Alexei Shirov is every chess fan's favorite world championship martyr after beating Kramnik in a 1998 candidates match and then watching Kasparov lose the title to Kramnik in 2000. Now he's the one waiting the wings as FIDE continues to maintain radio silence well past its own deadlines and extensions for the Kamsky-Topalov candidates match. Shirov lost to Kamsky in the final of the 2007 World Cup, the qualifier for this match, and so is the first reserve. Here is his press release:
1. In spite of having passed all the possible deadlines, FIDE still has not announced the venue of the match Topalov-Kamsky. That means that the match should normally take place in Bulgaria because the Lvov offer seems not to have been materialized.
2. Mr. Gata Kamsky has declared that he does not wish to play in Bulgaria. According to the match regulations he should be replaced by me in this case.
3. It is absolutely clear that the silence and uncertainty should end and the firm decision about the forthcoming match should be taken. Nobody can wait forever and this concerns the reserve players as well.
Alexei Shirov, Tarragona, 29.05.2008
Update: GM Shirov adds in the comments below: "There have been many cases of matches played on a home ground of one of the players. Timman-Speelman, Yusupov-Spraggett, Gelfand-Nikolic, Karpov-Timman, Kasparov-Short etc. And this is just what comes to mind in a second. The Sofia offer might be financially little attractive but otherwise Kamsky's position seems wrong to me. Therefore, the saga should end in my opinion with whatever outcome." Not sure if it's a coincidence or Alexei making a subtle point, but unless memory fails the "visitor" won every one of those matches! (Timman in London, Jussupow in Quebec, Gelfand in Sarajevo, Karpov in the Netherlands (also Jakarta), Kasparov in London.) My saying "unfair" below was therefore too strong. But you never want to play on your opponent's home turf. And in today's cheating-obsessed environment, even less so.
It's certainly the case that the Lvov/Lviv match has looked and sounded like vaporware from the start. "The money has been transferred" is a modern twist on "the check is in the mail," but it doesn't take two weeks to verify a transfer unless it's being carried in bullion by yak. This is most unfortunate, because having to play on Topalov's home turf is hardly fair to Kamsky. So I hope I'm wrong. But if Sofia is the only bid with the cash on the table when the deadline passes, what's the alternative? Oddly, in a May 20 interview Danailov said Topalov would play "anywhere except for Russia," obviously because of what they view as, ironically, shenanigans against them in the Elista match with Kramnik. But if, say, Russia came up with a bid larger than that of the Bulgarian bid, FIDE would be obliged to accept and Topalov obliged to play, no? If Kamsky doesn't play he is replaced by Shirov. What happens if Topalov doesn't play, seeing as he was parachuted into this match with no rhyme or reason whatsoever? Anyway, that is incredibly unlikely.
This is a serious match, one with a world championship shot as the trophy. They need to make sure they have enough time to organize it properly. (It's scheduled for November 26.) The mysterious bid from Ukraine should be heard out, obviously, and since it's FIDE I have no doubt any real negotiations are taking place behind the scenes and involving bank accounts that don't appear on FIDE stationery. But if it doesn't materialize, the show must go on. If things get going on the Bulgarian site it would give Kamsky and his team time to participate in the organization process and, I hope, insure that it is to their satisfaction a shenanigan-free zone. He and/or his representatives should be guaranteed that right by FIDE and the organizers before he (or anyone else) accepts to play, especially in an opponent's home town.
There have been many cases of matches played on a home ground of one of the players. Timman-Speelman, Yusupov-Spraggett, Gelfand-Nikolic, Karpov-Timman, Kasparov-Short etc. And this is just what comes to mind in a second. The Sofia offer might be financially little attractive but otherwise Kamsky's position seems wrong to me. Therefore, the saga should end in my opinion with whatever outcome.
I would add the Topalov-Kramnik match at Elista in the list of maches played on a home ground of one of the players. No?
Chessvibes has this update:
Update 13:10 hrs CET
I just spoke on the phone with George Mastrokoukos, a FIDE official working at the FIDE Secretariat in Athens, Greece. He couldn’t provide any details yet, as “the Kamsky-Topalov match will be discussed at the Presidential Board Meeting this weekend.” He did reveal that until now, the money of the Chernenko/Lviv bid has not been received by FIDE. So a possible Kamsky replacement by Shirov must be on the meeting’s agenda.
http://www.chessvibes.com/lang_nlpersberichtlang_nllang_enpress-releaselang_en/shirov-speaks/
J.A. Topfke
This raises the possibility that by defeating Shirov, then defeating Kasparov in a rematch (or maybe two), Kramnik might finally win legitimacy for his title.
Mig, WTF. Your WP has sucked for a few decades now. I can give you a really low price in the consulting to fix it.
Every one knows that Shirov was the legitimate challenger and Kasparov tried to take an easy way out by choosing to play with Krmanik instead. To his horror, Kasparov then lost to his chosen opponent. If Kamski is unwilling to play then Shirov should rightfully get the spot.
At the very least, I think Shirov-Topalov would be a much more interesting match, and that Shirov has a much better chance of actually winning the match than Kamsky would. More to the point, Shirov-Topalov might get more sponsorship interest, although they'd probably just play in Bulgaria since Shirov isn't as Fischeresque as Kamsky. Seriously, what is it with American GM's being head cases?
Here's one vote for booting Kamsky.
It was pointed out on the forum that there is some rather heavy irony in the fact that Alexei Shirov, who complained so bitterly about Kramnik hijacking his title shot, is now trying to pull a kramnik himself. At least Kramnik gave the Shirov-Kasparov match a chance and didn't play Kasparov until 2.5 years after the Shirov-Kramnik match. I also don't remember Kramnik issuing "Shirov waited too long, give the match to me" press releases 6 months after his loss to Shirov.
Anyway, on the subject of home-field(board?) advantage: I can imagine Topailov complaining about Russia if the 2006 Kramnik-Topalov match was in Moscow. But since they played in Kalmykistan/FIDEland it was more Topalov's home field than Kramnik's, anyway. And what was so unfair about the treatment Topalov got in Elista? Topalov got 1 point odds, an extra game with white and a footage of Kramnik in his restroom? Does he think it was not enough? Should he normally get 3 point odds and 3 extra games with white and tapes of the around the clock surveillance?
Always possible to try fishing in troubled water..
Time to try fishing in troubled waters..
"Every one knows that Shirov was the legitimate challenger and Kasparov tried to take an easy way out by choosing to play with Krmanik instead. To his horror, Kasparov then lost to his chosen opponent. If Kamski is unwilling to play then Shirov should rightfully get the spot."
Conveniently ignoring that Kasparov was 9-0 against Shirov at the time and finished his career 13(?)-0 against him. Made no sense from a "easy way out" perspective whatsoever. He didn't even have to take his watch off against Shirov.
agrred, gmc
Without question a world championship match should be played on neutral ground unless one of the contestants agrees to play on the other players home turf. This is only a semi-final so maybe the players should be more lenient considering the difficulty of finding sponsorship.
Unfortunately team Topailov has a history of cheating allegations and off the board shenanigans. In Elista they proved that they are capable of anything and have no morals whatsoever. In view of this playing the match on team Topailovs home ground seems crazy, who's going to make sure they don't cheat? They are organizing the match themselves. Then again, maybe losing the match is still better than no match at all.
And as far as I'm concerned I hope Shirov get's his chance, at least that's somebody I can root for.
Russianbear,
1. Shirov is qualified (Runner up), Kramnik was disqualified (loser!).
2. Shirov has an offer with FIDE in case of failure of the other match. He is just applying some pressure. I don't see a problem with it. When did Kramnik had an offer like that? You make it look like Kramnik was so generous and giving away chances for others in the 2.5 years period.
But one thing we are sure, watching (enjoying??) all these years. In the name of matches, GAMES are being played!!
huh,
Why do you want to go through all the qualifications and then play a match if personal score is good enough to judge who is better? Don't you know your personal score beforehand, I mean before the qualifier. You pick and why pick such a person with a bad record, after all you have decided not to play him anyway. This make no sense to me either.
"Conveniently ignoring that Kasparov was 9-0 against Shirov at the time and finished his career 13(?)-0 against him. Made no sense from a "easy way out" perspective whatsoever. He didn't even have to take his watch off against Shirov."
Regardless of the score between these two, could you give me a rationale for Kasparov's choice other than that he thought that it would be an easier match? If a champion can pick and choose why have the farce of elimination rounds at all?
Kasparov has been a fantastic player. But his behavior as a champion left a lot to be desired. He was primarily responsible for the world championship mess of last several years (Kramnik comes a close second in this respect).
Who cares what his record was against Shirov? The fact is that he avoided the match and took what he perceived was an easy way out.
Folks, let's not forget that it was Shirov who turned down the match with Kasparov (because of greed).
If Kamsky does drop out, it would make way too much sense to substitute Shirov. Look for something goofy, like a tournament for the right to play Topalov.
john (14:00), how about offering to fix Mig's software mess for free/gratis?
Otherwise, I wholeheartedly approve of your offer.
Yea, this blog could use a few of the standard bells and whistles too - quotes, fonts, pictures, proper links, avatars, etc.
Anyway, on the subject of home-field(board?) advantage: I can imagine Topailov complaining about Russia if the 2006 Kramnik-Topalov match was in Moscow. But since they played in Kalmykistan/FIDEland it was more Topalov's home field than Kramnik's, anyway. And what was so unfair about the treatment Topalov got in Elista? Topalov got 1 point odds, an extra game with white and a footage of Kramnik in his restroom? Does he think it was not enough? Should he normally get 3 point odds and 3 extra games with white and tapes of the around the clock surveillance?
Posted by: Russianbear at May 29, 2008 14:36
It's funny and creasy. Elista - Topalov's home place. What a demagogy! Creasy mind!
What about it? FIDE was clearly favouring Topalov at the time, especially during the match itself (actually later as well - by out of nowhere changing the rules of the cycle giving him the right to play the World Cup winner...the main source of the problems described in this very blog item). It was Topalov himself who called Elista "FIDE territory" and said this was the reason he had no problems with it. As Russianbear said, Moscow would have been a completely different thing.
(To John) Also I believe according to GM Ray Keane, after Shirov refused the offer, they went down the list and Anand was asked to play, and HE refused as well!! Next came Vlad, and the rest is history. GM Shirov has posted here before, maybe he will give his version. Another problem with FIDE, the players do not have a union. Most major sports, at least here in America, players belong to unions who represent their interests against the sport association.
The conditions are unfair if Kamsky is forced to contest the match on Topalov's home turf of Sofia.
Therefore, Danailov and Topalov should pay Kamsky "solation" money as compensation for the burdon of having to contest the match in hostile territory. FIDE has occassionally been willing to add cash sweeteners to keep one of the players happy. Kamsky has a legitimate grievance, and it needs to be dealt with before the commencement of the match.
If Kamsky can come up with bigger prize fund to play in the US, then I am sure everybody will accept it.
"The conditions are unfair if Kamsky is forced to contest the match on Topalov's home turf of Sofia.
Therefore, Danailov and Topalov should pay Kamsky "solation" money as compensation for the burdon of having to contest the match in hostile territory. FIDE has occassionally been willing to add cash sweeteners to keep one of the players happy. Kamsky has a legitimate grievance, and it needs to be dealt with before the commencement of the match.
Posted by: DOug at May 30, 2008 10:17"
Wow, guys, get real. Fide paying "solation" because some dude they couldn'T care less about doesn't wanna play in toppies backyard?
That's a suggestion just about as constructive as pointing out that every caring human being should do his utmost to fight world hunger.
Yeah, they should. 99,9% just simply don't give a damn.
It is true that Anand turned down a Kasparov rematch in the 1999-2000 timeframe, allegedly because he had already signed a contract to play in the FIDE KO (which he duly won). He was #2 in the world at the time (Kramnik's peak actually occurred after the London match), and seemed the logical choice given that Kramnik had lost to Shirov.
Once he turned it down, it was pretty much a matter of sponsorship; Kasparov had to play someone. Shirov did get left out in the cold and was poorly served in this situation, although his record against Kasparov didn't imply an interesting match from a competitive (as opposed to chess) point of view. I imagine the chess would have been fascinating.
In all likelihood we would have seen Kasparov-Anand II in 2002 or 2003 to unify the titles, which would have been an interesting match; by 2003 Anand had pretty much licked his problems with Kasparov (if you ignore the weird tendency to throw away half points with Black at Linares).
With the title still in his hands, Kasparov might have kept playing (we would have seen Kasparov playing San Luis-era Topalov!), and Anand might never have so clearly demonstrated his superiority to the remaining players.
"Russianbear,
1. Shirov is qualified (Runner up), Kramnik was disqualified (loser!)."
That is just semantics. Shirov is the finalist of the Candidate match now as Kramnik was then. Shirov is as disqualified now as Kramnik was then.
"2. Shirov has an offer with FIDE in case of failure of the other match. He is just applying some pressure. I don't see a problem with it. When did Kramnik had an offer like that? You make it look like Kramnik was so generous and giving away chances for others in the 2.5 years period."
When did Kramnik have an offer? Can you seriously pretend he didn't? Well, he got an offer whenever he got the offer. Do you really want to pretend he played in the BGN without being offered to play first?
As for the Shirov's offer now - now THAT's a big question. Did he really get an OFFER to play? I think not. I think FIDE just mentioned Shirov's name to put pressure on Kamsky. Retards that the FIDE people are, they couldn't even foresee that Shirov would take them seriously. I honestly don't think a FIDE official mentioning Shirov's name was anything more than an attempt to pressure Kamsky into being less stubborn.
And yes, Kramnik didn't play Kasparov until 2.5 years later. Shirov is trying to get the other guy disqualified only 6 months after he lost to him. So yeah, it does seem Kramnik was more considerate of Shirov's rights then than Shirov is of Kamsky's rights now. These are the facts.
"It's funny and creasy. Elista - Topalov's home place. What a demagogy! Creasy mind!"
"Creasy", huh? Elista may not be Topalov's hometown, but he got much more preferrential treatment in Elista than most players would expect to get in their hometowns. The greater demagogy is to pretend Topalov somehow got screwed in Elista when he had gotten 1 point odds, an extra game with white and access to surveillance tapes of his opponent's restroom.
"From: FIDE World Chess Federation [mailto:office@fide.com]
[...]
The FIDE Presidential board has also confirmed the qualifying procedure if any of the two participants fail to participate:
I.) if GM Kamsky refuses to participate, GM Shirov will be asked to participate as the runner-up of the World Cup; if GM Shirov also refuses, GM Topalov will automatically qualify for the World Championship match 2009.
II.) if GM Topalov refuses to participate, GM Kamsky will automatically qualify for the World Championship match 2009.
[...]
Best regards,
Georgios Makropoulos
FIDE Deputy President"
http://chessarrabal.blogspot.com/2008/04/lettre-de-kamsky-la-fide.html
Out of curiosity, why the lopsided FIDE requirements seen in acirce's post above? Why shouldn't Topalov simply be awarded the qualification match is Kamsky refuses to play?
Yes that is interesting, I'd like to know more about the process that led to this decision. From what I can find this rule was not in place BEFORE the World Cup, but I could easily be wrong. Did Shirov already know about it when he withdrew his Grand Prix participation -- in this case perhaps counting on Kamsky to refuse playing Topalov, so that he would get his chance this way? Just speculation, obviously.
For the information of all, a letter from Bella Kamskaya (Gata's lawyer and also I believe stepmother) is up at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4662 in which she points out (reasonably in my view) that Gata has NOT 'refused' to play Topalov at all. Naturally he would rather play him for more money in Lviv than for less money in Sofia, but at the present time FIDE has not yet decided what the venue and conditions of the match will be. She asks Kirsan to "Accordingly please provide a working draft of the documents that FIDE anticipates GM Kamsky and GM Topalov to execute."
I completely agree with Shirov and Danailov (!) here. Where is the money, (Lebow/Kam)sky?
Unfair?
Chess is inherently unfair. If you are worried about fairness, flip a coin to see who moves first every game. Venue has zilch to do with it. If you think Kamsky would be sitting there during his games thinking 'Oh, poor me. Its so unfair to play in Sofia!' - yah, right.
Imagine - Black moving first.... 1 -- e5!!
I think I just solved the draw 'problem'!
So what of Kasparov was 9-0 vs Shirov at the time? Spassky was 3-0 against Fischer before their match (then 4-0 after game 1) but we know how that turned out. Alekhine was 7-3 over Euwe before their match that Euwe won.
With a player as dynamic as Shirov, anything could've happened.
Let us get this into our heads first.
GM Anand was willing to play world championship MATCH with GM Kasparov!
However, GM Anand was unwilling to play breakaway political GAMES with GM Keene!!
How do you know Anand refused to play and why would Anand refuse if you show him the money? not on an ATM screen though!
"Let us get this into our heads first.
GM Anand was willing to play world championship MATCH with GM Kasparov!
However, GM Anand was unwilling to play breakaway political GAMES with GM Keene!!"
Those familiar with Karpov - Korchnoy matches surly are familiar with GM Keene's antics!
Oh really? I don't know that far in chess history, umesh. But I know he was in some chess controversies.
TWIC is reporting that the Lviw venue is "go", backed, if I understand correctly, with a guarantee from Kirsan himself.
Also confirmed from the site of the meeting http://www.chessdom.com/news/chess-topalov-kamsky-in-lviv
Has anyone got some info on Kok´s reasons for resignng from Global Chess ?
For goodness' sake, PircAlert and Umesh, it's not exactly controversial that Anand rightly or wrongly refused, declined, call it what you will, to play a match with Kasparov in 1999-2000.
And anyone who thinks Kasparov chose Kramnik for an 'easy ride' wants his head examined. If you'd taken a poll of who would be the toughest opponent for Kasparov in 2000, a huge majority would have said Kramnik.
Update..waiting for the sale of the last batch of male order brides and then the money will come out of the vires. -Russian Mob Informant
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4671
"The organiser offered a prize fund of 750,000 USD and to hold the match on the “neutral” territory of Ukraine, as the players wanted to avoid Bulgaria or the USA. President
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov guarantees the organiser’s offer by backing the event from his personal finances."
So let's try to get this straight:
1) Some random unknown sponsor promises 750,000 USD.
2) They can't produce bank guarantees.
3) Ilyumzhinov goes: "Ok fine, I'll pay the money instead".
Welcome to absurdistan.
The only _logical_ explanation I can come up with is that this is some sort of money laundering scheme or some other kind of exchange of favors that cannot see the light of day.
Ilyumzhinov is the ideal go-between for this kind of thing. Nobody in the chess world cares where his money is coming from and there are no authorities to investigate his financial dealings, he _is_ the authority in his country.
"For goodness' sake, PircAlert and Umesh, it's not exactly controversial that Anand rightly or wrongly refused, declined, call it what you will, to play a match with Kasparov in 1999-2000.
And anyone who thinks Kasparov chose Kramnik for an 'easy ride' wants his head examined. If you'd taken a poll of who would be the toughest opponent for Kasparov in 2000, a huge majority would have said Kramnik."
The implication being Kasparov purposely chose a stronger challenger.... This is laughable.
This completely misses the point about having any elimination rounds. Kramnik was Kasparov's second. So, Kasparov naturally knew or (at least assumed he knew) his strengths and weaknesses. Hence the phrase "easy way out".
I have no comments about "head examined" part by any kool-aid drinkers. You are entitled to your opinion.
My original post states that Kasparov has been a fantastic player. I am criticizing his behavior as a champion trying to hold on to his title by dubious means. Same holds true about Kramnik.
As a chess fan, I would respect a champion who accepts every legitimate challenge and defends his title. I was thus pleasantly surprised when Topalov agreed to play Kramnik so soon after winning his title (especially after seeing how Fisher, Kasparov and Krmanik had behaved). It does not matter that he lost. To my mind, he behaved like a champion in accepting the challenge rather than finding ways to delay the match or come up with outrageous demands.
Just one more point, during all the Kasparov, Kramnik “unification” match talks when they were considering other players, both the parties and their surrogates carefully kept Anand’s name out of all scenarios while they kept pushing for their solution as being the best ‘under the circumstances’.
This is my last post. I don’t want endless arguments. Topalov Kamski match has finally been announced with a $750,000 prize fund. Let us look forward to some exciting games.
When was the last time Anand lost a chess game in 15 moves before even a blitz game? Ivan the terrible does it again !
"The implication being Kasparov purposely chose a stronger challenger.... This is laughable. - Umesh"
He actually chose the next player in line after Shirov, the winner of the qualification, then Anand, the #2 in the world. Then Kramnik, who was not only the runner-up in the qualification but I guess the #3 in the world at the time.
So, in a way, Kasparov was looking for a strong opponent. He needed a credible opponent to defend his 'runaway' title.
"To my mind, he behaved like a champion in accepting the challenge rather than finding ways to delay the match or come up with outrageous demands - Umesh"
You are quite selective in picking arguments that suit you. You've forgotten (more likely, selective chosen to disregard) that Topalov c.s., after all the agreements had been reached about the unification match and only the contracts needed signing, suddenly released their infamous "Kramnik is not worthy" pamphlet in which they simply stated that they wouldn't play.
That, in my book, counts exactly as a "way of delaying the match". I'm sure however you can find a way to twist it into something chivalrous from Topalov.
Umesh, it's not worth arguing with you. But let's face it, if Kasparov did think Kramnik was an easy option, time hasn't exactly demonstrated that he was right, now has it? So according to you the greatest player ever was wrong in his judgment of other players. What a pity he didn't take your advice at the time.
This not just some unnamed sponsor putting up the money, but a man who makes his living trading precious stones from Africa. How could anyone possibly doubt the probity of someone with such a business background ?
Posted by: gmc at May 29, 2008 14:33
Here's one vote for booting Kamsky.
Yeah, but you're voting to boot him on the grounds that you don't like him, not for any legitimate reasons.
Maybe the Ukraine bid will come through, Topalov will refuse to play, even though it's not Russia, for the Fischeresque reason that "you're all Russians to me", and it will end up as a Kamsky-Shirov match instead.
Posted by: Umesh at May 29, 2008 14:04
>>
Every one knows that Shirov was the legitimate challenger and Kasparov tried to take an easy way out by choosing to play with Krmanik instead.
>>
How is playing someone that you have a roughly even score against easier than playing somebody that you score 75% against?
Let's get serious. Everybody knows that that match didn't happen because the money wasn't there, not because Kramnik was an easier opponent. If we did things your way, the title would still be on hold 10 years later, until Shirov could get funding. Kramnik go this title shot 2 years later. That's essentially the next cycle.
"Everybody knows that that match didn't happen because the money wasn't there,"
Or do we?
"When asked about Anand's refusal to sign the contract with Grimaux, Kasparov answered, "What has he been thinking about for eight weeks? If he prefers to play in Las Vegas, the offer will go to Shirov.""
http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/9899gkix.htm
"Kasparov could have offered the 2000 match to Shirov after he had beaten Kramnik in the qualifying match and who was still "the chess public’s popular choice." With a 9-0 winning record over Shirov, a lesser man than Kasparov would have chosen a safe match against Shirov. Kasparov, as a true Champion, did not take the easy path!" (Owen Williams, manager of Kasparov)
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/owenbrain.html
rdh (07:54),
I am telling you, really, it is not worth arguing with you! :)
Going by your argument, Kramnik is fully justified in not giving a rematch for Kasparov?!! And hasn't time demonstrated in his case that he picked the toughest opponent Leko, whom he could not beat and all he could manage at the end was only a draw??
If funny how people decide who is tough and who is not!
It is not about an easy or a hard way, everyone wanted to improve their resume for big pay, so they worked towards that. They weren't really interested in real challengers or real tough oppositions but rather chose to play the ones against whom they had something to prove. You can't take that as a world championship. Can you?
You've lost me, Pirc Alert. Kramnik didn't pick Leko. Leko qualified to play him.
rdh, didn't Kramnik pick the traditional Dortmund tournament winner Leko as his challenger? How nice it is to expect to have Kasparov, Anand, Topalov and Leko fight it out among themselves in a tournament, Kramnik can watch the fun, then play the lucky one (actually the unfortunate one), and claim himself to be a World Champion in the event of a draw!!
PircAlert "didn't Kramnik pick the traditional Dortmund tournament winner Leko as his challenger?"
The answer is no. The Dortmund tournament was turned into a candidates tournament that year. The format was different from normal;
Eight invited players, selected according to rating, with German wildcard Lutz, play in two groups of four players each, in a double round robin. The semi-finalists will then play four classic games to find the finalists. The final will also be four classical games. Tie breaks will be with rapid chess and blitz matches.-from chessbase
PircAlert, you do realise that the system you moan about whereby challengers fight it out among themselves to produce a winner who challenges the champion, has been in use throughout chess history, and that Kramnik was the first world champion to agree to take part in the semi-final as opposed to a one-off final match? Also that the champion has had draw odds in every world title match in history? Just checking.
Heh... Except that previously, the system was in place before the event, and everybody had a chance to take part. Declaring an already existing tournament with a field that had already been fixed (exluding some of the strongest players in the world, and including the afore mentioned "wild card") as a qualifier hardly falls into the same category.
And Kramnik agreeing to play the winner of Dortmund was hardly a concession, since he had been handpicked to play Kasparov in the first place. Calling him "the first WC to take part in the semifinal.. " is just a tad, a smidgeon, disingenous since earlier WCs in the modern era had gone through a rigorous qualifying system consisting of tournaments and matches BEFORE getting to the final stage. You do understand both these points dont you? Just checking
I understand the second one, of course. Everyone does. It's just not germane to what PircAlert and I were discussing.
As to the first one, it's just historically wrong, but I'm not going to bother to correct you.
It is germane. Your point is undermined because of that fact, hence it is germane.
What is historically wrong about the first one since Botvinnik (i.e. "modern")
d_tal,
I think you underestimate the Dortmund Candidates Tournament.It was very close to being all the best players;
Rank
4 Adams
5 Topalov
7 Bareev
8 Leko
9 Morozevich
11 Gelfand
13 Shirov
35 Lutz
The missing players from the top 10 are;
1 Kasparov - refused to play
2 Kramnik - World Champion
3 Anand - I think refused
6 Ponomariov - Fide World Champion
10 Ivanchuk - not invited
so only Ivanchuk as #10 didn't get to play.
It lacked the top 2 players in the world that would have been the most legit challengers, who refused because of the arbitrary and mostly wholly unacceptable nature of the "qualifying" tournament. Lets see, Kramnik lost in the qualifying match to Shirov, and Kasparov picked him over Shirov anyway. But Kramnik beat Kasparov, and suddenly Kasparov has to qualify, because Kramnik is now somehow protecting the "tradition" of the title that he holds, which was completely shot to pieces when he was chosen as a challenger. Laughable. It wasnt actually only Ivanchuk who didnt get to play, it was also Kasparov, Anand and Ponomariov in the top 10, and also countless others who legitimately might have had a shot, but who didnt make it to the top 10 in the time window in which the ratings were chosen. Hilarious, except I want to cry. Hey believe what you want, its a free world!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
acirce,
Come on, now. You have to admit it WAS faintly amusing the first 10,000 times.
d_tal,
I'm not saying that it was a perfect way to find a challenger for Kramnik. I am saying that it was probably the best possible qualifier under the circumstances.
As for Anand. He could have played if he wanted too. It's ironic that Dortmund was probably a tougher tournament than what he won to become the so called World Champion. At least, At Dortmund one had to play matches at the end.
Ponomariov was Fide World Champion. It would be very silly for him to play in a candidates tournament for a title that he thought he already had.
It's a shame that Kasparov didn't play. He would have had excellent chances to get his rematch against Kramnik. We can blame this on Kasparov's ego. He believed it wasn't necessary for him to qualify. Unfortunately, He previously believed that the World Champion should not be entitled to an automatic rematch.This contradiction left him exactly where it should - nowhere.
The simple truth is that Kasparov is the only modern World Champion to hand pick his opponent.
The world championship tradition was shot to pieces the moment Kramnik was chosen as challenger? I thought Mig already explained that it was all Short's fault...!? Better he should explain it 9,999 more times for the faint amusement of slow learners among us.
And y'know, I bet Mig didn't like The Urge either.
I think Ponomorev, Ivanchuk, Anand and Svidler did not play in Dortmund in 2002 as they all were semi-finalists of Moscow FIDE World Championship 2001/02, and it was in contracts that they can not play in the other World Championship version, so mostly it is the only Kasparov who declined to play
rdh, I think d_tal has answered your question to me. Kramnik didn't go through rigorous qualification and the second thing is, competetion is more global and stiffer today. If you reason out the way you reasoned out in the other thread you will easily see no one including Kasparov will be justified to be seeded above semi's or quarter's. Times are changing and so should the system. The goal is the same though - to identify the world's best!
Bones,
What you say about Anand's refusal is half-truth which is no good. Like Kaluga says Anand had contractual obligation intially. When FIDE pitched in, everyone was exempt but the organizers were willing to accomodate only Anand and Kasparov, if I am not wrong. Because of the special privileges discussed for Kasparov, Anand also waited for privileges for himself. Finally Kasparov wasn't given any and when Anand was willing, he could have been easily accomodated. But because of the private nature of championship, Anand wasn't included. You can't call all these private qualifiers and championships with arbitrarily picked players World championship.
Here is a compromise formula for this split season starting at 1993 and ending at the beginning of Mexico. Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik and Topalov can be considered world champions for holding a world championship title and world #1 during this period. And Anand is the current world champion. If people like Kramnik are not agreable and doesn't retract things like "paper", "loan", "lending" before the start of the match, even if he wins against Anand, Kramnik will not be considered a world champion!
So, if I get this right:
- Kramnik actually invited everyone to Dortmund bar Ivanchuk who was any good at the time and/or was somehow implicated in his world title cycle. Top players, FIDE title holder, ex- classical world champ, previous winner of candidates cycle Shirov. Lutz was there because of sponsorship reasons I reckon so we can't fault him really.
- Some of them refuse. This is IMO nothing to do with Kramnik or what?
- The Kramnik-detractors moan about this and blame Kramnik.
You do realise that if Kramnik had NOT invited them it would have been 'handpicking' or 'avoiding the strongest possible candidate' or 'denying Kasparov/Shirov the possibility for revenge' ... but now that he did he 'expected the impossible' or whatever.
Come on. Just admit that no matter what Kramnik had done, he'd done it wrong in your eyes. Just because he's Kramnik.
These same people that moan about a Kasparov rematch or Dortmund or Leko would be all over the place on these same forums moaning about Kramnik if he HAD given Kasparov a rematch, because he 'handpicked this opponent that he knew he could beat', therefore 'he was no better than Kasparov who'd done the same', that 'these Russians just wanted to keep the title to themselves', or that Kramnik 'didn't give Shirov a chance to get back at him' or, of course, that Kramnik didn't give other top players of that time a chance to challenge him. Which is exactly what he did with Dortmund.
Dog, stick, beat.
(And the people who seriously think that Kramnik retroactively handpicked the Dortmund tournament winner as his challenger... well, don't let the facts get in the way of your good story aye?)
To summarise, in my opinion, Kramnik with the Dortmund qualifier gave EVERYBODY that had any interest in the title a chance to challenge him.
Furthermore, it wasn't even meant to be a title defence but a semifinal. The winner was supposed to play against the FIDE-candidate for the unified title. So yes, indeed, by the time of Dortmund Kramnik HAD agreed to come in at the semi-final stage. People who claim otherwise are again not letting facts get in the way of their good anti-Kramnik story.
This was all part of the Prague agreement.
So a little brainwork tells us that Kramnik, holding a qualifier, then playing the winner, actually opheld his end of the Prague agreement.
But of course, giving Kramnik credit for all that is not done, because, well, he's Kramnik.
Marvol, you dont get it buddy. Mig summarised it neatly thus: Kramnik got religion about qualifiers AFTER he bypassed them. Not verbatim, but pretty much the substance. Many reasonable people construed that he was avoiding Kasparov. Nuff said, instead of wasting time over this much covered ground, play over a game from the WC who had a diametrically opposite attitude to such matters! You might want to cover your eyes to reduce the risk of being dazzled by his brilliance..
Marvol's point, d_tal, is that Kramnik couldn't have pleased everyone. You wanted him to give Gazza a rematch. PircA wanted him to set up some sort of qualifier and start again himself. Others - me, for example - wanted the situation which existed pre-1993 restored, which was what he did, as far as he could. Nothing he did would have made everyone happy nor avoided bleating from some special interest group or other.
I think he could have done better rdh. Everything he did coincided with his best interests. If you look at it objectively, he chose the one path which he had the least amount of credibility to enforce. It is hard to avoid conclusions of self interest, and/or pussilamnimity cloaked in the most hypocritical statements of good intent. Forget personalities (i.e. never mind if you love or hate Gazza, think of him purely as an entity, same for Kramnik Shirov etc, defined entirely by their quantitative chess results), and the logical deduction has to least acknowledge this. In fact its an interesting thought experiment to conduct.
I don't know that he could, actually, particularly bearing in mind that the guy is after all a player rather than a politician. If anyone else had found themselves in the position he was in in 2000 I'm not sure we'd still have matches now. Mig's comment about getting religion about qualifiers after playing Gazza without one was a cheap shot: so the guy was given the chance of a lifetime and took it; who wouldn't? That doesn't mean he didn't think before 2000 that a stable system where players qualified to play the champion wasn't a good thing, but what if he did? It wasn't in his power to make it happen. After he was champion, it was.
Actually, I think the following format would be ideal. Set the date for a match in advance, in general terms. Every year, or every two years, in October, there will be a world championship match.
Twenty Four games, draw odds to the champ.
The challenger is the person capable of organizing the largest sponsorship bid for the tournament who is also a member of the World top 10 on a FIDE list within the year leading up to the match.
Neatly avoiding the necessity of fancy candidates tournaments and the like, and creating a sponsorable event that should actually bring money and influence to the game.
24 games, 31 days in October. 3 rest days (timeouts a la K-K matches) apiece, plus a day for opening ceremonies and paid simuls with the contestants.
Deadline for bids is April 1, each year.
Then we would have a candidate who has proved his ability to raise money, gmc, not his world championship potential. Public respect would disappear. The best businessman, not the best player! It's not up to the players to raise money for chess, though surely it wouldn't hurt if they tried. Chess needs to give this job to professionals- sorely needed.
Cool story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/arts/music/07clan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Btw, rdh, have you read this column of Short's, appeared in the online version of the Telegraph in 2004. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?master=nigel_short&grid=P8&view=CHESSCONTENT&RangeStartValue=49
Just when you thought Short couldn't get more pathetic.
Short obviously finds the opinion of Kramnik held by Maria quite funny, and also seems to acknowledge the grain of truth in it. Not quite sure what is pathetic in this particular instance, but I guess its never fun to listen to ones deities being de-deified!
That Short article is from 2004. Old news from before Kramnik went public with his illness, if he even knew what his health problem was himself at that time.
Thanks, Daniel, I hadn't noticed that.
In the Brissago photos Kramnik looked like a wooden clothes rack.
Players burdened with serious illness or with serious off-the-board distractions lose their WCC matches more often than not.
If Kramnik never plays another game he's made himself quite a WCC match legacy: defeating the world's greatest player, battling through a serious illness in Brissago, and overcoming the Danailov distraction campaign.
I myself disagree with Short's thesis of "boring" play attributed to Kramnik; the rules of chess are unambiguous, and win, draw and loss are clearly defined. Kramnik has to play as he sees fit, and his ability allows. Its up to Kramnik's opponents to prove his "style" wrong, by bringing home the bacon. Quite often Kramnik himself has suffered, placing highly, but not winning, innumerable tournaments simply because his "style" has not been good enough to win enough games. I think criticism of "style" is irrelevant.
However the flaccidity, cowardice, pussilanimity or whatever Short wishes to call it, is quite evident in behaviour away from the board, in avoiding Kasparov after the fortuitous meeting the first time around (I wish life treated me like that, imagine I go for a job interview, fail every test, but I get offered the job anyway!).
Yes, he has made himself quite a WCC legacy already, Botvinnik himself would envy the skill of his off-board machinations! 1 outstanding match result is followed by 2 mediocre drawn matches, a loss in a WC tournament, but apparently he is still the champion!
Daniel,
The interesting thing about Short's old article is that it demonstrates that he, not Kramnik is "flaccid" and not a "real man."
After being annihilated by Kasparov in 1993, it must have been hard for Short to see his annihilator decisively beaten by Kramnik seven years later. Short waited until Kramnik was "down," then instead of challenging his manhood directly, Short hid behind the skirts (oops, I forgot, she wasn't wearing any) of a 2300's-rated Serbian girl.
Reminiscent of Short's grand demonstration of manhood re the deceased Tony Miles.
Also reminischent of his demonstration of manhood in daily meals with Team Topalov in San Luis, never confronting them with his suspicions that they were cheating, never reporting his suspicions until a year after the tournament.
And then there's his cowering to daddy Kamsky's threats. Short doesn't do anything so direct as to call the police, or file a suit. Rather, he waits a decade or so and ambushes Kamsky via a completely unrelated internet forum.
Flaccid indeed.