
Markos,
Never trust Wikipadia in what Wikipedia says.
1) tournament in Novgorod 1996 was actually never won by Topalov. He shared places 4-6 out of 6. Even veselintopalov.net does not list this tournament among his achievements. Here is the full description of Novgorod 1996:
Novgorod
Ultrastrong tournament, unusual scoring system, but the same results. Novgorod introduced a new scoring method, 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw, but the end result produced the same finish order as a conventional system.
* Kasparov
* Kramnik
* Short
* Bareev
* Topalov
* Gelfand
the Category 19 Event had an average rating of 2719
1 2 3 4 5 6 Ttl
------------------------------------------------------
1 Kasparov, Gary RUS 2795 XX 0= 1= 1= == 11 17
2 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS 2740 1= XX 10 == 1= == 15
3 Short, Nigel D ENG 2690 0= 01 XX 0= 01 11 14
4 Bareev, Evgeny RUS 2665 0= == 1= XX 0= == 10
5 Topalov, Veselin BUL 2725 == 0= 10 1= XX 00 10
6 Gelfand, Boris BLR 2700 00 == 00 == 11 XX 10
2) In Dos Hermanas 1996 (cat 19) Topalov shared 1-2 with Kramnik, I agree on this one;
3) Amsterdam 1996 (cat 18), Madrid 1997 (cat 17), Cannes 2002 (cat 18) can't be considered a supertournament; for example, Dortmund 2002 was cat.21.
"Ya, well I can do it with vacuum tubes and switches!"
Vacuum tubes? You cheater! If you can't do it with pencil, paper, and a slide rule, you're a phony plain and simple.
Vlad Kosulin,
Who siad anything about Wikipedia? You are talking about 1995.
Take a look again, Topalov was 1st in Novgorod '96: http://www.chess.gr/tourn/novgorod_96/index.html
Do your homework next time!
Wow! Now I noticed, Vlad Kosulin doesn't consider Αmsterdam '96 as a supertournament (with Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand playing!!)
Amsterdam 1996:
1-2. Topalov, Kasparov 6.5, 3-4. Short, Anand 5, 5-6. Kramnik, Lautier 4.5, 7. Seirawan 4, 8. Gelfand 3.5, 9. Piket 3, 10. Timman 2.5
What else can I say? I rest my case...
The ridiculous decision re Karpov in Lausanne is irrelevant because when the pantheon of world Champions are listed the FIDE title will be irrelevant. We have 14 World Champions and a few footnotes. Topa maybe deserves a longer footnote than the others but no more.
All I really care about is maintaining the prestige of the World Champion title - it's the most valuable asset thye game has with the public at large. Ask your non chess friends re Linares :-)
It is essential therefore that Kramnik wins Mexico. Luckily I think he will. If someone else say Svidler, Gelfand fluked a win the number of footnotes explaining the World Champion lineage will start to become exponential.
If Kramnik wins Mexico he should insist on a proper mechanism to choose a match challenger for the title.
Some sequels are better. Such as Star/theEmpireStrikesBack/Wars. Also Evil dead 2. Still looking for an improvement on the Peter Lorrie Crime and Punishment, which had a rewritten ending gloryfying FDR. PS. Why doesn't Kamsky have a second? Is Kamsky Pariah non Grata amongst the brainiest USA chess theorist Fritz runnin' geniuses? PPS I love the Daily Dirt I just wish there was more. I need some EVERY day. PPPS. So has Jennifer Shahade made it ok to use the word Bitch in chessdom? Peace out my Chess Bitchez word to the mutha.
This is the opposite of the solution to the gordian knot, you embed the thing in 10 tons of cement.
Also I would like to state for the record that many people tried to defend Mexico as a one-off solution, and I (and quite a few others) said: Whats stopping Fide from changing their mind (and rules) again? So just for the record: I told you so!
What I don't get about the Topalov fanboys creaming their pants over "Topa"'s including in the world championship cycle is why Topalov is supposedly God's greatest gift to chess. Yes, he's played fighting games, but he's also played thirty-move games of opening preparation just as often. And it's not like he's the only aggressive player among the elite.
The real problem is that FIDE insisted (and was bound) on keeping Mexico City as a World Championship tournament. Kramnik, understandably, wanted to keep his rights as "Classical" champion, and insisted that he be given a chance to fight for his Title in a match. Kirsan keenly wanted Unification, and reckoned that Kramnik, with his feeble constitution, would be no match for the juggernaut Topalov. So, the rematch clause was added as a sweetener to "Seal the deal". FIDE insisted that Kramnik play in a championship tournament, which cheapened the value of the Unified Title that Kramnik had just won. Kramnik understandably wanted to compete head to head against a single opponent--not a field of 7 others.
Kramnik ought not have fears about playing Topalov in a rematch. Objectively speaking, Topalov would not be his most formidable opponent. Kramnik may well be willing to play vs. Topalov again, as long as it was in a neutral venue (Sofia, Bulgaria is out of the question, and Elista is nearly as bad), and with Danailov being kept banned from being at the playing venue. There is no compelling reason why Danailov ought to even be anywhere near the players, when the match is being played. Best would be to find a way to have him denied a visa to the country where the match is being played.
The problem was that FIDE sought to unify the Title, when the conditions were not favorable for them to endeavor to do so. They took a risk, and lost. The larger problem is this ridiculous Challenge Match provision that they created. The whole purpose for FIDE taking over the World Championship title in the first place was to replace the archaic and unfair "system" that was in place beforehand. So, there would not be the unequal circumstances of a Bogolyubov being given two shots at the Title, while Capablanca is stuffed. Imagine if Topalov were to become the World Champion? would he not start accepting challenges from Cheparinov? Certainly, it seems that there would be ample Bulgarian sponsorship for keeping the title "in house".
FIDE ought to dump the Challenge Match provision, which seems to be an awful idea. The World Champion is placed in an untenable situation, as he is unable to contract to play in Elite Chess tournaments, without FIDE mandating that they defend their title on a few months notice.
If, however, Kramnik manages to keep his title at the end of this cycle, it would not be a bad idea for FIDE to sponsor just 1 Title Challenge: They ought to bankroll a Shirov challenge of Kramnik!
The problem with the Pro players splitting from FIDE to form their own Chess Association is that (unlike as was the case with Women's Tennis), they would find it difficult to garner significant sponsorship. The players go along with the current corrupt system, because they know that they depend on dirty money to make they living. Seriously, which self-respecting professional sports players would go to Libya to play in a Championship tournament? Chess players are the only ones. If Sudan had a big $$ chess event in Darfur, 90% of the top players would participate, with all of the predictable excuses...
My point about women's tennis is that it wasn't that popular or rich before they took it into their own hands.
There is no reason to believe that it wouldn't have been like almost all the other women's sports where the money is much less than the men's touraments. After all women tennis players are objectively nowhere near as good as their leading male counterparts. Its about marketing and giving a good show.
It would take effort, discipline and sacrifice and above all unity. I'm sure that it would work out for the best but the players are too split for it to happen. For a brief moment it looked like the GMA might pull it off but in the end self interest took a hand and since then there's been no chance.
Actually, Novgorod tournament I was talking about was held in 1997 ;-) I just realised how hard it is to find detailed information about chess tournaments from the near past except a bunch of most famous ones!
poisoned pawn
>>Can you spot logic and fair play ? I can't.
Yeah, but you're biased and wouldn't admit a point in Kramnik's favor if it hit you over the head. Your inability to admit seeing something hardly counts for anything. If that's the best you've got...
Markos wrote:
>>
The whole issue is in Topalov's contract with FIDE, not in the regulations you mention (see Danailov's interview).
>>
That doesn't seem clear. I saw the interview you mentioned, and in that particular one Danailov does refer to Clause 2.8 of the contract, but as Mig pointed out, he didn't bother to tell us what it said, just implied that it said something useful to him. (i.e. "FIDE violated the contract but I'm not going to tell you how." -- Mig)
One has to think that if the contract did help Danailov in this that he'd be only too willing to tell everyone how it did. What possible reason would he have to keep Clause 2.8 secret? Unless it doesn't really help him at all?
Also, previous statements by both Danailov and Stefan Sergiev, HAVE referred to the 2700 Rule, rather than the contract, as the source of their right to a rematch. We can see for ourselves that the 2700 Rule definitely does NOT do this. It grants Topalov the right to issue a challenge, yes, but it gives the FIDE Presidential Board the right to decide if the challenge is valid. The criteria they list is so vague and interpretational, that FIDE *literally* has the right to use the weather as an excuse to turn a challenger down (!).
Now, as for the match contract. We haven't seen that yet, so we can't be sure if it does or doesn't give Topalov a rematch. However, if Danailov and Sergiev have misread the 2700 rule (let us say this was an honest mistake), how much confidence do you have that they've correctly read and understood the contract? Especially if they're going out of their way not to show us the relevant clause?
>>
FIDE guaranteed to Topalov that the 2700 rule, which was initially made especially for Kramnik, would stay in effect until 2009.
>>
Where did they do this? That's certainly relevant if true. But two things bear pointing out: 1) The 2700 Rule in no way guaranteed a match BEFORE Mexico (or at all). To the contrary, it made it virtually impossible, and 2) Under the 2700 Rule, Radjabov still has first shot, not Topalov. His challenge was accepted a year ago. Topalov fell behind Radjabov in the pecking order when he switched places with Kramnik.
Since the 2700 Rule doesn't grant anyone the right to have their challenge accepted, it seems irrelevant how long the rule is in force. On the other hand, if the match contract really does have a rematch clause for Topalov, that might be a good reason to give him some special seeding in the next cycle.
But so far, Danailov has failed to demonstrate that the contract does this.
1. I can’t understand how The Kramniks dare to use some words like: rules, contract, ethic, privilege… after the Shirov-Kramnik match!?
2. I can’t understand why The Topalovs believe that the whole chess world should rotate around Veselin!?
3. I can’t understand FIDE at all!
@Arlauk - now thats going too far: unless i'm very much mistaken, it was the former FIDE / PCA / UNDISPUTED world chess champion Kasparov who decided not to play Shirov or Anand those days... (if i remember correctly, it was about some money matters...).
Kramnik did not shout, whilst waving his hands: "Gary, Gary do not play Shirov, do not play Anand, but play me instead, because i'm the number one contender ...!"
Put your hand on your heart, Arlauk! Would you, instead of Kramnik, have rejected Kasparovs offer to play the brain games sponsored world chess championship match?? a gentleman like rejection by means of rules, contracts, ethics and privileges?
I'm quite sure, you won't - like each other brain sane human being on earth won't reject such an offer!
Me too feel sad and angry and dissapointed, that Alexei Shirov (one of my favourites!) did not get his big shot, but i'm quite sure: it was not Kramnik who obstructed his way!
greetings
The question of what happened to Radjabov's title shot is one of the more confusing aspects of this whole case. Does the title shot only apply if the champion's change does not change? I have been wondering about this and I think I finally figured it out.
So, without further ado, here are Top 12 Reasons why Radjabov's title shot won't happen (12 because at least 2 of these are always a clunker):
1. Failed to lose a ten-game a match against Shirov.
2. Can not find an internet-equipped toilet to wire the money from.
3. All the banks in Azerbaijan are closed for Aliev Day. Since every day in Azerbaijan is Aliev Day, the situation is somewhat problematic.
4. FIDE misread some of Radjabov’s comments to mean that him, Topalov and Danailov were one person, which led to the decline of challenge for the reason of double-filing.
5. Saving money for ongoing bidding war on EBay for Kramnik paintings. The competition is somebody named craig goster, from Farmland, USA.
6. What do you mean, he is not going to challenge for the title? The new flow chart clearly indicates that if Leko wins the World Cup in 2009 and Karjakin does NOT win the Grand Prix Series in 2010, Radjabov will play Steinitz in 1897.
7. As part of ongoing Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, gave the money to Dan Gormally to beat up Aronian.
8. Bet a million on BetOnChess that Deep Fritz would not see the mate on h7.
9. They already agreed to twelve pre-arranged short draws, just to piss off half the people posting on here.
10. After reading Ed Yetman’s magazine, foolishly wrote the check to FIDE in descriptive notation.
11. Five words: Azerbaijani Poker Federation Brilliancy Prize.
12. Is deathly afraid of camels and knows no Kirsan chess activity has taken place without somebody being gifted one.
To Vohaul
I’m not saying it was Kramnik’s fault but it’s obvious that he get the match he didn’t qualify for. How is it possible something like that heappens we will probably never know. (I personally don’t buy "no sponsors" bulls…) But in my opinion it means if Topalov, or anybody else, can get the same thing then the people who support Kramnik must accept that. They can’t say: it’s not in the contract. Or: it’s against the rules. Or: it’s not fair… It was already against all this stuff for seven years ago. And he was a part of that mess. And, thanks to Garry and FIDE, it’s still a mess.
Anyway, my standpoint is: let Topalov play in Mexico (instead of Kramnik) and then let the winner play against Kramnik for the title. That’s it!
(English is not my native language but I hope you can understand what I’m trying to say)
So, Arlauk, you can't support Kramnik and still be against the way he got his title shot? Weird...
FIDE Presidential Board has fully rehabilitated the original members of Elista 06 Appeals Committee: their decisions where in accordance to regulations and contracts and justified in respect of content ("to ensure equal playing conditions for both players"). Resignation was an act due to political pressure ("ensure that the match continued"). It follows that the complaint filed by he Bulgarian delegation regarding the painters toilet and weird behaviour was fully justified and necessary. What kind of "inequality" the painter possibly might have enjoyed before the decision and after the reversal of the same is left to the imagination of the reader.
:-) Yuriy Kleyner - thanks for the top 12 - I needed that!
The official FIDE news:
"Presidential Board Statement
There have been continuing accusations in interviews, articles and letters that the original members of the Appeals Committee of the World Championship Match between GM V. Topalov and GM V. Kramnik in Elista in 2006 abused the match regulations as well as the contract with players.
The Presidential Board and the FIDE President want to stress once again that the decisions of the Appeals Committee in the match were in accordance with the match regulations as well as the contracts and were meant to ensure equal playing conditions for both players. The resignation of the members of the Appeals Committee that time was made to ease the atmosphere and ensure that the match continued"
You can only imagine the amount of money transferred from Danailov to FIDE. The good news is that Kramnik didn´t care about the bad news but won convincingly.
"What kind of "inequality" the painter possibly might have enjoyed before the decision and after the reversal of the same is left to the imagination of the reader."
The inequality is obvious: When Vlad had the use of the ceiling-cable bathroom he could simply stand on the toilet seat, reach up and disassemble the ceiling tiles, and connect his non-existent chess computer to the connectionless cables. On alternate days, when Veselin had that bathroom, he was forced to climb up the side of the stall to get to the cables.
But if Kirsan, Campo, Makropoulous, Azmai, and the other Presidential Board members say the Elista Appeals Committee was on the up-and-up, who are we to disagree?
Such a pity that Presidential Board member Kramnik is in Dortmund and could not attend the meeting. Well, I'm glad it is all settled now that this neutral body has ruled.
Yuriy and Greg - well done :-)
>>
FIDE Presidential Board has fully rehabilitated the original members of Elista 06 Appeals Committee: their decisions where in accordance to regulations... It follows that the complaint filed by he Bulgarian delegation regarding the painters toilet and weird behaviour was fully justified and necessary.
>>
Neither the Painter nor the Dodger were beyond reproach in that match. The Painter should have played Game 5 under protest. That much is very clear. But what destroyed the Dodger's reputation was not the filing of the protest, but rather the public accusations that violated FIDE Ethics Rules. The whole razzle-dazzle routine of having the Dodger admit he was wrong one day, followed by Danailov launching a new attack the next day only made things worse. Dodge's only chance of saving face was to have distanced himself from Danailov. When he praised him for doing such a good job, world opinion swung almost unanimously in favor of Paint, to an incredible degree. We actually saw Shirov supporting the Painter and Karpov and Korchnoi agreeing with each other on something.
It's not clear to me Kramnik should have played game five. When you're sufficiently angry, you just can't play well. That was what the rules about timing of appeals were supposed to protect players from, and the most obvious and indisputable of the many reasons why the Appeals Committee were manifestly unfit for their job.
It's not clear to me Kramnik should have played game five. When you're sufficiently angry, you just can't play well. That was what the rules about timing of appeals were supposed to protect players from, and the most obvious and indisputable of the many reasons why the Appeals Committee were manifestly unfit for their job.
Agree with rdh, and it is also doubtful he would have won through with his demand by just playing under protest.
Q
I have read somewhere that Topalov did not qualified for ant WC match.
The funny thing is that Kramnik played 3 WS matches and for 2 of them he also did not qualified. Match tradition is good thing, but every champion proved to be a worthy challenger for the previous champion except Kramnik.
This will be a stink on his chess carrier.
SSS--
That stink you're smelling? It's your argument. As we used to say in kindergarten, "the skunk smells its own hole first."
You're arguing that candidates who defeated Sokolov, Timman, Yusupov, Gelfand, Karpov, Adams, or Kamsky, then lost to Kasparov proved themselves "worthy challengers," but the only candidate to defeat Kasparov did not?!
I think that was a bit what he meant - he should have played, but he was so angry, it was an emotional decision, etc. He "should" have turned off emotions and just played. But that is easier said than done, of course, and really a bit academic. He WAS "incredibly angry", as he said, and you can't just switch that off by pressing a button. And if he had played, made a draw or something, and then came the next provocation? And the next? It would never have stopped. I personally still think there was nothing wrong about not playing. It meant saying OK, this is enough, before it went too far. It was also standing up for himself and his dignity, refusing to take any crap. He risked "losing a point", and did, but not even that was in a legal sense, only according to FIDE and Topailov.
>That was what the rules about timing of appeals[...]
A plausible explanation would be that since the complaint referred to the nature of the match as a whole (as opposed to a specific game) the regulations were interpreted in such a way that the timing restriction would not apply. Or else consider the appeal filed in advance for game 5 if that makes you happy.
Maybe there is no reason to accuse people of being unfit for their job.
>three continents, two years...
Not completely digressive solution to this dilemma: they meant 3 tournaments per year distributed over 3 continents. That is an overall of 6 tournaments per cycle (= 2 years). Question remains around the accumulation of the points. My guess would be that each player participates in at most 2 tournaments according to his confederation's continent per cycle. Everything else seems impractical due to the already packed calendar of top players (i.e. World Championship contenders) with classical supertournaments and the number of players participating in each Grand Prix tournament. But how exactly do they qualify ? Where do African players go ? Plenty of journalistic problems.
Maybe there is no reason to accuse people of being unable to count.
"Regulations of the Match Topalov-Kramnik
3.17 Appeals Committee.
"All protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than two (2) hours after the relevant playing session, or the particular infringement complained against."
Thus two hours after the end of Game Four no protest about the first four games of the match could be entertained.
If the Appeals Committee was authorized to violate the match rules at their whim then there was no reason to write up match rules in the first place.
pp's half-hearted attempt to argue the point does not make the point arguable.
Part of the price we pays for putting our game's fate in the hands of a kleptocrat eccentric is the seating of the disgraceful embarrassments known as Makropoulos and Azmai.
greg, while you're perfectly right, Makro is still the only person in FIDE at the moment who has experience with organizing tournaments, and organizing in general. He's been there for 20+ years and knows it all in and out.
It doesn't mean he has to be part of any Appeals Committee, but throwing him right out of FIDE would probably result in chaos, unless he's replaced by someone who has the same kind of insight. And who would that be?
I have no excuses for Azmai, though.
"When you're sufficiently angry, you just can't play well."
Unless you're Korchnoi? :-)
"- If you win the title then the deposed world champion Kramnik gets a second chance. The World Chess Federation FIDE has given Kramnik the right to challenge the winner of the world championship. It this a fair privilege?
- (ARONIAN) The world championship 2007 in Mexico City is a round robin tournament. In my opinion the world championship should actually be decided in a match between the title holder and a challenger. That is the traditional way of deciding the world championship. We are returning to that when the winner of the world championship tournament has to play a match against the former world champion.
- The reunification world championship match in Elista in 2006 between the two world champions Vladimir Kramnik and the Bulgarian Veselin Topalov specified that the loser would be left out of this year's world championship tournament. Both sides agreed in advance to this article of the contract. Now the Bulgarian side is trying to get Topalov into the 2007 world championship cycle. What do you think of this?
- (ARONIAN) Both sides knew full well under what conditions the world championship in Elista was being staged, and what the consequences of defeat for one of them would be. They accepted these conditions. For this reason I do not like what the Topalov camp is doing."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3978
Way to go, Levon!
"Both sides knew full well under what conditions the world championship in Elista was staged",the Elista conditions were clear:the winner to defend his title in the Mexico roundrobin tournament and not to get a second chance defense in a match,the loser to peel onions not to get a direct spot with a world cup winner.Both sides are getting extra benefits.The Praga Agreement resurrected in Tallin.Why no benefits for the N1 rated player?
"Both sides knew full well under what conditions the world championship in Elista was staged",the Elista conditions were clear:the winner to defend his title in the Mexico roundrobin tournament and not to get a second chance defense in a match,the loser to peel onions not to get a direct spot with a world cup winner.Both sides are getting extra benefits.The Praga Agreement resurrected in Tallin.Why no benefits for the N1 rated player?.
Linux fan--
"It doesn't mean he has to be part of any Appeals Committee, but throwing him right out of FIDE would probably result in chaos, unless he's replaced by someone who has the same kind of insight. And who would that be?"
Very good question. On the FIDE website you can look under "Directory" and find photos of various FIDE officials. A pretty ornery-looking bunch of desperados if you ask me.
But you might check some of the Daily Dirt threads where various highly talented organizers have been (re)formatting the 2002 Dortmund Candidates event for the past five years.
Granda wrote: "Why no benefits for the N1 rated player?"
I agree, it would have been more reasonable if Anand had been given benefits instead of the loser of the Elista match.