Did we say Lvov? Nevermind. And what did this mean?
June 1, 2008:
FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has announced that the World Championship Challenger Match between Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria) and Gata Kamsky (USA) will take place in Lvov, Ukraine in November 2008. 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. FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov guarantees the organiser's offer by backing the event from his personal finances.
FIDE shouldn't be obliged to finance and organize the entire thing if Lvov was really vaporware from the start. The "guarantee" we enjoy giving Ilyumzhinov a hard time about can't really come into effect if there's nothing there at all. Still, he was either willing to kick in some money or he wasn't. Looks like not. Anyway, on to the latest FIDE press release, which basically tossing things back to Sofia as long as they can guarantee (!) the $250K minimum plus the $50K FIDE fee for sandwiches.
a) The Bulgarian Chess Federation will be re-awarded with the event if it accepts in written form, by 14 November 2008 12:00 GMT, to hold the match with a prize fund of 250,000 USD plus 50,000 USD as contribution to FIDE and all organising expenses covered. In this case, the dates of the match Topalov - Kamsky remain as already announced (29 Nov. - 12 Dec. 2008)
b) By 14 November 2008, 12:00 GMT, both players have to officially confirm, in written form and in a clear and explicit way, that they will play the match. If GM Topalov refuses to confirm his participation, then GM Kamsky qualifies automatically for the 2009 WCC match. If GM Kamsky refuses to confirm his participation, he will be replaced by GM Shirov (the runner-up of the World Cup 2007).
c) If the Bulgarian Chess Federation will not confirm that it accepts the financial requirements of (a), an open bidding procedure will be launched with a deadline of 31 December 2008. The best bid will be awarded with the event which will then be held in February or March 2009.
Bulgaria seemed ready to go a few months ago. Will that have changed for some reason? Will Kamsky play in Bulgaria? It certainly wouldn't be the first time a candidates match has been held on the home soil of one of the players. (Though as listed here a while back, the home team loses just about every time, oddly enough.)
$250,000 for this "legal necessity" match during a recession? Keep dreaming. I think Kirsan & co want to scuttle this and have the 2010 cycle become pre-eminent.
Regarding that list, funny that Shirov doesn't mention Shirov-Kramnik in Cazorla, Spain. Maybe that's because it wouldn't support his 'subtle point' ;-)
Bulgaria's $150,000 bid was accepted a long, long time ago. Curious that now after Chernenko has been allowed 7 months to produce his nonexisting money, the Bulgarians are allowed one week to raise their bid to $250,000 + $50,000.
""FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov guarantees the organiser's offer by backing the event from his personal finances.""
"FIDE shouldn't be obliged to finance and organize the entire thing if Lvov was really vaporware from the start. The "guarantee" we enjoy giving Ilyumzhinov a hard time about can't really come into effect if there's nothing there at all. Still, he was either willing to kick in some money or he wasn't."
I am not an expert those things, but what does guarantee mean, if it's not financing and organizing the entire thing if there's nothing there at all? Being willing to contribute to the prize fund? I really don't understand, Mig.
Nice showcase on how not to do public relations.
With just a few concise, finely tuned statements, FIDE achieves to look secretive, greedy, and incompetent in handling candidates' matches. Again.
Really, this FIDE is amazing. Actually it seems as if they had got the Lviv offer just to be able to put pressure on the bulgarians now. It's very strange that after accepting the 150K offer now they say "sir, it would be 250+50". It's very hard to understand the logic behind Kirsan, if there's any at all. It's a pity there's no strong players association to make some kind of counterbalance to this madness. Is it really so difficult to get organized in a proper way? I mean, tennis and golf can, why wouldn't chess be able to?
FIDE shot themselves in the foot. All this could have been avoided had they NOT awarded a match to Topalov in the first place. This was a big mistake. FIDE succumbed to the pressure put by the Bulgarians.
Now they have to suffer the consequences of all this rubbish. And I fear that Kamsky will be the scapegoat and yet again Topalov will be awarded with a match against Shirov.
Now it's too late to cry. And I'm sorry for Kamsky. Topalov lost to Kramnik and should have had to wait to get his chance like the rest. And BTW, dear Topalov and Dainalov, I hope you learnt how gentlemen should behave themselves in a match.
Duncan
It's all worth it to hear Rustam Kamsky's sweet voice again:
"I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate Vishy Anand on his true victory. This is his third victory at the world championship. I think he could have achieved even more success if during his match against Kasparov he did not have as his trusted seconds grandmasters from the former Soviet Union...
I anticipate that in these uncertain times Gata’s life could be in danger: no person – no problem."
Aaah...memories...hopefully this denotes his full return, chess needs more people of this calibre.
Topalov and Danailov set up the match. I don't quite understand-why was Gata afraid of playing in Sofia? I mean, there is a super-tournament in Sofia every year: anyone complained so far about the organization?
Then Kamsky and Co. find this Chernenko or whatever, and basically ruin the match.
I think team Kamsky has at least as much responsibility as FIDE. Kirsan is insane, every knows that, but guaranteeing a million for a match fund and then not paying it-that's not the way things work. It's a shame-shame on Kamsky.
>I anticipate that in these uncertain times >Gata’s life could be in danger: no person – no >problem.
Good one, Rustam is back from chess-retirement and back to either delivering or apprehending death-threats.
Shouldn't have the 30 years old Gata outgrown this unhealthy dependency of his father ?
Oh my! He has spoken! Watch out Danailov, the senior Kamsky is back on the scene! Rustam is one of a kind who would not mind pulling punches and just not restrict himself to verbal volleys.
Speaking of "guarantee by Ilyumzhinov", it does not matter much unless put on paper which is not the case here. In any case, the Bulgarian Federation bears a greater deal of responsibility because FIDE is allowing their 'loser' a backdoor entry. Its irrelevant that Topa was a FIDE Champion because his 2006 WC match did not have any clause that allows him an entry in this cycle and is at the mercy of FIDE (which might blackmail Bulgarian Federation into organizing this match otherwise "the intelligent guys in FIDE Board" may 'decide' to drop Topalov completely from this cycle)
Regards
Amit
Kamsky is an escroc.
Don't fool yourselves. This is clearly Kamsky's inability to honour his offer. Or he must say publicly that his manager Chernenko deceived him as Chessdom reports here: http://www.chessdom.com/news/kamsky-topalov-back-at-the-beginning "His manager also deceived him by claiming that money was sent to FIDE but it kept bouncing back!?"...
Ilyumzhinov attempted to solve the earlier crisis when Kamsky refused to play in Bulgaria, by enabling the Lviv deal to go through in spite of a fast looming deadline. I haven't often sided with Ilyumzhinov, but he's being fair this time. He can't be a perpetual sugar daddy to chess.
Goichberg's protest was insensitive towards Ilyumzhinov's position, and IMO literal in a somewhat childish way. Goichberg missed the point.
Frank M
What does "put on paper" mean according to you?
And, by the way, the arrangement for Topalov was made in order to: (1) justify letting Kramnik to have a match against the winner in Mexico, (2) correct the absurd clause, which excluded Topalov from the Mexico tournament, and (3) justify not accepting the bid from Danailov for a rematch against Kramnik, which was made according FIDE's regulations at that time.
"And, by the way, the arrangement for Topalov was made in order to: (1) justify letting Kramnik to have a match against the winner in Mexico, (2) correct the absurd clause, which excluded Topalov from the Mexico tournament, and (3) justify not accepting the bid from Danailov for a rematch against Kramnik, which was made according FIDE's regulations at that time."
You obviously know that all 3 points are bogus. The fact that Kramnik would play the Mexico winner and Topalov would sit out Mexico was not a decision taken by FIDE. Those were the conditions for the winner and the loser of the Elista match that both players agreed to beforehand without protest. Of course, they both thought would win the match and get all the privileges. FIDE didn't have to "justify" anything by awarding Topalov a match -- the prior contract was enough justification. As for (3), Kramnik played the Elista match in September 2006 and was expected to defend the title in Mexico September 2007. How many championship matches is he supposed to play in a one year period?
"The fact that Kramnik would play the Mexico winner... were the conditions... that both players agreed to beforehand without protest."
Check your facts.
And learn to think before you write (or speak).
I think matches, per se, create too much trouble and give too much power in the hands of the players. Witness the aborted Shirov-Kasparov, Kasparov-Kazimdzanov, Kasparov-Ponomariov matches. Also witness the trouble in the Topalov-Kramnik match. I like the format of the 8 player San Luis tournament - Kasparov and Kramnik refused to play- they are replaced by the next people in line. The only matches which have been successful in the recent past are the Kramnik-Leko and Kramnik-Anand match because all three are gentlemen.
re: "Check your facts."
Brilliant rebuttal, sab. Convinced me. Plei must be writhing in the crushing grip of your logic.
In response to the question,
"But in the contract of the match with Kramnik you have signed that the loser will not play in Mexico?"
Danailov said,
"Yes, this is true...",
then he goes on to explain why he thought Topalov should have been able to play in Mexico via an immediate rematch.
See http://interviews.chessdom.com/silvio-danailov-interview for the full quote and, as usual, Danailov's otherworldly distortion of events.
re: "Check your facts."
Show me the Elista document that says Kramnik would play the Mexico winner, then, Daniel J. Andrews.
My previous comment was made before I saw your last comment.
With your last comment, what on earth are you talking about?
Topalov made a direct rematch challenge to Kramnik. Nothing to do with the Mexico winner.
In fact, the document you quote completely refutes you. It makes it very clear that the playing the Mexico winner condition was a change made AFTER Elista.
Ok, I see where the confusion lies. Plei said, "The fact that Kramnik would play the Mexico winner and Topalov would sit out Mexico was not a decision taken by FIDE. Those were the conditions for the winner and the loser of the Elista match that both players agreed to beforehand without protest."
The word "winner" should not be there, and from the context it seemed that the word "winner" was not meant, but only plei knows what he meant.
I read, based on context, that Kramnik would play Mexico and Topalov would sit out Mexico. That is in the contract. I should have responded to the actual sentence, not what I thought the sentence was saying. Sorry for the confusion.