When Bessel Kok left Global Chess, I mentioned this did not bode well for the Grand Prix circuit. There had already been a whisper campaign about several of the events being in trouble, whispers confirmed by the last-second move of Doha this month and now, it seems likely, the cancellation of Montreux in April. A source tells Chessdom that the GP's falling apart is the main reason for the out-of-nowhere candidates tournament Ilyumzhinov popped up with last week. If the Grand Prix is limited to only four events the entire qualification system it is a part of will be a shambles, since there won't be enough events for all the participants to have a shot.
Chessdom adds, but doesn't source so it might just be an educated guess, that "It is very possible that UEP, the company behind the Anand-Kramnik match, will organize both candidate tournament and 2011 World Championship match. The bidding process will be started in a day or two, following the official announcement on the FIDE website."
Of course UEP is a Kramnik vehicle, so if it's a guess it's surely not a bad one.
Henrik Carlsen, writing on behalf of his son Magnus, in an letter published at ChessBase, expresses their frustration and says Magnus's participation in the GP is at risk.
What we want from FIDE are transparent processes, fairness and predictability. Significantly changing the GP regulations to the detriment of the GP players in the middle of the cycle is clearly unacceptable, and the reactions we are considering include legal action and withdrawal from the cycle.
It is understandable that the FIDE board is unhappy about the fact that several top players decided against taking part in the Grand Prix. But, this should not have come as a big surprise and was anyhow known before the start of the GP cycle. Subsequently giving privileges to the players involved in the current World Championship cycle is obviously not the right way to solve their problem.
Amen! Preaching to the choir here, as the saying goes, but will FIDE listen even to the superstars of the chess world? Let's hope they keep speaking out, and more. Kasparov took a lot of flak for his feuds with FIDE, but will the current elite actually resist beyond open letters? They complain but take the money in the end and nothing changes. Should they and how can they? We don't need another schism, but Ilyumzhinov's destructive tendencies must be battled. Where is the ACP in all this?
It's a big problem the ACP is not stronger. Players and Chess world need a strong organization capable of make some counterpoint to FIDE's nonsense. Why can't ACP get more organizated and atract sponsors by themselves. Because it's true that players can complain, but as long as they keep taking Kirsan's money, nothing will change. And I don't think courts are a good solution. It hardly ever works against big federations. They can be fined, have to give some room, but they keep most of their power and as long as their staff remains unchanged, how can someone expect changes? Players really need to get organized and to really put resistance AND find ressources by themselves to prove FIDE is not necessary for top chess. How to do it is the hard part, even if to me it would seem to be really possible, if only they could be less selfish and stick together for once.
"Henrik Carlsen, writing on behalf of his son Magnus, in an letter published at ChessBase, expresses their frustration and says Magnus's participation in the GP is at risk."
The text was first published in his own blog: http://blog.magnuschess.com
You beat me to it, kspiteri. A month back Mig gently chastised a poster on the message boards who had linked to his comments as they appeared on chessbase instead of linking directly to his blog. :->
This is a wonderful opportunity for Kasparov to finish a project he started some time ago: create an alternative to FIDE.
Instead of fighting fruitless political crusades against Putin, he should invest some time and money into straightening the professional chess world.
If Bessel Kok is serious about his promises of sponsorship money, they could join forces to EASILY defeat Kirsan and his non-sense. Notice that once Kirsan & Cronies are defeated, FIDE can be taken over and straightened, too.
Kasparov, Danailov, Kok plus a couple of Grand Prix sponsors acting together will knock FIDE out in a week. As simple as that.
"Instead of fighting fruitless political crusades against Putin, he [Kasparov] should invest some time and money into straightening the professional chess world."
Irv,
Wouldn't that be like asking Tim McVeigh to straighten out the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?
What Chess needs is a billionaire like Roman Abramovich. Someone who says: I guarantee you a lot of top rated and top payed tournaments and events for a couple of years and in the meantime FIDE can think about a fair and transparent World Championship Cycle.
It is clear that the problem FIDE has is a direct result of their President paying too many bills.
Once that players are independent from FIDE Presidents money, they will only agree to what is sensible and fair - not to what gurantees them a certain amount of money even though they lose all chances to reach their goal.
> " Once that players are independent from FIDE Presidents money, they will only agree to what is sensible and fair - not to what gurantees them a certain amount of money even though they lose all chances to reach their goal "
And to achieve this, you think we need a transparent organization with non-insane president that works consistently towards the good of chess...
No!
We need Abramovich! So that players can be independent from president's money and be dependent on Abramovich's money. Then, they will agree to what is sensible and fair, as they always do when they depend on one single person's money...
Greg Koster wrote:
"Wouldn't that be like asking Tim McVeigh to straighten out the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?"
Greg,
I agree you have a bit of a point there, but in all fairness to Kaspy, FIDE was highly dysfunctional way before he tried to destroy it. So, your analogy is 100% accurate.
That said, I think you do have a point in Kaspy being a little too destructive himself. Perhaps the same thing can be achieved without Kaspy, only it would take longer and lack an obvious leader.
"Kasparov took a lot of flak for his feuds with FIDE, but will the current elite actually resist beyond open letters? They complain but take the money in the end and nothing changes."
Is this really your recollection of how things were back then? I mean, really? Enough to take the players to task for not being as much of a one-man fascist island as Kasparov (ie his attempted censure of Kamsky, his infantile GMA defection etc)? Is it not unusual to expect the players to make a poltical role model of someone who regarded the idea of consensus as a perversion?
Why not just suggest that the current elite should come together for each other with all the conviction and verve Kasparov brought to his fight to enrich himself alone? Or perhaps just say nothing at all about Kasparov when he isn't directly involved?
I guess the hundreds of checks and millions of dollars from the GMA and PCA were just a figment of imagination.
I'm taking the players to task for not doing anything. For not putting their money where their collective mouth is. For not being willing to take risks for the betterment of their colleagues and themselves.
Build your straw men elsewhere. Nobody, least of all me, is saying Kasparov was a selfless hero or martyr. Or even a role model. And I'm certainly not suggesting the elite players today act against their own interests. My point is that they are unwilling to sacrifice short-term gain for (the hope of) long-term improvement.
Someone probably got the idea that Kasparov could do to Russia what he did to organized chess...which would explain the support he gets from the Western Establishment, the Wall Street Journal, the neocons, etc.
Given that there's precious little money in professional chess, I can hardly decry top GMs for taking the FIDE money. To me, the problem is corrupt tinhorns like Kirsan, Campo, Makropoulos (sp? probably wrong, but the Janacek parallel is funny) remaining in power at FIDE. I don't see how prestigious big-money sponsors can be expected to step up when the game is officially controlled by personalities redolent of Idi Amin Dada. I'll pass the buck to the national federations who continue to re-elect Kirsan.
BTW, a recent Chessdom.com article stated that "The Grand Prix is under the exclusive control of Global Chess, financed by Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and David Kaplan." Who is this David Kaplan? Never heard of him.
Ask just about player or even any chess politician if Kasparov brought ten times more than he cost and they'll probably up you to 100. Apart from a few individuals with axes to grind, some of them justifiably, some not so much, this myth that Kasparov only destroyed everything is limited to partisan fans. Just like those here to rant about everything Kramnik or Topalov say and do. As usual, life and reality are more complicated and there is some good, some bad. And is also usually the case, you don't get one without the other.
Read this piece I put together with input from Kasparov and Seirawan in 2002. It's hardly one-sided propaganda, though Timman has a few dissents worth noting. But read it and ask yourself if anyone would do this sort of thing now. Guys like Kok, Seirawan, Short, and Nunn are still the ones making an effort at reform.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=253
"Build your straw men elsewhere."
--Strawmen? Clubfoot is deadly accurate. What could be more destructive to FIDE-reform efforts than building up an opposing organization.... then blowing it up in a paranoid tantrum?
"Nobody, least of all me, is saying Kasparov was a selfless hero or martyr. Or even a role model."
--Glad we can agree on that. Can we also agree he acted the part of a self-destructive, egocentric neophyte with the diplomatic skills of a twelve-year-old?
"My point is that they are unwilling to sacrifice short-term gain for (the hope of) long-term improvement."
--Eight years after Kasparov won the title he decapitated the old FIDE cycle for trivial reasons. After twenty years atop the chess world he retired having accomplished little or nothing in the way of reforming FIDE.
--During Kramnik's reign the title was unified and the FIDE WCC progressed from lottery knockouts to twelve-game matches. Anand has had the title for just a month. And now Carlsen is speaking out.
--Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen, and many others have the judgment, patience and maturity to prod FIDE along in the right direction. They will not throw tantrums, turn on each other, or give up if things don't go their way immediately.
Chess needs to give up the idea that such rich tournaments are sustainble.
Chess is not longer seen as the supreme test of intellect that died when the average laptop became stronger than the WC.
Chess no longer has the appeal it used to for sponsors and governments. The game itself is too dry to be entertaining to the general public, and governments no longer see chess as a symbol of intellectual status.
Chess is being recognised for what it is a great board game. I expect professional chess to continue to decline unless chess can find a new image. The era of the chess superstars like Kasparov and Fischer are long gone.
Consistency. Predictability. Transparency. If FIDE continues to be reed blowing in the wind this way and that, following a policy of whatever feels good, then we can expect chaos.
If FIDE cannot be changed from within and the status quo (however random that is from day-to-day), then another organization should be built from the ground up. We have seen some attempts through PCA, GMA, ACP, etc. Any new organization needs to start with a foundation containing most of the mechanisms in place that FIDE should be doing for the national federations. Create a consistent system for determining a world championship cycle, for rating events, for hosting and bidding for tournaments, even if it starts small, but consistent. Cycle the current rated tournaments through a second organization, organize a few events through the new organization, get the endorsement of some of the top sponsors, organizers, and players and put out a product that will be consistent, predictable, and transparent... let it draw some success, and once established, if FIDE gets pushed aside, there will not be any worry of a new schism in the chess world... FIDE will be obsolete, replaced with something asked for by many players and fans.
Cody (aka, Rookmaster)
"What is required now is a feat of linguistic legerdomain, and a degree of intrepidity... " - quote by Mr. Spock in Star Trek VI
"Build your straw men elsewhere. Nobody, least of all me, is saying Kasparov was a selfless hero or martyr. Or even a role model."
Please Mig, no more misdirection. You placed him in a role-model position by honoring his resolve in the face of "flak" against the current group who "...complain but take the money in the end and nothing changes."
So now they're whores, bereft of the dignity and collective spirit Kasparov once exemplified? It's just not true, not a word of it.
Why did the potential sponsors in Doha and Montreux choose not to do business with FIDE?
Surely the global economic situation has a direct bearing on these Grand Prix collapses. There's not suddenly going to be *more* money. And surely Pappa Kirsan never wants it to be seen that his kiddies have fewer circuses. More circuses!
With regard to the ACP, if they don't want to be openly confrontatory with FIDE, they could try something subtler, a strategy rather than a tactic. It's tricky, because the ACP is rich in grandmasters, while FIDE is rich in politicos and bureaucrats. ACP is brilliant, but FIDE is clever. So how do you loosen up FIDE but not do battle on FIDE's home ground?
FIDE was at its nadir a few years ago. There was scant interest in its demise or reform. FIDE has improved. You might not like the conclusion, but there is every reason to believe that change will not happen before the natural death of the current President. He's younger than I am, so: Slava Kirsana. Change will be difficult. You'd have to be better organized than Bessel Kok--and work harder. *That's* a tall order for your average blog poster, myself included of course.
Guest wrote:
"Chess needs to give up the idea that such rich tournaments are sustainble."
That's the bottom line.
The sick, never-ending quest, chimeric quest for perfect play has led to the death of chess. The first ones to go were the chess clubs. Online chess is doing bad: a few years ago you could get a game on the spot at ICC or Playchess; nowadays, you have to wait a few minutes for a game to materialize.
Let's face it: chess at the top has become excruciatingly painful to watch. Too mechanical. Too dry. Too boring; hell, I wouldn't ACCEPT 50 bucks to watch Svidler-Leko, for God's sake.
Less money and more daring, if imperfect chess, is the solution. Let players relax a bit. Win a bit more, lose a bit more, enjoy a lot more. Force players to play to a decisive result.
What's wrong with a top player making $15.000 in a couple of weeks (all expenses paid for by the organizer) of leisure chess at 2 hours per game, one game per day?
If tournament organizers could get half a dozen of the top 20 players in the world (along with 6 up-and-coming tigers) to enter a tournament that can be run with $100.000, many sponsors could be found.
Bring life back to chess.
Five minutes ago Magnus wrote on his facebook page: "Magnus has withdrawn." Interpret it how you'd like...
Yup, see Magnus' blog. He's withdrawn from the Grand Prix series.
http://blog.magnuschess.com/
Well done, Magnus.
Irv wrote:
"Less money and more daring, if imperfect chess, is the solution. Let players relax a bit. Win a bit more, lose a bit more, enjoy a lot more. Force players to play to a decisive result."
The answer is staring everyone in the face - women chessplayers - all but ignored by most chess "fans." Women chessplayers are the great, undiscovered resource that might save chess. They play imperfect but passionate chess, throwing themselves more into their games than the "elite" male players generally do; they win more and lose more (against each other) and they force players to play to a decisive result. Ask GM Jesse Krai about that...
Jan, that is pretty weak reasoning. I'm sure Mr Ivanchuck would "throw" himself off a bridge to win a pawn.
Although Magnus's withdrawal will get few complaints, it's kinda sad because this may spell the prelude for another split. After all that trouble with unification the chess world may have to go through that once again
Kudos to Magnus, he's an 18-year old with balls, talent, and a supporting father.
Gee, when did Bessel Kok leave Global Chess? I missed it altogether. When he was persuaded to head up Global Chess, I was shaking my head in disbelief and wrote right here that 'Bessel and Kirsan should know that they absolutely cannot work together'. In any case, without Bessel Kok, Global Chess is useless.
The highest rated GP participant is now the world #7 Aronian. The GP as the WC vehicle for top rated players rings hollow. No disrespect meant for the bottom half of the top dozen.
It's not a question of split now. Grand Prix is falling apart and fast. Doha is no go, and rumors are that Montreal and Montreux will have the same fate. I'm afraid the reality is that the rules for this cycle had to be changed simply because there is no money to finish the GP series. I think Magnus' withdrawal is just another nail in the coffin of GP.
So the idea of one Mexico style tournament to determine the title challenger is not a bad one in such circumstances. Still, the implementation that Kirsan proposes is an absolute disaster since several players get a free pass into it for no good reason (loser of Topa-Kamsky, presidential nominee, etc). Keeping in mind that GP series might (probably) never be completed, 2 more spaces will be up to some shady behind the scene deals.
In FIDE's letter to Henrik Carlsen, they say:
"[I]t is necessary as sponsors from Qatar and Montreaux have withdrew, . . . which puts in danger the system if it leaves the Grand Prix with less than 6 legs and no clear winner. . . As the Grand-Prix has just started this year with two events completed out of six, no player has yet a clear advantage for first place and we feel that all players are benefited as now two or three places (instead of one) are giving qualification"
Are they really thinking of picking qualifiers when some of the players have not played as many events as the others? That is beyond stupid.
I think they are just going to have to junk the whole thing. Hold some tournament with everyone in the Grand Prix and declare a winner. Have that winner play the World Cup winner.
Then scrap this entire thing and adopt something along the lines Nunn suggested.
If they actually do that, Wang will be extremely pissed, wouldn't he?
Yeah, he would, but at the other extreme, Leko hasn't played a game yet. I guess they could just play what they can and take the average scores, but it doesn't sound like that is what FIDE is planning.
>> What Chess needs is a billionaire like Roman Abramovich. Someone who says: I guarantee you a lot of top rated and top payed tournaments and events for a couple of years and in the meantime FIDE can think about a fair and transparent World Championship Cycle.
Isn't Karpov a billionaire? Maybe he could take over and organize a new system. Would be tremendous if he could work together with Kasparov on that... :-)
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net